Jump to content

Talk:Andy Warhol/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Christian?

I know he was a charitable man who was respectable of his parents' religion, as well as vague in regards to specific religion, but he was really too vague to be called "Christian". I happen to know that calling him a Christian is such a powerful banner, Im sure it will turn off perfectly good irreligious people looking to be his fan, as I have been for three years. He is my favorite artist, and I have seen and read and heard every scrap of information about Mr. Warhol and could we please remove the "LGBT Christians" tag from the page? The thing about Catholicism can stay for the time being, because being associated with a church doesnt neccesarily confirm a belief, I have been a part of the "Baptist" church system for some time, but I myself am irreligious, an out and out atheist. In the name of neutrality and fairness to the artist, please, remove the tag "LGBT Christian" tag. Also, can we tackle the "Roman Catholics" thing too? I mean, can we produce some evidence for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.88.105 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are enough sources backing up AW being religious to some extent if not very religious, IMHO. Even though there's a seemingly contradictory aspect to that, which has also been sourced and researched. (Check for instance "The Religious Art of Andy Warhol" by Jane Daggett Dillenberger). Also, I'd say being connected to a church DOES make you religious, as "religious" (also) means "belonging or relating to a monastic order or other group of people who are united by their practice of religion". Tags can stay, I'd say. A fellow-atheist :-P Joris Landman (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it is just as well, but in an interview with Interview ;) Andy said that he "guessed so" when referring to whether he believed in god, and when asked if he believed in the devil, he said NO. Im being a dick, i know, but this denotes any religion, closer to some vague haphazard religiousness but I can be sure that he is closer to being agnostic or adherent to atheism, thoughI wouldn't suggest adding an atheist tag on the page. I can say, having looked over the evidence and the Christian tags MUST go. - DW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.98.74 (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"I guess…" was one of his hallmark statements. That's no argument IMO. Again, his religious views were complex but study on this subject shows he identified as a Catholic. Your argument that "people may be turned off" by a christian tag is not relevant to the goals of Wikipedia. IMO the christian tag is correct.
BTW, the current paragraph "Religious Views" creates the impression that it was written by someone who feels rather strongly about all this. It's only purpose seems to be "proving AW was religious". IMO it's not descriptive of what is known about this subject, and not a good reflection of Warhol's spiritual or religious practices.
Contentious topics always seem to result in such paragraphs getting too much emphasis in relation to the text as a whole……………Joris Landman (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Depression

I am new to wiki but just wanted to point this out.I thought andy warhol was depressed but no where in this article does it mention that. I know there are a couple books with the depression mention. Michigan13 03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)michigan13

Warhol's birth name

Every other source I check says his birth name was Andrew Warhola. What's this "Miss Samanthat" stuff?" -- --Theannalog 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism I'm afraid. Welcome to Wikipedia.  :) If you ever see anything confusing like this it's anonymous IP users doing this sort of thing. And if you're convinced that it's vandalism, please just go ahead and revert it. It's irritating, but the utility of WP outweighs it. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No Vandalism. His parent's surname was spelled in the Slovak way as Varchola, therefore Warhola would be the americanized version. It's obvious that his parents came to America from Slovakia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.225.30 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What is art?

The article says:

He is credited with crystallizing the deceptively simple notion that if you simply point at something and call it "art", it is.

I don't think this sentence is correct as written. Surely Marcel Duchamp is widely credited with having invented this first, with his readymade sculptures. Duchamp is hardly obscure. -- Dominus 15:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

that may be true but let me just say that NYC has not been the same after warhol died. something died in the big apple when he did. RIP...

simplistic and misleading; Duchamp never simply pointed at something and called it art....He abstracted the real life object,placed it in other than its natural environment and often altered it.re R.Crumb toilet bowl furthermore he signed the newly *(de)contructed object basically saying 'The answer to the question of 'what is art is Art is.Art is what I do". Just who credited Warhol with the ,'deceptively simple notion .....etc etc'?and when or where did Andy (I,m allowed) simply take an object is its original form and present it as a finished work (Lilac electric chairs????) Nat Finkelstein

A small quibble: that would be a urinal signed R. Mutt. Freshacconci 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your assertion that "Duchamp never simply pointed at something and called it art": you are mistaken; he did precisely that. He even went around later in his life taking random objects and signing his name on them, thus turning them into "works of art". -- Dominus 05:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the concept of readymades evolved from Dada ideas. Dada-ists used garbage, newspaper-clippings, Objets Trouvees as material to make art. The objet trouvee already contains the "pop" idea of using everyday materials - like newspapers - instead of more classical materials - like paint and canvas. Duchamp added to this concept by using readymades, he also gave the idea a theoretical context. Warhol added to this development by using readymade concepts. He took well-known concepts, not necessarily their material representatives, and made them the subjects of his works. I would say that Warhol used ideas and images in a similar way that Duchamp used objects. In other words, Warhol or Duchamp may or may not be credited with something, but their "pointing and calling it art" is part of a development that didn't start or stop with their work. Art-historians tend to talk about readymades as belonging to Duchamp. Warhol is credited for incorporating popular ideas and methods into art. Smqt

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Andy_Warhol article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Andy_Warhol}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Add link to Ric Burns' documentary about Warhol: Andy Warhol: A Documentary Film.

15 minutes of fame

The article for 15 minutes redirects to Andy Warhol, is this suggesting Andy only had 15 minutes of fame? Or is there a reason behind this?

he's the one who said it: 15 minutes of fame
In the future everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.
-Catalogue of an exhibition of his art in Stockholm, Sweden (1968)[1]

Fifteen minutes of fame refers to the increasing number of daytime television talk shows that had four guests per hour. Therefore each guest had a national audience for approximately fifteen minutes. As the number of talk shows increased, there were fewer actual stars and celebrities available to be guests, so relatively unknown people were brought in to be guests. Because the number and popularity of shows kept increasing, and the shows were very inexpensive to produce, it became apparent that they would soon need to bring just anybody on the show for "fifteen minutes (of fame)". That is what I have heard, concerning the quotation on "fifteen minutes of fame", by Andy Warhol, but I am unable to verify that this is true, but it would explain why he chose fifteen minutes instead of, say, ten minutes.

The Factory

I'm not positive which one is right, but the introductory paragraph places the Factory in Union Square (which is on 14th Street), while the next paragraph places it at 47th Street. This should probably be cleared up. --Hypnotic31 04:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This may seem minor but, the article states "The Factory, located at 221 East 47th Street in Manhattan, was Warhol's studio from 1963 to 1967" then goes on to say "The Factory became a meeting place of artists and would-be artists such as Mick Jagger, Lou Reed, David Bowie, and Truman Capote. I don't think it is accurate to describe Truman Capote as a would-be artist in 1963--he was a well established writer by then.

REPLY: Warhol moved. His first location was dubbed the Silver Factory because it was painted silver. He moved because his business grew, and he wanted a more business-like approach. The Silver Factory is where all the parties were. All kinds of strangers and strange people hung out, and even lived there. When it became too crowded, and Warhol became more famous, he changed location and adopted a more restrictive policy as to who was welcome in the Factory.

About Capote, he was famous before Warhol, and Warhol was a fan of his. He has written postcards to Capote asking to meet him.

"As a famous artist, Warhol and his Factory attracted and facilitated many "groupies" and friends that Warhol would take with him when going out to smoke weed". I was under the impression that Warhol and the Factory were into speed and other uppers, and not marijuana. Also, they had a whole studio to use as a drug-pad, so I doubt that they would "go out" to smoke. Sylvea

That's correct on both counts. The Factory is famous for the use of speed. Freshacconci 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In some of his books Warhol talks about taking drugs quite freely, although not often. Writing about his use of drugs generally suggests that he wasn't that much into drugs, although he didn't avoid them. I think statements that insinuate he was "leading" in the taking of drugs are misleading: i.e. " that Warhol would take with him when going out to smoke weed". I think this way of writing misrepresents Warhol's role in the Factory group. He was a leader, but not in by way of being an "instigitor". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smqt (talk • contribs) 04:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Pronunciation

So is it really pronounced "war-hull" like David Bowie says? —Ashley Y 09:54, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Good question, though I've only ever heard it pronounced "War-Hole". Does anyone know how Andy Warhol himself pronounced it? That's the best guide really I reckon (i.e. it doesn't matter how it's pronounced in the country the name ultimately comes from). --Plumbago 11:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

in pittsburgh it is pronounced "wor-hall"
that is also the way that I always heard it pronounced in NYC by those that knew him well. Doc 18:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I say "war-hall" I've never heard it said any other way --JordanZed 15:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Since Warhol was American, it's probably best to go with Wor-hall/War-hall (per Pittsburg and New York above). However, Bowie's pronunciation is also a factor of his accent. In a sence, there's no "correct" pronunciation (is Bowie wrong to pronounce it that way?) just regional variations. I think I've always said War-hall (or I think that's the way I say it--it's probably closer to Woor-haahll. A propros of nothing, I once met someone from Rhode Island who made fun of the way I pronounced Boston, which came out Baahstaahn, really long vowels). Freshacconci 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The point Bowie was mwking was that the last sylable isn't Hole because there is no e or accent to change the o, which is a different thing to regional accents. I'm told by my art student cousin that the emphasis should be on the first sylable which is more important than how the one sounds the second one, not that it matters as he's dead so noone will be adressing him.(86.31.187.246 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Portraits

The statement "In the 1970s and 1980s he mainly made prints of famous people such as Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley" is incorrect. The Monroe and Presley paintings/silkscreens (along with the Jackie Kennedy and Elizabeth Taylor) date from the '60s. Warhol's 1970s output is dominated by commissioned portraiture, and the changed impetus behind the work (playing unbidden with cultural icons vs. flattering celebrities for money) led to a different kind of image, with a different resonance.

There are also many other Warhol series and works to discuss here, including his death paintings (car crashes, the famous electric chair), cow wallpaper, oxidation paintings and late-period collaborations with Jean-Michel Basquiat. And much else. --Adoorajar 19:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Birthplace

wasn't he born in forest hills, pa?

I've seen it as "Forest City", PA (in a PBS program) - but most often he is described as having been born in Pittsburgh.

There is also mention in several biographies of him being born in McKeesport, PA. His exact birthplace was shrouded in mystrey by Warhol, who stated that he was born in Pennsylvania or near Pittsburg most of the time.

I am from Forest City, PA, and there are still Warhols living here. It's pretty certain that he was born here and his family moved to Pittsburgh when he was 3. He probably didn't want people to know that he came from such a poor "coal mining town." I think this needs a little more research, and I have heard that his birth certificate does say Forest City, PA. I have no hard proof, but it must be out there because there is no other reason for a town of 2,852 people to be mentioned. This requires more research.

