Restoring Rothko | Tate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Filmed over 18 months, this is the story behind the restoration of Mark Rothko's 'Black on Maroon'.
Mark Rothko's 'Black on Maroon' 1958 goes back on public view at Tate Modern on 13 May 2014, following 18 months of intensive work by the Conservation team and colleagues across Tate.
The painting, one of the iconic Seagram murals which Rothko donated to Tate in 1970, was vandalised with graffiti ink in October 2012. It has since been the subject of detailed research and restoration by the core treatment team of Rachel Barker, Bronwyn Ormsby and Patricia Smithen.
Over nine months the team researched methods for removing the ink from the delicate paint layers, using special test canvases to assess the appropriate solvents and cleaning methods. Rachel then spent a further nine months working on Black on Maroon itself, removing the majority of the surface ink before restoring the painting's surface.
Subscribe for more art: www.youtube.com...
Can we just talk about those poignant moments after the painting was taken away after her work was done.. She poured so much of herself into her work that she was left totally lost and having to almost reboot her consciousness after focusing so fiercely on her work. Powerful.
Eye roll.
Atma Kali shut up
Your comment explores the relationship between new class identities and unwanted gifts. With influences as diverse as Kierkegaard and L Ron Hubbard, new combinations are distilled from both constructed and discovered discourse.
Ever since I was a student I have been fascinated by the theoretical limits of the mind. What starts out as yearning soon becomes corroded into a tragedy of temptation, leaving only a sense of nihilism and the dawn of a new synthesis.
As shifting derivatives become distorted through emergent and repetitive practice, the reader is left with an insight into the possibilities of our era.
And yes she is great on the ol’ paint roller.
Jordan Maddrell
you talk utter bollocks. She’s just a silly woman making a meal out of a simple 10 minute overpaint job. Reboot her consciousness ? 🤦🏻♂️😂😂😂 love it 🤣🤣
Display Chicken 🥱🥱🥱 I bet you’re a barrel of fun.
The amount of art and science and labor that went into fixing this assault is breathtaking. From now on, I will always try to pay full price at "suggested donation" public museums. Thank you for employing such an incredible group of technicians, Tate museum, and for keeping such an important array of skills alive.
You may or may not be a fan of abstract art but destroying another person's work, that others spend time enjoying is a shit thing to do. Period.
i want this team to get rid of these stains on my clothes
Tramsandwich bronson same
I can say the same thing about the people in the video. I like the graffiti on the painting, someone added a bit of themselves to such a valuable item and these assholes are taking it away.
@@patrykochmanski6156 how very troll bait of you.
@@RandyLittleStudios I am actually serious. Art is whatever you want it to be.
Thank you all for taking care and so much of efforts to restore. Love you.
Wow how sad to see a piece of art damaged in that way. I'm glad you were able to restore it after countless hours of hard work. Good job!
Thank goodness! Congratulations to all involved. Fantastic job, beautifully documented. Heart-warming start to the day.
This is a truly emotional programme. Just like his Art. Huge Kudos to the restorers.I Had the pleasure of seeing these paintings in the tate in the early 80's, with my Mother, who had to leave the room due to the immense emotional impact that they caused her to experience.
I'm afraid to admit but I had never heard of Rothko before viewing this documentary. I do remember hearing of the damage done to a significant painting at the Tate at the time it occurred. I feel that this (I'm never sure what to call the youtube ?videos /?documentaries / ? clips) was an excellent and very informative '? Video?' documentation of the incredible world of conservation and repair of paintings. I know that every painter has such a wide range of techniques and materials to utilize resulting in the need for so many differences in restoration techniques. I thank the Tate for showing me the way this restoration was done including all the techniques and collaborations and workmanship that was involved. Thankyou so much.
Love Rothko....always nice to see and hear Christopher.....Before I knew of him I happened to wonder into an empty gallery at a museum. I burst into tears almost immediately. His painting and my reaction was on my mind for weeks. Finally I took the time to find out about Mark Rothko. I think he would have been pleased at my experience of his work.
