Mark Rothko

[Алёна]

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

[Vladimir]

Сообщение от Alain

absolutely agree with the above
explain the red thing in the picture can not ...

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

[Konstantin]

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.

[Meister]

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 ...

[Vladimir]

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?

[Meister]

I'm not saying that Rothko's quite mediocre artist, but cost tens of millions he could not because he was not an innovator, perhaps as one of the brightest representatives of contemporary art it can cost a few million, but certainly on a par with Van Gogh, Picasso, Klimt and etc. Like should not cost so much money shelves. For what? for the fact that he "invented" a method of drawing pictures by spray paint. So no, in the early 1900's, the Surrealists used this method, throwing in the picture legkorazryvaemye tubes of paint. Kooning innovator? Again there is enough to turn to the works Kudryasheva .. I'm not saying that they have no right to be on the art market, but to lift up their relevance to the level of the great Picasso, Gauguin, Klimt, in my opinion, quite impossible ...

[Vladimir]

Can-can Rothko cost of money, but worth it? And more expensive every year. Picasso, of course, an innovator. Super-duper artist, but not all things are worthy of admiration. I once chtal that in some works he created just to banter. Recognized during the life of an artist, a rich, spoiled, he alleged, deliberately created some "perverted" things - like you'll see, and bought it, and still be admired ... Can bike, but maybe not. Look at the individual Jacqueline and ready to believe ...

Talent Rothko, too, should not erect an absolute. By the end of his life he has created, and very dark things that have not felt the old energy. Everyone ...

One of the works of Rothko, may not the most exemplary, but not the essence, I think they brought in Barvikha. Not sure. Who knows exactly? Who saw?

[Meister]

I do not know, brought it or not, I was not there ... but at the auction will be sold only one work by Rothko (see picture). with her estimate on request, and that means more than 20 million dollars. : confused:: confused:: confused: sorry, well I just can not understand this ...

[Meister]

There was news that representatives of Christies believe that given for the number 15 (see picture), more than 70 million dollars, and that it beat the previous record. In my opinion, too optimistic ...

[Vladimir]

Meister,
And what is known about this job? Year, size, technique? If it is 1956 or close, then why not? Let not the 72 million dollars, but 65 million - the same order.
Here http://www.bolero.ru/books/9785956101926.html sold Rothko interesting album with a biography and a good example, where you can see period moving. I recommend, the other anyway. It shows how the power of the 1950's contrasts with the power of the late 1960's. In the late 60's doctors ordered him to write great work (something with an aneurysm of the aorta is connected) and he did little drawings, sometimes cheerful, but not that. But in mid-1950 he went completely masshtabnvye things.
By the way, Rothko's early figurative periods like Slepysheva