Any artist worth his/her salt will feel this way to some degree. The moment an artist stops feeling that way, stagnation sets in. It's one of the reasons I am actually glad to be bedeviled by all my insecurities. Without them, I might have ended up like some artists I've seen who, like me, were elevated to the godhood before they deserved it but who, unlike me, "locked" at that point, stylistically, and so have shown no artistic growth in years, even decades.

My problem with Erik Larsen "fixing" JB's work: If I prefer the artwork before Mr. Larsen "corrected" it, does that invalidate my opinion? Does that mean that my neanderthal-like understanding needs to be exposed to more of Mr. Larsen's views so that I know what looks proper and what doesn't?

This isn't just an Erik Larsen thing, I usually don't like when someone (writer or artist) points out how they've "improved" something. For example, Neil Gaiman implied that he was the Eternals concept a few years ago when he did the limited series. I didn't like the limited series as much as I prefered Kirby's run so I didn't really feel like he added anything to it other than he told a story about a Jack Kirby creation. There's a difference between "Here's how I would do it" and "Here's how I made it better".

••

Based on the way Larsen comported himself during his brief sojourn into the Forum, I would suspect he would answer your questions with a resounding "YES!"

When he exited in disgust, he made it plenty plain that his egress was due to the lack of proper adulation he received here. Apparently he expected everyone -- myself included -- to immediately bow before his superior opinions.

I found it somewhat amusing. Larsen is one who has on occasion joined the chorus that declares no one to be welcome in this Forum unless they are prepared to properly genuflect to me. Dissenting opinions are not welcome! (No visits to the religion, politics and Shakespeare threads that pop up from time to time, apparently!)

••

So did Jack Kirby. So did Al Capp. So did Dick Sprang. It's a long list.

But where those artists were different from Larsen is that they had the necessary skills UNDERNEATH the cartoon qualities. The drawing of the Savage Dragon posted a few pages back in this thread is "exaggerated and cartoony", but also lacking in underlying structure.

"Stylization" is too often used in defense of bad drawing. I am reminded of a panel I was on, years ago, with Todd McFarlane. The Toddler defended Liefeld's art, comparing it to Jack Kirby. "Nobody has big square knees," he said, as if that, and that alone distinguished Kirby's work, "but Kirby draws EVERYBODY with big square knees, so that makes it okay!" Kirby's strengths were shuffled aside in order to create a defense that seemed to say "If you draw EVERYTHING badly, it becomes GOOD!"

••

Could you define the "older work" more precisely? Is there one particular period? If so, which?