Do art galleries devalue the art in their tacky gift shops? ✎

This is the from the blockbuster Van Gogh exhibition last year at the National Gallery:

 

I felt a bit embarrassed. 😔

I think Van Gogh would be shocked by what’s been done to his work.

His sunflowers motif were a lifelong, almost spiritual, expression of “gratitude” of being face to face with nature. E.g. see Gauguin’s depiction of Van Gogh’s magnum opus. The power of his art comes from his energy and excitement; and Van Gogh was a troubled soul.

Quite a lot of his paintings were done in an asylum, and it feels v. disrespectful to slap his face and works on tacky bags, jewelry, kitchen towels, tea matts, and everything else etc. 

Van Gogh always wanted “validation” (esp. among the respectable Paris salons), but he certainly had a respect for art.

I get museums are strapped for cash, but is it too much?  🤔

Yellow Islands by Jackson Pollock (1952) ✎

From the Tate.

I don’t enjoy the chaos & nor do I really appreciate the appeal.

But I can see how revolutionary it was in art history.

No doubt a reflection of the world during the atomic age. The nuclear arms race, power of electrons and molecular matter. Artists from this era lived through two world wars, the Holocaust and the Great Depression. How do you make art that is meaningful? The expressionists turned inwards to themselves, and painted what they felt instead.

To me, a bit cheap and cheerful - more of a craft than art.

The Marilyn Diptych by Andy Warhol (1962) ✎

This is a poignant (and religious) painting by Andy Warhol at the Tate Modern.

Mass production is an old story. For centuries, religious icons were mass-produced (woodcuts etc.) as a “window” to Heaven or towards some spiritual or meaningful connection. Warhol tried to flip this. By treating Marilyn as a religious diptych, he is suggesting, in our modern times, that we have traded spiritual transcendence for the “religion” of the celebrity icon.

I don’t agree with the religious thesis of Warhol, but I think he’s right about the grotesque commercialisation of art in our times.

Warhol wanted his art to be as recognizable as a Coca-Cola bottle. So, if you see a Marilyn, you don’t have to wonder who painted it. The “brand recognition” would be instantaneous. One might argue that The Dutch Golden was the moment in history when art moved away from God and religion into a commodity for the middle class, but the Dutch created “meaningful” art with incredible detail and moral/meaningful overtones and symbols. Warhol took that same “commodity” art concept and stripped away the detail and the meaning.

Why so some many paintings (which were originally painted for ordinary people) fetch enormous sums at auction houses? Last year, an ugly portrait by Gustav Klimt sold for $236 million. Why? Because of the “hype” about him as an artist (i.e. the artist’s persona as a product). Warhol knew that once the artist becomes a “brand”, the art becomes secondary.

Warhol left smears and fading. 

He wanted us to see the machinery.

Whalers by J.M.W. Turner (1845) ✎

Beautiful.

I came across this sublime painting at the Tate recently.

This painting is typical of Turner’s atmospheric style characteristic of his later years (died in 1851).

According to the Tate:

This painting shows the violence and danger of a whale hunt. Turner uses an arc of white paint and downwards strokes of grey – a flurry of rain and wind – to draw attention to a whaler dressed in white. He draws back a lance, aiming for a bleeding whale. Turner had read about whaling in Thomas Beale’s Natural History of the Sperm Whale (1839). Describing a hunt in Japanese waters, Beale talked of the whale as ‘a victim to the tyranny and selfishness’ but also the ‘great power’ of man. Turner was no doubt drawn to this tension – between the idea of whalers as heroes and murderers.

Interesting that you can barely make out the whale’s emergent head (adding to the unease?) ... and the whaling ship appears ghostly in the background.

I love the power & energy of Turner’s atmospheres - the terrifying ocean depths and man’s inherent vulnerability. A great contrast between the modesty and the cruelty of man.

Harbour and Room by Paul Nash (1932-1936) ✎

I’ve always been fascinated by this painting at the Tate.

It makes me feel like I’m stepping into a dream where reality & illusion merge and melt.

Like the film Inception.

This painting makes the idea of stepping into another reality totally bewitching.

