Fascinating theory though whether Rothko had this in mind is questionable. To me personally his paintings, especially the latter ones (four season murals) appeal directly to something beyond thought and language - the indescribable. I've always thought they were gateways to this rather than any comment on the death of metaphysical signifiers. I spent a few hours in the Tate and the paintings really do pulsate with some otherworldly energy. The colour use, scale, peace and dimness in the room, the frames within the paintings luring you in and brush work all contribute. This period of Rothko's work puts in my mind a zen buddhist term the gateless gate. This is why personally along with the music of Beethoven, films of Bela Tarr I rate this art to be very special. Perhaps in a sense on going through the gateless gate all iconography, concepts, ideas of the mind are dropped anyhow. I suspect though in such a place (if that's what one wants to call it) there would be certainly be no endeavour to replace the signifiers with anything new.
It doesn't matter if Rothko intended to mean any of the stuff the Ebert says. Ebert is showing Rothko's work as exemplary of wider cultural history. Rothko's work is a figure of history up until that point. Ebert's answering the question, 'why is Rothko important?' Also, isn't this stuff about 'the indescribable' the same as 'death of the metaphysical signifier'? I can appreciate the spiritual qualities of Rothko's work, but you make it sound like esoteric romanticism.
I'm glad you noticed that Rothko essentially made a career out of anticipating and reworking the monolith. I believe Kubrick is the greatest artist of the 20th century (certainly the most influential across mediums) and that his work is a Skeleton Key to understanding the emergent trends of the 21st.
Who is the Autor of the Essay you talk about at 3:59, about the west empty centre of being. I would really like to read it but I could not quite figure out the name you said
Super over complicated explanation. Unbearable to listen to actually. Was Rothko really trying to be this philosophical? Or have art snobs created all this insane BS?!
Michael Molino I’m not sure it’s as complicated as you suggest. The language is technical, but once you understand it, it’s very coherent and accurately explains the evolution of art through time. The alternative is to believe that Rothko was painting coloured rectangles for the sake of it.
His paintings are very beautiful in terms of colors and composition, in my opinion. But all these yada yada people extract from the paintings... I think that’s too much over the top. I mean... for someone who never heard of Rothko’s work or his background, can pull this things out spontsneusly? I don’t think so... every text or video praising Rothko’s paintings always comes with context about his history and his thoughts about art: the paintings can’t stand for themselves.
![[FINALE] มีคนคิดแค้นลักพาตัวเด็กไป🔪หญิงชราใช้ชีวิตตัวเองเข้าแลก👩🦳 #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C_BPHPoZFOg/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for sharing your profound knowledge and passion for art!
Fascinating theory though whether Rothko had this in mind is questionable. To me personally his paintings, especially the latter ones (four season murals) appeal directly to something beyond thought and language - the indescribable. I've always thought they were gateways to this rather than any comment on the death of metaphysical signifiers. I spent a few hours in the Tate and the paintings really do pulsate with some otherworldly energy. The colour use, scale, peace and dimness in the room, the frames within the paintings luring you in and brush work all contribute. This period of Rothko's work puts in my mind a zen buddhist term the gateless gate. This is why personally along with the music of Beethoven, films of Bela Tarr I rate this art to be very special.
Perhaps in a sense on going through the gateless gate all iconography, concepts, ideas of the mind are dropped anyhow. I suspect though in such a place (if that's what one wants to call it) there would be certainly be no endeavour to replace the signifiers with anything new.
It doesn't matter if Rothko intended to mean any of the stuff the Ebert says. Ebert is showing Rothko's work as exemplary of wider cultural history. Rothko's work is a figure of history up until that point. Ebert's answering the question, 'why is Rothko important?' Also, isn't this stuff about 'the indescribable' the same as 'death of the metaphysical signifier'? I can appreciate the spiritual qualities of Rothko's work, but you make it sound like esoteric romanticism.
enjoying ur art of this. big thanks
Were the chimps in "2001" viewing a Rothko? No wonder they were baffled by it.
I'm glad you noticed that Rothko essentially made a career out of anticipating and reworking the monolith. I believe Kubrick is the greatest artist of the 20th century (certainly the most influential across mediums) and that his work is a Skeleton Key to understanding the emergent trends of the 21st.
Who is the Autor of the Essay you talk about at 3:59, about the west empty centre of being. I would really like to read it but I could not quite figure out the name you said
www.goodreads.com/book/show/765346.Writing_and_Difference
Thank you!
Great!
>pollock and rothko ended up killing themselves
ah yes, the discontent of the western modern mind
Super over complicated explanation. Unbearable to listen to actually. Was Rothko really trying to be this philosophical? Or have art snobs created all this insane BS?!
good question !
Michael Molino I’m not sure it’s as complicated as you suggest. The language is technical, but once you understand it, it’s very coherent and accurately explains the evolution of art through time. The alternative is to believe that Rothko was painting coloured rectangles for the sake of it.
His paintings are very beautiful in terms of colors and composition, in my opinion. But all these yada yada people extract from the paintings... I think that’s too much over the top. I mean... for someone who never heard of Rothko’s work or his background, can pull this things out spontsneusly? I don’t think so... every text or video praising Rothko’s paintings always comes with context about his history and his thoughts about art: the paintings can’t stand for themselves.
@@fernandoaldadoyou surely can’t be serious