Emperor's new clothes or a masterpiece?

[Clitheroekid]

I don't consider myself a Philistine when it comes to modern art, and I actively enjoy a lot of it, such as this painting by Richard Dieberkorn - https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction ... ?locale=en (though not to the extent of paying $27m for it!)

But looking through the results of another Sotheby's auction I came across this by Mark Rothko - https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction ... ?locale=en which sold for a mere $5.5m.

I've looked at it for a while, trying to see something in it, but I'm left entirely cold. To my eyes it has no artistic merit at all.

It's not that I just dislike Rothko and the abstract expressionists generally. On the contrary, I think some of his paintings are brilliant, such as this one - https://artisticjunkie.com/wp-content/u ... inting.jpg

But reading the bumf from Sotheby's it seems clear that the painting is highly thought of by those in the trade, so I'd be interested to know whether other Fools can see something I can't. My gut feeling is that Rothko just had a bad day, but because it was painted by him it's automatically considered a masterpiece, and will be bought by someone who may be quite indifferent to it as a work of art but is highly conscious of its investment potential. I suspect that if it had been brought into Sotheby's as the product of an unknown artist it would have been consigned fairly quickly to the bin!

But is it just a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder? Contrary views welcome!

[staffordian]

Guessing you'll love David Hockney's newly comissioned artwork for London's Tube...

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 46196.html

[AleisterCrowley]

Hockney's capable of some great art - I love his later landscape stuff featuring the Yorkshire Wolds

[staffordian]

Hockney's capable of some great art - I love his later landscape stuff featuring the Yorkshire Wolds

Agreed. Operative phrase in this context being capable of, IMHO

[Mike4]

As Grayson Perry said about contemporary art in one of his Reith lectures, "You don't have to like it all".

Or rather, he was quoting Alan Bennett.

"Alan Bennett said when he was a trustee of the National Gallery, they should put a big sign up outside saying: “You don’t have to like it all.” "

https://www.ft.com/content/c37b1b6a-301 ... 144feab7de

[Itsallaguess]

But looking through the results of another Sotheby's auction I came across this by Mark Rothko - https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction ... ?locale=en which sold for a mere $5.5m.

I've looked at it for a while, trying to see something in it, but I'm left entirely cold. To my eyes it has no artistic merit at all.

It's not that I just dislike Rothko and the abstract expressionists generally.

On the contrary, I think some of his paintings are brilliant, such as this one - https://artisticjunkie.com/wp-content/u ... inting.jpg

But is it just a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder?

I think it must surely be in the eye of the beholder, because I've got to say that I don't see any more artistic merit in the one you actually like!

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Mike4]

But looking through the results of another Sotheby's auction I came across this by Mark Rothko - https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction ... ?locale=en which sold for a mere $5.5m.

I've looked at it for a while, trying to see something in it, but I'm left entirely cold. To my eyes it has no artistic merit at all.

It's not that I just dislike Rothko and the abstract expressionists generally.

On the contrary, I think some of his paintings are brilliant, such as this one - https://artisticjunkie.com/wp-content/u ... inting.jpg

But is it just a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder?

I think it must surely be in the eye of the beholder, because I've got to say that I don't see any more artistic merit in the one you actually like!

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Well Grayson Perry addresses this exact point in the link I posted.

"Who decides what makes art good?"

Basically, if enough people say it is good, then it is!

[gryffron]

I think your 8 year old is very creative.

Erm, those pictures are all the work of 8 year olds, right?

[mc2fool]

But looking through the results of another Sotheby's auction I came across this by Mark Rothko - https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction ... ?locale=en which sold for a mere $5.5m.

I've looked at it for a while, trying to see something in it, but I'm left entirely cold. To my eyes it has no artistic merit at all.

It looks much the same as his Seagram murals which for many years were in Tate Modern and apparently will now be in Tate Britain's Turner wing. https://www.tate.org.uk/visit/tate-britain/display/turner-collection/mark-rothko-seagram-murals.

I dunno if you ever went to the Rothko room in Tate Modern, I've been and sat in it for a few minutes a couple of times trying to understand the sense of awe and reverence visitors in there seemed to have but, like you, I always left puzzled. One guy did have a go at trying to improve one of them though (not while I was there). https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/dec/13/mark-rothko-vandal-jailed

[redsturgeon]

I'm not a huge fan of Rothko but one thing I would say is that is is not possible to fairly judge his work by looking a a photo of it reproduced on a screen at about 2 inches wide.

What I have noticed is that the more you know about a painter and the more things are explained by an expert, the more you see and the better equipped you are to make a judgement.

On R4 (I forget the actual programme)I have often heard detailed explanations of particular paintings that I have seen before and not appreciated fully and it has brought me a new level of respect and understanding.

Also just this last week I have been listening to the R4 programme on Hans Holbein and can't wait to relook at his work with a new insight.

On a side note I can't wait to visit the London galleries this year in the relative quiet caused by the lack of foreign tourists.


John

[Dod101]

I'm not a huge fan of Rothko but one thing I would say is that is is not possible to fairly judge his work by looking a a photo of it reproduced on a screen at about 2 inches wide.

What I have noticed is that the more you know about a painter and the more things are explained by an expert, the more you see and the better equipped you are to make a judgement.

On R4 (I forget the actual programme)I have often heard detailed explanations of particular paintings that I have seen before and not appreciated fully and it has brought me a new level of respect and understanding.

Also just this last week I have been listening to the R4 programme on Hans Holbein and can't wait to relook at his work with a new insight.

