How to Look at a Mark Rothko Painting

[@daniesza]

I went to a Rothko retrospective in NYC decades ago as a younger woman. I walked the halls and felt I was experiencing an evolving story. I felt like Rembrandts portraits you could almost see the human development, the history of Rothko evolve. I wasn’t sure but it felt like his autobiography in so many ways. And I was moved. When I came to the last hall his colors muted, darkened and suddenly I stood staring into a vast abyss. I was moved to tears in a way I’ve never been before by any piece of art. He made me understand, in one single afternoon, the whole endeavor of art.

[@jeffcook3277]

woooooooooowwwww, yer so cool!

[@sarah-louiserossi1586]

Beautiful

[@dr.dominican]

You must live a boring life

[@artconsciousness]

First class excellent presentation of Rothko - really enjoyed👍 I am a big fan of Rothko and thus I will share some thoughts; if anyone is interested. Personally believe Rothko could well be the greatest artist ever, although at the same time, art should never be viewed of in that way as being: the "greatest". Art is not a competition. However, speaking as an artist I understand full well just how difficult it is to come up with something utterly original in art. Rothko's work is so original that most art historians believe that there is nothing new in art after Rothko. So Rothko basically ended art evolution. This almost lead me to give up art as a life choice. I wondered how on earth could Rothko had done it and so I dug deep for clues. One big clue is to realise a could of things. Firstly, one must consider the period in which he was an artist and how that could have affected him. He experienced two massive world tragedies in his life. The 1930s depression and WW2. Considering he was a Jew one can imagine just how devastating it must have been to watch the horrendous footage of the concentration camps when they were fist shown. And I believe that this footage must have had a huge affect on his work. I mean think about it; the most influential art at the time was Picasso - all those distorted people; hmm. Im not sure if was possible for any artist to paint a human in a distorted manner after seeing the real life distorted bodies of millions of Jews. That must have pushed art in another direction, which would also explain Pollock too. I firmly believe ideas and originality do not just come by chance. They come from deep experiences and outside circumstances that happen over a lifetime. One last point: It is very true that one must see a Rothko in the flesh to really appreciate them. Only when I saw his Seagram series in London did I really understand the power of his work. The complexity of those thin washes of colour is astonding to say the least. Before that I had only ever seen a Rothko in books. And that leads me to wonder; if Rothko had just started out today; would he have been so successful? I very much doubt it. Considering every art competition and every gallery owner all insist on first viewing an artists work via a jpeg file. Pray explain to me how any judge could possible have seen o experienced the power of his huge pieces on a laptop, or worse, ai iphone? No one talks about this, but I wonder how many artists today are not getting a chance because their work needs to be seen in the flesh in order to be understood and experienced?

[@davidhunternyc1]

Though well spoken I take issue with your idea that Rothko ended art evolution. After Rothko, Robert Ryman exposed painting as a material construct rather than a spiritual idea. Sol Lewitt denounced the hand of the artist and, with conceptual art, Joseph Kosuth reduced art to an idea. This was 1965. Radical for its time. One can say that the above mentioned artists were caught in the net cast by Duchamp, still the most influential artist of the 21st century. Richter, for instance, is Duchampian. It can be argued that art ended with Duchamp, not with Rothko, but then there's the problem of Warhol.

[@artconsciousness]

@@davidhunternyc1 Perhaps l should be more precise regarding my comnent on "art evolution".. in my view Rothko's work ends the evolution of "painting" rather art itself. Although saying that l do believe art today is no more than a pruduct, albeit a sophistcated one. In a pure capitalist driven society what else can it be? This is the reason why l have finally abandoned art altogether to pursue another path of creativity. Art is dead, clever products live.

[@lemuelpadio1510]

I have seen a Rothko 3 years ago and I was moved to tears.

[@Birkguitars]

I have seen the Rothko paintings at Tate Modern. I had just spoken to a friend and mentioned that we were going there and he raved over the Rothko's and how they had been set up. So I went and looked. And nothing. No response. Dead paint in a dead space. But to say that I am not "equipped" to understand this "great art" isn't just arrogant. It goes way beyond that. It us not far off claiming to be simply a better human being than me. Years ago I attended a hypnotism show which started with a selection process. We were all told to interlink our fingers but that when we were told to separate our hands some would find that their hands were stuck. And so it happened. But not to me. The simple process of telling people it might happen was enough to make it happen. But there was no magic. No conspiracy theory. It was just the power of suggestion. Which is quite scary when you think about it. So back to the Rothko paintings. You are in a prestigious art gallery. There is an entire room set aside for one series of paintings by one artist. No other artist has anything like this in the gallery. Not even Picasso or Dali. The lighting is low and moody. The ceiling is lower than the surrounding space. There is a subdued almost oppressive atmosphere. In bevioural terms you are being "primed" just as the hypnotists audience were. With the set up Tate Modern has created you could pin Walkers crisp packets to the wall and some people would cry over them. So if you really want to experience a Rothko remove the priming. Take it out of the gallery, put it in direct sunlight, ideally be shown it without knowing who the artist was or perhaps more realistically be told that it is by a different unknown artist. Now what do you make of it? Rothko created the Tate Modern works as a deliberate insult to the people who commissioned them and eventually returned his fee so that he could reclaim the paintings. The whole process was a huge F you to the establishment but it is now the same art establishment who laud his talent. As Alanis might (incorrectly) say "isn't it ironic"?

