In general, the abstract paintings that Kandinsky painted between 1916 and 1921 follow the stylistic pattern of the prewar period. However, there is a noticeable difference. The colors are not as bright and brilliant, and the forms that used to float in a rapturous continuum begin to become consolidated into more tangible elements. Fervor is replaced more and more by coolness, passion by restraint, and apocalyptic ideas are superseded by the serene spirit of geometry.

In view of the presence in the painting of the receding rectangle suspended in a square field, the possibility of Malevitch's influence has been voiced. But why must the appearance of one formal element that cannot necessarily be considered of prime importance to a painting be the re- sult of another artist's influence—especially considering that Kandinsky had already experimented with such forms in 1913 in a watercolor with rhomboid shapes? And in light of the fact that the motif of a boat with an oar is indeed reminiscent of similar motifs in Kandinsky's prewar paintings, and, further, that the composition under discussion has what one may call a "floating" character, doesn't the painting almost appear to be an anti-Suprematist statement? Could it be possible that a mature and inventive artist like Kandinsky (whose whole career proved to be extremely independent) would adopt one single formal element of a new movement and at the same time reject its basic ideas?

With the Suprematist artists in mind, Kandinsky, in an unusual display of trenchancy, gave the following "Answer to an Inquiry" in 1935:

I am talking about "constructivists," the majority of whom maintain that the impressionistic stimulants which the artist receives from the outside are not only useless but that they must be attacked. According to those artists these are "remainders of bourgeois sentimentality" and must be replaced by the pure purpose of the mechanical process. They try to produce "calculated constructions" and want to suppress feelings—not only in themselves but also in the observer, in order to free him from bourgeois psychology and thus make him a "man of reality." In truth, those artists are mechanics (i.e., mentally retarded children of "our century of the machine") who, moreover, produce mechanisms that do not move: locomotives that do not run and airplanes that do not fly.

Since it is impossible to avoid labels (which are convenient in order to make oneself understood but fatal if one does not fathom what is hidden behind them) one should construct a more exact terminology and not classify the facts according to their external appearance but rather according to their inner relationship, hi this case one should make two labels instead of one and differentiate them from each other. Here they are:

1. Abstract artist.
2. Constructivist artist (or, if you wish, "aimless" artist).

If an artist uses "abstract" elements it does not mean that he is an "abstract" artist. It does not even mean that he is an artist at all. And there are just as many dead triangles (albeit white or green) as there are dead cocks, dead horses, and dead guitars. It is just as easy to become a "realistic pompier" as to become an "abstract pompier.."!'s Form without meaning is not a hand but an empty glove filled with air.