How would you have hung it?

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 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.

Totaly agree Opal.

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.

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.

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.

maddyone

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.

But if you were given a book you found difficult to read would you then say it wasn't literature?
A painting can have many impacts. You are quite entitled to say you don't like it. But questioning the value of all modern art or calling its appreciation "inverted snobbery" isn't justified. Sometimes a work of art takes just as much effort to understand as a difficult book.

Aveline

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.

This is true.
Even if I do not like a painting, or it does not speak to me as it were, I can appreciate the effort and skill that has gone into it.
Sometimes though that is hard to do.In a gallery in a seaside location recently there were many expensive and to me quite depressing ‘daubs’ in oil paint.We were annoyed that we had paid money to enter and view them.

Perhaps it’s not Glorianny.
Thank you for your suggestions Aveline, a very kind response. I have been to art galleries of course, and seen pictures that I liked. I very much enjoyed the Van Gogh museum/gallery in Amsterdam. Also the National Portrait Gallery in London. But I totally accept my limitations with regard to art. I left Art classes as soon as I was able as I wasn’t interested in trying to produce anything at all. I wasn’t much better at Pottery, although I did sit an O Level in that.
I do feel there is an attitude of pretentiousness with regard to modern art though. I remember many years ago, an item on the news about an elephant that had been given paints and a brush and had been encouraged to make marks on a large paper. Art critics were lining up to say what the picture meant and how good it is was. I’m afraid it disillusioned me completely. I think they were pretentious.

I totally don’t ‘get’ work by Tracey Emin either. But I’m assured it’s real and wonderful etc. But I did say I’m a Philistine with regard to art. I can’t pretend to feel or think anything about art work that I simply don’t.
I do like reading though Glorianny.

I think there is a world of difference between criticising works of art and criticising art critics. They are like many critics paid by the number of words they generate on a given subject.

Yes, I think you’re right there Glorianny.

I wouldn't have hung it at all, if the choice had been mine, as I can see no artistic virtue in it.

Any five year old with a ruler and a box of coloured crayons could have achieved much the same.

If I had had to hang it, I would have checked the back of the frame to see if there were any screw holes.

I believe that was how another American gallery discovered that they had hung something wrong way up.

Glorianny, if I were given or found for myself a book I found difficult to read, I might well say it was rubbish. That would depend on whether I could find any artistic merit in the book or not.

The same applies to art, and to music, as well as modern dance.

I find a lot of the two last repetitive, borning and unpleasing to listen to or watch.

In the same way, there are books I have given up the attempt to read, even although others assure me they have literary worth.

I think knowing the history of art, including certain styles and movements, and how artists are creatively influenced by their peers, makes understanding art accessible, and viewing it more enjoyable. I’m still learning…….

I do enjoy art programmes on TV. Andrew Graham-Dixon is a very good presenter.

Yes Aveline he’s good. I saw him give a talk, he keeps the swear words in check on TV 😀

I know it's trivial Farzanah but I always wish he'd wash his hair before the filming! Didn't know or suspect that about him and swearing. Oops.

grandtanteJE65

Glorianny, if I were given or found for myself a book I found difficult to read, I might well say it was rubbish. That would depend on whether I could find any artistic merit in the book or not.

The same applies to art, and to music, as well as modern dance.

I find a lot of the two last repetitive, borning and unpleasing to listen to or watch.

In the same way, there are books I have given up the attempt to read, even although others assure me they have literary worth.

Nothing wrong with saying you don't like anything, but if you judge artistic value by those standards what would we have to chuck out?
Who has really read James Joyce's Ulysses? Or most of Shakespeare for that matter.
Suppose you had only basic literacy skills should you then be permitted to choose what is good literature?
How many reading this thread know about the golden ratio and Mondrian's work? Yet they will tell you anyone can do it.
I don't mind people saying they don't like it. I do mind them saying it isn't art and anyone could do it. Because you don't understand something is no basis for condemning it absolutely.

Sometimes a work of art takes just as much effort to understand as a difficult book.

But should it? I did an art appreciation course some years ago and the tutor said that a work of art should have many layers, and that it should have the capacity to engage you on first glance and thereby encourage you to look further and to explore its deeper layers.

However the implications of Gloryanny's post that more or less suggests that unless you have done an art appreciation course or have a qualification in fine art, you are incapable of making a reasoned response to a piece of art, modern or not, shows such breathtaking intellectual arrogance, that it rather confirms some people's suspicions that modern art is a big con.

