People tell me that you feel emotion when you see a Rothko. I don't feel shit. I Just a few colors painted onto a canvas. What the hell and these are worth millions each. Why?

File: 153 KB, 814x1024, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:17:21 2014 No.1817155 [DELETED]

People tell me that you feel emotion when you see a Rothko. I don't feel shit. I Just a few colors painted onto a canvas. What the hell and these are worth millions each. Why?

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:24:43 2014 No.1817159

only people who can't draw says there's something special about it as to use emotion to justify their lack of skills.

unless someone is willing to prove me wrong by posting their good draws while saying Rothko is good, I assure all the post would just say you "wouldn't understand you pleb!".

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:26:15 2014 No.1817161 >>1817155 Rothkos are like 40 feet tall. It's different if you see them in real life. They are still shit though. What happened is rich people decided to endow them with value at auctions, and then he became famous. Simple

FiRez !!tndrCZJHE+I Fri Aug 22 02:30:01 2014 No.1817168

>>1817155
I've heard the same thing, like you experience the same sensation of void vastness when you are seeing the clean horizon.

Some are supposedly so moving that people start crying in front of them.

I hope to see them for myself someday.

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:39:08 2014 No.1817172

>>1817168
>Some are supposedly so moving that people start crying in front of them.

Because people know that Rothkos' have immense monetary value and are held in high esteem among art fags. More importantly they aren't immediately idiotic like a diamond studded crucifix in dog shit parading as art.

Abstract paintings still have some mystique about them that cause plebs and experts to refrain judging them as the crap that they are.

We don't see this so much with music, food, books, movies or any other form of art. Usually when something is a steaming pile of shit people respond accordingly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:47:50 2014 No.1817177 File: 17 KB, 270x400, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:48:35 2014 No.1817178 >>1817159 >implying you can draw

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:49:01 2014 No.1817179 >>1817177 That one sold for 72 million...

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:50:05 2014 No.1817180 >>1817178 +1 can't draw pleb calling the next pleb that doesn't post draws to reply to my post please.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:54:04 2014 No.1817183 A jew's worthless work being overrated as fuck by other jews. What's new here?

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 02:55:17 2014 No.1817187

>>1817155
Rothko is a genius, the rich people that bought his work only saw it as mere decoration for apartments, most of the people on this board havent even seen a rothko painting, i too was skeptical until i saw the painting in the flesh , and fuck i was taken away
the fucking paintings scared the shit out of me, people who have no experience with rothko (or any abstract artists) paintings, people who only see them on a flat computer screen will all say their shit
im sure their are people that dont 'get it' when they expeirence it in person, not that i have met any, but its probally for their lack of connection or understanding, lack of emotion etc stuff like that

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:06:19 2014 No.1817192

>>1817187

careful of talking about any piece of art as if its quality is internal in the painting, and not something the viewer projects onto it...eye of the beholder and all that.

There is nothing to "get" about them. Just like there is nothing to "get" about homosexual sex if you are a straight man who enjoys women.

You either like them or you don't upon seeing them. THere are only so many angles you can tilt your head...

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:06:49 2014 No.1817193 >>1817180 yea the skill of an artist isn't just measured by drawing skills

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:10:03 2014 No.1817197 >>1817193 so it's measured by how deep now? top kek jew boi.

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:10:15 2014 No.1817198

>>1817192
thats just denying its worth
while you are right at some degree, a man does not listen to beethoven and thinks he is shit then listens to a hobo blow on a kazooie and thinks it is genius, its just that beethoven was a genius, however some people might just not understand or have it click with them
the same applys to art

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:13:07 2014 No.1817201 >>1817198 and rothko is the hobo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:13:26 2014 No.1817202 >>1817197 this isnt b/ your point makes no sense, Rothko's artwork is good because it evokes a emotional response how do you know how powerful Rothko's paintings are when you have never (assuming that you have never) seen them?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:14:28 2014 No.1817204 >>1817201 real mature

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:19:31 2014 No.1817210

I've seen a few in person and the experience on a computer monitor definitely doesn't measure up. They're very evocative, but it may just be a contextual thing.

