How to Look at a Mark Rothko Painting
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2022
- What do Rothko’s paintings mean? Where did they come from? Mark Rothko wanted to make art that could stir the most basic human emotions. He spent his entire career exploring the primal language of abstract painting in pursuit of a spiritual, near-religious experience. He accomplished what few artists have ever done, he made something the world has never seen before.
Rothko believed art was a sacred space to communicate big ideas. He created a huge body of color field paintings that have become some of the most beloved works of the abstract expressionist movement.
Credits:
3D Render by Julia Kim
COLLECTION PEGGY GUGGENHEIM
PBS.Org
Moma.org
tate.org.uk
Rothko: A Biography by James Breslin
Reductionism in Art and Brain Science: Bridging the Two Cultures by Eric Kandel
New Art City by Jed Perl
I went to a Rothko retrospective in NYC decades ago as a younger woman. I walked the halls and felt I was experiencing an evolving story. I felt like Rembrandts portraits you could almost see the human development, the history of Rothko evolve. I wasn’t sure but it felt like his autobiography in so many ways. And I was moved. When I came to the last hall his colors muted, darkened and suddenly I stood staring into a vast abyss. I was moved to tears in a way I’ve never been before by any piece of art. He made me understand, in one single afternoon, the whole endeavor of art.
woooooooooowwwww, yer so cool!
Beautiful
I cannot look at Rothco's paintings without weeping.
The narration beautifully puts the ineffable quality of these works in words.
Thank you so much.
Very competent practitioners of various spiritual traditions have - ironically - written exhaustively on the impossibility of conveying mystical experience, verbally. To me, Rothko cuts out the middleman - here, his paintings indicate, is a threshold. Step over it, and explore. You'll find no Virgil to serve as guide. You as Dante, are on your own.
Beautifully stated!
I have seen a Rothko 3 years ago and I was moved to tears.
First class excellent presentation of Rothko - really enjoyed👍
I am a big fan of Rothko and thus I will share some thoughts; if anyone is interested.
Personally believe Rothko could well be the greatest artist ever, although at the same time, art should never be viewed of in that way as being: the "greatest". Art is not a competition. However, speaking as an artist I understand full well just how difficult it is to come up with something utterly original in art. Rothko's work is so original that most art historians believe that there is nothing new in art after Rothko. So Rothko basically ended art evolution. This almost lead me to give up art as a life choice. I wondered how on earth could Rothko had done it and so I dug deep for clues. One big clue is to realise a could of things. Firstly, one must consider the period in which he was an artist and how that could have affected him. He experienced two massive world tragedies in his life. The 1930s depression and WW2. Considering he was a Jew one can imagine just how devastating it must have been to watch the horrendous footage of the concentration camps when they were fist shown. And I believe that this footage must have had a huge affect on his work. I mean think about it; the most influential art at the time was Picasso - all those distorted people; hmm. Im not sure if was possible for any artist to paint a human in a distorted
manner after seeing the real life distorted bodies of millions of Jews. That must have pushed art in another direction, which would also explain Pollock too. I firmly believe ideas and originality do not just come by chance. They come from deep experiences and outside circumstances that happen over a lifetime.
One last point: It is very true that one must see a Rothko in the flesh to really appreciate them. Only when I saw his Seagram series in London did I really understand the power of his work. The complexity of those thin washes of colour is astonding to say the least. Before that I had only ever seen a Rothko in books. And that leads me to wonder; if Rothko had just started out today; would he have been so successful? I very much doubt it. Considering every art competition and every gallery owner all insist on first viewing an artists work via a jpeg file. Pray explain to me how any judge could possible have seen o experienced the power of his huge pieces on a laptop, or worse, ai iphone? No one talks about this, but I wonder how many artists today are not getting a chance because their work needs to be seen in the flesh in order to be understood and experienced?