[@son_ick5745]

this video moved me so much that i committed to a trip to DC with my boyfriend to see the Rothko room at the National Gallery of Art. We are both young and kind of broke so were hesitant about going but it ended up being so magical. We spent about an hour in the exhibit, and people kept walking in chatting only to go totally silent as they fell under the spell of the paintings. tl;dr thanks for inspiring me to go and make great memories. Love your channel

[@Uzy_71]

Honestly if these paintings moved you so much then really any painting can, if the name rothko wasn't attached to it and your boyfriend made something like it before you knew anything about rothko then I can guarantee you'd be hating on it

[@theflipside2709]

Wuah ~~~ this must be the best explanation of Rathko’s painting!❤ after a significant event in my life, something in my brain suddenly switched - I suddenly started loving staring at Rathko’s paintings. I never knew why, never was able to explain to the people around me who are so puzzled by those colours and simple shapes. It was just a feeling, feelings in my heart and in my brain. You can feel it but can’t utter why. This vid explains it so well and confirmed those feelings. 👍👏

[@lawrencesiskind3554]

I think of large, completely abstract paintings as invitations to an experience rather than depictions, descriptions, or representations of anything. It seems that most people approach art like a class or narrative. Think of a lecture, book or film. They want to know the story and what it means; they want to learn something. Even museum curators cannot help but try to explain the work of The New York School of abstract expressionist painters in historical and intellectual terms. It appears to be just too disturbing to leave the viewers to their own instincts. I would advise viewers to approach any large, totally abstract painting as one would meditate: patiently and freely. Staring at a particular point in these paintings for several minutes can help. I've spent hours in the company of Rothkos, Pollocks, Frankenthallers, Pat Steirs, Agnes Martins, Richard Serras (sculpture) and many other artists, sometimes straight and often high. I believe so many of these works were designed to be experienced this way, over long periods of time. Technique matters. Different artists' works look different and feel different because they were made with different techniques of design, paint mixing, thinning, and application. In my experience, they don't all succeed, not even all Rothkos. I don't know why, but some don't come alive for me, even when made by my favorite artists. I also recommend Ad Reinhardt paintings, his black ones in particular, but really seeing and experiencing art in the way I'm describing it works for so much art, no matter what it looks like. I recommend art viewers, rather than reading curatorial descriptions of the galleries they are entering and the accompanying descriptions affixed to the walls, just wander through the museum, not looking sequentially at the works. Just see what you're drawn to, and when you are strongly attracted to a work just stay there for as long as it feels good to. Sit on the floor or look for a portable stool, which museums of make available. Enjoy great art as if it was hanging on your wall; live with it.

[@paintingholidayitaly]

As a 6yr old at school I recall the class shared a box of crayons. As I hunted for an appropriate colour...I became aware of one colour that a table of girls had kept as their colour. A beautiful purple. The other colours were quite drab in comparison. I wanted this colour. For many lessons these girls formed a kind of protection racket over this colour. Eventually after much pressure I obtained the remnant of this colour...it was my first Rothko moment.

[@user-iy3jh8wf1s]

On a visit to DC a few years back, I finally got an opportunity to view Rothko's work in the National Gallery of Art. I had no idea what to expect, but 5 seconds after walking into that room, filled with Rothko's paintings, I can truly say, for the first time in my life I was awe-struck! A wonderful experience never to be forgotten.

[@stevenp.6062]

Thank you for this. Rothko is perhaps the greatest of the Ab Ex generation in his understanding of the act, history, and meaning of painting in a Romantic sense in that great century of exploration and tecnological advances from 1850 - 1950 . I admire his work and also work in the same manner with a similar genre though on a smaller scale. So many do not understand and are not advanced enough in visual culture and philosophy to understand the incredible and intense breakthrough he made for all artists

[@davidwright8432]

Very competent practitioners of various spiritual traditions have - ironically - written exhaustively on the impossibility of conveying mystical experience, verbally. To me, Rothko cuts out the middleman - here, his paintings indicate, is a threshold. Step over it, and explore. You'll find no Virgil to serve as guide. You as Dante, are on your own.

[@jeffreyolson2139]

Beautifully stated!

[@sabertoothedpie]

I've been to the rothko chapel many times. One of the most calming places I've been.

[@MassiveCatLittleLegs]

God bless you. I love Mark Rothko. I don't want to know "how to look" at one of his paintings. All I know is that they transfix me.

[@PrinceTerrien]

God bless, man❤

[@evekinglehman84]

You helped me appreciate Rothko more, Thank You.

[@marius3391]

Very good channel, please keep up the amazing work!

[@DanielPestanaTranslations]

I recently found the work of Mark Rothko. I have no way to explain it, but never have any paintings touched me the way his paintings did. There’s something uncanny about them. Like a closed window that you desperately want to open to see what’s on the other side, or like a song that you can only feel but you cannot hear. I surely wish I could put it to words…

[@ben-km6uu]

You can't put it into words because he put it into his paintings.

[@samsung8310]

I experienced something similar when I saw a Frida Kahlo for the first time at SFMOMA it was a self portrait, there was so much emotion coming from the painting, It was like she was alive in the painting, I could sense the sadness and pain in the painting so much palpable emotion from a simple self portrait, you can’t experience that from looking at pictures, her paintings must be seen in person.

