Do you admire Mark Rothko's paintings?

They’ve got presence in person (or projected in a darkened art history class). But they are absolutely the sort of art that loses it’s force when scaled down for reproduction in books or postcards.

But no, they’d never make on to a list of my favorites.

I am not a fan but I love his sense of colour.

I do now know who he is but after i will look on some paintings I will get back with how I feel.

Love Rothko!

Reminds me of my Grandfather’s work.

I’m sure he’s a great theorist, but I think his stuff is the work of an interior decorator. In other words, I love his color. I’d love to see my kitchen painted like a Rothko painting. I’d be happy to hang a painting on another wall in my house—but for a splash of color, not necessarily as a work of art (even though I would call it art).

Nope… To me, his art is everything that is wrong with the concept of modern art.

They look like paint swatches at Home Depot.

@GabrielsLamb Can you describe what you think is wrong with the concept of modern art more fully? Or, conversely, can you describe what the boundaries of art are? I’m not going to try to persuade you otherwise, even though I know we have very different views on this subject. I’m just curious as to how you draw the lines of what is and what isn’t art and why, in particular, this is “paint swatch” territory as opposed to something that should be hung in a museum.

Modern art that a third grader could execute that people are actually being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to execute, usually on personal commission IE Lucky, or in the know and aquiring feature spaces in the greatest galleries and museums, while there are actual talented artists being left out in the cold struggling on the streets with nothing, making nothing off their art until their death brings them latent appreciation posthomously

Kind of like Van Gogh.

I feel, in my opinion, this particular artist does have an excellent sense of color matching and continuity, but that being said there is very little “talent” involved in a good sense of color matching.

@GabrielsLamb I have a buddy who is on the same spectrum as you. He believes Rothko was the greatest fraud in art history, beating out Pollock. I however am on the opposite standings, I feel his work is the stuff of genius. I feel like he was a giant creative kid inside of a mature mans body. For me it’s unfortunate when an artists work becomes depreciated by the general consensus (Not you, but like my friend, at least you recognize the color schemes I respect everyone’s answers who oppose Rothko). I guess I’m just on the end where I can appreciate works that are not typical, recognizable and literal. Not to say that I don’t appreciate the latter statement.

@whitetigress Did Rothko just do color field paintings or did he do other large abstract work? Initially when I read Rothko I was picturing other work, but when I searched to double check I didn’t see anything like what I had thought he painted. I wish I could remember who did that stuff.

I love his color field paintings. Especially This One

@fundevogel He did have some paintings with long people with somewhat of a surreal twist. long people

Random

Hmm, cool but not what I was thinking of. It’s a mystery I guess.

@whitetigress See… Now I love Pollock because it is very hard to duplicate a pollock, they are very tempermental and you can almost feel what he was thinking when he executed a treatment and it stuck…

Nobody has ever and will ever be able to do it like him. It is truly unique if you study it and it is on a massive scale,

And he does actually have legitimate art, only nobody ever wanted to see that because the splatters were so amazing and fresh conceptually

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6NkUG0jDw&feature=related

Did you know they say that every Jackson Pollock original has cigarette ashes somewhere in the paint?

You can’t deny, they look like color matching swatches at the Depot…