I am from from Forest City, PA. growing up we had the same art teacher k-12th grade. He always told us that Andy Warhol was actually born in Forest City and moved to Pittsburgh while a toddler. I realize that this isn't a definitive account, but I think that this is a topic that needs to be looked into. And yes, Forest City, was a small coal mining town, now it's a small town of Pierogi Man fame. Anyway, next time I go visit I'll go to the Forest City News and look through the Microfiche for birth announcements. I believe the paper has been around since then. I wonder if anyone has done that previously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.40.50 (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously a murky area, given that biographers are somewhat clueless; some even cite, with open uncertainty, places like McKeesport (David Bourbon, for example). As for official Warhol Museum/Foundation publications, Pittsburgh is cited, possibly because he was born in a Pittsburgh hospital, even though this skirts the accepted practice of using the municipality of residence as the birthplace, which is followed since few small towns have hospitals. Unfortunately, anecdotal sources are out, and even the local paper may not hold the answer. Researchers have probably already tried that and failed, possibly because birth announcements may be a modern phenomenon since in the "old days," more children died in infancy (a guess). I'd suggest addressing the uncertainty backed by a source, rather than continuing to state something we know is not definitively known. That's the story "of record," and we should be going with it. Feedback? Allreet (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Museums

There is also a very large museum about Andy Warhol in Medzilaborce.   ? Chris Capoccia T⁄C 01:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The second largest if I'm not mistaken, I could find some material, but it would probably need a new article, which I'm not prepared to do. Slobo 17:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

All of his films?

I think it's a bit overdone to have this extensive a filmography, because Warhol is best known as a painter and his paintings and painting style have had a much more apparent influence than his films... Maybe just name the most famous ones? Empire State building, blowjob, cowboys?

Hi, This is Richard Mullins. I'm a reporter with the Tampa Tribune newspaper and the good people at Wikipedia suggested I leave a messge here to chat with people who helped create the Andy Warhol entry. My e-mail is rmullins@tampatrib.com and my phone number is 813-259-7919.
I agree; the Filmography is inacurrate as well. "L'Amour" is an Italian or French film starring Joe Dallesandro. Andy Warhol had nothing to do with this film.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.204.182 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to need to disagree here on the films. As important as the paintings are, the films have always been crucial to his overall practice. The films up to 1968 should be given an equal place in the ouvre (afer '68 he steps back from the films and leaves them to Paul Morrissey).Freshacconci 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if the films are important to his work, his paintings are what he is most known for to the general public. In older versions of the text, only a few of his paintings were mentioned, yet there was a complete filmography. Anyway, I think the way the article is developing the problem is more or less solved, since there's also more attention for his work as a painter.

--Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 02:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

71.214.179.107 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Films were important in Andy's career.He took a break from painting to make Edie Sedgwick a big star and to do filming.If you want to,you can list his major,better known films and then his more obscure films.The point is that all his films should be listed.71.214.179.107 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Warhol's films are important to his career because painting basically funded his films and vice versa. For a time, he focused on films and didn't paint that often so, to dismiss that seems unfair. I went ahead and added ALL his films (yeah, it took a while!) and dated them correctly. I also fixed the broken links because, naturally, all of them aren't on Wiki. If someone feels the Filmography is too long, let me know and I'll edit out some of the films. A few of them are obscure and haven't been viewed publicly, but there are some that should be mentioned (ie Bad, Chelsea Girls, etc). I'd also like to add that it's probably wiser to use warholstars.org as a reference for Warhol's films instead of IMDb. Warhol.org keeps the list up to date as films are almost always being discovered, re-titled, and re-dated by Warhol's estate. Pinkadelica 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of his films, but I think it would be more useful to edit this down, and to indicate that a full filmography is available through the catalogue raisone produced by C. Angell. I'd rather see few titles, and a smarter entry, than the name of every film we can think of - I mean, if we are including everything, why not every single screen test? (Because that would be crazy, just as it would be to list every painting he made.)Judyholliday 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

hird passed through Warhol's left lung, spleen, stomach, liver, esophagus and right lung."

I'm not really big on anatomy, but I don't believe this is physically possible. The bullet went through him, bounced back and hit him again?

He might have been shot on his left side, in which case I believe all those injuries are very well possible with one bullet. - Hbdragon88 06:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is, in actuallity, incorrect. 2 bullets passed through him, not 1. the 3rd bullet was unsuccesful in hitting Warhol.

I added references and edited the shooting section. Why was this flagged as unbalanced? Also - that last bit of information about the elvis painting & the gun: where is that from? It should be taken out if it can't be backed up. Judyholliday 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the un-sourced sentence: "Solanas had received the gun from David Horvitz, in exchange for a Warhol painting of Bob Dylan that Solanas presumably had stolen from the trash. The painting was abandoned by Warhol after an altercation with Dylan." I took it out - it should be put back in when it's backed up.... Judyholliday 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Many years?

From "Social animal and private person":

"at one of the shows on their final tour in 1982 he also "fell in love" with both the music and the pretty looks of their opening act, Duran Duran. He maintained a friendship with the band (and especially keyboardist Nick Rhodes) for many years."

Since Warhol died in 1987, it must have been five years at most, which isn't "many years" in my book, and I doubt anyone else's. Did Warhol maintain "a friendship with the band (and especially keyboardist Nick Rhodes)" for several years before 1982? Otherwise, "for many years" should be changed, to, e.g., "for the rest of his life." 88.110.121.116 23:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Wrote"?

The article claims that "Warhol "wrote" several books." Why is 'wrote' in quotation marks? Did he not actually write the books himself? Was he dictating? Either way, there needs to be an explanation as this is not very helpful.

He dictated his diar to Pat Hackett, mostly over the phone. She's also credited for editing. He started keeping a diary to keep track of expenses for tax puroses. A, A Novel is a litteral transcription of audio recordings of Ondine and other people, spelling and interpretation errors were left in the final book, as well as weird interpunction, "uhm"s etcetera. When people asked Warhol for a job, sometimes he would just let them type out his audio tapes. From A To B, I'm not sure, but I think some of his friends - Brigid Berlin (Polk), the B in the Title - wrote this book together, kind of like a group-ghost-writer. -Smqt 16 December 2005

IQ

That Warhol's IQ was "only" 86 persistently crops up in this article. Can anyone adding it again please provide some sort of reference? --Plumbago 09:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw on a site that the source is the "Sigma Society". There IS a society named like this, which are linked to IQ measuring. But even so, this claim need more support. Pls someone look for it. (The company's website, sigmasociety.com, is in Spanish, or Portuguese, I cannot read it.) 81.182.151.233 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Portuguese. Plenty of IQs, but no Warhol. Rothorpe (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add that, but I did read an article about a study in this direction, I think Warhol was posthumously declared to have been autistic. I've always considered these stories as a myth being born; since he was very stoic, he gained a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland-quality; the stupid boy, accidentally stumbeling into a rainbow. Whatever. -Smqt 16 December 2006

Autism isn't an indicator of a low IQ. It is an indicator of average to high IQ. Often times, "creative geniuses" are autistic. The average artist has an IQ of 153.

That statement is false. 70% of people with autism have mental retardation, or an IQ below 70. You are probably referring to the savant or aspergers syndrome. I'm afraid Rainman has made 90% of people believe that autism is paired with intellect, when in reality, savants account for an estimated 5 percent of all people who are autistic. The undertow 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Even Autistic Savants (like rainman) often have very low iqs as they only have a very specialized form of intelligence, e.g. they are good with numbers but poor with language. For this reason the idea that Warhol was autistic is feasible. What other way is there to explain his low score, he clearly wasn't stupid. Unless he failed the test purposefully. None of this can go in Wiki though, as it is just speculation. The actual value of his iq should be quoted though, and there are hundreds of websites mentioning it to use as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.206.166 (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, where's the evidence that he was autistic or had a low IQ. Warhol played dumb to disarm people. He didn't lack intelligence, quite the opposite. I'll need to find some sources regarding this, but there's a lot of information on him putting on a "dumb" act.Freshacconci 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your statement that "the average artist has an IQ of 153" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.177.251 (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

judging by his quotes he didn't seem to be a very intelligent man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalzy (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

regardless of his IQ he was clearly a shrued and macavellian man who exploited the concept of celebraty and comercialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.186 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. To the guy who typed that little sentence above me. Learn to spell before you expect to be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.46.169 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Page erased

The article has been completely erased and replaced with the phrase "he was gay"

Thanks for pointing this out. Vandalism has been erased. --Plumbago 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why erase further reading?

Why erase further reading - esp. recommendations for good biographies or criticism?

I agree. I've reinstated it. It was deleted by an anonymous IP user - possibly just someone mucking about. Anyway, I've moved it to a slightly different place, but it's back. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Added two photos to this article, one of Campbell's Soup Can, and one of Marilyns. Sylvea

Also, added the Velvet Underground & Nico cover art Sylvea
Where did you find the Marylin? I'd also like to add images, but don't know how to go about it in light of the copyright-thing. Or did you write a fair-use statement?--Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 02:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Interview with Chris Cerf, questions wanted

Got a question for Chris Cerf? Cerf worked with Warhol at Random House during the 1960s. Post your questions before 25 April 2005. -- Zanimum 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Two corrections in film section

In the first paragraph, the article reads: "In the 35 minute film Blow Job (1963), he shows the face of David Pelman receiving fellatio." This is incorrect. The camera never pans below the man's waist and the viewer never knows whether he is receiving fellatio or not. This invocation of the spectator is an idea central to Warhol's work. I don't have the time to find sources, but a quick google produced this one hit: http://www.geraldpeary.com/essays/wxyz/warhol.html

The actor in Blow Job is DeVerne Bookwalter. This is in Andy Warhol Screen Tests: The Films of Andy Warhol Catalogue Raisonne, by Callie Angell. I corrected the reference to this in the entry.Judyholliday 01:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As a student in the cited author's class, I can confirm the above statements regarding fellatio in the film Blow Job. The film emphasizes off-screen activity by never showing it. The only indication during the movie that the audience is witnessing a blow job is the title. // Montag 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, the article reads: "Other important films include My Hustler, Midnight Cowboy, and Lonesome Cowboys". I think a year citation should follow "My Hustler" (the same goes for "Bad" in the 6th paragraph). Also, Warhol had nothing to do with Midnight Cowboy and there's no reason the movie should be mentioned in the article.

David Pelman?

Also, wrt "Blowjob", the article reads "In the 35 minute film Blow Job (1963), he shows the face of David Pelman receiving fellatio. " I can't find any articles referencing a David Pelman. IMDB and the Wikipedia entry on Blowjob both identify the man as Tom Baker and a quick google seems to back that up.

