Interesting quote, and not surprising.  I really do think it's not fair to lump Lee in together with Liefeld.  As I posted before, in the earlier days he did share some superficial artistic affectations with Liefeld, but Lee has gotten a lot better since then.  And even back in the early days, I think Lee showed more talent at basic drawing than Liefeld.

I also appreciated the post from Herb Trimpe several pages back.  It's nice to see that even a more seasoned artist like him has the humility to experiment and be willing to learn from what his juniors might have to offer -- even if it was someone that is as panned as Liefeld.  It reminds me of those TV shows when famous gourmet chefs like Gordon Ramsay or Anthony Bourdain are travelling the world and shown as being willing to learn from local cooks who lack much of the training and acclaim that they have, but nonetheless have some interesting things to teach.  I think people should be more open minded in general about who they might be able to learn something from.  

I've never been a fan of Liefeld, even when I was 13 years old, but I think if you're going to criticize an artist, at least do it with some class and some respect.  Cite some specific examples of what you don't like and show what doesn't work about it.  And be willing to chalk it up to different styles and different tastes.  Honestly, I don't blame Dan Slott for being upset about the dog vomit comment.  You might not like his style of art, but Ramos probably worked hard to produce those pages and takes some pride in what he does.  And given that he and Slott have been working together for a long time, is it any surprise that he would be willing to defend his creative partner when someone writes a broad-brushed comment like that?
 

Looking back in hindsight, it does seem a bit silly that Liefield was ever as popular as he is. I also think Jim Lee is unfairly lumped in with that crowd. As others have said, he is far more competent in nearly every way than his peers. Maybe it's the nostalgia talking, but I still think his classic work looks great despite his shortcomings. McFarlane...personal and business decisions aside, he worked for the times. The 90s were weird, man.

As for more contemporary stuff, i.e. Humberto Ramos... I am sure he is a swell guy and that he works hard, but I have dropped books from my sub and skipped others that he drew even if I otherwise like the characters or writers. I just don't care for his style at all. I think the best of the contemporary distorted style artists is Chris Bachalo although his style constant evolves. There are phases where I don't like it much but others when he knocks it out of the park.

My personal motto comes to mind here -- "People are stupid, & they should be shot."

Ok guys, which one was your favorite out of this bunch?

The question is predicated on knowing who any of them are.

I assume those are the dubiously skilled individuals -- in street parlance, "useless pieces of crap" -- who founded Image. Put them all together, & you might have the talent found in one of Jack Kirby's fingernail clippings.

But probably not.

Sure, from left to right starting at the top: Erik Larsen, Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, Marc Silvestri, Whilce Portacio (?), Jim Lee and Jim Valentino (I think).