[prion]

Thanks for reinforcing negative stereotypes about conservatives concerning art. If you had any knowledge of Rothko's history, you wouldn't make such asinine comments.

I paid thousands of Daddy's good dollars for art school, dipstick. For once, I have the qualifications to run my mouth off.

I repeat: if you have to know the artist's history to understand the art, he has failed. He might be a really interesting case history, but he's no artist.

[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.

[Your Nightmare]

if you have to know the artist's history to understand the art, he has failed.

Maybe the artist wasn't making the piece for others, but for himself (and he was probably aware of his own history).

[D-Chivas]

I paid thousands of Daddy's good dollars for art school, dipstick. For once, I have the qualifications to run my mouth off. I repeat: if you have to know the artist's history to understand the art, he has failed. He might be a really interesting case history, but he's no artist.

I paid for, and have another 5 year paying on, my BFA. You are free to dislike Rothko, or at least how the pretentious art world snobs go on about Rothko. I disagree with you on your dislike of his merit. But at least Rothko had people interested in supporting his work rather than expecting the taxpayers to take care of his needs.