[phaus]

Being prolific doesn't make one talented, this article has quite a few of his illustrations, and they simply aren't very good. His work doesn't show unique signs of genius, they just look like the same types of drawings produced by people who are still learning to draw.

Anyone on the planet with a hand can learn to draw at a professional level. It just takes time and thousands of hours of practice. Andy Warhol didn't put in the hours, and because of that his drawings aren't very good. If you can point to a drawing or painting he did that doesn't look like it came from a middle-school art show, I'd love to see it.

http://99designs.com/designer-blog/2012/03/29/andy-warhol-co...

[rdouble]

I was responding to your claim that he spent most of his time doing narcotics and socializing. He did not do narcotics and spent most of his time doing art.

[phaus]

Perhaps he didn't do cocaine, but friends of his said he would deny it even as he was in the middle of doing it. So the only people who will ever know for sure are Andy and his friends.

He was also have said to have to take obetrol (the Adderall precursor) as frequently as one might eat tic tacs, so he was still, by your own admission, a drug addict.

Really though, the point I was trying to make is that he wasn't a very good artist, not because he wasn't capable of it, but because he didn't really try. I could produce a dozen such works an hour (his commercial illustrations), and I'm not an artist either. The difference is, I don't claim to be a professional artist.

I'm not mad at him for making a living, or doing what he loved to do. I just don't think that he was a good artist.