Rothko

Just finished a small book on Mark Rothko. I think Pop Art spelled the demise for the "Abstract Expressionists". However, I don't understand how that can be the case. Pop art seems to be making fun of the superficial nature of glamour, power of marketing, strength of bombardment of multiple images on the senses.

I can't underdstand how Rothko could be considered "Abstract Expressionist" when he was in search of something more universal.

I think people think that art is limited to self expression, as if nothing else can possibly exist. And since people like or dislike based on whims of personal taste, art is a ultimately just another consumable. To me, then, Pop Art is a statement about this, and serves as anti-art.

In other words, Pop Art is actually the exact opposite of Rothko and company. But art for another sake, one pointing towards something authentic and one pointing just as well at the inauthentic, but together guiding us.

I've heard it said that painting has reached its end. I don't think that is the case. If anything, I think people's senses, capacity to think and imaginations have reached their end. I may be mistaken, but I think Rothko was making playscapes for an attuned particapating viewer.

I don't know, I can't explain well last weeks encounter with that Rothko. It was on a different dimension. I may go to the Menil today.