Rothko sucks
There was more artistry and thought put into the restoration than the piece itself.
sounds like you don't know anything about art :)
@@maryandchild Art is not something you "learn" but something you feel. It's like music. It feels nice becouse it is nice. Do you need to understand music to enjoy it? Then why does this so called "art" has to be the same? Rothko to me is not art. It's a mess in the form of a canvas. He probably couldn't even draw a tree.
@@MrMaxer13 have you seen any of rothko's art that isn't his color field paintings? do you understand what he was trying to do with those and how they were created? this is why you need to "learn" about art. because you are talking out of your ass. we aren't talking about whether individuals think art is "good" but what technique and theory and skill went into their creation, which isn't a feeling but a fact.
@@MrMaxer13 you're wrong though. There's a lot of theory behind art that you learn. Also rothko could paint anything, he just chose not to.
This is magical to restore,to bring back to life as the Rothko remains spreading its magic. Thanks for sharing!
one of the best videos Tate's ever made
The passion those people have... It inspires me
As a chemist I never knew the science behind this was so complex, nice :o
All the test pieces made by the restorators are works of arts in their own rights, and should be conserved as well as the masterpiece of Rothko, they could even be displayed in some fashion...
Grateful for their work. I understand the incident and now that it has been realized, I very much prefer Rothko’s in their original form.
My goal as an artist would be to have an artist like that restore your art, I think Rothko would have loved that.
Did he not varnish? I suspect he didn't, otherwise i doubt the ink would have been much of an issue.
I doubt Rothko even knew what varnish is
Dude it is Rothko. He is like Kanye West of painters. That itself Speaks so much.
He chose not to varnish. Varnish has been around since ancient Egypt. Everybody knows what varnish is.
he did not use a varnish, however, you are right that if he had this would have been easier but none the less wow! the fix job was amazing!
Varnish after years time must be stripped and reapplied. Varnish yellows as it ages. Rothko was going for the immediacy of the visual perception of almost pure pigment.
"Black on Maroon" defaced with black ink 2013. Took 18 months to restore.
Christopher Rothko, son 2014. "i'm convinced that he wasn't so much secretive, or hiding his special technique, because he didn't want to focus on that. He wanted people to experience the paintings." ... "It was how he was working, he wanted you to deal with the end result." As it should be.
museum ass't director - "One hopes that people will walk in, not notice (where the ink was) and be returned to that miraculous feeling that Rothko aspired to in making the works in the first place."
Thank you for sharing this process freely and well done to the TATE and the restorers. Regardless of ones personal opinion of the work of Rothko it has taken it's place in the history of art and needs protecting. Also I'm very pleased that you give no acknowledgment or profile to the vandal.
Thank god we have people with such patience in stewardship of these paintings
this was absolutely amazing to watch
Head over the Baumgartner Restoration channel!
formidable vidéo sur les recherches préalables à la restauration... Vraiment très intéressant !!!
Somebody who has seen a Rothko in person answer this; do the paintings really start pulsing when you look at them? Eventually, I'm going to the Rothko Chapel so I can see for myself.
Barnaby Wylde Rothko's work, as with all art can only really be appreciated in reality. No reproduction gets close to the depth and colour, texture and scale.
I was really surprised how emotionally affected I was while looking at a Rothko painting. I understand that it is not for everyone but I really enjoyed his work in real life.
that handshake though
I cried! It is shocking how a person can destroy a piece of artwork. And I was really emotional throughout the whole restoration process captured in this video. Amazing work. I can imagine how they must feel.
Beautiful work and effort. This makes me happy to know that human beings are capable of this kind of story.
Absolutely amazing work. So perceive, delicate, and methodical. The slow work was well worth it.
Great restoration work.
