Figurative versus Abstract
Actually, all my paintings are abstract. Even when recognizable forms appear in them, it remains a composition of lines, colors, light, and texture.
The difference between 'figurative' and 'abstract' lies mainly in how easily the viewer recognizes something. For many people, purely abstract work can sometimes be difficult to approach. That's why, in my newer series, I started playing with recognizable elements — people, animals, spaces — within an abstract world.
These figurative additions act as an invitation: they give the viewer an entry point, after which the abstract composition can draw you further in. This creates an exciting balance between recognition and wonder.
Geometric Spaces
A few years ago, the Geometric Spaces series was born. In it, I combine the strict abstraction of Mondrian with spatial illusions. Two iconic works by Mondrian served as a starting point, but I let the forms evolve into a dynamic, three-dimensional world with pyramids, spheres, and cubes.
For the exhibition Spinoza and the Art of Happiness in the Haagse Kunstkring, I created nine small paintings that, together with six diamond shapes, formed one large installation.
New Development 2026
Recently, I revisited six works from this series and developed them further in two different directions.
- Geometric Spaces (purely abstract) Here, I seek more clarity, movement, and abstract tension within the geometric forms.
- Geometric Bridge (with figurative elements) In this variant, I add recognizable elements, such as people and animals. Mondrian's strict abstraction remains recognizable, but now becomes an inhabited, spatial environment.
It is fascinating to see how these two directions exist side-by-side: one purely in form and rhythm, the other with a narrative and human layer.
I am curious to see how others experience this. Do you have any comments, questions, or recognition? I'd love to read them.