As mattdm suggests, fair use has no clear cut rules, so we couldn't possibly give a definitive answer. A lawyer probably couldn't give an opinion without seeing the finished work.
The specific parts of the fair use doctrine you need to look at more closely are whether your work would be considered derivative or transformative, and whether it can be considered parody or satire.
Whether your work is transformative depends on how much your work extends or changes the meaning of the original work, or puts it in a different context. It's a matter of whether you are exploiting other's work, and that's a very thin line, especially when yours is a critical commentary.
Cutting and cropping would, in itself, seem simply derivative. However what you then do "putting the art work in a completely different setting" might make it transformative. That's one judgement call.
Parody vs satire is very important, in that your work is critical. Broad satire, where you are generically using works, but could have easily used other works, may not fall under fair use. In other words, if you are being critical or defamatory, and the original artist might reasonably ask why you picked on his work, a judge might agree.
Parody, on the other hand, is poking fun specifically at that work of art, and if the reason you chose that work (or a specific group of works) is obvious, then you would seem to be more protected by fair use. This is a second judgement call, but probably clearer that the first.
The fact that you are doing this for artistic commentary and not selling the works, is a big plus in using the fair use defense.
A good example involving photography: Leibovitz v Paramount Pictures where a commercial movie poster closely copying a famous Vogue cover was found to fall under fair use as parody.