I don't have strong feelings about Rothko one way or the other...though I had a pack of his paintings as greeting cards. I thought they were a way to signal "good taste" for sending a handwritten note after a job interview.
That said, staring at a Rothko painting rescue my love of art during a cynical phase:
"I had an epiphany when a professor pointed out "Yes, but don't you see that the act of viewing art is creative in itself?" After pondering the comment for a few weeks, I went to art museum and saw a Rotko on the wall. While I stood there, I focused on the border between white and brown and saw an stormy arctic snow scene complete with a igloo and campfire.
In that moment I smiled. I knew that such simplistic representational interpretation of this work would have been repugnant to Mr. Rothko and any other respectable student of art, but fuckall the academy, I had become a participant in the painting as a viewer."
That is ... for lack of a better term ... fucking awesome. The fact that you saw something so representational in something so abstract oddly subverts what I *think* the intended effect of those paintings is (maybe not Rothko's intent but def "art world" people's). But also kind of affirms the viewer's role in making meaning out of art and experience in general. Makes me think art is fundamentally an exchange, as much between artist and canvas as it is between canvas and viewer - connecting the viewer and artist through a few layers of artifice. Which brings me to ... Is art just conversation for introverts?
Mark Rothko has never done much for me, but my husband has apparently stood in front of his paintings and cried (this was before I knew him). I believe of course in the power of art to move people that way. I also believe that you're right, you can't control how people interpret or feel about your art, and you shouldn't want to because it's pointless. But you're never going to stop people from wanting to control things.
On a different note, I've been thinking about adding prompts for discussion too! The lack of response is so frustrating, I gotta say...
1) I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Rothko in person (If I have, it must not have been that huge of an emotional experience bc I don’t remember it lol), but I love hearing people talk about his paintings. They definitely have an “abyss stares back” quality to them: It’s cool that they provoke introspection. (And that your husband had that emotional experience!)
2) I find it difficult to simultaneously not take feedback personally and still hear it enough to take in whatever insight it provides. Something I’ll prob be perpetually working on
3) Thanks for engaging with my posts! I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. :)
I don't have strong feelings about Rothko one way or the other...though I had a pack of his paintings as greeting cards. I thought they were a way to signal "good taste" for sending a handwritten note after a job interview.
That said, staring at a Rothko painting rescue my love of art during a cynical phase:
"I had an epiphany when a professor pointed out "Yes, but don't you see that the act of viewing art is creative in itself?" After pondering the comment for a few weeks, I went to art museum and saw a Rotko on the wall. While I stood there, I focused on the border between white and brown and saw an stormy arctic snow scene complete with a igloo and campfire.
In that moment I smiled. I knew that such simplistic representational interpretation of this work would have been repugnant to Mr. Rothko and any other respectable student of art, but fuckall the academy, I had become a participant in the painting as a viewer."
https://www.grizzlypear.com/a-crisis-averted/
That is ... for lack of a better term ... fucking awesome. The fact that you saw something so representational in something so abstract oddly subverts what I *think* the intended effect of those paintings is (maybe not Rothko's intent but def "art world" people's). But also kind of affirms the viewer's role in making meaning out of art and experience in general. Makes me think art is fundamentally an exchange, as much between artist and canvas as it is between canvas and viewer - connecting the viewer and artist through a few layers of artifice. Which brings me to ... Is art just conversation for introverts?
Mark Rothko has never done much for me, but my husband has apparently stood in front of his paintings and cried (this was before I knew him). I believe of course in the power of art to move people that way. I also believe that you're right, you can't control how people interpret or feel about your art, and you shouldn't want to because it's pointless. But you're never going to stop people from wanting to control things.
On a different note, I've been thinking about adding prompts for discussion too! The lack of response is so frustrating, I gotta say...
1) I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Rothko in person (If I have, it must not have been that huge of an emotional experience bc I don’t remember it lol), but I love hearing people talk about his paintings. They definitely have an “abyss stares back” quality to them: It’s cool that they provoke introspection. (And that your husband had that emotional experience!)
2) I find it difficult to simultaneously not take feedback personally and still hear it enough to take in whatever insight it provides. Something I’ll prob be perpetually working on
3) Thanks for engaging with my posts! I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. :)
Your posts are always thought-provoking! Which is why I'm always engaging 😀