The black and grey Mark Rothko one had me thinking "lunar landsacpe". If you look at the photos the astronauts took on the moon, the stars don't show up because they're too dim for the camera to capture them along with the brightly-lit landscape.
Roxor128: It's interesting that you mention this interpretation, because this piece was part of a related series that Rothko painted in this highly-reductive compositional style with a black-and-gray palette during the last year of his life (1969-'70) which was also a time when the Apollo Moon missions were taking place. This is actually a somewhat common interpretation of this series of his but not really what he was exploring in these works.
Now that I think about it yeah, they didn't have cameras that we know of that could capture stars in film or pictures back then. The most they could capture would've only the moon and the earth with how vibrantly blue and green it looks outside in space. Its a pretty accurate painting with what filmography of outer space was like in the early NASA days. 🤔 That's my interpretation at least off of yours, in which its pretty good.
I'd call that painting "View from Apollo Orbiter" since it reminds me so much of pictures from the moon. And it fits the 1969-70 date too. Been enjoying your videos; thanks for sharing this with us all!
To me, the central feature of that Rothko painting is that the perfect absolute black is uniform, while the weathered grey permits variations and thus holds more information. It's as if by subtracting something from nothing complexity is created, but that's probably just my personal philosophy speaking.
The black and grey Rothko painting doesn't seem negative to me, I get a sense of stillness and peacefulness from it. If you want to put it in a story it could be a place before creation, there is a separation into some sort of solid and some sort of atmosphere but nothing else has been done yet.
I think I would title that piece "The Expanse", because that's what it looks like to me, a never-ending expanse of land going off into the distance. I tend to give my pieces pretty straightforward titles. For example, I've done a painting of a girl in a pink satin dress and I titled it "Little Girl In Pink Satin". When I don't think titling the piece after what actually in it would suffice, I might title it after something that stands out to me. I did a drawing of a woman with a particularly intense gaze, so I called it, "The Gaze". I might also title a piece after a scenario I imagine to be going on between the subjects or what I imagine the subject to be thinking. I did two paintings of parrots which I titled "Awkward" and "Hey Over There", and I'm thinking of titling the current piece I'm working on "'You Looking At Me?". It's of a woman sitting in a chair looking sidelong at the viewer.
It is amazing how much context and meaning a title can convey... and how much it can both limit 'personal' meaning and push exploration in a whole new direction/broader sense (like giving a subversive or odd title). Great vid! And I'd give it the Rothko painting the title "Untapped Moment" :)
Null. Because this word looks like the thoughts (does this make sense to you? Nothing does anyway.) of looking at the horizon, in the sea, with no stars in the sky. And I see more colors than white grey and black.
+Milyusia Abstract Arts nice! I like Null. And yeah I find Rothko pieces are ones where it may seem simple at first but the more you look at it you see the complexity in his brushstroke and then sometimes also subtle colours he mixes into the work that are not immediately apparent at first glance. That's one of the reasons why I think many people find his works so engaging.
Ginormous Rothko fan. I would title the sample given as "The Endless Lonely Walk". Note: I have a reproduction of 1954 Red, Orange, Tan and Purple hanging above this computer. I would say its title for me is "Choose, Melancholy or Peace?" But then that very personal meaning was Rothko's point.
Very few artists are creative when it comes to titling their work. Exceptions to this are "I saw the figure 5 in gold" a Futurist painting by American artist Charles Demuth, "Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?" a proto-pop collage by British artist Richard Hamilton, "The Persistence of Memory" by Surrealist master Salvador Dali, and of course, Marcel Duchamp's original readymade urinal with ultra ironic title "Fountain."
I love Rothko's works, but his black over grey painting resonates me... apparently that was his last before he passed away. Knowing that bit of info, I'd probably title it "Memento Mori."
People forget Rothko was painting for decades before he evolved into the color field paintings and most newbs complain about how much someone paid for em or they think it's a conceptual scam. You put some time behind a brush you change . Rothko came outa one of the two branches of surrealism there's a history of other artists behind him . He also probably never received more then 1500 bucks for a painting . He also did just lay out 2 colors . Yes they're thinned out but he layered the colors like Titian ....Now also this stuff was painted more then 60 or so years ago thats a bit long ago for some to sound like they're losing sleep over him . If you give it time and don't like it fine there's plenty of art out there I don't like myself . He's not one of my favorite artists but hearing the hypheee kidz , the West side Oakland " street" artist I know , go on about Rothko and Pollock gets grating after awhile. Great scandal after his suicide
So great the way you talked about this subject, and also great choice of music! I've been wondering about "untitled" for a while now so thanks for making a video on it!
