Business Finance Media Technology Policy Wealth Insights Interviews

Art Art Fairs Art Market Art Reviews Auctions Galleries Museums Interviews

Lifestyle Nightlife & Dining Style Travel Interviews

Power Lists Nightlife & Dining Art A.I. PR

About About Observer Advertise With Us Reprints

Archie Rand On the Irreducibility of Painting in a Digital Age

"I lived through the whole 'painting is dead' argument—it didn't work. Painting isn't dead... The hand remains essential."

Most people who grew up in the pre-internet age first developed their imagination through visual narratives they encountered in picture books filled with images of fairy tales or animal stories that could open an entire world without written language. Archie Rand’s newest body of work, which was recently on view at Jarvis Art in New York, harkens back to that engagement. His paintings reclaim the form’s primordial function, demonstrating the connection between brain and hands, between imagination and reality, replicating the miracle of creation and opening entire worlds.

Sign Up For Our Daily Newsletter

Thank you for signing up!

By clicking submit, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge we may use your information to send you emails, product samples, and promotions on this website and other properties. You can opt out anytime.

In his first extensive solo show in years, the recent exhibition paid tribute to Rand’s unique position within the art that emerged from the downtown scene in the late 1970s and early ’80s. Now in his late 70s, Rand witnessed the full postwar evolution of American art, participating closely in it while always retaining a critical distance that allowed him to develop a voice and style resistant to trends. Speaking with him is like reading a firsthand account of art history written during New York’s golden moment—and, at the same time, a searching confrontation with what painting is and what it still serves in an age when all experience is being digitized.

“I was part of the generation that came after Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns; at that time, the distinction between abstraction and representation had already begun to blur,” Rand tells Observer. He fell into the group led by critic Clement Greenberg, then enormously powerful and a major champion of Jackson Pollock, and found himself aligned with that trajectory without truly fitting into it. Rand was only 18 at the time. “I became something of a mascot—the young kid who was going to carry the message forward,” he jokes. Yet, with the confidence of youth, he eventually realized that if he was only 18 and understood it, it couldn’t be that hard. Something must be missing.

A pivotal moment came with a large synagogue mural commission, which forced him to confront the absence of established Jewish iconography. Inventing that imagery led to backlash. “As I began doing that, the Orthodox community became very angry. They actually put me on trial for blasphemy,” he recounts. This pushed Rand toward representational forms grounded in textual reference. Most importantly, this figurative shift marked a break with Greenberg, who viewed the move as a betrayal. From that point, the artist became acutely aware of the cyclical nature of the art world. “I began to understand, at a fairly young age, that the art world operates in cycles, much like fashion. Styles rise and fall, and people replace one another,” he notes.

After being rejected by both the Orthodox community and Greenberg’s avant-garde circles, Rand found allies among figures similarly marginalized at the time, including Philip Guston and John Ashbery, both of whom were challenging prevailing aesthetic norms, in painting and poetry, respectively. “In the last five years of his life, Guston and I became very close. He saw me as a mural painter—someone bringing representational imagery into painting in a non-academic way,” Rand says. “I jumped ship in two ways—literary and visual—and found myself free to do almost anything.”

Another major turning point came ten years ago,........

© Observer