Post your favourite work of art here

[Flyman]

It is very difficult to appraise many of Mark Rothko's painting without actually standing in front of them. Mostly, photo reproductions/monitor settings don't capture the reality of the colours and the sheers size of the piece can be a part of its enveloping, overwhelming nature.

But art as abstract as his has very much to to with a purely emotive, perhaps subconscious response by the viewer, so it's understandable that it doesn't appeal to all or is 'understood' or, maybe better, 'felt' by all.


There was a very good programme on last Sunday by Australian art critic, Robert Hughes called, 'The Mona Lisa Curse' where he lambasted the art world for its sheer commercialism, met the people who propagate this business and some of those artists abused by it and, in a discussion with one of the world's wealthiest buyers, exposed him as someone whose appreciation of art was driven as much by spin as by commercialism, and lacking in any reasonable aesthetic appreciation at all.
Sad, but wickedly entertaining to see his conceited bubble burst!

A wee Telegraph article on Hughes's disdain for Damien Hirst's work can be read here.

[DrBunker]

It is very difficult to appraise many of Mark Rothko's painting without actually standing in front of them. Mostly, photo reproductions/monitor settings don't capture the reality of the colours and the sheers size of the piece can be a part of its enveloping, overwhelming nature.

But art as abstract as his has very much to to with a purely emotive, perhaps subconscious response by the viewer, so it's understandable that it doesn't appeal to all or is 'understood' or, maybe better, 'felt' by all.

I understand the idea that a painting in it's full majesty will have more effect on a person but that doesn't, for me, take away from the fact that most of his art is just a lump of colour.

I assume that he has a history of doing "better" work and therefore people think that this means whatever he has done since is quality (whether they can see why themselves!) but that's like assuming Keegan would do well at Newcastle b/c his record was ok previously! This thread has been in this territory before but if I want to see something awe-inspiring I'll go and look at an old tree or a sunset but if I go to an art exhibition I expect the artist to have some obvious skill with a brush, clay or whatever. I guess that makes me a Luddite!

There was a very good programme on last Sunday by Australian art critic, Robert Hughes...A wee Telegraph article on Hughes's disdain for Damien Hirst's work can be read here.

I didn't realise Hirst was Australian

[Knulpuk]

Rothko's exhibition starts at the Tate tomorrow and looking forward to it very much. Flyman is right you have see them to fully appreciate them and indeed the size of some of them.

They have had a dedicated room in the Tate before (though the lighting always seemed really bad) for I think the Seagram murals painted for a company restaurant which he visted prior to instalation and hated - so he kept them!

I have always loved his work but can see why others might not.

[Flyman]

Would

.... by art critic Robert Hughes, an Australian, ....

have been clearer?

Rothko isn't attempting to engage us intellectually, but emotionally. Perhaps thinking of his art in terms of music might be more helpful? That wonderful, warbling, ascending clarinet at the beginning of Gershwin's 'Rhapsody In Blue', for instance, is just a pure sound, but it has an effect on our being nevertheless. So it is when 'bathing' in Rothko's colour(s).
They evoke moods in the observer and, through the lack of structured narrative, leave the mind open to free-form thought, liberating the subconscious from the shackles of empiricism and rationale.

[DrBunker]

Rothko isn't attempting to engage us intellectually, but emotionally. Perhaps thinking of his art in terms of music might be more helpful? That wonderful, warbling, ascending clarinet at the beginning of Gershwin's 'Rhapsody In Blue', for instance, is just a pure sound, but it has an effect on our being nevertheless. So it is when 'bathing' in Rothko's colour(s).
They evoke moods in the observer and, through the lack of structured narrative, leave the mind open to free-form thought, liberating the subconscious from the shackles of empiricism and rationale.

Very good, as is to be expected. Fair enough, he can open our minds but it leads me to wonder whether, if I were to colour a canvas black, it would cause the same reaction. To put it another way, is the reaction caused, at least in part, because of who painted it rather than what he painted and if you were to attend an exhibition by various artists, some known and some unknown, who all had the same style would you treat all of the works the same? For clarification, when I say 'you' I am referring to all those who find his pictures liberating.

