Tuesday, March 31, 2015

How Mondrian went Abstract....

During the early 20th century, many of these artists acknowledged the influence of Pablo Picasso and cubism—and if they didn’t, odds are they were lying. Artists also characteristically connected their work to a religion or philosophy that promoted simplification, though this connection has probably been made less and less significant due to the dominance of formalist readings of art history.
One of the most well-known abstract artists of the 20th century is Piet Mondrian, and his path to abstraction had all of the aforementioned attributes. However, while his abstract, gridded paintings grace the walls of museums around the world and have become icons of modern art in a way few others have, it’s unclear to most people how he arrived at his well-known style.
Born in Holland in 1872, Mondrian’s initial mature works focused on nature and looked to fauvism and luminism for inspiration. Mondrian soon came under the influence of Vincent van Gogh. If one looks at Mondrian’s works between 1908 and 1909, particularly his Red Tree(1908), it’s easy to pick out characteristics we commonly ascribe to Van Gogh, such as the repetitive (almost vibrating) brushwork, the placement of the tree within the composition, the use of bright colors, and the melding of the tree into the landscape.
1911 was a pivotal year for Mondrian, arguably the most important of his career. It was then that he came across the “Moderne Kunstkring” exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum, which included the works of  Paul Cézanne, Picasso, and Georges Braque and brought cubism to Holland. This show dramatically changed his idea of what kind of painter he wanted to be. It also made him change his mind aboutwhere he wanted to be: he moved from Holland to Paris before the end of the year.
In Paris, Mondrian’s work quickly took on cubist attributes. Initially, his paintings echoed the so-called analytic style of cubism, particularly its palette of beiges, grays, and ochres as well as its use of straight lines and arcs to articulate objects and space. And while Picasso and Braque characteristically created portraits or still-lifes, Mondrian’s subject matter was nature, realized through a systematic network of right angles and grids. Additionally, his use of space was much flatter and less ambiguous than that of cubism’s obscure three (or four) dimensions.
What motivated Mondrian towards abstract art was something much more mystical than that of Picasso and Braque; in his words, he aimed “to articulate a mystic conception of cosmic harmony that lay behind the surfaces of reality.” His thinking was based on his belief in Theosophy, a philosophy that gained a following in the United States in the late 1800s. One way his beliefs manifested themselves in his works was through horizontal and vertical axes, which in his works from around 1913, looked like crosses. Such crosses reflected Mondrian’s belief that the universe played host to a constant conflict between opposing forces, whether they were dichotomies of good and evil, positive and negative, masculine and feminine, or dynamic and static.
In 1914, Mondrian went to visit his sick father in Holland and then, due to the outbreak of World War I, couldn’t go back to Paris. He wouldn’t return until 1919. But in Holland, Mondrian methodically endeavored to distill his painting style, and it was during this time that the aforementioned horizontal and vertical axes emerged as the major organizing principles of his increasingly abstract images.  
As of 1916, Mondrian began doing away with subject matter entirely in favor of what he increasingly felt was the irreducible structure of the world: a grid of perfectly parallel and perpendicular lines, comprised of his crosses, now connected. At first these grids extended in a uniform way across the canvas and were combined with colors, such as pink, blue, and orange.
Eventually Mondrian’s grids included larger squares and rectangles of different sizes and his palette was reduced to primary colors. The beginning of this approach can be traced back to 1920, and it’s at that point that Mondrian began making the works that have become synonymous with his name. 
It was also during this time that Mondrian began writing about his work. In one of his most important essays, “Neo-Plasticism in Pictorial Art” (1917–18), he explained his approach to abstraction. Among other things, he cited the mechanical automatization of life as the impetus that led so many artists to abstraction—which he argued was internally motivated, as he considered abstract art to be a representation of the human mind. Mondrian also proposed that beauty is based on a relationship between complementarities: balanced and equivalent forces that he believed were the purest representation of universality, of the harmony and unity that are inherent characteristics of the mind and of life, and of anything. Pictorially for Mondrian, this took the form of the two lines that create a right angle, which he thought expressed, in a perfect harmony, the relationship between two extremes. Moreover, Mondrian believed that the use of complementary colors and sizes reinforced this balance.
The story of Mondrian’s emergence into an abstract artist is just one of many narratives that are so integral to 20th-century art history. They’re often extremely satisfying narratives to share and listen to because of the logic of their artistic progression and one wonders if we’ll ever get to a point again where the crux of an artist’s biography documents such a progression. At the same time, modern and contemporary art offers an endless array of stories of process or an artist’s “maturation.” These complex, non-hierarchical, and postmodern narratives offer many new ways of thinking about the act of making and are, realistically, the only accurate stories for the art of the present day. 

Sunday, March 15, 2015

How to Discover Your True Path in Life.....

How to Discover Your True Path in Life

Friday, March 13, 2015

The ART Market $$$$$$$$ and the bubble it has created ...


Amount of money that art sells for is shocking, says painter Gerhard Richter

‘The records keep being broken and every time my initial reaction is one of horror,’ says world-famous German artist, after sale of one of his works for £30m
 Gerhard Richter
 German painter Gerhard Richter stands besides Abstraktes Bild. Photograph: Jens Meyer/AP
Gerhard Richter, the world-famous German painter, has expressed his incredulity at the astronomical sums paid for his works, calling the art market “hopelessly excessive” and saying that prices are rarely a reflection on quality.
Richter, 83, told the German daily Die Zeit he had watched the outcome of a recent auction at Sotheby’s in London with horror after an anonymous buyer paid £30.4m (€41m, $46.5m) for his 1986 oil-on-canvas, Abstraktes Bild.
“The records keep being broken and every time my initial reaction is one of horror even if it’s actually welcome news. But there is something really shocking about the amount,” Richter said.
He said he believed people who paid so much money for his paintings were foolish and foresaw that prices for his art would crash “when the art market corrects itself”, as he was convinced it would.
Seen as the leader of the New European Painting movement which emerged in the second half of the 20th century, Richter made a name for himself with “photo-paintings” that replicate photographs and are then “blurred” with a squeegee or a brush.
The price paid for Abstraktes Bild amounted to a staggering 5,000-fold increase on the price he had originally sold it for, he said.
He told the weekly newspaper that he understood as much about the art market as he did “about Chinese or physics”, and said contrary to a common perception he hardly benefited at all from such sales.
“We artists get next to nothing from such an auction. Except for a small morsel, all the profit goes to the seller,” he said.
Gerhard Richter in front of one of his paintings at the Centre Pompidou, Paris, in June 2012.
Pinterest
 Gerhard Richter in front of one of his paintings at the Centre Pompidou, Paris, in June 2012. Photograph: Joel Saget/AFP/Getty Images
Richter said he was given the impression by gallery owners that he was inclined to undervalue his own work. Recently, having set the price of one of his photographs at €2,000, he said he was told by a gallery owner: “You can’t sell that for €2,000, it needs to be more like €10,000 or €20,000.”

He was relieved, he said, that he did not have much to do with the buying and selling process. “Luckily I can … shut my studio door on most of the discussion about the market and prices. I’m good at suppressing it,” he added.
He said that while it had been years since he had seen Abstraktes Bild – created by his trademark technique of building up paint and then pulling it away with a piece of wood – he remembered it being a “quite good” piece of art, in contrast to his painting Domplatz, Mailand (Cathedral Square, Milan) which last year fetched €29m at auction.
“I found that odd,” he said. “I don’t think the picture is that great … when I heard what it had gone for at auction, I thought ‘that’s completely over the top’.”
Richter, who was born in Dresden, said he was nonplussed as to how and why auctions had become so important. “It is really quite alarming, particularly when you take a look at the catalogues. They always send them to me and they get worse and worse. You cannot imagine what rubbish is offered, at prices that are rising all the time,” he said. He said that both “serious galleries” and young artists were suffering as a result.
“Many of the young artists go straight to auctions in order to earn the big bucks. So in contrast to the past artists cannot develop slowly. And the business is getting more anonymous. In the end it just comes down to the price.”
Richter fondly recalled the memory of selling Abstraktes Bild almost 30 years ago to a Cologne collector “for I think around 15,000 marks” (around €7,670). “I was very proud that it became part of his collection.”
No one who had bought his works in recent years, he said, had ever contacted him to show an interest in him or his work, implying that they were only interested in the work’s investment value. He confirmed that often his works were among those bought as safe, tax-free capital investments and stored in art bunkers in east Asia or Switzerland.
Advertisement
Richter said he had resigned himself to the fact that “hardly any one talks about art any more. Even in the arts pages of the broadsheets”.
He said he was virtually powerless to alter the prices of his works. Attempting to torpedo the high prices by offering new works at lower prices only backfired, he said. “I made 100 small original paintings and sold them very cheaply. They sold immediately and promptly ended up being sold at auction … you cannot escape the market.”
Richter said that an original work of art had barely any meaning for him and he had many reproductions hanging in his studio.
He praised an initiative offered at Tate Modern in London where he had an exhibition in 2011, in which his works were run off on a printer. “I found it terrific … they had an online printer that printed off loads of my pictures so that everyone could take one home with them.”
He admitted he never buys art himself. “I don’t spend money on art,” he said. “I like looking at paintings, but I go to a museum to do so. I don’t have to own art myself.”