Have you seen Simon Schama's Power of Art series? If yes, then good for you. If not, well, you really should! Anyway, in our Humanities: Survey of the Visual Arts course, we have meetings specially dedicated to watching Simon Schama's videos. We have seen Caravaggio's, Bernini's, Picasso's, and lastly, Rothko's. I'm personally planning to watch the rest of the videos that we weren't able to watch. (See the full list of the videos
here.) We watched Rothko's video earlier and having seen most of Simon Schama's videos, I can say that Simon became personal and emotional when he talked about Rothko. Probably because he met Rothko's --correct me if I'm mistaken--Red on Maroon through an "accident" which occurred when he mistakenly took the wrong turn at London Tate Gallery? Or maybe because Rothko's work is an emotion itself. I personally don't know anything about art and such, however I can say that I'm can appreciate art, no matter what that means. I can appreciate art, but I, for the love of the heavens above, can't produce a "decent artwork."
Anyway, I should be talking about Rothko's artwork. I can name a handful of self-proclaimed artists who'll say that Abstraction or Abstract Expressionism is nonsense or created without effort, thus it has no meaning; it's just scribbles mounted unto each other, they would say. I always, always try to explain why I disagree on such shallow interpretation of that kind of art. Rothko is one proof that Abstract Expressionism means so much more than what our eyes can deceive.
Art to me is an anecdote of the spirit, and the only means of making concrete the purpose of its varied quickness and stillness. ~Mark Rothko
What I adore about Rothko's work is that he created them for the message that he wanted to provoke, not because of the audience that he wanted to please. As a matter of fact, he never cared whether or not people would be pleased or not.What he wanted to happen is for the people to see the meaning, to make minds think, and to leave a mark on his viewer forever. That's probably the reason why he always wanted to have his works displayed in height of the person viewing it. Did I say that right? If not, see photo below for reference. Also, he always answered that the right distance to view his work is "oh, 18 inches." In that way, I guess, the person will have the clearer view and in depth analysis of what Rothko is trying to say through his art. After all, he's the man who thought that art could change the world, right?
Mark Rothko is also one of the few artists who did art for the message and not for the profit. I mean, who would back-out from a then $38,000 (that would be like a staggering $2,000,000 right now) deal with the Seagram Building's Four Seasons Restaurant just because he thought that "anyone who would pay this price for food will never take a look at my art"*?
I am not an abstractionist. ... I am not interested in the relationship of colour or form or anything else. ... I'm interested only in expressing basic human emotions — tragedy, ecstasy, doom and so on — and the fact that a lot of people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures show that I communicate those basic human emotions. ... The people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when I painted them. And if you, as you say, are moved only by their color relationships, then you miss the point!
I am not an authority, but I really believe that art should be free from should's**. If done with the help of restriction and rules, then where's the essence of using art as a medium to connect the relationship between what's present and what the artists want to evoke? I guess what made Rothko an art legend is not the "beauty" of his art, but the message that he wanted to tell to the whole world. And I guess that alone is more than enough.
*Not the exact sentence that Rothko said.
**See what I did there? Shenanigan.