>>1817198
That's a funny analysis given that Beethoven's genius lays in the complexity and technique in his works and Rothko's works would be more akin to the kazoo vis-a-vis complexity. It's more like Rothko is, say, Eno. In any case, the artistic merit of something is entirely subjective. It may be considered an impressive composition among those who've studied/practiced the field and many others may enjoy it, but it doesn't make someone's opinion objectively wrong if it doesn't click with them, it just isn't their thing. Minimalism isn't for everyone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:22:12 2014 No.1817214 >>1817202 the dog's large poop evokes an emotional response of disgust, do you like to buy it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 03:37:33 2014 No.1817220 >>1817155 you uh.... only looked at it online, didn't you? >inb4 you lie and say you saw one in person

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 04:15:35 2014 No.1817233

>>1817220
not op or anything but i have seen a rothko irl, didn't do anything for me. apart from 'wow that's a rothko.' it really did feel like paint on a canvas. like, i paint and i lay down a few thin translucent layers of paint as a ground, it looked exactly like that.

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 05:11:51 2014 No.1817253

>>1817155
> What the
> hell and these are worth millions
> each. Why?

Because abstract art is the more vague kind of art and you can came up with the most absurd shit to explain it.
Probably rich people buy this stuff to sell it in ten years and make tons of money, it's what appened with some field painting art.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 05:21:19 2014 No.1817256 File: 310 KB, 1314x1474, img885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] "Once you free your mind about the concept of harmony and of art being correct, you can do whatever you want."

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 05:33:27 2014 No.1817261 >>1817256 Gorgio by moroder?

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 05:34:02 2014 No.1817263

Hooray for anti-intellectual circle jerks. "I feel nothing. Internet, validate my fear of the unknown! Tell me that study is for posers!"

>“A picture lives by companionship, expanding and quickening in the eyes of the sensitive observer. It dies by the same token. It is therefore risky to send it out into the world. How often it must be impaired by the eyes of the unfeeling and the cruelty of the impotent.”
>― Mark Rothko

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 05:46:46 2014 No.1817267 >>1817263 >implying there's a shred of intelligence on those paintings oh look, this square must have meant when the holy arch of the seventh revolution defies the all might dictator, top kek.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 05:47:47 2014 No.1817268 File: 1.29 MB, 1178x1032, img863.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1817261 You knoooooow it

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 05:57:17 2014 No.1817272

Rothko was hugely influential, his art is an important part of art history, there's only one "rothko", and people with money will spend it to own it.

It is not hard to understand why people dump that kind of money. I feel that people want to discredit his work because some rich assholes can throw money like this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 06:35:56 2014 No.1817282 >What the hell are these >I'm so pissed off at the notion of their existance >This is stupid, I can't feel emotion, grrr Lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 06:40:52 2014 No.1817285 >>1817282 >People that have never seen Rothko irl >Thinking to have valid opinion

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 07:04:10 2014 No.1817292

>>1817267
The object is just a vessel for communicating the artist's act and emotion. His entire life's work slowly stripped away unnecessary symolism and elements of design to to a bare minimum of what he felt was required to have a conversation with the view.

Now go read a book you fucking pleb.

>"I'm not an abstract artist, I'm not interested in the relationship of colour or form or anything else. I'm interested only in expressing basic human emotions - tragedy, ecstasy, doom and so on."

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 07:19:48 2014 No.1817300 >>1817292 what a load of pretentious bullshit

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 07:26:37 2014 No.1817304 >>1817292 >tells people to go read a book when he just read and taken both the quotes from wikipedia top kek

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 07:29:17 2014 No.1817306 >>1817300 Its sounds cliche and pretentious now because HE WAS INVENTING THOSE CONCEPTS OVER HALF A CENTURY AGO. Now go back your anatomy practice little scrub.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 07:32:26 2014 No.1817309 >>1817306 >Now go back your anatomy practice little scrub I rather do that instead of being shit at drawing like you see >>1817159 ,thanks for proving that post point.

Anonymous Fri Aug 22 07:34:54 2014 No.1817310

>>1817304
"Writings on Art." Own and read front to back. Those quotes aren't in there, (more about his theories on art education, and various letters and private notes,) but wiki quotes are more appropriate for the conversation. And they're good summaries of his work. That's why they're on every web page that has Rothko quotes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 07:36:36 2014 No.1817312 >>1817310 you still can't draw you fag

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 07:40:36 2014 No.1817314 >>1817312 wow are are you a freestyle rapper? you were so quick with clever insult.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 10:18:33 2014 No.1817389 File: 275 KB, 1196x640, Durden.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1817256

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 22 13:43:59 2014 No.1817518 >>1817161 well i like his work. you dont have to spend that long an amount of time to make great artwork

Anonymous Sat Aug 23 01:28:50 2014 No.1817997

It's aesthetics you piece of shit.

