I am lucky enough to be back in Paris and experience going to see the Mark Rothko retrospective exhibition at the Fondation Louis Vuitton. It prompted me to re-read A Splash of Colour. It would seem that I must have colour on my mind and consequently had two great revelations at the exhibition. The first of which, and the most surprising, was that Rothko was formerly a figurative painter with impressionist overtones in his early career. His work, almost defined as eras, had a gradual progression in style. From his early portraiture, to a series of work based on the New York subway and it architectural shapes and how the transiting passengers inhabit them, then progressing through more lyrical abstraction, before settling into the multiform large format "blocks of colour", the bold abstract expressionist paintings that we all recognise as Rothko's signature works. The second was that Rothko loathed the label of "colourist" as if it was an insult to the sensibilities he strived to achieve in his works, despite his works sometimes being described as “colour field” paintings. Let me explain, as this is in no way a detraction away from the subject or contents of the Splash of Colour, quite the contrary. In Rothko's words he was exploring light through the expression of colour, their luminosity and vibrancies. The subtleties of his light or feathering brush work and subsequent layering of pigments creating depth and a myriad of tones and hues rather than straight forward expressions of colour. Colour, he stated, is "merely an instrument" for greater emotional expression.
Matthew, I love your idea that "our knowledge of – and list of names of – colours is constantly expanding " and that we are still discovering colours and ways to describe them. It’s like a quantum departure from the grounding in Newtonian physics or the mathematical measurement used to define the visible spectrum of light, ROYGBIV, the spectral colours. Not unlike what I think Rothko was achieving in his work and his loathing of the label colourist. What’s wonderful about human eyes is their ability to see more than just spectral colours. They are able to discern the mixing of spectral wavelengths in light, giving way to an infinite palette of unsaturated colours. The in between and far beyond colours, a bountiful myriad of subjective responses.
In the subdued light of one the galleries of the retrospective were a series of seemingly black paintings, exquisitely lit around their perimeters. Challenging monochromatic works! Through a longer observation and an adjustment of your eyes layers of faint colour peaked through. Tonal depths, you might say, began to appear and the gallery seemed like it was full of contemplation. A room of people looking for and discovering deeper meaning in the hues and shades of deeper expression. Theoretically black is an anomaly, it’s not a colour. It absorbs all the visible spectrum of light and in essence is the absence of light. In the purest sense of black all light is absorbed and nothing reflects back. But, thanks goodness, in art its considered a colour as it deepens mood and visual impact. These Rothko works, in among his usual bold colour paintings remain revelatory but sober explorations of light.
So in many ways I think of that splash of colour as an exploration in light. I remember one of my early mentors, Terry Bryne (ACS ) a master cinematographer who had a great passion for art, explaining to me that the great cinematographers always paint with light and in the flutter of the shutter, capturing it in the light sensitive layers of a film emulsion passing through the film gate . A magical process of capturing dreams and memories in combination of physics and chemistry.
I love so much of what you’ve written here John. And, shortly alongside reading A Splash Of Colour, I can’t imagine a much better thing to do than visit a Rothko retrospective! Thank you for sharing your revelations, because they've also educated me in numerous ways. Like you, I had no idea Rothko started off painting figuratively, with impressionist overtones. But of course it makes perfect sense now that you say it, because I don’t think a painter could reach the heights of complexities he’s managed to reach, without first passing through various techniques and styles that I probably taught him (or showed him) what he DIDN’T want to paint. And I love your clarification (via him) that instead of ‘painting colours’, he was actually ‘exploring light, through the expressions, vibrancies and luminosities of colour.’ That’s amazing. And that he saw colour as 'merely an instrument for greater emotional expression.' Fantastic.
