I agree with the premise of the article, that some of Kandinsky's work is not readily "decoded". But at the Guggenheim exhibition, I found that to be an appeal

I agree with the premise of the article, that some of Kandinsky's work is not readily "decoded". But at the Guggenheim exhibition, I found that to be an appealing element, rather than a problem. In the more "decodable" work, like Several Circles, you can mentally set aside large areas of the painting because the structure is predictable from those parts you've already looked at. In a way, much of the painting can be abstracted in the mind during the visual experience. But in the more "heiroglyphic" paintings, the eye doesn't get to settle. New details emerge each time you adjust your gaze. Allegedly, Kandinsky took visual inspiration from diagrams in medical and biology books. What better example of mind-bending complexity than our own biology.