Rothko’s Spaces
The position of Mark Rothko’s late work in Installation Art
Master thesis Art History
Menno Dudok van Heel
Student number: 6019536
[email protected]
Oudezijds Achterburgwal 39-3
1012 DA Amsterdam
+31 6 462 472 73
November 8th, 2011
Dr. S.Y. Berrebi
Dr. S.E. Fotiadi (second reader)
Art History Institute
University of Amsterdam
Index
Abstract......................................................................................................................................... 3
Samenvatting ................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6
1. Looking at Rothko today................................................................................................ 10
1.1 Installation Art of the present day........................................................................................ 13
1.2 Site specificity ....................................................................................................................... 16
1.3 Rethinking the Rothko rooms - revising the art historical canon ......................................... 19
2. Rothko’s work at the time of its critical reception........................................................... 22
2.1 Art criticism defining the post-war years in the United States............................................. 22
2.2 Rothko’s late commissioned work 1960 - 1970.................................................................... 26
2.3 The Artist’s Reality - Rothko’s theory on art......................................................................... 31
Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 36
Literature .................................................................................................................................... 39
Illustrations ................................................................................................................................. 40
2
Abstract
Rothko’s large scale commissioned work has been subject to critical debate since its creation in
the 1950s and 60s. In exhibitions and permanent displays the paintings are often described in
spatial terms. This thesis researches this notion of space and positions Mark Rothko’s site
specific commissioned work -the Seagram murals (figure 1), the Harvard murals (figure 2) and
the Rothko Chapel (figure 3)- in the upcoming Installation Art of the 1960s. Installation Art is a
phenomenon in art history that became part of the art world when it was provided with a
name by art historians. The interest to individual objects shifted to an interest in works of art
that investigated the relation between a variety of subjects and objects. Rothko worked on
three commissions from the late 1950s until his death in 1970. These commissions can be
interpreted from the specific point of view of Installation Art. Although the artist was not
directly involved in what is now considered to be Installation Art, his work tends to form a
relationship with the surrounding space. These aspects in Rothko’s work will be researched
from both a contemporary and historical perspective. Reinterpreting artworks and the effect
of time in the process of interpretation play a large role in the research that I have undertaken
in this thesis. Rather than seeing this revising as the result of a chronological misunderstanding
of Rothko as an Abstract Expressionist, I intend to provide extra layers and dimensions to these
works by interpreting it through Installation Art. A chronological inconsistency with regard to
predominant art historical interpretations of Rothko’s work -an anachronism- is formed
because of the deployment of Installation Art as a perspective to understand Rothko’s site
specific commissioned work.1 Looking at Rothko’s work now provides us with several aspects
that can underline the relation of Rothko’s work to Installation Art. To form a basis for
explaining this relationship I have researched the notions ‘Installation Art’ and ‘site specificity’.
This research is placed in the context of Rothko’s work and the similar aspects that can be seen
in Installation Art. I end the first chapter with a revision or reinterpretation of Rothko’s work.
The second chapter treats the origin of Rothko’s commissioned works that have mostly been
made in the 1960s. By sketching the art climate of that time the origin of the works becomes
clear. Starting with the art criticism of the 60s I have analyzed texts by the art critics Clement
Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg. The section on art criticism is followed by a section on
Rothko’s site specific commissions produced in the same decade. Chapter two concludes with
a review of The Artist’s Reality, a book that Rothko wrote on artistic practice and links this to
the reinterpretation that is part of the research. Combining these different aspects this thesis
will give new insights on Mark Rothko’s commissioned works and on his place as an artist in art
history.
1
The concept ‘anachronism’ is extensively studied by philosopher and art historian Hubert Damisch. It
relates to time, history, and the reception of history from the recipients actual point of view.
3
Samenvatting
Rothko’s monumentale werk in opdracht is onderwerp van kunstkritiek geweest sinds de
creatie hiervan in de jaren 1950 en 60. In vaste en tijdelijke tentoonstellingen worden deze
schilderijen vaak beschreven vanuit een ruimtelijk perspectief. Deze scriptie behandelt dit
ruimtelijke perspectief en positioneert Mark Rothko’s plaatsgebonden werk in opdracht -de
Seagram murals (afbeelding 1), de Harvard murals (afbeelding 2) en de Rothko Chapel
(afbeelding 3)- tegen de achtergrond van de Installatiekunst van de jaren 1960. Installatiekunst
is een fenomeen in de kunstgeschiedenis dat onderdeel van de kunstwereld werd toen het
door kunsthistorici van een naam werd voorzien. De belangstelling voor individuele objecten
verschoof naar een interesse in kunstwerken die de relatie tussen een verscheidenheid van
onderwerpen en objecten onderzochten. Rothko werkte vanaf de late jaren 1950 tot aan zijn
dood in 1970 aan drie kunstwerken in opdracht. Deze werken kunnen benaderd worden vanuit
het perspectief van Installatiekunst. Hoewel Rothko niet direct betrokken was bij wat wij nu
Installatiekunst noemen neigt zijn werk een relatie aan te gaan met de omringende ruimte.
Deze aspecten in Rothko’s werk zullen onderzocht worden vanuit een hedendaags en een
historisch perspectief. Het herinterpreteren van kunstwerken en het effect dat tijd heeft op de
interpretatie speelt een grote rol in het onderzoek dat ik voor deze scriptie heb uitgevoerd. In
plaats van het zien van herinterpretatie als een chronologische tegenstrijdigheid van Rothko
als een Abstract Expressionist, voeg ik een extra interpretatie vanuit de Installatiekunst toe.
Een tegenstrijdigheid in de chronologische plaats die Rothko vertegenwoordigt in de
kunstgeschiedenis -een anachronisme- ontstaat door het betrekken van Installatiekunst als
een constructie om Rothko’s plaatsgebonden werk in opdracht te kunnen begrijpen. Door
opnieuw naar Rothko’s werk te kijken onderzoek ik de context van Rothko’s werk en
vergelijkbare aspecten die gezien kunnen worden in de Installatiekunst. Hiervoor heb ik
gekeken naar ‘Installatiekunst’ en ‘site specificity’ Ik eindig het eerste hoofdstuk met een
herinterpretatie van Rothko’s werk. Het tweede hoofdstuk behandelt de herkomst van deze
kunst die voornamelijk in de jaren 1960 is gemaakt. Ik begin met de kunstkritiek van de jaren
60 en analyseer hierbij teksten van de kunstcritici Clement Greenberg en Harold Rosenberg. De
paragraaf over kunstkritiek wordt gevolgd door een paragraaf over Rothko’s plaatsgebonden
werk in opdracht dat hij in hetzelfde decennium vervaardigde. Hoofdstuk twee besluit met een
overzicht van The Artist’s Reality, een boek dat Rothko schreef over kunstpraktijk, en verbindt
dit met de herinterpretatie die onderdeel is van dit onderzoek. Door deze verschillende
aspecten te combineren geeft deze scriptie nieuwe inzichten in Mark Rothko’s plaatsgebonden
werk in opdracht en zijn positie als kunstenaar in de kunstgeschiedenis.
4
1: The Seagram murals, Tate Modern
2: The Harvard murals, Holyoke Centre
3: The Rothko Chapel, The Menil Collection
5
Introduction
Mark Rothko (1903-1970) was born in Dvinsk, Russia. He emigrated to the United States in
1913 with his family, and from 1925 on he lived and worked in New York.2 Rothko has become
an important American painter representing Abstract Expressionism and is famous for his
signature style of Color Field painting. The number of scholarly publications on the artist and
the artistic movement is immense and still growing. The difference I make in my research is
the approach to Rothko’s work from a perspective of Installation Art. Because of the artists
abrupt death in 1970 he was not directly involved in Installation Art, nevertheless the large
series that were made for various commissioners can be approached as Installation Art.
Defining this kind of art includes the aspect of space that is insurmountable. In From Margin to
Center - The Spaces of Installation Art, Julie Reiss broaches an interesting topic. She says that
‘In creating an installation, the artist treats an entire indoor space that is large enough for
people to enter as a single situation, rather than as a gallery for displaying separate works’
which is what Rothko was doing in his commissioned work as well.3 His paintings came out
best when exhibited in ensembles which the artist insisted on. For this reason he was always
involved in the installation of his works in the exhibition space. If not, the exhibition would lose
its predestined effect. I research the major tendencies in the New York art world after the
Second World War and focus on the moment that Installation Art did become part of this
world. As Rothko’s commissioned work is significant for my thesis I will feature the Seagram
murals, the Harvard murals and the Rothko Chapel as exemplary works in my research. The
way Rothko’s career is built within this dynamic period will be illustrated by the discussed
works that were realised at that moment.
When visiting the Tate Modern in January 2011 I was told the Rothko room was not on display
at that time. The Holyoke centre at the Harvard University does not show the Harvard murals
anymore because of the vulnerability. This makes the Rothko Chapel the only permanent
display of works bound to the exhibition space. Large numbers of people who want to see the
work or experience the body of works placed in the specially designed space travel to Houston.
The three major commissions realised in the 1950s and 60s have something in common which
is site specificity, but the preconditions set by the artist proved to be temporary. The
temporariness has various reasons but generates the same question: how do Rothko’s
commissioned works relate to the space they were made for? The artist has focused on
2
3
Tate Modern. <http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/CollectionDisplays?roomid=3543> Consulted on August
9th 2011.
Reiss, J.H. From Margin to Center. The Spaces of Installation Art. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999: P. xiii.
6
displaying his works as ensembles in space, the works are not to be decorative but decisive for
the atmosphere in a room and the feeling it evokes to the visitor. The intended meaning of the
artist and his thoughts on the power of his works in the settings they were made for are crucial
aspects for the reception of his work. This addition to what has already been published on the
artist and his work will give a new perspective on several components of his oeuvre, namely
his site specific art that can be analysed as a precursor to Installation Art. My research involves
the question whether or not Rothko’s commissioned work of the 1950s and 60s can be looked
at from the point of view that Installation Art added to the interpretation of artworks.
Installation Art is an art historical construct that became part of art history in the 1970s.