If you look back, in many periods artworks held hints and layers that were understandable only to the highly educated or the cognoscenti, modern art, whatever the period it was modern, has always been subject tothe intellectual snobbery of the 'elite' who pride themselves on being the only ones who really understand it. But at least in the past could be admired by anyone glorious picture, or the use of colour and texture was instantly pleasing to the eye and drew people in. The purpose of some 'modern art' seems to be to exclude people.

The same applies to literature, just because someone has difficulty reading a book does not mean that they do not recognise it is good literature. I studied Middlemarch at A Level, I struggled with the book at the time. I have read it several times since and finally did an extra-mural course at Oxford and now feel I can now engage with the book, but at no time did I doubt it was great literature. I can say the same of several other books. We all know the story of the Emperors New Clothes

But reactions to art - of any kind - are subjective. Look backwards and you can see artists, authors, composers, whose work was highly regarded in their time, but have since sunk without trace, some justifiably, some probably not.

Modern art has yet to stand the test of time, which will begin to seperate the meritous from the meritricious.

People have rioted over a new work of art, so it does have the capacity to instil deep emotion.

I find some works moving/challenging/layered. Others I'd just walk on by.
My own work is "layered" but I hope people can find their "own" layers too.

It's a personal response not a trained one - but obviously I have an interest or I wouldn't bother with it at all.

M0nica says
Modern art has yet to stand the test of time, which will begin to seperate the meritous from the meritricious.

I say, if I like/appreciate it for whatever reason that's fine by me.
I don't really care if it's "worthy".
I am not sufficiently affluent to collect anything of great monetary value for myself but do have a few pieces which speak to me, I'm sure some are not meritricious.

M0nica

^Sometimes a work of art takes just as much effort to understand as a difficult book.^

But should it? I did an art appreciation course some years ago and the tutor said that a work of art should have many layers, and that it should have the capacity to engage you on first glance and thereby encourage you to look further and to explore its deeper layers.

However the implications of Gloryanny's post that more or less suggests that unless you have done an art appreciation course or have a qualification in fine art, you are incapable of making a reasoned response to a piece of art, modern or not, shows such breathtaking intellectual arrogance, that it rather confirms some people's suspicions that modern art is a big con.

If you look back, in many periods artworks held hints and layers that were understandable only to the highly educated or the cognoscenti, modern art, whatever the period it was modern, has always been subject tothe intellectual snobbery of the 'elite' who pride themselves on being the only ones who really understand it. But at least in the past could be admired by anyone glorious picture, or the use of colour and texture was instantly pleasing to the eye and drew people in. The purpose of some 'modern art' seems to be to exclude people.

The same applies to literature, just because someone has difficulty reading a book does not mean that they do not recognise it is good literature. I studied Middlemarch at A Level, I struggled with the book at the time. I have read it several times since and finally did an extra-mural course at Oxford and now feel I can now engage with the book, but at no time did I doubt it was great literature. I can say the same of several other books. We all know the story of the Emperors New Clothes

But reactions to art - of any kind - are subjective. Look backwards and you can see artists, authors, composers, whose work was highly regarded in their time, but have since sunk without trace, some justifiably, some probably not.

Modern art has yet to stand the test of time, which will begin to seperate the meritous from the meritricious.

That wasn't quite what I said.
I said you couldn't say it wasn't art. Which is a bit different to saying you have to appreciate it or learn the history of art to understand it.
How can you say modern art has to stand the test of time? Mondrian's work is 80 years old.
How many years have to pass before a work of art can be considered to be such?
Nor did I say that someone with limited literacy skills couldn't appreciate literature. I asked if they should set the standards which is a bit different.
I also asked about 2 specific works- Ulysses was written just before Mondrian was painting, do we then not consider it literature because it hasn't stood the test of time?

Of course art is not just accessible to those who are specifically educated in the subject, anyone can appreciate art, it’s a personal thing, but for me viewing art with some background understanding makes it more enjoyable and some pieces more accessible.

As to art being “instantly pleasing to the eye” I do not find this always the case. Some great art can arouse other emotions.

I do find some contemporary art rather pretentious. Wasn’t there a case some time ago of someone mischievously dropping a random object in a corner of a gallery, where it lay for a while, attracting many viewers around it earnestly discussing the artistic meaning and merits of the piece?

I'm not sure about instantly pleasing.

I turned on a programme about art, to see someone having a poop on a stage.