Kerry James Marshall
"Because it can’t be radical, there is a sense in which painting is over, even though loads of paintings are made, exhibited and sold, still. One way of being radical, for a painting — it is considered — is for it to be unrewarding to look at, maybe harshly monochrome. But it hardly ever is that. It’s usually attractive. Even monochromes are pretty attractive.
A very tricky idea, is the belief that paintings depicting obviously morally fragrant subjects, are radical. However slippery this notion is, it's got a lot of currency at the moment.
You could never say Kerry James Marshall's paintings are not radical. They are attractive, but they have radical subject matter.
You couldn't say Sean Scully's paintings are radical. It is obvious that they are not.
You could say Albert Oehlen's paintings are radical. You'd have had job explaining why, though. However, since no one is likely to challenge you, the problem won't arise.
You couldn't say Richter isn't radical.
Oehlen's and Richter's paintings are usually attractive. The ugliness that it is sometimes said Oehlen ends up with, and the dullness which maybe is the equivalent with Richter, these don;t have any effect on their standing as radicals. It's very hard to be a painter and be radical, but it is the great triumph of these two that they manage it.
Radicals do often say Oehlen is a non-radical, but these lone radical voices don't have any effect, and it's usually all too obvious that it's just professional jealousy.
Radical critics like Buchloh say all painting today is infantile and unradical, but then they arbitrarily dub a painter radical or serious, or something, and interview them fawningly, or write a catalogue essay for them, just because they can."
Matthew Collings
Matthew Collings is one of the most interesting people to follow on FaceBook. His post describe painting in such insightful terms that you can't help but love the poetics of it. I don't always agree with him but I always enjoy reading his words.