Understanding Contemporary Art Class 1.6: Mark Rothko Part 1 by John David Ebert
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июн 2014
- If you regularly enjoy the quality content that John David Ebert consistently offers on this RUclips channel, please consider becoming a Patreon supporter today. Every contribution counts, and your support will allow for him to continue to offer audiences the best of the best when it comes to providing media, arts, cinema and literary analysis on an ongoing basis. / johndavidebert ~mmailler
Enrollment in this course is FREE at: www.ooed.org/home
The textbook for this course is available at: www.amazon.com/After-Metaphysi...
The brilliance is in the emotional eye of the beholder, though ones eyes are secondary to what the mind sees first
I will view this video when I have more time.
It is difficult to see the value of something we don't like.
Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean it has no value.
Saying that something is worthless might merely be a way to justify your personal preference .
And just because you like something doesn't mean it has inherent value.
u put that simply, elegantly even-best comment on the subject i have read.
@Wanterhand I've always suspected art prices are so high simply because the art market can be used as a mechanism for money laundering?
Very informative! Thanks!
Great lecture,
Thank you.
Rothko seeks to dissolve the archetypal universe of the modernist styles....into something “almost spiritual” - a series of “singular beings”.
Now think about that for a second and tell me it makes any sense. I hope you do see the contradiction.
Also, did you have to explain Heidegger in order to say that there is an understanding of the philosophical being at any given point in modern history?
Either modern art lovers are followers and like what they are told is good or I just can't understand modern art yet. Been trying for years.
David Hady ... it might help if, instead of saying “Modern Art”, you mentioned some particular paintings or artists that you don’t understand or appreciate.
Maybe because you're looking at it through the computer screen.
it's not a monolithic thing. the contemporary art world is a whole *world* full of both bullshit zombie modernism for money laundering among institutional elites (as with all unregulated markets) as well as populist fights to subvert these existing power structures... both sides of this spectrum still "modern art".
also rothko is part of the 20th century modernist era, but not modern as in contemporary. things have changed a lot since then so ideas from this era may seem silly without considering the context of the time.
Bravo sir
Your view of art history is original, if a little esoteric.
the message they're trying to tell us is that what they're really selling it's a personal philosophical idea and the art it's really a millionaires market so whatever they put in canvas if their name have prominence it would sell for millions of dollars . It's wealthy people transferring money to other wealthy people so the joke is on the viewer because he doesn't understand the internal workings...
but that happens in every market, not just the art market? so what you're really critiquing is unregulated markets. you should check out the history of institutional critique in the art world and also foundational digital art which heavily critiques consumer capitalism via copyright and such, you would be into that.
Hey scholar....name the Jungian archtypes...
❤️
i never thought that my artbook when i was in grade one was rothkos paintings we were tasked to copy his artworks lol
anyone who thinks that his or her child could paint this has obviously not tried to paint this themselves.
or they have never seen one in person.
modern art = "i could do that" + "but you didn't"
You have put a lot of metaphysical weight into what is simply signature formalistic variation that was positively reinforced by money and artistic fame.
Art used to be about pure beauty and emotion to be enjoyed with your soul not your mind. this type of overly analytical art is corrosive to the art world and society in general. we can already see the consequences of "modern art" by the public's obvious lack of interest. all this art does is allow a group of wealthy individuals to feel superior to everyone for their sophisticated tastes. all those that say this is bad art are made to look like peasents who just aren't smart enough to comprehend this garbage. our society has led us believe that "progress" is more important than beauty or truth but dont be fooled. This "progress" is forced and has no substance. thses artists flout form tone color and composition to look clever. all this is a result of captalism as a driving force behind "art movements". this art panders to the upper class so well its comical. clever as you may be art belongs to sensitive being.
Thank you.
Art used to be about pure beauty and emotion to be enjoyed with your soul not your mind.
This is actually how I look at Rothko. If the artist wants to really touch your soul he has to remove all of the figurative aspects of painting that you can make associations with.