Within this context art history also shows that there was no such discipline in the 60s or at
least no discipline that was clearly aware of its position. The main referential essay for this new
discipline is by Allan Kaprow. In The Legacy of Jackson Pollock Kaprow concludes with the
words: ‘Young artists of today need no longer say “I am a painter” or “I am a poet” or “a
dancer.” They are simply “artists.” All of life will be open to them’.4 Kaprow stated that the
1960s would be the stage for this new notion of the artist that includes everything in life. It
was not until 1969 that the first exhibition on Installation Art took place in the Museum of
Modern Art: Spaces. In this exhibition curator Jennifer Licht selected five artists to create
individual ‘spaces’ in which the notion of the installation as a work of art became clear.5 The
interpretation of artworks is defined by changes in culture and society. In this case the
influence of Installation Art on the art world in the 20th century has marked a different
interpretation of Rothko’s work. When critics evaluated his work in the 1960s, the period
Rothko worked on his large scale commissions, the novelty of the works could not display the
relation that I make to Installation Art. As one of the Abstract Expressionists of the New York
School, Rothko was also categorized this way by his critics. What is interesting is that Rothko
always has denied this relation, nevertheless Rothko was represented by the significant gallery
owners Betty Parsons, Sam Kootz and Sidney Janis. Because Rothko was linked to the galleries
which were influential and exhibited the major Abstract Expressionists he was also seen as a
representative of this movement despite the fact that he always tried to exclude himself from
ascription to a movement. Rothko maintained exhibiting in galleries until he started working
on his large scale commissioned work in the late 1950s.6
Reinterpretation can lead to a new vision on Rothko’s place in art history compared to
contemporary culture and society. I’m not the first to rethink Rothko’s role in Abstract
4
5
6
Kaprow, A. The Legacy of Jackson Pollock (1958) In: Kaprow, A. Kelley, J. (ed.) Essays on the blurring of art
and life. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press, 2003: P. 9.
The Museum of Modern Art. <http://www.moma.org/docs/press_archives/4398/releases/MOMA_1969_
th
July-December_0091_165.pdf?2010> Consulted on October 14 2011.
Harris, J. ‘Mark Rothko and the Development of American Modernism 1938-1948’ Oxford Art Journal, vol.
11 (1988), P. 42.
7
Expressionism but the few theoreticians that underpin this link do not elaborate on the subject
whereas I think this reinterpretation is fundamental to Rothko’s late series. This argument
does not present a universal truth but will present a more elaborate understanding of this
work that certainly follows Abstract Expressionism but has a strong installation and site
specific aspect. According to art historian David Anfam ‘Abstract Expressionism always resisted
a single collective identity based on style, theories or social ties’.7 This is why it is hard to make
comparisons between different Abstract Expressionist artists, and since Rothko was working in
his own particular style he must be treated as an individual working in Abstract Expressionism.
The differences are not only amongst Rothko’s generation but link to later generations as well.
Rothko’s style and methods in art are one of a kind but at the same time they can be
dovetailed with the transition that art was undergoing at this period of time, especially in New
York. When looking at similarities, the different art groups that arose together with Abstract
Expressionism are characteristic for comparative artists like Barnett Newman or Clyfford Still.
This thesis is divided into two parts. On the one hand I will approach the subject from the point
of view that dominated during the rise of Abstract Expressionism. On the other hand my focus
on the subject is enriched with the knowledge about the work that we have now. This results
in an opinion that can focus on the works of art as precursors of Installation Art. Since the
works discussed have been painted over half a century ago, dividing the thesis into two parts
hands the opportunity to study a change in interpretation, catalysed by the rise of a new
understanding of the art and accompanied by several different movements that have made
their apprentice since the 1960s. The main subject of this thesis includes the late series
painted in the last decade of his life; these series of paintings are exemplary for the artist’s
oeuvre but also point out a change of focus on the spatial meaning of the works. The
understanding of these works lies mainly in the experience of being surrounded by the works.
The interaction of site, spectator and artwork cover the overall experience. My interest lies not
in the various ways of experiencing a Rothko room but in the intended place of the artworks
compared to the actual situation and the concept of site in the case of most works which is a
displacement in the cases of the Seagram murals and the Harvard murals.
To point out changes that went on from the moment that Installation Art was first
applied in contemporary culture and society it is important to mention the genesis of this
artistic genre. Before Installation Art was first coined Allan Kaprow had come up with the term
‘Environment’ in 1958. This term was picked up by critics and has been used for two decades.
In 1971 Daniel Buren asked himself if the term installation did not come to replace the term
7
Anfam, D. Abstract Expressionism. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990: P. 105.
8
exhibition in his essay The function of the Studio. At the time of Buren’s writing the term
Installation had not been integrated in The Art Index (1978) but it was used by art historians
earlier to define a certain type of art. An indication of the origin of Installation Art is given in
The Oxford Dictionary of Art that defines installation as a ‘term which came into vogue during
the 1970s’.8 Because of the history of Installation Art as a notion in art that took several
decades to be defined and implemented in the art world it became a broad idea that can
include or exclude artists and artworks depending on interpretation. Relating to contemporary
culture I will punctuate the argument with contemporary examples of Installation Art that are
comparable. Examples of the interweaving of Installation Art in contemporary culture are
biennials who often present spectacular Installation Art but also museums like the Tate
Modern that devotes its most prominent exhibition space, the Turbine Hall, to Installation Art.
By combining the present and the historical situations I will aim for a rethinking of the Rothko’s
late commissioned work. This rethinking is part of the main question:
Is there a relation between Mark Rothko’s work and Installation Art?
The presentation of Mark Rothko as a proto-installation artist is quite bold and will need
scholarly parameters to assay its validity. This term ‘proto-installation artist’ has been applied
to Rothko for the first time by art historian Briony Fer in 2004.9 With several examples I will
reveal the relation of the artwork to the surrounding space, and reinforce my argument that
Rothko can be seen as a precursor of Installation Art. The driving force for this argument lies in
the fact that the total body of art and space is seen as the work because it is not about
Rothko’s paintings in an exhibition space but about them being presented in a specially chosen
room. The preconditions to this room set by the artist, result in the name giving of these
spaces as ‘Rothko Rooms’. They are all spaces in which the artist has been given the freedom
to create a series of paintings and place them in space to constitute an environment in which
the paintings and the space embody an artwork in its totality.
8
9
Reiss 1999: P. xi-xii.
Phillips, G. Crow, T. ed. Seeing Rothko. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2004: P. 8.
9
1. Looking at Rothko today
Before looking at Rothko today I will give an example of Rothko’s attitude towards the art
world and the innovations that took place in the 1960s. In 1961 Ellsworth Kelly explained to
Rothko how he had made a painting very similar to a red and yellow painting that was on
display in the retrospective of Rothko at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Rothko’s
response to Kelly’s comparison of the work to his own Gaza was not positive, some sources
mention Rothko saying: ‘don’t you think I need a rest’ others say Rothko only glared.10 This
occurrence exemplifies Rothko’s own position compared to contemporary art at his time and
points out his closed attitude towards new art forms. Since ‘Looking at Rothko today’ means
positioning him and his work amongst other artists from that time it is worthwhile to review
this position. The position that Rothko had gained was placed in the last decade of his life in
which he enjoyed a large recognition of his work on the one hand but also received critique
that was based on the period of change that the 1960s brought and the repetition that was
seen in his work while other artist kept reinventing themselves. In this decade some crucial
artistic changes were made. These changes would be iconic for the second half of the 20th
century and clearly Rothko was not planning to be part of this renewal. The struggle with his
style, his expressionism, and the perfection of it was hard, and as I just mentioned Rothko was
in a continuous wrestle with his model of abstraction. He was exhausted in perfecting this
abstraction and was not interested in whatever new was happening in the art scene. In this
sense all comparisons of Rothko’s late series to the contemporary art of those times are
comparisons by critics since Rothko himself was not involved in the new art and actually kept
quite a distance from the new popular artists. In the mean time the resurrection of hard edge
painting, pop art and other movements had their spin off. Although a direct connection
between these movements is hard to find, the influence of what Rothko had achieved was
huge, at least this tends to be from our point of view. This, perhaps, was obvious because of
the tradition artists were bound to. In this chapter I will approach Rothko’s work from the 21st
century but with the position of Rothko in the 1960s kept in mind. This will point out if there
could have been a connection between the movement Abstract Expressionism and Installation
Art.
In October 2009 I visited the Tate Modern where an exhibition of Mark Rothko’s paintings was
on display: Rothko - The Late Series. At that time I had not started studying art history yet, and
Rothko was an artist who I was relatively unfamiliar with. For this reason I entered the
10
Fer, B. Rothko and Repetition. In: Phillips, Crow 2004: P. 159.
10
exhibition space with an open mind, only partly aware of Rothko’s place in modern art history.
The paintings and especially their position in the exhibition space impressed me. It were not
the single paintings that left this great impression but the reconstruction of the intended
display at the Four Seasons Restaurant in the main exhibition room of Rothko - The Late Series.
The paintings were exhibited in this large space and however the setting cannot have been
anything like the supposed setting in the Four Seasons Restaurant, this set up would probably
have received approval from the artist.11 This thesis on Mark Rothko and Installation Art has its
source in my visit to this exhibition which expanded over nine rooms of which the first three
are of the most interest for this subject. In the first room several cardboard models of the
Rothko room at the Tate Modern with suggested hangings for the paintings are presented. The
second room shows the precedents of the Seagram murals and the third room which is also
the largest shows eight Seagram murals from the Tate Modern collection. The paintings are
reunited with a selection of those from the National Gallery of Art in Washington and the
Kawamura Memorial Museum of Art in Sakura. In three steps curator Achim Borchhardt-Hume
presents us the totality of this late work: the commission that was of great importance for the
last decade of his artistic and personal life. In the first place the value attached to space and
the preconditions Rothko set for exhibiting his art are visualised in the cardboard models that
Rothko made as tools for planning the intended situation for the positioning of his paintings.
They show the various aspects that the artist considered important. In these models the
choices that Rothko made in positioning, spacing and background colour are essential. In the
second place it shows the way in which Rothko came to a point in his career in which the
surrounding space gained a crucial role in his working practice. This is shown in the sober way
of exhibiting, which brings about the maximum effect. In the third place the main exhibition
room functions in a way that Rothko might have wanted it to. A serene lighting combined with
the large paintings and a pair of simple wooden benches in the middle. There are no extensive
wall texts or other information on display because the other aspects of his late work are
displayed in the smaller exhibition rooms. The only thing that might not have been pleasing to
the artist could be the spaciousness of the room. Rothko aimed for a space in which the
spectator would be physically confronted with the painting. The visitor was not given the
choice to look at the paintings from a distance, but instead was confronted with the paintings
in a relatively small space. This, of course, has been an adjustment made in favour of the large
number of visitors that were attracted by this exhibition.
