I've read through the entries on "The Death of Painting" with great interest, agreement and sympathy (although I admit to not having absorbed each and every idea totally). I, too, have had many sleepless nights torturing myself over this problem. (I'm an American painter living for over 10 years in a small town in Northern Germany.)

However, I believe that a more accurate formulation of the problem would be "The Death of Autonomous Art". Since painting (and sculpture) has perhaps the oldest documented history and tradition that we possess (and can be said to recede into a sort of Jungian "collective memory"), it is naturally singled-out as a victim when the administrators of postmodern culture become suspicious of autonomous art's "political incorrectness" and overzealous in their efforts to purge it from the scene. A recent example: the dismissal of painting as an "epistomological machine" by Okwui Enwezor, director of Documenta 11 in Kassel - a commentary on painting's role at Documenta 11 as well as in Western ("global") culture in general. In fact, painting MUST be pronounced "dead" by the postmodern mainstream because Postmodernism - while principally a visual phenomenon - is not concerned with visual aesthetics but rather postmodern social-political "text" (typified by Conceptualism and the neo-realism of the installation form - both having far more than a casual relation to Socialist Realism).

The notions of Modernism and Postmodernism certainly play a crucial role in this debate, although I would date the beginnings of the modern in art from about 1800 until the end of World War II; the postmodern, I see as a "post-Hiroshima/Nagasaki" continuation of Modernism (which might suggest why some see Postmodernism as a peculiarly "American" idea).

I consider the crisis of "The Death of Painting/Autonomous Art" as a late manifestation of the "built-in" contradictions contained in the very origins of bourgeois art (what we call modern/postmodern). That the debate continues at all is evidence that these contradictions still need to be addressed. Various artists have dealt with these contradictions with varying degrees of success.

"Painting is Dead" - and speaking quite seriously - this might be a good thing. Now that painting is described as having been finally left behind by the mainstream, perhaps it will regain the freedom to devote itself anew to the central unsolved dilemma in the visual arts of the 21st century as inherited from the 19th and 20th: the synthesis of idealism and materialism. Painting remains (in spite of Enwezor's views) the only visual art form - following Cézanne's lead, ignored by Picasso - preserving the potential for a truely dialectical synthesis of the ideal/formal with the material content - what was once called the universal with the individual.

I realize that the above might sound a bit "abstract" - but I wanted to try to keep the ball rolling without writing a VERY long text (which I have the unfortunate tendency to do). I would like to think that the discussion over "The Death of Painting/Autonomous Art" might be only just beginning. I would also like to offer two reading suggestions, if anyone is interested: (1)"Proudhon Marx Picasso: Three Studies in the Sociology of Art" by Max Raphael (1899-1952), ed. John Tagg, New Jersey: Humanity Press; London: Lawrence & Wishart.(2)"On Socialist Realism" (printed together with "The Trial Begins") by Abram Tertz, trans. Max Hayward. Raphael was described by The Times Literary Supplement as "perhaps the greatest philosopher of art of the 20th century." (From a personal standpoint, I have found both Raphael and Tertz almost indespensable to a discussion such as "The Death of Painting/Autonomous Art".)

No, I am not a Marxist. Best wishes and a happy new year to all! - David