The Mark Rothko case: how greed rocked the art world
Kate Rothko Prizel, the daughter of renowned abstract artist Mark Rothko, once said being 19 was the worst year of her life. Still only a teenager, in 1970, Prizel was embroiled in a bitter legal battle with her father’s estate executors and the directors of the Marlborough Fine Art gallery.
In 1970, the body of her father, Rothko, was found in his Manhattan studio following a grisly suicide that reportedly left him surrounded by a pool of blood eight feet wide. Six months later, her mother (and Rothko’s second wife) dropped down dead while Prizel’s younger brother, only six years old at this point, sat in the next room watching TV.
The art world’s response to this tragedy was a sign of the cruelty to come, with artic critic Robert Hughes dubbing Prizel and her brother “The Orphans”. The stark difference between her mother’s and father’s funeral was another. Her father’s funeral was packed out with big art world names, critics, curators, and the likes of Robert Motherwell, Willem De Kooning, Philip Guston, and the late Jackson Pollock’s wife, Lee Krasner.
By comparison, Prizel’s mother’s funeral was only attended by around ten people, and the artsy types she’d known for over 25 years through her late husband were nowhere to be seen. Prizel told The Guardian how disillusioning that was, saying: “The superficiality of the art world has never gone away, I must admit. It will never be that idyllic place for me again.”
Within two years of the consecutive funerals of their parents, Prizel and brother Christopher sued the executors of their father’s estate, claiming they had conspired to “waste the assets” of Rothko’s estate to defraud the siblings of their fair share. The assets in question were a huge collection of 789 paintings – which at the time were estimated to be worth around $32million. They argued the three trustees – Bernard Reis, Theodoros Stamos, and Marton Levine, who owned the Marlborough Gallery – had knowingly sold these paintings to the Marlborough for far less than their true market value.
One decent measure of the dizzying value of Rothko’s paintings came from Christopher in a 2005 interview, when he revealed: “When someone sells a painting by Dad for $8 million, some people say: ‘Oh, God, the Rothko market is collapsing’.” So when the Marlborough bought a cluster of 100 paintings with only a down payment of $200,000 on an interest-free 12-year deal, it was clear something was wrong.
The case dragged on for more than four years, during which time a lot of people in attendance at Rothko’s funeral made it clear they thought it was virtually unwinnable. “Only a few were willing to stick their necks out,” said Prizel. “Lee Krasner, for one, gave multiple interviews in which she said how unwise I was to be fighting the case.”
While the famous artists in attendance at her father’s funeral continued living their lavish bohemian lives, Prizel was living in a cheap Brooklyn apartment, watching her money drain as the case dragged on, which became more emotionally taxing the more people insisted she couldn’t win. It’s unclear if that was a begrudging acceptance of the status quo, that dealers and curators would take all they could no matter the circumstance – or if personal connections were at play too, given that Jackson Pollock’s estate was owned by the Marlborough too.
But after four gruelling years, it was a landmark win, and Kate and Christopher Rothko secured victory. The verdict was fittingly damning, and all three executors were thrown out for “improvidence and waste verging on gross negligence”. Stamos and Reis were revealed to be on the Marlborough’s payroll, a direct conflict of interest as executors. As a result, all contracts between Rothko’s estate and the Marlborough were declared null and void.
Another result of the proceedings was that it was revealed the executors and the gallery had defrauded Rothko himself using various methods of self-dealing, which landed gallery founder Frank Lloyd with $9m worth of damages to pay. Added to the gallery of nefarious acts was the news that the Marlborough had been filtering payments for the late painter’s work through accounts in Liechtenstein and Switzerland in a bid to undervalue the paintings when Rothko was alive. The knock-on effect was Rothko massively underestimated the value of his paintings, making him more vulnerable to selling them to the gallery and other collectors for less than their true worth.
The fallout was satisfying for Prizel, and Lee Krasner notably removed the estate of her late husband from the Marlborough. Others were quick to follow suit, but Reis and Lloyd were never tried in a criminal court for their actions. “One had to make do with the satisfaction of seeing the paintings come back,” Prizel said. She had remained steadfast in that aim throughout the entire case, and even when the judge sat her down and asked if she would take a settlement, which she always refused “because it wasn’t about money”.
Prizel wanted to fulfil her father’s wishes because she knew first-hand how important his creations were to him. He might have been manipulated by his estate, but in his lifetime, he was incredibly careful about whom he sold his work. If he sold to private individuals promising a massive lump sum, he’d invite them to his studio to gauge their reactions to his painting. If they didn’t know, or worse – understand, his vision – they’d walk home with nothing. Prizel entirely understood the significance of where his paintings were kept and fought valiantly to ensure they stayed where he wanted them to be – with his children.