You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: From Agony to Ecstasy to Tragedy, and then from Ecstasy to Tragedy again.
I'm not a fan of modern art, but impressionism is always an intriguing subject. Rothko's rectangles don't communicate anything to me, while Van Gogh conveys movement and feeling.
I understand you I used to be the same at one time. For sure Van Gogh was definitely a genius-
Have you ever been up close to a Rothko?
I doubt proximity matters. I can't shake the feeling that if I can do it, it's not art. I can paint rectangles of near-complimentary colors.
Honestly you need to see one of his close up. The affect he gets is amazing.
When you see them on a screen or in a book they are meaningless. But when you see them close you see there is a lot more too it.
For example, he uses layers upon layers of thin coats of different color tones.
Imagine those net curtains people have on their windows to stop people seeing in but they can see out. Now imagine these net curtains were of different colors. And now imagine them all hanging one in front of another. The effect you would get would be of some kind of weird depth of space, sort of ambiguous as though it had not surface. This is the effect Rothko´s paintings have when you see them up close.
Its like you fall into them.
Its not so much what and colors the shapes are that matters, its what Rothko makes them do on your senses.
It is incredible and you cant get them out of your head once you experience it. Very few artists can achieve this affect.
It took him 30 years of experimenting to achieve it.
Hope this helps a little