Kirby's anatomy was way off at times but it was great. Art is about expression and sometimes it becomes awesome with distortion. 

True. The difference I see is that some artists can draw normal proportions and decide to play with them (Kirby, Sienkiewicz, Rude) while others couldn't draw a normal person to save their life. In the second case distortion isn't a feature, it's a bug. And it's rarely worth looking at.

I mean, and I’m probably not the first person to state this, there were times some of Kirby’s faces seemed too caveman-like, or proportions were a bit off (if I think about it deeply), but everything else - 99% or so - was positive. A wrestling promoter once said that with wrestlers you accentuate the positives, hide the negatives, and I feel that some of my favourite artists can do that. If there’s a Kirby character face I don’t like, I’m sure 99% of other stuff I will like, such as the aforementioned control of time through visuals, varied expressions, etc.

John Byrne’s faces do look alike. Look at a perplexed Superman face from his late 80s run - and then look at a perplexed Reed Richards face from his FF run. I challenge anyone to say there’s not a similarity. But I like a lot of what Byrne did, from backgrounds to the “motion” of regular people standing around, each panel was meaningful. So a Next Men face looking like a Man of Steel face is almost inconsequential.

I’m not the biggest fan of how Herb Trimpe drew Hulk’s face, but there’s a lot of other stuff I do enjoy.

I might be able to ignore the exaggerated anatomy from some if there was a lot else to enjoy. I don’t want to sound like I am bashing Image. I actually like (and have defended) Todd McFarlane’s Spider-Man, including the “barbed wire” webs. I like how he did The Lizard. But I can’t honestly say that I don’t have problems with some of Rob Liefeld’s stuff, not all of course.

What a wonder that twenty years after the two-thousands (I refuse to call them the "oughts") we still haven't progressed as a society past taking something innocent and bastardizing it by making it edgy

I always loved how Keith seemed to just bounce around to different art styles in The Maxx. I guess because the world in the story was very intangible for various reasons, he could get away with it

The first didn't give me enough, other than the moody look to the panel; but, I needed a figure to get it right.  The second, third and fourth I got straight away, without questioning.  The last one had my changing my mind several times and the discussion kept swaying me in directions.  Once I knew which war comic was, I was trying to recall who all had worked on it but I didn't get the actual artist and actually rejected him, when his name came up, based on the panels chosen.  It just wasn't coming through.  Maybe if I had seen the actual comic and thumbed through it.

I'm better at identifying figure work than some of the things they focused on, or artistic tics.  Certain artists I could look at buildings and identify them, or how they handled cars, or aircraft; bot those are usually pretty specific.  others I would know by their choice of media, like a Ken Steacy.

I think this game would be a lot harder if you were using more non-DC and Marvel examples.

Art Adams is revered by many but his proportions are off in many of his pages. The eye of the beholder.