I picked up Painting Beyond Pollock， a recent Phaidon publication， because I was intrigued by the book’s organizing principle。 What happened to painting after Pollock “obliterated" the genre？ There has been much ado about the status of painting lately。 Critics have lamented the rise of “zombie formalism，” stale abstraction whose only novelty is the wacky method used to produce it。 MoMA’s recent painting show， “The Forever Now，” was universally panned for its lackluster theme and market-tested cu I picked up Painting Beyond Pollock， a recent Phaidon publication， because I was intrigued by the book’s organizing principle。 What happened to painting after Pollock “obliterated" the genre？ There has been much ado about the status of painting lately。 Critics have lamented the rise of “zombie formalism，” stale abstraction whose only novelty is the wacky method used to produce it。 MoMA’s recent painting show， “The Forever Now，” was universally panned for its lackluster theme and market-tested curation。 I thought this would be a good time to hear the other side of the story。 Also， I’m always looking for well written， well illustrated histories of modern and contemporary art。 You’d be surprised at how hard these texts are to find。 Many art books are simply laundry lists of movements， artists， and works。 Others deify a few “greats” and overlook a broad brush of noteworthy makers。 Somewhat surprisingly， Painting Beyond Pollock falls into the latter camp。The author， Morgan Falconer， begins by announcing his objective: writing yet another faithful account of the Western art historical canon。 （Yay？） Doing so， he concedes， necessitates a “narrow racial and ethnic profile。”This is a somewhat lazy admission。 Perhaps Japanese Gutai painting has not yet secured a spot in this lineage， but what of the numerous American female artists and artists of color that he ignores until discussing the “Global Contemporary？” Did they magically appear in the 1980s， as if by spontaneous generation？ Despite Falconer’s claim， many non-white， non-male painters have been vetted by the art establishment。 You know them， you’ve seen them installed at your city’s major museum: Sam Gilliam， Grace Hartigan， Yayoi Kusama， and others。While many spent the 1970s reveling in new media and performance pieces， Howardena Pindell was using painting to develop a distinct， visual language of warped， Funfetti canvases。 In the 1960s， Alice Neel forwent social realism’s turgid， nationalistic tropes for affirmative portraits of brazen female sitters。 Throughout this era， Beauford Delaney compiled an oeuvre that serves as a bridge between early European modernism and the figurative， documentary works of Jacob Lawrence and Romare Bearden。Including these makers would not be tokenism or revisionism。 They are not secondary characters in the major narrative of art history。 They are key players in that story， drivers of its acts。 Yes， this is a more complicated narrative to tell， but the alternative is far less rewarding。 Narrow-mindedness， even when apologetic， reminds me of the anachronistic bitterness of Hilton Kramer。 It’s backwards and it’s boring。Nevertheless， I thoroughly enjoyed Painting Beyond Pollock。 Falconer’s writing is quick， yet cogent and comprehensive。 He meets painting's every development with optimism， one that I share。 He gives the included artists their due， overviewing art history’s tectonic shifts with a careful， analytical eye。 His book is well worth your time--I gave it such as workout that its canvas cover began to pill--but do not mistake it for a comprehensive account of painting’s past。 There’s certainly more to see。 。。。more