This week, I embarked on a trip up to the Albert Dock, to the Tate Liverpool. At the moment, there is a retrospective of abstract painter Mark Rothko’s ‘The Seagram Murals’. After a 20 year absence from their first exhibition in the Tate in 1988, the paintings made a… somewhat welcome return; for some, just not so much for me. Personally, I feel they should have stayed put, in the four seasons, exactly where they were made to be.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say I dislike modern art, but a lot of the time, I just don’t understand it. I feel ‘abstract’ is a word painters could hide behind; it gave a feeling of credibility to something that was undeserving (in some cases, anyway) In Rothko’s case, it gives meaning to a man whose work, primarily, focuses on being shit. When asked to describe just what it is his work meant, Rothko always said he’d prefer not to explain. That, to me, speaks volumes; too scared to right the upper-class who feel the simplicity in his paintings is nothing short of extraordinary...
I feel art like this invites people into a world where they can appear artistically superior; suggesting they can see something in Rothko’s work that the rest of us can’t. But, maybe that’s just how I feel. Art like this is popular because ultimately, and understandably, it’s misunderstood. It’s very likely it could have absolutely no meaning. It’s because of this that people who believe they do have superior thoughts are all too quick to jump in, and defend and define it as something else other than shit. But this is just my opinion, the reason I think what I do is because I’ve never had the pleasure of these superior know-it-alls try and explain to me why his work is indeed so special.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say I dislike modern art, but a lot of the time, I just don’t understand it. I feel ‘abstract’ is a word painters could hide behind; it gave a feeling of credibility to something that was undeserving (in some cases, anyway) In Rothko’s case, it gives meaning to a man whose work, primarily, focuses on being shit. When asked to describe just what it is his work meant, Rothko always said he’d prefer not to explain. That, to me, speaks volumes; too scared to right the upper-class who feel the simplicity in his paintings is nothing short of extraordinary...
I feel art like this invites people into a world where they can appear artistically superior; suggesting they can see something in Rothko’s work that the rest of us can’t. But, maybe that’s just how I feel. Art like this is popular because ultimately, and understandably, it’s misunderstood. It’s very likely it could have absolutely no meaning. It’s because of this that people who believe they do have superior thoughts are all too quick to jump in, and defend and define it as something else other than shit. But this is just my opinion, the reason I think what I do is because I’ve never had the pleasure of these superior know-it-alls try and explain to me why his work is indeed so special.
Red on Maroon, 1959.
No comments:
Post a Comment