Leaving aside the "death/ill" debate for a moment, it might be worth considering a general sense of art history. The idea that artists can paint just about anything they want is a relatively modern one. Art for Arts' Sake originates from the aftermath of the reformation. Since this time, up to the end of the sixties, painting enjoyed a position as the premier artform.

It seems as though it is the growth of the mass media that has pushed painting to the margins. But how valid was this position in the first place?

Could the "dead/ill" question apply to the Art for Arts' Sake viewpoint of painting rather than painting itself? Do we need a new paradigm for painting? Has Art for Arts' Sake run its' course?

What is it we are creating? Expensive decoration focal points? A recent survey of gallery owners in the UK said that one of the most important criterion applied to paintings by buyers is whether or not it would harmonize with the colour scheme of the room it was for.

I am not suggesting either that this is wrong. Buyers buy paintings for their own reasons and I have always suspected that they are not even close to the reasons we (as artists) would like them to be. But is it art and does it need to be?