"Sera" essay by N.E. Radlov
Review of the book: "Serov .Essay of N. E. Radlov", Spb. 1914, "Apollo" (HL) No 4 1914
Apollo (HL) No. 4 1914
SEROV. An essay by N.E. Radlov. Publication by N.I. Butkovskaya. SPB.1914.c.1 p.75 k.
_________________________________________________________________
Just released a new issue of the monograph series “Modern Art” fully justifies the already established reputation of the publications of N.I. Butkovskaya – it is marked by great thoughtfulness and taste. As one of the successful innovations, we will point to a number of reproductions (28 pictures on 11 sheets), selected from the text. Not badly executed (note by the way that they are much closer to convey the character). “Oils” than tricolor reproductions add value to this cheap and careful publication, a coincidence so rare in our country! Of the colorful reproductions, between the text, the most successful appeared to us: “AP Pavlova” and watercolor “Peter P and Elizabeth on the hunt”.
The essay of N.E. Radlov gives a peculiar and, undoubtedly, dictated by great love and attentive glance into the artist’s creations, an interpretation of the ideological and formal essence of Serov’s work. I would like to see more objectivity in finding out. Serov’s “bloodline”: Mr. Radlov sharply rejects both mobility and aestheticism. Mobility.
It was one of the great historical absurdities. (p.4); Aestheticism is a “surface reaction against it” (p.9). Difference "aesthetics" from "movements" The author believes that the first movement was "Based on Western Experience" (p.9) But it's (that's so clear now!) The movement was built to the same extent. n o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o and I x oh Oh, yeah. The denial of the value of our mass art movements over the past half-century forces Mr. Radlov – and quite unexpectedly for us – to point out Serov’s isolation from the historical course of Russian art: Serov is one of those who “It breaks with the past, and therefore they cannot be drawn into the historical chain” (p.2). It is true that a few pages later we find a historical grouping, not a chain, but a grouping which appears to be a group. Radlow's identification n "a peculiar and original native art"; here are named: Polenov, Golovin, Levitan and Korovin and, finally, as the most prominent exponents - Serov, Vrubel and Tsionglinsky (as an ideologist, but not a master). (page 10). While recognizing their importance for all the artists listed above, we still do not see the historical soil basis for their sharp separation from the school of Russian painting.
Confession “the beauty of art above all beauties and the rights of life” (p. 13), which Mr. Radlov puts to the credit of these artists, has long had ardent, and sometimes very successful defenders – at least in the person of I. Repin. By the way, why is it turned off from the Serov pedigree? Finally, though it's just ours. In the historical pedigree of Serov, in addition to Repin, it could be included and Kiprensky. After all, this is the same “wandering day laborer of the cruel lord – the muse,” as Mr. Radlov calls Serova! We mention Kiprensky because Mr. Radlov, while denying mobility and aestheticism, at the same time calls our academy the 30s and 40s. keeper of tradition I don't care. I don't think so. 18 Kiprensky, with his passionate, sometimes magnificent search for artistic beauty, followed the same path of zigzags, eternal breaks and betrayals as Serov and (my increase) also Repin. Perhaps the tragic end of Kiprensky will indicate d. Radlov that the traditions of the 40s were, although very firm traditions, but, alas! Not at all. "Real" for us Russians.
Vs.Dm.