Also intriguing what you say about our eyes being able to see more than just spectral colours. I couldn’t wrap my head around this at first, so had to go searching… but eventually got it clear... that because mixing light waves is an additive process (versus mixing pigments which is subtractive), this enables us to see unsaturated colours such as pink, purple and magenta, because these can only be made by mixing multiple spectral wavelengths (colours), but these are not colours that are ‘present’ in the so-called visible spectrum. Kinda’ mind-blowing. I found loads of information presented simply and clearly, here: https://www.datacolor.com/learn/basics-of-color/
Weirdly enough though, all of this has taken me to a totally different subject, namely: identity politics and how ridiculous (to me) so much of it is. The amount of energy that gets spent (and wasted) on drawing lines in the sand between people, based on skin colour - when I am now so clear on the fact that colour is totally subjective! It’s as futile as suggesting that ‘blue’ is totally understood, by all people, as meaning exactly the same thing. Oh really? So this also means that the experience of being black or brown or white-skinned can also be ‘defined’? At a fundamental level, human beings are expressions of light - we come from stardust, and are nurtured by sunlight. Why can’t we get on with simply acknowledging that? Instead of arguing and fighting about which wavelengths are reflecting off your skin, as opposed to mine? Meanwhile totally missing what we share: that we are all creatures of light.
Thanks for taking me with you and helping me to look with more intensity, so that, like you and those others contemplating black in a dimly-lit room, I’ve been able to discover additional meanings in the hues and shades of deeper expression.
Oh my goodness, this is so informative and fascinating. I do love that funky table, btw. I knew that what I'd always assumed were white marble statues in Italy, France, and Greece were nothing of the sort, but this certainly broadens my perspective on the ancients... in so many ways! Thank you for this education.
You're totally welcome Ms Wadds. Yeah that table's pretty great, non?! Many other beautiful design pieces on their website as well. And as far as the ancients, yes I think technology is rapidly bringing us so many more ways to excavate ancient knowledge. Would be great if we could learn more from history, instead of being so good at forgetting!
Thanks Matthew - Ethel T would be proud of you! I love your bright thread - just what is needed to keep us more-or-less on track.
...and this comment is bringing bright colour to my cheeks. Thank you so very much for such kindness Patti. Hugely appreciated.
I am lucky enough to be back in Paris and experience going to see the Mark Rothko retrospective exhibition at the Fondation Louis Vuitton. It prompted me to re-read A Splash of Colour. It would seem that I must have colour on my mind and consequently had two great revelations at the exhibition. The first of which, and the most surprising, was that Rothko was formerly a figurative painter with impressionist overtones in his early career. His work, almost defined as eras, had a gradual progression in style. From his early portraiture, to a series of work based on the New York subway and it architectural shapes and how the transiting passengers inhabit them, then progressing through more lyrical abstraction, before settling into the multiform large format "blocks of colour", the bold abstract expressionist paintings that we all recognise as Rothko's signature works. The second was that Rothko loathed the label of "colourist" as if it was an insult to the sensibilities he strived to achieve in his works, despite his works sometimes being described as “colour field” paintings. Let me explain, as this is in no way a detraction away from the subject or contents of the Splash of Colour, quite the contrary. In Rothko's words he was exploring light through the expression of colour, their luminosity and vibrancies. The subtleties of his light or feathering brush work and subsequent layering of pigments creating depth and a myriad of tones and hues rather than straight forward expressions of colour. Colour, he stated, is "merely an instrument" for greater emotional expression.
Matthew, I love your idea that "our knowledge of – and list of names of – colours is constantly expanding " and that we are still discovering colours and ways to describe them. It’s like a quantum departure from the grounding in Newtonian physics or the mathematical measurement used to define the visible spectrum of light, ROYGBIV, the spectral colours. Not unlike what I think Rothko was achieving in his work and his loathing of the label colourist. What’s wonderful about human eyes is their ability to see more than just spectral colours. They are able to discern the mixing of spectral wavelengths in light, giving way to an infinite palette of unsaturated colours. The in between and far beyond colours, a bountiful myriad of subjective responses.
