Restoring Rothko | Tate
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 05. 2014
- Filmed over 18 months, this is the story behind the restoration of Mark Rothko's 'Black on Maroon'.
Mark Rothko's 'Black on Maroon' 1958 goes back on public view at Tate Modern on 13 May 2014, following 18 months of intensive work by the Conservation team and colleagues across Tate.
The painting, one of the iconic Seagram murals which Rothko donated to Tate in 1970, was vandalised with graffiti ink in October 2012. It has since been the subject of detailed research and restoration by the core treatment team of Rachel Barker, Bronwyn Ormsby and Patricia Smithen.
Over nine months the team researched methods for removing the ink from the delicate paint layers, using special test canvases to assess the appropriate solvents and cleaning methods. Rachel then spent a further nine months working on Black on Maroon itself, removing the majority of the surface ink before restoring the painting's surface.
Subscribe for more art: czcams.com/users/subscription_c... - Krátké a kreslené filmy
You may or may not be a fan of abstract art but destroying another person's work, that others spend time enjoying is a shit thing to do. Period.
i want this team to get rid of these stains on my clothes
Tramsandwich bronson same
I can say the same thing about the people in the video. I like the graffiti on the painting, someone added a bit of themselves to such a valuable item and these assholes are taking it away.
@@patrykochmanski6156 how very troll bait of you.
@@RandyLittleStudios I am actually serious. Art is whatever you want it to be.
I have no art education whatsoever. I have only life education - the kind that comes from growing older, and losing loved ones, and experiencing joy and pain and tragedy. And when I walked into the room housing Mark Rothko's Seagram Murals last summer, it seemed to me that he'd captured all the emotions of my lifetime on his canvas. And I started weeping. I wasn't even unhappy when I went in, I was just struck by the emotion he was trying to communicate to me. This, to me, is art. My husband didn't feel the same way, and that is fine. But for me, I will never forget the way Rothko's deceptively simply work communicated to me across time and without words or recognizable images. It was pure human feeling, distilled onto canvass. My profound thanks to the people who worked so hard to restore it.
From all I've read on him, he would be happy with your response
I can only watch it on my screen.... and i love Rothko's paintings! Agree with emotions and feelings translating trough canvas, and want see his brilliant work in real life.... Also couple of days ago find very beautiful paintings of Bryan Charnley.
Lmao. Get a grip.
from what i know, this is exactly what he intended to achieve with his work.
thats some gangsta shit right there
I personally am not a fan of this specific type of art but I can appreciate and respect the effort for conservation of the artists work.
Ever seen a Rothko painting in real life? Transcendental experience, really.
I agree. I think the same about Pollack all this wooha for paintings that from my standpoint didn't require much effort or thought. I am happy that they bring joy to others.
@@gurucarcar If you think Pollock or Rothko put no thought into their work, then maybe you should ask yourself why nobody before them did what they did? A little respect, please. Educate yourself...
@@Neuroneos chill and I have seen similar work from people who didn't get noticed. Drizzling paint and painting boxes...no one has ever done it before them>>>please. I am happy you find joy in them - I do not.
@yopandas I don't know much about computers, and I don't go around telling everyone what I think about them either: that would make me sound foolish. I know about art history though, and I think you sound very foolish. A correlation?
All joking aside, Rothko's paintings are quite massive, and the harmony/disharmony of colors, coupled with the overall monolithic size and aspect, produce quite the sensory effect.
That Spanish granny could handle this one in ten minutes
i would vote for her XD
lol
LOOOOOOLLLLL
Now i know ive seen too many of these Videos
Really?
Can we just talk about those poignant moments after the painting was taken away after her work was done.. She poured so much of herself into her work that she was left totally lost and having to almost reboot her consciousness after focusing so fiercely on her work. Powerful.
Eye roll.
Atma Kali shut up
Your comment explores the relationship between new class identities and unwanted gifts. With influences as diverse as Kierkegaard and L Ron Hubbard, new combinations are distilled from both constructed and discovered discourse.
Ever since I was a student I have been fascinated by the theoretical limits of the mind. What starts out as yearning soon becomes corroded into a tragedy of temptation, leaving only a sense of nihilism and the dawn of a new synthesis.
As shifting derivatives become distorted through emergent and repetitive practice, the reader is left with an insight into the possibilities of our era.
And yes she is great on the ol’ paint roller.
Jordan Maddrell
you talk utter bollocks. She’s just a silly woman making a meal out of a simple 10 minute overpaint job. Reboot her consciousness ? 🤦🏻♂️😂😂😂 love it 🤣🤣
Display Chicken 🥱🥱🥱 I bet you’re a barrel of fun.
I remember once in high school that a bully destroyed one of my sketchbooks. I'm a nobody and they were just sketches but I remember being absolutely devastated. It's not about how it looks like who it belongs to, when you put your heart and soul into something it's like you yourself have been assaulted.
