A Letter from Mark Rothko and Adolph Gottlieb to the Art Editor of the New York Times.

June 7, 1943

Mr. Edward Alden Jewell
Art Editor
New York Times
229 West 43 Street
New York, N. Y.

Dear Mr. Jewell:

To the artist, the workings of the critical mind is one of life’s mysteries. That is why, we
suppose, the artist’s complaint that he is misunderstood, especially by the critic, has become a
noisy commonplace. It is therefore, an event when the worm turns and the critic of the TIMES
quietly yet publicly confesses his “befuddlement”, that he is “non-plussed” before our pictures at
the Federation Show. We salute this honest, we might say cordial reaction towards our “obscure”
paintings, for in other critical quarters we seem to have created a bedlam of hysteria. And we
appreciate the gracious opportunity that is being offered us to present our views.

We do not intend to defend our pictures. They make their own defense. We consider them clear
statements. Your failure to dismiss or disparage them is prima facie evidence that they carry some
communicative power.

We refuse to defend them not because we cannot. It is an easy matter to explain to the befuddled
that “The Rape of Persephone” is a poetic expression of the essence of the myth; the presentation
of the concept of seed and its earth with all its brutal implications; the impact of elemental
truth. Would you have us present this abstract concept with all its complicated feelings by means
of a boy and girl lightly tripping?

It is just as easy to explain “The Syrian Bull”, as a new interpretation of an archaic image,
involving unprecedented distortions. Since art is timeless, the significant rendition of a symbol,
no matte how archaic, has as full validity today as the archaic symbol had them. Or is the one 3000
years old truer?

But these easy program notes can help only the simple-minded. No possible set of notes can explain
our paintings. Their explanation must come out of a consummated experience between picture and
onlooker. The appreciation of art is a true marriage of minds. And in art, as in marriage, lack of
consummation is ground for annulment.

The point at issue, it seems to us, is not an “explanation” of the paintings but whether the
intrinsic ideas carried within the frames of these pictures have significance. We feel that our
pictures demonstrate our aesthetic beliefs, some of which we, therefore, list: 1. To us art is an
adventure into an unknown world, which can be explored only by those willing to
take the risks. 2. This world of the imagination is fancy-free and violently opposed to common
sense. 3. It is our functions as artists to make the spectator see the world our way—not his way.
4.We favor the simple expression of the complex thought. We are for the large shape because it
has the impact of the unequivocal. We wish to reassert the picture plane. We are for flat forms
because they destroy illusion and reveal truth. 5. It is a widely accepted notion among painters
that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of
academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing. We assert that the subject is
crucial and only that subject matter is valid which is tragic and timeless. That is why we profess
spiritual kinship with primitive and archaic art.

Consequently if our work embodies these beliefs, it must insult anyone who is spiritually attuned
to interior decoration; pictures for the home; pictures for over the mantle; pictures of the
American scene; social pictures; purity in art; prize-winning potboilers; the National Academy, the
Whitney Academy, the Corn Belt Academy; buckeyes, trite tripe; etc.

Sincerely yours,
Adolph Gottlieb Marcus Rothko
130 State Street Brooklyn, New York