Simon Schama's Power of Art - Rothko, part 7 of 7

[liftshaulscooks]

Thank-you.

[571jans]

If I could get millions for painting squares...*sigh* He may have killed himself knowing the money he swindled people out of with this crap. It's more than a little outrageous that such flippant paintings should be so much, or that someone might pretend to get so much from so little.

[runemrick]

I never really liked modernism.

I looked at Pollock and dismissed him . After that I stopped looking. I dismissed it all.

Probably I was like many young people; it just seemed stupid.

There's something about these; the longer I look the more I like them.

It is like starring at a bricked up window. The bricks trap you, but you’re pulled into a kind of space within them. A nether world of the dim and indistinct.

A part of us is in there, waiting with a cleaver or to welcome us home. I'm not sure.

[thebloads]

Schama uses such religious descriptions! He describes Rothko's angst and anxieties (stations of the cross?) , his rejection of wealth and the esteem of his peers (the temptation of Jesus?) . Then goes on to treat Rothko like a transcendent timeless thing not for the initiated. (the death and ressurection?) Is this quasi-religious charlatanism? You decide.

[thebloads]

If you have to go through a whole episode of narrative and allusions to his struggles and difficulties merely to justify the painting, then it obviously can stand little on its own. What if i told you that my daughter accidentally drew it? Would it be worth all the sweat and tears and intellectualisation that Schama put in?

[Gilbertoyaya]

Well is'nt this wonderful?

[IETCHX69]

I'm callin' b(_)llsh!t on the whole Rothko thing. Boring, mostly,... pretencious, definitly

[jimromemustdie]

this and a series by michael wood have made me appreciate art more than i ever thought i could.i've always loved writing, music, & live performance, but this series was my first exposure to understanding, & truly enjoying art of this nature.

rothko's thoughts on art were amazingly accurate & even provided me some enlightenment on a subject i've thought deeply about for nearly a decade(the purpose for creating art).

all this said, i feel awful; because i can't seem to understand rothko's work

[JeffersonDinedAlone]

@jimromemustdie There is no "art" of this nature.

[YahwehAllahJehova]

BBC HAVENT GOT THE FOGGIEST/PEOPLE LIKE ROTHKO SEPERATE ART And life to the point of disastrous consequences.rothko didnt have the courage to create a new reality...but he had all the tools to destroy the modern masters by eclipsing genesis to exodus with simplicity...and so he did! in a painstaking manner..canvass and paint is dead now!

[Whatever3114]

A beautiful documentary by the BBC on Mark Rothko. Great work of Simon Schama in giving it life and the phrases by Rothko are the pure deepest truth

[AmorettiFeather]

Thanks for putting this! I had to watch it for homework purpouses but I enjoyed it a lot!

[awakened2ug]

I really like the different viewpoints posted with the result that art is not a consensus, but what really intrigues me about Rothko is his ability to create a visual picture in which the viewers infuse their own meaning and interpretation into what they are seeing. The shapes and blocks of color are simple with no overarcheing meaning allowing the individual to transpose their own personal present emotions, thoughts and experiences into them.

[benalbanach]

Surely a lot of pearls cast before swine here.

[SCORNDOGGMELACH]

@benalbanach Yes and surely flakery is in no slim supply while masses of art enthusiast attempt to deem themselves as sophisticated by proximity. Its o.K. to debate and there is no reason to assume that one needs to simply lap up every interpretation served by one of renowned. But maybe my position as a painter has tainted my approach to such matters. You see them all the time in the galleries. Self inflated spiders that are referred to as butterflies. Snooty & unstable. When they (contabove)

[SCORNDOGGMELACH]

@benalbanach are not chasing after thier genitals into some fruitless and vain love affair they are busy tickling themselves with the idea that they are some how baring the burden of some great intellect in a sea of otherwise uneducated morons.Its a joke, but hey someone has to write my cheques. This personality Im discussing here is not Simon.I have always enjoyed his work, but that doesnt measn Im just going to assume eveything he says is some sort of absolute last word. Im sure he'd agree.

