Veils, alluring veils! Hmm.

The problem of what to paint is an obstinate one and every painter who picks up a colour with the intention of applying it to a 2D surface has to confront this predicament. It is quite possible that it is more prevalent now than it has ever been, in previous centuries narratives have been laid in front of the artist and if there wasn't a particular narrative, either religious or mythical in scope, then there were commisions of rich patrons who desired to hang likenesses of themselves for their own vain glory.
Then modernism struck and the subject that was closest to everybodies lips was the paint itself, the aim being to take paint as far as it could go. Many people would have us believe that this then became the only subject, although that was never really the case for the majority of the great artists. However, one could assume that for some it did become the veil through which they poured the rest of their artistic ambrosia. And whilst they concentrated on this veil, it allowed the real artistry of the spirit to filter through untainted.
So now what to do. I mean in actuality everything is possible, but then again everything is tainted. The critics have given us a reason for and against everything we could dream to do, so ultimately they have out-critiqued themselves in the process. Still this is not getting to the crux of the problem, what can we paint, if indeed we can paint anything and in anyway? Perhaps Gerhard Richter was onto something when he lent from pop art and decided to paint anything and everything, proclaiming that non of it had any meaning other than the enjoyment of the painting process itself. Of course he was wrong, and has since admitted so himself; every choice we make has significance on a psychological level. Still, this work for myself at least, is unsatisfying just as pop art was unsatisying once the statement -to the commerciality and throw-away nature of our lives- and the subsequent adjustment of our psyches had been made.
I think we require a certain sense of permanence again, a journey back to Rothko's "timeless and tragic", but how to approach an artist whose mature style was so pared down. To move further back, maybe, to the other artists of myth and narrative? I dunno.