<p>I read somewhere of Mark Rothko that “many find his work to be pointless. Those inspired by it will stare with a sort of hypnotic admiration” or something of the sort. I don’t think I really get it, but I was intrigued enough to separate this from the other thread.</p>
<p>What is Mark Rothko? What does it mean?</p>
<p>Rothko is pretty cool.</p>
<p>I get more more feelings out of his work than meanings. In fact, it’s interesting how his art can influence my mood. However, I have to be in the mood to have my mood influenced.</p>
<p>I think I get that. I have to just get it, and not try to, because it means I’m not in the right mood to?</p>
<p>I don’t know. You can try to understand it. I’m just describing one way his art (or rather, most famous works) “works” for me.</p>
<p>I think I’ll find that modern art is easier if it just hits me and I feel the same way the artist might have</p>
<p>Yeah. Analyzing things is hard. It’s rewarding, but hard. (That’s…not what she said? Doesn’t really work anyway. :P)</p>
<p>Sometimes it’s quite nice to see a work of art and intuitively connect with it, and go, “Oh!”</p>
<p>Form, space, and color. </p>
<p>Intriguing, but it doesn’t fill me with any particular emotions. I think I connect more with contemporary or even anachronistic language and syntax than I do with modern art.</p>
<p>I guess it’s a nice departure from the “hardness” of Mondrian. I’ll have to be more alert to understand it.</p>
<p>I don’t think of Mondrian as being “hard.” Well, yes I do. But not in the same sense that I think of architects like Le Corbusier as “hard.” I think it’s more natural.</p>
<p>That said, I don’t believe much of what Mondrian said about lines, or Malevich about squares. Not that I really know enough to pass judgment on that.</p>
<p>My 9th grade modern history loved Rothko. I find his later, darker works hard to connect with. But I suppose that makes sense since they are darker because he was struggling to express himself under the strain of fame. Less ability to express self —> less audience connection?</p>
<p>The way Mondrian developed as an artist was really interesting. He started out so traditional, though with a somewhat looser brushstroke, IIRC. I don’t know all that much about his artistic philosophy, but what I do intrigues me. I think I sort of just like him, though, because we had all these little 3D Montessori puzzles that were based on his De Stijl pieces in preschool through kindergarten. But yeah, the hardness of Mondrian looks very theoretical. I have a respect for it, for his thought process in creation, and for the control it must have taken to create the pieces, but they’re purely aesthetic to me.</p>
<p>I like Kandinsky better than Mondrian. Besides creating awesome art, he was friends with Schoenberg, which is pretty amazing.</p>