Dearth of Painters

Painters are perhaps headed the way of haiku poets, wheelwrights, jugglers and banjo players. They will in the future occupy some little niche in the art industry in the same way that hula dancers wiggle their way into the world of dance; the difference being that people actually like to watch the hula.

There is a drying up of discernment. Fewer and fewer artists really have any ideas about painting. When we turned the real lore of painting's past over to 'art historians' (who never really understood painting the way painters used to understand it.) it became a relic. The confusion about "appropriation" is a case in point. In 'olden' days a painter, say Manet, admired the work of another painter, say Velasquez. He then stole visual ideas or physical techniques from the Spaniard which showed up in the Frenchman's work. This process, filtered through the lens of art history, ended up as being described as making "references to" art of the past or "more famous art". The actual evolution of respect for great painting was re-packaged as an idea of content and not one of form. So now-a-days we say the sun rises because the rooster crows. In any event, if someone made good paintings, who would really be able to see it and more importantly, who would really care?

I understand that America's favorite painter is Kinkade....

These laughably kitsch efforts now command real money.

They remind me, in a way, of the early 60's work by the person know as Keane...

...although today Keane (turns out she was a woman whose husband was taking 'credit' for her 'art'.) seems downright modern by today's standards and, dare I say, "with it". The sad fact is, that by today's 'standards' they are "with it" and probably are as worthwhile as most of the stuff currently coming out of University MFA programs.

If I had made this statement in 1980, what do you think the reaction would have been?

Walworth