When I first aired the Andy Warhol interview, and concurrently ran every word of it in print, I never hinted at why I was allotting extensive publication space for this curious feature. Warhol spoke in a monotone, free-associating rather than responding to questions, and was apparently self-absorbed. He never dropped his guard to convey even a whiff of social relevance. The listener's foremost challenge became to discern via Mr. Warhol's responses, the unique propositions in his body of work.
The so-called "mystery” of the Andy Warhol persona, according to prominent biographers attempting to crack his particular “code," falls somewhere (but where?) on a continuum from the seemingly trivial to the profound, from naïveté to malevolent manipulation. Did Warhol “kill" traditional fine art, dismissing its inherent beauty, mastery of painterly skills, depth and emotion? Or did he redefine what art can be, by introducing banal, everyday, mass-audience (Pop) iconography to a formerly elitist and refined landscape?
So what if his persona is all facade – maintaining strict verbal consonance with his body of visual art, since his works sell for over a hundred million dollars, and represent one-sixth of all contemporary art sales? Suppose that his deadpan manner, his detachment and his obstinate refusal to explain his work in didactic sentences were a benign contrivance to avoid making declarations of the subtle genius behind his commonplace images? Might all the "calculated cool" of this world-renowned artist actually serve a brilliant purpose—to challenge, and shatter conventionality, for everyone who chooses to come into contact with his art?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Douglas P. Cooper Distinguished Contemporaries Collection (1967-1974) contains rare interviews with influential writers, statesmen, artists, songwriters, journalists and others who have left their mark on our culture.