# Mark Rothko: Why is his work considered "art", and why so valuable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 10, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mark-rothko-why-is-his-work-considered-art-and-why-so-valuable/602504 "2011-11-10T13:54:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mark-rothko-why-is-his-work-considered-art-and-why-so-valuable/602504/81 "2011-11-13T16:28:49Z")
> [@Untoward\_Parable](#): > > Mostly it comes down to people being stupid and susceptible to group-think. \ (HUMONS = STOOPID) This says much more about you than it does about Rothko appreciators. I’m a self taught artist. I took no art history or appreciation in school. I had never even heard of Rothko the first time I was strolling through the sfmoma and chanced upon his [No. 14.](http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/collection/artwork/22031#) ‘Religious experience’ might be overstating it… but not by much. > [@Boyo Jim](#): > > They have advocates. They have well-educated art “interpreters” who discover a rationale for what the painting means and why it is important to society. The intentions of the artist while creating the art are generally entirely irrelevant to these interpretations. This is quite true. However it does not take away from people who can make up their own mind about what they like WRT art. Anecdote: I rarely listen to what people say about my art. But at my last group show, a friend convinced me to stand anonymously next to my art with her to listen to viewer comments. I just _wish_ my art were that deep. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mark-rothko-why-is-his-work-considered-art-and-why-so-valuable/602504/82 "2011-11-13T17:33:39Z")
> [@PlainJain](#): > > I rarely listen to what people say about my art. But at my last group show, a friend convinced me to stand anonymously next to my art with her to listen to viewer comments. I just _wish_ my art were that deep. Don’t sell yourself short. Depth is not something a work HAS, it’s something that it EVOKES. Good art meshes with the mind of the viewer to structure an interesting playground to explore. You don’t need to intentionally put deep meaning into a work to have someone take deep meaning out. And, in indeed, works that try too hard to say something specific often fail because they’re so obvious and direct that they don’t provide any play for the viewer. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mark-rothko-why-is-his-work-considered-art-and-why-so-valuable/602504/83 "2011-11-13T18:04:12Z")
> [@PlainJain](#): > > I just _wish_ my art were that deep. How do you know? Just because you made a piece of art, that doesn’t mean that you get to decide what it’s about, any more than the next guy. There’s no reason why your intention (if you want to call it that) should be a limit to our interpretation of your work. There could be stuff in there that you have _no idea_ about. Of course (and this might be scary), that means that you’re not the only author, as it were, of your work - the viewer gets to play as well. (Still, that doesn’t mean any interpretation is equally valid, or equally sensible. For instance, someone who stands before one of Jasper Johns’ \*Target \*paintings and loudly declares it to be an accurate representation of an anus, specifically one belonging to a small feline named Fluffy, is still capable of being _wrong_.) ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mark-rothko-why-is-his-work-considered-art-and-why-so-valuable/602504/84 "2011-11-13T18:11:28Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > …Abstract art has a lot of baggage because some people think it’s all a put-on or Rauschenberg had blackmail photos of the major museum curators. And, y’know, sometimes that was probably the case. But a lot of it is really wonderful, and seems to be representing something that’s not tangible or visual (like a painting of a specific musical chord, or of a recognizable emotion). > > Art: It’s not just for slackers and poseurs anymore! Some years ago, Houston’s major art museums cooperated to show an enormous [Robert Rauschenberg show](http://www.texasmonthly.com/1000-01-01/webextra44.php). I think it was originally shown in NYC, but he did come from the area–from the quaint little town of Beaumont, actually. At the very beginning, he did the all-black-canvas bit, then moved on to all-white-canvases. But he moved on; throughout his life, he kept changing his methods & subject matter. He was a pioneer at “happenings” & other shows mixing the arts. He had a great sense of play. Some of his stuff could be called abstract, but he was outside the Abstract Expressionist mainstream. What an eye-opening show! Oh, and somebody else mentioned landscapes. There _are_ landscapes & other representational works to be found at the very best galleries–done by respected & successful contemporary artists. But those artists don’t excite headlines, so those who choose to avoid art only know about the “scandals.” ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mark-rothko-why-is-his-work-considered-art-and-why-so-valuable/602504/85 "2011-11-13T23:32:18Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The best part of this is that we all believe that it is true for you. That sentence right there is a work of art in itself. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mark-rothko-why-is-his-work-considered-art-and-why-so-valuable/602504/86 "2011-11-14T03:31:13Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Don’t sell yourself short. Depth is not something a work HAS, it’s something that it EVOKES. Good art meshes with the mind of the viewer to structure an interesting playground to explore. You don’t need to intentionally put deep meaning into a work to have someone take deep meaning out. Thank you, **The Hamster King** (and you too, **Martian Bigfoot** ), for that insightful post. With those few words you have overhauled my way of thinking about art as it pertains to the viewer and I would guess it will enrich my art making by freeing me from the fear of not providing the depth I have always been afraid was not there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mark-rothko-why-is-his-work-considered-art-and-why-so-valuable/602504.md?page=4)