Quite aside from the ethical question of the millions of dollars that were made without even the slightest acknowledgement of the debt owed to people like Abruzzo, Kubert, Novick and Kirby, I think my biggest problem with the widespread reverence of Roy Lichtenstein is that I have never seen a single one of his works in which the art was an improvement - either technically or aesthetically - over the original.

Perhaps I’d feel differently seeing one close-up, as I’m sure they hold power of their own as a painting on a wall; but even then, I still find the wider context, and the general lack of acknowledgement of it by critics and the public, deeply uncomfortable.

(I know this is old ground, but I was put in mind of it again by seeing posters on the tube for this hugely popular new Lichtenstein retrospective the Tate Modern are running)