William V.

Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

IN[

]VISIBLE CULTURE

AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL FOR VISUAL STUDIES

Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

by William V. Ganis
2000

In Andy Warhol's serial art, a media-reflexive gesture appears in the

endless reproduction, dissemination, and simulacra made possible by
photography and machines. Warhol's serial work is the "unpresentable
presentation"[1] of infinite image repetition. It is this self-referentiality
toward perpetual reproduction which gives these works their power and
larger importance. In spite of his superficial navete, Warhol demonstrates
self-awareness of his illimitable action, and presents this unpresentable
infinity by implication. By completely covering the canvas with images,
Warhol suggests that the picture plane continues ad infinitum and that there
are always more images beyond the frame. One perceives more dollar bills,
Coca-Cola bottles, and publicity photos of movie stars existing outside any
one painting. Indeed, this implied repetition exterior to the painting takes
place in the imagination. Gilles Deleuze points out that 'repetition is itself in
essence imaginary... it makes that which it contacts appear as elements or
cases of repetition."[2] In any serial Warhol work, visual repetends may or
may not exist in the work itself, rather the absent repetition of a work's
image is located in other Warhol art and the recurrence of similar images or
objects situated in the rest of the world. Any notion of the 'original' is
constantly deferred based on the repetition of such works and their endless
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (1 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:15 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

return. Depending on the context of seeing a Warhol work, there seem to be

multiple levels of repetition at play inside the piece, in other Warhol works,
in the world, and as I shall examine below, in art history. One must ask what
this repetition is, that defers and moves toward framing infinity. Friedrich
Nietzsche's concept of the eternal return of the same, like Warhol's
photographic works, deals with problems of repetition, difference and
history.
The eternal return of the same is the thought that the world always recurs,
that the actions we make have been repeated infinitely before us and will be
repeated infinitely thereafter.[3] This concept is not as simple as saying that
history repeats itself, because, as Deleuze points out, "The eternal return
does not bring back 'the same', but returning constitutes the only same of
that which becomes."[4] This concept of 'the same' demonstrates that the
repetition is understanding the same from the basis of each representation.
However, Warhol in his image manifestations does not emphasize the world
of difference, rather, his repeated works show that representation is a
receding perspective. Warhol's art makes the standard, stereotyped, and
repeated intensely perceptible. Rather than extract from difference like the
Abstract-Expressionist artists did in their celebration of 'autonomous' works,
Warhol conceded to repetition.
Warhol's serial works operate on the principle that the infinite depictions
invoke a foundation,[5] however, this 'original' source is always displaced in
Warhol. Because the viewer of Warhol works is always aware of his
multiples, the eternal return is unsubtle, yet there is still a fascination with
finding 'originality' in these works. Anyone visiting the Andy Warhol
Museum will be treated to the spectacle of the Warhol archives which
contains the source materials for Warhol's art works. Though the archival
goods have little monetary value compared to the art objects made by
Warhol, they are "fetishized as the lost object" in lieu of Warhol's
"hyperreal"[6] paintings. In these materials, one can see the master's
selection process, choosing images for his works. However, upon closer
examination, we see that these archival ghosts used to make the art works
themselves are simulacra of simulacra. Warhol's art is, as Deleuze defines
simulacra, "not simple imitation but the act by which the very idea of a
model or privileged position (an original) is overturned."[7] The archival
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (2 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:15 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

sources of Warhol's images appropriated from earlier art serve this function
of 'originality' in a strange way. These sources are the bases of Warhol's
works and often exist in a state of singularity (one silkscreen, one maquette,
one cropped photo) that seems more original than the 'authentic' works
examined below.[8]
Perhaps the Warhol works which best fit this examination of repetition and
simulacra are the paintings, prints and drawings derived from earlier well
known works of art by other artists. Warhol appropriated such images
throughout his 'fine' art career from 1963 until his death in 1987, a few days
after the premier of his Last Supper works. The images selected 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."[9] In his
decisions to once again make images that themselves have had a history of
multiplicity, Warhol pays ritual obeisance to simulacra's worshipped
ancestors.[10] For this investigation of originality and recurrence, I will focus
upon 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.[11]
In choosing to render the images of Giorgio de Chirico, Warhol reenacted
de Chirico's own strategy of repeating his own imagery. For de Chirico, this
repetition was a means of remaining fiscally solvent in his later years. Dge
Chirico still made works from his World War One era pittura metafisica
style in the 1950s and 1960s. It was these later paintings that Warhol was to
use as models for his After de Chirico works. Warhol said of, and projected
through de Chirico,
He repeated the same images over and over again. I like the idea a lot,
so I thought it would be great to do it. I believe he viewed repetition as
a way of expressing himself. This is probably what we have in
common. The difference? What he repeated regularly, year after year,
I repeat the same day in the same painting. All my images are the
same, but very different at the same time... Isn't life a series of images
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (3 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:15 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

that change as they repeat themselves?[12]

