Reblogged
Mark Rothko, Untitled, 1960
© Kate Rothko Prizel and Christopher Rothko
Reblogged
R.B. Kitaj created Marlborough (Mark Rothko) (1969-70) as part of a 50-print portfolio depicting book covers from his personal library. Rather than a manipulated image, it turns out to depict the printed mylar dust jacket on a 1964 Rothko exhibition catalogue.
Mark Rothko okhtoR kraM [greg.org]
I think the painting on the cover is this one, Untitled, ( Mauve and Orange), 1961, though my scan is not great either
MARK ROTHKO, No. 6, 1964
One of the Black Form Paintings
📸 kindly contributed by @catarinalay on Instagram
© 1998 Kate Rothko Prizel and Christopher Rothko/ ARS, New York
Bringing in this nice shot from Paris of one of the black form paintings which are so difficult to photograph that I looked at scans of them for years and still sometimes couldn't tell them apart.
(Please keep the photographers names intact so their nice pictures don't float around the Internet unattributed.)
You posted this from the biography: "Rothko explaining that the triptych evoked Good Friday and his final pink and white canvas suggested Christ's resurrection on Easter morning."
Could you show me/us the corresponding pictures? I couldn't find them, I think.
Hi those are the Harvard murals, but you have to remember that those were destroyed by being improperly displayed in front of open windows and the light pretty much ruined the paintings. The paintings underwent an unorthodox restoration for display not being touched actually on the canvas but being restored via projected light. The result was pretty good and it was a complicated process you can read about. Here's a post about the Harvard murals
Anonymous asked:
i think the biggest crime that blog is committing (outside of using your scans) is being french. jokes aside i do wonder about the 'rules' around using certain scans over other ones. can you elaborate on the issue here in that regard? love your blog, by the way, i'm just curious about the genuine problems that you have with the other blog that isn't just "they had the same idea as me" because other than the scans that feels like the only 'problem' i see here.
Lots of people blog Rothko paintings and that's great. Calling yourself "Daily Rothko" in French while do the same thing I do seems like impersonation or at least personal. I am trying to clear up confusion.
The only rules are my personal pictures would be my copyright, scans I made, I don't what the law is but they are my labor, so that's annoying to me.
Some pictures I have came directly from copyright holders with the explicit permission to be for me only. So they might take issue with that.
There are a lot of Rothko social media accounts and blogs that post Rothko art. They are welcome to do what they want, of course. But I do object to spending money and going to the trouble of making relationships with people and obtaining things no one else has just to have it taken. I think it's bad manners and it makes it more difficult to bring people new things.