[@jicasso9848]

This was beautiful. And oh so helpful in opening my mind to just.... just EXPERIENCING art. Thank you truly.

[@constancewalsh3646]

I cannot look at Rothco's paintings without weeping. The narration beautifully puts the ineffable quality of these works in words. Thank you so much.

[@taterspater470]

im sorry this is cack. his paintings are an interpretation of a lot of things in his life. i can look at a duck and paint it rothko style with yellow and blues. BUT ONLY I WILL GET IT. HE SAID SO HIMSELF. He has oversimplified his life experience with deep colours and rough edges, perhaps you should question why those colours are bunched up together and why all the squares and rectangles are lined up perfectly but blurred.

[@kevenquinlan]

Bullshit. You're a precious queef.

[@charpnatl]

I never tire of learning about one of my favorite artist and his work. This was such an engaging insightful and thoughtful presentation. Thank You!

[@gracelight216]

Thank you so much. I truly enjoyed this informative video 🙂

[@KENOGoodVibesOnly]

This is great. Thank you! 🙂🙂🙂

[@hassanbelrhali908]

Many many thanks for the clarity and inspirational comments.

[@alexbenecki3488]

thank you for making this video! it’s incredible.

[@looselytelling]

I always feel like I'm inside of it, I live in a rural area with plenty of fields and farms that I walk through and sometimes when the light hits the Earth at a specific point at a specific moment in time I gain this experience that can be ecstatic or nerve wracking, the clue is in the name "colour field". I once had to walk through a pitch black field with my ex both drunk and steadying eachother and it wasn't like the typical moment in time that you drink in but rather be swallowed up by and that's how his black and grey painting makes me feel. The tragedy is that these moments we have with Rothko, ourselves and loved ones are all fleeting. That's just me though, think for yourself and you'll find something that touches your heart as well. Also watch "Red" that play is breathtaking and I find is a good start for beginners on how to best interpret one of his works.

[@garypaul1033]

I am in full support of anyone paying this man anything they want to pay him to obtain one of his paintings. Maybe these paintings can evoke some kind of emotions in some people. Yet part of the greatness of an artist must be reflected in not just the emotion they evoke but ALSO in how difficult they are to create, which would reflect an enormous talent, otherwise many people can become artists & create art which will attract a huge following without much talent at all as long as they are trying to evoke an emotional response from the observer. If a man can create a similar experience without years of training typically combined with raw talent & a desire to communicate & obtain an emotional effect on the viewer, then it belies the worth of a painting based on the fact that similar emotions can be evoked by relatively untalented painters, or sculptors, etc. For example, although no one can truly put limits on art or any artist, there must be some means of forming a critique, otherwise an upside-down religious artifact in a glass of the artist's vomit or urine can be considered art or even admired as great art if it evokes an emotional response from deep within, when all it is really doing in this case, is evoking disgust based on the vile manipulation of elements that does not illustrate real talent & reflects disrespect simply to get attention. If disgust/terror/fear for example, are emotions that a given artistic painting evokes than it is best to evolve from an ethical foundation as a means to effectively communicate an awful reality (how could it be awful if there are no ethical standards?), so that I can understand precisely where the power of the art comes from, & that typically takes considerable talent. And even if such a work of art is excellent, it may be best to display such art in galleries and not in one's home unless misery & despair are the emotions that you desire to stimulate. Of course there are shades of gray in all artistic expression, thus the selection is based ultimately on how the painting impacts you. A quick review of the The Rothko Chapel also leads me to see this art as of a rather low quality. This does not means that the artist is not talented & that he is in no way incapable of deep emotional applications to his art yet someone somewhere must at some point critique these kinds of art works & to me most of these shown here in this video & at the Rothko Chapel full of blackish & brackish, geometrically arranged paintings in a particular kind of building does not necessarily mean it is in any way great art. To me it is rather mediocre to inept art that does not evoke much pleasant emotions or any impression of a great artist who can pull out my inner emotions with astonishing beauty or emotional insight. This guy seems like a man with good intentions and considerable talent but these paintings don't seem like any impressive artistic endeavors. They are just very nicely done sets of uninspired, rather boring art. I am glad some people find it so emotionally stimulating and pleasing yet it seems like I am wasting my time looking at these kinds of paintings. Now anyone who is happy with their very own artistic creations can certainly find pleasure in whatever they create since they know what they are seeking, and even then, may still evoke responses that they did not originally predetermine as feelings evolve though color and texture and form, as though a painting is guiding your hand and brush instead of your mind directly guiding the work. Paintings that create strange inner emotions through color & display & texture can evoke emotions that can be a catharsis. Yet with this man, at least with the simpler two or three color "blocks: or stripes, it would seem any positive attributes could be too easily duplicated by many other artists without a need for such great artistic talents. You might even be able to create a better version of a favorite piece like those shown in the video indicating a talent that in no way is amazing or stunning or in any way a match for say works by many truly great creators such as Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo. Any individual can see greatness in any art they that they want to see greatness within but I cannot see how this makes a man a great artist. Color itself has a huge impact on daily life, yes but I do not see how three colored blocks for example can be considered any kind of great art that stirs the emotions. Toward what? With what emotional theme? Anything you want? Of course each person will see a particular art work in their own way but there must be some standards that guide what is great art or mediocre art...

