Could someone explain Mark Rothko to me?

[barondave]

Okay, I admit it: I don't understand why anyone thinks Mark Rothko's paintings are good, much less great. Last night, I taped Simon Schama's The Power of Art hoping that he would tell me how to look at Rothko paintings, but it's just not doing anything for me. I've seen them in person, and watched them discussed on tv, and am now turing to the Awesome Power Of The Internet for guidance.

What do people see in Rothko that I don't?

Comments

[ebongreen.livejournal.com]

My impression: Rorschach with color.

Were I to see it a little closer, I might say, "Hmm, nice texture differences in the paint... interesting color combination(s)... okay. Next." Nothing I'd write home about.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Would you want to sleep on a pillow with a Rothko design?

[ebongreen.livejournal.com]

No. I like my pillows to match my bedsheets - monochrome and simple. :-, And I don't think I'd use them as a cover/quilt either, unless they were in my chosen color(s).

[davidwilford.livejournal.com]

I see pure form in Rothko, with the work becoming an object of itself to the viewer. It's a step beyond abstraction, which Rothko embraced after moving away from surrealism in the 1930s. Rothko isn't about so-called "conceptual art", which is why he rejected written descriptions of his work.

Think of Rothko as an artist who took very seriously Magritte's painting of a pipe that said it wasn't one, and wanted to free the viewer from treacherous preconceptions of any sort.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Is that good? Why does a work where the viewer have no "treacherous perceptions of any sort" evoke any emotion of any sort?

Phrases like "a step beyond abstraction" don't hold meaning for me.

[davidwilford.livejournal.com]

It's good. Artists have always worked with a viewer in mind, and one of the pitfalls of looking at a work of art is how preconceptions can immediately make it "mean" something. It's like conceptual baggage that burdens down the viewer. Abstraction in art is an attempt to get the viewer to drop that baggage in favor of looking with fresh eyes. Inept abstract art that fails to connect with a viewer can certainly leave one emotionless, but then you can say much the same thing about most works of the Socialist Realism school for the exact opposite reason - the artist is beating you over the head with "meaning"!

Rothko wanted to go even beyond abstract representation by depicting pure forms that represent no real thing at all. Color and shape do convey feeling, and Rothko's best work does that for me at least. Think of it as going beyond "My love is like a red, red rose" to try and paint the emotion sans even the red.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

What happens if your reaction to looking at it without preconceptions is, "This is a giant put-on"?

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"My love is like".

Much of what makes painting (or any art) powerful is the connections it makes. The baggage carries your life. How can you evoke an emotion without a connection to anything human?

To me, abstract art is an intellectual exercise, which is fine. Going beyond pure forms is all well and good in theory, but where are you? Semiotics?

[davidwilford.livejournal.com]

I was talking with Erin last night about this, and the work of Jackson Pollack came up and she related how when she saw one of his original paintings (they're huge) she suddenly groked the three-dimensionality of it and it became more than a bunch of paint dribbles to her. So much of art is seeing, which Erin says is the most important thing she learned when in college studying art.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

You may be unsurprised to learn that Pollack is another artist I don't get. I've seen the originals and understand the three dimensionality and all, but they just don't do anything for me in the way that Picasso or Renoir do (to name two of my favorites who also work in three dimensions). People say they "get lost" in Pollack and Rothko, and I can see where they might. I'm a prime candidate for such visualizations, and have done with others. Maybe I saw Donald Duck in Mathamagic Land too many times as a kid to appreciate static pictures that don't go anywhere.

Me Too

[judith-dascoyne.livejournal.com]

What I see is the arrogance of the art community.

I see the same trend (behaviors?, mind set maybe) in the dance world.
Accessibility = cheap, easy or commercial (or so I keep hearing)
There seems to be a pride in emotion w/out context.
Lets just say I'm confused.

Re: Me Too

[barondave.livejournal.com]

To be fair to Rothko, clearly he thought deeply about what he was doing, and didn't sell out. As the tv show pointed out, he turned down a huuuuge commission at The Four Seasons (the most expensive restaurant in the world at the time, iirc) after he ate there and couldn't imagine where anyone who could spend that kind of money for a meal could possibly be moved by his art. He then offered to paint for free in Germany if they would build anything (even a tent) in contrition for the Holocaust. They didn't take him up on his offer.

The Four Seasons may have been playing off "the arrogance of the art community" but not everyone is.

Re: Me Too

[judith-dascoyne.livejournal.com]

Ok, ok
I will calm down (and I am sorry for being bitchy)
Dave Wilford's point is well made.
"Color and shape do convey feeling, and Rothko's best work does that for me at least."
And while this artist's work does not move me a sunset does and in and of its self has no meaning.

just as a side note, I didn't mean to impugn the artists integrity. I see artistic arrogance as a separate and often stand alone vice. (at least in the performing arts) :)