Hey art historians: That computer was DESIGNED for art, and designed and USED for much better works that touched many more people's lives than Andy Warhol cloning an eye on a corporate sales demo image.
People actually spent hours and days and years making refined aesthetic choices, putting their bodies and hearts into works and gaining commercial popularity and telling stories using that computer. Most importantly, they used it in ways that were previously unknown, unlike using one of the most popular launch titles to edit a "launch image."
Believing that these images have special powers b/c of the person who made them is textbook fetishization.
Why valorize $famous_guy's random scribbles over the rest of the corpus of works in the medium? Just because it's easier to say, "Well it's from Him, so it's famous," rather than to examine and /critique/ other works made on the machine?
Ever wonder why art historians make such low salaries and have difficulty paying their loans? How about creating some value for other people by understanding, critiquing and explaining the vast body of Amiga works rather than echoing to each other and telling us, "yup, that one's important cuz it's by that famous guy."
Tell us something we don't know. Give us some bread and not candy and you will amply rewarded. It's not George Bush's fault.