Though well spoken I take issue with your idea that Rothko ended art evolution. After Rothko, Robert Ryman exposed painting as a material construct rather than a spiritual idea. Sol Lewitt denounced the hand of the artist and, with conceptual art, Joseph Kosuth reduced art to an idea. This was 1965. Radical for its time. One can say that the above mentioned artists were caught in the net cast by Duchamp, still the most influential artist of the 21st century. Richter, for instance, is Duchampian. It can be argued that art ended with Duchamp, not with Rothko, but then there's the problem of Warhol.
@@davidhunternyc1 Perhaps l should be more precise regarding my comnent on "art evolution".. in my view Rothko's work ends the evolution of "painting" rather art itself. Although saying that l do believe art today is no more than a pruduct, albeit a sophistcated one. In a pure capitalist driven society what else can it be? This is the reason why l have finally abandoned art altogether to pursue another path of creativity. Art is dead, clever products live.
I recently found the work of Mark Rothko. I have no way to explain it, but never have any paintings touched me the way his paintings did. There’s something uncanny about them. Like a closed window that you desperately want to open to see what’s on the other side, or like a song that you can only feel but you cannot hear. I surely wish I could put it to words…
You can't put it into words because he put it into his paintings.
I've been to the rothko chapel many times. One of the most calming places I've been.
I never tire of learning about one of my favorite artist and his work. This was such an engaging insightful and thoughtful presentation. Thank You!
Wuah ~~~ this must be the best explanation of Rathko’s painting!❤ after a significant event in my life, something in my brain suddenly switched - I suddenly started loving staring at Rathko’s paintings. I never knew why, never was able to explain to the people around me who are so puzzled by those colours and simple shapes. It was just a feeling, feelings in my heart and in my brain. You can feel it but can’t utter why. This vid explains it so well and confirmed those feelings. 👍👏
I think of large, completely abstract paintings as invitations to an experience rather than depictions, descriptions, or representations of anything. It seems that most people approach art like a class or narrative. Think of a lecture, book or film. They want to know the story and what it means; they want to learn something. Even museum curators cannot help but try to explain the work of The New York School of abstract expressionist painters in historical and intellectual terms. It appears to be just too disturbing to leave the viewers to their own instincts. I would advise viewers to approach any large, totally abstract painting as one would meditate: patiently and freely. Staring at a particular point in these paintings for several minutes can help. I've spent hours in the company of Rothkos, Pollocks, Frankenthallers, Pat Steirs, Agnes Martins, Richard Serras (sculpture) and many other artists, sometimes straight and often high. I believe so many of these works were designed to be experienced this way, over long periods of time. Technique matters. Different artists' works look different and feel different because they were made with different techniques of design, paint mixing, thinning, and application. In my experience, they don't all succeed, not even all Rothkos. I don't know why, but some don't come alive for me, even when made by my favorite artists. I also recommend Ad Reinhardt paintings, his black ones in particular, but really seeing and experiencing art in the way I'm describing it works for so much art, no matter what it looks like. I recommend art viewers, rather than reading curatorial descriptions of the galleries they are entering and the accompanying descriptions affixed to the walls, just wander through the museum, not looking sequentially at the works. Just see what you're drawn to, and when you are strongly attracted to a work just stay there for as long as it feels good to. Sit on the floor or look for a portable stool, which museums of make available. Enjoy great art as if it was hanging on your wall; live with it.
This was beautiful. And oh so helpful in opening my mind to just.... just EXPERIENCING art. Thank you truly.
Very good channel, please keep up the amazing work!
this video moved me so much that i committed to a trip to DC with my boyfriend to see the Rothko room at the National Gallery of Art. We are both young and kind of broke so were hesitant about going but it ended up being so magical. We spent about an hour in the exhibit, and people kept walking in chatting only to go totally silent as they fell under the spell of the paintings.
tl;dr thanks for inspiring me to go and make great memories. Love your channel
Honestly if these paintings moved you so much then really any painting can, if the name rothko wasn't attached to it and your boyfriend made something like it before you knew anything about rothko then I can guarantee you'd be hating on it
thank you for making this video! it’s incredible.
You helped me appreciate Rothko more, Thank You.
Really enjoying this channel! Great content!
this was a very well written video, very smooth and well explained. Thanks.