11
The paintings were never placed in the restaurant because Rothko withdrew from the commission. He
could not agree with the fact that his paintings would become part of the luxurious setting of the
restaurant. Rothko donated nine murals to the Tate shortly before he died. For this gift he set the
restriction that the paintings always would be displayed together, in their own space. Other murals made
their way to Japan and the United States.
11
When entering a museum room the confrontation with the artworks can take different forms.
A solo exhibition can give a perspective on the production of an artist. It is not very common
that a series like the Seagram murals is exhibited. All paintings were painted in one year and
the ‘Seagram story’ has reached mythical proportions. The experience takes some time and is
not easy in a busy exhibition space, but the luminous space with dimmed lights has served as
an excellent exhibition space for these works. In this surrounding that spawned a partial haze,
the large paintings with no spotlights on them generated a vibrant feeling, the warm red that
is present in the Seagram murals filled the room with a strange atmosphere. This feeling that is
often mentioned on Rothko’s work mostly applies to the installations of his work. The effect
that the paintings had on me as described above would have been different when looking at a
single painting by Rothko in another museum setting. Being surrounded by the large paintings
obviously applies to existentialism because of the grandeur of the paintings and the context
loaded message they bring forth. No matter what effect Rothko’s paintings can have on the
spectator, the installed series do evoke something else than his solitary paintings in an
exhibition where other paintings are on display as well. I think that curator Achim BorchardtHume has given a good example of a Rothko room as it would be appreciated by the artist.
Rothko gave critical instructions concerning the interior and display of his rooms and probably
would have done the same for this exhibition. Shortly before his death, Rothko donated nine
large scale works to the Tate Museum on the condition that they would always be displayed
together, in their own space, separated from the work of other artists. The Tate Modern has
the advantage of being endowed with a Rothko room that the artist himself gave the
instructions for. The exhibition focuses on the aspect of Rothko’s series and the way they are
transforming spaces into environments. The question I am addressing to is what it means to
place Rothko’s work in Installation Art. Was he the one making installations or have curators
and critics been crucial to this perception of his work? If that is the case the artist is not making
the installation but later generations interpret his art in a different manner. I think the
requirements the artist had for installing the paintings are making my case evident. He
certainly was out to make a complete experience with his paintings. The series and the space
communicate an experience to the spectator which is characteristic for Installation Artworks.
The most interesting part of the exhibition for the questions that I am addressing to is the
central large room which was reserved for the Seagram murals. These gifts of the artist have
resulted in this room, equipped especially for these paintings. The Seagram murals have an
agitated history that is shaped by the commission of the works and the attitude of the artist to
this commission. The exhibition presented the paintings, displayed in a similar way to the
supposed installation view of the commission by the Four Seasons restaurant in the Seagram
building in New York. Being surrounded by the immense abstract paintings does evoke
12
questions about the works and about their placement in art history like: What is the intended
meaning of the artist? What is the intended meaning of Installation Art’? and What is the
intended meaning of a site specific work? I will dig deeper into these questions in the following
sections which place the works in a broad context of Installation Art and the formation of the
art historical canon concerning this artist and these works.
1.1 Installation Art of the present day
According to Ann Temkin, chief curator of painting and sculpture at the Museum of Modern
Art, Abstract Expressionism is linked to private, spiritual and physical experience. The works
ask for a kind of concentration that is unusual in mass media times.12 Temkin describes this
present situation of mass media times to point out the change that various developments in
culture and society brought to the interpretation of Abstract Expressionism and other artistic
movements. The recently held exhibition, Abstract Expressionism at the Museum of Modern
Art, curated by Temkin, focuses on the transition in social and cultural climate and the new
interpretation of the artistic movement. Of course it is important to study the art of the past
from a modern point of view but what remains questionable is the fact that artists of the past
often cannot give their opinion and thus are excluded from the critical debate. Nevertheless
the interpretation of art of the past to clarify up following tendencies in art can give innovative
insights. Rothko’s attitude towards what was new at his time ensured that he did not associate
himself with Installation Art. He has never been witness to the popularity that Installation Art
gained in the second half of the twentieth century until the present day and still his work has
obtained extra layers. What Temkin suggests is that the experience of the artwork is important
but one does not take the necessary time to get to an understanding of the artwork. This
points out the tendency of a faster operating world in which the arts also have accelerated. It
uncovers the change that has made Abstract Expressionism less suitable for this time because
the practice of consuming art has changed. In a faster operating art world it has become
harder to spend time in front of an artwork to get to the core. In this sense Abstract
Expressionism contradicts with the variety of forms of Installation Art that have become the
standard in contemporary art. On the other hand it is evident that the change to a faster
operating world automatically addresses to a new art that is embodied by Installation Art. At
first sight Abstract Expressionism and Installation Art bring forward a lot of contradictions.
Subsequently they also reveal similarities hidden under the surface which means that both
Installation Art and Abstract Expressionism are applicable to a contemporary revision.
12
Temkin, A. Abstract Expressionism at the Museum of Modern Art. New York: Museum of Modern Art,
2010: P. 20.
13
Unlike Abstract Expressionism, Installation Art is still receives a lot of attention from the art
world. This can be noticed through the amount of art criticism that is focussed on Installation
Artworks. One of the outspoken works of Installation Art on the Venice biennial of 2011 is
Thomas Hirschhorn’s piece, Crystal of Resistance at the Swiss pavilion. The New York Times
even published an article titled Venice Biennale: An Installation Art Contest. In this article art
critic Roberta Smith describes a situation in which famous artists like Thomas Hirschhorn, Mike
Nelson, Christoph Schlingensief and Christian Boltanski situate the biennial as a battle among
immersive, environmental Installation Artworks.13 What used to be a new way of incorporating
the daily life in art and involve the spectator of the art as actual element in the artwork has
become a battle as Smith mentions. The Venice biennial is the place for the countries
concerned to present themselves and apparently Installation Art is seized upon as the best
way to fulfil this presentation. Rothko probably would not conform to this battle, the most
probable to think of would be an overall rejection of this spectacle if he would have been part
of it. In contradiction Rothko did represent the American pavilion on the Venice biennial of
1958 with a series of paintings. Was there a similar trend seen in these days, and would this be
a battle among immersive Abstract Expressionist artworks? This question goes back to the
commercialisation of art when being used for the representation on an important art biennial
and is not of major importance in this case, still it does point out a situation of the hyping of
contemporary art forms. Summarized, looking at Rothko today brings forth a number of
insurmountable differences to the 1960s, which are a faster operating art world, a sense of
competition and the commercialization of the art world.
In 1958 Allan Kaprow wrote an extensive analysis of art in this period of change. Kaprow
himself was working on environments and in this way stood at the beginning of Installation
Art. Meanwhile he wrote on the The Legacy of Jackson Pollock, an article published in 1958 in
which he directly connected Pollock’s artistic practise to his own. The essay is of interest
because the year it was written in: 1958, and the perspective the artist wrote from: early
Installation Art. It gives a view of the pivot that the arts underwent, namely the one from the
two dimensional to the use of space as emphatically bound to the work of art. ‘The act of
painting, the new space, the personal mark that builds its own form and meaning, the endless
tangle, the great scale, the new materials are by now clichés of college art departments’.14
What Kaprow implies is that the authors who were writing on this new art were using these
13
14
The New York Times. <http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/venice-biennale-an-installation-artth
contest/> Consulted on July 27 2011.
Kaprow, A. The Legacy of Jackson Pollock (1958) In: Kaprow, Kelley 2003: P. 2.
14
themes frequently. Nevertheless the result of these clichés is the environment as an art form.
Kaprow, well known for this discipline, suggests that Pollock’s mural-scale paintings ceased to
become paintings and became environments. He positions Pollock as one of the Abstract
Expressionists that came closest to leaving the painterly aspects of his contemporaries.15 The
way Pollock treated the canvas, ‘shuttling between an identification with the hands and body
that flung the paint and stood “in” the canvas’ characterizes Pollock as an artist braking with
the tradition.16 I think that Rothko, even though he did not break with the painterly tradition in
the way Pollock did, eventually brought about a comparable change. Rothko was working in
the same scale and in the same artistic movement but he did not drip, squeeze or smear the
paint on the canvas. In the case of Pollock ‘the “picture” has moved so far out that the canvas
is no longer a reference point. Hence, although up on the wall, these marks surround us as
they did the painter at work, so strict is the correspondence achieved between his impulse and
the resultant art’.17 This moving out of the canvas is an aspect that Abstract Expressionism
evokes in space. Since the abstraction does not refer to the real world the works communicate
with reality in another way. The visitor is no spectator anymore but becomes an integral part
of the experience that the works evoke. Although Kaprow describes form, scale and space in
Abstract Expressionism as clichés he still uses them to point out the turning point that his text
is about. Kaprow shows us that the shift from the painterly tradition lies exactly within these
points. The form, scale and space transform from the canvas to the inclusion of the entire
world. Kaprow believes that the work of art comes at us, right into the room. He says that the
spectators are participants rather than observers which points out the participating aspects
found in Installation Art which Kaprow was inventing at the time of writing his essay.18
Placing Rothko at the base of Installation Art or seeing him as a proto-Installation Artist shines
new light on the development of Installation Art. The actual base of the installation aspect of
his work was formed at the end of his life and he was not very keen on new movements in the
artistic scene. If one would have defined him as an Installation Artist by that time he would
probably have disagreed but new insights are provided since the formation of his late works
and the curatorial perspective on Abstract Expressionism have changed. Rothko developed a
comprehensive work of art in which the artwork and the surroundings became
complementary.
15
16
17
18
Kaprow mentions Robert Motherwell, Hans Hofmann, Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko and Clyfford Still.
Kaprow, A. The Legacy of Jackson Pollock (1958) In: Kaprow, Kelley 2003: P. 4-5.
Ibid: P. 6.
Ibid: P. 2-7.
15
1.2 Site specificity
The traditional goals that a museum or an art gallery pursues are to be a place for the
presentation of artworks and in the case of museums to preserve and collect works of art as
well. With the introduction of site specificity in art, this function came to be called into
question because the intended place for an artwork was not always the museum or the art
gallery. During the second half of the 20th century until the present day site specific artworks
need to be approached from a different perspective. They cannot simply function as objects
that can be used by curators to build a collection or make an exhibition. On the other hand
both the museum and the art gallery still hold a prominent position in the presentation of art,
but artists make certain restrictions that become part of the work. Because of the many
different forms in which Installation Art can manifest itself it is important to define the role of
site specificity within this term. The movements that are mentioned are countless and include
Land Art, Environment Art, Happenings and so forth, the explanation by Julie Reiss provides
with an answer that lies in the ‘reciprocal relationship’ which she mentions.
‘Installation Art can be abstract or pictorial, controlled or spontaneous. Separate
objects can be included, or no objects at all. There is always a reciprocal relationship of
some kind between the viewer and the work, the work and the space, and the space
and the viewer’ ‘Participation and site specificity are essential defining qualities for
Installation Art’.19
According to sculptor Richard Serra, site specific Works deal with the environmental
components of given places.20 The relationship between the viewer and the work, the work
and the space and the space and the viewer takes place on different levels in which all parties
get involved. Through a review of the increase of site specificity in art, I will get to the key
point which is the connection of an artwork to a certain physical place on the one hand and
the process occurring between sites on institutional and informational level on the other hand.
In this art there is a relation between space, spectator and artwork. Site specificity balances
between the functional site and the physical place which in Installation Art is currently used in
innovative ways by artists in contemporary culture and society. The process occurring between
sites takes place on institutional level on the one hand and informational level on the other
hand. In the movement the artist commutes between these two planes and both levels
19
20
Reiss 1999: P. 149.
Kwon, M. One Place After Another. In: Suderburg, E. ed. Space, Site, Intervention – Situating
Installation Art. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000: P. 86.
16
influence the choices concerning the site specific aspect of an artwork. With the rise of
Installation Art came the artistic freedom to include everything in a work of art. Instead of
working on an artwork in a studio, the use of space and objects from everyday life became
within reach of artistic practice. This liberation was illustrated by the quote in which Kaprow
manifested that artists are not painters, sculptors or poets but simply artists that can use any
kind of material in any way or form.21 Kaprow wrote on this in the late 1950s and predicted
that this would become a new artistic standard. It did happen and resulted in the base for
Installation Art which can be seen as a generic term for several art forms that relate their work
to an actual site.22
Site specificity is an aspect of an artwork and describes the preconditions of the placement of a
work of art at a certain place for which it has been created. Early examples of site specific
works are Kurt Schwitters’ Merzbau (1933) and Marcel Duchamp’s Mile of string at the First
Papers of Surrealism exhibition (New York, 1942) these works stand at the base of the
conception of works of art which are inseparable from the place that the artist put them in.
They were not described as site specific since site specificity is a relatively new concept and
emerged after many works to which it can be applied were created. Comparable to this
research on Rothko, early examples like Merzbau and Mile of string present the same
anachronism as the ascription Installation Art does to Rothko’s late work. Because of the lack
of terminology for this art it was hard to ascribe it to existent art. The knowledge of the
present and the definitions that have been formulated on site specificity make the relation of
these works to this later developed construct in art history obvious. In the book Space, Site,
Intervention – Situating Installation Art a wide range of art critics, curators, and artists discuss
the specifics and problems concerning Installation Art. In my research I’m making connections
that are derived from different approaches in situating Installation Art. Placing Rothko’s work
in the tradition of Installation Art instantly leads to the functional site which art historian
James Meyer discusses in his essay. In the same essay Meyer sets a distance in the
understanding of Installation Art with an actual space in mind. He reveals a functional site that
is not a place but a whole of institutional and textual filiations. This is an important issue in the
understanding of site specificity in Installation Art in general and the meaning of space to
Rothko specific.
‘The functional site may or may not incorporate a physical place. It certainly does not
privilege this place. Instead, it is a process, an operation occurring between sites, a
21
22
See footnote 4: P. 8.
Kaprow, A. The Legacy of Jackson Pollock (1958) In: Kaprow, Kelley 2003: P. 8.
17
mapping of institutional and textual filiations and the bodies that move between them
(the artists above all). It is an informational site, a palimpsest of text, photographs and
video recordings, physical places, and things: an allegorical site’…23
Projecting this on Rothko’s late work there is a direct link to the physical place but the mayor
importance to Rothko wasn’t the physical place but the place that can be described as an
allegorical site. When there was not such an undividable relation from artwork to space which
Rothko ascribed to his work, the notion of site specificity might not have been of any
importance to his work. The institutional specificity of the site has been of great importance
for the intellectual value of the space. This is why the artist undertook great effort to place his
work in the right space where both the esthetical value as the quality for the spectator was
guaranteed. This notion of the site seen as allegorical, has proven to be a central argument for
Installation Art and is also one of the pillars that institutional critique builds on. The way in
which a space is valued has not only to do with measurements or aesthetical facilities. More
important is the representation of a place that shows works of art in a context of how this has
been done before. In this sense site specificity could break with the institutional context by
working in a self chosen space or, as Rothko did, refusing to present work in a space that did
not appeal.
Richard Serra is well-known for his site specific works and makes a good example for the
difference in method but sows a resemblance in artistic practice. Although Rothko painted, he
attached great value to the surroundings of his art. Serra, who was actually constructing the
art in existing space, describes his site specific work as dependent upon and inseparable from
its location. This leads to a displacement from work to frame and from the portable artwork to
an environmental practice located in the literal space of the viewer.24 According to Meyer the
site functions …‘as a unique, demarcated place available to perceptual experience alone -the
phenomenological site of Serra or the critical site of institutional critique- becomes a network
of sites referring to an elsewhere’.25
The contemporary installation artist Jessica Stockholder can give an insight on the
development of Installation Art from the 1960s until now. She gives an explanation of her work
in terms that are similar to Meyer’s quote on the allegorical site. Stockholder responds to the
different factors of a certain space that influences her and which are also influenced by her.
23
24
25
Meyer, J. The Functional Site. In: Suderburg, E. (ed.) Space, Site, Intervention - Situating Installation Art.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 200.: P. 25.
Ibid: P. 24-26.
Ibid: P. 30.
18
The following definition of her work provides leads to an understanding of site specificity in
terms of the actual site and the context of the site which embodies this place.
‘My work developed through the process of making site-specific installations - sitespecific sometimes in very specific ways but also just by virtue of being "art" in a room;
there's at least that much going on between the work and its context; after all,
paintings don't hang on trees. In all of the work I place something I make in
relationship to what's already there. With installations it's the building, the
architecture, or you might say it's the place that I work on top of; with the smaller
pieces I work on top of or in relation to stuff that I collect’.26
The effect seen in Stockholder’s work is an assemblage of both explanations of the site which
could be seen as the final result of site specificity in the present day. Erika Suderburg, editor of
Space, Site, Intervention - Situating Installation Art comes to a similar conclusion: ‘Site specific
derives from the delineation and examination of the site of the gallery in relation to space
unconfined by the gallery and in relation to the spectator’.27 In other words: the site specificity
in Rothko’s late work is composed of different aspects that are all part of an idea that the artist
communicated with his works. The places for which Rothko made his commissioned work are
inseparable from the works on the one hand, but also need to be suitable for the display on
the other hand. The concept and conditions of site specificity are still bound to developments
and changes at the time of writing. A major difference between artists working in the 1960s
and artists working in the contemporary world is the interpretation of the concept site
specificity. Contemporary artists give a model of place that is mobile and contingent and
hereby work with a different concept of site.28 Rothko was bound to a tradition of exhibiting
art that was about to widen but at that time still bound by conventions.
1.3 Rethinking the Rothko rooms - revising the art historical canon
Art historians tend to categorize artists and artworks to come to a structure in which they can
be interpreted. This categorization or canonization can narrow down the vision on a subject. In
this case the effect of Abstract Expressionism on Rothko’s late works is being reinterpreted
according to various artistic and cultural changes in the era they were made in.
26
27
28
Ottmann, K. ‘Jessica Stockholder’ Journal of Contemporary Art, vol. 7, (1991) P. 96-100.
Suderburg 2000: P. 4.
Meyer, J. The Functional Site. In: Suderburg 2000: P. 35.
19
The main factor for watching Rothko’s late work differently has been my visit to
Rothko: The Late Series. The exhibitions encourages looking at his work not as individual flat
surfaces but also to view the series as ensemble art works which can transform a space into a
Rothko room: an installation of his abstract works. Apart from the Seagram murals, other
commissions like the Harvard murals or the Rothko chapel effectuate the same. To rethink the
art history that is written over the years is not uncommon. When time passes many different
perspectives have been formed on Abstract Expressionists, these new perspectives are due to
the occurrence of new artistic movements that shine their light differently on similar subjects.
It is quite bold to place an artist in an up following movement, although I will not confine to a
rethinking of his complete oeuvre but only a small part of it, a part that Rothko has extensively
been concentrating on during the last decade of his life. Rothko’s work is iconic for Abstract
Expressionism and I’m certainly not aiming for a clearing out of Rothko’s work from this
movement. The works that will be discussed are exceptions to this because they form a major
difference with his other work. This difference is not grounded in the style of his paintings
since he was building on his Color Field style from the end of the 1940s on. Rothko’s late series
have emerged from his earlier work but, in various ways, differ from the rest of his oeuvre.
What is fundamentally different is the serial aspect that is attached to his late works. Rothko
did not want these paintings to be brought out on their own. He took the commissions to be
certain about the works to become part of a larger body in which they would form a
relationship with each other, the space and the spectator. In earlier days he was also strict on
the presentation of his works. He always aimed for an exhibition space in which the works
would be presented as a group. His paintings should not be combined with the works of other
painters since this would distract attention. Instead the paintings had to be approached as
solitary works. The late series have been exemplifying for a totality that was not seen before,
both in the serial aspect as in the installation aspect.
To place a new tag on an artist’s method or work because of different insights can give
a new perspective on the single works but also on a whole movement. In this case it can build
a bridge between Abstract Expressionism and Installation Art. There might not have been a
strict rupture between the two art forms since there are other movements that are more
closely connected (Hard Edge Painting, Minimalism) but the way in which the space starts
taking in a more pivotal position is inescapable. In the work of Rothko’s contemporaries this
relation is not as strong. Newman, Pollock and others did have a working method in which the
aspect of a series was visible, only they presented their pictures as separate works. This can
also be seen in the titles, Rothko did not use titles but instead gave his paintings numbers or a
formal description based on the colours. Pollock’s ´drippings´ or Newman’s Color Fields are
presented with unique names, or were at least transformed to a more poetical title like Who’s
20
afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue (Newman) or Autumn Rhythm (Pollock). In this sense the value
that Rothko gave to the combination of his paintings related to each other is unique. Rothko’s
late paintings dating from the 1950s and 60s are an example of this new perspective. Art critics
from that time were interested in the newness of Abstract Expressionism and mainly focussed
on the flatness of the surface and other two dimensional aspects of the artwork. After many
artists producing Installation Art, this tag can also be placed on previous artists. Rothko is one
of them.