Gosh, what is the musical piece that starts off this video?! I swear it's from a video game or at least associated with one! Update: "49th Street Galleria" by Chris Zabriskie, thank you Master of Turtles for asking before me, and this track was prominently featured in the game, "Her Story". Sorry to plug something here! I'll be sure to share this video with friends :)
I absolutely loved watching this! O'Keefe is a favorite of mine. As far as Mark Rothko's painting goes, I would look on the bright side and call it Into the night (I think of standing on a cement patio looking into the dark sky).
I think trying to find figurative motifs in abstract painting (like what you said about how it looks like a desert) kind of missing the whole point of abstract painting for me the idea of choosing not to title your work is to give you a chance to dive inside the painting the colors the shapes the composition without any interference or association an actual title will give you, soaking it all in without trying to always find “what it looks like in the real world” just enjoy the beauty of pure forms and color.
I used to untitled my paintings until I worked in a exhibition where I should label the artworks and the artist , an old sculptor, made a lot of identical works, with the same same dimensions, made on different dates and it was so confuse. Since that i give a sort of nicknames to my paintings just to organize it
What is the name of the music that is played throughout the video? And would you say that the title of a piece of art is equally important as the art itself?
+Master of Turtles the music is called "49th Street Galleria" by Chris Zabriskie. It is a great piece! I would more so say that the title is a part of the artwork and sometimes just as important. Especially with titles by people like Magritte (which Patrick talks about in his video), Carl Andre and many other modernist artists. However - there are still many works of art where the title is not significant and doesn't contribute too much to the piece. But people are different and a title might seem boring to me and interesting to others. So I would still try to pay attention to titles whenever you look at art to see if it will evoke some ideas for you.
I think of titles as a kind of word image. I think it is possible to let the title become as a wordcolor - and it does not have to describe anything in the image but be part of the image - and " untitled" is a kind of anonymous title .... and even if you use a title you can easily express an ambiguity and open into meanings and feelings as open as anything
Hey, loved your joint video with Name Explain so I came here and subbed. I really enjoyed this - I used to wonder why many paintings were unnamed. Thanks for such a clear answer. I'm looking forward to spending more time here enjoying art :-)
The picture first seemed to me, as if it were depicting a distant object floating in space, barely lit by a nearby star. However the downwards flowing lines at the central horizontal division give the grey part of the image the appearance of a wall that has accumulated grey dirt and pollution beeing washed away by cleaning rain during a dark storm. could be that I am interpreting this only this only that way because it is currently raining.
might call that painting "black and black" to make people question the boundaries of color. maybe as a reference to "black and white" thinking, hinting that there's subtlety and nuance in even the most binary-sounding ideas, such as "black and white". those colors can encompass a LOT of different shades, and colors that may be called black in one context would be called grey when viewed in a different context.
OK this is weird, I was just reading about Felix Gonzalez-Torres' works and I saw that he had a lot of untitled works, but I assumed more artists did the same. I googled "why do artists choose to leave their work untitled" and at the end of this video his name comes up again; which is crazy to me because of the sheer amount of artists with "untitled" works. Very nice video.
I'd name it a peek. I feel like i'm taking a peek beyond something looking at the painting. a wall? a continent? my fear? my comfort zone? I don't know, but this piece of painting just made me think about myself seriously, and that's worth two thumbs up, at least for myself lol
Thanks! Hope you also enjoyed our 5 artworks video :))
7 ปีที่แล้ว +2
I suggest two titles for Rothko's painting: "Eclipse" or "A group of maasai men hunting panthers at night" It's a joke. I like very much Rothko's paintings.
Haha I quite like "Eclipse" for the title actually. =D
7 ปีที่แล้ว
I would like get a canadian subscriptor... Please, subscribe my channel... I would like to make a collaborative video with you ... For exemple your 5 favourite artwork.
1:01 I can do that in MS Paint or some masking tape. Why the fuck do people pay so much money for various permutations of "coloured rectangle on a flat background"?
Okay, so making it is no problem (read: zero effort) but how do I get people to _buy_ my bullshit? I know lots of talented artists who get paid fuck all compared to these minimalist snobs.
Very cool! I'd probably go for Moon or something like that for the painting. It's what I immediately thought of. But yeah. This was really well done. Thanks!
