Mark Rothko - what's the deal?

I don't think it's silly either, and I think your points are quite sincere and deserve to be taken seriously.

One reason I think a child would NOT be able to paint a convincing Rothko is his understanding and mastery of color. It is well established that color can activate physiological responses in the brain affecting emotions. Rothko was directly concerned with these effects, and viewed color as a (universal) language of its own. This is also one of the reasons spending a more extended amount of time viewing the paintings can influence your reaction to them.

On the subject of forgery, I'm sure you know that fakes of Old Master paintings have been just as (and in many cases more) successful in fooling the experts and commanding huge prices as the Rothkos in the case that caught your attention.

Apart from all that, have you ever seen the play 'ART' by Yasmina Reza? It's a really enjoyable serio-comic consideration of this whole question.

 

It is incredibly hard to explain to most people why paintings like Rothko's, or Pollock's or Kline's or any abstract expressionist, or Ad Reinhardt's black paitings, or Johns' flags & targets, or Stella's shaped canvases, or Judd's sculptures etc etc - matter.

The truth is that standard education, culture, values - particularly in America - has worked against the comprehension and appreciation of contemporary art and anything considered to be conceptually Modern in culture, by the general public since the late 1950's, early 1960's. It is complicated to explain why, in a nutshell. And it could get into politics & religion (mostly Politics) pretty quickly, which it's why it's so hard to get into these discussions without frustration. Most people, especially today, are simply hard-wired to disdain what is presented to them as contemporary art, particularly since the shift in importance from France to the US (Paris to NY, most specifically), which happened around WW2, somewhat unsurprisingly, and coincides with the maturation of what is known as Abstract Impressionism.

Roosevelt was a fan of contemporary American art. Mainly because it was American, but also because he seemed to have a clear understanding of the effect of a vibrant national art scene on a country's population. Most AbEx artists were actually employed by the WPA during the great depression, as mural and sign painters. That kept them afloat until the US economy was rebooted by the war. There was a short period of time, post WW2 up to the late 1950's, where Abstract Impressionist art served as important political propaganda for the US in the beginning of the cold war. The art of Pollock, Kline, De Kooning and other particularly gestural AbEx painters, alongside Bebop Jazz and modern American dance and literature, was touted as the work of a culture that celebrated and encouraged cultural, intellectual and political freedom. These pieces were taken on tour to communist countries, and lauded by the US government in an attempt to persuade the populations of these countries of the many liberties enjoyed by Americans in their free capitalist environment. Behind the scenes, however, the US government - particularly US presidents themselves - had very little interest in the new art, if they didn't find it ugly as hell, and held a very reactionary position which would ingrain itself in the culture not much later.

Rothko, along with Barnett Newman, Clyfford Still and a few other painters, was one of the pioneers of the second period of Abstract Expressionism which developed into something called Color Field painting. Contrary to gestural painting, popularised by Pollock, Kline & De Kooning, color field painters aimed to remove any emotional bias betrayed by the explicit display of gestures while laying paint (be it brushstrokes, or 'dripping', or anything else) on canvas. Rothko in particular believed that color alone had enough power to extract from the viewer a powerful emotional response. He welcomed viewers to look at these 'multiform' paintings closely, and as he became more well known, actually started demanding his pictures be displayed in groups and within their own rooms, as he believed the viewer would best experience total immersion if they were surrounded by fields of color, taking them in patiently. His style took a while to develop, mind you, and he started becoming famous as a surrealist painter, then as an abstract painter with a certain reluctance to completely abandon the figurative.

Art doesn't stand still, however, and younger artists came along who began to reject the AbEx movement & philosophy, and who eventually traced their own paths into the annals of art history.

