I guess it would be rude to limit it to just Rothko. Other groups gave presentations on other artists during the same time period. I think it has more to do with the Modernist ideology, than anything personal against Mark Rothko. The one commonality I found between the painters, Rothko, Pollock, Rauschenber, and de Kooning was that they are all hypocrites.
Rothko goes on and on about how he doesn't care about form and how his works are taking away form. His work his supposed to be about the emotions of colors. The problem is that if he didn't care about form, then why is he so obsessed with the rectangle. Every single one of his paintings contains rectangles. Over and over again, all he paints is different colored rectangles. Obviously the rectangular image must mean something to him, otherwise he would paint it so much.
The same holds true to all the others. Pollock tries to create random splatter art, but as soon as he decides to do something to the canvas, it is no longer random. Rauschenberg sits around complaining about how everyone else complains about art. It's all so pointless. It just feels like so many wasted years in art.
I think u r reducing these artists to a very basic level.... how many canvases do u see in an art store that do not have 90 degree angle corners?
ReplyDeleteu may choose to call them hypocrite, but why hold them to such an absolute standard? we all can contradict ourselves in our life and practice... that is totally besides the point..
art should be experienced as a moment, not a judgment.... not if it is good or bad, right or wrong, etc....
how would u like to live by the same standards? I think u r way more complex than this, even paradoxical... same goes for the artists mentioned...
why it is ok not to like everything, try to look at things more deeply...
And that's why you hate Rothko? Doesn't seem like a good enough reason to hate anyone. I thought maybe he had murdered your family, chopped them up, and devoured their corpses.
ReplyDeleteRothko paints rectangles repeatedly because those forms have a minimal amount of information to deal with, information which affects our logical processes and it's determination of what color and how much color our brain/eye seeks within the picture.~ With Pollock, the splatters may be random in placement but not quantity, he is applying color to the quantity that the picture determines needed for RESOLVE.~ In art from that Era artists were reducing form so as to deliver color with less complication, any logical information added into a picture has implications to our perception. Joan Mitchell is another good example, working mainly with color and quantities of those colors :-) When an artist studies color specifically, which is a deep rabbit hole, the paintings start to make a lot more sense.
ReplyDeleteI don’t hate Rothko’s work, but I find it to be extremely boring. I’ve seen many of his paintings, and they’re all the same, and all boring.
ReplyDelete