> The whole point was to raise a middle finger and say ... I'm all for subversive art, but that can be done _and_ credit the original. > At the time, the art

> The whole point was to raise a middle finger and say ... I'm all for subversive art, but that can be done _and_ credit the original. > At the time, the art that they were appropriating was not even considered to be art as such. I know you're saying that the idea, rather than the specific artistic merit of the contents, was the main point of these works, but this sounds super close to the "you should be thankful I published your study under my name, your work would never have gotten so much influence otherwise" argument.