Rothko ...


Some years ago (precisely, on 8 December 2007), I went to Rome to visit Stanley Kubrick's Exhibition. At the same time, in the same place, there was an exhibition dedicated to the me completely unknown Rothko, that I could visit with the same ticket; so, after visiting Kubrick's Exhibiton, I decided to take a look at it.
Oh, I couldn't believe my eyes: most of the "paintings" (???) were just rectangles of different colours one above the others or one inside the others!
And I can swear you there were people in front of them, with their arms at their sides, their eyes and mouth wide open, astonished, like they were suffering from some kind of "Stendhal's syndrome". ...
So, when I came back home (by the way, in the book store there I incidentally met Spike Lee, who was there to visit Kubrick's Exhibition and was shooting a film in Tuscany), I made a little research about this Rothko and I even discovered that one of his "paintings" - White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose) - was sold for 72.84 million dollars to the Royal family of Qatar!
Oh, you know, Arabs have so much money they don't even know how to squander it and I can image a scene in which someone convinced them they had absolutely to buy that "importan modern art masterpiece". ...
But can you believe it? We're talking about some rectangles of different colours painted one above the others or one inside the others!
Ok, I must admit I'm completely ignorant about art, but I don't even pretend to understand and appreciate, but no one can come to me and say those "paintings" are very important masterpieces of modern art and blahblahblah and blahblahblah or whatever. I'll laugh at their faces!
Moreover, I can bet I can paint those rectangles myself ...and even better.
Someone can come to me and say - one painting at random - "La Gioconda" is a masterpiece, and also me, in my ignorance, can understand it. I mean: Leonardo made a great effort in painting it and I couldn't never be able to do it.

However, some times after, someone "explained" me that, in short, the importance of Rothko's work consisted in the fact that he had been the first one to have such an idea. ... Oh, this is self-explanatory about how it works, nothing else to add.

As someone once said: learn art ...and play it at cards.

And this was my experience with Rothko.


I'm Winston Wolf. I solve problems.

...And no dream is ever... just a dream...

reply

I`ve heard that since the development of cameras, There is no need for paintings that reproduce nature. So just some idea such as painting blobs of color must be as good as what we call the old masters.Ugh.

reply

He didn't paint rectangles. I believe he saturated the colors, and they bled into each other, dripped down etc. I don't know the technical terms but yes he was the first to do it or at least be recognized for that kind of painting.

Usually "the greats" are just the first people to do something

reply