What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

I don't understand Art - Now the ***Official Art Thread*** (1 Viewer)

How on earth can this painting be worth 36.5 million?

This Rothko painting (Untitled) just sold at auction for 36.5 million?

Rothko's explanations of his works:

In response to a negative review by the New York Times, Rothko and Gottlieb issued a manifesto (written mainly by Rothko) which stated, in response to the Times critic's self-professed "befuddlement" over the new work,

We favor the simple expression of the complex thought. We are for the large shape because it has the impact of the unequivocal. We wish to reassert the picture plane. We are for flat forms because they destroy illusion and reveal truth." On a more strident note, they took a potshot at those who wanted to live surrounded by less challenging art, noting that their work necessarily "must insult anyone who is spiritually attuned to interior decoration.
Rothko painted in oil only on large canvases with vertical formats. Very large-scale designs were used in order to overwhelm the viewer, or, in Rothko's words, to make the viewer feel "enveloped within" the painting. For some critics, the large size was an attempt to make up for a lack of substance. In retaliation, Rothko stated:


I realize that historically the function of painting large pictures is painting something very grandiose and pompous. The reason I paint them, however . . . is precisely because I want to be very intimate and human. To paint a small picture is to place yourself outside your experience, to look upon an experience as a stereopticon view or with a reducing glass. However you paint the larger picture, you are in it. It isn’t something you command!
He even went so far as to recommend that viewers position themselves as little as eighteen inches away from the canvas so that they might experience a sense of intimacy, as well as awe, a transcendence of the individual, and a sense of the unknown.

Rothko began to insist that he was not an abstractionist and that such a description was as inaccurate as labeling him a great colorist. His interest was:

only in expressing basic human emotions — tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on. And the fact that a lot of people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions . . . The people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when I painted them. And if you, as you say, are moved only by their color relationship, then you miss the point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm normally an "art is in the eye of the beholder" type, but yeah....that is about as artistic as my office wall.

 
Apparently this is Rothko's schtick. Blocks of color and occasionally a line or something.

:mellow: riveting

 
[SIZE=11pt]I like the relationships. I mean, each character has his own story. The puppy is a bit too much, but you have to overlook things like that in these kinds of paintings. The way he's holding her... it's almost... filthy. I mean, he's about to kiss her and she's pulling away. The way the legs sort of smashed up against her... Phew... Look how he's painted the blouse sort of translucent. You can just make out her breasts underneath and it's sort of touching him about here. It's really... pretty torrid, don't you think? Then of course you have the onlookers peeking at them from behind the doorway like they're all shocked. They wish. Yeah, I must admit, when I see a painting like this, I get emotionally... erect.[/SIZE]

 
Neither do I. I know if I think something looks appealing or accurrate. I also like photography and landscapes. Abstract or modern art just seems dumb to me.

The linked painting is just ugly and boring imo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dollar value in art is weird. You're dealing with a hobby where people with millions or billions of dollars can pretty much just decide they want something and not care what they have to pay to have it.

I like Rothko a lot, but I have no formal education in fine art, so I can't explain why. This piece at the Art institute in Chicago is usually the one I think of when I think of his work.

 
There are certain things you can buy and then just sell for more later... Art falls into this category when done by a famous artist.

Sold for $36.5 today, I bet some ####o will pay $45 in 3 years for the same piece.

 
Dollar value in art is weird. You're dealing with a hobby where people with millions or billions of dollars can pretty much just decide they want something and not care what they have to pay to have it.

I like Rothko a lot, but I have no formal education in fine art, so I can't explain why. This piece at the Art institute in Chicago is usually the one I think of when I think of his work.
Makes me think of the old protection TV's. Lots of great memories.

 
The artist explains his work:

If you are only moved by color relationships [in my paintings], you are missing the point. I am interested in expressing the big emotions - tragedy, ecstasy, doom.

Since my pictures are large, colorful, and unframed, and since museum walls are usually immense and formidable, there is the danger that the pictures relate themselves as decorative areas to the walls.

We favor the simple expression of the complex thought. We are for the large shape because it has the impact of the unequivocal. We wish to reassert the picture plane. We are for flat forms because they destroy illusion and reveal truth.

The fact that people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions.. the people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when painting them. And if you say you are moved only by their color relationships then you miss the point.
 
You have to actually be in the room with it to absorb its essence, which is why some dude paid $36 million. He wants an exclusive, intimate relationship with it.

 
I was at the Guggenheim in NYC about 3 years ago. The place is full of crap like this. My younger daughter (then 15), who is a decent artist, looked at a piece of "art" like this, and just said, "What the f*** is this???" I couldn't scold her for her language....she was right.

 
The artist explains his work:

If you are only moved by color relationships [in my paintings], you are missing the point. I am interested in expressing the big emotions - tragedy, ecstasy, doom.

Since my pictures are large, colorful, and unframed, and since museum walls are usually immense and formidable, there is the danger that the pictures relate themselves as decorative areas to the walls.

We favor the simple expression of the complex thought. We are for the large shape because it has the impact of the unequivocal. We wish to reassert the picture plane. We are for flat forms because they destroy illusion and reveal truth.

The fact that people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions.. the people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when painting them. And if you say you are moved only by their color relationships then you miss the point.
I probably took him longer to write that than it did to think of and paint those two stripes of color.

 
I don't get it either, but then I don't get the popularity of most hip hop music.

People enjoy what they enjoy. I love watching LeBron James, so I think he's worth every penny of his multi-million salary. My wife and two daughters won't watch a moment of professional sports, and they would be as completely indifferent to LeBron as I am to this painting. They wouldn't pay him a nickel to shoot hoops right in front of them.

 
I don't get it either, but then I don't get the popularity of most hip hop music.

People enjoy what they enjoy. I love watching LeBron James, so I think he's worth every penny of his multi-million salary. My wife and two daughters won't watch a moment of professional sports, and they would be as completely indifferent to LeBron as I am to this painting. They wouldn't pay him a nickel to shoot hoops right in front of them.
Why would anyone pay to see someone just shoot hoops?

 
Another thing that doesn't translate well on the internet is the size of Rothko's paintings. The scale is impressive. Although I suspect the dimensions don't matter to people if they are merely fixated on the technical execution of the work.

 
Just got back from a Mediterranean restaurant at lunch. Had a painting on the wall where the artist was asking $11,500. It looked liked Stephen Hawking tried a paint-by-numbers.

 
You are saying you don't understand art as commerce. But you might also be saying you don't understand art, by missing that part.

 
Ken Cosgrove already explained this.

Maybe you're just supposed to experience it. Because when you look at it, you do feel something, right? It's like looking into something very deep.

 
Del Griffith said:
I was at the Guggenheim in NYC about 3 years ago. The place is full of crap like this. My younger daughter (then 15), who is a decent artist, looked at a piece of "art" like this, and just said, "What the f*** is this???" I couldn't scold her for her language....she was right.
So, just like the OP, you don't understand art. Got it.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top