The work marked the first of Lichtenstein's "artistic appropriations of the canonical works of Modernism" that resulted from his realization of the interrelation "between avant-garde and kitsch". The two images garnered attention among critics by highlighting the nuances between copying and creating art, between real and fake art. As Andy Warhol challenged the status quo by "humanizing mass-produced product", Lichtenstein dehumanized masterpieces. This demonstrates "that the quotation of popular culture was not the sign of intelligence suspended but rather the shape of thought." The publication of this work was considered by some observers as more sacrilegious than Duchamp's revisions to the "Mona Lisa". Loran wrote two hot-tempered letters in response. In September 1963 issues of "ARTnews" and "Artforum", His articles were written after Lichtenstein's first Pop exhibition in Los Angeles, which featured the two life-sized works depicting Loran's images. Loran, whose text was by this time over twenty years old, even attempted to sue Lichtenstein. According to David Deitcher, "The angrier of the two tracts appeared in "Art News", where Loran openly expressed his contempt for Lichtenstein's work and hinted at his desire to sue.": One critic noted that although Loran was making instructive points with his diagram, Lichtenstein's was an artistic statement. However, Loran was joined by Brian O'Doherty, a critic with "The New York Times", in ridiculing the defense of Pop art as transformative rather than appropriationist art. In 1963, O'Doherty wrote his belief that Lichtenstein's work was not art in "The New York Times" saying, he was "one of the worst artists in America" who "briskly went about making a sow's ear out of a sow's ear." Loran felt Pop art paled in comparison to the aesthetics of Abstract Expressionism. Lichtenstein did not accept the transformation defense. Other critics got involved in the matter, with Gene Swenson querying Lichtenstein "about the charges of antagonistic critics 'that Pop Art does not transform its models." Lichtenstein responded that art forms but does not transform. Max Kozloff opined that Loran was being mocked and that while Lichtenstein's product had didactic content, its purpose and need was questionable. Kozloff worried in "The Nation" that Lichtenstein's work may lead to the values that modern art held being rejected moving forward.