TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPENINGS: SCOTT GRODESKY

SOME PEOPLE SAY we live in a world of objects—a world of three-dimensional lived space, the apprehension of which can somehow yield autonomous experiences. For me, however, our world is a two-dimensional place of images and signs, where our thoughts are focused on the flat screen. Painting remains of interest because of its one-to-one relationship with this two-dimensional world.

A lot of people, of course, have trouble with the idea of painting. They argue that the practice of painting today is an anachronism. I think this argument is flawed. One cannot make a case based solely on historical determinism about a class of objects, because the nature of that set changes over time. What is called “painting” now is completely different from what it was even a hundred years ago. A coffee mug from Conran’s has as much relationship to a 17th-century porcelain cup as contemporary painting has to

Sign-in to keep reading

Artforum print subscribers have full access to this article. If you are a subscriber, sign in below.

Not registered for artforum.com? Register here.

SUBSCRIBE NOW at the special holiday rate of $45 a year—70% off the newsstand price. You’ll receive the print magazine plus full online access to this issue and our archive.*

Order the PRINT EDITION of the November 1992 issue for $17 or the ONLINE EDITION for $5.99.

* This rate applies to U.S. domestic subscriptions.