Warhol recognized that de Chirico was making each repeated image outside
of the historical framework in which the works had first gained their
notoriety. The repeated de Chirico works of the '50s and '60s had little to do
with the proto-Surrealist agenda through which these works would become
known. These repeated works, however, did satisfy the art market conditions
of 'originality' since they were executed by the hand of the master.
Warhol also appropriated the works of Edvard Munch because, like de
Chirico, Munch often repeated his own imagery, especially when he sold a
painting which he felt conveyed a personal experience. The reason for this
repetition Munch said, "...is that we see with different eyes at different
times. We see things one way in the morning and another in the evening, and
the way we view things also depends on the mood we are in. That is why
one subject can be seen in so many ways and that is what makes art so
interesting"[13] In addition to simply repeating his images in painting,
Munch also rendered the same forms in wood block prints, lithographs, and
etchings. These printed forms were all produced in multiple editions and
often in several different media with color variations. Also, since Munch
was skilled in all of these media, he sometimes developed images in prints
that would later become paintings and vice-versa. This working process
once again makes it impossible to identify any one original as multiples are
made simultaneously.
Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa also suffers from an identity crisis as this
work has had much history, myth, and speculative commentary constructed
around it which has rendered it a simulacra. Surely the Mona Lisa is an
iconographic simulacra in the context of popular art history. The identity of
the subject of the Mona Lisa, Lisa di Antonio Maria Gherardini, has been
lost in the popular attention given to this work, which among other readings;
denies her existence as some see the image as a transvestite portrait of da
Vinci; or tell of an apocryphal love affair between her and the (now thought
to be homosexual) artist. The Mona Lisa is one of the world's most
reproduced images, as it has been used in advertising, consumer products,
and art history, as a symbol for the infinitely more complex ideas of purity,
love, the Louvre, 'high' culture, art, painting, and the Italian Renaissance. In
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (4 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:15 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

1963 Warhol rendered the Mona Lisa in response to its exhibition in the
United States at The Metropolitan Museum of Art.[14] In addition, the
Gioconda has been labeled as an ideal in portraiture, the perfect infusion and
revelation of a sitter's character by an artist. The holding up of this painting
as such an ideal is a media (and intellectual) bastardization of the Platonic
ideal, the defining notion from which all forms are derived.[15] (Perhaps all
paintings are imperfect copies of the Mona Lisa?)
Warhol also painted The Last Supper at a time when it was receiving much
publicity upon the event of its restoration. The Warhol rendition, however
was many times removed from The Last Supper on the wall at Santa Maria
delle Grazie, in that Warhol used derivative source materials for these
works. The photograph used for these works was taken from a cheap, massproduced reproduction of a nineteenth century copy.[16] As a Catholic,
Warhol certainly knew the image first in this form, in the reproductions of
the painting that were standard issue in the blue collar kitchens and dining
rooms of his fellow Eastern European Americans.
With Munch, de Chirico, and da Vinci, Warhol uses the same strategy of
rendering the appropriated paintings so that these purloined works lose their
identity and context and become images about images through seriality
within and outside of the picture.[17] Warhol often makes paintings
containing different numbers of repeated images. When Warhol produces a
single image on the canvas, that image relies on the others like it in Warhol's
series to give it its meaning. The viewer of the the individual image work
knows that others like it exist through the trace of the instrument of
reproduction, the silkscreened dot. These works can not be seen to exist for
themselves but are dependent on the perception of the rest of the Warhol
series (or at least familiarity with the Warholian strategy) to impart their
import. In doubling the image on one canvas, Warhol makes the viewer even
more immediately aware that the image is a replicate by showing a copy of a
copy. Warhol's works with reproductions of three or more images on one
canvas reveal that this copying is potentially infinite, especially when there
are dozens of the same image in one space. In works like Thirty Are Better
than One, there is the suggestion of more images beyond the picture plane
and title as those contained within bleed out to the edges and are sometimes
truncated. Moreover, these repetitions are often rendered by Warhol in a grid
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (5 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:15 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