St. Vitus' dance

The article says this disease changed his looks and life forever, but doesn't say how... Some guy 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that needs changed. Very ambigous, and it just sounds weird. Could someone with more extensive knowledge of the effect the disease had clean it up? Snoopydance 01:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I was the one who wrote the unclear statement. I've tried to fix it :)

We are an international fine art gallery and publisher located in Scottsdale, AZ. We represent the original works of Andy Warhol including paintings, screenprints, and lithographs. We are secondary market specialist in buying and selling and our focus is that of the original 20th century masters including Warhol, Picasso, Miro, Botero, Rockwell, Wyeth and more. Is it possible to be added to your External Links for Warhol as a source to acquire his works?

You can visit our website at www.americanfineartgallery.com or directly to the Warhol page at http://www.americanfineartgallery.com/warhol/warhol.html.

Thank you, American Fine Art Editions, Inc.

External links are to learn more about the subject of an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a list of commercial sites. So while you may have original works, this is not a site where someone may learn more about the artist. Doc 05:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion I just saw all of the other retail art galleries listed who are offering their Warhol posters and prints for sale, and thought that this site, even though it is an encyclopedia, listed sources to acquire artworks by the artist that is being searched for.

Editing anonmously & sexuality

I just got so fed up I did a big enormous edit anonomously, so I thought I'd sign in and put this under the comments section. I have spent years researching Andy Warhol and reading biographies and autobiographies (even the boring diaries) and frankly the comments about his sexuality are wrong. There is no proof as to any sexuality (a, gay, or otherwise) at all. I even did some more research on the net before editing and frankly the comments that he "wasn't accepted by the church because he was gay" and was involved with the actor in "Sleep", etc, were all unfounded. Feel free to argue with me, but most of the people that were very close to him refuse to reveal (or just don't know) what his sexual preference was. Thus, declaring him gay is completely undocumented by any reliable source (and you can find many many others that say the opposite). Even though there is another section on "The Factory", I feel this section lacks in that entire era, but perhaps that's a space issue. - Sharkeysday

Well, I ceratainly knew a number of men that socialized with him in the 1950s and more than one that had gay sex with him during that period and I have never heard anything that would lead me to beilieve that he was bisexual. Doc 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Aside from gay, the only other way I've ever heard him described as is asexual (but with a nod to occasional gay relationships). Admittedly, I'm no Warhol scholar (to say the least), but I don't think the article should rewrite the conventional view of him (which is pretty established, and uncontested by him as far as I can tell). By all means add a clarifying remark about ambiguity (referenced if possible), but the current state is unsatisfactory I reckon. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. What's with the anon-editing? People are more likely to take an edit seriously if it's by a named editor (rightly or wrongly).
The anon-editing was a mistake. I have no problem identifying myself, I'm just new at editing anything on wikipedia or I would have signed in first! (thus this post). Interesting that you knew someone who had Gay sex with him. I've actually studied, written papers and been a follower of Andy Warhols for years and have never seen any documentation about anyone doing anything but seeing him watch sexual encounters. I'd be interested to know if this person would openly admit to it. I also think people (especially maybe in the 60's and 70's) have a hard time seperating "effeminate" and "gay". Andy Warhol was certianly "effeminate" but his sexuality still remains a question and I have never seen a reputable source able to define him as gay. He had no problem with gay men and was frankly open to all sorts of interesting sexual relations, but most of his closest friends were just that...friends. I think the asexual definition is probably the most appropriate, if you have to define him at all. User:Sharkeysday 7:32, 15 June 2006
Yes, I do understand the complexity of the issue and I agree that he was largely asexual, a voyeur and had many gay friends, that were just that. The one that I knew the most about was a man from Greenwich, Connecticut, an artist and musician, during the 1950s that had a relationship that was sexual, which lasted for some months. He unfortunately has passed on himself now. He had several of Andy's paintings of shoes and no reason to fabricate. There were one or two others as well. While I did meet Andy in groups, my casual observation would be that control & psychological elements were more inportant to him than the the physical. Doc 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
One clear source (to provide at least one, because I don't have my books handy) is in Reed's song "small town": "bad skin, bad eyes, gay and fatty". This is Andy Warhol describing himself, according to Lou Reed.
I think it's weird that you say you've never read any documentation of AW being gay, if you've read all these biographies. Because in every biography I read (and I have read quite a few) there's mention of it. There IS documentation - in these biographies - of AW being in love with certain men, sleeping with certain men, watching and producing gay porn (or gay art), etc. Several of his biographies and essays about him deal with his homosexuality in relation to his religion, more specific example: the fact that he used to sit in the back of the church because he there was a contradiction between his beliefs and his sexuality.
As said, he was also described as asexual and a voyeur, not participating in sex, but looking at it, and I've read at least 1 account of AW licking someone's shoes while masturbating, however true it may be. There are numerous sources.
The only thing about sex, that I remember right now as directly attributed to him, is the quote about "no sex being more exciting than sex", and a piece about the importance of laughing in the bedroom.
So, although this subject in his life is shrouded in some silence, as to WHOM he had relation(ship)s with, I think his sexuality was never unclear.
(above post left by Smqt 06:20, 17 June 2006
I would have to agree with that Doc 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I reckon the edits should be reverted. As this discussion's taken a while, other people have edited the article and this might be a bit tricky, but I'll try to do it over the next few days. Sorry, Sharkeysday, but I don't think we buy your view (though ensuring a mention of asexuality is necessary). Cheers, --Plumbago 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

- I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but Warhol was gay (when he was sexual at all) and I've changed the article to reflect that. There's the testimony of his friends (including the Lou Reed quote above) and in his diary he does write about his relationships with men. Admittedly he doesn't go into detail about having sex and it's possible these weren't sexual relationships, but they were clearly romantic. It's possible he was also bisexual, but he was definitely attracted to men. Multiverse 11:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Multiverse

I've tried to edit back in some of the references lost as per the discussion above. I've retained, but edited, Sharkeysday's section on Warhol's sexuality. I may have missed items (or cocked up those I've restored), so please correct me where appropriate. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard anything to suggest that Warhol was anything but asexual, given to strange perversions, yes, but no actual evidence that he was gay, straight, bi or otherwise. However, I do recognize the viewpoints given here so in an attempt to give both viewpoints to readers I edited the "Sexuality" section to reflect the contentiousness of the issue. Moments later Plumbago reverted to his original post. This PROVES that this is a contentious issue and should remain written as I have provided it. Either that or the value of Wikipedia in general falls into question as anyone with an axe to grind can make a change to any post to reflect his or her own viewpoint, preference, political stance, religious stance etc.

In fact, because of this whole issue the value of Wikipedia is greatly diminished to me. Despite the lack of ACTUAL TANGIBLE EVIDENCE people in this debate want to compartmentalize the man in an issue that is clearly unresolved. If you feel that there is no debate on the issue then provide actual evidence (and "a friend of mine" is hearsay and not actual evidence). rexthestrange.

Again my post has been reverted by the obviously narrowminded members of this community. For the record my post was as follows:

Sexuality

This is a contentious issue. Some claim that Warhol was gay and that in The Warhol Diaries writes about his relationships with several men but this interpretation is somewhat ethereal. Early in his career he occasionally implied to the press that he had girlfriends, including a (possibly fictitious) girl he called "Taxi" who allegedly went for long periods without bathing. It is possible he was cagy about admitting his sexuality because he lived in an era when straight America was much less informed about homosexual culture, and gay men such as Liberace and Paul Lynde were generally accepted as simply being dandies. Gay themes in Warhol's work were often overlooked by a public oblivious to the symbolism of drag queens, cowboys and the other icons and cliches of gay culture that frequently appeared in his work, but this does not necessarily speak of his sexuality. On the occasions Warhol was publicly pressed about his sexuality, he was often playfully evasive. He often claimed to have little libido, and those who knew him have said that being hugged or otherwise touched made him quite uncomfortable. Because of this, another interpretation suggests that he was asexual, having no sexual identity at all, a view that is corroborated by frequenters of the Factory who observed that he appeared to have no active sex life and that his sexual encounters were limited to observation of others performing sexual acts.

This is clearly a compromise on the issue that recognizes the contentiousness of the issue. However, certain members of this community are of the opinion that there is no contention (a bold statement considering that the very fact that we're having this argument proves it).

Congratulations to those people - you have proven that Wikipedia is completely worthless as a reliable source of information. This post must be retained to recognize that there alternate viewpoints on this issue. I will not repost my version. I'll leave it up to your consciences to do that. As requested I am putting this suggested post to the panel for concensus.

I'm sorry, but I disagree that the subject is contentious. This discussion does not make the subject contentious, if anything it has made your opinions contentious.
Besides asking for prove that you're wrong - which people have provided - you have not done much to support your claim, except to say that you've read books and written about Warhol, as have I and others contributing to this article.
For instance, why is Lou Reed's song not a valid source? Do you have a more valid source that proves Warhol was not gay?
Or is it that "homosexual" is not a good word to describe someone that is also considered not sexually active? Should it say "homophile and asexual"? Do you also contest that Warhol was a "homophile"?
I think it's a shame that you don't elaborate and leave your own discussion unfinished, because your written research and views on Warhol's amorous preferences could be interesting in understanding his work and the way it is perceived.
Perhaps you could add links to your writings in the links section, it would give people an opportunity to read your opposing view on his sexuality for themselves. In doing so you would be able to contextualize this article. I for one would like to read your work on Warhol. Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Call it by its name: asexuality does not exist. Let noone try to push Warhol into the closet.
Although I think Sharkesday's position is still not very precise, and although the general consensus on and off Wiki is that he was gay, still this view is not unheard of, and might be of interest to wiki readers, right? I hoped that a link to an external article might be a good compromise.
BTW, I think that the info on his sexuality was made into a separate, titled paragraph as a result of this discussion. I think it is kind of out-of-context to have a seperate section for it, if the general view is that he was gay. I intend to incorporate it in the general bio, and will think on a way to do so in a way that respects everybody's views. Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 09:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I marked the whole section with a {{Sources}} tag. The definite tone of the statement, along with numerous LGBT categories, ask for a much stronger backing (consensus among Warhol biographers rather than conjectures from authors of LGBT books) than I'm aware exists in the literature. I'll leave it up for a week before I remove it, but in general the paragraph should be rewritten. ~ trialsanderrors 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I think I was one of the first to make a contribution which acknowledged Warhol's sexuality. I am a published academic scholar, I am tenured, and have written on Warhol and on the sexual politics of Warhol studies. I may have started the sources page, and am happy to see more titles added to it. There is no controversy within art history over whether or not Warhol is gay. There is conversation about how this matters to how we interpret his work. People have different ideas about what Warhol's sex life might have looked like, but that he was interested in men, fell in love with men, and produced explicitly homoerotic work throughout his life is not up for debate within any of the scholarly circles I know - nor is it debated by those who participated in his circle (Viva, for example, who is still around, Mary Woronov, and see Callie Angell's extensive work on the films in her new book on the Factory films). Richard Dyer, a film scholar, once described Warhol as the "most famous gay man who ever lived." That some of the people who write about Warhol's sexuality do so from LGBT studies does not take away from the fact that Warhol was gay. This is, again, not a subject of interpretation. (Does my take on the matter become more valuable if I tell you that I am a woman? Does that make my perspective somehow more neutral? If a straight man wrote about Warhol's homosexuality - and plenty do - does that make their argument more accurate?) Some museums have downplayed and actively closeted Warhol's homosexuality, which no doubt aggravates popular misconceptions. I have yet to see a single reputable article or essay which asserts that Warhol was straight, and I've read nearly everything on Warhol published in major magazines, newspapers, and academic sources since 1960. Please see Gavin Butt's Between You and Me (Duke University Press, 2006) for a good explanation of how Warhol himself navigated homophobia during his lifetime - as a very effeminate gay man who never hid his sexuality, he encountered a lot of it. I have included this title in the references section. Warhol spoke to these experiences in Popism. The consequences of degaying Warhol are serious - It is important to represent popular attitudes, but they should also be signaled as wrong, innaccurate, and the effects of a homophobic culture.