Could you explain me how you explained all these explanations using explanations as explanations explaining before mentioned explanations as they have been explained in this explanation?
Another great video! Were you by chance inspired by the AGO's recent O'keeffe exhibition to make this video? I was in town when it was on and really enjoyed having a chance to see her work.
Yes! the recent AGO O'keeffe exhibition is exactly what inspired me to finally make this video! =D I'm glad you got a chance to see it. I loved it so much! And haha - in the video I didn't want to focus on it too much but I in fact was also a tour guide for the O'Keeffe exhibition (the AGO is where I am a gallery guide). ^_^
At 2.42 (the same one as at end & you asked for title of a work - you say was by Rothko...) I saw 3 faces in the grey at the bottom. You could call it something like Before, Then, Later (but infinite number of possible titles) - but maybe untitled is better so people have to look, absorb and allow their imagination freedom to see what arrives for THEM. I know when I give my art titles it removes some of this freedom but it also might HELP those who need (or think they do, are told they do) a bit of aid to try to see or feel ANYTHING when faced with the (apparently) non-representational. Pros and cons, to give a title or not? For what REASON, for WHAT, WHY and for WHOM? Those are the questions... Oh and for keeping track of my art it's easier (except when I change the title and forget I have!), and it can be hard to say 'oh I like that one with the blurry blue bits...' when lots of them have similar, or 'I want to buy Untitled' - 'which one?' ???
i'd call it "Lesser Evils." to me and perhaps to the artist, black vs white, or good vs. bad is a tired and dangerous trope, at best. the world might be better off with the more accurate narrative of true darkness (black) and ambiguity (grey). the lightest grey represents the best of human nature and exists as a feint spectre on the border, because the purest intentions are borne from the darkest thoughts.
I am of the belief that the audience should not have to work harder at interpreting the work than the actual artist did while creating the artwork. I think a lot of minimalist artists use hardly any talent to create works that the the viewers spend tons of time and brainpower trying to interpret. And all the praise goes to the pretentious artist who couldn't even be bothered to give their handiwork a goddamned name.
Let's not forget that this and other modern art lives of the circle jerking of so called art experts whose job is is too hype an artist and his work to sell it. It's mostly about image and for the buyer to be able to say that they own something that is en Vogue now and might rise in value. That's how this "art" is so successful. Don't fall for it.
Untitled (artist forgot what the painting was about)
lol this is the most likely reason actually.
In all seriousness now; is this the painting that was hanging in Claire Underwood's office in the last season of House of Cards?
The black and grey Mark Rothko one had me thinking "lunar landsacpe". If you look at the photos the astronauts took on the moon, the stars don't show up because they're too dim for the camera to capture them along with the brightly-lit landscape.
Roxor128: It's interesting that you mention this interpretation, because this piece was part of a related series that Rothko painted in this highly-reductive compositional style with a black-and-gray palette during the last year of his life (1969-'70) which was also a time when the Apollo Moon missions were taking place. This is actually a somewhat common interpretation of this series of his but not really what he was exploring in these works.
me thought look like the moon too
i was thinking of the moon too, and the loneliness and vastness of space. i love rothko ⬛️⬜️
Now that I think about it yeah, they didn't have cameras that we know of that could capture stars in film or pictures back then. The most they could capture would've only the moon and the earth with how vibrantly blue and green it looks outside in space. Its a pretty accurate painting with what filmography of outer space was like in the early NASA days. 🤔
That's my interpretation at least off of yours, in which its pretty good.
The more I look at the black and gray painting, the more it looks like a starless sky reflected in a lake. I think I would call it Solitude.
I'd call it "Solitude" too
Untitled (I didn't feel like finishing this painting)...
I'd call that painting "View from Apollo Orbiter" since it reminds me so much of pictures from the moon. And it fits the 1969-70 date too.
Been enjoying your videos; thanks for sharing this with us all!
To me, the central feature of that Rothko painting is that the perfect absolute black is uniform, while the weathered grey permits variations and thus holds more information. It's as if by subtracting something from nothing complexity is created, but that's probably just my personal philosophy speaking.
The black and grey Rothko painting doesn't seem negative to me, I get a sense of stillness and peacefulness from it. If you want to put it in a story it could be a place before creation, there is a separation into some sort of solid and some sort of atmosphere but nothing else has been done yet.
I'm really happy to have played a small part in this awesome video :D
I think I would title that piece "The Expanse", because that's what it looks like to me, a never-ending expanse of land going off into the distance.
