Talk:Mark Rothko/Archive 2

Article too long
This article's gone mad. It's far too long with no breaks. I'll try and cut it down a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.160.44 (talk • contribs).
 * Please do. You'll see that User:72.197.242.49 added a huge amount of material, a certain amount of it POV and also unreferenced. I didn't revert it, as it seems quite well researched with a lot of useful information, so I felt it was better to leave it for the time being. Tyrenius 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, ''Mark Rothko was born in Daugavpils, Latvia (Vitebsk guberniya, then part of the Russian Empire). Her father Jacob was a pharmacist and an intellectual, who provided his children with a secular and political, rather than religious upbringing.''

Her father?

Surname inconsistant
The beginning of the article give his surname as "Rothkowitz," while he and his family are later referred to (several times) as "Rothkovich" or "the Rothkoviches."


 * That's "inconsist e nt". --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  13:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

subheadings
I'm trying to break this wodge of material into smaller chunks, but it's hard to find predise points that would take a heading. Any suggestions?Totnesmartin 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Converted to Othodox Judaism???
From what? A Jew doesn't convert to Orthodox Judaism...Perhaps what you mean is he joined the Orthodox Jewish community, or that he became a practicing Orthodox Jew.

How to plan a rewrite
I suggest this article should start with a summary which should aim to be accessible to people who want the 'short version' and could also reference subsequent sections. A summary needs to be weighted towards those aspects which people are most likely to want to know about (i.e. the art).

Here's the link to the Wiki guideline on summary style Cosmopolitancats

I'm not sure chunking it up with a different set of headings is the right approach and I, for one, would certainly hesitate to do this. It's difficult to see where a lot of this has come from and some of it reads to me as if it may have been copied. If there is no attribution as to source (or even who wrote what - there's no comments in this history about this) can it remain after an edit? The guidelines state that encyclopaedic content (which this certainly is) must be verifiable and any content which violates copyright should be deleted. It might be easier to start again with a fresh article which is properly referenced. Cosmopolitancats 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article is too long. There are digressions that I think should be deleted (as suggested earlier on - below) but I think it is a credit to the site to have such a thorough article. Let's not forget that he is arguably one of the most prominent artists of the 20th century...Zigzig20s 03:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

inspiration from mythology
It seems to me this could be deleted :

"Ezra Pound used his translations of ancient Asian and Greek and Medieval poetry to comment on the Great War, Picasso used mythological images in his Guernica to create a resonating, timeless statement on war while at the same time specifically addressing the Spanish Civil War, T.S. Eliot borrowed from Grail mythology and Frazer’s Golden Bough in his landmark poem The Waste Land, James Joyce evoked Homer in Ulysses and nearly the whole of mythology in Finnegans Wake, Thomas Mann utilized Christian symbolism to great effect in The Magic Mountain and Joseph and His Brothers, to name some of the more obvious examples"

Interesting as it may be, I don't think we need to read all that. Surely the point put forward here is just that, "Rothko’s use of mythology as a commentary on current history was by no means novel.".Zigzig20s 03:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

influence of Nietzsche
This seems like a digression :

"In it, Nietzsche defined tragedy as the union between the Dionysian ("Art of Music") and Apollonian ("Art of Sculpture") and traced the development from the ecstatic ancient cults (Dionysian) to the later will to form (Apollonian). Whereas Aristotle viewed tragedy as a combination of terror and pity, Joyce’s definition was pornographic didacticism; that is to say, that which excites a feeling in the viewer both of fear and the recognition of the self in the observed subject experiencing life’s horrors. As a result of aesthetic pleasure in the face of these horrors, tragedy provides redemption. Hamlet is tragic therefore not only because Hamlet experiences fear, outrage, inaction and death, but because you yourself are Hamlet and the work successfully evokes from you a pathetic response regardless of whether you want to kill your step-father or not. For Nietzsche, Greek Mythology was the source of modern culture and in Greek tragedy especially found an account of man’s redemption through the tragic act, an act that resonates in the Hellenic sources of Christianity. Nietzsche blamed modern man’s dilemma on "the loss of myth, of a mythic home, the mythic womb." He observes that "Man today, stripped of myth, stands famished among all his pasts and must dig frantically for roots, be it among the most remove antiquities." This loss of myth results in the loss of art, as "every culture that has lost a myth has lost, by the same token, its natural, healthy creativity." "

