The Computer Revolution and the Arts ed. by Richard L. Loveless (review)

of Kandinsky’s quasi-scientifictheorizing is provided by the issues of synaesthesia ,a phenomenon that has a central place in Kandinsky’s theories. Kandinsky believed that there were natural relationships between particular sensationsin different perceptual modalities.He claimed to have experienced distinct color sensationswhile listening to music, and he believed that such experiences provided evidence of natural correspondences between the colors and forms of his pictorial art. For example, he held that yellow was a ‘sharp’color and that it corresponded naturallywith sharp forms, such as triangles,whereas blue, being a deeper color, corresponded with the roundness of circles.A questionnaire was circulated to the whole Bauhaus community in which they were required to correlate each of the colors yellow, red and blue with either a triangle, a square or a circle. The results are said to have given empirical support to Kandinksy ’sbeliefs, though in the original questionnaire the three colors and the three forms are set out in the order of the required ‘correct’answers . Moreover,the required answerswere already known to many of the respondents. Poling suggeststhat “thisprocedure fulfilled the shared desire to rely on scientific methods so as to arrive at objectivevalidity” (p. 73).It would be more reasonable to say that this procedure, which was methodologically unsatisfactory,was an isolated concession to the methods of empirical science and was designed to confirm the authority of Kandinsky’s intuition. Any thorough resort to empirical testing might well have developed the foundations of his theorizing. Today, it is fair to say that synaesthesia has no significantplace in the psychology of perceptual experience. Although it is known to occur in some drug-induced states, it is not seen as revealing anything fundamental about perceptual experience. Synaesthesia is best regarded as a confusion between the senses,and there is no reason to suppose that different people will experience the same cross modal correlations, or even that one person will experience the same correlations on different occasions. The phenomenon is far from providing the basis for meaningful relations between the elements of pictorial art, which is what Kandinsky was actually searching for. Kandinsky’swhole doctrine on this matter is fantastically attenuated. In what geometry are the equilateral triangle, the square and the circle understood as a set of basic forms?It is even less plausible to suggest that they are in any sense percep tually or psychologically basic. We might wonder what guided Kandinsky to produce the forms in his pictures , and what governed his choice of colors. Unlike Poling we might not accept that Kandinsky’s ‘intuition’ was a guarantee of meaningful aesthetic choice, or even the perception of anything at all. Like the art historian L. D. Ettlinger, in a famous study cited by Poling,we might be tempted to ask the followingquestion about Kandinsky’swork: “Are these paintings uncontrolled automatic expressions or meaningless doodles such as a child-or even a baboonmight produce if given a box of paint?”[3]. If we accept Kandinsky’s implicit claims to a higher form of intuition , we are left with no basis for a reasoned criticalevaluation of his artworks . Our failure to appreciate them can be ascribed to our own insensitivity to the mystical insights they purportedly express. But we can subject his theories to reasoned criticism.If they are found wanting,we can reasonably suppose that this finding casts a shadow of doubt over his art. Given his own undoubted concern with the development of his theories, what reason can there be to suppose he did not apply his theory in creating his paintings? student works reproduced in his book, and it is to his credit that he has explained these works in relation to Kandinsky’steaching. However, the works in themselvesare no more impressive than thousands of others that are produced in Bauhaus inspired art classes around the world. From the limited evidence it is difficult to gauge what these classes were like for the participating students. I am inclined to read between the lines (pp. 20-21) and conclude that Kandinskywas both narrow and authoritarian in his teaching. The main function of the student exerciseswas to serve as illustrations of Kandinsky’s theories, and thus there was...