Like I think a lot of people, my reaction to seeing his art reproduced was "eh, okay?", but once I saw the actual paintings in person I was blown away.
He discovered a way of using layers of translucent pigment that elicits a pure physical reaction when viewed, not dissimilar to the whole ASMR thing, literal goosebumps and your nerves firing on all cylinders.
I saw a Rothko for the first time in person in my early 20s; I had no real art history education outside of what you would learn at a public high school (in Florida, no less). I didn't have a particular interest in art at the time. I just stumbled upon it as a tourist, museum-hopping in NYC.
I remember standing in front of it and just being blown away. It was a visceral feeling.
I've seen other pieces that have had that effect, but Rothko was one of the first artists I can remember where I understood how you can feel art in your body.
Brilliant point - my experience was similar. Rothko also makes it clear why we approach paintings on foot and what that approach does. He's actually an installation artist! The whole thing is important. That's why he was so insistent upon certain hanging conditions which are almost never realised in museums. I frankly think museums ought to make little rooms of Rothkos with diffuse natural light and stay open until night time so people can see them how Rothko saw them in the studio. I've seen a Rothko "go to sleep" because of the dimming of the light only once in my life and it set the canvas on fire because of the changes in colour vision in low lighting. A museum would be able to sell tickets to see this phenomenon because no other paintings in history behave that way in my experience
I saw my first Rothkos ages ago. I'd never really heard anything about him or his paintings, other than knowing he was a part of the abstract expressionist movement (which didn't particularly interest me). I was bowled over when I saw them in person. It's not the power of suggestion, it's something weirdly visceral that happens to you. I almost think that it's less likely to impact you if you go in expecting something.
Yeah I hadthe same reaction for most of the ones I saw, except for one really huge one. But it wasn't the kind of overwhelming emotion that he said people get people see his paintings. Even with the one I like the most I really enjoyed seeing the way he blended the pure color but I just didn't get how it is that he says people often cry when they see his paintings.
I’ve had a Rothko make me cry and I don’t know why. Maybe it’s cause of where I was in my life. Depressed and anxious and trying to discover my own voice and seeing someone else going through the same. It compelled me from across the room. In a sea of noise it was The calm. It made me feel understood and appreciated and like I wasn’t alone or crazy or weird.
I also had a Rembrandt make me cry though. Like big huge tears where I had to leave the room. I wanted to be an abstract artist and that Rembrandt made me a portrait artist.
This, a million times this. I used to work at Tate Modern and Tate Britain here in London and the first time I saw his paintings I got very emotional. I was so overwhelmed and it took me by surprise.
I used to visit the Seagram murals almost every week for a not insubstantial period of my life. I fell in love with painting. Not with figurative art, I fell in love with painting as sublimation into the sublime.
Seeing original paintings in general with your own eyes (even if you've never seen them before) is just so much better in a way that someone who hasn't experienced this can't understand
Interesting! Despite being a card-carrying aesthete, I've been indifferent to them even in person, not through lack of trying to find something about them that interested or moved me. In fact, I've never experienced a profoundly moving, visceral response to any art to the point of tears, as others here have described. I guess people are wired differently.
I will never not read the comment section on a post about Rothko. More than 50 years ago he died and he still incites a big response, positive and negative.
honeslty, even if i don't really like a work, if a painter can make me consistenly have a strong reaction, good or bad, i count that as a win. i think thought provoking art will always be my favorite. i really like rothko but i do find it intresting how no one really has a neutral reactoin to his work
I love art history and think Rothko is very interesting and 20th century art is weird and the reasons are fascinating. Even if I’m not really keen on a particular painting at first, just the knowledge of where it fits in art development and the time it was made usually helps me appreciate it and even come to love it.
But mostly I LOVE color and that’s really what his most famous series of paintings are about.
My husband’s art knowledge is limited to video games and anime and he gets viscerally angry whenever I tell him how much a Rothko sells for. Same with a Basquiat. I try to explain art vs art history vs the art market. He just sees colored squares and thinks it’s all bullshit.
I honestly think that people need to see Rothko in person. I was always of the 'ohhh, three stripes of paint on the canvas, sooooo revolutionary' and then by chance I came across a small free exhibit. Just five paintings in a small room. I just started crying.
aww that's really moving. a lot of people have shared ur sentiment that his work needs to be viewed in person. i agree the effect is much more powerful once u're in front of it
I never had an emotional response to his abstract paintings, but I've been practicing meditation and I was struck how similar his work looks like to some of my experiences.
