ROTHNER: A comparison between Mark Rothko and Joseph Turner

Joseph William Turner (1775-1851) and Mark Rothko (1903-1970) are two magnificent painters, whose work has evolved until nowadays. But, although they both were born in different centuries, and different places (Great Britain and Letonia respectively), what is it that unites this artists. It was no other than their minds. Simply their minds. They both were thought to be lazy artists, whose creations were not relevant. The Truth is that they gave importance to the environment, the colors, simply that. But what could be more complex, than the background, as simple as it sounds?

William Turner showed that the main figure couldn't be relevant without the back painting, so he mixed the environments with the main actions. Though this was thought as senseless and not nice at first, people started to get used to that specially after he passed away, and they realised how he was right, how there is not painting without anything to hold it back. These are some examples of his masterpieces:

  
           Rain, Steam and Speed (1844)                                                        Steam-Boat off a Harbour's
                                                                                                                   Mouth in Snow Storm (1842)


The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons (1835)

Rothko went further, and proposed that why would he show again the same, if he could just impregnate his paintings with a coloured background, that meant nothing and everything at the same time. Lazy for many, still nowadays, his paintings, minimalistic but brilliant, showed that you don't need to fulfield a image with details to suceed as a painter, and to transmit the same, or even much more.

   



In my opinion, before thinking if they are real and complex art, and it deserves to be known for that, we should firstly think. Does complexity mean it's better? Isn't the simplest thing the greatest of all?