Sure, but . . . When Warhol was painting a soup can or a well-known celeb, there was no doubting the source material or who produced the image. When Duchamp h

Sure, but . . . When Warhol was painting a soup can or a well-known celeb, there was no doubting the source material or who produced the image. When Duchamp hung a urinal, there was no question about manufacture or who hung it in that way. With Lichtenstein things get blurrier. Where did those images come from? He didn't tell us. We were not privy (I wanted that to be a Duchamp "privvy" pun but failed) to the trail of provenance that some of us might have found meaningful in other art. No, he treated his sources as though they were worthless, where other artists seemed to exalt them but placing them in the public eye. All pop artists seemed like they were "getting away with something," but Lichtenstein seemed to be punching down hard to do that.