Thanks for your post. I agree with you that my original question - "Is painting dead as an artform in the video age?" - has grown to include a whole raft of issues past, present and future that now threatens to become unmanageable. Part of the problem is this is not a proper cafe. If it was we could interrupt each other and clarify terms immediately.

I shall define some of my terms first, just to clarify my previous posts.

I define Modernism in art as the period between 1850 and 1970. These dates are not to be taken literally but they serve to illustrate the (sort of) time frame I mean. I agree with your comment that there was a lot of trash but I do regard the mordernist era as (probably) producing more outright masterpieces in such a short space of time than at any other time in the past.

I define the Postmodernism era as 1970 onwards.

As for the Modernist "triumph" in deconstructing the aethethic, I mean that during the Modernist era there was a huge explosion of the criterion for measuring what was worthy, beautiful, true, praiseworthy etc. Prior to the Modernist era the definition of what was Art was relatively narrow. Let's not forget that the Impressionists were a scandal! Yet it was barely a blink of eye before Abstract Expessionism held hegemony over the artworld.

I called it "deconstructing the aesthetic" because although it was an expansion of the aesthetic it had an effect rather like the infinitely expanding universe. In other words our definition of beautiful became infinitely varied and variable. I submit that this is a huge benefit to all artists. It is a release from a straightjacket. Unfortunately, the universe does not seem to believe in a free lunch and every advantage comes with a disadvantage but this is another issue.

That is all I wanted to say about your post for now. There are other points I want to discuss with you but I will wait until you have completed your piece.

Before I go, however, there is one thing with which I will take issue since it goes to the problem of the observer which you have yet to comment upon. We agree that only the rich can afford art but I will disagree with you on your thoughts concerning museums.

It would be a fine thing if museums, galleries etc were the guardians and disseminators of fine art that you have so much faith in. But every year the museums buy more and more art that goes direct from the artists' studio into storage never to see the light of day. The museums have so much art that only a very tiny fraction of what they have is ever seen. Consider the "official art" of the salons of the nineteenth century. It has, effectively, been "lost". Now you might say that is not such a bad thing but that is not the point. How can the oberver observe when it is not there to observe? Even art history books largely ignore this huge body of work - dismissing it as unimportant. It might be. But how can we judge?

The situation seems to me that only the rich can afford to buy (and therefore look) at art and the body of general observers (that portion of society who would like to look at and is intersted in Art but who cannot afford to buy it themselves) is getting smaller with each passing year. It is not that there are necessarily fewer people interested in art but that for one reason or another they have fewer opportunities to see it.

Anyway, that is it for now. I look forward to your further comments.