24 ms·

> My summary is that I think he's a con man who figured out how to insert himself into art circles and game rich pretentious patrons into parting with their mon

by ics 12y ago

> My summary is that I think he's a con man who figured out how to insert himself into art circles and game rich pretentious patrons into parting with their money, who then justifying the purchase of trite oversized dentist office paintings by building a minor cult around him. Then to complete the image of the tortured artist, publicly lamented the fad that had grown around him, insisting that nobody "got it" that nobody "understood his work" yet refused to provide any coherent explanation of what it was about. Thought experiment: what if Rothko and other modern painters were the ones being conned? What if wealthy people, lusting for something different with which they could lavish themselves and the world (in their name of course), just needed a few naive but hopeful people who considered themselves artists or painters? What if, in exchange for money and acclaim, they were pressured to produce but never clarify for fear of losing their livelihood, feeling disgraced, or lost after spending so many years exploring a certain path? I don't mean for any of those to come off as loaded questions, just riffing on the topic while curious about how people here have approached the topic themselves.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
"For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years." Source here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-w...
- frik 12y ago
  The same happened with Modern Architecture in Western & Eastern Europe in the Cold War times: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/10/17/unpopular-front http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/10/17/unpopular-front The influenced ugly architecture styles in question: International style (e.g. Bauhaus), Constructivist architecture, New Objectivity, Plattenbau. [1] Whereas we have beautiful architecture styles (1900-today): Postmodern architecture, Neo-Futurism, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, Baroque Revival architecture, Vienna Ring Road style, Art Nouveau, New Classical architecture, Expressionist architecture, Heimatstil, Historicism [2] Tourists visit historical and modern cities because of the beautiful buildings. Nobody wants to travel and take photos of Plattenbau, Bauhaus or New Objectivity buildings. For some reason, many new buildings in Europe and Asia are still constructed in the ugly and sterile concrete box style of the Cold War era. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Style_(architecture)#Criticism_of_International_Style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Style_(architectu..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Objectivity_(architecture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Objectivity_(architecture), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_architecture [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_architecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-futurism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-futurism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionist_architecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_Revival_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_Revival_architecture, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimatstil http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimatstil, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Ring_Road http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Ring_Road, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Classical_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Classical_architecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism_(art) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism_(art)
  - ics 12y ago
    I may be missing the sarcasm but the idea that "nobody want to travel and take photos of [modern movement]" is about as myopic as it is perfectly opposite to one of the leading pedagogies in architecture schools today. People do make tours (pilgrimages, only semi-facetiously, if you're an architect) to see modern architecture, even some of the most brutal examples... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture That these buildings would be less prevalent in tours is hardly surprising given that they are new, primarily functional (this is another matter for debate), and do not strive to give one the same feeling of erudition as might be found in an "old" building. I would be very surprised to hear of postmodern architecture being more popular on tours than others, however. Debates on the values of these movements are fierce and alive amongst architects and other designers. The New Yorker article that you linked is interesting but captures barely a sliver of the whole story (which we do/can not necessarily know). The reason I was probing above in my response to bane is because we all tend to fall short on a topic when opinions become fortified by singular viewpoints.