✲✲✲

Paul Nash was a major British artist of the 20th century.

This painting captures his interwar surrealism. It’s actually cited by Britannica as an example of “compositions became increasingly dreamlike and illogical.”

Hedda Sterne - 1940s New York abstract expressionism ✎

Hedda Sterne was an accomplished Romanian artist who worked in surrealism and then emigrated to New York. I think she was Jewish and had to escape Nazi persecution. She then subsequently morphed into the abstract expressionism movement of New York, and became a successful female artist in that world.

I saw this painting in the Tate. It’s part of the series on New York which she painted as an emigree when she arrived. I imagine its urban architecture must have been a shock to her.

To me, there is a disorienting/discomforting sense to the morass of lines and planes. The eye naturally wishes to find a “path” to finding some home (or refuge) but there doesn’t seem to be one. Up and down, and across. There are no trees, no humans, and it feels like the "structure" might collapse at any moment.

It’s interesting. 

What do you all think?

Studland Beach by Vanessa Bell (1912) ✎

Took this some time ago at the Tate.

A deep painting — emphatic, even today.

But, I do get some unpleasant feeling of exclusion. Anomie? Ostracism or prohibition?

It is leavened by the warmth of the sand and the cute summer straw-hats, and a general feeling that this is a family by the beach with their mother.

Things of note:

• I didn’t recognise - until a bit later - that the 2 figures at the fore were topless/naked.
• Everyone has their backs to the viewer. Which feels v. uncomfortable.
• I came to notice the visual & emotional impact of deliberate space across a canvas through Degas’s paintings. The canvas is practically devoid of life. No characters seem to touch or interact with one another.
• Is that the sea or sky?
• I think this is a painting about mothers and daughters?
• The white tent (?) feels disjointed because of the departure from orderly recession and a sense of perspective.

The empty space reminds me of Paul Gauguin’s “Vision of the Sermon” (which I have written about).

Joan Mitchell at the Tate Modern ✎

Joan Mitchell was abstract expressionist who died in 1992.

During her time (post-WWII), Joan excelled when there was a bias against women artists. She is part of the “action painter” school of abstract expressionism. For Joan Mitchell, she is supposed to have worked in “stages” as opposed to being fully spontaneous. An interesting quote from Mitchell:

“Sometimes I don’t know exactly what I want (with a painting). I check it out, recheck it for days or weeks. Sometimes there is more to do on it. Sometimes I am afraid of ruining what I have. Sometimes I am lazy, I don’t finish it or I don’t push it far enough. Sometimes I think it’s a painting.”

For her genre; art isn’t merely about the piece — it’s about the “story” and “personality” of the artists. This is something I don’t buy, and smells of art-as-a-commodity marketing and the need to hype up the “named artist” to change the perceived value of works. Otherwise, it’s value is the use of colour and mark making.

✲✲✲

South by Joan Mitchell (1989)

This diptych is supposed to evoke landscapes and trees.

There is vibrancy, and the colours seem to match harmoniously. I do like her approach to the blood-red lines.

Otherwise, I think it’s entirely forgettable.

✲✲✲

Beauvais by Joan Mitchell (1986)

She spent many years in France, hence the title referring to a town in the North of France.

✲✲✲

Two Sunflowers by Joan Mitchell (1980)

A shower of encrusted dark-orange-yellow paint. Black soil at the bottom, and green for the leaves, and bursts of violet here-and-there.

I don’t think this is very interesting at all — I don’t think it shows much sophisticated use of colour.

✲✲✲

Cypress by Joan Mitchell (1980)

✲✲✲

Minnesota by Joan Mitchell (1980)

Interesting depths of yellow for the sun-drenched Minnesota.

Heavy and thick brushstrokes establishing zones of colour. I don’t really like this much. And I don’t like the way the columns seem to separate and not flow. I don’t get why Joan Mitchell left what seems to me as an empty canvas in the middle.

✲✲✲

Red Tree by Joan Mitchell (1990-1991)

The strokes of strokes of fiery-crimson horizontal marks are quite engaging.

But otherwise it’s ok.

