V. Dmitriev Thoughts on the Russian Mastery
Thoughts on the Russian Mastery (about the exhibition of works from the collection of P.V. Delarov), Apollo No. 4, 1914
Thoughts on the Russian Mastery
(According to the exhibition of works from the Assembly of N.V. Delarov)
Vsevolod Dmitriev
Happiness or misfortune for the domestic art of Peter's work? This old question may again, perhaps, acquire some sharpness. But we're going to try to replace it, without deciding, with others: Is the crack between our HUP and HUSH centuries that big and deep? Is not the decisive opposition of these centuries (we are speaking here only of Russian painting) partly the result of the insufficiency of our historical self-knowledge?
Icon of Simon Ushakov or Yaroslavl painting, "Portrait of Stroganova" R. Nikitin (Museum of the Academy of Arts) or "Transfer of the Tikhvin Icon" V.Istomina (Russian Museum of Emperor Alexander Sh), - we do not see between the first and second decisive I would rather say that the step from Ushakov to Nikitin is too much. In comparison with the amazingly strong and friendly transition of icon painting into frieze, which we observe in the HUP century, one could expect art in HUSH. more 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 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 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 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
I. Titov, I. Nikitin, A. Matveev... and, probably, a number of artists hidden in the darkness of our ignorance only continued the work already in full swing under Mikhail Feodorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich. and I The work is heavy, of great importance and responsibility, and ungrateful (from descendants they have not yet received gratitude).
It seems that the study of A. Antropov (1716 – 1795) can give us a lot of important things. The artist, in his At the time, who enjoyed great power and influence, came out of the icon painting workshop himself, a student of A. Matveev and in turn a teacher of Levitsky, he is one of the most characteristic artistic figures of the HUSH century. But is it possible to be surprised that for our days Antropov has not waited for a historical assessment, that so far we have only a note by N. Pokrovsky about this artist? "Christ Readings" (1887), when all our art history is full of virgin leaves? We always have to insert words into speech: I think, perhaps, perhaps. With them we try to at least partially soften the sharpness, surprise of our guesses, but we have, unfortunately, to think that in such a case, we have to be able to do something. The “mixed” position of our historical self-knowledge in art, every attempt to find a soil basis, to find any connection in the scattered pages of the artistic past, will certainly sound a paradox, will seem a sudden leap.
It is very necessary to emphasize the danger, even the harm of such jumps. for history. The suddenness, and therefore for a moment, the power and brilliance of a paradox can lead to the deliberate search for it for its own sake; of course, such a game, a series of such erroneous guesses, will only confuse our artistic heritage, which is so completely confused. But still, wanting to at least a little to penetrate into the meaning of the Russian past, we do not see the opportunity to completely avoid these risky and responsible jumps, because dl p hmm at n Still. no I don't think so. Whoa.
We can now talk with satisfaction at least about the historical mystery of A. Somov that Venetsianov "still not appreciated in full" (see A. Somov, "P.A. Fedotov" St. Petersburg, 1878.page 19), as brilliantly justified. Indeed, the importance of Venetsianov, speaking together with the course of our historical self-knowledge more and more clearly, raised him to equality with Bryullov (what a daring paradox these words would sound for Bryullov’s contemporaries!) But of course, now Venetianov is highly appreciated not as the first "household" - such an assessment is too random and impermanent. Venetsianov’s significance goes deeper than the novelty of the plot, Suppose that the most convinced householders are found at the beginning of the HUSH century, or even in centuries much earlier – will we then take his wreath from Venetsianov? The enduring value of Venetsianov seems to us that he, having come out of a very conditional, frozen on one approximate The “truth” of Borovikovsky’s form, came by persistent and long-term teaching in nature to a form incomparably clearer and more accurate.
But here is another paradox: “There is much more in common between Vasnetsov and Bruni than between Ivanov and Vasnetsov.” History of Russian Painting (1902). We cannot help but notice that we would like to substitute for this assumption an even sharper one: between Vasnetsov and Bryullov than between Ivanov and Vasnetsov. But the first hunch, I think, is that I still find myself, for many, very unexpected and incomprehensible.
