< Writing
why i do not like andy warhol
yes warhol is an undeniable figure who must be addressed, but it is important to note that his starting point and ending point was the art object as economic object. another of his subjects (and a goal) was celebrity. so in some ways he continued along that reification loop, never transcending it into the realm of revelation. i believe he just transfered the emptiness that exists behind much of marketing to another type of object -- the means of production for which he controlled -- in a different market (the art market). through the manipulation of signs (by changing what the signifier actually signified) he was able to transfer wealth and celebrity to himself. this loop continues after his death, generating wealth and celebrity from art objects for the mugrabi family and others.
this is what prevents warhol from being a healing figure for the culture, exoricising a demon, and makes him instead a brujo who was possessed by one. this is why i do not like warhol. nevertheless he is a figure of undeniable importance, altering the landscape of art (and the art market) despite admonishment from critics. warhol must be referenced any time one enters a hybrid economic/art realm.