How Does Art Make You Feel?

As a child, I distinctly remember visiting the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and coming across a painting, which greatly confused me.  There was nothing more to the painting other that the top half of the canvas was brown, and the bottom gray.  After staring at the painting for a few minutes, I turned to my mother and said,  “that’s not art, even I could paint that.”  Even though many years have passed since I first came across this painting, Mark Rothko’s Untitled (Brown and Gray) 1969 still causes me frustration.  Can a painting involving two mundane colors on either half of the canvas really be considered art? 

Mark Rothko was born in Dvinsk, Russia, but later immigrated to the United States.  After growing up in Portland, Oregon, he attended Yale University, however, he dropped out in 1923 and moved to New York City.  Rothko’s earlier paintings relied heavily upon an emotional approach, as well as a child-like take in terms of usage of color and shapes.  (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/early5.shtm) As World War II approached, Rothko’s works took on a more symbolic approach. By using unnaturalistic forms of representation, he was able to comment on the changing world.  During this time period, Rothko also developed a use for both mythology and religious influence in his paintings.

            As the 1950s approached, Rothko’s style changed yet again, leading him to the style, which would eventually produce Untitled (Brown and Gray) 1969.  Rothko’s later work, called multi-forms, revolved around the use of “perceptual subtly” (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/late3.shtm). He began producing paintings using anywhere from one to four rectangular shapes in only a few different colors.  He chose to not name these paintings, in fear of influencing the viewer’s perception or emotional connection to the painting. 

            Rothko’s Untitled (Brown and Gray) 1969 is one of Rothko’s later paintings, using only two colors and on the entire canvas. After learning about its painter and the reasoning behind this type of art, I feel just as I did years ago.  I am still confused about its meaning, purpose, and the fact that it is considered art.   Are we supposed to appreciate the painting for its simplicity or use of the canvas? Critics have stated that unlike other abstract artist, Rothko did not abandon “the ability of abstract art to be experienced in emotionally expressive terms” (http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/late7.shtm). This painting, however, draws no concrete emotion from me, nor does it make a grand statement about the human condition.  The only emotion I feel is disappointment, because I cannot grasp its meaning.  Perhaps this was Rothko’s ultimate goal, to create art that made people frustrated or confused. While I would love for Rothko’s painting to one day make sense to me, I feel that unfortunately I will never get this satisfaction, and that frustrating feeling I felt as a child will maintain steady in respect to Rothko’s artwork. 

By Hildy Marinello