.nr LL 6i
.nr PO 1i
.nr VS 24
.PP
The majority of Mondrian's paintings from 1927 can be divided into two
groups: those that feature a large, completely bound, white rectangle (see
Figure 5), and those that feature a large white rectangle that is open on
at least one side (see Figure 1); it is the latter group that this paper
focuses on.  The overall composition of these works is characteristically
different from that of Mondrian's 1929-30 paintings, which themselves can be
classed into a group owing to certain similarities (see Figures 6 and 7)\**.
.FS
Most of the paintings of this period feature a large square bounded
on only two sides in one corner, and a smaller square in the opposite corner
(also bounded only by two lines).
.FE
In examining specific works from 1927 through 1929 I will
attempt to show how, from one painting to the next, Mondrian tried to solve
certain problems that he set for himself as a result of his views on art.  I
chose the above dates as endpoints in my analysis because, as I stated,
there is a certain compositional stability among works of those dates, and I
was interested in exploring Mondrian's possible motivations in moving from
one \*Qtype\*U of work to another.
.PP
I start the exploration with Figure 1.  A distinctive thing about
this painting is its openness.  None of the forms (color areas) or spaces
(white, grey areas) is completely bound by lines.  Instead one can see them
as extending beyond the canvas; they are limitless.  In his essay,
.I "Toward The True Vision of Reality,"
Mondrian says:
.nr VS 12
.RS
.DS
.fi
Impressed by the vastness of nature, I was trying to express [in art] its
expansion, rest, and unity. ...I was fully aware that the visible expansion
of nature is at the same time its limitation; vertical and horizontal lines
are the expression of to opposing forces...I recognized that the equilibrium
of any particular aspect of nature rests on the equivalence of its
opposites.  I felt that the tragic is created by unequivalence.\**
.DE
.RE
.nr VS 24
.FS
Mondrian, Piet.
.I "Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art."
New York: Wittenborn, 1945; pg. 13.  Henceforth referenced as
.I "Plastic"
in the text.  The date of this statement was 1942.
.FE
.LP
This painting certainly has an expansive characteristic, but perhaps at the
expense of rest and unity.  Furthermore, there seems to be something tragic
about this work that results precisely from an inequivalence of opposite
forces.  We tend to read the red area and the grey space below it as one
unit, which is in opposition to a similar kind of unit formed by the blue
area and the grey space to its right.  The red-grey unit is larger in all
dimensions than the blue-grey unit.  It overpowers and oppresses it.  The
blue-grey unit seems to be sliding off the canvas, there is nothing to unite
it with the picture as a whole.  The \*Qunity\*U and \*Qrest\*U of the work
seem to be hindered by this oppression.  In
.I "Liberation From Oppression In Art And Life,"
Mondrian states: \*QIn plastic art we see the mutual oppression of forms and
colors annihilated by the creation of mutual equivalent values. ...In plastic
art opposing factors annihilate each other in such a manner that there is no
oppression: the result is unity\*U
.I "(Plastic."
pg. 47).  In order to eliminate the tragic and oppressive, the elements that
express opposing forces must be brought into a more equivalent
relationship.  This will bind those elements together to create a more
unified work.  This, however, does not mean that the opposing forces must be 
.I "equal,"
for \*QIn art, as in life, it is the
.I "equivalence and not the equality"
of opposite factors that creates unity\*U
.I "(Plastic."
pg. 47).  It is this equivalence that Mondrian is seeking to create in his
art, it is one of the problems in his art: \*QHow is oppression to be
vanquished?  How is equilibrium to be created?  How are equivalent values to
be established?  Time must solve these problems\*U
.I "(Plastic."
pg. 47).  Now we will move through time, in Mondrian's paintings, to see how
he addresses these questions.
.PP
Compare the work just discussed--Figure 1--with a work of the same year,
Figure 2.  It seems natural to compare these two works because of their
obvious compositional similarity.  I suggest that the second work was
completed after the first, even though I have no hard, factual, evidence for
this claim.  The reasoning behind this suggestion is that it seems that
Mondrian has taken steps to solve some of the problems that we saw exist in
Figure 1.  The second work seems more unified; this was brought about in a
few ways.
.PP
First of all, the discrete blue-grey and red-grey units which were in a
tragic and oppressive relationship in Figure 1 no longer exists.  The space
(non-color) portions of the painting are all of the same quality white.  We
can still read the perimeter rectangles as forming space-form units, but in
a less concrete way, therefore they will not be subject to the same tragic
downfall as the space-form units in Figure 1.  In addition, where in Figure
1 the lower horizontal line terminates at a vertical line, in Figure 2 it is
continued to the edge of the canvas, forming a cross with the vertical.
