Still life with De Stijl

Still no constructivist integration

How is it that art of the De Stijl movement should be “for the people” and not isolated from the people, if all its concern is to depict subjects, essences and “problems” that are not of any interest to the majority of us, hence the people?
“…The art of the De Stijl movement regarded not only the art itself but also the caring for man for whom the art was created, as first priority…” – if it is so, than please explain to me how the caring for man is being manifested in works such as Construction within a sphere by Georges Vantongerloo, or Composition II by Theo Van Doesburg? Do these works of art improve your well-being and comfort in front of the torments of life?

De Stijl not Practicing art

Art does not solve anything. If it’s worth something at all it simply tells a story and if not then it’s simply wasting your time pleasantly. A situation where art is rolling around between people’s legs will not encourage integration with those people; just the same as a Shinto Japanese will not feel integrated among a bunch of Israeli prayers in a synagogue in Tel-Aviv. If there is no common language there is no communication; if there is no common interest there is no will to form a common language.
Can one really find a non-arbitrary relation between Cubism and communism, or expect that Futurism will eradicate Nazism of justify Capitalism? I mean, come on… What the hell do the problems of art have to do with the average man who deals with not having enough money to go to the grocery store?

Functionality

Art is a trade, a dealing that derives from the mixture of interest, certain faculties of the mind and inclinations of character, the same as any other trade or profession. Greatness in art, the same as greatness in any field or endeavor is reflective of the caliber and capacity of the mind and the expression of these as success, is aided by the forces of karma. Same as a great businessman will not really believe that his endeavors in the field of business are meant to redeem the world of its misery, so also I wouldn’t expect of any artist to really believe that his art will save me from pain and agony. Art is only what it is and nothing beyond. Can it be otherwise?

Harmony

The De Stijl movement’s (or Neoplasticism’s) advocated abstraction and the reduction of visualization to the essentials of form and color: blue, red and yellow; square and quadrangle; the straight line and the right angle.
Let us come out of the primary assumptions of traditional modern art, that indeed these are the primeval colors and shapes of the physical nature. What then makes them more harmonious than their elaborate constructions manifested in the leaf of a tree, or a mountainous view or a woman’s vagina?

I think it is perception that is not harmonious rather than any element of nature, internal or external. Put a hyper-actively agitated person in front of Composition with Red, Yellow and Blue by Piet Mondrian and see for yourself if he feels more peaceful and harmonious… And I say this although I have great esteem towards the deeply aware honesty and truthfulness of Mondrian’s works and philosophy of life and despite the fact that he is my biggest inspiration.

Nevertheless, is simplicity really more harmonious than complexity? Can there be no harmony in the infinitely intricate human brain and psyche? Could it be that there is no harmony in the unfathomable depths of the Wisdom of Creation?

Spirituality

An artist who thinks that there is a gap between practicality and spirituality that needs to be bridged by art is miserable. Spirituality which is not embedded into day-to-day life or similarly, life which is empty of spirituality is the synonym for misery. Spirituality is life and its supreme and only value and it can be and supposed to be an integrated practice of them.

Purifying the mind is a totally practical process and its results are totally practical as well. Making a distinction between the spiritual or the metaphysical and the mundane or the corporeal, is in fact setting a border between the physical and the mental; it is actually saying that there is no connection whatsoever between the human spirit and the human body.
Is there really a need for me to explain why it is absurd or let’s just say unfortunate to think that way?

Bottom line

Inmy opinion, the De Stijl movement aimed to the right place but with the wrong means and the wrong intent, which both derived from a superficial view upon life and it’s spiritual core.