To say that the question of whether or not Warhol was gay is "contentious" is, again, really really off base - only the most homophobic and/or ill informed would make this assertion. Even the most conservative of scholars in the field would never say Warhol wasn't gay - and they would not argue for the erasure of this fact from biographical record! Again, what is controversial is how much it matters in how we understand his art. Wikipedia editors should treat the erasure of information about how Warhol matters as a gay artist, information about the gay content of his work, and his own statements and ideas about sexuality as a form of hostile vandalism.

And so, I have reinstated a version of a paragraph I inserted about a year ago, with some references to scholarship on some points (I could have gone through the whole paragraph and put in references for, for example, scholarship on early exhibition of Warhol's films in gay porn theaters, and on the advertisements for Warhol's films in gay men's magazines - an essay by Thomas Waugh included Pop Out, which I co-edited in 1996 - but I thought this would be overkill). All scholarship I cite is referreed - meaning, reviewed by a panel of scholars and approved for publication by an academic outlet. I sign my name here, so you can track down my own writing on the artist if interested. Whatever anyone has felt about my work, or the work of others cited here who address sexuality, no one has ever faulted us for the integrity of our research. ~Jennifer Doyle December 11, 2006.

thanks for your extensive explanation and direct way of putting things :) Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Andy was a man unto his own.Let us leave it that way,shall we?

Removed remaining Wikify tag

In my opinion, the whole Andy Warhol article does not need to remain in the wikify category because of the one "Other media" subsection. Please try to add appropriate links when you can, especially to "Other media". KarenAnn 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Statements (especially controversial ones) should be referenced

See Wikipedia policy:

Remember "original research" i.e. first person accounts are not legitimate sources. KarenAnn 11:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to be subject to excessive tagging for "reliability", "balance" etc. when the topic is Warhol's sexuality. I think the section on this topic is now very well referenced/footnoted. Footnoting/references could be more consistent - throughout the whole entry on Warhol - but please, stop tagging the line that explains that he was one of the first artists to be open about his homosexuality. Explore the notes and links to external scholarly articles that are there before peppering sections with "source" requests. The whole section elaborates on this topic, and already directs readers to scholarly, well established sources. Oh, and published autobiographies by the artist ARE reliable sources for information about the artist. Judyholliday 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Can

Please make a less ambiguous image title. What is it: the title of the painting? If yes, please put it in quotes. `'mikka (t) 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Production

Equally noteworthy is the way these works -- and their means of production

This link to production should be pointed to a better place. I can't tell what place to point it too. Mass Production does not make sence and neither does any of the other production links. any ideas? --STHayden 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Warhol an autistic?

First off, is it true? And is anyone willing to research and expand the section? Simply having a list of links isn;t very encyclopedic. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 14:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly never heard it said, and a quick Google trawl suggests that some people have speculated that he may have been autistic. Given that it's speculation and he's dead (so we'll never know for sure) I reckon it has no place here. Delete away (if you haven't already). Cheers, --Plumbago 14:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Science advances by speculation. When we know more about autism we might see very clearly that AW had the condition in some form. It is a way of seeing "the shape his creativity" more clearly - seeing what fits and doesn't fit the pattern one might expect with autism involves looking at the totality of his life and work more closely and more questioningly. So noting that some people have suggested it is not out of place or entirely idle Soane 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have Asperger's Syndrome, and reading about his quirks and his 'affectlessness' immediately brought it to mind. Thomas Jefferson was posthumously diagnosed, and if someone wanted to give it a try for Andy, there would be more information available for a more positive diagnosis. However, it must be published elsewhere first to be unoriginal research, for Wiki's sake. It would make a good thesis... -- BlueNight 11 October, 2006
As far as I know there HAS been scientific research into this (by medical researchers if I remember correctly). This study concluded that Warhol was autistic in some form. I don't recall who researched it - Danish or other Skandinivian if I can trust my brain - but I've read about this study in my newspaper. So someone should be able to find it and cite it if they like. Although I think it would open the door to many biased additions.Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"American Masters" says he was dyslexic....

Is it possible to be both poof and an asperger case? FTR Im no poof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.45 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of any connection between autism / Asperger's and sexual orientation. They can be of any orientation, just like neurotypical people. Jim Michael (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it strange how one can seem like an AS case, and still be a confirmed poof. With Andy Warhol, who can tell? --85.164.220.173 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Andy Warhol

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[[Celebrity]] instead of 'social figure'

In line 1 [[celebrity]] instead of 'social figure' would be more encyclopedic.--Gkklein 15:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Plastic Inevitable

I started an article on this, to replace an earlier one that was deleted for copyvio. Please feel free to contribute. ~ trialsanderrors 16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Con-Artist, comercialist and fame hungry would also be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.186 (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Separating Warhol from his art

What about making this article about the (person) and put his art in Andy_Warhol (art)??--Gkklein 18:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Anagram of Andy's name

An anagram of "ANDY WARHOL" is "Oh ...!" (...a NY drawl!).

Other celebrity anagrams (4) examples: George Lucas discussion page ... if anyone feels that Andy's name-anagram should go into the article that would be fine. (...I would rather let someone else decide if they want to take it a step further.) --Elizabeth Jane 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hell, no! mstroeck 13:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please DON'T add the anagram! Pustelnik 20:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy Terror

Regarding the recent edit-warring over Warhol being gay, editors should consult Holy Terror: Andy Warhol Close Up by Bob Colacello, in which Andy's right-hand man at Interview Magazine, who spent almost every waking hour with Andy during the 70s and 80s, goes into great detail about Warhol being gay - not bi, not asexual, but gay. wikipediatrix 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. Warhol was gay. Queer Warhol (as in the book--you can start there and keep going)? There's no question and it's well documented. Freshacconci 05:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, uh, there is absolutely no question about this, and it is well documented indeed. There was a pretty good detailed program about him recently on PBS here in the US which went into it in detail. Fascinating life. Antandrus (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Double the image

I've doubled the image - in honor of Andy Warhol!! Yours truly,--Ludvikus 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pasting/reproducing here a comment from my Discussion page--Ludvikus 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

==Double double Warhol Warhol== It's a little bit goofy, but certainly Warhol himself wouldn't mind (you know, it might be incautious to suppose ''anything'' about what he would think). I don't think you'd get community approval but you could certainly try by bringing it up on the talk page. As a related idea, has there ever been a portrait done of Warhol that is multiple? I can't think of one, but maybe there is ... [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think doubling of the image is a particularly good idea. Maybe he might have liked it, maybe not, but our first and only purpose is to serve our readers, not to serve some dead guy. And I don't see a benefit to our readers at all, the point eludes me. AxelBoldt 05:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't really serve much purpose. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a tribute. You can do it on your userpage but in the article it's not appropriate. Freshacconci 11:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed its an encyclopedia not an ass kissing contest. plus creating in any way an image in the style of warhol is technicly an oriinal warhol creation and you,d have to pay the warhol foundation for royalties. xxx090208 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.186 (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting A to B and Back Again - The Philosophy of Andy Warhol

Is the quote about everybody being able to drink the same Coke, whether a bum on the street or Elizabeth Taylor, from the book A to B and Back Again - The Philosophy of Andy Warhol? I think it is, but I don't know how to add the information. Please can a more regular editor of Wikipedia who understands what to do help me out here...? Many thanks... 212.159.87.28 17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) JB

Yes it is from A to B..., although I don't have the book handy. Where were you thinking of adding the info? It should be incorporated into an existing paragraph for context with the proper citation, but that's all easy to do. Freshacconci 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
(BTW, I'm not positioning myself as an experienced editor; I've only been doong this since October. But it is pretty easy to contribute if you follow the proper wiki standards). Freshacconci 18:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I copied the way it was done in another part of the text, but can't find pagenumber... even though I took it from there before.Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 03:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the quote about everybody being able to drink the same Coke, whether a bum on the street or Elizabeth Taylor, from the book A to B and Back Again - The Philosophy of Andy Warhol? I think it is, but I don't know how to add the information. Please can a more regular editor of Wikipedia who understands what to do help me out here...? Many thanks... 212.159.87.28 18:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) JB

Warhol & Video

Has anyone seen the Warhol video work "Outer and Inner Space"? It would be a good addition to the article (I haven't seen it). I mentioned this at Talk:List_of_video_artists. Warhol is listed as a video artist, which is correct to a point, but details about his limited, but pioneering use of video would be helpfull. Freshacconci 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Structure of Biography section

It seems to me that the structure of the biography section is confusing - very haphazard. Do people have ideas about a cleaner way of organizing it? For me the sections on the 70s and 80s are a problem, as Warhol is profoundly identified with the 60s. And why a section on religious beliefs, but not, say, his early career as an advertisement illustrator, or for the sexuality paragraph. It seems like broader catagories are probably better than narrower ones for the biographical overview. Also, some contributors are writing text about his art in this section, but the next section (whose structure is also confusing) seems the better home for that stuff.