In this chapter I have concentrated on a contemporary look of Rothko’s art. By including
Installation Art and site specificity I have tried to point out the links that are present in his late
work pointing towards Installation Art. In chapter two the change to a historical analysis is
made. This analysis includes art criticism and Rothko’s writings on art as the source for
researching Rothko’s late series of the 1960s. Although I will implement texts from the past I
still link to the current situation to exemplify the anachronism that is part of interpreting
Rothko’s late works. To invigorate my argument I will include writings on, and by Rothko to
show the spirit of that age. Interpreting these sources in the context that I have outlined in
chapter one will put Rothko’s late works in a different perspective.
21
2. Rothko’s work at the time of its critical reception
In this thesis I advocate an understanding of Rothko’s late commissioned work as precursor of
new developments in the arts, namely focussed on the environmental character of artworks
placed in space. This development is part of creating the notion Installation Art in the 1960s
and 70s. Part of new insights and ways of understanding new art forms are based on the way
they have been criticized at their first appearance. Abstract Expressionism was given a major
lift in terms of understanding by the leading art critics of that time. It is hard to understand
Abstract Expressionism because there is no such simplicity like approaching the movement as
one entity. The movement has developed over the years, this has revised the point of view on
the heydays of the movement. The importance in my argument lies in the understanding of
the art at that time and the understanding nowadays. In this chapter I will focus on the
reception of Rothko’s art in the time it was produced. This critical reception will clarify my
position towards Rothko’s late work as Installation Art.
2.1 Art criticism defining the post-war years in the United States
Clement Greenberg (1909-1994) and Harold Rosenberg (1906-1978) were two key art critics
that wrote on the art world of the post-war years in the United States. The impassioned
writings by these critics often reduce issues to either a formalist or an existential view on art
and both critics thought that their own view would prevail.29 Because of this bipolarity the
writings by these critics expose the art critical debate of the post-war years in a broad way.
The disagreements in their publications show the diversity in approaching art, especially at the
time of the rise of a new movement. The two critics were shaping art and public awareness
from the 1950s to the 1970s. Greenberg would represent the Abstract Expressionists as the
vanguard of a new American art. The fact that art critics were responding to the rigorous
change of this movement points out the impact and the importance that Abstract
Expressionism had on the art world.30 Greenberg wrote from the perspective of formalism
while Rosenberg was focussing on the creative act of the artist. Two essays that are of special
interest for this research are The American Action Painters by Harold Rosenberg and After
Abstract Expressionism by Clement Greenberg. Both essays were published in 1962 and
address to the famous American painters from that period of whom Rothko was one. In the
29
30
Kleeblatt, N.L. Berger, M. Bricker Balken, D. Action/abstraction: Pollock, de Kooning, and American art,
940-1976 [exh. cat.] New York : Jewish Museum, 2008: P. xi.
Anfam 1990: P. 54.
22
tradition of Abstract Expressionism, Greenberg had a positivist view and developed a formal
analysis as his basic tool for understanding and evaluating art. For Greenberg modern art
history was a continuum which started with Manet, then continued towards Cézanne and
eventually led to the cubism of Picasso. The large scale painted surfaces were oppositions to
the traditional easel paintings but a development in the line of the history of art.31
On the other side of the critical spectrum stood Harold Rosenberg, according to him
the new art was different from the rest of modernism because new painters recognize a new
function in art.32 In 1952 he wrote an important text on the Abstract Expressionists: The
American Action Painters. According to the art historian Stephen Foster, in this essay
Rosenberg …‘threw out traditional aesthetic criteria as possible measures of this school and
disclaimed the material object as the major consideration of painting in favour of the act of
painting’.33 Rosenberg is less valued in the scholarly tradition and in some cases his capacities
as a journalist are placing him outside the academic world.34 He was a confirmed communist in
the mid thirties, as was Greenberg. In retrospect he believed that he weight his political
commitments in the thirties too seriously and thought that the art critics of the 1960s and 70s
had made the same mistake.35 Rosenberg was influenced by subjective mythical existential
ideas.36 His theories are closer connected to Rothko than Greenbergs’ because Rothko is
known for works that aim on basic human emotions.
In the 1940s the activity of art criticism in New York was not of much significance and there
were not as many galleries as was the case a decade later. Art criticism was something
reserved for artists, writers and journalists who reflected on events in the art world and thus
created a critical debate. From the 1950s on, according to the curators of the exhibition Action
Abstraction, the art world in New York was ‘a momentous era in American culture, a time
when artists and critics changed the way in which art was perceived and interpreted’.37 This
period that began after the second World War is also the period of my research. By examining
the critics of this time I will map the position of Rothko in the art world that was determined
by these critics and the exemplary artists to whom they connected their writings. Greenberg
and Rosenberg treated the new art respectively as pure formalistic (Greenberg) and as an act
of painting (Rosenberg). These major differences in approach show the period of change in the
art world. There were different approaches on the perception and interpretation of art and the
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Kleeblatt, Berger, Balken 2008: P. 1.
Foster, S.C. The Critics of Abstract Expressionism. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1980: P. 69.
Ibid: P. 25.
Rosenberg has been the main art critic for The New Yorker magazine in the 1960s.
Foster 1980: P. 5.
Kleeblatt, Berger, Balken 2008: P. 3.
Ibid: P. viii.
23
representatives of these differences each had their own followers.38 The Color Field paintings
by Rothko contain aspects of both opinions. Although the theories of both critics apply to
Rothko’s work, Rosenberg stands closest to the artist and was friends with him. The strict
formalism on which Greenberg based his criticism did not appeal to Rothko’s intentions. When
they met in 1943 Greenberg was not particularly impressed by the artist. According to
Rothko’s biographer James Breslin, Greenberg ‘found Rothko sympathetic, but also found him
very square’.39 Rosenberg’s changing visions point out that previous works have had influence
on the development of new styles. Rosenberg saw Rothko’s work as ‘nothing short of a
revelation’ which confirms the artist’s respectable status amongst other artists and critics.40
The mid 20th century American art criticism is not only applied for understanding
pictures but has become an activity which provides insights of the artistic climate of that time.
In the 1940s, art criticism was the only literature willing to handle the new art because
Abstract Expressionism had not obtained the interest of mainstream publications yet. This role
of criticism as the one and only source of information about this new artistic movement is
characteristic for the unique place that art criticism entangled in the 1950s and 60s.41 The
appreciation that Rothko’s work has gained over the years has not always been that way.
When he pioneered in Abstract Expressionism, the new artistic school of the 1950s, many art
critics were sceptic about Rothko. His paintings were reviewed as ‘characteristic layer cake
canvas … more than 6 ft. high, looks something like a window on an odd sunset’ in Time
Magazine in 1956.42 Art critic James Fitzsimmons described a work by Rothko as a painting that
‘bears the same relation to serious painting that ‘mood music’ does to serious music’ in Arts
and Architecture in 1954.43 This had great influence on the artist since he was aiming for a
highly experiential, self aware perceptual mode of his work to engage.44 The non-experiential
description implied that his work was not appealing to the perception of the spectator which
was the exact point Rothko did want to make. The twenty-five year struggle that Rothko had
gone through to achieve his ‘mature’ style had been tough. Whether he took this kind of
critique serious or not, the effect on the role of the artist in the former artistic climate was
affected by a misunderstanding of the abstract works. The general argument that the critics
use is their belief that there is a lack of stratification. They simply will not buy the thought of a
deeper meaning hidden in the paintings and give a minimalistic review of the work: ‘there is a
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The often made comparison that Greenberg had his focus on Pollock while Rosenberg was more
interested in Rothko is not well grounded but does picture the situation of differences in approach.
Breslin, J.E.B. Mark Rothko: a biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993: P. 383.
Ibid: P. 248.
Foster 1980: P. 39.
‘The Wild Ones’ Time, 20 February (1956). P. 75. In: Phillips, Crow 2004: P. 81.
Fitzsimmons, J. ‘Art’ Arts and Architecture, February (1954). P. 6. In: Phillips, Crow 2004: P. 82.
Phillips, Crow 2004: P. 1.
24
calm and a correctness in the divisioning of the few areas of these paintings - and that is all’.45
It is revealing that this minimalist approach was being used, because Minimalism was not to
become a regular artistic movement before the late 1960s. On the other hand Rothko also was
a valued artist in the New York art world, he was an important member of the New York
School and was respected by his fellow painters. In contrast to the previous destructive critics
it must be said that these misinterpretations were not always the case. Nevertheless they
point out a reaction to something totally new, and therefore very controversial.
The fact that the artworks are being approached in terms of colour, plane and size is
characteristic for the criticism of Greenberg. The new criticism that appeared around 1945 was
the response to the need for reinterpretation. At this time the new painting required new
criticism because art was becoming an acceptable area for critical debate. This criticism was
delivered in a non official idiom. Rosenberg’s critique was not based on ‘classic’ criticism while
Greenberg did base his criticism on the ‘classic’ criticism and pointed out his distrust of the
Avant Garde which resurrected the art criticism of the 1960s.46 With his criticism Greenberg
has directed the view on Abstract Expressionism in a great sense. Greenberg had trouble to fit
Abstract Expressionism into his formalistic scheme but his criticism on purist abstraction fit
perfectly in the sixties.47 On the contrary, according to Greenberg the problem Rothko, Still
and Newman were involved with was the rejection of, and the substitution for the traditional
ways of depicting space.48 This critique was all written in the time of the blossoming of the
movement. Greenberg said that …‘the best moment to approach a work of art critically is after
the novelty has worn off but before it became history’, this was the determining factor for the
understanding of a new art form.49 With his Socialist and a Marxist philosophy of history and
an aesthetic position of purist reduction Greenberg’s vision on the American form towards
abstraction was mapped.50 This socio-political background, of course, influences the critique.
Greenberg’s criticism is still very influential on art theories. His analysis has influenced several
later generation critics including Jane Harrison Cone, Michael Fried and Rosalind Krauss. The
criticism of these theoreticians of a new generation has not been focussing on Abstract
Expressionism but especially on the subsequent styles which have developed in later years.
The influence of Greenberg and Rosenberg on political philosophy has become a metaphor for
the philosophy of art history. The two opponents have not only criticized but also written the
art history on which they shed their light.
45
46
47
48
49
50
Gage, O. ‘Art’ Arts and Architecture, May (1955). P. 8. In: Phillips, Crow 2004: P. 82.
Foster 1980: P. 33.
