Contradictions of the Art World

Apollo, December 1915 No. 10

                                 

Contradiction   "Art World"

 

 

                                                Vsevolod Dmitriev

 

 

Extraneous elements, bursting into artistic life, it seemed, had to drown out, disrupt, even suspend its natural flow. But this did not happen – the life of art flows, and flows rapidly. Perhaps it would have been better if it had stopped. I say this because one thing is certain now – the extreme unnaturalness of the position of Russian art.It does not and cannot, under the circumstances, be a gradual replacement of the old by the young. The conditions of today's life prevent the appearance of the unknown yet, saturated with new feelings, noisy and noisy.cWith its multitude of young artistic generation, the old with irresistible force separates from us deeper and deeper into the past. And this momentary hiccup, this slight empty interval between the retreat of one generation and the appearance in the life of a new one, such a short and so natural interregnum in the natural course of things, now threatens to grow into a whole period defined by years, a period of time.   In other words, the time of creative infertility. And of course, so naturally, maybe even necessarily, to be afraid of this.  "Emptiness" of this time "not in time"  domestic art. Strong in its cohesion, rich in hopes, wouldn’t art give us immediate support and reassurance? Moreover, it now seems almost criminal to dismember art into separate and hostile camps; on the contrary, we want to look for something else, we want to choose features that bring together, harmonize in our work today.

I can honestly admit that this feeling is new to me – it was usually a different attitude. After all, we are accustomed to perceive the life of art as a struggle of deadly warring parties, where the most necessary condition for the life of some was the death of others! But now that something quite different seems necessary and salvific, namely, tense,   on     n    You    vol    n    cf.    I don't care.   And strong in the life of Russian art by its conformity and its self-belief, now we had to come from a new and strangely unexpected side and understand the affairs of the recent past.

"The World of Art." How long ago did it seem to us timely, necessary and just to insist on the approaching, if not coming, “end of the named current, for through this – so we thought – cleared the way, became more marketable easy and healthy birth of the new. And now?Now, when the insurmountable conditions of life have pushed this coming birth far into the future, is it not timely, is it possible to do the same and destroy what is already moving with irresistible force into the past? On the contrary, I do.   on and on    time-damaging And here comes the unexpected question: in our recent past, in our  Will there be enough power in the world of art to   c d d d and t   ooh   I don't know.   and   ooh 

 at   into   and   Why me? After all, ten years ago, the “World of Art” seemed an immense horizon, with unlimited and long-lasting creative possibilities! Why don't we try to believe the same thing again? I think everyone  I think it’s better to have at least a new old one than  Nothing.

Thus, the justification of our attempt and our question is our position that the danger of Russian art—a certain period of time to remain with nothing—is too painful. To be left with nothing now, when analytical research is decidedly untimely, when we become too insistent and too hasty to be satisfied with ghostly hints of the future when we need them.resAs the foundation of our faith and strength, now, I repeat, too much.  It is painful, and in this sense the explanation of our attempt.

Theoretically, the question is solvable, and even very simple. It is enough to fulfill one condition: that the World of Art should be on the same level of growth as it was in 1900. We may be pointed out that in the World of Art, especially in its Petrograd branch (that is, in essence, in its very foundation, in its grain and fruit), there were and are no such opportunities that would allow us to trust it now.In terms of tasks, the movement was enormous and extremely strong. It was by no means, as some too passionate opponents would like to think, only a strange and short-lived whim of Russian artistic history, only a reflection, forever fixed in the picturesque work, of that ghostly St. Petersburg, which must (as Dostoevsky thought) one day rise and disappear like phantasmagoria.On the contrary, the tendencies inherent in the World of Art seem eternally inherent in Russian art. Throughout our history, we see everywhere Western aspirations and original insights, closely intertwined, even fused, with one blood in both, like twins. For the last time, in the World of Art, this eternal feature of Russian creativity manifested itself with extraordinary force.The “perception” of the national artistic taste amazed at the exhibitions of the “World of Art” as well as it amazes at least in our temple paintings of the HUP century. The exquisitely accurate and coldly thought-out form of Dobuzhinsky came into contact at these exhibitions with the passionate (primitive) unrestrainedness of Malyavin. Sophisticated, jewelry and spicy Somov, it seemed quite logical to complement the exceptionally pictorial, with a wide and "simple" letter, Serov.In the same "World of Art" we saw attempts even more excessive; there we tried to find threads to link together Bakst and Surikov, Borovikovsky and Cezanne.