    - frik 12y ago
      Funny that you mentioned "Brutalist architecture" as it led to the development of Christopher Alexander's famous books A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building. He is the "second" Dijkstra, and his work is a must read for both architecture and computer science students, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander#Influence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander#Influence (influenced a lot in both fields). I think you got it, what I meant with "nobody". Sure there are fanboys and followers for almost every niche, what should matter are the mass of normal tourists. Some cities (and their city planers) understand that, some don't. > they are [...] primarily functional Sure, functionality is usually a requirement. But bog-standard sterile concrete box architecture is just laziness/tasteless or constraint by the budget. (that's another debate). Coming back to the former debate-topic, there has been a certain influence in Modern Architecture.
      - ics 12y ago
        I've read Christopher Alexander (related: A Second Modernism - MIT, Architecture, and the 'Techno-Social' Movement). While I like his work and agree that he has had far-reaching influence on today's world, his architecture is not something most people are familiar with outside of the Pattern Language fanboyism that sprouted– which he himself has denounced (ref. Notes On the Synthesis of Form, 2nd ed. preface). Where we seem to disagree is that modern architecture, to the best of my observation as an architect and traveler, has far exceeded niche interest. Rather, it has been so influential that the real niche is those who actively fight it. Note that this is not the same group as those who ignore modernism (vernacular builders, non-design architects, and others). Among those who presume design to be the foremost issue in architecture, the influence of modernism is still quite strong. Even among my non-design-interested peers, "sexy" is always somewhere between Bauhaus and California Modern. (Though I secretly suspect that they'd be the ones bringing the postmodernism, maybe a fancy glass house bachelor pad with marble Corinthian columns at the head of the bed or something crazy like that.) I also don't think that the laziness you describe is limited to modern architecture. Plenty of modern movements have hinged on the idea that earlier styles were lazy recapitulations of styles which to varying degrees were meant to cost less and look either familiar (popular) or expensive. They may be right, but then they are stretched thin by a long line of enthusiastic practitioners eager to make a name themselves. That's nothing unique to architecture, and as broad as my interests are there are plenty of structures from the classical to the contemporary that range fall over the map in terms of intrigue and beauty. That's as far as I can stretch my attention for now. Hail Antoní! https://bjornandannette.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wp-barcelona-gaudi-sagrada-familia-07.jpg https://bjornandannette.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wp-barce...
bane 12y ago
No, that's really an awesome question. But I think it makes the exchange too one sided...to much of a cartel at play here. Rothko, if you read about his life (I've spent way too much time trying to cultivate an appreciation of his work for my own good), despite having virtually no talent or skill, really wanted to be an artist and appears to have become convinced that his future was the life of a professional artist. Over his career he pivoted his work fairly specifically towards positive criticisms and buyers. So I think your question boils down to "did the critics and buyers collude to con an eager artist into produce trivial nonsense?". I don't think this is necessarily the case. I think all parties participated equally in producing an environment where stupid inane bullshit could become the bleeding edge art fad, but maybe not with that specific goal in mind. > What if wealthy people, lusting for something different with which they could lavish themselves and the world (in their name of course)... I definitely think there's something there. When it's rarity and exclusivity that you're after, the focus of adoration can definitely become an absurd McGuffin.

by ics 12y ago

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

"For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years." Source here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-w...

frik 12y ago
The same happened with Modern Architecture in Western & Eastern Europe in the Cold War times: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/10/17/unpopular-front http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/10/17/unpopular-front The influenced ugly architecture styles in question: International style (e.g. Bauhaus), Constructivist architecture, New Objectivity, Plattenbau. [1] Whereas we have beautiful architecture styles (1900-today): Postmodern architecture, Neo-Futurism, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, Baroque Revival architecture, Vienna Ring Road style, Art Nouveau, New Classical architecture, Expressionist architecture, Heimatstil, Historicism [2] Tourists visit historical and modern cities because of the beautiful buildings. Nobody wants to travel and take photos of Plattenbau, Bauhaus or New Objectivity buildings. For some reason, many new buildings in Europe and Asia are still constructed in the ugly and sterile concrete box style of the Cold War era. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Style_(architecture)#Criticism_of_International_Style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Style_(architectu..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Objectivity_(architecture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Objectivity_(architecture), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_architecture [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_architecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-futurism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-futurism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionist_architecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_Revival_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_Revival_architecture, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimatstil http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimatstil, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Ring_Road http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Ring_Road, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Classical_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Classical_architecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism_(art) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism_(art)
- ics 12y ago
  I may be missing the sarcasm but the idea that "nobody want to travel and take photos of [modern movement]" is about as myopic as it is perfectly opposite to one of the leading pedagogies in architecture schools today. People do make tours (pilgrimages, only semi-facetiously, if you're an architect) to see modern architecture, even some of the most brutal examples... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture That these buildings would be less prevalent in tours is hardly surprising given that they are new, primarily functional (this is another matter for debate), and do not strive to give one the same feeling of erudition as might be found in an "old" building. I would be very surprised to hear of postmodern architecture being more popular on tours than others, however. Debates on the values of these movements are fierce and alive amongst architects and other designers. The New Yorker article that you linked is interesting but captures barely a sliver of the whole story (which we do/can not necessarily know). The reason I was probing above in my response to bane is because we all tend to fall short on a topic when opinions become fortified by singular viewpoints.
  - frik 12y ago
    Funny that you mentioned "Brutalist architecture" as it led to the development of Christopher Alexander's famous books A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building. He is the "second" Dijkstra, and his work is a must read for both architecture and computer science students, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander#Influence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander#Influence (influenced a lot in both fields). I think you got it, what I meant with "nobody". Sure there are fanboys and followers for almost every niche, what should matter are the mass of normal tourists. Some cities (and their city planers) understand that, some don't. > they are [...] primarily functional Sure, functionality is usually a requirement. But bog-standard sterile concrete box architecture is just laziness/tasteless or constraint by the budget. (that's another debate). Coming back to the former debate-topic, there has been a certain influence in Modern Architecture.
    - ics 12y ago
      I've read Christopher Alexander (related: A Second Modernism - MIT, Architecture, and the 'Techno-Social' Movement). While I like his work and agree that he has had far-reaching influence on today's world, his architecture is not something most people are familiar with outside of the Pattern Language fanboyism that sprouted– which he himself has denounced (ref. Notes On the Synthesis of Form, 2nd ed. preface). Where we seem to disagree is that modern architecture, to the best of my observation as an architect and traveler, has far exceeded niche interest. Rather, it has been so influential that the real niche is those who actively fight it. Note that this is not the same group as those who ignore modernism (vernacular builders, non-design architects, and others). Among those who presume design to be the foremost issue in architecture, the influence of modernism is still quite strong. Even among my non-design-interested peers, "sexy" is always somewhere between Bauhaus and California Modern. (Though I secretly suspect that they'd be the ones bringing the postmodernism, maybe a fancy glass house bachelor pad with marble Corinthian columns at the head of the bed or something crazy like that.) I also don't think that the laziness you describe is limited to modern architecture. Plenty of modern movements have hinged on the idea that earlier styles were lazy recapitulations of styles which to varying degrees were meant to cost less and look either familiar (popular) or expensive. They may be right, but then they are stretched thin by a long line of enthusiastic practitioners eager to make a name themselves. That's nothing unique to architecture, and as broad as my interests are there are plenty of structures from the classical to the contemporary that range fall over the map in terms of intrigue and beauty. That's as far as I can stretch my attention for now. Hail Antoní! https://bjornandannette.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wp-barcelona-gaudi-sagrada-familia-07.jpg https://bjornandannette.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wp-barce...

bane 12y ago

No, that's really an awesome question. But I think it makes the exchange too one sided...to much of a cartel at play here. Rothko, if you read about his life (I've spent way too much time trying to cultivate an appreciation of his work for my own good), despite having virtually no talent or skill, really wanted to be an artist and appears to have become convinced that his future was the life of a professional artist. Over his career he pivoted his work fairly specifically towards positive criticisms and buyers. So I think your question boils down to "did the critics and buyers collude to con an eager artist into produce trivial nonsense?". I don't think this is necessarily the case. I think all parties participated equally in producing an environment where stupid inane bullshit could become the bleeding edge art fad, but maybe not with that specific goal in mind. > What if wealthy people, lusting for something different with which they could lavish themselves and the world (in their name of course)... I definitely think there's something there. When it's rarity and exclusivity that you're after, the focus of adoration can definitely become an absurd McGuffin.