I don't get it.

its alchemy you stankass retart

white
yellow
black

the three colours of alchemy

t. hella intelligent interpreter

blue means energy

too sophisticated for your neolithic mind

>>3037184
basically the way to understand it is that there's no drawing, just colors. it's just one little part of painting isolated and made into the whole work.

i don't get anything from them myself, but that's basically how to understand rothko's stuff.

>>3037184
2deep4u :^)

>>3037188
>>3037196
Explain it to me so I can expand my unsophisticated ignorant mind.

>>3037184
looks like some shitty beck b sides album cover from the 90s. I could really huff paint to this album man.

Have you stood in front of it? I'm guessing not. And yet you wonder why from staring at a 223kb jpg image you don't feel anything...

>>3037184
Bullshit promoted by the CIA to combat the Soviets. Kinda hilarious how it looks like it belongs in a commie hellhole though. Would work well on the wall of some brutalist commieblock building, a beacon of color against the endless concrete walls and gray skies, to distract the pitiful citizens when they get a bit of time away from their designated cubicles. Yet it's still just another set of blocks.

>>3037184
I wouldn't worry about that, goy.

>>3037184
I think that's the problem

There's nothing to get. They are objects that the artist wanted to experience in person. Then, you either decide you like it, or you decide you don't. Either way, it isn't an intellectual exercise.

>>3037203
He had a good art dealer.

>>3037598
/thread

This is like Money Laundering: The Movie

>>3037211
this

>>3037640
where can i find a good dealer to sell my trash work

i will never make it

it was an attempt to invoke emotion while removing all images with connotations attached to give the viewer an experience of pure reflection

Standing in a room surrounded by seagram murals has been one of my best experiences with art I've ever had.

>>3037186
But that's wrong. It's black, white, red, and sometimes yellow in between white and red. Besides, referencing the most basic of some barely obscure system of natural philosophy doesn't make something clever.

>>3037186
That's a pretty sterile interpretation. It also isn't consistent with most established views of Rothko.

>>3037699
Basically this.

Rothko was very particular about the scale, setting, and lighting of his work. They're often meant to invoke a "human presence."

For his work in particular, a lot is lost in a photograph.

is just four rectangles with colors, everything else is pseudointelectual BS for pseuds.

>>3037699
i didnt expect to find rothko's painting at a museum, i didnt expect anything. and for this im really glad. i walked up to it and felt like bursting into treats, right there. and if i had known about rothko i probably wouldnt have had such a genuine reaction.

>>3037211
This anon is right. I got to see one of these up close about a year back, definitely a different experience.

That being said, it was new at the time it was created but something like this couldn't ever be made again.

>tfw you'll never get millions of dollars for basic color theory

>>3038164
this retard actually fell for it. goes to show the power of media influence, you can even get people to believe your bullshit tax scheme has some artistic value.

>basic color theory
l
m
a
o

>>3037184
yea it's shit art pokono did it and hes dead. fuck him.

>>3037184

(((rothko)))

>>3038188
him wearing underwear really ruins it

>>3038216
Couldn't find a better image :/

File: Rothko Sunrise 1.jpg (353KB, 704x1038px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 704x1038px

>tfw Rothko is probably one of the most effective postmodern artists of the last century
>tfw literally everyone on this thread would have been ecstatic, had he seen one of his paintings in person (they're that intense)

>tfw it does not matter because emperors new clothes CIA mexican cartel money laundering it's an empty exercise what the fuck where are my traditional values etc etc

Of all the gimmick-y worthless derivative artists you could pick, you've picked Rothko? The one that will charm everyone in a room, from the uneducated young woman to the romantic to the academic? If seen in person those paintings become a fucking force of nature.

>>3038240
The way this idiot goes on about the painting you would almost be willing to believe it. Imagine if several of these idiots gathered and reinforced each other's belief, repeated over and over you can even convince people to drink cyanide, so convincing them to believe paint haphazardly thrown around is some esoteric higher art is rather tame. As if anyone would take seriously the words of a moron who endlessly expresses himself with "tfw".

>tfw saw it in person and interactions between the ego and the subconscious compels me to paint the experience in a good light so I don't feel like a chump who fell for a scam

>>3038240
I saw a few Rothkos in person and to me they looked even more mundane in person. I guess it's a matter of taste, but 90% of the people were looking at the old master's paintings. The big expensive part of the building dedicated to contemporary/postmodern art was mostly empty.