[@ForbiddnSock]

I never was one for art until I saw his art piece: 210 211 Orange. It’s simple at first glance, but it’s more of the time this was made; that art can be spiritual. The lack of complexity skewed down to simple colors and square-like shapes beckons you to sit down and just look. Granted we live in a faster world, but Rothkos make me want to stop running through life and instead sit down and just think. This particular art piece looked a lot like a window eclipsing a evening descending sunrise. Almost as if a tease or hint towards something just an arms stretch away.

[@electricganesha]

I've always wondered why I felt how I felt about Rothko, now I understand. thank you!

[@inkonmyhands]

this was a very well written video, very smooth and well explained. Thanks.

[@creatifcorner]

Best video👍 I studied rothko since last week but want more indepth information. But after watching this video my concepts are clear.

[@olofingerspringer]

🙏Thank you

[@PaulSmith-bx2fq]

Thank You

[@tan-xyz]

Kant says that there is no way of us knowing things in themseleves as they are, and we can only know things how they represent themselves to us through our senses and using theese inputs we create concepts with the help of our imaginations. I think that Rothko somehow achieved to convey things as they truly are without using any forms, symbols or figures. Thats why his work transcends the dimension that we are in.

[@timgaul2256]

I never “got” Rothko before this video but I do now. Thank you

[@fredkelly6953]

I feel more about sunsets than I do about Rothko's.

[@tracesprite6078]

And so you should. A sunset means so much. Once more our mighty planet has rolled over as it whirls around our sun. All life-forms have adapted to the changing levels of light and heat which this process creates. We humans have adapted, too, but we can also feel great wonder at the astonishing situation we are in. Apparently we humans are the only point of consciousness in which the universe can contemplate itself and feel ... wonder? puzzlement? disappointment and depression? loneliness and alienation? intense curiosity? a humble adoration?

[@superdadmoney]

A rothco is essentially a sunset. Not as grand, but it taps into that deep inherent feeling from the hues we see (the “feeling” we get from the pastels of a sunset) in a sunset. We see, smell, hear and experience things in lived life that taps into something that we don’t entirely understand. Art at its best does this. Music that makes us weep, poetry that makes us smile, and paintings that empower us to feel. I don’t know if Rothco was aware….but this is the outcome for many.

[@sarah-louiserossi1586]

I adore Rothko and his art I get misty eyed every time I have the opportunity to see one. It requires a large amount of vulnerability to come face to face with open space. I respect those who don’t enjoy it because it is subjective. I would just invite people to take some deep breaths and look at one in person and notice if any emotions arise. Just like with food try it once if you don’t like it that is fine. 😂

[@pervis3537]

amazing

[@Jack.Strait]

I see a lot more richness out in the real world than I do in a Rothko. A single square of pavement has just as much texture and detail as one of his paintings, yet strangely they never seem to sell for seventy-two million dollars

[@terpinkov8770]

You have to experience them in person to actually understand them

[@Jack.Strait]

@@terpinkov8770 I have

[@lawrencesiskind3554]

Do you return to those special squares of pavement over and over again? Does the whole "real world" stop you in your tracks and bring tears to your eyes? I sincerely hope this for you. If so, you are richer than if you had the seventy-two million dollars a top Rothko would cost you!

[@terpinkov8770]

@@lawrencesiskind3554 it’s more interesting than the trash we have in movie theaters that for sure

[@MostlyLoveOfMusic]

reuploaded why? the original video is still public

[@afusmackdown]

Magic!!!!

[@TheDylls]

6:16 I see a Licorice Allsort and it makes me think of my great grandmother

[@limkhekie5128]

So good

[@afusmackdown]

Mark Rothko believe that art should have no real forum vision or talent and I must agree. He hit it out of the park on all three.

[@sonnycorbi4316]

NO MATTER WHAT ROTHKO SAID OR THOUGHT - HIS WORK DOES “DEPICT” NO MATTER WHAT RTHKO SAID OR THOUGHT - HIS WORK IS EXPRESSIVE - THOUGH WE THE VIEWING AUDIENCE DO NOT HAVE THE WORDS, THE LANGUAGE TO “DEPICT” TO “EXPRESS” THE WORK THAT CAME THRU HIM - I AM A VISUAL ARTIST - I LOVE ROTHKO’S WORK - I UNDERSTAND THE EMOTIONAL REACTION THAT PROCESSES/DEPICTS - THE HART UNDERSTANDS/KNOWS FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE BRAINS UNDERSTANDING - IF THAT MAKES ANY SENCE -

[@sverkerolausson2252]

I wonder if Mark Rothko paintings can be more difficult to understand (or be drawn to) if you have Aphantasia?

[@thebe_stone]

if he believed i shouldn't need special knowledge to "get it", then he should have done something i could get.

