Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Mark Rothko: Infant or Caveman?


Mark Rothkowitz aka Mark Rothko is the subject of some of the most mind-numbingly retarded art criticism of all time. It's no big secret that abstract art, with its see-whatever-you-want nature, is endlessly leveraged by Bolshevists, NAMBLA, you name it. Rothko epitomizes this: People see whatever they want to see in his record-breaking $72 million paintings.

And that's the beauty of painting rectangles.



If I told you that the above image was an Indigenous American cavepainting dating from 3,000 years before Christ, you'd really have no choice but to believe me and grow sleepy as I digressed into a history of corn crops, basketweaving... goddamn... ZZZzzz.

But that's actually a Mark Rothko painting, and has a similar effect on libertine urban degenerates as does Benny Hinn on hypochondriacs.

Rothko's influence on modern aesthetics is staggering; if you're an idiot. I once had someone point to various objects throughout a mall highlighing how nearly all of them had Rothko elements. The Gap logo is a blue rectangle, and many young minorities wear brightly contrasting football jerseys with solid orange bars across the shoulders. I can't say I ever really took this person's opinion on anything seriously ever again.

Like Jackson Pollock, there's not much to say about Rothko's 'art'. He knew dark blue and dark purple went well together, and black and grey, and green and orange. Rothko was however connected with shady artworld figures throughout his career and probably had a great, quick-to-bribe, publicist.

Rothko struggled throughout his life with the "abstract" label, often denying entirely that he was part of such a movement.

At first it was pretty clear that he just painted bland rectangles intended to be hung behind a house plant, or perhaps intended for an actual painting to be mounted on. As time went on and the financial demand for his paintings surged, he seemed to extremely gradually take up the infamous abstract habit of nonsensical psychobabble; at first reluctantly accepting that his rectangle was a metaphor for Roman feminism, or some random crap like that, then ultimately becoming a home shopping network shill and 'playing along'. Previously nice looking rectangles for your dentist's office became 'artistic eras' defined by the (unspecified) struggles of his life.

Although the novel-length attempts at pyschoanalyzing Rothko's work are filled with hilarity (and Roger Kimball's "The Rape of the Masters" touches upon some of the most memorable), the one that really stands out to me is how Rothko's "eras" are placed into a typology by experts.

Rothko, literally, painted rectangles of solid color. Anyone can emulate Rothko and come up with a finished product in 5-10 minutes. So how did art critics know when Rothkos later life depression and eventual suicide were reflected in his "dark era"?

He used darker colors. No, seriously. The rectangles were often dark green instead of medium green. This was the "dark era" delving into "uncharted levels of depression". I'm sure they had a good laugh about it.

Here's a little experiment for you: Stare at your bathroom wall.

Chances are, your bathroom wall is some nice color, be it a pale blue or purple stucco or biege ceramic tiling. Now imagine that it was painted by a man who committed suicide in old age. No wait! Before you really stare at it, know before hand that this wall is... Filled with emotion. People have fainted while gazing into it. Stare at it and let your eyes water up, your spine tingle.

Quite predictably if you look at anything remotely aesthetically pleasing for this period of time KNOWING that you must pour your emotion into it; the solid color itself will begin to remind you of your deceased parent, your unheard-from ex-girlfriend, the sadness of animals having to live by devouring other animals. It's really not that complicated. The catch is that the paintings aren't evoking these emotions, you are.

Now if you're moderately literate, go paint a few rectangles (actually Rothko sort of played that niche out so try some other basic shape) and market them with gibberish about the Hussite struggle against caste-based chauvinism, then at the end say "metaphorically, of course" so that the viewer can hear whatever analogy he wanted for whatever phobia or obsession he's into . 72 million dollars await your estate.

23 comments:

  1. 72 million dollars is really an absurd price to pay for any work of art (or anything at all really). I agree that there is a degree of ridiculous preening that goes into the over-analysis of people like Rothko and their work. That said, as far as I'm concerned, his rectangles really are gorgeous depictions of reality in flux. I have no interest in approaching them with anything other than this personal little phenomenology (and therefore all the critical bilge around his work is irrelevant to me). The creator of a work is not its sole authority, so it really doesn't actually matter who is doing the evocative legwork, so to speak. So long as it speaks (or is heard), it's art. No, it's not worth the valuation placed on it, but what else do you expect? Just because you're going for anti-bullshit (sceptical), doesn't mean you also have to be anti-intellectual (cynical).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

    2. I don’t think the writer of this criticism is being anti-intellectual by denouncing these abstract painters as being fraudulent artists he’s merely calling out the hypocrisy of rothkos lame rectangles appraisal and worship ... And *skepticism is a sign a human is reasonably internalizing reality once you’ve mastered that healthy cognitive function it’s very difficult not to be cynical, but I believe the author is being fair considering how marred and impartial the art world is... you’re probably so defensive because you’ve been educated by parrots who perpetuate the school of thought that credits Rothko as genius.

