J.

Agreed, there can be great beauty in simple forms. 

I read this 1944 essay (1944! Imagine what was going on in Europe at the time. There was still room for thought on revolutionary art.) about concrete art (Konkrete Kunst) by the Swiss art historian Georg Schmidt. He basically said [my translation] no matter how much you write and explain about art, words can never be more than a key to your own individual experience. “It is ok to misunderstand art, but merely ‘understanding’ it does not suffice.”

My print refers to Erich Buchholz, 1891–1972, German artist of concrete art. Suspension, balance, contrast: that’s what I was after.

[…] Whether this print is ‘abstract’ or ‘concrete’ – not sure. Kandinsky (Über das Geistige in der Kunst, 1911/12) treats both terms interchangeably, I think. But the guy I mentioned above (Schmidt) defines a clear difference between the two terms. I’ll send you his essay (Kandinsky’s book you have , I am sure. It’s on the web anyway).

Later. -M.