/lit/ - Literature

>>8937030
You don't have to "see anyting", it's pure abstraction.
kandinsky was a synesthete and he got inspiration from music, hence why he named his paintings with musical terms (composition, improvisation, etc.). He thought that much like certain arrangements of notes can move us, a certain shade of red standing next to a blue can also move our soul. He was a mystic in his art, thought the artist was the one that could make vibrate the human soul through colours, notes, whatever.

It's also interesting to appreciate that he was one of the first abstract painters. At this time, if you wanted to paint a landscape or a human figure or a still life, you had thousands of years of tradition behind you. You had a very definite set of problems (rendering 3d in 2d, perspective, balance and composition, plasmating movement in a still picture etc.) and many approaches to solve them. However when you start working with only colour and shapes you are completely free and that is in some way terrifying, there is no tradition to rest on. Still he clearly worked on some old problems like balance, colour and harmony.

Stuff like pic related and >>8936968 is more interested in the pure handling of paint and the surrendering to impulses. In some way this is a mystic approach to art too, the abandoning to the creative frenzy, the extasis of creation. This is of course pure theory, many painters that suscribed to this style (Pollock I'm looking at you) actually planned and repainted their compositions to give this sort of wild spontaneous approach.

I like