hey, abvg,You've brought up some great questions that should probably be separate forums in their own right, and I can't make a comprehensive response to each of them all at once--but here's a breif synopsis of my reactions to them:
First, yes, only the rich can afford art, but it is not their exclusive domain, and never has been. this is what is meant by the term 'patronage,' in the sense that the priviledged support the arts (by purchase, commission, etc.) and enable fine art to continue, as a human achievement, with serious devotion, rather than being a part-time hobby.
this is just sort of a natural 'food chain,' if you will, where the wealthy are priviledged enough to own it and preserve it, but the rest of the world still enjoys it nevertheless--as it filters down to them--with proper preservation, museums, etc.
The only reason this presents a problem to artists is if their art turns from being autonomous and degrades into being art-for-the-wealthy (as I would argue has been the case in recent American history).
Secondly, I'm not sure what triumph you are talking about. Can you define who you are referring to by "modernists," and "deconstruction of the aesthetic?" Regardless of what intellectual path is chosen, art is, by definition, incapable of escaping from an aesthetic.
the modernists of the 1950's-70's were interested in deconstruction, but deconstruction WAS their 'aesthetic.' Their art existed to challenge the definition of what art was. Do you mean deconstruction of the neoclassicist aesthetic of the 1890's Paris Salons? deconstruction of the representational (3-D) aesthetic?
I would argue that there was not a universal 'aesthetic' to be destroyed, and that the Modernists had to create a sort of 'paper tiger,' in order to bring it down. With the exception of a few institutions (Salons, etc.), the aesthetic that defined what was "Art," and what was not, was extremely broad and inclusive.
An aesthic that is based on the destruction of another aesthetic cannot say anything tranchent or lasting about the human condition, and will run dry quickly. Hence the undeniable failure of the Modernist movement (in record time, I might add).
Further, I would accuse Modernism as being guilty of the sin I listed in part I (above), as degrading into "art-for-the-rich." This is explicitly stated in modernist attempts to distance themselves from the 'bourgeoisie,' as if there were something less human about the 'bourgeoisie' than the rich.
Great art generally follows the Shakespeare model to one degree or another--that is to say that it is both accessible and challenging to people across a broad spectrum of humnanity--from highly educated to street-man, all can be 'elevated' by it.
The modernist attempt to sever itself from a vast segment of human population--to turn its back on its own humanity, if you will--only served to truncate its own expressive ability, and is yet another reason for its failure to have staying power or importance.
(for the record, i'm not trying to dismiss modernism wholesale--but merely purge the trash amongst it (of which there is no shortage), and hang on to the discarded treasures).
Third, and most important, can painting continue and be important in a world that has seen both 1)modernism, and 2) a technological explosion including motion pictures in the information age?
The answer is yes, we couldn't kill it if we wanted to (as many have tried), and no it's not merely decorative.
Unfortunately, I haven't budgeted my time wisely, and must expand on this question (Death of Painting) and address the observer-artist problem at a later time.
Again, thanks for bringing these questions up--I'll check back tommorrow, and try to get to your last two points, and a couple of Ilia's as well.
Douglas