@youknowImsaying That's a hugely arrogant comment. Art is the most diverse of topics. It speaks to people in so many different ways. You're comment is entirely nonsense. No one person can define art.
@graphichic - It's been said that if one does not understand clearly a thing such as abstract art, one should not critique it. Does this apply equally to the (near mythical) 'rich'? Especially, perhaps, if one has never had the experience of being one?
@Jefferdaughter Who said that? I would never ever tell someone they can or can't critique something or someone, particularly rich people. It's all up for grabs. Get the stick out of your butt.
the point is that Rothko wanted to resist his work becoming just a fashion piece for rich manhattan collectors. His art was about a paradigm shift, its about humanity itself and it should be more than a passing trend.
cannot quite understand "i dont think anybody who would pay that much money to that kind of food would look at my paintings,.." because i remember hearing that rich art collectors of the decade wanted a piece by rothko, and by the statement above he means that filthy rich men are not to appriciate rothko's art, and those two opinions adverse each other
He thought they'd see his paintings as decoration and being fashionable. Rothko always had very strong opinions about how his work was exhibited and it was best viewed on its own. I think he saw their placement there was just to satisfy the customers own pretensions. It would have taken Rothko closer to the likes of 'abstract expression' you find down in Ikea. It would have been a horror to have his best work and, in my opinion, the greatest paintings of the 20th century displayed in a place ...
... which represented a lifestyle that he so strongly disagreed with. Rothko himself said that he was not entirely aware that the paintings were to feature in a restaurant. He thought that they would have been more seperated from the general chaos that is most 'high class' restaurants.
no art here, im sorry
youknowImsaying 1 month ago
@youknowImsaying That's a hugely arrogant comment. Art is the most diverse of topics. It speaks to people in so many different ways. You're comment is entirely nonsense. No one person can define art.
AlphonseHunter93 2 days ago
Rothko is so dull. His work is not stimulating. It is "relaxing".
RayL1983 3 months ago
All that build up about the Seagram's commission and we didnt see it!
danielbalter 7 months ago
@danielbalter They showed them in the beginning.
enlightenedajna 7 months ago
'And the reaction in human terms is the only thing that is really satisfactory to the artist' ... a remarkable series, thank you so much for it!
maple1255 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hired a guy to paint my kitchen that worked like this clown. Sat around smoking and got nothing done.
kittykgirl 1 year ago
@kittykgirl what do you know about anything you stupid cunt?
harshlight7 1 year ago
Horizontal! Wow! That's the greatest innovation since the rectangle!
D4Shawn 2 years ago
"the people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when painting them."
That HAD to have been a joke. Mark Rothko is a gag, right? He's satirizing the art world and it's pretentiousness?
D4Shawn 2 years ago
@D4Shawn Those who cannot do, teach. Those who cannot teach, comment on youtube. Thanks for dragging me under the steaming pile where you live.
Laviedusurrealisme 1 year ago
He was showing them their fate.
lovegarbage 2 years ago 7
It's a paradox that the rich who can afford great works of art use art as a status symbol, or to show off how "cultured" they are.
graphichic 2 years ago 5
@graphichic
you understand ;) +1
Marenqo 1 year ago
@graphichic - It's been said that if one does not understand clearly a thing such as abstract art, one should not critique it. Does this apply equally to the (near mythical) 'rich'? Especially, perhaps, if one has never had the experience of being one?
Jefferdaughter 1 year ago
@Jefferdaughter Who said that? I would never ever tell someone they can or can't critique something or someone, particularly rich people. It's all up for grabs. Get the stick out of your butt.
graphichic 1 year ago
the point is that Rothko wanted to resist his work becoming just a fashion piece for rich manhattan collectors. His art was about a paradigm shift, its about humanity itself and it should be more than a passing trend.
cobbcobb1212 2 years ago 13
cannot quite understand "i dont think anybody who would pay that much money to that kind of food would look at my paintings,.." because i remember hearing that rich art collectors of the decade wanted a piece by rothko, and by the statement above he means that filthy rich men are not to appriciate rothko's art, and those two opinions adverse each other
pakk82 2 years ago
He thought they'd see his paintings as decoration and being fashionable. Rothko always had very strong opinions about how his work was exhibited and it was best viewed on its own. I think he saw their placement there was just to satisfy the customers own pretensions. It would have taken Rothko closer to the likes of 'abstract expression' you find down in Ikea. It would have been a horror to have his best work and, in my opinion, the greatest paintings of the 20th century displayed in a place ...
Colquhouny 2 years ago
... which represented a lifestyle that he so strongly disagreed with. Rothko himself said that he was not entirely aware that the paintings were to feature in a restaurant. He thought that they would have been more seperated from the general chaos that is most 'high class' restaurants.
Colquhouny 2 years ago
thanks for this! do you have the other artists featured in the series too?
quafflematt 3 years ago 8
thanks for uploading power of art: rothko. can't find part 4?
madsinmanila 3 years ago