I thought that I had heard all of the arguments as to why painting was dead or illegitimate, but I just stumbled across a new one in the May, 2009 issue of Artforum. In a short review of a show at the Seattle Art Museum entitled "Target Practice: Painting Under Attack 1949-78," Sarah K. Rich writes:
"No matter its content or its formal attributes, painting is a medium that reproduces bourgeois ideology all too legibly; Its emphasis on visual effects partakes in a distribution of sensory labor that disenfranchises touch and other senses; its two-dimensional retreat from real space suggests something like bourgeois decorum (unlike sculpture, which is always barging in).
Apparently, painting discriminates against the remaining four senses! Does this mean that Ms. Rich would be somewhat more sympathetic to art that stinks?