/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

I'd like to discuss this with the few reasonable anons on here. *)

Painting has been declared dead many a times. When photography was invented, the first people to work with it were artists. People thought this was the end of painting. As it turned out, it only helped painting become liberated, more free and extended its spectrum of possibilities.
In the 1950s and 60s, when conceptual art was on the rise, painting was deemed old fashioned and reactionary, mostly strategically, to give more space to emerging new forms of art. A few decades later and performance art as it is has become more redundant, self-referential and stock than painting could ever be.

But today, I think that painting could really be a dying art form, for multiple reasons: How we consume media has changed so drastically that the current younger generations simply find no place for something odd like traditional art in their hearts. Digital media is the alpha and omega of today. Traditional painting by successful artists is mostly a currency for bank funded art prizes, rich mofos and Sothebys auctions. It is niche, elitist and frowned upon to paint.
Painting for therapeutic reasons is a very common thing these days. May that be old ladies painting coffee club on lazy sundays or actual ergotherapy style painting to heal depressed people. It is an affordable hobby and most people believe that knowing an actual "painter" is completely unheard of outside of these two contexts: either you are mentally challenged or old and senile to start painting.

So, is it really over? Artists like Sigmar Polke and Albert Oehlen have successfully used printing and digital media aesthetics in their works, but to a point that really mergers the two (unlike this gay shit here >>3571541 ).


>TL;DR painting is dead, or is it? discuss

*)
>inb4 all the ic madmen raid this thread