[SCORNDOGGMELACH]

3:30 Ive always found it upsetting when people try to form images out of abstractions. They start trying to find images in paintings that were made to negate forms. "Oh it looks like this or I think its a 'that.'" Wrong , No , Already failed. I find it even more upsetting because I respect and enjoy Simons films. I found it painful and bewildering that he lent himself towards this kind of thinking. But then again no one said that we were expected to agree with everything the historian says.

[conasmanam]

@SCORNDOGGMELACH Why does it feel upsetting for an individual to try to access something in an artists work? All any of us have to say about an artists work is what we see in it. That's all we have Doggmaestro, subjectivity. Unless he left a post it that said 'Oh yeah, I totally negated those forms be-atch.' Thus I am afraid I have to query your self certainty. Don't get upset. I still love you.

[SCORNDOGGMELACH]

@conasmanam Fair enough. Its good to be loved, but frusterating to be misunderstood. Im sorry but I have to admit I found Simons comment surprising. But maybe that was my own fault as I just assumed that he would take a more Greenburg approach to abstract painting. Besides who said we were supposed to agree on everything anyway. That would just be boring. (giggles) By the way, love is a strong word.Do you speak from a knowledge of anything Ive posted in the past or was this a general statement?

[artgal28]

very moving. excellent interpretation.

[adrianmh1919]

Oh please stop discussing/fighting/talking/wr­iting about art and go make some!

[SCORNDOGGMELACH]

@adrianmh1919 LADIES & GENTLEMEN WE HAVE A BINGO!

[myloverisbillmurray]

@doctorpapaya art isnt there to make you feel good about the capacity of human skill, or the strenght of human made beauty, it is there to make you feel...period. I cant make you feel anything looking at them. But, knowing what you now know about Rothko's search for 'pockets of silence', cant you even entertain the idea that those murals show as much pain, as much lonliness and as much cruelty but also as much hope and passion as any of the great masters? Rothko wasnt a cinic, why should you be?

[myloverisbillmurray]

@doctorpapaya if you do not accept that this is art then you cant be helped. if you do accept that in the very least this is art then you are allowed to profess that it is bad art. However, I would aduce that these are raw, flat, pain. Rothko's pain and confusion bleeds into every smudged crevice of the seagram murals, it is utterly human, it is emotion, rather than meer ornamentalism.

[Akkkico]

Rothko's painting has a different energy. I felt like I was watching a spaceship.

I heard so many sounds when I stood in front of his painting. Then I thought " I am just watching a red painting... Where does such an experience come from from something as simple as this?"

[thebloads]

@Akkkico Its coming from the price tag.

[1119d]

Do you know the music in the background?

[Trund27]

Beautiful. Poignant. Let the doubters doubt, and call it pretensious. I see a vibrant mind at work.

[elvishitler]

i think the ending sum up on the seagram works is the most poignant of the series. it's a crime that america lost these works just because the four searons didn't have cheap chinese take out on their menu so rothko could order out.

[nookie077]

The only thing I'll take from this is how gay Simon Scharma looked in the 70's.

[elvishitler]

@nookie077 maybe because he is a fag in real life?

[InfinateBioKlaxons00]

i can only dream to be half as talented as rothko is

[shysterlicious]

I can appreciate SOME of his works, but only after they have been explained to me. A sign that his art doesn't have the impact on me that it did on him. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone admires his art as much as he did.

[ninuxy]

@shysterlicios It takes a mind that embraces tranquility, a mind that "feels" to understand Rothko's work. As Simon culminated the series, you have to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life and let your conscious works its way through the colors and then in one excellent moment, tears will stream down your face. If you have an erratic, labile mind, you can never conceive such awareness. No wonder for those art analysts who do, they put a price of $80 million on Rothko's painting.

[trinitaterion]

@ninuxy

you should write about modern art in magazines, thanks to words like that ppl buys that crap. (i do like rothko, but dont love him) i think the realm of higher conciousness looks much much diferent than a rothko painting.

[ninuxy]

@trinitaterion Personally, I won't pay in 10's of millions for his work even though I admire his art, because it has had a profound effect on me.

But then again, it's an one and only, and he conveys above and beyond with his art. So, I won't be surprised that there are people out there who would pay such hefty amount.

