Piet Mondrian

What we have seen so far is confirmed by new paintings Piet Mondrian produces in 1914 and 1915 and in particular by the Pier and Ocean series of works culminating with Pier and Ocean 5. Although painted in a sketchy way, I consider this painting one of Mondrian’s most significant compositions and a milestone in western art history.

With Pier and Ocean 5 Mondrian lays out the fundamental principles of a new type of plastic space which constitutes the most effective answer to the questions posed by Impressionism, Expressionism and Cubism.

The artist went to visit his family in the Netherlands in the summer of 1914 and was prevented from returning to Paris by the war, which broke out during his stay. Deprived of the brushes, paints, and canvases left in his studio in Paris, Mondrian began a series of drawings, and gouaches inspired by the sea as well as the sea interacting with a pier jutting out from the beach into the water. The latter are therefore also called Pier and Ocean.

Let us examine some of these works starting with two drawings inspired by the sea:

Fig. 1 is a drawing of the sea produced in 1914 that recalls the seascapes addressed by the artist four years earlier.

Fig. 2 is a drawing of the sea characterized by primarily horizontal and curvilinear lines with a few faint and isolated vertical elements:

We shall now examine four works inspired by the interaction between a pier and the sea:

Interestingly, the motif chosen by the painter evokes a structure similar to that of the tree, where the horizontal expansion of the branches corresponds to the horizontal extension of the are while the vertical structure of the trunk is reminiscent of that of the pier:

With respect to the figure of the tree, however, the Cubist subject of the pier immersed in the sea reveals more dynamic interaction between unitary element (the pier) and manifold element (the sea) than between the mutually static trunk and branches.

Nature and human artifice

Here, too, nature (the sea) appears horizontal while, from the painter’s point of view, the human artifice (the pier) appears as a vertical like the mills, the lighthouses and the church towers of the previous years.

Permanent and changeable

The artist probably saw the pier structure as a solid element, the symbol of permanence, interpenetrating with the ever-changing flow of the sea. Permanence is invoked by the spiritual with respect to the manifold aspect of nature and changeable course of life. These are issues that go beyond the particular aspect of a certain landscape which, of course, might have stimulated the artist’s inner vision. I therefore believe that the real plastic value of the Pier and Ocean series of works was drawn more from within the artist himself and the body of work he had previously done, than from the external landscape he had in front of him.

Fig. 3: The pier develops from the bottom-center of the composition and tends to concentrate the boundless horizontal expansion of the sea into a sort of rectangular area:

Fig. 4: The vertical pier draws the extended line of the sea horizon into a vaguely quadrangular area that is then concentrated in the upper section of Fig. 5 to become a set of quadratic shapes with one more defined square proportion in the center.

In the latest version of this series of works (Fig. 6), the variegated group of square shapes (Fig. 5) becomes a single square expressing in itself the most balanced relationship between the opposite directions:

The horizontal expansion of the sea (the natural) and and the motion of concentration exerted by the vertical of the pier (the human artifice or as Mondrian says the spiritual) achieve a perfect balance within the square proportion of Fig. 6.

The number of signs, i.e. the degree of spatial multiplicity, gradually increases from Fig. 3 to Fig. 6 and it is only in the latter that all the signs are expressed solely and exclusively through perpendicular relations.

A general symmetry governing the compositional layout can be seen in Fig. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Around the central axis of the pier (a symbolic projection of the viewer, like the tree trunk in previous works), the changing space of the sea is transformed into one of comparatively greater order and constancy.

Let us now examine in detail Pier and Ocean 5 (Fig. 6) and explain why I consider this composition a revolutionary milestone in western art history.

Every sign expresses something different in Pier and Ocean 5 and something changes every instant. Despite its general symmetrical layout, the composition depicts a reality in a state of becoming, the reality contemplated by the Cubist painters.

The duality expressed through the relationship between vertical and horizontal, which generates the manifold space as a whole, is cancelled out in the square, where the two very different and indeed opposite things are equivalent, i.e. assume the same value while remaining different. In that area, for an instant, becoming is transformed into being and multiplicity becomes unity.
The eye can linger on that point and contemplate in a more stable form what constantly changes in appearance in the surrounding space through alternation of the prevailing direction.

