Dear Readers    

Our paint-themed issue just makes me want to paint. I figure that’s a good thing. As a former serious painter, I get wistful for the days when I was alone in the studio for hours with pigment, medium and turpentine—especially when I see a good painting that is really about the application of paint. Our writers in this issue explore the many ways in which paint is used: on canvas, on wood; poured, splattered, dribbled, smeared, cut, hacked and tied up in knots. The wonders of paint abound within these pages of Artillery.
It is almost laughable to think that back in 1839 the French painter Paul Delaroche was the first to declare: “Painting is dead.” After that, it became a catch phrase to emphasize whatever the current trend: Painting is dead; Painting is back. Reading this issue, I think you’ll agree that it is back. But was it ever really gone?

Of course not. Why would anyone want to live without paintings? What would we hang on our walls or in the museums? Isn’t that what walls are made for? Upon some investigating, it appears to me that when Delaroche suggested “Painting is dead,” he was most likely referring to the invention of the Daguerreotype, the first successful photographic process. Delaroche’s paintings were mostly historical documentation, which was the reason for much of the painting at that time. Perhaps a more accurate statement should have been, “Narrative painting is dead.”

That more precise proposition is how this whole painting theme got started—New York contributor Seph Rodney wanted to write about narrative painting. He chose three artists to discuss, although there are a plethora of narrative painters. Then I opened the painting theme up to our writers, and everyone wanted to write about their favorite painter. But that’s not what this issue ended up being about, and besides, we would have had to leave out too many fabulous painters. We decided to concentrate on what painting means today.

Abstraction is discussed by David DiMichele, on a deep personal level. David has been following this subject matter for a long time and maintains that Jackson Pollock is still the litmus test for a truly good abstract painting. Abstract painter James Hayward, whom I interview, claims the way to tell a good abstract is to place it next to the early black paintings of Frank Stella. But is that what painters strive to do? Be as good as Pollock, as good as Titian, or van Eyck? Those are gargantuan shoes to fill. Or are painters supposed to find new forms of expression? Surely, it was groundbreaking when Pollock spread the canvas on the floor. But what can a painter do today to push boundaries? Not use a brush? Anne Martens explores sculptural painting—paintings that don’t hang on a wall. Paint is the medium, but it is used to make multidimensional works. Is it sculpture then? Anne considers this carefully.

What this issue comes down to is that painting is alive and kicking. I can’t imagine living in a world without painting, even if I don’t paint right now (I fully intend to dig into it again). Whether it’s abstract, minimalist, narrative or hard edge—or even sculpture—painting will never die. The two centuries that it has survived since Delaroche surely attest to that.