It is a fantastic job - very interesting to get a glimpse of how it is done
13:27 That handshake must have felt great
Rothko is an amazing artist. These pieces aren't about complexity, abstract is about emotions.
this was legit enthralling
First world problems.
(Don't get me wrong, i too love Rothko's work.)
My ass just sitting here like ‘man I wish I had the balls to destroy art I hate’ but same time like that would be illegal.
The reproduction at 2:38 is better than the original itself!
I wonder how Rothko would react if you sat him in a room next to Umaniec. Sadly, we'll never know.
I think its a breath of fresh air seeing that nothing ist safe. Its shocking what happend but now it is a part of this painting forever. Even if there are small particles left.
Incredible video.
It's noticeable
If all nine were ruined, why did they remove only one? I love art, but I'm not an asshole...
Tadesan only one painting was defaced but they are meant to be viewed as a collection.
Honey, the purpose of all artists is to gain an emotional response. So you might want to rethink the purpose of that comment.
Fantastic job on removing the paint, but I disagree with the retouch. Removing the dirt is the right thing to do, even if it gets less, what left his original, anything added feels alien
Rothko receives a lot of hate, didn't knew it went that far that ppl are destroying his works :o
sick collaboration!
wow those ladies are amazing
1 day to paint, 18 months to restore
I was on the edge of my seat the entire time, on top of being completely beside myself that someone would commit such an ignorant and moronic crime.
i get how incredibly important it is to restore paintings, but the restorators are all acting like they are working and looking at a mutulated corpse
Lorenz Niel i mean they are passionate about art and restoration, so i get it
They freaking are. Sheesh.
AMAZING!
Baumgartner would’ve “restored” this in 1 day.
I found this comment quite disrespectful towards the work of conservators at Tate. Given their seniority and experience, they could probably be Baumgartner’s teachers. I find his work amazing, but I don’t see the point of belittling someone else’s work, especially when we don’t know much about the specific challenges and constraints of this project.
The restoration was beautifully done.
But I still don't get Abstract/Modern Art😅
Dulux do a nice maroon paint that would have taken a lot less to do.
Hello Carol,
I frequently think of working with you, designing the lab tables and enjoying the magic atmosphere of the early days of the Menil .
Tony
Horrible...what a waste of time and space inside university art books...I will never call this guy an artist..
+MBoivin Art noone luckily cares about you ;)
+Vendula Hlaváčková Grammar maybe need you learning
+MBoivin Art Agreed. I have no idea how this is considered art.
Factologist why not? It's a painting, no? A lot of people appreciate and enjoy it, but because you don't then it's not art?
Don't worry. No one will ever call you an artist either.
I could have made you a new one in one day.
Typical ignorant reply. We could all make it, but, what's the point? Rothko made it already, eh? You think it up, you abstract it from reality, you give it meaning, you make a thousand relative works. You tell me why you made it, tell me why you needed to make it. Tell me what is means to you, explain to me what period of time this marks in your life and what inspired it. People dismiss abstract art so easily and they miss so much.
+dynodish I agree with you. Plus, we probably couldn't all make it, and certainly not in one day. Rothko used special techniques to create depth and richness, and sure, you could try and replicate that, but it would take a good deal of practice. And the improtant thing to remember: even if you could make it, you didn't. He did.
Then by all means, please make one. :)
Exactly. Some of the comments on here make me sad for humanity and the basic fairness of life and human compassion. Some people seem to have no soul, no light.
Rothko already made it!
i wonder whether there's a light or sound wave that would break up the ink layer and not the paint, versus a liquid solvent...
This video made me so nervous!
Thank you!
To be honest; the painting looked better with the ink on. Atleast something that`s creative.....
What an excessive amount of wasted resources, time and money for a such a useless creation.
they can fucken do this for a piece of paint and canvas but with it comes to a human life
Watching this vid made me feel sad it's desecration of something sacred
What did the graffiti say?
Baumgardner would have sorted this out in a week or so lol
Yes he would have.
