Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Creation vs. consumption
Rothko believes his paintings are living, pulsing, communicating beings
Robert May as Mark Rothko in Red
Red
- Sunshine Brooks Theatre, 217 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside
- $15 - $29
“I wonder if they will forgive me?” painter Mark Rothko asks towards the end of Red. “They” are his paintings, and what he needs forgiveness for is hanging them in the posh Four Seasons restaurant in NYC, where they will have to endure the indignity of enduring the presence of the glitterati, with their bourgeois tastes and opinions.
He defends his decision to send them there (and accept a fat commission check) by saying that the paintings will be able to “talk to each other.” He hopes that their very presence will kill the appetites of the restaurant’s patrons and make them reevaluate their shallowness and materialism.
That’s a lot to ask of some paintings, but Rothko believes his paintings are living, pulsing, communicating beings.
I’ve never seen a Rothko painting in person. Maybe they do “pulse” with meaning as he says. In any case, Rothko’s belief that his art was alive didn’t come across as creepy in the Pygmalion sense: he didn’t want to make love to his own creation.
Frankenstein's monster: an imperfect creation
Rather, it made me think of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. It seems to me that both Rothko (as portrayed here) and Percy Bysshe Shelley (Mary’s husband, and the thinly-veiled Victor Frankenstein) aspired to be all-powerful, all-creative — not beholden to any higher power, not needing other people for their creation. In other words, gods.
Given the opportunity to marry his childhood sweetheart and have a family, Victor utterly rejects that option. Creating life by cooperating with a woman and nature isn’t enough for him. He wants to be an absolute creator. He succeeds in creating life, but he rejects it in horror, believing his creation is subhuman rather than superhuman as he expected.
Rothko is a much more sympathetic figure than Shelley, so perhaps the comparison is a bit stretched. He was a Russian Jew who immigrated to the US as a child. He suffered great hardships during his life, rejected faith in G-d, and had no children. Perhaps, as a recluse nearing the end of his life, he needed to believe that he’d left a living legacy in his paintings.
I hope to see a Rothko in person someday, to see if it really does begin to pulse with life when gazed upon.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Creation vs. consumption
Rothko believes his paintings are living, pulsing, communicating beings
Creation vs. consumption
Rothko believes his paintings are living, pulsing, communicating beings
Robert May as Mark Rothko in Red
Red
- Sunshine Brooks Theatre, 217 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside
- $15 - $29
“I wonder if they will forgive me?” painter Mark Rothko asks towards the end of Red. “They” are his paintings, and what he needs forgiveness for is hanging them in the posh Four Seasons restaurant in NYC, where they will have to endure the indignity of enduring the presence of the glitterati, with their bourgeois tastes and opinions.
He defends his decision to send them there (and accept a fat commission check) by saying that the paintings will be able to “talk to each other.” He hopes that their very presence will kill the appetites of the restaurant’s patrons and make them reevaluate their shallowness and materialism.
That’s a lot to ask of some paintings, but Rothko believes his paintings are living, pulsing, communicating beings.
I’ve never seen a Rothko painting in person. Maybe they do “pulse” with meaning as he says. In any case, Rothko’s belief that his art was alive didn’t come across as creepy in the Pygmalion sense: he didn’t want to make love to his own creation.
Frankenstein's monster: an imperfect creation
Rather, it made me think of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. It seems to me that both Rothko (as portrayed here) and Percy Bysshe Shelley (Mary’s husband, and the thinly-veiled Victor Frankenstein) aspired to be all-powerful, all-creative — not beholden to any higher power, not needing other people for their creation. In other words, gods.
Given the opportunity to marry his childhood sweetheart and have a family, Victor utterly rejects that option. Creating life by cooperating with a woman and nature isn’t enough for him. He wants to be an absolute creator. He succeeds in creating life, but he rejects it in horror, believing his creation is subhuman rather than superhuman as he expected.
Rothko is a much more sympathetic figure than Shelley, so perhaps the comparison is a bit stretched. He was a Russian Jew who immigrated to the US as a child. He suffered great hardships during his life, rejected faith in G-d, and had no children. Perhaps, as a recluse nearing the end of his life, he needed to believe that he’d left a living legacy in his paintings.
I hope to see a Rothko in person someday, to see if it really does begin to pulse with life when gazed upon.
Comments