pattern which implies the infinite through the Euclidian geometry of the
picture plane where the parallel lines never meet and infinite perpendiculars
frame the same image.
Further repetition, return, and simulacra exists beyond these Warhol
works. Each Warhol artwork has been reproduced by The Andy Warhol
Estate and Foundation in several four by five inch photographic
transparencies. These transparencies have each been used dozens of times to
reproduce the images by the thousands (sometimes millions), in articles,
catalogs, and even on consumer schlock like postcards and jewelry boxes.
Just like the dual eternal paths encountered by Nietzsche's Zarathustra on the
mountainside,[18] the levels of simulacra develop endlessly on each side of
Warhol's art objects. We see that the paintings are but a sequence of
recurrences already preceded by the thousands and to be followed by the
thousands. Reveling in the nature of seriality, Warhol shows a simultaneous
understanding of the past and the future of the images in these works.[19]
The privileged physical art object represents in Nietzschean terms, 'the
moment,'[20] the gateway from which eternal recurrence precedes and
recedes, and where precessions and future yield come together. The
painting, rather than the singular silkscreen is analogous to 'the moment'
since the painted canvas is the object of an artwork come into being, a
tangible presence, a commodifiable object that is the final output of artistic
communication. With the image serigraphed onto canvas, and stretched,
signed, or stamped, all the codes are resolved, indicating to the art market
that a work of art has been made. The silkscreen itself is but a precession of
the recognizable artwork. The silkscreen, in its ephemeral appearance and
barely perceptible value inversion serves not as the artwork, but as a deictic
device of possibility. If the silkscreen has any commodity value, it is as an
agent of reproduction, a means of making more artistic 'moments' or
paintings.
An examination of any series of Warhol works reveals the strategies of the
artist to create much difference in repeating the same simply through the
manipulation of the placement of the image. 'Placement' in this sense means
how Warhol and his assistants stretched each canvas around one or several
screened images. In producing these images, Warhol usually painted a large
sheet of canvas with selected ground colors, and would then have an image
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (6 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:15 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

silkscreened several times on that canvas. Once the paint had dried, the
canvas was cut and stretched onto uniform purchased stretcher bars. As the
screened images were either slightly larger or slightly smaller than the
stretched canvas' surface, some variation occurs in the visual presentation of
each image, giving the appearance of registration or mis-registration as
would be produced by a mechanical printing process. It is in this process that
Warhol causes any real differentiation in his images. Colors and registration
vary slightly allowing the viewer to actually perceive differences among the
works. Also, Warhol made the decision as to how many repeated images
would appear on a single canvas. A lack of centering in these paintings
illustrates Zarathustra's observation of perpetuity, "The middle is
everywhere."[21] By comparing these differences one sees that what is the
same in each of these paintings simply returns unto the image itself.
Simultaneously, the similar returns to another object for comparison.[22]
Thus the eternal return in Warhol's arena affirms difference within the same.
From the perspective of dissimilarity, no matter how slight, the viewer can
not deny the existence of similarity.
In Warhol's screened works, the optical properties of the image are clear to
the viewer. The variation in tone achieved by Warhol's use of one or more
screened colors of paint is decorative rather than illusionistic. Any highlights
or shadows created in these works is incidental and the seemingly arbitrary
manipulation of colors that occurs both in one work or a series of works is
so extreme that it defies illusionistic depth in his pictures. What the viewer
reads as the highlights of these Warhol works is nothing more than optical
colors advancing over dark tones or the space between the dots on a ground
of canvas or paper. Notice here that I say ground and not background, for the
figure-ground relationship is not easily established. Despite the fact that the
screened ink is on top of the painted surface, the ground in these works is
not the background as there is no depth. The ground is part of the medium
which makes the gestalt perception of the images possible at all. Indeed,
depth is eliminated in the appropriated image's dot pattern and this surface
existence at its fundamental negates the image's 'being'. The critic Robert
Melville pointed out this contradiction of the subject stating, "The successful
work is in short a paraphrase of the blank surface it adheres to. American
Pop painting is an ingeneous way of painting Nothingness."[23] In negating
the image it is difficult to discuss difference if images at all, since all of
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (7 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:15 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

