A Comparison of the Artistic Theories of Leonardo Da Vinci and of Wassily Kandinsky

Leonardo, Vol. 7, pp. 33-35. Pergamon Press 1974. Printed in Great Britain A COMPARISON OF THE ARTISTIC THEORIES OF LEONARDO DA VINCI AND OF WASSILY KANDINSKY David L. Carleton* 1. Introduction The origins of the principles of gestalt theory in Kandinsky's book, Point and Line to Plane, first published in 1925 [1], have been subjected to considerable investigation. L. D. Ettlinger concluded that Kandinsky had been inspired by the writings of the early gestalt psychologists [2], while, on the other hand, Paul Overy concluded that the publications on Gestalttheorie thathad appeared in the twenties contain only confirmed ideas worked out earlier by Kandinsky [3]. Thus, the historical problem is to determine if Kandinsky ~ynthesi~d his gestalt principles from writings pubhshed pnor to Point and Line to Plane or if he conceived these principles independently. Some light was shed on this problem by Kandinsky himself [1] who stated; 'It can be assumed with complete certainty that painting was not always lacking in theory as it is today.' This statement leads one to suspect that Kandinsky was alluding to a treatise written prior to the modern era, possibly that of Leonardo da Vinci. It is this possibility that I consider here; namely how Leonardo's Trattato della Pittura could have served as a model for Kandinsky's Point and Line to Plane. The introductions to Point and Line to Plane and the Trattato begin on the same key. Kandinsky wrote: 'This book will deal with two basic elements [point and line] which are the ~ery begin.ning ~f every work of painting, and wIthout. which t.hIs beginning is not possible.' Leonardo's introduction to the Trattato [4] declared that: 'The science of painting begins with the point, then comes the .li~e, the plane comes third, and the fourth the body 10 Its vesture of planes' [5]. Leonardo's directive on the science of painting can serve as an outline for a comparison of statements by the tw~ artists. In ~he following sections, a careful analysis of the po~nt, the line, and the plane, as seen by these two ar~Ists will be given in that order. Then some observat~ons will be made on certain diagrams by the two artists, • Art historian and mathematician, Box 122, Marion, Texas 78124, U.S.A. (Received 6 February 1973.) 33 and some comments will be made concerning their views on the relationship of sound to visual form. 2. The point The term 'point' can be interpreted in either a mathematical sense or in a common sense way. In mathematics, the term 'point' isgenerally accepted without question. There are, however, innumerable examples of mathematical points, such as the number e which is arrived at numerically, or the number ; which is arrived at through geometric descriptio~. The common sense idea of a point is also unspecified and again, there are innumerable examples, such as a mark made by a pen or ~ fullnote on a sheet ofmusic. Leonardo and Kandinsky differentiate clearly between a mathematical point and a common sense point, and they both employed modern methodology when they described a mathematical point to be of dimension zero and without material existence. Finally, the differences between the two terms were reconciled by the analogous observations thatthe common sense point contains the mathematical point. (The page numbers following the blockquotes taken from Leonardo and Kandinsky refer to References 4 and 1, respectively .) Leonardo da Vinci: 'The point is unique of its kind. And the point has neither height, breadth, length, nor depth; whe?ce it is,regarded as indivisible and as having no dimensions in space (p. 127). 'For if you say that a point is formed by the contact of the finest conceivable pen with a surface, this is not true. But we may assume such contact to be a surface round a centre and in this centre the point may be said to reside' (p. 31). Kandinsky: 'The geometric point is an invis~ble thing: The~efore it must be defined as an incorporeal thing, Considered in terms of substance, it equals zero' (p. 25). 'In thefinal analysis, all-of.thesecomp0siti~B8'-'-'1~rge?f small have been originated from points...