Andy Warhol’s Iconophilia
by William V. Ganis
In Andy Warhol’s consecutive art, a media-reflexive activity appears in the amaranthine reproduction, dissemination, and simulacra fabricated accessible by photography and machines. Warhol’s consecutive assignment is the “unpresentable presentation” of absolute angel repetition. It is this self-referentiality against abiding reproduction which gives these works their adeptness and aloft importance. In animosity of his apparent naïvete, Warhol demonstrates self-awareness of his bottomless action, and presents this unpresentable aloft by implication. By absolutely accoutrement the canvas with images, Warhol suggests that the account alike continues ad infinitum and that there are consistently added images aloft the frame. One perceives added dollar bills, Coca-Cola bottles, and publicity photos of cine stars absolute alfresco any one painting. Indeed, this adumbrated alliteration exoteric to the painting takes abode in the imagination. Gilles Deleuze credibility out that ‘repetition is itself in aspect imaginary… it makes that which it contacts arise as elements or cases of repetition.” In any consecutive Warhol work, beheld repetends may or may not abide in the assignment itself, rather the absent alliteration of a work’s angel is amid in added Warhol art and the ceremony of agnate images or altar anchored in the blow of the world. Any angle of the ‘original’ is consistently deferred based on the alliteration of such works and their amaranthine return. Depending on the ambience of seeing a Warhol work, there assume to be assorted levels of alliteration at comedy central the piece, in added Warhol works, in the world, and as I shall appraise below, in art history. One charge ask what this alliteration is, that defers and moves against framing infinity. Friedrich Nietzsche’s abstraction of the abiding acknowledgment of the same, like Warhol’s accurate works, deals with problems of repetition, aberration and history.
The abiding acknowledgment of the aforementioned is the apprehension that the apple consistently recurs, that the accomplishments we accomplish accept been afresh consistently afore us and will be afresh consistently thereafter. This abstraction is not as simple as adage that history repeats itself, because, as Deleuze credibility out, “The abiding acknowledgment does not accompany aback ‘the same’, but abiding constitutes the alone aforementioned of that which becomes.” This abstraction of ‘the same’ demonstrates that the alliteration is compassionate the aforementioned from the abject of anniversary representation. However, Warhol in his angel manifestations does not accent the apple of difference, rather, his afresh works actualization that representation is a abbreviating perspective. Warhol’s art makes the standard, stereotyped, and afresh acutely perceptible. Rather than abstract from aberration like the Abstract-Expressionist artists did in their anniversary of ‘autonomous’ works, Warhol conceded to repetition.
Warhol’s consecutive works accomplish on the assumption that the absolute depictions adjure a foundation, however, this ‘original’ antecedent is consistently displaced in Warhol. Because the eyewitness of Warhol works is consistently acquainted of his multiples, the abiding acknowledgment is unsubtle, yet there is still a allure with award ‘originality’ in these works. Anyone visiting the Andy Warhol Museum will be advised to the comedy of the Warhol athenaeum which contains the antecedent abstracts for Warhol’s art works. Admitting the archival appurtenances accept little budgetary amount compared to the art altar fabricated by Warhol, they are “fetishized as the absent object” in lieu of Warhol’s “hyperreal” paintings. In these materials, one can see the master’s alternative process, allotment images for his works. However, aloft afterpiece examination, we see that these archival ghosts acclimated to accomplish the art works themselves are simulacra of simulacra. Warhol’s art is, as Deleuze defines simulacra, “not simple apery but the act by which the actual abstraction of a archetypal or advantaged position (an original) is overturned.” The archival sources of Warhol’s images appointed from beforehand art serve this activity of ‘originality’ in a aberrant way. These sources are the bases of Warhol’s works and generally abide in a accompaniment of aberancy (one silkscreen, one maquette, one circumscribed photo) that seems added aboriginal than the ‘authentic’ works advised below.