Warhol's images are essentially, perceived in the same manner of diminished

extensity. When we reduce the Warhol image to its base elements of dot and
color, we see that the "parts precede and make possible the representation of
the whole." Thus, as Kant would note, there are no 'internal differences' in
these Warhol images, rather, difference would only be perceived as an
'external relation' that must be perceived by the 'empirical intuition' of the
viewer.[24] From this perspective, one could see that these optical properties
subsume all of the Warhol serial works, since all of the paintings, prints, and
works on paper operate with the same optical strategies and their images are
all subject to the same optical metaphysics.
Warhol made the dot, ground, and depth problem most obvious in his
Shadows works of 1978. In these works, there are no recognizable images
for our gestalt sensibilities to tangle with. The images are seemingly fully
abstract; yet, like the appropriated images, they are derived from
photographs, blown-up, contrast-reduced in the making of the silkscreen,
and painted. The figure-ground relationship is further problematized in these
works by the fact that Warhol painted the canvas surface in impasto
expressionistic swaths of Liquitex, thus the 'grounds' in these works usually
suggest more depth than the screened 'figures'.
The most consequential aspect of Warhol's art objects that is invariably
overlooked by scholars is Warhol's ability to exploit the art market by
creating works containing the same images in both paintings and prints. For
these appropriated paintings made between 1963 (Mona Lisa) and 1986 (The
Last Supper), Warhol produced hundreds of works. The art market however,
regards each one of these paintings as a Warhol 'original,' thus the price of
each work is commensurable with unique paintings by other artists. The
confusion sets in when one considers that Warhol allowed numbered limited
edition prints of these same works to be published as well. In 1982 (Goethe)
and in 1984 (Details from Renaissance Paintings), Warhol also made limited
edition screen prints of the same appropriated images he used in paintings.
In printmaking, the concept of an edition is that of limiting the repetition,
and the numbering of each print is a means of quality control for the prints.
Traditionally, editions of wood block prints and etchings were numbered
due to the wear to the soft material plates that occurred with each printing
cycle. With these methods of printing, the finest details were often lost in the
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (8 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:15 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

later repetitions, thus collectors sought the prints struck first, corresponding
to the lowest numbers. This privileging of the primary prints struck by a
certain plate is the means by which print connoisseurs retain the idea of the
"aura of the original" as defined by Walter Benjamin.[25] Since the first
prints have a higher degree of integrity reflecting the artist's conception, they
are closest to the idea of the original. Warhol's method of making prints,
however, is antithetical to this valuation process since his printing plate was
a silkscreen which if kept clean, would not deteriorate during the creation of
the prints. (Silkscreened edition prints are usually called serigraphs or
screenprints.) Despite the uniformity in quality, Warhol's prints are still
vestigially numbered and the lowest numbers are still the most valuable.
In addition to the prints, Warhol also manipulates the category of 'drawing'
in his appropriated works. Because of the curatorial skills needed to
maintain works of art on different media, an artificial distinction has been
established between works on paper and works on more stable supports,
such as panel or canvas. Works on paper (with the exception of prints) have
become associated with the curatorial and art market niche for drawings,
whether they are actually paint, graphite, ink, etc. on paper. Furthermore, the
large auction houses, Christie's, Sotheby's et al, divide 'types' of works
including paintings, drawings, and prints, to be sold at different sessions.
Warhol has executed thousands of works screened onto paper that have
come into this gallery and auction market niche. For instance, his Madonna
(after Munch), 1983, was executed on Arches Aquarelle paper, but it has the
exact same screen (image) size of the works made on canvas. To further
confuse the issue of works on paper as drawings, Warhol made thousands of
bona fide hand executed drawings with graphite or ink on paper. Each of
these drawings is unique in image although the subject matter is often
repeated by Warhol in several drawings. These individually rendered works
operate as they should in the art marketplace, as individual works. However,
these legitimate drawings also prop up the legitimacy of the other Warhol
works on paper by giving the aura of individuality by association.
The idea of the published print or work on paper is further corrupted by
Warhol, as he made thousands of screen prints that were never published.
Some of these works have been designated 'trial proofs' that are unique
insofar as they include different color combinations from the published
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (9 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:16 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

