I’m starting from scratch here with little to go on but the
titles and pictures, although transcribing these caused quite a lot of
problems. As titles go, these set out (apparently) to puzzle and not only those
posed as ‘Untitled’. Pictures with near equivalence in names (differentiated by
date only and sometimes enigmatic Section number) have significant differences
in appearance either in colour combination and form. The pictures seem to
problematise the notice of both colour terms and the meaning of ‘on’. Is ‘on’ a
word denoting how one colour articulates another (as in Hockney on Rothko) or
about relations in surface dynamics – which colour is on top of or under the
other. The dates themselves (here not in any knowable order) bespeak changes in
grasp of the subject brought about in terms of time perhaps but not certainly.
What of the difference between paintings designated as ‘murals’ and those not
and what differentiates a ‘Mural for Wall End’ from a Mural?
All these pictures illustrate a problem related to frame. There is
a quiet comparison of the framing of each picture with a frame within not least
in the construction of its edges and apertures – double frames being
particularly intriguing. Some frames problematise ‘borders’. Are borders that
are wide still borders for instance? Is an internal border a ‘representation’
of a border – and, if so, is it any less so than the ‘actual’ border of the
whole picture? Parts and wholes perhaps are even problematic.
But I’ll stop here and return to Exercise 1.
Extract 1
Rothko
did not feel “very securely at home in the interpreted world.” He looked about
him. He searched faces. He traveled. He married and had children. But he was
never at ease. He was indifferent to objects, and took little pleasure in the
ordinary embellishments of daily life. In his various studios austerity
reigned. There were no distractions – no bibelots, reproductions, Oriental rugs
or even comfortable chairs. His sensuous and emotional life were not dependent
on paraphernalia or possessions, even small ones. He craved transport, and
found it mostly in music. His greatest fund of emotion was lavished primarily
on what he made – paintings.
(Ashton,
1996, p. 3)
Ashton connects
Rothko’s feeling about a world that he personally has not ‘interpreted’ to a
need for greater security. For him, he suggests that world was one without
‘objects’ but with shifting frames of interpretive reference. Hence we would be
inclined to interpret his objectless mural paintings in terms of his ‘escapist’
psychology – in Ashton’s view. The suggestion seems to be that Rothko’s
psychological distaste for static objects is merely translated into his art.
This feels to me to be based on a circular argument – the distaste for objects
is shown in his life and illustrated in his painting. There is therefore a
direct relationship between Rothko’s art and his life. However, the evidence
used to make this direct link does not use the same kind of evidence to
characterise the life and the art. The ‘objectlessness’ is merely an assertion.
For me these paintings feel very full. The objects are perhaps occluded but I
sense we aim to understand what these are nevertheless. I, for instance, see
‘framing as a relationship between objects in my (to say the least) naïve
reading.
Extract 2
The open rectangles
suggest the rims of flame in containing fires, or the entrances to tombs, like
the doors to the dwellings of the dead in Egyptian pyramids, behind which the
sculptors kept the kings “alive” for eternity in the ka. But unlike
the doors of the dead, which were meant to shut out the living from the place
of absolute might, even of patrician death, these paintings – open sarcophagi –
moodily dare, and thus invite the spectator to enter their orifices. Indeed,
the whole series of these murals brings to mind an Orphic cycle; their subject
might be death and resurrection in classical, not Christian, mythology: the
artist descending into Hades to find the Eurydice of his vision. The door to
the tomb opens for the artist in search of his muse.
(Selz, 1961, pp.
12–14)
Selz openly
uses the stimuli in the painting for a subjective exercise in association.
Throughout the stimulus links to not only to subjectively identified
alternative domains (‘rims of fire’ or portals to tombs. As we read on, we see
that both alternatives feed off a set of mythical narratives. As I have worked
on this exercise I have started some reading and am now aware that Rothko,
prior to these classic ‘rectangles’ pieces, fed off mythologies and perhaps
links between these and psychoanalysis. Does Selz, knowing this, feed off that
information to mythicize and turn these paintings into ‘narratives’? Now I
think he does. The associations otherwise are based not only in subjectivity
but a specialised and educationally focused brand of subjectivity that
otherwise appears to impose itself on the pictures. I am however now aware that
there is a critical tradition associating Rothko with death themes, so perhaps
this passage is not as off-centre as it seems presented as here to a naïve learner.
This issue is
more potently explored in my current reading of Rothko, Christopher (2017).
Strangely enough (given the family connection – Christopher is his son) that
latter book rejects over-easy biographical interpretation. Moreover, I find in
it that Rothko WAS highly interested in framing per se. he stopped using
conventional frames for his work, invented interior frames etc. I sense here
that my own naïve reading above may have got to that same place by a different
route. I also begin to see part of the route by which I got to this point –
silent and half-aware comparison of my response to Rothko with my response to
Hodgkin, in his last exhibition at Wakefield this year.