I am willing to try and take on some reorganizing (I can see something like: childhood, early career in advertisement, and then pop art etc. (with snappier headings like - "Success is a job in NY: Early Career"? & "The Pope of Pop" for the rest?). This would simply reorganize content already there (I would file the paragraph about religious beliefs under the later section, for example; and I can see putting some of the stuff about his love for radio shows under childhood). These are just suggestions. I would love to hear what others think. (I want to see Warhol's entry get an A!)Judyholliday 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go myself at reorganising. I've tried to make the biography flow, such that his art career comes first, delineated into decades as before, then followed by death, personal life and religious beliefs sections. It's still unwieldy, and I've removed a whole section (reproduced below) that appears out of place in biography (it's more art history). Someone else might manage to squeeze it into this section, but to me it belongs elsewhere (it's pretty interesting as it happens).
"Warhol used popular imagery and methods to visualize the American cultural identity of the 20th century. This popular redefinition of American culture is a theme and result of Warhol's art[citation needed]. This is perhaps best illustrated by one of his works: the Myths-series (also called the American Myths) - a series of silkscreened "portraits" of ten fictional characters taken from popular culture. Warhol's Myths are: Superman, Mickey Mouse, Santa Claus, Howdy Doody, Uncle Sam, Dracula, The Wicked Witch Of The West, Mammy, The Star and The Shadow.

Did the lawsuit win?

It says his lawyers sued the hosipital but no resolution, if someone knows fix it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.37 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

As a relatively "new" country the United States of America does not have one unified, classical system of myths (such as, for instance, the myths of ancient Greece). With his Myths-series, Andy Warhol proposed a system of mythical heroes and foes, and placed them at the basis of what he perceived to be an autonomous American cultural identity. These fictional characters are all signifiers for cultural values and human emotions that Warhol thought to be pivotal to a cultural sense of self. He provided America with the myths it thought it didn't have. The fact that almost all of these figures are symbols of commercial entities or enterpreneurial endeavors, speaks for the relationship that Warhol saw between the commercial and the cultural.
Like many of Warhol's works, the Myths have found their way back into culture through Warhol's oeuvre, acting as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. In a very literal way they were both an effect of popular American culture, and have gone on to affect it as well. Many of Warhol's images have been re-embedded into American culture as signifiers, after first having been taken from it by Warhol.
In the reading of his Myths-series, it is important to know that there is one character that does not originally have a visual representation. This is the last image in the series: The Shadow. The Shadow character was taken by Warhol from the radio-show "The Shadow", that Warhol has stated he used to listen to while being bound to his bed by St. Vitus' Dance. Warhol used a self-portrait of his clipped face throwing a demi-face shadow on the wall behind him, to represent The Shadow. In doing this, he has symbolically added himself to American culture, as an American myth."
Cheers, --Plumbago 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Plumbago -- Signifiers? What are you talking about? It sounds like you should compose an article on your original research. But I would probably nominate it for deletion. Bus stop 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
S/he's referring to Semiotics, specifically the work of Ferdinand_de_Saussure. If you know about all this junk then I apologize. Ghamming 03:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Successful lawsuit?

Did the wrongful death suit win? If someone knows they should fill it in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.37 (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Nice job on the fix-up, BTW. As you said, it needs work, but it's better already. The info you mention above is interesting, but you're right, it's art historical. Judyholliday has been putting a lot of work into the art historical section and may be the person to have a go at it. After the holidays I may try it myself if no one else has. Freshacconci 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the piece that was taken out in an attempt to add a bit of "art historical biography". Warhol's views, character and "tone of voice" can be very well illustrated by more in-depth explanations of some of his key works. I think the biography should be structured and chronological, but an article like this needs some art-history, because otherwise the article doesn't "show" why he is considered to be an influential artist. Plain facts don't cover it. Maybe it can become two articles? Life & Works? How is this usually done? Would it be an idea to spawn a lot of sub-articles? Maybe some of his works could have their own? i.e. soupcans? Or would that become unmanageble? Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has gone in and broken up the paragraphs under "sexuality" - I think dispursing those lines about homoerotics & Warhol's work throughout other parts of the page. While I'm the first to support addressing the queer readings of his work, I'm not sure breaking up already written, edited, and revised paragraphs under "bio" and then sprinkling them throughout the "works" section is the best route. I think this whole entry needs major restructuring - but that sort of thing just confuses things even more - for example, opening the major section on his works with sentences about the homoerotics of his work isn't the best approach - as demonstrated by the above year long debate about sexuality, a solid, subtle, and comprhensive discussion of the sexuality issue under a heading "sexuality" is necessary. If you want to develop the writing in the entry about homoerotics in Warhol's works, ADD, rather than redistribute - and then we can all go through it and edit and flesh out. Just a suggestions.Judyholliday 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking over other artist entries - I would suggest something like the following structure: 1. Introduction (basic intro to who he was and why he was important - large issues in biography, such as his origins, his sexuality, his religious beliefs might be addressed here); 2. Life and Work (divided up at least into childhood and early career, warhol in the 1960s (an especially dense decade in terms of information), late career (here goes his work in video and television, his emergence as a celebrity - much stuff fromthe producer/product section). Existing writing about his paintings, his films, his relationship with Velvet Underground, with other artists would all be found here in section 2 - integrated loosely by decade, and the story of his development as an artist. (Nearly all his film-making, for example, was confined to the 60s, and should be part of that subsection.) This "Life and Work" would be the largest section. 3. Warhol's legacy - here we might address his influence, major representations of Warhol, media fascination with Warhol etc. 4. Lists (not sure what to call this - but here would be the complete list of his known films, the list of his books. This could be two sections, a filmography, and a bibliogrpahy - which ought to include major catalogues for exhibitions, no? 5. Notes, References, To Learn More (lists of documentaries and films, other books about the period, etc.) 7. External Links (right now there is some duplication - "see also" is basically a list of external links. Thoughts?Judyholliday 23:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

  • Lead is too short and needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD
  • Fair use pictures are missing Fair_use_rationales
  • lots of [citation needed] tags
  • One sentence paragraphs, thus not "well written" failing criteria 1.
  • Layout problems "Official Links of Andy Warhol" needs to be merged with External links, "See Also" section comes before notes.
  • YOu refer to him as Warhol in the text not his full name.
  • Article needs more references
  • As stated, although Andy Warhol is most known for his paintings and films, he has authored works in many different media. awkward sentence paintings and films, although he has blah blah.

More references, fair use rationales, copyedit and nomiante it again, you may want to apply for a WP:Peer review. M3tal H3ad 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a separate review for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review which always gets feedback. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3tal H3ad (talk • contribs) 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I am going to tackle some major re-structuring in July: editing writing, editing out repetition, and integrating sections - It should be "Life & Career" with sub-headings. Any suggestions (I made some on this page myself months ago) for the general structure would be great. Let's get this very important entry in shape!Judyholliday 13:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed IANAP paragraph

I took out the text about IANAP since it's not really about Warhol, or his relation to IANAP. A quick Google search does not return IANAP in the context that was used here (in fact, the only mention of IANAP meaning "I Am Not A Profit Center" was on this AW wikipedia page...). It seems to be an ad or an intellectual form of vandalism. Most importantly I don't think it's a good paragraph for closing the text. Removed text below.Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"As with any individual so impactful upon the world stage, Warhol inspired many counter-movements as well--specifically, artists who disdain the crass commercialism for which Warhol was arguably the most effective spokesperson then to date. Still actively working to undo the connection between art and commerce that Warhol (and later Warhol's followers, like Keith Haring and Kenny Scharf) so tirelessly advocated are a cadre of anti-commercial artists who have adopted the acronym "IANAP" or "I Am Not A Profit Center." IANAP's works were shown most recently at an outdoor group show across the street from the 2007 Warhol extravaganza. In contrast to the glitz and glamor of the Warhol event, IANAP's "gallery space" was simply a few yards of open sidewalk, lit with clip-lights, and festooned with gritty art composed mostly of found objects. Despite its low budget, IANAP's event drew a crowd that spilled into the street and blocked traffic for blocks."

Text size

The last several sections of this article are in small text and I can't figure out how to fix it. Bustoff 10:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pork

What about the musical by this name? Anyone have any information? Billy The Blight

Matthew Davis

I jsut undid an anonymous edit reading: 'Matthew Davis was what the drawing was called. He spent about two or three years working on it.

Anyone know what that is about and if it belongs in the article?—Gaff ταλκ 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

POV statements

This is from the article body: "New York's Museum of Modern Art hosted a Symposium on Pop Art in December 1962, during which artists like Warhol were attacked for "capitulating" to consumerism. Critics were scandalized by Warhol's open embrace of market culture. This symposium set the tone for Warhol's reception - though throughout the decade it became more and more clear that there had been a profound change in the culture of the art world, and that Warhol was at the center of that shift."

It certainly smacks of POV and does not have a citation attached to it. I think it should be reworded (along with several other sections) to reflect a more neutral opinion of Warhol. Wtbe7560 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That line described the accepted line in Warhol studies about his reception history. It in fact literally describes his reception history. A myriad of texts in the bibiography back this up, including the cited symposium - well worth reading. That Warhol's work and his succesful career represent an epochal shift in the art world is in no world I know controversial! Critics WERE scandalized by his embrace of market culture, and didn't hesitate to say so. The statement referred to above, regarding the shift in his reception history, is not all that different from saying, for example, that Picasso's work while once controversial, now stands in for the acheivments of modernist painting. Would THAT statement need to be locked down with footnotes? Judyholliday 06:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

The infobox says "Nationality - North American".

There is no nation called "North America". "North American" is not a nationality.

Unlike "North American", the word "American" at least has a history of being commonly used to indicate US nationality. But OK - I guess we don't want to say "Nationality - American", because "Americans" strictly speaking, include Latin Americans and Canadians.

Well, saying "Nationality - North American" doesn't fix the problem, because "North Americans" can also be (duh) Canadians! And "North American" has no history of being commonly used in English to indicate US nationality. Moreover, United States nationals can be from Hawaii, which is not in North America.

