by Tom Gurney
Tom Gurney BSc (Hons) is an art history expert with over 20 years experience
Published on June 19, 2020 / Updated on September 29, 2026
Email: tomgurney1@gmail.com / Phone: +44 7429 011000
About the painting
A dense web of small gray and ochre planes covers this 1913 painting. The Guggenheim identifies the underlying source as a tree: Mondrian broke its form into interlocking black lines and flat coloured pieces. It is RKD B35, Guggenheim 49.1228, a different work from the 1914 MoMA Composition no. V despite their similar numbered titles.[1]
At a glance
- ArtistPiet Mondrian (1872–1944)
- TitleTableau no. 2 / Composition no. VII
- Catalogue numberRKD B35
- Date1913
- MediumOil on canvas
- Dimensions104.4 × 113.6 cm
- CollectionSolomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York
- Object number49.1228
Mondrian across periods
Contents
- Can a tree still be seen?
- Breaking from Cubism
- Why the number is confusing
- An object transformed rather than copied
- Colour, scale and pace
- How to compare the numbered pictures
- A close-looking sequence
Can a tree still be seen?
The Guggenheim's teaching guide states that a tree study lies behind this composition. Upright and crosswise dark marks may recall trunks and branches, but none resolves into a complete tree silhouette. Their density is greatest around the centre, while the network loosens toward the edges. The ochre and gray planes are close in value, keeping the eye on the relations among marks rather than a dramatic colour contrast.[1]
 The Red Tree Piet Mondrian.jpg)
That source matters because the picture is often introduced as pure geometric abstraction. Mondrian was moving away from an identifiable motif, but the tree gave him a structure to transform. Compare The Tree A from the same year: each retains a different trace of trunk and branching. Neither should be described as one of the later primary-colour grid paintings.
Breaking from Cubism
The Guggenheim compares these muted tones with contemporary Cubist canvases. Mondrian pushed the reduction further by avoiding modeled volume and letting the scaffolding fade at the margins. Instead of using facets to build a solid object, the planes share the same shallow surface. The painting therefore describes a stage of enquiry, not a final formula.[1]
Why the number is confusing
The title includes both “no. 2” and “no. VII”. Those are historical title elements, not an instruction to combine it with the 1914 MoMA B45 painting or the 1922 Guggenheim B146 Tableau 2. Collection, date, size and RKD number provide the reliable way to separate the three.[1][2]
Watch: Piet Mondrian
See his studio, the move toward geometric abstraction and the rhythms of his New York paintings.
Piet Mondrian: Abstract Painting as We Know It
Curator Michael White explores the paintings and Mondrian’s studio as an abstract space.
Watch on YouTubeAn object transformed rather than copied
The Guggenheim's educator account gives unusually clear evidence for the starting point: Mondrian dismantled a tree into black lines and interlocking coloured planes. This is more precise than calling the image a generic grid. The upright marks can be read in relation to a trunk; crossing and branching marks can be read in relation to limbs. Yet the line segments no longer enclose a recognisable canopy. The painting asks what structural relationships can survive after a motif is no longer illustrated.[1]
The distribution of those marks is part of the answer. The network is more concentrated near the middle and appears to dissolve towards the outer edges. Guggenheim contrasts this with Cubist compositions anchored along the bottom, which often retain a sense of a weighty object. In B35 there is little modelling to bring any plane forward as a solid volume. The viewer can move through the network without arriving at a single foreground tree against a background landscape.[1]
Colour, scale and pace
Gray and ochre are close enough in intensity that neither dominates the canvas. Their restraint shifts attention to intervals: how far one black mark sits from the next, where a small plane closes a gap, and where a line gives way to a pale area. The painting is also substantial in size, 104.4 by 113.6 centimetres. At that scale, the small elements demand both a distant reading of the overall scaffold and a closer reading of its parts. A thumbnail can make the work look uniformly busy; its dimensions suggest a slower encounter.[1]
The limited palette belongs to its 1913 investigation, not to the later formula of red, yellow and blue blocks. Mondrian had encountered Cubism in the Netherlands and developed an independent response in Paris. The Guggenheim guide places this painting after his move there and notes that he pushed beyond Cubist suggestions of volume. It is therefore better understood as a specific experiment with a tree source and a shallow pictorial field than as an immature version of a later grid.[1]
How to compare the numbered pictures
Three titles in this cluster can look interchangeable in a search result. B35 is a 1913, nearly square Guggenheim painting, number 49.1228, with a tree-derived scaffold. B45 is MoMA's wider 1914 Tableau no. 2 / Composition no. V, with a possible Paris facade source. B146 is the sparse 1922 Guggenheim Tableau 2. Checking the catalogue number, collection and dimensions before comparing interpretations prevents a tree claim or a 1922 date from being attached to the wrong reproduction.[1][2]
A close-looking sequence
One way into B35 is to begin with a dark vertical near the centre, follow the nearest crossing, and then watch how the next mark fails to complete an expected branch. Continue towards an edge, where the scaffold becomes thinner. This exercise makes the Guggenheim's account of dissolution at the margins visible. It also shows why “tree-derived” is a more careful description than “picture of a tree”: the work retains a logic of growth without restoring an ordinary silhouette.[1]
The near equality of gray and ochre intensities makes this a study in distribution as much as a study in subject. A brighter contrast could have created a dominant figure; Mondrian instead lets the network carry attention through many junctions. The painting asks to be experienced as a whole field, though its documented starting point remains a natural object.
Mondrian artworks directory
Frequently asked questions
Where is the painting?
In the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum collection, object 49.1228.[1]
What was the starting motif?
The Guggenheim identifies a tree study behind the abstract network.[1]
Is it the same as Tableau 2 from 1922?
No. The 1922 Tableau 2 is RKD B146, a different painting.[1]
Discussion
Where could a trunk still be sensed?
Reader Insights
How does the network fade at the sides?
How is it unlike the 1914 Composition no. V?
How is it unlike the 1914 Composition no. V?
Join the Conversation
Share what you notice in this painting below.
References
- Guggenheim Bilbao, Official educator guide for Guggenheim object 49.1228. View source.
- RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History, Paris 1912–14 catalogue, B35. View source.
- Lead image credit. Piet Mondrian, Tableau no. 2 / Composition no. VII, 1913, oil on canvas, 104.4 × 113.6 cm, Guggenheim 49.1228, RKD B35.
