The Modern Art Idiocy

Originally posted by Dock9
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

Half an hour or so ago, I came across an article which claimed Rothko used cheap/inferior paints

It's to be wondered how restorers in the future (near future?) will be able to restore them

You know, I did that too. And most of what I did would not pass museum criteria because of cheap paints, and paint getting through canvas or paper. But, when you paint, you don't really ready yourself to paint a masterpiece and take care of every dot, when you paint 10 or 20 paintings in one magnificent out of the body trance and everywhere around you are remains of your strokes, on the floor, walls, ceiling, your face and clothes...
Besides, paints are very expensive, and not everybody can afford them, especially those who like to experiment a lot.

reply to post by Skyfloating


It's the something of the celebrity phenomena I suppose, although it's slightly more complex in that there is a kind of academic angle of historical significance with Fine Art/Contemporary artists such as Rothko, and his pace in that Greenberg fueled academic debate...

These are now relics of their own kind of celebrity, and made by a celebrity. The light was shining on him and them at that point in history, and they were highlighted. Now, 50-60 years later their celebrity happens to have snow-balled and stuck, like say a Marylin Monroe, sometimes it doesn't, like a , now what was her name???

Originally posted by flymetothemoon

You definitely sound like one of those who never went to art school.

Eek ... I don't mean to pick on you but there's all kinds of wrong with that particular statement imho. Does one have to take music lessons to appreciate music, or does one have to be a musician to have his opinion considered valid?

I was a dj (granted not an artist but somewhat creative) for twenty years, and not once did I approach the audience with such arrogance or contempt. I knew many guys like that, who when no one was dancing accused their audience of 'not getting it' ... they didn't last long. Nope, again imho, if your purpose as an 'artist' is to out-esoteric other 'artists' and only appeal to those 'in the know' then theirs is an expression of narcissistic monologue.

Chances are that even the said artist who created that painting would find no personal affront if someone saw a pause button in their work. Heck, there's probably more value in that message than in the artists original intent.

[edit on 14 Feb 2010 by schrodingers dog]

What preceded Rothko was at the beginning of XX century, Suprematists, Malevich etc. They introduced conceptual art, using geometrical figures, black square on white, white square on white, and so on, appealing to symbolic interpretation - it wasn't about painting anymore. But Rothko PAINTED those geometrical figures, and when you see it in reality, you realize that he completely sublimed this so called conceptual art into the classical painting (using classical painter's method), which does make the difference. Piet Mondrian did the same.

I feel the same way about art as Justice Potter Stewart did about obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by flymetothemoon

You definitely sound like one of those who never went to art school.

Eek ... I don't mean to pick on you but there's all kinds of wrong with that particular statement imho. Does one have to take music lessons to appreciate music, or does one have to be a musician to have his opinion considered valid?

Feel free to do so. No of course no one has to be a musician or painter to have his opinion considered valid. I've got my opinions about musicians as well, even i never played any instrument, (and i do believe that taste is subjective) and that makes me respect those who knows those skills pretty much.

Edit to add : I guess i just don't agree with this. Consider that as my valid opinion
"Honestly if the rich want to pay obscene prices for something a drunken dog could paint by dragging its butt over canvas that is their business."


[edit on 14-2-2010 by flymetothemoon]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Look up 'Abstract Expressionism' in Wikipedia and they have Section 'Abstract Expressionism and The Cold War' - looks like it would give you a few starting points.

Were it not for their (govt) intervention, I believe Paris and perhaps UK based artists may have established or remained far more significant in the 'accepted' view of Western Fine Art's development, aesthetically and intellectually, than they ended up, or at any rate the transition does appear to have been accelerated and to some extent forced. In the process, especially with Abstract Expressionism, Patrick Heron, and others, thinking of some of the St Ives Group of artists, never quite achieved, or cought up with the level of global fame/impact that their US 'fans' achieved thanks to their initially more successful global PR.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

I like the first one, it reminds me of a pause button

Buwahahahahahha


Well Art taste is subjective.
I wish I could find a "Stop" button though.

first, you need to know, wether you agree or not, that everything is art. any thing and everything is beautiful, zero arguments. even the gruesome and horrific. and not just in appearance, but what it teaches or imparts, and how it affects reality. consider the miracle of death, and empircism.

that being said, i would spit on this dogshjt painting.

the only thing that drives modern artists is their unquenchable egotism.

you will never find me in an new or modern art show or display (unless i'm on a date or something, looking bored out of my mind and rolling my eyes, scoffing, etc.) i see right through everything. and if you want the real definition of modern art, it's anything that's different. wow..
honestly i've seen and dreampt things that almost nothing can compare to on a piece of canvas, so i'm not going to spend my time staring at it.

PLUS if this 'masterPIECE' evokes so much religious life changing experiences for the viewer, why sell it so only a few people i'm some useless mansion? douchebag.

reply to post by Dock9


I'm glad you brought Newman into this.

Cool cats and copycats:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4df0f7cdee15.jpg[/atsimg]

Within 72 hours of the National Gallery of Canada reporting that it had purchased Voice of Fire, a huge abstract painting by American artist Barnett Newman for $1.76 million, the media, the public and the government went ballistic.

www.carleton.ca...

I remember my own indignation when this painting, commissioned by the USA for a show at Expo 67 in Montreal, was bought for such an outrageous price. It lacked the sensitivity of a Rothko and did nothing for me whatsoever. I saw it as a cheap rip-off.

I can only wonder what he thought of it before his death in 1970.

Rothko, Gottlieb, Newman, Solman, Graham, and their mentor, Avery, spent considerable time together, vacationing at Lake George and Gloucester, Massachusetts, spending their days painting and their evenings discussing art.

en.wikipedia.org...

So... did Newman 'sell out' by using Rothko's style and obvious acceptance? I do. And, further to that, did the American government encourage Newman to paint this knock-off? I do.

Such are the ways of the monied on the pains of the needy.

On paint quality, it should also be remembered that it sucked for the major portion of the 20th century and that the best paints came in little tubes at exorbitant prices. That's why many used the big cans of it one bought from the local corner store.

Even today, a little tube of acrylic will cost in excess of $20, so producing an image on a 10x25 foot canvas, framed, might cost well in excess of $1000 to produce in those much (m)aligned 'plastic paints', let alone oils. The temptation to buy a few $10 cans of cheap exterior latex has got to be fairly great. Today, those paints are good quality, but in the past, there would be bubbles forming and flakes peeling off over time.

I always use top quality acrylics, but, holy crap... it's pricey to keep a good variety of shades.

Don't even get me going on brushes, panels and elbow grease.

sp




[edit on 14/2/10 by masqua]

reply to post by Skyfloating


"Good point - especially considering that "bright colours" are no longer anything new; they are commonplace. "

Indeed, one of the best values of owning a Rothko might be the wall poster copyright income potential. I think they're pretty popular and have been for a good 30 years. They're a popular choice because of their simplicity and colours, which buyers find easy to place in modern decors (e.g Ikea-dens).

The owner of the original art work usually holds ownership of the copyright and therefore anyone seeking to display publicly, or reproduce in any way, the original ought to negotiate with them, or expect possible litigation. [KAH-CHING ££$$££$$$!]

[edit on 14-2-2010 by curioustype]

reply to post by Skyfloating

Please, could someone out there help me and show me what exactly Im missing?

If this is a genuine enquiry, then I'll try, but I've never been that good at explaining artistry. For my own part, I tend to take the easy cop out & also arrogant position that if you dont get it, I wasn't talking to you. I'll have to finish reading the thread whilst I get some thoughts together, but I can give you some idea about Rothko now.
Looking at his work on a screen or in a book does not give any idea at all of the impact of the work. To appreciate it, you've got to sit quietly in front of the massive originals & let your eyes & mind relax. They aren't swatches of colour at all, but rather small blobs of various hues which when seen together take on a hazy overall colour. This is very much like the way we see things in the natural world. Even manmade objects have shadow & light reflections, so their colour is not uniform. At the same time, the paintings are a flat plain & have rectangular shape. So they have both natural & unnatural form, hence being derivatives of surrealism; are reduced to the most basic elements, hence cubism; & are depictions of emotional states without recogniseable form, hence abstract.
This may sound argumentative, but I dont mean it to be, its just the best way I can think of to make the point:
Anyone could have done that. You as a child, right? But you didn't, did you? You may have scribbled on a piece of paper some random colour, but Rothko chose his hues for a purpose.
From what you've posted about meditation, Sky, I'd bet that you could easily fall as much in love with Rothko's work as I have. You just need to see the originals in a space where you can choose to sit close enough that they fill your vision & not be distracted by other visitors. Your eyes pan out like you're looking at the horizon & there's a feeling to each of them. Seriously, its magical.

People think art is an inherent value in something when it couldn't be more the contrary.

Let me ask you this; would art still exist if no one was able to perceive it?

Or am I missing something? Am I ignorant? Do I "not have the eye for fine art"?

To the OP:

Yes...yes you are ignorant. Art is a perceptive tool. When you come to realize that everything in your precious and abundant life is by design you will see the simplicity in all.
If you did some research on color theory, linear psychology and understood the general motive behind modern art Im sure your perspective would change quickly. A true piece of art is priceless but yes unfortunately there are exploiters everywhere. A work of art is a theory and has a narrative, you just have to discover it. Creative people make the world go round, not closed minded people like yourself.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Let me ask you this; would art still exist if no one was able to perceive it?

