Here are the chapters for this lecture (please note that this is the last lecture for which I am supplying scans – starting next week/lecture you will want to have the textbook):
1917a (optional)
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
Midway through Mondrian’s journey, this piece appears like a quiet turning point. Right after the war ended, colors began behaving differently on his canvas. Instead of shapes that hinted at trees or buildings, lines started standing alone, doing their own thing. You might notice how light tones take turns instead of blending. Not quite abstract yet, but not holding onto reality either. A step forward without rushing. Each square seems to wait its turn. This one doesn’t shout; it adjusts. Before full grids took over, something looser slipped through. Moments like this show change happening slowly. Look closely – balance is learning new rules. The title as a clue to process
Start anywhere. This name tells you exactly what to look at – “Checkerboard Composition” – and right away you picture neat rows of black and white tiles, something strict, predictable. Yet Mondrian slides in an odd twist: “Light Colors,” which pulls the sharpness down. Instead of strong reds, deep blues, bright yellows – the ones everyone links to him soon after – he chooses thin ochres, ghostly grays, whites that feel almost unfinished. That pattern? It wobbles. Lines shift. Squares stretch unevenly. So the idea of a checkerboard floats above the painting without fully landing. Maybe he sets up a promise through words, then lets the canvas quietly break it. The lasting mark of cubism
Paris drew Mondrian in 1912, where Cubism took hold – shapes borrowed from Braque, echoes of Picasso. Not until 1919 did space fully dissolve in his work. Notice how tiny rectangles hover, some drifting forward, others slipping back. Flatness hadn’t won yet. Shadows play across certain blocks, while light lifts others, forming a quiet pulse, uneven but breathing. Stillness never quite settles. Some might say the artwork holds on to Cubist ideas, with its moving surfaces, long before reaching the total flat look seen in 1921. Instead of clear black lines cutting up bright whites, color blocks suggest structure over a pale background. From naturalistic rhythm to pure abstraction
Long before he found grids, Mondrian returned again and again to trees, dunes, church walls – each painted in sequences like quiet obsessions. Grid 9 carries a trace of that older quest, where balance mattered more than form. Light patches scatter unevenly, hinting at flickering sun beneath branches, yet pulled toward squares and lines by some unseen pull. He seems suspended – held mid-step – between the pulse of growing things and an urge for perfect order. One foot rests in forest shade, the other on a clean slate ruled by angles. That stillness? It hums.
Start with light tones – they matter most. Not like the bold clashes seen in his later pieces using reds, blues, yellows. These shades whisper instead, float close to silence. Think pale gray meeting cream, touched by a green so weak it barely shows. Maybe dawn comes to mind. Or fog hanging low between buildings. He believed art must show “the universal,” find balance above all. Here, in Grid 9, that balance wavers slightly. It leans quiet, unsure, gentle where others were sharp. So the piece turns inward. Less monument, more thought.
Back in Paris by 1919, after years cut off in the Netherlands through wartime, Mondrian reconnected quickly with Theo van Doesburg – shortly afterward they launched De Stijl together. Grid 9 marks exactly when structure begins to lock into place. Looking at this piece shows clearly how his earlier Cubist smudges evolved into sharp Neo-Plastic edges. Far from a peak achievement, it’s more like catching sight of an artist mid-step, changing shape.
Take Composition with Grid 9 as something shifting, unsure – more like a test than a statement. Not quite balanced, the squares hesitate, refuse to mirror each other. Air slips through the lines; the structure expands, contracts. Colors speak low, stay close to the ground instead of reaching up.
Hi Reginal!
Love how you went deep into the works without it sounding like a summary, you explained lots of the works from each of the pages and explain the large impact grids had on Mondrian, its enjoying to see how colors and grids have impacted him in a way.
Hi Reginal
Your idea about the “unfinished” feeling is interesting. The light colors and loose grid make the work feel quiet and uncertain. It does not look like a final answer. It looks more like a step in the process.