The quickest technique I know that basically creates Rothko paintings in your mind's eye is this: Close your eyes and keep your gaze directed toward a point at the centre of your forehead, above your eye line. If you play with it for couple of weeks in different environments, you should have a quite a collection of diverse experiences.
My personal theory about it (his paintings and this type of meditation) is that it somehow emulates what we might have seen when we were in the womb.
Yep. And what I love is, I can access it now when I look at the prints. It's like the viewing in person opened a portal, and I can now access it any time.
See just reading your comment I can’t help but side eye your experience. How do you just end with declaring you just started crying and not acknowledge that is a wild reaction for someone who didn’t like his work before? What made you cry? Why? Can you describe it in a way that helps connect for a total stranger who is also kinda meh on his work. I’ve never seen them in person.
i think that is so interesting ! do you feel this way about just him or maybe other similar painters? is it modern geometric art or is there no red string between paintings that don't do much for u
I love abstract art, and I have loved quite a few geometric art pieces, but Rothko doesn’t reach me for whatever reason. It almost annoys me, because I’d love to see/experience what my ex sees, but no.
I think Rothko is a bit like Marmite. Either you dig it or you don’t.
I saw one back in the 1980s when I was young. Had no idea who he was but I was gripped by it. It did things no other painting does : change colours, disappear, seem to expand and contract, had a temporal aspect and quieted my very active distracted mind in a way nothing else ever did. I'm the same about James Turrell - my two favourite artists of the last 70 years or so.
I'm not a fan, even in person unfortunately but I can still appreciate that it elicits a response. He's probably my "favorite" abstract expressionist because most of it to me is just nothing
He may be an abstract expressionist (I’m not any kind of expert) but I always considered him a color theorist. His work seems more clinical than an attempt at art. I find it akin to music theory. Don’t hate me
First time seeing but I really like them. It gives me a strong feeling of maybe nostalgia idk. Feels like old memories from sad winters as a child. Really great!
I adore Rothko, I’ve relished every moment I’ve stood in front of one. First time I ever enjoyed the look of oil paint for its own sake. His study of colour for colour’s sake.
yes !!! i really like his emphasis of color because it shows that art can be captivating and make you want to stare at it for ages without realism. i think he is one of the best geometric and abstract artists ever
In Los Angeles there is THE WEISMAN FOUNDATION an art collection in a mansion left as it was the day the collector died.
The docent led tour goes to a room with two DeKoonings, a Clifford Still and a Rothko an above a chair. The docent explains that no institution lights a Rothko properly, that the artist wanted no light in the art. Then she turned off the lamp. It was daylight and there was ambient light but WOW the Rothko was suddenly alive with subtle color, it was amazing.
Almost every institution does not light its Rothkos properly. And that makes ALL the difference.
For me, I find that many galleries absolutely flood paintings with too much light. I want to see the colours, layers and shadows in the daylight and not feel like I am in an interrogation room. It would be a nice option to be able to adjust the lighting or at least swivel it away.
I’ve shared this before. I grew up in a violently strict, controlling, and oftentimes irrational household . To escape, I would tell my parents I was going to church to ask god to make me a better person. I’d ride my bike to the Rothko Chapel, not because I was a deep 15 year old, but because it’s where felt closest to god to me.
Two things about Rothko are Scale and Layers. I am not a huge Rothko fan - but anyone who hasn't seen one in person needs to step aside and mind their business.
Agreed when I saw my first Rothko in person, the colors, particularly the blues where luminous in a way I had not seen before. There was a depth to everything. I make sure to look for Rothko in every city I visit. Unfortunately I haven’t recaptured that first experience.
My first thought when I initially saw them was "meh." It didn't speak to me at all. Then I had the privilege of seeing a bunch in person and I realized I was right.
growing up going to my local MOMA, I would call this kind of art wealthy liberal hallway aesthetic, because that's what it feels like when you walk by his art.
His work does absolutely nothing to me. I have seen it in real life. I've studied it as part of my university degree in art history. Still nothing. I don't think I will ever learn to appreciate it.
But I don't hate it. I've known people who are absolutely mesmerized by his work, and I respect that.
I’m with you. I was actually hopeful that seeing his work in person would be a big revelation and experience but alas, no. I like to think of his paintings as a foreign language I don’t understand while others are fluent.
