In his book Modern Art Richard Brettell claims White Cross serves as a primary example in Brettell's analysis of nationalism in abstract artwork through through the early twentieth century. Brettell argues that "nationalism is among the most powerful forces in modern society" as it can be seen at the root of most substantial political events. Yet in spite of ever growing globalixation, the history of modern art remains largely a sequence of national histories written in national languages by historians who viw art as belonging to a specific set of national values. Brettell believes that this is the box Kandinsky's work has been placed in, thus limiting its value. 

It is in this classification that Brettell believes the potential of this painting is limited. Brettell notes that "every modern art museum teaches us that place is as important to art as time" and it serves as the primary mode or organization. Modern art museums are segregated by geopolitical fences through which time flows. As viewers, we see pieces produced in the same place at vastly different times, but never work produced at the same time in different places.  

However, as the world became more cosmopolitan, art historians began to understand the value in classifying artwork beyond the physical place in which it was created. This, Brettell argues, opens the door for more thoughtful consideration of artwork such as Kandinsky's. Now, the ability to succeed in a multilingual artistic society is seen as essential for a modern artist, and those who were able to cross such boundaries remain successful today.  In this way, Kandinsky was ahead of his time. Through his use of abstraction, he appealed to all viewers, regardless of language or nationality. The feelings prompted by his compositional an color choices are universal.