abvg,
ilia, & dolphinfire28,i havent crafted the 'final argument' (so to speak) to support my beliefs just yet, but i wanted to point out a couple of things.
first, technology is not very new anymore, and if the cause of painting's eminent death were technology, then it would have died shortly after the advent of the motion picture (a while back).
second, abvg, you said that it seems everyone disagrees with you. it's important to remember that this is because we're playing within the rules of an artificial format (i.e., the a priori question "can painting continue . . ."). as far as the empirical world is concerned, no one in any major institution, gallery, museum, etc., would consider painting in the throes of death right now.
it may not fit within the definition of what 'painting' means to you or me, but painting is very popular in one form or another, making our discussion a principle-based discussion, for the purpose of clarifying the future, rather than an 'oh-my-god-no-one's-buying-paintings-anymore' discussion.
we, however, happen to be on the 'outside' of the world in which painting is important, (at least myself, anyways), so the question has more relevance, since its importance is not a given.
this brings up another question: given that painting can and will be a vital art form amongst the intelligentsia/priviledged classes for a long time to come, can painting do and/or say anything important to a vast segment of the population? (i.e. influence the course of culture OUTside the priviledged classes, and still avoid becoming mere populism or entertainment).
i feel this is a different problem than 'art for the rich' (which, to me, implies a 'purpose' problem, rather than a 'value' problem).
no conclusions today, i just wanted to point out that we're discussing with a purpose, but i don't believe that we're discussing the actual 'state of the art,' as you called it.
i find your 'photo-destruction' act pretty interesting. a couple of friends and myself had discussed videotaping the painting process, then destroying the painting afterwards, and projecting the video as an installation. but none of us have actually gone out and experimented with 'fugitive art.' kudos to you on that.
i could see the photos being signed/numbered artist proofs. then, in some way, so long as the quality were maintainted (a digitized data set of exact approved colors, etc.), there could be no limit on the number of people who could print out an original work of art.
sort of like DNA being the 'real' life force, the digitized information would be the 'real' art. that would be the most important thing to 'create'--the result of the artistic process (a combo of paint, pixel, etc.).
where would the info be stored, and who would 'own' it? (or the negative, if you prefer to stick with a photo). who would receive payment each time it was printed, or 'purchased?' or should it be free?
interesting.
later,
douglas
i didn't realize that burnt sienna was so bad for your back. i'll quit using it.
