Mmmm. I prefer to look at the art work (whatever it is and created by whoever), decide whether it pleases me and simply enjoy it!

A large amount of Warhol's work gives me pleasure but I do not enjoy the car crash works, although, I appreciate the effort made by an artist to break new ground.

Ric, Uniontown, PA, USA

I am a Matisse man, myself. A more exciting painter never saw the light. He is
to painting what The Thousand and One Nights was to lit.

Eugene, Heidelberg, germany

Picasso was the better "artist", but he wasn't cool like Andy >.<

reddy redlom, Baytown, TX

Salvador Dali,,,, I think he was not properly deserved.
Most of people might think of his pieces too surreal and complicated;the pieces trascends things at present,unbelievable~~~

Scott, Seoul,

Warhol is exactly what you want him to be and that's precisely why he remains so hugely interesting in today's public eye. Whilst trying to remain 'nobody', he became 'everybody'.

Picasso on the other hand is remembered for having both a masters' hand as draughtsman but also for his all empowering ego.

Whereas Warhol is about generosity dressed in an introspected personality, Picasso is really the showman and the 'visual entertainer', contrary to what many may think.

Strange as it may seem, Picasso made art with such ease, from sheer mastery, whilst Warhol worked hard for his successes. Nothing came easy to him.

I think that we identify more with Warhol, because he was the nerd "that made it" and Picasso was the guy who's level we really can't reach.

Picasso made something simple from his genius and Warhol made something genius from his simplicity.

Bjorn Stern, Berlin, Germany

Warhol seems to have been an obsessive, compulsive artist. His social abilities weren't very keen. I wonder if he could have been on the Autistic spectrum?

Patty, Brea, CA

Salvador Dali, in output, and from painting for the Pope to painting entire Hollywood sets, vastly vastly exceeds anyone else as the premier 20th century artiste. Only
the art-ignorant could wax so poorly as to think up only two names of 20th century "artists" (Picasso & Warhol). Collecting Art, versus collecting what the consensus has deemed "Popular", are two very very different things.

Russell Denham, Baton Rouge, LA

Anybody that has dealt in modern art, knows that the inflated prices of Warhol prints is ridiculous. They are just not that good.

David, Beverly Hills, U.S.A.

you left out an incredible documentary done slick magazine style called, SUPERSTAR: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ANDY WARHOL, directed by Oscar award winner, Chuck Workman and Produced and financed by Marilyn Lewis. thankyou so much. Marilyn Lewis

marilyn Lewis, Los Angeles , California/ USA

In your article, you refer to "... a prodigious output, augmented by his assistants, who would massproduce thousands of reproduction prints of his originals..."

Important to note that these are hand pulled screenprints, created as limited editions, usually of 300 or fewer, under the direction of the artist & the entire underlying concept of POP was exemplified by this approach. The broad use of the term "reproduction" implies something else.

Wolfgang doesn't make all the frozen dinners. Steven doesn't cut all the film. Ralph doesn't sew all the little ponies on the shirts. Think: in a 25 year period (1962 - 1987), Andy Warhol changed the way the entire world would look at art, talk about art, think about art, make art, & reconsider the criteria & the very definition of art. He redefined the boundaries from 1962 forward. Anyone who looks at these pieces as mere "reproductions" is (in the opinion of this writer) missing the boat entirely.

Lawrence Stephens, Novato, CA

Larry Stephens, Novato, CA (USA)

Warhol might have been born to slovakian parents, but he will always remain a pittsburgher

mark, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Why would Picasso care? He was a fraud too. Much of his "early art" was his fathers'.
In fact both were frauds; both were good businessmen. Warhols art is popular because it made cheap dorm room decoration in the 60's, and those boomers are now wealthy and nostalgic.
500 years from now Picasso will be a footnote in art history and Warhol will only be mentioned as how far a joke can go.

Rembrandt, Tucson AZ,

There is a Warhol museum in Pittsburgh, Pa. that is worth a visit if you are interested in this rather frivolous artist.

Tom, Boynton Beach, USA/Fl.

Comparing Warhol with Picasso is blasphemy. What more will they write to drum up prices? There must be a lot of naive collectors
with money to burn in this world!

Emilio Power, Melbourne, Florida

Wasn't it Warhol who said "Art is anything that you can get away with"?

Jason, Houston, USA/TX

You truly believe an original Warhol painting would command the same price as a the person that sat and copied it?

As to the "15 minutes of fame" insult doubles my instinct on dismissing you as a true correspondent of arts.

It is beyond my imagination that you believe the copiers of art should hold the true title to Artist, while the artist is designated no grant to fame.

Dee, orange park,

Son of immigrants from present-day Slovakia (not Czech) and of Rusyn background (minority in Slovakia).

J, Philadelphia, PA

It's not about collecting art, it's the art of collecting.
The art of making something of no real value worth millions.
Brilliant.

Stan Lee, NYC, USA

Picasso would be screaming at this nonsense.

Michael, Los Angeles, NYC, USA

Our Czech friends can claim Dvo&#345;ák, Smetana, and many other greats. But Warhol's people came from SLOVAKIA!

George Polak, Dayton, Ohio, USA

Sorry, you have a huge error there.

Andy Warhol was a son of Slovak immigrants, not Czech.

In his will, Andy Warhol had left his possesions to a Slovak village Mikova, near Medzilaborce, where his family came from. They have built a museum filled with Andy Warhol's works that people from all over the world come to visit.

Myra Hatala, Artist, residing in both, USA and Slovakia (I knew Andy personally)

Myra Hatala, Arlington and Bratislava, USA and Slovakia