Comment by J. Hunt on Monday, Oct 13 at 12:32 AM

This interview is not very well structured and fails for a number of reasons. First of all, Charlie doesn't conduct the discussion appropriately. I would have liked to see a conversation focused on the influence of Andy Warhol on art both commercially and philosophically, and the way in which that has come to mean art as an all-encompassing feat. Secondly, Glenn O'Brien is a genius of his time, but his time is nearing its end. He somehow, though unimaginably, seems out of touch. This is, perhaps, because it is impossible to see the present and fast approaching future of art and culture when coming from an era as rampant as the sixties and two decades to follow, the sort of "early aftermath". Again, my respects to Glenn. TV Party? I mean, come on, wonderful! All I'm saying is that it's hard for even the twenty-something of today to unveil the current underground scenario. Partly because it is no longer clear. Subculture in a media-laden art and music world of exposure? Anyway, my last point is that Stephanie Seymour's input, which was not the most articulated information, did not seem to excite any interesting conversation about Andy and fashion. I am sorry to see yet another failed attempt to relate Andy's influences to today's youth culture.

Comment by Zan Herold on Wednesday, Jun 18 at 08:22 PM

why such a boring topic? is is just me or are thes people so OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE WORLD that a magizine about other people just like them means nothing to the rest of us?

Comment by Simone Ellis on Thursday, Jun 12 at 07:27 AM

Dear Charlie, Though a loyal fan of your show, I am writing to say that Charlie, you just don't get it. Not when it comes to Contemporary Art. I have never seen an interview on your show that demonstrates an informed understanding of art or artists This is sad because you are quite extraordinary in that regard in just about every other intellectual/journalistic topic. I've watched carefully for your art coverage, given that it is my niche in journalism. So when, once again, on last night's show honoring Warhol's 80th (would-be) birthday, you returned again and again to the "product" value of his work... "his success" instead of what made his best paintings have the extensive effect upon us that they do, I decided to write to you. Can you see that the lack of serious coverage of art on your show, is the a gapping hole in the fabric of your otherwise excellent journalism.. or what will be your legacy. Yes, you "do" architecture really well, but that is not art in the same sense as painting and sculpture. Without a doubt, you conduct well-informed, well-considered interviews on the art that is made in the form of buildings. (utilitarian) But canvases, painting? non. You seem to have this smirk of superiority on your face when discussing modern art, especially when approaching the avant-garde. It is not that much of a jump from architecture to the building of a paint-scape or the pulling of a print, by a visual artist... so why is it so difficult for you to show genuine respect for visual artists.. esp. experimental ones, like Warhol and Kiki Smith. Why disdain experimental genius in painting when you very nearly revere architecture and architects? Am I wrong or did Andy Warhol have to be dead and expensive to deem half an hour on your show? Every truly sophisticated person knows that Art is not intrinsically about money. It is not even about value. Nor can its worth be measured by the same units as one would measure, film productions, industry or finance, sports or merchandising. Then why do you constantly base your comments in the dollar value, the business of art, instead of the philosophy of it? Besides being a fantastic painter â?? you can always tell a genius by his/her line--- Warhol was one of the great conceptual artists. Have you ever lived with or taken a good long time to really 'see' one? And what about digital art.. the form that makes infinitely reproducible products? Alarming! not capitalistically viable? So how could anyone take that kind of art seriously? ridiculous, right? Because all roads lead to Rome, and all so-called artistic products are about the value of exchange. Right? Even the very act of creation is somehow based in money in your mind... or so your questions imply. Your closing on tonight's Warhol show was intensely embarrassing to me (us)-- it even made me blush for you... when, at the end of the segment, you flipped carelessly through, "Interview," something your guests had been trying to explain was a piece of Warhol ART-- and you quipped something like, " ah come one, huh? you really just want to sell magazines." ha ha ha I think Andy would have found that comment tres gauche, as do so many of us. Did you notice that not one of your guests laughed at your tacky joke? That's because there was no humor in it... humor must have an element of truth to it, or it is not funny. Sincerely, Simone Ellis Art critic, poet, author of a million copies of "Santa Fe Art," and of the newly serialized ( on Exquisite Corpse www.corpse.org) previously unrevealed, retrieved interviews from an upcoming book, "Channeling William Burroughs," and producer of "Hands for Compassion," a film on 9/11, of the Dalai Lama, LINK TV--- Simone has recently moved back to NYC, from Montana. She is a writer and critic living in Brooklyn.

Comment by Brian Lica on Tuesday, Jun 10 at 03:52 PM

Hi Charlie, Please keep up the good work. Your shows are interesting and food for thought. Sincerely, Brian Lica Sacramento,California