The Modern Art Idiocy

Rothko Ma$terpiece:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5941dd891bd9.jpg[/atsimg]


Compared to something nice:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/256710bb57e8.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

My first post was just a generalized response, but now I see that some of you guys are really hating on Mark Rothko.

Come on, people. This guy was born in 1903, okay? I mean, you can look up his biography and his tormented life. So the Rothko work you're looking at is many decades old.

How do I explain it... Hm...

Artists try out new stuff all the time, they go through canvases and brushes and paints and easels and hand-cloths like you wouldn't believe. Show me an artist who has a "favorite" brush, and I'll kiss your ass — ALL brushes are mere "fingertips," okay?

That's the tip of your finger. on. the. canvas. "Oh, yah, that's my favorite finger." Gimmy a break.

Just as artists plow through paints and brushes and cans of linseed oil and turpentine, they also change STYLES with great frequency. Hell, I steal strokes wherever I see them, right? Know what I mean?

For instance, I walked into the Smithsonian last year and checked out James Whistler's artwork. The dude had it happening, okay. I was in shock as I strolled through the gallery. There was no security on the paintings — but there were no gallery visitors, either. I was in Whistler's exhibit by myself.

I took out my loupe and I got down on Whistler's paintings for, like, three straight hours. It was glorious. I studied that guy's hand pretty thoroughly — he painted thin, short, horizontal strokes on his panoramas, and I measured those mothers. On other paintings he went so thin that I couldn't even discern a stroke — it was just existential color floating there on the surface of the canvas.

The master's touch.

I sat down and mopped my eyes a few times, I don't mind saying. No, I wasn't crying, it was eye strain. But I learned a lot about James Whistler by examining his brush strokes. The guy was into precision, and he loved toying with people's heads. You can tell that sort of stuff from a painter's strokes.

Point is that Whistler used different styles, he went through different periods, you know. And I know that Mark Rothko went through many different periods of new style and new expression.

For another example, when you see a Van Gogh self-portrait, in person, you will feel something. I don't care who you are, I dare you to stare into Van Gogh's eyes.

Dare ya.

So, different artists deliver different, I dunno, "energy" into their paintings, and a lot of people pick up on it. And a lot of people will pay a lot of money FOR that "energy," right?

Oh, you know it's right. Now, I have seen some "artists" generating junk and calling it art. There's a difference. "Art" is inspired. "Junk" is not inspired. "Junk" is mechanical and lame and flat and obnoxious. "Art" is alive, it evokes emotion.

Junk evokes nothing. And that's the worst thing you can say to an artist, you know? "What? What am I supposed to be seeing?"

When a piece of work fails to evoke ANYTHING, that's when the artist thinks about snuffing himself.

See, there's a lotta background in art that you need to explore before you call down on Picasso or Van Gogh or Rembrandt or Mark Rothko.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 2/16/2010 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Truly ancient art I admire:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c82f0024a37a.jpg[/atsimg]

The Artist is still alive.

I can't count the number of times I've looked at the natural world and thought it would be a mistake to paint the scene because no-one would believe it possible.

Yeah, my Prof at the art academy said, "Look, if you want exact representations, buy yourself a fekking camera."



That guy cracked me up. I wonder if he's still around? Probably find him on Facebook. God help us.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Asktheanimals

I would like to point out something about art that hasn't yet been mentioned. Regardless of style, ALL ART IS AN ABSTRACTION.

thank you

Very good post.

Art is a very individual thing.

My favorite artist is John William Waterhouse, followed by Rembrandt and Michelangelo.

reply to post by Bunken Drum

Thanks for pointing something that I was forgetting, we should not talk about a small representation of something as if it was the original.

We (at least some of us) keep on talking about "fuzzy UFO photos" or "crappy NASA photos" or something like that, but when talking about something like a painting that we do not really know we forget that we are not only seeing a much smaller (unless it's a miniature ) version made with a process that cannot show an exact reproduction, through a medium that cannot makes the reproduction look different for different people (colour reproduction is very difficult) and that changes what is in fact a 3D object (a painting is not like a photo, sometimes the 3D effect of the paint is also used as part of the painting) into a 2D bad, small copy of the original.

It would be like listening to a live concert from a TV through a telephone connection, it will always be different from being there.

reply to post by Skyfloating

That is just your interpretation of nice, does it mean you are behind a conspiracy to promote sunset photos?

Edited to add: don't you think that the original would have looked better than that small reproduction?

[edit on 16/2/2010 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by ArMaP

That is just your interpretation of nice, does it mean you are behind a conspiracy to promote sunset photos?

Let me ask something back: If I tied you up and forced you to either stare at that sunset or that super-genius, mega-expensive Rothko masterpiece, would you really chose the Rothko piece?

If so, I rest my case.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by masqua
I can't count the number of times I've looked at the natural world and thought it would be a mistake to paint the scene because no-one would believe it possible.

It seems some things are great by nature and for some things one has to be persuaded or talked-into thinking they are great. You wouldnt have to talk me into that.

reply to post by Skyfloating

It wouldn't matter, I would be more worried with the fact that was tied up and forced to do something.

But you asking that type of question to the wrong person, I can stare at anything, even a blank wall, for a long time. If you look really carefully at a wall you can see that even a blank wall has its own identity and its unique in its own way.