Now the theme I’ve been noticing for abstract is the usage of shapes, noticeably coming from one of the first artwork from the famous artist Pablo Picasso who made Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, Fall-Winter 1910, where it would show shapes, but that isn’t the case, looking more closely you can really depict a man sort of. This would showcase the illusion that Picasso wanted to make as stated in the 1911 page, I like how this was a huge step towards cubism that also assists the idea of abstract art. Going with the theme of shapes, shapes play a huge part on the artwork, squares make the autonomy of the main artwork by making disfigured squares, looking closely at the squares shown, some of them even making triangles to give a sharp look to it. Also noticeable is the palette shown in the artwork, Picasso used more of a grey look to it, i dont think it was to set a gloomy look, in fact, I think its to make the shapes more noticeable but also to give it that illusion look more better. Another reason being how it gives the shapes more depth and gives it a really nice look into it managing both the illusion and the art.
Further down the road, an artist named Kazimir Malevich would make a new type of art called Suprematism, shapes still play a major role on this, instead of going with illusions Kazimir wanted to do something with simplicity. Making black shapes, while this may look like just a ‘failed’ work it really isn’t. It’s more of a symbolism to it, as stated in the video and page he’s not really a positive artist and I would think that it’s a way of telling if artists are really happy doing what they’re doing. I feel like the square showcases a mental glimpse to their minds. Maybe it shows their negativity being this black square, a void that couldn’t be erased with just colors. That was Kazimir idea, the “0.10” exhibition in Petrograd, 1915 goes more deeper into that, while the black square is noticeable other pieces of his creations would be shown, using squares, crosses and perspective play with this idea as well. It has this messy feel into it, lf i were to guess, it shows the stressful thoughts of artists having their ideas in different perspectives, the perspective of some shapes looking like a canvas board just sitting in the white void lastly the cross would supposedly be a symbolism of their health overall, they could be passionate about their work that maybe they completely forget to eat. Shapes have really played a large role in some of these works and its something really noticeable to look at and appreciate.
In this lecture, I think abstraction is not just art without real objects. Before this lecture, I thought abstract art was mostly about shapes, lines, and colors. But now I think abstraction is also a way for artists to change how we see the world. Instead of copying real life, abstract artists tried to show feeling, structure, movement, or spiritual ideas.
One idea that interested me was Worringer’s idea of abstraction and empathy. He connects representational art with a closer relationship to the world, and he connects abstract art with a kind of distance from the world. I think this is interesting because abstraction can look simple, but it can come from fear, pressure, or confusion. If the outside world feels unstable, abstract forms can give the artist a sense of order. Shapes and lines can feel more stable than realistic images.
Cubism also helped me understand abstraction. Picasso and Braque did not fully leave the real world, but they changed how objects appear. In Analytical Cubism, an object is broken into many small parts and planes. The viewer cannot see the object from only one clear angle. Instead, the viewer has to build the object in their mind. I think this is important because it shows that abstraction is not always about removing meaning. Sometimes it asks the viewer to work harder to see meaning.
Malevich’s Suprematism feels even more radical to me. His work moves away from objects almost completely. Simple shapes, like squares and color planes, become the main subject. At first, this kind of art may look too simple. But I think the point is that painting does not need to represent a person, a landscape, or an object. Painting can be about its own basic parts: shape, color, surface, and feeling.
Mondrian’s work also shows this idea clearly. He slowly moved from real objects, like trees, buildings, the sea, and piers, toward lines and grids. I think his abstraction feels different from Malevich’s. Malevich’s work feels like a break from the world, but Mondrian’s work feels like a search for balance inside the world. His use of vertical and horizontal lines makes the painting feel calm and controlled.
At last, I think abstract art is harder than it looks. It is not just random shapes. It asks what art can be when it does not need to copy reality.
Listening to the lecture gave me a better understanding of abstract art as a whole. I often found abstract art boring before acknowledging the history behind it. The links to spirituality are something I found interesting as someone who grew up in a religious household. Art can be utilized in many ways, but abstract art to me felt random, without direction, but my perspective has changed. Worringer’s thoughts about abstraction and empathy really intrigued and influenced my mindset change. Abstraction means that society itself is distraught, a form of communicating to the world a disconnect that cannot be fully explained. The emotional weight behind abstraction holds true, but I also believe that abstraction can be freeing from the naturalist paintings that were incredibly normalized at the time. You can paint from life and feel at ease, but it almost feels stationary, with abstract art I feel as if a person would truly be painting from thoughts and emotions, showcasing that through color choices and strokes that do have meaning.