✲✲✲

Plowed Field by Joan Mitchell (1971)

Inspired my memories of landscapes.

I quite like it. I like the heavy maroons and yellows, and I can see the outlines of different fields.

But it’s ok.

✲✲✲

Tilleul by Joan Mitchell (1978)

Great tree — bare, black, wintry branches thrusting upward.

✲✲✲

The gallery

Is Roy Lichtenstein’s Pop Art overrated? ✎

I am not sure I really ‘get’ Lichtenstein – and I don’t think I care for Pop Art either.

If anyone reading this loves his art, please share with me in the comments. Pics below are from the Tate Modern.

✲✲✲

Whaam! by Roy Lichtenstein (1979)

✲✲✲

Lichtenstein’s Reflections Series

Below are five works from Lichtenstein’s Reflections print series. Each is supposed to feature one of his earlier paintings which is partly obscured under bands of colour.

Lichtenstein said:

"It portrays a painting under glass. It is framed and the glass is preventing you from seeing the painting. Of course, the reflections are just an excuse to make an abstract work, with the cartoon image being supposedly partly hidden by the reflections."

According to the Tate, it is supposed to a wry comment on his own rehashing and reusing of his own work! That says it all, I think!

Ask yourself, where is the art?

✲✲✲

Reflections on Minerva by Roy Lichtenstein (1979)

✲✲✲

Reflections on Girl by Roy Lichtenstein (1979)

✲✲✲

Reflections on The Scream by Roy Lichtenstein (1979)

✲✲✲

Reflections on Conversation by Roy Lichtenstein (1979)

✲✲✲

Reflections on Crash by Roy Lichtenstein (1979)

✲✲✲

To me, Pop Art sounds interesting in theory. But, reflecting the tapestry of the culture around us morphs into visual memes which become part of the cliche. The “Pop Art” movement of the late 1950s placed a heavy emphasis on “found art” and “found objects”. They sought to frame everyday objects and imagery into new settings to imbue them with a renewed significance and power. For me, I am not sure I would call this legitimate “art” … but I can appreciate its historical resonance.

Reason 1 – No creativity, little artistic merit

Lichtenstein notices a frame within a comic and amplifies it with striking vividness and scale to make the art imposing. His work sits in the Tate Modern as “high-art”. For me, it doesn’t work at all. It’s not a Monet or a Van Gogh. In fact, I hardly see any artistic merit at all. He merely took an image out of a comic book, and painted it on a canvas. Even on a technical level, it is not that impressive either. It is devoid of any creativity. It’s simplified, easy and unimaginative.

This heavy focus on “ready made” art is rooted in Duchamp; and can be seen in Warhol, Johns, Rauschenberg etc. However, I think there is a serious difference. Duchamp’s urinal wasn’t made to be “on display” and looked on as “art”. He made it “art” by putting on display and writing a fake name as a label. It was, in that respect, transformative.

However, Lichtenstein took other peoples’ genuine comic art, edited it, put it on a panel and then made it expansive. It didn’t change the idea of it. Somehow, art galleries then considered it “high-art” which contemporary art critics were not inclined to do with the original comics.

Reason 2 – “But don't forget the conceptual”

Lichtenstein became famous because the regnant philosophy on art, in his time, was the pop art scene. Lichtenstein’s work is popular and catchy because it is so familiar. It’s like a corporate logo. The rest of his earlier oeuvre is mediocre at best.

I often wonder if academics and critics simply read into, embellish, convolute and hype-up art simply because it is on the wall of a museum. In other words, the institutions of art feed themselves their art. People look at a piece in a gallery. It psychically shouts back: “THIS IS IMPORTANT”, and then people feel nervous, anxious and force a narrative that doesn’t correspond to reality. I think a lot of peoples’ instinctive reaction to Roy Lichtenstein should be “rubbish” or “mediocre”.

This brings me to another problem I have. People like Lichtenstein for his paintings – but mostly because of “what he is saying”. In the broader scheme, all art is conceptual. But, to my mind, the best ones are those who don’t treat their art merely as a message. Ideas are great; but, looking in – especially from the outside – if the ideas seem decent or agreeable; then the general sensation is that you’re not allowed to say that the art is not that great. And why not? Because it’s conceptual. There is no real way for conceptual art pieces to be judged.

