I need to see a Rothko painting just once to finally decide for myself whether this is all bullshit or not.
Has anyone here seen one in person?
it doesn't make a difference whether you've seen one in person or not. i did and it didn't change my opinion of it.
if you're the kind of person that thinks blocks of color is bullshit, you're still gonna think it's bullshit.
They never did anything for me, not a fan of their aesthetic (im not shitposting I promise).
I never seen them IRL myself, but I can imagine how my opinion would change if I did.
I am a fan. I think seeing them in person does really help- think about it. The man was an artist for many years. He trained in observational drawing and painting at the Art Student's League, he knew what he was doing. Rather than focusing on things like details in figures or perspective, he's putting mental energy into very subtle aspects of the painting, getting the color just so, making it exactly this high and hung this far off the wall.
His most famous paintings are just big enough that they feel like they can swallow you up, not too big that they look like a wall.
Well, there's a difference when seeing art in proper lighting and on a display in space it was meant for, I mean, some art even changes in relation to where the viewer is standing.
In this case though I guess it's just a matter of taste. Abstract art might not be for everyone. I personally like abstract stuff, at least those pieces that I saw IRL.
What difference does it make? What details do you think you are missing from two blocks of color?
>tfw you will never have an irl /ic/ friend to Loomis with
I did a back trace on the image and it seems that jumping to conclusions based on a picture posted on an anonymous imageboard isn't always the best course of action. That tattoo belongs to some New York Times Columnist.
I've seen one in person and I get what he was going for but in a loud, crowded Museum, it's not possible.
Plus the security wants you at least 6 inches away from the art at all times.
I tried to understand modern art but all I feel when I look at a picasso or rothko or whatever is the overwhelming sadness that this is what the art world has become and instead of 100 years of new god tier painters coming about filling up galleries with pretty pictures of the modern world we live in today all it is is bullshit
I'm not totally against the existence of all the modern art today but why did they have to replace the art of the past to make way for it? Music has genres where people can listen to what they like and there's room for all but why not art?
I've seen an exhibition of it them many years ago.
Spent my time gawping at other people thinking it they were looking at something special, when in fact they'd walked past that in order to get to the Rothkos.
I have. Every once in a while I go sit for a couple hours by myself in the Rothko room at the Phillips Collection in Dupont Circle. It calms me down after meetings with gallerists when I have to pretend to be more of an extrovert. Feels like a temple that looks out on windows to minimalist landscapes of dream. Deamscapes, I guess. That's what they feel like to me.
I don't know much about him, and I don't really care to. I like that space though. It's a holy place to me.
I did. It was one of his pink paintings. It was massive and glorious. and it sat right next to a Bouguereau of the exact same canvas dimensions. I wanted to high five the curator who placed those two together on the same wall.
Having two extremes of abstraction and representational in such close proximiy made each other even better. And yes, I'm capable of liking both.
I did. Several times. Last exhibition I saw was at Den Hagen in Netherlands.
It really is fucking beautiful. But it needs time from the viewer.
Also, don't listen to all these cucks saying all modern art is shit.
They're just utterly shocked to see the technical abilities they (didn't) spent years to acquire won't get your fatass in the museums and history.
I wouldn't say it's amazing art, but basic simple shapes and colors can be visually appealing. Laying paintings like these strategically throughout a waiting room can induce a very calming moos.
Shit ain't worth more than $50 though and that's being generous.
Went to the rothko exhibit in houston recently, and i got this weird sad feeling the more i looked a his later stuff. Kinda like sad pity or somethin. Also not a fan of modern art, but yes am artfag
Yes, I have. Don't recall the exact painting, one of the "red on black", "red on maroon" pieces. Went thinking I'd hate it but it really did resonate with me, so that's that. Changed my opinion on not only Rothko but in art in general, I rarely dismiss a piece nowadays, try to give everything a fair chance because sometimes you end up loving something you think you dislike (and vice versa, but not very often to be honest.)
That is, until this motherfucker
>Changed my opinion on not only Rothko but in art in general, I rarely dismiss a piece nowadays, try to give everything a fair chance because sometimes you end up loving something you think you dislike
you're already wiser than 99.7% of /ic/
This. I was pretty skeptical of modern art until I was forced to see it in person.
It's still not my thing, but I appreciate the feeling it evokes. I'm betting this kind of art will make a comeback in the internet age