text: A variety of people use art to convey their beliefs and ideas in the context of nature. Art continues to be a crucial component of identity. One of the greatest practitioners of the medium, whose works can be found in the Museum of Modern Art as Mark Rothko's (MoMA). They were the most well-liked pieces of public domain art and have since been cited as the most problematic pieces of art displayed in 2015. Even non-art enthusiasts have found themselves expressing their thoughts on Rothko's distinctive approach. Among the many who have described their opinion are John Canady, Robert M. Coates, Robert Goldwater, Katherine Kuh, Thomas Hess and Max Kozloff. Overall, Rothko’s major exhibition at MoMA in 1961 features critics who demonstrated that the style was unique and eye-catching with many expressing the irresistible nature they are even to those not interested in art (Selz 8).
  One of the central critiques of the art was John Canaday. In his critique of Rothko’s work, Canaday presented the author as a person who was more focused on being an anti-critic critic. He did not care about what he later termed as being the “less-is-more approach” when referring the 1961 art. He later examined what other critics thought about Rothko’s work because much of it was praise on Rothko’s work. Canaday’s issue has nothing to do with Rothko being a great artist but it was more about people praising Rothko simply because others were doing so (Selz 6).
  Robert M. Coates has also commented that the work of Mark Rothko was nothing more than what he would describe as decorative art. He thought that the graphics were visually stunning and impressive and could be perceived to be without substance. However, Coates was not pleased by the 1961 art in the review that he writes where he claimed that Rothko had used blurred, yet vibrant and levitating angles that he accused of being self-receptive. In a statement in his critique, Canaday asserted that “It is a considerable tribute to any painter to say, as one can say of Rothko, that his art stimulates a kind of self-receptiveness in the observer” (Selz 15). He thought that in the process of saying so much more, the cultists vitiate his subsequent powers by drawing focus to the apparent setbacks.
  The other artist who commented on Rothko’s major exhibition at MoMA in 1961 was Thomas Hess. The American painter with a Jewish decent described that Rothko’s work was gentle and eye-rocking considering the edge-glowing finishes that he observed. Checking the exhibition, he thought that it provokes strong and violent illusions that also involve sensations of motion. He would compare the image to the series of portrait of the same type produced by other painters and noted that they would often appears similar, but Rothko’s pieces would be differentiated by the literary kinship yield that clearly explained what the artist was trying to describe when producing the image. He is also believed to have advocated for the principle where he would assert that a paint ought to be able to distance itself from the spectator In his view, Rothko’s 1961 works demonstrated the truth in this statement considering the way the viewers would become so deeply attached to the images they were seeing in the museum (The Editors of ART News).
  It is also important to relate the perception brought by Robert Goldwater. He is a widely appreciated historian with an established reputation an unquestioned integrity and who was a key director in the Rothko Foundation. In his assessment he would refer Rothko’s works as to having kept an oewvre out of the marketplace to state that the artist’s style was unique and incomparable to others in the market. He also commented that Rothko’s works, inclusive of the one at the exhibition at MoMA in 1961 was fond of keeping groups of important works together. The last relevant statement that is worth highlighting regarding Goldwater’s comment on the exhibition at MoMA in 1961 by Rothko is that he would term it as applicable in hospitable contents. The implication from the statement is that the uniqueness if the style meant that it is welcoming and thus can be applied in professional settings (The New York Times).
  Rothko’s exhibition at MoMA in 1961 was also subject to critic by the author Katherine Kuh who is known for her sharp criticism of modern art. She is known for having worked with Mark Rothko and expressed her opinion about the retrospective exhibition that was featured at MOMA. She would express how thrilled she was at the art presentation and stated how she believe that the public was as interested in the work as she was. In fact, she states that her work in the 1980s that later earned her the accreditation the Metrolitans were primarily influenced by the Rothko exhibition world at the NoMA in 1961 (Kuh). She would say that Rothko’s work was spectacular, a statement used to imply to her admiration. All these expense are detailed in writing of Modern Expressionism because in her critic, she would compare all of what she perceived to what she believed constituted modern art.
  In summation it is worth to examine the assessment by Max Kozlooof whose overall comment was that Rothko’s style constituted a self-motivation mood. He asserts that because of the 1961 art, Rothko ended up being what people at the time referred to as anarchist. He believed that the reason for Rothko’s success was because he had centered his work non-conformist artists who were eliminated from the American culture. It would mean that Rothko’ effort in promoting Abstract Expressionism in the 1960s with particular reference to the major exhibition at MoMA in 1961 was timely. He thinks that the work was also relevant because the Abstract Expressionism was being used as a cold weapon. He ended up publishing many other essay, nooks and articles where he described the subject in more details and in the process created more awareness of art not only in Rothko’s perspective but in a broader sense (Selz 19).
  In summary, it is worth noting that Rothko’s major exhibition at MoMA in 1961 has since been used as a basis for the assessment of the development of art in the Abstract Expressionism context. Some of the authors who have since been quoted include John Canady, Robert M. Coates, Robert Goldwater, Katherine Kuh, Thomas Hess and Max Kozloff. While many had varying opinions about the nature of the art that made Rothko so famous, the general feeling is that the representation was excellent, timely, eye-catching and overall a great piece of artistic creation. Considering the positive comments that the Rothko has been perceived, it is affirmed that he remains one of the topic artists of the twentieth century.
  Kuh, Katharine. “Oral History Interview with Katharine Kuh, 1982 Mar. 18-1983 Mar. 24.” Smithsonian (2017): n. pag. Web.
  Selz, Peter. “Mark Rothko.” The Museum of Modern Art (1961): n. pag. Print.
  The Editors of ART News. “Op Is Out-of-Town Art’: Thomas B. Hess on MoMA’s Show ‘The Responsive Eye,’ in 1965.” ART News (2016): n. pag. Web.
  The New York Times. “Letters.” The New York Times (1978): n. pag. Web.
  Type your email