1. Why do you think the narrator makes such a point of
the difference between what his generation was seeing as art and the solemnity
and seriousness of Rothko’s work?
Things changed. Art was no longer what it was, Rothko
was part of a new art generation. His paintings were not traditional.
2. He describes the paintings as ‘throbbing or pulsing’.
Why? Or, can you also see what he means when you are confronted with Rothko’s
work?
The colours & the way that paint was placed on the
canvas, sort of pulled the viewer into some mysterious place. In some way I
believe that the simplicity of the painting made the viewer reach his deepest
thoughts, it kind of lured him into a place of his mind he was not even sure
that existed.
3. How does Rothko, according to the narrator,
demonstrate ‘depth’ over just simple ‘dazzle’? Why would this be important and
what does it show how American art was regarded internationally up until then?
Lighting being kept low, as if one was going to the
cinema, which created expectation. Colours & lines created a pull. This was
different, in some way it showed a deeper meaning, a wider significance of art.
It was an unknown adventure into an unknown space.
4. Why do you think Rothko was so concerned and
preoccupied with the Seagram’s commission? What was it about capitalism that
made him consider and reconsider the assignment?
It was a large commission; he was not sure because of
the American capitalism & his own success story.
5. How do you think Rothko’s Jewish heritage played a
part in his development and success as an artist, if at all?
He was a nontraditional Jew in a traditional family;
he believed that art could change the world. In a way, the mistreatment he got
in Yale made him drop out & forced him, somehow, to focus on his art.
6. What was he really thinking of accomplishing with
the Seagram paintings? How did he view the people who would be dining and thus
viewing them on a regular basis?
It was the greatest challenge of his career. His
murals were a kind of wordless teaching, an antidote to the triviality of life.
Size was a big issue, they weren’t personal but public. He wanted to bring the
tragedy of human life. He wanted to express basic human emotions. He wanted
people to break down & cry when confronted with his paintings.
7. How did ‘traditional education’ actually seem to
get in the way of Rothko following his instincts?
His imagination was limited. He was overthinking &
he was not good. He could only paint broken images. He loaded his paintings
with doom; the real action was not on the image its self, but on the colours.
8. How did the war, according to the narrator,
drastically change the subject matter of painting for Rothko and his
generation?
The paranoia & distraction that the war carried
changed the way daily life was, & so the paintings fought back, & reconnect
people with the truth about humanity. After the holocaust, Rothko said that the
paintings needed to be miracles, because the world had never been in more need
of a miracle than after war. He wanted to remember people about their humanity.
9. Why was Rothko so spellbound by Michael Angelo’s
walls while on his vacation in Europe? What does he say he would like to
similarly achieve?
Colours & shapes were the way to move us; he
wanted to recreate the tranquility that Michael Angelo portrayed on his
paintings.
10. How is it possible to show the ‘truth of being
human’ through abstract art?
The paintings reflect the emotions of the one who is
looking at it. Deep emotions & as different as we are, we are all humans.
11. The narrator talks about the ‘presence’ of
Rothko’s paintings, even if you have your back to them. Do you think that is
plausible, or have you had a similar experience with art in the past? Is there
a possible religious experience in art that secular minded people can also
attain, or see?
The presence of the painting is such that even thought
you turn your back to the painting, you can still feel it. The paintings were unmistakably
deep. He had accomplished something grater. It was more than the colour mixture;
it is about what the paintings are. They seemed to swallow, capture &
submerge the viewer. His paintings were so intense; it
was something that was never seen before. There is a possible religious
experience since the painting capture you in a way that you travel to the
deepest corners of your mind. Rothko wanted a deep personal connection to be made.
Rothko wanted his pictures to be violent, sacrificial, to evoke the most
extreme sentiments
12. In Rothko’s case, did Art triumph over Money?
He cared about the reaction of the people more than
what he cared about the money. Technically he kept honest to himself and
painted they way he wanted, not to be decoration of some “rich guy”, so in a
way, art triumphed over money.
13. What’s the significance of the black paintings in
Rothko Chapel in Texas?
He was angry & defensive because he had been
painting in the same style for a longtime. Texas gave him the opportunity to
change that. He had freedom to install exactly what he wanted.