The link to Nietzsche's "The Birth of Tragedy" would seem sufficient.Zigzig20s 03:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Zen and Eastern philosophy influence
in his later paintings that 's what it shows but rarely mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.152.189 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

deleting the digressions
I was waiting for someone to back me up, but since its been days I'll just delete the digressions.Zigzig20s 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Suicide" section way too long
The second half of the Suicide section sounds suspiciously plagiarized, and definitely POV--even with all the rhetorical questions. Ninetigerr 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)ninetigerr

NPOV Tag
Sections of this article seem to be either not-neutral or even written from the perspective of a writer or something. I'm not just saying that because I find it disgusting for him to be called an artist. 129.120.244.69 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please quote the sections that seem non-neutral to you, and try to explain why you think so. Surely 'disgusting' is a bit harsh, and unnecessary if I may. Zigzig20s 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read over the article three or four times and can't find any passages that warrant NPOV. Given that the person also appears to have a bit of a vendetta against the artist, I'm taking it's application with a grain of salt. Removed tag. xanderforsyth 11:07, 12th March 2007 (Atlantic Canada)

Where are the references???
I would love to see a good article on Rothko with proper References. When is that going to come?

Also, I do think the chapel is a big issue worth writing about. I agree however that is not synoptic enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IzaakdeM (talk • contribs) 03:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

His father convert to Judaism?
Sounds strange, as far as I can recall, he was born Jewish-might be as secular one, but Jewish-and if so, then he only return to Judaism-even if his parents were secular as well. Only non-Jewish by their birth, i.e, ethnically not Jewish, should convert to Judaism if they want to be Jewish-so, there is no place to say "convert" if he was born as a Jew. Can any body cite any reliable reference that support the idea of Rothko's father converting to Judaism? It is very important. I made a brief review, using few, randomly chosen,  Rothko's biographies-and not even one of them claimed that his father converted to Judaism, instead, it was written that Mark Rothko was born to a Jewish family. More, there is a biographical book about Rothkos father which calld "the story of a Baal teshuva" which means that he was born Jewish--Gilisa 05:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Version 0.7
This article just needs a good clean up to make it up to B-Class, then it would be ready for the next offline release. Topic appears to be quite important, so we'd like to have it covered if possible. Walkerma (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rothko's secret techniques
One should mention that Rothko used several original techniques that he tried to keep secret even from his assistants. Electron microscopy and ultraviolet analysis by the MOLAB http://www.eu-artech.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=68 showed that Rothko used natural substances such as egg and glue as well as artificial materials including acrylic resins, phenol formaldehyde, modified alkyd, and others. One of his objectives was to make the various layers of the painting dry quickly, without mixing of colors, such that he soon could create new layers on top of the earlier ones. Fleabox (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a specific linked source for this (i.e. not the generic page of the MOLAB)? Thanks, Eusebeus (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please check out the recent exhibition at the Tate Modern http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/markrothko/default.shtm and this article about it: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7221/full/456447a.html . Perhaps we should add both links. Fleabox (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Entire article has been "cleaned up", per request
Some amateur "art-historians" are just not good at English prose, and while their ideas may be good, the same concepts can often be expressed in a more grammatical, lucid, and user-friendly way. Also did some fact-checking in cited references. And sections of grandiose, subjective, "purple prose" were condensed and qualified to make them more objective, and more worthy of the standards of an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.22.248 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes
Can we shift the quotes to wikiquote? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Rothko


 * "I am not an abstract painter. I am not interested in the relationship between form and color. The only thing I care about is the expression of man's basic emotions: tragedy, ecstasy, destiny."


