[Drawsing]

I am an artist. I make my living designing logos and doing commercial illustration, website design and watercolor paintings. When I design a logo for a customer, I usually give them two or three choices and include some text beside each choice explaining how the elements and colors relate to their business. I have found that this verbiage is very helpful in selling the design and giving the customer a warm feeling about it. I am also well aware of the abstract "skeleton" that underlies all good design in my watercolors and other art.

All of the above is said to establish that I recognize the need for words and the legitimacy of the abstract. However, there is a line that I believe Rothko and many others have crossed. 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.

[Skooz]

However, there is a line that I believe Rothko and many others have crossed. That line is where the words supporting the art are more important than the art itself.

Bingo.

[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.

[Ditter]

Well said! I remember an old saying from art school. "If you can't make it good, make it big. If you can't make it big make it red." Apparently Rothko decided to make it big and red.