Vs. Dmitriev. Konstantin Somov

Apollo, 1913, No. 9

SOMOV CONSTANTIN 

(Experience of Historical Definition) 

Vsevolod Dmitriev

When writing about an artist – our contemporary – it is difficult to talk about his historical significance – here mistakes are almost inevitable – and you have to embark on a more reliable, and often the only possible way to convey personal impressions from the work of the artist being examined. In addition, the task of analyzing the art of any artist on the basis of  His personal perception is very tempting. Well, in this case. To retell the charm of Somov’s work, sharp-personal and at the same time acute-exciting us, is a difficult topic, and therefore fascinating, especially since Russian art criticism already has examples of its excellent resolution. But some reasons, namely, the peculiarities of the "today" of Russian artistic life, force us to reject this topic and take up something else.The fact that Russian art is now at a historical crossroads has been decided with certainty, but it is not yet clear where the new searches will lead; however, it is quite possible to predict that a new "believe" will be born out of a protest against the extremes of the former - that art understanding, the bright expression of which is Somov.

Such a betrayal of the old faith for the sake of the new is quite justified, and even more, quite necessary - it only proves the vitality and progressiveness of Russian art.  It is no more necessary than in the 90s.  The emergence of aesthetics, retrospectiveness, and stylism was necessary.

Usually, in moments of historical upheaval, young forces, placing excessive hopes on themselves, unfairly cast into the shadow the artistic achievements of the previous generation, which, of course, reflects sadly on the value of new conquests. In the history of Russian art, such a "consistency of opinions" was especially affected by the  sharply  This has given rise to particularly sad results; why it is precisely in our country, I explain by the fact that the majority of  Russian artistic evaluations have so far been based on the personal tastes of the authors.

It was here that the calm persuasiveness of historical truth was replaced by oratory and literary eloquence, although strongly affecting the general public, but equally harmful to art. And, of course, the inequities of such assessments must have produced and produced the extremes of young people.  movements that rebelled against them. In addition, with a change in social  Hypnosis of historical construction, connected only with the taste  The author’s personal sympathies and oratorical talent disappear like a mirage. (Who will be persuaded now)  Stasovskaya "History of Russian"  painting? How many people have even read it?

It is these considerations that make us fear that an assessment based on our personal gravitation towards Somov may now turn out to be   It is unconvincing that it will only add fuel to the fire of the "protesters"; one may fear that if it fails to reveal Somov's meaning, it is possible to  As the pages of our artistic growth, it may, quite unfairly, be pushed aside, even more so.  He was rejected as an artist. (That this danger--  Not a ghost invented by us, but quite possible, I hope to show in the future.  A similar example from the recent past of Russian art.

But is it timely to try to assess Somov?  leaning down  for our personal taste? I'm convinced it is. If modern Russian art succeeds at the same time as faith in the near  The future will preserve confidence in the recent past if, amidst the fever of party bills and the bitterness of the day, it is possible to preserve, so to speak, historical "charmlessness" - only then,  We believe that our young movement will be able to avoid extremes and further damage. The most responsible thing in our attempt is to determine what is important to us in Somov’s work only as its contemporaries, and what has a historical permanent value.  This will inevitably lead to the error of all  Final conclusions.

Believing that the most clearly cut into the sheets of history those works of art,  of which the personality of the artist was revealed most acutely, we set out to look at the works of Somov, to select from them those that are inherently connected with our concept of "Somov", and that  Somov - in accordance with the search for that environment,  which he belonged to, i.e. a group of artists who rallied in the 90s near S. Diaghilev and his magazine "World of Art".  Somov is a very versatile artist; along with "retrospective dreams" he gave a number of felt landscapes, a number of realistic works and, especially in recent years, a number of masterfully executed portraits; but still we will highlight only Somov's "retrospective dreams", other of his works - very important for understanding the features of the artist's talent - we will accept.  as preparations or deviations from the theme that was assigned to Somov by historical fates and was brilliantly resolved by him.

