I am sure that's true. However, criticism of society does have it's uses. In some cases it may lead to making society more considerate of all it's members. But that's due, I am sure, to acting on the criticisms - actually doing something about changing what is disliked.

In the case of mid C20th Photorealism and Pop Art, from where Photorealism stemmed, the artists were thinking activists, rallying effectively against their society's growing commercialism on the one hand, and Abstract Expressionism and Minimalism on the other. Painting was proclaimed dead - it certainly looked like it was in it's final death "throws" or had disappeared completely. The triumphant march of Modernism seemed to have led down a road to the grave. Painting no longer existed, then, and a new visual culture of commercial photography was emerging.

Though if something happens en masse it ought to be looked at carefully. Did the western world's obsession with commercialism and individual commercial enterprise have anything to do with a response to the threat of communism? Did the idea of the death of painting, and with it the idea of the great artistic genius and old master artist (as the epitome of artistic endeavours towards which other artists should strive), go some way to encourage the idea of democracy?

Whether they did or not, the tragedy of these efforts lies in the belief that aesthetics itself was dead, or, at least, the fine arts and aesthetics were no longer a happy partnership. Movements such as the Arts and Crafts Movement of the earlier C20th, and it's followers, show where aesthetics was now relegated: in the realm of the so-called hobbyists. Aesthetics was trivialised; the essence of art was ostracised from the arena of the "thinking" "artist".

Back in the 70's I was being told that my paintings were too photographic. I switched from egg tempera to pastel and studied Monet in an effort to loosen up. Now I'm being told that I don't have enough modeling in my work. If you look at many of the masters like Rembrandt, Vermeer, Velasquez, etc. they are really quite Impressionistic in their style. It's not tight photographic realism , but the essence of the idea that they have painted. Bouguerreau, Ingres, and others, of the 19th century,are more tightly photographic. Zorn is quite loose, as is Klimt , of course. On and on we go.

I have always dismissed the idea that paintings must address a current politic issue. This is total nonsense and any painting that is made for that purpose will be forgotten in ten years. People will look at it and wonder what in the world the artist was thinking, unless they read the history books to find out what political issue was popular at the time that the painting was painted. If you want your painting to retain worth throughout history it must come from your soul, not the newspapers. We all have taken this trip here to earth to experience life. True art is when one person communicates visually with another , saying ," look , this is what I see here". It makes us feel less alone. It's all in the way one "describes" his visual experience to others. We are , in a sense , talking to the viewers about how we are experiencing life. Our verbal communications severely limit the expression of our visual experiences. Art fills in that gap.

This is just my opinion.