Andy Warhol seems like the most vacuous type of figure from my limited understanding of him. Yet that may be the attraction. If something seems empty or superficial it can be a magnet for prestige, money, fame or whatever. I saw an exhibition some years ago and there were maybe one or two Andy Warhol screenprints in the show. One of them, if my memory serves me well, was an image of Joseph Beuys covered in diamond dust. When I saw it I was mesmerised, it was beautiful and I thought it was the best piece in the whole exhibition.

Bill Henson has been accused of being a pedophile for his portraits of naked youth. The works though are showing emptiness and the only thing the youth have in these portrayals are their bodies which are obscured. Then the viewer has to put themselves into the emptiness. I would say the same goes for Warhol. You are presented with something empty and rather than it giving you something asks for your authorship. The death of the author is in full swing. The people accusing Bill Henson of sex crimes are the real authors of his work.

When you meet a superficial person you may feel they are heaping false praise on you or pissing in your pocket but from this stance it opens one up to the fact that they are willing to empty themselves to accept what they may need or desire. If it all seems like false promises and fake, how else do you attract things if you are already full? In the way Warhol seemed aloof at all times, let other people throw in themselves. So much work leaves people cold but it still beckons and attracts attention. In a sense it is a ploy, a tactic, from fashion to high art but no doubt a successful ploy.