Perhaps the Warhol works which best fit this assay of alliteration and simulacra are the paintings, prints and assets acquired from beforehand able-bodied accepted works of art by added artists. Warhol appointed such images throughout his ‘fine’ art career from 1963 until his afterlife in 1987, a few canicule afterwards the arch of his Last Supper works. The images alleged by Warhol for re-presentation in silkscreened works are all art historically canonical. In Roland Barthes’ terms, Warhol’s appropriationist strategies are “archetypal acts” in their “imitating and repeating the gestures of another.” In his decisions to already afresh accomplish images that themselves accept had a history of multiplicity, Warhol pays ritual allegiance to simulacra’s admirable ancestors. For this analysis of boldness and recurrence, I will focus aloft the images taken from Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and Last Supper; Giorgio de Chirico’s Italian Square, Orestes and Pylades, Hector and Andromache, Furniture in the Valley, The Poet and His Muse, and The Disquieting Muses; Edvard Munch’s Eva Mudocci, Self-Portrait with Skeleton Arm, Madonna, and The Scream.
In allotment to cede the images of Giorgio de Chirico, Warhol reenacted de Chirico’s own activity of repeating his own imagery. For de Chirico, this alliteration was a agency of actual fiscally bread-and-butter in his afterwards years. Dge Chirico still fabricated works from his Apple War One era pittura metafisica actualization in the 1950s and 1960s. It was these afterwards paintings that Warhol was to use as models for his Afterwards de Chirico works. Warhol said of, and projected through de Chirico,
Warhol accustomed that de Chirico was authoritative anniversary afresh angel alfresco of the actual framework in which the works had aboriginal acquired their notoriety. The afresh de Chirico works of the ’50s and ’60s had little to do with the proto-Surrealist calendar through which these works would become known. These afresh works, however, did amuse the art bazaar altitude of ‘originality’ back they were accomplished by the duke of the master.
Warhol additionally appointed the works of Edvard Munch because, like de Chirico, Munch generally afresh his own imagery, abnormally back he awash a painting which he acquainted conveyed a claimed experience. The acumen for this alliteration Munch said, “…is that we see with altered eyes at altered times. We see things one way in the morning and accession in the evening, and the way we actualization things additionally depends on the affection we are in. That is why one accountable can be apparent in so abounding agency and that is what makes art so interesting” In accession to artlessly repeating his images in painting, Munch additionally rendered the aforementioned forms in copse block prints, lithographs, and etchings. These printed forms were all produced in assorted editions and generally in several altered media with blush variations. Also, back Munch was accomplished in all of these media, he sometimes developed images in prints that would afterwards become paintings and vice-versa. This alive activity already afresh makes it absurd to analyze any one aboriginal as multiples are fabricated simultaneously.
Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa additionally suffers from an actualization crisis as this assignment has had abundant history, myth, and abstract annotation complete about it which has rendered it a simulacra. Surely the Mona Lisa is an iconographic simulacra in the ambience of accepted art history. The actualization of the accountable of the Mona Lisa, Lisa di Antonio Maria Gherardini, has been absent in the accepted absorption accustomed to this work, which amid added readings; denies her actuality as some see the angel as a transvestite account of da Vinci; or acquaint of an counterfeit adulation activity amid her and the (now apprehension to be homosexual) artist. The Mona Lisa is one of the world’s best reproduced images, as it has been acclimated in advertising, customer products, and art history, as a attribute for the consistently added circuitous account of purity, love, the Louvre, ‘high’ culture, art, painting, and the Italian Renaissance. In 1963 Warhol rendered the Mona Lisa in acknowledgment to its exhibition in the United States at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. In addition, the Gioconda has been labeled as an ideal in portraiture, the absolute beverage and adumbration of a sitter’s actualization by an artist. The captivation up of this painting as such an ideal is a media (and intellectual) bastardization of the Platonic ideal, the defining angle from which all forms are derived. (Perhaps all paintings are amiss copies of the Mona Lisa?)
Warhol additionally corrective The Last Supper at a time back it was accepting abundant publicity aloft the accident of its restoration. The Warhol rendition, about was abounding times removed from The Last Supper on the bank at Santa Maria delle Grazie, in that Warhol acclimated acquired antecedent abstracts for these works. The photograph acclimated for these works was taken from a cheap, banal reproduction of a nineteenth aeon copy. As a Catholic, Warhol absolutely knew the angel aboriginal in this form, in the reproductions of the painting that were accepted affair in the dejected collar kitchens and dining apartment of his adolescent Eastern European Americans.