Is that possible? In any case, such attempts have been made and, of course, they indicate the breadth and depth of the “worldly-skillful” sky, although the last attempt (Borovikovsky – Cezanne) seems so excessive that it is impossible to assume the possibility of its implementation in practice. *)

-------------------------------------

Reconciling the retrospective tenderness to the smokes of the Elizabethan era with penetration into the "future" insights of modern France is possible only at the cost of donating one of them. We will certainly or will not understand Cezanne (we will begin to look for “intimacy” and some kind of “intimacy” in him).  "Deliciousness", for example, we feel his painting,  “Sour”, which is not in it at all), or in Borovikovsky, through the provincial, we suspect world insights.

 

=====================

However, I repeat, such attempts have been made, and what is especially important, such “self-destructive” attempts are still being made.

Now I will try to express the main provisions of this article as follows: “The World of Art” in recent years has found itself in an extremely difficult situation, by the will of historical fates found itself at the crossroads of two roads – either disappear as an artistic movement defined in its ideals, but retain the role of the advanced helmsman of Russian artistic life **), or abandon the honorable role of helmsman and artist.   That's the way it is. But keep your inner integrity.

 

----------------

** Recall that A. Benois tried to do just that, insisting that the “World of Art” is not an exhibition of a certain group, but a place for the performance of the most cultural artistic forces; we also recall that it is he who attempts to unite the incompatible – Bakst and Surikov, Borovikovsky and Cezanne.

 

===================

 

That wasn't the case in 1900. Contradictions only outlined and only emphasized the strength and beauty of the main current. But the whole point of our attempt is to go back to 1900. Let's try to forget all the contradictions, try to forget Surikov and Cezanne and go back to Bakst and Borovikovsky. It is true that the contradictions have now grown into mortal danger, but then they are only              I don't know. And why should we know that if precautionary measures were taken in time, the power and beauty of the main current of the World of Art would remain incorruptible to this day. And this would be important, because I have no doubt that in Russian society there is a very persistent need for synthesis, for statements.Now it is so possible and so easy to change new – albeit tempting, but still new, and therefore youthful, unreliable, shaky and vague, newly emerging ideals for the sake of old and familiar, but mature and courageous, but firm and clear.

However, when, in search of these solid and clear embodiments, we turned to today’s “World of Art”, we had to ask with bewilderment: “Where are these ideals, and who is the real destroyer of the “world of art”?”

Let me remind you, to be clearer, of one characteristic feature of the history of the World of Art exhibitions between 1900 and 1915. When, until the beginning of the twentieth century, the role of these exhibitions was mainly creative, so, on the contrary, from that time on, their main aspiration was to preserve the importance achieved earlier, and here, undoubtedly, Alexander Benois was the most important inspirer and performer of this new task of exhibitions.More than anyone else, he was inherent in the idea of the collective role of the “World of Art”, about its first and foremost.   I don't think so.   missions in Russian life. Indeed – we now see – the path chosen by A. Benois was chosen extremely keenly and intelligently, it at least for decades postponed the inevitable end, it gave the “World of Art” the appearance of a highly cultured life, the appearance of superiority and domination, although, however, it is true that it is not the only way to do it.   d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d   I don't know.          with her   b l l l l and x   and   b l l l l and x   I'm not sure. The extent to which this “smart” tactic was acceptable to many members of the “World of Art” is confirmed by the soon-to-be split between the St. Petersburg and Moscow groups (the latter stood out in the Union).  But this split served only to the benefit of the main group, which, freed from too clumsy and old-fashioned ballast, again found itself on the forefront of Russian artistic life.

Saving his life's work, leading the business of exhibitions, A. Benois gave a number of brilliant proofs of his exceptional historical foresight and magnificent artistic flair.Thanks to him, a stream of really young and healthy forces poured into the cooling "World of Art"; thanks to A. Benois, the ranks of new, and no longer "worldly-skillful" talents, such sharp-personal as Petrov-Vodkin or Saryan, and group, as if Moscow futurists or Petrograd neoclassics, Kardovsky's pets could show themselves and grow in it.

