Main content
Course: The Museum of Modern Art > Unit 1
Lesson 4: Abstract Expressionism- AB EX NY: MoMA and Abstract Expressionism
- Jackson Pollock
- The Painting Techniques of Jackson Pollock
- Mark Rothko
- The Painting Techniques of Mark Rothko
- Franz Kline
- The Painting Techniques of Franz Kline
- Barnett Newman
- The Painting Techniques of Barnett Newman
- Ad Reinhardt
- The Painting Techniques of Ad Reinhardt
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Mark Rothko
Explore the power of abstraction through Mark Rothko's luminous and introspective paintings. To experiment on your own, take our online studio course Materials and Techniques of Postwar Abstract Painting. Created by The Museum of Modern Art.
Want to join the conversation?
- Although it is often pointed out that almost every new art movement was rejected by mainstream viewers at first, with impressionism cited most often as an example, is it not significant that it has now been 60 years since the height of abstract expressionism and this form of art is still widely disregarded as meaningless by those outside of the art cognoscenti? By this time in its development, impressionism was widely revered and appreciated as a form of artistic communication. Does it matter that this art seems incapable of communicating its message to most who do not know the entire story behind the goals of the movement?(7 votes)
- You have to appreciate the cultural climate of Modernism and beyond in which, yes, artists of all genres were very often very self-conscious about being difficult, confusing or baffling for the viewer. That difficulty (many call it 'elitism' in modernism) is as much a valid criticism today as it was then, and you're certainly right to flag it up.(2 votes)
- 3:10- "say so much more than words can" - how? What does an irregular blob of color on another irregular blob of color have to say? Is it even something worth saying?(4 votes)
- To really appreciate a Rothko, you have to see it in person.
I studied art history extensively in college and felt that I had a better understanding than most of the "aesthetic experience" and while I accepted my professor's teachings that these paintings WERE in fact works of art, I never perceived them as "good" art and certainly didn't see how they could "say" anything. Then, one day I stepped into a room full of Rothkos and they literally spoke to me. These paintings are not meant to be seen in a textbook or in a video. They are meant to be experienced. Words fail to explain the experience.(9 votes)
- What is the word that she says at0:40? It sounds like ankst.(1 vote)
- The word she says is "ANGST". It means "a feeling of dread, anxiety, or anguish." Hope this helps. Good luck.(7 votes)
- Why does the artist restrict himself to surfaces with four corners and four sides?(3 votes)
- 1:42- "mystery" being a goal in and of itself - what makes trying to figure out how someone did something qualify that something as a "work of art"? I do things all the time - if I were to present them as "art" with the goal of the audience trying to figure it out, would this be in MOMA?(1 vote)
- In order to get into MOMA you'd have to make new and revolutionary art. The irony is that new and revolutionary art, when it succeeds, becomes cliche, accepted, obvious, fadish, and perhaps merely a status symbol for the rich. The reason we find Rothko's work obvious today is that this has now left its original revolutionary context, entered our culture, and is a part of everyday design theory. For example, when you hear of people painting an "accent wall" in their kitchen, that's derived from concepts of space and color that Rothko brought into our consciousness.(4 votes)
- At4:20, what is the painting to the left of the Rothko painting?(2 votes)
- Interesting question. That painting is "1944-N No. 2" by Clyfford Still, an American artist.
Here's something that's interesting about Clyfford Still -- a few years ago, a new museum opened in Denver that's solely dedicated to the work of Clyfford Still. The museum has a really nice website, and the museum itself looks like a great place to visit.(2 votes)
- I thought this was called colorfield painting, Why does she say it doesn't have a name?(2 votes)
- color field painting is well described here:
http://www.theartstory.org/movement-color-field-painting.htm
Rothko is listed among color field painters, but perhaps the painting described in the video we have just watched is not among those specifically designated as such.(1 vote)
- What kind of art does Mark Rothko share?(1 vote)
- Do you mean what label does he fall under? His little niche in modern art was called color field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_field(2 votes)
Video transcript
Abstract expressionism
is often divided into two classifications,
one of which is action painting, which is
the work typified by Bill de Kooning or Jackson
Pollock, where you feel the action of the
artist on the canvas. The other side doesn't
really have a name, but you might call
it still painting, because in fact, there's
an absence of gesture, or activity, or
angst on the canvas. Instead, what you have
is quiet contemplation, a mood of deep
immersion in color. In a Rothko painting, you
have three or four zones of different thinly-washed
layers of color all interacting with each
other in a subtle way. Not like bold
contrasts, but instead almost swimming into each other
to get your eye and your brain working optically to almost
immerse your consciousness in these fields that
Rothko has created. They may look simple. On the other hand,
to really figure out how he created those effects
is far more complicated. And it's not easy to understand
what colors are actually in which layers on the canvas. The mystery of the
whole thing is actually appropriate to Rothko's goals. He's wanting to
make a picture which advertises its own mystery,
its solitary quality, its introspective quality. It's a quality that he felt was
reflecting his own state while painting. And I think it's
a quality that he wanted to inspire
in the viewers who were in the space
of his paintings. In the exhibition, we've
installed an entire room only of Rothko, not
only for the reason that we have many beautiful
paintings to present, but because of this power they
have to create an environment. You feel the intimacy
of the atmosphere that he has made for you. The point of Rothko's art is to
provide a universe for viewers that they don't have
in the real world. There is definitely a spiritual
side to what Rothko was doing. It's not at all an
ironic art, or a kind of calculated, clever,
sort of tactical art. In fact, one of the
quotations of Rothko's that's repeated often is,
"Silence is so accurate." What he was really doing
was extolling the power of an abstract
language to say so much more than words could do. I think when you look
at a painting by Rothko, you also realize what is meant
by the term "all over," which is often used in regard
to Abstract Expressionist painting. It's not like there's a
center point and the edges, or the corners, or the sides
are of lesser importance than the core. In fact, the action of the
painting, if there is action, is distributed equally from
top to bottom, and from side to side. And there's no way
that you can complete your experience of that
picture without letting your eye wander, or
even your body wander, all over the surface
of that canvas. You end up feeling like you're
in a zone with no gravity, almost as if there
is not a weight. Rothko often said that
he liked his paintings to be hung rather
low to the floor. The reason for that is that
he really saw these paintings as something that
mattered in terms of the physical
presence of the viewer. The physical presence of the
viewer starts with their feet being on the floor. And he wants the paintings
to not literally begin on the floor, but as close to
that as is reasonably possible, so that you're almost
standing in the painting, rather than admiring some kind
of separate object on the wall. Your space is the painting
space and vice versa. Like many of the artists in
the Abstract Expressionism era, Rothko did not want his
paintings to be framed. Paintings that were made on
easels and then put on frames were understood to be
illusions of another scene, of an imagined place. Rothko and his
peers did not feel that they were alluding
to another space, or place, or time with
what they were making. What they were making
was the reality that they wanted to
present to the viewer. And for that reason, it
didn't need the borderline of a frame separating its
reality from their reality. What they wanted was
the joint reality of spectator and painting.