If we examine a picture of Klee or one of Brancusi's
sculptures we shall soon discover that, though the "subject"
may be an indeterminable echo of something or other in the actual world
about us, it is an echo which has been transmuted in a form that is
original in the sense of being elemental. Kandinsky confronted us with
objects and phenomena which have no existence in ordinary life, but
which might well have meaning or be portents on some unknown planet; a
planet where we should be quite unable to gauge their purpose or
relevance. Yet it was undoubtedly Mondrian who went
furthest in breaking away from everything that had hitherto been
regarded as art. If the technique of structural design may seem to have
inspired his rhythms the resembance is fortuitous and one which was not
present in his own intention or consciousness, Although the specific
content of his work is constricted with the utmost discipline, the
horizontal-vertical emphasis represents a purely emotional factor in
his composition. It is not for any whimsical reasons that he called his
latest pictures "Broadway Boogie-Woogies" and "Victory
Boogie-Woogies", but simply to stress their affinity with jazz
rhythms,
If we can agree that Mondrian realized the ultimate possibilities of
painting in one direction - that is by his success in eliminating most
of the remaining elements which are alien to it - two others still lie
open to us: either we can return to traditionalism (in its wider
sense), or else we can continue the quest for subjects with a
content of a new and altogether different nature.
Let me take this opportunity to explain why it is impossible for many
artists to go back to the old type of subjects. In the vast field of
pictorial and plastic expression there are a large number of trends and
tendencies which have more or less originated in our own age. Different
people look at modern painting and sculpture with different eyes
because what they severally recognize as significant of our age is
necessarily various. Clergymen have a different idea of art from
scientists. Peasants and factory-hands live under radically different
conditions. There are inevitable variations in standards of living and
levels of culture. Similar differences can be found among artists.
They, too, come from different walks of life, and their work reflects
different emotional and intellectual undercurrents. There is another
attitude to modern art which must not be overlooked as its now numerous
followers can always be relied upon to take their stand against every
disinterestedly progressive movement. I mean the much-boosted school
which demands that, if art itself cannot perhaps solve social and
political problems, these shall at least be made dramatically
"actual" and suitably glorified through its medium. We have
good reasons to be skeptical about any "Political Art"
- regardless of whether it emanates from right or left; especially
when, under the cloak of antagonism to the prevailing social order, its
aim is to bring about a new, but in all essentials, almost identical
structure of society - because this is not art at all but simply
propaganda.