Talk:Andy Warhol

Warhol's IQ

Andy Warhol's IQ of 86 is posted on //www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html. I do not believe that it is correct, and the site does not provide any evidence or explanation. Eistein's IQ of 160 and Marilyn vos Savant of 228 are also suspect. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the normal curve knows that 228 is 8 1/2 standard deviations from normal, which is nearly impossible.97.126.133.146 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Charles Madden

According to this book, it's from an estimate by Stanford Psychologists; Warhol's IQ was never actually tested (at least not to anyone's knowledge.) —Wasabe3543 16:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, doesn't that sound patently subjective? I've met and spoken with a well-known member of The Factory gang, one mentioned in this article. I assure you that had such a tidbit presented itself then, that person would have decried it for the ridiculous statement it is. It sounds like the Sanfordites' version of reading the bumps on one's skull. Wordreader (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Einstein's IQ is accurately estimated at 160, and Marilyn vos Savant is believed to have the highest IQ in the world, so with 6 billion people, it's quite possible the highest IQ is 8.5 SDs from the average. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.174.107 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous people with IQs over 200. They are NOT common. There are thousands of them, though. Marilyn vos Savant tests high but is not necessarily an intelligent person. Although it is reasonable that intelligence can be measured some argue that it hasn't been done well at present. Maybe. Reasonably, the best way of regarding intelligence may be what a person has produced. If Beethoven tested with an IQ of 60, he'd still be a genius. I've looked around and cannot find any evidence that Warhol's IQ was ever tested. Gingermint (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

IQ without scale is like temperature without scale. Is 40 degrees warm or cold? Someone claiming an IQ over 200 without citing which test that result comes from is probably trying to overinflate him/herself, despite that number being high on any scale. As far as I know, Marilyn vos Savant's IQ of 200+ is based on a test from when she was a child. Continuing to claim that as her IQ is like someone saying that her car is extremely technologically advanced, despite the fact that it's a 1986 model and has been obsolete for 25 years (after all, it WAS advanced at the time). Andy Warhol doesn't seem to have a legitimate source to his IQ of 86, so it's probably not true. The further an IQ gets from 100, the more inaccurate it becomes. Someone guessing that number based on no real test if nothing but fluff. 152.132.13.1 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.164.110.75, 16 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to add two pf my photographs of Andy to this site (one in my studio - formal and second at the factory - Red1 (of 4) image. You may contact me and I can email you the images / now also in the Tel Aviv Museum of Art. <curtis.knapp@gmail.com> ..... Best always, Curtis

98.164.110.75 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• You need to register an account in order to upload files. Once you register - you need to wait a few days for your account to confirm. Then you can upload your images to wikipedia (if you took them, then set the owner to self, and don't forget to select a license.). Then all you have to do it is add them to the article. Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 18:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

HELP!

One question, if any of you Andy Warhol experts out there know about it, why a soup can? I mean seriously? Can you answer that for me? Why did he paint a soup can instead of maybe a sunset on the water or something like that? CamrynRocks! Why not? 01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamrynRocks! (talk • contribs)

• He liked soup, I guess. TheRasIsBack! 23:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Because its extremely iconic and american. Same reason he painted Marilyn Monroe. She was an icon. He liked very iconic simple things that are seen everyday that everyone can recognize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.82.88 (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Exploring the visual aspects of an item we normally overlook as mundane giving us a fresh viewpoint? Wordreader (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

childhood

I think is important say, that Andy Warhol had Rusyns (Ruethens) roots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusyns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.200.162 (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

death

Neutral point of view: please change "Yoko Ono also made an appearance." to "Yoko Ono, John Richardson, and Nicholas Love were speakers." Source is a copy of the funeral program here http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/w/warhol/Warholfuneralprogram.gif -- bio link for Yoko Ono already present -- bio link for John Richardson is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Richardson_%28art_historian%29 -- could not find bio link to Nicholas Love Basilrose (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Last Supper Cycle

A link to Warhol's Last Supper paintings and prints is http://www.aynfoundation.com/warhol.html and http://www.diacenter.org/exhibitions/main/56 Pity there's no separate page on that. alexanderiolas (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

First solo exhibition and first MoMA group exhibition

Warhol's first solo exhibition was at the Hugo Gallery (June 16 – July 3, 1952) showing the Fifteen Drawings Based on the Writings of Truman Capote. His first group show at the MoMA, NY was in 1955. The sources for that are: http://www.warholfoundation.org/legacy/biography.html, http://edu.warhol.org/20c_chron.html, http://www.artnet.com/artists/andy-warhol/, http://www.gagosian.com/artists/andy-warhol/, http://www.warholstars.org/warhol1/2trumancapote.html#xvqk3 alexanderiolas (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead is weak and does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines

According to the Wikipedia style guidelines:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

There were numerous controversies involving Andy Warhol during his life, none of which are made reference to in the lead to this article.

