2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

I found interesting the section of Kandinsky's essay in which he describes the relationship between an art and its time: either an art "submits to its time," "stands in opposition to its time," or "transgresses the boundaries" of its time. Kandinsky says, "Abstract art is freeing itself from the pressure of the day, wherefore it belongs under the third principle." However, I would argue that perhaps it is never the time which confines or "would like to confine" an art, but only the artist that confines himself or herself. In other words, it is not the "time" that determines the art, but the artists within a time that determine the art.

Even today I think it's true that, as Kandinsky says, "the present day human being is...no longer satisfied with the external alone" and is growing more and more fascinated by the "inner life behind the external appearance of things." However, this does not mean that we should disregard the "external" altogether. If one only pays attention to one's "inner life," one blocks out the living, breathing, beautiful world, and blocks out other people.

For the sake of argument: while I appreciate Kandinsky's desire to explore new possibilities in art, is "painting for painting's sake" really so desirable? Why would it be desirable? In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche says, "The struggle against purpose in art is always a struggle against the moralizing tendency in art, against the subordination of art to morality...."Art for art's sake" means 'the devil take morality!'... Is (an artist's) basic instinct directed towards art, or is it not rather directed towards the meaning of art, which is life? ...Art is the great stimulus to life: how could it be thought purposeless, aimless, art for art's sake?" Is art's main purpose to comment on art, or is its main purpose to talk about the human condition, the human soul, and life? Issues such as death, war, famine, tyranny, slavery, suffering, crime, the beauty of nature, politics, family, and human love -- in fact, every issue relevant to humanity -- are ignored when one paints for painting's sake. And in my opinion, this ignoring of important human issues should not be ignored.

I found Kandinksy’s statement that there “exists the possibility of entering art’s message, to participate actively, and to experience its pulsating life with all ones senses� to be very relatable. I find that often times a viewer realizes solely the external, what Kandinsky first describes as “an abolishment of direct contact from within.� When I fall into this, I lose enjoyment or interest in what I am viewing. The artwork no longer seems worthwhile of my time. That is not to say I don't appreciate the external, but the real reward occurs when I can engage in the work both internally and externally.

The article suggests that a non-objective painting has the ability to “elevate the viewer to a harmony containing order, which proves satisfying to the soul’s need of perfect peace.� I would not disagree with the fact that this elevation could occur, but I do not think the occurrence should not be limited to non-objective paintings. I believe it could happen just as successfully with a well composed, aesthetically refined objective work.

In his discussion of the point, I really enjoyed Kandinsky’s examples of the movement of a point in written language. His description of the point's emphasis or de-emphasis on the print as its “sound" created a very poetic experience. I supposed my biggest questions would be based on how the point is relevant in today’s digital world. A computer screen is made up of thousands of pixels. Does one pixel then become a point? He describes a point as a result of the initial collision of a tool with a material plane. I’m not sure if he would consider the computer to be a material plane. If a point cannot exist in the digital realm, can it become materialized once an image is printed onto a tangible piece of paper? Perhaps the point never has to be a material and it can simply exist as a concept.

In his discovery of the spiritual nature of painting, Kandinsky was deliberately scientific in his approach to the breakdown of the elements that cause this transcendence. His investigations and elaborations "proceed in a meticulously exact and pedantically precise manner." And yet, his science is also poetic, and from this derives most of its strength and meaning. I often think of science and spirituality as being fundamentally in conflict, and that spirituality is defined by the mystery that is inherent in phenomena that cannot be explained by science. Therefore, I enjoy his inclusion of "intuition and calculation: the 'practical' science." He seems to acknowledge the inevitability of both curiosity and creativity in his researches.

Most intriguing to me, as it was to Robin, is his relation of visual elements to sound. If a point, and the space surrounding it, can indicate silence, then the larger the point and the bigger the space around it, the louder the silence. In what manner could one expound on this concept in relation to color? For me, it is more relatable to think of this in reverse, to convert sounds into visual elements. Audible volume could be communicated through a build-up of material and texture.

I find some conflict, though, with his idea that "interior necessity" is the only thing that can inspire true art. I can relate to his description of being entirely consumed and receptive to the experience of life, and I enjoy the poetry of "lifeless signs" turn into "living symbols." But is not everyday life just as poetic? Must it be visually converted or simplified in order to be appreciated? Ironically, I find Kandinsky's earlier, more representational work to be quite beautiful, while I only truly appreciate the more organically composed of his abstract works.

Much like the other posts, I found it fascinating how Kandinsky thought of himself as researcher and how art could be considered a science. This idea is more evident when looking at the history of painting since then. Most major abstract painters that followed, whether conscious of it or not, contributed to the research in that field. They continued the conversation where their predecessors left off. The same could be said for the totality of creative endeavors.

I appreciate Kandinsky's interpretation of the point. His ability to relate it to both language and music is quite fascinating. In particular I found the last exercise interesting. The simple act of moving the period changes the emphasis and read of the sentence. When separating and enlarging the period from the sentence, it becomes the destination. In the traditional form of a sentence the period is the end point of a thought. In the latter, it takes on more meaning and speaks of the actual place.

I can't help but think that these two essays have been paired for a reason. Brecht's essay questions the nature and importance of truth and Kandinsky's essay explores what he believes to be true within his own time period and belief system. Though I find many of Kandisnky's ideas interesting and useful, unlike science, it isn't possible to prove his ideas as truth. He is however true to his own way of thinking and he stands up for his convictions. In the end this all we can do as artists and citizens. There are many different sorts of truths and they all depend on they're context.

It think what Kandisnky sets out to do is a worthwhile endeavor. As I understand it, he is attempting to make a scientific study of the elements of non-objective art, to lay out the basic elements and see what their intrinsic qualities are and how they relate to one another. I often wonder about how one evaluates art without putting weight only on personal preference. When I get the chance to teach a class, how will I grade work, how can I make it fair? It seems criticism of art can’t be completely arbitrary, only relying on personal preference, particularly since there are some work and artists that most agree are “good�. What makes them good, and others not noteworthy? Some sort of insight or explanation of how elements of art work could help bring answers.

I do think that Kandisky’s findings are very specific to his own views and feelings -- he seems to be only framing his research as a scientific exercise, while his stated findings are quite specific to him. It’s more that he is setting up a framework for other artists to follow for conducting their own research into their basic elements of art. I appreciate his ideas about how a point feels and sounds, how it affects the viewer, and that could be a starting point for someone else to begin their own research into their aesthetic elements.

Speaking of art criticism, I found the tone of Hilla Rebay’s preface to be a bit harsh. I know nothing about her, but she seems quite sure in her assessment of objective painters and some abstract painters (so… anyone who doesn’t paint like Kandinsky?) as basically worthless. She says of “most so-called abstract painters,� their “decorations are as far removed from being art as the organ-grinder is from musicianship.� And she says that representative painters are still “shackled by the caveman’s out-dated urge for reproduction.� I guess I can’t agree with her, as someone working in medium took the place of painting’s reproductive purpose.

In all honesty, I have many problems with Kandinsky’s writing, and am glad his closed-minded views are part and product of the previous century and not this one. I realize that it is human nature to look for systems in our complex multi-faceted world in order to understand it and find our place. But I found Kandinsky’s either/or mentality disturbing, especially his use of false dichotomies. Kandinsky would have us believe there are only two ways of experiencing phenomena, internally or externally. He then goes on to research phenomena only in isolation and combination. And then only explores “graphic� basic elements either abstractly or on the material plane. Are there only two perspective of looking at things? To reduce all situations to only two perspectives is an incredibly simple way to look at things. But in today’s world, I hope that we value and recognize views from many perspectives. Especially when are leaders say such ignorant sayings as “You’re either with us, or against us�.
I also disagreed with Kandinsky’s exaltation of the uniqueness of painting, after only comparing it to architecture and music. Cannot the other disciplines and genres of art not lead to the advancement of human expression and creativity just as much as painting? And what about his description of music as abstract, and without practical use? It is my experience that music is structured, with mathematical repetition and pattern. Complexities even I can appreciate, despite not being a musician. And to say music serves no practical use besides march and dance is especially arrogant, neglecting music’s role of communicating individuality and culture. Music comes out of prehistory; it is entwined with the oral traditions that preserved ancient stories and belief systems into the age of the written word.
And speaking of the written word I feel that Kandinsky has confusingly linked the concept of a geometric point with the symbolism and mechanics of language. He speaks of a point as a concept of zero, in the sense of a reference to physical location, but then links it to speech and punctuation. The symbol of a period as a point is just coincidental; its meaning only exists in our heads collectively in reference to our system of writing and communication. I can’t but help think that if we argued Kandinsky’s message in another language system with different punctuation symbols, his argument would loose it’s meaning and would not make sense. A physical point in space/time is not the same as a period.

I had the same thought at Bart initially, concerning the point as a period, a pause, in our own written language. So it couldn't be cross-cultural response that Kandinsky describes. But I do think his description of a dot as the "highest degree of restraint which, nevertheless, speaks" still holds up without considering written language. I'm thinking of a point in mathematics or physics, which exists, but takes up no space. Also, visually a dot doesn't have directionality-- it doesn't point you to look one way, so you pause at it. But I think it is a bit problematic that Kandinsky uses our language for his argument.

After reading Kandinsky’s approach to art as a science I concluded that Kandinsky was a man in search of his intuition and elated when he found it. This seems like a simple step in the evolution of any artist, so his words as teacher seem righteous and elevating of Abstract art over object art and I disagree. I don’t connect with most abstract art, but finding my own relations to objects as symbols is much more interesting of a process for me as a viewer. I like what he said about the non-object art and freeing the human soul from materialistic contemplation and brings joy through the perfection of esthetic enlightenment. But this can happen with any art work depending on the viewers preparedness and openness.

Kandinsky remarked about analysis, that it would be dangerous to dissect art since such dissection would inevitably lead to art’s abolition but this is not the case. Over analysis has not destroyed art but changed and segregated it’s viewers over the years. He then goes on to dissect the different elements and confusing as it may be there is beauty in the thought that a point is silence and potential at the same time.

I wanted not see what Kandinsky was saying, maybe because of the analytical approach to something that I can say in a sentence. Point is the start of potential. I then had conversations with fellow grads and asked their views, which were all different and some really respected Kandinsky, which made my vision wider to accept his words as art history that changed the views of the art world.

I found this topic very intriguing. Many times I have thought about characteristics of a point and vaguely realized and was fascinated by the potential of its use in a method of visual expression.
As Kandinsky described in the beginning, “The geometric point is ... Considered in terms of substance, it equals zero.� I also think “zero� is a relevant comparison to describe the characteristic of a point. Kandinsky also described a point as a “complex and sharply-defined unit�, but my interpretation of a point is some what contrary. I describe a point as a “simplest and undefined unit�. It must be an undefined unit because as soon as it is defined, it is no longer a point. Take Kandinsky's examples when he described how different shapes can become a point. Either circle, square or any other shape, as soon as what's consisting these points were revealed, they become shapes with a surface area or a mass. And once we lose the sense of the mass and see these shapes at the simplest unit, they become points once again. Another example would be, if you see a dot on a blank piece of paper, that dot is a point. But as soon as you examine it and realize that it was a tiny bug, it is no longer a point but is a tiny bug instead. I almost get a sense of Buddhism “nothingness� when I think about a point. Once it is realized, it is not there any more.
So speaking of a physical world, a point cannot really exist in a space, as Kandinsky described. Visualization of a point is only possible within a delicate balance between “nothing� and “something�. That is almost mystical to even think about. Points... such a mystery .

Full disclosure:
I'm a wholehearted supporter of beauty and its pursuit. I also hate looking at Kandinsky's paintings. That being said, it's interesting enough to read his writings about formal experimentation, and his move away from representational painting was certainly a significant force in the development of Western art-making practice. However, I must mention my distaste for his work because Hilla Rebay's reverent preface claims that Kandinsky's work is a "realization of the universal law" of nature, and that he makes his work with "scientific precision." She portrays Kandinsky as a sort of mystical scholar whose tireless research has uncovered a strategy for making non-objective paintings into works of objective beauty. It's a patently absurd claim. Whether or not art is representational, whether or not it is inspired by the unquestionable (to me) beauty of nature, whether or not it is motivated by the maker's genuine spiritual impulse, its beauty will be a subjective matter.

I see an interesting discrepancy between the way that Rebay envisions Kandinsky's practice, and the way that he himself talks about it. According to Rebay, the highest achievement of a work of art is to fully liberate itself from "the caveman's urge for reproduction" and refers to any representation as a "pretense of make believe." It seems that her contempt for representational art grows out of its connectedness to the physical world and physical bodies, while she sees non-objective work as a sort of spiritual totem object which liberates both artist and viewer from the troublesome constraints of body, environment, context, and meaning. Such an escapist movement in European thought must have been at least partially influenced by the horrors of World War I. However, I find it extremely distasteful to think of an art object as 'a thing itself,' existing independently from cultural context. However, it seems that Kandinsky's emphasis on the experiential aspect of non-objective painting exposes another possible explanation. Bart is absolutely right that Kandinsky oversimplifies his worldview into dichotomies (ugh), but I find it reassuring that Kandinsky begins his discussion of non-objective painting by describing the experience of walking onto the street. He is reaffirming that which Rebay seeks to escape – the immediacy and agency of a human body interacting with an environment. In this sense, he suggests the importance of experience and process in art-making.

I agree with Jonathon that the preface to Kandinsky's essay, while apparently well-written and poetic, seemed highly subjective in various parts, and at times I felt like I was being manipulated by various passages. For example: "Kandinsky was not only a painter...but a prophet of almost religious significance." Or: "with his God-given freedom...(Kandinsky) invented the first painting for painting's sake." Also: "a flower...like all God-given creations, (is) equally beyond understanding..." What is "God"? Why does "God" need to be mentioned in this preface?

Further, I have to say that the phrase "painting for painting's sake" is ambiguous. I think one could argue that perhaps ANY painting done with love and thought, and perhaps any painting at all, and not just Kandinsky-like painting, could also be considered "painting for painting's sake." And I think that one could argue that any number of painters before Kandinsky painted "for painting's sake" -- that is, they painted to further the phenomenon of painting and because they loved their craft. The phrase "painting for painting's sake" seems like a verbal trick to me, since perhaps all painting is done "for painting's sake." Perhaps "painting for painting's sake" means nothing more than "painting without human subject matter."

6GT2Xv

3Q78M5