"The representation of an object, in itself, is something that has nothing to do with art," claims Malevitch. In abstract art, there is no more representation of an object and also there is not even the conception, like there was in cubism. The object completely disappears. The abstraction of Kandinsky, Malevitch and Mondrian is complete, which would have been unimaginable a few decades before. They created something completely new.
At the first sight, their work may seem to be meaningless. But, the fact is that their paintings are not just about forms and colours. There is a theory beyond their work. They are both painters and philosophers. Before, there were academic painters who created technical miracles, but with abstraction, a global thought on the art appeared in the world. So, what are the reasons for such a radical approach to art? What are they searching through geometrical forms and colours? Bringing a change in the way of doing art, Kandinsky, Malevitch and Mondrian want to rediscover notions such as emotion, purity, nature that have been forgotten by representation.
[...] something that doesn't become only ornaments?” In fact, he was the first to experiment real abstraction because he had a real theory about forms and colours. Of course, he observed Matisse and Picasso, one for the colours and the other for the forms. He found the absence of something in their paintings. There were too academic. So, he realized that art doesn't need an object, representation, to be meaningful and to bring out feelings. The importance of this theory for Kandinsky is illustrated by the fact that he never came back to representation. [...]
[...] Forms and colours constitute a language that allows expressing an emotion. So, objects and representation are barriers in this artistic research because they monopolize the attention of the spectator. He pays attention only to the academic beauty of the piece of art. The impressionists have had the same thought. But they didn't go so far in expressing the inside feelings. Their paintings kept a global meaning. There was not just the expression of an emotion. Improvisation 31 is a good example for this theory. [...]
[...] In fact, to express their philosophical ideas, they adapt forms and colours to them. Geometrical forms are chosen with care as they convey a strong meaning. Forms represent exactly what the artist wished to say, what the emotion that they wished to pass on. Several forms are rejected because they remember academic art. For instance, Malevitch doesn't want to paint triangles; they are the symbol of the Holy Trinity and of religion. The circle is not used either. It can represent the cycle of life (we can also remember Leonardo Da Vinci and his man locked up in a cycle). [...]
[...] And, on the contrary, Mondrian wished to to eliminate the dimension of the Through the search of purity of forms and colours and of an ideal of a painting originated from centuries of academic art, Kandinsky, Mondrian and Malevitch have a very personal way of conceiving painting. They held a common but not recognized goal: to redefine painting. Through geometrical forms and colours, Kandinsky, Malevitch and Mondrian tried to show the possibility of another art. They searched a lot to concretize their theoretical ideas such as the transmission of the emotion and the rebirth of a hidden cosmos. [...]
[...] So we have observed that Malevitch, Kandinsky and Mondrian wanted to have a new approach towards art. Their aim was to recreate an emotion that is expressed by the painter and that touches the spectator. They also find the hidden reality of cosmos. For them, objects are not sufficient to explain reality; they are a facade of reality but maybe not the reality in itself. First, they want to come back to emotions and this research concerns particularly Malevitch and Kandinsky. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
