PS Rothko is about the least "painterly" painter there ever was. "Painterly" is a very technical term that means a painting has "visible brush strokes, and/or a rough impasto surface."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/painterly
paint·er·ly Pronunciation (pntr-l)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a painter; artistic.
2.
a. Having qualities unique to the art of painting.
b. Of, relating to, or being a style of painting marked by openness of form, with shapes distinguished by variations of color rather than by outline or contour
All I meant was 1. or 2.a above, and said "insert yr fave painter here".
I didn't mean to jump down your throat or anything Nomadologist, just responding to your points as I (mis)understood them, just like you did with mine

. And I honestly can't believe yours, Martin's and Gek's opinions of MBV! Have ye no ears to hear nor minds to think but must wander alone forever in the wilderness? Repent, sinners and let the healing balm of MBV spontaneously induce your dynamic bodies without organs roaming across thresholds of micro-perception and pure processual intensities...
Sorry, had to get that out of my system

For the record I'm no indie kid, and haven't really listened to guitars since... Loveless probably (actually since I failed to listen all the way through to SY's Experimental Jet-set... twilight of the idols, though Nirvana did manage to jump-start the corpse one last time and rejuvinate Johnny Lydon's disgust and bitterness for the failed dreams of the rock generation via a Pixies riff with an added Sabbath cross-key twist).
I also don't think music should be, or is usually, about expressing personal emotions (ugh), just that that (in crucially non-personal non-expressive ways I've already elaborated on) is one of the things MBV did so well, as well as all the other stuff they did - texture, melody, contrast, tension, surface, depth, dynamics,
total music innit, as Reynolds once said about jungle. My main suspicion of them years after might be that they can easily fall into the twin traps of jouissance theory to which I would more readily have subscribed back then - Barthes' blissed-out subject ("it cuts, it crackles, it comes; that is bliss" from The Pleasure Of The Text - seems to sum them up neatly?!) and the Lacanian split subject of desire-as-lack. But maybe I'm no longer jung or easily freudened and too easily deleuded.