Both Rothko and Pollock were innovative in the sense that no one had done what they did throughout the history of art.

I'll forgive the dead body analogy...just not being called "wrong" about the subject...I know the chinese have been calling bonsai art for 1600 years...doesn't mean its common sense to me...guess I don't kowtow to primitives and bureaucrats so easily

Came up with it myself, yes. I do not believe myself to be duped.


I am unsure of what you seek to expose by comparing these works to one another. I don't understand how the comparisons show intentional misrepresentation. I feel as though you've misunderstood why Rothko and Pollock are famous, considered innovative, and worth remembering artists.

Clearly you're thinking along the lines of "My kid could paint that" and no doubt he could, but your kid didn't present that as art before Rothko or pollock did. As mindcrime said, they did something that was completely new to the art world, they broke out of the bounds of painting.

I feel as though I wasn't particularly clear in explaining the differences between formal and conceptual artists. Let me try to clarify:

Consider music - one can appreciate a musician who is exceptional at playing the instrument, a virtuoso, with perfect pitch, who can play 16th an 32nd notes across multiple octaves. Being a virtuoso doesn't quite make you a musical genius however, as you're only considering the instrument you play when it comes to music. A composer, on the other hand, considers an entire orchestra or band when he or she creates music, in an attempt to evoke a mood or feeling.

The Virtuoso would be the Formal Artist, while the Composer would be the Conceptual artist.

While both are important to music, many of the great musicians are those who are both exceptional at their instruments, as well as composing music and songs. Similarly, to be a successful Captiol-A Artist I believe you must combine both Formal and Conceptual tones in the work.



Rothko didn't simply paint large color fields of color for the sake of doing it and saying "There! um, this is art!" His paintings were purposefully large, and he intended the viewer to stand close to the painting, as he wanted to evoke a sense of intimacy and awe. There's looking at a Rothko in a magazine or online, and then there's standing in front of one.

Its not just a square of color ... when you stand in front of Rothko painting, you're swallowed up but nothing than two or three colors, and if you let it, it blurs reality and consumes you.

As with most abstract, or as I have labelled, conceptual artwork, the artwork is meant to be viewed in person, whereas Formal and Utilitarian art can be reproduced and observed in other manners.

Additionally, before his 'multiforms,' Rothko was a surreal, myth-influenced painter, who restlessly switched between styles ... all which were relatively boring and "done before" and for that reason we don't quite remember much of his work before the color fields.

With most artwork, particularly of the Conceptual tone, you either like it or you don't.

My first encounter with Bonsai Trees was at a small museum, when I happened to stumble across the outdoor exhibit. I stood transfixed, stunned and consumed by the beauty of the trees on display. I couldn't move, even as the rain began to come down and soak my clothes. For twenty minutes I was lost in that garden, completely transported away from reality.

Meanwhile my brother had walked past me, not giving the stunning collection more than 2 minutes of his time. He's a conceptual artist, and his values are placed on the nature of the artwork, so it wasn't ultimately surprising that he saw the trees as little more than just 'Bonsai' - a 'potted plant'.

As an Illustrator I sometimes find myself in similar situations of awe when looking at representational and utilitarian artists, like Sargent and Mullins. And while I don't always fall for conceptual art, as most of it feels like pretentious bullshit, though some of it hits me in the same way as those first trees did.




Yes much time is spent thinking about the way the plant will look, but it seems to me that the approach bonsai artists take is a very formal, very traditional or illustrative approach.

Take your favorite tree, look at it and ask yourself "What is the theme that I'm exploring with this tree? what am I trying to say? What is the expression? Am I simply making it look as aged as possible and pleasing to the eye? Or is there a greater theme i'm trying to explore and question, using this tree as a medium of communication?"

In adhering the the aesthetics and laws of Bonsai, are you simply a virtuoso? if, as you say 'there is no requirement that a story be told or comment be made in order to classify something as art' what then makes a tree in a pot a Bonsai or not?

