Main content
Course: Modernisms 1900-1980 > Unit 1
Lesson 1: Introduction- Contemporary Art, an introduction
- Representation and abstraction: Millais's Ophelia and Newman's Vir Heroicus Sublimis
- Art and context: Monet's Cliff Walk at Pourville and Malevich's White on White
- An Introduction to Photography in the Early 20th Century
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Art and context: Monet's Cliff Walk at Pourville and Malevich's White on White
Art & Context: Monet's Cliff Walk at Pourville & Malevich's Suprematist Composition: White on White A conversation with Sal Khan, Steven Zucker & Beth Harris. Created by Beth Harris, Steven Zucker, and Sal Khan.
Want to join the conversation?
- It's really interesting to note that when White on White is displayed, the colors are perceived very differently.... how much do you think the way art is displayed obscures or accentuates meaning?(13 votes)
- Actually, Malevich wrote a lot about his artistic ideas, so we don't need to go far. He wrote that he used colour and form as living entities that express power and energy and develop on their own.
In the system developed by Malevich each form and colour were assigned a specific meaning. White stands for the limitless endless space, it contains the spectrum of all other colours we know - hence it stands for the potential, for the foundation of everything.
A square is a primary form, the rest were seen as derivatives. So, the white square is a symbol of pure action, the big bang theory in the world of art. It is pretty clear from this perspective why suprematists mostly painted on the white background.
So we have a white square on the white background - knowing the philosophy and aesthetic principles of Malevich, you can just sit back at home, imagine the painting and appreciate it without even seeing it once.
Please check out one of the articles I wrote on suprematism here: http://artgallery-guide.com/en/suprematism/(2 votes)
- "That's nice". Not only. It's name is WHITE ON WHITE and it is also a philosophical work of art. It compares our values of PURITY, as both of the squares are considered white but SOMEHOW they look different when put together. So which of them are more "white" or can a impure white be considered white? At which extent a bright color can be considered white? When speaking of digital design, one can pick a color by chossing it with a number, like #FFFFFF (pure white) However, how was this pure white programmed? And when dealing with ink colors, only with a unique glance, how can you define what white is? I found this painting so deep, I can't explain it.(14 votes)
- Kind of in answer to and agreement with the first question, I think "that's nice" would be the response of someone not really thinking deeply about it. It really is just a white square with a white square. You couldn't necessarily prove that wrong. However, I also agree everything you said about the deepness of white when you think about it.
Second question (third and fourth too), I thought of the connection as more of a fixing or patching up. To me, when I first looked at the painting it seemed like something I would do if I messed up a painting, decided to cover it and start again, but couldn't get the tone of the white absolutely correct. Now, I do not know much (basically nothing) about the Russian revolution but, all revolutions are messy. People disagree, problems become more pressing and dire than they usually are, innocents die. I don't know if this painting was even done before or after the revolution, but that thought is what stuck with me when I saw White on White. I could be completely wrong. I thought the "warmer" white could either be over the "colder" white, thus portraying a desire to be healed or fixed in some way OR the "colder" white could be over the "warmer" white, thus showing the difficulty of change, even if that change is good. Just speculation though, I know next to nothing.(3 votes)
- why does the video ask questions then not anwser them, wont that just cause more cunfusion then before you watch the video yea you still learn something but, it still causes more cunfusion.(2 votes)
- It's also to get you to think about a modern as well past artists/philosophers and you'll appreciate it more if you can gain more perspective.(2 votes)
- In White on White I see a blank page on which the history of the new nation would be written. Does anyone know what the later Soviet government thought of the painting? They saw political meaning in art and it became risky to paint anything they wouldn't like. Art always asks a question. Each viewer holds his own answer.(2 votes)
- what was the name of the first painting?(2 votes)
- Mr.Khan has a very good taste for art and children's education.I respect that man for it as well. His kindness shows through his work.All I have to say is, Thank Mr.Khan when you can.Thank him for this website and the help it gives.Because I thank him for it. Thank you Sal Khan for your help in not only child's education but caring about others... others like me.(2 votes)
- Dear Psycho-path,
One of the wonderful things about Khan Academy is the "tips and thanks" column, which is available by clicking the words "tips and thanks" right above the space where you placed this comment. Leaving such a wonderful comment as your own buried among the questions, as it will become, means that Mr. Khan is less likely to see it, and less likely to be able to show it to the many foundations that fund this wonderful service. I suggest that you copy it and re-post it to "tips and thanks".(1 vote)
- I'm actually glad in this video that there is more description of Malevich's world during the Russian revolution. Although to me the painting is awful looking, I understand it more from when they talk about the poverty of the nation and how things were falling apart everywhere.
