No - for one, we’re not talking about a single “art style,” but multiple discourses and artists working in different ways. Sherrie Levine, for example, while I think sometimes cropped her re-photographs, also did straight reproductions of famous, easily identifiable work (in at least one case, photographing the art catalog image of a work, i.e. making a reproduction of a reproduction…), which was the point, to make it part of a discourse about the nature of authorship, etc. (Richard Prince in 2015 had a show of photo-realistic paintings of other people’s banal Instagram photos, but complete with Instagram framing and text, working - some decades too late, in my opinion - with some of the same ideas. Also to some degree he’s working with a pre-21st century idea that simply making a painting of something is sufficiently transformative, for copyright purposes.)
But in this case, that’s not the point - as far as I can tell, the ostensible artist didn’t frame the work that way (or even readily admit they were reproductions). He has neither legal nor artistic justification - but I think he was looking at what artists have done in the past and thinks that makes his work safe, not realizing how much context and discourse matter (at least in terms of artistic merit).
