Two Paths to Abstract Art: Kandinsky and Malevich

According to David Galenson ( Department of Economics. University of Chicago) there are two Paths to Abstract Art: Kandinsky and Malevich.

"Wassily Kandinsky and Kazimir Malevich were both great Russian painters who became pioneers of abstract art during the second decade of the twentieth century. Yet the forms of their art differed radically, as did their artistic methods and goals. Kandinsky, an experimental artist, approached abstraction tentatively and visually, by gradually and progressively concealing forms drawn from nature, whereas Malevich, a conceptual innovator, plunged precipitously into abstraction, by creating symbolic elements that had no representational origins. The conceptual Malevich also made his greatest innovations considerably earlier in his life than the experimental Kandinsky. Interestingly, at the age of 50 Kandinsky wrote an essay that clearly described these two categories of artist, contrasting the facile and protean young virtuoso with the single-minded individual who matured more slowly but was ultimately more original."

Abstract Art as Incarnation of Abstract Thinking in Art: Kupka versus Malevich and Kandinsky

It seems reasonable that the meaning of abstract is understood through meaning of abstract thinking in art. By Dewey, the thinking is abstract “when it is employed simply as a means to more thinking.”

In application to abstract art one can say that when visual thinking is “used as a mean” to re-create a likeness of the object or to create its “beautiful” interpretation, it is a concrete visual thinking. When it is employed simply as means to stimulate more visual thinking, it is abstract visual thinking.

It does not mean that Dewey himself necessarily appreciated abstract art as a form of abstract thinking. At least it is definitely that he did not appreciate idea of art for art's sake (see about that Dewey's Critique of Art for Art's Sake Donald B. Kuspit Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Autumn, 1968), pp. 93-98).

By Dewey, the difference between abstract and concrete thinking is a difference between thinking for the sake of knowledge and thinking dictated by “furthering of some interest in life.” Art, if understood as means of creation of beauty, is justifiably considered by Dewey as an example of concrete thinking:

“to a theorist an idea is adequate and self-contained just because it engages and rewards thought; to a medical practitioner, an engineer, an artist, a merchant, a politician, it is complete only when employed in the furthering of some interest in life — health, wealth, beauty, goodness, success, or what will.”

Abstract art established itself, first of all, as a theory, as an intellectual concept. At least it originated as such. Only after period of conceptualization, did abstract art find itself as the style per se. This is why among those artists who pioneered abstract art some artists became more credited and others less credited for discovery of abstract art as an original concept.

According to Dewey

“many notions of science are abstract, not only because they cannot be understood without a long apprenticeship in the science (which is equally true of technical matters in the arts), but also because the whole content of their meaning has been framed for the sole purpose of facilitating further knowl­edge, inquiry, and speculation.”

Abstract art as a form of abstract thinking in art originated as well with a sole purpose of facilitating further knowl­edge, inquiry, and speculation. No one can "like" the "Black Square" by Malevich for its look or skillfulness of implementation.

The power of concept is what makes this artwork the one of the most influential artwork ever. Same about Composition VII by Kandinsky.

Abstract art was invented as a sort of theoretical art, encapsulating in itself roots of future conceptual art. This is why originators of abstract art Kandinsky and Malevich were prolific writers and influenced the art not by painting only but by theoretical writings. There are volumes of theoretical writings by Malevich. His school in Vitebsk UNOVIS, , was entirely focused on teaching suprematism from 1918 to 1920. Kandinsky left extensive theoretical essays which became ABCs of design basics. It is important to remember because, technically speaking, neither Kandinsky nor Malevich were sole discoverers of abstract art. There were at least two other names of two other artist who are credited ( should be credited?) for this discovery. These are Frantisek Kupka and Robert Delaunay. Let us focus on the role of Frantisek Kupka in the history of abstract art, because his input and legacy helps us understand the meaning and nature of abstract art itself.

According to dictionary of arts, Kupka is the pioneer of non-representational art. According to the dictionary “His Amorpha Fuguein in Two Colours: Red and Blue is thought to be the earliest example of an entirely abstract painting.”

According to www.guggenheimcollection.org there are two earliest purely abstract compositions by Frantisek Kupka are Amorpha, Warm Chromatic of 1911–12 (Private Collection) and Amorpha, Fugue in Two Colors of 1911–12 (Collection Národní Galerie, Prague).

First abstraction by Kandinsky is dated 1910-1913 .

So Kupka, Kandinsky and Malevich, at least simultaneously with each other “discovered abstraction”. Why then Kupka is not credited for that discovery? In the meantime, why Kandinsky and Malevich are considered be fathers of abstract art? After all, it is Kupka who was first one who “in 1912 [ presented] the first entirely abstract works to be exhibited in Paris.”

Based on “artwork by artwork” analysis, it indeed seems that

“if one were to compare the presentation of the first works of Abstract Art by Kandinsky and Delaunay on a timeline alongside those of Kupka, you'd see that Kupka's contribution to the evolution of modern art is at least as great as any of the recognized pioneers, and arguably, he is perhaps their inspiration.”

Why then he was not credited for discovering of abstraction? Because he was a Czech in Paris? Why then Malevich, who was a Ukrainian in Russia, isolated in Vitebsk during 1918 to 1920 away from the world art centers, was that influential? Why Kandinsky , who was a Russian in Germany, influenced art world on such huge scale?

May be the reason is in the nature of abstract art itself? May be it is because abstract art was a different kind of art? Abstract art as an implementation of abstract thinking in the art is in the sense “theoretical” art by definition? At least it was originated as such .

This is why originators of abstract art, Kandinsky and Malevich, were prolific writers and influenced art not by painting only but by theoretical writings. May be indeed “Kupka’s paintings of this period are not simple or formulaic abstractions from ultimate “sources” in nature, but are rather pictorial syntheses of the artist’s formal ideas.” but his theoretical influence was definitely less articulated than that of Malevich and Kandinsky. This is why his marginalization in art history is attributed to the fact that he “lacked the underlying philosophical drive” (Robert Cumming . ART a field guide. Alfred A. Knopf ,NY, 2001. p 143).