>>3038481
same, and i'm a bit of a fan of ad reinhardt.

>>3038481
I think that's also because most people that visit museums aren't really that interested in art, but like to see some pretty pictures

>>3037574
I want to try like it but I just don't understand it.

>>3038508
"Pretty pictures" is merely a modernist strawman term to make it seem like their own art is just that much more intellectual, and that they have done the world a favor by liberating art from darkness and meaningless illusions. At worse, it's a term of mockery to elevate things which are deliberately ugly.

>>3038545
You're projecting, anon. I find traditional art very nice to look at and study for my own drawings, while I love contemporary art for the experience it gives me. Both have their place and are nice, but regular people seem to gravitate to the traditional art. Nothing wrong with that.

>>3038552
>contemporary art for the experience
and get a pumpkin latte afterwards with a cupholder so you don't worry about spilling on your skinny jeans? lmao fucking faggot

>>3038552
i don't find that to be the case, perhaps at galleries with big name old masters, but everywhere i've been people are mainly looking at the new stuff and the big gallery of 1800s stuff everywhere seems to have is pretty much empty, and people ignore statues for some reason, like straight out ignore them. like if there's a rodin they're like squinting around it to see what pictures they should be looking at. idk. people are dumb.

>>3038545
There's a lot of truth to this. The snobs in the fine art crowd have created a super sekret clubhouse where we have to know the password to get in, and speak their lingo to participate. It's essentially a cult, and they use cult-like techniques to detract from criticism, and have degenerated and demonized all other work, because they know it can't compare. If we disregard all art of the entire human existence to cater to this dreck, of course it's "good", because you've given up control of the definition of "good", to a group of people with a clear agenda.
I get what Rothko claims to have been trying to achieve, it was an extreme abstraction of Impressionism, using color to evoke emotion. Some of it might even work. I'm okay with that, I'm okay that he dedicated his career exploring it, but what I despise is the snobs and narcissists who shit on anything that came before Rothko. The asswipe earlier in the thread is a good example of that kind of thinking, with the "pretty pictures" comment - that's a red flag that the poster has his head firmly jammed up the ass of the fine art priesthood, and has drank the Koolaid deeply. To dismiss the work of masters, over thousands of years, the entire output of humankind, as "pretty pictures", is a special, beyond obnoxious bigotry that has destroyed art, and just props up the iron fist the "intelligentsia" of the wine and cheese crowd holds over the art world. In other words, that poster is a useful idiot.

>>3038552
And, of course, that has NOTHING to do with how the snobs and narcissist in the fine art world have created a visual language only they understand - of course the common person doesn't get it - because it was made purposely so the average person can't get it, unless they allow the snobs to "educate" them, and instruct them why it's good.
That's not art, that's narcissism. And you're part of the problem, with your condescending comments.

>>3038574
I'm the pretty pictures anon. Holy shit you're projecting hard on me, anon. I mean, I get where you're coming from. There is a lot of bullshit surrounding contemporary art. Maybe my word choice of 'pretty pictures' was wrong, but they are paintings and stuff that I just do like looking at. I also like pretty girls, doesn't mean that I only like them because they are pretty either. I do know there's more to it.

>>3038580
You like the word projection, but it's clearly your favorite smokescreen to make it seem like you're not at fault. I've run into your type for decades, your abuse of that word is just amusing to me. I expected this exact response, because I know you're not capable of anything else. You're a poser, and a typical art snob who tries to use your "understanding" of art to bully others. Theres no other reason for what you've posted - regardless of how many times you childishly accuse others of "projection".

>>3038589
sure buddy

>>3038580
you get that. i think people who like think they're intelligent and creative sometimes get upset by there being things about art that they don't feel/understand. but it's like a flaw in their personality so it's not worth arguing with them.

>>3038552
How is that projecting? I'm only exposing the term and its artistic-cultural implications: that the representational art commonly seen in museums are lacking in intellectual impetus and they are only pretty things to look at without any substantial effect on the soul. Your own description of traditional art just now actually relates to this in some way.

