Negative Space in Mondrian's "Horizontal Tree"
Dilettante
painting, Horizontal Tree. This image can be seen at
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3557709081&category=360#ebayphotohosting
or
http://www.etsu.edu/philos/classes/rk/modernzenith/htmdescriptionpages/trees.htm
According to Graham Collier, Mondrian handles negative space by
continuing the rhythmic skeletal structure of the tree over the
background horizontally and vertically.
I would caution, however, that this is an idealised tree structure
whose rhythm has been imposed and filtered by Mondrian. Therefore this
is not really an image from nature.
So we could regard Mondrian's treatment of his tree as applicable to
any figure-ground relationship.
Some areas of the negative space, that is to say, any space on the
picture that is not the tree, are shaped positively by the elements of
the figure, in this case a tree, and can be called a part of our
perception of the figure.
Other areas of negative space are not as concretely defined and may
not be regarded as part of the figure. They are detached from it and
thus can be called neutral.
How Mondrian achieves this distinction, according to Graham Collier,
is by totally enclosing positive areas of the negative space with
heavy or incisive lines. He gives contrasting tonal value to different
regions of the negative space. Positive areas of the negative space
are given stronger tonal values, while neutral areas are lighter in
value.
This three-dimensional play between the two types of negative space
create tension and movement. The figure, the tree, can be said to be
in movement because it is connected to these positive areas of
negative space, and to move with these spaces.
I could add, however, that the Mondrian composition is more complex
than this. First, he has imposed a crystalline cubelike latticework
over the entire picture frame. This results in a sort of struggle
between the form of the tree and this latticework. If the latter wins,
the picture becomes cubist.
I see, secondly, that Mondrian has imposed a circular movement on the
picture by inscribing a circle around the center of the tree, which is
also the center of the painting. His brush pulls colours and lines
with it.
It is also my opinion that the painting has 1) a circle rhythm, 2) the
rhythm established by his whiplike tree branches, and 3) the cube-like
structure over the entire picture frame.
Collier continues, that the structural shape of the neutral areas is
defined by lines in negative space which emanate from, and mimick the
tree. This creates an out of focus ghost image, in the background, of
the tree, which produces tension and ambiguity.
This analysis is based on one by Graham Collier, in Form, Space and
Vision, but I have added to, and disagreed with, it in certain ways.
The essential flaw in Collier's analysis is his failure to note the
cubelike structure Mondrian imposes.
Dilettante
Oran G. Tang
says...
>This analysis is based on one by Graham Collier, in Form, Space and
>Vision, but I have added to, and disagreed with, it in certain ways.
>
>Dilettante
I'm sure everyone will join me in
wishing you get an "A" for
your effort/paper.
Dilettante
>
> I'm sure everyone will join me in
> wishing you get an "A" for
> your effort/paper.
Since you do not find my posts worthwhile, I'm sure everyone will join
me in wishing you refrain from responding to them anymore.
D
Miriam
> This is an analysis of the use of negative space in Mondrian's
> painting, Horizontal Tree. This image can be seen at
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3557709081&category=360#ebayphotohosting
>
> or
>
> http://www.etsu.edu/philos/classes/rk/modernzenith/htmdescriptionpages/trees.htm
>
> According to Graham Collier, Mondrian handles negative space by
> continuing the rhythmic skeletal structure of the tree over the
> background horizontally and vertically.
>
towards abstract painting. Do you know anything about the origin of
the term "negative space". Did Mondrian use the term himself when he
worked with these paintings?
Miriam
Mani Deli
> If you have a few art pieces you
>would like to see converted into paint by number patterns, drop me an
>email:
Mondrian
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dilettante
Do you know anything about the origin of
> the term "negative space". Did Mondrian use the term himself when he
> worked with these paintings?
> Miriam
I don't know if Mondrian used such a term, but it has been used by
artists to describe the space around an object for my whole life. It
gets a little awkward, though, when one needs to distinguish between
two types of negative space (positive and neutral), as I have had to
do here.
Dilettante
Miriam
in this painting. The lower vertical lines in the latticework create
an impresson of a physical ground under the three. These darker areas
under the tree with some light reflection work different from the
other dark/light (positive and neutral negative space) areas in the
upper part of the background.
Miriam
Dilettante
The lower vertical lines in the latticework create
> an impresson of a physical ground under the three. These darker areas
> under the tree with some light reflection work different from the
> other dark/light (positive and neutral negative space) areas in the
> upper part of the background.
> Miriam
I notice this now that you have pointed it out.
I had thought that Mondrian established a sort of floor by elongated
horizontal lines a little above these darker patches.
I do not get a sense Mondrian really cared about establishing a
realistic 3-d space.
I don't quite see the function of the darker patches, unless they are
meant to suggest shadow.
Dilettante
Miriam
It is strange this painting and quite difficult to get a grasp of.
Some shadows are "cubist" and others are "landscape", I believe. Then
he used/changed the forms of the tree, too. Mondrian may have given
some account of what he was doing in these years. He's moving out of
3D, but I don't know how far away he is at the time.
Miriam.
Dilettante
Then
> he used/changed the forms of the tree, too. Mondrian may have given
> some account of what he was doing in these years. He's moving out of
> 3D, but I don't know how far away he is at the time.
> Miriam.
You can see the evolution of Mondrian's approach on the second URL in
the first post of this thread. In 1908 he did "Red Tree." In 1911, he
did "Horizontal Tree." Then in 1912, he painted "Apple Trees," which
is not really trees but one tree. I think he was doing versions of the
same tree in all three paintings and getting more abstract with each
one. The first one, "Red Tree," is the most realistic. It looks
strongly influenced by Van Gogh.
Dilettante