Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
October 2022
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
I had no opinion on Rothko until I saw one of his paintings earlier this year in the Bilbao Guggenheim. It has been said many times, but it is hard to get an impression of his work unless it is confronted in person, at which point the scale of the work is such that it sucks you in and the rest of the world might as well not exist...
Posted
I'm fortunate in that the Bilbao Guggenheim is just an hour from where I live, although it has only the one Rothko on display. It does however have a number of huge steel sculptures by Richard Serra, the ones that feel like they're going to fall as you walk inside them; and also that ridiculous Jeff Koons 43' tall West Highland terrier is permanently located outside.
Are there no Rothkos in the Tate these days?
Edited
by Martin Cooke
Posted
I lived in Houston for many years. This is where the "Rothko Chapel" is located. I visited it a few times. As an artist, I tried to see what his work was all about. Except for the size of the pieces, I was underwhelmed. I remain the same.I’m of the same opinion as you Skylar. I visited a Rothko exhibition in Amsterdam. I sat for quite a while in front of his works, expecting to be impressed but no, underwhelmed too. ( And I count myself as someone who reflects and thinks about many things, I don’t dismiss them out of hand) Their large size was what I remember. What I can say is that I recognise their place in Art History. At the time I was going to the Mauritshuis in The Hague to see “ The Goldfinch” by Fabritius. Now that was something else! A small and beautiful painting which shone out among the others. Painted just before the time of Vermeer and with simple and effective brushstrokes. Each to his/her own, eh?
I lived in Houston for many years. This is where the "Rothko Chapel" is located. I visited it a few times. As an artist, I tried to see what his work was all about. Except for the size of the pieces, I was underwhelmed. I remain the same.
Posted
My experience of Rothko is VERY limited - I'm pretty sure I'd be underwhelmed by a lot of his work, it was those red portrait-scale paintings (vague stirring of memory: in the Courtauld gallery/boardroom?) which I liked.
I'm entirely with Skylar so far as Warhol is concerned. I wouldn't worry about "stepping on toes" - I think most of us have long got used to the fact that some of our cherished artists aren't actually cherished at all by some others, for all sorts of reasons. I for one don't mind that at all, so long as no one says "Oh, you don't understand!": well perhaps I do understand, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to like it. I'm drawn to a wide range of generally representational painting - but that's a huge field, and quite enough for me to lose myself in. I don't generally respond much to abstracts - but even there; sometimes, I just do. I think this is going to be true of many of us here - we can admire all sorts of technical things, and the work involved, but still be left on the chilly side of refrigerated by the actual piece.
Nothing wrong with that - and important to remember that tastes can change and develop over time: I don't think I've ever fallen out of love with a painter whom I once revered; I wonder if others have?
Posted
I'm no fan of Warhol's work either (but then I wouldn't consider it abstract nor having much in common with Rothko).
Some of us do prefer abstract to representational art -- heretical in some circles, but I'd give wall space to a Joan Mitchell over a Constable any day of the week. Even so, abstract art isn't a unitary concept and I suspect even the most ardent aficionados would be hard pushed to truly admire more than a small fraction of abstract art. Some parallels with jazz perhaps?
Posted
Rothko is definitely one of those divisive artists...the love him or hate him kind. Back in the seventies I saw some of his original work in a gallery in London. I have to say it did nothing for me. I've also watched programmes about him in case I was missing something. No good... and I grew tired of presenters giving the 'thinking' behind his work as though they were there as he painted it.
I have no pretensions about understanding abstract art, but much of it just appeals on some subliminal level that I don't question. But not Rothko.
Posted
Who was the artist who said "If I have to explain my work, I've failed"? (Wasn't me, was it...?) "Explaining" Rothko is a daft bit of presumption on the part of whoever tried to: You can't argue someone into loving something - we either do or we don't: we can be taught to appreciate techniques, but still think, 'yes, cleverly done, most impressive, still don't like it'.
A happy by-product of this conversation is that I shall now look up Joan Mitchell, to see why Martin would prefer her work to a Constable: in a way I'm ahead of him there, since if I had a Constable I'm afraid - call me mercenary - that I'd sell it.
Was Warhol abstract - no; on the whole not. Defining such things is hard work, though - I saw a painting on the Gallery the other week whose artist described it as abstract, but - I can't really understand why: it was a recognizable landscape, not an abstraction from same. There were abstract elements, but unless you're a literalist, just about every painter incorporates some abstraction into their work - we're all making shapes to represent things, or states of mind, or something else - I think a genuine abstract is a painting in which you can see nothing recognizable from the real world (whatever that is).
If one were to suggest that Pollock, Warhol, Mondrian, Miró, Kandinsky, to take a random handful, were all abstract artists - one would see the futility of dividing art into neat categories, or even untidy categories: a profound point, the meaning of which I have not yet worked out........