Concerning the Spiritual in Art: 1912

Kandinsky was a Russian painter and theorist. In the introduction of the book it explains that at this time, modern artists were beginning to understand that their obligation to society was to be a "spiritual teacher to the world".  On page 26 he says, "The spiritual life, to which art belongs and of which she is one of the mightiest elements, is a complicated but definite and easily definable movement forwards and upwards. This movement is the movement of experience. It may take up different forms, but it holds at the bottom to the same inner thought and purpose."  He was primarily concerned with the painter's inner experience creating what is in a painting.  He compares the "life of the spirit" to a triangle. On the bottom of page 29 the note 3 poses interesting questions such as, "Is everything material? Or is everything spiritual? Is whatever cannot be touched with the hand spiritual?"  In the Spiritual Revolution section, page 36, Kandinsky says, "Every age achieves a certain measure of freedom, but beyond the boundaries of its freedom the mightiest genius can never go. But the measure of freedom of each age must constantly be enlarged."  I think here he is explaining how one cannot go outside of the level of consciousness of that time, but each period of time the freedom of ideas gets a little bit more enlarged and opened to new thoughts and spiritual growth.

When you see the color of a palette in a painting, immediately one "receives a purely physical impression", which can be one of pleasure but it is a short superficial impression. He goes on to says that, "Only the impressions caused by very familiar objects, will be purely superficial" (43).  The second result of looking at colors is their psychic effect, where the colors produce a spiritual vibration which is "one of the guiding principles of the inner need". Inner need= impulse felt by artist for spiritual expression, to set art free. (45)

Kandinsky says that, "If we begin at once to break the bonds which bind up to nature, and devote ourselves purely to combination of pure color an abstract form, we shall produce works which are mere decoration, which as suited to neckties or carpets."  (67/68) I think about decoration and adornment a lot in my own work so my question for you is, What do you think about Kandinsky's critique and praise of what he claims to be mere decoration and do you agree with what he says?  Here he is explaining that there is no "inner need" in decoration because many of the used patterns are from a different time that do not concern the contemporary culture.