It is Good because people like it, and will pay large sums of money to acquire a piece.
But that’s not what you’re asking. Isamu mentioned a few technical points that make a lot of sense. Further, in person you can see all of the color gradations that make up his paintings. It’s not a simple block of plain color. The color intensity and shading varies slightly throughout each block.
It has a chaotic quality as well, that these color gradations exist, at the same scale, whether you are looking at the piece from far away or near. Kind of like emotions do. To pick on one, grief is grief, whether you think about it in passing, or dive into the details of why you are feeling grief. You still feel it. You might know more about “Why?” you feel it, or specifics about what you lost, but the same emotion permeates through your feelings.
Rothko’s work to me seems to be created in order to give an emotional impulse to the viewer. Emotional responses to the color are the entire point. There isn’t a societal observation or questions inspired within the viewer that are the purposes of other pieces of art.
Anyway, go see some in person, and see if your opinion changes.
I didn’t get it either, until I saw one in person.
Do that.
And watch Alfred Molina portraying Rothko onstage (was just on PBS, or you can get a free week of Broadway+). He explained the Why of it beautifully… it’s not about portraying a particular mountain or a person, it’s all about the effect the art has on the viewer.
I’ve never seen one in person. MOMA just reopend a few months ago after a year-long renovation and was going to go but of course can’t do that now. I saw a Kandinsky exhibition a few years ago. That was amazing. I have composition VIII
To me, a Rothko has all the emotional intensity of a truly great landscape, it just lacks narrative. If you get the chance to stand in front of one, with luck, you may find yourself completely drawn in as I have on several occasions. I don’t think you can get that same feeling from a print, but if you have experienced the real thing, it may evoke strong memories.
I agree that his paintings in person have a powerful effect. We have a small one here at the High Museum in Atlanta. I find myself staring at it as the minutes tick by. It just captivates me in interesting ways. I have heard of the effects the Rothko chapel have on people (reports of people sobbing, etc) and I really want to go. I have seen a few Jackson Pollack’s up close and while it does have an effect on me, it doesn’t compare to the Rothkos.
I can imagine the prints not having the same effect because you don’t have the textures or the physical color shading going on. Though I haven’t run into many Rothko prints.