Vs. Dmitriev. Exhibition of Former and Future

Apollo No. 10, 1914

 

Exhibition of Former and Future

                                         

  Vsevolod Dmitriev

 

What will Russian art be like then? later  What is it that we are experiencing now? It is true that this question can be reflected by others: is not the present state of our art satisfactory, for otherwise why should we speculate about the future? To dream about the future, because it basically means to miss the present. Do we have enough reason for that?

Perhaps there is only one thing – a recent and still vague demand in us that art should be able to find some creative reflection of modern art.  In the days of the victims, he managed to sacrifice something, something, too.   It's about your existence. Or – and here is a mistake, and in fact art does not need to justify itself?

Art cannot and should not respond to art.  The evil of the day; we have a sad example in the past.  ("movement"), how destructively affected the artistic activity   ps and ns and ns   understanding the goals of art and justifying it as serving the needs of today; but we have another example in our own past - how art managed to carry its creativity high above everyday needs and thoughts and at the same time be both necessary and precious (and precisely in the days of historical trials) to its homeland - this is ancient Russian icon painting.

Let us now decide: "incarnations"  Art should not serve the evil of the day, but the   b and n and her   There must be the same measure and force of artistic life as the beating of the whole life of the country. It is this situation that makes us doubt, makes us wait persistently.   (b) or, more accurately,  n  and    into    (b) to be bored in the present, or - again I will recover - to doubt that at the present hour all is well in Russian art.

However, even to doubt that the beating of our artistic life does not correspond to the beating of the life of our homeland, does not coincide with it – this means almost that the world is not living.  (if not entirely) to deny art in any sense to the general course of the spiritual being of the people. But to change the work of art now, to replace it with some other work, to forget it now as a business.   "surplus"  Does not all this mean to confirm the two-century prejudice of Russian society against art, does not it mean to agree that from the integrity and ideological power of the country, the existence or non-existence of domestic art will not in the least reflect the fact that  case  Artists for the success of the common cause of the homeland - and not profit, and not damage?

This would be unfair: in Russian society, there has been, and in recent years, a strong emphasis on the life of art.  The other question is, is this attention satisfied? Do we not sometimes think that this vague and partial social aspiration, which has not yet resulted in clear demands, is simple and cannot be satisfied? without any decisive upheaval in our artistic life, without any sudden   What?

We are trying to look into the future... We know that it is inextricably linked to our past and present. We can expect a miracle, we can believe. That we have, or will soon have, new inspirations, which will succeed in infusing the strong beat of modernity with a lively pathos into our work, but we cannot believe that  "form"  Such future achievements will open up completely unexpected, unexpected, and thus the past of the arts tells us just the opposite. The creation of new inspiration was all the more beautiful, and the more long and strong their impact on the viewer, the deeper, more insightful and more extensive the experience of past generations was used by this new inspiration.

Repin... Surikov... Vasnetsov. Have they not once presented themselves to Russian society as a long-awaited embodiment of a living and  "soil"  inspiration? However, it is now not difficult to prove that the heaviness and thickness of the bark  The “provincialism” that has devalued their inspiration is in direct accord with the little attention these artists have paid to their work.  "“Museum Science” with little insight into past generations. Remember that  past  I will learn to love my own people.  These are the two elementary conditions of artistic culture, which were constantly violated by Russian artists. And finches on some immature hints and painful shouts.

If so, if we are convinced that a good future can arise only from the  wise   And I'm not.   The reserves accumulated in our past and present, thereby both the past and the present acquire a special and valuable significance. Love and faith in our future   I don't know.   With all the more perseverance and desire to delve into everything that has already been achieved by domestic art. Insufficient love and insufficient attention here are necessarily gaps and insufficiency there. In the future. It seems to us certain that every bit of inspiration, artistic work and experience that we neglect and throw out of our past is a reckless stone from a pillar on which we try to establish ourselves.

After these lines of preliminary explanations, I return to the question raised at the beginning of the article: how do we justify dissatisfaction with the present and anticipation of the future?  I felt especially strongly that we have such an excuse when I looked at the pictures reproduced here from the paintings that were at the last exhibition.  "World of Art." I will say definitely: these pictures seemed to me like reproduction of paintings.   p. They are the ones from which we are moved.   I'm not.  years. Without a doubt, such a feeling could arise only for a moment, although it has its explanation, and even for a moment. Does it not appear in every viewer? Contemporary events that break down in a day what has been created for years, and create a new one, something that seemed remote from us for decades, poured into Russian life with rapid force a new experience, which we will not find a closer definition, like pathos (at the same time means suffering, and inspiration, uplift).It was this new feeling we experienced that forced us to look at the very works that a year ago seemed completely different.  We are close to them, close to them. Events that have shifted the whole course of Russian life from the usual path have also shifted our art: it appears to us in a strange position. bw   I don't think so. We are determined.  It is hard to imagine yesterday’s  The “present” has retained its modernity for today and could find the same response in the audience today as it did yesterday.

The uniqueness of the modern state of Russian art, existing, but  not  possessive   The very movement forward of Russian artistic thought also made unusual. The slowness of the formation of a new understanding of art yesterday seemed quite acceptable, even necessary - now it is impossible. In order for the beating of artistic life to prove to be of the same measure and force as the modern beating of all Russian life, it must experience – so it seems to us – a sharp and definite shift. Is Russian art going through it now?Just as the state of our art is unusual now, so is the role of those who followed the course of artistic life. Just like the river, which yesterday we saw before our eyes, disappeared under the ground, and now we have only to wait and believe, and guess where, when and with what force the river will again break to the surface.However, I hasten to note that the role of the fortune-teller must be limited in order not to fall into an idle game, only to continue with experiments into the future what was already brewing and determined in the immediate past, what suddenly ended or, rather, turned out to be temporarily brought down by the onslaught of the world.   "angry."

It is easy to outline two main attractions that originated in Russian art, all the more so since both of them have already clearly emerged in previous years: return and search on the paths that we are used to calling.   (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) ( (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)   and other, drawing for itself strength and confirmation in the samples of Byzantine and especially ancient Russian creativity. The two paths seem incompatible! But isn’t that called historical foresight? Both of these paths are presented as approaching the task to overcome which is now urgent for art - naphos and the community of modern thoughts to give a resonant artistic form.It is possible that with more and more attention we will look at the school that allowed Bryullov’s talent to unfold strongly and without a trace, and with even greater envy we will observe the picturesque tradition of ancient Russian masters, a tradition that so miraculously and easily bent visible forms to the will of the artist. A dream  “picture”, but about the picture as the embodiment of the ideological and formal ideals of the country, and the search for ways to such a picture is essentially equally close to those who look back on it.  "academism," and  "Icon." Shouldn’t the future arise at the crossroads of these paths? Only six months ago, following the identification of these artistic trends, we explained their emergence very easily. Excessive artistic abundance  “Languages”, generated by aesthetic all-acceptability and the desire for a pronounced isolation, which allowed Stelletsky and Benois, Dobuzhinsky and Saryan to get along perfectly at one exhibition, should have been   No, you're not. Suddenly there arose the delight of artistic circles before the ancient Russian icon, before its canon, united and strong, strict and slender, and at the same time attention to the pre-Brullian Academy, also striving for one precise and clear canon - all this seemed to us signs of healthy and urgent changes in Russian art understanding.

However, the matter now seems more complicated than it seemed six months ago; we even ventured to hint at historical foresight. Is it simple here to stop from the extreme of multilingualism, which seemed to us almost ... Is the new artistic education brought to the top by deeper and more grounded reasons?Just as this war, which threw whole nations one on the other, can hardly be fully explained by a simple struggle of state and commercial interests, and perhaps was caused over many years by the accumulated need, after struggling only for oneself and for one’s everyday well-being, to forget oneself in the spontaneous struggle for national and world ideas; so in artistic life – the rapid, almost convulsive change of hobbies experienced by art in recent years, perhaps only marked the beginning of the history of the world.It is the same need to sacrifice one’s individual will for the purpose of the many.And I would like to ask whether the strange wind that infected the best young artistic forces of Europe and forced them with some pleasure of self-destruction to hide their spirit and appearance at a sharp angle of black and gray cubes was not only a harrowing foreboding of the future, of that future when peoples, having experienced the delight and burden of spontaneous creativity, will again turn with deep attention to art and look for it.   It's not like that.   their uneasy and agitated (pathetic) experiences in the clarity and tranquility of the creations of art? But realizing how much more profound, persistent, say even religious, public attention to art should become then, we begin to doubt whether there is a possibility or even hints of the possibility of satisfying such a high need in Russian art.When we talk about such satisfaction, do we not look far ahead, or even give in too trustingly to a fruitless dream?

I will try to defend my assumptions against accusations of emphatic  "embodiedness." We are bored with the current state of Russian creativity, we expect a brighter and stronger future, we promise it to others, and at the same time we affirm that this future will become more beautiful and powerful, the more extensive and deeper its connection with our past will be. Hence, our assertions and aspirations must have evidence in the already existing, otherwise they are really only fiction.

For the sake of proof, I shall confine myself, as far as possible, to the material now in hand; it is drawn exclusively from the last exhibition.  "World of Art", but knowing how cleverly and sharply this Society is able to select from everywhere the most cultural and valuable, we can quite confidently consider this exhibition as a mirror that fully reflected our yesterday.In addition, we do not care about the very value and historical significance of the masters of our time for this topic; we are only looking for examples, albeit random and incomplete, to visually indicate those lines on the crossing of the continuations of which will arise - so we believe.  A better future.

Let's put pictures next to  "Portrait of A.N. Benois" Kustodiev and  "Portrait" of Altman (I take first of all the above-mentioned artists, as, in my opinion, are approximately the same in size).   c and le. In fact,   "form"  these two  The works exclude one another, and not because, of course, it excludes that there are different artistic methods, but here the art understanding itself differs. (Maybe the reader will ask: how are these two?)   I don't know.  Are they in the same society? Here it is necessary to remember the historical fate of each art movement; losing its ideological supremacy, with the passage of time, the dominant art group always tries to overcome the hostile to it.   I've been taking it.  “in itself” as in one’s own, but, of course, such an artificial revival only more clearly emphasizes the indispensable law of life.

Let's take another example: "Petersburg view"  dobuzhinsky  "Rutitsky Gate"  Stellatsky; seemingly two completely different  "Manners", but we will not speak of a hostile clash of their art understandings. Is it not the source of the source from which the   c   These artists, if we see that the style of both artists is understood as conditional and  "graphic"  Stylization? Kustodiev and Altman have something else.   They are not both looking for it.   "style," but  C and b. They both believe that power comes through  "smart directorship"  by chance   “Nature” ..., “something must be emphasized, somewhere mistaken” (V.A. Serov’s words), but how different is their very course.   "mistakes"!

Looking.  shape  Kustodiyeva, we are convinced that for this artist  "truth"  fictional    In and in and out. The only possible way to achieve   c   It seems to such an artist not to transfer everything he observed to the canvas. Not to finish, to stop at half-word - it was a reception for   "enhancement of nature"   a whole period in the art (we will point out that at least the Union of Russian Artists)  It consists almost entirely of believers in the correctness of this reception. Break the line,  "finish"  From the first stroke of the brush, it was a whole science that deceived many, but did this science achieve its goal – power? Of course not, because the artist's freedom here was not that he could.   It's a coincidence of nature.  (Let us recall how decisively Rubens or Raphael at least finished and negotiated everything, and without a doubt, to be able to negotiate calmly and imperiously to the end is the first condition.)   And it was that he shied away from it.   "overcoming." The freedom of the artist was    c b b o d d    You'd be fine.

Add to the picture of Kustodiev a picture with  "The Study."  Saryan. Here.

In our opinion, the very approach to nature is exactly the same as Kustodiev’s, only expressed, I would say, more decisively, passionately, lyrically. . But here is the same lack of freedom of the artist from  “Nature,” the same submissive reflection of the casual play of the visible world, even if by a will hotter than Kustodiev’s. Kustodiyev and Saryan are conciliatory, but Altman and Kustodiyev are not, and this is because Altman’s attitude towards the world is very different.  “Nature” audacity, audacity, unacceptable neither for Kustodiev nor for a saryan. Altman by his will reshapes the observed, bending nature into his own, necessary for him for his   The "picture" design of the line. Here is a sign of a sharp change in the very concept of values in art; recently persecuted as fruitless fantasy.   self-creation  It becomes the purpose and justification of art. (I would like to remind you of the  The Ide Rubinstein is an excellent testimony to the historian of the decisive and profound upheaval in the understanding of Russian art.   "realists!"