[@waynepayne864]

this is a good video essay didnt even realize its under 1k views

[@morganlake41632]

When I created my first produced art ...I could explain to anyone: what it was about, my influences, even the trauma that the art is attempting to heal. 10 years later, I realized I was wrong and a deeper take on what my art was about and where it came from, then... 10 years after that I realized I was wrong again. Conclusion - the artist is the last person who could articulate what their art is about, the art critic is the second to last person who can explain to anyone what the art is about. All explanations are filtered through the lens of the artist or critic. We can learn about those lenses - which are tempered by the Zeitgeist, but the content of the art? No. My lens tells me that the art of the Abstract expressionists, all of whom are in their 40s or after when they create their most potent pieces - conveys archetypes - primordial patterns deep in our psychoid layer - far below our consciousness... In Gwuancho China - there is an old inscription on an even older stone outside the door of a pagoda, translated by my guide: "Artists initially develope by copying their masters, then proceed to add style which is an aspect of persona, then finally they realize their true identity is not persona and then their art conveys archetypes." Archtypes transcend our 3D linear time reality - maybe that is what critics are pointing to when they talk about Rothko. I'll try to go read his Autobiography ... In my wife's garden is huge pot for plants? It is way out of scale - 4 feet in diameter - 5 feet tall - it is painted by Thai artists who are masters a copying western art - this one loved Rothko. All the other plants in the her garden seem to be worshipping Rochko's magjnificent "container."

[@magdelanax2122]

Most of my hallucinations look exactly like Rothko paintings- occasionally as complex the "multiform" example you showed. I don't actually feel anything looking at them- I just stare until they disappear.

[@theriguyayylmao3761]

I’ve always thought his paintings most closely represent Rothko feeling boxed in. By his depression, by society, by his limitations as an artist, etc. To me it seems he had a lack of confidence in being able to display his true feelings and ideas and the blankness of his pieces shows his fear of revealing too much about himself and his inner thoughts. His lack of a statement about his art speaks loudly about how afraid he was to be misinterpreted as an artist. Additionally the many layers of paint and “depth” of the colors seen in the rectangles could convey the depth of his emotional state and insecurities.

[@ZER0--]

If you want a Rothko, paint your own. Here's one good reason why... A number of people who had left a Rothko exhibition were shown a number of paintings and asked which were genuine and which were not, and they were as good as guessing. And if you need to be told how to look at a load of colour then it sort of proves my point. This is when art slides up it's own backside. As I said, I could paint a Rothko and not one person could tell me if it was a 'genuine'. Not even Rothko himself. It gets to the point where some one will say "You just don't understand it". I do. It's just blocks of colour that anyone could paint as I have proved.

[@lawrencesiskind3554]

Despite my love of Rothko paintings, I agree that many other painting can achieve the effects viewers describe from experiencing Rothkos. I don't believe they are just blobs or "loads" of color. I know that making art, even art that is simple in design is usually very challenging. And, there is no way to look at paintings considered transcendent and worth tens of millions of dollars in today's art market and not be affected by those narratives. I agree; make your own! You might as well try. it's going to be easier to attempt than scraping up the many millions it's going to cost to buy a Rothko.

[@ZER0--]

@@lawrencesiskind3554 I know Rothko spent lots of time painting his canvases, and wanted the light to boune off the canvas etc. I get that. But... If the canvas is moved from one gallery to another then that would mean the canvas is not in situ, and therefore not going to have the same effect as it did when it was in the studio. I don't know. I've just started painting after many years of disregarding y love of art.

[@Calebthecreator]

Why was this reuploaded

[@TheConspiracyofArt]

A few of my videos had ad-suitability or copyright issues. I use photos and video with attribution but usually without explicit permission. The re-uploaded videos are 99% the same as the originals. The original Rothko video had a photo that was misattributed.

[@CK-oi5cc]

This video is the Rothko of videos about art.

[@TheDylls]

Rothko's paintings made me picture Wanderer Above the Sea Fog! Haha

[@SIFFilmClass]

Very educational video… but Rothko?? eye rollllllllll

[@DavidDarnaud]

thx u

[@jaimeochoa7256]

😮😮😮😮😮I wonder what Rothko would say about how his work is being described here by a self described art expert....😮😮😮

[@mourneswanderer1767]

I will have to see his work in London, although I am attracted to his work, I do not understand...... And possibly never will? Hopefully I will feel something in response

[@Trader_65-OT]

I read somewhere, "No one says, 'my child could do that'" when looking at a DaVinci, Rembrandt or Michaelangelo. Anyone looking at a pencil drawing so skilled that it literally looks like a black and white photo would ever say "my child could do that." I know an artist who was that skilled with a pencil. The Emperor is Naked.

[@funnylittlecreature]

Okay, but why should technical skill matter in the context of art? Of visual communication? Why is the only value of art how difficult it was to make? Is that all people see in it???

[@brandonbluegold]

Anybody with zero imagination, zero creativity, and enough time on their hands can make a realistic pencil drawing of something that already exist

[@Trader_65-OT]

The emperor is naked

[@ichirofakename]

When people started saying my paintings looked like photographs, I switched from realism to abstractionism. If I want something that looks like a photograph, I take a photograph. Also, Rothko is right up there with Albers in maximal bogosity. Said the insider.

[@thebe_stone]

I was basically an amazing artist when i was 4

[@lotsofhands4929]

Maybe we all were. I think that’s pretty awesome

[@jean-yvesgauze8024]

I think Mark Rothko's paintings should be experienced step by step, color by color, and just subjectively appreciate the human and artistic intent behind each color the artist chooses on each painting

[@durango-CODEBUILDER]

You say Rothko died with 800 unsold paintings. How many did he sell during his lifetime? Does anyone know?

[@ichirofakename]

Even if you LIKE his paintings, I would have to say maybe a dozen would be plenty.

[@durango-CODEBUILDER]

@@ichirofakename what?