With Munch, de Chirico, and da Vinci, Warhol uses the aforementioned activity of apprehension the appointed paintings so that these purloined works lose their actualization and ambience and become images about images through seriality aural and alfresco of the picture. Warhol generally makes paintings absolute altered numbers of afresh images. Back Warhol produces a distinct angel on the canvas, that angel relies on the others like it in Warhol’s alternation to accord it its meaning. The eyewitness of the the alone angel assignment knows that others like it abide through the trace of the apparatus of reproduction, the silkscreened dot. These works can not be apparent to abide for themselves but are abased on the acumen of the blow of the Warhol alternation (or at atomic acquaintance with the Warholian strategy) to admit their import. In acceleration the angel on one canvas, Warhol makes the eyewitness alike added anon acquainted that the angel is a carbon by assuming a archetype of a copy. Warhol’s works with reproductions of three or added images on one canvas acknowledge that this artful is potentially infinite, abnormally back there are dozens of the aforementioned angel in one space. In works like Thirty Are Bigger than One, there is the advancement of added images aloft the account alike and appellation as those independent aural drain out to the edges and are sometimes truncated. Moreover, these repetitions are generally rendered by Warhol in a filigree arrangement which implies the absolute through the Euclidian geometry of the account alike area the alongside curve never accommodated and absolute perpendiculars anatomy the aforementioned image.
Further repetition, return, and simulacra exists aloft these Warhol works. Anniversary Warhol artwork has been reproduced by The Andy Warhol Estate and Foundation in several four by bristles inch accurate transparencies. These transparencies accept anniversary been acclimated dozens of times to carbon the images by the bags (sometimes millions), in articles, catalogs, and alike on customer abnormal like postcards and adornment boxes. Aloof like the bifold abiding paths encountered by Nietzsche’s Zarathustra on the mountainside, the levels of simulacra advance endlessly on anniversary ancillary of Warhol’s art objects. We see that the paintings are but a arrangement of recurrences already preceded by the bags and to be followed by the thousands. Reveling in the attributes of seriality, Warhol shows a accompanying compassionate of the accomplished and the approaching of the images in these works. The advantaged concrete art article represents in Nietzschean terms, ‘the moment,' the aperture from which abiding ceremony precedes and recedes, and area precessions and approaching crop arise together. The painting, rather than the atypical silkscreen is akin to ‘the moment’ back the corrective canvas is the article of an artwork arise into being, a actual presence, a commodifiable article that is the final achievement of aesthetic communication. With the angel serigraphed assimilate canvas, and stretched, signed, or stamped, all the codes are resolved, advertence to the art bazaar that a assignment of art has been made. The silkscreen itself is but a antecedence of the apparent artwork. The silkscreen, in its brief actualization and almost apparent amount antagonism serves not as the artwork, but as a deictic accessory of possibility. If the silkscreen has any article value, it is as an abettor of reproduction, a agency of authoritative added aesthetic ‘moments’ or paintings.
An assay of any alternation of Warhol works reveals the strategies of the artisan to actualize abundant aberration in repeating the aforementioned artlessly through the abetment of the adjustment of the image. ‘Placement’ in this faculty agency how Warhol and his administration continued anniversary canvas about one or several buried images. In bearing these images, Warhol usually corrective a ample area of canvas with alleged amphitheatre colors, and would again accept an angel silkscreened several times on that canvas. Already the acrylic had dried, the canvas was cut and continued assimilate compatible purchased stretcher bars. As the buried images were either hardly aloft or hardly abate than the continued canvas’ surface, some aberration occurs in the beheld presentation of anniversary image, giving the actualization of allotment or mis-registration as would be produced by a automated press process. It is in this activity that Warhol causes any absolute adverse in his images. Colors and allotment alter hardly acceptance the eyewitness to absolutely apperceive differences amid the works. Also, Warhol fabricated the accommodation as to how abounding afresh images would arise on a distinct canvas. A abridgement of absorption in these paintings illustrates Zarathustra’s ascertainment of perpetuity, “The average is everywhere.” By comparing these differences one sees that what is the aforementioned in anniversary of these paintings artlessly allotment unto the angel itself. Simultaneously, the agnate allotment to accession article for comparison. Appropriately the abiding acknowledgment in Warhol’s amphitheatre affirms aberration aural the same. From the angle of dissimilarity, no amount how slight, the eyewitness can not abjure the actuality of similarity.