Approaching Rothko’s work with a formalistic (‘Greenbergian’) approach is problematic. His work is not
about the forms that are depicted on the canvas but about larger concepts that link to existentialism.
Ibid: P. 71.
Ibid: P. ix.
Ibid: P. 13.
25
2.2 Rothko’s late commissioned work 1960 - 1970
According to Stephen Foster by …‘1960 and in cases even earlier, critics had felt that Abstract
Expressionism showed signs of becoming an academy’.51 This had the following consequences:
first the artistic capacities of the movement were overruled by the many writings and thoughts
that were produced on it. Later, the artistic renewal was not possible anymore. On Rothko,
instead, this worked differently since he was of the opinion that repeating was an essential
part of his method. Rothko’s vision on repetition was as follows: ‘If a thing is worth doing once,
it’s worth doing again - exploring it, probing it, demanding by this repetition that the public
look at it’.52 This explains an ongoing process that the artist was engaged with which he would
continue until his death.
In the article The Challenge of American Art published in 1949 in Horizon, Denys Sutton
states that as a function of the American scene, paintings are made for large spaces. This
American painting copes with a new situation in which the content is the relationship between
the individual to society.53 55 years later, Glenn Phillips, editor of Seeing Rothko describes
Rothko’s work as ‘paintings that not just hinge on the details of pigment present on the canvas
but somehow extend to the nature of the viewing encounter itself, as if the work is only
successfully completed when it generates a particular, perhaps profound, affect in a properly
receptive viewer’.54 Rothko’s late works are, and have always been focussed on perception. Far
from decorative, these works determine the complete surroundings of the exhibition space. In
this section I argue the transition that Rothko’s work has made from isolated pictures that all
have an individualistic connotation to the paintings that transform an entire space into a total
body of work that includes the entire space. In Rothko's Unknown Space, an essay by Jeffrey
Weiss, curator of the Rothko exhibition at the National Gallery of Art, Washington DC in 1998,
Weiss explains how the function and meaning of space in the work of the artist can be placed.
The concept of space is linked to the wall-sized paintings. These paintings are called murals
and although they are no murals, the paintings are inextricably linked with the space.55 They
are perceived as an integral part of the architecture, physically attached to the wall. The
format is also a determinant of the overall picture of the room. Weiss cites the example of the
difference between a small and a large painting, ‘A painting is not only one small object, a
51
52
53
54
55
Ibid: P. 85
Sterne, H. interview with Phyllis Tuchman and Ida Kohlmeyer. ‘About Rothko’ Arts Quarterly 4, No. 4
(1982). P. 59. In: Phillips, Crow 2004: P. 161.
Sutton, D. ‘The Challenge of American Art’ Horizon, vol. 20, no. 118 (1949). P. 282. In: Foster 1980: P. 36.
Phillips, Crow 2004: P. 1.
According to the Oxford Dictionary a mural is a painting or other work of art executed directly on a wall.
26
painting is a large space’.56 With these words Weiss scans the margins of the painting as an
object or the painting as a space.
Rothko has always dramatized the way a painting does not animate the space behind but the
space in front of the painting. The Seagram murals are exemplary for this animation of space in
all the different ways the paintings have been grouped in exhibitions. The effect that they
cause has direct implications on the space and the spectator in space.57 In June 1958 Rothko
was invited to paint a series of paintings for the Four Seasons restaurant on the ground flour of
the Seagram building in New York. This was a major breakthrough in his career. It was an
important commission and it gave the artist an opportunity to create a space entirely devoted
to his work. The Seagram murals can be looked at as the first unified painterly environment
that the artist has realized and also the first body of work conceived and conceptualised as a
series.58 When the project approached completion Rothko started doubting if this was the
right space for his work. In the summer of 1959 he withdrew from the commission. There are
several theories on the reason why Rothko withdrew, the two theories most often mentioned
are that Rothko had believed that the commission was not for a private dining room but for a
staff canteen. Previous to his withdrawing from the commission Rothko was aware of the
situation and said: ‘I hope to paint something that will ruin the appetite of every son of a bitch
who ever eats in that room. If the restaurant would refuse to put up my murals, that would be
the ultimate compliment. But they won't. People can stand anything these days’.59 The other
theory is that Rothko wanted to achieve more than his client wanted, the artist was afraid of
being called decorative. After Rothko withdrew, the paintings were exhibited in a major
retrospective exhibition spanning the last sixteen years of his life. The art historian Robert
Goldwater described the paintings when exhibited in the Museum of Modern Art in 1961 as
the most successful arrangement, it should be mentioned that this was only shortly after
Rothko withdrew from the Seagram commission. The three paintings Goldwater describes are
hung in a small chapel-like room. ‘Partaking of the same somber mood, they reinforce each
other, as they were designed to do’.60 The spectator is confused when being confronted with
the room, the space is free to enter but it also seems to be occupied. This twofold feeling is
evoked because the paintings are quite intimidating due to their size and because they are
displayed in a small room. After the incident of withdrawing from the Seagram murals
56
57
58
59
60
Weiss, J. Mark Rothko. [exh. cat.] New Haven etc.: Yale University Press, 1998: P. 308.
Fer, B. Seeing in the Dark. In: Borchardt-Hume, A. (ed.) Rothko: The Late Series. [exh. cat.] London: Tate
Publishing, 2008: P. 34.
Borchardt-Hume, A. Shadows of Light: Mark Rothko’s Late Series. In: Borchardt-Hume 2008: P. 16-19.
Alley, R. Catalogue of the Tate Gallery's Collection of Modern Art other than Works by British Artist’s.
London: Tate Gallery and Sotheby Parke-Bernet, 1981: P. 657-61.
Borchardt-Hume, A. Shadows of Light: Mark Rothko’s Late Series. In: Borchardt-Hume 2008: P. 15.
27
commission Rothko said he would …’never take on such a job again, in fact, I've come to
believe that no painting should ever be displayed in a public place’.61 This is remarkable but in
retrospect Rothko worked on several other commissions, although never for a public space like
the Four Seasons restaurant again.
There is much to say about the Seagram murals but the main point is that there has
never been a unified series of Seagram murals. Rothko executed more than thirty works for
this series while the destined dining room could only fit seven works. The series of paintings
adopted the name of the Seagram murals and became part of several collections. Nowadays
the Rothko room in the Tate modern is the most known evidence of this commission. This
room fits nine works which already is two more than the intended seven works that the
restaurant would house. As his style matured during the 1940s and 50s Rothko came to realize
that there was a strong interaction between the individual work and the surrounding space. As
the work became part of museum- and gallery collections Rothko undertook a lot of effort to
make sure his work was exhibited in the right way. He tried as much as he could to make sure
the works were displayed as installations in which they formed a space that is an all
encompassing environment. The true environment the paintings belong to has always been
the studio for Rothko. This is why he used the studio to simulate the preconditions that were
set in the place where the works would be displayed.62 For the commissions he simulated the
dimensions of the space by placing temporary walls in his studio to retrieve the same effect.
The Harvard murals are a complete different body of works. These paintings can, of course, be
compared to other works by the artist when looking at the style. Unlike the restaurant setting
for the Seagram murals, this place must have been a godsend since the paintings would be
presented in an academic atmosphere. The Harvard University is known as one of the most
prestigious academic institutes in the world. The university commissioned Rothko to paint a
series of works for its Holyoke Centre. This place was excellent for his work, as the artist knew
his paintings would be looked at by intellectuals who would appreciate his work. Apart from a
better environment for the works, Rothko also used this opportunity to adjust his style. Donald
Judd reviewed the works when they were on display in New York, just before they would move
to the university as follows. This description is a good example of the way the paintings were
looked at in that era. The review by Judd is interesting because he was a representative of
Minimalism.
61
62
Alley 1981: P. 657-61.
Borchardt-Hume, A. Shadows of Light: Mark Rothko’s Late Series. In: Borchardt-Hume 2008: P. 16-17.
28
‘The exhibition of Rothko’s paintings at the museum of Modern Art two years ago
showed that they were improving. The five paintings -perhaps four, since one work
shown here is a lap in Rothko’s power. They will go to Harvard University. A large
painting and two flanking middle-sized ones are hung in a unit. Another large work and
another medium one are separate. Rothko has tried a new scheme in these. There are
two or three vertical rectangles in each piece. These are linked to each other at the top
and the bottom by a loose stroke or two and a small, centred square. The left panel of
the unit is flaccid; the work on the right works because of the alizarin verticals, which
are dry, are close together and are proportioned so as to make the less-solid grape
ground push forward against them. The links are short and subordinate. The verticals
are simultaneously areas, colour, light and volume - which are intrinsic to Rothko’s
successful work. In the other paintings the ground lies inertly behind the verticals and
links. They tend to become patterns rather than the simultaneous colour and volume
but do not become successful patterns because of these aspects. The linking strokes
and squares have an analogous tendency to become simply strokes. Aside from its
malfunction the colour is profound: the central painting has dry, black verticals on a
dryer grape ground’.63
Judd is referring to the works in terms of colour, light and volume. These conditions were
linked to the same atmospheric conditions, Rothko would use the colour, light and volume of
the space as a stage on which his paintings would perform best. The place was also devastating
for the works. A combination of bad artists’ materials and climatic conditions led to the
removal of the works.64 They are now in storage and can only occasionally be seen on display.
This could mean a failure of an installation which was attributed to the Harvard University, but
with a completely different intention than the failure of the Seagram murals. Instead of a
failure in the terms and conditions applying to the commission, this commission was
successfully completed.
In 1964, John and Dominique de Menil, American art collectors, commissioned Rothko with a
series of paintings for a chapel to be built. The architect Philip Johnson was asked to design the
chapel. The Rothko Chapel is part of the Menil Collection and the paintings and chapel were
made for each other and complement each other. In 1971, one year after Rothko's death, the
63
64
Judd, D. Complete Writings 1959 - 1975. Halifax: Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 2001:
P. 75-94.
Rothko used a type of paint that is very sensible for degradation by ultra violet radiation, and the
conditions in the Harvard mural room did not meet the necessary standards for the conservation of an
artwork.
29
chapel was inaugurated. The Rothko Chapel can be subscribed as the ultimate Rothko room
although he did not live to see the final result. According to the American writer and critic
Alfred Kazin, referring to the experience of visiting the chapel, the Rothko Chapel is the most
explicit expression of metaphysical content in his work. The sensory experience resulting from
exposure to the paintings and the totality of art and space is very strong. This is exactly what
Rothko was aiming for with his work: transforming the space into an experience. The fact that
this crowning work was only to be erected after his death makes the situation quite harsh.