Dude, shut the fuck up. You don't know shit.
Art's on canvas for the aesthetics of the artist and how it looks. Not because of emotions and feelings.

If it looks good and fine for the artist, there it is, a piece of art work.

People who stare at a piece of Kandinsky and say how every brush stroke is a stroke of a genius is filled with horseshit. He didn't work like that.

Neither did Rothko nor Cy Twombly. Twombly and I were friends from school. Long ago, and so was Jasper. He was so genuine and kind.

No feelings, just aesthetics, dumbasses

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 02:01:33 2014 No.1818016 File: 21 KB, 416x304, Crayon-Shin-Chan-Season-1-Episode-26.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1817268 everytime i see your art I think of this show.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 02:04:32 2014 No.1818020 >>1817177 This one feels like a toaster

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 02:07:05 2014 No.1818022 >>1818020 I'm feeling smores tonight

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 02:08:27 2014 No.1818025 >>1817997 So literally >that looks cool >Ima do that >enter rich dude >I also think thats cool >cool >cool, heres a million >oh sweet

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 02:09:16 2014 No.1818027 >>1817997 >Twombly and I were friends from school why am i tempted to believe this

Anonymous Sat Aug 23 02:13:32 2014 No.1818031

>>1817263
the price of fine art is massively exaggerated by 'for profit collectors', the market is unregulated more or less and they can easily manipulate prices. that's the reason these paintings are worth millions and millions.

that's not the artist's fault though, rothko wasn't some hack, he was a true artist trying to express himself and he had a lot of insight and made cool paintings.

it's important to not be a reactionary and dismiss the art because of the price but also important to acknowledge that today the prices are freakin' insane.

Anonymous Sat Aug 23 04:08:57 2014 No.1818077

>>1817997
You can't just say Twombly worked and thought this way, therefore Rothko did as well. You have to look into his intentions and the time and place in which he worked. Every artist in the canon had wildly different philosophies that were reflected in the work. Even the artists that chose to make work that divorced emotion and their own relationship to the final product are doing so as a response to more romantic and expressive works. You're only robbing yourself when you ignore the history and take a painting at just face value. Ignore the auction prices. Read the interviews and biographies. If all you care about is the surface, you're gonna make shallow art your whole life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 04:13:08 2014 No.1818078 >>1818077 then hitler is the greatest artist of all time, the burning of flesh of the jews is the best art.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 16:01:45 2014 No.1818539 File: 172 KB, 565x848, Fables_43.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1817159 Here's a Fables cover James Jean did with a tribute to Rothko in the background.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 16:24:22 2014 No.1818548 >>1818539 Gesture game fucking STRONK

Anonymous Sat Aug 23 17:13:36 2014 No.1818563

Monetary value=/= quality

abstract art is shit, the value is in the eye of the owner. Everyone knows deep down abstract trash like this is no work, and no value. But it was made by a 'geniouse' so it must be super deep and emotional and everyone who says otherwise doesnt 'get' it. It being money.

Even the artists make tons of excuses, the most popular being they're making a 'collection' of pieces about 'light', or a single colour. Or they tack on a social issue and use it to push their shitty agendas. What a special person they've become. I pity them. Abstract shit is the death of creativity and skill.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 17:22:43 2014 No.1818568 File: 289 KB, 621x770, 1166590-7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1818563 >death of skill

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 17:23:20 2014 No.1818569 i just think some if it looks cool to be honest :v

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 17:47:37 2014 No.1818583 >>1818568 >skill

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 18:12:18 2014 No.1818596 >>1818583 No one who has ever visited ic has the ability to produce something like this, let alone create something original.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 18:16:45 2014 No.1818600 File: 236 KB, 509x673, 3141.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1818563 >death of skill

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 18:19:10 2014 No.1818602 >>1817177 I see Neopolitan ice cream

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 18:34:16 2014 No.1818612 i think if you look at the movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_field you start to appreciate the simple power of rothko's pictures a little more, like you see the other more complex ones and they look a little bit busy in comparison.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 18:42:26 2014 No.1818616 >>1817155 loundiring money from selling drugs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 18:45:35 2014 No.1818621 File: 1.33 MB, 1738x1600, insanc4b1n-doc49fusu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1818568 there yu go, real art. >inb4 most artist is not on the level of dali >inb4 they are still better than the shit you have posted

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 19:13:22 2014 No.1818661 >>1817155 I don't get it either. Really I think maybe it's meant to be an inside joke among the insanely rich. If you want an abstract painting, why not make it yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 19:14:38 2014 No.1818664 >>1817177 looks like a wall that had graffiti on it, but someone painted over lots of creativity within 10 minutes with a large paint roller.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 19:21:24 2014 No.1818668 >>1818612 So you appreciate them because wikipedia told you to? What happened to the "painting is good because it is good, not because wikipedia says it is good"

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 19:41:28 2014 No.1818678 more like 8 though

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 19:49:23 2014 No.1818683 >>1818668 no, because they have quite a few examples there, and looking at them you can compare them to rothko.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 20:12:48 2014 No.1818694 >this thread No wonder most of you are shit at art

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 20:23:53 2014 No.1818701 >>1818694 >says the guy shit at art top kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 20:25:33 2014 No.1818704 >>1818701 >says the guy shit at art top kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 23 20:29:31 2014 No.1818706 >>1818704 >says the art shit at guy top kek

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 09:01:24 2014 No.1819053

>>1817192
well, with homosex, you can understand a few things.

some men like big boobs, some men like big butts, but some men like the look of other men.

and for the sex itself, you have a prostate, if anyone has ever had it stimulated they understand how good it CAN feel.

there is a level that you can understand but never feel... i think i may not be able to expain this last bart well so i will skip it.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 09:21:00 2014 No.1819060

>>1818016
i think of old squiggle vision cartoons, i don't think shinchan has squiggle vision, but its been awhile.

>>1818027
because it is so retarded to make something like that up because of how old he his that it makes sense... that said, someone who is 80+ years old is on 4chan...

>>1818563
i wont call all abstract art shit, but fuck me it is not that expensive... some of them i would like to put on a wall, but others... yea... just no... but never would i consider more than 5 grand for a painting i liked.

>>1818596
give me a paintbrush, a canvas an i will stick the brush straight up my ass and wave it at the canvas and there, just as creative and good.

>>1818621
skill + weird shit... i literally cant bitch about it.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 09:25:44 2014 No.1819062

idiots.

Those paintings are for rich people to invest their capital in. They dont buy it cuz "LEL RICH PEOPLE". Its like investing in a land or other property.

Anyway i love abstract paintings. They convey many ideas if you have imagination. WHen i look at abstract painting i see landscapes, cities and other stuff. You are just pleb and dumb. Not all abst. paintings do so tho. black square dosent do a shit. Any splashes of paint makes my imagination work, especialy if they are composed well. fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 10:42:11 2014 No.1819099 >>1819062 >WHen i look at abstract painting i see landscapes, cities and other stuff You're missing the point of non-objective artists like Rothko and Pollock, pleb scum.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 10:50:10 2014 No.1819109 >>1819099 im not missing anything eat shit.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 11:06:40 2014 No.1819119

>>1819109
You are. Pollock wasn't trying to evoke anything outside the canvas. It isn't supposed to look like anything and finding patterns or faces doesn't enrich your understanding of the work. He made paintings about paint, he wanted the viewer to have an immediate emotional response to what was on the canvas, not to superimpose images from their memory on the work. That's why he used nondescriptive titles like "1A." Rothko had lofty spiritual goals that were arguably unrealized, but like Pollock he wanted the viewer to have an immediate emotional response to a purely abstract image.

Meanwhile you think it kinda looks like a cityscape if you tilt your head. Such understanding, much deep.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 11:32:11 2014 No.1819140

>>1819119
so baisicly if he not trying to evoke any emotion beside canvas its not an art. It is supposed to look like something only in abstrac way.

