••

^ The work in question in this topic does not really seem like an homage to comics though, does it.  Any cultural references or easter eggs I've ever seen in comics are typically subtle. I've even heard tell of an artist who liked to hide a certain famous cartoon animal in background scenery.  When the center piece of the art is entirely someone else's work, uncredited... just smacks of plagiarism.

Why could this artist not have painted her own original imagery of comic characters, rather than reproductions of someone else's work?  Does her intended statement have any less meaning that way?  Is there some nuance left from her argument by using original work?

Follow-up: how hard would it have been for her to credit these artists in her work and/or seek permission for the images?

"Not always. Tromp l'oeil is simply a painting style where objects are depicted with extreme realism. They do not have to be hanging on the wall."

If it's hanging on the wall, its perspective and the physical reality of the object should be consistent with that. It has to look real from the intended vantage point.  Yes, a Tromp l'oeil doesn't have to hang on a wall, it can be in the ceiling or on the floor. But if you're painting a picture of an object as if it's lying on a table and then hang the picture on a wall, it no longer provides the essential illusion, does it.

They're hanging the paintings of the comics on the wall. Because of that, in order for it to be a proper tromp l'oeil, it would have to look consistent with a comic pinned to the wall. It does not.  As it is, in order for it to be a proper Tromp l'oeil, it would have to be displayed flat and viewed from a height and position that would allow the perspective to line up.

The purpose of the style is the illusion of reality in that precise position. Not simply to draw something very realistic.

@ Stephen Myers:

   Reading about that textbook experience of yours reminds me of something that I concluded with the current "Establishment" a while back.  It seems that, while they were on the outside looking in, a lot of the avant-garde artists who were always denigrating the Classics as bourgeois humdrum thought this way.  Now that they are the Establishment, they still think the same way.  It reminds me of the saying that pertains to wishing for something and getting it, only to find out that it's not such a good thing...

"Like I said how many comic artists have given credit when they
homage an album cover or movie poster, or a Michelangelo or any
other of the artists I mentioned?"

You mean referenced classical, easily recognizable compositions in the public domain in their artwork?

How does that relate to selling exact copies in oil of comics which are still in copyright and which feature active trademarks to a mostly comics-ignorant audience who would not recognize the source material and who may not realize that the image in the painting does not originate with the painter?

Painting a pitch perfect copy of the Mona Lisa may be creatively bankrupt, but unless you tried passing it off as the original, you wouldn't be breaking any laws.  Certainly not copyright and trademark laws.

Yes, under "fair use", copyrighted and trademarked works may be referenced in other works of art. But when the copyrighted and trademarked work is, for all intents and purposes, the only thing on the canvas, we're into the realm of Piracy. Piracy for profit.