Talk:Andy Warhol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andy Warhol article.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Andy Warhol was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 31, 2007
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] more images

IMO, this article needs more images, especially about a guy who is famous and related to art. --Gary King 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was quite surprised to see no pictures in the art section. I was surprised even more when I saw pictures in the music section. --Snaxe/fow (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  (It's also homophobes being obnoxius)

[edit] 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

[edit] Link suggestions

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)

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] meant to sign that

--Adoorajar 19:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] "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

[edit] 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 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)

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)

[edit] 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)
 Friggin' homophobes!Who cares if he was gay?I always heard bi,though....
                                                      ~Meow!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 :)

[edit] Listing External Link

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)

[edit] Linking an External Link

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.

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Campbells 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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....

[edit] 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)

[edit] [[Celebrity]] instead of 'social figure'

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 18:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) JB

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] successfull 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)

[edit] GA Fail

  • Lead is too short and needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD
  • Fair use pictures are missing Fair_use_rationales
  • lots of [ciation 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)

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] Pork

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)