We could discuss reproduction as a vibe, but it's easier and more falsifiable to discuss it as taking a photograph of a work, separating its colors, using those color separations to create plates (whether physical or digital), and using those plates to direct the application of dyes to a surface.

We can't deny that Warhol both intended to do and did that to the photograph.

> it's easier and more falsifiable to discuss it as taking a photograph of a work, separating its colors, using those color separations to create plates (whether physical or digital), and using those plates to direct the application of dyes to a surface.

You can't determine whether a usage falls under fair use just by looking at the end product without considering the intent though.

“No your honor I did not steal the painting off the gallery walls. I made a performance art piece, a derivative work, about art theft.”

Awfully convenient eh?

Copyright infringement is not theft.

A video of someone stealing a piece of art from a gallery does not infringe the copyright of the art being stolen. It is still theft, though.