What “Ought” We Paint? -207

Reviewing the larger history of non-visual content in painting with a view to deciding what, if anything, one “ought” to paint more than something else.

In Response to Jocko

QUESTION: And Since the Boston school method is the best technique practically, for conservation of energy and getting the unities, so technically and psychologically, that begs the question, having all our horses going, Not just how, but What should we paint? What aren’t we depicting that we ought to be? I’ve tried to ask this of my teachers but they maintain that they are merely concerned with the technical how craft of painting, not What or Why—and I think that’s a lazy answer. Clearly throughout history, painters paint what they ought too. It’s not just religious propaganda or dutch dinner settings or colorful toys. It’s not just portraits of politicians and bouquets of flowers or erotic sfumato softcore pin-up girls. We need The Noble Hellenistic Bernini moving twisting spirals nudes, not just Archaic statue Hellenic girl standing at a podium for no reason with no rhetorical gesture and no context and no meaning in front of a gray wall. What happened to historical allegorical multi figure machines Throughout all the ages? We need giant murals depicting and reflecting all the best qualities of life.
Jocko