I also think that the lead would benefit from including a summary of the cultural impact of Warhol's work, as this is surely important and yet is not mentioned.

At present, any reader would not learn anything of interest from the lead, and would therefore be unlikely to investigate the article further, which is a shame.

In accordance with the Wikipedia style guidelines, I tried to add a summary of Warhol's cultural impact and significant controversies to the lead a few weeks ago, however my amendments were undone by Freshacconci with the explanation "This is discussed within the article; lede should be a general overview."

Rather than attempt to amend the lead again myself, I would request that somebody else has a go at bringing it in line with Wikipedia's style guidelines, which at present it falls well short of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.114.242 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

LGBT categories

Removal These are not supported by the text or any citations--the speculation that he was a homosexual is not warrant for adding them, especially considering that he was likely a life-long virgin and his family denies that he was gay. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This entire discussion-page has apparently been wiped clean. If you look at its history, you will find an extensive debate about AW's sexuality, including sources, peer-reviewed research, and personal contributions to this page by acclaimed AW-researchers, all showing AW was indeed a homosexual. In contrast, counter-claims that he was not, were never backed up appropriately. AW's sexuality is constantly questioned by certain users of Wikipedia, though. Which is the reason why you need certain permissions to edit this article now. Namdnal Siroj (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, speculation that he was a life-long virgin, does not make him one retroactively. (It also does not make him heterosexual, as you seem to think. Neither does unsourced speculation by his family.) Under "Sexuality" it said that AW was "quite likely a virgin" with a source. I've checked that source (Dillinger, Jane Daggett (2001). The Religious Art of Andy Warhol. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 16–17. ISBN 9780826413345. Retrieved April 7, 2010.). Nowhere on those pages, any remark about AW's sexuality is made. I've therefore removed the statement as vandalism. Namdnal Siroj (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to read the source again. In the middle of page 16 is an excerpt from a 1980 interview where AW says he is still a virgin. Bob Colacello was present at the interview and said he thought AW was in fact a virgin. I will make the reversion. Mamalujo (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

One source claims he stated he was a virgin? This does not mean we can state that he was "likely" a virgin as other sources contradict this. And exactly what do we mean by "virgin"? Having had no sexual encounters at all? This is unlikely, again considering other sources. If he did say this he either meant it in a tongue-in-cheek manner or he was perhaps referring to straight sex. In any case, we cannot state anything is "likely" based on one source. freshacconci talktalk 21:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the linked source and cannot find this reference. It's hard to read in google books: what exactly does it say? I find this whole thing dubious as the writer of that article seems to have some sort of agenda at play and we may have to treat it under WP:UNDUE and at least mention that this one source makes this extraordinary claim. The stuff about his family is unsourced. Virtually all writing on Warhol discusses his sexuality: even if he was celibate that does not mean he wasn't gay. freshacconci talktalk 21:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the categories as these should never have been removed. This was discussed in detail here. One source making a claim does not undo many sources claiming the opposite. freshacconci talktalk 21:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I've looked at page 16 of the source provided and I see no mention of this interview where he claims to be a virgin. Elsewhere in the same book (I believe page 33) it clearly states that he is gay (the priest in his church refers to him as such and the text makes no effort to contradict this). Can someone clarify this? What am I missing? We can't keep "likely" in the text; it's absurd for an encyclopedia to state "likely" on such flimsy sourcing. freshacconci talktalk 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that the "likely" may be unencyclopedic, unless that is the consensus view of informed, RS biographers. I'm going to edit to comport better with the source. Bob Colacello, who was present at the interview, said he believed it was the case and that whatever sex WH had was probably "a mixture of voyeurism and masturbation - to use his [Andy's] word abstract". The link to the pertinent page is here [1]. Mamalujo (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the Google books version again, as well as my paper copy of "the religious art of AW". There is no excerpt from a 1980 interview on page 16-17, no reference to AW's sexuality either. Namdnal Siroj (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