This greatly reduces the overpowered \*Qsliding\*U feeling that the
blue-grey unit had in Figure 1.  Furthermore, the widths of the perimeter
rectangles are in a closer proportion with one another, which makes their
relationship less overpowering and more unified.  Unity is also gained by
moving the red form to the upper corner of the painting\** and by adding the
yellow form.
.FS
I have, up until now, ignored the fact the the orientation of the Figure 1
is different from that of Figure 2.  I have no theory as to why this would
be, except that it was simply an intuitive move by Mondrian.  I will
continue to ignore it.
.FE
In Figure 1 the upper portion--the portion above the upper horizontal--seems
detached from the other forms and spaces.  There is nothing that effectively
puts it in relation and opposition with the rest of the work.  Adding
color to the upper portion and adding a new color, yellow, on the same
vertical axis as the upper color, creates an equilibrium between top and
bottom that did not exist before.  Furthermore it is what Mondrian calls a
.I "dynamic"
equilibrium:
.nr VS 12
.RS
.DS
.fi
Whether obscured or clarified, rhythm expresses dynamic movement through the
continual opposition of the elements of composition.  By this means, plastic
art expresses
.I "action"
in a real plastic way.  It creates action by the tension of the forms,
lines, and the intensity of the colors--and this is its force.  In art, we
distinguish oppositions of position and dimension. ...In all art, the
function of rhythm is to prevent static expression through dynamic action.
.I "(Plastic."
pg. 47).
.DE
.RE
.nr VS 24
.LP
In his essay
.I "Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art,"
Mondrian states the importance of dynamic equilibrium: \*QThe important task
then of all art is to destroy the static equilibrium by establishing a
dynamic one.  Non-figurative art [Mondrian's art] demands an attempt at what
is a consequence of this task, the 
.I "destruction"
of particular form and the
.I "construction"
of a rhythm of mutual relations\*U
.I "(Plastic."
pg. 57).  As was mentioned above, the distinct, \*Qparticular,\*U blue-grey
and red-grey forms (which I call units) in Figure 1 have been destroyed in
Figure 2.  Here we can see space-form units with the red form and the white
space to its right, and the blue form and the white spaces to its left.
These units are connected by the vertical line, thereby being put in
relation to each other.  The dynamic element is produced by the tension in
the width differences of the two units, as well as by the tension created in
placing the two color forms of different sizes in directly opposing corners
of the picture, and on opposing sides of the space-form units.  Perhaps these
red-white and blue-white units, here in dynamic equilibrium, are the
transformed red-grey and blue-grey units that are in tragic opposition in
Figure 1.  Here, as well, they are not equal in dimension, but where
equality is lost by the lower unit's smaller width, it is gained by the
yellow form connected to it, which is in opposition with the red form, of
similar size, of the upper unit.  This deeper, active, dynamic, equality
seems to be the kind of equivalence Mondrian was searching for.  It unifies
the work as a whole because the upper and lower portions are in relation to
each other
.I "through"
the rest of the painting; they bind it together.
.PP
In Figure 3--from the same year as 1 and 2, but, I suggest, later than
1--Mondrian takes a different approach to arrive at unity and dynamic
equilibrium.  Here, the blue-grey and red-grey units that exist in Figure 1
are not destroyed to the same degree that they are in Figure 2, but they are
made less distinct, and less \*Qparticular\*U: as in Figure 2 the lower
horizontal forms a cross with the vertical and extends to the end of the
canvas, and the non-color spaces are of a uniform white quality.  In
addition, the proportions of the units are now closer in relation to each
other, thus creating a less overpowering and tragic equilibrium.  These
factors serve to make the units more equivalent in opposition and to destroy
the tragic element that exists in the oppositions of Figure 1.  
.PP
The addition of the yellow form in the upper portion of the painting
eliminates the detached quality that the upper portion of Figure 1 has by
connecting it to the other components of the painting through relation and
opposition.  Because red, yellow, and blue are primary colors each one is in
a kind of opposition with the other two.  This mutual opposition or
difference unites the color forms and helps hold the painting together and
makes the upper section less detached.
.PP
The yellow form exists in opposition to the red form.  They are both nearly
equal in width, yet are different in length.  This difference in length is
not overpowering due, perhaps, to the fact that the two opposing edges of
the canvas which help define these two color forms are nearly equal in
length, one being 38.1 centimeters, the other 34.3.  The difference in the
intensities of the colors sets up an oppostion on a different level and thus
makes their relationship more active.  Here again we see a dynamic
equilibrium that unifies these two equivalently opposing elements.
