Posted on 03/07/2003 7:23:46 AM PST by vannrox
If we are looking today for a general level of art of serious purpose, art with profound content supported by significant aesthetics, we will not find it. Contemporary art has failed. If we are satisfied with superficial, artificial art that manipulates aesthetics for empty abstract, decorative effects, then we truly live in a "golden" artistic age ... for this kind of art is everywhere.
|
While it is the glowing, ovoid areas of color that the eye first embraces in a typical Rothko, it is useful to become aware of how they are contextualized with often dramatically emphasized horizons -- and borders. These divisions are mostly two, often three (occasionally more). They define a horizon gestalt between the areas of color; the borders the peripheral limitation of our normal view of any horizon. We thus float at the center of a prospect that falls out as below us, before us and above us -- the artist leaving us to our own associations, but determining within his formal structures, the extent of the world he wants those associations to inhabit. (Here the structure of the works of the early 1940s is crucial -- for they remain latent after 1950.) Thus, Rothko's tripartite and quadripartite compositions present a radical abstraction of the planet in cross-section from below the viewer's feet up, the internal light of that world provides it welcoming warmth or abject negation, as befits the artist's moods. At the end of his life, the last, sad, bipartite images (MRCR 814-831), leave us with a single horizon between the black of space and the earth's lithic interior -- all place of human grace on the surface under the sun having slipped away from his despairing reach.
Imagine if you were the artist, and you read this about a painting that took you all of an hour to paint, including the time it took to scrape off a few colors and try different ones. And then the painting, because of the write-up in Art Forum or wherever, sells for $100,000. What would you do? Paint more of them, naturally!
In my opinion, it was not despair but boredom which drove Rothko to kill himself.
I've posted this before, but a short story I used to tell students in my cartooning class:
"How many of you have heard of Picasso's painting, 'Guernica'? (usually not one hand goes up). This is considered one of the most important fine arts paintings of the twentieth century. It is a huge mural depicting the destruction of the town Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. It's painted totally in black and white. When Picasso was asked why, he said, 'because there is no color in a bomb blast.'"
I then ask them, "How many of you remember when Bambi's mother died?"
I believe this story is relevent because it indicates how irrelevent most "fine" art produced since around 1915 is to the general public. I recommend Thomas Wolfe's book, The Painted Word.
As a fine arts major back in the 70's, I would first state that my fine arts background taught me how to think outside the box, and to seek unique solutions to problems. However, politically, I simply cannot function in a fine arts environment. I tend to be a redneck, and do the work I like. As far as my tastes go, I like David Smith (the old steel sculptor), Kaye Nielson, Frank Frazetta, Norman Rockwell, Duane Hanson, Margaret Bourke-White, Hellenistic Greek sculpture, N. C. Wyeth, and in modern photography, the works of Vincent LaForet.
I started doing painting, then moved to sculpture, and now do exclusively digital photography. Here's one of my photos:
If anyone's interested, I have more posted here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.