 * "The role of the artist, of course, has always been that of image-maker. Different times require different images. Today when our aspirations have been reduced to a desperate attempt to escape from evil, and times are out of joint, our obsessive, subterranean and pictographic images are the expression of the neurosis which is our reality. To my mind certain so-called abstraction is not abstraction at all. On the contrary, it is the realism of our time. "


 * "Certain people always say we should go back to nature. I notice they never say we should go forward to nature."


 * "Pictures must be miraculous."


 * "The progression of a painter's work as it travels in time from point to point, will be toward clarity. toward the elimination of all obstacles between the painter and the idea. and the idea and the observer. To achieve this clarity is inevitably to be understood."


 * "Since my pictures are large, colorful and unframed, and since museum walls are usually immense and formidable, there is the danger that the pictures relate themselves as decorative areas to the walls. This would be a distortion of their meaning, since the pictures are intimate and intense, and are the opposite of what is decorative."


 * "The fact that people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions.. the people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when painting them. And if you say you are moved only by their color relationships then you miss the point."


 * In the June 13, 1943 edition of the New York Times, Rothko, together with Adolph Gottlieb and Barnett Newman, published the following brief manifesto:


 * "1. To us art is an adventure into an unknown world, which can be explored only by those willing to take the risks.


 * "2. This world of imagination is fancy-free and violently opposed to common sense.


 * "3. It is our function as artists to make the spectator see the world our way not his way.


 * "4. We favor the simple expression of the complex thought. We are for the large shape because it has the impact of the unequivocal. We wish to reassert the picture plane. We are for flat forms because they destroy illusion and reveal truth.


 * "5. It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted."
 * [Rothko said "this is the essence of academicism".]


 * "There is no such thing as a good painting about nothing.


 * "We assert that the subject is crucial and only that subject matter is valid which is tragic and timeless. That is why we profess spiritual kinship with primitive and archaic art."


 * "Silence is so accurate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmyk (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities
I've changed the information concerning his nationality from "Latvian" to "Russian" & "U.S.". At the time of his birth, what is now (and was in the inter-war period) Latvia, was part of Russia. In 1938 he became a U.S. citizen. Should he have taken Latvian nationality after WW1 and Latvian independence, then please provide proof - I could find no indication of this. I also deleted the Latvian form of his name. Rothko did not speak Latvian & this would give a false impression. --24.125.239.130 (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of copyright image that is not the subject of the article as representation of subject
While []http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Rothko&action=historysubmit&diff=366015752&oldid=366014385] "rplace with former infobox....note images and boxes are largely optional, per guideline MoS they are not policy)", following the copyright policy is not optional. Rothko was not green and orange rectangles and so that copyright image cannot be used to represent him, particularly when it can be used appropriately within the copyright guidelines to illustrate sourced third party commentary within the article itself. Active Banana (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This use of images has long been practiced. Let it be per WP:UCS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernist (talk • contribs)
 * WP:OTHERCRAP and how does your suggested image placement improve the encyclopedia? Active Banana (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Working on getting an actual photo of the artist to use in the infobox.Media_copyright_questions. Active Banana (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

An image of the artist would be acceptable, but there is also a good argument for an image of his work being a key one for the article, which is not just a biography of a person, but a narrative also of his creative achievement, without which no one would be interested in him in the first place. "Rothko was not green and orange rectangles and so that copyright image cannot be used to represent him": I don't think anyone is arguing that Rothko was composed of green and orange rectangles, but there is a good argument that a key work of his consists of the same, and that therefore this can be used to represent his oeuvre. The article title "Mark Rothko" is simply a convenient shorthand for "The art and life of Mark Rothko", the real joint subject of the article. The most common industry practice with monographs is to use an image of artwork on the cover, not a photo of the artist, because the former is usually a more widely-recognised identifier than the latter.  Ty  16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a fu image of Rothko and added it.  Ty  17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Active Banana (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it so? & anarchy
Simon Schama's doco of Rothko includes paintings after the black-as-oil ones in the chapel. About anarchy, would you say that someone who avoided centrist allegiances was an anarchist or a stirrer/provocateur? 110.33.249.192 (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

entire article cut and pasted!
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/07/05/arts_culture/doc4c2a3b5f43ae0604763972.txt