editions. Some of these prints are even more unique in that they were made
in anticipation of editions that were never executed or published. The
poignant aspect of these proofs is that they are valued less than screen prints
that have been designated individual works on paper, though the proofs at
times may be less numerous. One means of valuing these prints in Warhol
connoisseurship is the presence or absence of a printer's chop mark, an
embossing which reveals the printing studio where such a work is made. In
the case of these works, the chop is that of Rupert Jason Smith, Warhol's
print publisher from 1976 until Warhol's death in 1987. This mark seems
inconsequential, however, when one considers that in Warhol's studio, a
number of painting assistants (not Warhol) also rendered the image on to
paper or canvas through the silkscreening process that was identical to that
used by Smith.
In reviewing the problem of the relationship between Warhol's screened
prints, paintings, and drawings, one concludes that all of these images are
rendered by the same process, but the art market differentiates the value
based on whether such an image is reproduced on canvas or paper; published
in a portfolio or unpublished; or designated a 'unique' work on paper or a
unique print proof. These qualities determine whether a particular Warhol
work is worth a few thousand dollars or tens of thousands of dollars.
Remember that this differentiation in price is usually determined by the
relative rarity of the original compared with the multiple. It is an amazing
fact that this differential valuation still occurs in the auction and gallery
market today, although it has clearly been determined that any one Warhol is
hardly an original. Moreover, the paintings and 'works on paper' are not
numbered or valued according to number, though in reality they have been
executed just like a print. Because these prints are derived from the
paintings, and the paintings themselves are not numbered, it is impossible to
say that there is any 'original' Warhol work.[26]
Warhol once said "I think every painting should be the same size and the
same color so they're all interchangeable and nobody thinks they have a
better painting or a worse painting... Besides even when the subject is
different, people want the same painting."[27] "And they'd all be
masterpieces because they'd all be the same painting."[28] In light of this
statement one remembers that the screened images in Warhol works were all
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (10 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:16 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

produced in the same way, and this collective of images produced by similar
means 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 historical 'original' from which it was derived. However, due to
similarity in process, any one of these images may refer to all of Warhol's
screened works. For any Warhol serial, the overarching subjects are
repetition, levels of simulacra, and an image's potential for infinite
representation. Of course, the choice of the image's subject results in that
subject's being carried by the vehicle of endless return, and often results in
that image becoming decorative or having that image's sense of 'originality'
debased. What the viewer really sees is the surface of painted grounds, and
silkscreened dots that have been repeated ad infinitum. The viewer must not
forget, however, that the slight differences in Warhol's works are also made
perceptible by the process of the eternal return. It is precisely these subtle
differences that make the repeated images on the same canvas visually
interesting and which can make the observed recurrence return from the
infinite to the individual canvas. It is this gesture of wanton repetition that
showcases Warhol's awareness of this same action of repeating, as repeated
in the images examined above, by others and society at large.

Notes
1. Jacques Derrida, The Truth in Painting, trans. Geoff Bennington and Ian
McLeod (University of Chicago Press, 1987), 125.
2. Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton (Columbia
University Press, New York, 1994), 76.
3. Joan Stambaugh, The Problem of Time in Nietzsche, trans. John F.
Humphrey (Bucknell University Press, Lewisburg, PA, 1987), 163.
4. Deleuze, 41.
5. Deleuze, 49.

http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (11 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:16 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

6. For more on the fetishized lost object see Jean Baudrillard, "The Hyperrealism of Simulation", in Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings, Mark Poster,
ed., trans. Charles Levin (Stanford University Press, 1988) 143-47.
7. Deleuze, 69.
8. For more 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 section regarding "The Consciousness of
the Primitive" in the sixth chapter of Pop Art and the Critics (Ann Arbor:
UMI Press, 1987), 111-114.
11. Warhol also appropriated for other 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 Portrait 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 discussion
below regarding Warhol's estrangement of art market categorizations.
12. Victor Bockris, The Life and Death 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.
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (12 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:16 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

16. Michael Lthy, "The Apparent Return 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, Also Sprach Zarathustra, trans. Thomas Common,
(New York: Heritage Press, 1967) 148. "Two roads come together here:
these hath no one yet gone to the end of. This long lane backwards: it
continueth for an eternity. And that long lane forward-that is another
eternity."
19. Donald E. Carr, The Eternal Return, (Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden
City, NY, 1968), 109.
20. Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zarathustra, 148. "They are antithetical to one
another, these roads; they directly abut on one another:-and it is here, at this
gateway, that they come together. The name of the gateway is inscribed
above: 'This moment.'"
21. Nietzsche, Also 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 Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction", Video Culture, 30.
26. Might a drop in the value of these paintings occur when the catalogue
raisonn of Warhol's work is published? Surely collectors will be
scandalized when they reveal that there are hundreds of 'originals' in
existence.
http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (13 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:16 AM]

William V. Ganis - Andy Warhol's Iconophilia

27. Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (From A to B & Back
Again), (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1975), 149.
28. Ibid., 148.

Return to Table of Contents

http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/issue3/ganis.htm (14 of 14) [3/22/07 11:44:16 AM]