Question: What act of Munch's prefigured Andy Warhol's later use of Munch's work?
About the article "The Scream", section "In popular culture".

Candidate passages:
 December - Unter den Linden in Berlin holds an exhibition of Edvard Munch's work, including six paintings entitled "Study for a Series: Love", beginning his "Frieze of Life" cycle.  
In 1955, Oxford University Press published "I Am a Conductor" by Munch in a translation by Leonard Burkat.
It was originally issued in 1954 in French as "Je suis chef d'orchestre".
The work is a collection of Munch's thoughts on conducting and the role of a conductor.D.
Kern Holoman wrote Munch's first biography in English, "Charles Munch".
It was published by Oxford University Press in 2011. 
The painting was done at a difficult time for Munch: a commission for a portrait in Hamburg (of a Senator Holthusen, the father in law of Munch's patron Max Linde) had come to naught because of disagreements.
As a result, Munch suffered anxieties, which he attempted to manage with alcohol.
A visit to a brothel in Lübeck is supposedly the background to "Christmas in the Brothel", a "light yet melancholy" painting in which the working girls in a brothel have just finished decorating a Christmas tree.
"Ironic, sentimentally unholy", the painting is interpreted as a commentary on both Linde's upper-class household (where Munch was staying at the time) and Munch's own "pietistic home background".
Like other paintings of the period, it shows Munch's association with Fauvism.
Prostitution was a favored topic of Munch's, and one particular room in a German brothel would later inspire an entire series of paintings, "The Green Room". 
Like Watkins' other films, "Edvard Munch" uses a docudrama approach; scenes from Munch's life are re-enacted by a large cast (mostly Norwegian non-professional actors), but there is also a voiceover narration by Watkins, and there are moments when the characters speak directly to camera, as if being interviewed about their own lives or their opinions of Munch.
Some of the dialogue was improvised by the cast, especially in the interview segments.
To convey the hostile response Munch's work often received during his lifetime, Watkins recruited Norwegians who genuinely disliked the paintings. 
When the 1885–86 original version was first exhibited at the 1886 Autumn Exhibition in Christiania, it was jeered by spectators and drew "a veritable storm of protest and indignation" from critics dismayed at his use of impressionistic techniques, his seeming abandonment of line, and the fact that the painting seemed to be unfinished.
Many found it unsatisfactory that the key passage in the painting - the women's joined hands - was not well detailed, there are no lines to describe their fingers and the centerpiece essentially comprises blobs of paint.
In defence Munch said "I don't paint what I see but what I saw.
"The exhibition was reviewed by the critic Andreas Aubert, who wrote: "There is genius in Munch.
But there is also the danger that it will go to the dogs ... For this reason, for Munch's own sake, I would wish that his Sick Child had been refused ...
In its present form this 'study'(!)
is merely a discarded half-rubbed-out sketch.
"Over 40 years later, the Nazis deemed Munch's paintings "degenerate art" and removed them from German museums.
The works, which included the 1907 version of "The Sick Child" from the Dresden Gallery, were taken to Berlin to be auctioned.
Norwegian art dealer Harald Holst Halvorsen acquired several, including "The Sick Child", with the goal of returning them to Oslo.
The 1907 painting was purchased by Thomas Olsen in 1939 and donated to the Tate Gallery.