I'm not one for sweeping over-statements -- it seems that's what the web is for -- but I do agree that the 90s were the lowpoint for mainstream, super hero comics.

The biggest disappointment was, of course, the Image line, which though based on a good idea -- the creators themselves will control their content and reap the benefits -- without the benefit of any editorial oversight at all ended up producing some of the weakest comics I can remember from big-name talents. The prime example was YOUNGBLOOD, the first Image comic, which was so empty of basic storytelling that it was as if just the heroic pose would be enough. With such weak writing, even the best of the Image comics didn't have much of a chance.

And yet, it should be remembered that the 90s also had some of the best comic work ever produced -- Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN, arguably the smartest and most rewarding continuing comic book series ever produced; Alan Moore's incredible FROM HELL; Frank Miller's groundbreaking 300; and the entire Vertigo line which for all its hits and many misses, did bring comics into a new way of thinking beyond just tights and lantern bombs.

But mainstream DC and Marvel? Pretty bad overall during that time.

I would add that the Count's history of graphic art -- which was no small thing to produce, so thanx from us all -- can be 'read' many ways. While of course Brunner's luxurious and beautiful art conveys a richness that can be its own reward, I'd argue that the crude and simple lines of Herrmann's Krazy Kat (like the simple lines of Kubert in the 60s), are more effective in telling a story than every heartf-felt brush mark of many latter day stylists, Brunner included.

I never really warmed to Gene Colan, but his art did tell a story; you didn't stop to linger because Daredevil had already swung onto the next page. With Brunner, the page WAS the thing. Anyhow, both approaches work -- I love Brunner. But I'd take a Krazy Kat brick for a visceral thrill over any of his Eyes of Agomotto.