Page 2 | Rothko. wtf? I don't get it

sandrapinchedmysandwich · 2025-05-03T14:27:21+00:00

I must be some sort of philistine but was reading on the news about a Rothko painting that was sadly damaged in Rotterdam recently by a child. Then I saw the art which to me is blobs of paint on a black background. Apparently this is worth 50 million pounds. I know art means different things to different peoole, but really? Does anyone on here see anything else?

balloonraces · 03/05/2025 19:28

This thread has made me want to go to a museum and see this Rothko work!!
not into art, do like a good abstract though like my rug 🤣🤣

Dunkou · 03/05/2025 20:19

I’m not really moved by Rothkos. I paint, and have a couple of degrees in Fine Art so do have appreciation for art. I don’t find them particularly skilled and I’m not surprised that PP says that the forgeries are difficult to tell apart from real Rothkos.

I can see that they would have had a big impact though back when they were first painted as they weren’t like other art, plus their sheer scale is impressive.

Bideshi · 03/05/2025 20:22

corlan · 03/05/2025 18:11

I'm another one that didn't get it until I sat in front of some of his paintings at the Tate Modern. It's a completely different experience. This will sound a bit 'woo', but they seem to shimmer and change a bit when you look at them - almost as if they're emitting light.
I believe there's a church in the USA that has Rothko paintings and people break down in front of them and have spiritual experiences!

I was about to say the same. They almost seem alive. You have to see them in the flesh; reproductions don't do it.

Cy Twombly, however...

Waitingfordoggo · 03/05/2025 21:04

I’m really interested in knowing how our brains work differently in terms of art appreciation. I don’t understand the art world at all, and have never been moved by any painting or artwork I have ever seen. I’ve not seen any Rothko but have been to galleries in London many times, as well as Florence, and have seen a fair few famous artworks but have never had any sort of emotional response. Ditto sculptures, architecture. The only times I have been really impressed by a painting or drawing is when it looks very convincing- like a photo. I can’t draw at all and realistic pictures are the only ones that really make me want to stand and look.

I am very moved by music though. I once thought everyone enjoyed music- just different types, but as an adult have very occasionally met people who really don’t connect to music at all. They don’t listen to it, go to hear it performed or even talk about it. I suppose the same goes for art and sadly for me, I’m lacking whatever gene it is that involves reacting emotionally to art. It’s a shame because I’d like to feel something and wonder if I’m defective in some way 😂

DuesToTheDirt · 03/05/2025 21:06

The size is definitely a factor. A reproduction doesn't cut it, and certainly not a little picture on a website.

As good as Turner though? I have to disagree there!

Biffbaff · 03/05/2025 21:06

I love modern art, but I also think the high-level art scene is essentially a vessel for money laundering.

GasperyJacquesRoberts · 03/05/2025 21:12

A friend of mine once suggested I look at Rothko's paintings as doorways or windows to another realm. That thought really made them resonate with me. Pollock still leaves me cold though.

StarTwirl · 03/05/2025 21:18

Obviously you need to see it in real life

BIossomtoes · 03/05/2025 21:19

Rothko’s work does nothing for me. I’m quite envious of some of you who derive so much pleasure from it.

Over40Overdating · 03/05/2025 21:28

Oh I’m so happy to read some of these responses! I didn’t get the Rothko love at all til I went to the Tate exhibition and was completely blown away. Totally unexpected.

There was one painting in particular that had the energy of meeting an old friend and I spent about an hour just sitting with it. (I have adhd so that in itself is almost a magical experience).

I was really emotional leaving it too. I’ve never been able to explain it and it’s never happened since and I am a pretty regular gallery goer. It wasn’t like ‘oh that’s a nice colour / shape’ reaction, it was purely emotional.

Boopear · 03/05/2025 21:28

Waitingfordoggo · 03/05/2025 21:04

I’m really interested in knowing how our brains work differently in terms of art appreciation. I don’t understand the art world at all, and have never been moved by any painting or artwork I have ever seen. I’ve not seen any Rothko but have been to galleries in London many times, as well as Florence, and have seen a fair few famous artworks but have never had any sort of emotional response. Ditto sculptures, architecture. The only times I have been really impressed by a painting or drawing is when it looks very convincing- like a photo. I can’t draw at all and realistic pictures are the only ones that really make me want to stand and look.

I am very moved by music though. I once thought everyone enjoyed music- just different types, but as an adult have very occasionally met people who really don’t connect to music at all. They don’t listen to it, go to hear it performed or even talk about it. I suppose the same goes for art and sadly for me, I’m lacking whatever gene it is that involves reacting emotionally to art. It’s a shame because I’d like to feel something and wonder if I’m defective in some way 😂

I’m the same with music TBH. Doesn’t move me at all. I’ve always felt like a bit of wrong un in that regard 😔. Yes, interesting how we all work!

MasterBeth · 03/05/2025 21:29

Waitingfordoggo · 03/05/2025 21:04

I’m really interested in knowing how our brains work differently in terms of art appreciation. I don’t understand the art world at all, and have never been moved by any painting or artwork I have ever seen. I’ve not seen any Rothko but have been to galleries in London many times, as well as Florence, and have seen a fair few famous artworks but have never had any sort of emotional response. Ditto sculptures, architecture. The only times I have been really impressed by a painting or drawing is when it looks very convincing- like a photo. I can’t draw at all and realistic pictures are the only ones that really make me want to stand and look.

