How can we consider this art, given our heritage?

Question

Take a look at this Rothko paiting http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/88m-rothko-record-paints-new-picture-of-local-scene/2007/05/16/1178995236232.html

This atrocity sold for $88M, compare it to this Caravaggio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Calling-of-st-matthew.jpg or this Waterhouse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_William_Waterhouse_-_Hylas_and_the_Nymphs_(1896).jpg or this Alma Tadema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alma-Tadema_The_Education_of_the_Children_of_Clovis.jpg . What has happenned to us?

Answer 1

I know exactly how you feel. I love waterhouse, alma tadema and all classic art. I hate modern art and imppressionists. They ruined art in my opinion. Monet and all of those guys were just artist who couldn't draw. my favorite artist is Bougarreau. His paintings look like photgraphs. That is art to me. It is beautiful. It doesn't leave you thinking "what was the artist thinking" What is the point of that?

Answer 2

First off, I also think that Rothko is a pile of crap and hardly worth the money paid for it.

But that does not mean all modern art, all contemporary art, is crap.

The real question here is when and where do you draw the line at your distaste for 'modern' art? Or modern anything, for that matter?

That Waterhouse is in itself an abstraction if you think about it. When was the last time you or anyone else has actually seen a Water Nymph? There are none. So, by painting something that doesn't actually exist on the reality plane aren't you abstracting from reality? By life's definition it could fall under the class of an abstract painting. So, are you going to hate it now because it is abstract art?

Something you might want to consider before you wish us all back into the dark ages is this: All things created by man are abstractions. The straight line, the complete circle, the automobile, the washing machine and the computer you've posted this question on. It's all an abstraction from nature and what we were naturally born into.

To say that art can't, or shouldn't, grow or expand beyond what it was two hundred years ago sounds kind of narrow minded. And where do you draw the line? Can we not listen to and love and appreciate modern music because it's not the music of Beethoven or Bach or Mozart? Does that mean that Pink Floyd or The Beatles or Andrew Lloyd Webber have nothing profound to say?

Here's the big difference between modern art and classical-based art. With realistic figurative art the painter is setting up the story and basically telling you what to think and what emotions to feel. In modern art, from Dali to Picasso to Pollock to Hopper to Warhol contemporary artists have come to expect the viewer to think for themself, to apply your own imagination, to 'fill in the story lines' yourself. Some people simply don't want to think for themselves, don't want to add to or complete the story themselves, I suppose.

Here is a 'modern' (finished last November) painting:

http://pics.livejournal.com/unmired/pic/0002k4cy/g11

Although the woman looks real enough the painting becomes an abstraction because of the subject matter and the setting. So, you could call this painting both modern art and abstract art or you could say that it has the elements of classical art that has abstracted from the norm.

As the artist who painted this I will tell you that I would quit painting if I had to copy and imitate and re-produce the same style of art that other artists have done for hundreds of years.

Answer 3

I am an artist of over 25 years experience and I still feel befuddled about certain abstract works such, as the Rothko, fetching such an enormous sum of money. However I can also understand that art cannot remain the same for ever. It changes with the times, for art is a reflection of the society during which it is produced. Some daring artists take the plunge and try to shock, and if the times are conducive to such a change in style and their work is backed by the support of certain art critics, they strike it lucky.
Care to view my web site: www.jessicart.com

Answer 4

Different people have different tastes. I personally would not spend that much on art (even if I had it) but who cares if someone else does?

"Modern art" broke all barriers of art. Yes, it also seemed to slap real talent and skill in the face. I am personally attracted more and more to the Masters of old... Those artists who had God given talent at expressing nature and the human spirit/condition.

I get a real laugh out of the ultra-rich, completely art illiterate crowd as they are "told" by art critics what the ''value" of a particular artwork is. Have you ever really read or listened to these pompous know-nothings?

Fine by me if they want to spend that kind of money on a Rothko. Maybe it's really worth that much to them.

Answer 5

Hi:

I actually like a lot of different types of art, and this painting isn't so bad.

If you want to read some interesting perspectives on contemporary art, check out Paul Dorrell's blog. He is a local Kansas City, Missouri gallery owner and author of a wonderful book entitled "Living the Artist's Life".

Answer 6

Given who's heritage? Do you mean our heritage as art enthusiast, artist, Italians, baroque painters? What you label an atrocity others see as beautiful. It is considered art because it is art. If you see the work of Caravaggio to be the standard at which all art should be judged, you are sadly narrow minded and ignorant of what art is. Although artist such as Caravaggio were so wonderfully talented in the ability to represent "reality", does this make him more of an artist than say a Jason Pollock or Jasper Johns? Are their ideas and ability less important or less art than that of Rubens? Do not mistake your personal taste in art affect what you believe to be art. Many people love American Idol, I personally think its horrible but its still a TV show.

And to the person who said artist such as Monet and "others" were just people who couldn't draw, do some research.

Answer 7

Art is about expression. What is expression to one isn't nec that to another. Art is ever changing with the climate of the area of which you live! Not to mention what something is worth is relative to what someone will pay for it. So I'd say whether you like this piece or not it is art to the painter and buyer and worth that amount. Everything within this realm is subjective.

Answer 8

you seem to be comparing apples to chocolate chips (or visaversa)...although the price of the Rothko floors me, especially for no more that what it appears to be, (my sample boards for faux and speciality finishes are more complex and colourful), (maybe i ought to see what they will market for, but i seriously doubt that i'd get much, let alone 88 M.)
by the same token, i've seen way more impressive abstract work than the rothko.

Answer 9

What's your point?

Art has nothing to do with money.

Spending 5 billion a day on some war THAT's wrong.

Answer 10

good question.....what has happened to us? madness