How would you have hung it?

You don't have to be anything as regards art maddyone. No special training or education necessary. You either like a painting/sculpture/ whatever or you don't.
Why not try going to various galleries and see if anything appeals to you? It's an interesting and very cheap pastime. Apart from anything else there is often a nice coffee shop there and a wee shop with unusual gifts and cards etc.
Sorry. Wandered off the Mondrian issue.

I’m in awe of all you Gransnetters who can appreciate art, modern or otherwise. As I said earlier, I’m a total Philistine with regard to art, especially so called modern art. Frankly I appreciate nothing at all in this picture, it’s a representation of nothing as far as I am concerned. If people have to start guessing what it’s supposed to be or assigning a meaning to it, then I’m not interested.
Feel free to think I’m an uneducated Philistine if you wish, but I think there’s a lot of inverted snobbery around modern art.

It's great that 80 years on Mondrian's work is still being thought provoking.
There's a Mondrian in a gallery near us and I really like it. No idea why I like it but I just do.
I do enjoy visiting galleries and looking at 'art'. Some things just 'speak' to me but others just don't and I can happily walk straight past them. I've never attempted to analyse the appeal of those that I like. I suppose it's an emotional reaction.

Totaly agree Opal.

I rather like the idea that if one cannot tell just by looking which way up a picture should be, then it doesn't matter and should be down to personal preference.

That's easier to apply when it's something hanging in one's own home. Something hung in a gallery should be hung the way the artist intended if possible and assuming the people hanging it actually know. If they didn't know then I'm in shrug mode thinking no real harm has been done.

Septimia, I wouldn’t hang it either. The article in the paper mentions that it was unsigned, possibly because it was unfinished. If Mondrian had finished it, who knows which way he would have hung it? There’s always the possibility, that since the sticky tape lines get fewer, he got fed up, or maybe he inverted the work to make it easier to reach. We simply don’t know.
After all, his Feet design is hanging with the toes at the top-or do we hang it that way because we know eyes go at the top? Fun to think about.

I'm glad I know which way it was intended to be hung Glorianny.
That's the way I like it.
Your eyes ard drawn to the top. It doesn't feel like sky to me but could be the top of buildings lowering over me. It has strength and presence that way up I think.

The dark lines at the top is the right way. www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/oct/28/mondrian-painting-has-been-hanging-upside-down-for-75-years

The mathematical concepts and his use of the golden ratio is fascinating. It involves a belief in a deep spiritual meaning for art. I suppose if all you are looking for is a pretty recreation of a scene it doesn't do that.But then why should it?

Deedaa

Interesting that a piece of work that was painted 80 years ago is still referred to as Modern Art.

I think it means that it is part of the modernism movement, rather than contemporary Deedaa.

I did read somewhere that the the artist intended the tighter lines at the top representing the sky.

I agree with Septimia in that I like the way it was originally hung; the darker lines closer to the bottom give it weight and feels more natural to me.

Is there a link to the story? How did they know it was hung incorrectly?

I have mixed feelings about modern art. If it evokes emotion of some sort then it feels like art, but some of it seems a bit silly or pretentious to me somehow. If an art critic needs to explain how it should make me feel, or what it represents, then I feel like I am being spoken down to like a child that 'doesn't get it'. Some of it feels like snobbery to me.

Same with some of the art installations. Is there a point, and if I am made to feel foolish for not understanding it, then I'm not really interested.

Interesting that a piece of work that was painted 80 years ago is still referred to as Modern Art.

Personally I prefer it as in the first picture. When the extra lines are at the bottom it gives it weight and stability. With them at top it make me feel unsettled.

But I wouldn't hang it - except perhaps face to the wall! No, that's a bit harsh, but I can't call that sort of thing "art". To me it's "design". Sometimes modern art/design is interesting, especially when you know the reasoning behind it. Too often the meaning is unfathomable.

I will download it and examine more closely.

This piece of art is amazing. It’s so easy for young children to look at and recreate their own versions, giving practice in using a ruler and colouring neatly or drawing a straight line on the computer and using the flood tool.
Challenge-can you do it without having a colour in adjacent spaces?
Not sure it matters which way up it is (ENC) but most children will be insistent about which way up their work should be.

Oh, I missed that.
All I could see behind it was apples. 🍏🍏🍏

There's a complicated mathematical concept behind the paintings as well.

I'm a philistine as well to modern art as well. It looks like a good pattern for a tablecloth. I'd rather have a Botticelli or Cezanne.

I like Mondrian. I started out thinking the right hand image was the right one ,but now I'm not sure. The lines and squares do represent the NY grid system, but look at the picture and the lines seem to move. It is a representation of the city its constant activity, its lights, its buildings and its heart. You may not be able to see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
As for the remarks about it being easy to do, just try it. Most people can't paint a straight line and certainly not ones which intersect.

I could live with the Mondrian both ways. I have an abstract painting in my home which I have to hang horizontally because the way it was supposed to be displayed - vertically - doesn't fit my wall space. It looks great.

If you have to read an explanation the basic premise of a work of art has been lost. It should appeal in some way to you,

DD insists that if you have to know the title of a work of art, especially if it comes with an explanation, to understand it, then it is the piece of paper with the title and explanation that is the work of art, not the picture/sculpture itself. Discuss!

I do tend to agree. Reading the explanation often takes so much time that it detracts from appreciation of the art itself. Sometimes it helps to read about a piece of art but only after you have had an emotional response to it. And I hate over detailed explanations in the same way I hate over-analysed poetry or literature. A creative piece should be able to speak for itself.

I prefer the right hand picture.
No idea if that's right or not, but I don't like it anyway.

I quite like the picture and would hang it on my wall. But I don't think it matters much which way up it is. I would have thought that was what modern art was about "no right way up".

I'd also like it as fabric M0nica - but I actually like it as art too 😄

I do not dislike Mondrian, some I have seen i would happily give house room to. But not this one, not even having the title helps.

DD insists that if you have to know the title of a work of art, especially if it comes with an explanation, to understand it, then it is the piece of paper with the title and explanation that is the work of art, not the picture/sculpture itself. Discuss!

I am afraid, as I said before, I think this painting would look better as a textile design, a nice tweed fabric, then i will have a coat made from it.