3 ms·
Rothko's work doesn't come across well in reproductions. The scale, texture, and subtle color variations all matter. I felt much the same as you until I saw th
by waterlesscloud 12y ago
Rothko's work doesn't come across well in reproductions. The scale, texture, and subtle color variations all matter.
I felt much the same as you until I saw them in person. In particular at the Rothko room at the Philips Collection in Washington DC, with Rothkos on all the walls.
In any case, Rothkos aren't about representation (obviously), but about the feeling the painting brings about in the viewer. For me it's best not to assign them any meaning at all, but just take them in.
Nothing comes across for me from pictures in books or online though. It's a completely in-person experience.
- anigbrowl 12y agoMy wife and I spent hours looking at them when SF MoMA had an exhibition a few years ago and we both left the exhibit pretty frustrated. They just don't speak to me, whereas I could stare at a Jackson Pollock painting for ages. Well, de gustibus non est disputandem and all that...
- waterlesscloud 12y agoIt's a good point that it'll still come down to the eye of the beholder. I guess my point is that it's unlikely you'll ever appreciate him if all you see are jpgs and pics in books.
- prewett 12y agoI did see one at the Houston Museum of Art, was very large, (to my eyes) uniformly brown except for a roller-wide of slight other-color brown. I also went to the chapel in Houston. It was all black (vertically rolled) with a black (horizontally rolled) swath on the bottom in a dim, concrete building. I didn't like the feelings of dark, gloomy, and depression they evoked; not really what the word "chapel" inspires in my mind. I'm not really a modern art fan, but I'll try to keep an open mind next time I see some. Scale, texture, subtlety, I'll keep that in mind. (Certainly the scale is impressive!)