The Great Art Debate

[thebish]

I'll happily remain amongst the know nowts.

that's just reverse snobbery.

[TANGODANCER]

But didn't you already say a couple of posts ago:

"it is a question often asked (in different ways) on here... Do we only recognise/appreciate beauty/art when someone else gives us "permission" to do so - or when we have been TOLD it is beauty/great art?"

I did - because it is a point that you and others repeatedly make. i thought it might interest you. I did not say it was my opinion though...

I think there are some things that reward effort - and don't necessarily come easily. Art is one of those things - the more you put into it, the more you get out of it.

I am sure that you get a whole lot more out of spanish culture because you have immersed yourself in it and read about it widely - and grappled with the language. I wouldn't expect someone who knows nothing about Spanish history or culture or language to get as much out of a trip to Spain as you would get.

the same, I think, is true of art. the more you take the time and trouble to try to understand - the more you get from it.

Then I'll happily settle for that under the proviso that, in the main, we pursue different interests from personal choice. I have indeed gained much from study of Spain and its history and indeed probably know more about my own language now from studying another. The rewards have been great indeed from doing so. I'm far from proficient or fluent in Spanish, but wouldn't worry in the least about going to places where they speak no English. I can always make myself understood, indeed converse (if somewhat badly) on most topics. As in any culture, a smile and good manners go further than most things to making friends.

[TANGODANCER]

I'll happily remain amongst the know nowts.

that's just reverse snobbery.

Amen, in its true meaning.

[Jugs]

I've recently become a member of something on Facebook called 'Artfinder', which emails me a work of art everyday to consider and perhaps comment on.

Today's example is an interesting one in the context of the 'do I need an art degree to appreciate this?' discussion. You will see my comment on this one below it, I think, if you recognise a Bolton surname.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/piet-mo ... tre-c1919/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting site that I may as well become a member of

With Mondrian, its very possible that at least a modicum (if not much more) of understanding of what he was trying to do and in what context he was doing it is necessary for the enjoyment of his work. It's important to note that a lot of his work is an experiment leading towards a certain niche, or a certain aesthetic or a discovery in art. The same is true of a lot of modern art. In this sense, it's possible to suggest that this piece itself is another experiment by Mondrian and, unlike an experiment by Rembrandt, its going to be much harder for your casual art-fan to appreciate such an experiment. This year I'm writing an essay on the use of colour in modern-art so I'd probably find it easier to say something about this work a few months down the line but its interesting to note how deliberate this work is by Mondrian who is relying solely on colours and lines; apparently it took him months to finish a piece like this. Everything was exact and precisely calculated. This is exactly what he wanted it to look like after much thought.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I've recently become a member of something on Facebook called 'Artfinder', which emails me a work of art everyday to consider and perhaps comment on.

Today's example is an interesting one in the context of the 'do I need an art degree to appreciate this?' discussion. You will see my comment on this one below it, I think, if you recognise a Bolton surname.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/piet-mo ... tre-c1919/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting site that I may as well become a member of

With Mondrian, its very possible that at least a modicum (if not much more) of understanding of what he was trying to do and in what context he was doing it is necessary for the enjoyment of his work. It's important to note that a lot of his work is an experiment leading towards a certain niche, or a certain aesthetic or a discovery in art. The same is true of a lot of modern art. In this sense, it's possible to suggest that this piece itself is another experiment by Mondrian and, unlike an experiment by Rembrandt, its going to be much harder for your casual art-fan to appreciate such an experiment. This year I'm writing an essay on the use of colour in modern-art so I'd probably find it easier to say something about this work a few months down the line but its interesting to note how deliberate this work is by Mondrian who is relying solely on colours and lines; apparently it took him months to finish a piece like this. Everything was exact and precisely calculated. This is exactly what he wanted it to look like after much thought.

Regarding the painting itself I find myself in company with Tango in appreciating this sort of thing. Knowing the history of the previous decade does not change this. It seems much like some previous paintings viewed here except this time the artist used a good ruler. I am willing to accept the allegation that the fault of failing to appreciate this type of art lies within myself. Now before William gets on my case I think there is far more to Guernica than this painting.

[Lord Kangana]

I may have written elsewhere how Venice has never appealed, for some reason. In my mind I have it as a pointless overblown Disneyland not much part of the Dolce Vita fantasy I have constructed for myself. Do any Venetians actually move around by gondola these days? And I don't much care for Gothic architecture.

But, enough people have told me I am wrong, so I must be. And I am interested in their painters in a story that starts with the Bellini and Giorgone, moves on with Titian, Tintoretto and Veronese and culminates with Tiepolo and Canaletto.

Any thoughts on the best time of year to go?

I realise I'm a little late to the party, but my only piece of advice would be... avoid summer at all costs. The place stinks, and its absolutely swarming with tourists. Other than that, its always worth finding out you don't like a place first hand than always wondering whether you were right, isn't it?

[Jugs]

I've recently become a member of something on Facebook called 'Artfinder', which emails me a work of art everyday to consider and perhaps comment on.

Today's example is an interesting one in the context of the 'do I need an art degree to appreciate this?' discussion. You will see my comment on this one below it, I think, if you recognise a Bolton surname.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/piet-mo ... tre-c1919/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting site that I may as well become a member of

With Mondrian, its very possible that at least a modicum (if not much more) of understanding of what he was trying to do and in what context he was doing it is necessary for the enjoyment of his work. It's important to note that a lot of his work is an experiment leading towards a certain niche, or a certain aesthetic or a discovery in art. The same is true of a lot of modern art. In this sense, it's possible to suggest that this piece itself is another experiment by Mondrian and, unlike an experiment by Rembrandt, its going to be much harder for your casual art-fan to appreciate such an experiment. This year I'm writing an essay on the use of colour in modern-art so I'd probably find it easier to say something about this work a few months down the line but its interesting to note how deliberate this work is by Mondrian who is relying solely on colours and lines; apparently it took him months to finish a piece like this. Everything was exact and precisely calculated. This is exactly what he wanted it to look like after much thought.

Regarding the painting itself I find myself in company with Tango in appreciating this sort of thing. Knowing the history of the previous decade does not change this. It seems much like some previous paintings viewed here except this time the artist used a good ruler. I am willing to accept the allegation that the fault of failing to appreciate this type of art lies within myself. Now before William gets on my case I think there is far more to Guernica than this painting.

'There is far more to Guernica than this painting' is a very vague statement, though; there is far more of what? Personally, I'm not much of a fan of Mondrian but I am a fan of Picasso - and especially Guernica. But its still very possible to ask whether or not Mondrian's work did more for modern art than Guernica did. If it did, which is very possible, Mondrian's work (a bulk of which looks similar to this piece here) was important and should not easily be dismissed.

[bobo the clown]

Am I permitted to say it's a series of lines with the blocks coloured in ... & looks like random tiling.

As a piece of coloured geometary it's passable ... in a 2nd Yr Junior sort of way ... but as a piece of great art it's a crock of shit ?

Just enquiring.

[thebish]

you're permitted to say what you like!

and may I say - well done, you!

(you're also permitted to murder the word "geometry" - whether it's a good thing that you do, or not, is a different matter!)

also - not sure you've grasped the word "random"!

[bobo the clown]

By 'random' I meant "to no obvious pattern", but happy to withraw the word.

... & yes, beter speelinge would help.

[William the White]

I don't get mondrian at all!

But I'd be really pleased to have a conversation with an enthusiast for his work.

[thebish]

I don't get mondrian at all!

But I'd be really pleased to have a conversation with an enthusiast for his work.

Bobo's your man!!

[Montreal Wanderer]

I've recently become a member of something on Facebook called 'Artfinder', which emails me a work of art everyday to consider and perhaps comment on.

Today's example is an interesting one in the context of the 'do I need an art degree to appreciate this?' discussion. You will see my comment on this one below it, I think, if you recognise a Bolton surname.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/piet-mo ... tre-c1919/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting site that I may as well become a member of

With Mondrian, its very possible that at least a modicum (if not much more) of understanding of what he was trying to do and in what context he was doing it is necessary for the enjoyment of his work. It's important to note that a lot of his work is an experiment leading towards a certain niche, or a certain aesthetic or a discovery in art. The same is true of a lot of modern art. In this sense, it's possible to suggest that this piece itself is another experiment by Mondrian and, unlike an experiment by Rembrandt, its going to be much harder for your casual art-fan to appreciate such an experiment. This year I'm writing an essay on the use of colour in modern-art so I'd probably find it easier to say something about this work a few months down the line but its interesting to note how deliberate this work is by Mondrian who is relying solely on colours and lines; apparently it took him months to finish a piece like this. Everything was exact and precisely calculated. This is exactly what he wanted it to look like after much thought.