As a kid, I grew up loving art but was mainly interested in comics and cartoons and thought most of the "high arts" were pretty bland and boring. Sometime around the age of 14, my family and I just happened to be passing through Huston and went to see the Rothko chapel. I knew of Rothko and his reputation, but was not impressed when I had seen his paintings in books, so I was curious enough to not totally disregard what I might see in the chapel.
As soon as we walked in and I saw them, I was blown away. The entire room, surrounded by these giant dark paintings that you can get so close to, seemed to have an energy to them that fills the room. Even the feeling of the air and temperature had a different kind of weight to it.
The only thing I can compare it to is when you're at a small party and both your crush and your worst enemy are also there and you are hyper aware of both of them.
That hyper awareness about everything going on and coming off of these paintings changed me forever.
I never became a cartoonist, but I do sell my abstract paintings frequently enough to call myself an artist still.
Wow. Amazing
This is great. Thank you! 🙂🙂🙂
Thank you for this. Rothko is perhaps the greatest of the Ab Ex generation in his understanding of the act, history, and meaning of painting in a Romantic sense in that great century of exploration and tecnological advances from 1850 - 1950 . I admire his work and also work in the same manner with a similar genre though on a smaller scale. So many do not understand and are not advanced enough in visual culture and philosophy to understand the incredible and intense breakthrough he made for all artists
🙏Thank you
I've always wondered why I felt how I felt about Rothko, now I understand. thank you!
I read somewhere, "No one says, 'my child could do that'" when looking at a DaVinci, Rembrandt or Michaelangelo. Anyone looking at a pencil drawing so skilled that it literally looks like a black and white photo would ever say "my child could do that." I know an artist who was that skilled with a pencil. The Emperor is Naked.
Okay, but why should technical skill matter in the context of art? Of visual communication? Why is the only value of art how difficult it was to make? Is that all people see in it???
Best video👍 I studied rothko since last week but want more indepth information. But after watching this video my concepts are clear.
So good
Many many thanks for the clarity and inspirational comments.
Thank You
I see a lot more richness out in the real world than I do in a Rothko. A single square of pavement has just as much texture and detail as one of his paintings, yet strangely they never seem to sell for seventy-two million dollars
You have to experience them in person to actually understand them
@@terpinkov8770 I have
Do you return to those special squares of pavement over and over again? Does the whole "real world" stop you in your tracks and bring tears to your eyes? I sincerely hope this for you. If so, you are richer than if you had the seventy-two million dollars a top Rothko would cost you!
@@lawrencesiskind3554 it’s more interesting than the trash we have in movie theaters that for sure
I never “got” Rothko before this video but I do now. Thank you
I experienced something similar when I saw a Frida Kahlo for the first time at SFMOMA it was a self portrait, there was so much emotion coming from the painting, It was like she was alive in the painting, I could sense the sadness and pain in the painting so much palpable emotion from a simple self portrait, you can’t experience that from looking at pictures, her paintings must be seen in person.
I feel more about sunsets than I do about Rothko's.
And so you should. A sunset means so much. Once more our mighty planet has rolled over as it whirls around our sun. All life-forms have adapted to the changing levels of light and heat which this process creates. We humans have adapted, too, but we can also feel great wonder at the astonishing situation we are in. Apparently we humans are the only point of consciousness in which the universe can contemplate itself and feel ... wonder? puzzlement? disappointment and depression? loneliness and alienation? intense curiosity? a humble adoration?
A rothco is essentially a sunset. Not as grand, but it taps into that deep inherent feeling from the hues we see (the “feeling” we get from the pastels of a sunset) in a sunset. We see, smell, hear and experience things in lived life that taps into something that we don’t entirely understand. Art at its best does this. Music that makes us weep, poetry that makes us smile, and paintings that empower us to feel. I don’t know if Rothco was aware….but this is the outcome for many.
As a 6yr old at school I recall the class shared a box of crayons. As I hunted for an appropriate colour...I became aware of one colour that a table of girls had kept as their colour. A beautiful purple. The other colours were quite drab in comparison. I wanted this colour. For many lessons these girls formed a kind of protection racket over this colour. Eventually after much pressure I obtained the remnant of this colour...it was my first Rothko moment.
I adore Rothko and his art I get misty eyed every time I have the opportunity to see one. It requires a large amount of vulnerability to come face to face with open space. I respect those who don’t enjoy it because it is subjective. I would just invite people to take some deep breaths and look at one in person and notice if any emotions arise. Just like with food try it once if you don’t like it that is fine. 😂
Most of my hallucinations look exactly like Rothko paintings- occasionally as complex the "multiform" example you showed. I don't actually feel anything looking at them- I just stare until they disappear.
This is good
thx u
If you want a Rothko, paint your own. Here's one good reason why...
A number of people who had left a Rothko exhibition were shown a number of paintings and asked which were genuine and which were not, and they were as good as guessing.
And if you need to be told how to look at a load of colour then it sort of proves my point. This is when art slides up it's own backside. As I said, I could paint a Rothko and not one person could tell me if it was a 'genuine'. Not even Rothko himself.
It gets to the point where some one will say "You just don't understand it". I do. It's just blocks of colour that anyone could paint as I have proved.
Despite my love of Rothko paintings, I agree that many other painting can achieve the effects viewers describe from experiencing Rothkos. I don't believe they are just blobs or "loads" of color. I know that making art, even art that is simple in design is usually very challenging. And, there is no way to look at paintings considered transcendent and worth tens of millions of dollars in today's art market and not be affected by those narratives. I agree; make your own! You might as well try. it's going to be easier to attempt than scraping up the many millions it's going to cost to buy a Rothko.
@@lawrencesiskind3554 I know Rothko spent lots of time painting his canvases, and wanted the light to boune off the canvas etc. I get that. But... If the canvas is moved from one gallery to another then that would mean the canvas is not in situ, and therefore not going to have the same effect as it did when it was in the studio. I don't know. I've just started painting after many years of disregarding y love of art.
I’ve always thought his paintings most closely represent Rothko feeling boxed in. By his depression, by society, by his limitations as an artist, etc. To me it seems he had a lack of confidence in being able to display his true feelings and ideas and the blankness of his pieces shows his fear of revealing too much about himself and his inner thoughts. His lack of a statement about his art speaks loudly about how afraid he was to be misinterpreted as an artist. Additionally the many layers of paint and “depth” of the colors seen in the rectangles could convey the depth of his emotional state and insecurities.
this is a good video essay didnt even realize its under 1k views
NO MATTER WHAT ROTHKO SAID OR THOUGHT - HIS WORK DOES “DEPICT” NO MATTER WHAT RTHKO SAID OR THOUGHT - HIS WORK IS EXPRESSIVE - THOUGH WE THE VIEWING AUDIENCE DO NOT HAVE THE WORDS, THE LANGUAGE TO “DEPICT” TO “EXPRESS” THE WORK THAT CAME THRU HIM -
I AM A VISUAL ARTIST - I LOVE ROTHKO’S WORK - I UNDERSTAND THE EMOTIONAL REACTION THAT PROCESSES/DEPICTS - THE HART UNDERSTANDS/KNOWS FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE BRAINS UNDERSTANDING - IF THAT MAKES ANY SENCE -
This video is the Rothko of videos about art.
I think Mark Rothko's paintings should be experienced step by step, color by color, and just subjectively appreciate the human and artistic intent behind each color the artist chooses on each painting
I will have to see his work in London, although I am attracted to his work, I do not understand...... And possibly never will? Hopefully I will feel something in response
reuploaded why? the original video is still public
I wonder if Mark Rothko paintings can be more difficult to understand (or be drawn to) if you have Aphantasia?
Zima Blue 🔵
I was basically an amazing artist when i was 4
Maybe we all were. I think that’s pretty awesome
😮😮😮😮😮I wonder what Rothko would say about how his work is being described here by a self described art expert....😮😮😮
if he believed i shouldn't need special knowledge to "get it", then he should have done something i could get.
I totally respect the perception and experience of all the commentators here, but Rothko simply leaves me cold. Unmoved. I don’t know why, although I perfectly know where his aesthetics come from. Art is subjective I guess.
Sure not every thing has a meaning to each its own interprets that's the magic 🎉
Why was this reuploaded
A few of my videos had ad-suitability or copyright issues. I use photos and video with attribution but usually without explicit permission. The re-uploaded videos are 99% the same as the originals. The original Rothko video had a photo that was misattributed.
Well done video, but I'm still one of those people who feel absolutely nothing when I see a Rothko.
That’s most people.
@@andybaldman You know what? I don't think it is. Or are you suggesting that Rothko's work is enormously popular, but at the same time...no one likes it...?
I'd like you to go back now and reconsider your argument, since it reeeeeeeeally doesn't make a lot of sense.
Fair enough. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Perfectly reasonable. What concerns me is when people (and I see a lot of them) turn matters of artistic taste into MORAL arguments. It's something we've seen before, historically, and I find it concerning.
@@pkmcburroughs Things/people can be popular without being loved. In some cases it's BECAUSE people don't like that thing. In other cases (or the same cases) that can be combined with the fact that the thing made a great news story, and the media loved it. A LOT of things get famous for that reason. Especially if they were from New York in the height of the NY Times' popularity. Many famous artists are only famous today because Peggy Guggenheim liked that person, and then the NYT would write about them. Much of what people like today is manipulated, and did not come about organically as one might expect.
@@andybaldman Okay. Sure. So it's all mass deception. I, for example, don't REALLY love Rothko's work. I just THINK I do.
Brilliant assessment, sir.
*Rothko was asked about the Seagram's Building Paintings, "How far from the Painting should I stand?"*
He said 18 inches
Then "You become part of the landscape of the Painting, your shadow cast upon it ..."
In order to comprehend this statement, 9ne must understand Quantum Physics, the defining of the "Universal Law of Attraction", the Thoughts + Feelings X Beliefs = our Frequency and that Creates by Attracting our Reality. While in this Physical 3D Plane, You are both Individual and you are part of the Whole.
You are eternal and eternally Part of the Whole.
*You have this Journey to experience Individual, do it with your Passion.*
who is 9ne?
really good video.
pointers: take your time more with the narration. add more pauses, slow down. i want to feel taken on a journey
Simple: *cover your eyes with your hands and enjoy that because there's more art and beauty in your hands than there will ever be in a Rothko painting*
😳 pքɾօʍօʂʍ
Perception of art is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person.
What one person sees as "normal" or "not impressive," another person may see as deeply moving or thought-provoking.
Additionally, the emotional and psychological impact of a work of art is not solely dependent on its technical proficiency, but also on its ability to connect with the viewer on a deeper level.
Anyone can do something similar to Rothko's work, in terms of composition or color use, but it will likely lack the depth and sophistication that comes from years of artistic training, experience, and reflection.
it's important to remember that the value of a work of art lies not only in its visual appearance, but also in the ideas, emotions, and cultural context it embodies.
Latvia's artists*
5:33 far left is an amogus
Don't bother, go and look at Clyfford Still instead. 🔥
Your opinion only
@@jeffreyolson2139 nah, hes right
@@joshgalloway7730 all that's important is what one likes & feels a connection with, nothing more. Everything else is just an opinion
Don't find the paintings ugly at all, they are great for minimalistic decoration, beyond that, any mystical experiences you may or not have with them is either a reflection of your imagination or trying hard to engulf the marketing surrounding his works and persona, for the monetary gain of their owners of course, in the art world we're (again) puppets of very powerful people, we're very good at pretending to be in tune with their mental brainwashing. Anything said on this video, almost every single word can be applied to any piece of abstract art. There are way better abstract artists like Pavel filonov or Frantisek Kupka which have a spiritual weight of their own, which don't need documentaries or whatever trying to impress you with empty words about their greatness.
While I feel that everyone's opinion is valid (for themselves), I find your smarmy, high brow comments offensive. So, if I like something you don't, then I have an overactive imagination, am a pawn of the art establishment or am brainwashed? Why are your opinions valid for everyone else? Who are you trying so hard to convince? You are an arrogant ass, not smarter or better than anyone else!