People who pander to their intellectual torpor are the ones labeling such work as "crap." Again, different art has different impression on different people. YMMV.

[trinitaterion]

@ninuxy i see the 80million price on his paintings as a VERY clever conspiracy, just like religions do with people. Built yourself an army o"art experts" and they will brainwash the rich.

[MyTreeHatesYou]

Rothko Was Truly An Amazing Artist. 

[ghordan]

@kittykgirl A fool once said, "I understand."

Perhaps, if you relinquish the grasp of racism, you might be surprise how his paintings would tickle your conscious after gazing in to its canvass for only 5 minutes.

[badlybruisedbob]

great documentary. thanks for uploading. regards bob

[Tsuppi]

<3

I think Schama hit the right notes with this one.

[masterfeatherpen]

"this isn't about now, this is about forever."

Yes. Abstract expressionism seems to be the last stand of real art. The real shown in the light of the ideal. A religious transportation. Something infinite beyond the slices of reality in pop art. Would that those great minds still lived and were respected.

[danbit5]

i have to thank simon and bbc for this show,and how they expressed it i never heard of rothko but had a beer in my hand one night my eyes like well up,kinda a story in every picture for each individual id say,that painting pink simon said was a gateway,went pink black and beyond,i had tears in my eyes

[svkartisbest]

comings and goings... systematic dimming... bravo

[Cyrilthemonkey]

beautiful

[MrPenetrator3]

my lil sis could draw a rectangle .i dont like it

[nosferatu5]

"look at this veil, what do you see?... wait dont answer, im gonna tell you what you might see and what you should feel."

Rothko is good. But this documentary tries to sell its own interpretations of the artist, it doesnt want you to have an opinion. Thats what bothers me.

[gamma235]

@nosferatu5 haha. I thought the same things nosferatu. But you know how these documentaries are. They try to dramatize the paintings for people who generally wouldn't be willing to think for themselves. I don't think he did too bad of a job, but I also have my own diverging views about Rothko and his paintings. Either way, Rothko is a great painter to consider and study.

[skinphoto1]

@nosferatu5 . It's not selling any interpretation, it IS Simon Schama's interpretation. These are his words and his views and like most good documentaries are completely subjective. I'd much rather have this than a run of the mill dry historical film.

[D4Shawn]

Rothko was the greatest satirist since Andy Kaufman, and this is the greatest mockumentary since This is Spinal Tap.

[slye1991]

@D4Shawn youre a real douche bag you know that right

[Marenqo]

@D4Shawn yawn

[D4Shawn]

Is it true that if you touch a Rothko painting, you'll have a spontaneous orgasm?

[trufiend138]

i like rothko alot but he is not even top 20 of most impressive artists...as far the us of the color field he wasnt even the first to use those shapes and colors on canvas, he however made it his hallmark and expanded on the concept.

[D4Shawn]

I'm pretty sure he invented the rectangle.

[Jefferdaughter]

@D4Shawn - yeah, right after Mondrian...

[rimbaudleo]

@D4Shawn I would rather say he reinvented it

[ConradSly]

These paintings are not about shapes and colors as much as they are about introversion. "Womb, tomb, and everything between."

[zipkid1973]

To those who feel like they flat out don't like Rothko, my only persuasive argument is this: view his works in person. For this type of Art, a computer monitor, TV screen, photo, etc. do not come close to doing it justice. To "feel the eons rolling by..." you must be in the work's presence. I felt so consumed by the dark panels that I can easily relate to Schama's comments. NO other Art by ANYONE has ever given me such a wondrous transcendent feeling.

[myloverisbillmurray]

a beautiful documentary. I was so suprised, to find just how much i came to love something that had earstwhile baffled me. it was the composition of the film, and to have simon schama hold my hand throughout...well i am now a comitted rothko fan.. his work is beautiful, i just wish i could have had the presance of mind, to find that without schamas help... at least i got there though.

[Tneal80]

Schama's comments (along with the acting) are more interesting than the paintings. I may not be as enlightend as some but I prefer art that stands brilliantly on its own without the oversold back story. I wonder if he was in the joke.

