Concerning the Spiritual in Art

Author: Wassily Kandinsky
Title: Concerning the Spiritual in Art
Publisher: Dover Publications
Released: 1977

I bought this book as a birthday present for my best friend, but I soon got a copy for myself because I realised that this book would help me in my search to better understand true art. I am creating a musical project that has its roots in the things this book talks about, and in attempting to do as much background research as possible, I unwittingly came across this masterpiece; a piece of work that beautifully (and somewhat frustratingly on a superficial level) put into words exactly that which I was thinking about and planning for my project.

"These statements have no scientific basis, but are founded purely on spiritual experience"

How often today will you hear someone saying something like that? Moreover, how often today can someone say a thing like that, and then go on to completely back it up? We don't value spirituality much in the West, especially not here in England. But this book will either force you to open up to the facts of the unknown and unseen, or it will force you to deny the truth. Either way, it does convince. Writing at a time when Claude Debussy was considered one of the 'modern musicians' and long before technology changed so much of our lives, Wassily Kandinsky still had something very modern to say. It remains modern. This work was clearly, in my eyes at least, meant to be written. Why? Because it all makes sense even now, even considering how much the world has changed. The outer changes that may happen are, of course, not that important to Kandinsky. He knows better, and just as his writing convinces us with it's eternal truth, so do his attempts to convince us that art can be- and indeed has been- just as timeless. He who knows his history, and knows his present, is in a much better position to talk about the future and 'the way things are'. Bottom line- this guy knows what's happening.

A piece of chalk is actually a man on a horse.

Subtlety, the suggestive element, words not explicitly mentioned in the book, but certainly touched upon when Kandinsky talks of the example of using simple pieces of chalk to represent chess pieces, with only a slight mark here or there differentiating between a pawn and a knight for example. Why is this important? Because such small differences and such seemingly insignificant or simple objects weaken the importance of 'absolute representation' in art, and encourage a more abstract approach. Is abstract necessarily better? No, that's not what he's saying, but I believe he is saying that with the representational approach (i.e. an artist sits in front of a tree, and draws a perfect replica of that tree) there often seems to be much more risk of a piece of art losing any personality, as if the artist were just copying what was in front of him- after all, art should be about the artist expressing that which is in his soul, as well as portraying a reality. So in returning to this more abstract theory, he tells us about a play by Maeterlinck and how this man did not bother to use elaborate sets for his theatre piece, but rather simple, child-like props that represented something much more than what they actually were, (a cardboard box being a car for example) we get a clearer understanding of where this notion of abstract leads us as he develops the idea:

"...if the object is not itself [explicitly] seen, but only its name heard, the mind of the hearer receives an abstract impression only, that is to say as of the object dematerialised, and a corresponding vibration is immediately set up in the HEART."

It sounds familiar to me. What kinds of things have most affected me in my lifetime? Well all sorts of things, but particularly powerful in my life's history has always been the suggestive, not the obvious, not the straightforward, but the indirect path to a quiet feeling, in other words the abstract- which is what he's getting at here. Early childhood memories that you can't quite fully recall, but give you a feeling stronger than any other are another example of this. Dreams of the most subtle beauty or terror which your mind, let alone your 5 senses, are powerless to comprehend rationally, but still affect you more powerfully than anything else in the 'real/sensory world'. No, you can't figure it out like a math equation, but don't tell me that you can't feel it, don't say that you don't feel the 'vibration' which is 'immediately set up in the heart'. The emphasis is therefore, put on those things which affect ones spirit and heart, not the more obvious things that affect our senses, and listening to this very religious man speaking, even though he is a Christian, I find myself as a Muslim in total agreement with his outlook. That is to say, in a spiritual, non-material outlook, all of the men of the book, or as Muslims say "Ahl-i-Kittab", Christians Jews and Muslims, share these same fundamental beliefs.

"Must we then abandon utterly all material objects and paint solely in abstractions?" he asks himself. Kandinsky gives us two answers; the first in direct answer to the question is slightly vague. He implies that the two [material & abstract] are very hard to harmonize together, but at the same time, to limit oneself to one thing would be restricting. This leads on to his second comment, which quite frankly sums up why I believe this man is an artist in every sense, and an incredibly analytical one at that- because he looks back at the phrasing of his own question, the all-too common use of the word 'Must' (which in books concerning art and the creative process, is one of the most common words used often by supposed scholars who think they can talk about music or art purely from a scientific perspective) Kandinsky puts it quite simply, "There is no "must" in art, because art is free."

Your technique is great man! Let me see! How do you do that? Oh, I get it!

What interests me so much about this man, who we mustn't forget is a very gifted artist as well as thinker, is that he views music as a painter, in the same way that I view painting as a musician. He sees in music some kind of super-natural presence that visual art can often only aspire to. In other words he sees his paintbrush as something very much connected to the real world, and when he hears music, he links it to something completely immaterial, thoroughly abstract and artistic, "Music can achieve results which are beyond the reach of painting" he claims. On the other hand, I also often feel in my words, in my use of samples and formation of drum-beats, [as a creative musician from the hip-hop school] that this art of mine is very much connected to the real world, that what I'm doing is not as much artistic as it is socially-progressive and socially-conscious, with the progression of society more often in my mind than my own indulgent artistic expression. I therefore look to that wonderful and unique mixture of paints and colours as the beautiful-abstract, the wordless, subtle and powerful art. In the most brilliant and progressive way, we both miss the point.

Kandinsky, whilst obviously not a musician, is still broad-minded enough not to think that music occupies some sort of higher position than visual art. On the contrary, he actually spends much of his writing on the subject of music as a bridge to something far larger: the conjoining of the methods of creating those different art-forms (music, painting, architecture, sculpture etc) with a view to making each individual artist the best possible artist s/he can be. In other words, exposing yourself as a painter, to the ways in which a musician (in this instance) goes about creating those wonderful sounds, will surely make you a better painter once you have understood and internalised that whole new world of expression and feel confident enough to make it work for your own style of art. I know because I did it, I witnessed a friend paint and wandered, wide-eyed with admiration, and I asked questions, and I still ask questions of people who are masters of (or even just comfortable with) their own particular forms of art (and let's not be so narrow-minded as to assume it has to be one of the aforementioned 'arts' for art can be found in many things). Bridge that gap, cross that gulf, sometimes there won't even be a gulf, but communicating in this way will still open your mind to the parallel paths the two of you are on.

"The artist must not forget that in him lies the power of true application of every method, but that that power must be developed." This, according to Kandinsky, is to be achieved through a fundamental (as opposed to superficial) borrowing of methods from one art to another, from the notes to the colours or perhaps even from shapes to words.

Colour theory ... it's a theory

The book leaves its higher ideals and theoretical meanderings behind for the next section, which focuses more on the in-depth aspects of art such as form, composition and colour-theory. These more abstract and detailed findings and opinions of Kandinsky's are equally interesting, but certainly require a lot more involvement and willingness from the reader, especially those of you who, like me, are not particularly well-versed in the theoretical side of art. He feels that fundamentally, an artist must exercise his spiritual-self just as he needs to exercise his physical body, for if either is left unattended, it will become impotent. The spiritual 'starting point' for Kandinsky, as an artist, is colour (and yes, the argument does usually return to spirituality, because as he has shown and as I have tried to emphasise, it is the spiritual- not sensory- that provides the deepest and most powerful effects on our hearts and minds). He talks of yellow and blue, warm and cold, black and white, light and dark. Grey, apparently, is a bottomless pit, and upon seeing yellow we feel "the human energy which assails every obstacle blindly, and bursts forth aimlessly in every direction". It is very interesting, but one gets the impression that this is the most subjective part of the book from Kandinsky's point of view. It is not that I disagree with him when he boldly claims that "Blue is the typical heavenly colour" indeed, I might find myself agreeing with that statement on occasion, but it cannot always be true quite simply because we as humans also change and evolve, and therefore how we see things change, I cannot believe that colour is forever a constant in terms of how we see it and what it may remind us of, but Kandinsky seems to be hinting at that throughout this section on colour. To be fair he makes it clear that some of the parallels he makes are "relative", but then, if so, why extend so much effort in asserting what they are? (Which is only 'what they are at a given time and/or for a given person').

A mountain

Following on, he talks of arts timelessness, and how an artist must resist all attempts to deliberately search for personality or style in his work, since such things are transitory. Rather, the artist should listen to his inner-need, only then will he be able to freely express himself in ways "both sanctioned and forbidden by his contemporaries." So, you see, it is inevitable that a true artist will do things if not forbidden, then at least frowned upon or ignored by their respected contemporaries. A true artist will go through this; a true artist will not necessarily ever get the recognition they deserve in their lifetime. A look at the artwork of Abdul Mati Klarwein or even Kandinsky for that matter, a listen to Buffalo Springfield's music, a look at a film by Tarkovsky, all these will reassure artists the world over that when you are in touch with that frequently mentioned 'inner-need', and are creating work that your soul desires, the respect from your contemporaries may not be there to help you along the way. Even now, some of those artists I just mentioned are largely under-appreciated, but the truth is- much of what they did was ahead of their time, and as a result such artists will always be under-appreciated. More than that, what they, or others have done is most likely timeless, because as Kandinsky says, "pure artistry--will remain for ever. An Egyptian carving speaks to us today more subtly than it did to its chronological contemporaries; for they judged it with the hampering knowledge of period and personality. But we can judge purely as an expression of the eternal artistry."

Quite frankly, I find that 90% of what this man says is merely a wording of the feelings and thoughts which have travelled in and out of my head for the last 5 years or so of my creative-life. The book is in many ways an affirmation for artists, but because of it's very 'German' organisation (please excuse the stereotype but it's a positive one which I've noticed all too often in my life), it also becomes so much more than an affirmation and evolves into more of a 'wise, old companion'. Those thoughts that ran around my head needed somewhere to land, needed time to get focused in my mind so that I might understand them as well as this man so clearly does, and this book will certainly take a few reads, despite its simple, straightforward approach, for the reader to fully benefit. As suspicious as I still am of anyone who employs a very rigid, organised methodical approach in talking about art, or one who uses numbered lists, (i.e. 'the artist depends on three things, those three things are a, b and c' - which there is quite a lot of in this book) I still must admit that from what I understand, there is little I actively disagree with him on, and much which I can apply to my own arts, music and writing, and hopefully much which all artists will be able to take in and link to their own personal creativity.

God-willing.

Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi, 08th Nov 2004

DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS BOOK RIGHT NOW? I'd suggest buying it, as you can get a very affordable price on amazon, but if you have no aversions to reading off a horrible monitor, then click-here for an online reproduction of the book! (you gotta love the academics with the dedication they show don't you?) Thanks to them. Thank you.