He was of course one of the first to do abstract art. It seems he's recently been a bit usurped by Hilma af Klint because she was earlier to produce totally non-representational art. But was it. She was trying to represent the ideas of Theosophy. Her paintings are interesting but leave me a little cold. They seem too organized and patterned or something for my tastes.
When I think of Kandinsky I think about the purely abstract paintings he is known for. But recently I've stumbled on his landscapes painted around the same time and I guess I've seen them before, but they really seem to grab me now. As a landscape artist that also likes abstracts but feel they are often "too abstract" I'm finding these abstracted landscapes of his very interesting and attractive.
This website of his works is nice.
https://www.wassilykandinsky.net/
So.....comments? ..... other than I have no taste and am too opinionated which I already know.
Believe me, Kandinsky was among the very first artists I have ever loved. But maybe his "purely abstract" work didn't represent anything in particular because he had already seen af Kint's work in hand-colored photographs before he embarked on them. If you look at the ones he had, it is too incredible to believe he wasn't inspired by her
concepts, which he either knew or didn't know how she arrived at getting there (through theology or not, but near impossible to believe her didn't). Kandinsky's work had similar symbolism, geometry, and if you look closely at the Primordial Chaos Series from 1907 and 1908, and how the transparent colors and shapes fade into one other, these are of particular of interest. I couldn't believe it when I saw it either. Who knows what other photos Steiner brought to Kandinsky.
Also, Kandinsky was
absolutely interested in theosophy during the same years as Hilma af Klint was, so when Steiner made him aware of her and the meaning of her paintings, it's not far-fetched to believe her work was of particular interest to him as was the symbolism in her work.
What's additionally interesting is the body of work she went on to make after she was devastated by Steiner's discouraging comments that made her quit for four years. Unaware of Kandinsky completely, her work looked even more similar in 1915 to what he and his Blue Rider's group began producing when she picked back up, which could have been coincidence, or maybe not, but those guys all knew each other of course. Although, this phenomenon happens in science all the time--people working independently unaware of each other but producing the same or similar results. That is also possible. We can't rule that out.
I feel, personally, af Klint's work, if compared to Kandinsky, is a lot for feminine than his was. But that's maybe to be expected. In that regard I can appreciate it for what it is. Certain pieces flow nicer, whereas some of Kandinsky's I prefer better. They come from two completely different upbringings and world views overall. I have studied way more about him than her, but when I learned of her, I was pretty fascinated.
Before her abstract work, she did pretty traditional landscapes:
But I particularly love this one because of the sky and the tall grass:
Kandinsky will always be a "first love" of mine. I discovered him even before Klee, who is probably my biggest influence of all time.
