Fun Stuff > MAKE
As abstract as you can stomach
KharBevNor:
It's 'The Lady of Shalott' by John William Waterhouse.
ekmesnz:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 22 Jan 2007, 14:34 ---
--- Quote from: ekmesnz on 21 Jan 2007, 08:46 ---That's a peculiar perspective. I think Rothko and his contemporaries certainly had a lot more going for them than the dullness of the pre-Raphaelite brotherhood.
Something about ready-mades catches your eye but careful painting doesn't? Please explain.
--- End quote ---
I appreciate the intellectual/theoretical element of Dada and Surrealism. 'Fountain' was a challenge to the entirety of art that chimes with my personal intellectual position that all things that are designed are art. Duchamps paintings are also spectacular. They are abstract, but alive with motion and power. Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2 is one of my top ten favourite paintings. In Rothko I see nothing. Colour exercises blown up and backed up by pretentious drivel, saying nothing, symbolising nothing, communicating on the same level as wallpaper. Pollock works on some level as an expression of emotion, but I find it impossible to appreciate his artistry, so I don't.
Also, Turner is a genius. Rain, Steam and Speed, the second of the paintings above, is another definite entry in my top 10. Don't see how he relates to abstraction though, he was a pure romantic.
As for careful painting in Rothko vs. Pre-raphaelites, are you somehow expecting me to think that this:
Is somehow a more careful and skillful painting than this:
(incidentally another of my favourites).
--- End quote ---
Essentially, yes. I personally believe Rothko is the better painter.
Here is the argument I gave my friend to take or leave when he declared Rothko a hack at the Tate Modern. Hanging there are six or eight canvases of mostly red tone not unlike the one pictured in your post. They are isolated in their own room and, compared with the rest of the gallery, fairly dimly lit.
They were given to the Tate after they were commissioned for a restaurant (commissioned in the sense that they asked Rothko to paint them paintings, not that they specified subject matter) and not used for whatever reason. Essentially, they WERE wanted as wallpaper. What makes them powerful, however, is the immediate gutteral response to that vivid color that the work elicits in the viewer. (See Kandinsky's essay "On Color" for related discussion.) The viewer need not know why they were painted, but merely stand in front of them to be emotionally moved as I was by their power.
In Rothko's work there is contemplation and fear. The carefully chosen proportions and subtle differences of hue provide the eye with an interesting color landscape so large that when one stands in front of it, the sheer size and emotion of the piece can, for example, make people so visibly uncomfortable that they leave the room. Rothko, in his carefully planned and executed art, has power.
The pre-Raphaelite brotherhood, on the other hand, bores me because their ideal, the rejection of mannerist technique and academic foolishness of the English Academy, resulted in fundamentally sterile paintings. They do not successfully cover any ground not explored in greater detail and competency by previous artists. For an intelligent response to mannerism and such overblown study of the figure, look to Caravaggio and the Caravaggisti, who formed an intelligent response more than two centuries earlier.
Oh, and Nude Descending a Staircase is awesome.
Edited for grammar and spelling.
KharBevNor:
--- Quote from: ekmesnz on 23 Jan 2007, 10:13 ---Essentially, yes. I personally believe Rothko is the better painter.
Here is the argument I gave my friend to take or leave when he declared Rothko a hack at the Tate Modern. Hanging there are six or eight canvases of mostly red tone not unlike the one pictured in your post. They are isolated in their own room and, compared with the rest of the gallery, fairly dimly lit.
They were given to the Tate after they were commissioned for a restaurant (commissioned in the sense that they asked Rothko to paint them paintings, not that they specified subject matter) and not used for whatever reason. Essentially, they WERE wanted as wallpaper. What makes them powerful, however, is the immediate gutteral response to that vivid color that the work elicits in the viewer. (See Kandinsky's essay "On Color" for related discussion.) The viewer need not know why they were painted, but merely stand in front of them to be emotionally moved as I was by their power.
In Rothko's work there is contemplation and fear. The carefully chosen proportions and subtle differences of hue provide the eye with an interesting color landscape so large that when one stands in front of it, the sheer size and emotion of the piece can, for example, make people so visibly uncomfortable that they leave the room. Rothko, in his carefully planned and executed art, has power.
--- End quote ---
Hey, I'm a British art student. I've seen Rothkos work in the tate modern, and examined it quite well. My A-Level art teacher was fucking obsessed with Rothko and Kandinsky. Your argument contains nothing convincing at all. Standing in front of one, I can see no evidence that Rothkos work contains any intellectual depth beyond a knowledge of colour theory and colours emotional impact that would be up to par with any of my contemporaries on my course.
However, I cannot help but be dazzled by the sheer care and skill of the pre-raphaelites. The resulting work is of such overwhelming quality that, though I don't agree really with any of the movements precepts, the result is astounding. I don't see how you can even compare such meticulous and beautiful work with Rothko.
Lines:
i wouldn't compare them nor would i say one is "better" than the other. both are executed well in their relative styles. i just happen to like the pre-Raphelite one much much more. (that doesn't mean i don't like Rothko though. i've also seen one in person, and it was a good experience.)
ekmesnz:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 23 Jan 2007, 18:47 ---Hey, I'm a British art student. I've seen Rothkos work in the tate modern, and examined it quite well. My A-Level art teacher was fucking obsessed with Rothko and Kandinsky. Your argument contains nothing convincing at all. Standing in front of one, I can see no evidence that Rothkos work contains any intellectual depth beyond a knowledge of colour theory and colours emotional impact that would be up to par with any of my contemporaries on my course.
However, I cannot help but be dazzled by the sheer care and skill of the pre-raphaelites. The resulting work is of such overwhelming quality that, though I don't agree really with any of the movements precepts, the result is astounding. I don't see how you can even compare such meticulous and beautiful work with Rothko.
--- End quote ---
I'm not asking you to find my argument convincing. I am simply stating that while the pretty lady in the boat with the plants is sort of neat in the sense that the artist has demonstrated his ability to paint such a thing, he has painted a boring picture.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version