This is compounded by another problem.The viewer must get into the head of the artist. The viewer has to divine what kind of idea he/she was trying to convey; and, after all that, we must come to our own conclusions. It is all ultimately subjective.

Reason 3 – Pop Art is condescending to the masses

It is said that Lichtenstein’s work is critiquing Western/US consumerism, and our industrial economic system.

But, to me, it feels like a haughty contempt for the everyday masses who go shopping, buy their mass-produced products and newspapers, take notice of marketing, and live unrefined lives. Perhaps more for Warhol than Lichtenstein? But the work often feel like sanitised pop images suitable for the consumption of elevated wealthy classes.

“Hilma af Klint & Piet Mondrian: Forms Of Life” exhibition at the Tate Modern - Part 3: The Ten Largest ✎

This post concerns the last room of the Hilma af Klint and Piet Mondrian exhibition at the Tate Modern; the finale. 

✲✲✲

The last room concerns Af Klint's most ambitious artworks. Probably her magnum opus: the colossal 'The Ten Largest'. She died in a traffic accident in Sweden aged 81. Today she is recognized as a pioneer of Western abstract art. However, even as late as the 1970s, when her paintings were gifted to the Stockholm museum, they declined the donation. Not untypical of most avant-garde artists.

Each painting is enormous, a veritable giant. They seek to capture the essence of childhood, youth, adulthood, and old age. 

It seems af Klint was trying to "give the world a glimpse of the stages of life" through her perceptions of the spirit realm. She was supposed to have conducted séances - as a medium - and communicated to the spirits. She was even supposed to have received messages from the ethereal realm to create this devotional artwork. 

For me, I have little patience for this. I think she was either she was suffering from a mental illness or was taking part in occult quackery which, I think, has always been the plainest of lies and exploitation. But, perhaps I'm being too harsh. I know that Europe was awash with this sort of nonsense. France had Allan Kardec who convinced people he could commune with the dead through tables! And, we still have astrology in magazines and fortune-tellers (in this day-and-age!).

Nevertheless, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed these paintings.

I think there is something fascinating and even moving in them. I loved the way the colour shifts from blue to orange to lilac and then the faintest of pinks. Even as we go through the adult years, the colour itself fades. It speaks to the power of colour to evoke our emotions.  Then, there is the movement, the flowing, the floating, the motion of each painting. They are filled with collisions and movements and swirls. Cells, atoms, flora, shells all seem to point to the harmony and interconnection of life. The latter paintings are the most moving. To me, I think there is a sense of calm and order and even wistfulness about them. 

This artwork is really wonderful and quite moving. 

✲✲✲

Childhood

✲✲✲

Youth

✲✲✲

Adult

✲✲✲

Old age

“Hilma af Klint & Piet Mondrian: Forms Of Life” exhibition at the Tate Modern - Part 1: Review Write-Up ✎

I recently went to the “Hilma af Klint & Piet Mondrian: Forms Of Life” exhibition at the Tate Modern. I found it a really interesting journey into abstraction, and provided insights into Mondrian’s work in particular.

For me, I think Mondrian’s abstractions are more interesting. I find af Klint’s mysticism and spiritualism act as a barrier for me to really engage with her work. I think she’s a fascinating lady, and I think she must have shocked and touched people with her esoteric radicalism. 

It seems neither af Klint nor Mondrian knew one another (or their work), but this exhibition does suggest that share a common thread in their development of abstract art, moving away from the convention of representation. 

During their lifetimes, they experienced the breaking of so many new technological frontiers. All of which challenged human perception - e.g. microscopy, radiography, photography etc. The existence of invisible worlds to the human eye (in science) also touches on af Klint’s spirituality. For me, this exhibition delves perhaps too much into their spiritual beliefs - but it does form their approaches to perceiving the world. Indeed, their abstraction is a means of understanding the world.

This analysis/review is in 6 parts (with separate post for Klint’s finale in the exhibition).