      Delete
  2. Rothko's work is absolutely terrible. He should have got a job trimming weeds or putting leaves into bin bags in autumn (seasonal work). I'm sure he started his artwork as a joke, and ended up getting depressed as his faith in humanity decreased in correlation to his increasing popularity. I cannot believe the amount of pretentious people defending his work, because they wasted their time being educated about it in 'fine art' classes. Rothko's work became popular because there's a lot of biffs out there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Art is subjective to the viewer, and it is made to create an emotion, or provoke a thought in the viewer. Therefore, saying that his work is "terrible" and that he shouldn't have had a job in the art world is a bit harsh. I wouldn't say that I want his pictures on the walls of my house, but I wouldn't call them terrible either. He clearly enjoyed the work he created, else he wouldn't have painted it that way.

      Delete
  3. To me, His paintings look like nothing more than simple complementary and analogous color schemes. It's like he created these as color palettes for an actual painting he was too lazy to ever actually paint and said "fuck it.. Making a real painting is for suckers. I'll just call these abstract art instead and sell them to suckers!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. It really makes me think those people need to try some drugs and realize it's them evoking this nonsense.

    But they won't, i'm sure half the people pushing this shit is a bunch of cronies looking to make a buck.

    I love hearing "if the art piece evokes raw emotional feeling from me it has done it's job" kind of shtick. Which is interesting because every time I hear that line it evokes a raw emotional feeling from me but trust me i'm not calling it music.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Saw a couple of Rothko paintings in the Liverpool Tate last week.

    Utter. Crap.

    I don't care how long it took him to "layer the paint to create depth and colour"; the guy makes my kid's crappy school drawings look almost fridge-worthy.

    One staff member was actually getting people to stare at one painting and wait for "the vibrations to begin".

    Nah, mate. That's probably an incoming stroke...

    ReplyDelete
  6. i have been stydying Rothko having looked at him once very positively and once cynically and I simply can't ignore how appalling his pre-colourfield work is. He was the most awful figurative painter of all time and I can't get past the gut feeling that his mature style was hit upon as a style that could not be definitely judged as utter shite by the avant-garde world of over-hyped American art. Rothko was used as a pawn in the cultural cold war by the usual suspects and his dull con-trick blown up as a great example of 'American freedon' ... his small works are dull enough but the huge farcically pompous ones are the nadir of western art... Rothko is a bit like Donald Trump... a huge smelly hot-dog fart posing as art

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love art,but from the first time I ever saw a Rothko I though it was a fraud,I seen his early work,that he couldn't give away,but that era they were starved for something else even art were you drip paint on canvas another troubled artist,Pollock.

    ReplyDelete
  8. these kind of criticism,of course,is not only about Rothko and doesn't start with him.the question is how far back do you want to go and who is to be included.
    Moreover,it doesn't concern only painting,but all creativity,(may even include,embodied human activity,as one of the comments made reference to trump.)Reminds me of kabbalists and some modern philosophers.when I look at Rothko,It makes m think of a nice art art decode,you may buy at Walmart.

    It's undeniable,all these folks,tried very hard,to create,but it wasn't happening,
    never succeeded and never stopped trying,you can appreciate their efforts and struggle,but it's empty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Art is art...the art world is the art world. Art exists only to be itself, it has no motive, it is inanimate. The art world on the other hand is alive and needs to continue living and protecting itself. So whenever you think of art, know, factually and literally that the art world and art are 2 ENTIRELY different things. Very few people currently understand or will ever understand the concepts in this article. Accept or deny, the art world must prepare you for viewing its art. Everything is at stake...EVERYTHING. So enjoy art, rothko included, but never forget that you have been targeted, yes you...you have a bulls eye on your chest and its very important that you be brainwashed into believing whatever it is you're meant to believe. Its all the same, whether its cola, fashion, or art, someone is blowing sunshine up your ass and its up to you to say thank you, or clench up your butt cheeks. Think for yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The nature of Rothko's work isn't the main issue. The fact that he was an arrogant and combative a-hole is far more relevant. The ability to reproduce his rectangles is, as well, aside from the main issue. The main issue is that Rothko's work was largely funded by the CIA and other political entities as a way to defuse the social and political rest brewing in the art world during the cold war. Rothko's work, meritorious or not, IS ART. Whether or not it should be valued at it is by collectors and investors is solely the domain of those who wish to collect or invest in it. The arrogance of the painter, in suggesting the greatness of his paintings as being fundamental representations of otherwise indescribable emotions is far more disturbing to me than any aspect of the paintings themselves. Was Rothko all that influential in the art world? That is easily answerable: NO. He was just another egotistical entity in a world where ego drives the value of an artist's brand. As a working artist and university student of art and art history, I am not one to sing the praises of his work highly. On the other hand, art is highly personal and should never be dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AS my late father --- a true and great artist said of Warhol: Not my cup of tea but Id fight for his right to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AS my late father --- a true and great artist said of Warhol: Not my cup of tea but Id fight for his right to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AS my late father --- a true and great artist said of Warhol: Not my cup of tea but Id fight for his right to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AS my late father --- a true and great artist said of Warhol: Not my cup of tea but Id fight for his right to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AS my late father --- a true and great artist said of Warhol: Not my cup of tea but Id fight for his right to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AS my late father --- a true and great artist said of Warhol: Not my cup of tea but Id fight for his right to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AS my late father --- a true and great artist said of Warhol: Not my cup of tea but Id fight for his right to do it.

    ReplyDelete