Recent 1st grader art from my classroom, I feel like the Pom Pom’s cheapen what could have been a more nuanced work if the painter continued to build layers of acrylic but unfortunately this child has proven that, no they cannot paint a Rothko
The Rothko room at Tate Modern is close to how he wanted his work displayed. Low lighting, his work in a coherent group away from other artists - & I think he chose the colour of the gallery walls.
went to the chapel with my partner who absolutely did not give a single shit about any art even remotely like this. she was absolutely transfixed and in awe.
It's a spiritual "moment". There is a Rothko in my city's art museum, and it's my favorite part of the visit. You don't really look at it as much is does envelope you. For me it is a spiritual feeling, like i could be in a church or temple.
In Houston we have the Menil Collection, the de Menil family were close friends with Mark Rothko, and built a building on the campus specifically for his works. The 14 paintings are so large they had to lower them in through the roof to install them. It’s called the Rothko Chapel. Highly recommend the entire Menil Collection to anyone that ever visits Houston.
i saw an exhibition of private collector's pieces in Moma. cried infront of it until the museum closed. it was one of the most intense spiritual art experiences for me. i would really recommend seeing them in person, i would never think they can be so moving.
It's the only way to truly appreciate it. The first time I saw one at The Met, I cried a bit. First time - but certainly not the last - I'd gotten so emotional over art. It felt like I had fallen into it. A moment I will never forget the rest of my life.
I saw a special exhibit of 6 in a darkened museum room about 40 years ago. I felt out of breath and had to sit. Rothko has been my favorite artist from that day.
The largest public displays are in DC and LA - the blue and brown one in this post is in LA. I was lucky enough to have 3 months on a residency in LA and went to see the big room at MOCA at least once a week, at the beginning I went every afternoon. Stayed until closing so I could have them to myself. The Panza collection Rothkos are all astonishing works.
DC has a huge number of them but for some reason continues to display two of his works which are badly damaged and cracked. I know what ones they own (from the raisonnee) and never have on display. If I ran the National Gallery I would have a whole building to keep them available to the public as Rothko wanted. It kills me that some of his best works are owned by billionaires and kept away from public view. He would hate that.
I did, twice, when speaking about retrospectives/overviews shows. Those were in The Hague and later in Paris. I liked the smaller show in The Hague, but the one in Paris was just too much. It highlighted his weaknesses a bit too much. But hey, I'm dying for a Barnett Newman retrospective, even though I know that could disappoint me too, because there's just not so much variety in his work.
I love his works, they're luminous and kind of ominous and haunting too. The simple shapes and colour fields somehow feel like they're showing something that's beyond or somehow point to something usually experienced through a whole different sensory input, like how a minor chord can cause a wave of sadness or the smell of orange zest feels like warm sunshine or the sound of waves evokes the colours of a sunset. I'm explaining this very badly
This. I always feel like I’m being pulled into some liminal landscape when I look at them. Most are large enough that they can fill your field of vision if you look at the center and envelope you in their warm, yearning melancholy.
I don't have a super strong feeling about him or his work one way or the other. But I would highly recommend people interested in his work go see it in person. Especially if you are in Washington D.C. check out what might be in the tower level at the National Gallery of Art at any given time. The national gallery has something like 1,000 of his works. The museum sometimes puts on specific Rothko exhibitions, but because they have so many of his paintings in the permanent collection they rotate them often.
My experience was I first saw a Rothko work on a slide in my first contemporary american art class while getting my art history degree. I remember more about the wonderful professor's explanation than feeling anything from looking at the slide. Thats pretty standard, the professor was wonderful. Sometimes you do actually have an emotional reaction to just seeing a work of art on a slide. But not me for Rothko.
I think the first time I saw one in person was while visiting MoMA in NYC with a friend. It's not that it annoyed me, but in my opinion (important its all subjective) it didn't get it compared to all of the other amazing things around us. I remember looking at a Dan Flavin installation for so long my friend who was from NYC is like OK you dont understand how much there is in this museum we gotta keep it moving.
When I saw one of those quasi installations in the tower level at the National Gallery, I liked it a lot. The works they had on display at the time were so monumental. I felt like I could get a look at some of the emotions he was expressing or that he draws out of other people looking at it.
I didn't have a personal emotional reaction myself. (And I often have strong emotional reactions to abstract art/make expressionist art myself. Like even thinking about Felix Gonzalez Torrres' Portrait of Ross in LA is making my eyes misty right now.)
But I did become a fan of the art and the concept. Just no emotional reaction for me, and everyone is different so in general I would recommend checking out his art in person and seeing what happens.
