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.
While I have no idea the size of the image, it seems interesting that the painting was made on three separate canvases (or whatever material it’s on), instead of painting it as one picture. Furthermore, he is emphasizing the fact that it’s on three canvases because of the darker shade of red on the two side panels. If you look at this picture it seems like the middle panel doesn't fit; not only is it a different shade of red, but if you took it out the two outer panels and put them together, it looks like they would fit together in the shape of a circle. Why did he paint a picture with an essential piece (1/3 of the image) that doesn’t seem like it should be part of the image?
ReplyDeleteIf I had to fathom a guess at the answer to my question (I know that I don’t, but I’m going to anyway), I think Rothko is trying to tell us something important. He’s commentating on life; life is full of circles, not the literal shape of a circle, but the connotation behind the shape. Circles signify processes. The circle of friendship, the circle of love, the circle of happiness, etc- any and every circle is being represented through the two outer canvases. And the middle represents the cancer in our life; the things that look like they belong in the circle, and appear to be right, but upon further inspection they seem so out of place. Rothko is telling us to take a closer look at our life, and see what doesn’t fit before it is too late, lest they become part of the circle.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen i first looked at the painting it reminded me of a stop sign, which made sense considering the fact that, as Mr. Williams said, this was made to STOP narratives and STOP content-based interpretations. Going deeper into the painting it seems as though he chose to paint it on three separate panels in order to show how he might feel violated as a painter by all the critiquing as if the stop sign has been broken through and now he is putting it back together.
ReplyDeleteBut after reading the manifesto i got a little confused. Rothko lists 5 aesthetic beliefs of artists. The first one says that art isn adventure into the unknown world and can only be done by those who are willing to take risks. The second states that the world of art is not materialistic and anti-common sense. The third says the spectator should see the world the way an artist does. The fourth says artists destroy illusion and reveal truth. And the fifth says that it does not matter how the painting is painted but what is painted. All of these beliefs either outright say that anyone who does not paint cannot understand or hints to the fact that artists are better than other people; even the way he wrote number five is written with an obnoxious tone.
As an artist who hates it when his work is commented on why does he write this manifesto? It seems as though it was written to stir the commentators up even more, it's written in a way that would egg them on. His point would have been better made with the painting alone.
"Their explanation must come out of a
ReplyDeleteconsummated experience between picture and
onlooker."
I thought this was very interesting when contrasted with the painting. the three panels and the different shades of red bring ones attention to the middle (the brightest) panel. the two outer panels are not quite the same but they are close enough that the average viewer would not notice the differences. why does making 2/3 of the painting as if negligable prove his point?
Tani
Why red? red signifies blood and fire, it also symbolizes infatuation. Is there a explanation why he chose red over the color of pink, which resembles tranquility?
ReplyDelete--Jon Levi
When I searched online to find out just what a triptych is, I went to Wikipedia and found out that this medium originated with middle ages christian art. Apparently, it was used for church decorations. If Rothko, who grew up in a Jewish home, and whose whole reason for painting was to change how people view the world post holocaust, and assuming he knew the history of Triptychs, why would he chose them as his tool to change the world? And I don't think the reason is their ease of transport.
ReplyDelete-Ami Charnoff
So Rothko, you want to change the world with art, eh? You want to make something like a spiritual experience, or at least an experience that exceeds the boundaries of pure aesthetic? So here’s what I feel. Center panel; rage, hate, anger, side panels; fade these feelings into a dark depression. Or, Rothko, glance again. What can you see? Love, passion, excitement and fade off into a plaintive calm. So, you’ve succeeded in causing emotion through color, an experience outside pure aesthetic, but so what! You can’t change the world with your art if it can convey opposite emotions and you must have seen that! So, my question for you Rothko is, if you truly believed your art could influence the world in any way what are you getting at with this picture? It could convey so much so what do you want to say?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRothko was a strong believer that art could be applied in any context and when he found out that his art would be placed in places where it wouldnt be appreciated it simply killed him and his views and along with other reasons caused him to commit suicide. Could it be that this painting is describing life itself as Rothko saw it? The painting is set on three sections, the first and third have a kind of burnt curved look to them, and the middle board is red with a texture. Could it be that the outside boards are symbolizing the begining and end of life which is usually hazy for most people, and the middle of life is when you are most vibrant? The burnt edges also create the illusion that there is a circle there, is he showing the circle of life in his painting; hazy edges and a circle to complete it?
ReplyDeleteJulia
Mark Rothko was an amazing artist and had his own style of painting. It wasn't the perfect painting that you imagine that looked beautiful. His paintings were very very dark. Inthe documentary he said that it took him years to paint something but why did it take him so long for this red and black painting? why did he choose these colors? Red symbolizes blood and it could also symbolize love, roses etc. and black symbolizes evil and darkness. Did he start out putting the black(darkness) on the outside and red in the inside to show that One can be dark and shaded on the outside but a truly nice person on the inside?
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
ReplyDeleteThis is addressed to a few of you: does anything in this painting have to symbolize something outside of it in order for the whole thing to have meaning?
From what I know about this painting many people see it as representing things like blood that its dark and depressing and I understand how they can see it as that. But when I first looked at it I saw the black edges of the painting as darkness and the red as a light. The edge of the red (where the circle first starts) is a mix between the black and the red and as you look more towards the center of the red circle the red becomes lighter and brighter and to me looks like a red light or fire. The red light could be lighting up the darkness and taking over it (because it takes up most of the painting). Although some view this as a depressing painting maybe Rthko could've meant it to be more positive and inspiring? Maybe he meant it to be shown to people as an emotion of a strong light fighting against the thick darkness and possibly emptiness.
ReplyDeleteFrom what we watched today in class, Rothko is not the kind to completely BS a work of art, such as Duchamp. However, though I may be exposing myself as one of those that does not understand art referred to in the text, I would like to say the piece is malarkey.
ReplyDeleteHad the piece been given a name or any form of context, it may have garnered the promotion to mediocre, but as the work stands, I maintain that it is utter malarkey, and herein lies my question. What, at the end of the day, makes a piece of art great or even anything at all? Had Rothko painted this at age six, would we dub him prodigy? If tomorrow, I replicated the piece in art class, would I not be reprimanded for wasting the red so the other kids can draw flowers and gumdrops? The piece says it is not in the eyes of a critic to dub art as art, it is for the artist’s appreciation alone. If this is true, why would Rothko put his art in museums?
The follow-up writing says art is for the artist’s imagination alone. I doubt a realist painter, such as Winslow Homer or Alex Ross would agree, the statement is made is a self-conscious defense made by a suicidal artist.
However, back to my previous question, had Rothko been given sustenance for absolutely zero published works, would he paint the dreck the hoity-toity art critics of the world see as great or would he paint realistic and aesthetically pleasing art that makes sense? Was Rothko merely a product of others egging his garbage on?
-Joey Eleff
I am reading through some of the creative and astute interpretations of my classmates and all I can think of is: WOW. Who knew a red blob could stir up so many feelings and poignant analyses. I don’t know what Rothko’s intentions were, but it is interesting that his red blob could lead to so many varying interpretations and thoughts.
ReplyDeleteGive me an essay, and I will analyze it; give me a daf of Gemara, and I will work my way through it; give me a red blob, and I am left speechless. I stared and stared for 30 seconds, and all I could think about was the image on the canvases. The beauty and color of the majestic red blob overtook me, but it did not lead me anywhere – I was left staring at a red blob, nothing more.
Because we have to ask a question, here is mine: is my experience of staring at this Rothko less valuable than that of Ben, who came up with a poetic and moving interpretation? From Rothko’s comments about the point of art, it seems he created this painting for the Bens of the world whose imaginations can lead them beyond the red blob and into a serious commentary on life. Is Rothko only painting for the people that can derive meaning, even if it was not the meaning intended by Rothko if he even intended to convey any particular message, or is he also painting for the Nathans of the world that can stare for minutes at his beautiful red blob, maybe evoke some emotions, but cannot articulate any thoughts about the meaning of the painting?
In other words, when I stare at this blob and am left speechless, have I failed? Is it enough, in Rothko’s world, that I appreciate the ascetics of his beautiful red blob, and move on, without learning anything about the meaning of life?
“It is the function of the is our function as artists to make the spectator see the world our way—not his way.” It appears that Rothko wanted to teach me how to see the world through his eyes. Has he failed if I have failed to derives meaning or a worldview from his red blob?
ReplyDeleteMust meaning come from the painting? After all, doesn't meaning well up inside of us as we interpret? Are we expecting a 'message' from the work or should we be expecting our own complex emotional and intellectual response? By frustrating conventional narrative, does Rothko frustrate meaning-making as well? And what does that say about the world he's painting in?
ReplyDeleteA quick response to JE; Rothko went through more than 30 years of financial hardship in order to produce his paintings. No one was egging him on. But, is he a shirtless dancing guy to some extent? And, if so, what could possibly be so great about this art anyway? Or, to be a tad cynical for a sec, is the fact that he's a Jewish artist playing to Manhattan in the 60s mean that his art doesn't have to be as good per say?
ReplyDeleteTalia, I agree. The paintings does indeed speak for itself, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteThis piece of art is extraordinarily abstract. It would be very difficult if not impossible for the common viewer to gain any appreciation of this work as it appears only to be a red blob. The only person who would have any idea what the painting 'means' is the artist himself. Is it possible that was Rothko's intention, to leave us bewildered? And furthermore was he making a statement through the likely lack of viewer appreciation?
ReplyDeleteIs it possible Rothko did not intend to evoke any emotion from others? This painting was simply for his own self understanding and he did not intend for others to "get it"?
ReplyDeleteDavid Reiz
As Ben Zwillinger said earlier, it is interesting that this piece of art was painted on three separate canvases. But to take it into a little more detail, why does Rothko use the two outside canvases as a darker red and the middle a lighter one? Rothko's art has point that only abstract thinkers can grasp, so what does the shading in this masterpiece symbolize?
ReplyDelete-Aaron Zuckerman
I'd like to begin by attacking the premise of this task. You did some fancy footwork in limiting the assignment to a simple "Please ask one question" while keeping it open ended. By juxtaposition, the hope is that we would infer the question would need to be on the painting. Needless to say, many of us were duped and went down the wrong road. The reason I say "duped" is that many responses were misled into assessing their responses, their reactions, their analyzing of Rothko's tryptich. I'm sorry but to be blunt this is not Rothko's tryptich nor is it even a cheap copy of it. It is at most a projection, a digitization of a minimal part of Rothko's work. Not only does this "representation" fail to carry over the depth or the intricacy of color and texture which imbue the original but so much more is lost in "translation" or more precisely digitization. The room, the placement of the canvas (on the wall etc.), the sheer magnitude of the canvas, the lighting, the aura and architecture of the room, the experience of viewer with painting and so much more (sorry but for the sake of saving space this list has been vague) are all left behind with the original painting. How can we ever hope of coming close to a genuine reaction (if we can even do that) to Rothko's painting if we've never seen it before and if our sole basis for reflection is a partial, very limited, projection?
ReplyDeleteWith those major qualifications, I'll very briefly comment on the "image" itself. Though I was very much intrigued by Ben's reaction to the "image", I see it very differently. To me, the creeping black border around the outer parts of the painting which form the ever sharpening (as one moves toward the center of the painting from either end) structure of this round body very fluidly draws the eyes inward. The compressing sphere boxes one's eyes inward towards the center--As my eyes move inward, almost against their will, I have this sepulchral feeling of being trapped. Thus, I find it acerbically ironic that it is the inner box which alleviates my growing feeling of compression and claustrophobia. The box, which is often a metaphor for what was previously described, becomes a gateway for me--my incarnadine savior. It, unlike the other parts, has no creeping ink-black border to stunt its flow, its dynamism. Yet, by the same token, this portal (for me, anyways) is hauntingly unnatural. I sense that it is out of place, that it doesn't belong--that it almost mocks my desire to find solace within its never-ending upper and lower edges. The eminence of the side edges of this middle panel (as pronounced by the contrasts of the bright red to the black and as is muted on the already dark paint of the side panels) is a harsh jolt back into a harsh reality. Once again, these are my own feelings and though they may abstractify the painting and although they may provide it with some artificial meaning, regardless, that meaning is what has characterized my interaction with the "image". To throw the question back at you Mr. Williams, why should there be an issue with my imbuing my interaction with the "image" with a sense of meaning, regardless of whether or not it must have meaning?
ReplyDeleteIss, you crazy!
ReplyDeleteAriel,
ReplyDeleteTo some extent, all we can do is construct our own meanings. Sure, a painter (or writer for that matter) can gesture toward certain epiphanies through the vocabulary and structure of their respective pros, but it is still us (the viewer/reader) who has to enact the image. Rothko's paintings, after all, wouldn't mean anything to anyone (except him) if they were constantly ignored. It's our very presence in time and space relative to the object which animates it and gives it meaning. As one professor explained to me - it is we who operate the mechanism of the text.
So, to throw this back at you - if we construct our own meanings based on the gestures of the art, are there ever wrong interpretations?