What An INCREDIBLE Painting!

:eyes:



Contemporary art went for record prices at a Christie's auction last night including this painting by Mark Rothko which was purchased for $22.4 million. (AP, 10:45 a.m.)

http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2005/11/09/christies_sets_records_in_art_auction/

FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?

And who in the hell is Mark Rothko (or whatever)?

:eyes:

:eyes: I didn't know you could paint a rectangle and get millions!!

JFC

My best friend took me about 400 miles out of our way on vacation one time to see a Rothko exhibition.

Needless to say, I was a little underwhelmed when we finally got there.

I have to say though, his work has grown on me since I've seen more of it and sort of realize it's place within a larger context.

He committed suicide multiple decades ago. He was a contemporary of Jackson Pollack and Helen Frankenthaler.

That makes a little more sense.

I know several painters who all think his stuff is the bee's knees.

amazing work of art? And I am using the term loosely. I am an art lover, but some of this 'modern' stuff looks like something my dog hacked up.

But then, I saw one of his paintings up close, from just a few inches away. There was a power in that painting that doesn't come across in two dimensions on a computer screen.

I always thought Rothko's paintings were cool, but wasn't terribly moved by them. But then, during my freshman year in college, the university hosted an exhibition that featured a couple of Rothkos (they're HUGH!1!), and I found myself mesmerized, standing in front of one of them for approximately 20 minutes.

Art must be seen in person. Have you ever visited the Rothko Chapel? If not, GO next time you're in Houston.

http://www.rothkochapel.org/

And I won't even talk about how radically different it is to see Van Gogh's work in person. One of his was the first painting that made me weep when I saw it in person.

I saw the Pollack at the Art Institute of Chicago. That place was overwhelming.

http://www.rothkochapel.org/IraqStatement.htm

June 2, 2004

The swelling tally of abuse inflicted on Iraqi prisoners by United States military personnel in Iraq demands a response by all concerned Americans. The evidence of such evil, as documented by the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and others, cries out for concerted condemnation.

Particularly humiliating for the U.S. image across the world have been the actions of U.S. personnel in the Abu Ghraib prison facility in Baghdad. President Bush’s pledge to destroy the building and replace it with a new one is a feeble ploy in the face of U.S. violation of international treaties regarding the treatment of prisoners. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s attempt to explain the “technical difference” between abuse and torture along with other U.S. expressions of regret cannot be expected to impress those multitudes who believe that the United States is the cause of their suffering rather than their protector from terrorists or their liberator from despots.

Wars produce “unspeakable” actions. But our commitment to human rights, civil liberties and common decency obliges such organizations as The Rothko Chapel to publicly protest such actions for the record. We owe this to our conviction that global peace in these perilous times cannot be achieved without understanding, compassion, and respect for the dignity of the individual and the sanctity of human life.

The Rothko Chapel, dedicated in 1971, is an intimate space available to all people, with respect for all religions and beliefs. The Chapel welcomes visitors from around the world to the meditative environment created by the architecture of Philip Johnson and the paintings of Mark Rothko. The Chapel and its programs serve as a universal sanctuary with a call for hope – hope in the advent of a renewed humankind.

Peaceful, meditative. I'd love to go back sometime.

I don't imagine I'd much care for this.

Of course all of the Van Goghs aren't sublime, but perhaps hundreds of them reach that status. He poured his soul into his work. That is what makes them so desirable, they are more than just an attempt to represent
an object.

after seeing some at MoMA.

I would never try to pass myself off as an art connoisseur, by any means, but I simply don't get his stuff.

Now the stuff at the Musee d'Orsay in Paris, THAT is art.



:hide:

There's something for everyone. ;)

yes, wonderful stuff in there

When Henry Booth Luce put him on the cover of LIFE, he did Red, White and Blue to mock haute couture.

In fact, although he and other post mod artists didn't know it, their work and careers were financed almost entirely by the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom. They wanted western Europe to see how democracy fostered free thought so that western Europe would not be attracted to communism.

I'm gonna be a millionaire. Gonna run out now and buy some paint and stuff.

:woohoo:

It's ART! :sarcasm:

I agree, what a worthless pile of excrement.

:shrug:

don't get me wrong, it's nice...but where are my come upings

YOU should be a famous reclusive artist...absofreakinglutely :)

:hi:

What's it called?

re:puke:s keep cutting NEA. :wtf:

Damn bottom feeders1

;)

Modern artists think that color theory on its own is good enough as art. Someone forgot to teach them that art is supposed to convey something other than "Hey! I can do this!!"

What they fail to realize is that great artists have been using these theories for centuries, and what made them great was that they could apply these principles to something contextual, whether it's an emotion, an event, a person, SOMETHING that has some kind of fucking meaning.

:thumbsup:

and WHY is that ART let alone worth $22 mil? :shrug:

i honestly don't get it

non-objective artists Mark Rothko didn't paint pictures of things.

The very term 'abstraction' in art means that something has been intellectually re-interpretted.

So, when you're talking about an abstraction of a horse for example, you will see perhaps something like an image of a horse represented entirely in squares. (See Kandinsky's work below)



Those are images recogniseable as horses, but they've been re-interpretted visually. You will not 'see' images like this in nature. But these are not images meant to invoke only a visual stimulus, they're not just pretty pictures. They are meant to invoke emotional and intellectual stimuli as well.

Non-objective painters like Pollack, Rothko and many others take this one step further. When you look at works such as those by Mark Rothko, they actually do not have objective subject matter. That is to say, they aren't pictures of horses, or bowls of fruit, or pretty landscapes, or..well, any sort of object at all. They present an alternate moment of experience, a kind of miniature universe of pure visual, intellectual and emotional stimulation.

Your mileage may vary. :hi:

its a fucking messy assed box inside a messier-assed box that is spilling out of the lines!

the horses are pretty cool though :D

is another man's 'painterly geometrical colour burst.'

:shrug:

:applause:

http://hollylisle.com/writingdiary/article.php/20050412071017398

Although the Marc is much more fluid and obviously not so geometrical.

but I wouldn't want it on my walls so much, not a huge version anyway.

recently sold a cast iron skillet for $900 and a golf ball for $700. collectors of most things, art included, are nuts. :-)

She let me know over the next few minutes, that I was a boor, a bumpkin, a moron and didn't have 'taste' or 'appreciation' for Mark Rothko's vomit-on-canvas :eyes:

:shrug:

but I don't.

:D

:popcorn:

It's one thing to admire an artists work, it's another to use it as a theme in decorating.

I think if I were an artist of Rothko's quality I might be a tad insulted if people were shopping for one of my artworks simply to fill out a blank wall in the den or match the new drapes in the living room.

And anyway, I think Martin has excellent taste. We don't agree on everything, but we disagree constructively when we disagree at all.

and hang a disco ball over the good table :D

I've seen his stuff. He could make it work.

I get his prints from roommates who bought them at Ikea and forgot to take them with when they moved.

You know, like a normal person.

I like the paintings........but I don't 22.4 million like them.

Don't ask me why -- it just appeals to me.

it's putrid vomit.

I spent the morning painting my room blue.

Now give me some money.

are massive. They project like you wouldn't believe.

If you're really still, in fact, you can hear them hum.

Unless the artist installed some sort of device, canvas and paint don't hum. They can't.

:thumbsup:

maybe I'll spend a bit on the frame. lol

exactamundo? :evilgrin:

I thought it was Rob Schneider's "Copy GUy" character from SNL.

Huh.....who knew.

Yep, it's the Fonz.

Museum of Modern Art (NYC) with some friends a few years ago. We came across this one painting that was basically a huge black canvas with a thin red line through it. One of my friends said, "You know, I think that painting is really cool ... but I don't think it's art!" :P

I know this painting is large (105 5/8 by 51 inches) and I'm sure it's much more impressive in person ... but I honestly don't think I would be $22.4 million worth of impressed, LOL! But hey, what do I know ... :shrug:

Another fav of mine!

:silly:

Seriously, I just don't get some art. That one being one of them!

Yes, it looked a lot like that, but the line was red. :rofl:

:D

it is easier on your financial wizards!!

Maybe my paintings will make some sucker rich in 50 years.

Prints don't do them justice.

I went to a Rothko exhibit as a class assignment in art undergrad. I got through about half of the paintings, listening to others "ooh" and "ahh" around me, and wondered what the hell I was missing, bc I thought the paintings were pointless. I was not a big fan of modern art at the time. BUT... then, standing in front of one of his massive paintings, I finally "got it."

At first I thought the painting was simply a canvas painted entirely in an orange-red shade. So I stood there for a few minutes pretending to ""appreciate" the painting, just like I had been doing all evening. But then I saw a *very, VERY* subtle line along the left side of the painting that I didn't see at first. I followed the line and and eventually realized that it was the edge of an entire square of a color on the bottom of the canvas, just the TEENY-TINIEST bit lighter than the orange-red background. I continued to look at the painting, and a few minutes later realized that there was also a red square on the top of the painting, just the TEENY-TINIEST bit darker than the orange-red background. The more I looked at it, the clearer the two squares became.

It was one of those "Aha!" moments in life, you know? Like when you are staring at those posters with a bunch of colored dots on them, and people are saying there is a 3D image in it, but to see it you have to like cross your eyes and focus past the picture, so you're standing there in the mall with your eyes crossed feeling like a fool because all you see are dots, and you start to wonder if you're on candid camera... and then suddenly the image jumps into focus... and it kind of takes your breath away... That's what seeing a Rothko in person is like.