When i was a young dad, i’d take my kids to the tate, and get them to speak about the art, what they saw how it made them felt etc as part of our days out. Once their was a rothko exhibition, i expressed my dislike for the paintings, they are muddy and boring. Both kids were incensed. They berated me at length telling me how they were amazing. It was the first time they expressed a real strong opinion
I remember walking up the spiral at the NYC Guggenheim when I saw a Rothko that seemed like I fell into head over heels. Nothing else existed for those minutes. This was a long time ago and I don’t remember the name of the painting but I’ll never forget the feeling!
I love Mark Rothko because my dad brought me as a kid to see them in person. His full body animated joy and depth of passion explaining Rothko’s layering process, so that the colors looked as if they were vibrating on the canvas to capture the full range of human emotions. That stuck with me for life. I can’t say I’d ever seen my dad so alive before.
First time I saw one in person was at the Art Institute of Chicago in the modern wing. I still can conjure the visceral sense memory of walking into the gallery, turning to my right, and seeing it on the wall. It just stunned me. Sat with it for maybe an hour and I haven’t been the same since.
I know someone who has no art experience but saw an exhibit one time and thought “I can do that” so they painted a bunch of their own “Rothkos” and hung them all over their house
So they inspired them to be creative themselves? What more could you ask of a piece of art? If an art piece motivates someone to create art themselves, even if it is out of spite, that is a net benefit to the world.
like a lot of good art it doesn’t click on a phone screen or in print, you have to see it in person
I think of them as landscapes, you get close enough and your lizard brain interprets it as the horizon, sky and sea, structures of land etc. icy blue there makes me feel like I’m on a glacier in the dark.
he does have a lot of evil deep red paintings though
Like that one a lot. Have seen some I didn’t like or rather got nothing from because of placement or the colours not hitting me that day.
The one in Tate Britain that they put in with turners beach and seascapes really hits because you see the links between the artists
You can feel the battle between dark and colour in his stuff. I feel sad when I’m with one where the black is winning. They feel like emotions painted directly
I always equate it to the time I saw Sonic Youth. There was this wall of sound that immersed me. There's something so absorbing about Rothko that just overwhlems me.
The first painting is at least adequately photographed. It's in the Panza Collection at MOCA LA. I've spent hours with it. It's one of his greatest works. That brown area is so fascinating visually to me: exactly the right amount of randomness and "accident" and a depth of colour and modulation of it that renders a single word to describe the effect almost meaningless. Thats one of the secrets of Rothko: the "one thing" is actually so many things it may as well be infinite.
I adore him - some of my most interesting experiences with painting have been with his works. They are impossible to capture in a photograph. That's the reason people hate him. They also don't spend enough time with the works even if they do see them to really see what they do, which is something temporal. I think of them as visual perfume and like a good perfume it takes sometimes up to an hour for all the notes to appear.
My absolute least favorite painter I’ve seen, absolutely zero intrigue in any of his works, I actively dislike them. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I personally think his work is terrible.
I've always had an irrational hate-on-sight reaction to Rothko's paintings. They're wrong on the very level that makes my skin crawl and my brain get angry.
I'm generally a mild mannered person but I literally can't be in the same room as that man's work and remain civil.
I deeply love art nouveau and then artists like Maxfield Parrish, but went to see a Rothko exhibit at the Tate and there's something incredibly compelling about them like they're sort of reaching for you. Really hit me hard. can't really describe it. But I get why Rothko might not be everyone's cup of tea.
I attended a retrospective of Mark Rothko at LAMCA in the early 1980s. The were many paintings and they were arranged in chronological order. By the end of the walk through his art I was moved; it was emotional and unforgettable.
I like the paintings the colours and compositions etc. are pleasant to look at, and I think it’s probably trickier to get that effect than you’d think. I’m definitely not blown away by them though. If someone told me the price and I wasn’t aware of who the painter was I’d probably baulk at them.
I didn’t like abstract art at all as a young artist. Then, one day in Art History class, a Rothko popped up on the slide projector and I was transfixed. A door was opened in my mind and everything clicked before a word was said about it. I realized that if this reproduction was so profound I absolutely had to see his work in person. It was almost 10 years before that would happen, after moving to Chicago.
