Mark Rothko’s Mirrors of the Soul

[@johnnauman347]

Gorgeous curators and historians. Thank you.

[@roamlikekane]

I do own replications of some of his works. I enjoy them, but never have seen his work in person. Albeit, the posters that I do have framed lend to the creedance of their magnificence.

[@anthonylopez9594]

I have seen a few. The clouds of atmospheric color really do seem to float and move and breathe. If you've ever eaten mushrooms or lsd it is similar but not completely like the kind of moving and breathing of things. Ita very strange. Also depending on when the paintings were made the quality of surfaces differ. The earlier 50s work seem thinner and while theyvare ofnhigh quality his stuff approachibg the latter half of the 50s and into the 60s is extremely masterful in execution. A lot of museums have at least one of his paintings. Find one and go see it. They are worth it. And some are gigantic.

[@foxxxx5256]

Rothko is one of the greatest... standing in front of his work you forget the time

[@sole__doubt]

Thats called the Flow State. :)

[@omfug7148]

Rothko must be seen in person, his canvases shimmer, seeing the pieces in a photo facsimile just doesn't give the same effect.

[@jhb61249]

I too did not like Paris very much, but loved Italy. I lived in Germany and loved living there, but loved to escape to all the other countries from time to time. I also have loved Rothko since meeting him in the sixties.

[@starartsproductions]

Thanks!

[@marcocelentani6680]

I always thought fripp's guitar waves were so perfect in relation to rothko's paintings. Im glad someobe did it

[@willxiahan364]

It’s my personal opinion that the way this lady described the paintings was precisely why Rothko was depressed.

[@thanasdushku4075]

Great artist !

[@elanaphi]

Thank you! 💜💛

[@sondo8577]

Thank you !

[@room111photography5]

I love Rothko for bailing on the Seagram's commission. He went to the Four Seasons, saw the prices and the rich pricks who would have paid no attention to his work while eating, and gave it all to the Tate. He was way ahead of the Occupy movement.

[@sankyunotmuch]

Room 111 Photography no that was not why he rejected offer there was an argue about where to put his work. He wanted to experiment rich people aka public to be affected by his work. He wanted them to feel uncomfortable and be terrified. you’re also ignorant prick thinking rich people are bad and unjust. shame.

[@sankyunotmuch]

his work for four seasons hotel was inspired by Michelangelo’s Laurentian Library.

[@room111photography5]

@@sankyunotmuch You dont get it. He was frugal. Very frugal. A good steward of his money. When he went to the Four Seasons and saw the menu prices, he could not justify the costs of the meals. It was in stark contradiction to his values / ethos. He did not want to display his work to this class of Anna Wintour-like snobs and socialites. He found them repulsive. That's why I respect him. He did not want to cast his pearls before swine. And you're an asshole to call me a prick. You don't know me. You're a fucking clown.

[@gregdahlen4375]

rich people are affected by art, though. lots of rich people are very involved in the art world more than the other economic classes

[@room111photography5]

@@gregdahlen4375 With a caveat, sir. Rich people like Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel have given freely of their time and money to advance the arts. These are the type of rich who use their resources in an ethical and selfless manner. On the other end of the spectrum are the people who view art as an asset class. That's all. A place to park their money. It reminds me of the way people were flipping houses in the early- and mid-2000s. Buy a house, hold it six months or a year, and flip it at quite a profit. This is what Rothko hated. Art as an asset class is not a phenomenon that began in the 1980s. It was going on in the '50s, and Rothko detested the practice. It's not so much that pieces of the Seagram's commission were going to be flipped, but he knew the average Manhattan business executive had little interest in art on the walls of a restaurant. You go to the Met or MoMA to see art, not a restaurant. FWIW, I don't think Rothko ever intended to fulfill the Seagram's contract. I think he did it deliberately to give a giant middle finger to those not interested in art for the sake of art. And that was wrong on his part. If he didn't believe in the concept, he should have gracefully refused the offer. Think about this: by his own admission he wanted the lighting to be extremely low, and stated his paintings should be displayed at eye level, viewed at a distance of 18". How is this possible in a restaurant? The paintings were to be hung high as to be visible for the diners/patrons of the restaurant, and they would be viewed from a distance. He planned all along to bail the contract in pursuit of making a statement. The reason I went so long with this reply is that my original post somewhat continued the false narrative that has existed for years, that Rothko's decision to abandon the project was spontaneous, only after dining there, when in my estimation this is nonsense. Rothko knew he would abandon the commission the day he accepted it.

[@정길주-w9p]

멋찝니다~~^^

[@gregdahlen4375]

in a way they're quite calming cuz of the simplicity. not as much going on in the pics.

[@SangiovanniOmar]

It took me a while to understand this

[@talitha3321]

1950 was not the first time Rothko arrived in Europe - Rothko was born in Europe, in what is now modern day Latvia, but what was then part of the Russian Empire. He spent his childhood in Europe, in a shtetl, and didn't emigrate to America until 1913, when he was about ten.

[@Caribbeanmountainpropertiescr]

At Rothko chapel I saw many figure images moving forward and back, appearing and receding constantly. Has anyone else seen this?

[@tonybinda6905]

@Jose Guapo Im the son of LSD MK2 is my remembrance of the human race. CHEERS

[@kw6143]

It seems to me that his paintings are essentially decorative in nature. All the things about the soul, emotion, and introspection are not in the paintings but read into the paintings.

[@Mintzoid]

mirrors of unfinished paintings

[@bobsbigboy_]

stfu peasant

[@netsaosa4973]

underrated

[@Mintzoid]

@@bobsbigboy_ you sound like someone who literally only cares for rothko painting because it sells for money

[@bobsbigboy_]

@@Mintzoid ur mom is fat

[@aspiknf]

@@bobsbigboy_ Rothko is fat

[@BABA-GOMI]

Is the world blind.

[@aspiknf]

I know right, I thought I was going fucking mad seeing all these sheep praising a guy who sucked and who painted rectangles for a living.

[@MsMousepusher]

I can understand you saying this. But stand in front of some of the Seagram paintings and soak it in. They are much, much cleverer than you might assume from seeing reproductions. The camera simply cannot duplicate the effect. Rothko could paint representationally. He simply, and rightly chose not to do so

[@ellineseikastikoi]

last breaths of a dying civilization...

[@billhayward1585]

Rothko"s paintings are,,,,,, thought provoking but way over Venerated.

[@gaga1812]

His work is as meaningless as our lives. There's your mirrors resonating

[@lukefer7579]

Rothko was what Picasso called one of “the gimmick painters.” These are not even by Rothko. They are meaningless copies of a nothing artist. A perfect match with Sotheby’s.

[@nkenchington6575]

I find it interesting how nearly every commentator dances around the fact that Rothko was both an atheist, and a socialist, two things that the vast majority of Americans are not.

[@shaquilleadams5062]

The organic surfboard reilly correct because kohlrabi lily wait pro a longing ashtray. sharp, standing amusement

[@Superbustr]

Rothko's paintings have an interesting concept; although truly are a gimmick, one which would not gain any traction in the 21st century. A man of his times that doesn't display the knowledge of drawing but does know how to appease art collectors and their wallets.

[@etienne7774]

Idolatry.

[@cedarraine7829]

You don’t “Understand” a Rothko