Mondrian's Neoplasticism as a Theosophical Art Form

An Overview of Theosophy

 

Mme Blavatsky introduced the formal doctrine of Theosophy in New York in 1875 (Veen, 2017). Bris-Marino (2014) argues that Theosophy emerged to reconcile German idealism, emphasizing the dominance of spirit over matter, and positivism in which perception is dominated by the spirit (p. 494). At the core of the doctrine are the Theosophical Society’s “Three Objects”, last revised in 1896:

 

To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color

To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science

To investigate the unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in Man

(Introduction to theosophy and the theosophical society, 2012)

 

Theosophy as a State of Being

 

Theosophy, meaning “Divine Wisdom”, sought to reveal universal knowledge to humankind through antirational or metaphisical methods (Fallahzadeh and Yousof, 2019, p. 3). Sender (2007) argues that in Theosophy, knowledge of the divine comes from within oneself rather than from books and teachers (p. 101). Mme Blavatsky spoke on this transcendental nature of Theosophy which she referred to as “’true Theosophy’” stating, “[W]e can always conceive the abstract idea thereof, thanks to that faculty higher than our reason --- intuition” (Sender, 2007, p. 101). She believed that “great initiates” could readily achieve a state of ecstacy in which one’s notion of self is replaced by the sense of being “one with the ALL” (Sender, 2007, p. 101).

 

Theosophical Teachings

 

Besides Theosophy as a transcendental state of being, the word theosophy is also applied to the body of teachings surrounding the belief-system. Sender (2007) argues that theosophical teachings are of little worth unless they help one “to live the right life, to develop self-knowledge, and ultimately awaken the Divine Wisdom that is in his inmost being” (p. 102). Indeed, in the words of Sender (2007), “the very nature of theosophical teachings accounts for their diversity”. That being said, Mme Blavatsky’s writings carry much weight—perhaps the most weight—in the theosophical literature. Probably most appreciable in Blavatsky’s writings is her pseudoscientific book, The Secret Doctrine: the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy first published in 1888. Fundamental to Blavatsky’s book is her assertion that a fundamentally impersonal system of absolute divine essence is “latent in every atom in the Universe” and is in fact “the Universe itself” (Blavatsky, 1893, p. 294). She claimed that the veil of material reality hinders one’s spirit from knowing the nature of absolute essence (Blavatsky, 1893, p. 39). In Blavatsky’s cosmogony, the universe is said to be conscious (Blavatsky, 1893, p. 295). Her cosmogony also holds that the universe is an illusion in the light of the timeless, causeless, and unintelligible “One Reality” because the universe, and everything in it, are merely temporary and therefore unreal (Blavatsky, 1893, p. 46). Besides these teachings, her book also makes many strange and equally unscientific assertions about the nature of human evolution and race (see Blavatsky, 1902).

 

Neoplasticism

 

The Emergence of the Art Form

 

Fallahzadeh and Yousof (2019) state that Modrian’s theosophic sensibilities to reveal an inner spiritual reality emerged in the form of his reductionist painting style (p. 3). Theosophical motifs of the physical, spiritual, and metaphysical qualities of humans and their evolution emerged in Mondrian’s symbolic compositions from 1908-1912 (Fallahzadeh and Yousof, 2019, pp. 3-4). However, Mondrian’s emerging Neoplasticist style began to steadily become more and more abstracted from 1912 onward until it was eventually reduced down to an entirely nonrepresentational application of form and color (Fallahzadeh and Yousof, 2019 p. 3).

 

The Design Principles of Neoplaticism

 

Mondrian’s Principes generaux du Neo-plasticisme—composed in response to an editor’s questionnaire for the Dutch art periodical, De Stijl—lays out his six principles of Neoplasticism:

 

1) The means of imaging must be the rectangular plane or prism in primary color (red, blue, and yellow) and in non–color (white, black, and gray). In architecture, empty space is considered as non–color. Material may count as color.

 

2) The equivalence of the means of imaging is necessary. Size and colors may differ, but they must be of equal value. In general, equilibrium results from large surfaces of non–color or empty space, and rather small surfaces of color or material.

 

3) The opposing duality is required within the means of imaging and also within the composition.

 

4) The constant equilibrium is achieved by the relationship of position, and is expressed by the straight line (limit of the means of imaging) in its principal opposition (rectangular).

 

5) The equilibrium, that neutralizes and annihilates the means of imaging, is possible by the relationships of proportion in which they are placed and which create the living rhythm.

 

6 All symmetry shall be excluded.

             (Veen, 2017, p. 6)

 

In the end he achieved a style marked by, and celebrated for, its “dynamic equilibrium” which is depicted in the compositions below.

This dynamic equilibrium (as Mondrian called it in his later English texts) was achieved in such ways as “color vs non—color, horizontal vs vertical, small vs large, matt vs glossy” (Veen, 2017, p. 6). These sort of dualities, if you will, are what make Neoplasticist art (incredibly simple as it often is) intriguing.

