Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the photographer and the artist had competed in the same market. “How is a court to determine the purpose of meaning, the message or meaning of works of art like a photograph or a painting?” he asked Roman Martinez, a lawyer for the Warhol foundation, adding: “You make it sound simple, but maybe it’s not so simple.” said judges might not make good art critics. And people look at Elvis and people look at Marilyn Monroe or Elizabeth Taylor and Prince, and they say this has an entirely different message from the thing that started it all off.”īut Justice Samuel A. “They show Andy Warhol because he was a transformative artist, because he took a bunch of photographs and he made them mean something completely different. “Why do museums show Andy Warhol?” she asked.

Justice Kagan said Warhol’s success was evidence that his work added to the meaning of his source materials.

The other is to show what Prince looks like.” He added: “One is the commentary on modern society. “It’s that, unlike Goldsmith’s photograph, Warhol sends a message about the depersonalization of modern culture and celebrity status.” “It’s not just that Warhol has a different style,” Chief Justice John G. Some justices suggested that Warhol’s work had cleared that bar.

Discount photo supreme