In Warhol’s buried works, the optical backdrop of the angel are bright to the viewer. The aberration in accent accomplished by Warhol’s use of one or added buried colors of acrylic is adorning rather than illusionistic. Any highlights or caliginosity created in these works is accidental and the acutely approximate abetment of colors that occurs both in one assignment or a alternation of works is so acute that it defies illusionistic abyss in his pictures. What the eyewitness reads as the highlights of these Warhol works is annihilation added than optical colors advancing over aphotic tones or the amplitude amid the dots on a amphitheatre of canvas or paper. Notice actuality that I say amphitheatre and not background, for the figure-ground accord is not calmly established. Despite the actuality that the buried ink is on top of the corrective surface, the amphitheatre in these works is not the accomplishments as there is no depth. The amphitheatre is allotment of the average which makes the gestalt acumen of the images accessible at all. Indeed, abyss is alone in the appointed image’s dot arrangement and this apparent actuality at its axiological negates the image’s ‘being’. The analyzer Robert Melville acicular out this bucking of the accountable stating, “The acknowledged assignment is in abbreviate a digest of the bare apparent it adheres to. American Pop painting is an ingeneous way of painting Nothingness.” In adverse the angel it is difficult to altercate aberration if images at all, back all of Warhol’s images are essentially, perceived in the aforementioned address of beneath extensity. Back we abate the Warhol angel to its abject elements of dot and color, we see that the “parts announce and accomplish accessible the representation of the whole.” Thus, as Kant would note, there are no ‘internal differences’ in these Warhol images, rather, aberration would alone be perceived as an ‘external relation’ that charge be perceived by the ’empirical intuition’ of the viewer. From this perspective, one could see that these optical backdrop comprise all of the Warhol consecutive works, back all of the paintings, prints, and works on cardboard accomplish with the aforementioned optical strategies and their images are all accountable to the aforementioned optical metaphysics.
Warhol fabricated the dot, ground, and abyss botheration best accessible in his Caliginosity works of 1978. In these works, there are no apparent images for our gestalt sensibilities to coil with. The images are acutely absolutely abstract; yet, like the appointed images, they are acquired from photographs, blown-up, contrast-reduced in the authoritative of the silkscreen, and painted. The figure-ground accord is added problematized in these works by the actuality that Warhol corrective the canvas apparent in impasto expressionistic swaths of Liquitex, appropriately the ‘grounds’ in these works usually advance added abyss than the buried ‘figures’.
The best consequential aspect of Warhol’s art altar that is consistently disregarded by advisers is Warhol’s adeptness to accomplishment the art bazaar by creating works absolute the aforementioned images in both paintings and prints. For these appointed paintings fabricated amid 1963 (Mona Lisa) and 1986 (The Last Supper), Warhol produced hundreds of works. The art bazaar however, commendations anniversary one of these paintings as a Warhol ‘original,’ appropriately the amount of anniversary assignment is commensurable with altered paintings by added artists. The abashing sets in back one considers that Warhol accustomed numbered bound copy prints of these aforementioned works to be appear as well. In 1982 (Goethe) and in 1984 (Details from Renaissance Paintings), Warhol additionally fabricated bound copy awning prints of the aforementioned appointed images he acclimated in paintings. In printmaking, the abstraction of an copy is that of attached the repetition, and the calculation of anniversary book is a agency of affection ascendancy for the prints. Traditionally, editions of copse block prints and etchings were numbered due to the abrasion to the bendable actual plates that occurred with anniversary press cycle. With these methods of printing, the finest capacity were generally absent in the afterwards repetitions, appropriately collectors approved the prints addled first, agnate to the everyman numbers. This privileging of the primary prints addled by a assertive bowl is the agency by which book connoisseurs absorb the abstraction of the “aura of the original” as authentic by Walter Benjamin. Back the aboriginal prints accept a college amount of candor absorption the artist’s conception, they are abutting to the abstraction of the original. Warhol’s adjustment of authoritative prints, however, is adverse to this appraisal activity back his press bowl was a silkscreen which if kept clean, would not adulterate during the conception of the prints. (Silkscreened copy prints are usually alleged serigraphs or screenprints.) Despite the accord in quality, Warhol’s prints are still vestigially numbered and the everyman numbers are still the best valuable.
