Agreed. An excellent description. As I've only seen the copies (or images on the web), I never really saw how a Rothko work commanded the $ that it does. I have a new appreciation.
On a side note, does anyone ever speculate that sometimes the price of these works of art are high both due to the artistic merit of the piece, and the status of the prior owner? When I read the economist piece, it struck me that part of the allure for both Sotheby's and to that extent, The Economist, was the fact that you had a consignment "by one of the richest men in America." Obviously, prior ownership translates in Hollywood film memoribilia (e.g., Audrey Hepburn's little black dress worn in Breakfast at Tiffany's), but does the same hold true for art? Carey http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/05/arts/EU_A-E_MOV_Britain_Hepburns_Dress.php On 4/24/07, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese. Deepa. On 4/24/07, Danese Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > $46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any > painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as "stripes" of > color. The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more > compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or > even a print or photo of the painting). You really have to see them > in person, and see them up close and properly hung to get the whole > effect. They are calming, soothing and sometimes deeply moving. > They are interesting to experience from different perspectives; > because most are quite large, you can surround your field of vision > with color standing close and then stepping away the separation of > different color fields resolves in your eye. Such a simple thing > (paint on canvas) but carried off so beautifully. Impossible to > cheaply copy (because of the surface texture and something about the > layering of color that achieves the end result). You can actually > see that it took some time to make each one. Again as architect > Christopher Alexander coined the term, which Bill Joy later taught to > me, there is a quality with no name that is deeply pleasing and that > makes you sigh when you recognize it. Rothko was channeling that > quality in paint and canvas, IMHO. > > Danese > > On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > > > stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth? > > > > apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david > > rockefeller who's selling it. > > > > -rishab > > > > 1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg > > 2. > > http://economist.com/daily/columns/artview/displaystory.cfm? > > story_id=9061031 > > > > > > >
