The death of painting: Gerhard Richter, Angela de Cruz, Jorge Oteiza, Richard Serra.
Out there, there´s a never ending debate proclaiming the death of painting. While reading a Gerard Richter’s interview where he talks about this, I said to myself, why would a consummate painter like Richter say this?. Let´s try to figure it out…..
When Richter said it, he was exhibiting some attention-grabbing white oils on canvas.
Painting as it was is obviously dead. This “was” I use, refers to yesterday. Anything that has already been done or said is dead in terms of innovation. I´m sure you agree with this. Repeating makes no sense (unless you are rooky artist needing some practicing). Artists and painting, like any other profession or professional need evolution or they´re dead.
Besides some artists, who do also proclaim the death of painting? My investigation shows that the are “art gurus” who do it. They need (it´s their job) to be controversial. Then we have “professional art market manipulators” who may need this to happen in order to make their stock painting value grow (scarcity increases prices)….
Ángela de la Cruz “Hung 15”, 2010
Besides the two above, we have some art critics that mention it while explaining new contemporary artists creations. An example of this happened with Angela de la Cruz´s works.
Loose fit (blue) 2002
oil on canvas
111.3 (h) x 112.5 (w) cm
National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne Purchased through the NGV Foundation with the assistance of Michael Buxton, Governor, and Anna Schwartz, Governor, 2003 2003.479
There are some contemporary artists like her whose creations have been explained (and not by themselfs) in terms of the death of painting. The art made by Angela de la Cruz is simply brilliant but it´s not painting, it goes beyong it though the materials she uses (canvas, broke frames, acrylics, oils) are part of the final outcome. What she makes is an acute game. By the way, if you consider yourself a true contemporary art collector I would consider adding one of her creations to your collection.
So, why isisting in the death of painting?.
Jorge Oteiza, Metaphisic case 1958, iron, 30 x 30 x 30 cm. Museu Fundación Juan March, de Palma
Some time ago, Jorge Oteiza, one of the worlds most trascendent sculptors, decided to quit sculpting. After emptying and synthesizing all of the unnecessary parts of his cases, what was left was simply nothing. Hence, he said that sculpture was dead. Maybe it was for him, but not for some contemporary sculptors such as Richard Serra (Oteiza´s creations and ideologies were key for him) who used Oteiza´s thoughts and went one, or many, steps further.
Richard Serra in a Paris exhibition. Photo: Olivier Laban-Mattei/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Artists need to commit themselfs to evolving painting. Art schools and cultural institutions have to properly do the same and help (by provoking) artists go further. As Barcelona´s painter Xavier Ribas commented in my last post about Richter´s art auction prices , the importance realies in what painters (and artists) say, and not in how they say it.
Imagination, study, practice, believes and artist´s commitment are keen. We will evolve while we keep them. Believing we can move ahead is key to the future of painting. You can use classical school techniques or innovative ones (this is not the important thing). Commitment and message are. Painting is painting and it will last if we want it to. Painting icons such us Richter that have already made it (and the reasons behind their success go beyong their creations and theirselfs) should motivate new painting generations. And this should also be their commitment with society.
Please help making this debate more interesting and add your thoughts below. If you want to spread it click the facebook, twitter, pinterest, google plus and stumbleupon icons at the end of this article. Thanks
ps: in future articles I will show you the works of some quite interesting contempory abstract painters whose imagination has not dry up yet.
