The relation is all pretty obvious. But my point, in the context of the last few posts [which should probably be read in reverse order beginning May 1st] is that Warhol is marketed by and to the intellectual class within the art world as a conceptualist and a philosopher and to the public as celebrant of celebrity, whereas Hitchcock is marketed more honestly to both intellectuals and the broader public as a storyteller famous for depictions of perverse psychology. The differences in media in presentation and marketing belie the similarity of their preoccupations and their similar relations to their work

For the art world as a whole this served two overlapping functions, fostering the inflated self-image of two opposed but equally idealistic groups central to the community: critics promoted Warhol to themselves as a critic or problem solver in the modern ideological tradition, and dealers promoted him to their wealthy clients as a celebrant of their own aspirations.

Warhol wasn't a philosopher any more than Hitchcock was. [And neither was 'creative.' Both were observant.]