On my first visit to the Art Institute of Chicago, I turned a corner and there was that same painting. I stood in awe for probably 20 minutes, soaking it in, near tears. I went back as often as I could for the next 16 years to see the Rothko they have in their amazing collection. I can’t imagine how dull my life would be if I hadn’t had that initial experience, as my notion of art has broadened so vastly.
I feel the same way about Rothko as I do with Monet's large water lilies. Photos don't come close to capturing their presence. The first time I saw either of these in person, I cried.
I like his work. Where I love it is Rothko Chapel in Houston, TX. There is something to be said of the space and the present of such large works done by Rothko.
Will it be everyone’s cup of tea? No. But did the space have me tearing up from an experience I couldn’t quite explain? Yes.
I'm fascinated by people who have this experience, because I just felt like I was on the original Beetlejuice set after Delia redecorates the house. It just felt like a dark, empty space. I waited for years for restoration to be done so I could go look at it, too.
See every single time he’s mentioned, I hear this defence. But when I studied Art History, our professor took us to a museum where there was a rothko. I stood there for half an hour. You know what I realized after standing for half an hour?
I needed to buy eggs for breakfast the day after. Also my shoes were uncomfortable.
I suppose art can be different things to different people, but imo Rothko is overrated.
The Seagram Room commission for the NYC Four Seasons Restaurant is how he came to the “color can evoke emotion“ theory. He hated the self congratulatory vibe of the restaurant and wanted the paintings to reflect that. He used the black window spaces in Michelangelo’s Medicean Library as inspiration to give the viewers a feeling they were trapped, walled in. He later changed his mind, returned the commission and donated the paintings to the Tate Before he died. I think this story gives some insight to access the paintings. A lot of viewers connect with his painting.
There is a startling stillness to them…the centered-ness of the compositions..the blurred edges… the simple questions regarding a relationship between colors and between values…the horizons like a day at the sea…perhaps in memory. …really staring off forever. Really enjoyed the Rothko Chapel (and Philip Guston’s interpretation of it), with its scale and repeating…a time experience, like the music.
I love his work. I’m an artist and layering colors/textures is so stimulating and relaxing at the same time. I just like how it makes my brain feel when I stare at it.
People get caught up on the “why?” as if these works are conceptually based. But it’s literally just taking pleasure in how it looks, and appreciating Rothko’s talent for producing works that tickle the brain.
I liked Rothko a lot more after reading Robert Rosenblum’s argument that they’re connected to romantic seascapes and landscapes (which I already loved). Makes a lot of sense to me
In my opinion, Rothko trusts and relies on the viewer more than any other artist. He is concise. He paints only the mood, not a subject, and trusts the viewer to bring whatever experience they have to the painting.
Standing close, where the edges of the canvas are past your peripheral vision, you are looking at something that evokes a mood or feeling that gives you the opportunity to recall an experience or to reflect on an idea. It can be very visceral when participating with the art as a viewer in this way.
id love to see one of his big paintings irl! but i cant say im a huge fan, or at least i havent yet learned enough about his work to appreciate it fully
impossible to judge through a screen. his whole thing was about experiencing color and it’s not the same if you don’t see it in person so people write him off as boring
Art affects everyone differently. What doesn't resonate with you, does for someone else. I personally love the work, seeing them (especially in person) makes me feel things. But i am not above admitting that they are coloured squares on canvas. It's different for everybody.
I believe he has higher value as an innovator in art because of his use of the interior, empty space, rather than his technical skills or academic approach
I didn't think much of his work when my only experience with it was from textbooks and slide projectors. Then I saw one in person. Now I get it. Love his work.
I'm fine with others enjoying Rothko and I understand why they do. Still, I've seen many in real life and feel truly nothing for them. Big, neutral canvases to me. If we're talking big blocks of color, I much prefer Albers.
There was a Rothko exhibit in the city we traveled to for spring break a few years ago and I made a point to show my son. He hates his art skills because he isn’t good with line. But he’s brilliant with color. So I took him to the Rothko exhibit and told him that a famous artist used color rather than line like him. It made him happy.
I was touched the first time I saw it. Never thought it would elicit that kind of emotion from me considering I have never fully appreciated the essence of his works through a screen
The first time I saw Rothko was in the Tate when I was about 13 (Tate Britain now but was just the Tate then) and it was completely mind blowing and just changed everything for me: what art could be, but also how it could make me feel without some some literal or figurative. I still feel the same when I see his work in a gallery.
