I usually don't call folks out on their comix crits but this one had me scratching my head. COMIC BOOK REVOLUTION reviewed CYCLOPS #1: http://comicbookrevolution.net/index.php/reviews/marvel/828-cyclops-1-review and, despite a kind yet disgruntled review, the reviewer equated my "non-traditional art style" to that of Kate Beaton's HARK! A VAGRANT: http://harkavagrant.com/
Review excerpt: "...illustrated in a classic style that reminds me of the Hark-a-Vagrant webcomic"
I dig what Kate does [and I'd kill for her fan-base] but I find it difficult to make the relation that my art for CYCLOPS [or anything else I've drawn in my career for that matter] looks anything like how/what Kate draws. Not that it would be bad to draw a CYCLOPS comic the way Kate would [check out her swell Marvel-sized action in STRANGE TALES Vol. 2 for the evidence] but I was striving [as I often do] for a Marvel Silver Age look [Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, etc.] and, regardless of whether or not that "look" is your cup of tea, I just don't see the comparison between Kate and I. None whatsoever. I find it curious that my "superhero art style," which is clearly rooted in ye olde Marvel guard cum "All-Ages" style, is plunked alongside one of the more popular indie-webcomics style of today when it's clearly not and that's misleading. Fie! Comics blog reviews!
If you want to see what I do in webcomics, check out: http://www.act-i-vate.com/creators?id=5