Why are conceptual artists turning to painting?

I don't know. I didn't write this:

The dominant models no longer satisfy. It makes no sense to melodramatically invoke the "end of painting" (or any other medium-specific practice for that part) when the continous emergence of fascinating work obviously proves apocalyptic endgame scenarios wrong. (I WAS THINKING THAT THIS PAINTING WAS THE LAST PAINTING) Yet, to pretend it were possible to go back to business as usual seems equally impossible because the radical expansion of artistic possibilities through the landslide changes of the 1960s leave medium-specific practices in the odd position of being one among many modes of artistic articulation, with no preset justification (PAINTING IS A NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK, BUT WE LIKE IT). How can we describe then what medium-specific practices like painting or sculpture can do today (THEY CAN BE AN OBSTACLE FOR A CONCEPTUAL ARTIST TO GET OVER AND THEY CAN BE PUT ON A WALL AND THEREFORE EARN SOME CASH)?

Likewise, it seems, that we can still not quite convincingly describe to ourselves what Conceptual Art can be: An art of pure ideas (ABSOLUTELY. ALSO IT IS REALLY FUN TO HAVE BIG IDEAS AND NOT HAVE TO DO ALL THIS WORK)? As if "pure" idea art were ever possible let alone desirable (UH)! An art of smart strategic moves and puns? We have advertising agencies for that (AND THEY ARE STAFFED BY ARTISTS WHO LIKE TO GET PAID). The social and political dimension of Conceptualism has been discussed, but often only in apodictic (A type of law, commandment, or prohibition that is unconditional, as in “Do not kill!”) terms, not acknowledging the humour, the wit, the existential, emotional or erotic aspects, as well as the iconophile, not just iconoclast motives, that have always also been at play in the dialectics and politics of life-long conceptual practices.

THAT WAS A STUPID BLURB FROM AN EMAIL TITLED 'WHY ARE CONCEPTUAL ARTISTS TURNING TO PAINTING?' AND I READ IT BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW WHY. BUT I DO KNOW WHY. FOR ADAM.