Vs. Dmitriev. The art world. Exhibition of sketches, sketches and drawings

JL  Apollo November – December 1916 No. 9 – 10

"World of Art" Exhibition of sketches, sketches and drawings

There are eccentric critics trying to censure or praise exhibitions.  "World of Art" in all its composition. Truly they are quixotic, seeing a giant where there is only a mill, seeing an ideological group where there are only a number of individual artists. The more they quixotic that the representatives themselves  "The World of Art"  I have repeatedly told you my desire to be  You are in the right direction, but not in the right direction. Why should these unnecessary attempts to exaggerate the importance of these exhibitions, when the organizers do not ask for it? To thrust heavy armor on the peaceful shoulders of citizens, to put a knightly sword in the hands, more accustomed to goose feathers or even to yarn. Here are the bearish services of too dreamy friends! Look at the truth and we will be closer to the truth.Let the intrusive skeptic inquire what the brand really means.  “The world of art”; it is very easy to calm it down, pointing out that it is not  And I,  More like a business sign. Not a manifestation of any movement, but only the stakes of various artists who rented the room together. Let this, or any other, equally annoying skeptic, ask: so why should some of these skeptics ask?  "nonpartisan"  exhibitions are accepted – well, at least such as Zelmanova, Vereysky, Lagorio, Simonovich, and some, they say, are not accepted?

I draw the reader’s attention to my reservation.  d o o o o r i t,  For me personally, this is just  “Hearing” that I did not check and do not want to check, because I certainly trust the taste of the jury.  The World of Art, which for many years has selected members of its exhibitions with exceptional grace and tact. In fact, the way BV was different.  "World of Art"  at least  "Auer's benches," if wide open the doors decisively for  All who wish. And yet, I think it's ridiculous to argue now what the difference is.   And that is precisely because it exists.  "World of Art" makes a certain selection. There is no doubt that if the jury of the named society has to make a choice between a violent and dark stranger and a well-known for his exemplary behavior, as well as his sincere intention to engage in at least a little painting by a friend, then the choice will fall on the second.This explains the participation in this exhibition of such as those already named by me, or, for example, others such as Breath, like Katz, Hextopalov or Shitikov ...

So here we have an exhibition of different artists, who should be treated differently. However, we can note one curious feature, almost common to all exhibitors: this is a whimsical variety of influences imprinted in their works.

So, in the beautiful winter sketches of Bilibin, we suddenly find echoes of watercolors of Shcherbov; in the delicately felt landscapes of Dobuzhinsky we meet  Krymov, and in pencils - the unexpected influence of Grigoriev; in the good experiments of Chagall, Matisse and Nesterov and the Capital are mixed in one dough; Milmam tries to connect Cezanne and Petrov-Vodkin with homegrown achievements, and Nivinsky struggles over an even more difficult task, reconciling Pasternak with Lancera, Saryan with Zhukovsky. However, not everyone is infected with such a conciliatory mood; on the contrary, some are striking in their exclusive attachment to any one pattern.So, Shchekotikhina with respectable devotion rehearses in  "Unclean place"   Roerich; Ogranovic in  "Evening on Capri" - Korovina; Ziloty in  “Tiger” almost copies Serov, in Kruglikova in his silhouettes competes with equally pleasant silhouette jokes Benoit.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with such one-sidedness; on the contrary, the appearance of such one-sidedness should be welcomed.  "school"  among such masters as Roerich or Korovin or Benoit; we await and warmly welcome in advance the appearance of whole groups of such masters.  "one-sided,"  However, they are interesting precisely as groups, while their performances separately, perhaps, have no definite justification.

Moreover, they can even mislead; an inexperienced observer will take them, perhaps, not for a reason.  "Schools," not for the harmless reflections of one or another master, but for the representatives of  "individual"  currents  I don't know.   on   n  n  At least at the cost of moving forward. A sad example of this trend is  Perseus.  Kalmakova; but of course. Such as Shchekotikhina or Ogranovich. It is only by misunderstanding that we could classify it as a movement that has long since outlived its heyday.

Braz, Konchalovsky, Kustodiev, Lindeman, Mashkov, Narbut, Ostroumova-Lebedeva, Chekhonin – gave works so consistent with our already established idea of the boundaries and features of their skill, that, perhaps, there is no need to emphasize here that they did not change the once achieved high technique. One can only point out in the new praise to these artists that they have managed to find some lines that are surprisingly consistent with each other.Previously, such masters as, for example, Konchalovsky and Chekhonin, seemed irreconcilable to us; however, now the still lifes of Konchalovsky or Mashkov, with their very elegantly pasted fragments of newspapers and bottle labels, seem quite decent pandans to the charming needleworks of Somova-Mikhailova and amazingly made miniatures of Chekhonin.

As always, Petrov-Vodkin stands with his grandiose portrait. Strange artist! "Muscovite", by all means striving to become infected with Petrograd rationality; a strong painter who thinks himself a writer ... Why? It would seem that the very spirit of the time, and the search for most modern artists entail just away from graphic art in painting. It is exactly Petrov-Vodkin who wants to become  "The world of the artisan," though in fact he... Who is he really? Judge for yourself, is it genuine?  The "skilled world" would have thought of spreading one woman's face on a planted canvas, would he have combined so harshly, even unpleasantly, the paint of the pupil and eyebrows with a solid, only diluted with white ochre of the skin of the face, as Petrov-Vodkin does?

After all, we agreed to count.  "World of Art"  show-only   I don't know.  artists, and then where and in what group  Petrov-Vodkin would have appeared   c in oh and m? Strange position of this strange master, the play of fates enrolled almost in the same ranks of worthless individualists, where such figures. Like Kalchakov, when all the features of his talent require framing in the form of  "Schools," when he has the data, is almost entitled to become the head of a whole pictorial branch!

Another thing is Grigoriev, a master who is not at all yearning for school, but jokingly recruiting imitators, and moreover, even among his senior colleagues, with the wonderful features of his pencil, which is almost going to fill all our draftsmen, and still here, in contrast to Petrov-Vodkin, -  and so on that which will never be   Oh and oh and oh and oh.

Grigoriev should be congratulated on a big victory; he succeeded  (finally!) to combine such different techniques before him, pencil and oil. Now in oil works he manages to retain all the strength and all the features of pencil sketches. Now he suddenly appeared before us as an artist very whole, almost whole.

I don't know. With a certain completeness, confident power of his hand, Grigoriev now positively dominates the entire exhibition. I'd like to say,

I'm sorry.   hers.

In his manner, too refined, to the point of unnecessary inclination, too completely careless, until   We do not see a strong path to mastery; in his works, oil is used.  It seems like some end, not the beginning, some sweet   oh and rh and I... Does it not outline the final results? – in it, so harmoniously and so consistently grew on the diverse searches and experiences of numerous exhibitions.  "World of Art."

Vs. Dmitriev