I don't think that makes you a philistine. There are definitely some people who value art primarily on its technical merits, and there's nothing wrong with that

I don't think that makes you a philistine. There are definitely some people who value art primarily on its technical merits, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some of my friends subscribe to a "if I could do it, it's not art" kind of system. But to me the most technically brilliant painting may lack the emotional impact of a far simpler work. Neither opinion is more 'correct' than the other, that's the great thing about art (and don't let any art critics suggest otherwise!). With Rothko the technical sophistication of the work isn't what you're meant to engage with (although really they are quite challenging to paint - they're not really solid blocks of color, and most people would find it very difficult), but the emotions it makes you feel. There's a great exchange in Mad Men between Sal (an artist) and Ken (an accounts manager) about a Rothko painting that's been delivered to the office. It sums up these two competing views of what art should be: Ken: "I don't think it's supposed to be explained." Sal: "I'm an artist, okay? It must mean something." Ken: "Maybe it doesn't. Maybe you're just supposed to experience it. Because when you look at it, you're to feel something, right. It's like looking into something very deep. You could fall in." Sal isn't impressed by the Rothko, because he - like many people - thinks that art should either have some overtly obvious meaning, or be technically valuable. Ken thinks the art is a conduit to your own emotions and understanding, and its lack of inherent meaning doesn't make is less valuable. Neither is right or wrong here, and those two opposing views frequently clash in most creative fields. Rothko is to the art world as Cage is to music, for example.