Archive for July, 2010

Considering Kandinsky

July 24, 2010

Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944) was a Russian-born modern artist who helped liberate art from traditional realism and guide it toward a vision of “spiritual realism,” through development of his ideas about painting. Kandinsky’s approach was nonrealistic—spiritual, in the sense that he created and advocated art that embodied only expressions of inner life. He was indisputably a visionary, pioneer, and painter of spirited images, but do those “expressionistic” works reveal spiritual reality? Was his quest successful?                  

The Noetitek System™ embodies the system of Nature, of Omniverse, the spectrum of principles and processes that underlie everything, whether mental, spiritual, or fully physical. Noetitek Art™—in a new genre of art called “abstract meta-naturalism”—is truly spiritual realism because it is in alignment with the essence of Nature’s system and expresses the philosophy of NoetiTaoism™ in furtherance of the mission of the new science of Enhanced Human Perception™. The “conscious creations” of Noetitek™ Art draw on science, religion, and magic, blending empiricism, spirit, and emotion with esoteric knowledge of the prime energies. Meta-naturalism heralds a third scientific and technological revolution, the next step beyond both Newton’s absoluteness and Einstein’s relativity; it is also a transforming step beyond Wassily Kandinsky’s concept of non-realism which so pervasively influenced the development of Modern Art. 

Where did Kandinsky, despite his insights and integrity, fall short? 

M. T. H. Sadler, friend and admirer of Kandinsky and a leading publisher of the day saw modern artists as spiritual teachers. Sadler emphasized that the teachings need to be “comprehensible” to ensure clear communication with the public. We agree, and we add to that truth the fact that such teachings must be wholly valid in order to be illuminating and productive in terms of enhancing the perception of those who seek essential knowledge of higher reality through art. Therefore, we feel compelled to share our criticism of certain aspects of Kandinsky’s theory and works. 

Kandinsky’s symbolism evokes emotional responses—the predictable basic effect of nonrepresentational art, an effect that may or may not be harmonious. But, if Sadler is right about modern artists being spiritual teachers, Kandinsky (as well as Picasso) failed to achieve a universal “teaching” beyond directing the viewer toward higher reality the way a prophet calls a people to come out of their spiritual malaise. Kandinsky’s failure, we conclude, is due to an attitude of disdain for materiality—his “nightmare of materialism.” The material world is a deliberate extension of higher creativity, the creation of Source Energy Awareness (SEA). Kandinsky knew this, yet his grasp of the underlying principles was incomplete and, in some respects, out-of-sync.            

Our full critique of Kandinsky’s conceptualizing is not possible here. Let us say, for now, that his “language of form and color” is cryptic and skewed, requiring the acquisition of special keys in order to enter into his personal realm of somewhat misinforming assemblages. Although Kandinsky’s paintings are evocative, provocative, and decorative, they do not carry forth the deep truths that, by comparison, are embedded in Noetitek Art™. 

[Use the Search this Site box to see our post: “Noetitek Art™—Abstract Meta-Naturalism,” and in the blog’s Pages section click on the page titled: “The Noetitek System™” for background information.]


%d bloggers like this: