The Great Art Debate

[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.

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...

So there is more symbolism and more of a social conscious. That may be the case but that wasn't what Mondrian was aiming for anyway. Its very hard to compare two paintings such as these and try to argue which one is superior because they were both motivated by different things and painted for different reasons. I understand, though, if its a personal preference that one painting immediately appeals to you and another one doesn't.

[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.

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.

I'm not an enthusiast for his work; in fact, he's one of the few abstract artists I've come across that I haven't yet grown to like. What little I'm offering about his work is that the majority of his pieces are experimentations with his 'grid system' and that everything he produced was the result of a lengthy period of contemplation and thought. He was also interested in trying to depict movement in a painting.

There can be a 'delirium of interpretation' when it comes to works like this and so I try to refrain from that myself, particularly when it's a piece that I'm not fond of.

But the bish's post has enlightened me some more on Mondrian and I'm interested in his theories and ideas. Giving himself such a limited amount of things to work with is a very interesting way of working.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Jugs - or anyone else - can you have a stab at explaining Richter's abstract paintings to me? Has he done anything other than invent the squeegee technique and try it with every colour palette possible?

[Prufrock]

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."

.

I can go 'unity', 'structure' and 'motion' with that sort of thing, but if you only use squares and rectangles, you can't do a political manifesto for freedom, unity, and cooperation. Not unless you use the squares and rectangles to spell out the words of a political manifesto for freedom, unity, and cooperation. That's the sort of pretentious bullshit that buts people off art, particularly modern art.

[thebish]

In all seriousness, what effect on that painting would turning it through different rotations have? Do we have the technology, Bish?!

here... judge for yourself... (I think - it "feels" bottom heavy...)

[thebish]

as for my contention that Mondrian was more than just randomly painted squares...

compare a real mondrian with this:



an entirely different experience...

[bobo the clown]

I see your Mondrian and cube it ...

[thebish]

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.

I suspect there is something to do with Theosophy going on here - which I can't pretend to grasp... but - my guess is that he viewed lines and colour as the irreducible stuff at his disposal as a painter..

primary colours - not mixed or blended - straight lines - the simplest form a line can take??

Rietveld did summat very similar with furniture..

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Primary colours - ok. The source of all colours, supposedly.

But what does it mean to describe a straight line as the 'simplest' form a line can take? What does simplicity mean? Was there a straight line the world before man started trying to produce them?

Maybe that's it - it's the simplest form of human accomplishment there is?!

Calm down Bobo, it's ok...

[thebish]

Primary colours - ok. The source of all colours, supposedly.

But what does it mean to describe a straight line as the 'simplest' form a line can take? What does simplicity mean? Was there a straight line the world before man started trying to produce them?

Maybe that's it - it's the simplest form of Rumania accomplishment there is?!

Calm down Bobo, it's ok...

I don't think he means simple as in "natural" (not man-made) - he isn't trying to depict the natural.. maybe he means that there is no room for interpretation in a straight line - except for its thickness and its length - where there is endless variation in the curve...

all of which is guesswork - the straight line and the primary colour were evidently what HE determined to be the raw basics... and shape...

[TANGODANCER]

Primary colours - ok. The source of all colours, supposedly.

But what does it mean to describe a straight line as the 'simplest' form a line can take? What does simplicity mean? Was there a straight line the world before man started trying to produce them?Maybe that's it - it's the simplest form of Rumania accomplishment there is?!

Calm down Bobo, it's ok...

Gravity.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Primary colours - ok. The source of all colours, supposedly.

But what does it mean to describe a straight line as the 'simplest' form a line can take? What does simplicity mean? Was there a straight line the world before man started trying to produce them?

Maybe that's it - it's the simplest form of Rumania accomplishment there is?!

Calm down Bobo, it's ok...

I don't think he means simple as in "natural" (not man-made) - he isn't trying to depict the natural.. maybe he means that there is no room for interpretation in a straight line - except for its thickness and its length - where there is endless variation in the curve...

all of which is guesswork - the straight line and the primary colour were evidently what HE determined to be the raw basics... and shape...

Did he say this?

It's not evident from the work itself that he thought those things are the 'basics', whatever that means anyway.

I'm not equating 'simple' with 'natural' - often nature is anything but.

In what sense does a slightly curved line leave more room for 'interpretation' than a straight one?if anything a straight line evokes more objects that a specific type of curve, which might not seem to relate to anything much.

[Prufrock]

Primary colours - ok. The source of all colours, supposedly.

But what does it mean to describe a straight line as the 'simplest' form a line can take? What does simplicity mean? Was there a straight line the world before man started trying to produce them?

Maybe that's it - it's the simplest form of Rumania accomplishment there is?!

Calm down Bobo, it's ok...

I don't think he means simple as in "natural" (not man-made) - he isn't trying to depict the natural.. maybe he means that there is no room for interpretation in a straight line - except for its thickness and its length - where there is endless variation in the curve...

all of which is guesswork - the straight line and the primary colour were evidently what HE determined to be the raw basics... and shape...

What the feck is going on with the spellcheck/quoting lark. I'm pretty sure Crayon's doesn't think the Romanians invented the straight line!

And, if he did, I certainly don't think thebish would have let him get away with saying it

[TANGODANCER]

A shadow, anything in direct line to the sun's rays, is effectively a straight line. The Egyptians used that sort of principal to build.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Primary colours - ok. The source of all colours, supposedly.

But what does it mean to describe a straight line as the 'simplest' form a line can take? What does simplicity mean? Was there a straight line the world before man started trying to produce them?

Maybe that's it - it's the simplest form of Rumania accomplishment there is?!

Calm down Bobo, it's ok...

I don't think he means simple as in "natural" (not man-made) - he isn't trying to depict the natural.. maybe he means that there is no room for interpretation in a straight line - except for its thickness and its length - where there is endless variation in the curve...

all of which is guesswork - the straight line and the primary colour were evidently what HE determined to be the raw basics... and shape...

What the feck is going on with the spellcheck/quoting lark. I'm pretty sure Crayon's doesn't think the Romanians invented the straight line!

And, if he did, I certainly don't think thebish would have let him get away with saying it

Yes, autocorrect got me and I went back to correct. Nothing sinister... I assume Bish realised what had happened.

Bloody gypsies.

[Prufrock]

Ah OK.

It had happened to somebody else recently, so I thought it might have been a problem with TW somehow. DYAC!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

A shadow, anything in direct line to the sun's rays, is effectively a straight line. The Egyptians used that sort of principal to build.

Only if the thing casting a shadow has a straight edge, surely?

I preferred gravity as an example, but even then I don't think it had given rise to many straight lines before man's intervention.

[thebish]

What the feck is going on with the spellcheck/quoting lark. I'm pretty sure Crayon's doesn't think the Romanians invented the straight line!

And, if he did, I certainly don't think thebish would have let him get away with saying it

ahh - very clever Pru - criticise someone's spelling under the cover of suggesting you are surprised I didn't....

[thebish]

Primary colours - ok. The source of all colours, supposedly.

But what does it mean to describe a straight line as the 'simplest' form a line can take? What does simplicity mean? Was there a straight line the world before man started trying to produce them?

Maybe that's it - it's the simplest form of Rumania accomplishment there is?!

Calm down Bobo, it's ok...

I don't think he means simple as in "natural" (not man-made) - he isn't trying to depict the natural.. maybe he means that there is no room for interpretation in a straight line - except for its thickness and its length - where there is endless variation in the curve...

all of which is guesswork - the straight line and the primary colour were evidently what HE determined to be the raw basics... and shape...

Did he say this?

It's not evident from the work itself that he thought those things are the 'basics', whatever that means anyway.

I'm not equating 'simple' with 'natural' - often nature is anything but.

In what sense does a slightly curved line leave more room for 'interpretation' than a straight one?if anything a straight line evokes more objects that a specific type of curve, which might not seem to relate to anything much.

It was you who started to talk about non man-made things - which I assumed to be "nature". If you didn't mean that was "simple" - then I don't know why you drifted off down that path!

mondrian has said this...

It is possible that through horizontal and vertical lines constructed with awareness, but not with calculation, led by high intuition, and brought to harmony and rhythm, these basic forms of beauty, supplemented if necessary by other direct lines or curves, can become a work of art, as strong as it is true.

he also wrote..

Curves are so emotional.

there were other artists who disagreed with him - Van Doesburg (who had been one of the key partners in mondrian's "school" of art - the De Stijl Project - introduced diagonal lines and secondary colours - and as a consequence, mondrian left the movement... (or Van Doesburg did - depending on who you believe!)

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Horseshit

Thanks Bobo. I'm strangely pleased to see you confirm the feelings I guessed I had about that tosser Mondrian. And the rest of the post was interesting too.

In the spirit of trying to thrash out an understanding... what does Horseshit really mean: to 'cut things down to basics' or 'the bare essentials'. Which sort of horses are we talking about, Roan, piebald, Shetland ponies?

In all seriousness, what effect on my feelings would turning horseshit through different rotations have? Do we have the technology, Bobo?! Maybe it would have a different effect on the 'rhythm' of the shit (is that a meaningful question?!), especially given that we instinctively smell things in a certain way (not deeply sniffing horseshit for example ).

Mondrian has now joined Rothko on my Horseshit List of Artists to Avoid.