[atlaw]

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.

And I thought I was perfectly clear. Rothko's work needs no commentary, from Rothko or anyone else, to be fully appreciated.

Your personal lack of imaginative capacity does not translate to "failed art." Most people experience imaginative triggers in the tangible world in much the same way that Rothko's work triggers the imagination, by simply experiencing the subtle color variations that predominate over identifiable objects when viewing a vast sky, a dusky horizon, the ocean, trailing forests, earth-scapes viewed from an airplane window, or the depths of space through a telescope.

Scale representations of tangible objects are not the only thing capable of eliciting emotion, captivating the eye, or triggering contemplation and imagination.

[beezdotcom]

Your personal lack of imaginative capacity does not translate to "failed art."

True - but the converse is also true. Any little stimulus that triggers someone's prolific capacity for imagination does not automatically qualify the producer of said stimulus as 'an artist'.

That is not to neccessarily deny Rothko this title - but simply to say that the title demands more than this one criteria.

[prion]

Your personal lack of imaginative capacity does not translate to "failed art."

Nor does being emotionally labile translate to artistic insight.

Many visual experiences — particularly those on a large scale — evoke an emotional response (but I hardly have to add that not all impressive visual experiences are art). It's no mistake that so many abstract painters work on a gigantic scale; scale all by itself is visually stimulating.

After that, an angsty personal biography is a must.