Look at it like music, imagine if the song had to include birds chipping to make you happy. It would be effective, but banal. Instead it uses scales and modes. Art uses color the same way.
And believe me, I've had the same problem in my freshman year, when you get a hang of these things you really learn how impossible it is to convey emotion with this few tools. Rothko is a reaaaally smart and talented dude.
You just have to be patient with the art like this, and if possible see it in person.
Then again, thought and opinion were never as pervasive as they are in the world that we have now. I'm certain that your opinion amounted to shit in the 13, 14 or 1500s. But now, in CONtemporary art, the artist attempts to engage a CONversation with the viewer. It's not like Modern artworks which desire quiet awe and silent admiration, you're not meant to be humbled under the dome of its' genius as tho it dripped off the brush of a Renaissance master. Nothing would please a CONtemporary artist more than if you said, "That's shit, I could paint that"; and then, proceeded to go home and paint that... because then you were extending the life of the artwork beyond (meta) the "canvas". Maybe part of the fault of conTEMPORARY art is being inaccessible; but for a movement that seeks to engage in a conVERSATION, maybe the other half of the fault lies in the knee-jerk reaction of people defaulting onto banal opinions.
CON = against {in English}
con = with {in Spanish}
After listening to this talk, I’m still not convinced of the “importance “ and value of this work. Maybe just a lot of esoteric words trying to explain something that does not make a Whole lotta sense. Just my opinion.
The CIA has entered the chat
you are a demagogue.... Rothko present rectangular form as mathematical vision of color that set impossible to compare compere to Bosch
Why are philosophers a generation or two behind?
Jeff C they re not prophets but rather they try to interpret the reality
+Jeff C What about contemporary philosophy gives you the inkling that they are "a generation or two behind?"
That's what the narrator said so I was just wondering what he meant by that.
they are a generation or two ahead always
Rothko captured radiation on canvas. This isn't paint that lies|lays flat; it's humming and buzzing off of the panel and painting the viewer with its' spectrum. You would be wise to put lead in your chonies if you're going to stand in front of his art or else it might sterilize you.
the problem with this guy is that he's an intellectual trying to bring his intellectual word-tools to explain art, whereas visual artists think visually. So we can talk about atom bombs and pollock and rothko dissolving shapes but the link is linguistic and not visual - visually there is no commonality. The point about computer screens is tantamount to clairvoyant BS.
I thought the point about electronic screens spoke a truth, can't walk anywhere in today's world without being irradiated by the buzz of some gizmo or gadget. The only thing missing from a Rothko painting is the electric cord that's plugged into the outlet.
How do you know how anyone thinks?
You've understood contemporary art once you understand there is nothing to understand.
Contemporary is the absence of art claiming to be art.
Empty people like contemporary artists can only painty empty canvas.
Contemporary art is as souless as a flat piece of white paper.
The fact that these canvas are sold for tens of millions of dollars is an insult to all true art and all true artists.
In fact contemporary art itself is an insult to humanity, creativity, and sensitivity.
Guillaume M @
If you look at Jackson’s early work you will see he is much more talented than you think . You don’t understand art lol
youtube comments will be worth millions in the future and all humans will live to make art for black holes
i can paint this with no skills in painting. does that mean i can be an artist?
you probably can't paint it.
You might be a genius.
paintings like this do look easy, however, go ahead and try i would love to see what u come up with.
Howard Li You cant paint the same you can copy but thats not the same.
maybe howard is in his garage still trying to get it done
What a bunch of self-indulgent jargon, that doesn't explain anything, "hypersphere" gimme a break. I hate it when "philosophers" talk about art. He actually describes Rothko as "postmodern." Postmodernism didn't come around for almost 40 years later. Listen to a painter talking about painting and you'll actually learn something valuable.
You alright, bud?
Thank you! It is ridiculous, how he is dropping wanna be smart words for no other reason than to appear knowledgeable
You shouldn't use the word hypersphere. That does not relate to what you are saying.
It's funny to listen to these uneducated art-posers just dropping smart words without knowing their meanings.