I've been reading a collection of Donald Judd's reviews and he said this about Rothko, "The verticals are simultaneously areas, color, light, and volume—which is intrinsic to Rothko's successful work." That reading doesn't contradict anything you wrote but I think that this formal sophistication becomes the vehicle for that meaning. Rothko himself saw things in other terms and said stuff like, “I'm not an abstractionist. I'm not interested in the relationship of color or form or anything else. I'm interested only in expressing basic human emotions: tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on.” Anyway, I think that we need more close formal analysis of works of art but also more ecstasy and doom.
Yes, but who cares what the empirical person who is the artist says about the work? ;) I suppose I don't buy expression theories that consider art to be expressions of emotions—or if it is an expression of an emotion, it's not how we usually use the word "emotion" (a general psychical feeling caused by something, eg. ecstacy, sadness, joy, etc.) but, rather, the feeling coincident with the perception of a particular work. Emotional responses are contingent, but I see looking at art to be an attempt to move past the contingencies of being a particular person. Which is also why I don't ever consider what the artist wanted the work to do, or thought it was doing.
So interesting.... suspending our preconceived notions and looking with the eyes of a child- rewording, reimagining, remaking the world through the painting... a whole new of seeing art for me. Thanks for the nudge towrd something new...
I've been reading a collection of Donald Judd's reviews and he said this about Rothko, "The verticals are simultaneously areas, color, light, and volume—which is intrinsic to Rothko's successful work." That reading doesn't contradict anything you wrote but I think that this formal sophistication becomes the vehicle for that meaning. Rothko himself saw things in other terms and said stuff like, “I'm not an abstractionist. I'm not interested in the relationship of color or form or anything else. I'm interested only in expressing basic human emotions: tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on.” Anyway, I think that we need more close formal analysis of works of art but also more ecstasy and doom.
Yes, but who cares what the empirical person who is the artist says about the work? ;) I suppose I don't buy expression theories that consider art to be expressions of emotions—or if it is an expression of an emotion, it's not how we usually use the word "emotion" (a general psychical feeling caused by something, eg. ecstacy, sadness, joy, etc.) but, rather, the feeling coincident with the perception of a particular work. Emotional responses are contingent, but I see looking at art to be an attempt to move past the contingencies of being a particular person. Which is also why I don't ever consider what the artist wanted the work to do, or thought it was doing.
So interesting.... suspending our preconceived notions and looking with the eyes of a child- rewording, reimagining, remaking the world through the painting... a whole new of seeing art for me. Thanks for the nudge towrd something new...