Three Riders from Kandinsky spoke out to me in this sense, what from a glance looks like random squiggles holds a deeper thought that one could assume did not exist. The jockeys are so idealized that one could assume they are random blobs, but realizing the purpose of the art itself opens a whole new perspective into the artist. Concepts of art, simple lines or composition can be utilized in order to convey meaning. While Worringer believed this as a sign of disconnection with the world, it could also mean a deeper connection to oneself, as well as the ability to share that connection.
Another vein of this idea is Large Blue Horses by Franz Marc. The liberties with colors to express tranquility is very beautiful to me. Only subtle shifts in values are used to define these shapes as horses, surrounded by colors, I felt drawn in when observing. Animals can be seen as pure beings, but also soulless. As beings we have choices, complex thoughts and free will from a religious perspective, animals are one with nature, drawn by instinct, when compared to human beings people will often say we are a superior being, but can that really hold true? Abstract art can draw in complex feeling and emotions such as these, it doesn’t need to be naturalistic to do so.
Through this lecture, I gained a profound realization that abstract art represents far more than mere alterations to the lines and visual composition of traditional art. It embodies a novel way for early artists to express their perception of the world; by breaking away from realistic colors and shapes, they explored the sharing of emotions, eventually evolving into a form of pure art unadulterated by elements external to the painting itself. Abstract art moves from the natural realm toward the human spiritual world—a concept shared by Wassily Kandinsky and Franz Marc, who believed that abstraction was not an escape from reality. On the contrary, they saw it as a means to view and observe the world from different perspectives, thereby fostering understanding and resonance with one’s own inner spirit. Franz Marc, however, delved deeper into nature, attempting to view the world through the eyes of animals to achieve a fusion and unity between humanity and the natural world. In his painting *The Fate of the Animals*, we can deeply sense how he constructs his inner world through the lens of nature, yet he seems to confront a painful truth: no one can truly understand the world from an animal’s perspective, for no human is an animal.
The painting is saturated with intense colors that convey Marc’s emotions—specifically, a pervasive sense of anguish and pessimism. In his earlier works, animals coexisted with the world in scenes of tranquility and warmth; however, a profound shift occurred in 1913. As tensions mounted across Europe prior to World War I, Marc’s mindset underwent a drastic change. He came to the pessimistic realization that “nature, too, reveals an ugly and impure side.” The scenes of harmonious coexistence between animals and nature vanished, replaced by images of victims with nowhere to flee. When the harmony of nature was shattered, it transformed into a lethal force that destroyed life. This shift radically altered Marc’s approach to line work—transitioning from rounded forms to sharp, jagged edges—and infused the canvas with an atmosphere of danger and suffering. Through *The Fate of the Animals*Franz Marc achieved a different kind of unity between humans and animals: as the world devoured and ravaged all life, the only shared understanding and emotion left to both was pain. Abstract art is not merely a departure from the world; it addresses a deeper question: how do we, as individuals in the real world, comprehend our relationship with that world? And how should we view the world through the lens of our own emotions and inner experiences?
This lecture gave me deeply understanding into the origins and necessity of abstract art. My earliest exposure to abstract art was through the works of Picasso; back then, I was more baffled than appreciative. I couldn’t grasp why he abandoned his original style for one where the subject matter wasn’t immediately apparent. However, after attending the lecture and reading related articles, I began to understand abstract art as a form of liberation—an escape from the pressures of the real world into a new realm. It represents a transformation of real-world anxieties into paintings that resonate with the inner spiritual world. With the advent of Cubism—the style associated with Picasso—art began to convey a more complex reality; it sought to express the “truest” reality by depicting aspects of the world invisible to the naked eye, utilizing angles and scientific concepts of three-dimensional and even four-dimensional space. Ranging from the spiritual to the essential—and even touching upon cosmic exploration—abstract art strips away the concrete depiction of physical objects. It moves beyond merely reproducing the minutiae of reality to return to pure visual elements. By employing fundamental elements such as line, color, shape, and structure, it directly evokes an emotional resonance in the viewer. It is not bound by traditional aesthetic conventions; rather, those who appreciate it naturally fall in love with its unique character. It is akin to children discussing clouds: one might see a little bear or a fish swimming in the azure sky, whereas most adults see nothing more than irregular cloud formations.
While abstract art may appear bizarre, irregular, or indecipherable on the surface, we must simplify our perspective and understand it through its most essential nature. Only then can we avoid getting lost in the fog of abstraction; by clearing away the mist of perceived eccentricity, we can truly enjoy the beauty art offers. Art was born to reveal the beauty of the world, and the act of appreciation was originally simple—finding beauty in a flower, a blade of grass, a person, or an ox. It was only in modern times, with the assignment of specific missions to art and the rise of the academic tradition, that art became a tool for instruction—prioritizing realism while sidelining abstraction. Yet, abstraction is precisely the form of expression that distills the simplest, most essential elements from the complexities of reality. Abstract painting champions purity and the fundamental essence of the world. When viewers admire a work of abstract colorist painting and exclaim, “It’s truly beautiful” or “I like it,” it indicates that they have begun to experience its aesthetic appeal directly and are deriving sensory pleasure from its beauty. It is not surprising that abstract art—by virtue of its abstract nature—evokes different impressions in different people; the artist’s creative stance, perspective, methods, and understanding differ vastly from the viewer’s own standpoint, knowledge, mindset, social and living environments, personal circumstances, state of mind, and even the specific moment of viewing. This disparity gives rise to fresh perceptions and insights upon repeated viewings—a quality that constitutes the unique appeal of abstract art.
abstraction naturally being a rejection of the depiction of the materialistic and rather an acceptance of the spiritual means that the artworks often are not straight forward visually the viewer is rather encouraged to feel the artwork. This often lead the painter to input a part of their own perspective in the art that they create and the viewer is encourage to share that same perspective. I would argue that abstract art is the hardest type of art to comprehend. This difficulty in comprehension is something i feel like that encourages a certain barrier of audience that benefits the well educated. This also applies to the subject of the art. For example if we look at Picasso’s cubism paintings such as Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, the concept of reducing an image into geometric shapes as a way to express bare components that would have made up of the original image. However to a layman who may not have a artistic background they may not have such an understand of the relationship between the geometric shapes and the origin of the image it becomes harder to appreciate the artist’s intent. The same can be said for Piet Mondrian’s Composition with Yellow, Red, Black, Blue, and Gray. The paintings similarly uses geometrical shapes but the focus of the painting is rather on the colors and the balance of them in the painting. while the impressive balancing of the composition would be a wonder to a fellow artist, it is hard to say if it would strike the same chord with someone who doesn’t understand composition the same way. there might a inherent sense of balance i=that they feel but they would like a fundamental appreciation of the artist’s effort in creating that sense of balance. This almost is opposite affect of pop art which uses recognizable imagery to make it’s statement.
The irony of the situation is that the same primitization of art is requires depth and knowledge that escape the general masses and instead appeal more towards those who are far more acquainted with art at large and would find these abstractions refreshing. This inverse relationship between abstract and empathy in and its audience is quite interesting as well. it beings to question if the artist creating this abstract artworks are aware of the limited scope of their audience as well as the who they are.
Not entirely, but I found the lecture contradictory to my own understanding of Abstraction at times. Like I understand there can be multiple forms or sub-categories to abstraction, but I personally dont think abstraction should be broken down to such degrees just due to the nature of what being abstract is. It’s non objecting painting, not representing objects; it’s supposed to instill an almost animalistic emotion or put you in a subtle trance. But at its core, abstraction as a whole is freedom from the traditional, the natural, or reality.
With that in mind, I thought the best example of what abstraction really is was Wassily Kandinsky and his “Three Riders” piece. His breakdown of color was one of the more eye-opening quotes or statements throughout the lecture. I wouldn’t have said tasting color, but he really understood what colors did for the audience. Even til this day, his and Franz Marc’s idea on the more spiritual and high-minded approach to art is seen and has been elevated in media in general. These artists might be the reason why we associate colors with emotions in the first place, like red is anger or pain, blue can be a calm peace, or bleak sadness. As he mentioned, yellow is bitter, and blue is needed to kinda balance it out. So I just enjoyed the analogy.
I don’t so much mind Picasso and Braque’s work, but I think Piet Mondrian took his form of abstraction too far. This is just the way I see it, but his Grid 9, composition with yellow, red, etc, kinda defeats the purpose of abstraction. It comes back to the question at the beginning of the lecture: Did they really leave reality behind? And for Piet, he did from a technical sense, but as far as the spiritual and inner meaning perspective, I get a sense of constriction from a lot of his Neoplasticism work. There’s the bromide, “Get off the grid.” I wouldn’t have minded if Piet did that a little more. (Sorry, stupid joke )
Kazimir… I also think he took it too far, but his piece or movement made me cook up some theories. The main one being that Suprematism birthed logos, or can be looked at as the pioneer of graphic design. With what was mentioned about the placement of the black square regarding religious homes in Russia, I think at the core, that’s what logos and graphic design do. They’re small, intentionally designed, and placed within a composition to inoculate an emotion, good or bad, to the spectator. That feeling you get from seeing a logo…one might say that feeling is supreme or absolute.
Lastly, and just a random thought… Waringer was actually kinda spot on with his theory in Abstraction and Empathy. Granted, I think it’s important to consider the context during these moments in history. But I just think there is a correlation: art advances during times of peace, whereas when there’s that uneasiness in the world, artists become more experimental in their work, given all the “inspiration” happening during these times. I forget their names, but for example, my mind goes to members of the black panthers making paintings for the newspaper and whatnot, capturing the black experience during that time of segregation and oppression.
I am not gonna lie, the lecture did confuse me. After rewatching it and doing the readings I still feel like I don’t really have a good enough grasp on what it was trying to convey.
I remember learning about cubism in my history of graphic design class. It’s a breakaway from traditional art. Striving to use the techniques that art was built upon but using them in a different manner. Through the use of geometric shapes, specifically squares and rectangles, you create images and figures that are meant to represent an idealised structured world.
Abstract as an art form, is meant to represent and be something different. Portraying the different perspectives that an artist can have of the world. Or I guess it’s better to say the unease the artist feels about the world. I understand that different colors would convey different emotions and feelings. I guess I don’t fully understand the thought process, some of the artworks are unconventional but while looking as them I believe that the feelings of unease and tension surrounding the pieces the artist is trying to convey are lost to me.
When looking at the 1908 reading, it goes more in depth of both the psychological state of someone as well as their art forms. Wilhelm brings up both Empathy and Abstraction, of how Empathy comes from someone who is happy and their relationship of trust between people and the world which can represent the connection of what they see. As for Abstraction it comes from when they feel something chaotic or overwhelming which can cause the artist to create these geometrical shapes as like an emotional escape. To Wilhelm he sees it as a product of anxiety and being vulnerable.
“…the urge to abstraction is the outcome of a great inner unrest inspired in man by the phenomena of the outside world . . . We might describe this state as an immense spiritual dread of space.” 1908, pg 98
So like, instead of Wilhelm seeing abstract art as progression, he sees the opposite, classifying it as if someone is suffering from anxiety. Which is interesting because normally when something is abstracted, I think about how they are able to create art with sharp geometrical shapes but it turns out it can come from something deep in the artist that they’re trying to express. From seeing drawings of figures to weird jagged shapes and other geometrical blocks it was seen as a defense mechanism for those who are anxious.
As for 1911, it’s crazy to see both Ernst and Die were arguing about abstraction art to be the opposite and how Ernst was using them to magnify the trauma of their paintings.