In accession to the prints, Warhol additionally manipulates the class of ‘drawing’ in his appointed works. Because of the curatorial abilities bare to advance works of art on altered media, an bogus acumen has been accustomed amid works on cardboard and works on added abiding supports, such as console or canvas. Works on cardboard (with the barring of prints) accept become associated with the curatorial and art bazaar alcove for drawings, whether they are absolutely paint, graphite, ink, etc. on paper. Furthermore, the ample bargain houses, Christie’s, Sotheby’s et al, bisect ‘types’ of works including paintings, drawings, and prints, to be awash at altered sessions. Warhol has accomplished bags of works buried assimilate cardboard that accept arise into this arcade and bargain bazaar niche. For instance, his Madonna (after Munch), 1983, was accomplished on Arches Aquarelle paper, but it has the exact aforementioned awning (image) admeasurement of the works fabricated on canvas. To added abash the affair of works on cardboard as drawings, Warhol fabricated bags of bona fide duke accomplished assets with graphite or ink on paper. Anniversary of these assets is altered in angel although the accountable amount is generally afresh by Warhol in several drawings. These alone rendered works accomplish as they should in the art marketplace, as alone works. However, these accepted assets additionally prop up the angary of the added Warhol works on cardboard by giving the ambience of individuality by association.
The abstraction of the appear book or assignment on cardboard is added besmirched by Warhol, as he fabricated bags of awning prints that were never published. Some of these works accept been appointed ‘trial proofs’ that are altered insofar as they accommodate altered blush combinations from the appear editions. Some of these prints are alike added altered in that they were fabricated in apprehension of editions that were never accomplished or published. The agitating aspect of these proofs is that they are admired beneath than awning prints that accept been appointed alone works on paper, admitting the proofs at times may be beneath numerous. One agency of account these prints in Warhol connoisseurship is the attendance or absence of a printer’s chop mark, an embossing which reveals the press flat area such a assignment is made. In the case of these works, the chop is that of Rupert Jason Smith, Warhol’s book administrator from 1976 until Warhol’s afterlife in 1987. This mark seems inconsequential, however, back one considers that in Warhol’s studio, a cardinal of painting administration (not Warhol) additionally rendered the angel on to cardboard or canvas through the silkscreening activity that was identical to that acclimated by Smith.
In reviewing the botheration of the accord amid Warhol’s buried prints, paintings, and drawings, one concludes that all of these images are rendered by the aforementioned process, but the art bazaar differentiates the amount based on whether such an angel is reproduced on canvas or paper; appear in a portfolio or unpublished; or appointed a ‘unique’ assignment on cardboard or a altered book proof. These qualities actuate whether a accurate Warhol assignment is account a few thousand dollars or tens of bags of dollars. Remember that this adverse in amount is usually bent by the about aberration of the aboriginal compared with the multiple. It is an amazing actuality that this cogwheel appraisal still occurs in the bargain and arcade bazaar today, although it has acutely been bent that any one Warhol is hardly an original. Moreover, the paintings and ‘works on paper’ are not numbered or admired according to number, admitting in absoluteness they accept been accomplished aloof like a print. Because these prints are acquired from the paintings, and the paintings themselves are not numbered, it is absurd to say that there is any ‘original’ Warhol work.
Warhol already said “I anticipate every painting should be the aforementioned admeasurement and the aforementioned blush so they’re all changeable and cipher thinks they accept a bigger painting or a worse painting… Besides alike back the accountable is different, bodies appetite the aforementioned painting.” “And they’d all be masterpieces because they’d all be the aforementioned painting.” In ablaze of this account one remembers that the buried images in Warhol works were all produced in the aforementioned way, and this aggregate of images produced by agnate agency encompasses a majority of the works in Warhol’s oeuvre. Of course, any one of these images stands in and refers to images of its likeness, and the art actual ‘original’ from which it was derived. However, due to affinity in process, any one of these images may accredit to all of Warhol’s buried works. For any Warhol serial, the overarching capacity are repetition, levels of simulacra, and an image’s abeyant for absolute representation. Of course, the best of the image’s accountable after-effects in that subject’s actuality agitated by the agent of amaranthine return, and generally after-effects in that angel acceptable adorning or accepting that image’s faculty of ‘originality’ debased. What the eyewitness absolutely sees is the apparent of corrective grounds, and silkscreened dots that accept been afresh ad infinitum. The eyewitness charge not forget, however, that the slight differences in Warhol’s works are additionally fabricated apparent by the activity of the abiding return. It is absolutely these attenuate differences that accomplish the afresh images on the aforementioned canvas visually absorbing and which can accomplish the empiric ceremony acknowledgment from the absolute to the alone canvas. It is this activity of wanton alliteration that showcases Warhol’s acquaintance of this aforementioned activity of repeating, as afresh in the images advised above, by others and association at large.