What to do? There is no suitably unambiguous adjective ( "UnitedStatesian"? IDTS.) I suggest we go with "Nationality - American (United States)." MdArtLover 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind (and I'm not offended) by American being the adjective for United States. But American (United States) is a good compromise. And I agree, "North American" is a bit stupid: it can be a general description (like saying Jacques Chirac is European), but it's not a nationality. Freshacconci 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
OK then, I'll venture to change it. If somebody doesn't like it, they can just revert. No biggie. MdArtLover 18:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In the English language, American means from the United States, so American is sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In Spanish & Portuguese, North American means American. Rothorpe (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Why would North American mean American in Spanish and Portuguese? Aren't speakers of those languages interested in distinguishing between Canada and the USA, at least in many instances? Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Spanish has estadounidense and Portuguese has estadunidense to specify people from the US. However, that is not relevant for this article, as it is in English, where American usually means from the US. Jim Michael (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
'Norteamericano' is much more common, though. Rothorpe (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reputation

I cannot abide any discussion of Warhol that does not include the word "overrated", has not reference to "The Emperor's New Clothes", or treats him as anything more than a cultural/historic phenomenon. Andy Warhol was an obvious phony to all but the indoctrinated. To his credit, he himself had said so, in so many words, on a number of occasions. 24.195.232.82 04:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Chris Russell

Thanks for sharing Chris Russell. You might like to note that the article already makes this point in its introduction section ("his work was often derided by critics as a hoax or 'put-on'"). If you'd like to help with the article, you might like to expand on this point within in the main text (bearing in mind WP:NOTABLE, WP:CITE, WP:STYLE). At the moment the article is rather thin/diffuse on detail about critics of Warhol. If you need any help, let me know. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cats Wikiproject"

I notice this article has been placed in a section for cats. This makes no sense to me. Anyone (the person who tagged it perhaps) feel like explaining it? Does someone have a cat named Andy Warhol or something?69.138.183.115 01:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Warhol was a known lover of cats, had many cats and used cat imagery in a number of his early works as an illustrator in the 1950s. I didn't tag this article for the Cats Wikiproject, but that would be the reason why it has been included. Freshacconci 02:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cat image popped up in the intro of the article. Removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.96.184 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be semi-protected

This article attracts a lot of vandals, so shouldn't it be semi-protected? It'd save a lot of time. SteveRamone 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of school projects happening right now: bored students copy-and-pasting from Wikipedia. A 2 week semi-protection might help (these things seem to go in waves). Freshacconci | Talk 10:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warhol's early career

I am new to editing here, obviously, and did not intend to post anonymously in regard to my addition of a significant add in Andy Warhol's early career. However, various editors here are continuing to delete a historical and important point-of-fact addition in regard to Warhol's early career. A bio page at Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter, would be incomplete without mentioning the fact that in the 1950's when Andy was doing shoe drawings for I. Miller shoe ads, RCA Records' art director Bob Jones hired not one, but TWO freelance commercial artists to design album covers and promotional materials for their artists at a time when the music business was exploding with the introduction of the vinyl record, Hi-Fi and stereo recordings. This is HISTORICAL fact, and to edit or erase the other artist, is a bit pretentious to say the least. Where Andy went on to more "serious" art, Mr. Maurer expanded his commercial art studio and went on to become one of the most successful album designers in the history of recorded sound.

This was a pivotal point in Andy's career, and to tell only "half of the story" without mention of the other artists name is quite frankly ridiculous. I realize I need to learn my way around Wikipedia a bit better in regard to correct submissions, etc. so any and all help you can offer would be most appreciated.

Thanks! Best / Ben BenStuartCohen (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC) January 12, 2008

There's not so much a denial of what you are attempting to insert about Maurer as an historical fact. The reference you provided confirms Warhol designed record covers for RCA. This was actually a needed reference, as someone had tagged that information with a "citation needed" tag. However, the issue of the relationship between Warhol and Maurer, as friends and colleagues, falls under original research without further references. What I'd suggest is to create an article on Maurer, with references establishing his notability. A link could then be provided to the article on the Warhol page or a short paragraph could be added to the Warhol article mentioning their professional relationship. No one is attempting to "erase" Maurer from history. However, Warhol knew and worked with many people. The article can't list everyone. If Warhol and Maurer had a significant working relationship (and the fact that RCA hired both is actually an interesting bit of information), further sources would be needed to confirm a connection beyond the trivial. I'd like to hear from some other editors on this. My thoughts on this may be incorrect or misplaced. Thanks freshacconcispeaktome 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As the bloke who first requested the citation and removed Maurer, I naturally agree with Freshacconci. Maurer's notability independent of Warhol should be established first with his own article. Even then, however, unless they worked collaboratively at RCA or had some other relationship that makes Maurer important to Warhol's bio, I don't see the need to mention him in this article. However, if evidence of that can be provided, it may be worth putting in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It's factual, neutral, referenced and informative. There's no need to prove any notability for Sid Maurer in order to include him. That's only necessary if there is to be a separate article on him. If he's not notable, that in itself sheds a small light on the matter and provides context, but without drawing (unintentional pun) any editorial conclusions: the reader is left to draw their own. It seems, however, from the post earlier that there may be more to include on Maurer in the article. Tyrenius (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Paige Powell

It is mentioned in the death section as putting some objects in his coffin. The name is not linked to an article, nor mentioned elsewhere in this. Who is he? -- McGonnell 12:54, 03 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Portland Tribune, she was "Portland’s bicoastal culture doyenne" and a hanger-on and (according to the article) "business partner" of Warhol in the 80s.[2] We could either add the reference or elaborate on who she was, or remove that section altogether. I'm in favour of the latter, since it seems to be more about Paige Powell than Andy Warhol. freshacconcispeaktome 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

General impressions of this entry

Hello to all the Warholics in Wikiland,

I certainly don't have all of the answers to questions about Warhol's life, and I applaud all of your earnest efforts, but if you want to be a real encyclopedia, please do some research. I know that many people reference Wiki in their work, on occasion I do as well, but this entry has too many problems at this time. Having spent 16+ years as the Warhol Museum's archivist, I'm perplexed by too many of the factoids masquerading as truth on this page.

To begin with, Warhol was gay, there's no denying it, although some of his former associates with whom I've spoken still do so. I put that discrepancy to his ability to present what he wanted of himself - even lies - to anyone he chose. For verification of Warhol's sexuality please read John Giorno's book "You Got To Burn To Shine" (Publ by Serpent's Tail). John was the star of Warhol's film "Sleep" (1963) and was his boyfriend at the time. He describes a few of their many sexual encounters. We also have an extraordinary number of gay porn magazines among his papers. Here are a few more of Warhol's boyfriends: Edward Wallowitch, Ted Carey, Billy Name, Danny Williams, Rod La Rod, Jed Johnson, Jon Gould. He may have also had sexual relationships with others who I won't list here.

Another troubling matter is the reference to Pietro Psaier. As custodian of Warhol's archives, I can state unequivocally that I have never seen any reference to this person in them. It's my belief that his alleged friendship/collaboration is a complete sham and hoax, and I would really love to have that belief shattered with indisputable hard evidence.

A very basic problem is the address of the first Factory, it was at 231 East 47th St, not 221. Warhol's archives have hundreds of documents that prove it, including overdue rent notices from his landlord. Many books also get it right.

Lastly, Warhol was born in Pittsburgh, not Forest City, PA. That misinformation was started by Ultra Violet in her book "Famous for 15 Minutes." The birth certificate that she published is very suspicious in that the mother's name has been censored. Warhol often listed McKeesport, Philadelphia, and once Honolulu as his hometown. Pure self-mythologizing, generally speaking. In my experience I've learned that Andy Warhol or Warhola isn't such an unusual name; I had someone once swear to me that he met Andy Warhol at a Boy Scout Jamboree in the 1940s. Well, he may have, but fat chance it was OUR Andy. There were Warhols and Warholas that were members of Julia Warhola's church in NYC (St Mary's) who were no relation. Warhol received letters from various Warhols and Warholas asking if they were related to him; his extended family still receives such inquiries. Warhol's baptism certificate was issued in 1945 when he needed one to apply for college; it states Pittsburgh as the place of birth, and spells the surname "Varchola". Also, I don't recall if there's any mystery on this page about his d.o.b., but just to be sure it's August 6, 1928; every document that we have which records such information is in agreement, especially the 3 US passports that we have. Warhol's brothers John and Paul were born in Pittsburgh, as well, not in Europe. However, Victor Bockris's biography mentions that there was a first-born girl, in Europe, who died in infancy. The Warhola family now disputes this claim, but there's some evidence that points to it having been true.

I don't have the time to go into other problems that I've seen here, but keep plugging away. As always, beware what you read on the Internet, there's a lot of very bad information out there. The most accurate research is done for books, like the Catalogues Raisonnes of Warhol's Films (by Callie Angell), Paintings and Sculpture (by Sally King-Nero and Neil Printz), and Prints (by Claudia Defendi and Frayda Feldman). Even the 4 extant Warhol biographies (Bockris, Bourdon, Guiles, and Koestenbaum) have errors in them to some degree, but all in all are very good yet they must be taken with a grain of salt.

The demands of my job prevent me from being a contributor to Wikipedia, so you'll probably never hear from me again. I'll sign this with my real name, though, in hopes that I won't get bombarded with flames or questions. Honest, I swear I'm only trying to help.

Sincerely,

Matt Wrbican Archivist The Andy Warhol Museum Pittsburgh AWMarchivist (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt! Thank you! I also don't have time to rewrite this entry - alone - I had hoped to do so last year, but the entry suddenly mushroomed to an unwieldy size and I just couldn't face it. That said: As a teacher, I would really like to see this entry fixed, and would love to collaborate with someone else "up" on Warhol, someone else with authority. I ID myself in that sexuality scuffle above (Jennifer Doyle) and am easy to find. If you see this, and know a couple of other who would be willing to pick a weekend in the future and just take care of this thing, perhaps we could collaborate. I'm willing to take the steps to learn what one needs to do to protect such works, but this should be an A class entry. It's one of the first - if not the first - things that pops up on a google search on AW, and as such it's where students, fans, etc start. It will mean cutting a lot that's there, and really simplifying things (by following more traditional wiki entry formats for major artists) - but such work will have an instant and large impact on popular understanding of AW and his circle. Judyholliday (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be a Class A article and that much needs to be researched and re-written. One of the flaws I see in the wiki process is the tendency of editors to work in (as Matt Wrbican describes them) "factoids" without regard to their weight or relevance. The problem with this building block – or more accurately, patchwork – approach is that themes get lost and stories go untold. For example, the section on the 1960s opens with Warhol's first major showing of soup cans and two sentences later he meets someone at an exhibition. Then the next paragraph introduces the soup cans as a broad theme as if the first paragraph didn't exist. I'm sorry to say, this wouldn't make it in a high school paper, yet we are passing this off to a generation of high school students (and adults) as "the story."
To Judyholliday and others, I would be pleased to collaborate on getting this into shape. Yes, the article has gotten unwieldy and the prospect does seem daunting, but taking this into account along with other realities, such as edit wars, disagreements over the smallest things, etc., the only practical approach is to clean it up a section at a time, paragraph by paragraph. That way the many people who have a stake in the article can chime in (though an extra measure of AGF would be helpful). I would also urge that the sections be looked at as mini-essays; that is, they should open with a theme or overview, followed by a chronological development of the most significant facts, the things all readers should know about Andy Warhol whether they stop here or go on to explore more. Allreet (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Movies depicting Warhol

Could someone please add "Death Becomes Her" to movies that depict Andy Warhol. He is shown at a party for famous stars that have died including Marilyn Monroe, Elvis and James Dean. Thanks. Erik - 20/03/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.73.182 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Death

The section "Death" has the following text:

"Warhol died in New York City at 6:32 a.m. on 22 February 1987. According to news reports, he had been making good recovery from a routine gallbladder surgery at New York Hospital before dying in his sleep from a sudden heart attack. The hospital staff had failed to adequately monitor his condition and overloaded him with fluids after his operation, causing him to suffer from a fatal case of water intoxication, which prompted Warhol's lawyers to sue the hospital for negligence."

