Piet Mondrian “Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art” 1937 reprinted in Art in Theory: 1900-2000. ed. Harrison and Wood pp. 387-393
“Although art is fundamentally everywhere and always the same, nevertheless two main human inclinations, diametrically opposed to each other, appear in its many and varied expressions. One aims at the direct creation of universal beauty, the other at the aesthetic expression of oneself, in other words, of that which one thinks and experiences. The first aims at representing reality objectively, the second subjectively. Thus we see in every work of figurative art the desire, objectively to represent beauty, solely through form and colour, in mutually balanced relations, and, at the same time, an attempt to express that which these forms, colours and relations arouse in us. This later attempt must of necessity result in an individual expression which veils the pure representation of beauty. Nevertheless, both the two opposing elements (universal-individual) are indispensable if the work is to arouse emotion. Art had to find the right solution.” p. 387-388
“the only problem in art is to achieve a balance between the subjective and the objective. But it is of the utmost importance that this problem should be solved, in the realm of plastic art – technically, as it were – and not in the realm of thought. The world of art must be ‘produced’, ‘constructed’. One must create as objective as possible a representation of forms and relations. Such work can never be empty because the opposition of its constructive elements and its execution arouse emotion.
If some have failed to take into account the inherent character of the form and have forgotten that this – untransformed – predominates, others have overlooked the fact that an individual expression does not become a universal expression through figurative representation, which is based on our conception of feeling, be it classical, romantic, religious, surrealist. Art has shown that universal expression can only be created by a real equation of the universal and the individual.” p. 388
“It is not enough to explain the value of a work of art in itself; it is above all necessary to show the place which a work occupies on the scale of the evolution of plastic art. This in speaking of art, it is not permissible to say ‘this is how I see it’ or ‘this is my idea’. True art like true life takes a single road.
the las which in the culture of art have become more and more determinate are the great hidden laws of nature which art establishes in its own fashion. It is necessary to stress the fact that these laws are more or less hidden behind the superficial aspect of nature. Abstract act is therefor opposed to a natural representation of things.” p. 390
“It would be illogical to suppose that non-figurative art will remain stationary, for this art contains a culture of the use of new plastic means and their determinate relations. Because the field is new there is all the more to be done. What is certain is that no escape is possible for the non-figurative artist; he must stay within his field and march towards the consequence of his art.
This consequence brings us, in a future perhaps remote, towards the end of art as a thing separated from our surrounding environment, which is the actual plastic reality. But this end is at the same time a new beginning. Art will not only continue but will realize itself more and more. By the unification of architecture, sculpture and painting, a new plastic reality will be created. Painting and sculpture will not manifest themselves as separate objects, nor as ‘mural art’ which destroys architecture itself, nor as ‘applied’ art, but as being purely constructive will aid the creation of an atmosphere not merely utilitarian or rational but also pure and complete in its beauty” p. 392-393
Mondrian lays out several interesting principles for understanding effective art, some of them situational/pragmatic, others more existential about the condition of self expression between humans.
Effective art must balance the opposing goals of achieving intelligible signs that speak to some universal truth (even if that truth is merely ‘communicability’), and simultaneously conveying something about the individual author of the signs. In other terms, the challenge is between managing communication to suit the whims of a sometimes recalcitrant, established public and trying to say something new that changes that public. The tension he identifies provides a useful dialectic for thinking about individual voice and potency: artists should strive for individuality without becoming a voice in the wilderness, too extreme/radical to meet their goals, and should adapt to an audience without becoming the Democratic Party of the 90s, merely tacking towards whatever polls/opinion dictate.
Pragmatically, in industrial capitalism the world is comprised of plastic objects produced by industry and not nature, and art must respond by producing signs akin to the floating signifiers of consumer objects. The value of a consumer good is not its intrinsic value to natural man, but its emotional content made visible in the form – plastic art must practice this same kind of empty signification to become effective in an industrial environment.
Effective art, thus, cannot quite be identified as such as art – it merges with the general environment of plasticity. This is akin to the argument that the most effective politics masks its political-ness – the most effective art can’t be contained as ‘art.’ Mondrian’s dream of generalized art can be seen in the proliferation of discourse surrounding design and surfaces in postmodern capital.
Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art
Piet Mondrian “Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art” 1937 reprinted in Art in Theory: 1900-2000. ed. Harrison and Wood pp. 387-393
“Although art is fundamentally everywhere and always the same, nevertheless two main human inclinations, diametrically opposed to each other, appear in its many and varied expressions. One aims at the direct creation of universal beauty, the other at the aesthetic expression of oneself, in other words, of that which one thinks and experiences. The first aims at representing reality objectively, the second subjectively. Thus we see in every work of figurative art the desire, objectively to represent beauty, solely through form and colour, in mutually balanced relations, and, at the same time, an attempt to express that which these forms, colours and relations arouse in us. This later attempt must of necessity result in an individual expression which veils the pure representation of beauty. Nevertheless, both the two opposing elements (universal-individual) are indispensable if the work is to arouse emotion. Art had to find the right solution.” p. 387-388
“the only problem in art is to achieve a balance between the subjective and the objective. But it is of the utmost importance that this problem should be solved, in the realm of plastic art – technically, as it were – and not in the realm of thought. The world of art must be ‘produced’, ‘constructed’. One must create as objective as possible a representation of forms and relations. Such work can never be empty because the opposition of its constructive elements and its execution arouse emotion. If some have failed to take into account the inherent character of the form and have forgotten that this – untransformed – predominates, others have overlooked the fact that an individual expression does not become a universal expression through figurative representation, which is based on our conception of feeling, be it classical, romantic, religious, surrealist. Art has shown that universal expression can only be created by a real equation of the universal and the individual.” p. 388
“It is not enough to explain the value of a work of art in itself; it is above all necessary to show the place which a work occupies on the scale of the evolution of plastic art. This in speaking of art, it is not permissible to say ‘this is how I see it’ or ‘this is my idea’. True art like true life takes a single road. the las which in the culture of art have become more and more determinate are the great hidden laws of nature which art establishes in its own fashion. It is necessary to stress the fact that these laws are more or less hidden behind the superficial aspect of nature. Abstract act is therefor opposed to a natural representation of things.” p. 390
“It would be illogical to suppose that non-figurative art will remain stationary, for this art contains a culture of the use of new plastic means and their determinate relations. Because the field is new there is all the more to be done. What is certain is that no escape is possible for the non-figurative artist; he must stay within his field and march towards the consequence of his art. This consequence brings us, in a future perhaps remote, towards the end of art as a thing separated from our surrounding environment, which is the actual plastic reality. But this end is at the same time a new beginning. Art will not only continue but will realize itself more and more. By the unification of architecture, sculpture and painting, a new plastic reality will be created. Painting and sculpture will not manifest themselves as separate objects, nor as ‘mural art’ which destroys architecture itself, nor as ‘applied’ art, but as being purely constructive will aid the creation of an atmosphere not merely utilitarian or rational but also pure and complete in its beauty” p. 392-393
Mondrian lays out several interesting principles for understanding effective art, some of them situational/pragmatic, others more existential about the condition of self expression between humans.
Effective art must balance the opposing goals of achieving intelligible signs that speak to some universal truth (even if that truth is merely ‘communicability’), and simultaneously conveying something about the individual author of the signs. In other terms, the challenge is between managing communication to suit the whims of a sometimes recalcitrant, established public and trying to say something new that changes that public. The tension he identifies provides a useful dialectic for thinking about individual voice and potency: artists should strive for individuality without becoming a voice in the wilderness, too extreme/radical to meet their goals, and should adapt to an audience without becoming the Democratic Party of the 90s, merely tacking towards whatever polls/opinion dictate.
Pragmatically, in industrial capitalism the world is comprised of plastic objects produced by industry and not nature, and art must respond by producing signs akin to the floating signifiers of consumer objects. The value of a consumer good is not its intrinsic value to natural man, but its emotional content made visible in the form – plastic art must practice this same kind of empty signification to become effective in an industrial environment.
Effective art, thus, cannot quite be identified as such as art – it merges with the general environment of plasticity. This is akin to the argument that the most effective politics masks its political-ness – the most effective art can’t be contained as ‘art.’ Mondrian’s dream of generalized art can be seen in the proliferation of discourse surrounding design and surfaces in postmodern capital.