The unity manifested during the first Cubist phase as a curvilinear concentration of space toward the center (Flowering Trees, 1912) and then with a more explicit external oval (Tableau 3, 1913):

becomes an internal oval (Fig. 2) and is then gradually transformed into a square representing synthesis and unity (Fig. 6). An external and absolute unity is transformed in an internal and relative unity that now partakes of the manifold space inside which it is born:

At this regard it is worth remembering what Mondrian wrote:“the compact curved line, which does not express any plastic relationship, has been replaced by straight lines in their mutual perpendicular position which expresses the purest form of relationship“.

The sign of equivalence between opposites is born inside a square and thus suggests an inner space. This square symbolizes the space of consciousness in which the changing external space is captured for an instant in synthesis. Examination of Pier and Ocean 5 reveals in fact that other areas of the composition suggest potential squares, which do not, however, attain the balance of the one in the center:

Unlike the central square, they appear unable to hold the dynamic external space and transform it into a more constant and permanent internal equilibrium. The incomplete attempts to internalize external reality evoke the moments in life when something escapes us and we cannot make the rationale of becoming our own. The central square instead expresses one of those rare moments in which we understand (internalize) the fact that everything is connected and that each thing depends on its opposite.

Illusionistic space turns into real space

Same as the vertical trunk of a tree unifies the multifarious horizontal expansion of the branches, a rectangle (Composition II, 1913) and then a square form (Fig. 6) unify an endless variety of relationships between horizontals and verticals:

The unifying function metaphorically assigned to the tree trunk gave way over a span of three years to a unity of space in itself (the square form). Illusionistic space (Study of Trees I, 1912 ) turns into a real, bi-dimensional space (Composition II, 1913 and Fig. 6).

Unity of space in itself

The nature of the “landscape” that Mondrian was aiming at now appears evident. Starting from the most immediate reality, the painter no longer stopped at the particular and contingent appearance of a church façade, the sea or a starry sky but extracted the essence of all those fleeting appearances to transform them into an ideal representation of all possible landscapes. What is a landscape essentially? In a dynamic reality such as that of the modern era, every landscape is the outcome of new and different forms of interaction between subject and object. The unifying function metaphorically assigned to the tree trunk gave way over a span of four years to a unity of space in itself:

It is, however, obvious that the consciousness can only produce partial and temporary syntheses; it clearly cannot exhaust all the possible relations with the external world. Human consciousness cannot contain within itself the totality of the world and will never be able to comprehend reality as a whole (the space of the oval). Every synthesis generated by thought is necessarily partial and temporary, and must therefore open up again to the multiform and ever-changing aspect of physical reality. This is what all sensible people do when they call their certainties into question in the light of experience. This is what philosophy has been doing for centuries, as have the arts and above all the experimental sciences.

A second square can be seen in Pier and Ocean 5 above the square that we have identified as a unitary synthesis of the composition as a whole:

Inside the second square we see a vertical segment divided by two horizontal segments that extend beyond the boundary of the square to the right and left. The two small horizontal segments form two crosses with the two vertical sides of the square. These two signs tell us that unity is opening up to duality. The unitary synthesis achieved for an instant in the lower square in the form of the equivalence of opposites is again broken up into a duality that then flows back toward the variety of different situations marked again by the alternating predominance of one direction or the other. The unity generated with the first square opens up again to manifold space with the second.

A dynamic unity

For Mondrian the unitary synthesis is therefore a plastic symbol of the manifold and controversial space of reality, which attains measure and a harmonious condition in the space of consciousness before opening up again to nature and life. This is another reason why modern painting turns abstract: how can you simultaneously represent the outer and inner world if you just look at the external appearance of things through the so called realistic or figurative way of painting?

The equivalence generated in the square suggests the possibility of establishing balance and harmony between opposites. And this holds both for the subject’s relationship with the object (the external world) and for the subject’s relationship with itself: finding equilibrium between the contradictory drives within oneself, e.g. between the uncontrollable urges of the instinctual life (the horizontal) and the action of controlling and guiding the instincts performed by the mind or spirit (the vertical). 

