> But this type of Lichtenstein work never sat well with me. The transformation is extremely minimal - minor changes to the scene, a new cropping, and conversion from ink to painting. If I handed something like that in in school I’d get eviscerated in reviews (or worse!).

The art from those like Lichtenstein, Warhol, Duchamp, Malevich, Hausmann, Pollock, etc., has to be understood within the broader international conversations around art at the time, particularly so-called "High Art" coming out of classical European traditions. It is intentionally subversive of what was the dominant mode of art at the time, because these artists broke through and fundamentally opened up 'art' to include literally anything. It is hard to describe how hostile the European Establishment of early 20th century High Art was to anything that was outside of the mainstream traditions. These artists were the Punk Rock of the time.

- Malevich paints a single geometric black square on a white canvas, signs it, and puts it on a wall in an art gallery. Utterly unremarkable today, but it was such a scandal at the time when representational art was all people recognized as art.

- Duchamp buys a mens' urinal designed and built by some random hardware manufacturer, signs it, and hangs it up on a wall in an art gallery. Duchamp later takes a print of the Mona Lisa, gives her a mustache, signs it, and puts it on a wall in an art gallery. None of this takes any technical skill in painting, sculpting, etc., which is part of why it was so subversive at the time.

- Hausmann cuts out shapes from magazines, pastes them together into the figure of a man in such a seemingly-haphazard and crude manner that a 7 year old can do it 'better,' signs it, puts it on a wall, and titles it The Art Critic.

The whole point was to raise a middle finger and say, "Who made you in charge of deciding what art 'really' is and isn't?" It intentionally takes very little of what has traditionally been considered fundamental techniques in painting, sculpture, etc. The point is that an untrained 10 year old child could do it just as "good" on a technical level of execution. So it shifts the skills required to constitute art from requiring years of expertise in technical execution of drawing, painting, sculpting, etc., to conceptual intervention.

> If I handed something like that in in school I’d get eviscerated in reviews (or worse!).

As you should be. When you take an art class today, you are almost certainly not training yourself so that you can shock the early 20th century international art establishment who can't see beyond the traditions of the old masters. Besides, that's already been done. They removed so many unwritten rules about what could or could not be considered art, but there is still a lot of value in the old traditions and techniques. It's like saying, "if I performed this punk rock song for my classical piano class, I'd get eviscerated in reviews (or worse!)"

> To be clear, Lichtenstein is a very capable artist, and can produce very beautiful work that is (as far as I can tell) highly original. For example, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cap_de_Barcelona . I’m just not sure about the types of work shown in the article.

At the time, the art that they were appropriating was not even considered to be art as such. Not even 'bad art' or so-called 'outsider art' or god-forbid 'degenerate art' --- it wasn't even seen as art in the first place. A piece of porcelain designed to be an industrially mass-produced urinal wasn't seen as a creative expression worthy to be considered 'art.' Same with the design of a soup can, or comic books. Today, this seems ridiculous, especially with the recognition of design throughout many industries. But it wasn't at the time.