 I cannot understand his pretense of taking on such childish folly in colours as his green weed, such idiocy as scenes.  His compositions with little broken freaks, "lilliputians,"   I. Repin ("Memories and Letters.Spb 1901) about Somov, but in these "childish follies"  It is not only the most fully embodied "Somov" (this is essentially for history).  It doesn't matter, but  It is extremely important that, expressing himself, Somov crystallized into distinct facets the spiritual fermentation of the end of our X1X century. Therefore, we assume that these "stupidities" will enter Russian art history as its indispensable page.

Repin’s “understanding” may have been dominant at Somov’s first speeches. Society perceived them as a curiosity, as funny and causeless.  foolishness, but over the years the attitude towards Somov has changed decisively, and now few people, I think, will agree with him.  Repin's perplexity. In Somov curiosities, the tragic is now heard; instead of childish naïveté, spiritual brokenness is heard. We understand his "broken freaks" - their wrinkle reflected our kink; we ourselves were prisoners of that poisonous magic that made the heroines of Somov's dreams both mortally pale and limply smile.

If there is some kind of intoxicating poison in Somov’s, and if, nevertheless, Russian art needs this “Somov’s”, is this not a sign that Somov’s poison contains an antidote to another, more oppressive poison? But – I hasten to notice – it is only now, in recent years, that we hear more and more persistently in our minds.  "Somov" some obsession, charming and together sick (not because we have already had this disease, where the Somov poison was healing?). But that was not the case – a decade ago; in “Somov” they saw not poison, but life – the possibility of rebirth. Not  I will refer to the following words of A. Benois, said in 1902:  The history of Russian painting can not be ended like Somov, for he has the last word.  In the meantime, for these 10 years, it is the brightest, most gratifying and typical phenomenon in our painting. ("The History of Russian Painting").  That's how we accept Somova... We are also convinced that at the end of the last century, Somov was  "last word," and he said it.  What is it?

 

Somov completed the period of Russian art, which I want to call “Petersburg”. In the 90s, Russian society was interested in X.VIIIThe century, mainly to the Catherine era, and soon became a real cult. This period has been called our “golden” period. Levitsky was set as the ideal of Russian craftsmanship, as its highest and starting point. I wanted to breathe new life into Russian painting, based on the  One of those who had the greatest hopes was Somov. And indeed, he, like no one, penetrated into the intimate essence of the era of figs and powders - he is connected with this time spiritually.  knots. But together with  then  Somov's works are a caustic, destructive analysis of ourXVIII  century. His "retrospective dreams" are not a revival of the artistic culture of Catherine's times, but rather a rebirth of the arts.  Oh, yeah.  her (ironically here)  The story!), and said as strongly as not.  I would say hundreds of books...

That perversion, the spiritual agitation that should have been and was  and  into  Rokotov, and in Levitsky and Borovikovsky - in people,  And they are in the midst of their naivety,  "Savage" art understanding affected only barely  With a noticeable crack, in a mature and highly cultural art understanding, Somov was exposed with unbearable pain and clarity.

In Levitsky there is often a strange timidity, an incomprehensible heavyness of colors. Particularly characteristic of all  Levitsky’s works are eyes and some special, subtle grin of lips in all his faces. "Art" 1905. -  I'm reviewing the bar. N. Wrangel, a connoisseur and admirer of our XVIII  centuries before  divert  You're being accused of bias. The groundlessness of Catherine's art - when to us  It was fast and hastily transplanted.  The last words of French culture at the time  Our slowly brewing culture has been blasphemously crushed by randomly chosen, often  already dead branches of Western culture - certainly had to give the Russian imitative skill a touch  "strange timidity," "incomprehensible heavyness." I  It would add unnecessaryness, and hence death. This illusion is most palpable precisely in the highest embodiments of that  culture, for example, in "Smolyanka" Levitsky.

And that's barely audible.  Somov is pronounced quite clearly, perhaps unconsciously, but with the persuasiveness of a clairvoyant.