[@fl7210]

This is good

[@TheMg49]

Good video. Thumbs up. I admire fluency in art theory. However, so far, theoretical descriptions/explanations of paintings haven't affected whether, or the degree to which, I like them or not. Despite the knowledgeable presentation in this video, I have to say that I'm still not impressed with Rothko's paintings. I don't dislike them, but they don't move me at all. I'm trying to understand what people see in Rothko's paintings, but so far I don't get it. Is there a way to convey why some people say they are so moved by his paintings that I might understand?

[@RepentantSinner86]

Simple: *cover your eyes with your hands and enjoy that because there's more art and beauty in your hands than there will ever be in a Rothko painting*

[@mspacephal3925]

I totally respect the perception and experience of all the commentators here, but Rothko simply leaves me cold. Unmoved. I don’t know why, although I perfectly know where his aesthetics come from. Art is subjective I guess.

[@byMistel]

Same here, it doesn't speak to me at all. I thought that all the abstract art is sort of scam, but it seems like there are people who are experiencing real emotions while watching it.

[@tomripsin730]

I was working at The Walker Art Center as a security guard during a Rothko show back in the 1980's. I had not experienced a lot of abstract art prior to this and was just learning to appreciate it. I stood in front of a Rothko one day and tried to understand what I was supposed to "get" out of this simple arrangement of blurry rectangles. Eventually I found myself absorbed into the pure mood of the colors and became aware of how they seemed to go on layer after layer. A learned a lot about how to experience certain kinds of work that day.

[@kevenquinlan]

Pfft. Poppycock.

[@geoffreycurrieIII]

"he took something from all these works". What was that something?

[@alucardvfx9357]

mostly the colors and "feel" im guessing

[@PhotoBrad]

Well done video, but I'm still one of those people who feel absolutely nothing when I see a Rothko.

[@andybaldman]

That’s most people.

[@pkmcburroughs]

@@andybaldman You know what? I don't think it is. Or are you suggesting that Rothko's work is enormously popular, but at the same time...no one likes it...? I'd like you to go back now and reconsider your argument, since it reeeeeeeeally doesn't make a lot of sense.

[@pkmcburroughs]

Fair enough. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Perfectly reasonable. What concerns me is when people (and I see a lot of them) turn matters of artistic taste into MORAL arguments. It's something we've seen before, historically, and I find it concerning.

[@andybaldman]

@@pkmcburroughs Things/people can be popular without being loved. In some cases it's BECAUSE people don't like that thing. In other cases (or the same cases) that can be combined with the fact that the thing made a great news story, and the media loved it. A LOT of things get famous for that reason. Especially if they were from New York in the height of the NY Times' popularity. Many famous artists are only famous today because Peggy Guggenheim liked that person, and then the NYT would write about them. Much of what people like today is manipulated, and did not come about organically as one might expect.

[@pkmcburroughs]

@@andybaldman Okay. Sure. So it's all mass deception. I, for example, don't REALLY love Rothko's work. I just THINK I do. Brilliant assessment, sir.

[@geoffreycurrieIII]

So your thesis is that people in the past weren't sophisticated enough to understand a rothko but everyone now is? wow. that's quite the theory!

[@bethbartlett5692]

*Rothko was asked about the Seagram's Building Paintings, "How far from the Painting should I stand?"* He said 18 inches Then "You become part of the landscape of the Painting, your shadow cast upon it ..." In order to comprehend this statement, 9ne must understand Quantum Physics, the defining of the "Universal Law of Attraction", the Thoughts + Feelings X Beliefs = our Frequency and that Creates by Attracting our Reality. While in this Physical 3D Plane, You are both Individual and you are part of the Whole. You are eternal and eternally Part of the Whole. *You have this Journey to experience Individual, do it with your Passion.*

[@thebe_stone]

who is 9ne?

[@VIPeR010icoN]

Perception of art is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. What one person sees as "normal" or "not impressive," another person may see as deeply moving or thought-provoking. Additionally, the emotional and psychological impact of a work of art is not solely dependent on its technical proficiency, but also on its ability to connect with the viewer on a deeper level. Anyone can do something similar to Rothko's work, in terms of composition or color use, but it will likely lack the depth and sophistication that comes from years of artistic training, experience, and reflection. it's important to remember that the value of a work of art lies not only in its visual appearance, but also in the ideas, emotions, and cultural context it embodies.

[@Lunch_Meat]

As a kid, I grew up loving art but was mainly interested in comics and cartoons and thought most of the "high arts" were pretty bland and boring. Sometime around the age of 14, my family and I just happened to be passing through Huston and went to see the Rothko chapel. I knew of Rothko and his reputation, but was not impressed when I had seen his paintings in books, so I was curious enough to not totally disregard what I might see in the chapel. As soon as we walked in and I saw them, I was blown away. The entire room, surrounded by these giant dark paintings that you can get so close to, seemed to have an energy to them that fills the room. Even the feeling of the air and temperature had a different kind of weight to it. The only thing I can compare it to is when you're at a small party and both your crush and your worst enemy are also there and you are hyper aware of both of them. That hyper awareness about everything going on and coming off of these paintings changed me forever. I never became a cartoonist, but I do sell my abstract paintings frequently enough to call myself an artist still.

