This is a Googled MS paint redux of Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow by Piet Mondrian (1930).


However this is the real Composition II. Multiple web sources actually attribute the first image as Piet's original; is this done ignorantly or apathetically?

The differences between the digital redux and Mondrian's original are not subtle. The first hightens contrast and colors; the rectangles are more pleasing (more "golden" — following the golden ratio). The fat, outlining border does not exist in the original and the internal lines in both are are only uniform in the redux. There is a mistake inhereant in taking for granted the differences as meaningless for the sake of retaining the perceived whole.

Mondrian did not accidentally paint the brightness, slightly off-ratio rectangles, slightly incongrous lines of Composition II. Perhaps many people internalize Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow as defined by contrast, exacted uniformed linearity and most pleasing composition, but why so?
 
As I see it that's really not what Composition II is nor what Mondrian was aiming for. The goal was not a manually created clean, contrasted, uniform and "golden" composition. If he meant to he would have — and he didn't! The goal was a composition nearly there but not. It is amusing that someone "corrected" his perceived mistakes in creating the redux. I wonder if Mondrian would take offense? Why do I?

At somepoint the inspiration of Mondrian's work realized in other forms transcends the original and becomes valid by itself. It is interesting that the conceptualization of a thing can be very different than its actual existence.