Mark Rothko: The Artist's Reality
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- Explore with the curator of “Mark Rothko: Reflection,” Rothko’s early painting Thru the Window (1938-39), never before exhibited in the United States and on view in the exhibition, as a starting point for our examination of the evolution of the artist’s artistic vision. Davis gives pecial attention to Rothko’s admiration for the art of the Old Masters as described in his writings with the working title, The Artist’s Reality.
Elliot Bostwick Davis, John Moors Cabot Chair, Art of the Americas
Sunday, September 24, 2017
I have sat in front of Rothko's pictures in galleries several times, and as an athiest, I always have a spiritual experience. The scale, the colours, and the composition are all profoundly impressive, and I don't think that prints of his work really do it justice. The beautiful simplicity is deceptive, and I think that his work has a zen-like quality.
"I have sat in front of Rothko's pictures in galleries several times, and as an athiest, I always have a spiritual experience"
...dah...i like the purdy colurs...daaaah....
Rothko was a genius ....I 'm going to Home Depot to get some paint and brushes . When I moved into this place the walls just had primer so they were ready for paint .
What’s your plan?! Lol
Amazing, Thank you.
I saw my first Rothko print 20 years ago.( I had never heard of him) I was 50 feet away from it and thought who would buy a pic of two blobs of paint. I started to walk on, but stopped, turned and took another look at it. That's nuts. Two blobs of paint ! I went home. I told myself I hate that kind of art. He's a no talent. Two blobs of paint indeed ! This went on for two weeks. Constantly arguing with myself. I couldn't get the print out of my mind. Finally I gave up my battle with myself and bought the print and chose a frame for it. I felt very strange buying it. I felt ok, I have done it. Why did I feel a sense of peace about it. For 18 years it was and is my favorite print but I couldn't figure out why. Then one day I was watching a Barbra Streisand special on tv. I noticed that during the special people in the audience were shedding tears as she sang as did I. At that moment I glanced over to my Rothko and it hit me. People tear up when they hear Streisand because they are hearing perfection. When I glanced at the Rothko I saw perfection. I finally knew that was why I bought it. It simply said perfection, to me. I was floored and delighted to have finally figured out what is was that attracted me to that painting and made me love it for all these years. Funny thing is, years later, when I googled Mark Rothko- Violet Center, the pic that came up looked nothing like my print. I was stunned. It was ugly but I googled it again and up popped my Rotko. Strange. Oh well, I didn't care. I still love my Rothko. That's how you buy a painting, with feeling !
Rothko sucks. Real art by masters like Michelangelo are long gone, what a shame.
@@aspiknf _ I agree with you as nuts as that seems for me to say. I hate the kind of art Rothko represents. To me it has nothing to do with talent. I love the old masters like Raphael, Michelangelo, DaVinci etc. Those were men who had the greatest talent.
What can I say? I love my Rothko.
@@STICKITINYOUREAR Ok, well if you love Rothko then that's fine, art is subjective. I love the art of Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael, Rembrandt, childhood Picasso (I don't like Cubism), Bernini, Caravaggio :-)
@@aspiknf that’s opinion, sucks is a wrong word choice,, keep your thoughts with u 💩
Not everyone needs to make complex art to make it look magnificent,, sometimes simple is good and Good takes time!!
Eccellente il mio unico problema è una insufficiente conoscenza della lingua inglese. C'è modo di avere una qualche traduzione?
👍
Think both Rothko and current Latvians would not appreciate stating that Rothko was born in "Russia" - Latvia. As Latvians share both a distinctive and unique culture and historic roots separate from the Russian Federation - the very reason Rothko's parents left Latvia was that Latvians were being oppressed and subjected to the brutality of the pre-Soviet Empirical era which resulted in the death of many people in the Great War - which literally enslaved the population. Rothko was NOT Russian.
Blew the last 2 minutes big time.
💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙👍
I would say that period of painting, was one that I didn't think deserved all the praise it get's. Like Warhol and Basquiat and Herring. Original yes, kinda like pringles potato chips.
Rothko predated all those non talents.
@@cjsligojones5101 Yea, I know but nevertheless for me pop art and abstract art didn't seem to mean much. Like Pollack and Johns and Rothko and Raushenberg, even Chagall was amateur art in a way compared to the artist before them, art prior to t930. Mid 16th century to 19th century is my cup of tea. Europeans mainly but I do like the Hudson River and Brandywine group and Hopper, Wyeth, Homer and the western artist. Remington and Russell and O'keefe she was great at the Kimball they where masters. That's just my taste, I don't see the fascination with so many post 1930 artists. Oh I do like Benton as well and Diego Riveria. I realize some people love Rothko and Pollack!
@@michaelbyrd7883 One of the fascinating things about art is how personalized it is. Rothko is my favorite painter but I don't give two shakes for Pollack. And they're from the same "school". I love Hopper and Benton as well. I see absolutely nothing in pop art.
Rothko is philistine pish water. Early modernism was great and revived vitalism into the arts, Italian Futurism, Soviet Realism, Cubism, certain Surrealist painters like Dali, Francis Bacon and so forth. Rothko was the death of form and metaphysics in art leading to soulless cosmopolitan drivel we are left with now. But art is sub-consciously a product if its time so it makes sense that it's all meaningless drivel sold for stupid amounts. I will give Warhol benefit of the doubt as he was aware of the over commercialisation of art often trolling his audience unbeknown . He was a staunch Catholic and his later work is a longing to something more than the generation he was among. Warhol understood elitism and the religiosity/metaphysical power of art prior contemporary art.
gets
sorta funny, these big pictures in the screen and this tiny little woman talking down in the corner
Too much light! Rothko preferred that his abstract expressionist works be displayed in low light.
I used to live only feet from the Broken Obelisk at the Rothko Chapel in Houston. 42:08 My second floor window looked out on it. The old Victorian house was demolished long ago. The pond under the obelisk was full of frogs that made a terrible racket. Sometimes I would visit the chapel. There were never any other visitors. Never. One day I inspected all the black canvases very carefully. They were just black canvases. I saw no "nuance." The paint had been thinned with so much turps that if was more like dye than paint. It looked to me like the paint was just scrubbed on without any thought. For that he became famous. Then he killed himself.
The Chapel was meant to be a place one could go as an interior space to be used to reflect in a quiet place. It is not a gallery. It is a spiritual space. The paintings are indeed difficult to appreciate as art. It is only when you stare at them for awhile that you tend to lose yourself in them, walk into them. The experience can be very profound. That was his goal. Anyway Semper Fi.
Why are frogs relevant?