Mark Rothko

gynn · 08-10-2012, 18:09

A vandal has daubed paint on a piece of work valued at several million pounds at the Tate Gallery in London.

The work in question is Maroon on Black 1958 by Mark Rothko, the original of which I reproduce below:-

I am happy to listen to anybody who can tell me why this is remotely valuable.

I'm not a philistine, but I'm also not stupid.

Tealeaf · 08-10-2012, 18:23

Well, seeing as it didn't cost 'owt, what's the problem? Of much more concern is the fact we have a let a loonatic russkie into the country. How and why? He needs to get picked up and shipped out PDQ.

kestrelx · 08-10-2012, 18:23

It's worth something because he decided to paint it with the intent that it would be worth something - perhaps this is the answer.

MargaretR · 08-10-2012, 18:27

As an optimist, I consider any addition of extra colour can only improve its viewability.

susie123 · 08-10-2012, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by MargaretR

As an optimist, I consider any addition of extra colour can only improve its viewability.

The graffiti were black Marg!

BBC News - Defacing Rothko painting 'not vandalism'

PS Twas Black on Maroon not Maroon on Black according to BBC.

susie123 · 08-10-2012, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

It's worth something because he decided to paint it with the intent that it would be worth something - perhaps this is the answer.

It was a commission, for a NY restaurant, originally. Part of a series of murals.

Tealeaf · 08-10-2012, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by susie123

It was a commission, for a NY restaurant, originally. Part of a series of murals.

Probably a cheap kebab joint or Indian takeaway.

gynn · 08-10-2012, 18:42

Looks like we have an answer as to why the 'painting' was vandalised.

The culprit was apparently a Mr Umanets, and a founder of "Yellowism", which he describes as "neither art, nor anti-art".

"Yellowism is not art, and Yellowism isn't anti-art. It's an element of contemporary visual culture. It's not an artistic movement.

"It's not art, it's not reality, it's just Yellowism. It can't be presented in a gallery of art, it can be presented only in a Yellowistic chambers.

"The main difference between Yellowism and art is that in art you have got freedom of interpretation, in Yellowism you don't have freedom of interpretation, everything is about Yellowism, that's it."

So now we know.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

MargaretR · 08-10-2012, 18:44

The use of the word asylum rang true .

That mural stirred thoughts in me of a window in a prison where some bars had been stolen by 'pixies'.

susie123 · 08-10-2012, 19:00

If anyone can be bothered here's a quite long but interesting article on the artist and these paintings.

How Rothko's Seagram murals found their way to London | The Guardian

Wynonie Harris · 08-10-2012, 19:51

There must be a few primary schools in the vicinity of the gallery.

Just get some of the kids to paint a replacement.

Problem solved!

Wynonie Harris · 08-10-2012, 20:09

Just read that Guardian article. According to the feller who wrote it, they're masterpieces:

Rothko's murals tantalise us with architectural allusions, the idea of space, of windows, doors and portals leading into the great purple yonder, but there is nothing here but two-dimensional colour on vast tracts of canvas.

I love the verbal contortions that these culture vultures go through to justify the emperor's new clothes scenario.

Interesting that he originally painted them for a New York restaurant. There were a couple of Rothkos in that caff in the Arndale that closed down. I suppose after they'd shelled out for the paintings, there was nowt left to run the business.