Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Calling all Forum Art Critic's ...


Case

Recommended Posts

Can someone, anyone explain to me what the f*** all this is about?

 

Mark Rothko. I don't get it. This load of old s**** below was sold for £65m. Most of his other "classics" sell for tens of millions. Maybe I'm thick, but my five-year old knocks out stuff like this most weekends. Is my kitchen wall now the equivalent of the Tate modern?

 

Orange%2C_Red%2C_Yellow.jpg

 

Please - someone, explain to me. WHY is Mark Rothko considered to be a genius?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Never liked his stuff, but the mil does, so took her to the tate modern last year or so and was gobsmacked. Spent ages looking at the huge canvases just being captivted and drawn in. I thought they were great, it was awesome. Not a big fan of abstract stuff at all prior to that.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea why though, so can't help you there, sorry.

Edited by Buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone, anyone explain to me what the f*** all this is about?

 

Mark Rothko. I don't get it. This load of old s**** below was sold for £65m. Most of his other "classics" sell for tens of millions. Maybe I'm thick, but my five-year old knocks out stuff like this most weekends. Is my kitchen wall now the equivalent of the Tate modern?

 

 

 

Please - someone, explain to me. WHY is Mark Rothko considered to be a genius?

 

My link

 

I'll try a couple more on you Case

 

William Scott.

 

1132835041.jpg

 

Edward Bawden

 

Liverpool St Station

 

Julian Trevelyan

 

204.jpg

 

Sidney Nolan ( this one made about £3m )

 

r515812_2821742.jpg

Edited by Earl Hafler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain that Rothko's are supposed to be viewed in collections as well rather than as individual pieces.

 

So you don't just have to buy one s*** painting, you have to buy loads of them?

 

He really is a genius.

 

I say 's***', I actually think they are perfectly pleasant to look at. I just don't think they require any great talent to do. Which is fine and good luck to him.

 

Think I said last time that painting was discussed I just look at and see this:

 

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KW3S0od5s5U/S-Ml8a0MoyI/AAAAAAAAEKI/1XVMPJLxGy4/s1600/Bert+iPhone.jpg

Edited by kop205
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone, anyone explain to me what the f*** all this is about?

 

Mark Rothko. I don't get it. This load of old s**** below was sold for £65m. Most of his other "classics" sell for tens of millions. Maybe I'm thick, but my five-year old knocks out stuff like this most weekends. Is my kitchen wall now the equivalent of the Tate modern?

 

Please - someone, explain to me. WHY is Mark Rothko considered to be a genius?

I don't get it at all. I don't understand the appeal of most of that type of art. But the fact a consensus is formed and valuations are agreed means that there must be some kind of measure of quality that i'm just not seeing.

 

I like a lot of art, but the ones that are just colours and that... or a blue square in the corner of a white canvas. Just don't get it. I was at an exhibition once and there was a massive Red/Black Rothko there - a woman near me was saying that she found it really moving - and so much so, she was then moved to tears. I was seething about that.

 

I used to get really annoyed about it but now I guess I just accept that I don't understand art like some do.

 

Although... I do still have a very small niggling and probably naive and Partridge-esque feeling that they're (art critics) all pretentious c**** that blag that they see things others don't, to seem more intellectual. Doubt it though.

Edited by Clay Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never liked his stuff, but the mil does, so took her to the tate modern last year or so and was gobsmacked. Spent ages looking at the huge canvases just being captivted and drawn in. I thought they were great, it was awesome. Not a big fan of abstract stuff at all prior to that.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea why though, so can't help you there, sorry.

Yes that exhibition was excellent, but it's pretty hard to say why.

 

Should be pointed out that the pics are generally massive and do look different together and at that scale.

 

They are built up of dozens of layers of different paint and this was shown by using an X ray of one of them. Again, hard to explain why this was impressive really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, without getting Clay seething again, stuff like the Rothko appeals when seen in the intended - or created - setting because of their scale, physicality and intensity. It may well be that someone else had the skill to paint the same thing, but 1. they didn't and 2. art is about more than technical skill. It seems to me, a lay person, that most abstract art is as much about the artist abstracting themselves and their technical toolkit out of their work, leaving just the emotion and creative force. Rothko probably drew quite nice pictures when he was first starting. I've seen a timeline of Mondriaan's work, and there is this gradual slide from simple representational pictures to their most basic arrangements of colours and lines, but the thread is unmistakable. The more abstract work is still better, though.

 

Of course, value in relation to Art is almost meaningless, although I'd gladly have a meaningless 65 million. Art, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone, anyone explain to me what the f*** all this is about?

 

Mark Rothko. I don't get it. This load of old s**** below was sold for £65m. Most of his other "classics" sell for tens of millions. Maybe I'm thick, but my five-year old knocks out stuff like this most weekends. Is my kitchen wall now the equivalent of the Tate modern?

 

Orange%2C_Red%2C_Yellow.jpg

 

Please - someone, explain to me. WHY is Mark Rothko considered to be a genius?

 

My hallway looks like that with all the tester pots the Missus has been buying.

 

I liked the Ned 'Robot' Kelly ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that exhibition was excellent, but it's pretty hard to say why.

 

Should be pointed out that the pics are generally massive and do look different together and at that scale.

They are built up of dozens of layers of different paint and this was shown by using an X ray of one of them. Again, hard to explain why this was impressive really.

I agree with all that and xrays showing the layers of different colours and shades were also excellent, in away paintings i their own right. Would happily have tehmon the wall. The series from 1969 in the room on teh way out were obviously space/moon connected IMO, not brightly coloured but still captivating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me, a lay person, that most abstract art is as much about the artist abstracting themselves and their technical toolkit out of their work, leaving just the emotion and creative force

 

No offence, but that makes me think of 'Bruno' talking about fashion a bit.

 

I think abstract art is really just about doing pictures that are quite nice to look at then allowing people to read loads of meaning into them while the artist laughs their t*** off and rakes in a pile of cash.

 

Which is clever enough, and also true of 'traditional' art to an extent - but at least there is some technical expertise to admire and some detail to pour over in the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...