Mmm, I do find Malevich fascinating. Bit rusty on this, but am I right in thinking that the aim of Suprematism was to remove all reference to anything outside of the work? By this I mean not just the removal of reference to physical objects a la Mondrian, but an actual attempt to remove all emotional resonance, suggestion of abstract space etc., and arrive at a ‘pure’ form (or Platonic, as mentioned above). That just intrigues me because it’s so obviously impossible, or at least the fact that you’ll end up with a blank canvas if you follow that route seems obvious from a modern perspective, but the journey made to end up at that blank canvas produces such rich work. Tom’s comments about being engulfed by the density of space reminds me very much of Rothko – the almost unbearable pressure of the density of colour and surface you’re presented with.
My favoutite Malevich though is the one where he uses a red and black square to symbolise an icon painting of the Madonna and Child. Black square for Mary’s head, parallel to the edges of the canvas, and smaller red square for Christ’s head, inclined at the same angle as his head would be in traditional icon painting. He also hung this painting in the top corner of a room, mimicking the traditional positioning. I’m kind of obsessed with the ways in which particular images can become loaded with an incredibly dense network of meanings and associations, and the Madonna and Child is one of the primary (Western) examples of this. I’m not sure what the implication of replacing these symbols with squares is – on the one hand it could be arguing for the truth of Russian Orthodox Christianity, by saying that its symbology is as basic and inherent as the simplest gestalt forms, or it could be read as revealing the arbitrariness of symbol systems, while still impying that the symbols point to a deeper truth. Either way it makes my brain tickly to think about, and that is pleasing.
Here’s a link to that one – Black Square and Red Square
1915; Oil on canvas, 71.4 x 44.4 cm (28 x 17 1/2 in); The Museum of Modern Art, New York
Postscript because I saw Persephone’s post just before sending mine – I agree with you that Malevich’s statement equating any sort of depiction with photography is naïve (not to mention the assumption that ‘just’ being a photographer is worse than being a painter), but I think, particularly in those heady days of Modernism but generally too, broad and untenable statements about the nature of art are often very useful in creating good art. It’s a bit like what I said further up about the end result of his journey being obvious from a contemporary perspective, but the journey still yielding good work. The first half of last century was chock-full of movements writing manifestos declaring that they’d found the only true way to make art in the modern world, bolstered by the acute awareness that culture and the world had never been quite like this before; it fitted the straight-ahead-progress we-can-build-the-shiny-techno-utopia hubris that was around at the time. Now that the tower has fallen and we’re postmodernists, all of that seems a little quaint and embarrassing, but even today there are a number of artists working with practices that deliberately control or restrict what they do.
Sorry, getting off the point - what I wanted to say was that any artist or group of artists can only ever cover an infinitessimal fragment of what can be said and done with art, and often a sweeping belief or statement that removes most of those possibilities from consideration can be very helpful.
Oh, and “heaven or hell?” is a great thing to have in mind when looking at a painting! Like that a lot. It’s funny because I was planning on posting Bosch’s “Garden of Earthly Delights” soon.
(I’d better post this soon or I’ll never finish it!) Todd – on Malevich & Mondrian’s relation to form: I would have thought that the focus on texture gives a greater focus on the painting as an object, making the viewer less likely to bring a representational reading. Similar to how Mondrian always ends his black lines before they reach the edge – he’s not making an illusory space, the form is as real and physical as the edge of the canvas. I guess the closer we are to seeing paint as paint put in a particular shape the closer they are to achieving their aims. |