But besides, from my experience with museum with large variety of art, the most popular are early modernists. If there is a famous name who is a modernist or later, like Cezanne, Van Gogh, even Pollock, the gallery will attract a large amount of visitors. Most of the people in the 1900s that are more traditional are spill from the galleries with the Monets. Of course, there is a world of difference between Monet and Rothko. Yet I have seen Rembrandt and Rubens galleries practically empty compared to galleries of contemporary artists which are populated by people who don't have interest in art as well.

If there is some installation from a contemporary artist which requires participation from the visitors, it is often popular.

>>3038595
What I meant with what was being projected on to me that I meant that "pretty pictures" is a way to discredit traditional art. That I subscribe to the idea that contemporary artists are liberating art from darkness and meaningless illusions.

I guess it depends on the museum. My claim was the average of my experiences, I try to visit a new exhibition about once a week about all sorts of artists.

>>3038508
I'm the guy you responded to earlier. I wondered about this and I don't think what you say is true for that museum. I was there a few times and I think I have figured out the reason: People are actually curious for the Picasso paintings in the contemporary part, but they don't stick around there very long and I honestly feel the same way there. For example I don't think a Rothko is ugly or anything, but for me there just isn't much to look at. There is also one of those big black square paintings, it's kind of cool, but only for like 10 seconds. People just walk by at a pretty fast pace which results in that part of the building being empty all the time. They stick around way longer at the old masters section, and yeah it's really pretty, I give you that.

>>3038726
I'm not the anon you're responding too.
You may be right, but I think it matters relatively little. People will still look, at best, for 2 minutes to some of the best classical paintings and sculpture there is. This may be 1 minute more compared to what they spend on contemporary piece, but it's still nothing. It's just enough time to say "wow, what a pretty picture" just like that anon said. Of course to who is educated those paintings are so much more, but for the general public it won't go beyond that, and in fact you could replace those paintings with well crafted but artistically insignificant generic landscapes and portraits and they'll still eat it up. They're not used to experiencing art, so a well crafted piece is already enough for them to be satisfied.

>>3038842
I think you are underestimating the mental abilities of normal middle class people and are overestimating the sophistication needed to enjoy art. It's no rocket science and the people visiting museums aren't cave men (usually). Give people more credit, man!

>>3038538
Nothing to understand. Paint on a canvas. It's not supposed to represent or mean anything, other than maybe an emotional state. Stand in front of one, observe the extremely subtle variations of color, and form a judgement. You're not required to like it. I've seen several of Rothko's works in person and I'm not a fan. His earlier work is interesting but the colorfields do nothing for me. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

If you want to understand the artists motivations just read his wiki and study his life/methods a bit.

>>3038929
Sorry, but 2 minutes on a Rembrandt painting is not enough to say ANYTHING about it. If you look at it for only 2 minutes, it won't ever be nothing more than a pretty picture to you. All the details and what make this painting truly special is lost, if that's how much you're going to spend contemplating it.

File: Thomas_Cole_-_The_Voyage_of_Life_Childhood,_1842_(National_Gallery_of_Art).jpg (3MB, 4000x2698px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x2698px

I don't get it.

File: K1956_008_o2.jpg (506KB, 1656x2100px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1656x2100px

There's a museum in my city with a Rothko, $12 admission, worth it?

>>3037211
>this argument again.jpeg

Nonsense, been to an exhibition of his work, just big coloured canvases.

File: e06953d2f9d1770bdd463293d2fc055e.jpg (12KB, 236x367px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x367px

In short, he's saying the beauty of colors in its simplicity do not need to be refined or crafted in order to be enjoyed.
(Its not something I really understood either, when I looked at his paintings online.) Though I'm sure that we, as adults, can come to a compromise that the 'importance' of modern, abstract, et all paintings can be just as subjectively viewed as the meanings that we make of them.

File: 1496022628116.jpg (181KB, 626x756px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 626x756px

>>3038589
>>3038574
>>3038545
nice to know there is someone out there that not a total retard when it comes to art appreciation

>>3041621
It's not nonsense, it's a perfectly sound argument - if you haven't seen them in real life your opinion of them is literally worthless even to yourself.

File: Kawamura-DIC-Rothko-room.jpg (119KB, 518x345px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 518x345px

>>3037184
To be fair, they were made to be experienced in person, within a very specific environment. Not as a jpg on the internet.

