Mark Rothko's Typtich
Please ask one question for Monday evening:
This tryptich was made to resist narratives and most content-based interpretations, as such it's one of the most difficult things you'll see all year. Below is a manifesto about the point of art in the 20th century written mostly by Rothko. It might assist with your interpretations.
Adolph Gottlieb and Mark Rothko, Statement, 1943*
To the artist the workings of the critical mind is one
of life's mysteries. That is why, we suppose, the art-
ist's complaint that he is misunderstood, especially
by the critic, has become a noisy commonplace. It
is therefore an event when the worm turns and the
critic quietly, yet publicly, confesses his "befuddle-
ment," that he is "nonplused" before our pictures at
the federation show. We salute this honest, we
might say cordial, reaction toward our "obscure"
paintings, for in other critical quarters we seem to
have created a bedlam of hysteria. And we appreci-
ate the gracious opportunity that is being offered us
to present our views.
We do not intend to defend our pictures. They make
their own defense. We consider them clear state-
ments. Your failure to dismiss or disparage them is
prima facie evidence that they carry some commu-
nicative power. We refuse to defend them not be-
cause we cannot. It is an easy matter to explain to
the befuddled that The Rape of Persephone [by Adolph Gottlieb] is a poetic expression
of the essence of the myth; the presentation of the concept of seed and its earth with all
the brutal implications; the impact of elemental truth. Would you have us present this ab-
stract concept, with all its complicated feelings,
by means of a boy and girl lightly tripping?
It is just as easy to explain The Syrian Bull [by
Mark Rothko] as a new interpretation of an ar-
chaic image, involving unprecedented distor-
tions. Since art is timeless, the significant ren-
dition of a symbol, no matter how archaic, has
as full validity today as the archaic symbol had
then. Or is the one 3,000 years old truer? . . .
No possible set of notes can explain our paint-
ings. Their explanation must come out of a
consummated experience between picture and
onlooker. The point at issue, it seems to us, is
not an "explanation" of the paintings, but
whether the intrinsic ideas carried within the
frames of these pictures have significance. We
feel that our pictures demonstrate our aesthetic
beliefs, some of which we, therefore, list:
1.To us art is an adventure into an unknown
world, which can be explored only by those
willing to take the risks.
2. This world of the imagination is fancy-free and violently opposed to common
sense.
3. It is our function as artists to make the spectator see the world our way—not his
way.
4. We favor the simple expression of the complex thought. We are for the large
shape because it has the impact of the unequivocal. We wish to reassert the picture
plane. We are for flat forms because they destroy illusion and reveal truth.
5. 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 academism. There is no
such thing as good painting about nothing. We assert that the subject is crucial and
only that subject-matter is valid which is tragic and timeless. That is why we profess
spiritual kinship with primitive and archaic art.
Consequently, if our work embodies these beliefs it must insult anyone who is spiritually
attuned to interior decoration; pictures for the home; pictures for over the mantel; pic-
tures of the American scene; social pictures; purity in art; prize-winning potboilers; the
National Academy, the Whitney Academy, the Corn Belt Academy; buckeyes; trite tripe,
etc.
