It is preÂciseÂly the posÂsiÂbilÂiÂty of exerÂcisÂing choice whereÂin our lot difÂfers from that of the artists of the past. For choice implies responÂsiÂbilÂiÂty to one’s conÂscience, and, in the conÂscience of the artist, the Truth of Art is foreÂmost. — Mark Rothko
Born MarÂcus Rothkowitz in 1903, the painter Mark Rothko immiÂgratÂed with his famÂiÂly from RusÂsia at age 10, fleeÂing the perÂseÂcuÂtion of Jews in his home counÂtry. He grew up poor in PortÂland, OreÂgon, won a scholÂarÂship to Yale in 1921, but “found himÂself once more an outÂsider, stigÂmaÂtized as a Jew,” says James Payne in the Great Art Explained video above. FeelÂing alienÂatÂed and disÂafÂfectÂed, he dropped out and moved to New York (to the disÂmay of his famÂiÂly), “to wanÂder around,” he latÂer wrote, ”bum about, starve a bit,” and paint. He co-foundÂed a group of modÂern artists who exhibÂitÂed freÂquentÂly togethÂer and won critÂiÂcal attenÂtion, but Rothko strugÂgled finanÂcialÂly into midÂdle age and only began sellÂing his work durÂing the “colÂor field” periÂod that made him famous in the 1950s.
It wasn’t until 1958 that Rothko received his first major comÂmisÂsion, for what would become the SeaÂgram Murals, so-called because they were meant for the luxÂuÂriÂous Four SeaÂsons restauÂrant in the newÂly-built SeaÂgram BuildÂing on Park Avenue, a glitÂterÂing symÂbol of New York’s opuÂlence, designed by archiÂtects Mies van der Rohe and Philip JohnÂson and filled with paintÂings by Rothko’s conÂtemÂpoÂraries. Rothko spent two years workÂing on the project, a series of paintÂings to fill the restauÂranÂt’s smallÂer, excluÂsive dinÂing room. He proÂduced a total of 30 panÂels, sevÂen of which were to fit togethÂer in the restauÂrant. Then, almost two years after receivÂing the comÂmisÂsion for $35,000 (roughÂly $334,000 today), he abruptÂly changed his mind, returned the monÂey, and withÂdrew the works.
Ten years after Rothko’s deciÂsion, “on the 25th of FebÂruÂary 1970,” Payne tells us, “the Tate gallery in LonÂdon received nine Mark Rothko canÂvasÂes” — panÂels from the SeaÂgram Murals colÂlecÂtion — “a genÂerÂous donaÂtion from the artist himÂself. A few hours latÂer, Rothko was found dead in his stuÂdio on East 69th Street in ManÂhatÂtan. The 66-year old painter had takÂen his own life…. His suiÂcide would change everyÂthing, and shape the way we respond to his work.” But perÂhaps it’s not that tragÂic event that best proÂvides us with an underÂstandÂing of the artist’s motiÂvaÂtions. “Rothko’s conÂtract with sociÂety was not torn up that day in 1970,” argues Jonathan Jones at The Guardian, “but a decade earÂliÂer, in 1959,” when Rothko, “intense, soliÂtary, leftÂwing, used to poverÂty and failÂure,” conÂceived of an art to “harÂrow” well-heeled dinÂers at the Four SeaÂsons.
Rothko explicÂitÂly modÂeled the SeaÂgram MurÂal project after what he called the “somber vault” of Michelangelo’s LauÂrentÂian Library in FloÂrence, which he visÂitÂed on a trip to Italy in 1959. “He achieved just the kind of feelÂing I’m after,” said Rothko. “He makes the viewÂers feel that they are trapped in a room where all the doors and winÂdows are bricked up, so that all they can do is butt their heads forÂevÂer against the wall.” AbanÂdonÂing the brighter colÂor schemes of his past works, he turned to blacks, reds, and maroons, a palette drawn from mosaÂic walls he’d seen in a PomÂpeiÂian vilÂla. Rothko reportÂedÂly told jourÂnalÂist John FisÂchÂer, an ediÂtor at Harper’s, “I hope to ruin the appetite of every son of a bitch who ever eats in that room.” Aware of how his colÂor field paintÂings moved viewÂers, often to tears, he hoped the murals would ampliÂfy the effect to an unpalatÂable degree.
