The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXV

[Mouthwash]

Moving as in the first time I saw a Rothko it actually brought me to tears.

You mean this?

I officially renounce all possibility of ever understanding this.

 

[sophie]

You mean this?

I officially renounce all possibility of ever understanding this.

Well the first thing you have to understand is that these aren't simple things Rothko built thoughtlessly. These paintings took months to construct. Every line, every "smudge" was one-hundred percent intentional. The real brilliance with Rothko is how his paintings were constructed. That red-orange you see there isn't just some red-orange paint he bought at the store. It's the product of literally hundreds of layers of paint that he mixed on the canvas culminating in that reddish-orange hue you see. The blocks and coloration are all the results of hundreds of fine-tuned layers of paint all mixing and coalescing to the finished product.

The other thing with Rothko is that he's not really an artist you can understand very well sitting behind a 21-inch computer monitor. It's kinda cliche'd to say "you'll never truly understand [x artist] until you see the work in-person" but this is never more true than it is with Rothko (and all the abstract expressionists, for that matter). Problem one with a digital viewing is that your computer screen doesn't properly convey just how absolutely massive these pieces are. That piece I showed above (Black on Maroon; on display at the Tate Modern) is 2.6m x 3.8m - that's 1.5 people wide by 2ish people high. And that's what's so moving about Rothkos - the sheer size of the canvas. The penetrating, pervasiveness of the color. Standing close to one, being enveloped by the color, and seeing the detail of the lines, every smudge, every little waver in the line, 100% planned and 100% crafted over the course of months. That's what brought me to tears the first time I saw it.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well the first thing you have to understand is that these aren't simple things Rothko built thoughtlessly. These paintings took months to construct. Every line, every "smudge" was one-hundred percent intentional. The real brilliance with Rothko is how his paintings were constructed. That red-orange you see there isn't just some red-orange paint he bought at the store. It's the product of literally hundreds of layers of paint that he mixed on the canvas culminating in that reddish-orange hue you see. The blocks and coloration are all the results of hundreds of fine-tuned layers of paint all mixing and coalescing to the finished product.

The other thing with Rothko is that he's not really an artist you can understand very well sitting behind a 21-inch computer monitor. It's kinda cliche'd to say "you'll never truly understand [x artist] until you see the work in-person" but this is never more true than it is with Rothko (and all the abstract expressionists, for that matter). Problem one with a digital viewing is that your computer screen doesn't properly convey just how absolutely massive these pieces are. That piece I showed above (Black on Maroon; on display at the Tate Modern) is 2.6m x 3.8m - that's 1.5 people wide by 2ish people high. And that's what's so moving about Rothkos - the sheer size of the canvas. The penetrating, pervasiveness of the color. Standing close to one, being enveloped by the color, and seeing the detail of the lines, every smudge, every little waver in the line, 100% planned and 100% crafted over the course of months. That's what brought me to tears the first time I saw it.

But why? What's the point of making colors in squares, no matter how finely detailed?

 

[sophie]

But why? What's the point of making colors in squares, no matter how finely detailed?

What's the point of depicting the Annunciation? or Mary with child? Or portraiture? Or landscapes?

 

[Mouthwash]

What's the point of depicting the Annunciation?

It has religious significance.

or Mary with child?

It has religious significance.

Or portraiture?

People want to be able to see themselves represented in a different medium.

Or landscapes?

Landscapes are beautiful because they reflect real life or imagined places. We evolved to find aesthetic value in such scenery, and to invent our own.

 

[Traitorfish]

It seems a mark of contempt more than respect, I think, to reduce these sorts of paintings to "it's religious" or "it's pretty".

 

[Mouthwash]

It seems a mark of contempt more than respect, I think, to reduce these sorts of paintings to "it's religious" or "it's pretty".

I've never enjoyed paintings myself.

 

[Traitorfish]

I could never have gussed.

 

[Mouthwash]

Wow, that is painful to look at. Gussed?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, gussed. I gussed, you gussed, he, she or it gussed. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You mean this?

I officially renounce all possibility of ever understanding this.

I'd cry, too. What a waste of paint and canvas.

 

[sophie]

I'd cry, too. What a waste of paint and canvas.

See, this kind of opinion is highly irritating to me, but it just goes to show the total subjectivity of art and aesthetics.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes, gussed. I gussed, you gussed, he, she or it gussed. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Where do you get this vocabulary?

 

[Mise]

Gussgow.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Gusswegian dussalect is a prussd and honusserblussen lussgussen, and I'll nuss huss a wuss aguss usst.