A843 Blogs Part 1 Exercise 1 (Rothko) Preliminary
Exercise 1 (preliminary thoughts on Seagram Murals - http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/exhibition/rothko/room-guide/room-3-seagram-murals ) prior to exercise proper
I’m starting from scratch here with little to go on but the titles and pictures, although transcribing these caused quite a lot of problems. As titles go, these set out (apparently) to puzzle and not only those posed as ‘Untitled’. Pictures with near equivalence in names (differentiated by date only and sometimes enigmatic Section number) have significant differences in appearance either in colour combination and form. The pictures seem to problematise the notice of both colour terms and the meaning of ‘on’. Is ‘on’ a word denoting how one colour articulates another (as in Hockney on Rothko) or about relations in surface dynamics – which colour is on top of or under the other. The dates themselves (here not in any knowable order) bespeak changes in grasp of the subject brought about in terms of time perhaps but not certainly. What of the difference between paintings designated as ‘murals’ and those not and what differentiates a ‘Mural for Wall End’ from a Mural?
All these pictures illustrate a problem related to frame. There is a quiet comparison of the framing of each picture with a frame within not least in the construction of its edges and apertures – double frames being particularly intriguing. Some frames problematise ‘borders’. Are borders that are wide still borders for instance? Is an internal border a ‘representation’ of a border – and, if so, is it any less so than the ‘actual’ border of the whole picture? Parts and wholes perhaps are even problematic.
But I’ll stop here and return to Exercise 1.
Extract 1
Rothko did not feel “very securely at home in the interpreted world.” He looked about him. He searched faces. He traveled. He married and had children. But he was never at ease. He was indifferent to objects, and took little pleasure in the ordinary embellishments of daily life. In his various studios austerity reigned. There were no distractions – no bibelots, reproductions, Oriental rugs or even comfortable chairs. His sensuous and emotional life were not dependent on paraphernalia or possessions, even small ones. He craved transport, and found it mostly in music. His greatest fund of emotion was lavished primarily on what he made – paintings.
(Ashton, 1996, p. 3)
Ashton connects Rothko’s feeling about a world that he personally has not ‘interpreted’ to a need for greater security. For him, he suggests that world was one without ‘objects’ but with shifting frames of interpretive reference. Hence we would be inclined to interpret his objectless mural paintings in terms of his ‘escapist’ psychology – in Ashton’s view. The suggestion seems to be that Rothko’s psychological distaste for static objects is merely translated into his art. This feels to me to be based on a circular argument – the distaste for objects is shown in his life and illustrated in his painting. There is therefore a direct relationship between Rothko’s art and his life. However, the evidence used to make this direct link does not use the same kind of evidence to characterise the life and the art. The ‘objectlessness’ is merely an assertion. For me these paintings feel very full. The objects are perhaps occluded but I sense we aim to understand what these are nevertheless. I, for instance, see ‘framing as a relationship between objects in my (to say the least) naïve reading.
Extract 2
The open rectangles suggest the rims of flame in containing fires, or the entrances to tombs, like the doors to the dwellings of the dead in Egyptian pyramids, behind which the sculptors kept the kings “alive” for eternity in the ka. But unlike the doors of the dead, which were meant to shut out the living from the place of absolute might, even of patrician death, these paintings – open sarcophagi – moodily dare, and thus invite the spectator to enter their orifices. Indeed, the whole series of these murals brings to mind an Orphic cycle; their subject might be death and resurrection in classical, not Christian, mythology: the artist descending into Hades to find the Eurydice of his vision. The door to the tomb opens for the artist in search of his muse.
(Selz, 1961, pp. 12–14)
Selz openly uses the stimuli in the painting for a subjective exercise in association. Throughout the stimulus links to not only to subjectively identified alternative domains (‘rims of fire’ or portals to tombs. As we read on, we see that both alternatives feed off a set of mythical narratives. As I have worked on this exercise I have started some reading and am now aware that Rothko, prior to these classic ‘rectangles’ pieces, fed off mythologies and perhaps links between these and psychoanalysis. Does Selz, knowing this, feed off that information to mythicize and turn these paintings into ‘narratives’? Now I think he does. The associations otherwise are based not only in subjectivity but a specialised and educationally focused brand of subjectivity that otherwise appears to impose itself on the pictures. I am however now aware that there is a critical tradition associating Rothko with death themes, so perhaps this passage is not as off-centre as it seems presented as here to a naïve learner.
This issue is more potently explored in my current reading of Rothko, Christopher (2017). Strangely enough (given the family connection – Christopher is his son) that latter book rejects over-easy biographical interpretation. Moreover, I find in it that Rothko WAS highly interested in framing per se. he stopped using conventional frames for his work, invented interior frames etc. I sense here that my own naïve reading above may have got to that same place by a different route. I also begin to see part of the route by which I got to this point – silent and half-aware comparison of my response to Rothko with my response to Hodgkin, in his last exhibition at Wakefield this year.