Kandinsky and a master study

So looking back on the dates of my master studies, I haven't done one since May... it's been a busy summer. Anyway, I decided it was high time that I got back to that. Here's my latest study, still from the same da Vinci study.

Also, I don't know if I've mentioned this but I love back to school (even though I haven't been back to school in years) and it get's me excited to get back on track after perhaps a summer of getting lax. As part of that this year I'm getting back on track with reading (pleasure and educational). I've tried multiple times to read multiple works of Wassily Kandinsky (I even own two) and I've never really been able to get much out of them. I keep trying because they came up a lot in some of my art classes. Anyway I've decided to take another stab at Kandinsky's Point and Line To Plane. I've been going very slowly and really working at making sure I understand what he's saying. So far I've been really intrigued by what I've read. I've really liked the points he's made, so I'm going to share a bit.

"The general viewpoint of our day, that it would be dangerous to "dissect" art since such dissection would inevitably lead to art's abolition, originated in an ignorant under-evaluation of these elements thus laid bare in their primary strength.

Painting and Other Art Expressions

In reference to analytical examinations, the art of painting, strangely enough, assumes a special position among the varrious forms of art expression. Architecture, for example, by its nature closely bound up with utility, consequently requires from its very start a certain degree of scientific capacities. Music, which serves no practical use (with the exception of march and dance music) and which has until now remained abstract, has long developed its theory; perhaps so far it is only one sided but, nevertheless, it is constantly being developed. Thus these two diametrically opposite forms of art expression have a scientific basis about which no one seems to feel offended."

pages 17-18

So what I get out of this (and I could still be getting it wrong) is Kandinsky's saying that visual art lacks theory, that you should be able to pick it apart somewhat, like in music you might be able to say that this is a symphony, it has this movement and that movement, etc. that it's a little ridiculous that you can't really say the same about a lot of art, here's this element of composition, or this part builds to this part. It was over a hundred years ago that he wrote all this but I absolutely agree with him. Even if you want to ignore or break the rules, you've got to know them first. Anyway, those are my thoughts.