3 ms·
Referencing my much downvoted comment currently at bottom, Rothko (I had to look him up) is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about. Quite possibly I
by jqm 12y ago
Referencing my much downvoted comment currently at bottom, Rothko (I had to look him up) is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about.
Quite possibly I just don't get it. But what I suspect is something along the lines of wine snobbery. The experts all agree. Even if it really tastes like paint thinner. No one wants to appear undiscerning or unenlightened. To me, this is not art at all. Not beautiful, not enlightening, not interesting and serves no functional purpose with the possible exception of giving art folks something to talk about. The first person who thought of using fire. Now THAT is an artist.
- freedombeer 12y agoWhilst I broadly agree with your sentiments, you should also get out more, and open your eyes. Whilst not knowing Rothko doesn't imply your insular views, life can become more interesting if you don't close off alternative experiences.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> The experts all agree. No, they don't. > To me, this is not art at all. Not beautiful, not enlightening, not interesting and serves no functional purpose with the possible exception of giving art folks something to talk about. The The difference between you and some subset of experts is that art experts are far more likely to divorce their own reaction to art from their evaluation of whether it is art. That art experts recognize, say, abstract expressionism in general or Rothko's work in particular as art doesn't mean that they like it, or that it does something for them personally (and the same is equally true of, say, photorealism as of abstract expressionism.)