Have you seen the movie Patterson?
yopandas it’s not about that, it’s about respecting another human being and their work. It’s almost theft, it was never yours to deface and unless you have permission or have bought it and it is now your property you have no right to touch it. It’s not a police matter but a moral one and anyone who would do something like that I would say has trouble empathizing with the world around them and may have some sort of social limitations.
I’m in high school and one day I left my sketchbook on a chair, and I needed it so much because it’s like 60% of my grade (I’m in IB) only to find out that someone threw it to the trash
yopandas You seem like the type to destroy people’s sketchbooks.
@yopandas Don't be an asshole. You have no idea what that sort of thing means to people who create.
Well.. I would have died of Performance anxiety 100 times over... The confidence of a restorations artist must be incredible!
Soap and water, a gentle scrub and nobody would ever notice. Who cares? It’s just a load of crap.
@I'm Illiterate I see what you are saying. But with severe anxiety I would still died no matter of the amount of research that hade been done. In the end decisions must be made.
I’m so glad Tate allowed the filming of the whole procedure. Rachel Barker’s dedication and skills are astounding. Fantastic work.
If you don't like Rothko, that's absolutely fine. Art is about opinions and you don't have to like everything. But opinions are personal and while someone might dislike something, it gives them no right to destroy it. Talk about your opinions, and it'll give you a good conversation. But destroying something out of nothing but spite is selfish and spreads unhappiness through other people. That's why the vandalism here was terrible: not because Rothko should be revered above anyone else, but because of the selfishness of the act.
Eve Woehrling Exactly ! I don’t particularly like this kind of art or even understand it, but I would never destroy things, just because of my personal feelings towards it.
Well said, Eve.
I find the the “vandalism” as you call it, more compelling as art than the original Rothko piece itself. It forces me think about the fluid nature of art, about how different entities claim ownership of it, how much power the police state has over art, and how societal structures have influence over what is labeled art vs destruction or crime.
this "restoration" destroyed the image, the message, and the feeling the artist wanted to send to the viewer when he vandalized the painting
@@spillproofbox I actually unironically agree with you. When you have such a simplistic image that so many people seem to have elevated to high art, defacing it actually prompts a discussion about the art that that wouldn't have been had without the defacement. Now with that being said, the defacer should have used conservation grade pigment so it could have been removed easily.
It was a great honor to be part of the restoration with the Hirox Microscope. We hope to help further the Museum Community to keep artworks in the best conditions for the future generations.
The reverence with which these conservators treat artworks is a more spiritual experience than I’ve ever found in a church.
The amount of art and science and labor that went into fixing this assault is breathtaking. From now on, I will always try to pay full price at "suggested donation" public museums. Thank you for employing such an incredible group of technicians, Tate museum, and for keeping such an important array of skills alive.
Filmed over 18 months, the story behind the restoration of Mark Rothko's 'Black on Maroon'.
Mark Rothko's 'Black on Maroon' 1958 goes back on public view at Tate Modern on 13 May 2014, following 18 months of intensive work by the Conservation team and colleagues across Tate.
The painting, one of the iconic Seagram murals which Rothko donated to Tate in 1970, was vandalised with graffiti ink in October 2012. It has since been the subject of detailed research and restoration by the core treatment team of Rachel Barker, Bronwyn Ormsby and Patricia Smithen.
Solo tu y nadie mas que tu eres la única dueña de esa felicidad que tanto ancias, pero debido a esa poca intención de tu parte para disfrutarla no haces mas que retardar el momento esperado.-
That was an absolutely brilliant piece of restoration. Conservators are truly the unsung heroes of the art world!
monkeygraborange Restorators also ruined for ever good part of the Sistine Chapel; better not to call them heroes...
great job!
This art is garbage yall should be fucking ashamed to hang trash like that.
I am someone who enjoys abstract art, but I never understood Rothko’s work until I saw one of his paintings ‘in person,” as it were. The pieces have to be experienced first hand. My deepest appreciation and thanks to these remarkable women for their skill and tenacity.
Vandal - ‘HA! I don’t like this artwork; I’m going to destroy it with permanent ink! What are you gonna do about it?!’
Conservator - ‘Hold my turpentine...’
I love at 11:26
that there is a blanket with the words "ROTHKO UNDERNEATH!".
What a weird situation.
I was fortunate enough to catch the Rothko room at the Tate Modern, it's about as close as I've come to a religious experience. Say what you will about the pretense of the modernists they sure made some spicy works. So glad there are people out there keeping entropy from eating everything
If you find his daubing and paint rollering a religious experience than you should sit in my living room while I decorate/ test colours. It looks about the same. A f***ing mess.
@@atmakali9599 you just made it sound like you don't make art though so I'll pass.
Corbin Goodwin
Me and him both. Wake up deluded dreamer. Start again by taking a read of The Emperors New Clothes. It’s an enlightening experience.
@@atmakali9599 lmao go give advice to people that asked for it and keep your sad world away from mine.
