

How to Look at Mondrian - jcw
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-elkins/post_1036_b_756669.html?view=print

======
rue
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?

~~~
RoyG
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.

------
code_duck
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.

------
zbanks
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.)

~~~
hugh3
Oh, I wouldn't call Mondrian the work of an infant.

The work of a bathroom tiler, maybe.