I am very moved by music though. I once thought everyone enjoyed music- just different types, but as an adult have very occasionally met people who really don’t connect to music at all. They don’t listen to it, go to hear it performed or even talk about it. I suppose the same goes for art and sadly for me, I’m lacking whatever gene it is that involves reacting emotionally to art. It’s a shame because I’d like to feel something and wonder if I’m defective in some way 😂

Nah, you are moved by what moves you. We're all different.

And it's fine to not get Rothko or Pollock or Mozart or Pinter or... Laurel and Hardy.

I just don't think there's much mileage in saying any art is worthless, just "not for me."

noctilucentcloud · 03/05/2025 21:41

I saw some Rothko's in a gallery in Vienna along with some Rembrandt's. I admired the Rembrandt's, but the Rothko's are the ones that really wowed me. If I went back and only had limited time, I'd head straight for the Rothko's. I'm appreciating abstract art more and more the older I get. Still not there with modern art like Damien Hirst's stuff though!

StrawberrySquash · 03/05/2025 22:01

LaurieFairyCake · 03/05/2025 18:06

I thought exactly the same as you until a few weeks ago when I saw the Turner and Rothko room at Tate Britain. Rothko at least as good as Turner, same genre, same expression on the canvas. Unbelievably accomplished. Came away with my new favourite picture, it was so beautiful

You know you aren't supposed to take them home with you, right?

ShockedandStunnedRepeatedly · 03/05/2025 22:04

corlan · 03/05/2025 18:11

I'm another one that didn't get it until I sat in front of some of his paintings at the Tate Modern. It's a completely different experience. This will sound a bit 'woo', but they seem to shimmer and change a bit when you look at them - almost as if they're emitting light.
I believe there's a church in the USA that has Rothko paintings and people break down in front of them and have spiritual experiences!

This is so true. You had to be there, as it were. They are also IMMENSE. Immersive is the word.

JoanOgden · 03/05/2025 22:11

I have a bad reaction to Rothko paintings in person. I went to that Tate exhibition and found that sitting in front of them made me feel really hopeless and depressed, like I had been drawn into a dark void. It was quite an odd experience.

ShockedandStunnedRepeatedly · 03/05/2025 22:13

JoanOgden · 03/05/2025 22:11

I have a bad reaction to Rothko paintings in person. I went to that Tate exhibition and found that sitting in front of them made me feel really hopeless and depressed, like I had been drawn into a dark void. It was quite an odd experience.

I can see that might have happened. But feelings are part of human experience and not all are positive - that art could provoke such a strong reaction is proof of its power… no?

BriceNobeslovesMurielHeslop · 03/05/2025 22:20

I’ve been to the Rothko chapel in Houston twice and it both times it was an incredible experience. I also find them strangely emotional, in the chapel the daylight through the windows alters the feeling of the room.

I think Rothko is fabulous but it definitely can’t translate through a print or photograph.

swimsong · 03/05/2025 22:23

I didn't really get it seeing them in pictures - but a visit to the Tate Modern seeing a few full size in a dedicated room totally changed my attitude.Honestly it was almost a religious expirence.its worth reading about how much time he spends on each one - making small changes and then sitting at a distance for a while, days in fact, before making adjustments..I think it's the fact that, for him anyway, he gets them 'just right'. Somelart works you feel you could change bits and it wouldn't affect anything much. But the great pieces, you know anything small part changed would lessen it.

Valeriekat · 04/05/2025 00:28

You really must go and look at the ones at the Tate Modern.

Valeriekat · 04/05/2025 00:29

swimsong · 03/05/2025 22:23

I didn't really get it seeing them in pictures - but a visit to the Tate Modern seeing a few full size in a dedicated room totally changed my attitude.Honestly it was almost a religious expirence.its worth reading about how much time he spends on each one - making small changes and then sitting at a distance for a while, days in fact, before making adjustments..I think it's the fact that, for him anyway, he gets them 'just right'. Somelart works you feel you could change bits and it wouldn't affect anything much. But the great pieces, you know anything small part changed would lessen it.

I felt exactly the same and you have put it so beautifully.

swimsong · 04/05/2025 09:30

Valeriekat · 04/05/2025 00:29

I felt exactly the same and you have put it so beautifully.

Show quote history

Thanks, It's unfortunate that I was typing in the pub and reading this morning there are so many mistakes! 😅

ExquisiteSocialSkills · 04/05/2025 09:35

I love Rothko. I was looking at one in Tate Modern a few weeks ago. It’s not just ‘stripes’ in my opinion but then I am unmoved by some things that other people love.

JoanOgden · 04/05/2025 19:39

ShockedandStunnedRepeatedly · 03/05/2025 22:13

I can see that might have happened. But feelings are part of human experience and not all are positive - that art could provoke such a strong reaction is proof of its power… no?

Show quote history

Oh yes I entirely agree! Very much proof of their power as artworks.

bge · 04/05/2025 20:26

Rothko’s Black Blue painting (1968) is my favourite painting. It makes me so emotional. I’d love to see it in person