Talk:Mark Rothko

chapel
Is this subsection absolutely necessary? Zigzig20s 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is necessary. But maybe it is a bit long, as there it has its own article at Rothko Chapel. 86.170.222.3 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Gibovskis rothko rotko daugavpils.jpg

Names of children in infobox
Template:Infobox person says: "Typically the number of children (e.g., 3); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children. Names may be preceded by a number to show total children and avoid implying that named children are the only offspring. For multiple entries, use an inline list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable." 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * THEY ARE BOTH NOTABLE and REFERENCED!!! Leave them alone!..Modernist (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just giving them a reference doesn't make them instantly "notable". If they are significant in some way, why not add an explanation to the article main body text? In Wikipedia "notable" means "has an article", which they don't. But you seem to WP:OWN this article. So I guess you just do as you please. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said they are both notable...read the Rothko case article and Christopher currently heads the Rothko foundation...Modernist (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So why is this not even mentioned (with a source) in the text? The infobox in not meant to have any unique content? His daughter Kate is notable for what? For being named after Rothko's mother? Wow. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't Christopher's connection to the Rothko case be mentioned here? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Kate Rothko famously sued the Marlborough gallery and her fathers trustees; ultimately protecting and caring for the Mark Rothko estate for her and her brother....and became famous for her amazing success. Her brother takes care today of his fathers estate, and paintings...Modernist (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article says " Rothko's children sued Reis, Morton Levine, and Theodore Stamos, the executors of his estate, over the sham sales." But little else about Kate. Unless her details are expanded in the text (where any sources should also appear), it's difficult for the reader to understand her significance. As far as Wikipedia is currently concerned neither Kate not Christopher and notable in their own right. Thousands of people have sued other people, whether family relations or not. That doesn't automatically make them "notable". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Modernist on the outcome here, but their reasoning is not totally sound/complete. Christopher and Kate Rothko are incredibly contextually significant to Mark Rothko's life and legacy, having sued Marlborough for control of Rothko's estate and then subsequently used the estate's holdings/wealth to a) get Rothko's art into more museums, explicitly working to establish more scholarship (and, implicitly, more market notability), b) take greater control of the artist's legacy, and c) support themselves financially.
 * Point A is important because they were in many ways directly responsible for the wave of scholarship on Rothko in the 80s, 90s, and 21st century; their work to selectively place his art in museums (including an incredibly large gift of art to Washington's National Gallery) fundamentally changed the way Rothko was perceived in the context of art history, both because it gave scholars more access to Rothko's work, and because it gave museums an incentive to produce scholarship to support the work they now owned.
 * Point B is important in the context of this page because Kate and Christopher have specifically worked to craft a new narrative about Rothko's suicide. Modernist attempted to explicate this in their edit summary, but it was not a fully reasoned explanation. While Rothko's suicide has been an essential part of the public narrative around his work - journalists, art historians, and critics have all connected his late artistic styles and posthumous rise in prices to his suicide - Kate and Christopher have explicitly made it known that they do not agree with this narrative. The issue of Rothko's death is a complicated one that deserves more context if mentioned in the intro to this article, but by virtue of his children's work to change that narrative, they also merit mention in the article, whether or not one agrees with their narrative of the death or the more broadly cited narrative of the death.
 * I don't think I need to explain why Point C is important, but I'll do it anyway: As the financial beneficiaries of Rothko's estate after the lawsuit concluded, they have an interest in continued scholarship on Rothko's life and art (the more an artist's output is studied, usually the more expensive it becomes). There are a lot of projects at cultural institutions across the country that have been funded by the Rothko estate; many of them directly relate to Rothko's legacy. Some have argued that the continued high prices for Rothko's art are a direct result - and an intended result - of Christopher and Kate's long-term project to support and craft Rothko's legacy via their control of the estate.
 * Does all of this context need to be included in the article? Maybe not. But I would argue that as key characters in the broader arc of Rothko's legacy, they warrant being named in the infobox. This article needs some broader updates and fixes, and I agree that no one should act like they own a specific page. But Modernist is correct when they point to the contextual significance of Kate and Christopher, along with Rothko's cause of death. That Kate and Christopher may not merit their own articles - an issue I don't want to get into - does not mean they don't deserve named inclusion in the infobox. Pointing to rules about infoboxes is in many ways unhelpful, as every rule on Wikipedia is meant to be broken if it would better the project; in this case, I do think it betters the project to give the names of Rothko's children at the beginning of the article, because it introduces arguably the two most important figures in the posthumous legacy of Rothko's art.
