Brady DeHoust -- Kandinsky's Concept of Art

According to Donald K. Kuspit, Wassily Kandinsky described the purpose of art as expressing and attaining the spiritual. The spiritual he defined as “the subjective ‘freedom’ of creative man.” “Spiritual or subjective freedom,” Kuspit says of Kandinsky, “involves the transcendence of natural and social determinism, in whatever form they take.” He conceived of art as “the repository and refuge of the spirituality the material world reputiate[s] and shun[s].” In a word, the purpose of art for Kandinsky is “transcendence.” “The feeling of transcendence involves the experience of inseparability from the cosmos at large,” and it was this which Kandinsky tried to deliver with his own art.

These concepts seem to conflict. The purpose of art is the spiritual and the transcendent. The spiritual is defined as transcending natural and social determinism, but transcendence is said to involve experiencing inseparability from the cosmos at large. I have a couple of issues with this model.

If the purpose of art is transcending natural and social determinism, does not in some ways rule out a lot of what we consider to be the fine art of antiquity? Most of Michelangelo and Raphael’s works were commissioned by the aristocratic elite of the day, and generally depicted specific religious themes under the guidelines of specific artistic forms. Not to mention all the portraits done for the rich to their specifications. (This is my understanding, at least.) Does this not fall at least partly under the concept of social determinism? Perhaps by Kandinsky’s definition, the only piece of true art ever produced by Michelangelo was the panel on the Sistine Chapel in which God is mooning the congregation. The fact that there were institutional religious themes and established forms, not to mention the demands and particulars of the wealthy benefactors, which influenced much of the most famous fine art in history would seem to fall under some branch of social determinism.

These self same religious pieces can be the very essence of transcendence, however. The feeling of place in the hierarchy of the universe; the approach to the presence of God; the solidarity generated by imagery of the divine. What could be more transcendent? Thus, based on a vague understanding of historic fine art, Kandinsky’s conception of the purpose of art does not seem to me to hold water. Perhaps the specific context of his time was different, and he meant that purpose only in his own context? Since context seems to be the magic word in the art world, this would not surprise me as an answer.