A room full of violence, and the silence of death: Tate unveils new Rothko Room

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 05/06/2006 | John Banville

[petro45acp]

This post encapsulates both my perceptions of this article and this "artist's" "work." "If you really do want to know more about the form and content of Rothko's work, check out my home page for clickable "classes" on many periods in art history." I don't. I don't want to know any more about the form and content of this drek. blocks of color. So What? "I could take a crap in a box and call it guaranteed..." It is like calling John Cage's musical maunderings (calling them musical is suspect) evocative, or that himbo that hung sheets all around central park a sculptor. "Art that requires a learned dissertation to appreciate has failed as art." Prion has the right idea here. If a reasonably educated, reasonably interested human cannot perceive what you are trying to present with an artistic offering, you have probably offered it up to your oh-so-sensitive cronies. You now deserve every cocked head, scratched head, and derisive, scornful snort provided by those reasonable and interested folk. Top sends Top sends' art commentary can be found aperiodically on the Free Republic.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

I see the artist's "Greek" columns and I agree. They are not placid. No distant vistas, dancing nymphs, or twining acanthus. They are like something seen in an episode of tunnel vision. (Reason and the normal operation of the senses and emotions choked off and shut down by anger.)

(As an aside, I know I'm supposed to be focusing on the artist's work, but I really like the wooden bench on which the lady is seated.)

[petro45acp]

Woa! Watch out for spell check, it yanks every bit of formatting out of a post.

[petro45acp]

Saw that too. Nice curve and taper.

[Dionysius]

Rothko's "art" is the glorification of paint chips.

[agere_contra]

Watch out for spell check, it yanks every bit of formatting out of a post.

Really? Wasn't your 'unformatted' post really railing against the self-limited window of perception that so many of us share?

[Hiddigeigei]

I'm afraid you've been hanging around the arty crowd too long. Is it because of your profession, Professor?

The viewer of such hokum, if he is an initiate, is obligated to generate the appropriate emotional response. So he does, or else simulates it. Otherwise, he feels left out of the "smart set."

Read "the Painted Word" again.

[prion]

Read "the Painted Word" again.

What excellent advice! Good heavens, I haven't thought of that book in years. I wonder if I still have a copy?

I'll never forget the "impastometer"! Hahaha.

[Plymouth Sentinel]

I was thinking drivel.

[ClearCase_guy]

I see another poster has mentioned Tom Wolfe's excellent book, "The Painted Word".

This snip is from you:

From the Seagram images on line, I had never liked that series as much as his other blocks. But now I am beginning to reconsider after reading this article.

IMO, this represents the whole problem laid out by Wolfe: "I didn't like that piece of art, then I read an article, and now I undertand why I am supposed to like it. So I do."

Real art does not require this sort of effort. I see this stuff as insecurity on the viewer's part -- "I want to be cool and like the stuff the cool kids like. But I don't get it. I don't like it. Oh! This article will help me rationalize why I ought to like it. Now I can hang with the cool crowd and say "I like it too. It speaks to me of the artist's angst and his view of mankind. The red says "swords" to me, don't you think?"

It's a con game.

[agere_contra]

< Art Critic ON>

I have put up a webpage of classes dealing with petro45ACP's posts.

Suffice to say that in his "spellchecked" phase he is seeking the concretization of no state that is without the limits of western reason. His posts submit to Western syncretic forms, following the esoteric, extra-sensory limits of the keyboard bindings on his computer. The essential paraclasm in his work categorically subsists in the moment when lexical order is imposed from above - in the form of a "spell checker" - when his cognitive expression is reduced to so much ascii gibberish.

< Art Critic OFF>

Modern art is all about who is kidding who

[Little Ray]

I don't get a gut reaction to colors, unless there is a context. There is no context in the museum (look at how empty the room is!) so I don't get a gut reaction.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Different strokes for different folks. I love Rothko, but I don't love every other famous modern artist. (Twombly in my opinion is filthy childish grafitti, for instance, and Rauschenberg does nothing for me.)

[Drawsing]

I am an artist. I make my living designing logos and doing commercial illustration, website design and watercolor paintings. When I design a logo for a customer, I usually give them two or three choices and include some text beside each choice explaining how the elements and colors relate to their business. I have found that this verbiage is very helpful in selling the design and giving the customer a warm feeling about it. I am also well aware of the abstract "skeleton" that underlies all good design in my watercolors and other art.

All of the above is said to establish that I recognize the need for words and the legitimacy of the abstract. However, there is a line that I believe Rothko and many others have crossed. That line is where the words supporting the art are more important than the art itself. The paintings by themselves (in my opinion) have little to offer other than the fact that they are big and red.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

I think the bench actually helps to balance the two pictures. The suit the lady wears is a bit baggy though.

[Skooz]

However, there is a line that I believe Rothko and many others have crossed. That line is where the words supporting the art are more important than the art itself.

Bingo.

[AD from SpringBay]

More time and money than sense and talent.

[Republicanprofessor]

Artists don't always write well about their work. That doesn't necessarily detract from the art, however. Barnett Newman wrote a great deal of pretentious stuff about his work, and it still doesn't work for me. Especially the Stations of the Cross at the National Gallery, shown below.

These are stripes, black and white, made on unprimed canvas with the help of masking tape. To me, they make the subtle colors and edges of Rothko move a great deal more.

[atlaw]

As much unmitigated hogwash as Rothko's own commentaries.

Rothko was indisputably a self-important and pretentious interpreter of his own work. His rantings properly ignored, his work stands on its own and has a peculiar ability to work on the imagination. A visit to the Rothko Chapel in Houston, with its imposing silence, natural light, and wall covering murals that seem to open into galactic depths, will persuade you that your own commentary is both uninformed and ill-considered.

[Republicanprofessor]

If you see red as the color of fire, blood or wounds, then you might react to the painting the same way.

Well said, thank you.