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 e
mpty 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 k
now and love today.
now 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.
The 5 descriptions that are given for this painting seem to have two larger categories. One of them being descriptive (that which is seen) and the other perceptive. (that which is not seen, but felt)
ReplyDeleteSome may see only one category, others both. It appears that the descriptive category weighs heavier to you than the perception, but anything beyond its descriptive value loses your attention or possibly it doesn't posses any value to you beyond what it simply is.
I wouldn't say it doesn't have any perceptive value for there will be many perceptions of this same painting. It may be that you don't connect with the image as some others. And, that's okay. But, it's only your opinion that is it not a great peice of art. I would definietly buy that red/cream painting and put it up in my home. I find it rather amazing.
I do agree that sometimes empty words are present to fill the void of what something lacks. This usually happens when things beyond our senses are brought up. It's usually a gray area at best.
Now, to define what the collective unconcious is and how it made its way as a description for this painting...
I think my idea of great art is too classic, I like to rest in the eras preceeding the 20th century, at least most of the latter half.
ReplyDeleteI do not necessarily intend to insult anyone who does love mark rothko, in my opinion i think he walks to fine line with hack art.
So very interesting how art speaks a different language to each of us as individuals. Some of us will find Rothko's work incredibly expressive, others will find it mute. In the course of working in the world of visual communication, though, I will say I have learned to hear the language of artworks I had previously found vapid or "absent." As we grow, our perceptions change. Thanks for your post on this. BTW, I too live in central Illinois & am associated with the Academy of Art University; I edit the Academy's online news bureau & have worked with the school for a number of years. Check out the AAU Newsfeed if you're interested (URL follows my signature). Good luck with your studies, music & life!
ReplyDeletethanks for your comment, ted. I guess a good portion of 20th century art following ww2 doesnt speak to me much. Maybe, with time I will appreciate it more. The more I study him the more interesting I find him, but the art still doesn't say anything to me.
ReplyDeleteI checked out the aau online news burea and very much enjoyed it. I don't know why I havent read it before.
thats what art is to some its master work to others its crap thats why i say if you like it its good if you dont then its not good dont let your sellf be influens on "critics" or other stupidity juge for your selfs
ReplyDeleteYou work to hard to find meaning where there is none. There is not even a painting, it is all in your mind. You taken in color and think it is real, whats real is your mind in contemplation of color, that is all any painting is, something that exists in your head. Tim
ReplyDeleteDisdain? For a genius/master of the caliber of Mark Rothko? Here's a tip: work on your grammar, spelling, punctuation, and usage and then readers can address your opinions.
ReplyDeleteHeya. Just wanted to contribute that I didn't appreciate Rothko until I spent several minutes alone in front of one his works. It is just impossible to reproduce in the books. (Before that I too was a nonbeliever! :) )
ReplyDelete"His paintings appear to be both empty and full at the same time." That's the first comment I remember hearing about Rothko's abstract works.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree with the comment that you have to see his works "live" to fully appreciate them. Part of their effect on the viewer is their scale. Rothko's abstract paintings - when viewed in their original size - have a physical impact that those same images on computer screens or the pages of a book simply don't have. A small-scale reproduction never does a Rothko justice.
HERE HERE! I am so-o-o-o happy knowing that it is not only myself who remains dry-eyed whilst viewing a Rothko.
ReplyDeleteSorry guys I have one question. Can you please tell me what is the name of the first painting shown above? Thanx
ReplyDeleteWhile I respect that you don't like Rothko's works very much, that does not mean that his color field paintings don't have very real meaning to many people. I am a student of art history myself, and usually when I am presented with more modern art (anything past Impressionism), I am not moved by it. To put it simply, it's not my thing. However, in one of my classes my professor showed a video about Mark Rothko, and I was so moved my his color field pieces. I was quite baffled when my eyes began to tear up, and I couldn't explain to anyone (not even myself) why his pieces affected me so deeply. I can't imagine what it would be like to see a Rothko in person. He is the only artist from the 20th century onward whose works I genuinely enjoy. My point is, you may not personally like his paintings, but that does not mean that he wasn't a great artist. There are many great artists whose works I don't like or understand, but I acknowledge that these artists did contribute a great deal to the world.
ReplyDelete