 

Balance in Asymmetry: An Engaging Art Form

 

Another major component of Neoplasticist art’s intrigue is Mondrian’s sixth rule: no symmetry. You see, what is characteristic in all these compositions is a sense of overall balance. Despite the disproportionate nature of the form, the beholder is ultimately left with an overall sense of balance. As Brown (n.d.) states, “For Mondrian it is not just any sort of balance that matters, but asymmetric balance … symmetry of form is excluded: right-left and vertical symmetry are certainly out.” Brown defines visual balance as ”the capacity of a design to elicit perceptual experience in which the viewer is satisfied with the distribution of forms, colors and textures in the design”. Since creating visual dissatisfaction—that is, through a lack of perceived visual balance—is undesired, Brown lays out several helpful sources of distribution dissatisfaction that must be avoided:

 

1) imbalance of placement or relative size of forms, favoring the left over the right, the upper over lower registers, one quadrant over another;

 

2) imbalance of weight of colors or textures;

 

3) imbalance of vertical/horizontal linear elements;

 

4) imbalance of closed/open planes;

 

5) imbalance of visual interest

 

Why was Mondrian so opposed to symmetry? It seems natural that if the sort of distribution dissatisfaction spoken of is to be avoided, that symmetry would be in order. We can’t know for sure, but I think Mondrian knew that symmetry was not so cognitively engaging and would, therefore, create less interest. Brown (n.d.) says ”Much of our pleasure in engaging with these works seems to be appreciation of their balance, a balance which provokes our interest and awakens our admiration because it is so challenging”. He argues that we experience Mondrian’s works as stable but also dynamic which is eccentric and surprising because it is “so resolutely flat, so deprived of the optical space found in Pollock or de Kooning, so limited in form, color and texture” (Brown, n.d.).

 

Cognition: The Beholder’s Gaze

 

Brown says that after our eyes explore a composition of Mondrian’s, they end up resting with a centered gaze. I can verify that this is the case when I look at his art. I may spend several seconds scanning over the rectangles small and large (with none of identical proportion), the textures—glossy, matte—scanning over heavy and empty segments, and when my eyes pan out to get a better sense of the balance of line in the overall composition, my gaze ends up focusing around the center. Although the composition is clearly asymmetrical, it still feels balanced overall. This is a curious balance that “exceeds or defies expectations” (Brown, n.d.). Brown goes into more detail about how the perceived visual balance is achieved—much more than I care to discuss here. He demonstrates just how fragile Mondrian’s achieved balance is—how slight alterations throw it completely off. Indeed it becomes clear that such a seemingly facile art style is actually quite subtle and intricate; I highly recommend reading Brown’s article here.

 

Neoplasticism and Theosophy

 

Mondrian’s Perspective: Neoplasticism as the Future Art Form of Theosophy

Mondrian’s publications in the journal De Stijl reveal how Mondrian believed his radical new art style expressed a theosophical motif (Bris-Marino, 2014, p. 491). It can best be understood through a clarifying note to Rudolf Steiner in February 1921 with a copy of his book Le Neo-plasticisme that read (translated from French):

 

… I believe that Neo-Plasticisme is the art of the foreseeable future for all true anthropologists and theosophists. Neo-Plasticism creates harmony through the equivalence of the two extremes: the universal and the individual. The former by revelation, the latter by deduction. Art gives visual expression to the evolution of life: the evolution of the spirit and—in the reverse direction—that of matter. It was impossible to bring about an equilibrium of relationships other than by destroying the form, and replacing it by a new, universal expressive means…

(Bris-Marino, 2014, p. 491)

 

Rejection by Theosophists

 

Bris-Marino (2014) claims that during his Neoplasticist period, his style begot “terrible reception” citing the rejection of his 1914 article commissioned for the Dutch Journal, Theosophia (p. 492). Evidently it was rejected on the grounds of being too revolutionary—an unwelcome departure from Theosophy’s identification with symbolism (Bris-Marino, 2014, p. 492). Mondrian’s rejection did not cause him to question the theosophical doctrine, but he believed that many of the Theosophists had an incorrect interpretation of it (Bris-Marino, 2014, p. 492).

 

Mondrian’s Rejection of Symbolism as Theosophic Art

 

Bris-Marino (2014) argues that Mondrian believed that theosophic art could not be illustrative in the least—not reliant on any symbols whatsoever (p. 493). He based his rejection on the belief that “’the symbol constitutes a new limitation, on the one hand, and is too absolute, on the other’” (Bris-Marino, 2014, p. 493).

 

Why the Neoplasticist Form Does Represent Theosophical Principles

 

Despite the rejection of Mondrian’s art, it clearly does represent very fundamental Theosophic ideas. I believe when Mondrian talked about “destroying the form”, he was talking about the radical asymmetry and nonrepresentational nature of the form that Neoplasticism defined. This form and Mondrian’s use of dualities in establishing dynamic equilibrium may be seen as a representation of “’imbalance between matter and spirit’” or “’disharmony between man and his surrounding’” (Bris-Marino, 2014, p. 495). I believe that the curious way that Piet Mondrian manages to achieve a sense of balance from asymmetric visual elements along with dynamic equilibrium ultimately does represent a fundamental duality in Theosophy between spirit and matter.

 

 

References

 

Blavatsky, H.P. (1893). The Secret Doctrine: Cosmogenesis. Theosophical Publishing Society.

 

Blavatsky, H.P. (1902). The Secret Doctrine: Anthropogenesis. University of Chicago: Theosophical Publishing Society.

 

Brown, J. H. (n.d.). Mondrian's Balance. Retrieved April 19, 2021, from http://faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/jhbrown/mondriansbalance/index.html

 

Bris-Marino, P. (2014). The influence Theosophy on Mondrian’s neoplastic work.

 

Fallahzadeh, A & Yousof, G.S. (2019). Piet Mondrian, early Neo-Plastic compositions, and six principles of Neo-Plasticism. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisiplinary Studies in Humanities, 11.

 

Introduction to theosophy and the theosophical society. (2012, April 02). Retrieved April 19, 2021, from https://theosophists.org/library/booklets/introduction-to-theosophy-and-the-theosophical-society/

 

Veen, L. A. (2017). Piet Mondrian on the Principles of Neo-Plasticism. International Journal of Art and Art History, 5(2). doi:10.15640/ijaah.v5n2p1