I tend to give my pieces pretty straightforward titles. For example, I've done a painting of a girl in a pink satin dress and I titled it "Little Girl In Pink Satin". When I don't think titling the piece after what actually in it would suffice, I might title it after something that stands out to me. I did a drawing of a woman with a particularly intense gaze, so I called it, "The Gaze". I might also title a piece after a scenario I imagine to be going on between the subjects or what I imagine the subject to be thinking. I did two paintings of parrots which I titled "Awkward" and "Hey Over There", and I'm thinking of titling the current piece I'm working on "'You Looking At Me?". It's of a woman sitting in a chair looking sidelong at the viewer.
It is amazing how much context and meaning a title can convey... and how much it can both limit 'personal' meaning and push exploration in a whole new direction/broader sense (like giving a subversive or odd title). Great vid! And I'd give it the Rothko painting the title "Untapped Moment" :)
The two titles that came to my mind were "Depression weighing down" and "Australian dirt road at night"
Null. Because this word looks like the thoughts (does this make sense to you? Nothing does anyway.) of looking at the horizon, in the sea, with no stars in the sky. And I see more colors than white grey and black.
+Milyusia Abstract Arts nice! I like Null. And yeah I find Rothko pieces are ones where it may seem simple at first but the more you look at it you see the complexity in his brushstroke and then sometimes also subtle colours he mixes into the work that are not immediately apparent at first glance. That's one of the reasons why I think many people find his works so engaging.
Ginormous Rothko fan. I would title the sample given as "The Endless Lonely Walk". Note: I have a reproduction of 1954 Red, Orange, Tan and Purple hanging above this computer. I would say its title for me is "Choose, Melancholy or Peace?" But then that very personal meaning was Rothko's point.
Very few artists are creative when it comes to titling their work. Exceptions to this are "I saw the figure 5 in gold" a Futurist painting by American artist Charles Demuth, "Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?" a proto-pop collage by British artist Richard Hamilton, "The Persistence of Memory" by Surrealist master Salvador Dali, and of course, Marcel Duchamp's original readymade urinal with ultra ironic title "Fountain."
omfg I recognize the light strand artwork from when my friend almost tripped over it at a museum lol
I love Rothko's works, but his black over grey painting resonates me... apparently that was his last before he passed away. Knowing that bit of info, I'd probably title it "Memento Mori."
...it may be called "Don't Know Much About The Golden Ratio"...
I would have called the Rothko "Depression".
I want it now.
People forget Rothko was painting for decades before he evolved into the color field paintings and most newbs complain about how much someone paid for em or they think it's a conceptual scam. You put some time behind a brush you change . Rothko came outa one of the two branches of surrealism there's a history of other artists behind him . He also probably never received more then 1500 bucks for a painting . He also did just lay out 2 colors . Yes they're thinned out but he layered the colors like Titian ....Now also this stuff was painted more then 60 or so years ago thats a bit long ago for some to sound like they're losing sleep over him . If you give it time and don't like it fine there's plenty of art out there I don't like myself . He's not one of my favorite artists but hearing the hypheee kidz , the West side Oakland " street" artist I know , go on about Rothko and Pollock gets grating after awhile. Great scandal after his suicide
So great the way you talked about this subject, and also great choice of music! I've been wondering about "untitled" for a while now so thanks for making a video on it!
Gosh, what is the musical piece that starts off this video?! I swear it's from a video game or at least associated with one!
Update: "49th Street Galleria" by Chris Zabriskie, thank you Master of Turtles for asking before me, and this track was prominently featured in the game, "Her Story". Sorry to plug something here! I'll be sure to share this video with friends :)
It sounded like John cages landscapes
I absolutely loved watching this! O'Keefe is a favorite of mine. As far as Mark Rothko's painting goes, I would look on the bright side and call it Into the night (I think of standing on a cement patio looking into the dark sky).
Great Channel! Glad I found it! Please keep up the great work!
I think trying to find figurative motifs in abstract painting (like what you said about how it looks like a desert) kind of missing the whole point of abstract painting for me the idea of choosing not to title your work is to give you a chance to dive inside the painting the colors the shapes the composition without any interference or association an actual title will give you, soaking it all in without trying to always find “what it looks like in the real world” just enjoy the beauty of pure forms and color.
I used to untitled my paintings until I worked in a exhibition where I should label the artworks and the artist , an old sculptor, made a lot of identical works, with the same same dimensions, made on different dates and it was so confuse. Since that i give a sort of nicknames to my paintings just to organize it
From A Cliff. It really feels like someone (or us, the viewer) looking down from a high building or into a bottomless pit. Just needs some shoes.
