Everyone says you have to see the Kandinsky retrospective at the Guggenheim, so I took a peek yesterday, not realizing it was the final day. I agree with everyone not because his art is so interesting, but because by following the reverse chronology of Kandinsky’s work while spiraling down the Guggenheim turret’s ramp, you see firsthand the deconstruction of his late complex abstractions as you descend towards his earlier, easier digested works.
One thing which seems clear is that Kandinsky, like many people in postmodern culture, was focused on symbols and their meaning in shifting contexts. Certain motifs consistently repeat themselves from his earliest works up until his final paintings, despite the drastic changes in style. Certain hatch marks, marine forms, and what appear to be feet and toes appear again and again in the most unexpected places. And it is this which gives the retrospective meaning. Repetition turns “Kandinsky” into an emergent body of work amenable to discussion and analysis. If every work was unique, how would you address it as a whole?
A late work
On of his works, unusual in its style even for such a varied artist, seems to serve as a legend to the symbols prevalent in all others:
Thirty (Trente), 1937. Oil on canvas
A "typical" Kandinsky composition
An early work
always more interesting to look at multiple works of the same guy. how long does it take to look at a picture? 10-20 seconds? so at least after 6 paintings you’ve been watching kandinsky for a minute or two.
20-30 seconds per painting. 90 paintings = 30-45 minutes. Admission = $18, so 40¢ to 60¢ per minute.
like a tech support phone call.