The Color of Transcendence

By Amber Kelsey

In the two soft-edged and rounded rectangles of Mark

Rothkos matured style there is an enveloping magic,
which conveys to receptive observers a sense of being in
the midst of greatness. It is the color of course.
Duncan Phillips

Celebrating the death of civilization[Rothkos] open

rectangles suggest the rims of flame in containing fires,
or the entrance to tombs, like the doors to the dwellings of
the dead in Egyptian pyramids, behind which the sculptors
kept the kings alive for eternity in the Ka. But unlike
the doors of the dead, which were meant to shut out the
living from the place of absolute might, even of patrician
death, these paintingsopen sarcophagimoodily dare,
and thus invite the spectator to enter their Orphic cycles.
Their color might be death and resurrection in classical,
not Christian mythology: the artist descending to Hades to
find the Eurydice of his vision. The door to the tomb opens
for the artist in search of his muse. Peter Selz

The enveloping magic Duncan Phillips appropriately uses to de-

scribe the experience of viewing a Mark Rothko painting suggests a
preternatural quality inherent in Rothkos work. Indeed, Rothko him-
self often alluded to a life force embedded in his canvasses that ex-
tended beyond material boundaries. My art is not abstract, Rothko
said, it lives and breathes.1 Whether this breath resides in a sacred
realm, which Peter Selz seems to be suggesting in his above quote, or
in the exchange between the viewer and the painting, Rothkos work
transcends both time and space. Color is the undeniable medium for
this transcendence. And, while Rothkos canon of work ranged from
themes of myth and symbolism, to landscapes and human forms, it
is his classical paintings, his colored fields, that this essay seeks to

The Culture Issue 3

address. Moreover, it is the ritualistic qualities of his color-fields, the
metaphysics of Rothko that I mean to explore. Specifically, I intend
to show how Rothkos use of scale, distance and color all lend to
the mysterious glow of his canvases and their subsequent effect on
the viewer. Furthermore, I will use Max Webers argument of the
esthetic sphere to support the redemptive nature and irrationality
of Rothkos work yet dispute his assertion that art and religion are
competing spheres standing in dynamic tension with one another. In
order to do so, I will use the Rothko Chapel as an example of the inte-
gration these two spheres, a space which has effectively transcended
the boundaries of ethics and esthetic.

SCALE, DISTANCE AND COLOR

Mark Rothko was a leading pioneer within the movement of Ameri-

can Painters known as the Abstract Expressionists. His artistic ca-
reer spanned four decades and evolved stylistically from a figura-
tive repertoire to an abstract style rooted in the active relationship
of the observer to the painting.2 Rothkos color formations, which
dominated the later years of his artistic career, are the paintings for
which he is best remembered. Coined color-field painting, this cur-
rent in Abstract Expressionism aimed to uncover the emotional force
of pure color.3 Pure color, for the color-field artists, was thought
to express invisible states of mind.4 Rothkos desire was to create
portals, through the use of color and canvas, into the vast recess of
the human psyche. Akin to altar-places, his canvasses are meant to
force the viewer into deep contemplation, to achieve what he termed
spiritual communion.5
To achieve such levels of communion, Rothko used large

4 Anamesa
canvases, sometimes exceeding 300 centimeters in height. The pro-
portions of his paintings are intended to absorb the viewer so as to
transcend any spatial boundary. Rothkos approach to scale was re-
flective of this attitude. Characterizing the relationship between pic-
ture and onlooker as a consummate experiencea true marriage
of minds, Rothko used this same philosophy in his approach, as
painter, to his canvasses.6 The large proportions of his paintings are
not intended as some grandiose statement. Rather, they were a way
of placing himself directly in the experience. To quote Rothko: The
reason I paint themis precisely because I want to be very intimate
and human. To paint a small picture is to place yourself outside your
experience, to look upon an experience as a stereopticon view or with
a reducing glass. However, you paint the larger picture, you are in it.
It isnt something you command!7 Forty-five centimeters was con-
sidered by Rothko as the ideal viewing distance for his pieces. From
this vicinity, the viewer could overstep the very limits of human
existence8 and experience what Robert Rosenblum calls a quasi-
religious state of awe.9
The viewing distance recommended by Rothko has been exam-
ined within the context of its psychological effects by art critic and
painter Andrew Forge. Forge suggests that by standing close enough
to a sufficiently large painting, the edges are grayed off to ones
peripheral vision.10 The painting then takes on a presence in its sur-
face that renders internal relationships irrelevant.11 Both color and
scale begin a dialogue, which then opens the door into an internal
realm.12 Gestalt psychologists have also studied the effects of total-
field viewing, claiming that the brightness of the surface is increased
many hundred times over at such a distance.13 Rothko was adamant
about presenting his works at a range that would enhance their per-
ceived luminosity. He would often seat himself in front of one of his

The Culture Issue 5

works, subjecting it to his habitual hypnotic stare, and scrutinize
the effects so as to make sure it was a reflection of his intention.14
Like proportion and distance, Rothko used of color as an emo-
tional device, an appeal to the psyche of the sensitive viewer who
is free of conventional patterns of thought.15 The year 1946 marked
a decisive shift in Rothkos style. Experimenting with biometric
masses of color, Rothkos multiforms became the bridge that led
to his classical abstract paintings. By 1949, these amorphous color
spots were reduced to monochromatic color blocks overlaid sym-
metrically onto the canvas.16 By separating the color blocks from the
edges of his paintings, Rothko created the impression of hazy fields
of color hovering in front of an obscure background.17 While Rothko
employed the whole of the color spectrum, he tended toward particu-
lar hues during each of his phases. Prior to the mid-1950s Rothko
painted in bright shades of red, orange, and yellow. He later began
to employ more subdued colors like gray, maroon, blues, and black,
which some critics have attributed to his deteriorating emotional
state. Through the contrast of color, Rothko was able to strengthen
the effect of his pieces. Each hue was meant to elicit an emotive re-
sponse, a premise about which he himself was adamant. Debunking
the myth that his concern was one of form and its relationship to
color, Rothko explained: Im interested only in expressing basic hu-
man emotionstragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on. And the fact that a
lot of people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures
shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions.18

THE ROTHKO CHAPEL

Whether speaking about spiritual communion, contemplation,

6 Anamesa
or transcendence, the metaphysics of Rothkos lexicon implies a
religious quality to his work. It seems only fitting then, that he enthu-
siastically agree to a commission of large wall murals for a chapel at
St. Thomas Catholic University in Houston, Texas. The series con-
sisted of 14 large-format paintings, in three triptychs, as well as five
individual works. Considering the project his most important artistic
statement, Rothko completely immersed himself in the construction
of the chapel, as well as his now-famous Chapel Murals.19
Rothkos decision to do the chapel commission, to merge
the secular with the sacred, stands in direct contrast to Max Webers
notion that art and religion inhabit separate, autonomous spheres, of-
tentimes competing with one another. In From Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology, Weber argues that there is a tension between the ethic of
religious brotherliness and the spheres of esthetic and erotic life.20
Esthetics, according to Weber, has become suspect by ethical reli-
gions on account of arts ability to provide a salvation from the rou-
tines of everyday life, and especially from the increasing pressures
of theoretical and practical rationalism.21 Rothkos art is indeed an
attempt to transgress the rational and offer a type of salvation for
his viewers. However, the construction of the Rothko Chapel defies
Webers assertion that art and religion are competing powers. Instead,
the space created by Rothko in the Houston Chapel was meant as a
channel for religious experience, an area where viewers could go to
experience states of spiritual grandeur.22
Rothkos approach to the use of space (an effect that creates
an environment whereby the viewer can dialogue with the paintings
in a religious context) is further evidence of his ability to overcome
the strong polarity between ethical religion and the sphere of art.23
Contrary to Webers assertion that art, as viewed by religion, be-
comes an idolatry, a competing power, and a deceptive bedazzle-

The Culture Issue 7

ment,24 the Houston Chapel was instead presented by Rothko as
the ideal setting to meet, create and transform an audience one by
one.25 To do so, he chose an octagonal structure, which would enable
the congregation to be encircled by his murals. Light, a critical ele-
ment in the presentation of his pieces, was to be provided by a cupola
in the center of the chapel. A filtering effect, provided by reams of
light fabric, was meant to create a meditative stillness that enabled
the viewer to then commune with his pieces. Furthermore, Rothkos
oversized murals were spaced in such a way that, similar to Stations
of the Cross, the observer could experience each piece as a sort of
emotional progression. The central mural, a monochrome triptych,
was flanked on either side by a pair of triptychs with four individual
paintings interspersed between the altar-pieces. A further individu-
al mural was placed directly opposite the central triptych.26
In their essay, Rothkos Dark Paintings: Tragedy and Void,
art historians Barbara Novak and Brian ODoherty argue that Roth-
kos decision to do the chapel murals demonstrated an immense ef-
fort of will at a time when secular formalism dominated critical
thinking and post-Christian secularism devalued religious belief.27
They continue by suggesting that the chapel series is Rothkos most
effective affirmation of his work as something beyond or outside art,
and an attack on art that resides comfortably within that category.28
Novak and ODohertys assertion of Rothkos decision to place his
art within a religious context and thus defy the dominant current in
critical thoughtthat of art residing in a separate, secular sphere,
is rather interesting when explored in light of Webers conclusions.
While all three authors suggest that art and religion inhabit separate
spheres (however Novak and ODoherty admit to Rothkos ability to
transcend these spheres), Weber argues that it is religions suspicion
of art, on account of arts redemptive capabilities, that distances the

8 Anamesa
two. Novak and ODohertys assertion is actually the reverseart,
residing in a post-Christian secularist realm, devalues religion. And,
while the two essays were written with roughly eight-five years be-
tween them, thus addressing different social climates and audiences,
both are referring to what Weber terms as a strong polarity between
the two spheres.29 What makes the Rothko Chapel a complete suc-
cess is that through the mergence of these two spheres, Rothko was
able to transcend the boundaries of the sacred and the secular.30 How
he achieved this, I would argue, rests beyond the mere physical in-
tersection of these two spheres. Rather, it is the transcendent nature
of Rothkos art, his ability to present his work as something beyond
the physical, that renders it successful. In fact, visitors to the chapel
often remarked on the sublime quality of his murals. Franz Meyer
felt as though he was getting a direct glimpse of the Divine when
confronted with Rothkos murals.31 Dominique de Menil, patron of
the chapel, remarked during her dedication speech, We are cluttered
with images and only abstract art can bring us to the threshold of the
Divine.32

REDEMPTION THROUGH CLARITY

Rothkos dedication to the transcendent nature of his art can be traced

back to his own philosophical beliefs. In their manifesto on aesthetic
beliefs, Rothko and fellow Modernist Adolph Gottlieb present five
basic premises that define their work. First and foremost is the idea
that art is an adventure into an unknown world, which can be ex-
plored only by those willing to take the risk.33 They go on to assert
that this world is of the imaginationand violently opposed to com-
mon sense.34 Thus, in their rejection of common sense, Rothko and

The Culture Issue 9

Gottlieb support Webers analysis of art as an inner-worldly, irratio-
nal salvation.35 Furthermore, by presenting a manifesto reflective of
their belief systems, the artists affirm Webers notion of art becoming
a cosmos of more and more independent values which exist in their
own right.36 Hence, while Webers theory on the esthetic sphere
primarily how it stands in direct tension with the religious sphere, is
disproved by the Rothko Chapel, his assertion of art as an irrational
salvation finds support in Rothkos own philosophical beliefs.
A similar cohesion of ideas can be found in Rothkos reverence
for instrumental music, considered by Weber the purest of all art
forms.37 Rothko often remarked on his desire to elevate painting to
the level and poignancy of music and poetry.38 Music, an everlast-
ing passion for Rothko, was a means of universal communication.
Rothko applied this same sensibility to his paintings. This marriage
between music and painting can be traced back to the German philos-
opher Friedrich Nietzsche, whom Rothko admired deeply. Nietzsche,
like Rothko, believed that music was the true dialect of emotion. In
The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche concludes:

Music alone allows us to understand the delight felt at the

annihilation of the individual. Each single instance of such
annihilation will clarify for us the abiding phenomenon
of Dionysiac art, which expresses the omnipotent will
behind individualization, external life continuing beyond
all appearance and in spite of destruction.39

Rothkos worldview was largely shaped by Nietzsches philoso-

phy of Dionysiac art, as expressed above, and the Apollonian will
of form. Tragedy, to the philosopher, was the synthesis of these two
poles. Rothko incorporated the visual annihilation of human form to
achieve the clarity that music, in Nietzsches sense, was able to ex-
pound. In his own writings, Rothko explains this transgression: The

10 Anamesa
progression of a painters work, as it travels from point to point, will
be towards clarity.40 Weber similarly describes the explosion of
form as a means of absorption into the All-oneness which lies
behind any kind of determination and form.41 Thus, for both Weber
and Rothko, the annihilation of form is an attempt at transcendence.
Yet, for Weber, such aspirations are delegated to the mystic expe-
rience, the most irrational form of religious behavior.42 I would
argue that perhaps it is the mystic experience, in the Weber sense,
that best situates Rothkos work in the sociologists theory of the es-
thetic sphere. And, while Rothko was able to present such experi-
ences in a variety of contexts, both religious and secular, it was the
viewers response to his paintings that lent them their true power.
Rothko himself stated a picture lives by companionship, expand-
ing and quickening in the eye of the sensitive observer. It dies by the
same token.43

ART AS EXPERIENCE

While Mark Rothkos physical presence is no longer with us, the

pulsing spiritual life of his canvasses continues to awe and in-
spire.44 Rothko remarks that the most important tool the artist fash-
ions through constant practice is faith in his ability to produce mira-
cles.45 I concur; Rothkos ritualistic use of scale, distance, and most
importantly, color, were tantamount to the production of his mira-
cles. Believing that art is an anecdote of the spirit, Rothko was
determined to use his work as a means of transcending the limits of
human experience.46 Thus, Max Webers assertion that art provides
a salvation from the routines of everyday life, can find much support
in Rothkos personal ambitions and philosophical beliefs. Where the

The Culture Issue 11

artist departs from the sociologist is in his ability to merge the spheres
of art and religion within the context of the Rothko Chapel and thus
defy Webers argument that the two spheres are in insoluble and
irreconcilableopposition.47 Finally, I would argue that it is in the
experience of the mystic, the irrational of all religious behavior, ac-
cording to Weber, that Rothko is best understood. In fact he himself
admitted, A painting is not about experience. It is an experience.48

Notes
1
Rothko, as quoted in Jacob Baal-Teshuva, Mark Rothko: Pictures as
Drama (Bonn: Taschen, 2003), 50.
2
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 7.
3
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 10.
4
George Segal, Interview with Mark Rosenthal, Mark Rothko (Bry-
fogle 371-374), 372.
5
Rothko, as quoted in Jeffrey Weiss, Rothkos Unknown Space,
in Mark Rothko. Ed. Tam Curry Bryfogle (New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1998, 302-329), 307.
6
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 7.
7
Rothko, as quoted in Carol Mancusi-Ungaro, Material and Imma-
terial Surface: The Paintings of Mark Rothko, in Mark Rothko. Ed.
Tam Curry Bryfogle (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1998, 302-329), 284.
8
Baal-Teshuva, 46.
9
Rosenblum, quoted in Weiss, 305.
10
Forge as quoted in Gage, 262.
11
Forge as quoted in Gage, 262.
12
Forge as quoted in Gage, 262.
13
Forge as quoted in Gage, 262.

12 Anamesa
14
Novak, Barbara, and Brian ODoherty. Rothkos Dark Paintings:
Tragedy and Void, in Mark Rothko. Ed. Tam Curry Bryfogle (New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998, 264-281), 268.
15
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 91.
16
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 45.
17
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 45.
18
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 57.
19
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 73.
20
Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Ed. and trans.
H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press,
1978), 341.
21
Weber, Essays in Sociology, 342.
22
Baal-Teshuva, 79.
23
Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative So-
ciology, Ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1978), 607.
24
Weber, Essays in Sociology, 343.
25
Novak and ODoherty, 272.
26
Baal-Teshuva, 73-74.
27
Novak and ODoherty, 274.
28
Novak and ODoherty, 274.
29
Weber, Economy, 607.
30
Novak and ODoherty, 273.
31
Baal-Teshuva, 74.
32
Baal-Teshuva, 75.
33
Baal-Teshuva, 37.
34
Baal-Teshuva, 37.
35
Weber, Essays, 342.
36
Weber, Essays, 342.
37
Weber, Essays, 342.

The Culture Issue 13

38
Rothko, as quoted in Novak and ODoherty, 266.
39
Friedrich Nietzsche. The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of
Morals. Trans. Francis Golffing (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1956),
101-102.
40
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 38.
41
Weber, Essays, 324.
42
Weber, Essays, 342.
43
Rothko, as quoted in Mancusi-Ungaro, 300.
44
Baal-Teshuva, 83.
45
Rothko, as quoted in Mancusi-Ungaro, 284.
46
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 39.
47
Weber, Economy, 609.
48
Rothko, as quoted in Baal-Teshuva, 57.

14 Anamesa