[himkdm]

I think Rothko's quote earlier in the documentary hit the nail on the head. It's all just "tons of verbiage". This art is for the art critic. It doesn't stand alone. One has to comment on it- love or hate. That may mean it's remarkable, it doesn't make sublime to look at. It means it's easy to write an article about. Put me down for the 'hate it' category.

[morphybum]

May I urge anyone interested in Rothko to try to get to see John Logan's excellent play 'Red' running at the Donmar at present. both sides of the debate are put...

[painxtreme]

chizulch4, are you yourself an artist?

[chizulch4]

I paint, make short films, install exhibitions, and visit galleries abroad (I'm from Ireland). I'm totally unknown outside the small city I live in. Simon Schama's "The Power of Art" was fine until the final episode where his critical faculties dissolved when confronted with Rothko canvases that are, in my opinion (having visited them in the Tate) aesthetically dead. Shama's final sentences in particular are just toe-curlingly embarrasing. What's your take on abstract expressionism?

[morphybum]

@chizulch4 I think Schama's final words are very brave in a world in which facetiousness or artspeak bollocks hold reign. He is doing his best to emphasize the seriousness of Rothko's art, a seriousness the modern world, obsessed with the political and the pop, seems embarrassed by.

[chizulch4]

I don't know what the phrase "the seriousness of Rothko's art" means. In my opinion colour-field paintings are about colour, period. They are not serious, humourous, erotic, political, surrealist, or expressionist. They're just fields of...you know...colour! How can anyone possibly attribute a deeper meaning to those canvases anymore than they can to a bath towel, or a kitchen wall painted a particularly nice shade of yellow? Rothko may have considered them "serious". We don't have to.

[painxtreme]

I have to agree Schama didn't need the 7 segments on here to tell the Rothko story. I have to in some way guess that rothko had some real feelings attached to his canvases. I definitely do not understand using an old Master's technique like Rabbit Glue, then painting a big red block on it, thats like taking 20 yr old bourbon and mixing it with cola.

Abstract Expressionism...this will likely bleed into a 2nd post, but as and Art History Professor, I should answer my best.....continued....

[painxtreme]

Abstract Expressionism has a real difficulty in sticking to its definition, which I, in some ways take it to mean some Artists of the movement, particularly early on had a real problem in sticking to the edict of AE being without form or reference. Look at De Kooning or Jane Frank, and you see as much plain abstraction or even cubism, rather than the formless fields of "intentional" color the genré claims.

My own opinion of true AE is mixed..cont.

[painxtreme]

I can see a Rothko, or his like really laying their emotions bare with the attack on the canvas. I could see having a swell of emotion and just letting loose on a canvas without giving thought to any form or anything else. I suppose if someone views a Rothko, and feels some similar emotion (usually filling the gaps with their own feelings) thus producing what may very well be a real connection.

On the other hand, most AE. Opinion wise, its the art of intentional accidents. cont again.

[painxtreme]

I have seen so many AE paintings I would be embarassed to give as a gift, let alone submit for a Gallery Show. Last January in Paris, at the Pompidou, I walked into a room, and one wall had 3 canvases in a row, around 4'x4', all perfect gesso white. Who gets to do that? I would have to have a huge catalog of known, loved pieces before I would have the gall to submit 3 blank, square canvases. I can see crying at those, when so many wonderful artists don't get a 2nd look, continued, last time

[painxtreme]

So, a guy can submit something you could forge just by buying 3 4'x4' canvases. I find that amazing, and just pathetic. I have sometimes been timid about putting final details in a painting, but Ive never once stood before a blank canvas on my easel and said, "Yeah, that's it...done!"

I like to think as an Artist and Educator that I have a wide pallet of interests and tastes. Some Art does take some flexibility of taste. Paul Klee was one that took awhile to appreciate, but AE is a mixed bag.

[chizulch4]

I'm from Ireland. There is an Irish artist named Sean Shanahan (based in Italy) who paints blank paintings. By that I mean his work consists of one single flat colour on a wooden panel. All he does is pick a different colour for each work. His works have been displayed in prominent Dublin galleries including the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery. There has never been a negative review of his work from any gallery dealer of critic. To me, this signifies something rotten in the art world.