>he wanted the viewer to have an immediate emotional response to what was on the canvas

so like every artist ever ?

if you like it or not every blob of paint will make imagination work. Because thats how our brain works.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 11:32:26 2014 No.1819141

>>1819062
> WHen i look
> at abstract painting i see landscapes,
> cities and other stuff.
Fine, good for you, but that's why full abstract art was a failure.
Abstract artists believed that colors and shapes have intrinsic properties, so the point of all their paintings was to remove any possible association with realty trying to communicate in a more subconsciously way.
But people, like you, feel genuinely something because they're associating color and shapes to real stuff. Their paintings aren't shit but they're nothing more than thumbnails and color compositions.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 11:42:55 2014 No.1819149

>>1819140
I didn't understand most of that, get someone to translate for you. If you're treating these paintings like a hidden image puzzle, you're doing it wrong.
>>1819141
It wasn't a failure. Rothko might have failed to reach his lofty goals of spiritual transcendence, but non-representational paintings still pack a mean punch for many people. I was floored when I saw a wall-sized pollock in person.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 11:46:05 2014 No.1819151

>>1819141
> thumbnails and color compositions.

yes, exacly. Thats why they work so well on imagination.

>>1819149
I already told ya what they realy are for. So keep the artistic bullshit they fed you to yourself. They are nothing more then investment for rich people so theres no "doing it right" when looking at them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 11:48:23 2014 No.1819153 >>1819151 That's the reason that fat cats buy the paintings, not the reason that artists paint them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 12:01:02 2014 No.1819155 >>1819153 obviously artists dont make them so they can earn some of those millions. who would want to ? The fat cats buy the painting because the artist is famous for something. They shitted some blobs on canvas, it was new and they became famous fast.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 12:07:53 2014 No.1819157 >>1819155 Just stop typing and spend some time actually learning about the abex movement.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 12:21:20 2014 No.1819163 >>1819157 >implying shit is worth learning top kek

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 12:23:20 2014 No.1819165 >>1819163 Stay ignorant pleb, doesn't hurt my appreciation of art. Maybe someday you'll get lucky enough to stumble into an art history 101 course.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 12:26:19 2014 No.1819167 >>1819165 see >>1817159 +1 more noob getting owned

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 13:14:45 2014 No.1819190 >>1819167 I just stated his goal, I don't like Rothko's late work. His earlier stuff is pretty good though, and Pollock is boss. Stay mad.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 14:06:51 2014 No.1819203

>>1818661
For the same reason that you don't go to a museum to look at reproductions of old masterpieces. It doesn't hold the same historic significance and it'll never be quite the same piece. The experience as a whole would be cheapened, and not just in the price sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 14:09:54 2014 No.1819204 >>1818568 Fuckin tight

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 14:37:32 2014 No.1819221 >>1819190 and you stay shitty at drawing also top kek

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 14:42:49 2014 No.1819224 >>1817155 Art is for money laundering.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 14:59:40 2014 No.1819230 >>1819221 Why would you assume I'm bad at drawing?

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 15:39:09 2014 No.1819261
File: 80 KB, 797x1024, AROTHKO_10310800254.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1817155
they're meant to be experienced in person. these paintings can get really massive, filling up an entire room. and rothko wanted the viewer to stand inches from the canvas and let the color field immerse them. you can't google some rothkos and make an informed judgement about his work because, unlike digital paintings, you need to experience it in the physical world to get the full effect.

That being said, I don't really connect with rothko, but I've at least seen his work in person and made a judgement based on experience. There are a lot of artists I respect who respond to his work positively, so different strokes for different folks I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 16:28:25 2014 No.1819296 File: 1.11 MB, 2114x1624, 231.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 16:56:56 2014 No.1819311 >>1819261 This. Seeing a digital reproduction like this won't cut it. I recently saw one series of his at the Tate Modern. I liked it, and would recommend to see it, but the museum is fucking terrible. >>1819296 Stick to your thread buddy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 18:16:58 2014 No.1819362 ITT: People that have only ever seen Rothko paintings on their 4.7 inch Samsung Galaxy S3 screens complaining that "it's jsut squerres. Where iz the armorz and gunz? muh photoshhopz paintingz is som uch betttr."

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 18:39:31 2014 No.1819384

>>1819362
Saw this shit at the Tate a few years back when it was on display there. They were the same boring, over-hyped waste of canvases that I see online, just needlessly bigger.

Rothko defenders always use emotive jargon and "you need to see it irl" as deflections of criticism towards Rothko's work. I have seen it though, and it's stupid. I went there expecting to be mesmerized and stupefied by the intensity and majesty of his squares, and I left with the realization that Rothko sucks ass, and has an incredibly defensive and bitter fan base filled often with "intellectuals" who come to the defense of jars of shit being an artistic expression of X, Y and Z.