Corbin Goodwin
I live in a world of enlightened truth. Most it the ‘stuff’ exhibited in the Tate belongs in the garbage. I worked there in the 90’s and some of the exhibits were actually fished out of dustbins. We used to snigger at the punters chin scratching and having an experience.
It's like I'm watching real life Photoshop. I don't care much for his work but I still found this pretty cool.
Respect, i was waiting for a video like this for 2 years now hoping that the painting would come to public display again. I am blown away by the level of skill and passion that has gone into this project. Good job.
I’m an artist and I find this process so extraordinary. From the disgusting low of someone defacing treasured Art, to the extraordinary dedication of conservators who give their all to save it. I hope if one of mine ever needs this care that it will come into the hands of conservators so talented and so dedicated. Bravo - truly.
This kind of art is not really my cup of tea but I do not think that it's right for someone to vandalize another persons work. The amount of time and skill that went into trying to clean up this mess up is just mind blowing. The ladies trying to think outside the box to get the ink out...amazing. True masters of their field.
I love when people say "I could've done that" because it's so fun to clap back with a "but you didn't did you?"
That, and when they talk about "making millions shitting on a canvas" and I ask "why aren't you a millionaire then, you'd rather not retire?"
more to the point, they actually couldn't. any time a person says that it's about something like rothko that they wouldn't even know how to begin recreating.
The funny thing is they can’t! without training and talent. The composition and the colour.
I did. And threw it in the trash where it belonged.
absentminded
Don’t talk shit.
Thank you for sharing this process freely and well done to the TATE and the restorers. Regardless of ones personal opinion of the work of Rothko it has taken it's place in the history of art and needs protecting. Also I'm very pleased that you give no acknowledgment or profile to the vandal.
Yes
This is a wonderful film. I really congratulate the women who worked so tirelessly to restore this work. Fantastic work.
I don't "get" Rothko's work. To me it's just red and black paint on canvas. But the defacing of it was still atrocious, and it was well worth the time of this conservation/restoration team. And look. say what you will about the nature of the modern arts industry (it's a hive of pretentious, fart huffing nepotists if you ask me), but art is simply an expression that draws an emotional reaction from you. In this case, y'all are getting pretty angry about Rothko's paintings. So it did its job as art.
Painting like this aren't the sort I'd be buying to decorate my home with, but they're the kind that I think are worth seeing and learning a bit about. Maybe you'll discover some deeper meaning or personal connection to the art. Maybe you'll just learn that art like this isn't your cup of tea. There's entire museums dedicated to classical realism. Why not some for modern, abstract, and absurdist art? If you don't like it, you aren't forced to go to those museums (unless you're an art student, in which case you're gonna see a lot of art you hate. good luck) after all.
Have you ever seen a Rothko in person? It's a vastly different experience
There's nothing to "get", anyway.
Only difference is one takes much more skill to create than another. Literally just boxes. Nothing creative or unique about them.
It's impossible to enjoy a Rothko from pictures. If you see one in a museum, you will probably just be drawn to it. You won't know it's a Rothko, and it may have a very different mood from the pieces you see here, but you will just be drawn into it. Pictures can only capture colors in the most basic ways; they don't capture the effects of the surface texture, reflective properties of the paints (which every material has, VantaBlack is the material with the lowest such properties), or the subtle patterns made by the brush strokes.
The difference is like seeing an explosion on screen, compared to a real explosion in front of you.
Picasso's works are a bit like that too; they are dead and bland on a screen, but in person the color tones seem completely different.
Its the process and significance that makes it better. Like imo i think banksy's art isnt that great yet people would pay millions to get it carved off walls and sold to their homes.
Tbh i think its more about the person who made it especially with abstract
Rothko didn't varnish his paintings, and he used quite a wide range of materials. It's no surprise that his works are fragile and vulnerable. In the end, one has to wonder if he was really terribly concerned about the permanence of his work. If he wasn't very concerned, should we be?
varnish yellows and changes the colors of the painting over time, and it would probably cost a lot of money to varnish those huge ass paintings. Maybe he didn't want to risk putting it on and it accidentally affecting the colors. I don't know that's just what I think as an artist.
@@Leo-zk9rd, Modern varnishes were available to Rothko. Such as n-methylmethacrylate, which does not yellow. Although this varnish is easily removable with very mild solvents, Rothko may have used materials that were similarly soluble, precluding its use. I repeat and expand my point as follows: As an artist, you know that every artist is constantly faced with having to balance considerations of color, permanency, reversibility, ease of application, and so on. Rothko may have made a deliberate choice to forego permanency in order to reach other goals. IF that is so, and if we accept his choice and adopt it as our own -- which seems perfectly reasonable to me and which I suppose Rothko would endorse -- then we can reasonably let the vicissitudes of time take their toll.
i dont think we have to, but its still nice to take some graffiti off that was made with the intent to make the painting ugly. if it was normal aging i would see ur point more but this is a bit different since the damage was purposeful.
Louis C. Gasper Perhaps he was not overly concerned with the permanence of his work in a natural aging sense, but I’m going to guess he would have been mad at someone writing their name in ink on his painting.
