To the Editors:
John Bernard Myers, who contributed so much to our appreciation of contemporary art in the 1950s and 1960s, adds to our further understanding of those years in the “notes” and “memories” paragraphs of his recent article, “Mark Rothko and the Rothko Case.” His portraits of Rothko, Theodore Stamos, Bernard Reis, and the New York art scene are perceptive and sensitive. But, when he turns to his “observations” of the Rothko case and the role played by Kate Rothko and the Rothko Foundation, Myers allows a scrim of sentimentality to come between him and the outcome. He has gotten a fundamental fact wrong; and even when his memory is accurate, his inferences, to put it kindly, are in many instances irresponsible.
There is no need here to rehash the Rothko trial; that ground has been covered often enough. But it may be helpful in clearing up Myers’s doubts if we compare the position of the Rothko Foundation and Rothko’s legacy—his paintings —today with the situation that prevailed before Kate Rothko brought her 1971 suit. For Myers either to question Kate Rothko’s temerity in bringing the suit or to suggest that the subsequent pain suffered by the executors and the Marlborough Gallery somehow negated the benefit to the Foundation and, I believe, the public, is to permit his friendships to mask the realities and the equities, then and now.
What was the Foundation’s position then and now? Myers is factually wrong in stating that the Rothko Foundation was created to “help men over fifty years old if they are sick or in trouble.” Whatever Rothko may have said to Myers, the simple fact is that neither his will nor the original charter of the Foundation makes any reference to indigent older artists. The will and the original charter are public documents which Myers or anyone else is free to examine.
Soon after Rothko’s death, the Foundation board amended its charter to make specific reference to assisting older artists. But, when the new Rothko Foundation board took office in 1976, it removed this post mortem amendment and conformed the Foundation’s charter once again with those purposes which Rothko himself had explicitly established. The Foundation may today assist older artists, but this is neither its sole nor principal charge.
Furthermore, had the suit not been brought, the Foundation would have been merely a conduit through which monies realized by discount-priced sales or consignment of its entire collection through the Marlborough Gallery were passed on to indigent artists. But, clearly, at least half of all future proceeds would have accrued to the gallery and not to the Foundation.
In this context, Myers appears to be favorably impressed by the fact that “the executors exacted a promise from the gallery to unload at least thirteen pictures before the end of the year for a guaranteed minimum total of $250,000.” “From my professional standpoint,” he adds, “I, of course, wondered how the gallery could possibly fulfill its commitment.” Myers seems to have forgotten that individual Rothkos were already then being sold at $200,000 or more. The question Myers should really have asked is, “How could the gallery possibly fail?”
In any event, in 1971 the Foundation, although essentially the sole beneficiary of Roth-ko’s estate, had consigned all of its pictures for sale, retaining no control over their ultimate disposition. And, as Myers himself notes: “Many of the pictures were in poor condition, and much restoration, including stretching and framing, would be required. I immediately wondered where the works would be stored and who would undertake the large job of acting as curator …. Overseeing seven hundred or more works struck me as a formidable and daunting effort.” He was right to wonder.
If Kate had not acted, no one would have seen to the proper storage, reconditioning, and general oversight, not of seven hundred works but of some two thousand items. The best, or at least the most salable pictures, would have been sold with little effort under the consignment arrangement. The remainder would have moldered, uncared for, in a variety of warehouses, it being in no one’s interest to worry about them.
When, in 1979-80, the new Foundation board took physical possession of its half of the estate, it indeed found that many pictures were in poor condition; and shocking storage conditions, mishandling, and mold damage were causing further deterioration. As its first priority the Foundation built an exemplary storage facility, engaged a registrar, curator, and restorer, and set about to rescue and preserve the works entrusted to it.
Myers also quotes Stamos as noting that “the immense task of compiling a catalogue raisonné of Rothko’s work would have to wait until there were sufficient funds in the estate.” Myers himself comments that the Jackson Pollock catalogue raisonné had “been going on with well-trained art historians since 1960” and “was eventually published in 1978.” Alas, a Rothko catalogue raisonné would never have been begun, much less completed, had not the trial intervened. Since neither the Rothko children nor the Foundation would have retained any surviving interest in the works of art, no other individual or organization could have supplied either the motivation or the resources necessary to catalogue Rothko’s work.
The new Foundation has begun work on a catalogue raisonné and expects to complete it before the end of this decade. It has the resources, the personnel, and most importantly, the motivation to undertake this formidable task. Additionally, the Foundation has funded the Archives of American Art in preparing an oral history of Rothko. And the work of condition reporting, restretching, cleaning, and outright restoration has already made significant progress.
But perhaps most important, the new board’s decision to keep its collection rather than sell it, now makes it possible for scholars to study Rothko’s work and for the general public to view it through carefully organized exhibitions and extended loans. And the Foundation will assist mature artists in a meaningful way by underwriting exhibitions of their work in art galleries.
Ultimately, the Foundation plans to give away its entire collection—probably before the end of this decade—to appropriate institutions here and abroad, in order to insure that Rothko’s work will be accessible to the public at large. Future generations will, thus, have the opportunity to decide for themselves how important Rothko’s contribution may have been. But, had the original Foundation board’s policy of selling everything through a commercial gallery been realized, only a few works would have haphazardly ended up in public institutions. By contrast, the current Foundation’s gifts will take the form of coherent selections of pictures from various periods, making Rothko’s work available in discrete groupings, just as he himself would have wished.
For Myers misses the key insight: Rothko’s fears, concerns, and even dislike of collectors, galleries, and museums had little to do with his personal relationships. Rather, his overriding concern was for the fate of his work. As Rothko said, in a famous 1947 statement:
A picture lives by companionship, expanding and quickening in the eyes of the observer. It dies by the same token. It is therefore a risky act to send it out into the world.
Of course, Rothko was affected by his relationships, and he undoubtedly was moved by the plight of his less fortunate contemporaries. But, above all, he was concerned with his work and his reputation. This is why he was always reluctant to show, and this is primarily why he created the Rothko Foundation.
John Bernard Myers fails to make clear what motivated Rothko or explain where his priorities lay. But this is precisely what Kate Rothko, inexperienced as she may have been in 1970, did instinctively understand.
Kate Rothko, of course, can speak for herself. But from the point of view of the Foundation and the public which it exists to serve, the successful outcome of the Rothko trial greatly enhanced the opportunity for present and future generations to see, learn from, and even enjoy what matters most, Mark Rothko’s work.
Donald M. Blinken
President
The Mark Rothko Foundation, Inc.
New York City
John Bernard Myers replies:
Donald Blinken, an old and helpful acquaintance, writes that I was “factually wrong in stating that the Rothko Foundation was created to ‘help men over fifty years old if they are sick or in trouble,’” and he cites as “evidence” the fact that “neither his [Rothko’s] will nor the original charter of the Foundation makes any reference to indigent older artists.” But my article did not discuss either the terms of Rothko’s will or the original charter of the Foundation. It focused on what Rothko told me about his wishes and intentions, and told others as well, and about this matter I was and remain factually correct.
The truth is, Rothko’s views on this matter were very well known among his circle of friends, and Mr. Blinken must surely be aware of this. It was Mark, after all, who selected the committee that would decide on grants once his foundation was legally established with the I.R.S. Even before his death, Mark had arranged for two deserving artists to be aided when they were in need— George Constant, a painter who was an old friend of Mark’s, and Gwen Davies, a painter who had been an art teacher at Dal ton (the school that Kate Rothko attended) but who was then without a job. It was precisely because Rothko’s wishes were so well known on this matter that, as Mr. Blinken writes, “the Foundation board amended its charter to make specific reference to assisting older artists.” It is worth pointing out, I think, that the list of writers and artists aided by the Foundation between 1970 and 1972 was remarkably distinguished. Among those aided were Djuna Barnes, James T. Farrell, Jean Garrigue, Horace Gregory, Kenneth Patchen, Parker Tyler, John Ferren, Maurice Golubov, Leon Hard, Carl Holty, Norman Lewis, Loren Maclver, and the composer Ben Weber. The task of helping older artists who found themselves in difficult circumstances was in fact carried out very conscientiously by the original Foundation board. As for the prices then commanded by Rothko’s paintings, I have not forgotten that there were a few pictures that may have brought $200,000, but Mr. Blinken seems to have forgotten exactly how very few Rothko paintings there were in that price class. Most of the other “salable” paintings could only be sold at much lower figures, and as for the others—which ranged from the less salable to the unsalable—the less said the better.
It is in this perspective, in any case, that the Foundation’s plans “to give away its entire collection” needs to be understood. It is nice to know that “Rothko’s work will be accessible to the public at large,” but it is worth pointing out, I think, that this wholesale giveaway plan will also have the effect of inflating the market value of the Rothko paintings that remain for sale. Does anyone really believe that this was Mark Rothko’s intention?
I am happy to hear that work has begun on a catalogue raisonné of the Rothko oeuvre. But surely this too could have been accomplished without abandoning Rothko’s plan to aid needy older artists.
As to whether Rothko intended the provisions of his will to result in some kind of shrine to his work, I remain unconvinced that this was his true intention, and perhaps Mark knew best. It may have been that he realized shrines do not in the end insure an artist’s reputation or position. There have been many such shrines—for instance, those of Frederick Church, Boldini, Vasarely. Sometimes—as in the case of the Rodin Museum—they do the trick, but often they don’t. When works of art are, as Valéry said, “abandoned,” they are on their own. Posterity decides. Mr. Blinken thinks me “sentimental” and protective toward those who were destroyed by the Rothko case. I am happy to state that art has never seemed to me as important as life.