Although many art critics, art writers and artists out there may condemn me for this article, I do not believe a canvas featuring what looks to be three stripes of paint can count as art. Yet No. 36 (Black Stripe) by renowned artist Mark Rothko, featuring three such daubs of paint sold at auction in May of this year for an astounding $40 million.
Known for his unusual style of artwork, the artist himself refused to be classified by a particular movement, until later defined by critics as an ‘Abstract Expressionist’. This post-war American art form also saw artists such as Jackson Pollock and his dribbles of paint recognised as part of the movement. Rothko’s abstract and his later expressionist art stereotypically focused on painting symmetrical vertical lines on large canvasses. Some allege that the huge scale of the canvasses in question, is purely to make up for the lack of substance within the painting itself. Yet, described as ‘rare and universally inticing’ by auctioneer Brett Gorvy, No. 36 (Black Stripe) and Rothko’s other works, retain an undeniable appeal for collectors and enthusiasts alike. But my question remains – is this truly art?
“It seems incredible that the price of Rothko’s simplistic ‘art’ is so astonishingly high”
Although I am no expert, I appreciate and recognise art in all its forms. Yet I cannot see how this style – quite literally just block lines painted on canvas – can be valued so greatly when compared to other contemporary artists, or the Masters of Old. When comparing these works to a Rembrandt or a Da Vinci, in terms of skill or acclaim, it seems impossible that Rothko can match up. When you consider the time, commitment and effort involved in creating such detailed masterpieces, it seems impossible that a few lines, however vibrantly coloured, can beat or equal Rembrandt’s roughest sketch. It seems equally incredible that the price of Rothko’s simplistic ‘art’ is so astonishingly high. Sold at the same auction as No. 36 (Black Stripe) another of his works, No. 10, cost one art collector an astounding $81.9 million! Some people truly have more money than sense. Especially when in 2013, Rembrandt’s Portrait of A Man, With Arms Akimbo was due to sell for a mere $47 million.
“I cannot see how this style – quite literally just block lines painted on canvas – can be valued so greatly”
However surprising, there may be an explanation as to the success of Rothko’s work. According to the experts at fine art auctioneers, Christie’s and Sotheby’s, this boom in the contemporary art market appears to be due to relatively new collectors. Those just starting their fine art collections undoubtedly have money to spare, and an undeniable thirst for modern art – however large and however simple. Despite this, I still find it incredibly hard to believe that Rothko’s work is considered art – and fine art at that – when all I can see is an attempt at decorating that went terribly wrong.
With Rothko’s work Seagram Murals displayed in London’s Tate Modern, however, and his other pieces gracing the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC and several museums across Europe, it appears I cannot escape his undeniable influence and prestige in the art world, nor the groundbreaking acclaim his works have achieved. However, I cannot help but recall that alongside his painting, Rothko also apparently began writing a book, which remained incomplete, discussing the similarity of children’s artwork to that of modern painters. This to me, unfortunately, is what this style of art resembles the most.
Amy Wilcockson
Image credit: Joan Sorolla via Flickr
