Artistic strife

Apollo, 1916. No. 4 -5

 Artistic Disputes  

                                                                Vsevolod Dmitriev

       During this winter, there were two artistic quarrels: the Moscow dispute over the Tretyakovskaya. galleries and Petrograd -  around Apollo. These differences are not of equal importance and in number.  participants,    meaningfully  but both are curious. Especially curious if  wet  We look at them from the side, from the side, as if not participating in them, but only observing them. Reasons in both disputes   "High-coprincipial", even slightly abstract, not from this world;  in one case, the question of what is more important is whether it is consistent with the spirit or with the letter of the will of P.M. Tretyakov; in another case, the question of whether it is permissible  whether  "a heartless, soulless and purely rational attitude to art."  and what it is.

     What's the reason? Is it possible to believe that in such years as 1914-1916, Russian artists were carried away to the point of fierceness by questions of almost any kind.  scholastic, refined and worthless sophistry?  So what's the reason? That's what's curious, that's why it's worth standing aside, not interfering in strife, and watching.

     The Grabarevsky dispute, as you know, began with  statement  Mr. S.A. Shcherbatov withdrew from the gallery council, as he  “convinced conclusively that his role in the council was of no importance, having been reduced to zero” (see statement, p. 1).  But apart from that, in fact, Of purely personal reasons, Mr. Shcherbatov points out several more, of which the most important must be considered the reproach to the gallery's trustee that the pursuit of masters of past eras, as  Levitsky, Fedotov, Levitan and others, He has spent the sums intended  Buying paintings by contemporary artists...

     Mr. Scherbatov  He threw a match, from which the whole Russian art was ignited.  world, but ignited  not at all  places  into  those  borders, which were outlined in the statement of Mr. Shcherbatov. And it's very characteristic. Indeed,  urgent  The question of what is the responsibility of the Council  - buy  whether  icon  and  pasture  masters  or direct exceptionally  attention  replenishment  gallery  with the latest painting?  gallery council response to statement  Scherbatov, p. 1)  -  This question, as the infighting flared up, was pushed more and more into the background, so that  Give way to another, only casually and once touched kn. The Shcherbat question about the weighting of paintings in the Tretyakov Gallery - the question, in  essence, secondary  (since)  Resistance can always be easy.  be corrected,  On the other hand, it is often quite inevitable.  But  focus  The side that is at odds with Grabar has prepared its own defeat. How  once  here  Grabar's right.  and  Historically and logically, and as strong as he is inconclusive and weak in defending his preference for the ancients.  The newest masters. Yes.  Is that it?  It's not clear to everyone! Isn't it worth it?  into  This is a striking contradiction with the spirit of the first years of the gallery, for example, Grabar’s statement: Old works are extremely rare. As artists continue to create, and  Their works continue to appear in the art market” (artistic art).op/cit)  Therefore, it is preferable to buy the first. Would you ever say that?  Tretyakov himself?  The trouble is that the enemies of Grabar before the spirit of Tretyakov’s testament were no more concerned than their opponent; they stood on the letter of the will, as it corresponded to them.  interests  The robber is on the distortion of both the letters and the spirit of the will, so  How it suited his interests and...  interests of modern Moscow.

     Perhaps, of all the opponents of Grabar, the most  most logical  serious   He was the first, but he seems to be the only one who understood it.  In the beginning, his case was almost lost. Mr. Shcherbatov in his statement asked: "Does the end justify the means?"  And he said,  "no winner is judged."  Yeah, that's the point. The Moscow strife was an attempt by the vanquished to rise up against the victor, an attempt by  more  Hardened and blind the more logically and hopelessly unreasonable she was.  Historically.  Vulnerable meeting  The lawyers of the Tretyakov Gallery admitted that  “no legal, equally  moral  misconduct  There is no gallery trustee”  - but was the winner tried?

     A.N. Benoit in his  protection  Grabar  (Speech, 30)  Jan. 1916)  protection  too enthusiastic  and  bit  careless  (But it must be remembered that A.N. Benois  camp  "winners" and caution is a virtue very, very  Rare among winners -  He says, "the wind of intrigue blows."  It's very strong and it's just getting stronger. Enemies on their feet  "le  ban  et  l ' arriere-ban",  stock and militia. But Grabar is also a two-strong man. His.  Even the Caucasian thugs failed to kill to death.”  And,  Furthermore:  "No need, what  slightly  exceeded  power, someone  stepped on someone's foot   I didn't like it at all. The confession is very curious and precious.  Your candor. So, it's just like us and  I guess it wasn't that Graham was  wrongly  "A little bit."  He overstepped his power.  he  "two-strong man," invulnerable.  "Even for the Caucasian thugs," and that Grabar  someone  something  I won. Find out who  and  into   more  -  It's not hard to see the lists.  his defenders and enemies.  On the side of Grabar will be: public Moscow in the face of the city Duma, advanced circles of Moscow artists and artists.  petrograd "World of Art." It's a curious combination.  Isn't it?  But even more confusing, at first glance, is the composition of the enemies. There was a camp here.  V. Makovsky and A. Vasnetsov,  Malyutin and Bogdanov-Belsky, Korovin and Dubovskaya, the Wanderers and  Russian  Watercolorists, "Society of Petrograd Artists" and "Union of Russian Artists"  artists.  All these artists and associations of artists agree  -  and   That's all they want.  -  not  mix the gifts of the Tretyakov brothers with  acquisitions by later acquisitions”.  Yes.  Why is that?  Is it Vasnetsov?  or  Makovsky, or Repin  They really have something.  against  along with their works acquired by Tretyakov,  were hanged  bought  later?  Hardly. Here.  It's an instructional note. Repin is very approving at first.   He spoke about the overhang of Grabar and only then changed his mind. But one cannot think that Repin at one time disrespected the memory of the Tretyakov brothers, and then began to treat with respect!  We  sure that  Repin has always respected them, but he’s also confident.  tightly  The trouble is not in the disrespect of the city of Moscow and Grabar to the memory of the Tretyakovs,  like this  cry  "enemies"   Grabar,  including Repin, and  much different  much more important, much more vital, which at first was always too much  Simple and hasty Repin, and then caught up, but late...

     All right.  mirist m  new  hanging  It was very good. Dobuzhinsky said about her: I am not a fan of the Wanderers, I treat them rather negatively. But when I saw them in the new   grouping  In a systematic manner, they immediately acquired for me a much greater interest and charm.”  Benoit probably thinks the same thing, Grabar thought and did the same thing; he sought to place it in this way.  poor, clumsy  The Wanderers to give them so much more  missing   No, no, no.  so  place  to  They weren't.  "protest" and "transition"  from the skill of Levitsky and Bryullov to the charm  "Miracles." But an attempt to add to their charms the Wanderers understood as an insult (after all, we have already seen that in the best of  part  "enemies"  Grabar  -  These are the Wanderers and their epigones, and are they  Are they wrong?  Not  Peace.  art,  recent mortal enemy  "movements," and  Now to the undisputed winner,  Take on the role of a dispassionate judge. This court is bound to  descend  to which he has been punished.  Grabar  Benoit in his apology  Grabarev's activities ... but, let's hope, the "double strongman" will be  immune  This side.

     So, Grabar's defense.  "miraclemen."  It is more than understandable, it is organically necessary, and therefore to seek in it impartiality, as well as in  equally  organically necessary  The fury of the Wanderers, nothing. But why?  Was the whole of public Moscow behind Grabar?  Don't look  whether  "justiciary"  here?  For this.  give us an answer  "Russian Gazette" (January 16, 1916)  into paper-like  future decisions of the Moscow City Duma. Moscow understands that.  Today's task of his gallery:  into   gallery  gap  into  famous  period of Russian art having  historical  importance, replenishment into  similar  to the extent dictated by the true meaning of the charter of the gallery, as the acquisition of a new painting  artist, though  would  perfectly  characteristic  final stage of evolution  Russian art. Specified  There are significant gaps in Moscow.  gallery  a lot.

     So we see that the modern  Moscow  understand  goal  It's a very wide gallery.   so  broadly that we will soon cease  distinguish between the Tretyakov Gallery and the Russian Museum of Alexander Sh. Tretyakovskaya  gallery  instinctively rather than according to a definite plan; therefore, of course, if desired, its path and tasks can be interpreted.  how  please,  - but  instinctively  she  Moscow, the Moscow school of painting! That was its essence and its peculiarity! Artists like Levitsky and Bryullov seemed random, almost unnecessary guests there – and that was good. The Russian Museum gave us one face of Russian art, the Moscow Gallery gave us another, which fully corresponded to the duplicity of all Russian culture.

     But now Moscow, obviously,  She set a more grandiose plan - to imagine the whole face of Russian painting (especially since by accident).  "The Appearance of the Messiah," right.  necessary  The Russian Museum was in Moscow, and  design  how  No longer could Grabar answer, with his "worldly"  acceptance and indefatigability  "Antiquara industrialist" (as he was called "enemies").

     So here's the bottom line.  In all our study of the Moscow dispute, we conclude that the real meaning of the dispute is  was what Grabar  overweight  The historical necessity and the inevitable – the end  "movements" and  The power of the Art World.  That's the reason for the fight.  And  everything  only  word  and  And the words, as they say,  The warring were hiding.

     However, the weakness of the majority  winner  is  that  Their victory is not only necessary and useful now.  time, but a little  or  eternal  A good that must be protected at all costs. That's "security."  It started in "The World of Art."  with a brilliant victory in Moscow.  into  It's like a polemic with Apollo.

     Of course, if you take the place of the winners, they can be understood and justified. Really, you can't.  It is a shame to feel that in those days when the victory is triumphant on the whole front, when both Petrograd and Moscow museums have become ours.  near-by  "from the very environment to which the "World of Art" belongs" (see A. Benois, "For  Art world, Speech.  26  February.  "dislike", still vague, not yet subtle, but the  more  annoying.  “Real war and not declared   more. But those insidious ones  all injections. ?op.  cit ) .  Criticizing  "The world of art", but so elegant and subtle that you can't find fault. They scold and praise. Lovely regret. Lovely.  They do.  A. Benoit. "Conversation in the editorial office," "Speech."  14  May. So you don't understand, enemy.   whether  it  Or a ghost, a figment of the victor's imagination, is it strong?  enemy or negligible

    The winner demands a cloudless sky, and the edges of it are intrusively enveloped by some cloud. True, A. N. Benoit, in order to intensify the anger of his loving and numerous admirers, grieves that he is in general.  "poor"  “The world of art” did not receive a period of recognition. But  A little rhetoric that the author hardly believes.  The point is,  cloudlessness  day  disturbed  And the perpetrators must be punished. That's the lining of A.N. Benoit's first attack.  articles  "Art World." Except for the very natural ones.  The anger in the attack of A.N. Benoit is concluded and some subtle calculation. Ours.  "shot."  The critic wanted to find out.  Such an intrusive and so elusive "enemy," I wanted to  To calm your agitated imagination, to find out definitely whether this new enemy is strong or weak, whether he really exists, or whether it is just that.  The ghost of the victor. In addition, the “shot” of A.N. Benois coincided with the opening of the next exhibition.  “The world of art and...  expose  Apollo.  in a heartless and heartless attitude to art, bitterly complaining that many of the public  They do not want to approach things with interest in love for their own joy.  A.N. Benois may have had a  Not so much the articles he incriminates in Apollo, so much the interests of the exhibition.

     As a result, after two months of brilliant reprisals against the "enemies"  on  page  "Speeches," A.N. Benoit.  It looked like his shot had succeeded. Then he becomes complacent again and  He almost admits that his fears were exaggerated, half-created by himself, and quietly declares ("A Conversation in the Editorial Office", "Speech", May 14) that he  "It's the last time he fights back," because  What's important?  He was afraid, he passed safely.  "Never the World of Art Exhibition"   was not as brilliant as  this year,  She's never been so visited.  We didn't buy that. ?op  cit) .

      And then A.N. Benoit.  I wonder why you should be offended by some rhetoricians who need to exercise something.  Your eloquence!   And  Why protect?  A.N. Benois is here.  declares  that  I have always said this, but it goes against the whole point of the article.  " Za.  "World of Art":  "Speech and no speech"  It's about protection.  "World of Art."  It does not need it.”

     So what is it?  Provide A.N. Benoit  to understand the controversies heaped upon us, because we  agree that   here  at   split  signify  savor  dishonesty.

     However,  purposefully  whether  A.N. Benoit  calming  me that  "real strife"  No, that instead of  only  simulation,  species  self-incitement.  boring   not  necessary  "Sports" (see "About discord among artists")?  Is it not in vain that A.N. Benois reassures himself that there is no legion – “terrible, new and fresh”?op  cit )?  Not  needlessly    eulogizes that  giver  fight back for the last time?  I bet you do.  on  The reader says that he will not break his pledge twice or three times, because the matter is serious. If the Moscow controversy and logic,  and  history  were   on Grabar's side,  here  sideways  It will be history, not to say.  What about logic?  We  no answer  This is the question, but let's put a few more -  Let's test it.  A.N. Benoit's oath that  on  Apollo.  he  concerning  into  For the last time.

     Why are you so worried?   A.N. Benois, no less alarmed than alarmed  wanderers  Grabarev's weight?  Why is he dreaming?  new  "scary and fresh"  Legion?   Isn't that a dream?  And was A.N. Benoit in a hurry?  with your performance?  Surely.  It can be understood not only as a subtle calculation, but also as  unwilling  motion  long-contained  fear!  What does Benois and the World of Art fear?  I definitely don't understand.