Fucking dinguses, the lot of them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 18:46:10 2014 No.1819391 >>1819384 I also probably saw the same room a few years ago. I wasn't really into Rothko at the time, but it was of the few rooms I actually liked. I only started to like it more.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 18:47:47 2014 No.1819392

>>1819384
I used the 'you need to see it in person' argument to explain that an informed judgement relied upon actually experiencing the artwork, and not a second-rate reproduction. In no way was the argument used as a deflection. And you'll notice I even agree with you about Rothko's (mature) work.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 19:39:40 2014 No.1819421 >>1817155 They're meant to be seen in real life and up close.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 19:41:00 2014 No.1819422 >>1819384 There's nothing wrong with liking Rothkos, there's also nothing wrong with hating them

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 24 22:39:26 2014 No.1819515 >>1819384 jokes on you, you will never sell anything more than furry porn commissions for $10 a pop and his paintings sell for millions. Sucks for you, pleb.

Anonymous Sun Aug 24 23:01:41 2014 No.1819531

>>1819515
the 'you couldn't do better' argument has to be the stupidest thing ever. if you don't like what he said, but you can't think of a way to actually refute it, then don't say anything at all.

perhaps if you've also seen a rothko irl you could talk about your experience. or even a critic or someone, it's just an annedote.

>>1819421
up close? you're dumb.

I personally have seen one or two irl and also seen them on the computer (obviously) and I like them more on the computer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 00:00:47 2014 No.1819576 >>1819531 >I like the reproduction better than the real thing Plebcore

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 00:26:26 2014 No.1819599 >>1819576 lots of stuff looks better in reproduction. it's pedestrian to value originals just because they're original.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 00:32:58 2014 No.1819607 >>1819599 The real thing is pretty much always better than a reproduction. Please provide an example where the reproduction is superior, and give your reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 00:34:31 2014 No.1819608 >>1819599 >just because they're original No, because the color is more accurate and vivid when it's bouncing directly into my eyeballs from the actual object, and because the scale is crucial to much abex work.

Anonymous Mon Aug 25 00:57:38 2014 No.1819622

>>1819607
well it depends. if i give an example you will either disagree or agree and it won't set the argument forward. so there's no point really.

But anyway, I think french academic art looks terrible irl. just fucking terrible. makes me cringe. that licked surface and the soft soft edges make it looks like something airbrushed onto a van to me. but they look ok on a computer screen because the edges are compressed so they don't look so soft, a computer screen is always flat so the texture of the paint is less important and they're painted in the same kind of color intensity monitors are designed for, so they suit monitors better than better paintings.

if you've ever wondered why bouguereau isn't more famous or well liked, that's why. irl they're incipit precious poster-like paintings. and if there's anything dutch or italian or spanish or even english in the gallery then those french ones look even worse by contrast.

but it's just a matter of taste. i'm sure someone likes big soft paintings or they wouldn't of been painted in the first place.

Anonymous Mon Aug 25 13:10:06 2014 No.1819982

>>1819622
Bouguereau is tkitsch no matter what medium, with a few exceptions, but his technique is way more impressive in person. And no, I've never wondered why Bouguereau isn't more famous...

What you're explaining though, is that you just don't like particular work, and want to edit it. You want to experience a different artwork altogether, not find the most ideal way to experience a given piece.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 13:34:15 2014 No.1819996 >>1819515 Too bad Abstract expressionists started to sell shit when they were old or dead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 13:42:28 2014 No.1820003 >>1819996 They're still immortal. People will be talking about Mark Rothko in hundreds of years - thousands of years if we don't annihilate ourselves off the planet. Nobody will be talking about Neckbeardly McMuhgun's work 5 years from now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 13:55:04 2014 No.1820013 >>1819996 Many were immensely successful in their own life- Pollock, Rothko, de Kooning, Motherwell, etc. The "Van Gogh Rule" doesn't apply to everyone in art history.

Anonymous Mon Aug 25 14:12:19 2014 No.1820030

>>1817168
I saw an icelandic artists work of the same style.

It was just a gradient of dark blue and stormy cloud gray.
The horizont and everything was vaguest but with next to nothing on the canvas the artist managed to capture mood, atmosphere and the entire climate of the area with just a gradient.

