I was just curious what opinions people here might have, since many of us (I guess all of us, to some extent) are interested in comic art.  If you don't know, Roy Lichtenstein was a major Pop artist big in the 60s and 70s whose works were heavily inspired by--- some say "lifted from"--- comic books. 

Here is a link to a page that shows some of original comic panels (on the left) compared with Lichtenstein's renditions (on the right):

http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

What do you think?  Do you think Lichtenstein was simply "copying" the comic book art, or does the art become a new creation wen it is lifted from the pages of the comic book and put by itself on a large canvas?  (Also notice that in many cases Lichtenstein made significant alterations from the original art.) 

I saw one of these ("Drowning Girl") at the MOMA recently, and I was really impressed by it.  If I'd seen the panel in the original comic book (highly unlikely anyway), I'd never look twice at it, but it takes on a new haunting meaning when it's isolated.

Also, has anyone ever seen any Archie panels that you think could serve as stand-alone art of this type?  I don't mean things like covers and pinups that originally were made to stand alone anyway, but panels out of stories that somehow take on a new meaning or beauty when they are removed from their context in the story.  Or do you think that taking  panel out of context destroys its integrity altogether, since that's not what the artist intended it for?  Just curious.

One more "For" - The blown up panels, made into stand-alone pieces, call more attention to the artistic aspect of comic books, so that's one huge bonus.