I guess I'm still in the cave staring at the shadows looking down my nose at the outsider who claims to have seen the light

[Flyman]

Rothko blah blah blah ...

Very good, as is to be expected. Fair enough, he can open our minds but it leads me to wonder whether, if I were to colour a canvas black, it would cause the same reaction. To put it another way, is the reaction caused, at least in part, because of who painted it rather than what he painted and if you were to attend an exhibition by various artists, some known and some unknown, who all had the same style would you treat all of the works the same? For clarification, when I say 'you' I am referring to all those who find his pictures liberating.

I guess I'm still in the cave staring at the shadows looking down my nose at the outsider who claims to have seen the light

'.... as is to be expected'?! I've made a rod for my own back!


''If I were to colour a canvas black ... (and hang it with Rothko's work) .... would you treat all works the same?"
Well, probably not, no.
If you were to do this now then your work would be deemed derivative. The art world has moved on from this purely abstract expression of the human state and, unless you brought with it a personal history, a new philosophical perspective of your own - or the aesthetic representation thereof - your work wouldn't be regarded highly, I suspect.

However, if your work were to be secreted in a Rothko exhibition, even attributed to him I, for one, would probably be non the wiser for it.
Would it move me as other Rothkos have done? I honestly don't know. But even if it did, the fact that it is derivative, a copy in style, lessens it's artistic value as a 'work of art', to my mind (though it still might be an interesting object), and once the deceit was unveiled we might find some critics embarrassed, some collectors out of pocket.
Some might try to validate your painting intellectually - but I prefer it when the artist does this, personally.

[URkiddingMe]

How can anyone not appreciate this.....



I think there are two kinds of people:

1. Those that think this is three lines on a piece of paper
2. Those that appreciate art

Not being superior or anything, as each to their own, but really think this particular drawing demonstrates the difference quite well. Same could be said about 'a pile of bricks' or half a cow?!

Is it art or just a waste of time?

it's a nice female arse isn't it?

[URkiddingMe]

you've all posted some really inspiring artwork here. i'll add a few from times past.

here's one that's Greek and old.

[DrBunker]

''If I were to colour a canvas black ... (and hang it with Rothko's work) .... would you treat all works the same?"
Well, probably not, no.
If you were to do this now then your work would be deemed derivative. The art world has moved on from this purely abstract expression of the human state and, unless you brought with it a personal history, a new philosophical perspective of your own - or the aesthetic representation thereof - your work wouldn't be regarded highly, I suspect.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier comment about "being original for originalities sake". I believe you could extrapolate your comment to mean that he could do pretty much anything and say he did it for a reason it would be art. Also, I'm not so sure he was the first person to use single colours and call it art but what do I know!

[Flyman]

DrBunker wrote:

I believe you could extrapolate your comment to mean that he could do pretty much anything and say he did it for a reason it would be art.

Do you? Well, that isn't what I'm saying!

The concept behind the artwork invariably exists first, before the creation of the form it eventually takes.
What is important is that the intention, the concept, is embodied in the form of the artwork in a manner (a form) which, whether original or not, conveys the new thoughts effectively to at least some others.
You seem to be suggesting that the cart might be put after the horse ....? If so, I won't buy it.
If the resultant work fails to convey that original intention then it fails on one level, no matter how technically gifted that artwork is.

Similarly, if the concept is trite or mundane then, again, no matter how well executed that artwork is, it will have failed to fulfil my personal aesthetic demands. Vettriano is, for me, a contemporary example of that.

My third criteria is that fine art inspires 'Awe', contemplation which takes us out of ourselves in the presence of a greater truth about the human condition.

Really, I don't ask for much, do I?

[dan1man]

Anything by my auntie, a creative genius in my eyes

http://www.athenaart.co.uk/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The attached picture is one of my particular favourites and is pesently sitting proudly on the wall of my living room (sorry, can't figure out how to embed directly)

[DrBunker]

I believe you could extrapolate your comment to mean that he could do pretty much anything and say he did it for a reason it would be art.

