An important characteristic of Kandinsky’s methodology of abstraction is that a process
of selection from a universal dictionary of graphic elements provides the vocabulary for
composition. Kandinsky did not incorporate naturalistic elements into his work with the
logic of their reality. His pictures were built up like a jigsaw, each piece having a correct
fit when it ‘looked right’, or ‘appeared interesting’ (Figs 12- 17.
Fig 12 Kandinsky. Linear structure of the picture ‘Little Dream in Red’ (1925)
Fig 13 Little Dream in Red’
Fig 14 Kandinsky. Russian Costumes (1902)
Fig 15 Kandinsky. Riegsee Village Church (1908)
Fig 16 Kandinsky. Improvisation 7 (1910)
Fig 17 Improvisation 28 (2
nd version, 1912)
It is left to the observer to decipher his lines squares and circles, to crystallise a personal
mental state. In his later paintings, homemade animalicules from the microsopic world
of biologists appear, often cased as if they are specimens in a museum. If possible,
scientists make painterly decisions when choosing a particular field of a microsope to
support a scientific model. However, the real world of aquatic biology, which spawned
Kandinsky’s animal-like forms, is closed to most people, and it is not necessary for a
response. At this point in his life we are probably seeing a process of evolution from
motifs of a medieval world of thick embroidery and jewels that dominated the fine
structure of his first paintings.
He also invited the adoption of real materials as aesthetic elements, and said that
painters should paint with everything. Collage was invented by Picasso and Braque to
provide elements of texture and graphics to enhance the messages of the paintbrush.
According to Kandinsky, collage alone can make an image, and reality then becomes
painting.
In his systematic approach to composition, Kandinsky was the first to paint for ‘art’s
sake’, and try to create a language that incorporated scientific certainty into the
production of paintings. He approached this task with sincerity but his words remain
obscure. His texts are not easy reading; vagueness of terminology and a tendency
toward mystification stemming from his absorption of Rudolph Steiner’s idiosyncratic
ideas, are indications that he was not always sure of what he wanted to say. His own
pictures have not produced a school of teaching but his precepts have been widely
adopted. In particular, his influence can be seen in the contrasting works of Hans Arp
and Georgia O’Keeffe, who were Kandinsky’s contemporaries.
We are primates who have evolved great visual acuity, which is expressed in powerful
pattern-finding abilities. For better or worse, we have to remain satisfied when things
‘look right’. In this sense we recognise our own personal synthetic totality. It remains
questionable whether this innate potential can be trained. It is this condition of ‘looking
right’ that requires research by investigating the responses of people to a range of
compositions. Kandinsky was aware of this, although he only made one attempt to carry
out attitudinal surveys. This was his idea for a questionnaire, which asked teachers and
students to look at the combining of forms (triangle, square, circle) and primary colours
(yellow, red, blue). This might have revolutionised art education, but his scientific
curriculum was too personal to be widely adopted. Also, Kandinsky’s repertoire of basic
forms essentially came from his interest in landscape graphics. In this respect, his
compositions are mostly without depth and their reading depends upon following a map
of spaces and interacting lines rather than the merging of closely positioned shapes to
make a holistic impact. It may be that the gaps are too large for the brain to make an
interesting gestalt.
