5 ms·

God, Rothkos... nobody has ever been able to explain why I should care about him or his fuzzy rectangles. And I was engaged to an artist that loved him...

Alex3917 9y ago
> nobody has ever been able to explain why I should care about him or his fuzzy rectangles. I mean he's arguably the best painter of all time, because while everyone else was trying to win the game of showing off how good they were at painting, he was just trying to make something that looked good on people's walls.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  If you're serious (not sure), that would make him arguably the best painter of his time and place. But all time? Let's hear an argument for that. (I don't say, a good one)
klodolph 9y ago
If you have not seen a Rothko in person, you may want to postpone judgment a bit. I've known a few people who have independently told me that they didn't get Rothko until they went to a museum with his work.
- megaman22 9y ago
  They're fucking garbage, in person or otherwise. Ive seen far more of them than any person needs to.
- replicatorblog 9y ago
  Rothko is the visual art's embodiment of the emperor's new clothes. I've seen Rothkos up close and personal. They're fuzzy rectangles painted by a guy who couldn't draw. They're interesting cultural artifacts, but as an art school graduate, I hate when the smart set elevates mediocre artwork to make the unenlightened feel dumb. Pollock's paintings at least have a sense of dynamism and there are interesting interactions in the paint. DeKooning has a sense of dynamism, but so did most classical artists with a bunch of other benefits to boot. Frankenthaler/Kline/Twombly all had one move they repeated for decades. Rauschenberg and Johns predicted a lot of modern graphic design, but you'll find more interesting visuals in an issue of Lucky Peach. Diebenkorn made an attempt to add the rudiments of representation. Modern art is endlessly interesting. There are personal dramas, changes in cultural norms, and financial stories that are much more compelling than anything on the canvas. AbEx stuff is fine, but you'll find equally compelling designs on bedding at Target.
  - Fricken 9y ago
    I was told that Rothko's Colour Field paintings were great many times and I didn't believe it because I didn't see it with my own eyes. It wasn't until after I had came to appreciate the work of hundreds of other artists that I one day stumbled across a Rothko and found it to breathtaking. If you can get that kind of feeling looking at the bedding designs at Target, that's great, you've saved yourself a lot of trouble. I had to go on a decades long odyssey to learn how to appreciate any painting as much as I appreciate the work of Rothko.
- bluetwo 9y ago
  I liked his work until I saw it in person. Then I loved it.
sogen 9y ago
Amen megaman
fermienrico 9y ago
Rothko's paintings are ideas just like Duchamp, Kandinsky, Richter and Pollock. There are two kinds of people that criticize them: - First kind, the ones that criticize and challenge their ideas. Not the process, not the method, not the work itself. Examples - David Sylvester and Michael Peppiatt who criticized Francis Bacon [0]. Those were constructive, extremely interesting encounters that challenge artist's notions and provide different perspectives. They vehemently opposed the artist [1], but thoughtfully to incite and open new conversations around their ideas. They also understand the historical time frame and overall art history, especially the turn of the 20th century. - The second kind, criticize materialistic, physical and methodical manifestations of art. Such as trying to judge how relatively easy/hard was it to paint; "Any one can do that"; paintings are trash because I personally do not resonate with it visually; no revolutionary methods or interesting ways of physically making the art, etc. They also try to find deeper meaning where there isn't and make up far fetched meanings to justify their understanding of something that is not meant to be literally understood. There are also people on the other end of the spectrum such as people working in the galleries that try to bullshit you with their sales pitch which often contains non-sense and wordplay. The second kind do not understand art. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFMH_D6xLk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFMH_D6xLk [1]https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262513128_sch_0001.pdf https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/...
- InternetUser 9y ago
  That first video is awesome, thank you! As for the second type of postmodern-art-hater you quote, do you ever think that someone can be making a valid point about the valuelessness and meaninglessness of someone's creations that have been chosen by another person to be displayed in a gallery? Is everyone who draws or paints a picture an artist? I myself see much of postmodern art as "meta-art," or a work of "art commentary," a statement about what people can be made to see as "art" (such as: excrement on a floor, a pile of rocks, or a piece of paper that says "This is art") but it's not art. I'd say that Duchamp's urinal is meta-art.
theoh 9y ago
Maybe try appreciating a grid painting by Agnes Martin. If that makes sense to you as something beautiful (calm, orderly), go back to Rothko and see if it feels a bit sublime (clouded, heavy, dense). This is not about ideas.
tgamba 9y ago
I'll let Sister Wendy do the talking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3sPATJc7rM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3sPATJc7rM