Do you? Well, that isn't what I'm saying!

The concept behind the artwork invariably exists first, before the creation of the form it eventually takes.
What is important is that the intention, the concept, is embodied in the form of the artwork in a manner (a form) which, whether original or not, conveys the new thoughts effectively to at least some others.
You seem to be suggesting that the cart might be put after the horse ....? If so, I won't buy it.

Without wanting to push the point too much I can't help but think that your statement only reinforces mine. You are reliant on the artist to tell you what the art is intended to convey and it is only with this understanding that you can fully appreciate the work. Maybe I am coming from a position of distrust but I am generally unwilling to be informed in this way with reference to the deceit you mentioned. In my example the artist plucks a reason from the air but in knowing this you would rightly be less affected by his work. In your example you take as fact that the horse was definitely put first but you are reliant on a person will great incentive to convince you that this is the case.

This is in essence why I am against art that relies solely on an explanation without any obvious merit itself. Obviously, if I view a piece which has artistic credentials I can enjoy or appreciate it further if it also conveys a sense of drama because of the artist's intentions but there must be something there first. This is why I believe that the generally accepted linear reaction to art (no understanding or enjoyment > enjoyment w/out understanding > emotional interaction) is not necessarily as straightforward a progression (an increasing intellectual awakening if you will) as it may at first seem.

[Flyman]

I think that the difference is that I don't believe fine artists do 'pluck explanations from thin air'. Their work is invariably pre-considered in various drafts before being undertaken. They have a personal history which is indicative of their past mental processes and reflective of their past intentions. They don't just create a work of genius out of thin air and on a 'good day', but as part of their life's work.

This is in essence why I am against art that relies solely on an explanation without any obvious merit itself.

Sure, while that might still be art of a kind it could never be considered fine art.

You say

if I view a piece which has artistic credentials I can enjoy or appreciate it further if it also conveys a sense of drama because of the artist's intentions but there must be something there first.

(your bold)
But that is not to say that what you are appreciating visually for the first time isn't part and parcel of the artist's philosophy behind the painting, woven into its very fabric.

Take Picasso's 'Weeping Woman, (1937)', for instance. While most viewing it will be visually impressed by its use of colour, shattered perspective and experience a sense of horror being conveyed, it is only when you know why she weeps that the truth of the picture is revealed - that in her eyes you see the refection of the bombers above.
All of a sudden the light, the colour and the distortion have meaning and her grief has a cause. This little piece of easily overlooked or misunderstood detail is the key which unlocks the very purpose of the piece - as a work of anti-Facist/anti-war propaganda - and makes it a totality.

Now, I just don't believe that Picasso painted this picture then, afterwards, noticed that he'd made plane-like splodges on the eyes and so thought ....

To view this painting without this knowledge is comparative to appreciating a piece of sculpture in a darkened room. You might think it feels nice or not, but you are hardly appreciating it in the way the artist, its creator, intended.

In this respect, isn't it rather lazy and self indulgent of us to be satisfied by our own innate sense of what is art? Aren't we then dismissing the personal intentions of the very person who created this thing if, when we are admiring, our sole criterion is 'Well, it's good because I like it' or 'It's shit because I don't'?

Given that I'm not a genius but the artists we're discussing often are, I'm wide open to listening to what they have to tell me about the human condition.

[DrBunker]

Take Picasso's 'Weeping Woman, (1937)', for instance. While most viewing it will be visually impressed by its use of colour, shattered perspective and experience a sense of horror being conveyed, it is only when you know why she weeps that the truth of the picture is revealed - that in her eyes you see the refection of the bombers above.
All of a sudden the light, the colour and the distortion have meaning and her grief has a cause. This little piece of easily overlooked or misunderstood detail is the key which unlocks the very purpose of the piece - as a work of anti-Facist/anti-war propaganda - and makes it a totality.

