The tate is exhibiting Rothko, a painter much admired by the lazier students at art college I remember. There is plenty of coverage in the Guardian, even a poll
Do you get Rothko? with those claiming understanding of the maroon master outnumbering those who don't by 2:1. 'Getting' Rothko there equates to considering him a 'majestic talent'.
Do
I 'get' Rothko?
Yes.
Does this mean I like his work?
No, there is a deeper level of understanding, there is dirty wire under the polished gallery floorboards.
To fully understand his prominence one must be aware of the cold war context in which Mark Rothko rose to fame. American abstract expressionist painters were funded and promoted by the
Farfield Foundation and the CIA during the 1950s. This promotion extended to the funding of art periodicals throughout Europe, in Britain the magazine '
Encounter' , unwittingly edited by
Stephen Spender was funded by the CIA. Its mission was to position American art so it became favourably viewed by left-wing Europeans who (it was thought) might otherwise be swayed by the Soviet realism of the era. (not just tractors, read all about it in 'The Cultural Cold War' by Frances Stonor Saunders)
Abstract expressionism therefore is not prominent on merit but rather at the will of US foreign policy makers.
Such soft power is obvious enough in the output of Hollywood and the US music industry, and there is a healthy public awareness of this. Not so in art, this important perspective on the rise of US abstract painting is mysteriously ignored by the media.
It is assumed that large scale gestural painting is the very emblem of 'freedom' in art but I contest that this aesthetic is the deliberate drowning out of a language to replace it with a repetitive shout. A shout emanating from a suspicious place. These painting fail to communicate anything, there is no scope within their narrow vocabulary. Art as a vehicle for engaging a mass audience with important content has been replaced with a 'heroic' biography of an all american 'underdog' whose greatest preoccupation is the huge rectangular daub. Meanwhile your consciousness has been subtly altered in accordance with the aims of the CIA. 'Gard' bless the USA.
Does this mean I like his work?
No, there is a deeper level of understanding, there is dirty wire under the polished gallery floorboards.
To fully understand his prominence one must be aware of the cold war context in which Mark Rothko rose to fame. American abstract expressionist painters were funded and promoted by the Farfield Foundation and the CIA during the 1950s. This promotion extended to the funding of art periodicals throughout Europe, in Britain the magazine 'Encounter' , unwittingly edited by Stephen Spender was funded by the CIA. Its mission was to position American art so it became favourably viewed by left-wing Europeans who (it was thought) might otherwise be swayed by the Soviet realism of the era. (not just tractors, read all about it in 'The Cultural Cold War' by Frances Stonor Saunders)
Abstract expressionism therefore is not prominent on merit but rather at the will of US foreign policy makers.
Such soft power is obvious enough in the output of Hollywood and the US music industry, and there is a healthy public awareness of this. Not so in art, this important perspective on the rise of US abstract painting is mysteriously ignored by the media.
It is assumed that large scale gestural painting is the very emblem of 'freedom' in art but I contest that this aesthetic is the deliberate drowning out of a language to replace it with a repetitive shout. A shout emanating from a suspicious place. These painting fail to communicate anything, there is no scope within their narrow vocabulary. Art as a vehicle for engaging a mass audience with important content has been replaced with a 'heroic' biography of an all american 'underdog' whose greatest preoccupation is the huge rectangular daub. Meanwhile your consciousness has been subtly altered in accordance with the aims of the CIA. 'Gard' bless the USA.