There is “strange timidity”, here this timidity is reflected and embodied as a sick, weak-willed stiffness (stiffness in the very tension and difficulties of Somov’s skill). Mockery - there hidden in the corners of the lips, here the mouth bent either with a sensual spasm, or a grimace of pain.The slightly broken line between life and death – the result of the cultural upheaval of that era – is broken here: The Somov people are ghosts playing at people, the dead, trying to move their frozen members again, thinking and loving again, disturbed by the evil power of the artist.

And it's not just in  "retrospective dreams"; Somov's portraits of his  contemporaries. " The sweetness of his sense of death in life and  -  life in the dead  It looks like a magician.  With spells, telling the wax dolls the breath and trembling of the flesh. And you unwittingly bring Somov-portraitist closer to  Somov, author  "retrospective genres." (Sergei Makovsky). "Pages of Art Criticism," Kn.

Not  In our opinion, in Levitsky’s European skill lies the solution to the fact that  Russian art of the end of the last century, as enchanted, stood before him.  virtuoso, and it is the European-virtuoso brush, for example, Bryullov, more powerful, for example, Kiprensky. No, it was his brokenness, his "crack" attracted Levitsky. Had it been otherwise, they would not have called Somov the most gratifying and bright exponent of this period.  The value of which, least of all, I want to use the epithet - painting skills.  "Cracks."  Levitsky needs  Russian-era  "Aesthetics"; it was the poison it absorbed.  inwardly and with wonderful force  Som art. He is.  played the role of a healing antidote  from mortal sin, which strangled  Our artistic life, from the notion that it is possible with impunity for centuries of growth.  Our culture is interrupted and forced into another channel at the whim of individual tastes or epochs.

Speaking  of the mortal sins which have aggravated our  We have not come to the denial of this St. Petersburg period in the last two centuries. Moreover, we are convinced that the adoption of such a negative assessment will severely damage the entire future of Russian art.

A. Benoit, finishing his  History of Russian Painting (SPB.1902)  Somov, ending it, characterizes his time with amazing accuracy, and at the same time, with a faithful hand, outlines the future that now, we think, is already coming: "Probably, the future is not behind individualism, probably there is a reaction behind the door ... Historical necessity, historical consistency demands that we replace the subtle epicureanism of our time, the extreme sophistication of the human person, the effeminateness, the sickness and loneliness of the human person.  - He stepped again.  period  personality  “for public benefit or a higher religious idea.”

It's listed here.  All the reasons that led to the emergence of our recent cult of the Catherine era. The groundlessness of that time was consonant with "loneliness", detachment from the spiritual national life of our "aesthetics"; the abnormality, greenhouse of that artistic culture - the effeminateness, the soreness of this.

But  However, the above arguments will not force us to agree with another hypothesis of A. Benois: “It is very possible that in time  and  on  Our period will be indicated as a new bankrupt Russian  art  The said critic, in making this assumption, is consistent; if in his time the previous movement, the Wandering Movement, was resolutely rejected, then why should the new movement, the next movement, be the next one?  for aesthetics, not to call it a collapse?  That would be a brilliant confirmation of the proverb:  If it does, it will respond.”

 

But we'll be consistent. Highly cultured, raised in its best achievements  Russian art to the level of genuinely European – the movement of the 90s we will not call bankruptcy in any case, it will be black ingratitude, and a disastrous mistake. But we don't even call it mobility.  high-minded  "soil"  into  their best achievements  - collapse.

If  If we recognize the failure of the major movements of the last century, then nothing can prevent it.  We will be obliged to do this – to admit our complete artistic inconsistency. Without art before XVIII  Centuries, survive the short-lived fireworks "Golden Age" and find themselves again  artless  - You'll have to write it.  growth  Russian art.

