"Wystan Curnow (FOA ENG)" wrote:
>
> dear josephine,
> if you think Rothko 'went more and more minimal' then
> the Rothko Chapel--which seems to me his greatest accomplishment-- cannot
> mean much to you. The history books have a way of overlooking the
> architectural ambitions of Rothko, Newman et al., to make religious
> installations. The was a way 'to go conceptually' for some ab.ex. artists.
> The Tate works belong with this 'conceptual' move.
> wystan
Obviously living near Sydney both the chapel and the Tate
are not really accessable to me. I am aware of the chapels
existence however, and have seen photos. I'd love to see
both in the flesh as the work also has a great meditative
effect for me. I saw a number of the canvases in Canberra
quite a few years ago when they were touring. The key to
veiwing such large works is to get up close until the
peripheral vision is also filled. Funnily enough I saw one
of his late canvesses hung in the NGA next to a Rover Thomas
of similar size. FAscinating juxtaposition.
I just googled on Rover Thomas for you and found,
co-incidentally, an article comparing his wrok to Rothko.
http://www.artaustralia.com/articles/thomas/thomas1.html
Thomas is my favourite aboriginal artist.
My (not Annies) 'suicided' comment was made from an empathic
response to the work as it was presented in the monograph I
was recalling. A response to his artistic journey which
surely mirrored his mental/emotional state? The late
watercolours were not included else I may have had a
different intuitive feeling about where he was going.
(going to stand in the corner facing the wall for naughtily
being imperfect with my language, again *sigh*)
(from the corner)
And as for dekooning I really dislike his work - it screams
'misogynist' to me as does much of Picasso.
Josephine
|