Recently an article by Laurie Fendrich was circulating on Facebook. It’s worth reading, but this is what I said about it:
I like most of what she says, but object to this:
“Painting contains its own roughly defined rules. The art is flat, rectilinear, and smeared with colored pigments. It differs from the many boundaryless arts born in the late 60s and 70s — installation, conceptual, and performance art — where the creators essentially do what they want. A painter can bend painting’s rules only so far before a painting is no longer a painting.”
There’s the basic conservatism that ruins an otherwise good critique of the art world.
I’m not criticizing her work, which is kind of Kandinskyish in an interesting way.
My question is, why criticize the nonsense that goes on in the art world, and in art education, if you are not committed to art as an adventure? Of course all art has its limits, and wouldn’t be art without them, but the whole point is to test them, no?