In this blog post, we take an in-depth look at the meaning and background of the “new realism” predicted by Kandinsky, the pioneer of abstraction.
In the early 20th century, Russian painter and theorist Vasily Kandinsky looked back on the direction of the abstraction movement he had pursued for many years and foresaw the possibility of a new art form that could complement its unfinished aspects. He sensed the emergence of a new realism that was different from existing abstract art and believed that it could be a way to break through the limitations of existing art.
In the traditional sense, realistic painting aims to faithfully reproduce objects in reality. Regardless of the subject, whether it be people, objects, landscapes, or historical events, painting seeks to evoke reality in the viewer by transferring the “visible world” onto the canvas based on visual information. However, this principle of reproduction, which we take for granted today, was once the absolute standard in art. The idea that painting can be established through pure forms such as lines, planes, and colors began to become universal only with contemporary abstract painters, including Kandinsky.
From this perspective, all paintings before the generalization of abstraction were essentially representational. Whether it was a single rose, a scene of violent war, or a historical event, in the end, it was a painting based on a description of the world in some form, or in other words, “representation.” However, Kandinsky points out one important fact here.
No matter how realistic a painting is, it cannot exist without form. In other words, “depiction” in painting is always accompanied by formal elements. For example, the red petals of a rose are visually expressed through their contours, color saturation, brightness, and contrast with the surrounding objects.
The color contrast with the white surface of the jar, the compositional relationship with the background, and the direction of the light are formal elements that make up the work. These forms are not simply “decorations,” but essential elements that determine the overall visual balance and emotional impact of the work.
For this reason, painters at classical art academies considered the balance between representational content and form to be the most important value in art. They tried not to lean toward either representation or form, but sought to realize beauty through the harmony of both elements. However, for Kandinsky, this ideal of harmony and balance was no longer valid. For him, art had reached a fork in the road where representation and form were going their separate ways.
Kandinsky saw this separation as a positive possibility. He predicted that if abstract art continued to emphasize form alone, there would also be a corresponding emergence of art that emphasized representation to the extreme, in other words, art that revealed reality itself more directly. Such art pursues representation, but approaches it in a way that reveals reality as it is, without “embellishment” through formal means.
“Revealing” is not simply showing, but exposing what was originally hidden, as if lifting a veil. Kandinsky makes a very interesting point here. He says that the biggest obstacle to seeing reality is none other than our “familiarity” with reality.
We take the world for granted. We no longer wonder about things we encounter too often, nor do we think about their essence. Every morning, we leave the house and walk in our shoes, but as long as they function properly, we do not pay attention to them. However, if we look at our shoes as if we were seeing them for the first time, their shape, the texture of the leather, and the worn heels will appear as a completely new visual experience. At that moment, we become aware of their unique aesthetic meaning.
Kandinsky argued that the essential task of art is to provide this experience of “seeing again.” The important role of art is to shake up our perception of the world as something natural and familiar, and to take a step back and see the world anew. However, he believed that this task could no longer be fulfilled by traditional art alone.
The role of abstract art is to make people look at the things in front of them with a sense of wonder. By not depicting reality in a concrete way, abstraction maximizes the “revealing power” of art. Here, we no longer look at paintings with a focus on what is depicted. Instead, we encounter a world of pure form composed of lines, colors, and planes. At this point, the work is no longer a representation of the world, but an independent reality created by art itself.
However, artists do not rely solely on abstraction. Art can also be realized in another way, by allowing objects to speak for themselves. Works created in this way, whether they depict fruit or landscapes, are fundamentally “portraits.” They are not simply portraits depicting specific individuals, but portraits that reveal the essence of the subject itself by staring at its existence. In other words, they are portraits as expressions that project the reality of objects as they are.
This art pursues objectivity. It is not simply the objectivity of technical depiction, but objectivity that stems from an attitude of capturing the existential essence of the subject. In this process, we also discover aesthetic significance in even the most insignificant and ordinary things. This is the core characteristic of the new realism that Kandinsky refers to.
Conventional realism taught us to be faithful to nature. It was considered a virtue to reproduce what we saw with our eyes honestly. However, the “new realism” predicted by Kandinsky rejects this stereotype. This is because formal fidelity can actually become an obstacle to reality. In other words, it is a paradox that painting things as they are can sometimes prevent us from seeing them as they are.
To overcome this contradiction, new realism takes the bold step of transforming its subjects. However, this transformation is by no means intended to create illusions or distortions. Rather, it is a device to break the viewer’s existing framework of perception and encourage them to see reality on a more essential level.
The problem, however, is that we are too deeply involved in the world. We see things in their everyday context and interpret them according to long-established conventions. In this state, the transformations presented by art are easily misunderstood as a “departure” from reality. As a result, viewers cannot accept Kandinsky’s new realism and consider it a misuse or distortion of the term “realism.”
For example, when someone looks at a painting of a transformed object and says, “This is different from reality,” “This distorts reality,” they are overlooking the significance of the shift toward reality. However, from another perspective, such transformations can open our eyes to reality. In this case, art does not distance us from reality, but rather brings us closer to it. It is a shift, and the direction is not outward but inward, toward the essence rather than the illusion.
These discussions clearly show why Kandinsky imagined “new realism” as the next stage of art beyond abstraction. His prophecy was a profound philosophical attempt to reconstruct human perception, senses, and existence, going beyond a simple change in painting techniques.
Today, we are still missing reality in our familiarity. However, art can teach us how to see again. Whether through abstraction, realistic depiction, or somewhere between the two, true art never ceases to struggle to reveal reality.
New Realism is ultimately a profound reflection on the relationship between art and reality. It is not simply a question of “what is being painted,” but rather an exploration of “how it is being seen.” It was precisely at this point that Kandinsky was looking toward the future of art.
