61 CHRONICLESnDeath and taxes are only a little morenpredictable than the art of Andy Warhol.nJust one month after Warhol’sndeath in Manhattan at age 58 from anheart attaek the morning of Februaryn22, the day after otherwise successfulngall bladder surgery, the artist was backnin the news. Unlike the obits, the newsnwasn’t on the front page; like the obits,nthe artist was connected with celebrities.nWarhol was listed in an indictmentnfrom a Federal grand jury in annalleged tax-fraud scheme by whichninvestors were able to make falsentax deductions. Warhol wrote offn$599,819, which is more than Mr.nand Mrs, Sidney Poitier ($500,757)nand Lome Greene and wifen($333,838), but less than MichaelnLandon ($1 million) and the NormannLears ($1.5 million). “Can’t I deductnliquor if I have to get high to talk andntalking’s my business?”—The Philosophynof Andy Warhol: From A to B andnBack Again.nAndy Warhol made his mark innthe late 50’s as a commercialnartist—Tiffany’s . . . Bonwitt Teller’sn. . . Vogue . . . Glamour. He was discoverednby Ivan Karp at the start of then60’s. Karp told CBC Radio the daynafter Warhol’s death that the artist hadnpeaked before the 60’s were over, anstatement which leads only to questionsnabout what the last 20 years havenmeant for Warhol’s career. And thennthe details of his will become known:n$15 million in personal property,nfilms. Interview (founded, accordingnto Gerald Malanga, so Warhol couldnget free film festival tickets), real estate,netc. His death, naturally, hasncaused the value of his work to rise.nPop Art in America — initiallynknown as Neo-Dada, Gommonism,nOK Art, and Gommon Image Artn—was, in large part, a reaction tonAbstract Expressionism. While thenAbstract Expressionists created highlynsubjective works informed by a privaten”philosophy,” the Pop Artists seizednupon everyday images, from comicnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnstrip characters to the now-famousnGampbell’s soup can (Campbell SoupnCompany donated $2,000 in Warhol’snmemory to the New York Academy ofnArt, a small token when you considernthat reprints of his renderings of thencans would really take a bite out of thencompany’s media budget). Many ofnthe Pop Artists, such as Roy Lichtensteinnand James Rosenquist, like Warhol,nhad commercial art backgrounds.nRobert Rauschenberg and JaspernJohns, the two most influential Americannprecursors to Pop, did store windowndisplays to make ends meet; nownthey are among the most wealthy livingnartists. But unlike Warhol, thesenartists went beyond the for-hire stagenin attempting what we ordinarily callnart.nWarhol wrote in his autobiographicaln”philosophy”:nI loved working when I workednat commercial art and they toldnyou what to do and how to donit and all you had to do wasncorrect it and they’d say yes ornno. The hard thing is whennyou have to dream up tastelessnthings to do on your own.nActually, Warhol never really had tondecide on subjects for his painting ornfor the silkscreens which were executednby employees of The Factory. Earlynwork — cows, crashes, flowers —nresulted from recommendations bynKarp, then-assistant at the MetropolitannMuseum of Art Henry Geldzahler,nand “superstar” Ultra Violet. The celebritiesnWarhol painted, photographed,nand was “seen with” werenthrust upon him by the fact of theirnsuccess. Marilyn, Liz, Jackie . . .nthen on to Liza, Mick Jagger, JanenFonda, and the rest: all stars. He didn’tnhave to think. The later phase ofnWarhol’s career, when he was busynknocking around with his subjects, isnpromotion at its best. The artist andncelebrities fed on one another: to benbig was to be a subject for Warhol; tonnnbe a subject for Warhol was to be big.nMagritte could have made somethingnof this: art. Warhol made money.nWarhol’s name is sometimes associatednwith Picasso’s, but that is a mistake.nWarhol and Salvador Dali arenthe two artists who will leave the mostnsimilar marks on the 20th century.n(“My best days are those on which onnawakening I earn $10,000 beforenbreakfast by engraving a plate for mynown enjoyment, and which end with an$50,000 check that I pocket without anmurmur after a fine gourmet supper”n— Dali in The Unspeakable Confessionsnof Salvador Dali.) Dali, bestnknown as a Surrealist, boasted of hisnown craftsmanship, his mastery of academicntechnique. Yet one premise ofnSurrealism is that the artist delves deepninto the psyche, but no matter hownmany watches melt, no matter hownpeculiarly littered the landscapes,nDali’s works are fundamentally superficial.nTo be sure, a fundamental ability,nas there is in the work of Warhol.nBut in both cases, there is nothingnbelow the sheen.nWhat is missing from Warhol andnDali is the conviction that art exists tonexpress something, that it is more thanntechnique. When the profit motiven—legitimate as it is in art—becomesnthe end, then commerce is substitutednfor creation. To his credit, Warhol wasnperfectiy candid: “I started as a commercialnartist, and I want to finish as anbusiness artist.” He did. And a Federalngrand jury has put his life’s work in thenproper perspective.n—Gary S. VasilashnDanny Escobedo—remember him,nthe convicted murderer turned loosenby the U.S. Supreme Court (in 1964)non the grounds he hadn’t talked to hisnlawyer? Well, in the 20-plus yearsnsince, Mr. Escobedo has racked up 12nfelony convictions, including one fornselling heroin and another for takingnindecent liberties with children. Mostn