Rothko

[David Draime]

73 million dollars. Set a postwar art record yesterday at Sotheby's (story here). I guess Abstract Expressionism is alive and well....or at least its acquisition.

[Claudemir Bonfim]

I agree with Fred Ross http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2...ll/review1.asp who says that "Abstract Art is Not Abstract and Definitely Not Art". I can't understand why somebody would pay more than $10.00 for that.

[Carol Norton]

Originally Posted by Claudemir Bonfim

I agree with Fred Ross [url]http:// who says that "Abstract Art is Not Abstract and Definitely Not Art". I can't understand why somebody would pay more than $10.00 for that.

The answer, I firmly believe, lies with the fairy tale "The Emperor's Suit of Clothes."

It is EASY to fool anyone. Just create a meme or spread a rumor (blog) and find out how simple it is for a non-integrous person to convince others of anything. Whole civilizations have marched and gone to war over such idiocies without ever knowing what is true or what is false.

Neither can I understand why ANYONE would pay ANYTHING for "that." During the 60's or 70's, I recall hearing a wonderful seascape artist hovering over his large, abstract canvas, telling a young, naive couple at The Laguna Beach Art Festival that his painting, displaying the 3 primary colors that he had dripped over the top of a large white canvas, represented GRAVITY! The couple were transfixed by his explanation, looking for some "deeper" meaning, I supose. I couldn't stick around to learn if they "bought" it as I hadn't eaten dinner yet.

I would suggest that the individual who "created" that stuff should pay his VIEWERS for the sacrifice of their viewing time and their future indigestion.

[Richard Bingham]

Hmm. I kinda like it. Actually, I like a lot of Rothko.

What is healthy about a discussion on this topic is not to question the validity or the value of a piece such as this, but to ask just how indeed, was it possible for the entire "art establishment" to eventually accept, then underwrite the whole of modernism throughout the past century?

Another worthy question is wherefore the valuation of works of art sum total? The fact is that having been dead and gone these 37 long years, after having attained admittance to the "canon" of notable artists, Mr. Rothko is no longer able to produce, and the consequent effect upon supply and demand is what determines the price in those rarified circles, where pickled shark parts bring six figures.

Is it easy to "fool" people? Carol, I beg to differ. If it were easy, I would be very actively "fooling" the public with my own paintings (subject matter or approach certainly wouldn' be at factor in successful deceptions) then laughing all the way to the bank. As it is, my commissions are hard won, few and far between, as are sales of my "spec" pieces.

I truly believe great art in the very near future will be a fusion of the classical/realist approach with the simplest, visceral attributes of abstract expressionism that resonate with sincere honesty. It's already evident in some of the best work being painted curently.

If being an iconoclast "rebel" continues to be the earmark of the "worthy" artist, as it has for a hundred years or more, we who rally to the banner of representational painting are now the revolutionaries The current art establishment which supports this record price for Mr. Rothko's painting is more hidebound, dogmatic and rigidly monolithic in their rule of the "art world" than the French Academie of the late 1800's ever was.