“Again, for Worringer, abstraction served to ease the stimulation provoked by the chaos of the world. Kirchner, on the other hand, approached abstraction in order to register this stimulation, indeed to heighten it.” 1911, pg 99
From Worringers point of view he was saying that abstraction is for protecting them and uses geometrical abstraction shapes as a calm escape from whats happening onto the world, as for Kircher, he uses it to further express the trauma and anxiety that has been happing onto that modern day.
First and foremost, I found this lecture quite interesting. Abstraction is an art style that I’m familiar with visually and technically. In terms of understanding what defines something as abstract, I just never really understood it. I constantly hear people say that something looks abstract. But, what does that mean? Do people just label anything that looks undefined as abstract? The first point that really stood out to me in the lecture was comparing music to art. I’m a very visual person and I create music and films. When I think of a musical composition, I think of what these sounds would look like in physical form (as a visual representation). Comparing sounds, frequency and the feeling that music brings, helps paint (no pun intended) a description of what Abstraction is through imagination and sense. It’s not entirely something physical, or visually representative of materialism, but it creates a vibe, it helps depict feelings and helps the viewer interpret what they’re seeing (from their world view).
A rainbow gives me a sense of abstraction. It’s a spectrum of colors that form a mood specific to the viewer, but the experience is different for each person. On it’s own, each color can give off a different mood. For example, what does the color blue automatically make us think of? How does a shade a blue vary from tone to tone in relation to mood? It can be interpreted differently across viewers, but depending on the brightness and darkness, it can shift perspective. If I were to make a comparison, it would be like listening to an instrumental. A fully composed track has vocals. Without lyrics, you just have sound. However, those sounds harmoniously create a melody and can create anticipation, anxiety, dramatic feelings, etc. Now, if you add vocals it can paint a larger image and redirect your thoughts more precisely. I’d like to bring up what Kandinsky says about a painting reflecting the material world. If it depicts the world through materialism than it cannot create abstraction because it takes away from the feeling and mood of what we’re supposed to experience. It’s almost like a linear way of looking at a painting, rather than going through blind letting the colors, form, textures, composition and flow take command. He defines it almost as a sacred experience and in one instance, through the lecture, a comparison is made to the perspective of an animal. Animals see the world through a different lens. Their experiences are shaped much different than us in a sense where history, culture and biasness don’t affect them. I believe children have a similar experience. Most children possess creative qualities when they’re young. If you ask a child to make a drawing per say, they might draw a few scribbles, shapes and blobs. However, if you ask them what they’ve created, they’re able to describe what’s going on with these shapes and forms. As they are shaped by society and experience, their views and sometimes creative traits to view the world through an abstract lens changes.
One of the paintings that I enjoyed from chapter 1908 is Kandinsky’s “Three Riders from 1911. I mostly see primary colors in the shape of circular forms. There is a bit of play with opacity with some colors interlapping and then being overlayed with different strokes of black paint. Some of these lines are curved, while some have hatchlike patterns. Without thinking too deeply my feelings associates the harmony of this painting as happy. It gives me a nostalgic sense due to the cream like texture used in the background and a playful vibe. I could see this piece being used as the cover art for a jazz album. In comparison, it’s interesting to see Picasso’s “Portrait of Daniel Henry Kahnweiler” which was described as Analytical Cubism, take some of the elements of abstraction and combine it with form. Personally, I’m not a fan of the color palette. The colors look somewhat muddy with brown hues and warm tones. It makes me think of something ancient, but also something boring and it’s quite hard to make sense of the overall image if you do not look up closely. However, It’s also playing with perspective and point of view. In relation to the way we view the world, it made me think of the point I made earlier about animals and children’s point of view. We break the 3 dimensional aspect and see the figure from multiple angles. It’s like a math problem where there are multiple ways to get the answer, but different processes to get there.
The idea of seeing these figures break traditional 3d elements makes me think of infinite ways and possibilities to create something. I think it’s like giving 10 artists the same proposition, across 10 different mediums on a canvas, and getting a different view on the same prompt. Overall, after viewing the lecture and reading the accompanying chapters, my view on abstraction is a bit more refined. I’m looking at perspective and how it shapes the overall way I view something whether it’s in a music format or visual.