The spatial development observed in Pier and Ocean 5 tells us that while equilibrium can be attained, it is a dynamic equilibrium that does not necessarily last for long once achieved. The vertical rises, interpenetrates with the horizontal, and produces a unitary synthesis that opens up again to the horizontal higher up. Unity reveals itself for an instant and then appears again as multiplicity. The variable becomes constant and then reverts to variation.

On comparing Pier and Ocean 5 with previous works we can see how the unity generated in 1915 is of a dynamic nature and no longer the static unity exemplified by the perfect circle of a plate (1901), the trunk of a tree (1912) or a central rectangle (1913). Enlarge images.

The unity that Mondrian strove to express is a temporary synthesis generated momentarily by the subject in its changing relationship with the world, not something to be attained once and for all. Establishing equilibrium between the manifold appearance of nature and the synthesis invoked by the consciousness does not mean attaining fixed points and immutable truths. The square of Pier and Ocean 5 is not a potentially static and all-inclusive unity like the oval but a dynamic unity intrinsically linked to the manifold space in which it is born and toward which it returns a moment later:

The one becomes multiple and multiplicity reverts to unity. As mentioned, every synthesis generated by thought is necessarily partial and temporary, and must therefore open up again to the multiform and ever-changing aspect of physical reality. Moreover, Mondrian thinks of a unity which is intrinsically multiple and multiplicity which is one because everything is at the same time one and multiple.

To give a concrete example: a tree looks like a small patch of green when seen from a great distance but then grows larger and reveals an increasing number of parts as we draw closer before finally displaying an enormous degree of complexity when we observe the microscopic structure of each individual leaf which becomes a small universe.

The initial green spot (we perceived as one) has become very complexed (multiple); the initial finite reality appears now infinite. If the process is reversed, the tree loses its complexity and reverts to a simple patch of green. Depending on the positional relationship established in each case with the object observed, every single thing becomes multiple and then the multiple concentrates again in a unity. 

What is the “true” nature and reality of a tree? Does it still make sense to paint a tree from a single viewpoint (the so-called realistic view) and claim that this is reality? How can we paint things that changes so quickly today in accordance with the changing positional relationship we establish with them? And how can we define realistic a way of painting the outer appearance of things if every single thing unveils an intrinsic endless reality? 

How can we simultaneously show the manifold and unitary aspect of each individual thing if not in an abstract form?

The above series of paintings inspired by the sea an by a pier can be considered a sort of conspectus of Mondrian’s work between 1908 and 1915, as though the Cubist space developed at length in his studio in Paris had finally found an outlet in contact with the Dutch countryside from which it originated.

I believe it right to say that these developments came about spontaneously without full awareness on the part of the artist. I further believe that while Mondrian still made explicit reference to certain landscapes (a dune, the sea or the pier and the ocean) in this phase, these were actually subjects that he had internalized back in his Expressionist phase with a very clear idea of their plastic value.

When Mondrian returned to these subjects in 1915, he drew them more from within himself than from the countryside in front of him. He addressed them again in order to tie up some loose ends left in the Cubist canvases painted in Paris. In doing so, he provided a de facto summary of the work carried out between 1912 and 1914.

Oval and square

In Pier and Ocean 5 external unity is visually translated for the first time into internal unity. Objective unity (the oval) and subjective unity (the square) coexist and, from that moment on, all of Mondrian’s plastic space was to rest on this idea of unity (the square) as the subjective symbol of an assumed and no longer visible objective unity (the oval).

Objective and subjective unity

Objective unity (the oval) and subjective unity (the square) coexist in Pier and Ocean 5 and, from that moment on, all of Mondrian’s plastic space was to rest on this idea of unity (the square) as the subjective symbol of an assumed and no longer visible objective unity (the oval). On examining the three compositions below, we see how the oval dissolves and a white squared field form emerges from inside the composition:

Reflections on Pier and Ocean 5

Let us return for a moment to Pier and Ocean 5 and consider some aspects of a general character:

Pier and Ocean 5 depicts in a graphic manner ideas which will be expressed twenty-seven years later in the clearest and brightest form with Broadway Boogie Woogie, the last painting Mondrian was able to complete and a marvelous synthesis of his entire oeuvre. The Museum of Modern Art in New York City are very lucky to have both paintings in their permanent collection.

top of page

next page: Toward Neoplasticism

back to overview

home