I’m far from being a statistician but I would be curious to know how many of today's painting students know the work of Isabel Bishop as compared to that of Andy Warhol. Bishop’s interest in painting people rather than reflecting the most trivial visual and cultural issues in American life and art, is something to think about. In the current culture of celebrity worship, brand names are developed as part of career making. Well known names can artifically embellish meager talent. But in some cases, names emerge as a good indicator of brilliant work. Cezanne's visual I.Q. was and is astounding whereas, Julian Schnabel's entire body of work is dwarfed by one great Cezanne or any Titiian. Schnabel is less prominent "name wise" than in the previous decade and his reputation may ebb and flow along with cultural tastes that come and go. Even with the best of painters, such as Rembrandt, this can happen. If Schnabel had taken the long view ofwhat has carried the most serious involvement in painting, his work might have been much more than being only temporarily popular. Since he did not, I doubt that his name or paintings will see a Renaissance. If one compares the patient evocation of form and highly personal hands on involvement in a Bishop painting to the cool and distant celebration of pop culture in Warhol's work, well............there is no comparison. Warhol helped to lead painting away from the great paintings produced over many centuries into the era of attention toward paintings that are not really painting.