What would Marcel Duchamp do?
That Spanish granny could handle this one in ten minutes
i would vote for her XD
lol
LOOOOOOLLLLL
Now i know ive seen too many of these Videos
Really?
I have no art education whatsoever. I have only life education - the kind that comes from growing older, and losing loved ones, and experiencing joy and pain and tragedy. And when I walked into the room housing Mark Rothko's Seagram Murals last summer, it seemed to me that he'd captured all the emotions of my lifetime on his canvas. And I started weeping. I wasn't even unhappy when I went in, I was just struck by the emotion he was trying to communicate to me. This, to me, is art. My husband didn't feel the same way, and that is fine. But for me, I will never forget the way Rothko's deceptively simply work communicated to me across time and without words or recognizable images. It was pure human feeling, distilled onto canvass. My profound thanks to the people who worked so hard to restore it.
From all I've read on him, he would be happy with your response
I can only watch it on my screen.... and i love Rothko's paintings! Agree with emotions and feelings translating trough canvas, and want see his brilliant work in real life.... Also couple of days ago find very beautiful paintings of Bryan Charnley.
Lmao. Get a grip.
from what i know, this is exactly what he intended to achieve with his work.
thats some gangsta shit right there
I remember once in high school that a bully destroyed one of my sketchbooks. I'm a nobody and they were just sketches but I remember being absolutely devastated. It's not about how it looks like who it belongs to, when you put your heart and soul into something it's like you yourself have been assaulted.
Have you seen the movie Patterson?
yopandas it’s not about that, it’s about respecting another human being and their work. It’s almost theft, it was never yours to deface and unless you have permission or have bought it and it is now your property you have no right to touch it. It’s not a police matter but a moral one and anyone who would do something like that I would say has trouble empathizing with the world around them and may have some sort of social limitations.
I’m in high school and one day I left my sketchbook on a chair, and I needed it so much because it’s like 60% of my grade (I’m in IB) only to find out that someone threw it to the trash
yopandas You seem like the type to destroy people’s sketchbooks.
@yopandas Don't be an asshole. You have no idea what that sort of thing means to people who create.
Well.. I would have died of Performance anxiety 100 times over... The confidence of a restorations artist must be incredible!
Soap and water, a gentle scrub and nobody would ever notice. Who cares? It’s just a load of crap.
@I'm Illiterate I see what you are saying. But with severe anxiety I would still died no matter of the amount of research that hade been done. In the end decisions must be made.
I personally am not a fan of this specific type of art but I can appreciate and respect the effort for conservation of the artists work.
Ever seen a Rothko painting in real life? Transcendental experience, really.
I agree. I think the same about Pollack all this wooha for paintings that from my standpoint didn't require much effort or thought. I am happy that they bring joy to others.
@@gurucarcar If you think Pollock or Rothko put no thought into their work, then maybe you should ask yourself why nobody before them did what they did? A little respect, please. Educate yourself...
@@Neuroneos chill and I have seen similar work from people who didn't get noticed. Drizzling paint and painting boxes...no one has ever done it before them>>>please. I am happy you find joy in them - I do not.
@yopandas I don't know much about computers, and I don't go around telling everyone what I think about them either: that would make me sound foolish. I know about art history though, and I think you sound very foolish. A correlation?
All joking aside, Rothko's paintings are quite massive, and the harmony/disharmony of colors, coupled with the overall monolithic size and aspect, produce quite the sensory effect.
Filmed over 18 months, the story behind the restoration of Mark Rothko's 'Black on Maroon'.
Mark Rothko's 'Black on Maroon' 1958 goes back on public view at Tate Modern on 13 May 2014, following 18 months of intensive work by the Conservation team and colleagues across Tate.
The painting, one of the iconic Seagram murals which Rothko donated to Tate in 1970, was vandalised with graffiti ink in October 2012. It has since been the subject of detailed research and restoration by the core treatment team of Rachel Barker, Bronwyn Ormsby and Patricia Smithen.
