Art is not made for anybody and is, at the same time, for everybody.

Why should art continue to follow nature when every other field has left nature behind?

What is natural does not have to be a representation of something. I'm now working on a thing that is a reconstruction of a starry sky, and yet I'm making it without a given from nature. Someone who says he uses a theme from nature can be right, but also someone who says he uses nothing at all.

Art on the contrary sought this harmony in practice [of art itself]. More and more in its creations it has given inwardness to that what surrounds us in nature, until, in Neo-Plasticism, nature is no longer dominant. This achievement of balance may prepare the way for the fulfillment of man and signal the end of (what we call) art.

All painting - the painting of the past as well as of the present - shows us that its essential plastic means were only line and color.

Every true artist has been inspired more by the beauty of lines and color and the relationships between them than by the concrete subject of the picture.

The more basic the color, the more inward, the more pure.