 * (Citations would obviously be critical for much of what I just said, but I'm just giving the lay of the land as I see it and as I've observed it through coverage of this issue in arts publications) 19h00s (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you 19h00s for your very eloquent response. OK, so if we assume WP:IAR we are stuck with the names of the two children in the info box. If that's so, do those sources rely belong there also? I think we are agreed that more explanation, with sources, is required in the article main body, if not also in the lede? I think I follow your argument about more scholarship lending to higher prices. But do you also have WP:RS sources for all that, or is it just your own personal view? It seems a bit counter-intuitive when much of the art market seems to reply on scarcity to drive up auction prices? If the children gifted everything to galleries, how could they make any money at all from sales? I'm not sure I fully follow that. How many paintings do they still own? Is the situation made more complicated if they have children of their own? Maybe the article needs a whole dedicated section on the children? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't fully answer all these Qs now (#WikiWhileAtWork), but three quick fact clarifiers and an extra piece of my opinion:
 * The scholarship --> price correlation is a well-established principle in the contemporary art market. Collectors value art that is more firmly considered "important" by the standards of academics, curators, and museums; the notion is that it will continue to accrue value as its "worth" has been proven by academics, and the collector can either a) sell it at a higher price, or b) ensure a higher tax write-off when they donate it to a museum/cultural institution (speaking here in the context of the United States, and firmly within the realm of art selling, not art making, but the principle is broadly applicable as an art market principle). I can find some more sources later today, but if you just do some search engine queries related to arts scholarship and market value you'll find some pieces like this: Artnet News (2012). That's the first source I could remember off the top of my head, but there are many academic studies on the economics of arts production and scholarship, and this is generally an accepted concept.
 * Kate and Christopher have not donated or publicly promised every single painting from Rothko's estate to a museum/institution. The structure of single-artist estates and estate foundations in the United States (See: Warhol Foundation, Rauschenberg Foundation, Judd Foundation) is often strange and complicated, but usually a well-known, financially successful artist like Rothko will leave behind a massive number of works, both unfinished in their studio, packed in storage, or on display in their home. Rothko left thousands of works behind; many of them were works on paper, which are way easier to store in bulk, but still command incredibly high prices on the secondary market. So the size of the holdings are so vast that the estate can continue to fund its operations (grants to museums, commissioned scholarship, etc.) by selling additional pieces on the second market, usually privately, though sometimes at public auction. Almost all the major artist estates and estate foundations sell pieces of their collection to fund their operations (apart from those whose artist explicitly forbade them from doing so, and most try first to raise money by licensing reproductions of art rather than selling the actual art). Kate and Christopher have given huge numbers of Rothko's paintings to museums, but there are almost surely more still owned by the estate. Notably, the Rothko estate is not an official nonprofit foundation like the Rauschenberg or Warhol examples; Christopher and Kate are under no legal obligation to tell the public what they've sold, what they're using the money for, or what paintings are left.
 * The idea that Kate and Christopher have worked to craft the narrative of their father's legacy, and have benefited financially from the estate, are also well-established in notable reliable sources. I do not have sources directly at hand, but can find them later; the lawsuit was hugely consequential in the contemporary art world for the ways it made successful artists more aware of how their legacies may be handled by their gallery, and the ensuing work of Christopher and Kate to change the narrative around their father has been extensively discussed by many.
 * My opinion: At this point, Rothko is basically beyond those market forces being relevant because of how well the Rothko estate established his scholarship. The National Gallery is an important example in my view; they are currently running a show of their massive holdings of Rothko's works on paper, and a key element of the show, produced with support from the children, is reframing the narrative around Rothko's suicide by presenting rarely seen late works in a completely different, more upbeat style than his more-famous, late "Black" paintings, which critics have connected to his emotional state at the time of his suicide. Crucially, and I think this is important to note here even though it's my opinion, you will not see many art historians or museum professionals talk about this openly, because it gets to the very heart of American museums and arts scholarship; what does it mean that a party with a clear financial interest in Rothko's art was able to effectively grow the value of their holdings by harnessing the power of arts scholarship and institutional credibility? To closely examine this would be to reexamine the entire structure of American museums and arts institutions, which rely on the largesse of donors, many of them with direct financial interests in the things they're donating. This line of thought has been explored by multiple critics in the context of Christopher and Kate's work on their father's estate, and I can again find sources to point to it later, but obviously this is advanced analysis, not just a basic fact. But the reason for including this context here is because, as you can imagine, edits on the Mark Rothko page (an inarguable giant of American modernist art) tend to stir up some strong emotions from both arts-interested editors - many of them former and current cultural workers - as well as from editors who think Mark Rothko's art - and abstract/avant-garde/modernist art in general - is some kind of "scam." There has to be a balance between recognizing that art is inherently subjective (any broad critique of abstraction as a "scam" is fundamentally pointless imo), and recognizing the structures that lead to a person/artist becoming notable: in this case, the structures of the art market, arts scholarship, and institutional relationships helped build Rothko's long-term notability, and in some people's view, his artistic "worth."
