Some Thoughts on Abstract Expression

In my quest to expand my philosophy of art and know art history, I have found that the work of Mark Rothko is some of the most controversial art that is feared by 'realist' painters and thinkers. Often they cite his work in their desperate attempt to undermine anything that is not concretely defined or anything they don't understand. Rothko sought to know the things he didn't understand, here's a quote from the man himself....

"Art is an adventure into an unknown world, which can only be explored by those willing to take risks."

-Mark Rothko

I agree completely with him when says that "art is an adventure." And he was one of the greatest adventurers of that unknown world, leaving us a magnificent body of work, portals right into the depths of his soul. Yes, there are absolutely some artist's out there who simplify their expression into a kind of dull, simple, decorative display of swooshes and textures, with maybe some gold leaf and bits of music written on parchment thrown in, and then call there work 'contemporary'. If I was president (thank heavens I'm not) I would have all of these artists banned from art supply stores everywhere.

They are a reason serious artists like myself and Rothko have a harder time reaching a wider audience with our art. What I am saying is that labels like 'abstract' and 'non-objective' or contemporary, just get in the way of what is soulful art. An effort to reach across time and space with your work to touch people in an honest way with reflections of your own soul. This is what Rothko did,... If you've ever seen one of his paintings in person you know that it shines like a beacon the moment you enter the room it's in. (It does for me anyways).

Mark Rothko on His Paintings

One of my all time favorite painters is Mark Rothko. Probably one of the most misunderstood 20th century painters, his life is fascinating. He preferred cheap Chinese takeout to gourmet restaurants, and once turned down a multi-million dollar commission from Seagram's. After completing the works and visiting the location where the paintings were to hang, he decided he didn't want his work to be viewed by stuffy, greedy, business executives. I think he makes an important distinction in each of the two following quotes concerning the perception of his work:

"I’m not an abstractionist. I’m not interested in the relationship of color or form or anything else. I’m interested only in expressing basic human emotions: tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on."

"The fact that people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions.. the people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when painting them. And if you say you are moved only by their color relationships then you miss the point."

-Mark Rothko (1903 -1970)

He is not concerned with the relationships of the colors in his work, but of the relationship of the work to himself and the viewer, and the emotional response. Someday I would love to see some of his larger work in person.

Art Must Have Soul to Be Good

To me, a painting about nothing is, a bowl of apples; although well painted, I would find it very boring. Some would say Mark Rothko's paintings are about nothing, I disagree. Let's look at a quote from the man:

"It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing."

-Mark Rothko

I have seen only one of his originals, hanging in the Nelson Atkins museum in Kansas City, but viewing it how can one say it is about nothing? There is an immediate sense of awe, of void, of etherealness, emptiness, of soul-stirring energy. When I view that painting by Rothko, I cannot help but be overcome with a sense of emotion I could only call Rothko.