[zthetha]

chizulch4 - Rothko couldn't paint like say Vermmer but - from my point of view - continued the Impressionist/Expressionist/Cu­bist notions of art that dominated the C20th - together with Beat ideas about Zen to their logical conclusion: that painting was actually about paint. We all respond differently to colour and for some Rothko works exceptionally well - regardless of the fact that the Abstract Expressionists were actually promoted by the CIA. It was typical of its time which is now passed.

[chizulch4]

Surely the point is that if you just want to "respond to colour" you should visit a decorating store and leaf through their paint catalogues. I'm interested in works of art that are actually about something.

[sikoo31]

the music has a lot to do with this video, without it, it just wouln't be the same.

[zthetha]

Schama... you really are very good... and very daring to feature on the small screen works that only work in real life. Rothko certainly knew how to wop it on and exploit colour to the max - so much so that there is not much left for the rest of us to paint now. Seems he took the ultimate from the womb of art and in extremis laid it to rest in its tomb. Game, set and match Marky baby... which leaves us wondering what are we gonna do now?

[chizulch4]

Hi zthetha, you are joking, surely? The idea that Rothko exploited colour to the max is just not borne out by the actual works when one sees them in real life. If it wasn't for the corrupt "critic" Clement Greenberg - who promoted abstract expressionism to rich New Yorkers (knowing that it would raise the prices of his own collection) nobody would give a damn about these boring paintings. Once installed in famous art institutions they acquire an aura of importance that impresses the gullible.

[danbit5]

gets me in the tears that guy i never knew rohko,think its simons fault but a great program not knocking anyone chill

[swann62]

Did anyone else notice that all of the works were hung upside down? Jeez! What a bunch of dolts! That's why Schama could'nt figure out if they were saying come in or get out!

[bagoona]

She was cute in 1970

[svpavlov]

5:27

[racsonam]

Bullshit

[howcynicalofme]

His words are powerful. His work, on the other hand, doesn't have any power.

[grantcanada1]

thankyou, naughtycopycat, I've been wanting to get to this for a while, what a huge surprise, although I really enjoye "A History..." so I should have suspected this grand quality of work.....and I love the "1970 Simon", what a laugh!!

[GaryWisePhotography]

Sublime and true.

[goodeye2007]

Schama's narration fits perfectly with Rothko's view of art; both are brilliantly vacuous. My salute to Schama as the best "Toohey" in real life (cf. The Fountainhead).

[aliengapingvag]

it figures that someone who can't understand rothko is an ayn rand devotee...

[goodeye2007]

It is remarkable that you became defensive when I pointed out that the emperor has no clothes.

[chizulch4]

There is nothing to "understand" in Rothko's works. They were painted by an arrogant, depressed, solipsistic twat. Now if that's what he wanted to do, fair enough. But the tragedy is that art institutions have bought into the notion that there is something "deep" or "spiritual" in his work. It is a classic case of the emperor's new clothes. Once big money changes hands, it seems, the work is considered too "important" to criticise. And we're left with the hilarious ramblings of Schama.

[rader55555]

This is the sentiment of someone who completely discounts anyone's interpretation but their own. The fact is that people wept because they didn't know that if you put yourself 12 inches from a giant color field and let your mind wander you could actually weep. His works are a catalyst for the profound, no other artist touched that, and as much as you want to discount the movements of others, this really does happen, and no one else knew it could but him--that's what made him great.

[chizulch4]

Oh, come on! It really is time to nail this hoary old myth that people weep in front of Rothko paintings. I mean - did you ever actually see anyone weeping? I have seen Rothkos in museums in many parts of the world and never, ever encountered anyone weeping in front of them. You are a perfect example of someone who has swollowed the Rothko propaganda generated by galleries and art dealers in order to sell the stuff in the 1960s.

[rader55555]

Wow that's quite a logical fallacy you got there: If I didn't see it, it must not have happened. You'll find several personal accounts of various desires to clap, cry, etc,. in "Pictures & tears: a history of people who have cried in front of paintings" by James Elkins. Elkins, a historian, has been interviewed during his research and states that "more crying has been done in front of Rothko's paintings than before any 20th century artist." (citation available)

[chizulch4]

Granted, I can't discount the possibility that someone has cried in front of a Rothko. But has Mr Elkins or yourself ever actually seen someone crying before a Rothko? Or are you just taking his (and their) word for it? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. More importantly, were the interviewees exclusively Western Europeans who had previously read about the so-called emotional power of Rothko? A proper study would require viewers with no prior knowledge of the subject.