  

✲✲✲

Part 1 - Incipiency

Hilma af Klint (born 1862) and Piet Mondrian (born 1872) started off their careers as traditional classical landscape painters in the late 19th century.

• The Academy of Fine Arts in Stockholm had only begun to accept women to study in 1864. In 1882, af Klint joined them. While studying, she became well known for her landscape and portrait paintings, establishing herself as a respected artist.
• Mondrian was associated with the ‘Hague School’ of realist painters in the second half of the 19th century and their focus on muted colours, loose brushwork and textured surfaces.

Lake scene by af Klint

Quite a pretty painting by af Klint. 

A sunset scene. Some heavy daubs on the skyline for clouds and the setting sunshine. The painting does have shiny veneer - perhaps the atmospheric sunset?.

✲✲✲

Spring Landscape from Lomma Bay by Klint

✲✲✲

Evening Landscape with Cows by Mondrian

One of the problems with this painting, for me, is the fact that you can feel the texture of the canvass through the painting. Otherwise, it is also a charming arcadian vista with a few cows.

✲✲✲

Haystack Behind a Row of Willows by Mondrian

Quite a pretty painting.

I do love this type of heavy brushwork, scrapping through the impasto. Feels expressionistic, and can be quite evocative of a summery, windy feel - even natural.

✲✲✲

The Gein: Trees Along the Water by Mondrian

I also like this. 

There’s obvious skill through the beauty of nature with the sky-pink sunset which illuminates the skyline and is reflected in the unruffled river water.

✲✲✲

Geinrust Farm in the Haze by Mondrian

✲✲✲

Part 2 - Evolution

This second part of the exhibition explores the spiritual and artistic evolution of both artists.

In their ‘Evolution’ works, they both experimented with symbolism through their choice of motif, colour and form.

✲✲✲

Dune Landscape by Mondrian

In this painting (and the following 2), the landscape (which Mondrian was classically trained in) has been broken down into its constituent shapes and colours, and flat planes analogous of the Post-Impressionists.

✲✲✲

Sea After Sunset by Mondrian

✲✲✲

Dune III by Mondrian

✲✲✲

Evolution by Mondrian

Here Mondrian gives us a triptych panel of a goddess. The middle face reminds me of an Ancient Egyptian goddess. It has that classic Egyptian spatial and linear geometric forms of statutes in design and decoration. She also seems to be the only one with eyes open, and behind her a radiant sunshine.

I think it is interesting; but I can’t say I like this too much. Once again, I think you have to embrace the underlying ‘philosophy’;

According to the Tate:

Mondrian wrote of this painting: ‘It’s not so bad, but I’m not there yet.’ The figures represent the stages in evolution from the physical to the spiritual realm, as promoted in Theosophy. The triangular nipples and navels of the women, which point upwards and downwards, symbolise their spiritual and earthly orientation. The central figure embodies the fulfilment of the evolutionary process, to the spiritual realm. The flowers on the left panel are symbols of purity, while those on the right symbolise tragic suffering.

This is part of Mondrian’s (above-mentioned) shift towards a more graphic geometric style, with distinct lines and bold colours; imbued with symbology. 

✲✲✲

Lighthouse at Westkapelle by Mondrian

This lighthouse is quite lovely and sits next to his ‘Evolution’.

Among its pastel-colours and loose tones, the lighthouse is defined by its (apparent) straight lines and flat horizontal strokes of colour.

It shows how Mondrian is shifting in his art.

✲✲✲

Dune IV by Mondrian

l do like this Dune- very much; and it’s very interesting.

I wonder if we can discern the faint outlines of his latter grid?

✲✲✲

The Red Cloud by Mondrian

Another interesting one.

This painting doesn’t have the same feel as Mondrian’s earlier landscapes. It looks almost incomplete with patches of the canvass empty.

According to the Tate:

The clearly visible brushstrokes reveal the painter’s hand, implying a quick oil sketch. A pencil drawing, probably a preliminary sketch, suggests that Mondrian painted the picture in his studio. The work shows the fleeting moment when a cloud is coloured red by the setting sun, which is either hanging low in the sky or has just vanished behind the horizon.

✲✲✲

The Evolution series by af Klint

Af Klint’s work here is also called ‘Evolution’.  It bears some 16 panels along a wall. 

I think there is a pattern in the colour choices of black, light pink leading to blues, and strong oranges. Then, there is religious symbolism (the cross), venerable geometry, good and evil. In some of the paintings, I wonder if af Klint painted the anatomy of the uterus. Snail shells are a recurring theme. Some of the art work resemble life as it would appear under the microscope.

There is some language, but every painting seems to bear some aspect of life, birth and death.

✲✲✲

Part 3 - Metamorphosis

In this part of the exhibition, the focus is on each artists’s observation of nature to depict flowers.

I think I preferred Mondrian here. I think af Klint was rather limited to the requirements of the botanical paintings of her day (mind you, they’re still pretty).

✲✲✲

Golden-Banded Lily by Mondrian

Beautiful. 

Mondrian was mostly drawing and painting single flowers. He would paint the bloom and wilt of the flowers as a way of tracing natural processes over time.

✲✲✲

Red Amaryllis with Blue by Mondrian 

✲✲✲

Botanical paintings by af Klint

These botanical watercolours (on paper) are wonderful.

According to the Tate, during the 19th century, botanical illustrations were one of the few professional artistic avenues open to women. Af Klint became skilled in this area.

Her botanical drawings deserve a blog of their own, as they are so life-like and so pretty.

✲✲✲

Evening: The Red Tree by Mondrian - 1908

This painting is arresting and very interesting.

The intense red and blue of this tree is meant to capture the vision just before nightfall. In this painting, Mondrian painted a tree as a ‘plastic expression’ with such warm energetic brushwork for the branches.

I think we can see how Mondrian’s former realism is morphing into some abstraction. The earthy tones of his earlier Dutch landscapes have given way to more expressive and saturated hues. It seems he took inspiration from the impressionists, Fauvists, Vincent van Gogh’s paintings (Mondrian visited his exhibition in 1905 in Amsterdam), and the spiritualist movements (i.e. the above-mentioned Theosophy).

✲✲✲

The Blue Tree by Mondrian - 1908

A more abstract version of the above painting - but, in my view, not nearly as striking or soul-stirring.

✲✲✲

Flowering Apple Tree by Mondrian - 1912

According to the Tate, after travelling to Paris in 1911, Mondrian encountered cubism.

Cubism must have a huge shock for him. It offered a totally new and radical approach to emphasizing the two-dimensional surface of a canvass (by breaking an object into distinct planes). 

We can also see how the trunk and branches are being condensed to a series of verticals and horizontals. Mondrian seems to be condensing the tree to its essential qualities. Perhaps even a hint of his forthcoming rectilinear arrangements ?

There is an interesting quote above this painting (which speaks to his object in art):

“Nature or, that which I see, inspires me, puts me, as with any painter, in an emotional state so that an urge comes about to make something, but I want to come as close as possible to the truth and abstract everything from that...” Piet Mondrian, 1914

✲✲✲

The Tree of Knowledge by af Klint

 

 

Very interesting, and these paintings confirm af Klint was a deep thinker.

They were part of a series (from 1913 to 1915) entitled “The Tree of Knowledge”. Af Klint returns to the theme of the beginning of the world from a slightly-biblical (though still mystical) perspective. Mind you, the existence of a tree does tend to feature in most religious traditions and ancient mythology.

She became interested in spiritualism as a young lady. She was a member of a close-knit group of lady, ‘The Five’; and she regularly took part in seances and started painting heavenly visions and schemes. From a historical perspective, they may be the earliest abstract paintings.

These paintings are very interesting, detailed and ornate - and quite scientific with their symmetry. There is usually a central tree, with curved lines, and colour palettes and motif drawn from nature. There are arrows and forces being depicted.

They are interesting and make you think - but I don’t find them very alluring or deeply moving.

✲✲✲

Part 4 - Dynamic colours (Mondrian)

In this section, the exhibition looks at the way both artists experimented with form and colour to express the ‘universal’.