In the subdued light of one the galleries of the retrospective were a series of seemingly black paintings, exquisitely lit around their perimeters. Challenging monochromatic works! Through a longer observation and an adjustment of your eyes layers of faint colour peaked through. Tonal depths, you might say, began to appear and the gallery seemed like it was full of contemplation. A room of people looking for and discovering deeper meaning in the hues and shades of deeper expression. Theoretically black is an anomaly, it’s not a colour. It absorbs all the visible spectrum of light and in essence is the absence of light. In the purest sense of black all light is absorbed and nothing reflects back. But, thanks goodness, in art its considered a colour as it deepens mood and visual impact. These Rothko works, in among his usual bold colour paintings remain revelatory but sober explorations of light.
So in many ways I think of that splash of colour as an exploration in light. I remember one of my early mentors, Terry Bryne (ACS ) a master cinematographer who had a great passion for art, explaining to me that the great cinematographers always paint with light and in the flutter of the shutter, capturing it in the light sensitive layers of a film emulsion passing through the film gate . A magical process of capturing dreams and memories in combination of physics and chemistry.
I love so much of what you’ve written here John. And, shortly alongside reading A Splash Of Colour, I can’t imagine a much better thing to do than visit a Rothko retrospective! Thank you for sharing your revelations, because they've also educated me in numerous ways. Like you, I had no idea Rothko started off painting figuratively, with impressionist overtones. But of course it makes perfect sense now that you say it, because I don’t think a painter could reach the heights of complexities he’s managed to reach, without first passing through various techniques and styles that I probably taught him (or showed him) what he DIDN’T want to paint. And I love your clarification (via him) that instead of ‘painting colours’, he was actually ‘exploring light, through the expressions, vibrancies and luminosities of colour.’ That’s amazing. And that he saw colour as 'merely an instrument for greater emotional expression.' Fantastic.
Also intriguing what you say about our eyes being able to see more than just spectral colours. I couldn’t wrap my head around this at first, so had to go searching… but eventually got it clear... that because mixing light waves is an additive process (versus mixing pigments which is subtractive), this enables us to see unsaturated colours such as pink, purple and magenta, because these can only be made by mixing multiple spectral wavelengths (colours), but these are not colours that are ‘present’ in the so-called visible spectrum. Kinda’ mind-blowing. I found loads of information presented simply and clearly, here: https://www.datacolor.com/learn/basics-of-color/
Weirdly enough though, all of this has taken me to a totally different subject, namely: identity politics and how ridiculous (to me) so much of it is. The amount of energy that gets spent (and wasted) on drawing lines in the sand between people, based on skin colour - when I am now so clear on the fact that colour is totally subjective! It’s as futile as suggesting that ‘blue’ is totally understood, by all people, as meaning exactly the same thing. Oh really? So this also means that the experience of being black or brown or white-skinned can also be ‘defined’? At a fundamental level, human beings are expressions of light - we come from stardust, and are nurtured by sunlight. Why can’t we get on with simply acknowledging that? Instead of arguing and fighting about which wavelengths are reflecting off your skin, as opposed to mine? Meanwhile totally missing what we share: that we are all creatures of light.
Thanks for taking me with you and helping me to look with more intensity, so that, like you and those others contemplating black in a dimly-lit room, I’ve been able to discover additional meanings in the hues and shades of deeper expression.
Oh my goodness, this is so informative and fascinating. I do love that funky table, btw. I knew that what I'd always assumed were white marble statues in Italy, France, and Greece were nothing of the sort, but this certainly broadens my perspective on the ancients... in so many ways! Thank you for this education.
You're totally welcome Ms Wadds. Yeah that table's pretty great, non?! Many other beautiful design pieces on their website as well. And as far as the ancients, yes I think technology is rapidly bringing us so many more ways to excavate ancient knowledge. Would be great if we could learn more from history, instead of being so good at forgetting!