How to Look at Mondrian

huffingtonpost.com

64 points·jcw··5 comments

A very interesting look at the painting. I do wonder at times if art historians and other afacionados place too much importance on every minute detail as intentional rather than a mere artifact, even for painters known for perfectionism. Specifically, in this case, whether the technique used was intended to be a part of the "user experience", the work of art?

I agree that it is interesting, but not necessarily relevant to Mondrian's intent. While brushwork and other painterly touches do add interest, and a subtle complexity, I don't think it was Mondrian's intention. His work presaged Albers, Stella, Noland and others, who specifically sought to remove painterly marks from their work.

Mondrian's work is generally considered to be hard to copy due to the subtle balances of color and form, not technique. Simplicity arrived at as an end point does not correlate to a simple approach in the beginning.

I don't really think that's how to look at Mondrian. I doubt if he was as concerned about the minutiae of how his work was composed, in the same way. Though the details are interesting, it would be more insightful to try to consider his mindset when creating a piece than the exact technical steps for how he made a certain line.

Who knew. Everyone jokes how his paintings can be replicated by an infant, but I guess there's a lot of subtlety. Very cool.

(I wouldn't claim this, as its easier to copy something once it's already done.)

Oh, I wouldn't call Mondrian the work of an infant.

The work of a bathroom tiler, maybe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com