[itsaaronspencer]

@chizulch4 How is someone crying in front of a Rothko painting an extraordinary claim? I've stood in front of them and felt extreme emotion, my eyes have even watered. and I'm not the most emotional person in the world. I think it would really depend on how well you connect to the work and how sensitive you are to emotion.

[chizulch4]

Here's a bit of wisdom about human beings which might be helpful to you: All human beings are "sensitive to emotion" (with the exception of a minority of sociopaths). Think about it: Rothko's paintings are just colour. Nothing else. No subject, no insight into any aspect of humanity or the world. I'm not saying that colour isn't important or that it can't give pleasure. But I believe one can get the same pleasure from any colour anywhere: the sky, a door, whatever. No need for boring Rothko.

[shane6003PQ]

If things like color, and absence of excessive details mean i can't be considered "serious" art, then what was and is the minimalist movement of the 20th and 21st century? Absence sometimes is abundance.

Also, if anything Sociopaths are more sporadic to their own emotions. Things like Rage (an emotion), and pleasure seeking (a wanted satisfaction of all people in various forms that direct affect our emotions) define Sociopaths. Irregularities to the way they deal with emotion define them.

[itsaaronspencer]

I can see why would would feel that way, that it is nothing but color. The truth is, someone CAN get the same pleasure from the sky, a door, whatever. It's a matter of perspective, perspective is what makes art, art.. Your attention is focused when you are in front of a large painting like his. It isn't as common in nature that we focus our attention that closely on something. If you are looking at it as just color and not trying to feel anything, then you aren't going to.

[chizulch4]

"It isn't as common in nature that we focus our attention that closely on something."

I disagree. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can focus intensely on things I see in nature. Rembrandt, Hockney, Magritte, Raphael provide me with experiences I can't get from nature alone. Rothko just gives me a colour. Of course that is an experience, but one a lot less interesting than that provided by the aforementioned artists who actually had skill and ideas. Unlike Rothko.

[graphichic]

With your line of thinking, there's no need for any art. Although I think Andy Warhol did say that looking at nature is better than any painting could ever be. And just for the record, Rothko's paintings are not just color. That shows a lack of understanding of the elements of line, form, balance, unity, etc., not to mention how color behaves as with the push and pull and movement in space on a flat surface. Anyhoo, to each their own.

[chizulch4]

You can see elements of line, form, balance, and unity in any painting, good or bad. Rothko's just happen to be particularly bad, dull, and dreary.

For the record, I don't believe nature is better than art or art better than nature.

[graphichic]

I meant to say that you are ignorant. I was just trying to be nice about it.

[chizulch4]

The late , great (well, i think he's great anyway) artist Francis Bacon is on record as saying that he found Rothko's work to be "dreary". Was Bacon ignorant also, just because he didn't love Rothko?

In a radio interview some years ago Rothko's son revealed that his father was never impressed by the work of Michaelangelo. Would you say he (Rothko) was being "ignorant" for having that opinion?

[graphichic]

No, I mean you were ignorant when you said Rothko's work just gives you a color and that Rothko doesn't have skill or idea. You may not like his work, but there is skill and idea in the work.

I think you just like to play devil's advocate.

[chizulch4]

No. I'm not playing devil's advocate. Rothko's paintings really are just colour. The only "idea" he has is to paint the colour. If you can discern other ideas please tell me what they are.

Skill? Go on... tell me how skillfull he was at applying layers of paint so that his paintings radiated with a mystical luminosity. Trot out the old cliches first written by the corrupt "critic" Clement Greenberg so as to flog the stuff to rich New Yorkers who wanted to "invest" in art. It's embarrassing.

[dreamrecorder]

DANIEL GIORGETTI

[dreamrecorder]

What is the piece of music towards the end. 03:00 onwards..... Beautiful piece. Anyone know by who piece of music?