Regarding the painting itself I find myself in company with Tango in appreciating this sort of thing. Knowing the history of the previous decade does not change this. It seems much like some previous paintings viewed here except this time the artist used a good ruler. I am willing to accept the allegation that the fault of failing to appreciate this type of art lies within myself. Now before William gets on my case I think there is far more to Guernica than this painting.

'There is far more to Guernica than this painting' is a very vague statement, though; there is far more of what? Personally, I'm not much of a fan of Mondrian but I am a fan of Picasso - and especially Guernica. But its still very possible to ask whether or not Mondrian's work did more for modern art than Guernica did. If it did, which is very possible, Mondrian's work (a bulk of which looks similar to this piece here) was important and should not easily be dismissed.

Sorry to have been vague, Jugs. I may not fully appreciate Guernica but it seems to me full of symbolism that shows the horror of war, but also some future hope.It was a socially important work in its time. The other painting (now reproduced by Bobo) contains no message for me - just a collage of different sized and coloured rectangles. As noted, i realize this may be a fault in my perceptions...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I've recently become a member of something on Facebook called 'Artfinder', which emails me a work of art everyday to consider and perhaps comment on.

Today's example is an interesting one in the context of the 'do I need an art degree to appreciate this?' discussion. You will see my comment on this one below it, I think, if you recognise a Bolton surname.

https://www.artfinder.com/story/piet-mo ... tre-c1919/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting site that I may as well become a member of

With Mondrian, its very possible that at least a modicum (if not much more) of understanding of what he was trying to do and in what context he was doing it is necessary for the enjoyment of his work. It's important to note that a lot of his work is an experiment leading towards a certain niche, or a certain aesthetic or a discovery in art. The same is true of a lot of modern art. In this sense, it's possible to suggest that this piece itself is another experiment by Mondrian and, unlike an experiment by Rembrandt, its going to be much harder for your casual art-fan to appreciate such an experiment. This year I'm writing an essay on the use of colour in modern-art so I'd probably find it easier to say something about this work a few months down the line but its interesting to note how deliberate this work is by Mondrian who is relying solely on colours and lines; apparently it took him months to finish a piece like this. Everything was exact and precisely calculated. This is exactly what he wanted it to look like after much thought.

Regarding the painting itself I find myself in company with Tango in appreciating this sort of thing. Knowing the history of the previous decade does not change this. It seems much like some previous paintings viewed here except this time the artist used a good ruler. I am willing to accept the allegation that the fault of failing to appreciate this type of art lies within myself.

Indeed. And I was just saying that knowing the history of the previous decade added to my interest and understanding (and my amateur attempt at psychoanalysing him!), rather than my appreciation.

I am definitely with William in my openness to discuss it with an enthusiast. But it seems to me that people can write a lot about him without saying much of anything at all - with respect to Jugs, I do think his post probably falls into this category too.

For me, Mondrian's paintings offer a little mathematical amusement: what if his chosen line were wider, narrower, higher, lower, what if the tone of a yellow plane were made more sallow or of a red, sharper; what if a square canvas were hung on its side or upside-down?

I do have questions. What mathematical relationships are involved? Are the elements placed by measurement or eye? What are the things I haven't even thought of?

I think I know enough to know he was a serious thinker, rather than an insubstantial confidence trickster, and this is why I am more inclined to give it some thought.

I know Bobo will think this is bollocks and I do also find it reassuring that people like him exist.

[bobo the clown]

It's not, Monty. It's not.

Mummy .... there's little more serious than being a successful "insubstantial confidence trickster". Very lucrative indeed.

[William the White]

It's not, Monty. It's not.

Mummy .... there's little more serious than being a successful "insubstantial confidence trickster". Very lucrative indeed.

Is that meant to be a comment on Mondrian?

[bobo the clown]

It's not, Monty. It's not.

Mummy .... there's little more serious than being a successful "insubstantial confidence trickster". Very lucrative indeed.

Is that meant to be a comment on Mondrian?

It is ... see Mummy's comment above.

I would consider anyone producing that bllx claiming it as great art to be precisely that.

[thebish]

Mondrian doesn't really move me - but it has been explained to me what he is trying to do - and I think it is an interesting project...

