“The progression of a painter’s work…will be toward clarity; toward the elimination of all obstacles between the painter and the idea, and between the idea and the observer…to achieve this clarity is, inevitably, to be understood.”
At a bookstore the other day, I picked up a book on painter Mark Rothko. It featured dozens of his paintings presented in chronological order, one per page. Flipping through the pages turned into an experience similar to viewing a flipbook movie. The movie was the story of his art over his life.
And you could see a definite progression. His art kept getting simpler and simpler. There was an evolution. He was building up to nothing. The longer he painted, the more he reduced his work to the bare essentials.
Mark Rothko’s artwork
Here’s a look at some of Rothko’s paintings from 1936-1945:
In his later work, from 1947-1969, “obstacles” are eliminated:
Images from the National Gallery of Art site’s section on Rothko.
Piet Mondrian’s artwork
Along similar lines, check out the progression of Piet Mondrian’s artwork.
Images from the Guggenheim Museum’s site collection of Mondrian paintings (see more Mondrian images).
Losing the accessories
You can point to similar progressions outside of painting too. Listen to what John Lennon was up to in the ‘60s with the ambitious psychedelia and orchestration of “Tomorrow Never Knows” or “A Day in the Life.” Then compare it to the simple, stripped down work he created at the end of his career, like “Imagine” or “Watching the Wheels.” Both periods produced great songs. But there’s almost a zen quality to his later songs. Their power comes, in large part, from their simplicity.
He chose at this juncture to simplify his art in order to figure out his life, erasing the boundaries between the two. As he explained it, he started trying “to shave off all imagery, pretensions of poetry, illusions of grandeur….Just say what it is, simple English, make it rhyme and put a backbeat on it, and express yourself as simply [and] straightforwardly as possible.”
As they gained maturity and experience, these great artists recognized the power of stripping down their ideas. The more powerful a concept is, the less you need to dress it up. Simplicity → clarity → being understood.
Anonymous Coward
on 22 Jan 07You guys are really taking this “less” theme much too far. Sure, the guy’s paintings were simpler by the end of his career. But to use this as evidence that “simplicity -> clarity -> being understood” is absolutely ridiculous. Can you help me understand those later paintings, please?
Anonymous Coward
on 22 Jan 07Hopefully complexity starts becoming trendy again and then there can be posts talking about how much more popular and relevant Pollock is compared to Rothko.
SH
on 22 Jan 07I wholeheartedly agree with the above comment, as I cringe while reading this post. “In his later work, from 1947-1969, “obstacles” are eliminated.”
That’s as bad as Southern Baptist’s interpretation of the Bible to defend their prejudices and blatant hatefulness. I suggest you take a moment to actually read those Wikipedia articles.
ML
on 22 Jan 07Tough to write about any of this without sounding like a pretentious fuck. ; ) In fact, that’s why I relied on terms that Rothko himself used. He’s the one that discussed eliminating “obstacles” and simplicity -> clarity – > being understood (see quote at top of post). I’m certainly no art critic so feel free to offer different perspectives.
AC, I would suggest checking out the Rothko links in the post if you are sincerely curious about understanding those later paintings.
SH, I have no idea how this post is like the analogy you mention.
John Dilworth
on 22 Jan 07He was building up to nothing.
I don’t know if that sounds good or not, and it probably isn’t a true statement. Both of these artists exhibit a progression toward something (Rothko towards color relationships and color in scale, Mondrian towards abstraction and geometric construction).
I like the work of both Rothko and Mondrian. Viewing a Rothko in person is absolutely amazing, the scale (these are BIG paintings) and the vibrancy are stunning. Mondrian is a little less impressive, I think the whole progression to minimalism was great, but he really has some ugly paintings, “Composition Number 1: Lozenge with Four Lines” just doesn’t reach out and grab you, and he had lots of ugly paintings like that one.