You can even learn something just by staring at a blank wall.

Originally posted by ArMaP
You can even learn something just by staring at a blank wall.

Meditation is a wonderful thing.

In fact, I got so bored at visiting modern-art galleries with people so I always used them as opportunities to meditate on various colours, forms and shapes.

Hey, maybe thats the actual purpose of galleries!

For a painter, there is no such thing as a white wall.
Each point is treated differently, has different intensity of light.
But for the untrained eye, white wall is white even in dark. Because they only see the "idea of white wall" and have absolutely no clue about what the "real" wall is.

It is this kind of people who see Rothko's paintings as mono-colored surfaces, and of course, it is their own system of interpretation that is "worthless".

reply to post by Skyfloating

Or after several people told you how good and important it is?

Actually, there was only 1 person there who was really into abstract art at the time. It was her idea that we all go. I wasn't that interested, but 1 of the cars belonged to my g/f so I tagged along. I thought she was a pretentious fool actually, so even if she had started waffling at me, I wouldn't have listened. She had no need. As I said, as soon as I saw the Rothko up close (Seagram Mural), I was "struck to the core."

Thats precisely the problem - I know that given enough words and time, one could be talked into believing anything.

Perhaps so. Still, you'll remember that I specifically advised against reading heavy art crit regarding Dada. If you understand how representational art had got to the point it was at, realise that Impressionism was already "breaking the rules" & do some research into the political & philosophical climate of the time, you wont need any huge tract of intellectualisation to understand what Dada was about: it will be obvious why it was a product of its context & what was so groundbreaking about individual pieces. Its not about deciding whether somebody was a genius or not; its about realising that for anything to be profound, it must stand out & yet also speak to its contemporary audience.
With that in mind, it then becomes easier to see the progression of the modern schools & discern which pieces were profound in their context & which merely following a trend.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum

With that in mind, it then becomes easier to see the progression of the modern schools & discern which pieces were profound in their context & which merely following a trend.

Excellent. I´ll go study up.

reply to post by masqua


That is precisely why I quit painting years ago. How can one improve on nature? I certainly can't.
Sometimes the best one can do as an artist is call attention to something in nature that people wouldn;t ordinarily take the time to look at. That is if you are like myself and limited to only working in realism.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Reply to Spiramirabilis
The pictures you posted are obviously good - except for the last one which is, again, just two colours put on canvas.

Now you're just being obtuse. I'm not the only person who's explained that Rothko's works are not simply "2 colours". They are complex mixtures of hues which can only be seen as such up close. Its also worth noting that the artist intended them to be viewed in dim light, so that the colour relationships kind of evolve in front of your eyes as the depth created by his small brush strokes & layers becomes steadily more apparent.
Seriously, anyone who hasn't seen 1 irl, has no idea what they're actually like. Its the difference between a photo of a cliff edge & standing on the precipice.

reply to post by Skyfloating


let me ask you a question Sky...

why can't you look at something - and either like it or not like it - for yourself?

just let it speak to you

if it doesn't reach you - it doesn't

I don't understand why it's necessary to judge people based on what may or may not move them

that Rothko - the orange one - is a favorite of mine

I can't explain to you why - words will never be adequate when trying to explain certain things

I don't see you as being less somehow because this painting I love means nothing to you

you see?

Although rothko is not my favorite, it seems some people (OP as well) seem to be troubled by non-representational art in general. In fact, some go as far as attacking the existence of abstract art on the basis of some misunderstood populism.

There are a few easy ways to "understand" it.

(And for the moment, let us leave commerce and prices out of it, which is a separate question. I don't know how rock and roll is sold either - and I don't understand why a square metre in New York would be worth more than in Athens. Perhaps I am dumb.)

1. Apply the Huxley strategy. That is - the Doors of Perception. After a few hours of visionary activity helped by the sacred buttons, your visual acuity will be enhanced so you suddenly see even a Rothko in a different light.

2. Talk to someone who sees auras and energies. They will inform you that it is very much like abstract art, not the type that resembles "something real".

The anecdote says a simple Frenchman was traveling on a train with Picasso. He kept on expounding loudly on how "them fancy modern artists" were all spoilt children and that true art or real pictures would always resemble "something real" because that's how God created the world.

Picasso was greatly amused by this. Then he politely asked the man to provide a picture that resembled something. The man reached into his pocket and produced a photo of his wife.

"Beautiful..." Picasso said.
"I mean, she's REALLY like this!"
"Really?"
"Yep! This is my wife all right! Without any of this fancy bull# these modern painters produce."

"So this picture is REALLY like your wife."

"Yes. They are indistinguishable"

Picasso turned the piece of paper around and was examining its edges.

"What?" the man inquired, sensing something.

"Has your wife always been like this?"

"What do you mean?"

He held the photograph up as if examining it close.

"I mean... she is kind of small... and flat... and black and white..."

The anectode does not record the man's reaction, except that he got all red and tore the photo out of the famous modern artist's hand.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I´ll go re-visit some RL RK paintings in the coming weeks and vow to take a fresh look at them without prejudice or snickering. I vow to sit with them in a neutral mood, open and patient. I will report back what happened.