Rothko. wtf? I don't get it

[sandrapinchedmysandwich]

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?

Had to Google it but its honestly laughable how shit they are. There is a patch of wall in my kitchen right now that looks like one as I'm picking a new paint colour.

I’ve been there a few times. Nope, not for me. I find it unrelentingly dull and gloomy.

I think it also helps if there are seats and you can just sit and gaze, rather than wandering past.

I had a really strong emotional reaction to seeing ‘The Snail’ by Matisse. I walked around a corner and there it was - BAM! I could have looked at it for days.
I have no idea what it was about it. The sheer size and colour maybe.

But forgeries are often difficult to tell apart from originals anyway! Look at the career of Han van Meegeren. It’s often not a matter of technique, but technical analysis of pigments or craquelure, that confirms a fake.

That's because you are just picking a new paint colour for your kitchen wall, whereas Mark Rothko spent a lifetime working with art before arriving at a new way of seeing (colour field painting) in 1949. Historically, he was breaking new ground and progressing art.

Colour field painting deals with the relationship between colours when placed next to each other and well as the emotions they elicit. Optically, they will advance, recede, vibrate, etc; make you happy, sad, alert, etc Kandinsky & Matisse had also explored this earlier, but Rothko took it much further. If you want a more, in-depth analysis, I suggest you read up before just dismissing it as 'shit.'

I doubt Rothko would lose sleep over Cosycover‘s opinion 🤣

We are all different !

I’m also like this with Pollock. Just looking at No 1 now and can feel the tears building!

Hay fever is a bugger, isn’t it?

Rothko paintings have to be seen in person to appreciate them fully.

The Rothko room at the Tate Modern is outstanding. His work has extraordinary depth of colour and texture that can’t be reproduced as a flat image.

the only painting that has had a similar visceral impact for me is this one (which is tiny in comparison but has the most amazing light)

www.nationalgallery.ie/art-and-artists/highlights-collection/landscape-rest-flight-egypt-rembrandt-van-rijn-1606-1669

But Andy Warhol and Roy Liechtenstein do nothing for me.

I love going to see art, especially since DH worked as an artist for a while - seeing him making art made me look at everything differently. And seeing Rothkos and Pollocks at the Royal Academy with DH in 2017 was amazing. We both cried. He was so ill then but he was determined to see them. I hate the thought of them being damaged.

On the other hand I don't get dance at all. I see that it's pretty or athletic but it doesn't move me at all. We're all different. I wouldn't hack at a ballerina's ankles.