You're not really getting the full experience.

bum p

>>3037184
It's Charlie Brown.

>>3043566
no it's donald duck

You haven't really experienced Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen properly if you haven't seen it in the environment it was intended for - the big screen in the theater with a live audience and a popcorn and soda in hand. If you've just watched it at home on your tv or computer then you can't really talk about it, you haven't really experienced the art at its full potential.

I never liked them, but I have impaired color vision (red/green), so that could be why.

>>3040338
It's okay. No one here will belittle you for not getting representational art. /ic/ bashes representational art all the time. Can't say the same for modern art, where every modern artist and their pieces are perfect otherwise you're uneducated.

>>3037184
i see it as color harmony, I like how bold they look and how they complement each other.

>>3041613
Visiting art museums is always worth it

>>3041644
this

>>3043595

half the people in the thread who do 'get it' mention that they don't particularly like it

>Can't say the same for modern art, where every modern artist and their pieces are perfect otherwise you're uneducated.

maybe you don't understand it because you ignore stuff

>>3043591
If you watched a shitty rip of the film shot on a cellphone camera, then that's actually a great analogy

>>3043903
>hurr durr you don't like modern art cuz you're ignorant.

Maybe you like modern art because you don't understand it and ignore stuff.

File: InitialD.jpg (34KB, 226x250px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 226x250px

>>3037184

There would be something to say about how there's a continuity between the old and the new, like Rembrandt search on reflected light and Soulages search on dark reflecting light, but in the past that search was done through a classical painting whereas people like Mondrian prefered to go directly on what interested them... which gives something which doesn't hit any cord in me. How come I can like his paintings of trees and mills but not his later works? Especially as the composition is very similar.

My eyes apparently can only experience the exquisite through the intercession of litteral objects, I don't experience it directly through big canvas with 3 colors.

> Here's my take on the artist subconscious intention
> of course he wasn't aware of it because it's subconscious so he told things about mystical experiences
> but really it's about driving fast and how you cannot relate to the other drivers

>>3038256
I remember seeing it in person when I randomly went to the museum. It felt intense as fuck. And at that point I had never heard of Rothko.

I think it's pretty legit.

>>3037184
here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_fMrGRXZo4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VemhfK-Jbs
It´s hilarious how every ignorant fuck attacks contemporary art as "arrogant and pretentious" while basically going "surely if I, as great as I am, don´t understand this, it means there´s nothing to understand!

File: 1464634871141.png (375KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 600x800px

>>3044090
It's hilarious how every ignorant fucks who defend modern art is basically going "if you don't like modern art you're just stupid and don't understand it bruh".

>>3043461
>You're not really getting the full experience.
You're Mom gets the full experience.

>>3037186
>yellow
Might need to adjust your screen or visit the optometrist. I wouldn't even call that "white" either.

>>3043591
Of all the movies you could have picked you chose a loud cgi-fest action setpiece movie meant to quake the audience in their seat.
Ofcourse that shit is intended to watch at hella 90000p IMAX hubbletelescope experience.
If you're gonna watch it on your broken 2003 sony ericson phone streamed from a taiwanese bootlegging website in rushhour public transport you won't get much out of it.

>>3044103
This originally

>>3044103
"I don´t like it" is not an adult statement. You have to be able to understand it at least on some basic level to put forward an actual opinion. If you´re not interested in doing that that´s okay, but don´t claim that just because you don´t understand something right away, it must be meaningless and devoid of value. I don´t get advanced math, but that doesn´t mean I go around yelling how "it´s a cult" and "those math cucks suck ass" ooga booga

>>3044103
I'm an apathetic fuck defending some modern art because i like it and get some value and enjoyment out of it. If i don't like it then i'm ignorant about it, because i don't fucking care enough to get educated.
This applies to everything.

I study arthistory and art as a term and definition means absolutely nothing to me. I study it as a means to an end to get atleast some sort of agree while learning about the things i like.
Whether that is realistic portraiture, ancient religious artefacts, expressionist theatre costumes/posters or a modern video/scultpure assembly, and whether these are "real" art or not doesn't matter.

>>3037184
it's okay anon,
modern art is social constructed
all these people replying is also

>>3044644
your existence is socially constructed and I'm willing you away

>>3037184
do a master study of it, only then will you understand