[dragonfly686868]

wow, what powerful words schama had - and the music. amazing.

i've seen rothko's paintings in person and i love and respect his work tremendously. but according to art history books and written text about rothko's work, we were told that his paintings are suppose to make us feel transcendent, that they evoke feelings of eternity. but how do you define that visually? when you see sth you're bound to feel something.

ok - this is by no means degrading the paintings. i'm just questioning...

[loveupskirts]

i definatly need to see rothko hanging..not just in a book where it has no power

[chandru1103]

my spine tingles...there is something primeval about them.

[seattletaytay]

it's an exemplary documentary. You realize the full weight of Rothko's life and the passion of his work. It's so moving, lovely.

[kakophonia44]

That's amazing, I've been to Tate Modern just once and without previous experience of Mark Rothko's art. But the only works of art that I can remember after this visit are his canvas. I can still feel this amusement, impossible to express with words... The most unique, dearest Mark Rothko. Who could put his art into words better than Simon Schama?

naughtycopycat, thank you so much for posting this video.

[jakeypeee]

Schama really is an amazing linguist, the way he can make such sense from Rothko. After visiting the Tate, I could really see what angle he is coming from in his writing, an impossibly beautiful conclusion from 5.28, truly inspirational.

[chizulch4]

"After visiting the Tate, I could really see what angle he is coming from in his writing"

Why can't you make up your own mind about the paintings rather than be lead by the nose by an "art critic"? If you saw a Rothko painted on the back of a barn door you'd pass it by without a second thought because it's just boring colour-field paintwork. Only when it's in the Tate and praised by Schama do you think it's important.

[FaerieofTwilight]

So moving. I love it. I love it. I love it.

[andreatattoni]

yesterday, today, tomorrow.

tank you Mark.

[alphonse9757]

It all sounds really great coreographed with the loveliest music. A some what under-dog story to help you look deeper and understand why Rothko painted like he did. But when you take away the music, the man and his beautiful words and you left standing in front of a painting that's less on technique and even lesser on beauty. You remeber why you hated Rothko to begin with. Love the guy talking but Rothko still sucks.

[oitchy]

Rothko "sucks" only in your inarticulate opinion. What have you given the world...?

...Quite.

[peterhinton]

Schama's narration is so incredibly moving. I never thought it possible to think of colours and shapes in this way. Now, I can't think of them in any other way.

[nookie077]

"And what if you feel nothing in front of his canvases? Well, that's not nothing because to feel nothing is one of the strongest feelings you can have." (comment from rothko fan.) WTF!

I'm glad i'm not one of them.

[kurackurackurac]

Dtobin123, you bastard! I'm all green! Waaaaah!

[dtobin123]

Living next to the Rothko Chapel is the only really good thing about living in Houston.

[dolphineclipse]

thanks for this :)

[juicebox29]

Schama is truly amazing. I never thought of Rothko as particularly noteworthy before this program, but I am left truly in awe. Bravo, bravo. And to think I nearly missed out on the experience of Rothko's work!

Thanks so much for posting these!

[AgnesShadbolt]

Thanks so much for posting naughtycopycat

Kind Regards

London Artist: Stuart Ridley

[emochuu]

Man I started watching this episode fully quite apathetic towards Rothko, he never seemed to have the energy or emotion of Pollock, but now...crimeny! Simon Schama pwns. Wish he was my art history tutor.

[bripich101]

I feel the same way! I had thought Rothko's art was insipid and superficial but after this spellbinding documentary I would say I am a Rothko convert. Thank you so much for uploading this naughtycopycat!!

[stolenbliss]

I had always been a fan of color field abstraction, but it had never been one of my favorite styles. This documentary showed me how much feeling goes into something so simple...and actually, how much more complex they are than a Dali surrealist piece of a Picasso cubism work.

I third this uploading.

[Trund27]

@emochuu Totally

[PontNeuf111]

5:30 onwards inspired me. Simple as that.

[rosso1000]

Thanks so much for the doc. It was amazing. I love his work. WHAT HAPPENED TO PART 4 OR DID YOU NUMBER THEM INCORECTLY?