This refers not only Rothko and not just pictures.
I think that with the term itself Art need to understand in relation to the new realities. But while the use of the fact that there is. I now really like the term "cultural communication", he once more to determine and separate from the art such actionism , performance , and possibly black square and objects Duchamp etc.
That does not mean elimination of some important facilities of the category values. Simply time infinitely extended beyond the term Art something more concrete, or we can not use it because of the endless disputes. In fact, no longer can.

Added after 5 minutes
Many of these are visible only at the shows , and the average citizen like kitsch with swans, as elsewhere.
But you can take comfort . they do not understand the fervor of our social realism , and the pathos of underground protest also not understand.
Then do not forget that they often just polite. you show them a picture in the gallery , they smile and nod and you feel like you got it. Our ( your) immediately begin to discuss in terms of non-parliamentary .

Yes, it's separate from the art! ...
one grandmother ...
What to keep?
"Cultural communication"?
:D :D :D

And that applies to, etc?
And what we have in the "bottom line"?

What exactly in my post is not acceptable to you ?
Nobody is going to throw out , or diminish the value.
The question of terminology. As part of the discussion.
 The action group War and Cezanne painting all sorts of things is not it?
It is clear that the bar "art" like most , may sound noble, but it does not reflect reality.

That is not acceptable:
Naturally , all sorts - and no one compares. :)
But both - in the arts.

This can be considered correct - but one amendment.

There is no "world process" - was not.

He was over, finished before the revolution.
This is me on the fine arts.

All that was then, after 1913, - it is mostly a rehash, simulation, simulation, and podrazhalovo izmelchalovo (except perhaps that of Dada, but it is clear that its inventors - from the same place and classics doabstraktnogo vanguard).

Eck you bent.
First, Comrade Cezanne knew "paintings" comrade Rothko.
Secondly, I think the comparison is so disparate in scale figures do not light up and did not clarify. Well, it's like comparing the Venus de Milo, and some girl with an oar. You can, of course, but the point?

Of course, Cézanne apples were merely a pretext, and the goal - to make the painting.
Like, say, a conversation with a girl for some guy is just an excuse, and the goal is to pull it, you know.

So, tell you a secret: painting without a reason, without a subject - there is, by definition, there is not a pointless conversation, for example.

I do not care that he wrote Cezanne - I admire his ability to translate his genius visible world.
That embody abstraktivisty?
They want to put in front of us and make a puzzle questions?
And they went, with the questions, I have more of them back if you want.

Another is the term " postmodern game ", also explains a lot. But this is all after Rothko.

And then there is the term " anti-art ", well , by the way , generally accepted. But I would in this category are works Rothko and many of his predecessors ( with no negative connotations , just as the inverse ).

First walked in one direction, then went to the other , and then all began to spin in place.

I think that the pressure has not yet reached a critical point, but it is close to it and then really to be found for a new indication or new term, which will absorb the different manifestations of the human self.
 And while the concept of Art is inflated so that it would fit all. Recently I read I do not remember anyone saying "everything is art", that is, can be summarized as: any unexplained natural needs action - art. Let me explain: one thing to simply go to the bathroom (natural needs), another roll their feces in cans, for example Piero Manzoni, because it is not a natural need, is classified as "art" (he already has and successors). http://bespredell.livejournal.com/294849.html
I think that today, for many it is simply good: just hide behind a kinship with the famous person to receive additional preferences, such as "my dad - art." In fact, everyone knows that the relationship phony, but so far have not shown a finger and marked the real offspring, the show did not work.
P.S. In this case it never comes in the categories of good /bad, and the person may be very talented, just "Dad" has a different :)

 With these definitions, it is difficult to have you back in the early 19 th century, Turner wrote abstraction , te abstract when it is not art, but when the subject - art? Richter- or when fotorealist artist, but soon ceases to be when it gets abstratsionistom ? Floor so you can get inflammation of the brain ....

Turner - an artist, in general, a plebeian , for the common people , that they thought that they were " well received " in the " temple of art " to thought, damn it, but I figured it difficult iskuystvo .

Abstraction I had ever seen.
Do not throw ssylochek ?
The fact that you thought " abstractions " - it's just a sea elements.

 And who , I'm sorry ?
In my opinion , Sviatoslav Richter was a collector, but it is not like a painter.

Well, I do not tell. Here is his schedule, but he has and oil. The brush Sviatoslav in his life was taken more than once (even for auction, I think, something fell , although not at the prices that the other Richter ))):


http://www.sviatoslavrichter.ru/pictures.php?page=1


http://www.artprivatecollections.ru/...t_richter/art/

http://www.artprivatecollections.ru/...rt/archive.php