I think painting is both "opera" and a living language. The peculiar thing
about the times is that most modes of making are palimpsests of archive and
the new. See Sigmar Polke, eg. With libraries, video stores, cd reissues,
mp3s, etc., the range of the available texts/images becomes very thick as well
as broad.
I know I'm lifting figures from Gericault in my recent stuff, but not with any
intention of "referring" to him. It's merely the highly traditional theft that
over the centuries has given resonance to practices of painting. The work I'm
doing is also "new" in its mode of presentation, its ad-hocness. so.
Artists always risk irrelevance. The thing is, they risk a lot more too, and
always have.
AK
Aaron Kimberly wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'd enjoy hearing your comments about painting. I recall seeing a set of
> paintings at the Whitney over a year ago of "Divas". The commentary called
> into question whether painting is still a living language or
> historical/sentimental like 'opera'. Perhaps Baudelaire would agree that
> painting is no longer the ideal vehicle for engaged metaphors of modern
> life. Yet, there remains the compulsion to paint. Do we risk irrelivance?
> What do you think?
