[Duckman2]

I'd go so far to say that painting is dead. It was brought to its logical conclusion with Pollack. What else new can you do with a 2-d surface and sticky colored glop? I do see a small swing in the other direction back towards realism in the younger generations with a greater interest with the craft of drawing and painting, but the craft has been taken to such high level in the past that were just repeating ourselves.

[nova]

i disagree.. i think you're missing the point to it all. what you're arguing is somewhat relative too.

personally, i paint because i need to, or else it feels like i'm going to explode. i don't really think of the state of art or painting while i do it.. for me it's self-expression and that's what makes it important to me. painting is something more than a medium, it's a form of expression.

in this case though, i think of painting like i think of movies. the age of ground-breaking special effects is gone, and it's up to the artists to come up with cool stories and visuals to make the movie. even in games.. in 10 years the technology will probably be the same, and artists will have to think harder than ever to make the games original.

and so, it comes back to painting. it's not about the medium and where it can go, it's about the artist that makes it beautiful.

[Awetopsy]

I think you could say that with any art form...

personally I disagree.. I also do my art jsut for the sake of inspiration.... (and cuz they pay me to )

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Ahcri]

I have to disagree as well. Remember Pollock's action painting method happened at 1950s, and then no one else really imitated him AND be critically acclaimed at the same time. It's like a one-shot deal. You might say that action painting is dead, but painting itself it certainly not. In the 70s, most of the famous artist that we read about in books now had jumped on the installation bandwagon, and painting seems to die down a little. But people were generally still painting, there just wasn't a big fuss made about it. In the 1980s, there was a revival of expressionistic painting style, people are paying attention to it again. One neo-expressionistic painter actually used a cleaver to apply paint onto canvas, the result of that is a violent effect but not at all abstract. The figures are very life-like, and the content sometimes reflects the state of politics at the time.

Besides, nobody said it is mandatory to innovate in painting. People are still earning thousands of dollar selling classical watercolour painting, and some people are also selling their abstract expressionistic paintings. Painting is not dead, and maybe it's ok for us to stay there. If you ask me, I think too much innovation at such a short period of time is what made people think painting is unfashionable.

Just last week, I broke my toe while working on a 7 feet by 2 feet painting. I also got a sore thumb when I stretched on the canvas on the frame because it's so freaking huge. But the thrill is there, you have to experience it to know it.

[Basse_Ex]

Painting isn't dead. It can't die. It never lived.

But, there has been some major adjustments in the position that painting has in the art world. It is no longer considered the highest form of art, as it was in some periods... lucky for painting...

But all this "It's DEAD!!!!!" shit is getting boring... everything seems to die these days...

If I'm not mistaken, Rock&Roll died in the 70's, 80's, and the 90's, and it will probably die gain this decade.

If people make interesting things, then other people will take interest, no matter what medium it is in. Artforms cannot die.

They just change.