[@creatifcorner]

Wow. Amazing

[@KokiKokimemon]

Sure not every thing has a meaning to each its own interprets that's the magic 🎉

[@kevenquinlan]

The comments are great- when you put it out there that someone is moved to tears by Rothko, then some precious asshole has to say they were, as if they hold some ability to devine deeper meaning in a piece of art- that has none. This is what I mean, if you cried looking at this, you are not deep- you're a zombie.

[@hifijohn]

Very lofty words, but are they to try to understand the art or to justify it.

[@armandogavilan1815]

Don't find the paintings ugly at all, they are great for minimalistic decoration, beyond that, any mystical experiences you may or not have with them is either a reflection of your imagination or trying hard to engulf the marketing surrounding his works and persona, for the monetary gain of their owners of course, in the art world we're (again) puppets of very powerful people, we're very good at pretending to be in tune with their mental brainwashing. Anything said on this video, almost every single word can be applied to any piece of abstract art. There are way better abstract artists like Pavel filonov or Frantisek Kupka which have a spiritual weight of their own, which don't need documentaries or whatever trying to impress you with empty words about their greatness.

[@jeffreyolson2139]

While I feel that everyone's opinion is valid (for themselves), I find your smarmy, high brow comments offensive. So, if I like something you don't, then I have an overactive imagination, am a pawn of the art establishment or am brainwashed? Why are your opinions valid for everyone else? Who are you trying so hard to convince? You are an arrogant ass, not smarter or better than anyone else!

[@VIPeR010icoN]

I see you hold a skeptical view towards the reception and interpretation of Mark Rothko's paintings. It's important to note that the interpretation of art is subjective and can be influenced by various factors such as personal beliefs, cultural background, and exposure to the critical discourse surrounding the artist. Some people may find a spiritual or emotional connection to Rothko's paintings, while others may see them as simply aesthetically pleasing or decorative. Additionally, the marketing and promotion of an artist's work, as well as its financial value, can certainly play a role in shaping public perception and opinion. Ultimately, the appreciation of art is a highly personal experience, and what is meaningful and valuable to one person may not be so to another.

[@armandogavilan1815]

@@VIPeR010icoN yep, brainwash in a nutshell, to accept the greatness of someone like Sorolla, Pavel Filonov, Vermeer, Matta, I don't need either propaganda or any sort of indoctrination, their works shine by themselves. No one had to taught me to love Van Gogh, that's the kind of art I like, where it's me and the works, no intermediaries. And I don't hate Rothko, as I said is decorative, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is just stuff people say to either inflate its prices in the art market, make themselves look interesting, or proyecting something fron their own psyche not available in the work itself (which mind you some great artworks also can cause!) The supposed subjectivity of art is something I always question myself. It seems just too convenient that we live in an era were a banana stock on wall suddenly is art. Is so right for the market and money makers that now you don't have to give months of work for a piece! I don't say all art should be like that! I love some brut stuff but I do believe with all my heart that art nowadays is 99% bullshit and unnecesary complex explanations and 1% whatever thing the market wants to masquerade as art.

[@rawrzi1410]

@@armandogavilan1815 Kind of a self-centered interpretation. You named artists whose work you personally find meaningful and effective, and therefore that art is real art and everything else is bullshit. Have you considered that maybe you just don't connect with Rothko's work and that's fine? I like Rothko's paintings and find them meaningful and effective without any "explanation" or intellectualizing. People just experience art differently, but not everybody presents their personal worldview as objective fact, lol

[@armandogavilan1815]

@@rawrzi1410 I do think there is a huge conspiracy in todays art world. Want to make clear I don't hate or despise the work of Rothko, I do think it has its decorative merit ( I wish I could say that about most contemporary "art") but I do think also that he falls (maybe not even his fault) on the fraud that art became. Be absolutely sure that if his work became famous had NOTHING to do with the quality of the pieces but because a clever form of intelectual brainwash, 99% or more of the people who pretend to be interested on his work is because of a previous hypnosis process, same with maany other modern artists! Take Picasso for example ( who has a few works I genuinely like!) most if not all times people care about the signature more than anything. If one of his bad works (which are a LOT) had no signature NO ONE would gave a crap about it, that's part of the brainwash. It roughly goes like this, some elite composed of fake intelectuals elevate whatever work (being good or bad quality is irrelevant) in an artificial way, and condiment it with some good old artspeak, most people on the art world will take the pill because they don't want to appear ignorant or closeminded, it is very simple actually! There are many artists I'm not so fond of BUT I recognize them as great creators and even genuises, not my taste if you wish, which is DIFFERENT to realize that X artist (say damien hirst, jeff koons, etc) is a fraud and a fake. I can accept different tastes of course, but I'm not blind and can see what's going on in the art world, and as decades passes the crap that art turned out to be sadly proves my discontent. Is just a business and the more people are convinced that a banana stuck on a wall is art, the easier will be for those charlatans to become rich with the minimum effort, it is all just a big powerful mafia, who plays with people's minds just like a sect.

[@Mario-zo1uj]

make art not crime.

[@KC-zm5lg]

really good video. pointers: take your time more with the narration. add more pauses, slow down. i want to feel taken on a journey

[@adolfodavion6198]

😳 pքɾօʍօʂʍ

[@stevenhanson6057]

Yeah! Thought it looked like a pipe!

[@KC-zm5lg]

5:33 far left is an amogus

[@SoapinTrucker]

I'm betting he laughed all the way to the bank! SMH

[@CF333.]