Alex3917 9y ago

> nobody has ever been able to explain why I should care about him or his fuzzy rectangles. I mean he's arguably the best painter of all time, because while everyone else was trying to win the game of showing off how good they were at painting, he was just trying to make something that looked good on people's walls.

yesenadam 9y ago
If you're serious (not sure), that would make him arguably the best painter of his time and place. But all time? Let's hear an argument for that. (I don't say, a good one)

klodolph 9y ago

If you have not seen a Rothko in person, you may want to postpone judgment a bit. I've known a few people who have independently told me that they didn't get Rothko until they went to a museum with his work.

megaman22 9y ago
They're fucking garbage, in person or otherwise. Ive seen far more of them than any person needs to.
replicatorblog 9y ago
Rothko is the visual art's embodiment of the emperor's new clothes. I've seen Rothkos up close and personal. They're fuzzy rectangles painted by a guy who couldn't draw. They're interesting cultural artifacts, but as an art school graduate, I hate when the smart set elevates mediocre artwork to make the unenlightened feel dumb. Pollock's paintings at least have a sense of dynamism and there are interesting interactions in the paint. DeKooning has a sense of dynamism, but so did most classical artists with a bunch of other benefits to boot. Frankenthaler/Kline/Twombly all had one move they repeated for decades. Rauschenberg and Johns predicted a lot of modern graphic design, but you'll find more interesting visuals in an issue of Lucky Peach. Diebenkorn made an attempt to add the rudiments of representation. Modern art is endlessly interesting. There are personal dramas, changes in cultural norms, and financial stories that are much more compelling than anything on the canvas. AbEx stuff is fine, but you'll find equally compelling designs on bedding at Target.
- Fricken 9y ago
  I was told that Rothko's Colour Field paintings were great many times and I didn't believe it because I didn't see it with my own eyes. It wasn't until after I had came to appreciate the work of hundreds of other artists that I one day stumbled across a Rothko and found it to breathtaking. If you can get that kind of feeling looking at the bedding designs at Target, that's great, you've saved yourself a lot of trouble. I had to go on a decades long odyssey to learn how to appreciate any painting as much as I appreciate the work of Rothko.
bluetwo 9y ago
I liked his work until I saw it in person. Then I loved it.

sogen 9y ago

Amen megaman

fermienrico 9y ago

Rothko's paintings are ideas just like Duchamp, Kandinsky, Richter and Pollock. There are two kinds of people that criticize them: - First kind, the ones that criticize and challenge their ideas. Not the process, not the method, not the work itself. Examples - David Sylvester and Michael Peppiatt who criticized Francis Bacon [0]. Those were constructive, extremely interesting encounters that challenge artist's notions and provide different perspectives. They vehemently opposed the artist [1], but thoughtfully to incite and open new conversations around their ideas. They also understand the historical time frame and overall art history, especially the turn of the 20th century. - The second kind, criticize materialistic, physical and methodical manifestations of art. Such as trying to judge how relatively easy/hard was it to paint; "Any one can do that"; paintings are trash because I personally do not resonate with it visually; no revolutionary methods or interesting ways of physically making the art, etc. They also try to find deeper meaning where there isn't and make up far fetched meanings to justify their understanding of something that is not meant to be literally understood. There are also people on the other end of the spectrum such as people working in the galleries that try to bullshit you with their sales pitch which often contains non-sense and wordplay. The second kind do not understand art. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFMH_D6xLk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFMH_D6xLk [1]https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262513128_sch_0001.pdf https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/...

InternetUser 9y ago
That first video is awesome, thank you! As for the second type of postmodern-art-hater you quote, do you ever think that someone can be making a valid point about the valuelessness and meaninglessness of someone's creations that have been chosen by another person to be displayed in a gallery? Is everyone who draws or paints a picture an artist? I myself see much of postmodern art as "meta-art," or a work of "art commentary," a statement about what people can be made to see as "art" (such as: excrement on a floor, a pile of rocks, or a piece of paper that says "This is art") but it's not art. I'd say that Duchamp's urinal is meta-art.

theoh 9y ago

Maybe try appreciating a grid painting by Agnes Martin. If that makes sense to you as something beautiful (calm, orderly), go back to Rothko and see if it feels a bit sublime (clouded, heavy, dense). This is not about ideas.

tgamba 9y ago

I'll let Sister Wendy do the talking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3sPATJc7rM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3sPATJc7rM