All good paintings are 'about nothing' because they can't be 'about'. Only perceivers have 'aboutness' or meanings or concepts and these are projected to the artworks where they seem, note seem, to be reflected back to him or her.
The first sentence from Rothko is OK as long as the reader understands basic artspeak. Every artist has said the same in different ways. It simply says that one must do whatever one does very well. Interpret that any way you choose and it comes out that real force and painterly quality (in this example from Rothko) impells one to give it meaning. If the work seems 'to lack meaning' then the lack is in the perceiver. Again, Conger's law holds: Bring a little cup, get a little drink; bring a big cup, get a big drink. The drink is your own imagination refreshing you in the presence of art. What I can't stand are the inane remarks about art that are based in stupid, infantile notions of naming as meaning. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, October 10, 2012 9:07:03 AM Subject: Re: "It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing." Joseph quotes Rothko: "It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing." 1) That sounds like two or three different statements, all of them either vacuous or false. 2) To the extent there's any validity to the first sentence, it highlights a difference between genres.