_____________________
*) We consider quite a vivid confirmation of our words in the collection of N. Delarov Borovikovsky No. 4 and three Venetianovs. Nos. 23, 24, 25. True, Borovikovsky is recorded, missing characteristic of him "porcelain" tone, but replacing this portrait with some typical, for example, portrait of Mrs. Neklyudova, we still say: how Venetsianov is classically accurate next to the random and often everything is different. so Good luck with Borovikovsky!
______________________
In the meantime, it is very important, perhaps, will play an equally significant role in clarification No, no. and s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s and me And the above assumption of A. Somov. What can Vasnetsov have in common with Bruni? – many will probably ask with bewilderment, but ... we are mistaken when we think that it is enough to evaluate works of art. I don't know. - Yes, this is enough when we want to inform about the peculiarities of our taste, but such an assessment is too insufficient. We try to measure the entire legacy of the past. By tearing the individual artist out of the totality of contemporary artistic life, without having traced all his connections with his predecessors, without knowing all the ways from him to the future, we cannot even think of giving historically correct definitions.
Guided by the aesthetic measure, i.e., by our taste, is it natural to say, how can this sentimental, uninspired and unintelligent artist be significant? (We note in passing that Stasov, naming Venetsianov,
“Sentimental and sweet,” he wanted to deprive him of the right to historical significance. But Raphael next to Leonardo is undoubtedly sentimental, sweet, too simple. On the other hand, a certain Lomtev is a temperament impulsive, by no means sensitive; on the basis of the aesthetic measure, we have the right to put it higher.The late Raphael, in the long run, will surely forget our opinion together with Lomtev, and Raphael. It will remain, despite all attempts by some critics or even entire generations to debunk it.
Why is that? Although we are convinced that the reason for this is clear to many without our explanation, we still consider it necessary to express it here. Raphael is a great knot of threads twisted by a number of generations, and the paths from it to the next generations are as powerful as the link with the past, while the kindly Lomtev individuality has not yet risen even to contact with the general path of domestic art. ** Probably in order to get pr artistically The most important requirement is a preliminary oh ot Akimov, Shebuev, Aldr. Ivanov, despite all their impersonality, and perhaps precisely because of this, are historically more significant and incomparably dear to us than they are. At least Lomtev again.
_____________________
*) N. Delarov Nos. 49 and 50
** With these words, we do not want to deprive Lomtev of the rights to our attention. His. "Middle Age Alchemist" The exhibition is a typical example, so common among Russian artists, of attempts to combine the decidedly incompatible, in this case - Rembrandt with academicism. Or maybe this picture is an attempt to reset “through Rembrandt the academic chains so clearly reflected in another Lomtevsky “The Entry of Christ into Jerusalem?”
______________________________________
______________________________________
Raphael many times during his apprenticeship, and He lost his face, so that through that it would appear again more and more brilliant. ***
___________________________
*** Because we have lingered on the unknown Lomtev for so long, he seems to us to be one of the early victims of that disease, which is now the ruinous scourge of art. b I'm not I don't know. cin I'm sorry. And yet, if it has not yet gained the power to strike the necessary line into the single face of native art?
_____________-
Extremeness – which gave us the history of Kush and the beginning of the X!X centuries, as the history of Rokotov, Levitsky, Borovikovsky – is an undoubted consequence of the desire to find sharply expressed individualities at all costs; this desire allowed Borovikovsky to be promoted to the high rank of one of our best. But recognizing Borovikovsky’s great measure of vigilance and originality, we would still rather call him a successful amateur than a master. Fading up to thirty years at the level of provincial amateurism imposed an indelible seal on all his further activities. "schoolless," artistically unconsciousness
The same accusations, of schoollessness and formlessness, we dare, perhaps, transfer to Borovikovsky’s teacher. In any case, some of their brilliance named artists are likely to yield to those who for the sake of the first pushed into unfair oblivion. Losenko, Akimov, Ugryumov, Andr.Ivanov, Egorov, Shebuev, Basin... They are still waiting for their historical assessment...
We know that the Academy of Arts was conceived by Peter, but again we do not think that this enterprise was anything extremely new. We already had an Academy - the Armoury Chamber, planted through the Deters, Loputtsky, Wuchters began "Europeans." We must say that the work of our first academicians is almost a clean page in our artistic history, and meanwhile, it is very important to read it, perhaps the next page – the HUSH century – will become much clearer behind it.The St. Petersburg Academy had the honorable and difficult role of continuing in art the work bequeathed to Peter by his father, the persistent, long and naively provincial work of Losenka, Akimov, Shebuev – this is the same path of diligent apprenticeship, the path of eclecticism, which was followed by the Armory, and in the end the whole further Russian school of painting in its best manifestations. ****
__________________
****) Akimov is represented. N. Delarov remarkable and, of course, very important for history "Hercules at the Crossroads" - the work of probably one period with "Pygmalion making statues" at the Museum of the Academy of Arts. Not so lucky Shebuev: if the drawing "St. Jerome, who shows the great school, is Shebuevsky, we have the right to assume that the other, attributed to Shebuev, Amphitrite, is either a forgery or a copy made by the hand of a disciple.
___________________
With all the more attention we have to look at the pre-Brullovsky Academy, that there, along with the touching provincialism of our Poussins and Raphaels, at least Sokolovskoe was created. "Mercury and Argus" - a work marked by a large Awareness of form and color. But don't think we're going to defend that academy as our best school. The experience of Kiprensky, Alexander Ivanov, tells us all too strongly that this is not the case. It was a learning attained by strenuous effort, but in the end fruitless—an equally deceptive specter of school, as sheer abstraction as, after all, the European prowess of Levitsky or Borovikovsky.It is enough to look at the Rokotovsky "Venus" or "Dmitry Donskoy." Kipriensky, or Shebuevskaya The Last Supper, and especially Borovikovsky's "Image" (No. 1880). The Russian Museum) and in his mystical images of the last period, to notice that they all do not have what was so easy to give at least Lampy senior or gr. Rotary – some measure, some kind of consciousness of the boundary between the work of art and the copied nature and the ability to always dwell on it – even if this line seems to us now incorrect and conditional, but it was this, like the desired rune, that our people tried to get for themselves. "Europeans."
Sometimes it seems that this elusive measure was given to us (we will refer to at least "Smolyanok" Levitsky..., but it is hard to believe that this is not luck I mean, not for a moment. From the above works to that open misunderstanding of the tasks of art, the artistic measure, the very alphabet of the school of painting, which we are used to calling. "movement" -- p e e x o d eh? No, no, no, no. Our European pupils of visiting foreigners, or academicians who had lived abroad for a long time, immediately tried to promote Russian art. n to become masters at once, while skill is the fruit of long quests, e l l l l I don't know. f and n That's why I don't know. We're here. The attempt is ridiculous, but it will not be so ridiculous to us when we remember that the result was such isolation of Russian art.By Peter’s bold and probably necessary blow, the brain, the center of culture, was moved to a new place; a dangerous measure, but it might have led to a new and strongest flowering, had the Petrov heirs not believed that the isolation, the illusory nature of St. Petersburg was not a temporary illness, but a necessary and inevitable condition of Russian life.
We say this to protect our academicians from reproach. “Impersonality”, and hence – in stupidity, in mediocrity. The lead, the path of theory and eclecticism, was inevitable; it was not by this that we should measure the value and talent of our pre-Brullian academics, but by how strong, deep, and extensive their apprenticeship was.
Is it because Russian apprenticeship has already ended, or because we have again longed for a strong school, for a blissful opportunity? No way. cin z for f and n o On the possibility of forgetting about ourselves as a mere drop of the flow that we call the path of native art, we think that we will not be mistaken, pointing to the rapid revaluation of Ivanovsky. Appearances of the Messiah.
We will love this picture just because it was denied by Kramsky and Ge, and, finally, denied now - for her. "untruthful", for her amazing non-photographic, with all the exact following of nature, for her "impersonality." But loving and overestimating We will inevitably fall in love with those impersonal academicians whose path Ivanov followed.
But can we talk about Russian skills? Clear, pure craftsmanship, the great measure that makes the creation of art a mysterious, equal rival of life, is, as we have said, the fruit of the long efforts of a number of generations. “Craftsmanship is the crowning of great work, some divine point where art really becomes art.” That's right. But cut off from its nourishing artery, from the living tradition of national art, it immediately becomes cloudy and turns into an unpleasant pattern or dexterity. We can talk about Renoir's skill. But we could have had I'm sorry. How about that? Of course not. We could have "seekers of skill", could be Shchukins, Kiprensky, Repins, Serovs (We are only talking about the X!X centuries here) "calm" There could be no skill, for The absence of the necessary conditions – a long artistic tradition, a treasure trove of accumulated experience, found glimpses of truth and beauty. Only by learning how to accumulate and preserve such national treasures, we can dream of the possibility of the full embodiment of the national ideal and of calm and clear skill. But we have only partial and inevitable infidels. "groundless" attempts at synthesis and skill: such are the "Pompeii" Bryullov, "Messiah." Ivanova and... such are the “Vladimir Cathedral” by Vasnetsov, historical paintings by Surikov.
The reason for Bryullov’s brilliance, which still seduces us like some irretrievably lost secret, is, in our opinion, that Bryullov managed to merge two ways of accumulating Russian artistic consciousness, previously separated: one going through Antropov, Rokotov, Levitsky, Borovikovsky, the other through Losenka, Akimov, Ugryumov, Shebuev. Slowly growing awareness of artistic beauty and truth, driven by the portrait experience of the first and the museum experience of the second, Bryullov, with one magically light gesture, closed in his “Skills” (we repeat that we accept Bryullov’s skill with a great reservation) and, of course, since he really completely absorbed all the accumulated experience, he must have seemed to contemporaries both dazzlingly faithful and dazzlingly beautiful.
Bruni, for example, could not have had the same success, for he followed only the line of academics. **
_______________
How wonderful the craft of the Bryullov brush! How sweet, but not gone, easy, but not superficial letter at least "Venus and the Servant" of the Delarov Assembly! It is a “nothing”, but it is the fruit of the hotly desired dream of several generations. "Bronze Serpent" - No. 5 in the exhibition catalog - gives a very clear idea of a strict, slightly ascetic Nazarene School. Bruni.
** We have named only those whose works were available at the exhibition of the collection of P. Delarov, but we must say that our "Baroque" was represented here by atypical works. Accidents Semiradsky, V.P. Vereshchagin, Gun ... With caution, the catalogue of the exhibition noted, if possible, all those expressing doubts in attribution (for example, quite rightly under the question mark were paintings by Flavitsky, Polenov, Portrait of a Young Lady by Kiprensky...), others were allocated to the rubric. "unknown artists" but we know how abound With the pitfalls of every private gathering... And Delarov's meeting is no exception. Jacobius, No. 96.97.98, was presented more successfully, this defector from the camp of the Wanderers to the post-Bryullov Academy; he has no mention of the harsh school of the old Academy, the cheap rainbow of his paintings is a trace of poison infused by Bryullov ...
_____________________________
After Bryullov, the purpose of the Academy, as it was conceived by Peter, as it was "Arms Chamber" and what gave it the only justification - to be a conductor in the field of s to s to s into This mission was forgotten by the Academy with astonishing rapidity. Already in the first blinded imitators of Bryullov – Kapkov, Mokritsky, Moller – we observe a rapid decline in the once strict and restrained form, once accurate and thoughtful color. *)
Comparing the watercolor of A. Bryullov reproduced here and the watercolor of P. Sokolov with the drawing of K. Bryullov, we will notice in the first very dangerous signs, which are much less in their younger years, but more cautious, more restrained K. Bryullov.Strange as it may sound, perhaps, for the modern mind, accustomed to K. Bryullov being called frivolous, frivolous and superficial, we think that this artist (at least in this picture) has all the signs of a school very thought out, very stubborn and conscious, we see traces of a long and difficult time. oh Looking at the museum treasures... Of course, we may not like the beginning of it. "Bologna" At any rate, we admit that Bryullov made full use of the precepts of that academy, which he then poisoned to death with his brilliance and glory. And we will not repeat this about A. Bryullov, and especially about P. Sokolov: dangerous signs of self-satisfaction, a template instead of skill, are on their face at that time of apprenticeship in Europe, which was then necessary to experience Russian art. Together with the appearance n “self-satisfaction” (the main culprit of which, of course, is K. Bryullov). But much will be forgiven to those who have received much. In Russian art, the bias towards "Provincialism" - to the movement. Up to that time, the natural desire of provincial artistic thought – to incarnate in a provincial form – was opposed by harsh learning; now this learning by the magic of Bryullov has turned into a sweet and seemingly easy game. A dangerous example for Aah! Aah! Believing that art I'm sorry. that there is no need for a school, a museum, or Europe, Russian art after Bryullov has become a new art. Deeply provincial. "Zichivshchyna" infected everyone.
_________________________
Delarovsk Kapkovs are very characteristic - it is a pity if they are kept in private hands. The words that from clear skill to a murky template is a step, and from a template a rapid deviation into provincialism is inevitable, are best confirmed by the creations of Kapkov. We'll take it to the same group. “The Girl by the Mirror” (No. 53), in all probability – the work of Poleshanov (1829-1882)
**) We take Zichy – with a number of drawings and watercolors presented by Delarov – as the most characteristic example of that dexterity and real nonsense, which in his time was identified with the concept. "skills."
Instead of naive and “modest to sanctity” drawing of Andrei Ivanov*, we begin to observe attempts to virtuoso incompleteness, to lightness, to freedom. From this desire are not free even those who, hopelessly confusing skill with dexterity, denied both. **
It is enough to walk through the halls of the Academic Gallery to get a clear idea of the decisive deviation of our school. "almost real" The reason for this, of course, was the Academy’s oblivion of its reserved role – to be the guide of the West to us, to nourish our art with the latest achievements of world art. After all, in fact, before Bryullov, our academicians acted as they do now. Futurists; they went to Europe and studied there with those who seemed to them the best!
With the brilliance of his skill, Bryullov obscured from subsequent generations the meaning of the pre-Bryullovsk school; fighting, quite correctly, against
It's not like you're not here. After the synthesis of Bryullov, these generations together with him rejected the pre-Bryullov school, but here it seems a sad mistake.
It is very instructive, in our opinion, that Ge, and Repin (the first periods), and Vrubel, and Serov (especially the latter with his "Raphaelian" The desire to lose face in order to gain greater power was extremely sensitive to the contemporary artistic movements of the West, while the rejection of the West was a heavy burden on the achievements of Ryabushkin or Surikov. But – again, the question has been raised – does this mean that we have to dream of that pre-Brullian school as a lost paradise?In a sense, yes; yes, we have an Academy that, having forgotten its true purpose, has turned into a nest of terrifying provincialism. If our dream of that old school can serve as a battering ram against this, of course we should dream. But with some significant reservations.
Experience so The experience of a number of artists shows us how in essence our dream is futile. f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f o o skill. Shebuev's contemporaries called "Russian Poussin, surpassed this artist", Kiprensky - Van Dyck, Repin - Velázquez ... If we now determine why neither the first, nor the second, nor the third can be merely compared with their European models, we may say only that there is no such thing in them. The culture that gives the very strength, the most precious thing to Poussin, and Van Dyke, and Velázquez.
____________________
No. 37,38,39 on the catalog of the exhibition - precious examples of the works of this touching master - who fell in love with Zeus, Aeneas, Raphael, and Titian - from the words of the lucky ones who visited Italy, but loved them with the same quiet and strong faith, as our icon painters loved Byzantine canons that they did not understand.
** As an illustration, we can refer to the drawing of Perov and the drawing of Repin (under Kramsky) in the sobr. P. Delarova.
_____________________________
most characteristic An example of the futility of all our attempts. become “like Europe,” without first creating its soil culture, is, in our opinion, “Joseph in prison.” Alexandra Ivanov at the Museum of the Academy of Arts. As in this picture the European drapery is well written, how strictly thought out the color of the red cloak. But the face of Joseph, written with undeniable sincerity, Ivanov struggled for a long time (he had already copied it several times on canvas, which is denounced by the sketches of heads coming out of the background next to the head that satisfied the artist), what it was like. mobile! So, how this head was written, we wrote both Surikov and V. Vasnetsov, who tried to give synthesis already on the basis of the mobile school, or rather, without school. *)
However, this picture was painted by Ivanov at the age of 21, before a foreign school. "school" his painting, "Messiah", there is no hint of movement. In his last inspired watercolors, Ivanov again destroyed what he had achieved with so much effort. "European school", but as an inspiration here is high-classical in comparison with the first attempt to give a free outlet to inspiration. Naive provincial!
_________________________
*)P. Delarov has a remarkable sketch of Surikov "Writer on wood", and Serov (No. 83) - still typical "repinian." It is very instructive to compare the school of their letters with the school of at least Bryullovskaya. Venus or Venitian "Old men."
________________________-
With this example, we want to confirm the idea that only I don't think so. Europe, we will find high art, but no oh ot Nope.
At the same time, we must say that all those traits of mobility that we find in Rokotov, Borovikovsky, Kiprensky, Ivanov, Ge, and, of course, in the property of Repin, Surikov, finally, Serov, are very dear to us. In all this "schoolless" - by chance, the pressure of inspiration - are interspersed with extremely important features, some seeds of original, new and strong. It is a culture of art on the basis of which only we can dream to give a clear and calm skill. An academy, in the sense that it originated, for example, in Italy or Flanders, as the end of its heyday, is, of course, impossible for us now; such an academy will probably appear many years later and will arise naturally. I'm sorry. oh I'm sorry. artistic life. Now the Academy seems possible only in the sense that it was conceived by Peter. "window to Europe", as a force that raises our art from provincialism to classicism, helping our emerging original artistic culture to acquire a world outlook.
Having talked about identity, we consider it appropriate to touch upon in the form of the conclusion of our essay a remarkable picture from the collection of P. Delarov: “Cadrille in the infirmary” (in a madhouse?), listed in the exhibition catalog "Unknown"; some attribute it to Shevchenko, others call it the author of Fedotov.
Fedotov is one of the precious, p The achievements of Russian art; this forces us to treat with exceptional attention the heritage left by it. It is known that in the last years of his life, the development of Fedotov proceeded with great strength and speed. We assume that his "school" It could change quickly and significantly. From Gogarth and Gavarni he went to the truly high teachers – to the Dutch of the HUP century. It is known that along with a large number of drawings, especially of the Gogartov period, we have few works by Fedotov in oil. Listing them, A. Somov in his monograph says about Fedotov: “Beyond these things, without a doubt, many more Fedotov’s works have survived, still hidden under a bushel in different hands.”
We know what's new. The more precious features of Fedotov’s personality have revealed to us. "Officer in the Village" Ostroukhov Assembly and "Officer with a batterer" The Russian Museum. Without deciding on Fedotov's ownership "Kadrili," we only think that it is better to make a mistake in the other direction - to attribute to him not his picture, than to make it back. What if it is still a picture of Fedotov, what if it, rejected, disappears again? "under a bush in different hands"? Maybe more than once Russian art will have to do this. regret.
___________________
*) So little closer to our idea of Fedotov is sobr. P. Delarov Fedotov drawing "A scene in a fun house."
(Apollo, December 1914) №4)