Nothingness Made Visible: The Case of Rothko's Paintings Author(s): Natalie Kosoi Reviewed work(s): Source: Art Journal,

Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer, 2005), pp. 20-31 Published by: College Art Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20068380 . Accessed: 06/03/2012 19:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

Mark

1952. Oil on canvas. Rothko. Untitled, 953/< x 817/8 in. (243.2 x 208 cm). Private Prizel collection.? 2005 Kate Rothko and Christopher Roth ko/Artists Rights Society (ARS) New York. Photograph: Bob Kolbrener.

The word art. Yet look we always thing there how

"nothingness" can we see, our perceive or

frequently nothingness

appears

in

writings what shut we our

about

twentieth-century we can any

or know If we how much

it is? Everywhere eyes and ears, we about

can sense

feel,

think

something.

heartbeat; still be as always

no matter aware

try not

to think

at all, we is no such

will

of our

own hence, with

existence.

It appears

to us

that which In the

"thing" is

nothingness; something,

to associate nothingness

an artwork, seems

absurd.

Natalie

Kosoi

following,
not absurd.

Iwill
By

show that such a relation is possible

considering two philosophers who

and

pondered

NothingriGSS I ne w3.Se

M3.Q6 O?
_

ViSlblC! KOTIIKO d.1 II LI I S

the notion of nothingness, Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger, Iwill first address the problem of how we can understand nothingness
Mark % Rothko represent

and then show how

it.

the works of

lgs

Respectively,
ingness exemplify nonbeing, through of nothingness nothingness, that because of is a "existence"

Sartre's and Heidegger's

two a major and of all conflicting the

concepts of noth
approaches. in the world, how

For which ever, we

Sartre,

nothingness into

negation human from

entities

comes assumes cannot

consciousness. the outset, when is finite, that is. "nothing"

Heidegger, arguing

the existence grasp of or know argues

that although have forms an

we

nonetheless,

anxious, nothingness

experience beings and

it. He

any being everything invoke

as such

is a prerequisite on Rothko E. B. Breslin, after all, and a

Many his paintings.

commentators James

the word

in writes,

describing "Rothko's

in his

biography that was

of Rothko, dangerously essay is

artistic nothing."1 Paintings: nothing" described These

enterprise Barbara Tragedy and

was,

something O'Doherty,

close "Rothko's "very close

to Dark to

Novak

Brian also

in their

and Void,"

assert

that Rothko's content.2 something

work Robert near

that nothing paintings examples

is indeed as

its very of many.

Rosenblum to nothingness."3

Rothko's are only common is that Rothko line, space, a few

"images among of

The stated, (figure, chrome which of ness we

characteristic s and

these writings, of his even of about color),

although reduction

not

always

explicitly means mono the way and absence in

paintings?because eventually on the verge to think

of painterly in almost they reflect

which As

resulted such,

paintings?are are accustomed and to thus

"nothing." nothingness, closely examining

as the negation to Sartre's notion of

entities, than

correspond

much

more

of nothing the 1950s,

Heidegger's.

In the following,

the Works

Iwill argue that Rothko's paintings are not only on the verge of being nothing but
that they also represent nothingness, in his with essay Sartre's Rothko's latter is not which "Rothko's thinking, paintings.4 there. The is corresponds Unknown using In this caf? with the to Heidegger's particularly of Pierre Sartre its people arrives and the from concept. associates Being and to is Jeffery Weiss, 1. James E. B. Breslin, Mark Rothko: A Biography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 7. 2. Barbara Novak and Brian O'Doherty, "Rothko's Dark Paintings: Tragedy and Void," in Mark Rothko, ed. JefferyWeiss, exh. cat. (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 281. 3. Robert Rosenblum, Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition: Friedrich to Rothko 1975), 10. (London: Thames and Hudson, 4. Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, trans. H. E. Barnes (New York:Washington Square Press, 1992), 42. Rothko's Nothingness meet Pierre, paintings to

Space," story

interpret but the

story all

at a caf? activity

"fullness Each figure

of being," or thing

but while in it gains out

Sartre

looking of

for Pierre Sartre's

it becomes (is after

"ground."

a moment

attention and shortly

this Pierre?), sinks again

isolated

and

standing

against

the background,

into the background (it is not Pierre). Sartre calls the successive disappearance of these objects into the background "original nihilation." On the surface of
this original nihilation another nihilation occurs. Since Pierre is nowhere to be

