Back to the Human in John Logan’s “Red”

2.1 Literary ecocriticism

Ecocriticism is concerned with the interconnection between nature and literary works: poetic, narrative, or dramatic. Ecocriticism highlights the importance of space, the place where the action occurs, because it is the literary representation of environment. Analyzing the symbolic construction of space, we can grasp the author’s predominant perceptions of ecosystems. Space is as relevant as the gender, class, or race of the characters, as well as the age in which the story takes place. In addition, literary recreation of biological and animal species evokes the interrelationship between living organisms and the physical world and awakens the consciousness of the reader/spectator about ecological problems.

Glotfelty proposes that ecocritics’ concerns of global warming and environmental degradation are caused by human civilization. She thinks that the geographical environment and economic production depend on human culture, and quotes historian Donald Worster: “We are facing a global crisis today, not because of how agricultural ecosystems function but rather because of how our ethical systems function” (1996: XXI). Thereby, environmental degradation originates in today’s human culture, which has lost its ethical sense: it promotes polluting production systems and overexploitation of natural resources. The contemporary citizen assimilates the culture, provides continuity to the degradation of the natural environment, and becomes part of the problem. Glotfelty’s ecocriticism is shaped principally by ontological rather than epistemological concerns. The conception of the being of the world and its relations with the human being establish the form that we know to represent the world. All human culture is born from nature and is clearly defined by the environment:

All ecological criticism shares the fundamental premise that human culture is connected to the physical world, affecting it and is affected by it. Ecocriticism takes as its subject the interconnectedness between nature and culture. (1996: XIX)

Glotfelty recovers the structure proposed by Elaine Showalter (1977), a pioneer feminist critic, who identifies three stages in the literary representation of women. The first stage identifies the literary female stereotypes, which provide a distorted and sexist view. A second phase recognizes those works written by women who have been ignored by conventional standards, but that promote an awakening of female consciousness. Finally, the third stage focuses on theory and investigates how the role of women is symbolically constructed in literary works. As a parallel, ecocriticism identifies the literary stereotypes used in order to evoke natural sites: forest, jungle, ocean, desert, and city. Then, it focuses on the work of earlier writers who granted relevance to the environment and awakened an ecological consciousness before the environmental crisis we face today. Finally, ecocriticism examines the symbolic construction of living species in literary discourse, noting how the human being is conceived in fiction and what characteristics the human has in relationships with the physical world.

Glotfelty points out that many writers conceive in their novels an artificial dualism: a separation between humans and nature, as well as supporting an anthropocentric point of view. Ecocriticism maintains a deep ecological perspective in which all species are equally important and rejects human domination of the environment. The study of fiction looks for the ecological values that are transmitted by language, the relationship between anthropomorphic characters and their natural environment, and possible ethical dilemmas. Ecocriticism is related to a sense of social justice and ethics in our modern civilization that, due to globalization, permeates all cultures of the world.

According to Philips, Ernest Hemingway and Carl Hiaasen represent two important trends in contemporary literature. Hemingway represents modernity and Hiaasen represents postmodernity. The laureate novelist Hemingway described in his work the brilliance of nature, but also approved of the cultural manifestations of animal mistreatment: hunting, fishing, and bullfighting. Meanwhile, postmodern literature, represented by the journalist Hiaasen, denounces stereotypes and old ideas about the natural world and relates abuses against nature such as the extinction of species and environmental pollution. Philips says that, “Today’s cultural energy must be largely devoted to coping with the negative effects of yesteryear: the symbols and successes of fifty years ago are often today’s environmental disasters, and may prove harder to repair or unmake than they were to create”(1996: 222). However, ecocriticism doesn’t mean to offer a pessimistic point of view about the postmodern world; it only aims to guide literary analysis and encourage an ecological conscience.

