Questions

1. In what ways has our conception of painting been changed and what has shaped such changes?
2. Is there a subconscious desire to continue traditional and/or new forms of painting despite intentions to subvert or claims it is no longer relevant?

Richter claims that "In this history, the age of painting is definitely over. The new image is a digital one that has transformed photography, film, television and video into a single liquid substance [...] In this history, painting is no longer relevant." Richter also goes on to argue that Duchamp did not "stop painting," but that in fact, his many of his works did include painting despite his intention to subvert it. He further asserts that Duchamp is an heir to Leonardo Da Vinci, a revered artist in the Western world. From Duchamp's case, we can make two possible conclusions surrounding the "impossibility" of subverting painting. On the one hand , we can infer that because traditional and even looser ideas of painting are deeply embedded in Western society it is much more difficult for an artist to completely break such a chain. Because of this, there is perhaps a subconscious desire on the part of art critics, the common person as well as the artist to continue old ideas of painting to appeal to society's unrelentingly conservative sensibilities of what art is or should be.