Nevertheless, the fact that the chapel serves as the ultimate testimony for his
accomplishments makes the place invaluable for enjoying and studying the artists work. The
Rothko Chapel provides a second layer of meaning to the paintings in which symbolic space is
created in the monotone areas on the canvas. The two-dimensional work, the paintings, can
also be viewed as symbolic spaces. The paintings are beyond the realm of the intangible which
makes the symbolic space fundamentally different from the room where the paintings are
hung. The fact that the experience in this room can be quite forceful has to do with the vibrant
works. In addition, the architecture of Philip Johnson is an important aspect of the artwork
too. The way the space is related to the paintings is well thought out. Characteristic for the
artist is the fact that he kept all aspects of the commission under his direction. In this case his
tough attitude towards the parties involved led to tense situations. During the process the
artist and the architect had a conflict because Rothko strongly emphasized his demands. After
this conflict Rothko worked with the architects Barnstone and Aubry.65 Although the Rothko
Chapel was not completed until 1971 it still is the work he was most involved in. In retrospect
the road from the Seagram murals to the Harvard murals and eventually leading towards the
Rothko Chapel shows a development in working in space.
Apart from the three most important mural-scale commissions that I have quoted, Rothko has
also been involved in various other situations in which his work was placed as a total body of
art in space. Examples of these works are the series made for the Venice Biennial of 1958 and
the Sidney Janis gallery in New York in 1955. Another museum room that has been
transformed to a Rothko room is the Washington based Phillips Collection which had a Rothko
Room installed after the purchase of several works. These works discussed were not always
commissions for the long term. A biennial or an exhibition in a gallery is very temporal: they
both last for some months and in most cases for even shorter amounts of time. Although this
site specificity is let go after this short amount of time, the aspect of the installation still is of
high importance. In his career, Rothko apparently has set a precondition for his work to be
65
Weiss 1998: P. 308-318.
30
displayed in groups. This points out the aspect of space in which there is no unbreakable bond
to the actual space, instead the body of works placed in the arbitrariness of the selected space
just serves as a platform to present the installation of works. In numeral letters that Rothko
wrote to various gallery holders or museums he made explicit that there were some specific
aspects for exhibiting his works. These aspects vary from the method of lighting to the height
of hanging and the distance between different canvasses. Within an installation not only the
physical matter but also the space in between is of importance, Rothko saw space as an actual
physical substance rather than empty air as he noted: ‘Air has a pressure of fifteen pounds per
square inch’.66
2.3 The Artist’s Reality - Rothko’s theory on art
As a source of information about Rothko’s own thoughts of his art I have made use of his book
The Artist’s Reality that was probably written in 1940-41. After his death it has been stored
until 2004. Christopher Rothko, the artist’s son, has edited these writings and they were
published by the Yale University Press. The Artist’s Reality consists of various writings on the
role of the unconscious processes in the production of art.67 Another part of the book is about
the myth in art and society. In this section I will dig deeper into the role of this book to certify
the possibility of seeing Rothko’s later work as Installation Artworks. Although the book was
written ten years before he became to his signature style of Color Field painting, I think these
theories on art can help to exemplify his mature style and his vision on his artistic practice.
Apart from the role that Art History has had on the perception of Rothko’s work, the artist also
wrote on the subject himself. Most of his writings were not meant to be published, they
consist of the artist’s ideas on his working method. Rothko does not discuss his own work
directly in his writings: they are about his philosophy of art. Apart from his philosophies of art
a type of envy towards the old masters of art history who received commissions from popes
and kings can also be noticed in his writings. Rothko marvels about the freedom of those
artists moving from one commissioner to the next, perhaps without realizing the influence of
the commissioner.68 For his own later commissions he did not allow much influence by the
commissioner although the commissioner has always been decisive for the actual place of the
work. This has proven to be a large problem in the Seagram murals commission, in that case
66
67
68
Clearwater, B. The Rothko Book. London: Tate Publishing, 2006: P. 101.
In this period Rothko had been influenced by Surrealism and had also adopted Surrealism as his artistic
style.
Rothko, M. The Artist’s Reality. Philosophies of Art. New Haven etc.: Yale University Press, 2004: P. xvii.
31
Rothko had to withdraw the works in order to make sure the paintings would not end up in an
inappropriate environment.
Although this book was probably written in 1940-41, long before Rothko started
painting his abstract paintings, The Artist’s Reality offers some perspective on Rothko’s view of
himself as an artist, also projected on his later career. Christopher Rothko edited this book as
close as possible -as he mentions- to his father’s original writings. The book contains different
perspectives on artistic practice and, although it was written long before Rothko gained a
special interest in the combination of his artworks to a certain space, it does reveal the
underlying thoughts of his perspective of the role of the artist. I will use The Artist’s Reality as a
source for my argument that identifies Rothko as an early installation artist. It must be said
that my interpretation of these pieces -from a contemporary point of view- gains different
insights than those of Rothko at the time of writing. Because of this interpretation, these texts
will never give an irrefutable evidence to attribute his later work to Installation Art. In this area
my main point is to give insights into Rothko’s philosophy of art and his artistic practice.
Rothko is critically reviewing others in his theories but takes a safe position by always
addressing his thoughts from the third person. By doing this he never has to address his own
art and he never chooses an explicit critical point of view because he is talking about ‘we’
which softens his tone. Rothko’s philosophies on art can be projected on his late series;
especially his visions on art and society can give us insights in the art historical placement of
the Rothko rooms in which the body of paintings forms an environment in combination with
the surrounding space.
How did Rothko think about his commissions which involved the role of art in space? This
question can be answered through studying what he wrote on art. In The Artist’s Reality
several handholds are given concerning this issue. In this book Rothko largely discusses the
role of the unconsciousness in art and the myth in art and society.69 This can be explained
through the fact that the artist was working in a surrealist style from the late thirties until his
change shift to abstraction around 1947. Nevertheless, when projecting these thoughts on his
later work, aspects in artistic practice can also be visualized through these texts. In the
commissioned work Rothko addresses to the myth in art and society which he sharply
criticizes; the rejection of the Seagram mural commission is a striking example of this critique.
The unconsciousness is an important aspect of Surrealism but when he is trying to project his
thoughts of the unconsciousness on his later work, it is not the surreal but the different world
the artist is addressing to. However Rothko was not talking about an environment or an
69
Ibid: P. xviii.
32
installation of his works, but he did address the event of entering a work of art. This happened
on the level of the individual artwork but at a later stage this became the entering of a space
dedicated to a series of works: a Rothko room. His shift towards a complete environment of his
works in space has been characteristic for his presentation as a painter. Rothko mentioned
that ‘to enter a painting is to enter the artist’s reality’.70 Of course, he is not addressing the late
paintings in this quote since he would only start on these works two decades later, but this
‘artist’s reality’ maintained a strong position throughout his oeuvre. Christopher Rothko
mentions …‘the self-centred work of the artist - the expression of his or her personal truthserves a more important social function than philanthropy’.71 He broaches an important topic
which is the social function of the work. This social function would gain a larger role in his work
as he evolved in his style and methods. Rothko has made the series of works that are set in
specific spaces as a tool for communicating that message. Starting with the imposition of rules
concerning the place of his works to the complete domination of his work in space has given
him the chance to use the preconditions as a part of the artwork. A strange but clarifying
comparison would be the placement of an extraneous object into an installation artwork: it
would disrupt the artwork as a whole. The same is seen with Rothko, the total control of the
space is necessary to complete the artwork. The expression of a personal truth would become
determinant for the greatness of the works but would also induce an obstacle which Rothko
eventually could not bridge.
The social aspect of art is further explored in the chapter Art as a Form of Action in
which Rothko argues for art as a type of communication. According to him, when art enters
the environment it produces effects just as any other form of action does. It implies a use of
art that has a strong functional aspect, namely communicating something. This communication
evolved to the bodies of work that not only communicate through the medium used but also
create a space which serves as a communication channel. The attributed force meets to the
strict preconditions that Rothko set for his later works. The work is a form of action in its
totality, this action also addresses to the conceptualization that Harold Rosenberg initiated in
his 1952 essay The American Action Painters. The difference to Rothko’s work is Rosenberg’s
explanation of the canvas as the stage for the painter; ‘an arena in which to act’ as mentioned
in the first section of this chapter.72
To see if these texts can be used as a legitimate source for the understanding of his late work
an analysis of Rothko’s style of writing is essential. Rothko is writing from the third person
70
71
72
Ibid: P. xx.
Ibid: P. xvii.
Foster 1980: P. 25.
33
throughout the entire book which makes the message impersonal. Why is he doing this? The
answer to this question probably lies in his own wrestle concerning his artistry. Although he is
not addressing his own artistic practice, I think it is obvious that his thoughts on the artist’s
reality are projections of himself as a painter. The book was written in a period Rothko had
stopped painting and it is evident that these writings are his manner of clarifying problems
that he got himself confronted with as an artist. When writing on what Rothko describes as the
artist’s dilemma, he explained art as a natural biological function. From here on Rothko
explains a notion of biological immortality which involves the process of ‘the extension of
oneself into the world of the perceptible environment’.73 The biological immortality is
constructed because the artist worked towards a world of spatial perception. This notion of
biological immortality extends oneself into the world of the perceptible environment.74 The
rethinking of Rothko’s early writings can shine a new light on the rest of his career that was
still to come.
Rothko is making a connection between the artist and the philosopher in his book. He
is giving an historical overview of what artistry and philosophy are, and comes to an
explanation. ‘The artist, however -that is, the poet and the painter- has never lost his original
function and establish the unity of the ultimate by reducing all phenomena to the terms of the
sensual. For sensuality is the one basic human quality necessary for the appreciation of all
truth’.75 In this case Rothko is not only describing the function of the artist but he gets quite
philosophical himself, however, to understand the essential role of art and space in his later
work the key might be found in this explanation of the function of the artist. The sensuality
which, according to Rothko, is necessary for appreciating truth became his life purpose with
the shaping of the different paintings as a portal for this appreciation. This notion of sensuality
is continued in Emotional and Dramatic Impressionism.76 Rothko’s opinion on this kind of
impressionism was that the artist was to implicate it until the work would enter the human
world of sensuality. He argues for light as the binding factor in the process of the artist
enlarging its impression to make it relevant to the world of experience.77 The question is what
this process means to his later works. I think it implicates the thought that what Rothko was
doing had to be done to communicate his emotions to this ‘world of appearances’. He worked
on an idea of contributing to a larger understanding of emotions. These emotions are actually
visible in several cases in which people retain an emotional experience in front of a painting
73
74
75
76
77
Rothko 2004: P. 8.