Meanwhile, the 'happy' period between the US and USSR was getting less and less happy and the CIA cultural tours were less effective and less welcome by the Communist governments. So the US government stopped promoting the art. In fact, what was happening was that American culture in general was so embracing their credo in mass production - later to be aggressively commented on by Pop Art - that it would have been foolish to hope that culture would escape, no matter how much uniqueness is key to its evolution. This is a quote from popular decorating magazine "House and Garden" from 1953:

"Original works have a special charm because they are one of a kind, however, it is wiser to hang the reproduction of a worthy painting than to display a poorly executed original. Some reproduction processes are so excellent they faithfully duplicate even the lightest brush mark. The best of these you will be able to purchase through art museums and shops."

Needless to say, Modern (concept, not time period) art was not particularly considered "worthy paintings" in 1953. With the exception of the works of Jackson Pollock who died almost an art-world martyr in 1947, and who was promoted by publications seeking headlines, the dismissal of AbEx work as "unworthy" was still true a decade later. Fast forward a few years, the election of John F. Kennedy to the White House actually had quite a significant impact on how the American public 'consumed' contemporary art. With the new nuclear family boom of the 1950's, it became a matter of national pride for Americans to acquire and digest the best of European culture. Sure, Kennedy did talk about supporting American Artists:

The propaganda speech continued:

But there were also some comments on taste:

And he was proud of the American people's thirst for the consumption of the best of culture:

But - here's the interesting part - this is how he viewed the ideal American household vis-a-vis art consumption:

Reproductions. Mass production. Yes, digest the 'masterpieces' all you want but buy them at your local museum shop for little money. The message was: Don't waste your time buying new art, and we won't waste your children's time teaching them about it. Unless you like to give money to that bunch of weird dandies who don't work, dodge the draft, and are suspiciously seen accompanied only by men. Interestingly, while most AbEx painters were macho, depressed and 'sincere' - it shows in most of the paintings - the main artists in the immediately succeeding movement, Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns were gay, happy and generally ironic. Modern art is hard to understand, so stick to appreciating difficult figurative painting because it's easy to explain why it's hard to make. If you want to see something new - "SUPPORT AN AMERICAN ARTIST" there's this guy called Norman Rockwell...(I am not saying Rockwell is not talented, or important, or anything like that... but he was a figurative painter in an era where photography had made "figurative painting as a snapshot of life" obsolete)

The result of these federal directives, this sort of cultural appointment, which was only really disturbed by the democratisation of information that arrived in the mid 90's with the internet - or perhaps slightly earlier with the digitisation of the dewey decimal system & sharing of academic journals through electronic means - was a widening of the spectrum of how people consumed art in America. On one side, movements like Minimalism and Conceptual Art were highly marginalised, seen as non-art by many people, contributing to the already widely and falsely propagated notion that modern art purposefully alienated its public and pretentiously laughed at the average person's intellectual inability. On the other side of the spectrum, Pop Art - a movement that explicitly commented on and many times criticised America's fixation with mass production - caught on and provided the public with the incredible feeling of relief generated by the mostly false assumption that they finally, finally understood modern art. That it was finally OK to take it as it was, and nothing more. A soup can is a soup can. We don't have to think about it! Phew...

This is the basic scenario. And as you can imagine in reality it gets a lot more complicated than this. But this narrative explains why the OP's reaction is so common. And why misunderstanding the monetary worth of a Rothko painting can absolutely be compared to the misunderstanding of the value of a 250 GTO. No the GTO was never a simple car, but a Rothko was never a simple painting, until a series of events purposefully suppressed it so that a great majority would consider it simply paint on a canvas. Your average person has no idea why a GTO can be sold for over $30 million, and their knee jerk response is just saying "It happens because it says Ferrari on the nose and it's old, and idiots pay money for it but it's just a car. I don't understand why people like watching these things driving around circuits". Replace "Ferrari" for Rothko, "nose" for back of the canvas and "watching these things driving around circuits" for "looking at these things hung on the walls of their mansions" it's exactly what the OP & others are saying.

