Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 83

32  ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 

v. GOLDSMITH 
KAGAN, J., dissenting 

Manet, Olympia, 1863, oil on canvas 

Here again consider the account of the Rauschenberg, Lich-
tenstein,  and  Mitchell  Foundations:  “The  revolutionary
shock of the painting depends on how traditional imagery 
remains  the  painting’s  recognizable  foundation,  even  as
that  imagery  is  transformed  and  wrenched  into  the  pre-
sent.”  Brief as Amici Curiae 9.  It is an especially striking
example of a recurrent phenomenon—of how the develop-
ment of visual art works across time and place, constantly 
building on what came earlier.  In fact, the Manet has itself 
spawned  further  transformative  paintings,  from  Cézanne
to a raft of contemporary artists across the globe.  See id., 
at 10–11.  But the majority, as to these matters, is uninter-
ested and unconcerned. 

Take a look at one last example, from a modern master
very different from Warhol, but availing himself of the same
appropriative traditions.  On the left (below) is Velázquez’s 
portrait of Pope Innocent X; on the right is Francis Bacon’s 
Study After Velázquez’s Portrait.