HOME | DD
willko —
Rothko
Published: 2007-02-11 03:49:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 17167; Favourites: 342; Downloads: 211
Redirect to original
Description
I know my work is kind of all over the place at the moment. Bear with me.This is a 30 second nighttime exposure experiment with white balance adjustment.
If you don't know Rothko click here: [link]
Enjoy?
Related content
Comments: 284
I face palmed at reading "Fourteen-year-old who makes pixel people".
Sta.sh is a lovely thing. I stopped reading after you totally text walled. I'm sorry, but I don't care if you're an art student. Art is art, people shouldn't be so prejudiced to different. It is nothing more than a feature. If you have a problem, please see $Moonbeam13
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You mean you stopped reading after it was obvious I was going to express myself thoroughly?
Bollocks, I'm sorry. Maybe next time I'll be sure to treat teenagers with less respect than a normal human being by reverting to textspeak.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Textspeak? Idiotic accusation as we're obviously talking in formal English. Please refrain from displaying more of your "logic". It hurts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't understand art because I don't like a certain picture? Seems legit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Photography doesn't seem to be a medium of yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So if I haven't created a movie I cannot comment about any movies I have seem? Also, photography doesn't seem to be a medium of yours either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is actually, but I don't upload it to this site. Anything I have taken a photo of is in Sta.sh or storage.
You can judge a film, but perhaps not as efficiently as you think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, Siskel and Ebert are not as great movie critics because they haven't made a film?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They still probably taken the time to study it, no?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes they have, and so have I to some extent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Extent. Not on a large scale, or you'd be famous, no?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
the entirety of every comment you made here reminded me why i am still on this site.
to laugh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Large scale? No. I am mostly into literature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No offence but I agree with all the other people who question why this was selected as a DD.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The mystery behind this piece is what makes it all work. I would love to know how this was achieved. Congratulations on the DD !
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was about to get mad because I thought a photoshop gradient got a DD. Then I thought it was a painting and still felt a bit miffed. But photography? Never saw that coming! What is it of? How did you come to this result? I'd love to learn more about this
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's an experimental longtime exposure. He was painting with light, so to speak.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As much as I am not able to appreciate abstract art, and, in most cases, do not like it, I am aware of the fact that there are people who enjoy this kind of art and see deepar meaning in it and therefore I shall not criticize this work. Congratulations on the DD!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't know anything about abstract art nor do I know the hidden meaning of this work, but I simply like it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Congratulations! Art comes in many shapes and formes and you should ignore all the rude comments here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People aren't trying to be rude much, it's mostly because the concept isn't understood, and abstract art isn't really something everyone accepts easily.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Mark Rothko can say what he likes, but while color is beautiful, I don't see it being applied in any way, so I can't see the beauty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Looks like a misty day at the beach...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't mean to be a bother, but I just do not get how something as simple as this got a Daily Deviation. Daily Deviations are supposed to be complex, whimsical, interesting. Not a mixture of gradients. I'm sorry, but I cannot see how whatever administrator who nominated this actually thought that this was suitable for getting the Daily Deviation. But who knows? Maybe there's a hidden meaning to this. Maybe I'm just overlooking it. Why is why, though I still don't think that it should have deserved what it gotten, I'll add it to my Favourites.
👍: 0 ⏩: 5
I'll add this to my favorites too! Just to keep track of where the comments are heading... hahaha
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
According to the FAQs a Daily Deviation is a piece of art that a Community Volunteer "found impressive or otherwise interesting enough to deserve being brought to the attention of the community-at-large." However, simplicity doesn't mean that an artist didn't put thought or effort into his artwork.
FAQ #61: What is a Daily Deviation?
This DD feature was meant as a tribute to one of the greatest abstract painters of the 20th century, and the featured artist achieved a great result in trying to recreate Rothko's style in a photograph.
I am aware that abstract photography and abstract art in general isn't everyone's cup of tea. But artwork is never meant to please anyone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
FAQ #873: What do I do when I disapprove of a Daily Deviation feature?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Try asking that same question to the other deviants that insulted his work. What I said isn't an insult, it is a valid argumentative statement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is an awesome article that offers insight into daily deviations. It also offers some great discussion topics for the community to engage. 
And yes, this applies to everyone else :>
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It seems people simply like the drama :/
Few here know the work it actually takes, no matter the simplicity of the outcome. That I quite enjoy in fact
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I completely agree with you. This looks like shit.
And so do Rothko's "art" works too. [link]
I appreciate abstract art. That's not art. That's just a lazy artist...
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
I tend to agree, but people are buying the name, the popularity of the artist, not the art itself. I mean, if some uber-popular celebrity were to paint something, however crappy, people would pay MILLIONS for that painting, just because its them that did it. :\ At least, that's the only thing I can wrap my mind around for justifying those types of paintings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Kudos to you that you are able to judge what is art and what is not. Maybe you should apply for a volunteer job and share your vision with the community.
Rothko used his creativity as an outlet for his bipolar disorder, it is widely acknowledged that he put very much of his feelings into his work. He definitely was not lazy.
This photographer was experimenting with his camera and achieved a wonderful result which makes a fine homage to Rothko's work, and I can't see the laziness here. I rather consider those as lazy who just apply a few photoshop filters to their images to achieve a sort of abstract or surreal impact...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I have a full-time job already. No thanks.
I don't care if Rothko thought it was SUP3R KR3ATIV to paint a blotch. It's still shit. Doesn't matter how much "meaning" you try to find in it. You can sugar coat the turd all you want - it's still a turd.
This is abstract art: [link]
This is abstract art: [link]
This is abstract art: [link]
This is NOT: [link]
^ that's just shit. But, if you want to give the retard a gold metal, do it. I'm entitled to an opinion just as much as you are. If you don't like, sorry I'm not sorry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I won't deprive you of your right to remain blinkered.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yeah, you're such a visionary.
[link]
Check out my abstract artz. Well this piece represents the complexity of our universe. We're all enmeshed in this existential abyss. Dude, that's DEEP! You're so creative! You're a barista!
Yeah man.
I won't deprive you of your right to be delusional. HA!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please don't. And we won't deprive you of yours.
And btw, that one black dot is better than all that crap you linked to up there, with the exception of Rothko.
All the negativity here makes me sad. But, average people are average.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually, it's shit. And the fact that you like it just shows you have shit taste too. I just looked at your gallery. The shit taste was confirmed.
Bad art is bad. Below average people are below average.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think you'd like to hear that your art is a piece of shit, wouldn't you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He was probably experimenting something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Perhaps this can shed some light? I'm not sure. [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I already said that there might be a hidden meaning concerning it. I'm entitled to my opinion on that it shouldn't have gotten the Daily Deviation, but if you want to keep commenting in a futile attempt to change my mind, you are free to go ahead.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I wasn't. I just thought that you might be curious as to what the hidden meaning mght be. I know I was when I first saw it.
Sorry if it came across that I was trying to change your mind or anything-- I merely meant to help your curiosity~
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The hidden message is probably the dichotomy of warmth and coldness, but it is unlikely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The purpose of DDs is to expose artists to work and styles they might not otherwise see on their journey through DA - and whilst you might not like this style of art, it has at least exposed you to something thats a little outside of your comfort zone and has made you question what "art" is to you, and to others in its interpretation. To engage in a discussion about art, good or bad means that you have at least considered it, and formed an opinion on what you like, or don't like. Its "moved" you to expressing that; and thats never going to be a bad thing, so in the case of the reasons behind this artwork getting a DD - I think it fits perfectly 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>