I actually agree with this addition! The long, historically unfair arrangement of the comics industry can't be scapegoated onto Lichtenstein any more than it can be onto comic book movie magnates, but they certainly made money off it. Direct comparison to Somerton, who was being consciously predatory, is unfairly bandwagon-y of me.
But what prompted this post was how illustrative that quote about respect and obscurity is. The notes indicate a that a LOT of laypeople, especially now, did think his compositions were ~inspired~ by comics, not traced from them. Current copyright law and public perception of comic art has long insulated him from reasonable critique.
It's a common reactionary take to dismiss modern art for lack of talent or technique. My goal was to push that line of thought in the other direction. (If we consider Duchamp's readymades like Fountain to be art, what does this say about the industrial designers who created the originals? Is there something intentionally classically beautiful about symmetrical curves of white ceramic? What does it mean that the signature + date added by Duchamp resemble the "low art" of bathroom graffiti? What skills or ideas might those industrial designers bring to the gallery that no "real art" there matches?)
I brought up classical "realist" technical skills in my second reblog as an example of what many people imagine the line is between "fine art" and "commercial art". But to complete the thought, I should have continued to point out the non-realist, non "fine" art technical skills developed by comics workers that Lichtenstein's work displays limited understanding of or interest in: page layouts, the four-color process, hand-lettering and word balloons.
When it comes to personal taste, heavily stylized and anatomically "creative" character work—like Marcos Martin's—is actually my favorite kind of comic art. I LOVE his use of Lichtenstein-isms in ASM #560. This isn't just "homage" but redrawing specific paintings for a comic book fight in a modern art gallery! It's a neat conversation with Lichtenstein's work that ties into the story's themes: pop culture, celebrity, romance media, and the ethics of being paid to produce images the public wants. The villain is a young romantic who is literally two dimensional.
Compare and contrast Secret Wars: Secret Love's cover. This isn't referencing a real Lichtenstein—but as you say, his style is very recognizable. And part of that style is that this, too, is a flattened redraw of someone else's romance comic cover.
I see no connection between the themes of Lichtenstein's gallery work and the stories inside. He's just a famous middleman to catch people's attention. The cost is further overwriting the craftspeople who created the cultural symbols Lichtenstein used in the first place—in the same medium (hell, the same company!) that the new work is in.
A John Romita tribute becomes a Roy Lichtenstein tribute, and the work of Morrie Kuramoto on the comics-specific art of hand-lettering and text layout replaced entirely, to what I would argue is its detriment. I'd be last to claim that this should be illegal, or classified as "not art" compared to the original cover... but it's just kind of a sad reinforcement of a long, unfairly weighted status quo.