A room full of violence, and the silence of death: Tate unveils new Rothko Room

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 05/06/2006 | John Banville

[prion]

Artists don't always write well about their work. That doesn't necessarily detract from the art, however.

You're missing the point. Artists who write splendidly about their art don't make it any better, either.

A visit to the Rothko Chapel in Houston, with its imposing silence, natural light, and wall covering murals that seem to open into galactic depths, will persuade you that your own commentary is both uninformed and ill-considered.

I've sent plenty of Rothko's work at the National Gallery and , if I recall correctly, the Hirshhorn. Just because you don't agree with an opinion doesn't make it either uninformed or ill-considered.

[Hiddigeigei]

"Fair is foul, and foul is fair: / Hover through the fog and filthy air"

http://www.artrenewal.org/

[Kay Syrah]

That line is where the words supporting the art are more important than the art itself. The paintings by themselves (in my opinion) have little to offer other than the fact that they are big and red.

Well said. Critics perform a valuable function, in describing successful art, but can't make bad art successful. I'm often surprised tho, by what I expected to dislike and find quite powerful. (but not because I read the exhibit notes, LOL) Anyway, perhaps I shall take in the Tate next week and see for myself.

[Kay Syrah]

Could you please add me to your ping list? Thanks

[atlaw]

Just because you don't agree with an opinion doesn't make it either uninformed or ill-considered.

Well, you aren't simply expressing a personal dislike, you are staking out a psuedo-authoritative position that Rothko's work is "failed art," whatever the heck that means. Your "opinion" is therefore subject to rebuttal as both uninformed and ill-considered.

[Republicanprofessor]

I agree about Twombly and Rauschenberg. I know what we are "supposed" to see and say about their work, but it still does not go to a deeper level. Over time, the important artists will be seen for their deeper content. Then people will tire of those works and seek others and resurrect their reputations from the dustbin of history. But the shallow artists will sink. Rauschenberg, and Johns, were clever. Perhaps Johns cleverer than Rauschenberg. But pasting things together from everyday life, with no deeper retrospection, doesn't work for me in the long run.

Rauchenberg's Monogram; Johns The Critic Sees (look carefully at that one: glasses and two mouths, not eyes) and Twombly.

I hesitate to post the Twombly, because I know how Freepers will explode on that one. If you search for images of Twombly, you will see variety in his "scribbles." But I sometimes think the luckiest artists are those who latch onto a major style with a subtle variation, so they can get attention without having to make major creative breakthroughs and all the work (and frustration) associated with that. But I also think that in the long run their art is less likely to be respected.

[Republicanprofessor]

A visit to the Rothko Chapel in Houston, with its imposing silence, natural light, and wall covering murals that seem to open into galactic depths

Thank you for your insight.

I visited there a while ago but only had 10 minutes, 5 of which was spent buying slides. I am dying to go back and really sit and think about those works in location. They do seem much bleaker than his other works, with less to offer. But I like your "galactic depths" comment very much.

[SlowBoat407]

I visited the Rothko chapel on a trip to Houston and felt like I needed a hot scrubbing shower afterwards. There was something distinctly dark and disturbed in his work, and I wanted no part of it.

[Republicanprofessor]

perhaps I shall take in the Tate next week and see for myself.

If you do visit the Tate, please do let us know what you think. I have not been there in a few decades.

[Leg Olam]

Spareness to the point of vapidity is a hallmark of much of the so-called modern. The redeeming quality is that they do express formalism in a derivitive post Mondrian sort of way and are surprisingly well coloured. The meditative effectiveness of much of this sort of work is highly over-rated. IMOP.

[Republicanprofessor]

You have both been added to the ping list.

Thank you.

[prion]

Well, you aren't simply expressing a personal dislike, you are staking out a psuedo-authoritative position that Rothko's work is "failed art," whatever the heck that means.

I thought I made that abundantly clear: art that cannot be fully appreciated by simply looking at it, but has to be propped up by written explication.

Your "opinion" is therefore subject to rebuttal as both uninformed and ill-considered.

Saying "you're wrong" is not a rebuttal.

[Jabba the Nutt]

It's just Early Barcode.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Rothko is typical of the scam artists who are predominate in 20th century art. People afraid to accept their initial reactions as valid and capable of being talked into "sophistication" accept these amatuerish dubs as "art". By such standards as these I am an "artist" myself and a great one.

I rule of thumb is if I can reproduce it it ain't art.

[Republicanprofessor]

I visited the Rothko chapel on a trip to Houston and felt like I needed a hot scrubbing shower afterwards. There was something distinctly dark and disturbed in his work, and I wanted no part of it.

That may be true, but the very fact that the work affected you so much shows that the artist was successful in conveying content through his works, whether you liked it or not. Perhaps works are even more powerful when we react viscerally against them.

I didn't have enough time when I was there to really get to that state. I got there as soon as I could, but I still only had 5 minutes before they closed.

[atlaw]

I've noticed that the Chapel can have that effect on certain viewers. Like I noted, it has a peculiar way of working on the imagination. Personally, I find that it reveals increasing imagery and a kind of perpetually expanding field of view with each visit, almost as if you are looking through a window into the depths of a subtly shifting universe.

[Republicanprofessor]

Spareness to the point of vapidity is a hallmark of much of the so-called modern.

This is particularly true of Minimal art, and I wonder more and more whether minimal art is heading more towards postmodern than modern. But that's a question I need to ponder more. The best modern art has a spiritual center that is replaced by the superficial in Minimal and Postmodern Art.

Still, to me, there is a great deal more emotional content in Rothko, on the left, than in the similar work by Ellsworth Kelly, minimal color field artist, on the right. Minimal art is very much like what Frank Stella said: "What you see is what you get."

Kelly's work creates some very subtle curves and form with ostensibly simple lines. But there isn't a great deal of depth beneath the surface.

[petro45acp]

Actually, I like my window of perception....just so long as I am the one doing the limiting.

Good catch though!!!!!

Bravo!

Top sends

[Republicanprofessor]

Personally, I find that it reveals increasing imagery and a kind of perpetually expanding field of view with each visit, almost as if you are looking through a window into the depths of a subtly shifting universe.

Well said.

I think the important thing is to keep one's mind open. Many modern works take more looking and thinking than the simple realism of the past. And even then we can change our minds as we learn more (isn't that like life too?). I have always felt that the Houston chapel did not have as much power as Rothko's earlier work.

I am being proven wrong. Thank you for your enlightening comments.

[petro45acp]

Frankly I've seen pics of that Houston chapel, and Wright's Racine office complex does more for me. Nope, if one needs to expand one's imagination, read some good speculative fiction, or hey, didn't Hawking just release a new improved and more accessable history of time? Goedel-Escher-Bach is another good read. Staring at the scrapings of a self involved artist isn't gonna do it.

If art doesn't portray something discernable ...

More stuff.

Cheers,