He probably wanted it to age I think it ads to the art. It gives it character and shows that nothing with stands time
Wow how sad to see a piece of art damaged in that way. I'm glad you were able to restore it after countless hours of hard work. Good job!
Regardless of whether or not it’s considered “Good Art,” Rothko was a pioneer in the art community in his time. He created something minimalist and abstract in a time where realism was the expectation and the norm. It may not be what you enjoy, but it’s evidence that no matter how you do what you do, it’s possible to be successful and respected. Great piece of art, thanks to the TATE for taking the time and effort to restore it.
Thank you all for taking care and so much of efforts to restore. Love you.
I went to the Tate recently on my trip to London a few months ago during Christmas and I saw the Rothko's and I had no idea about the horrible vandalism that happened to this piece
Rothko is definitely one of those artists who improve upon seeing in person, his canvases shimmer, I am personally a big fan.
This is wonderful. This room at Tate Modern is one of my favourite places in London and I confess to having been pretty upset when I heard of the vandalism. Thanks to everyone involved and also for sharing the background to the restoration, making something fascinating out of the mindless destruction by a pretentious loser.
This room was where C & I started our first date :)
Julia Rhodes-Journeay That is absolutely wonderful. Dingo and I also have fond memories of early days in this room.
I was also fortunate enough to attend University next to the Rothko Chapel which is an amazing space. I did take J there on her first trip to Texas.
Have you ever heard the Morton Feldman music "Rothko Chapel" which was written to be performed there? It is wonderful.
I read that as ... Marty Feldman ... :\
art is pure expression. someone might think depression feels like a black dot. and therefore that dot becomes a valid form of expression. if the artist did not consent to anyone else's manipulation of that black dot. then that black dot is almost censored. it's like burning a book. so yeah, that's a lot of money towards something that might seem meaningless. but it does change history and how we think. Art is a luxury no doubt but does affect the thinking and history of the luxurious western society that we live in.
Eloquently put.
Your sophomoric stock philosophy of art is shallow and tiresome.
Taimoor Khan why?
Thank goodness! Congratulations to all involved. Fantastic job, beautifully documented. Heart-warming start to the day.
well done to the Tate team for such an amazing job, as well as showing us the process, the difficulties encountered. This is fascinating.
I remember doing a master copy for my oil painting class during college and it’s so difficult, I believe doing this is even worse because you are working on top of the original trying to replicate it
More than art and science. Extraordinary.
The dedication these people have is amazing, and the depth of their love for art is incredible....but when I hear them saying things like mystifying or beautiful, and I see the painting they're referring to, it really makes me wonder how it could be that humans are so different in what they perceive beauty and how they attribute worth to something, and to what extent.
Im glad they lucked out that he defaced a corner and didnt splash ink on the whole thing.
I know your comment is kinda old, but I still feel like answering :)
You really cant look at Rothko's paintings trying to explain them. You have to stare at them in a way and really take in how the "paintclouds" almost float on the background, how some colorfields move forward, some back and some almost feel like looking into a room or so. The layered colordepth unfortunately gets lost via screen/print, but for some of his paintings it still works. And not all of his paintings are equally impactful imo.
He wanted to create paintings that are to be experienced like music. You don't listen to music and go to yourself "Oh, that's a house, that's the sun, etc.", you experience it on an emotional level. You get excited about certain harmonies, you "lay down" on the melody, you get captured by certain rhythms. He was successful with his style (not only financially, but conceptually) in kinda creating colormusic, which is ultimately the magic behind it.
People who destroy art exhibitions ruin things for the rest of us. I'm an artist and I love the ability to go close to works of art and fully enjoy and view the pieces. I don't care much about this type of artwork but don't go ruining things for other people.
I think its a breath of fresh air seeing that nothing ist safe. Its shocking what happend but now it is a part of this painting forever. Even if there are small particles left.
I really love this video. For me, is the best video that ever made concerning the restoration about the Rothko ' s masterpieces . Thanks for share it . It ' s really amazing ... this profession (my future profession) is thrilling. my respect
Great job. Very inspiring. Thank you all for restoring the painting.
This is a truly emotional programme. Just like his Art. Huge Kudos to the restorers.I Had the pleasure of seeing these paintings in the tate in the early 80's, with my Mother, who had to leave the room due to the immense emotional impact that they caused her to experience.
A testament to the vast possibilities when a person cares about their work/craft/talent/skill...their Legacy!
Bravo Ladies!
As an artist, I feel morally ticked and offended that someone would deface someone's work because they put their time and effort in it but as someone who also feels like "it's all just art, man" .. I also can't help to feel like we place WAY TOO much value in the livelihood of people. Art is to be appreciated and respected but maybe...we shouldn't worship it.
@@Raphael3032 he wouldn't understand he would dead.
