Modern art.....why?

[cannedheat]

Whereas sneering at Modern Art involves a level of genius few here would understand?

No mate we are realist and not conned, unlike some.

 

[keaton]

and patronising people that have asked for an explanation is ok is it? Please answer my post a few above this one.

When exactly did I patronise you?

 

[Kylies Stunt Arse]

With your response of art history course for the uninterested. I did then ask you to please exlain.

 

[cannedheat]

Was this a picture of Rothkos first ever slice of cake called Honey and Strawberry with Chocolate and Vanilla cream filling.
See I am into this modern art.

 

[Skaville]

I like Rothko. He made a big impression on me on my first visit to the Tate Britain when i was still at school. They used to have a huge room full of Rothko's (perhaps they still do) and it was very dark, imposing and moody.

His work really stuck with me, despite seeing Dali, Picasso, Rembrandt, Rodin, Turner, Van Gogh, Monet and Gainsborough that day.

Surely art is about opinion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I for one like his work. Can I explain it? Well, no. You'll need an art historian for that, but as I understand it, much of art is about originality and where it sits against what has been done before.

Emin's bed, another piece that I enjoyed is a prime example. Part of it is the idea and being the first to do it, but it's really about what it portrays, which to me is a persons life in turmoil. I thought the use of her bed and the stuff around it really encapsulated it. It's not enough to say "I could have done that". What you have to accept is that she did that and to me (and this is just MY opinion) it captures something beautifully.

 

[cannedheat]

the people who weep before my paintings are having the same religious experience I had when I painted them."
-Mark Rothko

No they aint mate, they are crying with laughter at the tosser who has handed over millions for your garbage.

Also I see Rothko suffered from depression, cant think why.

 

[keaton]

With your response of art history course for the uninterested. I did then ask you to please exlain.

Without wishing to patronise you, that's not patronising. If you are genuinely interested i'd read up on it, there's thousands of websites and books on the matter

 

[cannedheat]

I like Rothko. He made a big impression on me on my first visit to the Tate Britain when i was still at school. They used to have a huge room full of Rothko's (perhaps they still do) and it was very dark, imposing and moody.

His work really stuck with me, despite seeing Dali, Picasso, Rembrandt, Rodin, Turner, Van Gogh, Monet and Gainsborough that day.

Surely art is about opinion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I for one like his work. Can I explain it? Well, no. You'll need an art historian for that, but as I understand it, much of art is about originality and where it sits against what has been done before.

Emin's bed, another piece that I enjoyed is a prime example. Part of it is the idea and being the first to do it, but it's really about what it portrays, which to me is a persons life in turmoil. I thought the use of her bed and the stuff around it really encapsulated it. It's not enough to say "I could have done that". What you have to accept is that she did that and to me (and this is just MY opinion) it captures something beautifully.

Did you never go scrumping.

 

[Skaville]

Did you never go scrumping.

Er, yes. A trip to an art gallery when you are fourteen does not exclude any kid the opportunity to have a childhood.

 

[cannedheat]

Oh well if you found an art gallery interesting at 14 thats fine.
At fourteen I was more interested in getting a glimpse of Miss Turners knickers, and had my class be taken to an art gallery most of us would have ended up on the pier.

 

[Skaville]

Oh well if you found an art gallery interesting at 14 thats fine.
At fourteen I was more interested in getting a glimpse of Miss Turners knickers, and had my class be taken to an art gallery most of us would have ended up on the pier.

Thanks for those kind words. Having your approval makes me feel much better. You may be unaware of this - they don't have piers in central London. You would have had to have shown a good level of ingenuity.

I actually went to Stanley Deason so I'm sure you can imagine how well behaved our school trips were, especially as you appear to be an authority on everything, including Miss Turners knickers

 

[Gwylan]

That painting is actually from 1950 - as a matter of interest when does 'modern' art cease to become modern?

I actually love Rothko's work - we have two prints hanging in our living room. Interesting that people mention children's paintings, part of what Rothko wanted to portray was the way a child sees the world.

For those who ask what's great: to paraphrase Louis Armstrong - If you have to ask, you just ain't got it.

 

[tedebear]

What annoys me, and this thread is a prime example, is the attitude that many modern art fans adopt, which is the "if you don't understand then you're an idiot"....What ever happened to ... "I get it, and I also appreciate that I can't explain why I get it and however, I fully respect that you don't get it" attitude.

Why is it always I'm better than you because I can appreciate a £36 million pound piece of paint on canvas??

 

[m20gull]

For me Rothko works on two levels:

His colour field work is inspiring - inspiring a whole wealth of emotions - which is what it is intended to do. Abstract Expressionism is a step in the development of art from realistic works of the 18th century through different schools, like Impressionism and Expressionism where increasingly the light and then emotion became more important than what was being painted or the skill required. Other schools still persist with realism - it's just a different type of modern art.

Secondly the colour field work is one stage in Rothko's own development from primitive works, gradually stripping away the detail to get to the pure emotion of the artist, seen eventually in the grim later works shortly before his suicide.

 

[Nibble]

I like some modern art and some I don't but IMHO no piece of art is worth £36m while there are people in our own country who cannot afford to feed and clothe themselves.

 

[tedebear]

For me Rothko works on two levels:

His colour field work is inspiring - inspiring a whole wealth of emotions - which is what it is intended to do. Abstract Expressionism is a step in the development of art from realistic works of the 18th century through different schools, like Impressionism and Expressionism where increasingly the light and then emotion became more important than what was being painted or the skill required. Other schools still persist with realism - it's just a different type of modern art.

Secondly the colour field work is one stage in Rothko's own development from primitive works, gradually stripping away the detail to get to the pure emotion of the artist, seen eventually in the grim later works shortly before his suicide.

Cool! Not sure I understand what colour field work means though? Choice of colours or colours together?

 

[m20gull]

Cool! Not sure I understand what colour field work means though? Choice of colours or colours together?

Colour field refers to his paintings which comprise essentially fields of colour "floating" over each other.

 

[cannedheat]

Colour field refers to his paintings which comprise essentially fields of colour "floating" over each other.

Thats all very well but who is going to win the 3-50 at York today.
Prawn sandwich anyone.
.

 

[m20gull]

Colour field refers to his paintings which comprise essentially fields of colour "floating" over each other.

... as opposed to earlier works like this

 

[tedebear]

Yep - I understand now. Not sure it does to me the same thing it does to you - but I certainly can see what you're saying!