Reviews
The Artist's Reality: Philosophies of Art by Kate Prizel Rothko, Mark Rothko, Christopher Rothko
ronanmcd's review against another edition
3.0
I like Rothko's work all the more now I havea conceptual understanding of what he sought to achieve.
And yet, he is not particularly convincing as a philosopher or writer. He baldly states arguments as though they were incontrovertible truths, but without proof. He makes generalisations. He mangles text.
But there's an earnestness there. The same honesty that appears in his most well known paintings
And yet, he is not particularly convincing as a philosopher or writer. He baldly states arguments as though they were incontrovertible truths, but without proof. He makes generalisations. He mangles text.
But there's an earnestness there. The same honesty that appears in his most well known paintings
tonydecember's review against another edition
2.0
Possibly never really intended by Rothko for publication, as it is speculated, this was amassed during a fallow period when he stopped painting in the early '40s.
It comes across as his own history lesson; personal reminders and reinforcements to bridge the gap while he searched for new approaches to his work. Nothing is missed in attempting to understand his paintings by not reading this work. In fact, his paintings really only need to be directly experienced to be understood, in one's own personal fashion.
Superior to this treatise is the Broadway play, "RED," starring Alfred Molina, which is far more contemporaneously political and illuminating of his motivations, beliefs and struggles with his art.
It comes across as his own history lesson; personal reminders and reinforcements to bridge the gap while he searched for new approaches to his work. Nothing is missed in attempting to understand his paintings by not reading this work. In fact, his paintings really only need to be directly experienced to be understood, in one's own personal fashion.
Superior to this treatise is the Broadway play, "RED," starring Alfred Molina, which is far more contemporaneously political and illuminating of his motivations, beliefs and struggles with his art.
neftzger's review
3.0
Let me first state that I love Rothko's work and am also a fan of the play Red (which is about Rothko). I should also add that the written works published in this book were never polished and completed by Rothko, the manuscript having been discovered after his death. Therefore, anyone reading it should take this into account before setting expectations.
While this book is interesting and has some nice insight, I felt as if I knew Rothko better through his artistic compositions. Maybe that's because visual art is his native language, and he's more fluent in light, shapes, and color than in the written word. There are some gaps and rough spots that made the book feel incomplete, but the volume still serves as an introduction to the artist's philosophy and perspective on the state of the art world during his lifetime.
This book will be primarily of interest to Rothko's fans and admirers, and there are a few gleanings for art students. That said, there are some wonderful quotes about art and artists that I really enjoyed.
While this book is interesting and has some nice insight, I felt as if I knew Rothko better through his artistic compositions. Maybe that's because visual art is his native language, and he's more fluent in light, shapes, and color than in the written word. There are some gaps and rough spots that made the book feel incomplete, but the volume still serves as an introduction to the artist's philosophy and perspective on the state of the art world during his lifetime.
This book will be primarily of interest to Rothko's fans and admirers, and there are a few gleanings for art students. That said, there are some wonderful quotes about art and artists that I really enjoyed.
lnatal's review
4.0
This book is a series of Rothko reflections on different subjects such as: beauty, reality, myth, sensuality, the artist’s dilemma, the role of unconscious processes in creative work among others.
The introduction was written by his son Christopher Rothko.
Quotations:
What is the popular conception of the artist? Gather a thousand descriptions, and the resulting composite is the portrait of a moron: he is held to be childish, irresponsible, and ignorant or stupid in everyday affairs.
The picture does not necessarily involve censure or unkindness. These deficiencies are attributed to the intensity of the artist’s preoccupation with his particular kind of fantasy and to the unworldly nature of the fantastic itself. The bantering tolerance granted to the absentminded professor is extended to the artist.
[…]
This myth, like all myths, has many reasonable foundations. First, it attests to the common belief in the laws of compensation: that one sense will gain in sensitivity by the deficiency in another. Homer was blind, and Beethoven deaf. Too bad for them, but fortunate for us in the increased vividness of their art. But more importantly it attests to the persistent belief in the irrational quality of inspiration, finding between the innocence of childhood and the derangements of madness that true insight which is not accorded to normal man.
What abetted the artist in his little game was the dogmatic unity of his civilization. For all dogmatic societies have this in common: they know what they want. Whatever the contentions behind the scenes, society is allowed only one Official Truth. The demands made upon the artist, therefore, issued from a single source, and the specifications for art were definite and unmistakable. That, at least, was something … one master is better than ten, and it is better to know the size and shape of the hand that holds the whip. In a master, definiteness and stability are preferable to caprice.
The introduction was written by his son Christopher Rothko.
Quotations:
What is the popular conception of the artist? Gather a thousand descriptions, and the resulting composite is the portrait of a moron: he is held to be childish, irresponsible, and ignorant or stupid in everyday affairs.
The picture does not necessarily involve censure or unkindness. These deficiencies are attributed to the intensity of the artist’s preoccupation with his particular kind of fantasy and to the unworldly nature of the fantastic itself. The bantering tolerance granted to the absentminded professor is extended to the artist.
[…]
This myth, like all myths, has many reasonable foundations. First, it attests to the common belief in the laws of compensation: that one sense will gain in sensitivity by the deficiency in another. Homer was blind, and Beethoven deaf. Too bad for them, but fortunate for us in the increased vividness of their art. But more importantly it attests to the persistent belief in the irrational quality of inspiration, finding between the innocence of childhood and the derangements of madness that true insight which is not accorded to normal man.
What abetted the artist in his little game was the dogmatic unity of his civilization. For all dogmatic societies have this in common: they know what they want. Whatever the contentions behind the scenes, society is allowed only one Official Truth. The demands made upon the artist, therefore, issued from a single source, and the specifications for art were definite and unmistakable. That, at least, was something … one master is better than ten, and it is better to know the size and shape of the hand that holds the whip. In a master, definiteness and stability are preferable to caprice.
More...