[tonybhall]

Found this about Rothko...

Originally Posted by about Rothko

Russian-born artist Mark Rothko became one of the leaders of the New York School’s first generation of Abstract Expressionists. Like his colleagues Newman, Still, and Gottlieb, Rothko sought to communicate deep emotion through fields of color rather than the gestural drama of Pollock, de Kooning, and Kline.

By 1950, the date of this painting, Rothko had developed his compositional format of colored rectangles hovering against a framing background. Despite the unbroken opacity of the forms, their delicate edges and brushy surface generate a sense of transitory existence – of continual emergence and recession.

The high-keyed works of the early 1950s gave way to increasingly dark, sonorous paintings that evoke tragedy on a grand scale. Their transcendent nobility did not prevent the artist from giving way to his own depression and ending his life in 1970.

So... here's what I got from this.. His paitings are "masterpeices" because he was emotionaly troubled and eventualy gave into his depression and offed himself in 1970. Highbrow pretensious artsy types seem to get off on that kind of stuff. Personal tragedy, deep emotional troubles and suicide = masterpeices.

Another thing I've noticed is that a lot of "art" collectors don't really care about the art or the peice itself. It's an investment and all that really matters is the name signed on the canvas. Many "art" collectors/investers simply want a Monet or Rothko or Picaso in their collection. Any Money or Rothko or Picaso will do so they can tell people they have one. We've already established that if your a great artist, ALL of your work must be great. And if you're a billionaire, what's $73 million to get a Rothko, right? Eventually the paintings of the people who get on the list of "must have" artists become more like stocks than peices of art. Their real value is tied up in the artist's personal history and the desire of people to boost their own ego and status amougst their peers. The people driving the value of the art don't really give a rats butt about the art.

[tonybhall]

Originally Posted by calvman

I'm all for people expressing their feelings about art. If you don't like it, you don't like it. However, I would challenge people to at least become educated or informed. Then you would at least know what other people liked about his art.

Nothing wrong about being more informed.

I couldn't agree more. While I don't appreciate Rothko's works, I am very interested in learning, about pretty much everything. I've actually been reading a lot about him since last night. It has done little to change my impression of his work and much to lessen my opinion of the "art crowd." It seems to me it's a large collection of people who can't form an oppinion of their own without having it given to them by a text book or professor. Kind of sad really. I think it prevents any meaningful discussion of this type of thing because it has become a sacred cow.

We live in a society where a grill cheese sanwich with a burn mark that seems to look like Mary will fetch outragous amounts at an auction. We all know that's absurd, but how dare we question the validity of 3 rectangles on a cardboard box becuase they were put there by the great ROTHKO.... everyone bow down. ha ha...

[tonybhall]

So, here's some more great art by some of Rothko's colleagues...









these are by Adolph Gottlieb. notice a trend? Do all these guys just recycle the same idea in different colors?

[tonybhall]

Another...




I like this one...


and this one...


I duplicated this one on a dry erase board at work. pics later. ha ha...

These are by Benett Newman... another of Rothko's schoolmates. I actually like some of this guys stuff. But I wouldn't call any of them masterpieces. Maybe if I had done more drugs as a teenager I'd be able to appreciate it more...

[calvman]

Originally Posted by tonybhall

I couldn't agree more. While I don't appreciate Rothko's works, I am very interested in learning, about pretty much everything. I've actually been reading a lot about him since last night. It has done little to change my impression of his work and much to lessen my opinion of the "art crowd." It seems to me it's a large collection of people who can't form an oppinion of their own without having it given to them by a text book or professor. Kind of sad really. I think it prevents any meaningful discussion of this type of thing because it has become a sacred cow.

We live in a society where a grill cheese sanwich with a burn mark that seems to look like Mary will fetch outragous amounts at an auction. We all know that's absurd, but how dare we question the validity of 3 rectangles on a cardboard box becuase they were put there by the great ROTHKO.... everyone bow down. ha ha...

An educated and informed opinion is one anyone can respect.

I do have one thing to say about thing holding value because of a consensus by the masses.

If you think about it, all things have a value only because we as a group all agree that it does. Gold is just a yellow metal and diamonds are just clear rocks.

When you judge a piece of art for its 'value' consider for a moment that its monetary value is not the same as its historic or art value. The ideas are related, but by no means the same.

Conversely, to deny something its value merely because our society has created a convention which states it so is as foolish as proclaiming the world is flat.

[Romance]

i would've offed myself if i wanted to be an artist and all i could paint was rectangles too. But, what good is 73 mil going to do you if you're 6 feet deep..