No need explain Mayonnaise James, you’ll only be giving me your opinion. I have my own, thanks.
Point noted Faust. I was just having a bit of fun. Game Over.
The one I was going to post is very similar - it could as easily have been that one. Although I like his earlier style - the less-defined stuff, often with a darker background - his mature work I can look at longer. His work is the closest thing to music that i have ever seen on canvas.
That’s really not right though, is it. How do you do this?
I just image-googled Kandinsky, and a bunch of his paintings came up. I clicked on one, took the URL for that image and inserted it between the Img image tags in my post. Really simple. I’m not sure if I explained it clearly enough, just let me know if not.
How anyone could like art that looks like a 7 year old threw objects at a canvas is meyond me. Art is supposed to evoke emotion and tell us a message. It is not there to turn people into art snobs. This is trash.
Kandinsky’s abstract style was inspired by music; the elegant geometric designs do require that the observer invest a little time in interpretation. For someone who prefers something more obvious, like a bloated giraffe, Kandinsky probably wouldn’t have much appeal.
Funny - I always thought that the Kandinsky you posted was of a bloated giraffe.
The first time I ever saw a Kandinky - it was several at once - I felt it like electric light. It was an immediate and visceral reaction. I’m not sure I have ever taken the time to interpret one. But I understand your point.