Talk:Andy Warhol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents
Andy Warhol is part of WikiProject Pittsburgh, which is building a comprehensive guide to the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania metropolitan area and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join, or discuss the project.Editors are currently needed to tag Pittsburgh-related articles with {{pghproj}}.
Andy Warhol is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andy Warhol article.

Wikipedia CD Selection Andy Warhol is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[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)

[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 in the future, have a quick check on a page's history to see if any of the recent changes added it. Usually 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)

[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)

[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)

[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 TC 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)

[edit] Shooting

Is says now (Okt 2005) that "On June 3, 1968, Valerie Solanas, a Factory regular, entered Warhol's studio and fired three shots at Warhol, nearly killing him. Although the first two rounds missed, the third 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.

[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)

[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

[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

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)

[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.

[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)

[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

[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)

[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] eMtY SpaCe

i'M DOUBLING THE IMAGE - NO ONE OBJECTS!!

Ludvikus 05:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Warhol Andy Warhol

Andy Warhol, photographed by Helmut Newton.
Enlarge
Andy Warhol, photographed by Helmut Newton.
Andy Warhol, photographed by Helmut Newton.
Enlarge
Andy Warhol, photographed by Helmut Newton.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 06:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yours Truly, --Ludvikus 06:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)