In the late 90s, when I became more familiar with comic books and some of the critical conversation, there were some major views that I haven't heard articulated in years. It seems in these cases, one side clearly won.
Once upon a time, variant covers were controversial. Now everyone's doing it.
One argument was about whether black & white comics are better than color, because it's more authentic. And now we've got color version of some of the big black & white comics (Bone, Scott Pilgrim, Joe Sacco) so color won.
There were also arguments on whether one person as writer/ artist was better than a standard creative team, because it reflected that individual's artistic vision. You could look at comic book memoirists (Art Spiegelman, Justin Greene), respected indie talent (The Hernandez brothers, Chris Ware, Seth, Robert Crumb, Scott McCloud, Dan Clowes, etc.), classic comic strips (Charles Schultz, Bill Waterson, Walt Kelly, Winsor McCay, George Herriman), other classic comics (Will Eisner, Carl Barks, Jules Feiffer, Harvey Kurtzman, Joe Sacco) and some top superhero projects (Frank Miller, Walt Simonson, Jack Kirby, John Byrne.) At this point, the best of lists are dominated by specialists, and there isn't any sense that it's important to have one vision. I wonder if this is connected to color printing becoming cheaper, which meant that there would increase the chances a project would need some kind of collaborator.
Some major Marvel and DC comics were published late. The explanation was that it's worth the short-term delay to have a project with artistic consistency. I remember Joe Quesada saying that the Avengers Kree/ Skrull War would've held up better if Neal Adams could've done the last issue. Now if a story is running late, they'll add a new co-writer or get a different artist to draw some pages. There are a handful of exceptions, but those are rare enough to be remarkable.
Do you guys remember major divides which don't seem discussed much?