This may well be an admission of ignorance but I did not find that version of the painting interesting with or without context! I simply cannot accept that it conveys the appropriate feelings because of it's conceited, erratic style. I would find a photograph much more emotionally intriguing.

To view this painting without this knowledge is comparative to appreciating a piece of sculpture in a darkened room. You might think it feels nice or not, but you are hardly appreciating it in the way the artist, its creator, intended.

In this respect, isn't it rather lazy and self indulgent of us to be satisfied by our own innate sense of what is art? Aren't we then dismissing the personal intentions of the very person who created this thing if, when we are admiring, our sole criterion is 'Well, it's good because I like it' or 'It's shit because I don't'?

I think the highlighted part of this quote is a very important point; specifically the underlined words. I concede that it is quite possibly lazy to want to admire art for it's externally obvious qualities and it is equally possible that those people who are willing to try to look beneath its surface will find a deeper meaning however what is art for if it doesn't allow us to indulge ourselves? I don't mean that I expect art to only make me happy but if I cannot enjoy it in terms of inspiration, sadness, anger etc. either then, for me, it has failed in its primary purpose. I understand that the artist also wants to indulge himself in producing the piece but this is a separate issue outside of this discussion, as I understand it.

I realise that we have reached an impasse but I don't think either of us is wrong per se . As much as I've enjoyed our discussion maybe we should call it quits and let the thread get back to the images? Feel free to have the last say if you want though

[Billy Whiz]

Rothko is creating a mood that we can feel, rather than a picture that we can read. Flyman invoked a music analogy, and I agree – I think of abstract art as like music without lyrics. Just because there are no ‘words’ doesn’t mean it has no meaning. As a viewer you need to immerse yourself in the pictures and, as you would with an instrumental piece of music, respond emotionally.

As for the Tate Rothkos, many people find them deeply spiritual. Are they the artist’s vision of an unknowable God? Are they his vision of an absence of God? I don't know, but such existential issues dominated Rothko’s thoughts – he wasn’t just daubing paint on canvas.

Another response to paintings like these – and it’s a comment we’ve had earlier in this thread about other artists – is that “a child could have painted that”. In fact a child wouldn’t have the discipline to produce paintings like these, let alone the profundity. Ask a child to paint a picture of God (assuming for a moment that that’s what these paintings are about) and you’d get an old man with a beard, not what Rothko painted. Ask a child to look into his soul and paint what he sees, and he wouldn’t know where to start. Even assuming these paintings are not religious or existential, if you ask a child to paint two squares on a coloured background there would be no sense of the sublime; you wouldn’t be able to stare at it for minutes on end, feeling moved.

Ironically, a talented child would be more capable of producing something representational, like Constable’s The Haywain, which is more about technique, less about emotion.

[DrBunker]

As I said before, if you're happy to be told that a piece of art has gravitas and emotional meaning then fair enough. The only reason you can stare at it for minutes on end and be moved by it is because of some willingness to believe what the artist says. I'm afraid the "a child could have painted that" argument does work for me because where it's the case that you couldn't tell the difference without an explanation I have to question who's the bigger schmuck; me for not "seeing" it or you for responding how you're told to respond...

[murf]

Rothko is creating a mood that we can feel, rather than a picture that we can read. Flyman invoked a music analogy, and I agree – I think of abstract art as like music without lyrics. Just because there are no ‘words’ doesn’t mean it has no meaning. As a viewer you need to immerse yourself in the pictures and, as you would with an instrumental piece of music, respond emotionally. .

To carry on your analogy - Rothko's music is just 2 very loud notes, not what I'd call music

[Billy Whiz]

DrBunker – Clearly one of us is a schmuck. But I’m in a better position than you are, because if I’m the schmuck I haven’t lost anything. But if you’re the schmuck you’ve lost the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy a whole genre of human expression.

PS You scorn the notion that people have to be “told” how to appreciate art. Would you extend that to other forms of human expresson? Would you ban art and literature classes in school?

