Art has very little to do with reproducing what the eye can see, in fact some of the most renowned art does exactly the opposite.
If you're confused by Rothko I hope you never come across Duchamp.
As Seth Godin says, the first guy to install a toilet in a museum was an artist, the second was a plumber.
I never said I was expecting representative art. I'm confused by your statement "some of the most renowned art does exactly the opposite [of reproduction]," though. Could you explain it?
I'll freely admit I'm not much of a modern art fan. I'm not sure that colored stripes really clears the bar, even if you make the gigantic (although as another poster said, maybe I need to see them in their intended setting). I feel like just as art is more than simply reproducing a scene, art is also more than just producing a feeling.
I looked up Duchamp, yeah, not a fan :) I think I probably understand the works better than Rothko, though.