14 replies · 549 views
...and tell me what you think.
I've really tried with Rothko. I used to live with someone who said he was her favourite artist. I really used to try to see what it was all about, but I always felt like a little girl pointing and laughing at a naked king.
He goes over the lines and everything.
i fucking LOVE rothko. he's my favourite artist. seriously. can't wait to see the tate exhibition.
haven't watched that thingy you posted yet though, cos i'm just going out. i expect it will change my whole perspective...
No, it's just a load of people standing in front of pictures of squares saying stuff like "I fucking LOVE Rothko" but not really saying why.
Don't know his work, not that I've ever really arsed myself with people's names, though I do love to go to art museums and appreciate art.
With that being said, I'm not sure if there is a texture thing that is lost in the posting of pictures on the web. Some paintings like tat can really have a different affect when looking at use of mediums, brush strokes and the textures produced.
I personally detest the monochromatic splotch type "art", but I do remember seeing one once that was a canvass painted only blood red. The thing really was amazing when looking at the things I mentioned above. It was captivating.
So it could be an in-person type of art.... or it could be a load of horse manure in which people want to look intellegent... an emperor's new clothing type of thing as you mentioned
Cleverarse wrote: No, it's just a load of people standing in front of pictures of squares saying stuff like "I fucking LOVE Rothko" but not really saying why.
you want me to say why?! you're right, this is definitely the place for me to go all wanky about my artistic preferences.
see me.
bloodynora wrote:
Cleverarse wrote: No, it's just a load of people standing in front of pictures of squares saying stuff like "I fucking LOVE Rothko" but not really saying why.
you want me to say why?! you're right, this is definitely the place for me to go all wanky about my artistic preferences.
see me.
Looks like a big pile of wank-stained gubbins to me.
Detention my arse.
New Order Online: where serious artistic pretensions go to die.
If it ain't tits and football, it's worthless!* 
*But Rothko is still pretty worthless, for reasons not worth divulging here.
His Holiness, The Pope wrote: New Order Online: where serious artistic pretensions go to die.
If it ain't tits and football, it's worthless!*
*But Rothko is still pretty worthless, for reasons not worth divulging here.
Bring on stump-fucking..
His Holiness, The Pope wrote: New Order Online: where serious artistic pretensions go to die.
If it ain't tits and football, it's worthless!*
I'm not sure what that was in response to. It's a perfectly reasonable question, and I think the responses have been pretty fair.
I thought you were going to fuck off after 10,000 anyway?
You stopped being funny or helpful at 5...
Cleverarse wrote:
...and tell me what you think.
I've really tried with Rothko. I used to live with someone who said he was her favourite artist. I really used to try to see what it was all about, but I always felt like a little girl pointing and laughing at a naked king.
He goes over the lines and everything.
i like rothko & elsworth kelly too.
I liked him in the Dukes of Hazzard most.
Bossth Hogg and Rothco Peeko Gums made that show for me.
I like Tethco,for the Bogoths and clubcard an all.Who does'nt?
What's the difference between what Rothco does and what any good interior designer does, that is to say paint large areas in colours which invoke certain moods?
Or is that the point - that he's simply at the top of his field when selecting the colours and which areas to paint them? If so, my appreciation would be immediate. I've been put off by my that his admirers are 'seeing' things which are simply not there. I thought it was waffle. I was a teenager at the time.
I intend to go and see this exhibition. Too many people who I respect are too far into this, and I am so far away from understanding it at all. It can't be explained by 'philistine', or that I am simply not into abstract works.
Either I'm missing something, or it's the biggest con since, err, the rest of them. It still nags at me when I see the thousand-word essays on what is essentially a painting of a square. I also get far too pissed off than I should by the 'can't you see it, it's wonderful' argument. Saying that to someone who clearly can't is a bit like being a wanker.
Perhaps the act of explaining something like this takes away from it - I should just experience it and ignore what everyone else says.
Talking about painting, after all, is a bit like dancing about architecture.
Oh, and happy reissue day everyone!
If you are going to check out this artwork, there are a few things to look for:
The first is flow. Does the artwork make your eye move around the painting or does it make you focus on one point (the latter is usually considered a bad painting).
The second is brush strokes. Are the brush strokes graceful and aide to the flow of the painting.
Third, the use of color, in monochromatic pieces this is harder to pinpoint, but in others it is defined mainly by the use of complementary colors.
Fourth is the use of positive and negative space, which creates balance. Positive space is space used by the main object and negative space is the backround. Positive space can be negative space (and visa versa) depending on the object that is focused on. Do these spaces aid to balance (and of course flow) in the painting.
Fifth is texture. Does the texture aide to the flow of the piece and help subtly define the painting.