 * 19h00s (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Also just a double clarifier here: when I refer to "galleries" I am referring to commercial art galleries which sell an artist's work. When I refer to museums/institutions, I'm referring to traditional museums with permanent collections that do not sell or deaccession art on a regular basis. Those definitions are a little slippery, but folks on Wikipedia often seem to refer to "galleries" as a catch-all for museums, but in the context of today's art market "gallery" usually refers to a commercial institution) 19h00s (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for all the replies, but realized I might as well just find sources. A profile of Kate in The Guardian from 2008 covers many of the details from the lawsuit and the resulting impacts it had on the broader art world and how notable artists interacted with their galleries. Specifically notes Kate and Christopher's efforts to shift the narrative around their father, with quotes from Kate and analysis from the journalist, also provides background on the lawsuit. Reporting in Artnet News (limited access paywall) and a profile on Christopher in The Art Newspaper from last October both confirm the degree to which Christopher and Kate are still currently involved in shaping their father's legacy - Christopher just curated the massive Rothko retrospective in Paris, and Canadian press has described him as "the guardian" of Rothko's art and legacy. And of course, the narrative around all of this is further complicated by the fact that Kate and Christopher have control of the estate because someone else had originally done a series of shady self-deals to establish control over the estate and its monetary value, so it can be difficult to objectively discuss the children's current use of the estate with that context in mind.
 * Notably, a fact I'd overlooked before all this: the Mark Rothko Foundation, a legal entity reestablished by the courts under Kate and Christopher's control at the end of the lawsuit, did actually give away all its holdings of art, and does not really exist as such anymore. But Kate and Christopher continue to own large holdings of Rothko's art in their own joint personal collection; half the works up at the National Gallery right now are sourced from their collection. Pace Gallery, the current commercial gallery representative of Rothko's estate, continues to sell works by Rothko, presumably sourced from consignments as well as directly from Kate and Christopher, as evidenced here. I was mostly popping into this conversation originally just to add my insight/two cents, so I admittedly didn't do as much digging as I could have beforehand, but I do think my point still largely stands that Kate and Christopher have been essential in the longer arc of Rothko's legacy. 19h00s (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure those sources would be very useful. Do you think the two existing sources, at Ocula and The Guardian are also useful? I'd say that Kate and Christopher giving away all of the Foundation's holdings of art, certainly needs to be mentioned/ explained. Do we know if they have any children; I guess they might have grandchildren by now. I see that The Guardian article calls her "Kathy Lynn" not Katy. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article from The Guardian is the same one I linked too, definitely a good source for this. Ocula is technically a reliable source for quotes and facts, but I would say it's probably not the best place to source analysis (Ocula is the digital/print magazine arm of a commercial art advisory firm). There are some good quotes from Christopher in that piece to help contextualize his most recent work on his father's estate (Paris exhibition curation, etc.), but at the end of the day that source does serve a specific purpose for a commercial entity in the art world, as opposed to standard journalism. Better sources for info on the background of Christopher/Kate and their relation to the Rothko estate: NYT 1998 on the post-lawsuit fallout; NYT 2015 on Christopher's book about his father/Rothko's legacy; CBC Radio 2016 interview with Christopher; Artnet News 2021 details Kate and Christopher's logistical/financial work on the estate in depth, including their method of selling works from the estate (paywalled). 19h00s (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think I can see those NYT sources without creating an account. And as you say the ArtNet News is also paywalled. The CBC Radio one is ok. I did not know that Christopher was a clinical psychologist. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Resale market
Given the previous conflicts over major edits, wanted to flag this first. The "Resale market" section feels way too long and exhaustive; most of those sale numbers are just not necessary at all; the citations can be used to establish a statement like "Rothko's paintings achieved consistently high prices from the 2000s through the 2020s," but listing the individual sales isn't useful for the average reader, just for an art collector/art market professional. The specific records (Rothko's highest + any market segment records) are certainly worth inclusion, and a general statement about the price of Rothko's paintings is also worthwhile, but this is basically an exhaustive list of high prices at auction, which again is not useful biographical info for the average reader seeking to learn about the subject. 19h00s (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)