This is one way to view artist - not as a craftman, but as a brand like Walt Disney (or Merceded Benz). The artist then functions as a curator for all the data that passes through him and signs those articles he considers worthy of the brand. This is a totally fine way to look at it - just as long as he/she does not tread on someones copyright.
That's reductionist. Warhol's craft was in recognising and willfully exploiting brand culture. He described the celebrity culture we now live with, and made a job out of being the one who understood how it worked. He wasn't just signing "worthy" stuff; he was showing people how the mechanisms of brand-building and celebrity culture actually work: by repetition and labelling/signing/appropriating. He branded the brands like brands branded the world, and he did it over and over with minor variations, exactly like they do.
He was not without his flaws, but he wasn't just some sort of "gatekeeper of cool". He obviously didn't think an artist exists to validate this or that brand; the validation was a side-effect of his artistic craft. This is why trying to "play Warhol" today, using different brands or imagery, is just stupid, in artistic terms: he's done it already, it's all there already and there is nothing else to say on that particular subject.
Refreshing to see enlightened critical theory on HN. I don't agree that there is "nothing else to say" about it however. The world is constantly changing and often presents old ideas in new and interesting contexts.
Many years ago I got to see a Warhol retrospective at MoMA, and seeing the early works in person was a revelation. My own tastes leaned more toward the "traditional" abstract expressionists and I thought Warhol was too "surface" and not interesting or deep. But seeing them on walls, they're wonderful - playful, vibrant, visually striking. The later work tapers off imo - from some accounts that I've read, the decline happened after he was shot.