And I loved - LOVED - that Rothko worked his magic on me! I loved that he was able to do exactly what he set out to do... through space and time, from beyond the grave... he had me standing in front of his painting, looking at it but NOT taking it in, thinking it was dumb... then suddenly SMACKED me upside the head with the realization that I was the dumb one! Rothko called me on my pre-conceived notions about modern art, and gave me more artistic insight, and more respect and appreciation for art that at first blush doesn't "speak" to me.

I am always happy to point out my own faults and poor judgement if it may help another to avoid same! :)

but his brown pieces dont do it for me. i love the blue and orange ones, though.

It was sold at Christie's Auction by Metallica Drummer Lars Ulrich (if you saw the documetary about them, you saw this) for 3.5 million bucks.



Whatever floats your boat I guess. Who am I to judge. I buy old, used nintendo games for 10 bucks a piece sometimes.

Though I wouldn't put that one as one of his best, the guy was a fuckin' genius.

I could sit and look at Rothkos for long, extended periods. And I have!

I would venture a guess that most of the people in the anti-Rothko dogpile here have never seen a Rothko painting in person. The scale is staggering and the work has a presence that isn't expressed in the small image of the OP.

It was built specifically to house a set of his paintings--that he completed just before he opened his veins. It's an impressive building. As part of the de Menil family's legacy to Houston, it's hosted many fine events. The Dalai Lama & Jimmy Carter have spoken there. Once, Tibetan monks performed their unearthly music in a revival-style tent set up on the lawn.

However, the paintings are black & dark red versions of his "window" theme & I find them horribly depressing.

www.rothkochapel.org/index.htm

I went to a Rothko show at our Museum of Fine Arts. It reviewed his career from early Surrealism through the entire spectrum of "windows", ending with the dried blood theme. Afterwards, I contemplated throwing myself down the stairs. Instead, I had a lobster-salad sandwich in the cafe & went to look at the Beck Collection of Impressionists & Post-Impressionists.

In short, although I've liked some weird-ass art, I don't care for Rothko's stuff.

I used to live a block from the Rothko Chapel. We went there often. It was a great place to contemplate and meditate.

A friend of mine just finished this painting (about 8 ft. long x 3 feet high), which I think is much better, and a hell of a lot cheaper:

I didn't even have to stop drinking.

I didn't even have to stop drinking.

My mind doesn't work in the abstract which is why I'm a computer network geek rather than a software developer. If I could think "outside the box" I'd probably make a lot more money.

I do think you have to see the art up close. We went to the Met on my only trip to NYC and they had more Picassos than I'd ever seen in one place before. I loved it.

Boring auction.

been painted over several times to cover up graffiti.

Probably look at it as an investment. :crazy:

What makes Rothko different?

What makes a work by a master 'real,' and so many others seem like lame fakes? Not so easy a question to answer, is it?

I agree it's very hard to put a price on art. And the economics of the art market are as weird as those of healthcare.

But Rothko is sui generis. There is tremendous depth and complexity to his seemingly simple work. One of my favorites.

'It is what it is.'

I guess it's 22.4 million. :shrug:

See the cat? See the cradle?

It's hanging on my fridge.

But whatever floats people's boats :shrug:, as long as they're not hurting others.

Absolutely supreme, especially (as others have said)in the meditative quality of his work. I've seen a few up close and they are mesmerizing, almost hypnotic.

And as a side rant to the "it isn't worth 22 million dollars" riff being thrown around; yes it is. It is because somebody THOUGHT it was, and paid that price. You may not pay it, I may not pay it, but somebody did, and that's all that matters..

I'm surprised by the dogpile in this thread. I'd bet most of the anti-Rothko folks here have never stood in front of one of these enormous paintings. They're lush and gorgeous, and the scale is astounding. Thanks for speaking up, my friend. :hug:

they haven't; they saw the little pic of the painting and did the snap judgement thing. Making a judgement on Rothko's work on the basis of that pic is like jusging Hopper on a pic of one of his paintings the size of a postage stamp; it's ridiculous..

They're all broke.

:)

granted, i don't have $22 mil lying around but FAR from broke. the colored boxes suck. end of story. :D

I've seen your basement.

:P

didn't cause you to complain at the time :D

a thing.

Dust. Some tools. It's all so fuzzy.

you forgot the Bees

Your bees were broke, too.

:P

I thought it was just my wine. I'm going to begin painting now.
For chrissakes.

22 million dollars. I am not a big
fan of modern art and this painting
does nothing for me.


:shrug:

and trust me, I could do that one.

Inside joke with my buddies and me. Anytime we see some art one of us pipes in with "It's a SWAN" we laugh.

22 Mill huh? Okay maybe there should be some sort of community accumulation program for people who have FAR too much money in relation to their usefulness (and yes I do realize that lots of our limousine friends apply here). Seriously give us the money we really could use it.

this to a fifth grader who brings in the newspaper clipping.

in post #27 :D

a happy ghost face......