In other words, in most of even the very abstract paintings, such as even Picasso’s, there is a foundation, a background of objects without which the pictures would not exist.
Picasso may refine a “Woman with a Mandolin,” to a dozen intersecting lines that disclose neither woman nor mandolin, but both were present in his mind’s eye when he created his work, and without them the work has no reason for existing.
It is here that one begins to understand Kandinsky’s attitude, and how diametrically he diverges from Picasso. The two have nothing in common save the desire to produce more abstract art, but Picasso abstractions are based on the outer world, while Kandinsky’s are based on the inner.
When Picasso has refined nature, that is, things outside him, to the last degree, to the simplest mode of expression in line and mass, he has reached an impasse, further progress is impossible, further scientific subdivision in unattainable, his art in that direction is finished.
But Kandinsky has before him an unlimited view. With him the elimination of nature, of all things physical from his compositions, simply gives him greater freedom in the painting of compositions representing things—moods—spiritual.
To go on with his own explanation, not in his exact words, but in substance:
It is thus seen that in both the first and second signs in the development of art, the objective foundation or background is not of simply secondary importance, but of first; it is essential because without it the work would not exist.
To create pure art it is necessary to eliminate this background of the physical, and substitute for it pure artistic form, which alone can give the picture independent life.
This step we find in the dawning third period of painting—Compositional painting.