Solo tu y nadie mas que tu eres la única dueña de esa felicidad que tanto ancias, pero debido a esa poca intención de tu parte para disfrutarla no haces mas que retardar el momento esperado.-
That was an absolutely brilliant piece of restoration. Conservators are truly the unsung heroes of the art world!
monkeygraborange Restorators also ruined for ever good part of the Sistine Chapel; better not to call them heroes...
great job!
This art is garbage yall should be fucking ashamed to hang trash like that.
If you don't like Rothko, that's absolutely fine. Art is about opinions and you don't have to like everything. But opinions are personal and while someone might dislike something, it gives them no right to destroy it. Talk about your opinions, and it'll give you a good conversation. But destroying something out of nothing but spite is selfish and spreads unhappiness through other people. That's why the vandalism here was terrible: not because Rothko should be revered above anyone else, but because of the selfishness of the act.
Eve Woehrling Exactly ! I don’t particularly like this kind of art or even understand it, but I would never destroy things, just because of my personal feelings towards it.
Well said, Eve.
I find the the “vandalism” as you call it, more compelling as art than the original Rothko piece itself. It forces me think about the fluid nature of art, about how different entities claim ownership of it, how much power the police state has over art, and how societal structures have influence over what is labeled art vs destruction or crime.
this "restoration" destroyed the image, the message, and the feeling the artist wanted to send to the viewer when he vandalized the painting
@@spillproofbox I actually unironically agree with you. When you have such a simplistic image that so many people seem to have elevated to high art, defacing it actually prompts a discussion about the art that that wouldn't have been had without the defacement. Now with that being said, the defacer should have used conservation grade pigment so it could have been removed easily.
It's like I'm watching real life Photoshop. I don't care much for his work but I still found this pretty cool.
I love at 11:26
that there is a blanket with the words "ROTHKO UNDERNEATH!".
What a weird situation.
Respect, i was waiting for a video like this for 2 years now hoping that the painting would come to public display again. I am blown away by the level of skill and passion that has gone into this project. Good job.
I’m so glad Tate allowed the filming of the whole procedure. Rachel Barker’s dedication and skills are astounding. Fantastic work.
Vandal - ‘HA! I don’t like this artwork; I’m going to destroy it with permanent ink! What are you gonna do about it?!’
Conservator - ‘Hold my turpentine...’
It was a great honor to be part of the restoration with the Hirox Microscope. We hope to help further the Museum Community to keep artworks in the best conditions for the future generations.
Thank you for sharing this process freely and well done to the TATE and the restorers. Regardless of ones personal opinion of the work of Rothko it has taken it's place in the history of art and needs protecting. Also I'm very pleased that you give no acknowledgment or profile to the vandal.
Yes
I am someone who enjoys abstract art, but I never understood Rothko’s work until I saw one of his paintings ‘in person,” as it were. The pieces have to be experienced first hand. My deepest appreciation and thanks to these remarkable women for their skill and tenacity.
The reverence with which these conservators treat artworks is a more spiritual experience than I’ve ever found in a church.
I was fortunate enough to catch the Rothko room at the Tate Modern, it's about as close as I've come to a religious experience. Say what you will about the pretense of the modernists they sure made some spicy works. So glad there are people out there keeping entropy from eating everything
If you find his daubing and paint rollering a religious experience than you should sit in my living room while I decorate/ test colours. It looks about the same. A f***ing mess.
@@atmakali9599 you just made it sound like you don't make art though so I'll pass.
Corbin Goodwin
Me and him both. Wake up deluded dreamer. Start again by taking a read of The Emperors New Clothes. It’s an enlightening experience.
@@atmakali9599 lmao go give advice to people that asked for it and keep your sad world away from mine.