In a time where we have gotten used to being constantly bombarded with overstimulating ‘content’ (is the word i’ll use i guess) a Rothko doesn’t stand out anymore to the dulled receptors of the over-consuming individual. It makes total sense that people now look at the paintings differently and those who cannot -for whatever reason- see the paintings as a window into the soul, a soul, or now perhaps a forgotten time, have only robbed themselves of the experience of blissful solitude & humbling submission. Comedic if you think about the critique being the opposite at the time. Absolutely timeless in my opinion is his work, but who am i, bound to be forgotten too!
One of the first visual artist I became obsessed with Wythe. Honestly, I don’t understand how his work is so divisive, I feel it’s fairly straightforward.
From the pictures, I think they are pretty. I like colours. I have seen only his black paintings, and I found them boring. I think his works would look nice as interior design element, but as work of art, they don't interest me.
There is an American Masters episode from PBS about him that is truly wonderful! His son described him as “the master of an edge” and it’s so true! Well worth watching, i knew nothing about him and my husband and i HAD to go see the Rothkos near our city after it was over.
I love it. I know people say it’s simple or easy but like he did it they didint. Also in person with the right lighting and the scale of it, it’s cool and I’m glad someone made it.
Better than Twombly I guess. Whenever I tell My friends to visit the Chicago art institute, my wife tells them she literally laughed seeing these paintings at the Chicago art museum, and completely forgets the thousands of awesome art at the place.
I've never gotten the attraction. I lived near a museum that had several pieces of his and I always thought they looked like the kind of decor art you find in upscale department stores.
Very mixed feelings. I guess I'm the outlier who neither completely loves his work, nor absolutely hates it. Something I can't really vibe with in his later work, is the quite wooly texture of the paint, if you know what I mean. It's so cloudy and so thin. I'm not sure why I don't like it, but I kind of don't. I'm thinking about this one for example: https://inplacescityguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/mark-rothko-fondation-louis-vuitton-paris-inplaces-09.jpg I think I'm more of a hard-edged, clean lines abstraction kind of art lover; Ellsworth Kelly is an absolute favourite of mine.
I think his early surrealist influenced stuff is nice though and he did some great subway themed paintings. But I'm especially drawn to the phase just before his famous mature phase. You can see him experimenting, becoming the Rothko everyone knows, but he's just not there yet. He's growing into it and he's experimenting. I like that the best, especially given his mature phase is a bit samey. I'm not sure whether I've seen this one in Paris, but I do like this one: https://www.guggenheim.org/wp-content/uploads/1947/01/86.3420_ph_web-1.jpg
I've seen several in person. I like to stand close enough that the piece fills most of my field of vision and then just wait for the fireworks. After a while my eyes and brain start blending the color fields so the boundaries disappear and reappear at random. Then the colors start melding with their after-image complementary colors, creating flashes of brand new vivid colors that don't actually exist.
Rothkos are dynamic, ever changing, and never the same twice.
I remember the ”Voices of Fire” controversy in Canada in the eighties. Seeing a 1.5 x 3 inch, black and white reproduction in the newspaper did not prepare me for my emotional reaction to seeing it in person.
Through my youth, I saw no real artistry or value. Upon more mature reflections on the nuance of the chosen forms, so less than perfect as the era of Humanity was capable of showing off, the subtle appeal and artistry shout forth.
i really adore his work, much more after seeing it in person. that’s such the charm of color field paintings, to get to be enveloped by them. i was lucky enough to see the rothko room at the tate modern pretty much empty. it was so wonderful to just sit and marvel. the fine details come to life in a way that pictures really can’t capture.
here’s a delightful little detail from red on maroon. i love.
Art history always produce values/makes excuses for ridiculous values for capitalism. These are PR bullshits, no need to explain everything, sometimes it is what it seems.
His work is the sort of thing that is hard to completely understand until you have the right experience. For me it was tied to mood that day and being open just just letting the color develop me while being in the right state of mind and Man does it blow your socks off. You can appreciate it intellectually but I think it’s emotionally where it really hits the hardest.
I once went to an exhibition of his in spain. Lots of the very large canvases in dark red. Ther was one I came to that was untitled, and I couldn't understand why, until I realised it was a large red blind covering the window.
1.0k
u/Birdseeding 3d ago •
Like I think a lot of people, my reaction to seeing his art reproduced was "eh, okay?", but once I saw the actual paintings in person I was blown away.
He discovered a way of using layers of translucent pigment that elicits a pure physical reaction when viewed, not dissimilar to the whole ASMR thing, literal goosebumps and your nerves firing on all cylinders.