It is also important to remember that Rothko’s final works were about color and color relationships, Mondrian’s final works were about abstraction, neither of them were about “simplicity”. They used simplicity (minimalism) to get to the things that they were interested in, not just to get closer to nothing.
Luis
on 22 Jan 07Folks, I like his earlier art, and his later art was nice too. But don’t use the simplicity factor as a reason to claim it was better or whatever. I love Dali’s work. Is that to say it’s way too complicated? I don’t think so. Simplicity is nice. Complexity is also nice..makes the brain work a little harder ;)
Anonymous Coward
on 22 Jan 07It’s art people. If you like it, great. If you don’t, great. Academic arguments about art strip away all the joy. It’s like listening to a song and saying the lyrics aren’t grammatically correct. It’s mean to be entertainment, not some dissertation about fact. We’re not talking about right or wrong here, we’re talking about looking at something you like or don’t like.
Eric Stoller
on 22 Jan 07I’d have to concur with Anonymous Coward on this one.
However, as a huge Rothko fan, I’m super stoked that 37SVN featured his work today :)
Whoisdan
on 22 Jan 07But a whole lot of Lennon’s solo career was spent teamed up with Phil Spector, who is (in)famous for his big heavy abundant over-the-top accompaniment. George Harrison’s re-release of All Things Must Pass has a couple stripped-down songs because he says that Spector (who worked a lot with George) packed in too much sound.
And what about the Beatles? Aren’t they the opposite of Rothko? They started out with simple tunes and expanded. Most people see this growth as a good thing.
Oh, and the re-release of Let it Be also strips out Spector’s horns and choir. Some say that Spector’s involvement broke up the Beatles. So score one for Rothko’s theory!
Raymond Brigleb
on 22 Jan 07Enjoyable writeup, but I disagree about Lennon. His early stuff with the Beatles was rock and roll all the way. Compared to that, “Watching the Wheels” was overproduced crap. His early seventies stuff, before his five-year hiatus, was much simpler stuff.
When I had the chance to see some of Mondrian’s later works in person, I was amazed to see that he spent an eternity on one work, moving colored pieces of tape around on a white canvas. Eventually, he decided where they should be, and painted the thing. But for most of the time he worked on those pieces, they were just pieces of tape, and some unfinished works survive, tape and all.
ML
on 22 Jan 07But don’t use the simplicity factor as a reason to claim it was better or whatever.
I’m not claiming that one period is necessarily “better” or “worse,” just that the evolution these artists displayed as they matured and simplified is noteworthy. Fwiw, I’ll take the Beatles over John’s solo stuff any day.
Raymond, good point about early Beatles stuff. I guess you could say that, like many artists, John started out simply, got more complex, and then went back to a simpler style as he matured (at least lyrically, if not sonically).
Keith
on 22 Jan 07The concept is important folks. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
The idea is probably MUCH better expressed in terms of writing copy for the web. Simplicity, bullet points vs. paragraphs, and jargonless wording make users comprehend better because of the clarity.
The post just illustrates that what is true for copy can be true in many other mediums of communication as well.
Jeff Shell
on 22 Jan 07I was fortunate to see the National Gallery’s Rothko exhibit. Aside from a couple of paintings at other galleries and museums, most of my exposure to Rothko had come from books. Personally, I loved his later works as I saw them on paper. But it could not compare to seeing his work in person, particularly in a dedicated exhibit (ie, not just one painting next to a Mondrian or Pollack).
The paintings are enormous, and I felt like I was floating as I moved between them. They are a powerful yet calming presence. For me, it was quite a powerful experience.
The exhibit was arranged in chronological order. I accidentally started at the end and moved towards the beginning. I think that helped, actually, as it was his later work that I was more familiar with. It certainly was more powerful, as the later areas seemed more reverent as other visitors seemed to also be caught up in the experience of floating.
Ah, Rothko. I would love to have that experience again.
Levi
on 22 Jan 07Call me a Philistine but I think that this is an awful example of simplicity. Rothko’s final works are totally lacking in clarity. It reminds me of 1984’s Newspeak.
