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. ‘Religious experience’ might be overstating it… but not by much.
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.
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.
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.)
Some years ago, Houston’s major art museums cooperated to show an enormous Robert Rauschenberg show. 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.”
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.