_mb_r да пошёл ты бестолочь
ben berk Ya, But you didn’t. And that’s the thing. Modern art is all about innovation and different techniques and making something that people haven’t seen before. They said in the video the painting is built up of many different layers of very thin paint to make the end result. That’s not something that you can do in five minutes it’s a long process; maybe it doesn’t mean anything to you but it did to the artist who spent many hours making something that he felt was important to him and other people share his vision. Maybe it’s not your thing, but you should have respect for the individuals who do enjoy it and the time that the artist spent on the painting.
ben berk well everyone has their own opinion. I’m not here to change yours just to point out that art makes people feel different things and Rothko makes you feel anger, Whereas I see a complex process. Neither of us is wrong we just see the world in a different way.
@ben berk While that's true for a pretty big part of the elite art community around white cube galleries, I feel like that's a super unfair and 'easy' excuse to disregard artists' work who have genuinely pushed the boundaries and made works that are thoughtful and showcase an immense level of talent and understanding of colour, symmetry and emotion. Rothko was the real deal. By 'looking him up' real quick on Google and just skimming through a few compressed images, you will in no way be able to really appreciate his work (I mean that's true for almost all of physical paintings--we miss out on so much detail and textures with the fact that we cannot fully place the work in our periperhy to enjoy it with all our senses). That being said, it's also absurd innit that people would go to jail over defacing a mixture of pigments in a 2d sheet. What do you think the artist himself would want to see played out if he were alive? You also gotta think why this was big news--the fact that people are still fascinated by art, and revere it so much (even though there's always cuts to arts programs in national budgets in a lot of places), people still spend millions to preserve it because that's like the closest thing to a tangible representation of beauty that humans can find (once we've done surviving for a living and start to live comfortably). :P The real party suffering here in all this is the artist (even though the artist is dead), he wasn't a troll who wanted some random probably misguided/oblivious dude to go to jail by doing something he had no idea of the magnitude of.
As a chemist I never knew the science behind this was so complex, nice :o
On 7 October 2012 another work from the same series, also titled Black on Maroon, was defaced with writing in black paint.[3] The perpetrator told the BBC "I'm not a vandal" and compared himself with surrealist artist Marcel Duchamp, adding "Art allows us to take what someone's done and put a new message on it." It was later revealed that the man was Polish national Wlodzimierz Umaniec. His addition to the painting had included his name and the number 12, followed by the sentence: "a potential piece of yellowism".[4] The following day Umaniec was arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage.[5] During the trial, prosecutor Gregor McKinley said the repair would cost £200,000.[1]
On 13 December 2012 Umaniec was jailed for two years at Inner London Crown Court, where Judge Roger Chapple told him that his actions had been, "entirely deliberate, planned and intentional". Talking about "yellowism" Judge Chapple added that it was "wholly and utterly unacceptable to promote it by damaging a work of art" which he called a "gift to the nation".[6] It was estimated that restoration of the painting might take up to 18 months to complete, with restorers having to source and apply the same range of materials employed by Rothko, which could include glue, synthetic resin and egg. The BBC's Arts Editor Will Gompertz explained that the ink from Umaniec's marker pen had bled all the way through the canvas, causing "a deep wound not a superficial graze" and that the vandal had caused "significant damage".[7] In order to work out how best to restore the painting conservators created a replica of the damaged work and tested various solvents.[1] In May 2014 the restored painting was returned to public display[1] and Umaniec offered a public apology, saying: "I apologise to [the] British people for what I did. I suppose I wanted to change the art world but of course I did it in a very, very wrong way. I spent almost a year and a half in prison and the British people have paid huge restoration costs, so it definitely wasn't worth doing it, and I'm sure the restoration team has done a wonderful job and I encourage everyone to see the restored picture."[8]
Fascinating! Thanks for posting this! And, congratulations on a dedicated job!
There was more artistry and thought put into the restoration than the piece itself.
sounds like you don't know anything about art :)
@@maryandchild Art is not something you "learn" but something you feel. It's like music. It feels nice becouse it is nice. Do you need to understand music to enjoy it? Then why does this so called "art" has to be the same? Rothko to me is not art. It's a mess in the form of a canvas. He probably couldn't even draw a tree.
@@MrMaxer13 have you seen any of rothko's art that isn't his color field paintings? do you understand what he was trying to do with those and how they were created? this is why you need to "learn" about art. because you are talking out of your ass. we aren't talking about whether individuals think art is "good" but what technique and theory and skill went into their creation, which isn't a feeling but a fact.
@@MrMaxer13 you're wrong though. There's a lot of theory behind art that you learn. Also rothko could paint anything, he just chose not to.
Did he not varnish? I suspect he didn't, otherwise i doubt the ink would have been much of an issue.
I doubt Rothko even knew what varnish is
Dude it is Rothko. He is like Kanye West of painters. That itself Speaks so much.
He chose not to varnish. Varnish has been around since ancient Egypt. Everybody knows what varnish is.
he did not use a varnish, however, you are right that if he had this would have been easier but none the less wow! the fix job was amazing!
Varnish after years time must be stripped and reapplied. Varnish yellows as it ages. Rothko was going for the immediacy of the visual perception of almost pure pigment.