Artists would therefore also be blind. The only art created would focus on those senses still available to us.

Music and storytelling (i.e.) would remain as art.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Rothko's work dealt with color, hue and shape primarily while intentionally omitting other aesthetic factors. He was truly a revolutionary in his explorations of color which, in person, can convey feelings that you cannot get from seeing it on a computer screen.

I really do want to understand this. He was "Revolutionary in his use of color" - how so? Ive seen his work in real-life. Ive been to galleries - many of them.

Perhaps I've misstated the case. What Rothko was working with was the interaction of color. How one color seems to vibrate when placed near another color. The simplicity of his compositions forces you to deal with nothing else really, just how the colors interact and relate to each other. While those grounded in realistic art (that was me at one time) see nothing representational to grab on to, was he created was art for art's sake. It IS overly simplistic and if the colors don't do anything for you that's ok. I've seen some of his work that did that for me as well. His place in art history is assured as he was the first to deal with color in the fashion that he did. Being the first counts for quite a bit when it comes to collectablility and whether or not you get written up in art history books.
I might agree that many expensive artworks are horribly overprices BUT paintings can only have one owner and represent the creative genius of mankind over the course of history. In that respect I don;t think great art is overpriced at all. I can't imagine say starry night by Van Gogh selling for $8.50, that would be a real tragedy.
I don;t really like Warhol or Kandinsky's work myself so perhaps Rothko will never be an artist that you like, that's fine, just keep looking for art that really does resonate with you. It's out there somewhere.........

Originally posted by flymetothemoon

Edit to add : I guess i just don't agree with this. Consider that as my valid opinion

Imagine you were never told what art is, what good art is.

Click on masquas signature "My Paintings" and look. Then go back to the OP and look.

If you look with completely unbiased, uneducated, neutral eyes does Rothkos stuff still look that great?

Originally posted by masqua
I can only wonder what he thought of it before his death in 1970.

"Suppose I paint a blue stripe, and orange stripe and then a blue stripe again and sell it for Millions?"

Yes I have to agree some it is crap and any 2 year old could do better.

This is what I would spend money on Pro Heart my all time favourite painter

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07a26199eec9.gif[/atsimg]

On the 16th September 1989, Little Joseph Willoughby died suddenly at only seven months of age. His death has been established as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, previously known as Cot death.

Little Joseph was the Grandson of the famous Pro Hart, both pro and his wife Raylee have been deeply affected by this tragedy. Joseph was the second child of Craig and Julie Willoughby
(Son-in-law and Daughter) of Pro Hart.

On the morning of his grandson's funeral, Pro went into the desert to reflect, and while there picked a bunch of Wildflowers for his daughter to place on Joseph's grave.

However at arriving home following the funeral, Julie was still clutching the array of wildflowers. It was then her father caringly took the flowers to be put into water, but was moved to make a lasting epitaph for Joseph.

So on taking the flowers, he then, overwhelmed by grief, locked himself in his studio, and set about capturing the life, Colour and Movement represented in the flowers. This painting has become a form of memorial to Joseph's memory. Joseph's painting is a refection of the abstract feelings that come with such tragedy, yet offer hope through the use of vibrant colours and unrestrained application of the paint.
Josephs painting : Josephs Painting

www.prohart.com.au...
eckermannart.com.au...



Olga Fox – Watercolour, gouache, gold leaf paintings based on myths, legends, literary illustrations and religious traditions encompassing ethnic cultures and styles. Educational books specialising in natural history/science.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4fb41e33c816.jpg[/atsimg]




And off the modern art topic, I would choose: Mark Fox –

1.Writer and illustrator of educational books.
2. Landscape, portraits and wildlife in oils and water colour.
3. Illustration work for books or other.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/702667f0d5b9.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to To appreciate it, you've got to sit quietly in front of the massive originals & let your eyes & mind relax.

Now that I actually understand. I can go into deep Meditation by looking at color - but that color could also be in Nature or on something not labeled art (I was staring at pool waves reflecting on the ceiling recently).

They aren't swatches of colour at all, but rather small blobs of various hues which when seen together take on a hazy overall colour.

Thats also helpful, but then the question: Are those various hues put their deliberately by the artist or are they incidental?

This is very much like the way we see things in the natural world. Even manmade objects have shadow & light reflections, so their colour is not uniform. At the same time, the paintings are a flat plain & have rectangular shape. So they have both natural & unnatural form, hence being derivatives of surrealism; are reduced to the most basic elements, hence cubism; & are depictions of emotional states without recogniseable form, hence abstract.

Impressive. You are the first person teaching me what Rothko is all about.

Your eyes pan out like you're looking at the horizon & there's a feeling to each of them. Seriously, its magical.

Alright - thats at least a beginning hint that there might be more to this kind of art than I am seeing.