Andy Warhol—Rupert Smith

Andy Warhol’s relationship with Rupert Smith was rooted in their work together but extended into Warhol’s involvement in Smith’s private life. The diary records them working late and solving a commissioned painting problem, then shows Warhol trying to intervene in Smith’s relationship with his boyfriend. When Warhol learns that the boyfriend has AIDS, his judgment turns to regret; months later, Smith leaves work to attend the man’s funeral. These episodes make the relationship visible not as a formally defined partnership, but through labor, advice, and the consequences of a late-arriving disclosure.

Work in the studio

On July 16, 1985, Warhol spent part of the day filming Ric Ocasek for an MTV pilot and then worked with Rupert until eight in the evening. A severe rainstorm brought hailstones and leaks through the roof; they ran around with buckets to catch the water. The entry gives no account of what they worked on, but its details place their collaboration amid the Factory’s ordinary practical disorder: a production day, a damaged roof, improvised containers, and an extended workday. Rupert appears as someone sharing the labor rather than merely receiving instructions.

That brief scene is one of the clearest records of their working routine. The diary does not dramatize the work itself or explain the division of responsibilities. Instead, it preserves the hour they finished and the conditions around them. Its matter-of-factness suggests how collaboration could be embedded in the day’s interruptions, without separating artistic work from the upkeep and pressures of the workplace.

A commissioned painting and a practical proposal

The diary’s account of the Campbell Soup Company commission shows a different kind of shared work. The company disliked Warhol’s painting because it had wanted a depiction of its new box, while Warhol had tried to make something more inventive. The commission therefore became a dispute over what the assignment meant: the client wanted the product represented as specified; Warhol had attempted to go beyond that brief.

On September 19, Rupert proposed stretching canvas over a box for the Campbell’s project. The entry does not say whether the idea was adopted or whether it resolved the disagreement, so its importance lies in the recorded act of proposing a concrete way forward. Rupert’s suggestion connected the physical form of the product to the painting’s support, addressing the problem through a change in presentation rather than simply repeating the rejected approach. The diary offers no elaborate account of their discussion, but it registers Rupert as a collaborator who could contribute a practical solution when a commission stalled.

Warhol’s intervention in Rupert’s relationship

By October 17, Warhol’s attention had shifted from shared work to Rupert’s romantic life. He called Rupert early and reached the boyfriend, whom he referred to as Rupert’s “wife.” Warhol was already resolved to tell Rupert that he should end the relationship. He anticipated that a separation might involve demands for a house, a dog, and a car, and described the boyfriend as a nag. Those anticipated settlement terms were Warhol’s conjecture, not an account of an actual breakup.

Warhol also recognized the limits of his intervention. He observed that people in love do not listen to warnings and may repeat to their partners what someone has said about them. His complaint that Rupert would not hear him records both his desire to influence Rupert and his expectation that the advice could make its way back to the person he disliked. The entry does not establish what Rupert thought of the warning or whether Warhol delivered it. It does show Warhol imagining himself as a protective confidant while acknowledging that love could make his advice ineffective.

A changed understanding

On December 16, Brigid Berlin read Warhol a New York Times article about a man named Patrick McAllister, whose boyfriend worked for a “famous artist.” The article did not name Rupert. Warhol nevertheless understood it to concern Rupert’s boyfriend, adding that he was uncertain of the surname. He learned that Patrick had found out he had AIDS in August. The information changed the tone of his account: after acknowledging that he had hated Patrick for years and had been mean to him, Warhol said he felt bad.

Warhol also wondered whether the news explained changes he associated with Rupert, including turning to macrobiotics and taking EST courses. The diary records this as his interpretation, not as a confirmed explanation from Rupert. The contrast is telling: in October, Warhol framed the boyfriend chiefly as an obstacle in Rupert’s life; in December, the report of AIDS made that earlier hostility harder for him to sustain. His regret does not erase the prior antagonism, but it reveals how incomplete his understanding had been.

On February 20, 1986, Rupert came to the office with some work before leaving for Patrick’s funeral. That brief note gives the earlier news a definite consequence in the diary: the man whose illness had prompted Warhol’s reconsideration had died, and Rupert was going to mourn him. The entry supplies no details of the funeral or Rupert’s feelings, and it does not resolve the relationship between the two men. Instead, the ordinary workday and the funeral sit side by side, marking how private grief entered the same routine in which Warhol and Rupert had collaborated.

The relationship in the diary

The record moves from shared labor to unsolicited advice, then from a harsh judgment to regret and loss. It does not provide a complete portrait of either man or define the terms of their relationship. Its significance lies in the small, concrete episodes through which closeness becomes legible: Rupert working late with Warhol during a storm, offering an idea for a rejected commission, and leaving the office for Patrick’s funeral. Warhol’s concern for Rupert could be practical and intrusive, and his assumptions about Rupert’s partner proved incomplete. The diary preserves that unevenness rather than turning their connection into a simple story of loyalty or conflict.