21

art journal

found, on

his

absence of

haunts

the

caf?. Thus, of

Pierre

the ground to the the caf?

the nihilation of the

the caf?

himself presents . . . the nothingness calls Pierre's

as which

"nothingness slips absence as a

nothing from

surface "double

ground."5 Weiss

Sartre writes:

perpetual

nihilation."

of figure and Certainly Rothko's almost ineffably subtle manipulations can in Sartrean terms center be the and the characterized ground (or edge)
as a "double ence, as or the nihilation" apprehension whereby the absent figure and is experienced as pres of nothingness, plenitude is experienced

ground.6 Sartre argues that nothingness a nonbeing, it. This "X is not," a is the origin negation is precisely stems of negation of being, what from and the and not

Although the on result being, of an

it, it is nonetheless entity, a in order

depends of Pierre as a

to negate judgment,

story

illustrates:

that

negative

nothingness

nonbeing,
(Pierre's) depends (Pierre) thing or on

and not vice versa, and that nonbeing

being. our That is, a nonbeing of finding and thus on cannot "exist" expectation there,

(that of Pierre) depends on

apart or from being, in the as it someone of particular of a

something our

that

is not

consciousness

existence

a person. if nothingness is not without Sartre is represented foundation, thinks in Rothko's for nothingness as a expectations nonbeing painting, is also the comparison and to

Certainly, to Sartre's nonbeing. "be" story

absence comes

However, human application to me

of nothingness and theory our

that

through

consciousness of Sartre's

of finding to Rothko's what This in

something paintings particular do

particular. The therefore we expect

of nothingness the question: other a

seems to find unanswered

problematic, paintings, text. one

as it poses or I believe closer any

in Rothko's inWeiss's beings, as

painting? perception than

question

remains

that to

of nothingness Sartre's, corre indeed

as that which sponds to

constitutes

Heidegger's paintings

nothingness

represented

in Rothko's

and might

relate to how he himself

thought of it. Sartre and Heidegger both agree that nothingness

disagree as to its nature: while limit for Sartre it is merely human of beings consciousness, as it is the in this world, the being of for Heidegger, on

is the origin of negation,

a nonbeing, which is also stems an affirma that

but from tion

they

nothingness Heidegger and hence

imposed

all beings. is finite, as such

maintains nothingness

everything constitutes that

including all that exists, could

ourselves, and

forms

everything acute

in the way in the case of

it is. Without

it, entities

not

be. Yet

it is even more

human beings,
such as animals, ish. He maintains something any moment impossibility what mental 5. Jeffery "Rothko's Unknown Space," in Weiss, Mark Rothko (National Gallery of Art), 323, refers to Sartre's Being and Nothingness, 42. 6.Weiss, 323. during what that we negates anxiety our

since humans die, while

plants, and objects, our end own of our that death,

according
dissipate

to Heidegger
into

other beings,
and simply die possible and our also funda at per is not might

simply

nothingness

impending life. Our life. Thus, our is anxious in the world floats

nothingness, awareness because being that we death?the

that happens pervades of being?is it, our by being

at the and

shapes what

constitutes

in this world We repress

in its essence ourselves anxiety are trying

being. and

engaging however, life

its affairs. and that

In rare moments reveals it is to us

existence,

to the

surface

in our

everyday our being.

to repress,

namely,

nothingness

constitutes

22

SUMMER 2005

The

difference being, he or

between whereas she

anxiety anxiety about,

and

fear

is that we

fear

particular

and is will nor is known as

deter minable asked be: an what

lacks

a de terminable according neither

object. to

If a person Heidegger, being

is anxious

the answer, through Rather, anxiety

nothing. object,

Nothingness nor as a negation

is revealed of beings.

as a

in anxiety

nothingness

"with beings and in beings expressly as a slipping away of the whole."7

whole" which a Heidegger compose means our world. we supply all entities, Because flee from whose we are meaning anxious and for us about from and when our facing thus and our

By "the
to is

relation which fact,

being, this

being-toward-death, entities being we that is face

ourselves with

toward to forget from

these

our world

meaning In anxiety, since

enable

us slip

that our our grasp,

being-toward-death. our own mortality, to our

all beings and that

away can no

the world He writes

its entities "the

longer

impart

any meaning

existence.