The use of the word ‘environment’ does not refer to the artistic medium ‘environment’ that would gain
fame in the 1960s and 70s. Nevertheless Rothko is appealing to a larger concept of art in which the
outside world is fully integrated.
Rothko 2004: P.27.
Rothko is not addressing the famous movement Impressionism but he is talking about a sense of
consciousness in the world of appearances.
Rothko 2004: P. 42.
34
and also in a later statement by Rothko: ‘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
I painted them ’.78
Rothko has given us the following example of plasticity. He works on defining this concept with
examples of artist throughout the art history. Eventually he comes to the lyrical description in
which he goes in to the aspect of the spatial experience within the canvas. This can also be
applied to his late works described in this thesis. The spectator is to be taken on the journey
which is designed by the artist.
‘In painting, plasticity is achieved by a sensation of movement both into the canvas and
out from the space anterior to the surface of the canvas. Actually the artist invites the
spectator to take a journey within the realm of the canvas. The spectator must move
with the artists shapes in and out, under and above, diagonally and horizontally; he
must curve around spheres, pass through tunnels, glide down inclines, at time perform
an aerial feat of flying from point to point, attracted by some irresistible magnet across
space, entering into mysterious recesses - and, if the painting is felicitous, do so at
varying and related intervals. This journey is the skeleton, the framework of the idea’ …
’Without taking the journey, the spectator has really missed the essential experience
of the picture’.79
What is remarkable is the fact that Rothko wrote on the topics concerning the artist’s reality
during a period in which he did not paint himself. He seemingly cannot apply his theories to his
own art although he is well aware of what he wants to do. It would take the rest of 1940s to
get to his signature style in which he practiced these theories and created these spheres,
tunnels and inclines. When working on larger projects like the commissions later on, Rothko
set restrictions for the display of the works which have made himself immortal.
78
79
Phillips, Crow 2004: P. 101.
Rothko 2004: P. 47.
35
Conclusion
Writing a thesis on Mark Rothko as the capstone of my MA in Art History generates a revised
view on his work. Rothko has proven to be one of the great painters of the 20th century and his
work is placed in the art historical canon from an art historical perspective. With the
experience of the reunited Seagram murals at the Tate Modern-retrospective in 2009 I thought
of approaching this subject differently. The installation view lifted the paintings to a higher
level and this has the same effect in other Rothko-rooms. If this is the reason for an
extraordinary experience it implies that the paintings do not evoke the experience but that the
installation of the paintings evokes this effect. The installation aspect in the work and the site
specificity that comes with the commissions has not been highlighted at the time of
construction. Instead, when Installation Art had gained a solid base and a recognized place in
art history this aspect became clear.
Abstract Expressionism has given modern art an impulse that set New York as art
capitol of the world instead of Paris. After the horrors of the Second World War, art had to
make a move and Abstract Expressionism is the result of a radical change in abstraction. Not
only the full abstraction on large scale but also the consideration of the medium as artistic
space in which the artist moves was completely new. In this new art the progression of the
choice of medium and form proceeded. This eventually led to Installation Art and many
different sub movements that traverse between the artist, the spectator and the physical
space. The precise definition is hard to capture since different artists approached this notion
differently. What is certain is that the artist makes use of the space, the artwork and the
spectator.80 In this period in which artists started working with new subjects, objects, spaces
and materials Rothko was at the top of his reach. After his signature style of Color Field
painting in 1947 he was widely recognised and appreciated for his large canvasses. In the
literature on Installation Art, Rothko is not mentioned; the first leading figure in this discipline
was Allan Kaprow who actually anticipated on the achievements of Abstract Expressionism to
get to his first Environment. Nevertheless Rothko’s work can be fit in the concept of
Installation Art, it might not fill in the room with three dimensional objects but it does change
space into an environment in which space, art and spectator are part of the artistic experience.
In the first chapter I have reviewed Rothko’s work from a contemporary point of view. The
movements that I think are of importance to understand the discussed works have been
projected on Rothko’s late work. This has given insights in both the interpretation of the
80
Reiss 1999: P. 91.
36
paintings as in the artistic movements that matter when focussing on the matter now. To look
at Installation Art in retrospect gains an insight in the development of the movement and in
the aspects that are important to underpin the statement that Rothko’s late work can be seen
as early Installation Art. The reinterpretation that comes forth out of this statement is not as
bold as I thought in the beginning. It is not about a displacement of Rothko from Abstract
Expressionism but about Abstract Expressionism and Installation Art that can both be applied
on the same work of art. Various artistic movements can work within their disciplines and still
contain aspects of them all. Fundamental on this multidisciplinary aspect is the awareness not
to place an artwork in a corner too easily, the eventual outcome will prove what category it
should be incorporated with.
The second chapter approaches Rothko’s work from a different perspective. The art by
the Abstract Expressionists has been critically reviewed at the time of development of the
movement. By studying the most influential art critics Greenberg and Rosenberg I have aimed
for an understanding of the reception of the artworks at that time. Another explanation for the
artworks is the vision of the artist himself on artistic practice which has been collected in The
Artist’s Reality. I have used these texts to get an explanation for the moves in his career and
for his own thoughts on how one could look at his work. These two approaches combined with
a review of Rothko’s accomplishments of the 1960s have led to a reconstruction of an era in
which the paintings discussed could be placed. Within this historical context, I have placed the
work in the context of Rothko’s late commissioned works which started with the Seagram
murals in 1958 and finally resulted in the Rothko chapel in 1971. The most important aspect in
the late series is the body of space that could make or break his paintings. The only Rothko
Room in which the artwork and the surroundings are in complete harmony is the Rothko
Chapel. One can say that when trying to come as close as possible to Rothko’s demands, other
Rothko rooms would also qualify but we will never know the exact requirements on his vision
on site specific exhibition design. The same applies to the Harvard Murals. Due to the decay of
the paintings they had to be moved resulting in a Rothko Room without its paintings.
I have argued my main question: ‘Is there a relation between Mark Rothko’s work and
Installation Art?’
from a contemporary and historical point of view. There is no
straightforward explanation that places Rothko in Installation Art or Abstract Expressionism.
The work of an artist can also start leading its own life after his or her death. My thesis poses a
question that Rothko might not have been aware of, when painting his large format series. It
should be mentioned that a certain degree of dubiety is part of a question that can not be
answered by the key source: Mark Rothko. However art history gives leads to research and
interpret questions like these and compared to the historical situation and the evolution of
37
Installation Art the thesis provides with new insights into his role in the artistic world. The site
specificity of an artwork is about an ‘Inextricable, indivisible relation between site and work’.81
This relation is not always seen in Rothko’s work but in his late series it certainly is. Whether
the relation is physical or mental, the fact that the artist worked on the preconditions with
everything he had, and that after more than 40 years a lively debate is still going on says it all. I
would like to close with a quote by Briony Fer who has raised Rothko as a proto-Installation
Artist and by doing so, provided me with a fundament to work upon. ‘Rothko makes an
experience, not just a painting. And that experience is not only spatial but also temporal’.82
81
82
Kwon, M. One Place After Another. In: Suderburg 2000: P. 39.
Fer, B. Seeing in the Dark. In: Borchardt-Hume 2008: P. 38.
38
Literature
-
Alley, R. Catalogue of the Tate Gallery's Collection of Modern Art other than Works by
British Artists. London: Tate Gallery and Sotheby Parke-Bernet, 1981.
-
Anfam, D. Abstract Expressionism. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990.
-
Borchardt-Hume, A. (ed.) Rothko: The Late Series. [exh. cat.] London: Tate Publishing,
2008.
-
Breslin, J.E.B. Mark Rothko: a biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
-
Clearwater, B. The Rothko Book. London: Tate Publishing, 2006.
-
Foster, S.C. The Critics of Abstract Expressionism. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research
Press, 1980.
-
Harris, J. ‘Mark Rothko and the Development of American Modernism 1938-1948’ Oxford
Art Journal, vol. 11, (1988)
-
Judd, D. Complete Writings 1959 - 1975. Halifax: Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art
and Design, 2001.
-
Kaprow, A. Kelley, J. (ed.) Essays on the blurring of art and life. Berkeley etc.: University of
California Press, 2003.
-
Kleeblatt, N.L. Berger, M. Bricker Balken, D. Action/abstraction: Pollock, de Kooning, and
American art, 1940-1976 [exh. cat.] New York: Jewish Museum, 2008.
-
Kwon, M. One Place After Another. In: Suderburg, E. ed. Space, Site, Intervention –
Situating Installation Art. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.
-
Licht, J. ‘Press release Spaces, 1961’ Moma.org The Museum of Modern Art. 14-10-2011
<http://www.moma.org/docs/press_archives/4398/releases/MOMA_1969_JulyDecember_0091_165.pdf?2010>
-
Ottmann, K. ‘Jessica Stockholder’ Journal of Contemporary Art, vol. 7, (1991)
-
Phillips, G. Crow, T. ed. Seeing Rothko. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2004.
-
Reiss, J.H. From Margin to Center. The Spaces of Installation Art. Cambridge: MIT Press,
1999.
-
Rothko, M. The Artist’s Reality. Philosophies of Art. New Haven etc.: Yale University Press,
2004.
-
Sainsbury, H. ‘Rothko (Room 3)’ Tate.org.uk. Tate Modern. 9-8-2011.
< http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/CollectionDisplays?roomid=3543>
-
Smith, R. ‘Venice Biennale: An Installation Art Contest’ Nytimes.com. 1-6-2011. The New
York Times. 27-7-2011. <http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/venice-biennalean-installation-art-contest/>
39
-
Suderburg, E. (ed.) Space, Site, Intervention – Situating Installation Art. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2000.
-
Temkin, A. Abstract Expressionism at the Museum of Modern Art. New York: Museum of
Modern Art, 2010.
-
Weiss, J. Mark Rothko. [exh. cat.] New Haven etc.: Yale University Press, 1998.
Illustrations
1. DACS, The Seagram Murals, 2006. Tate Modern.
<http://www.tate.org.uk/adventcalendar/2006/artist.htm?12>
2. James K. Ufford, Michael Nedzweski, The Harvard Murals, 1963. Holyoke Center.
<http://previousexhibitions.fondationbeyeler.ch/d/html_11sonderaus/09rothko/20_harva
rd_murals_old.htm>
3. Hickey-Robertson, The Rothko Chapel, The Menil Collection, s.a. The Menil Collection.
<http://www.rothkochapel.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Ite
mid=14>
40