But no, no, no,  not  This is the true course of our art, and we fervently hope that through the study of ancient Russian icon painting we will be able to show that it has already become possible.  eventuallyXVIII  century (in the works of Levitsky, Borovikovsky...)  throughXIX  century  There is a strong instinctive struggle against oppression.  artificial vaccination made inXVIII  And finally, in Somov, as in no one else,  This is the last stage of this tragic struggle. Somov's "last word", Somov's poison - in that he, exacerbating the discord to pain, to absurdity, released   Our artistic thought from a two-century obsession. Aesthetics   90-x  years  clearest  Somspotter, bringing to sharpness   some  self-torture  The “game for the sake of the game” in which our art played, breaking away from the age-old soil, made the dream of a national art culture that arose in the very historical course of our art an urgent necessity.

 

Having recognized Somov, in its historical significance, as the finalist of the St. Petersburg period of Russian art, we come to a new conclusion, to the recognition of closeness – by its historical significance.  significance  Somova with Perov, with Primary  as the clearest expression of the movement of the 60s; because, if aesthetics is the final  struggle  nationally  The movement is as important as the earlier stage of the same struggle: it has given us the consciousness that art is not a part of art.  Learning, but in the sincerity of conveying what you know and love.

Somov, it seems, has never been put on the same line with Perov, so I want to point out the possibility of such a comparison, even the need for it. If we understand how much Somov is infinitely closer to Perov than to their European counterparts.  To like-minded people, such as Beardsley or T. Heine, we will succeed, I am convinced, in putting his name so deeply into the annals of our artistic growth that  At least our search did not touch a single point.  on  Formal achievements of Somov, our "historical"  His love for him will remain unshakable.

We will bring Somov closer to Perov if we refuse to evaluate our artists on their topics.  formalities  And we'll take an assessment of where we are.  We want to forget about the individuality of the artist and its features, but  hear  national word, what should it say if it  He is trying to say Russian art. We know how to connect and equally love both Poussin and Watteau – seemingly completely different!  In this and in the other, we see a beautiful embodiment.  national  nature, and certainly  only by understanding and loving  The same connection in our best artists, we firmly  Let's get home. That's why.  We need to find a connection with all of our  centuries ago, to find our artistic  tradition, the tradition that is in every national art, and we do not have it.  No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.  Were they not yet spiritually imitating Europe, and now, thanks to two centuries of effort, have they truly become Europeans?

Therefore, I suppose that in the history of Russian painting, the place allocated to Somov will be equal to that given to Perov, and moreover, it is quite possible that they will be equated as masters of form. Knowing this is mine  A historical clue may seem risky and may even provoke protest, and I'll stop there and try.  Maybe it's better to justify it. Modern  Perov’s underestimation is an example I promised at the beginning of this article.  It was a historical injustice to the artist, only because his understanding of art did not meet the requirements of the art movement that followed him. We have to turn again.  toward  "History of Russian Painting" by A. Benois, as  On its pages, Perov’s assessment, which is now generally recognized, is expressed most vividly, accurately and convincingly: “Despite all our protest against the ‘substantial’.  and  "ideological"  (intelligence)   60s.  years  art, Perov  The first years remain and still a very large and, oddly enough, even pretty master. But this only proves that we treat him not as a painter and artist, but as a painter.  a very interesting and intelligent observer, to a very significant and profound man, who perfectly reflected in his collected  "documents"  and  The interests of our fathers ...

All definitions seem convincingly correct, but only...  If Perov is a great master, then to him  We may, indeed, be treated as a painter; but if we are  It's just like  To a wise observer, we cannot consider him a master. And further, in the pages of the above-mentioned book, we find an attempt to precisely devalue Perovskoe skill, to deprive him of the title of a major master: In the pictorial sense, in the sense of the beauty of colors, the construction of lines and writing, these curious human documents do not give anything at all. In all  layman  The same tight, difficult drawing, the same heavy, painful painting, the same dull, dead tone. Again.  It seems to us extremely correct and accurate definitions of features.  Perov's skill...

Now  Let's say we're at the same point.  from which we have been denied.  Perov. Then we will give up the idea that one of the  The high tasks of art are an expression of national culture. In that case, we don't  It will be important that the artist managed with wonderful completeness and purity - forever - to embody  into  Visible forms of bending and rise of contemporary culture. But why don't we have such a light heart?  How did he reject Somov and how did he reject Perov?