However, the tendency to sacrifice their personal artistic attractions for the sake of the common cultural mission of the “World of Art” affected another, the very work of the original and best representatives of this trend. It couldn't have been otherwise.Encouragement with the correct idea of the necessity of exhibitions – not as demonstrations of a certain group, but as an indicator of the cultural height of our entire artistic life – should have imposed its stamp on the work of these masters, should have prevented them from closing into their favorite world and should have given the development of their creativity the appearance of a series of experiments, not a closed whole.We need not now prove this by examples, for it is not the task of this article to convince the reader of the variability of the tastes of the “artist world”; it will be enough for us if we can prove that there is a decisive and irreconcilable contradiction between today’s “World of Art” and the “World of Art” of 1900. And for this we will analyze two works of the last exhibition: “In the forest” Somov and “Stavrogin” Dobuzhinsky.(It was these two works at the 1915 exhibition that seemed to us most vividly to characterize the change that took place in 15 years in the World of Art.) The first of these artists was one of the pioneers and creators of the movement that was born in the 80s, the other appeared somewhat later, but over time rightfully took one of the places of honor, as a legitimate successor of the traditions of the first initiators.Thus both created and maintained a direction by their works; it developed and determined with the course of their personal development. And now no one like them is doing it.       No, no, no.   eh   "m and r"  and c c c s s s and s s s in y.”

However, it is difficult to believe that the "self-destruction" was done on purpose, and was not caused by the constant tendency of the "World of Art" of recent years, which we have already had to talk about here (the desire to reconcile the irreconcilable), and which now leads to disastrous results, because the contradiction between the elements combined is too decisive now.

Somov, somewhat fascinated, as it seems, by the beginnings of Petrograd neoclassicism, wants to weld the tasks of this rational in its very essence and conditional school with long-standing skills of his skill. But here we see only     We see only attempts at rapprochement where there can be only an unconditional and decisive replacement of one by another.

First of all, let’s make a distinction between how  "written."  The face in the portrait of Nouvel and the face of the lover  "In the woods." The method of imposing shadows on the temples, cheekbones, neck in the portrait of Nouvel - this method has long existed in the Russian pencil technique, although we emphasize that his   no   I don't know.   Our academicians Bryullov or Ivanov, but Kramskoy used it constantly and exclusively. Repin also tried to follow in Kramsky’s footsteps, but he was most likely hampered by his impetuous temperament, and lacked the stamina to fully apply this very painstaking, long and essentially ungrateful technique. Successful, but alternating with others  I tried myself on the same drawing of Serov. Finally, Bakst gave this manner that virtuoso and dashing shade, which most struck and infected the further heirs of this "retouch".

Amazing completeness and certainty of the named technique gave Somov. Yes, we could not doubt the jewelry accuracy and endurance of the Somov letter. *)

But Somov especially definitely emphasized the main disadvantage of the “retouch” reception. Forehead in the named portrait, despite the thoroughness of the retouch,   On the contrary, it is the shaded temple that seems “formally” crumpled and depressed (let us point out, by the way, that such a retouching technique is banished from our neo-classics, as it does not achieve the main goal of the drawing – formal plasticity). A completely different letter of the face is from “In Love.” A fine and, together, simple and strong smear very clearly determines the character and movement of the lips, just as clearly defined the broad bones of the forehead.Finally, if we compare the ears in Nouvel’s portrait and in Lover’s, in the first case we see something vague and wool-like, and in the second case, a very definite and complete molding of the human ear.

Analyzing further the technique of the portrait of Nouvel, we will be convinced that in this work Somov is still entirely on the traditional path of the “world-skillful” ortrait; only Somov managed to bring his indisputable feature to this very controversial canon - to give him the same creepy and ghostly vitality that is so strong in Somov’s “Magic”, in Somov’s dormant or dressing girls.In the same couple in love "In the forest" - we see just the opposite; in "Nouvel" (as before in the portraits of Dobuzhinsky, Lukyanov, etc.). Somov managed to partially preserve the charming persuasiveness and “strangeness” of his genre scenes, and here we see only the skeleton of the former “genre”, without the former persuasiveness.In the old watercolors of Somov, looking at the same pairs and the same poses, we do not believe in their “reality”, and this is good, for all the more we believe in the magnificent “fantastic” authenticity of these paintings. Now the artist himself wants to make us believe in the “reality” of his loving couple!Former toys, “puppets”, anatomically infinitely incorrect, but also infinitely attractive and completely faithful stylistically characters, the artist tries to replace now with a conscientious study from nature, just wants to convince us that these characters were only attempts of an amateur and a transition to the present conscientious studies from genuine people. But we can't, we just don't even want to believe in today's Somov lovers!If this is not a fiction, not a dream of a subtle and sophisticated fantasy, but a portrait against the background of the forest, then we persistently want that there should be no such “plexus of hands” – so familiar to us, appropriate and cute among the former untruthful Somov puppets.

In Lovers, the Som destroys the very “magic” that his former pastoralists created. Looking at the surroundings of the picture we are examining - in the forest itself, we  We see contradictions even more decisive. We see quite definite attempts to schematize the landscape, to give it greater strength by a series of repeated comparisons of the same image - this, in our opinion, is the artistic meaning of the foreground Christmas trees. **

---------------------------------------

Pay attention at least to the statement, clear and sharp, in Nouvel's tray.