What is the name of the music that is played throughout the video?
And would you say that the title of a piece of art is equally important as the art itself?
+Master of Turtles the music is called "49th Street Galleria" by Chris Zabriskie. It is a great piece!
I would more so say that the title is a part of the artwork and sometimes just as important. Especially with titles by people like Magritte (which Patrick talks about in his video), Carl Andre and many other modernist artists. However - there are still many works of art where the title is not significant and doesn't contribute too much to the piece. But people are different and a title might seem boring to me and interesting to others. So I would still try to pay attention to titles whenever you look at art to see if it will evoke some ideas for you.
"Move along" or "I'm sorry I painted it and wasted your time" :)
I wish you guys could collaborate with the Art Assignment
I think of titles as a kind of word image. I think it is possible to let the title become as a wordcolor - and it does not have to describe anything in the image but be part of the image - and " untitled" is a kind of anonymous title ....
and even if you use a title you can easily express an ambiguity and open into meanings and feelings as open as anything
For that piece at the end I'd call it...:
1. 'Blacque mirror'
2. 'Dark Ice'
3. 'This side up'
Can't choose, but those spring to mind.
I like your videos, keep going! I would name the Rothko painting ‘Moon Landing’.
Hey, loved your joint video with Name Explain so I came here and subbed. I really enjoyed this - I used to wonder why many paintings were unnamed. Thanks for such a clear answer. I'm looking forward to spending more time here enjoying art :-)
The picture first seemed to me, as if it were depicting a distant object floating in space, barely lit by a nearby star. However the downwards flowing lines at the central horizontal division give the grey part of the image the appearance of a wall that has accumulated grey dirt and pollution beeing washed away by cleaning rain during a dark storm.
could be that I am interpreting this only this only that way because it is currently raining.
might call that painting "black and black" to make people question the boundaries of color. maybe as a reference to "black and white" thinking, hinting that there's subtlety and nuance in even the most binary-sounding ideas, such as "black and white". those colors can encompass a LOT of different shades, and colors that may be called black in one context would be called grey when viewed in a different context.
Great videos, keep up the good work.👍
I'd call it "Moon Vista" as I immediately thought of someone looking out from the moon when I saw it.
I would call it _Moonscape_
I will call it “landscape in a starless night”
I think the Rothko piece looks like the moon
I'd call the painting "Ironic Monotony"
that Rothko is upside down
Here from Name Explain and I'm definitely a new sub. Love this!
Welcome! Glad you enjoyed this :DD
OK this is weird, I was just reading about Felix Gonzalez-Torres' works and I saw that he had a lot of untitled works, but I assumed more artists did the same. I googled "why do artists choose to leave their work untitled" and at the end of this video his name comes up again; which is crazy to me because of the sheer amount of artists with "untitled" works. Very nice video.
I would call it "Yes, two colours. Deal with it."
very glad to see a video with 0 dislikes. Nice job A.
Great video ! I wanted to know about that.
I'd name it a peek. I feel like i'm taking a peek beyond something looking at the painting. a wall? a continent? my fear? my comfort zone? I don't know, but this piece of painting just made me think about myself seriously, and that's worth two thumbs up, at least for myself lol
I came to the channel from Name Explain, great video
Thanks! Hope you also enjoyed our 5 artworks video :))
I suggest two titles for Rothko's painting:
"Eclipse" or
"A group of maasai men hunting panthers at night"
It's a joke. I like very much Rothko's paintings.
Haha I quite like "Eclipse" for the title actually. =D
I would like get a canadian subscriptor... Please, subscribe my channel...
I would like to make a collaborative video with you ... For exemple your 5 favourite artwork.
Modern? Or contemporary? There's a difference.
1:01 I can do that in MS Paint or some masking tape. Why the fuck do people pay so much money for various permutations of "coloured rectangle on a flat background"?
Okay, so making it is no problem (read: zero effort) but how do I get people to _buy_ my bullshit? I know lots of talented artists who get paid fuck all compared to these minimalist snobs.
Very cool! I'd probably go for Moon or something like that for the painting. It's what I immediately thought of. But yeah. This was really well done. Thanks!
@5:30 "Winter's Sun: Alaska"
The Rothco painting should be called 'It's a painting of the Moon I did'.
I would call that painting
"Field of the Dark"
Could you explain me how you explained all these explanations using explanations as explanations explaining before mentioned explanations as they have been explained in this explanation?
