6 ms·

I have experienced them in person. Still don't get it. Looking for an source that can explain it to me.

bane 6y ago
I remember going to the National Gallery in D.C. and while asking for a map the person at the desk told me "you should go to the tower, we have something very special there". It was an exhibit of some Rothkos and a video about his life and significance to help the viewer interpret his works. I found the paintings terrible, but knowing I usually understand them more once I understand the artist I went to go watch the video. During the video there was a couple rude guys who started snickering at the video. Usually I get kind of upset about this sort of thing, but to be honest, I actually agreed with them. I came away from the experience feeling like I had just been part of a huge prank. I learned that day that Rothko's painting are trash. A couple years later I was in a small museum in another country, and across the room saw a painting of a couple of poorly rendered squares in flat shades and thought, "I bet that's a Rothko." Sure enough it was, and now I can recognize his paintings from 20 meters away. So I guess his work is recognizable and unique and I've learned some very begrudging respect for his work that way I guess -- they're at least recognizable trash.
- goto11 6y ago
  > I learned that day that Rothko's painting are trash. May I ask how you came to the conclusion the painting are trash - and not just that you personally didn't like the paintings?
goto11 6y ago
Maybe you just don't like Rothko? People like different things and that is fine. I don't think there is a anything to "explain" about Rothko and that genre - the point of the paintings are the physical form and colors itself, there is nothing "behind" which need explanation.
Smoosh 6y ago
Can a stone plucked from a riverbed be beautiful? Why? If you look closely, it is imperfect. If you look around you can find others, very similar. Perhaps any river could have produced it. It isn't saying anything. It isn't telling you anything. It isn't being anything other than a stone. Yet surely, it can be an object of beauty, causing thought, curiosity, contemplation and feelings. If a stone, why not a canvas deliberately created from inspiration and feelings? Isn't abstract art even more artful than simply copying what your eyes can see?

bane 6y ago

I remember going to the National Gallery in D.C. and while asking for a map the person at the desk told me "you should go to the tower, we have something very special there". It was an exhibit of some Rothkos and a video about his life and significance to help the viewer interpret his works. I found the paintings terrible, but knowing I usually understand them more once I understand the artist I went to go watch the video. During the video there was a couple rude guys who started snickering at the video. Usually I get kind of upset about this sort of thing, but to be honest, I actually agreed with them. I came away from the experience feeling like I had just been part of a huge prank. I learned that day that Rothko's painting are trash. A couple years later I was in a small museum in another country, and across the room saw a painting of a couple of poorly rendered squares in flat shades and thought, "I bet that's a Rothko." Sure enough it was, and now I can recognize his paintings from 20 meters away. So I guess his work is recognizable and unique and I've learned some very begrudging respect for his work that way I guess -- they're at least recognizable trash.

goto11 6y ago
> I learned that day that Rothko's painting are trash. May I ask how you came to the conclusion the painting are trash - and not just that you personally didn't like the paintings?

goto11 6y ago

Maybe you just don't like Rothko? People like different things and that is fine. I don't think there is a anything to "explain" about Rothko and that genre - the point of the paintings are the physical form and colors itself, there is nothing "behind" which need explanation.

Smoosh 6y ago

Can a stone plucked from a riverbed be beautiful? Why? If you look closely, it is imperfect. If you look around you can find others, very similar. Perhaps any river could have produced it. It isn't saying anything. It isn't telling you anything. It isn't being anything other than a stone. Yet surely, it can be an object of beauty, causing thought, curiosity, contemplation and feelings. If a stone, why not a canvas deliberately created from inspiration and feelings? Isn't abstract art even more artful than simply copying what your eyes can see?