Mindcrime,

Having a little selective memory perhaps?

To name a few, the following artists would probably disagree that neither Pollack or Rothko (working with Gottlieb) to develop “his” style admittedly derived from “primitive art” were very innovative:


Mark Tobey “Threading Light” (1942). Piet Mondrian, “Broadway Boogie Woogie” (1942). Irene Rice Pereira “Shadows With Painting (1940). Ad Reinhardt “Newspaper Collage” (1940). Andre Masson “Pasiphae” (1945).

Cheers,

_gonzo_

Zombat,

Since I am also unsure whether you are deliberately being disingenuous or I have somehow failed to make what I thought was an obvious point. I will try again, giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Your quote was:

[QUOTE=zombat] The Conceptual artist spends as much time thinking about and analyzing his art as the Traditional Artist does observing and drawing or painting their art. Examples: Pollock, Rothko...QUOTE]

I gave you examples from Da Vinci and Michelangelo off the top of my head that clearly demonstrate no such equality in thought process or analytical consideration at all (by and with said comparison). You now say you are unsure what I seek to expose by comparing these works.

Perhaps I should just be more blunt. I made the comparison because in my estimation it demonstrates your statement was clearly unfounded. If, as you say “my kid” could do it there would be no basis (or reason) for the alleged time spent thinking and analyzing by either artist. Evidently then, “my kid” can produce a work these artist could not without forethought so extensive as to compare to the effort put forth creating a Da Vinci or Michelangelo masterpiece. It follows in my estimation, that if this were reality, neither artist (Rothko or Pollack) could have generated enough synaptic activity to write the check for a canvas.

Reality instead is that modern art, like wine, jewelry, or fashion is sold on hype or the pretense you mentioned. It sounds to me however, as if you have simply elected to buy into some of it. Hence, my observation that you have been duped. My point was that Rothko/Pollack finished works show no evidence at all of time consuming and painstaking careful deliberations needed to create the work of their predecessors. One merely has to look at any of them honestly.

For what it’s worth, I went to The Rothko Retrospective at the Guggenheim in 1978. I did not therefore, have to consult a magazine to reach these conclusions.

Cheers,

_gonzo_

edit: In what sense are they not innovative compared to the artists you mention?

Not being a student of the arts in the sense of studying all of the different artists, quasi-artist and artist-wannabes I can only judge by my personal observations. Today the "artist", and I put that in quotes to designate an assumed title or one applied by those who themselves have assumed titles, who took a dump in a mason jar and sold it to a museum in Ohio for several thousand dollars is not, in my opinion an artist, but an individual who has managed to identify a trend and capitalize on it, using the phrase, excuse, or argument that what he did was art, and in doing so sold crap as art and dumbed down the definition of art as the end result of his efforts. Political trends at the time had succeeded in selling the public, or the so called intelegencia on the idea that even junk has credibility, therefore some of the most ridiculous, foul, and ugly crap has been passed off as art.

I believe this is also called kitsch, but many of the art critics, mavens, supporters and devotees of art of today, could not find their collective back-sides sitting on both hands. I really don't care how many degrees an individual may have, or where they are employed or how many articles they have had published in numerous magazines etc., if they are wrong they are wrong. In short; don't pee down my back and try to tell me it is raining.

Their credibility, in my opinion, is perverted by political correctness, personal agenda, and being seduced by those who believe the same. Their ideas are not based on artistic merit but some other issue that drives them, or in this case plays them like a cheap violin.

You have to remember that 500 years ago science believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe and flat, both conclusions based on a mis-interpretation of some other source were both incorrect but because they had the power many suffered who sought to challenge this misguided concept.

...and that's exactly how I feel when someone says Nick Lenz's bonsai are art (but that doesn't mean they're not).

The artists and works mentioned (and others) were forerunners to the alleged "innovative" or "unique" styles later "created" by Pollack and Rothko.

Cheers,

_gonzo_

In what sense were they forerunners?