Contemporary painting is drowning in mediocrity, according to observations from recent major art events. A walk through Frieze London in October revealed an overwhelming abundance of what can only be described as bad painting—not the intentionally provocative 'bad painting' of artists like Francis Picabia, but genuinely poor, uninspired work. The problem extends beyond commercial art fairs to institutional exhibitions. A recent survey of contemporary Belgian painting at the SMAK museum in Ghent, while thoughtfully curated, still contained numerous works that felt conceptually thin or technically weak. This trend suggests a deeper crisis in the medium.
The current malaise in painting stems from a lack of ideological challenge. Unlike previous eras when painters had to defend their practice against claims of obsolescence, today's artists work in an 'anything-goes' climate. The famous 'painting is dead' debate of the 1970s and 1980s, though stressful for artists at the time, actually generated some of the most innovative work in modern art. That period of crisis forced painters to question their medium's purpose and possibilities. Without such pressure, painting has become complacent, producing decorative, market-driven work that avoids difficult questions.
Christopher Wool, in a recent podcast interview, reflected on how the transition from Modernism to postmodernism paralleled the shift from Renaissance to Baroque—both moments of creative upheaval. He noted that artists in the late 1970s had to confront serious critical challenges that could not be ignored. Many of his contemporaries genuinely believed painting was problematic and should be abandoned. This skeptical environment, rather than stifling creativity, actually pushed painters to find new ways to make their work relevant and conceptually rigorous.
Thomas Lawson's influential 1981 Artforum essay 'Last Exit: Painting' argued that painting's strength lies in its capacity for obscurity and ambiguity. Unlike the more declarative photographic practices that were challenging painting at the time, painting could harbor radical ideas beneath its surface. Lawson identified what he called 'the growth of a really troubling doubt' as a productive force. This doubt animated Philip Guston's controversial shift from abstraction to figuration in the 1960s, a move that initially alienated his peers but ultimately expanded painting's possibilities.
The most compelling recent painting exhibitions share a common characteristic: the artists developed their distinctive styles during periods of intense debate about painting's viability. Christopher Wool's recent oil paintings at Gagosian revisit questions raised by Guston. Kerry James Marshall's Royal Academy survey demonstrates how he forged his figurative language when representation was deeply unfashionable. Peter Doig's Serpentine exhibition and Charline von Heyl's Brussels show similarly reflect artists who worked against dominant trends.
Painting's current comfort zone is actually stifling its potential. The medium needs critical challenge and ideological friction to produce meaningful work. Just because the 'death of painting' narrative has faded doesn't mean the fight for its relevance has ended. Artists, critics, and institutions must create conditions where painting is forced to question itself. Only through such pressure can painting move beyond mere decoration and market commodity to become a vital form of cultural expression again.