Mark Rothko And Color Field Painting BY CHERYL VANBUSKIRK, FOR THE BULLETIN

this wikipedia entry takes vast portions from the above article verbatim. Is it all right for it to be EXACTLY the same as a published journalist? I think the language should be restructured and cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetraopteryx (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If the journalist took it from Wikipedia, it's okay. If Wikipedia took it from the journalist, it is not okay &mdash; it is a violation of copyright which could potentially put Wikipedia at risk for a lawsuit. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

name shortened because he was AFRAID of anti-semitism?
I'm looking for any documentation that says he shortened his name out of fear of anti semitism. Rothko was a vocal opponent of anti-semitism as can be seen in his protest of various art institutions associated with communism. He doesn't seem "afraid" - often confronting the issue directly. can someone provide the footnote for that section? it seems especially dubious because his students at brooklyn college referred to him as "Rothkie" a shortened version of his name, and all of his letters were signed "Mark" even when he was Marcus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.76.25 (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) --Tetraopteryx (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cite added. JNW (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bunny Mellon?
I understand, that Rachel "Bunny" Mellon bought a large portion of Rothko's art in the 50's when and has a vast collection on her estate in Virginia. Is it reasonable for her to be mentioned under the "Patrons" heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.15.172 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Identifying the vandal
The fact that one of Rothko's paintings was vandalised at Tate Modern on 7-Oct-2012 is referred to three times in this article. The first time, in the section called, "Seagram Murals / Four Seasons Restaurant artistic commission" it says the perpetrator was, "an unknown visitor." Then in the section called, "Legacy" the man is identified, initially as, "Wlodzimierz Umaniec" and then two sentences later he is referred to as, "Umanets". I suggest that this needs to be sorted out because an unidentified visitor cannot then have two different names.  Cottonshirt  τ   02:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are all cool to edit that as you have outlined. Both romanizations of the name seem to be in general use, so you could simply say "Wlodzimierz Umaniec (aka Vladimir Umanets)" as The Guardian, The Independent and  [| Huffington_Post] show. Pleasant editing :-)   ...   Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 09:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * & as to the vandal being 'unidentified', his identity was hardly an issue. After the vandalism Umaniec /Umanets left the gallery unimpeded and without making any other statement. But his tagging reference to | 'Yellowism' was all news media needed to  locate him. Conceivably the gallery's first report did not name him, but by the following day he'd been widely reported to have confessed multiple times. . . . Pleasant editing :-)  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 11:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Tower image appears to be a spoof
What is the encyclopediac significance of this article's image "In the Tower - Mark Rothko.JPG"?- The text itself claims this image portrays a tower interior; a tower connected to a conventional gallery which at an earlier time had held a Rothko show. But there are no paintings of any sort portrayed within the image; just bare stucco, a hint of windows, and the sparkly ceiling. And it doesn't appear any painting could ever be viewed in this particular tower. Also note that the image contributor 'AgnosticPreachersKid' has abandoned that particular identity. To me the image appears to be another sly 4/chan-style spoof of "WP:Assume_good_faith". . . .  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 08:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Date of ending of first marriage
If Rothko died in 1970, surely his first marriage ended before 1981. Panscient (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that the dates given for both spouses are their lifetimes, not the dates of the marriages? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

B class assessment
I've assessed the article for all criteria except B2 (coverage and accuracy) - I don't know the subject well enough to comment on the article's accuracy, but it seems to cover his life well without omitting any long periods of time. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Rothko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170212054902/http://onmywall.co/important-ideas-that-changed-art-forever-abstract-expressionism/ to http://onmywall.co/important-ideas-that-changed-art-forever-abstract-expressionism/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428092230/http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Latvia-opens-museum-dedicated-to-Rothko/29339 to http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Latvia-opens-museum-dedicated-to-Rothko/29339
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912230851/http://www.mentalcontagion.com/archive_first5years.html to http://www.mentalcontagion.com/archive_first5years.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)