Absolutely. A jpg doesn't cut it. The Broad changed my opinion of a lot of that kind of modern art, they had rothkos along with these big single color panels that were glossy, so saturated, and so bright to look at. Seeing a picture it was like "ok triangle" but to be in its PRESENCE
There is a pervasive problem in general where people who have seen a photograph of a thing on their phone act as if that more or less captures the experience of seeing the thing in real life. No it doesn’t!!
Lighting them well is crucial - I remember seeing one that had just been purchased at Au's NGV. It was showcased with great lighting. I had been a Rothko sceptic, but it was so beautiful I cried. The same painting, permanently installed w. poor lighting, died on the wall - just paint and canvas.
Agreed. I was one of those people. Then I went to Lacma. There’s something about being in their presence which is ineffable. You don’t feel it in pixels on a screen, mostly.
ngl that’s a top artist ( next to pollock ) i constantly dream of witnessing in person. the way it must feel to stand close to one where it takes up your whole vision just to sit in it.. I can’t imagine
Turns out thir entire movement was promoted and funded by the CIA to represent capitalists' ability to produce work as a Foil to the realism coming out of communist Europe.
Comments
Turns out thir entire movement was promoted and funded by the CIA to represent capitalists' ability to produce work as a Foil to the realism coming out of communist Europe.