** However, the hand of the mater, who was more accustomed to the jewelry decoration of small picture areas, could not allow him to give these trees the appearance as simplified as possible, on the contrary. Made them run through the painting like a monotonous lace weave.

=========================

This is also the meaning of too smooth, too identical trunks of birch trees, finally, overly light and simplified in its colorful composition glare of sunlight.

But how do you reconcile this schematization of the forest with the intricate poses of lovers, with the careful drawing of folds and flowers on their costumes? Here, in my opinion, two opposite channels, as incompatible as incompatible, well, at least “Oval portrait” Rokotov (Russian Museum) and “Lady with a fan” Picasso (S.I. Shchukin in Moscow).

Looking at Somov’s “In the Forest”, we come across the possibility of another extremely curious parallel – the parallels between this picture and Serov’s “The Abduction of Europe”. After all, there is a completely similar attempt here and there – an attempt to schematize and simplify for the sake of “picture” of the overall plan.It is possible that in the near future the historian of Russian art will seem quite natural, even mandatory, such rapprochements, but now the conclusion about close contact between the work of Somov and the experiments on which Serov’s life was interrupted seems unexpected.Nevertheless, this conclusion gives us the right to suppose that it is possible, by a purely scientific way, through an objective analysis of the formal changes in the achievements of our best artists, to prove the generality of the shift that the “World of Art” is now experiencing.After all, it is not enough to point out that Somov gave a picture that was unexpected, inconsistent, perhaps, in the opinion of some - unsuccessful, so we will not go far from the ingenious spectator, who divides all the pictures from his shoulder into those he likes and those he does not like; we need to explain, give them an explanation.               and so on and so on.    I don't know.    The best representatives of the “World of Art”  gave   No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It is very possible, I am personally convinced that it will certainly be, that In the Woods, a picture that may now appear to be a mistake, a wrong step, will historically prove to be a perfectly correct, extremely accurate step.

Let Somov try by this work to dissuade us of the charm of what he had previously convinced with all the power of his talent. Let the artist now think more about “Breakfast on the Grass” by Man than about “Smolyanka” by Levitsky – we are not here.  will make you believe in the greater artistic authenticity of his present "real" lovers than those - "narcotic" - former, so refined-funny, so ghostly-sensual.

Yes, in fact, why do we assume that Somov wants to convince us of something? Why should the master not have the right to “forget” his former images, which created his fame, and to seek new skill and new glory? The spectator’s demand that his beloved Serov always give “Serov’s” or “Somov’s” is, of course, the greatest injustice and recklessness. And if, on the one hand.We are sorry that the “Somov”, habitual and beloved by us “Somov”, irrevocably goes away, then again, from the point of view of the historian, one can only welcome the strength and sharpness of the master, who did not allow himself to freeze on once found.

So: from the analysis of the painting “In the forest” we can definitely deduce one thing – that between Somov 1900 and Somolva 1915 little in common. There is an artist with an extremely definite gravitation, harmoniously combining his formal achievements with ideological tasks, here he is in a band of doubts, discord and contradictory aspirations.

After all, the degree of contradiction (if we measure quantitatively) between the sophistication and complexity of the poses and costumes of “Lovers” and the schematic simplification of tones and drawing.  I don't know.   As great and clear to everyone is the same contradiction between the stylized “Europe”, the echo of the Athenian museum, and the powerful head of the bull, so ingeniously “Serov” in Serov’s painting. Therefore, without even arguing about the causes and peculiarities of the contradiction in either picture, we have the right to assert that both equally definitely testify to us about the contradiction in the picture.   R and E, experienced by the "World of Art".

So far, we have stopped at the works.   x   "World of Skillers," Serov*  And Somov. But we can name another, equally significant in its role in the “World of Art” and determined by his creative personality – Dobuzhinsky, the analysis of one of the last works of which – a sketch for the production of “Demons” (Stavrogin) in the Moscow Art Theater – will lead us to a strikingly similar conclusion.

We know well this characteristic master, who is able to cause a whole mood with one strong and precise trait. Take, for example, his Viaduct in London, where the clumsiness, heaviness and together the beauty of this viaduct are conveyed in a meager, simple drawing.The exquisite calculation that we see in every stroke of the named artist, the restrained passion and lyricism of the mood that he manages to convey to the viewer with his seemingly prosaic-thought-out, dry, even sharp drawing - this combination of deep-hearted inner gloomy with admiration of the very "form" of painting, with constant attention to artistic technique and with clever sophistication of it - all this forces us to accept Dobuzhinsky as one of the most definite in painting.The best meaning of this word is the world of artisans.

--------------------------

Whatever they say, but   c and c, i.e. on the basis of formal kinship. Serov is as definitely connected with the World of Art as Repin is with the Wanderers.

==================

 

Let us now turn to Stavrogin and begin our analysis with the basis of each pictorial task – with composition. It is in this case surprisingly symmetrical.** The face is given on the left (Barvars Petrovna) with an outstretched hand corresponds to the face of the girl (Maria Lebyadkina) on the right. The tilted profile in the corner on the left corresponds to the tilted head in the corner on the right. Shatov's shoulder and bent posture give a line to the left, quite consistent with the curved pattern of Lizaveta's arm and shoulder.  Nikolaevna and exactly repeating the same line of the shoulder and arms of Mauritius Nikolaevich. Finally, the boat-shaped array of Stavrogin’s figure – the ideological center of the plot of the sketch – also occupies the center of such a symmetrically constructed composition. In addition, the composition is unfolded almost flatly, and its main emphasis is facial expressions.

Facial facial expressions are a task as new and unusual for Dobuzhinsky as Homer is for Serov, and it is extremely interesting how an artist, having summoned elements beyond his control, tries to curb them. It must be remembered that the “face” was almost worn out from the tasks of the “World of Art”; it was accepted as an integral part of the overall plan, but the face (not the portrait) as the goal of the painting is almost Dobuzhinsky’s first attempt.And the lack of traditional savings in the past affected the "Demons" very bulge, even unexpectedly. After all, the letter of the frightenedly astonished face of Lizaveta Nikolaevna in the closest connection with the face of the student in the “Party” of Vl. Makovsky ...

Dobuzhinsky’s brush suddenly lost all its mature restraint, its characteristic combination of passionate lyricism and cold thoughtfulness, to get lost in the “anecdotic” of V. Makovsky’s psychological research. And nearby, below, that cultivate in their works the epigones of the “World of Art”, emphasizing and aggravating one of the main shortcomings of the whole movement.

But if the form of the faces in the “Demons” makes us recall the 70s of the Russian school of painting, the composition, which we have already analyzed in detail, is by no means unacceptable for the Wanderers, as for the original “world-skillers”. And those and others it would seem built too boring, conditionally, simplified. Let’s take a look at the placement of paintings on the wall in the same sketch “Demons”. It's a piece.interieurIt has been sung so many times at the World of Art exhibitions, and it is extremely worldly. The symmetry is completely broken. The central frame is on the side, one of the oval there we see only half, and meanwhile the entire architecture of the composition requires that the central frame be above Stavrogin, and the oval on the sides - and notice, it is this discord between the bottom and top of the sketch that doubles our impression.

-------------------

*) We are convinced that this symmetry came from the artist not on purpose, but that is why it is a very characteristic sign.

=================

 

But we will try to move the frames to the left, and it will become clear what echoes and impressions made Dobuzhinsky in 1915 suddenly change his tested skills and look for new beauty: this is a fascination just experienced by Russian society with the compositional rhythm and isolation of ancient Russian painting! Finally, the line of the figure of Stavrogin – two uncomplicated, almost equally curved features that give the body the character of a stationary and massive block – where and why they come from?It is most likely that here we are witnessing an attempt, through schematization, through simplification, to give greater force and new power.  "truth" composition. But then this truth is decidedly of the same order as the monotonous weaving of Christmas trees in Somov’s Forest, as the sharp corner of the back in Serov’s Ida Rubinstein...

The general result of our observations will be as follows: that dissatisfaction and the thirst for another truth, with which Vrubel fell ill before all of the “skilled worlds” (and as if even in contrast to them), turned out to be by no means isolated in our artistic life, on the contrary, over time assumed the character of an epidemic. K   1 9 1 5  No, no, no, no, no, no.    n n    (a) which has been before the  I don't care.   and   R o e,  on   so    Yeah.   oc    appeared   into  S-oh-oh.   and   I'll be right there.

To date, the best figures of the “World of Art” turned out to be irrevocably far removed from those ideals that in 1900 welded them into one harmonious and powerful artistic force. And no one more convincingly destroys in us hopes for the resurrection of the former “World of Art”, as today’s figures of the “World of Art”.At the same time, no one like them supports in us the persistent expectation of other, clear and internally reconciled achievements, which are now indefinitely far removed into the future.