Rothko

[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.