Mondrian has talent beyond red, yellow and blue squares!
My thoughts on abstract artists before going to see this exhibition were that they were pretentious, rich people with no talent, with the ability to waffle on about the conceptual strength of their works. What artistic significance could a circle on a white canvas possibly have, Malevich? And why on earth are people willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for geometric shapes that anyone could easily produce?? With this cynicism in mind, I went to see Paths To Abstraction 1867-1917 at the Art Gallery of NSW, which boasts a pretty impressive line up (for Australian standards) of major artists, although the works themselves were fairly modest and a few were recycled from previous shows. At the time I didn't feel particularly moved by anything (apart from Franz Marc's woodblock prints, since he has been a childhood favourite of mine) but I think I'm starting to warm up to abstraction and am seeing it with a new appreciation. For instance, the show attributed early influences to the Impressionists and the Fauvists, which is interesting because I never really considered them as forms of abstraction, even though they obviously are. It kind of reminded me how the term 'abstraction' is really an umbrella term for so many movements and philosophies like the Nabis, Suprematism, Cubism, Futurism, Constructivism, Orphism and many other -isms. I am really liking Orphism, now that I've found out that it's an attempt to translate music into a visual language. František Kupka was part of this group, and his work Discs of Newton was possibly the standout in the exhibition for its large size and vivid colour.
On the right is Knight On A White Horse by André Derain, who pioneered Fauvism ("The Wild Beasts" of colour) along with Matisse. It's an example of where "the subject matter became merely an excuse for an essentially abstract composition," to quote John McDonald, the Sydney Morning Herald art critic. I like it because it has a lot more heart than the extreme end of abstraction, which tends to feel a bit intellectually cold and severe.
I've been reading up on the subject and I love this little caption about Kasimir Malevich in my Phaidon Art Book: "In 1918, he took the development of non-objective art to its logical conclusion in a series of works entitled White On White, consisting of a white square on a white background, the abstract to end all abstracts. Realizing at this point that he could take the concept no further, he reverted to figurative painting."
So even abstract artists have their limits!!
On the right is Knight On A White Horse by André Derain, who pioneered Fauvism ("The Wild Beasts" of colour) along with Matisse. It's an example of where "the subject matter became merely an excuse for an essentially abstract composition," to quote John McDonald, the Sydney Morning Herald art critic. I like it because it has a lot more heart than the extreme end of abstraction, which tends to feel a bit intellectually cold and severe.
I've been reading up on the subject and I love this little caption about Kasimir Malevich in my Phaidon Art Book: "In 1918, he took the development of non-objective art to its logical conclusion in a series of works entitled White On White, consisting of a white square on a white background, the abstract to end all abstracts. Realizing at this point that he could take the concept no further, he reverted to figurative painting."
So even abstract artists have their limits!!