It’s like what, 3 colors? For 100 million dollars, it’s just……. there’s no effort

[@triton7758]

Latvia's artists*

[@stevenhanson6057]

In tents, emotional and pissed off. Shouldn’t have said “really.” I’ve seen sunsets before!

[@greenghost2008]

I just think his paintings are neat. It isn't deeper than that.

[@louhawk559]

I imagine anyone can make wall ornaments. If u call it art ok then have at it...

[@maxwellmcdowell3744]

If you need to be taught how to listen to a piece of music or look at a work of art then there's something wrong . I'm not saying who's wrong but art is a unspoken form of communication . The less you need to explain it ,the better it is...like a good joke (if u have to explain it ,it aint funny)

[@VIPeR010icoN]

It's not that people need to be taught how to listen to music or look at art, but rather that they can benefit from learning more about the context, history, and techniques that went into creating a piece of art or music. This understanding can enrich one's experience and appreciation of the work, but it is not necessary to enjoy it. Some people might be naturally drawn to a particular style of art or music, while others might need a little more guidance to understand its appeal. Everyone experiences and appreciates art differently, and there is no right or wrong way to enjoy it. Whether someone has extensive knowledge of a piece of art or music or simply enjoys it on a gut level, the important thing is that it resonates with them and brings them pleasure or meaning.

[@blue797]

@@VIPeR010icoN I agree that there is no right or wrong way to enjoy art, but as an outsider who just learned about Rothko for the first time, hearing people describe intense emotional experiences while staring at literal rectangles comes off as incredibly pretentious at first. I'm still struggling to really get over it. That said, I'm a musician and I understand that certain ambient or noise genres confuse the uninitiated as well. I'm hoping to gain a better understanding of this kind of thing, but really struggling with finding any "meaning" other than some abstract, esoteric symbolism behind what appears to be some pretty low fidelity art.

[@sudabdjadjgasdajdk3120]

in the setting you construe at the beginning of your video is an explanation. preparing us to believe this piece of art is supposed to be "profound", rothko would have probably found this asinine.

[@funnylittlecreature]

Well, this isn't a cult of personality. He made what he made, and this is a way to understand it. If his ghost hates it, then there's not much we can do.

[@arpitbharti6245]

Zima Blue 🔵

[@eenkjet]

Conceptually good. But they are terribly painted. I think that's what irks me about them. You see them in real life and they are painted with the skill of a theater prop. Is that part of the concept?

[@iraph]

sus @ 5:29

[@NikangVideos6377]

😂😂

[@anthonylopez9594]

I dont think what he said about being in tune with the artist and the art. Its like meeting a person. YOu clikc with some people more than others and some not at all.

[@Johnconno]

Don't bother, go and look at Clyfford Still instead. 🔥

[@jeffreyolson2139]

Your opinion only

[@joshgalloway7730]

@@jeffreyolson2139 nah, hes right

[@jeffreyolson2139]

​@@joshgalloway7730 all that's important is what one likes & feels a connection with, nothing more. Everything else is just an opinion

[@ichirofakename]

Or any of about a hundred superior abstract painters.

[@Johnconno]

@@ichirofakename Rothko was great. So was Still. 🌹

[@cheaserceaser]

How is this art? I remember drawing this in kindergarten.

[@twrourke6557]

Windows.

[@mickmcknight162]

This is all very well and good, but how many Art teachers are teaching their young students to paint like this, and if they did, they'd probably be out of a job for wasting peoples time and not demanding skilled drawings and canvas paintings and portraits from their students, so therefore, one would seriously have to question the real art in these simplistic pieces, pieces that a child or anybody could do. For example, if I painted something like this and tried to sell it ,everybody would think I was a chancer who couldn't paint or draw!

[@greenstone4526]

Actually, what does these paintings means. Can never understand Abstract paintings. Anyone can draw like this. How they become great artists.how can they be called great like Michael Angelo, da Vinci and the like. Another is Jackson Pollack. How can paint dripped on canvas through holes in the paintcan ,can be called a painting. Can't get a clue. What do an admirer of these paintings see when they look at these so called paintings

[@jeffreyolson2139]

Fair questions, but I think you may be looking at some things the wrong way. For me, it's not about what does it mean, but what does it make you feel? Art is a way to express emotion through what one feels & what they see & how they see it. A work is not going to affect everyone equally or in the same way & that is how it should be. Another misconception is that great technical skill must be present for something to be considered art; how limiting that is! My advice is to enjoy what you like, no one has the right to tell you what to like, but to also keep an open mind.

[@VIPeR010icoN]

Anyone can do something similar to Rothko's work, in terms of composition or color use, but it will likely lack the depth and sophistication that comes from years of artistic training, experience, and reflection. it's important to remember that the value of a work of art lies not only in its visual appearance, but also in the ideas, emotions, and cultural context it embodies. Perception of art is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. What one person sees as "normal" or "not impressive," another person may see as deeply moving or thought-provoking. Additionally, the emotional and psychological impact of a work of art is not solely dependent on its technical proficiency, but also on its ability to connect with the viewer on a deeper level.

[@jeffreyolson2139]

​@@VIPeR010icoN very well said!

[@kimgapjin-art]

gapjin art,,,,,

[@Philoyouknow]

If your 4 year old child can replicate it perfectly, it's not great art. It's a con.