• Mondrian gradually refined his depictions of the towers/sea views etc. until dissolved into complete abstraction
• He saw verticals as the ‘male principle’ (representing spiritual), and horizontal as expressing the ‘female’ (material principle). 
• Mondrian’s ultimate goal was to “plastically” express a universal harmony based on balance of oppositional forces.

✲✲✲

Composition with Grid 9: Checkerboard Composition with Bright Colours by Mondrian - 1919

I think this is a bit more complicated than it seems.

Here Mondrian gives us a regular grid but with irregularities in the primary and neutral colours (not his later more intense & vivid pure primary hues).

According to Mondrian:

The great struggle for artists is the annihilation of static equilibrium in their paintings through continuous oppositions (contrasts) among the means of expression.

The above quote relates to the subtle asymmetrical balance that was being sought in Mondrian’s oeuvre, and is an early example of the De Stijl style. 

De Stijl was born in Holland. During WWI, Holland maintained its neutrality; and, during which, a clutch of Dutch artists were able to consolidate an art movement with a pervasive influence on the Western world. It took its name from a journal De Stijl (The Style) which was published in 1917 till 1932. Piet Mondrian and Theo van Doesburg were its ‘leaders’. Mondrian was the most articulate advocate for its underlying philosophy (which he preferred to call neoplasticism). In short, it was opposed to the ascendant individualism and subjectivity of the Romanticism onwards. It was supposed to give way to a classical collaborative art with a universal comprehensible frame of reference. They hoped to create a coherent style of environments for all aspects of life. The commitment to abstraction involved a reduction of form via a strict grammar of flat surfaces, straight lines and right angles. Colour reduced to the 3 primaries (red, yellow, blue) and the neutrals (white, black and grey).  These essentials were symbolic of life, and reflected an inherent ideal unity and harmony of the universe. So, the 3 primary colours were supposed to embrace the range of emotions, and the vertical was the active while the horizontal was the passive. 

A lot of this is resonant with his spiritualism too. Indeed, for me, quite cryptically, Mondrian wrote:

“Once we realize that equilibrated relationships in society signify what is just, then we shall realize that in art, likewise, the demands of life press forward when the spirit of age is ready.”

Also, on close inspection, you can see the delicate brushstrokes:

The lines are not as perfectly edged as they appear from afar.

✲✲✲

Composition No 3 with Colour Planes by Mondrian -  1917

Interesting that there are no black lines of varying thickness in this canvass. 

Just blocks of light-colour floating on a white background. As I understand, the black lines tend to refer or demarcate the physicality of nature (e.g. tree etc.), thus the overall effect is the evaporation of depth. 

Is there a harmonious or precise balance to the canvass? Perhaps. I think so. Or it doesn’t seem to have an imbalance, per se.

✲✲✲

Composition in Colour B by Mondrian - 1917

Another interesting one. Some black lines, but larger white background.

Is there a harmony? I guess so, and there is something inherently beautiful about the composition. More, I think, that the checkerboard above.

Interesting brushwork.

✲✲✲

Composition in Line, Second State by Mondrian - 1916

For me, I don’t think this painting is beautiful. It reminds me of a metropolis. But I think I need some colour.

I think this may be too abstract. Let me explain. De Stijl was a kind of spiritualist quasi-religious movement which held that humanity progresses from the physical (natural) to the spiritual (abstract). Thus, for Mondrian, the use of abstraction - colours, lines, the surrounding shapes - is supposed to represent the spiritual (or universal) itself. So, he sought to take art into the rarefied domains of pure intellectual abstraction (as opposed to the emotional and individualistic depictions of the natural world). Indeed, in the late 1910s, Mondrian made several visits to New York as he was into Jazz. He said that New York City was an abstract life given form; “in the metropolis, beauty is expressed more mathematically.” 

I think the above quote may be the problem. It’s perhaps too mathematical. To my mind, the problem with these sort of art is that it can be so abstract that it tends towards non-art (i.e. it begins to collapse on itself).

✲✲✲

Composition in Oval with Colour Areas II by Mondrian - 1914

In 1911, Mondrian established himself in Paris and was influenced by cubists Picasso and Braque. Thus, Mondrian made a series of artwork with that sort of analytical cubism. 

