A co-worker asked me if I had ever heard for Mark Rothko. I replied no, which launched us into a brief discussion on art.
He (and I admit, I as well) am a bit flummoxed by the thought that what Rothko is putting out is considered high art, and also why it would sell for significant amounts of money.
Can anyone shed some light on this? Is there an underlying story to make the artwork more valuable, or is it just hype and someone was in the right place at the right time?
I am not going to try to explain Rothko’s work, but I, too, was a bit puzzled by his high esteem in the art world. Then I saw a Rothko in person. I might be overstating a bit when I say it’s the closest I’ve ever had to a religious experience, but not by much. (Pollack is another one that just viscerally hits me in all the right places.) There’s just an other wordly shimmer to his paintings that draws me in and makes me want to stare and stare and meditate upon them. I know it weird and smacks a bit of woo, but that’s how I feel about them, and presumably others get a similar reaction.
What pulykamell said. See one of his paintings in person, and then decide.
Also, dead for forty years, so not so much “putting out” anything of late.
Good thread. I too, am puzzled. The fact is Rothko was extraordinarily cheap-many of his “paintings” were done with housepaints he obtained from the local hardware store.
In fact, years back, Harvard University spent a fortune conserving a Rothko painting (it had hnd in the dining commons area, and had been covered with food fragments, coffee splashes, etc. It was difficult job,becase of the poor quality of the paints he used.
I also remember an episode of “Madmen”-the boss bought a Rothko “painting” and hung it in his office (the staff were curios and wanted a look). When asked about it, the boss said “I don’t know what its supposed to mean…all I know is that I can sell it for twice what I paid for it”.
Rothko is an acquired taste.
I don’t get it either. They just look like paint samples. Like should I paint this wall this color or that one.
Things like this always make me feel so stupid.
ralph, have you seen one in person?
Also,
Why do you say that? It was a difficult job for a number of reasons, but I’ve never heard that one as being an issue.
Here is a thread that explores Rothko’s art in person and the emotional impact it can have.
The conversation about Rothko starts here and continues.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8455738&postcount=22
I have seen Rothko’s work in person, and there was nothing particularly mystical about it. I don’t get the love either.
An NPR bit about his paintings in the Rothko Chapel.
You shouldn’t feel stupid about it. If it doesn’t move you, it doesn’t move you. While a certain amount of context and experience can help in appreciating art, I do believe the bulk of appreciating it is still visceral and sensory, not intellectual.
Interesting. He says that all his googling just got a handful of folks talking about the “emotional impact” of the paintings, which seems to be what we’ve got here.
What an odd thing.
What is odd about it? I’m curious what you mean here.
I usually define “art” as something that creates and emotional response in me (other than “boy that’s stupid” or whatever). It can be analyzed further than that, of course, but if it causes me to feel raw emotion- art has doen it’s job.
Well, the article I read was in Esquire Magazine. According to it, the paint colors had faded (due to exposure to light). This is characteristic of cheap house paints (unstable dyes). Moreover, if he used exterior paint, the paint would be chalking (a desireble feature for exterior paint, as it allows dirt to wash off).
It’s just like with music. The simplest, one line melody can evoke an emotion, or just fall flat. Different ones will strike each person in different ways at different points in their lives, or even within the same day.
Likewise, what seems like a single or a pair of flutes at first hearing can become an incredible interaction of breath and tone if you listen to it several times over. The ear begins to pick out the imperfections in the notes and you realize that no two other instruments, or no two other musicians would have produced quite that particular sound that made you stop in your tracks. The harmony grows and builds a sense of peace, or opens up a sadness, or energizes you.
It’s also fairly common that certain musicians are amazing in person but only so-so in recordings. Just as some models are breathtaking when in movement on a run-way, but mediocre in a still shot.
I’ve seen three Rothko’s in person, the first was the biggest and did utterly nothing for me, but my Aunt was transfixed and tore herself painfully away from it. The other two both made me wish for a bench to sit on while I looked.
One thing is certain, it’s not what they present so much as what they pull out of you. It’s what they invite, or make space for, emotionally.
Just like if you are missing your lover who is far away and hear “Unchained Melody” you’d be floored by it. But if you were a workaholic personality with little or no intimate connections it would just strike you as whiney drivel. At different times I’ve had both reactions to that same song.
Indeed, exactly what others have said. In print, Rothko’s work looks to me like the very epitome of ‘modern art is rubbish’. In person… just - wow! I could have sat all day and stayed lost in the canvasses, even with the hordes of other people milling about in front of me. It is difficult to talk about emotional responses to art without sounding a bit woo or pretentious, but we don’t really have other language to do it justice.
If you loved Rothko, you will die for Jozef Albers (“Homage to the Square”).
That is it-jst a big square.
There we go, hallucinogenic paint it is.
You said this so beautifully.
I find the human face fascinating. I’m female, but I can stare at a beautiful woman to the point of rudeness. I have done so, much to my embarrassment.
My favorite pieces of art have people in them. Or animals. Evidence of life somehow.
And vases or a beautiful silver candlestick evoke feelings in me that I often can’t even name. A longing of some sort. Serving dishes too.
And the music that moves me to the point of tears or taking my breath away is Pink and Matchbox Twenty, not classical stuff.
There don’t seem to be many people here that are like me and I know you guys are all so smart, so that’s why I end up thinking I must be stupid. Popular media doesn’t often show smart people liking the stuff I like.
I’m probably saying this badly, but that’s my perception anyway.
Thank you Pulykamell. 
I’ve been to the Rothko Chapel many times & can’t say I like it. In fact, the place has a powerful, oppressive feeling to me. Just after he finished those paintings, he killed himself by doing downer & slashing his arms. And I’ve seen other shows charting his career–in which it’s possible to see the darkness advancing. If I suddenly became a multimillionaire, I wouldn’t invest in Rothko…
There’s nothing wrong with saying certain art does nothing for you. Plenty of “modern” (what an old word!) art leaves me cold. Looking back in time, I wonder that we need quite so many Madonna & Child pix or Allegorical Victories. On a too-short visit to New York’s Met, rooms full of Rembrandts seemed all muddy brown; the next gallery was The Enlightenment & was quite a relief, even though the “names” weren’t as famous…
But save me from the ignorant yahoos who keep asking “is it art?” Hint: There’s plenty of new stuff you might like if you got off your ass & actually looked at some art in person! If you’d rather just watch football, do so.
Thanks, NWY’dE
Well, I for one, have “got my own thing with the Ching, Ching” and NiN “Slipping Away” made me pull the car over on the freeway the first time I heard it. And I’m not stupid. 
But I’m also a classical pianist and a former ballerina, so it’s across the board really, it moves me or it doesn’t, and what works can change over time.
