German Expressionism

As an art history major I should probably learn to fully appreciate each movement, but I have difficulty with a few...
Maybe I'm a bit of a classicist. I've once been called an art snob.
I've been reading up on German Expressionism and as both an artist and art historian I find the movement, as a whole, somewhat repugnant. They learned the rule and them broke them in ways that are displeasing. German Expressionism developed out of the expressionist tendencies of artists such as Edvard Munch and Gustave Klimt, the Fauves, and Gauguin and van Gogh. However, the nature of the expressionism of early-20th-century German artists also developed in response to the unique historical situation in Germany.
I will use Wassily Kandinsky as an example through this movement. is work, while popular, is not what I consider a great artist despite what many people might say. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Key characteristics in Kandinsky's work:
- non-objective works
- spiritual and emotional power of line and color
- Abstract
- bright juxtapositions of color
- squiggily, energetic lines
- meant to be experienced over time, to evoke empathy


Wassily Kandinsky began his career painting recognizable subjects in an expressive manner similar to that of the Fauvists. However, he eventually eliminated recognizable objects from his work to create non-objective paintings. He was one of the first Western artists to do this.
He used a lot of bright colors and energetic lines to evoke a strong emotional response. He wanted his work to be like music, he wanted it to be "enjoyed purely for its expressive value and not for its ability to imitate nature." But visual art isn't music. While I am all for music influencing a painting or sculpture, I don't think one should think they can imitate it. They are completely different ideas.
This is his Improvisation No. 8. It' mostly non-objective, but you can see some hints of natural elements. There are images in the top, left corner that suggest mountains. It has brigh colors, energetic lines, and I suppose it can evoke some emotions; chaotic-like feelings. Large sweeping lines may suggest dramatic, even loud moments. Smaller, linear elements suggest more quiet, intimate feelings. Areas of red may seem aggressive and intense. Areas of blue counterbalance that energy with a sort of tranquil calm. Its all color theory.
But, in my mind, when I compare something like this to the works of Jacques Louis David or Eugene Delacroix I am simply dissappointed. While his work might be successful with what he wanted to accomplish, I just think back to fingerpainting in kindergarten. He had a plan and basic composition, but to me this reads sheer laziness.
Maybe I am an art snob, but paintings like this floor me. We think this is great? This moves us like Bernini? Like David? Like Corbet?
No. He was the precursor to Pollock. It is what me and Joshua call "Hack Art". Maybe I'm too harsh...

How did we go from museums full of beautiful and moving pieces like this to Kandinsky?
Artists like Jacques Louis David created some of the most beautiful works I've ever seen yet modern artists (who even have the audactity to call their movememt the "modern" movement) want to break away from it. What is the compulsion?

I realize this blog was a bit more of a rant than I had wanted, but thats the mood I get in with art like that at times. I promise an entry on David next time around. A truly inspired one.