It should go without saying that lots of people who have become educated in such a way, and who have grown up within those families with the reproduced masterpieces hanging in living room and classroom walls, are in the position to buy art. Some of them are in the position to buy these original masterpieces. And they do, some times because they grow to educate themselves about the importance of these artists, other times because they don't want to be seen as ignorant by their equally affluent peers. These people, plus the people who have always appreciated and bought & sold these works, drive prices of each of these works up. And when they do, it becomes news, where the rest of us - those of us who cannot afford these works - deem it appropriate to comment on how incredibly expensive they are. Meanwhile, others continue to support the Rothko's and Rockwell's of our time. Art keeps getting made, important art will continue to be shown, bought and sold, the world continues to spin. It's up to you if you want to take the time to understand it. Those of you who have access to museums with great collections of contemporary art, and who don't go look at them regularly, have no idea what a privilege that is. I hope this post helps you understand that.

Some further reading:

JFK article "The Arts in America": John F. Kennedy: Magazine Article "The Arts in America."

Katy Siegel's excellent but dense book "Since '45: America and the Making of Contemporary Art" - Since '45: America and the Making of Contemporary Art: Katy Siegel: 9781861897732: Amazon.com: Books

 

A great post and insightful analysis, Merstheman. Understanding art movements and individual pieces as the products of their historical moment adds to the appreciation of them.

 

POTMB


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It is as easy to find an artist that can forge a decent Turner as it is someone who could produce a Rothko. The list of art that has fooled experts that should know better is also extensive from all periods, all movements and artists thought to have catalogued their work extensively.

A good forger is a good forger and is usually well studied.

I'm not sure you actually want to be convinced of anything considering your dismissive opinion of Rothko's work, nor do I buy for a second that you have started this thread to simply have posters respond that they 'like the colours'.

It appears to me that you simply want your own personal jar of bees to shake. I wish you the best of luck with that.

 

Obviously, the market disagrees with you.

It's not about what you're "looking at". Your opinion of the actual work doesn't matter. It's about understanding the market.

Spend less time at museums and more time buying, bidding and selling art.

 

Terrible advice.

 

Feel free to elaborate.

 

The best art collections in the world - say, the kind that dictate market prices - are compiled by collectors with very specific opinions and taste, not to mention the money. Panza di Biumo, De Menil, Scull, Saatchi, Johnson, etc etc. All collectors who bought and sold based on personal taste, first. And they have informed opinions. How? Because they went and spent A LOT of times VIEWING art in museums. Consequently, many of them spent relatively VERY LITTLE on works that ended up becoming masterpieces. Works that are valued at millions and millions today, like the Rothko's that sparked this discussion.

The greatest museums house the greatest collections of art, and make them available for viewing to the general public, usually for an affordable fee.

That means that they are the greatest place to view art, and the perfect place to gain knowledge of art in a chronological context, and ultimately "train your eye". If collectors would spend MORE time in museums and galleries VIEWING art, there would be a lot more great collections out there, and also a better quality of art would be spotlit.

With a well informed opinion, and confidence in your taste, you don't need to spend much time and/or money to build a great collection.

Of course if you're idea of collecting is making a purely financial investment (a very stupid way to make money IMO) you can employ an art advisor, whose opinion is dictated by commission, & therefore market value and the practice of art market financial calisthenics. In this sense, you are right in that there is a clear definition of "Art World" and "Art Market", and that they are two very different things. If that's the way you want to look at it, good luck. Don't expect to be the one who will help the next great artists to show up, because cutting edge, groundbreaking art is almost never marketable. Until it is. By then your advisor will be earning a nice fee..

Like I said in my long post, before: those of you who shun the opportunity to easily be able to view masterpieces of art have no idea what a privilege that is. Opinion & taste matters a great deal in collecting art. And every opportunity to inform that opinion should be taken, if you are serious about getting into collecting, or even deeply appreciating art, beyond your first, visceral reaction. Of course if you have very deep pockets perhaps you can have the luxury of just buying & selling for fun. Otherwise you'd better be buying things you like to look at because if their monetary value tanks for whatever reason, at least you can live knowing that you hung something on your wall that gives you pleasure to look at.