2.2 Dramatic ecocriticism

Theater gathers a group of individuals interacting in a specific space and time, staging human life with its own substance, the living body of the actor in front of the spectator’s eye. Normal reality splits up to create an alternative one, a theatrical world, in which all individuals are transformed: the actor in character, the public in witness. Berthold mentions that: “The transmutation of the self into another being is part of the archetypes of human expression” (1974: 7). The concept of drama includes the mimesis of the real environment and an incarnation of the author’s imaginary one. Bentley points out that “the playwright allows us to see the minds of other men through live action” (1998: 16) as well as understanding our own internal world. Theatrical experience is immediate and ephemeral, but highly disruptive and symbolic.

Applying ecocriticism to drama, Meeker defines tragedy as a dramatic story in which the main character raises human spiritual ideals above biological needs. On the other hand, comedy is the theatrical expression of human animalism. In The Comedy of Survival (1972), Meeker states that comedy promotes “the healthy” in the human being, it drives toward survival and affinity with the natural environment – unlike tragedy, which reveals a “bad adjustment” of men to the world. The tragic hero acts against his own nature and environment, committing a transgression that breaks the universal and social order: incest, patricide, or filicide. Then, he faces the consequences of his action and sacrifices his health or life to repair as much as possible the injury committed. This offering subverts the nature of the animal organism, the biological basis of human life, in the name of heroic ideals and ethics. In tragedy, the main character fails to reconcile his biological needs with his ideology.

Meanwhile, the vicious character of the comedy stages extreme emotions like passionate love, bitter hate, and intense nationalism, and shows that people behave irrationally compared to other animals. The comedy ridicules social norms that change according to different places and times without ever becoming final or decisive. Meeker points out that “As Aristotle puts it, comedy imitates the actions of men who are subnormal or inferior to the social norm and tragedy imitates the actions of superior men” (1996: 158). While the tragic hero dies defending his ideals, the comic character survives by giving them up. Comedy shows little concern for morality, beauty, heroism, and all abstract human values, because people are essentially sophisticated animals that require satisfaction of their biological needs. “Comedy is a celebration, a ritual renewal of biological welfare as it persists in spite of any reasons there may be for feeling metaphysical despair” (Meeker 1996: 159). Thus comedy portrays the possibilities of human survival like other animals that also develop a “comical behavior” (Meeker 1996: 169). The Greek playwright Aristophanes equates people of his time with frogs, wasps, or birds in order to demonstrate that all species develop similar attitudes, moving away from the ancient notion that humans are the culmination of evolution.

Finally, for Meeker, science fiction is the mystification of technology. This myth is tragic because it assumes a continued economic growth that eventually will cause the degradation of the natural environment. Science and technology have become humanity’s main weapon over nature, excluding from its languages concern for the planet. The tragic hero would have to oppose progress in order to be consistent with his ethical and spiritual values, as the comic character should sabotage the technological infrastructure to protect his primitive way of life and return to nature.

2.3 Active role of the reader/spectator

Through literature, we can rediscover symbols and metaphors that allow us to rethink our relationship with the world and to act in consequence. Ecocriticism not only analyzes the literary strategies of authors but also deepens the understanding of how writing embodied in literary texts can be converted into action. In the book Deep Immersion, the Experience of Water (2003), France proposes that in order to create environmental concern, the reader/spectator needs to apprehend the importance of the natural elements: air, water, and land, as well as of all the animal and vegetable species. For example, “man must enter the physical and spiritual essence of the actions of water to understand his preservation and his presence in life” (France 2003: 10). He indicates that the vortex of modern life has left crippled individuals who have lost contact with the natural world, focusing on materialism and trying to give meaning to their existence. “Deep ecology,” developed by psychologists during recent decades, is a system of thought and action that foments sensibility to the environment and highlights the discontent of the big cities’ inhabitants. Thus, the “ecopsychologist” works on the idea that it is impossible to have “healthy persons, living in a sick world” (France 2003: 36).

For France, there is no border between the human inner and outer world; there is an inextricable synergy between persons, living species, and the planet. Ecopsychology explores the motivations, needs and ideals that give structure to our lives, focusing on our relationship with the planet: “Intelligence is the property of the Earth; we are part of it” (France 2003: 37). Then, France enumerates four elements needed for the human being to value the environment: adventure, contact, joy, and contemplation. Adventure is related to the sense of danger in our actions, which includes a need for understanding and appreciation of nature. A piece of art – novel, painting or drama – can evoke a sense of adventure and urge the reader/spectator to make real contact with nature. He will have the joy of the experience and will admire the forest, the rapids of a river, or the sunrise on the beach.

In synthesis, ecocriticism enriches literary and drama analysis with a biological and sustainable perspective that helps to explain symbolic representations of humans and nature, and emphasizes the importance of the place where a story occurs as a metaphor for the environment. Ecocriticism tries to sensitize the reader/spectator to find the natural referents of fiction, assuming that he is an important part of our planet and must act in consequence. Ecocriticism points out some aspects of our environmental crisis through dramatic or literary elements.

3.1 Rothko’s most known artwork

For contemporary art specialists Rothko’s work has an introspective dimension tied to an alleged lay spirituality. De los Santos, in the Thyssen-Bomemisza Museum’s online catalog, says, “What Rothko paints is the immensity, the sublime thing and nature humaized in its subtler dimension” (2013: 255). Though Rothko started Abstract Expressionism, he differs from other painters of this movement for the total absence of figurative representation in his paintings, covering several caps of dark and evanescent colors that go from red to orange, green to gray, or black to maroon. The sensation suggested by the color is the main stimulus for the spectator, who is driven in his own imagination to attribute sense to Rothko’s painting. As De los Santos thinks, this objective “justifies the radical reduction of elements that define his work, to make it more effective” (2013: 255).

Among the aspects that contribute to the sensation of immensity transmitted by Rothko’s art, he first points to its large format, which “pretends to contain or to wrap the spectator inside an intimate and human scale.” Secondly, there is the fact that the canvas does not have a frame; the bottom color is what delimits the edges of the work. These two elements succeed in attracting the spectator because, as Rothko says in his book, “since the Renaissance, the small paintings are like novels; the big ones, like dramas in which we directly take part” (De los Santos 2013: 256). The placement of each piece in relation to the others and an artificial and theatrical lighting in the exhibit room were also essential to the appreciation of Rothko’s abstract paintings. De los Santos reports that in 1954 the artist asked to install his huge pieces of artwork:

… in a way that they had to be contemplated together and closely, so that the first experience is to be inside the picture. This can give to the spectator the key of the ideal relation between himself and the rest of the paintings. Also I hang the pictures rather low than high, and, especially in the case of the biggest, often so near to the soil as possible, since this is the way they were painted. Finally, I hang some close to the fragment of a wall, because some of the paintings stay very well in a confined space.

Between the years 1949 to 1970, Rothko had his “classic age.” His paintings evolved towards total abstraction, using the rectangular form of his frames as a portal that lead the spectator to his internal world, since the artist himself proclaimed that his artwork served “meditation.” His best-known achievement was the Seagram murals, conceived for the Four Seasons restaurant. After two years of hard work, suddenly Rothko repented of having sold his paintings to an inadequate, commercial, and frivolous space – so he broke the agreement. Art critic Jones states: “He saw his Four Seasons murals as violent, even terrorist art, a savage aesthetic revenge, and relished the chance to bite the hands of those who had made him rich” (Jones 2002). The Seagram murals are painted on a large horizontal canvas and have a deep reddish brown color base “that some people relate to the blood’s color.” At the edges there is a kind of window frame in different colors like red, black, or light orange, delimiting the expression of the base color. About the meaning of Rothko’s windows, the online catalog of the Kawamura Museum declares that they are not a hollow for viewing the world but a delineation of a closed space: “The concept of a ‘window’ is represented as a red expanse of the world beyond, perhaps a door. And whichever, it is closed, it only represents a boundary between this world and the world beyond and it defies any desire we might have to cross over into that world” (Kawamura 2014).

Some time after Rothko refused to deliver his Seagram murals, the director of London Tate Gallery, Norman Reid, agreed to host part of the collection. Finally, under the support of the Menil Foundation, Rothko conceived the project of raising an octagonal chapel, which he called “ecumenical,” in Houston, Texas, where there are fourteen monumental paintings, almost all in black and gray tonalities, with the idea of “thrilling another human being by means of art.” In the documentary Rothko’s Room, interviewees said that Rothko was a perfectionist and a demanding man whose principal worry was to protect his artwork, since his paintings had to “live well, side by side with the others, without damage between them.” He required that his paintings be placed in an appropriate place for their contemplation, where reflection by the spectator would be stimulated according to Nietzsche’s idea of Dionysian art “where individuality gets lost in all the edges that separate the spectator from the work and disappears” (Wolf 1982). Rothko’s suicide completely changed the meaning of his work because it is difficult to think of him with subtlety. Jones concludes: “His death also ensured that a puzzle at the heart of his painting would never be solved” (2002).

3.2 Rothko’s dramatic intention

A theatre spectator is always compelled to question his world and personality. As Fischer-Lichte says, “It’s only the distancing of man from himself, and thus the fundamental theatrical condition, which allows him to cultivate his identity” (Fischer-Lichte 2002: 2). So the experience of confronting Rothko’s artwork could be an equivalent to seeing a play, because dramatic elements duplicate reality and test the spectator’s conceptions. “The brushwork, expression, color and form evolve in space just as everything (objects, scenery, actors and audience) participate equally in the scenic development of a theatrical performance. Rothko said that his paintings emulate the theater” (De los Santos 2013).

The dramatic dimension of his paintings is driven by overlapped tones of color and the whimsical form of windows which express “basic human emotions: tragedy, ecstasy, doom” (Hogan 2011: 4). Each picture is a silent tragedy in which the spectator is compelled to feel “compassion and terror,” as Aristotle defines it in his Poetics, which question our own identity and values. According to Rothko, genuine artwork has the same foundation as ancient Greek theatre, the representation of human fate: “The exhilarated tragic experience is for me the only source of art” (Arndt 2011: 6). Writer John Logan admits that Rothko’s pictures are simple but moving, austere but savage: “They are like Greek tragedies. They are not Racine, they are not Chekhov, they are not Ibsen – they are Aeschylus” (Arndt 2011: 8).

In Abstract Expressionism pictures are important, and also the size of each work because it is the way to engage the spectator, “a state of intimacy” like the silence and darkness that precede a play. Then, if each picture is a drama, the forms are the performers. “Like actors, the shapes create and resolve tension, bringing a painter’s equilibrium in the same way that a novelist or playwright sets characters in motion and eventually offers resolution” (Hogan 2011: 5). To complete the dramatic experience, Rothko demanded for his works an exhibition room with special lighting, scenic composition, and expo continuity – all elements of theatricality. As in a show, the audience is introduced into another reality, a theatrical one that takes place in a scenery: “Encompassing the entire visual field, Rothko’s paintings give the viewer the feeling of an alternate world, one without recognizable shapes or symbols but that still pulses with energy, movement and luminosity” (Hogan 2011: 5). Through contemplation of a monumental picture, the audience can hear its own spirit and create its own stories in a theatrical mood, which allow inquiry and construct identity. As in theatre...

4.1 Space

“Dramatology” attaches particular importance to space. So does ecocriticism. Garcia points out that space is an “essential ingredient of theatrical performance” (Garcia 2003: 121) since it is the access point of a fictional universe that allows the materialization of a theatrical phenomenon “seen because it occurs in a place” (Garcia 2003: 123). Its representative signs are objects such as scenery, clothing or props, actor’s words or movements, and sounds of time and atmosphere surrounding the characters. Therefore, represented space is a realistic or idealized reference to the external world, natural environment, or human civilization. We will review four kinds of signs in “Red”: scenic, verbal and nonverbal, expression and appearance of the body, and sound (music and noise).

4.2 Time

In a play are represented “a succession of presents,” Garcia says (Logan 2009: 23), parts from the immediacy of the representation mode without mediations between spectator and what happens in the scene. Also there is the fact that actors and audience share staging time, real-time in both lives. It is a succession of presents though the story evokes the past or anticipates the future. In this case, diegetic time arises from Rothko’s biographical data. The play includes two years of the painter’s life, from 1958 to 1960, a time in which the artist was dedicated to the Seagram panels. Stage time is the synthesis of the two years in five significant moments, five scenes contained in an act that takes about 90 minutes for theatrical performance. Its main themes are these: the meeting of Rothko with his assistant, his initiation into art, the preparation of a new canvas, the reflection on colors, the discussion about the commodification of art, the decision not to sell the Seagram panels, and Ken’s farewell.

Dramatic time, a confluence of diegetic and stage time, is marked by a change of attitude in Ken, who at the beginning of the play is an inexperienced and shy young man, but who eventually gains the self-confidence and personal security to confront Rothko. The passage of dramatic time is shown by means of Ken who improves his personality thanks to his two years as a companion of a master of Abstract Expressionism. Rothko also reveals the evolution of dramatic time: his initial attitude, haughty and challenging, becomes a more mature and serene one, assuming the consequences of his reflection – he never allows his paintings to decorate a place where people are not gathering to eat but rather to show off their prosperous economic position. At the end of the play, he has changed his vision of the future; he will not be a millionaire but will be loyal to his principles. The passing of time allows Rothko to realize his mistake. His appearance is the climactic moment of the play and leads to the end. Both characters separate as each follows his own way.

4.3 Characters and dramatic action

Garcia emphasizes the artifice of dramatic character, “combining fictitious and real persons, unlike the narrative character” (2003: 154), shaped by actions and speeches. As an entity that doubles real people, four dimensions can describe dramatic character: psychological, physical, moral, and social (2003: 165). These four categories develop a character’s personality – they form a paradigm that underpins and gives sense to actions throughout the plot. We synthesize the dramatic action of the five scenes, distinguishing traits of both characters.

The first scene starts with the question that Rothko hurls at his new assistant, pointing to the invisible painting: “What do you see?” Nervously, Ken manages his answer: “Red” (Logan 2009: 9). The artist establishes his authority and marks distance as he says, “Consider: I am not your Rabin, I am not your father, I am not your shrink, I am not your friend, I am not your teacher. I am your employer. You understand?” (Logan 2009: 11). After demonstrating the lack of refinement of his assistant, Rothko informs him about the project to be realized, the Seagram panels. Questioned by the master of Abstract Expressionism, Ken hesitates about his artistic aspirations. Rothko asks him to study and grow if he wants to be an artist: “To be civilized is to know where you belong in the continuum of your art and your world. To surmount the past, you must know the past” (Logan 2009: 12). Also, Rothko urges Ken to develop his sensibility and feelings by contemplation of paintings. This first scene establishes the explosive character of the master and his arrogance, opposed to the coyness of the apprentice, who also proves to be brave since he decides to remain working with Rothko.

In the second scene, Rothko reaffirms his egotism by criticizing colleagues who work for money: “Tragic, really, to grow superfluous in your lifetime” (Logan 2009: 15). However, he shows more depth in revealing some of his tricks in his study: keeping lights low to emphasize the contemplation of paintings and placing them close to the ground to increase their impact upon spectators. The master’s view is that he can be like a wizard creating illusion through shapes and colors. In a moment of inspiration, Rothko decides to paint “a little more” one of the panels, but when he asks what pigment should be added, Ken responds intuitively: “Red.” Rothko gets angry because the young man has cut his inspiration and violently declines to paint. In that moment, they have the first discussion about color’s significance. For Ken, red is associated with life: “Red is heartbeat. Red is passion. Red wine. Red roses. Red lipstick. Beets. Tulips. Peppers” (Logan 2009: 19). But Rothko dissents and sees red as an emblem of violence and danger, even as satanic. Finally, Rothko admits one of his biggest fears: “There is only one thing I fear in life, my friend… one day the black will swallow the red” (Logan 2009: 20).

In the third scene, Rothko seems happy checking the progress of the Seagram Building that will harbor his panels. Ken isn’t sure if the sophisticated restaurant inside the building – the Four Seasons – is ideal for an art exhibition but he prefers to discuss other topics. Proudly, he informs Rothko that he has read Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy and compares him with the god Apollo and Pollock with Dionysus. This excites Rothko’s pretentiousness, but he does not identify himself with the Apollonian order and luminosity since he also likes the Dionysian dismemberment. The artist believes that anyone can share both archetypes, and focuses on Nietzsche’s love for tragedy instead of mythological allusions. After discussion, both men are prepared to work. Ken finishes putting together a large frame and then sets up with staples a white canvas. Once the frame is assembled, the two of them flip it and fix it to a support, placing it in the center of the stage. Accompanied by lively classical music, Rothko and Ken apply a layer of red base paint on the canvas surface with fast movement. This action is totally real; the actors are splattered with red paint and the smell of fresh paint invades the theater. Suddenly, Ken saddens because red reminds him of the murder of his parents, the color of dried blood on the bed. The duality of the Apollonian–Dionysian is also established for colors that can represent life or death indifferently, white, black, or red.

“They’re trying to kill me! I swear to God they are trying to kill me!” (Logan 2009: 32), screams Rothko at the beginning of the fourth scene, after witnessing an exhibition of artists of a next generation: Frank Stella, Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol, and Roy Lichtenstein. Rothko argues that a picture should have more value than a can of soup, predicting that Warhol’s art will be ephemeral: “You really think Andy Warhol will be hanging in museums in a hundred years?” (Logan 2009: 34). Ken criticizes the intolerance of the master and Rothko answers: “I am here to make you think! I am not here to make pretty pictures!” (Logan 2009: 35). Ken improves by showing his doubts about the Seagram panels: “Just admit your hypocrisy: The High Priest of Modern Art is painting a wall in the Temple of Consumption” (Logan 2009: 37). Both characters argue about the meaning of artwork and Rothko says it is “weapons” against dehumanization but his assistant confronts him emphatically: “Too cruel to them. Your paintings aren’t weapons. You would never do that to them, never reduce them like that. Maybe you started the commission thinking that way but…. Then art happened. You couldn’t help it, that’s what you do. So now you are stuck. You’ve painted yourself into a corner” (Logan 2009: 39). Surprised, Rothko finally admits that Ken has learned the value of art: “This is the first time you’ve existed” (Logan 2009: 39). Rothko drinks his whiskey, grabs his coat, and leaves.

In the fifth and final scene, a serene and resigned Rothko ponders in the darkness. Ken arrives and thinks the worst. But Rothko is not dead, he’s just depressed. He confesses that he went to dinner at the Four Seasons restaurant, where his murals will be exhibited. The experience was terrifying: people seemed frivolous and the atmosphere was flamboyant. Ken praises his master’s reflection; now it is consistent with his principles.

Rothko calls Seagram businessmen to cancel the delivery of his paintings and tells them that their money will be refunded. “Having money doesn’t make you wealthy” (Logan 2009: 41), Ken says. In response, Rothko dismisses him. In front of a surprised Ken, the master refuses to give him any explanations; instead, he urges Ken to make his own artistic proposal. Showing wisdom, Ken agrees to leave the job while Rothko stands alone with his classical music background and watching his work, saying: “Red, black, red…”

4.4 Dramatic vision

In “Dramatology”, the fourth key element is the audience that makes a “dramatic reception” of the play, a function which Garcia called vision, “to emphasize the visual nature of it” (2003: 193). It refers to the ability of the reader/spectator to engage with the plot and character – theatrical illusion – or to move away from them – estrangement. To clarify the difference between the two categories, the author notes that on stage there is a distance between the object represented and its representation. The minimum distance between the two planes produces theatrical illusion, the possibility that the spectator engages with the full story of fiction and forgets the real world. Meanwhile, the maximum distance implies revealing the stage process, making explicit that the spectator is sitting in a theater and faces actors portraying imaginary characters. Though the theatre works with the real substance of the actor’s body and facilitates the theatrical illusion, Garcia (2003) indicates that some dramatic genres, like farce, break the illusion and cause estrangement. The same happens with some theatrical effects such as the use of water or fire on stage, presentation of live animals, or projection of images (fixed or in movement) that favor the distancing of the spectator from the fictional plot. “Red” evokes real persons and narrative facts that facilitate the theatrical illusion. At the same time, some scenic signs break with the fiction and return the spectator to the real world.

As elements of theatrical illusion may be mentioned: (1) the verisimilitude of Rothko’s chattering talk and its coincidence with the real ideology of the artist; (2) consistency of plot with the most salient fact of Rothko’s career, the expensive project of the Seagram panels and the unexpected cancellation of its delivery; (3) realism of scenery, where appear work instruments and real materials; and (4) the accurate reproduction of several majestic Seagram panels whose color sustains the title of the play “Red.” This is how the spectator penetrates not only the intimacy of the artist’s world but also his fictional universe, forming a meta-dramatic vision: a scene of Rothko’s intimate space leads to a second level of significance in the visualization of palpitating and tragic artworks, the Seagram panels. Dialogs, action, and scenery drive the spectator and immerse him in Rothko’s microcosm, who himself compares the painter with a magician creating illusion for his spectators.

But Logan’s dramatic proposal also includes elements of theatrical distancing that prevent the spectator from disengaging with the play, from placing himself comfortably in the past and escaping from his current reality. Constantly, dialog, actions, and scenery remind us that we are in a theater and that outside it in the environment there are problems waiting to be solved. Aspects of estrangement are: (1) the scenic tasks such as the construction of a frame using genuine materials like wood, hammer, nails, and clamps, as well as covering the canvas with red paint; (2) the use of running water that comes into the sink when the characters wash their hands; and (3) the dialogs in which Rothko asks his assistant to open his understanding and to be human “for once in his life.” When Ken constructs the frame, he places the wood and gives it sonorous blows, then deploys the white canvas, and fixes it to the wood with an industrial stapler. Those actions demonstrate that the actor is qualified in a discipline different from acting. As spectators, we stop thinking about the character; we place ourselves again in real life. Also, it happens when Ken and Rothko paint the canvas with red paint, which splashes their wardrobe, and floods the theater with its smell. Our sense of smell awakens and engages us with the performance, but also reminds us that we are in a theater that now smells like fresh paint. Then, Rothko rinses his hands in the running water of the sink. Falling water allows us to unify the fictional and real world; we remember again that we are in a theater surprised by the functionality of scenery.

Finally, Rothko requires his assistant not to see art as “something nice” because the artist’s responsibility is to make us think, not to create trophies exhibited over the fireplace. In addition, art should make the spectator feel, so he asks Ken to explain what he sees in his paintings, based on cultural knowledge and the depth of his soul. His claim goes beyond fiction since the audience is also in front of the Seagram panels, whose exact reproductions attract attention. Dramatic vision returns to the estrangement and, far away from fiction, the spectator is questioned about the significance of this singular artwork. If Rothko’s paintings are not decoration, what are they? What do I see in those paintings that at first glance are red stains? What do I have to know, which authors must I read if I want to understand the Abstract Expressionism of this delirious American artist? The questioning is not only for the other character, because one of the panels is positioned over the “the fourth wall” of the stage so that Rothko is questioning me about what I see, as I become human for once in my life. The combination of illusion and distance produces a complex and meta-dramatic vision in the spectator because his immersion in the fictional plot does not prevent an awareness of the real world. As the public, our senses are awakened and we are constantly urged to confront the allusions to culture and environment. In the Spanish translation of “Red” an expression was added in Rothko’s dialogue: “Forcing them to see” (Logan 2009: 61).