From page 33 of 'the religious art of AW': Father Matazzuro speculated that "Warhol was bonding with a God and a Christ above and beyond the church"; he remarked that Warhol's life-style was "absolutely irreconcilable" with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Many gay men, he said, were in his congregation in spite of the fact that he preached the Catholic Church's opposition to homosexual practices frequently. This is from an interview by Jane Dagget Dillenberger with Fr. Sam Matarazzo, February 20, 1994. In other words, the prior of AW's church St. Vincent is a source that AW was gay. Namdnal Siroj (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Religious beliefs" part of the article is starting to grow with random facts, seemingly meant to "prove" AW was religious and not gay. This all over again… As a result, the "personal life" part of the text is not balanced, has too much emphasis and random info. Namdnal Siroj (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are to include the reference to him being a "virgin" we have to be careful about wording it so we don't claim it as a fact. We should probably use direct quotes and indicate that this is one source making the claim based on an interview and Colacello's onw theories. He says "technically a virgin" and then goes on to say "what little sex he had". A little sex is still sex and it's not up to us to decide what counts as sex. Voyeurism and masturbation may not count for teenage boys but if that was the nature of Warhol's sexuality, so be it, but it doesn't necessarily mean he was a virgin or that he wasn't gay. As for the growing religious section somehow "proving" he wasn't gay, I agree with Namdnal Siroj. We can't be synthesizing things here. One source is making a minority claim and we need to treat it that way. We can use it but with caution. freshacconci talktalk 23:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Namdnal Siroj. Clearly, a person can be both religious and gay, as AW apparently was. With regard to the subject source, please see my last post, I have a link to the page (16). I believe there are at least two editions of the book, 1998 and 2001. I've linked to the later. Maybe the earlier version doesn't have the subject material. The material is proper and should be included. There may be other RSs who opine that WH was more sexually active than this source does, and it may be appropriate to include their opinion as well. It is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia to include various viewpoints from differing RSs. @Freshacconci I tend to agree with you. I'm going to edit to comport with the source, not state it as unequivocal fact. I believe there are other sources that opine that he was more sexually active. As I said, if they are RS maybe they should be included, too. As to the section on his religion, I don't think it is POV pushing - it's just biographical and reflected in his art to varying degrees. Wilde and Dali had similar biographies with regard to sexuality and religion. Mamalujo (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mamalujo. There is continuous editing in this article that is pushing POV, IMO. I wasn't referring to any specific edit, or to yours. It has been going on for years, and has lead to deterioration of the article's quality. However, you strongly emphasizing that AW was a virgin, makes me a bit suspicious, yes, because it reminds me of earlier arguments that "AW could not have been gay if he was a virgin". If you wanted to, you might take away my suspicion, by elaborating on why you think this one off-the-cuff remark by Collacello is so important. As @Freshacconci said a few years ago: No serious AW-researcher would want to deny that AW was gay, not even the religious ones. @Freshacconci and you will agree with me: No serious AW-researcher would want to deny that AW was religious, not even the atheist ones. To me, AW's religious beliefs as well as his sexuality are intricate aspects of his work, and deserve better than to be the subject of another edit war. Namdnal Siroj (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Namdnal Siroj (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this ends the virgin-debate (and maybe also the gay debate LOL) -> In 1960 Warhol was hospitalised for four days in early December "for an aggravating sexually transmitted condition, condylomata, or anal warts, which required surgery.", source is Tony Scherman and David Dalton, Pop: The Genius of Andy Warhol (HarperCollins Publishers, 2009) as per http://www.warholstars.org/chron/Andy_Warhol_1960.html and http://www.warholstars.org/refs/references.html Namdnal Siroj (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, http://www.warholstars.org/ is a great Google-searchable source, with all kinds of references and quotes to AW's (homo)sexuality, making it easy to find their original sources. Namdnal Siroj (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If true, the medical treatment would certainly tend to disprove AW's assertion of virginity. I've included the material. I think AW's assertion of virginity would be notable and should be included even if he wasn't being truthful, was being ironic or had some other motive. I've included both in the section. Mamalujo (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of deterioration in quality that I'm talking about. You are not writing a coherent piece of information, but adding a collection of rather random, contradicting minority opinions and facts. In terms of his sexuality, Colacello saying something one time, or a source saying he had anal warts, is just too random and specific in relation to the rest of the article. The article deserves more direction on subjects like this. I agree that his sexuality has ambiguous aspects, which is interesting to add, but not in the form you are doing now. I have replaced your specific remarks with (the start of) a more general piece of text. Let me know your opinion. Namdnal Siroj (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a more general paragraph about his sexuality, which reflects the (scientific) consensus. I think something (general) could be added about his presumed "asexuality" in later years, but didn't know how to word it. The consensus is that he more or less "retreated" sexually, in his mature life, which is backed up by witness-accounts of AW as a "voyeur" and by statements published under his name e.g. "not having sex is more exciting than having sex" (which was actually written by or with Brigid Polk, AFAIK). Joris Landman (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your "scientific" edit is that it is not at all what the source says. Indeed, it seems to contradict the source you have cited as support. There may be reliable authorities which would reconcile that source with your edit and if there are, they should be cited in support of the edit you want to include. The sentence you added may very well be true and may even be the "scientific" consensus (whatever that means), in which case you should have reliable sources to support it. Mamalujo (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion: When interviewed in 1980 he indicated that he was still a virgin - biographer Bob Colacello who was present at the interview felt it was probably true and that what little sex he had was probably "a mixture of voyeurism and masturbation - to use his [Andy's] word abstract".[77] Warhol's assertion of of virginity would seem to be contradicted by an incident recounted by one biographer, his hospital treatment in 1960 for condylomota, a sexually transmitted disease.[78]