That's the title.
name for painting? "Gotchya"
I would call the Rothko "Textures in Black & Grey"
Another great video! Were you by chance inspired by the AGO's recent O'keeffe exhibition to make this video? I was in town when it was on and really enjoyed having a chance to see her work.
Yes! the recent AGO O'keeffe exhibition is exactly what inspired me to finally make this video! =D I'm glad you got a chance to see it. I loved it so much! And haha - in the video I didn't want to focus on it too much but I in fact was also a tour guide for the O'Keeffe exhibition (the AGO is where I am a gallery guide). ^_^
Wow, that's awesome! I look forward to getting an informed tour from you in the future! : )
At 2.42 (the same one as at end & you asked for title of a work - you say was by Rothko...) I saw 3 faces in the grey at the bottom. You could call it something like Before, Then, Later (but infinite number of possible titles) - but maybe untitled is better so people have to look, absorb and allow their imagination freedom to see what arrives for THEM. I know when I give my art titles it removes some of this freedom but it also might HELP those who need (or think they do, are told they do) a bit of aid to try to see or feel ANYTHING when faced with the (apparently) non-representational. Pros and cons, to give a title or not? For what REASON, for WHAT, WHY and for WHOM? Those are the questions... Oh and for keeping track of my art it's easier (except when I change the title and forget I have!), and it can be hard to say 'oh I like that one with the blurry blue bits...' when lots of them have similar, or 'I want to buy Untitled' - 'which one?' ???
i'd call it "Lesser Evils." to me and perhaps to the artist, black vs white, or good vs. bad is a tired and dangerous trope, at best. the world might be better off with the more accurate narrative of true darkness (black) and ambiguity (grey). the lightest grey represents the best of human nature and exists as a feint spectre on the border, because the purest intentions are borne from the darkest thoughts.
I'd call it "Nothing but reflexions" if, I would go for what I see, or "Cold, but soothing darkness" for what I feel, while looking at it.
It's been 2 months pls post another video
Posting one today! =D
I'd call the Rothko "Moonscape".
I am of the belief that the audience should not have to work harder at interpreting the work than the actual artist did while creating the artwork. I think a lot of minimalist artists use hardly any talent to create works that the the viewers spend tons of time and brainpower trying to interpret. And all the praise goes to the pretentious artist who couldn't even be bothered to give their handiwork a goddamned name.
What title would I give it? "Whatever way you want to interpret it"
Moonless moonland
I would suggest "Ununtitled"
It's allways dark before dawn on the bald mountain
The Moon
1:03 yoooo georgia o'keeffe painted a mango juul pod! i knew she was a boss
I would call it "Starless Sea" because that's what I see in it.
My title would be : what next? (surface of the moon is just a step)
First time I see a youtube video with 0 dislikes. That says a lot about the viewers the channel and the video. :D
Some paintings are so abstract that the artist can't even come up with a title. Coming up with a title would take longer than actually painting it.
I would call that painting "Moonscape".
"Bleached noise". I see also it is very moon alike
5:30 "the"
"Starless Night". A play on _Starry Night_
Years ago I was at the Whitney w my late bro. His criteria for art beyond a glance was “evidence of concept, craft, and a title. No title, IDGAF”
Sometimes its hard to find a name for things
Real reason: because it's hard to come up with names for stuff.
They wanted to name it “untitled”!
'The Fall of the House of Lovecraft No.2' ...
Let's not forget that this and other modern art lives of the circle jerking of so called art experts whose job is is too hype an artist and his work to sell it. It's mostly about image and for the buyer to be able to say that they own something that is en Vogue now and might rise in value. That's how this "art" is so successful. Don't fall for it.
"Anoesis As Melancholy" is what i would title it.
I would call it "drowning in the ocean".
Artist's Shit by Piero Manzoni.
i would call the painting forgotten sands.
To me it looks like a dead universe seen from the moon or what could be the last refuge of humanity. So i'd call it "Heat death"
Oh, so these are the artworks that we're supposed to pretend are really good and profound while secretly thinking "yeah, that's shit"
Yesn't.
@@ARTiculations my thoughts exactly :)
1:08 If everyone else can produce an exact copy of the artist's work, then that work has no artistic merit.
The title I might give Rothko's work is "Boring."
Depression elides into the abyss....!
I'd name the Rothko's one "uuuq"
Title: View from the dark side of the moon (portrait orientation)
the moon landing :title
Moon ‘s horizon.
field