Mark Rothko
 

I looked at the site of Mark Rothko. Still wondering why they are so expensive? : confused: anyone have any thoughts on this?

be PR? : D

Without the genius of the PR will not help. Naked PR blown off in a few years, and Rothko grows and grows. Simply there are more people who understand it. Recently watched an interesting investigation into the heritage of Rothko. He bequeathed his works to the Fund, which has entrusted to dispose of three of his friends (as he believed). In the end, after the death of his assigned work and as a result of a simple scheme of their cheaply bought Marlborough Gallery - himself famous Lloyd. Per cap crumbs. An example is given when bought now for 12 thousand, and almost immediately sold more than 200 thousand. In general was quite damaging scheme. But then another 19 letnayaya Rothko's daughter filed a lawsuit. It lasted for several years. Marlborough was found guilty, imposed a multimillion-dollar fine, ordered the return unsold paintings. Interesting story, you will need to dig at leisure.

Rothko
 

For example, I, too, wondering why a picture of Rothko pay such huge sums. I do not think that the judicial and unscrupulous stories on the legacy so influence on pricing.
I know that for a simple spectator view of the artist ultimately based on the position of "like-dislike.
I like Picasso a lot more than a Rothko. And the clearer and closer. For me, Rothko's no comparison does not go with any Picasso or a Klimt, Van Gogh INS. And when millions are being paid for these artists, I can understand that.
And what is the mystery of the price of Rothko?
I would be grateful if someone would explain this rush (in my opinion, aesthetically unnecessary).
I can only assume that Rothko's good looks in a modern interior.

In matters of "like-dislike" it is difficult to argue arguments. Am convinced that Rothko could enjoy and at the second attempt. The idea that the secret of success only to be compatible with modern interior, unconvincing. If we continue the series, then get to the absurd:

I can only assume that Malevich good looks in a modern interior ...
I can only assume that Kandinsky good looks in a modern interior ....
I can only assume that Tatlin good looks in a modern interior ...
I can only assume that all American abstract impressionists might look nice in a modern interior.

They look chic in a modern interior with a three-meter ceilings - is understandable. But most of the works of modern-day salon art, too, interior, and how. And the Impressionists interior, but they are not worth much.

Power Rothko not only in the visual eksperssii, but also in the same riddle.

Here are snippets:
in mid-1940's, Rothko to simplify the structure of his paintings, expressive means of limiting the number of colorful blocks, forming a special composition. The intellectual basis of his work - it is almost always a question of interpretation. Rothko usually not give direct answers, counting on the complicity of the viewer in understanding the work. This is the only thing he definitely counted on - the emotional work of the viewer. His paintings are not for recreation, not for relaxation and not for "visual massage. They are designed for empathy. Some see them as a window, allowing the viewer to look into the soul, the other - the door to another world. There is a view (perhaps closest to the truth), that his color field - is the metaphorical image of God.

Generally, you must have the courage to draw well. And so to the first draw.

Today, works and image components (such as, I understand and I can buy Rothko Rothko). Possession Rothko prestige - a symbol of success. The famous White Center - it almost from the collections of the Rockefellers.

There is a BBC film series Power of Art Simon Shama (power of art) - it is a series about Rothko. Many punches, but a good visual number, àáî techniques, all of this helps to understand Rothko.

Painting to look alive.
Strangely but draw well or virtuously is not important, if this were the criterion, then with the advent of photography in the art could put a cross. But no. Photography did not kill painting. Why? Because the artist somehow transmits energy to the picture. And that is what we feel and that is why in the long run no matter what, and how to draw, it is important how much energy lies in the picture. I have not seen Rothko, but he saw Bacon - cool.

I read an interview with himself Rothko, in which he acknowledged that they were convinced that he draws, he was not sure of the correctness of the chosen direction of "abstract expressionism", and do not always see in him the art ... so that even the master himself doubt in his work ...

Interestingly, from the arguments about the price we quickly moved into the sphere of art history.
She read comments on the forum ...
Well, I do not see any "mystery" in Rothko. For me, a mystery remains only price.
Fever Pitch, and (as correctly stated) a matter of prestige - that, apparently, the whole "mystery".
The Impressionists - the plot may be simple, but what a painting! Salvador Dali - painter of the so-self - saw - I know), but crazy ideas (steeper only Bosch). Picasso - a giant of innovation and exceptionally versatile artist. Rothko - ... neuzhe whether its a mystery in obscurity? I think that this is one of those artists about whom you tell (well, what he's wonderful and unusual) and you take it on faith. Or not.
As far as the issue of "energy picture" ... Again, an individual question of perception.

little for himself learned to be honest ...
In my opinion, is really a case where someone said that Rothko is cool, but others were taken ...
and the fact that now we must look alive ... it is certainly true, but like Picasso or Chagall, and many other artists is impressive even in the pictures in books ...
just for me personally, this price is inexplicable from any point of view .. so far anyway

I think this is also a placebo effect, people hear that someone is voshvalivaet Rothko, and do not understand why they start to admire. It seems to me unlikely person versed in the art, will buy Rothko. This is a lot of rich people who are not up to art, they do not have time to understand it, they hear here and there that have a Rothko is prestigious, status. Therefore, buy it for such fabulous money ... Yes, we can say that the idea of energy, but in a multimillion art, excuse me for my opinion, not pulls. but then look Contemprorary Art Sotheby's May 14, and you'll see that in comparison with the giant Rothko's artistic thought. For example, Donald Judd, who can explain why some red stuff is worth 5-7 million dollars, and the white 1,5-2 million?

totally agree with the above:)
explain the red thing in the picture can not ...

Categorical judgments
 

The problem in categorical judgments. Everyone decides for themselves where art and where not. Who is a good artist, but who do not an artist. This is perfectly normal. Here are just a gathering of judge is unlikely to correct. There is a lot to know about the artist, well imagine his work, well-versed in the ideas that surrounded him. Otherwise, get naked "like-dislike and suspicion of involvement in the fairy tale about a naked king. It is unlikely that we will know a lot about ideas Judd, to criticize his craftsmanship.

Look, for example, can be without knowing the background to say about black or red square? And what the author is not an artist? A thing of such a class today, fully capable to cost $ 50 million

Yes items (artwork) strange.
Still agree with Sergeechem, with pictures of everything else. Energy in the pictures above. Here at the forum "Surrealism" recently said that Rabin - so yourself an artist, saying monotonous and gray. It said those who have not seen. And not a moment, but to povisela before the eyes of a week. Then immediately clear who is who. Who saw Lansky? Also after a set
like random strokes. Any child can. But no - can not.

Vladimir, about Malevich's no need to say anything, because he was first, it was he who first began to draw squares (and they were different colors, I'm for innovation Rothko). That's because he was the first of his work can cost any money, as well as Kandinsky. And try to name at least one contemporary artist (not counting Warhol, he certainly was an innovator), which is completely invented something new, but not developed the ideas of previous artists ...

And someone else first to draw people, cows, flowers, landscapes. Who remembers them? Who has priority? It is not in the squares. Ideas are different. Explanations vary. A simple squares and even painted on the rocks ... It's not fancy stuff. In Rothko's squares are special, pulsating, and diffusion. And this is not ornamentalistika. And the fact that he does not explain everything on the fingers, so it happens. Artists provoked, can be a little bit ... How many are drawn in the same Kabakov explains?