Corbin Goodwin
I live in a world of enlightened truth. Most it the ‘stuff’ exhibited in the Tate belongs in the garbage. I worked there in the 90’s and some of the exhibits were actually fished out of dustbins. We used to snigger at the punters chin scratching and having an experience.
in 5 minutes the restorers painted a canvas that didnt look too different than his work.
I don't "get" Rothko's work. To me it's just red and black paint on canvas. But the defacing of it was still atrocious, and it was well worth the time of this conservation/restoration team. And look. say what you will about the nature of the modern arts industry (it's a hive of pretentious, fart huffing nepotists if you ask me), but art is simply an expression that draws an emotional reaction from you. In this case, y'all are getting pretty angry about Rothko's paintings. So it did its job as art.
Painting like this aren't the sort I'd be buying to decorate my home with, but they're the kind that I think are worth seeing and learning a bit about. Maybe you'll discover some deeper meaning or personal connection to the art. Maybe you'll just learn that art like this isn't your cup of tea. There's entire museums dedicated to classical realism. Why not some for modern, abstract, and absurdist art? If you don't like it, you aren't forced to go to those museums (unless you're an art student, in which case you're gonna see a lot of art you hate. good luck) after all.
Have you ever seen a Rothko in person? It's a vastly different experience
There's nothing to "get", anyway.
Only difference is one takes much more skill to create than another. Literally just boxes. Nothing creative or unique about them.
It's impossible to enjoy a Rothko from pictures. If you see one in a museum, you will probably just be drawn to it. You won't know it's a Rothko, and it may have a very different mood from the pieces you see here, but you will just be drawn into it. Pictures can only capture colors in the most basic ways; they don't capture the effects of the surface texture, reflective properties of the paints (which every material has, VantaBlack is the material with the lowest such properties), or the subtle patterns made by the brush strokes.
The difference is like seeing an explosion on screen, compared to a real explosion in front of you.
Picasso's works are a bit like that too; they are dead and bland on a screen, but in person the color tones seem completely different.
Its the process and significance that makes it better. Like imo i think banksy's art isnt that great yet people would pay millions to get it carved off walls and sold to their homes.
Tbh i think its more about the person who made it especially with abstract
This is a wonderful film. I really congratulate the women who worked so tirelessly to restore this work. Fantastic work.
I really love this video. For me, is the best video that ever made concerning the restoration about the Rothko ' s masterpieces . Thanks for share it . It ' s really amazing ... this profession (my future profession) is thrilling. my respect
I love when people say "I could've done that" because it's so fun to clap back with a "but you didn't did you?"
That, and when they talk about "making millions shitting on a canvas" and I ask "why aren't you a millionaire then, you'd rather not retire?"
more to the point, they actually couldn't. any time a person says that it's about something like rothko that they wouldn't even know how to begin recreating.
The funny thing is they can’t! without training and talent. The composition and the colour.
I did. And threw it in the trash where it belonged.
absentminded
Don’t talk shit.
art is pure expression. someone might think depression feels like a black dot. and therefore that dot becomes a valid form of expression. if the artist did not consent to anyone else's manipulation of that black dot. then that black dot is almost censored. it's like burning a book. so yeah, that's a lot of money towards something that might seem meaningless. but it does change history and how we think. Art is a luxury no doubt but does affect the thinking and history of the luxurious western society that we live in.
Eloquently put.
Your sophomoric stock philosophy of art is shallow and tiresome.
Taimoor Khan why?
Rothko didn't varnish his paintings, and he used quite a wide range of materials. It's no surprise that his works are fragile and vulnerable. In the end, one has to wonder if he was really terribly concerned about the permanence of his work. If he wasn't very concerned, should we be?
varnish yellows and changes the colors of the painting over time, and it would probably cost a lot of money to varnish those huge ass paintings. Maybe he didn't want to risk putting it on and it accidentally affecting the colors. I don't know that's just what I think as an artist.