.PP
In Figure 3 the upper and lower sections are balanced and related in a
different way than they are in Figure 2.  Here, the dynamic equilibrium is
not so direct.  Indeed, through the noticeable differences in their dimension
their relationship would be overpowering (the yellow having the upper hand)
were it not for the red form that brings their reconciliation.  We have seen
that the yellow form is in dynamic equilibrium with the red form, which in
turn, we have seen, is in equilibrium with the blue.  Through the red form
the the yellow and blue forms are integrated.  The three forms create a
unity through their integration and equilibrium.  This unity is \*Qactive\*U
and \*Qdynamic\*U through color, dimension, and position.  Even so, it
appears to me that the upper and lower forms of Figure 3 are less equivalent
in their opposition that the upper and lower forms in Figure 2 precisely
because the equilibrium is not achieved as directly; it is not as effective
in this way.  What the work seems to gain by this indirect equilibrium is a
greater unity due to the more active relationships of its parts.  The
equilibrium of the whole work requires the simultaneous relationships of all
the parts, which is not required so much in Figure 2.
.PP
In Figure 4, from 1929, Mondrian expresses the two different manifestations
of dynamic equilibrium that exist in Figures 2 and 3, while adding some of
the oppositional elements of Figure 1.  First of all we see the return of
the distinct space-form units that exist in Figure 1.  The horizontal and
vertical lines that form their borders do not form a cross, rather, as in
Figure 1, the horizontal stops when it meets the vertical.  Yet the
non-unified quality of Figure 1 does not exist here.  The space-form units
are in closer proportion, but more than that their opposing boarders help
define a space which is almost square.  In other words, they participate in
forming a space that is almost a unity; they are unified in this way.
.PP
We can also see two other space-form units formed by the upper left color
form and the space to its right, and the upper left color form and the space
below it.  These two units are in opposition, but they are almost equal in
dimension: because the canvas is a square their lengths are equal, and their
widths are almost the same as well.  This creates a very static opposition,
something that Mondrian wanted to destroy.  What gives the opposition of the
units a little bit of tension--and therefore dynamic activity--is the fact
that the units share the same color form, and thus \*Qfight\*U for it.
Dynamic activity is more apparent in the relationships between these units
and the smaller ones discussed above.
.PP
The dynamic equilibrium between upper and lower portions that is present in
Figure 2 is present here as well.  The upper horizontal unit is in
opposition to the lower horizontal unit.  They are related through two
vertical lines, the left one being an integral part of both units; this
heightens the connection.  As in Figure 2, tension exists between the two
figure in their opposite orientation with respect to space and form (color),
however the greatest tension is expressed by their vast difference in
dimensions.  This large difference in dimension also exists between the
large vertical space-form unit on the left, and the smaller one on the
right.  We can also see tension in opposition between the two larger units,
taken together (which we have shown are equivalent), and the two smaller
units (also equivalent).  These three related sources of tension are brought
into a dynamic, rhythmic, and active unity in a few ways.  Firstly, the
lines that create the oppositional elements in the above relationships all
form a near-perfect square (the completely bounded rectangle space).  That
is, they form a near-perfect unity.  In addition, all the units have at
least one, and in some cases three defining sides which are edges of the
canvas.  The units, boarder the edges of the canvas, they are all connected
and related in this way.  Since the canvas is a perfect square this relation
become a unity.  Thus, both the inner near-perfect square, and the square
canvas, bring the tensions into a dynamic equilibrium that relates and
unifies the individual elements of the whole work.  The process of this
unification involves rhythm and activity, which we can see intuitively in
the relationships between the perimeter units, in the way they play off of each
other.
.PP
Another expression of dynamic equilibrium that we see in Figure 4 (that
exist to some extent in the previous paintings) is in the opposition of of
two near-perfect squares, one small and one large.  (This expression is
something that is played upon more heavily in other works from 1929 and
especially 1930.)  In this work the larger space (non-color) is in
opposition to the smaller form (color) in the corner.  In one of his essays
Mondrian writes, \*QIn general, equilibrium involves a large uncolored
surface or an empty space, and a rather small colored surface or space
filled with matter.\*U\**
.FS
From an excerpted appearing in Seuphor, Michel.
.I "Piet Mondrian, Life and Work."
New York: Abrams, 1956; pg. 166.
.FE
This equilibrium is accomplished here.
.PP
Despite all of the gains in unity, and dynamic equilibrium from Figure 1 to
Figure 4 it seems that the latter is lacking something that the former has,
namely, expansion.  Expansion was something that Mondrian was striving for
as well as unity.  Figure 4 is so tightly unified that there is little
expression of expansion, especially when compared to Figure 1.  This is
probably partily due to the completely bound near-perfect square.  In his
paintings of 1930 this inner square is taken to the edges and is unbound,
expressing expansion much more effectively, and yet still maintaining a
unity through similar means as in Figure 4.
.PP
Our exploration ends here.  Through looking at four paintings finished
fairly close to each other we have seen a progression in Mondrian's art that
is reflected in his theories.  We have seen how he has attempted to find
solutions to problems that he believed existed in art, that is, how to
destroy the tragic and oppressive and create equilibrium and unity.