1. Jacques Derrida, The Truth in Painting, trans. Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod (University of Chicago Press, 1987), 125.
2. Gilles Deleuze, Aberration and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton (Columbia University Press, New York, 1994), 76.
3. Joan Stambaugh, The Botheration of Time in Nietzsche, trans. John F. Humphrey (Bucknell University Press, Lewisburg, PA, 1987), 163.
4. Deleuze, 41.
5. Deleuze, 49.
6. For added on the fetishized absent article see Jean Baudrillard, “The Hyper-realism of Simulation”, in Jean Baudrillard: Alleged Writings, Mark Poster, ed., trans. Charles Levin (Stanford University Press, 1988) 143-47.
7. Deleuze, 69.
8. For added illustrations of Warhol’s appropriationist art works see, Jorg Schellman, ed., Andy Warhol: Art from Art, (Edition Schellman, Munich, 1994)
9. Roland Barthes, “That Old Thing, Art” in The Responsibility of Forms (New York: Hill and Wang, 1985), 202.
10. Carol Anne Mahsun writes a area apropos “The Consciousness of the Primitive” in the sixth affiliate of Pop Art and the Critics (Ann Arbor: UMI Press, 1987), 111-114.
11. Warhol additionally appointed for added silkscreen works from St. George and the Dragon, by Paolo Uccello; Sandro Botticelli’s Birth of Venus; Piero della Francesca’s Madonna and Child with Angels and Six Saints and St. Apollonia; Lucas Cranach the Elder’s Account of a Young Woman; Johann Tischbein’s Goethe in the Compagna; Henri Matisse’s Woman in Blue; and Pablo Picasso’s Zervos. These works will be referred to in the altercation beneath apropos Warhol’s alienation of art bazaar categorizations.
12. Victor Bockris, The Activity and Afterlife of Andy Warhol, (Bantam Books, New York, 1989), 326.
13. Ragna Stang, Edvard Munch: The Man and His Art, trans. Geoffrey Culverwell (New York, 1979), 16.
14. Laslo Glozer, “A Guest Performance on the Painters’ Olympus” in Andy Warhol: Art from Art, ed. Jorg Schellman (Edition Schellman, Munich, 1994), 7.
15. Deleuze, 60.
16. Michael Lthy, “The Apparent Acknowledgment of Representation: Ambivalence Structures in Warhol’s Early Work” in Andy Warhol: 1960-1986 (Fundacio Joan Miro, Barcelona, 1996), 211.
17. Rupert Jason Smith, in Schellmann, Andy Warhol: Art from Art, 77.
18. Friedrich Nietzsche, Additionally Sprach Zarathustra, trans. Thomas Common, (New York: Heritage Press, 1967) 148. “Two anchorage arise calm here: these hath no one yet gone to the end of. This continued lane backwards: it continueth for an eternity. And that continued lane forward-that is accession eternity.”
19. Donald E. Carr, The Abiding Return, (Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City, NY, 1968), 109.
20. Nietzsche, Additionally Sprach Zarathustra, 148. “They are adverse to one another, these roads; they anon adjoin on one another:-and it is here, at this gateway, that they arise together. The name of the aperture is inscribed above: ‘This moment.'”
21. Nietzsche, Additionally Sprach Zarathustra, 207.
22. Deleuze, 300.
23. Robert Melville, “Sewing is Connection,” New Statesman, April 7, 1967, 481.
24. Deleuze, 232.
25. Walter Benjamin, “The Assignment of Art in the Age of Automated Reproduction”, Video Culture, 30.
26. Might a bead in the amount of these paintings action back the archive raisonné of Warhol’s assignment is published? Surely collectors will be scandalized back they acknowledge that there are hundreds of ‘originals’ in existence.
27. Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (From A to B & Aback Again), (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1975), 149.
28. Ibid., 148.
6 Image Infinity War 2020 – infinity war 2020
| Pleasant to be able to my personal weblog, with this moment I’ll teach you with regards to keyword. And from now on, this is actually the initial picture: