THE POWER OF ART - ROTHKO

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.