Does the phrase "according to news reports" just refer to the rest of the sentence or to the whole paragraph? Saying that the hospital staff had failed to monitor his condition could be considered libel and so needs to be worded carefully so it's unambiguous. It also needs an in-line citation to back it up, especially as the DA didn't find enough evidence for a prosecution. And what happened to the negligence case, did it succeed in the end? The whole article needs a lot more in-line citations than it has at the moment as it's not clear where all the assertions made come from and they could be just the point of view of whoever has written them. Richerman (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added "it was alleged that" hospital staff failed to monitor etc. which makes it less contentious, however the section still needs citations. Richerman (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Assassination attempt section says he suffered physical effects for the rest of his life. Did being shot lead to his gallbladder disease that led to his death? Jim Michael (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Clandestine

there should be a section for references to warhol such as Pete Wentz's clothing line, "Clandestine", features a shirt with the caption "warholier than thou" under a Warhol inspired design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.30.91 (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point the editors of this article to a great piece on movingimagesource.us about Andy Warhol, here:

http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/spending-time-with-andy-20080604

I'm affiliated with Moving Image Source and cannot post this as an external link myself, but I think it should be added. Moving Image Source is a non-profit interested only in disseminating great criticsm.

Thanks. 206.252.136.194 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

May 2007 maintenance tag

I can't find anything on the discussion board indicating why the maintenance tag was issued in the "films" section. Could someone enlighten me, and if no reason can be found, can we remove the thing? In my experience with articles of this nature, it appears to follow Wikipedia's standards. Justi521 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In Warhol&redirect=no&oldid=229189658 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Warhol" :
    • Warhol, Andy and Pat Hacket, Popism: The Warhol Sixties (New York: Harvest Books, 1980), pp. 287-295.
    • Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art, Warhol in His Own Words (University of California Press, 1996), pp. 345.
    • Warhol, Andy, and Pat Hackett, Popism: The Warhol Sixties (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975) pp. 11-12. Art historian Gavin Butt writes extensively about how Warhol responded to the homophobia of the 1950s and early 1960s in his book Between You and Me: Queer Disclosures in the New York Art World, 1948-1963 (Duke University Press, 2006)

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Filmography

This section needs to be cleaned up slightly; many of the links don't lead to film articles, like Apple should go to Apple (film) not Apple (the fruit). howcheng {chat} 23:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to the excising anon IP: deleting it, on the other hand, is not a solution either - many of the links are genuine, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been proposed for a WP:SPLIT? It's certainly long enough to stand on its own (with a lead section added), while the length of the main article justifies splitting as well. Besides conforming with WP:BETTER, this would also satisfy most of those who have opposed the list. Allreet (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone can send me a copy of Empire, I'll do the split! Lugnuts (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ISBN

Someone removed an ISBN, and there seem none in the bibliography. Rich Farmbrough, 17:27 17 October 2008 (UTC).

An eponym

The Dandy Warhols are an American band. They were named after Andy Warhol. Is this true? 128.135.73.21 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:JohnCaleHoniSoit.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed

Aren't those little "citation needed" tags at the end of paragraphs annoying? Sure are. But to me, what's even more annoying is that people add to articles without citing their sources. It's not the laziness I mind. The bothersome part is that without citations Wikipedia as a whole suffers – without them, editors cannot verify the facts provided and readers have no reason to trust our work. In effect, adding un-cited information is as damaging to Wikipedia as vandalism, particularly in respect to the unnecessary work it creates for others.

On a related noted, a fact template was recently removed, because the source was mentioned in the text. That's not acceptable under WP:VER and WP:CIT, so I reinstated it. The only way to get rid of the annoying tags is to either document the appropriate sources or remove the information. Prevention is an equally effective remedy, that is, removing new material that does not include citations, as WP:VER allows. The day may come when we'll be forced to enforce this standard, but I'd much prefer avoiding that by living up to the rules today. Allreet (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If your contention is that the citation is improperly formatted, incorrect, unspecific, or unverifiable, there are templates for such concerns, but it's foolish and untruthful to claim that there is no citation at all, when the citation is right there for all to see. I reviewed both pages you refer to (WP:VER and WP:CIT) and while they list suggestions of ways to cite sources, nowhere on either page can I find a statement that a citation is unacceptable merely because it is mentioned in the text. I in turn refer you to template:fact, which lists alternatives to your improper disclaimer, and which also states "Many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Consider whether adding this tag in an article is the best approach before using it, and use it judiciously." Minaker (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The biggest problem is that there isn't any citation of a third-party source. Citing the film itself is as bad as not citing anything.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which states that "primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements," and to Wikipedia:No original research, which further states that "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." That is exactly how the primary sources are being used here, in a descriptive claim that Andy Warhol was played by himself in one film and by Guy Pearce in another. There is no interpretation going on here; the accuracy of the descriptive claim is easily verifiable by any "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" -- all they have to do is watch one scene in the movie to verify the claim. This is no different than citing a secondary or tertiary source, in which a person would have to read a book to verify that the quote about Warhol is actually on the page specified. Furthermore, the No Original Research policy states that "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense" (see Wikipedia:COMMON). Is anyone going to make a reasonable dispute that Warhol was in these movies, or that he was played by Guy Pearce in Factory Girl? Minaker (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Minaker: a primary source is acceptable for stating a basic fact; many common knowledge facts do not require any citation (i.e. Warhol is an Anerican artist). To indicate that Warhol was in a particular film or that Guy Pierce portrayed Warhol is an uncontroversial bit of information. To state that Factory Girl was a flawed movie or Pierce's portrayal was weak would require third-party citations (and proper contextual set-ups). I'm only using these as examples of course. freshacconci talktalk 14:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
My original point that WP:VER requires citations when adding material admittedly errs on the side of caution. As noted by others, a very general statement of fact such as "Warhol is an American artist" may not need a source; however, other basics, such as "who was born in..." or "who was at the center of the Pop Art movement," most decidely would. Even something as fundamental as "fifteen minutes of fame" demands a source, not because we're anal retentives but because the average reader needs the assurance of non-dispute as well as a directional arrow for learning more. Furthermore, the next "scholar" shouldn't have to dredge the body of work to find where a trail of information left off. I exaggerate but only to a degree in saying that adding material without sourcing is tantamount to vandalism. To me, this practice shows a disregard if not for the "rules" then for the next editor who wants to refine or add something and is now forced to do the groundwork neglected by the previous writer. As for some of the arguments against citations, it's hardly "foolish" to expect material to be referenceable. If even the most mundane news report needs attribution, then certainly the same applies to entries in an encyclopedia.
On a related point, the practice of dropping in facts like Guy Pearce/Factory Girl without significant context (additional notable information) eventually turns more "mature" articles into collections of trivia that down the road disqualify them from FAS. "Worrying about the next guy," reader or writer, is an ethic that would avert the massive chores created by those who want to add but choose not to go the extra mile. More simply put, our many hands can and should be making light, not heavy, work. Allreet (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I added many, many uncited sources to this article. When I first found the article in 2005 it was 5-6 paragraphs big, and as I was reading a lot about Warhol I wrote an extended summary of everything I'd read, to get the article to become more alive. I think my many additions around that period allowed for the article to grow. I don't mean to boast: undoubtedly someone else would have eventually come along and done the same thing. What I mean to say is: the generation of content can be as important as its verifiability by citations. In my mind, you first collect, then organize. I don't think it's rude not to cite sources. I do think it can be rather passive aggressive to randomly add "citation needed" in places where a regular encyclopedia would never have citations… Other people like Freshacconci and Jennifer Doyle have added great scolarly value to the article. To each his own way of contributing. Joris Landman (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for bringing up an old matter, but I do want to respond to Allreet. I think I agree with most of what you said on March 10, but I feel dense, because I don't see your overall point. The one specific thing that you say that I do want to address is your comment, "As for some of the arguments against citations, it's hardly "foolish" to expect material to be referenceable". That's a very frustrating thing to read, considering that I don't make ANY arguments against citations, none whatsoever. I am merely pointing out that there ARE references, and arguing that they are both referenceable and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines -- and I even cite the appropriate Wikipedia policies to explain my reasoning. Your disagreement is valid, but your turning my comments into a strawman argument isn't. Minaker (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy Warhol, other media

Warhol used Amiga computers to generate digital art, which he helped design and build with Amiga, Inc. He also displayed the difference between slow fill and fast fill on live TV with Debby Harry as a model. Andy Warhol paints Debby Harry with help of Amiga Computer Andy Warhol uses Amiga Mittov Dmitry (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC) This should be added as a cited statement, given this information.