(much of this - funnily enough - was explained to me by an old homeless guy I knew when I worked at a night shelter in Vauxhall who told me that he had met Mondrian.... this was nearly 30 years ago - and the old guy was in his late 60s - so datewise it is possible, but, either way, he was kind of obsessed with him and used to carry around postcards of his work that he may have bought/nicked from the London galleries) anyway - I have looked some of this up in my book by Will Gompertz to refresh my memory - but this is basically what he told me..

mondrian started off as a wannabe "Old Master" as did many - imitating their work.... painting bog-standard naturalistic landscapes or impressionistic still life..

then he was influenced by cubism and his style changed - but still wasn't what you'd recognise as a "mondrian" today

then he got all spiritual and got into the Theosophical movement - and then was massively changed by the blood and guts of the first world war...

he was desperately depressed by the killing and longed for a new start - a simpler world - he wanted to paint "unity" as opposed to individualism - what all things have in common rather than what tears them apart.

I guess it's horses for courses - war moves some people to set up the UN or to campaign for political union - Mondrian wanted to make his response - his movement for change through his painting...

I think it was summat esoteric to do with the Theosophical movement (which I can't pretend to know anything about) which led him to believe that he had to try to strip art - and his depiction of unity - to the bare essentials..

in painting - that's line/colour/shape/space - but more than that - he restricted himself further to just 2 shapes - squares and rectangles - and only horizontal and vertical lines - and only a few colours - no blending - no curves or diagonals - no overlapping shapes - he was trying to cut everything down to basics.

now - to some people - cutting something down the the bare essentials is the fuel for their "a child could paint that" taunt... but for him it was a matter of utmost importance - and not at all "simple" - to express something massively profound (unity) with the smallest of palettes - if you like - the haiku of painting..

as it is easier to write lots of words to express a complex idea than it is to express a complex idea in just a few words - so he believed about his painting and the restrictions he placed upon himself... and long gone were his naturalistic days - he now believed that it was not art's job to "mimic" life... (ie - copy it slavishly)

so - with those rules/restrictions - he set about painting harmony and balance

how did he think he achieved that?

well - not my words now - but those of Will Gompertz..

the background is nearly always white - he believed this to be a universal and purebasis on which to construct a painting. On top of this is a sparse grid of horizontal and vertical black lines of varying thicknesses. this is an important detail - he wanted to convey a sense of life's perpetual movement - he tried to do this subliminally by varying the thickness of his lines - the thinner the line, the quicker the eye reads its trajectory and vice versa - so the line is like an accelerator pedal.

he wanted his art to be a political manifesto for freedom, unity and cooperation. he wrote that "real freedom is not mutual equality but mutual equivalence. In art, forms and colours have different different dimension and position, but are equal in value."

so - for example...

the horizontal and vertical lines express the tensions between life's opposites - -ve/+ve, conscious/unconscious, mind/body, male/female, good/bad, light/dark, discord/harmony, yin/yang, coyle/freedman.... where the lines cross is the moment the relationship between the two is established and a square or rectangle is formed...

now he needs balance - always asymetrical - in his mind to help create a sense of movement, he needs to balance his design. so - the large red square in the top left corner is counter-balanced by the smaller - but denser blue square at the bottom, just to the right of centre (not "random" at all - there is NOTHING random about what mondrian is doing!) he has then added a thin yellow rectangle as a counterweight to the other two. the remaining white blocks are given equivalence by taking up more space on the canvas than the three colours put together. so - there you have it - no one element dominates - it is mutuality for all on a flat surface (you might say - level playing field...)

in other words - it is possible for each - despite differences - to have the same value as the others - in a nutshell - what he is trying to say - in the aftermath of the bloodshed of the 1st WW - his response to a world fractured by the opposite of his message - that one must dominate the other - forcing itself to the front of canvas...

he didn't overlap stuff - he wanted to depict unity between different elements - but not the romantic ideal of "love" where the two merge into one...


now - as I said - his work doesn't move me - but I CAN see balance in it - the proportions and positions and depths of colour - they are pleasing to the eye - while they LOOK simple - are far from simple and easy - making something so well balanced LOOK simple is his genius...

you and I could COPY his work - it would be quite simple - but I maintain it would not be so simple to create a new Mondrian that had the same sense and feeling of balance and mutuality...

[bobo the clown]

Horseshit.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Thanks Bish. I'm strangely pleased to see you confirm the feelings I guessed he had about he time he was painting. And the rest of the post was interesting.

In the spirit of trying to thrash out an understanding... what does it mean to 'cut things down to basics' or 'the bare essentials'. What are straight horizontal and vertical lines, primary colours, white space and rectangles the 'basics' of.

In all seriousness, what effect on that painting would turning it through different rotations have? Do we have the technology, Bish?! Maybe it would have a different effect on the 'rhythm' of the image (is that a meaningful question?!), especially given that we instinctively look at things in a certain way (reading things left to right, for example).