Untitled, by Mark Rothko. 1952

Untitled, by Mark Rothko. 1952

 

All art is para­dox. But Rothko, per­haps more than any other mod­ern painter, embraced the para­dox and threw it pro­foundly in our faces.

The can­vas is flat. You can’t enter it. You can’t go through it, if it’s hang­ing on the wall. At least with­out injury and per­haps a heavy bill from the gallery. But Rothko con­tin­u­ously tells the audi­ence to do just that. Embrace the paint­ing, enter it, walk into it, let it engulf you and tor­ture you and shake you. Shake the core of you. He wants the paint­ing to be a plane and an entrance way in the same bright moment. Flat and omnipresent. Pressed against the wall as it sur­rounds you. And he wants you to accept the para­dox and reject it long enough to succumb.

 

We favor the sim­ple expres­sion of com­plex thought. We are for the large shape because it has the impact of the unequiv­o­cal. We wish to reassert the pic­ture plane. We are for flat forms because they destroy illu­sion and reveal truth.”

 

Mark Rothko was born in Dvinsk, Russia (now Latvia) in 1903. Rather, Marcus Rothkowitz was born in that place and time. He became Mark Rothko later in life. At the age of 10, he left Russia with part of his fam­ily to join the other part in America, arriv­ing at Ellis Island and even­tu­ally Portland, Oregon. The cul­ture shock must have been tremen­dous. From a life filled with the con­stant threat from Cossacks and the Czar, to one with much more mun­dane wor­ries. He did, how­ever, have to grow up in a hurry, as his father, Jacob, died not long after their arrival in America. His life from that point on became more and more complex …

… If one looks only at his most famous paint­ings, the float­ing blocks of lumi­nous color, the large can­vasses he wants us to enter and cel­e­brate, that per­son might mis­take the sur­face for sta­sis, for the lack of evo­lu­tion and emo­tion, for a ground that never changed for Rothko. Nothing could be fur­ther from the truth. Not only did his intel­lec­tual ratio­nale for his art evolve greatly over time, tak­ing him from an intense study of myths, arche­types, Jung and Freud to Nietzsche and beyond … his artis­tic meth­ods and sub­ject mat­ter evolved as well. Few artists, in fact, changed as dra­mat­i­cally as Rothko, if we look at his career from the 30s until his sui­cide in 1970. Another para­dox. The flat, solid blocks of color, for­ever float­ing, and a whirl­wind of change before and after.

 

I am not an abstrac­tion­ist. … I am not inter­ested in the rela­tion­ship of colour or form or any­thing else. … I’m inter­ested only in express­ing basic human emo­tions — tragedy, ecstasy, doom and so on — and the fact that a lot of peo­ple break down and cry when con­fronted with my pic­tures show that I com­mu­ni­cate those basic human emo­tions. … The peo­ple who weep before my pic­tures are hav­ing the same reli­gious expe­ri­ence I had when I painted them. And if you, as you say, are moved only by their color rela­tion­ships, then you miss the point!”

 

I have sat for many an end­less moment in front of his paint­ings, most recently in Washington D.C. Rather than make me weep, they gen­er­ally bring me tremen­dous waves of calm and peace. Even though I’m guess­ing he wasn’t shoot­ing for that reac­tion, he never did want to limit them or define them or jail them. Enter the paint­ing was all. Only con­nect was all.

 

Art to me is an anec­dote of the spirit, and the only means of mak­ing con­crete the pur­pose of its var­ied quick­ness and stillness.”

 

Of course, it’s impos­si­ble to sum up a great artist. And rather ridicu­lous to try. But I think, in a nut­shell, Rothko sought some­thing sim­i­lar to other great mod­ernists like Nietzsche, Van Gogh, Pound, Eliot and Joyce. To rein­vent myths, rein­vig­o­rate them, and intro­duce them back into the cul­tural stream. Most of the great mod­ernists seemed to want this, saw this as vital, essen­tial for our health and sur­vival. Some thought this could be done only through col­lect­ing ruins, frag­ments, the rem­nant of civ­i­liza­tion. They sensed a scat­ter­ing and a loss of cul­tural potency that could never be reversed. Others thought the dis­or­der and frag­men­ta­tion could be over­come. I think Rothko falls into the lat­ter cat­e­gory, and his float­ing blocks of lumi­nous color con­tain the detri­tus of civ­i­liza­tions long gone. Paradoxically, they sur­round us with the future.

 

 

Related Posts: