”Artists should be poor.” Sounds familiar, right? Similar meanings have been expressed by all kinds of people in various ways: rock musicians should take drugs and be decadent for this whole life; suicide is the best destination for poets; be prepared to starve to death at any time when engaged in serious literary creation; and so on. We have a stereotype of artists, because we have a quasi-religious worship of art. The creators of art are regarded as priests, and they have to sacrifice something to meet the apocalypse. This sacrifice may be a sound body, a normal human mind, earthly pleasures or life itself. In all ages, there is no shortage of audiences who are willing to pass through the barriers of time and space to watch the sacrifice process of artists.
As we grow older, we will become habitually disenchanted and doubt the “Longing for Life” narrative. So when I saw that the stage play “Red” compiled based on the experience of the American modern painter Mark Rothko (Mark Rothko) had Internet resources to watch, I was not particularly keen. What else is there to see the story of the painter? However, seeing the hero said, “destitute artists should” immediately added: “In addition to
1958 at the beginning of the story script, Roscoe is already a successful artist in New York has just commissioned the newly built Seagram The luxurious “Four Seasons Restaurant” in the building painted a series of murals, and the reward was 35,000 US dollars, which was a high price at the time. When the work was completed, he ate in the newly completed restaurant, thinking that the atmosphere of the entire restaurant was not worthy of his own. The paintings, so the contract was cancelled, the deposit was refunded, and I kept these paintings.
In reality, Mark Rothko has a place in art history. However, looking at his experience and works, he always feels calm. His famous works are ordinary and ordinary in the vast river of paintings. Works with huge color blocks no matter at the time Later, in the industry or outside the industry, the question of “this is also called art” was raised. Born into a Jewish family in the Tsarist Russia era, he was also a member of the immigration wave in the 1910s. In his youth, he went to New York to seek dreams, work and study, and entered the colorful New York modern art community. Middle-aged fame, sixtieth suicide, lack of legendary elements, this character can hardly be portrayed as a frustrating man of heaven. However, he rejected the Seagram Building mural project, but was selected by the American writer John Logan and portrayed it as a bright moment in the artist’s life. The only characters on the stage are Rothko and his young assistants, and the scene is Rothko’s studio. There are indeed many moments when the two people’s conversations, debates, and arguments escape the limitation of time and space, and are more like the common dilemma of modern spiritual product producers.
Isn’t it a rare heroic feat in modern society that can’t live with money? What Rothko refused was not only a large sum of money, but also the influence and more commissions that followed. It was you, could you do it? The reason for the refusal is that those who go to the “Four Seasons Restaurant” are rich people who have no souls and do not deserve to appreciate art. This reason may be sufficient, but it hardly constitutes a reason. There are many artists who slander the employer of Party A, and they will not break their contract because of this. The principle of business is to satisfy customers, and the principle of artists is much more flexible. After making the decision, Roscoe’s assistants sincerely praised: “You are Roscoe now.” Roscoe said: “It’s just poorer.” Of course, how can one defend the principle without paying the price? It was just a hypocritical pretense. Compared with the weak complaining because they did not get the treatment they deserved (I think), the complaints of successful people seem hypocritical. Many of Roscoe’s colleagues will be very satisfied if they develop to this stage. They will get up early and work like “social animals”, occasionally Huping friends to enjoy life and live a good life. So when Rothko’s assistant was in trouble, he almost expressed the audience’s conscience: “No one in art history has worked so hard to appear great! You closed the studio like a submarine, because you feel natural light. Not good enough, nothing is good enough for you, and the people who bought your works are not good enough-the museum is dull and dead, the gallery operators are a group of pimps and crooks, the art collectors are both superficial and inflamed… There are still people who are worthy of buying you Or, do you think there is anyone in the world worthy of watching your art? You criticize the commercialism in art so fiercely, but aren’t you also taking money? Of course you can lie to yourself Say you are using painting to build a temple of contemplation and awe, but in reality you are decorating a restaurant for the top rich. Your paintings are nothing but the most expensive interior decoration paintings in the world.”
The debate about modern art and commerce is the fiercest climax of the whole series of “Red”, with witty words, and incomparably ironing the logic of ordinary modern people. The assistant showed the courage to love whoever I did, and I quit Roscoe’s contradiction. Since he opposes commercialization, why should he take over the Four Seasons Restaurant project? Roscoe adopted a classic defensive posture: they took the initiative to find me; you stand and talk Don’t you think it’s so easy to refuse; I’m also a mortal, and I have vanity…like a collection of self-disciplined speeches by a municipal intellectual. Except for the rejection at the end, Rothko on the stage was not like a painter throughout the whole process, but like an intellectual, with a strong desire for expression, asking others to listen, and being completely self-centered. I am very divided from the status quo of society, but I have a sense of mission that is not what the common people do. I often feel that the mediocre people do not understand art, and the times are vulgar. At the same time, I especially introduce the evaluation of myself in the unexpected world. Once you realize that your position in the minds of others is not as important as you think, vanity will be engulfed in fierce emotions. I heard that the painter that my assistant most admires is not me, so I said a series of names of humanities masters to young people. Reduce dimensionality and crush, and then show off his general knowledge: “A painter must understand philosophy, theology, literature, poetry, drama, history, archeology, anthropology, mythology, music… these are all tools for painting, like Paintbrushes are the same as paints.” He roared and complained about the public’s stereotypes of artists: “Matisse-the late hero, Pollock-the genius who died young, Van Gogh-of course there is Van Gogh, who doesn’t know Van Gogh. Well — martyrs who are not understood by the world. It is an insult to them to reduce these people to naive stereotypes.” And he himself is a heavy dependence on stereotypes. He just likes stereotypes that have been deeply discussed, of course. The book list is indispensable: “If you want to understand Pollock, first read Nietzsche’s “The Birth of Tragedy”.” I also add my own guide, “The focus is on tragedy.”
Is it to understand that a painter shouldn’t look at his paintings directly? Since when does it take so much theoretical preparation to look at a painting? The opening of “Red” was comical. Rothko asked his assistant to watch his paintings up close. He himself stood by and talked and cried frantically, while the assistant was confused and searched. “What do you see?” This is a habitual question about abstract painting. There is no standard answer, but not everyone can express their feelings in a definite way. A person who talks about abstract paintings must have everything Those with the ability and willingness to speak out, they are best holders of wealth and political opinions. The few people who have the ability to get involved in the art market, or professional critics, or highly educated knowledge groups, must be gentle at best. Wan’s literary youth, critics, and traffic contributors in the Internet age. Abstract painting is always looking for a specific audience, just like a hypnotist has to face people who are willing to cooperate to perform hypnotism.
People think that their preferences are unique, but in fact they have already been guided by various forces. Thinkers such as Gustave Le Bon and Karl Jaspers have already observed how easy the public in modern life is to accept cues. The splattered lines, splattered paint, and flat-painted color blocks in abstract painting now seem to be purely formal aesthetics, but during the Cold War period when it emerged, it was the opposite of socialist realism and was strongly supported by the CIA for a while. In the choice, the formal feature without content has become a position, as Saunders (Frances Stonor Saunders) said: “The problem is not just that painting becomes part of the Cold War cause, but more importantly, this is a movement that makes cautious Things that state that they don’t care about politics are highly politicized.” (Frances Stoner Sanders: “Cultural Cold War and the Central Intelligence Agency,” translated by Cao Dapeng) The paradox is that this propaganda strategy has not been spotted and exposed by opponents. It has been repeatedly superimposed and carried forward.
