"My opinion comes from the particular panels Lichtenstein used. If we went back to the original page, or the original book, does anyone really thing Licktenstein was trying to steal the most dynamic panel he could to pass off as art? He was very conscious about his decision. They are plain, and they are meant to be that way. The panels many people would skip over in a comic, he brought out and reminded people that there is are in plainess. "

The complaint isn't that he chose the less dynamic panels. It is that his ineffectual linework made it seem MORE plain. And the argument of Pop-art wasn't "elevating the consciousness about comics being art" , however much many cartoonists wanted that to be the case. It's about re-contextualizing things that ARE NOT art into ACTUAL art. Transforming it.

When Lichtenstein made his "Panel Paintings" he was "making the profound statement" that comics were not art, but that his paintings of them were. The fact that he lacked the artistic ability to recreate the dynamics of the poses and linework helped him convince his punters that the basis of his "swipes" were NOT ART. Surely something as crude and lifeless as they believed his "models" to be could not be art. If they had shown photographic blow-ups of the work he copied from next to his paintings, I think his artistry would have been more difficult to defend.

f the fine art set had, at any point, considered the original comic book art to be actual "fine" art, they would never have accepted Lichtenstein as a genius.

"Can a magazine/photographer/model sue an artist or company if some one traces photos/cover and uses it in a comic?  A couple of shots from Martin's post above look like lawsuits waiting to happen...  Some of these covers go beyond what most on the board have acknowledged as acceptable/regular (?) types of swipes!"

People own a copyright on their own likeness, and in the case of actors and models that "likeness" is legally recognized as having monetary value. If a comic book artist uses an actor's face (even in an adaptation of a movie or tv-show that he appeared in) without his approval (and beyond the scope of fair use) , he is in violation of copyright and opens himself up to a lawsuit. So does the company that employs him, as they have full editorial authority.

The same goes for photos whether they appear in commercials or magazines. The more recognizable the photo, the clearer it is that there is a violation of copyright.

Mostly comics fly under the radar, because there is too little to be gained from a lawsuit.

There have been lawsuits in the past about improper use of likenesses. The Flex Mentallo /Charles Atlas case and the one about the albino twins that sued Dc/Vertigo over the Jonah Hex mini. Possibly more.

I think that Rob learned the wrong lesson that day--and he has resisted
learning a lot of things that might help for fear of "losing the magic."

Back in that wild and wonderful era known as the 90s, I found his New Mutants work quite appealling. Consider most of the books published at that time featured similar art styles (competent and 'correct', but very boring); his approach was energetic and fun, and I can see why an editor would have given him work.

I let things like the tiny heads, giant man boobs, and weird squinty eyes slide because I didn't really care too much. I never felt 'offended' by Rob's sudden fame and popularity; as a matter of fact, his success probably inspired lots of kids to put pencil to paper and draw their own comics.