[petro45acp]

This post encapsulates both my perceptions of this article and this "artist's" "work." "If you really do want to know more about the form and content of Rothko's work, check out my home page for clickable "classes" on many periods in art history." I don't. I don't want to know any more about the form and content of this drek. blocks of color. So What? "I could take a crap in a box and call it guaranteed..." It is like calling John Cage's musical maunderings (calling them musical is suspect) evocative, or that himbo that hung sheets all around central park a sculptor. "Art that requires a learned dissertation to appreciate has failed as art." Prion has the right idea here. If a reasonably educated, reasonably interested human cannot perceive what you are trying to present with an artistic offering, you have probably offered it up to your oh-so-sensitive cronies. You now deserve every cocked head, scratched head, and derisive, scornful snort provided by those reasonable and interested folk. Top sends Top sends' art commentary can be found aperiodically on the Free Republic.

[petro45acp]

Woa! Watch out for spell check, it yanks every bit of formatting out of a post.

[atlaw]

As much unmitigated hogwash as Rothko's own commentaries.

Rothko was indisputably a self-important and pretentious interpreter of his own work. His rantings properly ignored, his work stands on its own and has a peculiar ability to work on the imagination. 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.