On a side note I can't wait to visit the London galleries this year in the relative quiet caused by the lack of foreign tourists.


John

I have never quite understood this point. If a painting has to be explained in detail I am not sure that is what it should be about to me, anyway. It is a bit like those who attend pre concert talks . I am not knocking them or the idea. Sometimes the context in which something was written helps but to me I think a piece of music or a painting ought to able to stand alone.

Dod

[monabri]

Huh, I'm still waiting for an offer on one of my earlier pieces from my Covid period?

viewtopic.php?p=399743#p399743

I believe it to be an absolute steal. Anyway, must get on, need to start to repaint the kitchen today.

[bungeejumper]

I have a vague recollection that a Rothko was hung upside down for many years, and that nobody noticed. I can't imagine how that could have happened.

I have never quite understood this point. If a painting has to be explained in detail I am not sure that is what it should be about to me, anyway. It is a bit like those who attend pre concert talks . I am not knocking them or the idea. Sometimes the context in which something was written helps but to me I think a piece of music or a painting ought to able to stand alone.

I'm a pretty liberal sort of person, but actually I'd go a bit further than that. If a work of conceptual art isn't communicating itself to me, straight off the wall, then its underlying rationale had better be pretty good or I'm quite likely to walk straight past.

That doesn't mean it isn't art - rather, that it has failed in my particular case. The last thing I (normally) want is to have to read the artist's life history before I even look at a painting, because it's probably a load of bs anyway. (Have you got that, Tracey Emin?)

From my student days in Berlin, I am particularly reminded of Joseph Beuys, who built a large part of his reputation on the painfully autobiographical sculptures he made from grey felt and lard, following the time when his Luftwaffe plane been shot down by the Russians in 1944 - whereupon he had been nurtured by the Tartar peasants who had wrapped him up in the stuff and thereby saved him. Total fantasy, as they discovered after his death. (He'd been in a fatal plane crash, but there had been no gunfire, no Tartars, no fat, no felt - it was all a load of fake news. But heck, it sold a lot of sculptures. ) The big fraudster.

Here's a kinder account, but no less incisive, from the Grauniad: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... seph-beuys . Make what you will of the campervan towing a team of toboggans behind it - I somehow never did get round to reading the biographical notes....

BJ

[scrumpyjack]

I do recall an unfortunate incident in the ‘70s. I was sent for a week to our firm’s New York office. There the senior partner kindly took me round the Whitney Museum – full of Tracy Ermin type stuff even then, including the plain white canvas etc.

At the end he asked me what I thought of it and I said, very interesting but it did rather remind me of the story of the Emperor’s new clothes. His face fell. Back at the office they told me he was a Trustee of the Whitney! Whoops.

I’m not sure public money should be being spent of these things – there are plenty of mega wealthy to support such ‘Art’ and better uses for our taxes.

[Mike4]

The debate reminds me of the claim that Formula One motor racing is dull because all the cars just go around and around the track and who cares if the red one or the blue one wins?

For F1 to have meaning one needs to know who the drivers are, their records, their rivalries, their histories with the various constructor teams, the constructor teams, their histories, who runs them and who works for them, and on it all goes. Then seeing a race begins to make sense, as does all the pre-race qualifying.

Contemporary and conceptual art is rather similar. Yes if a painting or installation means nothing to you that is fine, but it meaning nothing says as much about you as it says about the painting or installation. Also, seeing it in real life is a totally different experience from a video or photo. Same applies to both a painting and an F1 race.

[Gersemi]

The debate reminds me of the claim that Formula One motor racing is dull because all the cars just go around and around the track and who cares if the red one or the blue one wins?

Yes - I do find Formula One motor racing dull!

[BobbyD]

I have a vague recollection that a Rothko was hung upside down for many years, and that nobody noticed. I can't imagine how that could have happened.

Watched 'Made you Look' on Netflix a week or two ago. It's about the New York gallery which was found to have sold $80 million of fakes, including a number of 'Rothkos'.

When one of them was displayed in court as evidence there was a prolonged discussion as to which way up it should be, as 'Rothko intended his paintings to have the smaller/larger rectangle at the top'...

[stevensfo]

I have never quite understood this point. If a painting has to be explained in detail I am not sure that is what it should be about to me, anyway. It is a bit like those who attend pre concert talks . I am not knocking them or the idea. Sometimes the context in which something was written helps but to me I think a piece of music or a painting ought to able to stand alone.

Dod

I tend to agree about art, and have happy memories of wandering around the Tate wondering what the %^#!! some of the things were. There was a scene in Absolutely Fabulous where Edina goes with parasite Patsy on a shopping spree for modern art as an investment, even though she says "It's all b*ll*cks!" then comes home where her dead father is in his coffin. On hearing Edina's words of surprise, Patsy responds, "Yes darling, but is it art?"

Re. music, I think some knowledge of the context is quite important for the post-classical period. Would 'Sheherazade' or Debussy's 'La mer' be appreciated as much if you didn't know what it was all about? Same as Holst's The Planets, I guess.

I still haven't made my mind up about Terry Riley's 'In C', mainly because I never get much beyond five minutes before going quietly insane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNi0bukYRnA

Steve

[Lanark]

You cant judge a Rothko without seeing it in person, in the right light, photographs just don't capture them well.

I was hugely skeptical about Rothko thinking "I could do that" until I saw some in person, theres a lot more going on when you really look at them.

[redsturgeon]

I suppose if one is not interested in the story behind a piece of art then walking around a gallery just becomes a procession of "i like that", I don't like that".

Nothing wrong with that but other ways of looking are available.

John