@@Leo-zk9rd, Modern varnishes were available to Rothko. Such as n-methylmethacrylate, which does not yellow. Although this varnish is easily removable with very mild solvents, Rothko may have used materials that were similarly soluble, precluding its use. I repeat and expand my point as follows: As an artist, you know that every artist is constantly faced with having to balance considerations of color, permanency, reversibility, ease of application, and so on. Rothko may have made a deliberate choice to forego permanency in order to reach other goals. IF that is so, and if we accept his choice and adopt it as our own -- which seems perfectly reasonable to me and which I suppose Rothko would endorse -- then we can reasonably let the vicissitudes of time take their toll.
i dont think we have to, but its still nice to take some graffiti off that was made with the intent to make the painting ugly. if it was normal aging i would see ur point more but this is a bit different since the damage was purposeful.
Louis C. Gasper Perhaps he was not overly concerned with the permanence of his work in a natural aging sense, but I’m going to guess he would have been mad at someone writing their name in ink on his painting.
He probably wanted it to age I think it ads to the art. It gives it character and shows that nothing with stands time
why don't they varnish Rothko's work? would have made this a lot easier and would certainly help preserve the painting long term.
Regardless of whether or not it’s considered “Good Art,” Rothko was a pioneer in the art community in his time. He created something minimalist and abstract in a time where realism was the expectation and the norm. It may not be what you enjoy, but it’s evidence that no matter how you do what you do, it’s possible to be successful and respected. Great piece of art, thanks to the TATE for taking the time and effort to restore it.
I went to the Tate recently on my trip to London a few months ago during Christmas and I saw the Rothko's and I had no idea about the horrible vandalism that happened to this piece
This kind of art is not really my cup of tea but I do not think that it's right for someone to vandalize another persons work. The amount of time and skill that went into trying to clean up this mess up is just mind blowing. The ladies trying to think outside the box to get the ink out...amazing. True masters of their field.
Do you think Rothko might have felt as DuChamp did when the Large Glass was accidentally broken? Feeling as if it was now complete?
No. I don't either. 2 years in prison? Not equal punishment. Allow me to tattoo his forehead.
This is wonderful. This room at Tate Modern is one of my favourite places in London and I confess to having been pretty upset when I heard of the vandalism. Thanks to everyone involved and also for sharing the background to the restoration, making something fascinating out of the mindless destruction by a pretentious loser.
This room was where C & I started our first date :)
Julia Rhodes-Journeay That is absolutely wonderful. Dingo and I also have fond memories of early days in this room.
I was also fortunate enough to attend University next to the Rothko Chapel which is an amazing space. I did take J there on her first trip to Texas.
Have you ever heard the Morton Feldman music "Rothko Chapel" which was written to be performed there? It is wonderful.
I read that as ... Marty Feldman ... :\
On 7 October 2012 another work from the same series, also titled Black on Maroon, was defaced with writing in black paint.[3] The perpetrator told the BBC "I'm not a vandal" and compared himself with surrealist artist Marcel Duchamp, adding "Art allows us to take what someone's done and put a new message on it." It was later revealed that the man was Polish national Wlodzimierz Umaniec. His addition to the painting had included his name and the number 12, followed by the sentence: "a potential piece of yellowism".[4] The following day Umaniec was arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage.[5] During the trial, prosecutor Gregor McKinley said the repair would cost £200,000.[1]
On 13 December 2012 Umaniec was jailed for two years at Inner London Crown Court, where Judge Roger Chapple told him that his actions had been, "entirely deliberate, planned and intentional". Talking about "yellowism" Judge Chapple added that it was "wholly and utterly unacceptable to promote it by damaging a work of art" which he called a "gift to the nation".[6] It was estimated that restoration of the painting might take up to 18 months to complete, with restorers having to source and apply the same range of materials employed by Rothko, which could include glue, synthetic resin and egg. The BBC's Arts Editor Will Gompertz explained that the ink from Umaniec's marker pen had bled all the way through the canvas, causing "a deep wound not a superficial graze" and that the vandal had caused "significant damage".[7] In order to work out how best to restore the painting conservators created a replica of the damaged work and tested various solvents.[1] In May 2014 the restored painting was returned to public display[1] and Umaniec offered a public apology, saying: "I apologise to [the] British people for what I did. I suppose I wanted to change the art world but of course I did it in a very, very wrong way. I spent almost a year and a half in prison and the British people have paid huge restoration costs, so it definitely wasn't worth doing it, and I'm sure the restoration team has done a wonderful job and I encourage everyone to see the restored picture."[8]
I’m an artist and I find this process so extraordinary. From the disgusting low of someone defacing treasured Art, to the extraordinary dedication of conservators who give their all to save it. I hope if one of mine ever needs this care that it will come into the hands of conservators so talented and so dedicated. Bravo - truly.