Doesn't mention his work with the Velvet Underground

why doesnt this article mention the velvet underground and nico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.112.175 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It does, under music. JNW (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

References which support that anti-art be mentioned in the article

  • Richard Kearney. “The Wake of Imagination”. Routledge, 1998, p. 254 : “Marcel Duchamp announces the end of humanist art as an expression of the creative imagination: art becomes an anti-art which ironically mimics the dehumanizing tendencies of our mechanistic age. The works of Lichtenstein, Beuys, Ben Vautier, Ballagh and Warhol confirm this conviction. Warhol, for example, represents the dissolution of the personality of the artist in the mechanical gesture of reproducing media images. He uses a seriographic technique which replaces the notion of an ‘authentic’ original with that of a multiple series. Here art derides itself by playing on the idea of the image as an artificial imitation of another equally artificial image. Reflecting the consumerist ideology of interchangeable cultural objects. Warhol’s pop art negates the humanist notion of creative subjectivity. Hence Warhol’s response to the news that Picasso had produced four thousand paintings in his life was to declare: ‘I can do as many in twenty four hours-four thousand works which will all be the same work and all of them masterpieces." The phenomenon of a unique human imagination producing a unique aesthetic object in a unique time and space thus collapses into a play of infinite repetition. The work becomes absolutely transparent, a mechanically reproducible surface without depth or interiority, a copy with no reference to anything other than a pseudo—world of copies.”
  • Tilman Osterwold. “Pop art”. Taschen, 2003, p. 44. “‘I want to be a machine,’ says Andy Warhol, the founder of an art ‘Factory’ in New York, where pictures were reproduced using photographic clippings as models. Even confirmed painters like Robert Rauschenberg, Roy Lichtenstein and Jasper Johns spoke of the ‘depersonalization’ and ‘anonymity’ of their work.” P. 55. : “Pop artists saw their work as anti-art, at least in relation to traditional notions of art. They expressed this in their depersonalization of style, their anti-subjectivism, in the roles they assumed in mass society and in their redefinition of art itself.” Armando Navarro (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Question: can you name any artist of note, or any noteworthy art movement, that could not be linked to anti-art? You just added to the Anti-art article that anti-art is virtually synonymous with avant-garde art of the twentieth century. Here: [3] Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Op-art. Armando Navarro (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section

I expected this to have references to Warhol in popular culture, for instance in the Crowded House song Chocolate Cake, the line "Andy Warhol must be laughing in his grave" and other such instances. I bet there are tons of things like that about Warhol... would be good to have a list, imo =) --90.216.220.33 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think trivial mentions in pop culture are worth including. The practice of appending such should be discouraged.
A list of music acts that make passing reference to Warhol in songs would be unwieldy, and not helpful in creating a concise and meaningful general overview of Warhol. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get your point. Thanks for the speedy response! Imo it's a shame Wikipedia discourages them cos I love those sections (they're interesting and it would be practically impossible to get that info by yourself ...and they can go in separate articles instead of cluttering the main one) but sadly Wikipedia disagrees, so fair enough =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.31.37 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see the appeal. There have been several proposals to start a wiki for content like this—meta:WikiTrivia is one that comes to mind—but somehow it never takes off. I think part of the success of Wikipedia is that articles are not being subject to sprawl and discursiveness. Plenty of room for that on the rest of the web. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Striking part of the above because I just noticed meta:Wikitainment Guides, a project "closely integrated with Wikipedia", currently hosted at http://www.pop-cult.net . Their Andy Warhol page is pretty sparse at the moment. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have taken out the entire Legacy section for now, as I think it distracts from what the article is (or should) be about: Andy Warhol. (Also, the reference to Stella Vine + picture as the new Andy Warhol has a strong scent of advertisement, or am I the only one who thinks so?) This section is just too detailed and particular in relation to some of the more relevant content. I also don't like that it's mainly about an event that Warhol had nothing to do with. Most importantly, it's not a good ending and really breaks the flow of the content that's collected here. Maybe the Lou Reed CD can be integrated back into the article? Joris Landman (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[taken out]

Legacy

File:Loureed100.jpg
Lou Reed recorded the album Songs for Drella with John Cale.

Two years after Warhol's death, Songs for Drella, a co-commissioned work by The Brooklyn Academy of Music and The Arts at St. Ann's in New York City, was staged as a concept album performed by Lou Reed and John Cale, alumni of The Velvet Underground. The performance was filmed and directed by Ed Lachman, on December 6, 1989, and released on VHS and laserdisc formats. It was released on CD in a black velveteen package in 1990 by Sire Records. Drella was a nickname coined by Warhol superstar Ondine for Warhol, a portmanteau of Dracula and Cinderella, used by Warhol's crowd.[1]

Songs for Drella offers a kind of vie romancée of Warhol, focusing on his interpersonal relations. The songs fall roughly into three categories: Warhol's (semi-fictitious) first-person perspective, third-person narratives chronicling events and affairs, and first-person feelings towards and commentaries on Warhol by Reed and Cale themselves. On Drella, Reed apologizes to a departed Warhol and comes to terms with his part in their personal conflict.[2]

Reed and Cale had been playing the songs live in 1989 as a song cycle before committing them to tape. By the end of recording Cale vowed never to work with Reed again due to personal differences; nevertheless, Songs for Drella would prove to be the overture to a full-blown Velvet Underground reunion.[3] Although the album was conceived as an indivisible whole, a single was released off it, "Nobody But You".[citation needed]

British painter Stella Vine: the Financial Times said she was "Warhol's descendent".[4]

On the twentieth anniversary of his death The Gershwin Hotel in New York City held a week-long series of events commemorating Warhol's art and his superstars. There was an award ceremony, a fashion show, and Blondie performed at the closing party. At the same time, The Carrozzini von Buhler Gallery in New York City held an exhibit titled, Andy Warhol: In His Wake. The exhibit featured the art of Warhol's superstars Ultra Violet, Billy Name, Taylor Mead, and Ivy Nicholson as well as art by a younger generation of artists who have been inspired by Warhol. One interactive sculpture in the exhibit, The Great Warhola, by Cynthia von Buhler, depicted Warhol as an arcade fortune-telling machine. The gallery was transformed to look like Warhol's silver factory. Factory Girl, a film about the life of Edie Sedgwick, starring Sienna Miller and Hayden Christensen, was also released one week before the anniversary of Warhol's death.[citation needed]

In 2007, the Financial Times described British painter Stella Vine as "Warhol's descendent".[4] Arifa Akbar of The Independent said Vine's examination of the culture of celebrity had been described as descending from the same tradition as Warhol.[5] Vine feels a strong link with Warhol, commenting she is "the same type of person as him",[6] and has done an in depth study of Warhol on a course at Tate Modern.[6]

[/talen out]

Infobox: Works section

A contributor just changed the date for Soup Cans in the Works section of the infobox. The new date, 1962, is correct, though so is 1968 if you're talking about the second series of cans. More important, however, is how limiting this section is. Just three examples? And what is so significant about the Plastic Exploding Inevitable that it should deserve inclusion above the Disaster Series, Marilyn, Liz, Jackie, Mao and numerous other works? I'm not suggesting covering everything, but certainly a few other works should be listed. I'd add them myself, but thought the change ought to be discussed first. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I originally added the Plastic Exploding Inevitable, in a summary of the wide range of media he worked in. I agree that certain series could use more attention, but I guess that redaction of his oevre is a task that's too big for any contributor thus far ;-) Joris Landman (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Warhol was a practicing Catholic

The statement in the article, "Warhol was a practicing Byzantine Catholic." is a quite silly manner to describe his belief. Byzantine merely conotes a specific historico-cultural liturgical style, but does not make its BELIEFS any different than the universal Catholic Church of which the Latin(Roman) is its most common style. A more proper manner of describing Andy's belief would be "CATHOLIC of the Byzantine tradition" with a link to it a wiki link for a specific description. Micael (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Gay" changed to Homosexual

The word "Gay" dosen't really have much value in an encyclopedia entry, so I have changed Warhol being "Gay" to homosexual. --Olifromsolly (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the word "homophile" is really used in English (any liguists?), but that might be a good word. A distinction can be made between romantic attraction (toto) and sexual attraction (pars). "Homophile" might also be a good word since Warhol's romantic preferences are undisputed, but his sexual practices are not: it's been said he was an asexual homophile.Joris Landman (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Vitus dance and skin disease

I would appreciate input on the following passage in the Childhood section:

"In third grade, Warhol had St. Vitus' dance, a nervous system disease that causes involuntary movements of the extremities, which is believed to be a complication of scarlet fever and causes skin pigmentation blotchiness."

I thought the wording was awkward, but couldn't change it without knowing more about the connection between choreia (St. Vitus's dance) and the skin problem. So I checked the article on choreia and found an unexplained reference to one of its causes or symptoms, ataxia telangiectasia. Elsewhere I found ataxia is a lack of muscle control and telangiectasia, an abnormal dilatation of capillary vessels. Then I found the following passage in David Bourbon's Andy Warhol:

"At age eight, Andy suffered what he called a 'nervous breakdown' - actually, St. Vitus's dance, a disorder marked by uncontrollable spasms. Around this same time his skin underwent a curious loss of pigment, becoming so pale that people would sometimes wonder if he was an albino."

I don't put any weight whatsoever on the reference to "albino," but I am curious if anyone else has any specific information on the connection between choreia and the pigmentation problem, since I don't have access to the reference cited here, Bob Colacello's Holy Terror: Andy Warhol Close Up. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction please!

A very brief correction suggestion:

Under childhood, it says: "...was the fourth child of his parents, Andrej Warhola and Ulja."

I suggest removing the "...his parents,", so that the line reads:

"was the fourth child of Andrej Warhola and Ulja."

The former phrasing is redundant, as a child is always the son/daughter of his/her parents, who else?!

In case of adoption, the fact about the adoptive parents can be highlighted when apropriate, but in Andy Warhol's case, this is unnecessary, and makes the sentence awkward.

Thanks! (Unsigned by IP 74.0.9.130)

Hi, I have amended it. I see you have previously made edits to Wiki, so please feel free to make such helpful amendments yourself. If you are not the person at that IP address who made previous edits then I invite you to open an account. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sale price

The Warhol page was last modified on 29 November, although no mention has yet been made of Warhol becoming only the fourth artist to ever reach a sale of 100 million dollars with a single work, as reported this last week by The Economist, and by the Independent, daily, of today´s date. His "Eight Elvises" was the one that took him to a very important plateau, that of being amongst the top ten selling painting artists in history, as confirmed by the Independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.212.26.68 (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC) this is not all of the info theres more ............ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.21.136 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's noteworthy Joris Landman (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

$100 million mark

Surely Vincent Van Gogh is among those whose paintings have been sold for over $100 million? Siddharth9200 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As of early February 2010, Alberto Giacometti;s "Walking Man I," sold for $104.1 million. This was purchased by an anonymous buyer by phone.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010975415_artrecord04.html?syndication=rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallionstallion (talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

the real name of Warhol's family

There's an error: the real name of Warhol's parents is: VARHOLA, not Warhola. (If you do not believe: did you ever see the gravestones of his family in his parent's old home Slovakia?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.81.151.203 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Andy Warhol/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lots of information, but only 2 references cited. Kaldari 03:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Pareles, Jon (1989-12-01). "Review/Rock; 'Songs for Drella,' A Tribute to Warhol". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07.
  2. ^ Evans, Paul (1990-05-17). "Lou Reed: Songs for Drella". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2009-01-07.
  3. ^ Silver, Alain (2004). "Songs for Drella". Film Noir. Cologne: Taschen. pp. 121–122. ISBN 3-8228-2261-2. OCLC 56481831. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ a b Wullschlager, Jackie. "Where art history meets Hello!", Financial Times 21 July 2007. Retrieved 31 January 2009.
  5. ^ Akbar, Arifa. "The Warhol tradition: The Many Faces of Stella Vine", "The Independent", July 17 2007. Retrieved 10 December 2008.
  6. ^ a b Eyre, Hermione. "Completing my new show was the only thing that saved me from suicide", 15 July 2007. Retrieved 9 December 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Warhol/Archive_1&oldid=1136519796"