The Monet painting I could sit and probably look at all day. It's just beautiful seeing how the wind is rushing past the ladies on the cliff with the waves rolling on the sea. It would be a place that I would want to visit; whereas, Malevich kind of shows a place where I would definitely not want to visit from his representation.(2 votes) - Why would he just put the two colors inside of each other in that way? A part of me says it could be because of the in balance between the white community and the government or maybe it was an in balance within his inner self.(2 votes)
- abstract art is trying to escape a rigid system(2 votes)
- 7.17 Malevich created suprematisme to destroy its political unions known in constructivist art. His art seeks to destroy the two or three dimensional view of painting by bringing it to a "fourth" dimension where a painting has no limitations inside a canvas. look up his installation works(2 votes)
Video transcript
SALMAN KHAN: So one theme that
I'm starting to appreciate more is that there's been some pieces
where you just look at it, you just experience. And I think this Monet
is kind of like that. Even if no one knew this
was a great work of art and they just saw it for
the first time in their life and they knew
nothing about Monet, they'd say, well, that's pretty. And that's really
interesting, and it really captures something nice. And then you have
pieces like this, which are clearly abstract. And not that one
can't appreciate it. I think one can. But it feels that the piece
of art by itself there. You're like, OK, that's nice. It's white on white, which
is literally its name. It's a square at an angle,
inside of another square. And I could see how that
might look aesthetically nice above my sofa, or something. But there's not
quite that same-- at least at a superficial
level-- appreciation. Here, you could even
appreciative all the brush strokes, not even
knowing this was Monet. SPEAKER 2: I think
you're absolutely right. I think that now, for us,
in the early 21st century, it is, in some ways, much easier
to get a quick meaning that can feel satisfying, when
we look at the Monet. What's ironic, though,
is that when Monet first painted impressionism,
people didn't feel that way. In fact, this kind of art
broke rules and boundaries, and challenged
people in ways that I think we have a very
hard time understanding. Critics made
terrible fun of this. They called it "unfinished." In fact, the very
word "impressionism" comes from criticism
in a newspaper that was making fun of
Monet and saying, this isn't real painting. This is a mere impression. SPEAKER 3: Something
you dashed off quickly. SALMAN KHAN: Yeah,
I can imagine-- because back then,
a real painting, you'd carefully--
every brush stroke-- you're trying to mimic reality. This, clearly, it looks quicker. SPEAKER 2: But Monet was
trying to do something that he felt was
really important, which was to register on the
canvas not what his mind knew an umbrella, or a woman
on a cliff, looked like. But rather, what light actually
looked like at that moment. And so, we have the
sense of the wind. We have the sense of
the flickering of color, and the way it might
change a second later or a second before. SALMAN KHAN: And what I'm
hearing, is that Monet, he kind of did both. And when we really cite
these great moments in art, or whatever-- he was
able to do something that was a huge transition
and influential of things that came after him. I suspect that he wasn't saying,
I'm going to be avante garde, and I'm going to
break all the rules. He just wanted to
do something that he thought would be compelling. SPEAKER 2: I think
that that's right. SALMAN KHAN: That would
capture a certain emotive state, or a certain way
of perceiving the world SPEAKER 2: And that he
felt was visually true. SALMAN KHAN: And that's why
someone like me, not an expert, connects with it, not even
knowing the historical context. SPEAKER 3: I would argue that we
connect with it because we live in very much the same
culture that Monet lived in-- a middle
class culture. One of leisure,
one where you work. And then when you don't
work, you take a vacation, and you go to a
vacation by the seaside. And you spend time
with your family. I think our world is his world. And so it's an easy painting
for us to relate to. But when we get to
something like the Malevich, we go into a world that's
very different from our world. A world of Russia
during the Revolution. SALMAN KHAN: When I see a
painting like that-- if you all didn't tell me
anything, I'd say this was done in the '50s or '60s. When was this done? SPEAKER 2: So this
is done in 1918, and it was done in Russia
by Kazimir Malevich. And think about
what was happening in Russia at this moment. This was the
Bolshevik Revolution. SALMAN KHAN: And so
these are very close together in time-- 36
years-- which is nothing. It's just a generation. And, I guess, one thing that
pops out at me when I see this--this is 1918. And we've looked at
other modern pieces that, at least on a superficial
level, look similar. They're abstract, they're
not trying to show something in reality, the
painting is itself. It's not trying to show a
scene of people at a cliff, having a nice picnic,
or whatever like that. So one thing, is
when I see this, I kind of start to think
that all these other folks in the '50s and '60s
are a bit derivative. I mean, he did this in 1918. SPEAKER 2: Well, yes. But this had a very
different kind of meaning. Malevich understood this
kind of abstraction-- what he called suprematism--
actually having an important political, almost
spiritual message, actually. Let me see if I can give
you some sense of what he was after-- SALMAN KHAN: Did he make
up that word "suprematism?" SPEAKER 2: He did. SALMAN KHAN: Is that a word
now, in the English language, or the Russian language? SPEAKER 2: It's a word that
refers to an art movement that he led. SALMAN KHAN: Supremacist. SPEAKER 2: Exactly. Malevich was absolutely
for the Russian Revolution. Russia was this deeply corrupt
culture, that had had a tsar. There was the terribly
destabilized society, desperate poverty. And so there was
real need for change. And the idea that Russia could
produce a kind of new Utopia was something that he was
absolutely swept up by. And he tried to create an
art that would express that. In fact, it wouldn't
just express it, but would help make that happen. SPEAKER 3: So I want to go back
to the experience of seeing these two paintings
in the museum. You walk up, you see the Monet. And you get it, and you love it,
and you're right there with it. But you get to the
Malevich, and it's coming from a different world. And you need all
this art history. You need history to get it. SALMAN KHAN: Yeah, that's right. Because if you just go up to
the Malevich at the museum, you'd say, that's nice. After some of our
conversation, I think I'm already
starting to appreciate it more than I would
have in the past. And I would have started
thinking about, oh, well this is abstract. And it's just white. But you're right. You appreciate it much more
when you think about it. And my brain keeps going back
and forth as to-- is this good? Should the art be able
to stand on its own? Which is how I've personally
traditionally viewed art, is like, the art should
stand on its own, and how I react to
it is what matters. And that's kind of
what I'm taught, too, even when I go to the PMA, just
what you think, that's right, versus all the context. And it is true, all
the context does make it far more
interesting, and gives a lot more texture and understanding
to what the piece is. But then I feel like, well, the
piece itself isn't necessarily the focal point. SPEAKER 2: Well I think
we, maybe too much, want the artist to be a hero. We want the artist to have
succeeded in some way. But maybe the artist
is, to a large extent, an accumulation of a culture
at a particular moment, and giving voice and
vision to that culture. SALMAN KHAN: It's
actually a fascinating way of thinking about it. Because any student
of history, you might look at a newspaper
clipping from 1918. Or you might read a book. And you actually
capture a little bit of how people are
thinking at that time, or what their fears
or their hopes are. What I'm, I think,
appreciating more, is that a piece of art like
this actually gives you a core subjective
feeling of how-- at least what some of the people
in the artistic community were feeling. SPEAKER 2: It gets
worse, though. SALMAN KHAN: It gets worse. SPEAKER 2: It does get worse. Take a look at this. You see, he called
it White on White, but in fact, it's this cool
internal square and this warmer white square outside it. And notice that he has not
aligned those squares, right, so the smaller square-- SALMAN KHAN: It's like titanium
on off-white, or something. SPEAKER 2: Exactly. And so he tipped that
inner square a bit. And that's not arbitrary. He spent a lot of time
thinking about that. And there's a reason for this. At first, when we
look at this canvas, it couldn't be more flat. It couldn't be more
two-dimensional, could it? You have a square
against a square. What could be less volumetric? But then, those are
two different whites. And maybe we're actually
seeing that darker, cooler white as deeper in space. Or maybe it's in front
of that warmer white. And so, all of a sudden
now, we have a kind of three-dimensional
relationship. SALMAN KHAN: How much
is that reading into it? SPEAKER 2: Well, he
actually wrote about this. He wrote a good deal about it. And he taught. He was really interested
in art as a way to actually push
society forward. That is, art itself had agency. It could have political power. SALMAN KHAN: So
this is interesting, because-- and I'm appreciating
this more-- once again, if we saw this work in 1918 in
someone's grandpa's garage, and you asked the
grandpa, what is this? And he's like, well I
had some titanium paint, and I had some
off-white paint, and I felt like painting a square
inside of another square-- not so interesting. But all of a sudden,
when you have someone who, to some degree, has
a voice in their time, and is able to articulate this--
it's interesting not because of its technical sophistication
or anything like that, but because society
at that point in time thought it was important--
gave him a voice. He was trying to voice what
he thought was important. That's why it transcends
just its aesthetic or its technical-- SPEAKER 2: I think it does. Although I think he
would be disappointed if he heard you say that. Because, interestingly,
I think he wanted it to stand up by itself. Here was the Russian Revolution. He wanted to separate himself
from bourgeois culture of the 19th century. He did not want to do
what Monet was doing, because that was a culture
of privilege and of wealth. Instead, he wanted to
create a kind of art that was so essential, that had
born down to its pure roots. So that anybody, no matter
how little education they had, could actually understand
it and could be moved by it. We might say he failed. But, nevertheless, that was
very much part of his intent. SALMAN KHAN: But I
guess one question I ask, just about
the Picasso, as well, and even the Malevich--
he lived in a time that was fairly modern. And it sounds like his
intentions were really get to this purity and not
this overly intellectual-- I guess he was trying
to raise people up. But why'd he choose this medium? I mean, why didn't he do it
as a big titanium sculpture? Or why didn't he put
radio waves in it somehow? Why didn't he do
something else with it? SPEAKER 2: Well certain artists
that were at that moment actually tried to do that. And you might think of people
like Tatlin, constructivists. Now, Malevich really
did stick with painting. But this was a period in
Russia which was quite poor, and they didn't have the money
to actually pull this off. They could create models, but
there was a terrible civil war in Russia right
after the Revolution, right after the first
World War, and the country was deeply impoverished. So I get the sense
that some artists would have done that
if they could have. SPEAKER 3: Malevich. definitely would have. He was interested in technology. SPEAKER 2: Deeply
interested, absolutely. He was in love
with the airplane. He was in love with the
idea of movement, of speed, of that new technology. And he was trying
to find a language that he felt was as Utopian
and as pure as the world that he was hoping to create.