 

[Hygro]

Well the first thing you have to understand is that these aren't simple things Rothko built thoughtlessly. These paintings took months to construct. Every line, every "smudge" was one-hundred percent intentional. The real brilliance with Rothko is how his paintings were constructed. That red-orange you see there isn't just some red-orange paint he bought at the store. It's the product of literally hundreds of layers of paint that he mixed on the canvas culminating in that reddish-orange hue you see. The blocks and coloration are all the results of hundreds of fine-tuned layers of paint all mixing and coalescing to the finished product.

The other thing with Rothko is that he's not really an artist you can understand very well sitting behind a 21-inch computer monitor. It's kinda cliche'd to say "you'll never truly understand [x artist] until you see the work in-person" but this is never more true than it is with Rothko (and all the abstract expressionists, for that matter). Problem one with a digital viewing is that your computer screen doesn't properly convey just how absolutely massive these pieces are. That piece I showed above (Black on Maroon; on display at the Tate Modern) is 2.6m x 3.8m - that's 1.5 people wide by 2ish people high. And that's what's so moving about Rothkos - the sheer size of the canvas. The penetrating, pervasiveness of the color. Standing close to one, being enveloped by the color, and seeing the detail of the lines, every smudge, every little waver in the line, 100% planned and 100% crafted over the course of months. That's what brought me to tears the first time I saw it.

Still, that's a description of what's appreciable. The actual "emotionally moving" experience is still invisible in descriptive abstractions of art. And it has to be, that's kind of the point, unless you made your description a work of art.


I made a thread for Phrossack and Camikaze on the topic. Was kinda hoping to not spell it out, though http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=520099

 

[Farm Boy]

See, this kind of opinion is highly irritating to me, but it just goes to show the total subjectivity of art and aesthetics.

Without sarcasm, I'm glad somebody is legitimately pleased with that sort of stuff. Even if I find it unpleasant and vaguely infuriating to be exposed to. Like Elvis, or the Beatles, or Justin Bieber if we were to jump genres.

 

[Synobun]

Without sarcasm, I'm glad somebody is legitimately pleased with that sort of stuff. Even if I find it unpleasant and vaguely infuriating to be exposed to. Like Elvis, or the Beatles, or Justin Bieber if we were to jump genres.

The Biebs is objectively terrible.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

While I truly regret the state of our culture (and thus our society which art reflects) has reached such a state as to make The Biebs possible, whenever I feel the urge to blame artists for expressing what is in reality the state of the society they inhabit, I stop myself and ask the question: what would Mister Rogers do?

Mister Rogers would probably think it was great for Bieber that he is able to express himself in a way that makes him happy. He would probably think it was wonderful that Biebs had a passion which he pursued. Further, he'd probably be upset with us for hating on Biebs for simply writing music we don't like. After all, we aren't obliged to listen to it, just like he isn't obliged to make music that everyone enjoys any more than any artist is. That the two things coincided (because, in fact, a great many people do like The Biebs' music) is at most the fault of larger things at work in society, not Bieber's himself. So why blame him?

 

[Borachio]

You mean this?

I officially renounce all possibility of ever understanding this.

What to say?

First off, to say: "This isn't art", "This is garbage", "This means nothing to me" are all valid responses, I think.

But they still leave unanswered the questions of why it's on display and why anyone would pay large amounts of money for it (presuming they do).

I'd approach this by asking the following sort of questions:

Why has the artist chosen to paint this?

Spoiler :

You could, of course, simply ask them. And generally they've got, or are willing to give, some tale to tell about it.

A lot depends on the artist's reputation. If I painted something vaguely resembling this work (and I believe I could) it would still very likely be largely worthless. It's because this has been painted by someone with a reputation that it's got any value at all, or meaning, to someone. Does anything at all have value unless someone ascribes value or meaning to it?

Why are there three panels in a frame?

Spoiler :

I've really no idea. But three is very often a significant number. With any art work there are four inter-related factors at play:
1. the artist;
2. the work;
3. the viewer.
And framing (!) them is the environment.

Now, this could be, and most probably is, very wide of the mark. Maybe instead the work is abstractly figurative (sic) in some way. Perhaps there's a human figure being portrayed here. With the head, torso and legs corresponding to the upper, middle and lower panels.

As I say, I really don't know. Nevertheless, I still feel I've said something more than just "This painting does nothing for me".

Are the colours significant in any way?

Spoiler :

There's a whole field of art devoted to the study of colour: how the juxtaposition of one colour with another affects them both. But don't ask me what it is, or how, or whether it applies in this case.

Why is it painted in the way it is? Why are the panels apparently painted over the top of some underlying colour?

Spoiler :

Is the artist drawing attention to the fact that it is painted? Aren't all paintings merely daubs of colour on canvas in any case?

Maybe the artist is just trying to provoke a response. Any response.

Maybe the art lies in exactly your response to it. Whatever it is.