I see you hold a skeptical view towards the reception and interpretation of Mark Rothko's paintings. It's important to note that the interpretation of art is subjective and can be influenced by various factors such as personal beliefs, cultural background, and exposure to the critical discourse surrounding the artist. Some people may find a spiritual or emotional connection to Rothko's paintings, while others may see them as simply aesthetically pleasing or decorative. Additionally, the marketing and promotion of an artist's work, as well as its financial value, can certainly play a role in shaping public perception and opinion. Ultimately, the appreciation of art is a highly personal experience, and what is meaningful and valuable to one person may not be so to another.
@@VIPeR010icoN yep, brainwash in a nutshell, to accept the greatness of someone like Sorolla, Pavel Filonov, Vermeer, Matta, I don't need either propaganda or any sort of indoctrination, their works shine by themselves. No one had to taught me to love Van Gogh, that's the kind of art I like, where it's me and the works, no intermediaries. And I don't hate Rothko, as I said is decorative, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is just stuff people say to either inflate its prices in the art market, make themselves look interesting, or proyecting something fron their own psyche not available in the work itself (which mind you some great artworks also can cause!) The supposed subjectivity of art is something I always question myself. It seems just too convenient that we live in an era were a banana stock on wall suddenly is art. Is so right for the market and money makers that now you don't have to give months of work for a piece! I don't say all art should be like that! I love some brut stuff but I do believe with all my heart that art nowadays is 99% bullshit and unnecesary complex explanations and 1% whatever thing the market wants to masquerade as art.
@@armandogavilan1815 Kind of a self-centered interpretation. You named artists whose work you personally find meaningful and effective, and therefore that art is real art and everything else is bullshit. Have you considered that maybe you just don't connect with Rothko's work and that's fine? I like Rothko's paintings and find them meaningful and effective without any "explanation" or intellectualizing. People just experience art differently, but not everybody presents their personal worldview as objective fact, lol
@@rawrzi1410 I do think there is a huge conspiracy in todays art world. Want to make clear I don't hate or despise the work of Rothko, I do think it has its decorative merit ( I wish I could say that about most contemporary "art") but I do think also that he falls (maybe not even his fault) on the fraud that art became. Be absolutely sure that if his work became famous had NOTHING to do with the quality of the pieces but because a clever form of intelectual brainwash, 99% or more of the people who pretend to be interested on his work is because of a previous hypnosis process, same with maany other modern artists! Take Picasso for example ( who has a few works I genuinely like!) most if not all times people care about the signature more than anything. If one of his bad works (which are a LOT) had no signature NO ONE would gave a crap about it, that's part of the brainwash. It roughly goes like this, some elite composed of fake intelectuals elevate whatever work (being good or bad quality is irrelevant) in an artificial way, and condiment it with some good old artspeak, most people on the art world will take the pill because they don't want to appear ignorant or closeminded, it is very simple actually! There are many artists I'm not so fond of BUT I recognize them as great creators and even genuises, not my taste if you wish, which is DIFFERENT to realize that X artist (say damien hirst, jeff koons, etc) is a fraud and a fake. I can accept different tastes of course, but I'm not blind and can see what's going on in the art world, and as decades passes the crap that art turned out to be sadly proves my discontent. Is just a business and the more people are convinced that a banana stuck on a wall is art, the easier will be for those charlatans to become rich with the minimum effort, it is all just a big powerful mafia, who plays with people's minds just like a sect.
Very lofty words, but are they to try to understand the art or to justify it.
This is all very well and good, but how many Art teachers are teaching their young students to paint like this, and if they did, they'd probably be out of a job for wasting peoples time and not demanding skilled drawings and canvas paintings and portraits from their students, so therefore, one would seriously have to question the real art in these simplistic pieces, pieces that a child or anybody could do. For example, if I painted something like this and tried to sell it ,everybody would think I was a chancer who couldn't paint or draw!
sus @ 5:29
I'm betting he laughed all the way to the bank! SMH
It’s like what, 3 colors? For 100 million dollars, it’s just……. there’s no effort
I just think his paintings are neat. It isn't deeper than that.
If you need to be taught how to listen to a piece of music or look at a work of art then there's something wrong . I'm not saying who's wrong but art is a unspoken form of communication . The less you need to explain it ,the better it is...like a good joke (if u have to explain it ,it aint funny)
It's not that people need to be taught how to listen to music or look at art, but rather that they can benefit from learning more about the context, history, and techniques that went into creating a piece of art or music.
This understanding can enrich one's experience and appreciation of the work, but it is not necessary to enjoy it.
Some people might be naturally drawn to a particular style of art or music, while others might need a little more guidance to understand its appeal.
Everyone experiences and appreciates art differently, and there is no right or wrong way to enjoy it.
Whether someone has extensive knowledge of a piece of art or music or simply enjoys it on a gut level, the important thing is that it resonates with them and brings them pleasure or meaning.
@@VIPeR010icoN I agree that there is no right or wrong way to enjoy art, but as an outsider who just learned about Rothko for the first time, hearing people describe intense emotional experiences while staring at literal rectangles comes off as incredibly pretentious at first. I'm still struggling to really get over it.
That said, I'm a musician and I understand that certain ambient or noise genres confuse the uninitiated as well. I'm hoping to gain a better understanding of this kind of thing, but really struggling with finding any "meaning" other than some abstract, esoteric symbolism behind what appears to be some pretty low fidelity art.
Windows.
I dont think what he said about being in tune with the artist and the art. Its like meeting a person. YOu clikc with some people more than others and some not at all.
gapjin art,,,,,
😂😂
How is this art? I remember drawing this in kindergarten.
Rothko is EXTREMELY AND CRIMINALLY *OVERRATED*
You don’t think abstract expressionism is valid?
@@superdadmoney For the most part I don't find anything of value in abstract "art". Of course there are exceptions like Forme uniche della continuità nello spazio but yet that sculpture is not fully abstract but rather "futuristic". And asking if it is valid is does not confirm that it adds anything of value to the overall world of art. Can "artists" create art with literal poop? Yes they can and they have but it does make the creation worthy of recognition unless is something awe inducing. There are very very very few abstract pieces that actually do something Rothko was extremely lucky because his work is bad for the most part.
Actually, what does these paintings means. Can never understand Abstract paintings. Anyone can draw like this. How they become great artists.how can they be called great like Michael Angelo, da Vinci and the like.
Another is Jackson Pollack. How can paint dripped on canvas through holes in the paintcan ,can be called a painting.
Can't get a clue. What do an admirer of these paintings see when they look at these so called paintings
Fair questions, but I think you may be looking at some things the wrong way. For me, it's not about what does it mean, but what does it make you feel? Art is a way to express emotion through what one feels & what they see & how they see it. A work is not going to affect everyone equally or in the same way & that is how it should be. Another misconception is that great technical skill must be present for something to be considered art; how limiting that is! My advice is to enjoy what you like, no one has the right to tell you what to like, but to also keep an open mind.
Anyone can do something similar to Rothko's work, in terms of composition or color use, but it will likely lack the depth and sophistication that comes from years of artistic training, experience, and reflection.
it's important to remember that the value of a work of art lies not only in its visual appearance, but also in the ideas, emotions, and cultural context it embodies.
Perception of art is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person.
What one person sees as "normal" or "not impressive," another person may see as deeply moving or thought-provoking.
Additionally, the emotional and psychological impact of a work of art is not solely dependent on its technical proficiency, but also on its ability to connect with the viewer on a deeper level.
@@VIPeR010icoN very well said!
If your 4 year old child can replicate it perfectly, it's not great art. It's a con.
Don't...
His paintings suck to be honest
If I need to be taught by a UA-camr on how to look at a painting, it automatically becomes not worth looking at.
Another pretentious, +10mins dissection of art. Wonder what Rothko would have to say.
Wow he's almost as talented a painter as Hunter Biden!
mk