This is magical to restore,to bring back to life as the Rothko remains spreading its magic. Thanks for sharing!
Rachel and Bronwyn should have their own show. Their skill and dedication to their craft is heart wrenching, in the best possible way. 💙
in 5 minutes the restorers painted a canvas that didnt look too different than his work.
Somebody who has seen a Rothko in person answer this; do the paintings really start pulsing when you look at them? Eventually, I'm going to the Rothko Chapel so I can see for myself.
Barnaby Wylde Rothko's work, as with all art can only really be appreciated in reality. No reproduction gets close to the depth and colour, texture and scale.
I was really surprised how emotionally affected I was while looking at a Rothko painting. I understand that it is not for everyone but I really enjoyed his work in real life.
This so amazing to watch the process, painstaking, but amazing. I love Rothko works, that feeling of being consumed is incredible.
I'm afraid to admit but I had never heard of Rothko before viewing this documentary. I do remember hearing of the damage done to a significant painting at the Tate at the time it occurred. I feel that this (I'm never sure what to call the youtube ?videos /?documentaries / ? clips) was an excellent and very informative '? Video?' documentation of the incredible world of conservation and repair of paintings. I know that every painter has such a wide range of techniques and materials to utilize resulting in the need for so many differences in restoration techniques. I thank the Tate for showing me the way this restoration was done including all the techniques and collaborations and workmanship that was involved. Thankyou so much.
I'm loving the amount of women in control of this project.
herev we go again with the "woman" thing.
For real? Just enjoy the gosh darn video it has nothing to do with gender!
I'm surprised it didn't blow up to be honest.
I didn’t even noticed...not sure why you want to start controversy.
Lul if I had said that about a man comprised group id be sexist!
Do you think Rothko might have felt as DuChamp did when the Large Glass was accidentally broken? Feeling as if it was now complete?
No. I don't either. 2 years in prison? Not equal punishment. Allow me to tattoo his forehead.
Great team, hard research, huge work, and positive doubts all the way... Respect for these people and their skills.
The passion those people have... It inspires me
Sooooo sad this happened to a Rothko, his works are amazing.tate team are soo talented!
Rothko is amazing??? lol
Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Raphael and Picasso are amazing. Rothko...nope. Just my opinion.
Rothko makes Warhol look like Vermeer
... What?
@@Superphilipp it's just some moron who doesn't understand anything about art
Love Rothko....always nice to see and hear Christopher.....Before I knew of him I happened to wonder into an empty gallery at a museum. I burst into tears almost immediately. His painting and my reaction was on my mind for weeks. Finally I took the time to find out about Mark Rothko. I think he would have been pleased at my experience of his work.
Rothko sucks
Well done! That was truly an heroic effort! ❤ Thank you.
I think the general problem that people have with art like this is that they feel that the general consensus is based around the opinions of a few, or even one influential person and it ends up spreading like wildfire. I imagine that, "Well this person said it's good so it must be, whether I'm educated enough to understand it or not" is a very common thought in situations like that, and the waterfall effect is not to be underestimated. I tend to agree on that subject. I think our society has become almost completely based around that philosophy. What somebody more hip than me says is hip must be hip. It spirals out of control in some cases that can be pretty glaring at times, such as TV and pop culture in general.
"works by such abstract artists as Paul Klee, Joan Miro, Pollock and Mark Rothko were relatively easy to forge"- NYTimes. A 75 year old Chinese immigrant was able to fake works by such artists as pollock and rothko for 15 years without getting caught. The man was an expert in traditional portraits, had no knowledge of the abstract artists techniques, but chose the more simplistic styles because they were the easiest to fake without getting caught for a long period of time. He painted the fakes for a reported $500-$7k a piece. His handlers then sold the works to the prestigious Knoedler & Co NY , which had been selling art for 150 years, for$30 million. Knoedler then sold them to collectors for about $80 million. They are now out of business and facing multiple lawsuits because of the incident. Rothko had absolutely no drawing, painting, or art training in general until his 20's so his techniques as well as his paintings are simple to say the least.
Van Gogh learned to draw and paint when he was 27/28 years old. That doesn't mean anything.
kawakami789 and your point is.?
kawakami789 most successful artists have had forgers copy their work ,or other artists paint " in the style of " , this is not limited to contemporary art.
This is exactly how the art world is ruined by foofoo dust academic navel-gazing nonsense. Art used to be the realm of the State and Church, at least they demanded high quality work. Now it is the realm of the filthy-rich, who have no fucking clue what they are doing. This keeps art irrelevant. Our ONLY guarantee against forgery is demanding that artists work hard and create work that is difficult to reproduce. "My kid could make that" IS a valid argument against weak art.
I was wondering why a lot of lady friend of mine liked rothko that much, and i eventually understood that his work needed sensibility and a real connection to emotions to appreciate it. Its just too bad you can't see it from that perspective, abstract art isn't shit, its just more on the 'savoir être' side of life. 'My kid could do that' ..Your kid is the most zen, happy creative human nearby, but i guess you'll dismiss it saying he doesn't know shit.