Phillip
on 22 Jan 07Wes Anderson’s movies are getting increasing complex. I prefer Bottle Rocket. It was much simpler.
bv
on 22 Jan 07i disagree with the ‘being understood’ portion… as a minimalist architect, painter and sculptor. it tends to be exactly the opposite… meaning ‘being LESS understood’. either way, it’s never bothered myself as i’m sure it doesn’t most artists. as a true artist you tend to create what comes out and not care about what others ‘get or don’t get’. my opinion, for whatever it’s work. peace. bv.
Adrian Holovaty
on 22 Jan 07I agree with the basic premise that simplicity is good. But, as other commenters have stated, the Lennon example wasn’t a great one.
I’ll grant you that some of his solo work was “simpler” than some of his Beatles work (although “Tomorrow Never Knows” is a bad example, too, as it’s quite a simple song, music-wise, under the hood). But the simplicity of his solo-career material does not increase or decrease in any consistent way. His first solo album was one of the most raw pieces of popular music in history, but the very next album, “Imagine,” was produced by Phil “Wall of Sound” Spector, for gosh-sake. And follow-up albums such as “Mind Games” are even more wall-of-sound-ish and often lyrically obtuse.
I’ll point out one more problem with this example. Music can be complex or simple in different ways, sometimes both. What’s “simpler”—complex instrumentation with simple lyrics, or complex lyrics with simple instrumentation? Where does melody come into play? Harmony? Rhythm?
“Tomorrow Never Knows” has a simple melody with complex instrumentation and lyrics. “Imagine” has a simple melody with simple instrumentation and lyrics. “Woman” has a more complex melody with more complex instrumentation and simple lyrics. Which song is “simpler”? Neither this one or that one.
Point is, art is just not that simple.
ML
on 22 Jan 07Adrian, I agree there’s lots of gray area here. To me, the ‘60s songs mentioned are complex due to their psychedelic production and obtuse lyrics. (If you wanted to look at chord structure, though, TNK is as simple as it gets…one chord.) “Imagine” and “Watching the Wheels” come across, to me at least, as simpler, more straightforward songs. I think John agreed:
Andrew M
on 22 Jan 07Rothko is amazing, I high suggest viewing his paintings at the Tate Modern in London.
an excellent piece on some of his work
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/critic/feature/0,1169,931796,00.html
Thijs van der Vossen
on 22 Jan 07It’s interesting to note that Modriaan breaks out of his strict Neo-Plasticism rules after he arrives in New York in the early 40’s. Google for ‘Broadway Boogie Woogie’ to see this slightly less simple work.
Josh
on 22 Jan 07If you’re interested in the example—, I highly recommend the book, “Seeing Is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees: A Life of Contemporary Artist Robert Irwin.”
It describes the way in which Irwin’s thinking about his art changes as he matures—and how he used radical simplification to achieve his goals.
Nate
on 22 Jan 07Kinda related. But I’m betting Jason or one of you guys likes fondue restaurants. Had date night this Saturday night, and I couldn’t believe how much The Melting Pot gets simplicity. Heat a pot of oil and make you do the work, and its wonderful. Heat some chocolate and give you some cheap things to dip in it.
We love it and pay through the nose for it :)
Loic
on 23 Jan 07I agree with the first comment that it is a bit of a stretch to to associate your simplicity theme to this, but anyway…
Here is another painter whose abstraction (and simplicity) I have always loved.
Nicolas de Stael
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_de_Stael
http://oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com/2005/10/de-stael-nicholas-arte-abstracta.html
Enjoy.
ymerej
on 23 Jan 07to say in general that one artwork is easier to understand than another is actually a total oversimplification of art itself.
just because a painting has fewer lines doesn’t mean it’s easier to comprehend. (on the contrary, for many people abstract or conceptual art seems to require more effort to be understood. however, i don’t believe that this is necessarily true.)
sorry matt, i usually like your and your fellow 37signalers’ posts, but this time i think you leaned way too far out of the window.
