Lets say you have two graphic novels: one has hyper realistic detail, but happens to be corporate licensed. The other is creator-owned, but may have a different standard of what makes art good: they have what I consider the minimum to what makes a human looks realistic:
Ten fingers (except from injury), ten toes (except from injury), unless the indivudual is a non-human species, like aliens and house cats. They might not color their content using state-of-the-art acrylic, but they do the basic of what's required for art to be considered sequential.
They might have bigger eyes than what is typical in corporate-licensed graphic novels, but this isn't required by any means. Which one of these do you think I'm mostly likely to purchase?
The creator-owned one of course. That might make me sound like a creator-owned radical, but I feel like a lot of the comic book industries lack of genre variety, stems more from the author not owning their own contet. Purely superheroes is less an issue in itself, but a larger symptom of the fact that unlike novels, comics have traditionally not been creator owned until Image and Alterna came along.
I'm not saying i'll purchase poor art, so much as what I consider good art is a threshhold that just about anybody with minimal drawing talent is able to achieve.
I don't believe for a minute, that Superman or Batman are drawn realistically. And even if they were, that they're corporate-owned is enough to keep me from purchasing the majority of these. Put aside social justice you Rightists for a minute.
Consider rather than that because they are corporate-owned, you have to create graphic novels/comics that are dictated to you from a "editor", rather than you create something, and then they check to make your art is to a minimal standard.
This creator-ownership, is what we need to prompt the same genres that have existed in novels for decades.