My disdain for Mark Rothko

As both an artist (not a very good one, but still) and an art history researcher I often come across artists that are exalted for their ground breaking work. Most of the time these artists should be recognized for what they do, other times I'm more than taken aback by what some people consider great. Mark Rothko is one of the latter, along with artists like Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner.
So, Mark Rothko (1903-1970) was a latvian-born american painter and printmaker. Though classified as an abstract expressionist he labeled himself simply as an abstract painter. While I could delve into his childhood and travels, I sort want to jump right ahead to his work and influences. He developed his style around 1936 when he began writing a book, which ne never completed; about the similarities between the art of children and that of modern artists. While his ideas about how children draw and how we all start is accurate, as he continues to develope his ideas he seems to get more and more...outrageous. It is as if he is fishing for reasons to explain his own work. His most famous work is classified as color field painting. The characteristics of this genre of painting are as follows:
--large fields of expressive color
--non-objective
--simplified, essentialized compositions
--"subtle nuances"
--tragic subline; collective unconcious: collective unconcious was a theory developed by Carl Jung. It is based on his observation that there are universal symbols that are present across different cultures. These occur in dreams and myth to reveal a deep unconcious connection among all human beings.
He also abandoned the idea of naming his pieces. The first 3 characteristics I see, the other 2...well, I'll leave you to judge that for yourselves, but I believe they are empty words hes throwing out to give his work more meaning than it holds.

Here is the first example I have of his. We see 3 fields of color, 2 shades of red, one panel of a cream color, a rough brown border and dividing lines. This. Is. NOT. a great piece of art. Where are these mystical, "subtle nuances", where is the tragic subline or collective unconcious? I just see red.

Some might say I need to expand my mind, others say I don't understand. Well, the truth is I don't understand. While I will agree that his assesment that as children we first step into the art world by using color to express ourselves. I can remember taking crayons and scribbling vast panes of color all over the page. But from there I grew, we all grow and develope. I feel he is spitting in the face of all those artists who strived to create the masterpeices we all know and love today.

I will say his use of color is powerful....that is all I see. I just see fields of color, undeveloped and lacking any semblence imagination or passion.