Drawings by Larsen like the above always make me cringe. Even as "forced perspective" it doesn't work. It just looks wrong.

These are the artists that Larsen thinks he is superior to, enough to criticize them regularly?

No. 

These are the artists that he knows he's inferior to.  And it kills him.  But rather than improve himself, he must tear them down (JB more than the others, it seems).

It's nothing more than "hero worship - obsession - kill your idols."

Along with a hearty dose of arrested development.

Thing is, there is nothing to be gained from singling out occasional mistakes a particular artist makes. Once in a thousand drawings, Joe Shmoe gets his anatomy wrong, or screws up a perspective shot, or, yes, creates an inadvertent tangent. But these will most likely be errors that are specific to a particular drawing. Doesn't help a newcomer to be shown something wrong in a picture s/he is not likely ever to be called upon the duplicate.

And, as noted, it helps the original artist not at all, unless the one pointing out the mistake has a time machine he's willing to lend.

Those who have been around this Forum for any length of time know that I am quick to point out the flaws in my own early work. But when I do so, it is general flaws, like a former tendency to have chunks of rubble slant to the right, because I am right handed. Here I can offer sage council, cautioning young artists to beware of this kind of tendency in their own work. But it does little good for me to point out an instance where I drew Captain America's nose wrong. Much more instructive to point out the places I drew it right!

And, of course, instruction is ALWAYS more helpful when an artist is using his own work as the example, whether it's of good or bad. No agenda hidden in the crit, there.

I'd invite Larsen to pull out his own stuff from a similar vintage to the work of mine he has problems with. Let's see a really HONEST "blue pencil" applied there!

As I recall, the Jim Lee piece I used to point out something it took me a long time to fix in my own work -- and that was the way cityscapes seemed often to be composed of buildings that were all the same height.

In the case of Neal's piece, again, I recall the point was to show how the first figure appears to be arcing over and down, while the second is flying straight.

Now, find us several dozen others, to bring me up to Larsen's "score".

This entire thread has been worth it for this one line:

"Yes, that was TRULY mind-boggling. Like a gilded turd finding fault with a Faberge egg!"

Other than this, I'd say the thread is also worth the time--but perhaps just about over-done--to utilize Larsen as the poster-boy for JB bashing.  I'm confident it's a small, but vocal, audience that would appreciate what Larsen's doing and done in his corrections department but to anyone else, the hatin' for the sake of needing someone to hate is fairly apparent.

If we can thank Larsen for anything, it's for making this abundantly clear.