Fascinating the attention to detail used to ensure the painting was restored perfectly was so interesting to see & ensuring that the graffiti was removed without destroying the art piece underneath.
Hats off to everyone involved with this restoration that was nerve wracking just to watch
The fact they are probably spending more time restoring the painting and fixing it, than what it actually took to paint it, is kinda funny
This painting obviously took a long time to make. They did mention it's made by using many very thin layers of different types of paint.
Guy Montag uneducated moron
@Guy Montag actually 2 red strips on a black background
@ben berk everyone can assemble an IKEA table, but not everyone can design or engineer one.
@ben berk literal moron, the fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't art, yes you could do that but will it be worth something? nope. You aren't an art critic and as a half decent artist, your comment was way more insulting than Rothko's art. lol
what did he actually write??
'Wlodzimierz Umaniec A potential piece of yellowism'
Vladimir Umanets '12 A Potential Piece of yellowism
Beautiful work and effort. This makes me happy to know that human beings are capable of this kind of story.
one of the best videos Tate's ever made
as an artist I find this all a bit silly and I think Rothko would too, but I appreciate their passion
jonas Why?
@@jklroxmysox111 more like "Jonas who?"
The original painting just seems like some bars of color... :x Maybe I need to see all 9 together or maybe I just don't understand art. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Always down to learn.
Edit: not trying to say that makes it okay to deface someone's work. Just that the original painting is being praised for this deep meaningful piece and I just don't get it.
Rothko's paintings don't have solid meaning (as in, they don't represent a specific thing such as love or war). It's hard to fully appreciate these paintings digitally, but what's special about his paintings is the presence they have and their power over a viewer. They are created in layers, so the colours are almost infinitely rich, meaning you see more the longer you look. The edges are undefined and almost seem to vibrate. It all creates a dreamy, almost hallucenogenic affect which can overwhelm viewers and make them very emotional. But at the end of the day, you either 'get it' or you don't and if you don't, that's fine. Not everyone clicks with the same art :)
You have to see them in place. I have a poster of one of them, but that's only a reminder, like a postcard, of the real experience. Maybe they won't be your thing anyway, but they really are imposing when you see them physically.
Not to sound really pretentious, but you really need to see them in person. They are less about conveying a specific image, and more about conveying a feeling. In the TATE they are shown in this low lighting. The paintings are large, overwhelming blocks of colour. The more you focus on them more you feel this dreamlike experience...It's really cool actually. I had a pretty emotional response to them, but you could say that's because I studied Art History and discussed Rothko in-depth in class. It is worth noting though that my dad, who's never paid attention to the academics behind art, felt a similar way.
What has been considered 'art' has changed a lot over the centuries, and between cultures. Personally, I like to think of art as something that deliberately seeks to provoke an emotional response in a viewer. So that means, for me at least, da Vinci, Monet, Warhol, and Rothko is all 'art'! You may think differently (and that's completely understandable!) but I encourage you to do some reading about the context and meaning behind modern art, especially if you don't understand it :) You may come away thinking its all hog wash, but at least you'll be more knowledgable about it! ;)
(I think it's the same for non-modern art as well, to be honest, but that may just be because I think Art History is super interesting! But I especially wish that people cared to learn more about modern art, as it is sort of uniformly hated and derided. I hear less people say, for example, "Why is the Mona Lisa considered artistically important? It's just a potato-faced woman with no eyebrows smirking," then "Why is this painting of two red lines on a black background considered art?")
The feeling is like walking through a dark room lit by a sunset through various windows. It is mellowing and evokes a sensation of warmth but also loneliness. It is peaceful, and brings back memories, but those fuzzy shadows feel like something is missing. The room is so empty and so warm.
But you do need to walk around and let the part of your brain that works in shape and color to take in the whole sense of the place.
Jesus what people call "art" these days. He was probably drunk while painting this. But people try so hard at finding some DEEP meaning in shit art. We just don't appreciate art and can't look past these simple lines right? Right my ass.
The restoration process is so delicate and refined, yes, unless you show them public may not be able to locate the scars. But those who are ardent fans,who have viewed the art deeply surely will feel that energy, each painting has a story to tell..
Who ever did this is a absolute mad lad
People will always say "Horizontal red lines on black? That's not art, anyone could do that!" To which I say, "Well, then why DON'T you?"
Gwen Stephan many would but would languish
I don't want to waste energy and resources to make something shitty lol
Because I choose to make art that requires talent. Not an abundance of materials. 💁🏻♀️
Because they're not pretentious as fuck.
I have a question. Since from what I've read in the comments, this painting doesn't have a meaning. Would it be wrong to flip the painting in any way?
I would like to own a Rothko more than any other painting
Rafael Henriquez how can you ask WHY?
Hyram Sempere
nah its a legitimate question for sure
+Greg Warner own mine i'm a great painter no joke .
This is not art rothko is a fraud no skill involved what so ever
The problem you're having is that you've obviously never seen an actual Rothko in person. There are certan artists whose works simply do not translate through print or film media... Rothko is one of these, Agnes Martin is another. I assure you if your were to visit the Tate or the Rothko Chapel or to see any other Rothko in situ that your opinion would change... as a matter of fact I'd guarantee it!
Outstanding work! Was very emotional to watch
Absolutely amazing work. So perceive, delicate, and methodical. The slow work was well worth it.
-_- At this point I'm sure artists are just making who they want to make famous artist through connections rather than skill.
...
On a side note. The Restoration team is beyond masters. Like holy hell why can't we just have a museum filled with restoration pieces.
This feels a lot like all the musicians who waxed poetically about the difference and depth of a Stradivarius violins. Lots of circle jerking about the indescribable flavor the aged wood brings to music. But none of them could tell the difference when compared to a regular violin. That's abstract art in a nutshell. When the lady showed her material tests, and the other lady was like "yeah but this one totally doesn't have art in it right???"
Max oh shove it
SamaChaos you hate him for speaking the truth
On the contrary, Francisco, I hate him for spouting some dumb bullshit generic retoric and thinking he's cool for doing so
Ur mad cause it's true lol . It's a well known fact that abstract paintings are the easiest to forge and are very hard to detect without a stupid amount of energy put into doing so. They spent 9 months restoring a red line. Also check out that video of all the musicians mate. It's not rhetoric lol. I love you Merry christmas
It is a fantastic job - very interesting to get a glimpse of how it is done
God that was amazing and very thrilling. Thanks so much for this amazing video. 💕🦄🖌️🖌️🖌️🖌️🖌️🖌️🖌️
First world problems.
(Don't get me wrong, i too love Rothko's work.)
The reproduction at 2:38 is better than the original itself!
i'll be on tenterhooks the whole time. OMG - a Rothko!!!! he's so special, so unique. a Rothko for cryin' out loud!!
i can't fathom it. oh, please, can they fix it??!! 5:12 /// They Did It! amazing touch-up cause it was really very tricky and difficult. relief - it's his work again. thank goodness. What an incredible production to create this documentary!
also, learning a hell of a lot about his technique - so cool ! thank you sooo much for uploading this fantastic video :)
just being there on Nov 5th and what has been done is really miraculous! A great thank you to all experts who have devoted so much efforts, knowledge , perseverance and care
I'mma be honest.... It's two maroon lines. I know art is abstract or objective, but... It's two maroon lines over black painted canvas.
Well, besides the medium and amount of painting skill being near irrelevant when it comes to this kind of art, some skill was requires to build up the layers in that painting. I recommend you watch the video "The case for Rothko" by the art assignment on youtube if you're still not convinced about his art
Noah Jensen, skill required to build up paint layers? Are you serious? That takes time to learn, not talent. The difference between art and a painting is talent.
@@michellebee2422 You are not the arbiter of what skill or talent is, do not act like you decide who have and do not have it. Besides, as I said, the medium, and therefore also skill (depending on what you mean that) of the artist, is near irrelevant to the quality of the work. If you disagree, you're behind 70 years of art theory. It's not up for debate, there is a huge body of work on this stuff.
And no, the difference between art and a painting is that a painting is a subcatagory of art. Those terms have litterally nothing to do with the quality of an artwork. Don't pull definitions out of your ass
Noah Jensen, I can smell the first year art history course on you from here. 😂
@@michellebee2422 Was never taught art history, not that it makes much difference. The earth isn't anyless round just because you don't believe is. Art is art, and while you are welcome to enter the debate, i would appriciate you actually did you research beforehand.
1 day to paint, 18 months to restore
I don’t understand how this is “beautiful” art. But I know a lot of other people do and love this art so I’m not going to hate on it. I don’t personally understand it enough to actually hate it. But I think people who have to fix and restore prices of art are incredibly talented. Sorry if I offended anyone in this comment.
Grateful for their work. I understand the incident and now that it has been realized, I very much prefer Rothko’s in their original form.
i get how incredibly important it is to restore paintings, but the restorators are all acting like they are working and looking at a mutulated corpse
Lorenz Niel i mean they are passionate about art and restoration, so i get it
They freaking are. Sheesh.
why restore it? just paint another red square
formidable vidéo sur les recherches préalables à la restauration... Vraiment très intéressant !!!
This was surprisingly emotional to me. To think that there are actually people who obsess over leaving their mark on something so intensely they'll literally damage or destroy it -- make it so a thing can *never* return to what it once was -- is immensely sad!
I do love art but I do find SOME, arty people so pretentious
What kind of horrible human being would someone want to deface a Rothko?
Me? They're shit.
Rothko the indelible. Imagine making art that elicited such devotion. One can only dream.
All the test pieces made by the restorators are works of arts in their own rights, and should be conserved as well as the masterpiece of Rothko, they could even be displayed in some fashion...