Like no one else, his peres.  tight  drawing, heavy painting, dull tone  He gave artistic synthesis to our spiritual quest.  60s.  and  70s.  years. (And would it be possible to convey that era in light colors, in a light drawing?) Why are we?  Now we appreciate Somov just for what  He was humiliated by Perov; for the fact that Somov paintings are beautiful human documents; for the fact that the fractures of his form are the longing and winglessness of his dreams, sophisticated and sophisticated.  With rare purity reflected the spiritual fermentation of our past and decades before last? I'm already seeing ours.  “Savages” who deny Somov on the basis of their  theory  "real"  self-sufficient  painting. But I want to believe that history  Art is not a matter of taste.

Neither Perov nor Somov I will not call geniuses, their meaning, so to speak, is local, but for us Russians, such artists are of great value. It's  -   The steps on which we can build  to give greater fullness and strength, and perhaps speed  The progressive movement of our artistic culture. In this sense, their importance is even greater than, for example, Ge.  or  Vrubel. The latter are precious to us as a guarantee that in Russian art there is a beginning that can raise it to world power, but they are in weak connection with the mass duration of Russian art (their connection with these movements is inverse).proportionally  linkage  Russian future!  The first ones are important precisely as the best realization, as a clot of contemporary culture.

In some works Somov almost rose to mastery.  Watteau: in them the same amazing refinement of the real, submission  His dream of an artist; his dream with the same power absorbed the vague impulses of his contemporaries, so that, forging them into clear boundaries,  Become the dream of the entire era. And if you do.  It is difficult to put the named artists next to each other - is Somov only to blame?  The culture that Watteau expressed lasted about a century; of course, we did not have this condition. Historical  The moment, expressed by Somov, has at most two decades.  The lack of time fully reflected in Somov’s work: in his last “retrospective dreams” there is no former magical persuasiveness and can not be, since  into  Russian life has already passed the painful fermentation that gave   The necessary juices for their, together and lively and ghostly, like night fireworks, like a rainbow - beauty. (Isn’t that why Somov, in recent years, has been going deeper and more seriously into the field of portraiture?)  search?

 

Stala  commonplace  phrase  The scarcity of Russian creativity,  The sadness of our past, but not because  it seemed  So sad that we looked at him with our eyes.  foreigner, measured him  a measure not created by us, then Italian, then German, then French  (Now we seem to be facing yet another calamity, the Byzantine measure), and  of course, hooking  Russian  painting  such measures  Only externally and partially, it was natural to speak of his scarcity. Perhaps none of the arts developed in such unfortunate conditions as the Russian. The Tatar yoke was swept away cleanly.  The first, precious young and cheerful shoots of national culture - the Kiev period. The rise of the Russian  of consciousness, which left in our iconography samples of high  The Novgorod period was crushed by Moscow. Finally,  "European"  Petersburg  Attempts from Moscow have failed.   Icon painters, led by Simon Ushakov, attempts  gigantic  Importance – Consciously Accept  achievements of European painting.

And if  A number of such attacks - I called  Only the most destructive, four times moved.  centre  Still, it did not interrupt our artistic growth (but, of course, it reflected on the best Russian achievements).  A touch of martyrdom, heavyness, morbidity, one must be amazed.   It's the power that's in it.

Only then, it seems to us, will Russian art finally wait for its full potential.  stories,  when we can love  past  everywhere  Its enormity, which seems so disheveled, but in fact firmly welded together by the martyric struggle for national culture,  And certainly in this story.  Somov will take a distinct place.

Of course, the lines of development of Russian creativity indicated by us are our hypothesis. Whether it becomes lawful, or is forgotten as an error, is a matter of the future; moreover, it is only when our growth is complete that it will be possible to determine precisely.  his laws.

But when will it be?  In any case, one of the links of the Russian tradition, in which we believe, is given by Somov, and therefore we are entitled to believe that the meaning of this   The artist will remain in Russian art  -  forever.