Extremely moving and immersive, one of my fave works.

Shame I can't find it anymore

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 14:16:09 2014 No.1820033 >ITT people who think the guy who drew KLK is the greatest artist of all time and all the people and work gone into making art history, understoond, aprooved by the millions are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 14:21:08 2014 No.1820035 >>1820030 oh noes, you can't find it, try making a gradient on photoshop. there you go.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 14:41:38 2014 No.1820049 >>1820035 >implying same thing

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 25 23:42:58 2014 No.1820372 >>1820035 I really don't understand why people think art history is not important when learning to draw.

Man Tue Aug 26 01:47:21 2014 No.1820435

Rothkos are the kind of paintings you have to give time to. Rothko painted his canvases in such a way that a cursory view will give nothing. But when you give them time, when you stand in front of a Rothko and just look, the colors, the edges, everything about the painting that you thought you knew will vanish and you'll be sucked into a different realm. The color will fill your eye and shift, all ground will cease to exist so that you're floating in a void. People who don't get Rothko are people who aren't willing to give them the time they need. You have to stop with Rothko. You have to dedicate a large amount of time to them. It's like taking a quick look at one of Reinhardt's black paintings. Don't be an igmo, give art the time it needs to be understood.

Anonymous Tue Aug 26 04:26:51 2014 No.1820488

>>1820435
yeah, you have to stand there silently, and look like you're in deep thought. Yo got all the way to see it, but now you don't get it, and everyone's watching. Don't wanna be that guy, so just stand there until you think you see something. It'll happen soon. I mean.. the guy was famous. There has to be something to it. No, you just need to convince yourself that you get it, you had an 'experience'. Otherwise, how are you going to convince everyone else you're so cultured and art smart. You don't get to belong to the in crowd without being a total tool.

Anonymous Tue Aug 26 04:37:22 2014 No.1820492

>>1820372
Because art history has zero real use. The one use there is for art history is discussing art history with other people who have an interest. If you are interested, it's your prerogative. If not, it's a complete waste of time. If you don't understand, get some perspective.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 05:07:34 2014 No.1820499 >>1820435 Stop Please

Anonymous Tue Aug 26 11:38:18 2014 No.1820700
File: 123 KB, 1081x800, schorr_disney-dali_800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1820488
this. I tried to remain open to the work when I saw them in person. I stood there for a while, I even stood at the distance rothko himself advised. I cleared my mind and let myself become immersed in the canvas.

I felt nothing. Well, that's not true, I felt like a jackass. I'm sure some people respond to this work, but don't pretend you're just impatient or uncultured if you don't "get it."

>>1820492
art history is enormously influential in contemporary art. Also, art history pertains to contemporary art as well as past art. Would Roberto Ferri or Odd Nerdum make the same work without a background in art history? of course not, they look toward the old masters for inspiration. And personally, I can say it influence my own artistic decisions quite a bit. It's retarded to dismiss art history, you can't jump into a conversation in the middle, without knowing what has been said before. People will tell you "oh, it reminds me of Modigliani, is that your influence?" or "I liked it better when Rembrandt did it" or "you seem to like the Expressionists".

And you will reply: "uh...."

Don't be a dunce, study the history of your craft, art isn't created in a vacuum.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 12:58:53 2014 No.1820751 File: 106 KB, 259x386, 1409067498521.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1820700 check'em

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 12:59:57 2014 No.1820752 >>1817187 > but its probally for their lack of connection or understanding, lack of emotion etc stuff like that ye surely must be that, how could anyone just have a different taste; no no, he has no emotions and a lack of understanding.

Anonymous Tue Aug 26 16:19:48 2014 No.1820905
File: 132 KB, 640x800, il_fullxfull.553710476_svkb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1820492
>Because art history has zero real use

For you perhaps. Not everyone see's a practical use on everything the same way, but there's a reason that most artists learn it or go through it.