'nothing'

with

which anxiety brings us face to face, unveils the nullity by which Dasein, in its very basis, is defined; and this basis itself is as thrownness into death."8 It iswell known,
deal with intentions the highest maintains the human correspond form that the of

and often repeated, that Rothko

drama to the art?assigns or tragedy and should role that Heidegger?who to poets. In "What Are

thought that art should

mortality.9 Such as thought Poets of poetry

intimate

For?" Heidegger of being,

role

of

the poet

is to present

the whole

sphere

including death, the side of being

from tion, us, invisible does as what are might certain ask: to us in our however, not mean is already of, and

that, like the dark side of themoon,

life. Heidegger the No us is more to argue and into a Yes; explains, it means "This to

is hidden
affirma

everyday to turn before

acknowledge to us is

the positive what we We have able

present." certain

What than

is present

"what

death?"10 something if art we is indeed

Is it plausible experience mortality of

that

art can present about? And

only

a vague our

and

know then

nothing how can we

to present

to us,

recognize

it? Maurice has a fun

Blanchot,

in The Space of Literature,

like Heidegger

maintains

that writing

damental
origin. death art wrote But, but stems

relation to death and nothingness,

contrary rather from to Heidegger, it. He not 27, he argues believes that to negate the desire journals from death." and (July "

since it draws from it as from its

that art attempts it is a generally he quotes not to present idea Gide, that who

accepted Andr?

to die; 1922)

as an

example reason hold

in his

that his we cannot to

for writing death

is "to

shelter if death is it

something 7. Martin Heidegger, "What Is Metaphysics?" Basic Writings, ed. D. Farrel Krell (London: in is not

However,

at a distance, that death cannot know

possible,

Blanchot, we

contrary all know

Heidegger, will

maintains die. Yet we

1996), 102. Routledge, 8. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. J.Macquarrie and E. Robinson (London: Blackwell, 1996), 356. 9. Mark Rothko, "Pratt Lecture" quoted in Irving Sandier, "Mark Rothko (InMemory of Robert in Mark Rothko, Paintings 1948 Goldwater)," 1969, exh. cat. (New York: Pace Gallery, April 1983), II. 10.Martin Heidegger, "What Are Poets For?" in Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. A. Hofstadter (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 125. I I.Maurice Blanchot, The Space of Literature, trans. A. Smock (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1955), 94. 12. Ibid., 95.

impossible. for certain: What and no

Obviously,

that we

makes thus, one

me in a way,

disappear having to death no one

from no by can

the world

cannot it is not No one death

find certain.

its guarantee This explains No

there; why one For

guarantee, real certitude. think of

is linked death, but

is sure except

of dying. doubtfully.

doubts

certain

to think death is to introduce

brittleness of the unsure.

into thought the supremely doubtful,

to think authentically upon

the

It is as if in order

the certainty of death, we had to let thought sink into doubt and inauthen
ticity, or yet again as if we and strive of to think thought on death, more bound than our brain? the very substance truth itself?were to crumble.I2

23

art journal

In other at least writing make in its bility death

words, that possible.

we

cannot

think reading,

or understand according that writing "it hovers of

death. to Blanchot, must

Nonetheless, must attempt death

writing, endeavor to death

is worth By

this he means and, and death therefore,

to grasp as

incomprehensibility of understanding

between

the possi he

as the horror

impossibility."I3

The writer,

argues, is like Orpheus

descending

into death to bring his Eurydice into the light of day. And like Orpheus thewriter neces sarily fails in his or her task as he or she
succeeds death but in capturing the "eternal not the certainty of torments of Dying."14

Visual

Representation

of

Nothingness Although both Heidegger and Blanchot find a fundamental relation between death
and writing, render mainly tion us death they and disagree nothingness. and poetry, present as to its Both but ability discuss to

literature of whether

the ques to arts.

art can extended

mortality

can

also

be

to the visual

Indeed, references to death can be found

in abundance painting. other "eternal ing Does side" in the tradition in of Western presenting render In the ways the follow of "the it succeed

or does

it merely of Dying"?

torments of death

examination

two

possible I bear

representing

visually,

in mind

that there is a fundamental

between we can visual know and what conceptual we

difference
experience: not necessar experi to

see but

ily understand ence must be known. The most in a most painting, commonly first

it, while

conceptual

be understood

in order

obvious and

way

to render that has is by

death

the one employed,

been the repre

sentation of a corpse. In TheDeath of the Virgin,

for example, of Caravaggio the body of of Mary a woman Nancy before one. as a based on his represen tation an actual in the The Muses finds is the

corpse?that Tiber. Death of the Virgin, 1605-06. Oil 145!4 x 96^ in. (369 x 245 cm). Mus?e du Louvre, Paris. Photograph: Erich NY. Resource, Less?ng/Art Caravaggio. on canvas. observes three such that this painting We, virgin's situates the dying corpse?dead, us on the Jean-Luc

drowned in his book He

threshold are still

death. The

thresholds. by the

creatures, but

the first existing

second

represented

thing?and

last by the group of people depicted

background. recalling Discussing Blanchot's the argument about

as disappearing
of the

into the darkness of the

in this painting, of death, asks, Nancy, "And what

representation

the Virgin

impossibility

24

SUMMER 2005

if that were threshold

the before

subject death.l5

of

this painting:

there

is never

death

'itself'"

but

only

Itmight
perceived erworldly it is by

be argued that this painting

a religious society, a corpse painting, that is always not

in fact represents death only as itwas

between no matter death Indeed, feeling worldly how and oth something, present today. realistically nothingness argues, of those when who

is, as a threshold

life. Because in a it is

represented that dies we

it does perceived loss, but

as absolute Heidegger on the part

in the way someone remain.

commonly

experience even

loss

is a

Nevertheless,

in this painting

the anxiety

that

there might

be noth

ing beyond resonates. The group of the disciples situated behind the Virgin's bed seems to be disappearing into the darkness of the background. This disappearing, the "slipping away" of the figures from the grasp of our perception, as Iwill
show, will become the subject matter of Rothko's paintings.

A similar yet subtly different attempt to represent death may be found in Gerard Titus-Carmel's work The PocketSizeTlingit Coffin,which is discussed in
Jacques ture one way that The not Der r ida 's book is the mirror one's own renders us lies else. our The Truth in Painting. The most placed at its bottom, in it and resembles in a coffin that thus the who so when sees oneself way salient one feature looks of this minia the box The it? coffin sees inside

reflection death

lying of

in the

coffin.

this work is, it shows difference someone

traditional may be

representing as a corpse. in the coffin is still mentioned observes, of dealing by far from

someone in the fact Seeing own

interpreted

in this lying

case we

see ourselves though, as was as Der own that face rida

and

ourselves as

in a coffin, because,

experiencing corpse

death and a not feeling down

nothingness,

earlier, the with the small it. sight

is something to induce thus wearing coffin.l6

nothing. of

In addition, one's feeling us

is intended alterity, size of of the

"calming a

terror,

alterity,"

is enhanced our mortality,

Hence,

instead

of making

it negates

Rothko's

Representation

of Nothingness must be distinguished

often the associated sublime and difference (in Edmund with relate the and evokes

The apprehension
lime, of both mixed the as Rothko's sublime evoke with

of death and nothingness

paintings, in Both feeling. However, particular,

from the sub

the tradition and horror the sense to finitude sublime between Burke's

were

painting.

nothingness Nothingness there it is a

a similar pleasure. sublime,

anxiety

is a fundamental of an object

two. The

whether

quality

or a feeling (in Immanuel Kant's sense), is contingent on nothing ness, as it is the apprehension of our finitude and fragility, of the fact that there of the word)
are forces in nature from threat that such to our over offers of our us no any can destroy us. At because according according On the we same know to Burke, time, that the sublime is no we is also real or a withdrawal immediate our superiority a realization, existence, finite such there

or because The

discover with to the con

nature,

to Kant. the

encounter it points

nothingness 13. Ibid., 244. 14. Ibid., 119. 15. Jean-Luc Nancy, impossibility The Muses, trans. P. Kamuf stitutes us.

redemption. as our

contrary,

salvation,

impending

nothingness

is also what

(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 59. 16. Jacques Derrida, The Truth in Painting, trans. Geoff Bennington and IanMcLeod (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 191.

Leo Bersani and Ulysse Dutoit argue that In their book Arts of Impoverishment, Rothko began to subvert the readability of forms depicted in his painting already in the 1950s, and this tendency reached its peak in the fourteen Rothko Chapel

25

art

journal

paintings forms,

at St. Thomas background, and

University, even

Houston, the paintings

in which themselves

the differences are almost

between completely

obliterated. They argue that the sameness of the paintings

has a twofold and effect. therefore First, it renders a kind visibility unnecessary, Second, to see, it induces of blindness.

in the Rothko Chapel

as there by is nothing the obliterating

forms in the chapel paintings, Rothko creates an example of what Friedrich Nietzsche called Dionysian art, inwhich one's individuality is lost as the borders that constitute the individual by differentiating it from its environment collapse.
They maintain that the chapel encourages which having again the viewers they become such a define aware to remember as "the of of itself the and experience repeat of a the experience pleasurable of only its desire." in death Yet all of of primary shattered '7 We and, this can narcissism,

consciousness experience degree, about

as the object self's coherence

shattering

to a lesser can be said

in sex. almost any monochrome painting. Yves

Klein's blue monochromes

examples. Robert Furthermore, Ryman's color visibility any other white makes induces

and Ad Reinhardt 'sblack paintings offer just two

the moment of blindness In these, to discern that is much more create from self much prominent forms, the wall. more but Their power in the brushstrokes the paintings shatters the

paintings. it difficult

their white uncertain fully than About Rothko's have omy been

a blindness

monochrome paintings of

painting. the 1950s, it returns Bersani us and Dutoit to the moment boundaries in sparing the write: of that we econ have

Rothko's work

is retrogressive: skipped, to an effort may

looking a certain we

always in human spared,

to establish succeeded

evolution however, might not

have

us. What

is the very

work

of being,

renewed

possibility

that presence Thinking

take place.,8 in this way associates them with the notion

of Rothko's

paintings

of the sublime rather than with nothingness.

Avant-Garde," Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard relates

In his essay "The Sublime and the

the sublime to the horror that noth

ing will happen and the relief that it is happening.I9

rect, is a fail 17. Leo Bersani and Ulysse Dutoit, Arts of Impoverishment: Beckett, Rothko, Resnais (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 142. 18. Ibid., 121. 19. Jean-Fran?ois Lyotard, "The Sublime and the inThe Inhuman: Reflection on Time, Avant-Garde," trans. Geoff Bennington and R. Bowlby (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991). 20. Rosenblum, Modern Painting, 199; Weiss, "Rothko's Unknown Space," 305; Robert "Reflections on the Rothko Goldwater, Exhibition," and Peter Selz, "Mark Rothko," in Mark Rothko, exh. cat. (Basel: Kunsthalle Basel, 1982), n.p. 21. Mark Rothko, quoted in John Fischer, "Mark Rothko: Portrait of the Artist as an Angry Man," Harper's Magazine, July 1970, 16, quoted "Rothko's Unknown Space," 321. Weiss, in many viewing feeling to notice critics Rothko's related that paintings sublime. should produce a to the these However, induce although this as effect. I believe anxiety not always

If this interpretation
feeling that of delight, any observer delight. using for Weiss since

is cor
this

cannot Indeed,

paintings

rather

than

have mentioned, paintings have

expressly

the word,

that Rothko's describes as is "objects significant seems

Robert

Rosenblum, Jeffery Robert one Peter pauses,

example, describes writes, to enter. spectator that them "It Its

Rothko's of

paintings or

"awe-inspiring"; awe"; while

emotional

spiritual

Goldwater hesitating "The

that at the entrance both an occupied atmosphere his chapel and of

to this empty"; alarm

room and

space

Selz writes, is evidence Rothko same

contemplates Rothko that himself

. . ."2? There to evoke to achieve Library feel that

to suggest said

wanted

paintings he wanted

anxiety. the

to a reporter that which,

in the Houston

atmosphere Florence,

Michelangelo according

generated to Rothko,

in his "makes

Laurentian the viewer

in S. Lorenzo, they are trapped

in a room

where
butt

all the doors and windows

their heads forever against

are bricked up, so that all they can do is to

the wall."21

Inwhat follows

Iwill demonstrate how Rothko's way of intimating mortality

26

SUMMER 2005

in his works?namely, forms depicted in his

by undermining paintings as well description When Bersani and we we

our as the of

ability space

to read in which

the

colors they are

of

the

situated?

is reminiscent the "slipping and, the world and remain, and absorbed

of Heidegger's away of

the encounter "slip away" argue, become

with from

nothingness: us, they do not

the whole." to what

things

disappear us and

contrary

and Dutoit do not

the difference one with facing us with a state

between

is not obliterated its entities, while our being, to which connection which is nor

it. Instead, up to our only in which or a state a shut in us.

the world being, ourselves we are

escape to them

in order is severed,

to avoid leaving It is not

our

being-toward-death. is it one by Bersani of ourselves, of either

in the world, as suggested

self-forgetfulness It is rather that

tered which

consciousness, we touch

and Dutoit. the finitude

the deepest

core

constitutes

Space
From on about 1950 Rothko The floating and space things several means concentrated sensation was on producing rectangular eliminated regarded forms floating from his

a surface.

created

as Rothko sense,

paintings sary for There space. One

depth rendering are

in the conventional as existing. ways

features

as neces

conventional of a

to devise representation

an

illusory where

three-dimensional figures A become an

is by smaller

perspectival to their

gradually aerial ground, way ceived

according involves a

distance of

from

the observer. as they recede

second, into

perspective, thus causing

blurring

the forms away partially

the back Another it is per is the

them

to appear when one than

further form

from

the observer. another,

is partial as nearer

concealment:

conceals one.

to the observer

the concealed

A fourth

method

gradual modification
dimensional form.

of light and shadow, which

Another is a juxtaposition of

reproduces
colors: some

the look of a three

colors have the

quality of appearing to approach the viewer (such as red) or to recede (blue). Thus, if a blue form is depicted next to a red one, the red is perceived as nearer
to the observer Rothko by manipulating 1952, by for example, green, used than none some the blue. of of these methods them up he of a subverted large, from red, in his our paintings?or, reading of more space. on green, from precisely, Untitled top, from

is made almost

rectangular

form smaller,

separated rectangular orange

a dark below

black on

stripe a

a somewhat whose color

form

it, all painted

background

changes

brown on top to light green in the middle and grayish-green at the bottom. The red rectangle is prominent and its edges are clearly distinguished from the back
ground. The emphasis on the edges produces a sensation of a floating form over

the background, which

it, which could

is also emphasized
as a shadow

by the dark green stripe underneath

cast by the red form. This floating

be perceived

sensation is amplified by the gradation of the background

from sion orange-brown that the upper at the part of top the to red light form green in the middle, is closer

color, which
giving the than

changes
impres its

to the background

lower part. But a daub of dark green color on top of the lower edge of the red form makes it look as if the dark green stripe is in front of the red. As the green
form's from edges are blurred However, and dissolve into stripe the background, of green covering the form withdraws area of the the viewer. a narrow a small

27

art journal

dark nearer toward

green

stripe

above than and

the green the dark

form green.

makes The

it look red form

as if the green looks

form

is

to the viewer the viewer

as if it advances since the

the green

as if it withdraws.

Simultaneously,

green is also in front of the dark green stripe and the red behind
decided oriented in what what is in front and what space, one is behind. perceives renders deep nor The moment at the same one time space in the pictorial is near and what fluctuating, the

it, it cannot be
oneself contradictions

thinks

is far. This neither

the pictorial flat.

ambiguous,

unperceivable,

The conventional
and many forms near, was trary, attempt sensation others in the pictorial between not depth

reading of pictorial
paintings. to distinguish all these The space, and

space is deliberately
ability between are to measure what

confused
distances

in this
between is

of Rothko's

is distant dubious. paintings.

and what Rothko, On then, the con any

flatness,

rendered in his strove

interested

in representing in many of his reading

spatial paintings of space

illusion that he and

it is evident

to undermine any coherent

at a conventional from his paintings.

to eliminate

spatial

Color
As he read subverted colors. His our reading blur of space Rothko also undermined the colors our ability and their to

paintings

the differences

between

boundaries, a difference monochrome paintings.

main contains from is not it rectangular more by gray, forms rectangles, sometimes applied, even to be

that disappears almost completely in his dark and almost In No. 27 (LightBand) from 19^4,Rothko depicts three
over as a mainly blue background. form, As or Each which the color of are of these forms if echoing black, sometimes the edges rectangular the main contours. thicker of these forms distinguished the contour wider making forms con it

almost being

uniformly

thinner,

sometimes

or narrower, impossible

disappearing, sure how many

forms each

are blurred, of the main

tains. In addition
the main into color forms

to the blurred boundaries

are blurred This as well, sensation dark making

of the contained
them by top, seem the as

forms, the edges of

are of dissolving the form's and gradu form edges,

if they

the background. to that of

is enhanced blue at the toward with

similarity lighter The darker

the background, darker, top is somewhat mainly blue

turning

ally becoming nearest to the

purple, daubed

the bottom. gray. It turns

rectangular at the

making
same

it almost blend into the background

is true of the central and lower rectangles.

(in particular on the right side). The

The color of the middle form is

mainly white with daubs of yellow. It is lighter in the center, turning blue and
darker and toward the edges, black, and mixed other first the one with at the bottom the purple paintings, the observer color is gray?lighter of the in the center edge. the colors stand darker, In this is deliberately almost case, the background readability encounters of when

as in many The

Rothko problem

confused.

ing before Rothko's paintings is the impossibility of locating the precise contours of the form, making it difficult, if not impossible, to discern where precisely it
begins and the background ends. This problem entails another: the number of

forms actually depicted

the are canvas slipping evade away from

in the paintings
of our perception us.

is uncertain. Thus, the forms depicted on

and create the impression that they

the grasp

28

SUMMER 2005

Mark Rothko. No. 27 (Light Band), 1954. Oil on canvas. 81 x 86% in. (205.7 x 220 cm). Private collection. ? 2005 Kate Rothko Prizel and Christopher Roth ko/Artists Right Society (ARS) New York. Michael Bodycomb. Photograph:

29

art journal

There

is no

evidence account

to suggest of away the of

that Rothko with

had

read Heidegger. and in

Neverthe particular paint is expe his

less, Heidegger's notion ings. As rienced meaning of the

encounter the whole"

nothingness describes nothingness,

"slipping noted, beings in anxiety

perfectly reveals as a

Rothko's which of

already "with that

for Heidegger, and in the beings entities

anxiety expressly

slipping recede

away from us

the whole,"22 cannot

in the world

and we

get hold of them, leaving us with

death. stituted nothingness. his canvas as Rothko's by the He way fact of representing are born mortality that we

only our own being, which

the human to die, by drama, which Heidegger's the forms perceive space and things are what colors, resembles

is being-toward
for him was con of on cannot In

thinking represented

intimated

rendering gaze. The

escaping or be by

the grasp certain the

of our

there,

but we

really other

perceive words,

that we

accurately of

exactly Rothko

is there. reenacted

blurring

readability

and represented
when we Some since existence assume it when encounter

in his paintings what

nothingness. must among scientifically something can also be added so

according

to Heidegger we experience
the can "existence" say that of nothingness: that, its

reservations a thing be

regarding that we but only

it is not

things,

it is this or If we, and however,

cannot that there

proved that we assume

assumed.

"is" we

call nothingness,

that we Rothko's

encounter paintings

anxious,

that nothingness

is what

show us. Although

ence nonetheless

itmight
is shared

be that it is not experienced

by many. In any case, the fact

by all, such an experi

that Rothko wanted to

intimate mortality
ground cation least of that do anxiety not

and the way he chose to do it?by

entirely submit to our grasp?as in Rothko's point to a congruence nothingness.

depicting
well as his and Heidegger's

forms on a back
paintings' invo at

thinking,

insofar

as it concerns

Covering

Nothingness his paintings

told Werner similar He put to this layers of

Rothko not only wanted

nothingness, "cover canvases and With sole up but, something colors. the as he

to intimate mortality,
he also wished Indeed, on top of

our impending
his Rothko paintings covered concealing transparent. the to his

Haftmann,

'nothingness.'"23 color making in his one

with

another, of covering

revealing no other

colors

underneath, represented

the process paintings, the

content of his art.

covering

becomes

content Rothko's

22. Heidegger, "What IsMetaphysics?" 102. 23.Werner Anna C. Chave, Haftmann, quoted in Mark Rothko: Subjects inAbstraction (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 193. 24. Many critics, as well as Rothko himself, noted the paintings gave the sensation of being and presence. Inhis Pratt lecture, when describing the difference between himself and Ad Reinhardt, Rothko said, "The difference between me and mean Reinhardt is that he's a mystic. By that I that his paintings are immaterial. Mine are here. Materially. The surfaces, the work of the brush and so on. His are untouchable"; quoted inDore Ashton, About Rothko (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 179. 25. Heidegger, "What IsMetaphysics?" 103.

paintings

cover notion

nothingness of nothingness. painting, artists, and and

in another By except as many absence.

sense

as well, most surface have

one of and

that the com

is close ponents Rothko, pointed emphasizes that sense they

to

Heidegger's

eliminating the framed critics This

that used as many to

to constitute other abstract as a of they

color,

commented, though, to the fact and is also a in this revealing,

nothingness the presence

negation

negation, our attention

the paintings,24 are something Paradoxically,

as it draws rather this than

simply conceal

are, that

nothing,

they

nothingness.

concealing

first, because for Heidegger,

aware tion that something that to the fact there

nothingness
place,

iswhat makes
and second, instead.

it possible

for us to be
our atten

is in the first could

because

it draws

be nothingness

Nothingness,

Heidegger

argues, "discloses

these beings

in their full but

30

SUMMER 200S

heretofore the nothing." not we world of

concealed That and aware

strangeness is, nothingness the more of we

as what reveals are other: aware

is

radically

other?with "they of all a are

respect beings

to and

beings of

because the presence Among

nothing,"25 are made

thing, the

the more in the a work

its radical of kind, we no

nothingness. that we by reason

things

it is the presence what

an artwork is, simply longer

are most of

aware

of. Because and

art, no matter

its presence

continuing as its radi

endurance,

even when

are, it stands

against

nothingness

cal other. And this, for Heidegger,

human which in a work stronger there products, they of our could came, art, which while the disappear the work

is the difference between

in use, of art sinking is preserved. into The from

artworks and other

from is depicted the that that

the nothingness less

less our that instead.

attention this work Heidegger

is distracted is, and writes:

its bare our

presence,

realization be nothing

the greater

realization

The more
more the cleanly thrust

solitary the work, fixed in the figure, stands on its own and the
it seems into into to cut the open this openness To all ties that to human such a work at the beings, the more simply simply does does us out to trans all the come us of is. . . . the more same time

it transport of the realm our doing

and submit and and

thus

transport means

the ordinary. ties

to this displacement earth looking, and henceforth in order

form usual

accustomed and prizing,

to world knowing

to restrain to stay within

truth that is happening

The word manifests the encounter the "nothingness" relation with it is also their of

in the work.26
is not mentioned here, but the citation nonetheless it is and us with us and the every Is

the artwork

to

nothingness. that us severs

Because our to ties

for Heidegger to all beings and makes encounter and makes going existence to die of of "What there "is"

nothingness nothingness that each us out

in anxiety that gives

our world, aware of

access again,

beings it is the

presence, that transports

thing of our

is,27 and ordinary the

nothingness reevaluate that we work thing, 26. Heidegger, "The Origin of theWork of Art," inBasic Writings, 191. 27. Derrida, in the last part of The Truth in Painting (378), similarly argues that for Heidegger to say about something that it is,we first must have the experience of nothingness: "That which is, as the being of the existent, is not (the existent). A cer tain thinking, a certain experience of nothingness is required for access to this (of the nonexistent) question of the being of the existent, likewise to the difference between being and the existent." it could be said that any painting, Therefore, because it is, by its very existence points to noth ingness. However, this does not indicate how in a painting. nothingness can be (re)presented 28. Novak and O'Doherty, "Rothko's Dark Paintings," 274. 29. For one of the possible effects that facing our mortality and accepting itmight have on us, see William Haver's most enlightening essay "Really Bad Infinities:Queer's Honour and the Pornographic Life," Parallax 5, no. 4 (1999). our might points

everyday fact that we which perceived proven. only

life are the

situation die to,

in the world, This but

facing

at any moment. an absence

nothingness, something

is not

as the origin In his essay that

but whose

"existence" Heidegger points

cannot out

be

logically can

Metaphysics?" such nothingness. Novak seen fallible as

that we

surmise

and O'Doherty and

write,

"Rothko's . . What .

method is behind Rothko's

in these works the mask? paintings Another are masks

could

also

be a

masking human

unmasking.

mask, indeed,

presence?or

nothing?"28

but masks
This and such, simulate face what us the way

that show what

which but

they hide: that it is nothingness

Rothko's paintings the conjure limit up, of human words,

that lies behind

is not only a negation and

them.
as

nothingness, an absence

also what defines experience try

designates and constitutes

existence, Rothko's and of death

it is also what what we we we

it. In other

paintings us

when to repress:

encountering that it is the

nothingness certainty

thus make that makes

normally are.29

Natalie Kosoi teaches aesthetics at the Shenkar School of Design and Art History in the Open University in Israel. Her PhD dissertation is titled "Nothingness in Art: Mark Rothko, Robert Ryman, Anish Kapoor, and Eva Hesse."

3 I art

journal