Hello Mr. Roger,

Besides forcing me to visit Amazon to not buy your book, your piece irritated me in other ways. You’re self-righteous and you suffer from hindsight bias, a basic error of reasoning, which I think is inappropriate for a public writer. You’re setting a bad example.

No one doubts that Warhol had a genius for self-promotion, or that he exploited his own work for filthy lucre. So what? We don’t condemn Renaissance artists (for example) for being patronized by the nobility. As you’re aware, capitalism was invented and made this way of financing Art obsolete. Warhol was just playing by the rules, like anyone else, using his talent and knowledge to earn a living. Is there some legitimate way of earning a living that is essentially dishonorable to you?

The influence of hindsight bias is pervasive and perfidious. Its effects on reasoning are plainly more pernicious than your old hobby-horse, which deplores (yet again) the commercialization of Art. Warhol used his talents as a draftsman and his insight into culture to produce works that struck a nerve worldwide. His works were shocking, provocative and so forth. Did (and do) they have an esthetic effect? There’s no doubt about it. His work has both a clear thematic message (the philosophy you casually disparage) and a powerful esthetic effect. One can view them again and again and still derive pleasure from their simplicity of design and colors.

But how was Warhol to know that his work would spawn a billion-dollar art industry? How was he even to know that his work would spawn a living for himself? He put his talent and skills on the line and won because he satisfied a lot of people. Now you’re deploring him for it? You’re deploring him for being successful, then. Should only people like you have the right to be successful? Why don’t you come back to Earth?