My suggestion: As with all aspects of his personal life, Warhol created confusion around his sexual preferences, by telling—and by not denying—contradicting stories and gossip, for instance that he was still a "virgin"[77] or that he was married.

Vote?Namdnal Siroj (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The point I'm making, which you did not react to: why do you consider your specific sources (Colacello's off-the-cuff remark and a mention of anal warts) as more important to the quality and content of this article, than a more general description of his sexuality (that follows general consensus and your general POV)? Namdnal Siroj (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Commercial Art" section to move to an "Early life and work" section and separate it from his Exhibitions/Factory work

'Commercial art' is the 'Applied arts', a definition for creative services 'referring to art created for commercial purposes, primarily advertising' and not exhibiting in fine art galleries.

At this point the 'commercial' and the 'fine art' sections, have both references to his advertising work and to his exhibitions, not making clear how one is distinct from the other, making it even more confusing with the overlapping dates.

Trek qo (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Ten Lizes by Andy Warhol in Centre Pompidou Paris.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ten Lizes by Andy Warhol in Centre Pompidou Paris.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia in marginalization of subject of AW's sexuality

I've posted this as a new thread, because it pertains to the very structure of this article and also to the editing problems that have crippled the page's development. Treating Warhol's sexuality as an "LGBIT" issue, separate from general discussions of his work and separate from how this entry should be structured replicates some of the biggest problems in this article.

I am Jennifer Doyle, one of the co-editors of Pop Out, and author of several peer reviewed scholarly essays on the subject of gender, sexuality and Andy Warhol. I am a Professor at the University of California, and it seems I am one of the few Warhol scholars who bothers with the Wikipedia mosh pit. I review scholarship on Warhol and Pop for university presses. As I wrote here years ago (in a thread which seems long gone): Andy Warhol was gay. There are quite a few citations in that sexuality section which direct readers to good sources for learning about Warhol's biography - and for learning about the place of Warhol's work in LGBIT studies. The declarations that Warhol was "a virgin", "asexual" or whatever are either serious misreadings of his own CAMPY assertions of his virginity or they are downright homophobic erasures of the homosexuality of one of the most famous gay men to have ever walked this earth. The latter is no exaggeration.

Andy Warhol's sexuality should be acknowledged in the opening paragraph. It is not minor to understanding his work, his biography or his importance - and the marginalization of his homosexuality does a real disservice to young LGBIT people who want to learn about LGBIT history. Warhol is one of the most famous gay men to have ever lived - and I mean famous not only as an artist, but famous for his flamboyancy and openness regarding his queerness. Doing so would allow readers interested in this to then look for the section that addresses the subject head-on.

The discussion of a story about him having VD is just plain wrong - and I mean here it is wrong as a way of initiating any discussion of "proof" of his homosexuality. It's offensive.

Obviously this page (which is actually better than it used to be) needs to be brought under control, its quality improved so that editing of it can be restricted to people are responsible and not homophobic. I agree with wikipedia editors - it is not yet a "good article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judyholliday (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

{{edit semi-protected}}

TO AD Under Section: Movies about Warhol: Dramatic Portrayals

Andy Warhol is a main character in the surreal sketch show, Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy, and is portrayed by Tom Meeteen.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Fielding's_Luxury_Comedy

Lucyemilie (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

N Not done Wikipedia is not a reliable source. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)