Anthroplogie continues to offend
I walked past an Anthropologie store in New Orleans this week and become mortified to see their save windows decked out in a few horrific reproductions of Mark Rothko's paintings and they were calling it and their new series as "Abstract Expressionism."
I can sense that Rothko would have been mortified by not only his being classified as an Abstract Expressionist, let alone being the pivot point of a marketing ploy to sell overpriced, unattractive crap. Rothko was a Russian emigre whose family fled the last gasps of the Czarist pograms as the Bolsheviks conducted a bloody coup over the Romanov autocracy. He and his family barely escaped Russia with their clothes on their backs.
The Rothko family turned into lucky to escape even as they may and in order that they ended up in New York after which later moved onto the Pacific Northwest.
The Rothkos (nee Rothkowitz) circle of relatives suffered mightily. They had been poor but they controlled to preserve it together notwithstanding their situations. By all bills, Mark Rothko changed into great and he ended up at Yale.
In the Thirties he started to paint, and his subjects shifted from the Cubist/ Primitivist types of his contemporaries to something utterly new. By the time the Fifties rolled around he became breaking new ground with a angle that came to be referred to as "multiforms." These multiforms were in essence person photons of mild, the smallest part of an inventive imaginative and prescient. Take a look at those paintings and consider what he changed into looking at while he painted them.
That imagining is the whole factor of Rothko's paintings. It makes me need to observe the parts that make up the entirety. No one had ever painted that way earlier than and he pioneered the very notion of a pixel. He become portray within the Nineteen Fifties something lots of us take with no consideration now.
So what does any of this ought to do with Anthropologie? Nothing, that's what. How do the get from this outstanding, thoughtful artwork to this factor?
This sofa's offensive as it's hideous for starters. It's doubly offensive for its $3200 rate tag. What makes it trebly offensive is Anthropologie's attempts to promote this crap off the again of Mark Rothko.
Don't purchase into it. An unsightly sofa is an unsightly couch, despite the advertising hoo-hah that surrounds it. There is not anything about a settee with that fee tag that harkens returned to anything however horrific flavor. Enough, enough, sufficient.
I have no problem with $3200 sofas, provided they're well made and look like something other than a trail of cat sick. But asking people to spend that kind of money on a piece of furniture that's purposefully ugly and is being hawked by using one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century is just plain wrong.
What do you observed? Would a sofa that seems like this and with this kind of lower back tale ever discern into your home?