ML
on 23 Jan 07just because a painting has fewer lines doesn’t mean it’s easier to comprehend…this time i think you leaned way too far out of the window.
I’ll point out once again that it was Rothko who felt that clarity and eliminating obstacles led to greater understanding:
“The progression of a painter’s work…will be toward clarity; toward the elimination of all obstacles between the painter and the idea, and between the idea and the observer…to achieve this clarity is, inevitably, to be understood.” –Mark Rothko
Is he leaning too far out the window or is he offering valid commentary on his own work?
Steve Rose
on 23 Jan 07I think the point is missed when we discuss our understanding of the work. An artist works to express something, and these artists, in their own words, found that expression in simplicity. This was already mentioned by bv.
I have been a dancer for many years, since I was a teenager, and I have discovered that simple dances, very well done, are far more satisfactory to me and my partner.
However, art is for the sake of pure expression. Software needs to be understood.
anonymous moron
on 23 Jan 07I really really really don’t want to read any of these comments….because I can’t possibly understand how you consider a bunch of boxes painted on a canvas …”art”
For years it has baffled me that I would go into the met and there would be a trapezoid shaped canvas that was painted a solid blue…... price….. several million…..
who the fk cares about a blue canvas…... yall must be smoking some really good pipe if you think this is art…..
Lozenge with four lines??? ARE YOU KIDDING!!!?
Composition with Red? its a bunch of lines people…..are you fkin nuts….... one of the boxes has some red…...
I just don’t get it…..and for you intelligencia that say “oh you will never get the beauty” .....I say I don’t ever want to get the beauty if you think a bunch of lines is art…..
I have seen lines that make up art and they don’t look like this…..
ymerej
on 23 Jan 07matt,
i know it’s rothko’s quote, but it’s you who quoted him and you did so for a reason.
i too believe that the strive for simplicity is mostly a good thing, especially in design. however, sometimes i have the impression that it’s a little bit too much of a hype, especially if people refer to other – probably famous – people who happen to have the same opinion as oneself, to prove their point. and especially when the quoted persons never reached their own ultimate goal. which is the case with rothko, in my opinion (who really understands his paintings by just looking at them?).
what i really wanted to say, was my impression that you _over_simplified the whole topic by reducing rothko, mondrian and lennon to simplicity → clarity → being understood.
CDR
on 24 Jan 07I think that it is wonderful that everyone has a comment and an opinion. We are all entitled to them… so here is mine:
Rothko’s own words are the bottom line here. No matter what kind of art we like… or what type of work we even choose to consider art, our opinions don’t change the fact that the creator of the art was following a path that meant something to(or was understood by) him/her. This path does not have to include working to create art that can be understood by the viewer. Sometimes the path involves the artist purely exploring what is in his/her head, “understood” or not.
I think that we should all be free to like or dislike someone’s work… but to question the validity of what compelled them to create the work in a particular way seems a waste of time… especially when the artist themselves tells us exactly why the choices were made.
Anonymous Moron: One person who cares about a solid blue canvas is the person who created it. Regardless of whether your sensitive, critical eye can deem it as art, it was still an idea in someone’s mind that they took the time to explore and realize.
Are we to assume that you only consider photographically rendered paintings of recognizable subject matter to be Art???
And… where are you finding the price tags on the art at the Met?
Sébastien Orban
on 24 Jan 07Mondrian, in the last year of his life was in New York. His work change at this moment – after twenty year of research around his most know work, he complexified again his painting. A famour example : http://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/mondrian/broadway.jpg.html
The same can be said for Kandinsky, Malevitch and other. You can’t state things like as general!
Tony Adams
on 24 Jan 07If you like Rothko and are ever in Houston, be sure to visit the Rothko Chapel.
http://www.rothkochapel.org
David
on 25 Jan 07My comment on this article is…”give me a f*cking break”.
This discussion is closed.