Rothko was notorious for not following proper rules of archival work.
I know many artists don’t care about archivability, some just paint carelessly with the mindset of “let the conservators worry about preserving it”. But really, just doing a few small steps can already greatly enhance the archival quality of your work:
Always gesso your surface before painting. Even with pre-gessoed store bought canvas, add 2-3 more coats of gesso.
Paint on a rigid surface like wood, especially with oil paint. Aged oil paint is inflexible, and canvas is flexible. That’s why many old museum paintings have cracks.
Always varnish your works.
The guy who did this got in jail.
But the loonie who ruined the Jesus portrait never even had a slap on the wrist? Pathetic.
As an artist, I feel morally ticked and offended that someone would deface someone's work because they put their time and effort in it but as someone who also feels like "it's all just art, man" .. I also can't help to feel like we place WAY TOO much value in the livelihood of people. Art is to be appreciated and respected but maybe...we shouldn't worship it.
@@Raphael3032 he wouldn't understand he would dead.
_mb_r да пошёл ты бестолочь
ben berk Ya, But you didn’t. And that’s the thing. Modern art is all about innovation and different techniques and making something that people haven’t seen before. They said in the video the painting is built up of many different layers of very thin paint to make the end result. That’s not something that you can do in five minutes it’s a long process; maybe it doesn’t mean anything to you but it did to the artist who spent many hours making something that he felt was important to him and other people share his vision. Maybe it’s not your thing, but you should have respect for the individuals who do enjoy it and the time that the artist spent on the painting.
ben berk well everyone has their own opinion. I’m not here to change yours just to point out that art makes people feel different things and Rothko makes you feel anger, Whereas I see a complex process. Neither of us is wrong we just see the world in a different way.
@ben berk While that's true for a pretty big part of the elite art community around white cube galleries, I feel like that's a super unfair and 'easy' excuse to disregard artists' work who have genuinely pushed the boundaries and made works that are thoughtful and showcase an immense level of talent and understanding of colour, symmetry and emotion. Rothko was the real deal. By 'looking him up' real quick on Google and just skimming through a few compressed images, you will in no way be able to really appreciate his work (I mean that's true for almost all of physical paintings--we miss out on so much detail and textures with the fact that we cannot fully place the work in our periperhy to enjoy it with all our senses). That being said, it's also absurd innit that people would go to jail over defacing a mixture of pigments in a 2d sheet. What do you think the artist himself would want to see played out if he were alive? You also gotta think why this was big news--the fact that people are still fascinated by art, and revere it so much (even though there's always cuts to arts programs in national budgets in a lot of places), people still spend millions to preserve it because that's like the closest thing to a tangible representation of beauty that humans can find (once we've done surviving for a living and start to live comfortably). :P The real party suffering here in all this is the artist (even though the artist is dead), he wasn't a troll who wanted some random probably misguided/oblivious dude to go to jail by doing something he had no idea of the magnitude of.
well done to the Tate team for such an amazing job, as well as showing us the process, the difficulties encountered. This is fascinating.