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
-----Original Message-----
From: Printmaker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, 29 July 2001 9:06 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Femininity in Poetry
Mark Weiss wrote:
>
> Leaving aside the question of whether the differences you see are are
> socially or physically determined, where would you put Rothko?
>
> Mark
Hi Mark
I did say "The better artists are the ones who go
beyond this difference"
I'm a particular fan of rothko. I found it interesting that
he went more and more minimal over time; reducing form to
washes of colour and then finally reducing the colour to
greys. It seems to me that he suicided at that point cos
there was no where else for him to go conceptually. Again an
over simplification. Rothko's are very beautiful canvases.
Josephine