Instead, when Rothko himÂself dined at the Four SeaÂsons for the first and only time, he spoiled his own appetite for the comÂmisÂsion. “AnyÂbody who will eat that kind of food for those kinds of prices will nevÂer look at a paintÂing of mine,” he told his assisÂtant. That very evening he withÂdrew the paintÂings. “The fact that Rothko acceptÂed the comÂmisÂsion in the first place is puzÂzling,” ShiÂra Wolfe writes at ArtÂland. “He was revoltÂed by capÂiÂtalÂist AmerÂiÂca, and felt disÂdain towards anyÂone who conÂtributed to it – and the Four SeaÂsons RestauÂrant, in New York’s swankiÂest skyÂscraper, was desÂtined to become the very epitÂoÂme of America’s capÂiÂtalÂism.” From its beginÂnings, the artist “felt ambivaÂlent about the comÂmisÂsion, and had a conÂtract drawn up which would allow him to back out of the deal and retrieve his paintÂings if necÂesÂsary.”
It was the necesÂsiÂty of choice, even in the face of poverÂty and obscuÂriÂty, that most moved Rothko, as he wrote in a manÂuÂscript from the 1940s, posthuÂmousÂly pubÂlished by his son ChristoÂpher Rothko as The Artist’s RealÂiÂty: PhilosoÂphies of Art. In the book, Rothko conÂtrasts the modÂern artist’s fate with that of artists of the past who lived by the whims of dukes, kings, and popes.
It will be pointÂed out that the artist’s lot is the same today, that the marÂket, through its denial or affordÂing of the means of susÂteÂnance, exerts the same comÂpulÂsion. Yet there is this vital difÂferÂence: the civÂiÂlizaÂtions enuÂmerÂatÂed above had the temÂpoÂral and spirÂiÂtuÂal powÂer to sumÂmarÂiÂly enforce their demands. The Fires of Hell, exile, and, in the backÂground, the rack and stake, were corÂrecÂtives if perÂsuaÂsion failed. Today the comÂpulÂsion is Hunger, and the expeÂriÂence of the last four hunÂdred years has shown us that hunger is not nearÂly as comÂpelling as the immiÂnence of Hell and Death. Since the passÂing of the spirÂiÂtuÂal and temÂpoÂral patron, the hisÂtoÂry of art is the hisÂtoÂry of men who, for the most part, have preÂferred hunger to comÂpliÂance, and who have conÂsidÂered the choice worthÂwhile. And choice it is, for all the tragÂic disÂparÂiÂty between the two alterÂnaÂtives.
Rothko was “obviÂousÂly torn between his hatred for the wealth and greed of capÂiÂtalÂism and his desire to creÂate his own speÂcial place for his art,” writes Wolfe. In the year after his death, just such a place would open, a murÂal project that realÂized a very difÂferÂent set of intenÂtions.
OrigÂiÂnalÂly a colÂlabÂoÂraÂtion between Philip JohnÂson and Rothko – until the archiÂtect bowed out due to the painter’s pecuÂliar vision – the non-secÂtarÂiÂan Rothko Chapel in HousÂton debuted in late FebÂruÂary 1971. An octagÂoÂnal, cloisÂtered buildÂing with fourÂteen large Rothko murals, the Chapel was comÂmisÂsioned by colÂlecÂtor and patron Dominique de Menil when she saw the SeaÂgram Murals takÂing shape in Rothko’s purÂpose-built New York stuÂdio. It’s posÂsiÂble, and perÂhaps morÂbidÂly temptÂing, to judge Rothko’s work by the tragedy of his final perÂsonÂal act, but he had more to say in his work after death. In the SeaÂgram Murals, Rothko attemptÂed to realÂize a phiÂlosÂoÂphy of art he had articÂuÂlatÂed years earÂliÂer in The Artist’s RealÂiÂty: “The law of AuthorÂiÂty,” whether that of the Church, the State, or the MarÂket, “has this savÂing grace; it can be cirÂcumÂnavÂiÂgatÂed.”
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
Watch the Tate ModÂern Restore Mark Rothko’s VanÂdalÂized PaintÂing, Black on Maroon: 18 Months of Work ConÂdensed Into 17 MinÂutes
Great Art Explained: Watch 15 Minute IntroÂducÂtions to Great Works by Warhol, Rothko, Kahlo, PicasÂso & More
The MoMA TeachÂes You How to Paint Like PolÂlock, Rothko, de KoonÂing & OthÂer Abstract Painters
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness