To V. Kandinsky. About the spiritual in art. (185 in)
In the beginning, several sayings of Vasily Kandinsky from his well-known booklet “On Spiritual in Art”: “We are now experiencing the moment of the evolution of art, when it, subject to more clearly expressed expediency, with special force shows two Kind of creativity: abstract and real. The first of them over time will be free to operate forms exclusively artistic, devoid of prisms of objectivity.
The second will not, like ended expressionist impressionism, indifferent and accidentally choose the object so that live threads to draw to it the purely artistic value of the work, but will be guided in the selection of the subject of his Internal sound for direct use with artistic techniques.
So, the subject can be part of the picture only as a significant component of it, and the use of the internal sound of this subject is a prerequisite. ”
The absence of antagonistic opposition to the depicted object and the “sign” in the theoretical reflections of Kandinsky subtly felt and accurately expressed n. P. Underground: “The idea of the possibility and full equal value of the ways in painting unusually Important to understanding Kandinsky. His theory, developed in the writings “about spiritual in art” and “to the problem of form”, is not the theory of exclusivity of abstract art, but the theory of two ways – “pure abstraction” and “pure realism”. It is absolutely not important, considers Kandinsky, what forms-abstract or real-are used by the artist: if they are born “internal necessity”, it is living forms. “The chair lives, the line lives-it has in the end the same meaning” (the expression of V. Kandinsky). (88 in)
But why these, marked Kandinsky in painting two different aspects can not connect in the visual plane. These aspects, of course, are oriented to the differing content of the meaning and significance of
In the image. But these aspects exist in a single “conditional” visual field of the phenomenon of painting. And in an aesthetically unified space everything is equal. The spirit dwells where it wants. and the painter, guided by the principle of “inner necessity” proclaimed by Kandinsky, has the right in the image to agree on seemingly “antagonistic” visual systems. And in this case it is not necessary to evaluate works of painting, applying a category of eclecticism.
and himself v. Kandinsky then comes to the possibility of a certain expediency of combining above the marked two fine systems. His new idea is worded brightly: “Our time is the time of the great differentiation of the real from the abstract and blossoming of this latter. But when the realized and new methods and hidden now from us the point of view enriched by new “realism” will give the color and the fruits, then, perhaps, the chord (abstract – real), which will be the new celestial revelation, may sound. But it will then clean the two-way in
The opposite of unclean mixing of both forms, which is observed now in his dying. ”
Detailed browsing of possibilities of aesthetic connection in the visual plane of visuals, professing each their plastic, color logic of their life and in their denoting objectivity, as well as signs expressing Other logic of the designation of the world, requires special reflection. On the basis of images of the appeared pictures, it is quite possible, in the near future will arise and I have a text with a detailed consideration of the new visual
Here it is necessary to refer again to Kandinsky’s thoughts: “There is never a theory in art ahead and it never pulls the practice, but just the opposite.” Therefore, the visual passages of the connection, the artistic alignment of what is said above, in other words, the emergence of a new visual, would only tell specifically creativity. But it is possible figuratively, fantastically to present a mentally example one. In the fine art of Kandinsky type “in Grey”, 1919, 129 х 175, or “Passing Line”, 1923, 115 х 200, to introduce the image of subject forms. Absurd? My mental intuition of the painter dictates that no! There is a new, I would say, ontological by value, fine organic. This style of connection has already arisen in the radiation of Mikhail Larionov, in the visual of Paul Klee.
The fact observed in modern visual art, which has received the definition of postmodernism, the connection, the combination of various visual texts does not lead to that new art (new visual) about which Kandinsky spoke. The connection in one visual plane of different images, the appearance of which was dictated by fundamentally different visual metrics, do not create a new aesthetic structure. Postmodern plays the differences of fine systems. Combining the images, the painter of postmodernism emphasizes the nature of the differences of visual appearance and transformation of the existing fine methods, their logic, will interfere with the methodology of postmodernism. This art is directed to Supervyrazitelnosti, not to expression of harmonic unity of diversity.
It is appropriate here to recollect the deep meaning of Vladimir Solovyev’s saying: “It is not about unity, but in accord with unity”. Aesthetic categories of expressiveness and harmony are in a complex relationship between each other. Therefore, the conflict leading to the destruction of one of the interacting elements, in other words, the disappearance of aesthetic quality, leads to the disappearance of the work and the phenomenon of art, with the presence of all the singularity and handicraft Perfection of the artifact. The artifact itself is only a virtual and handmade product. The information and emotional experience obtained from an unusual or social provocation will not replace even the simple admiration of the beauty directing a person to the meaning of the transcendent. The attempt to say here briefly about it arose, as yet another mention that Vasily Kandinsky considered painting steps of understanding and expression by the person of the special spirituality. A more concrete reflections on the special direction of painting, its claim to the knowledge of the world by its unusual figurative language, in subsequent fragments of the text.