[Spencer4]

DrBunker – Clearly one of us is a schmuck. But I’m in a better position than you are, because if I’m the schmuck I haven’t lost anything. But if you’re the schmuck you’ve lost the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy a whole genre of human expression.

PS You scorn the notion that people have to be “told” how to appreciate art. Would you extend that to other forms of human expresson? Would you ban art and literature classes in school?

I go along with this, it's elementary.

[DrBunker]

DrBunker – Clearly one of us is a schmuck. But I’m in a better position than you are, because if I’m the schmuck I haven’t lost anything. But if you’re the schmuck you’ve lost the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy a whole genre of human expression.

Touché! That is certainly one way to look at it

PS You scorn the notion that people have to be “told” how to appreciate art. Would you extend that to other forms of human expresson? Would you ban art and literature classes in school?

Taking that as too separate questions I'll answer the second one as I didn't get the first one. I don't see what banning the teaching and encouragement of art and literature would achieve and it certainly isn't what I am aiming for. In terms of literature you can gain a much better understanding of a book by analysing the subtext but this is not a secret code that needs an explanation from the author to reveal. It is simple a learned ability involving 'reading' between the lines to be aware of the use of metaphors and implied meanings to give a richer text. A similar thing can be done with art in general. However, there is still a very obvious skill to this that can be taught, developed and revealed without clues from the creator. Painting a canvas in one colour with two different coloured squares is simply not a comparative skill and the end product is completely meaningless without an acceptance that you must completely rely on the creator to tell you how to understand the piece. No matter how long you analysed the picture you posted you could not decipher the meaning the creator has apparently inserted.

With this in mind I certainly do not think that our schoolchildren should be told to just accept what they are told as fact. They should not be told that something just "is" without questioning why it is. Try reading The Go-Between and tell me that a child (or even a reasonably well educated adult) could have written that.

[Billy Whiz]

I wasn’t defending being told what a particular painting means, I was defending being told how to look at paintings and thus get more out of them. Which is what I was trying to do by using the music-without-words analogy as a way of responding to abstract art. You then derive your own meaning from it – “the search for an unknown or missing God” is only one interpretation of Rothko’s Tate sequence. It’s an interpretation that anyone could come up with, without knowing anything about Rothko. I don't actually know whether that’s what he had in mind, nor do I care (from a critical point of view, that is). But looking at the paintings, it must have been some kind of dark night of the soul.

[DrBunker]

But looking at the paintings, it must have been some kind of dark night of the soul.

Seriously? I don't want to be patronising here but surely he could just have easily have been on drugs or drunk or just fancied messing around with some colours. I really don't see why we need to try to search for meaning in something so apparently meaningless.

[vinnyutd6899]

not famous i dont think but i like this one!

[murf]

DrBunker – Clearly one of us is a schmuck. But I’m in a better position than you are, because if I’m the schmuck I haven’t lost anything. But if you’re the schmuck you’ve lost the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy a whole genre of human expression.

PS You scorn the notion that people have to be “told” how to appreciate art. Would you extend that to other forms of human expresson? Would you ban art and literature classes in school?

Sorry but I can't help watching/listening to this and making a vastly different interpretation of who is a schmuck:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 633386.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The guy talking about the 'meditation on black' from about 1:30 wins this particular schmuck-off.

If this was a TV comedy sketch I wouldn't laugh as I'd think they'd gone OTT on the pretentious twaddling.

[Yer Old Da]

Here's my favourite piece of art:































.

[Wayward Lad]

Love this one :





It wasnt a pic as such - just a photo from one of Slartys dinner parties..

[Wayward Lad]

This was Vincent cleaning his brushes - the man was a genius..

[Yer Old Da]

This was Vincent cleaning his brushes - the man was a genius..

That looks like f*ck all to me to be fair. I reckon any two-bit painter could fire something like that out.

[Wayward Lad]

Mirro - another genius im sure you will agree

[Wayward Lad]

Pollock - another genius - brought rhyming slang to the art world for the first time...