This canvas is comprised of interweaving planes and in vivid contrasting tones (with that earthy orange and brown). It’s interesting that the lines are not perfectly horizontal (the passive) but looks like plenty of vertical straight lines.

It’s quite pretty and engaging.

It’s clear Mondrian was painting intuitively without planning.
Areas, it seems, were made painted over.

✲✲✲

Part 5 - Old geometries (af Klint)

These paintings below seem to be about some invisible 4th spacial dimension (Theosophy) which largely disappeared as a ‘movement’ after Einstein’s theory of relativity. Af Klint used geometry in her search for “primordial images”.

For me, I don’t really buy into her philosophical message; and so it doesn’t evoke quite as much for me. It’s a shame that so much of these abstractions are necessarily intertwined with her mysticism. To my mind, once the mysticism crumbles, the power of her art doesn’t seem to have the same eclat. 

✲✲✲

The Swan series by af Klint - 1915

Interesting.  I think I remember seeing this as a child somewhere.

This dates back to 1914 - when she was living in Stockholm - during WWI. The two swans kissing or fighting. Everything rendered in opposite. The world upside down?

Across the series below, we see figurative imagery and abstract forms. Organic tendrils and spirals overlaid with symbolic geometric.

✲✲✲

As above, this is interesting, and I suppose quite radical for its time.

It reminds me of some viscous liquid in a boiling flask. Quite scientific. 

✲✲✲

As above, I do like the richer maroon red against the black. Quite engrossing even.

✲✲✲

Once again, quite interesting. Af Klint is obsessed with snail shells! :) . 

✲✲✲

I adore this cute little house and the golden sun ball. So lovely.

✲✲✲

Part 6 - Space and Rhythm (Mondrian)

From 1914 onwards, Mondrian wanted to bring space alive through horizontal and vertical lines, and primary colours and grey white and blocks. By 1920, he developed his neoplasticism of irregular grids for simplicity and his “dynamic equilibrium” to explain how a composition is produced through spatial relationships of lines and colour planes.

To Mondrian, neoplasticism was the pictorial language representing a universal art form. For me, I wonder if Mondrian’s art reflected his environment. He started off painting pastoral scenes. When he moved to Paris, his art had begun to reflect the more urban architecture and lifestyle. His paintings acquired even more movement and energetic action when he moved to New York (as per his Broadway Boogie Woogie painting). So, for him, perhaps the vector of his artwork was a reflection of the transformations of his environment in which he lived.

My favourites are the bottom 2.

✲✲✲

Composition with Red, Black, Yellow, Blue and Grey by Mondrian

✲✲✲

Composition with Grid 3: Lozenge Composition with Grey Lines by Mondrian - 1918

The contrast between the thick grey lines and white background can create a shimmering feel if you look in the middle.

Quite pretty.

✲✲✲

Composition with Red, Black, Yellow, Blue and Grey by Mondrian - 1921

It’s ok, nice. But I don’t feel there is the same peaceful harmony as the last few. 

Perhaps too much colour and action?

✲✲✲

Composition 8 (No.II) with Red - 1935

Nice. I quite like it. It feels like the sun is shining. 

That large red square grabs the attention immediately. Then, the eyes scan through the rest of the painting and finds harmonious proportions of the different squares. I think this is how the asymmetry permits the painting to appear balanced.

I think the lack of a contrasting colour is counter-balanced by the proportionate squares which makes it aesthetically pleasing.

✲✲✲

Composition with Lines and Colour III - 1937

I think this might be my favourite.

The blue in the middle feels like a lake. The eyes are drawn to that square. Then, we notice clockwise the long and very thin vertical lines. Perhaps trees?

The layout of the remaining grids seem to divide half-way to form some skyline.

✲✲✲

Composition with Yellow, Blue and Red - 1937

Quite pretty.

As above, I think of a deconstruction of a sun, a lake with trees, and a house.

✲✲✲

Mondrian’s abstraction

I really enjoyed the below paintings grouped together.

They show Mondrian’s transition from realistic representations to organic experimentation with various forms in seeking new ways to represent nature.

Very clever of the Tate.

✲✲✲