I owe a lot of my inspiration and teaching's to learning art history, without it I wouldn't know the origins of many artists that inspire me and how they got into the wonderful world of art. Don't be so closed minded, just because it isn't useful to you it doesn't mean it can't be useful to others.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 21:43:44 2014 No.1821097 >>1818621 Why people couldn't follow the footsteps of Dali? Feeling and innovation without complete abandon of technical artistic skill, unlike shit like >>1817155 >>1817177 >>1818568

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 21:47:00 2014 No.1821105 >>1821097 rothko started as a surrealist but he grew out of it

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 22:20:24 2014 No.1821132 >>1821105 His surrealistic paintings sucks as well, not as hard as his more well know works, but they suck.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 22:25:26 2014 No.1821137 File: 52 KB, 699x1024, boy342[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1821132 but his more realistic portraits were par excellence

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 22:27:37 2014 No.1821138 >>1821137 Maybe in some aspect I'm ignorant about, but for everything I know this is pretty meh.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 22:30:12 2014 No.1821139 >>1821137 no wonder rothko quit at realism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 22:32:50 2014 No.1821143 >>1821139 so why haven't you quit yet?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 22:34:04 2014 No.1821145 >>1821143 tips my fedora I'm way better

Anonymous Tue Aug 26 22:37:04 2014 No.1821149

You don't need to like every piece of artwork.
Not every piece of art has to showcase technical prowess in figurative drawing.
The value of a piece of art is ultimately subjective.

Once you get this, you can get over yours and everyone else's opinions and enjoy whatever it is about art that you enjoy. If you think it's shit, just say so instead of trying to rationalize it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 26 23:15:09 2014 No.1821190 Abstract Expressionists like Pollock or Rothko invoke the same emotion as most landscape paintings do. Unless it's very breathtaking it's largely just wallpaper. It needs a subject matter or who gives a fuck.

Anonymous Tue Aug 26 23:18:18 2014 No.1821192
File: 1.07 MB, 2000x1309, 48_Number_1A_1948.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1821190
I disagree. The painting itself is the subject, it doesn't need to reference anything outside of itself. It's a painting about painting. And personally, I get rock hard when I see a Pollock irl.

Anonymous Tue Aug 26 23:29:29 2014 No.1821199
File: 1.11 MB, 1595x1141, rug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1821192
i even like them on the computer screen. for a while i was like 'fuck pollock fucking symptom of greenberg killing fuckin art' then i developed a little more, i don't know what you call it 'depth of visual understanding' or something. and now they kinda blow my mind.

they remind me of like persian rugs only like more natural.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 07:31:08 2014 No.1824690 >>1821192 You're dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 08:03:37 2014 No.1824709 >>1817168 Honestly mate, I live in central london and i've seen them at the Tate a shitload of times - it's all emperors new clothes.

Anonymous Sat Aug 30 08:06:53 2014 No.1824712

>>1817187
All these backwater hicks that assume nobody has ever seen a Rothko before crack me up. I find them hugely pleasing aesthetically (I even have a massive chinese repro hanging in my hallway) but only a hysterical moron would be moved to tears by a Rothko in person.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 08:15:54 2014 No.1824718 >>1824690 Having trouble grasping Implicity or something?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 08:26:03 2014 No.1824724 >>1817202 STOP USING THIS SHITTY EXCUSE, NOT EVERYONE LIVES IN SHITSVILLE GEORGIA. I've seen rothko's in like 3 different cities & I still think that they are hugely overrated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 09:11:48 2014 No.1824757 >>1817155 people here simply just dont get it i saw it today, before i was heaps skeptical, when i saw one of his paintings i was blown away

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 09:13:31 2014 No.1824758 >>1824724 because you dont understand or it doesent connect with you doesent mean its shit?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 09:14:43 2014 No.1824759 >>1824758 I'll connect this anal plug to your shit hole maybe you'll understand.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 10:38:41 2014 No.1824796 >>1821199 i walk on rugs and don't even pay them a second thought...

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 10:52:59 2014 No.1824807 The Rothko internet defense force is one of the most bitter and egocentric fan bases around. Always throwing around the same talking points to fellate themselves and maintain the guise as intellectual supremacists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 11:17:05 2014 No.1824829 File: 71 KB, 665x1024, AROTHKO_10310800293.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1824724 I actually saw several Rothkos in Georgia...

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 11:54:08 2014 No.1824853 >>1824758 I never said Rothko's paintings are shit, I just said that if you are moved to tears by one then you are being affected more by peer pressure and the placebo effect than by anything in the painting, as striking as it may be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 30 11:56:21 2014 No.1824855 >>1824853 I think that's true for any painting, crying in an art museum is ridiculous no matter what you're looking at. Unless it's a sculpture made out of onions.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique