Minimalism, your thoughts - Page 4

No, there's no burden on me at all because I'm not making any such contention. Pointing out that you've made assertions that lack any evidentiary basis is not the same thing as affirmatively contending the contrapositive of your statement.
In any event, your logic is faulty. The fact that someone who made a conscious, intellectually consistent decision to turn away from the more "complex" works of the past did not produce the type of work he deliberately eschewed is not probative of his ability or inability to produce such work. When your premise doesn't lead to your conclusion, the putative validity of your premise is irrelevant.

You just called it art.

This whole debate about whether some art is art or not is so 1928

I can only go by his artworks, none of which show a complexity or skill (not mutually inclusive, btw) to compare to Caravaggio. Thus, unless you have an artwork by Rothko to prove otherwise, I'm going to keep my position.

Jon.

Jon.

Party on, dude. I have no investment in getting you to change your position.

Nor I yours. Let's be honest: there is no way to test either of our theories, for Rothko is dead.

Jon.

Can you prove that?

No living artist has paintings that command that kind of price at the auction house.

Jon.

There are many.

!luc

Indeed there are, so why can't a car be Bauhaus as well?

Jon.

I would think that a chair being designed at the Bauhaus gives it an edge over a car being designed decades after the Bauhaus ceased to exist. Influence, however, works.