Upside down?

Some years back we went to see the Jackson Pollock exhibition at The Tate in London. The most impressive aspect of it to me was the way it was set up and the way it was described (commentary through ear-pieces). It was presented with his early work first, then you moved around the rooms listening to the explanations and history until you came, gradually, to the final works, the ones he is most famous for - the drip and throw stuff.
The commentary pointed out the devopment of the style at the same time as the personality of the painter seemed to change - from quite normal to, really, a psychiatric case at the end. The paintings sort of illustrated his decline towards madness.
We bought a reproduction for a few pounds and took it home to hang it on the wall where we have some other reproductions of famous paintings. But we didn't know which way up it was to go. I can't remember how we decided but eventually we put it long way up.
One of these days I shall find out if this was right.
In the meantime I discover, from an article in The Telegraph today, that there is some dispute going on in "artistic circles" as to whether some of the Rothko's at The Tate now on show have been hung correctly.
No one seems to know.
Both these painters, it seems to me, are more interesting in the study of their personalities than in the depth of their presentation of their ideas. Ideas they certainly do have but I wonder if these ideas, which are so deep, if not perhaps the products of psychotic minds, that their pictorial representation cannot be achieved satisfactorilly.
I hope to go to the Rothko some time. I am told it is like having a religious experience. Well, good - I haven't had one of those for years.