“Creativity from Self” as a Way to Break the Modern Deadlock  The “picture” as the ultimate goal of this path is the future that we can already guess with certainty. And if the importance of those young artists, which I will talk about later,    I don't know.  In this approaching future, at the same time, Russian art must also have figures.  "transition period" (Serov was captured by this fracture, but can he be called exactly the perpetrator of the fracture?), i.e. such masters who carried on their shoulders the modern   oc   in art. There are few of them in our painting... We will certainly be one of the first to call Petrov-Vodkin. This artist    and c r and c c and c   Undoubtedly connected with the further path of Russian art; we even venture to call it - almost the only one! - not lost its own.   "modernity"  And now. Why is that?

Except  "Formal" - I think obvious - merits of the artist, with such rare perseverance, directness, and together with   That's right.    seeker of forgotten beginnings   “Great art”, we will point out another – a personal feature of Petrov – Vodkin (if we correctly “guessed”) – his attraction to the greatest master.  Pathetic Art by Michelangelo. The Michelangelic trend can be traced here.  "Mothers," at least in   The "sculpture" of the shadows of a young woman's neck and chest, in the scantness and firmness of every fold of her shirt and skirt, finally in some   and, "zero gravity" - so noticeable in the Sistine plafond, and here found an echo in how  "written."  baby, too flat, too flat   I don't know.    motherly Aren't these signs of pathos saved?  "modernity"  Petrov-Vodkin?

However, recognizing that Petrov-Vodkin is significant not only as a way to the future, but already as a way to the future.   As part of our artistic history, we begin to define  That's right.   It is, in fact, to avoid the main tasks of our topic. Petrov-Vodkin is too much.   well   I'm here to be the material for our  fortune-telling  We're going to try to continue our interrupted analysis of the first examples for a moment.  "past"  and   "real"  And back to Kustodiev and Altman.

I will not speak for myself personally.  Altman’s “creativity from himself” satisfied me more than Kustodiev’s  "unfreedom." These ovals of sleeve lines and shadows on the wall seem more like an echo of someone's authenticity.  "Liberations" and are accepted as traces of new   No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Far more logical and consistent in his liberation from obedience to the accidents of nature was another exhibitor of the same exhibition, Tatlin, but he, as sometimes happens with too loyal followers, did he not treacherously emphasize the weaknesses of his teachers?

 

If after Altman we turn to Grigoriev,  "form"  The second artist will appear to us closer to the goal than the first. To what end? Liberation of the will of the artist. We don't really trust Altman. Yes, these simple and determined colors, these calmly brought to the end.  "finished"  All this is an undoubted step forward and away from the sketch.  He is the one who has the power to do so, and the one who has the power to do so.  "Lake"), but this is   It is only heard in the lightest part.  "paintings"  Altman - in the encirclements: the main part, the face of the portrait, is written with the same weak-willed obedience random pointer n  of nature, with the same lack of power to transform  "ordinary"  In Russia, perhaps, all portraits, with a few exceptions (let us venture to name some portraits of Ge, Repin...), from the times after Ivanov and Bryullov to the recent attempts of Vrubel and Serov to regain lost freedom. As an example of such creative mastery of the face, we again want to refer to Serov, because Serov is all ours.  "realists"  We appreciate it very much - on his color drawing.  "Portrait of K.S. Stanislavsky" 1911 (reproduced in  Or another example, in particular for Altman, perhaps more convincing, is the self-portrait of Cezanne from Sobra. S.I. Shchukin. Indeed, if we observe  "transformation"  wallpaper on it, piano, tones and folds to swim, contrary to the visible  "ordinary"  We have the right to demand the same transformation in the face, otherwise we   no    (e) I'm not.

We trust Grigoriev more, and here we see that we are essentially indifferent to the most important thing.  "reception"  painter, whether he writes  "just"  or  “Not easy,” whether he puts shadows in indefinite spots, like Kustodiev, or bends them necessarily into semi-ovals, like Altman. Both are equally acceptable to us, and... we are indifferent to both. After surviving.  "futurism," what else?  "manner"  Could it scare us and seem unacceptable? However, except   The futurism taught us something else. He taught us to ask, “What do we do?”  Was the content so decidedly destroyed, twisted and transformed form? We have a renewed focus on   (c) and (c)  "painting." Well, for one of these.  I'm sorry.  Futurism will have its historical justification!

Sure.  "just"  According to Grigoriev, in our opinion,  "Simple" than even Saryan or Kustodiev, and much more  "simple" than Dobuzhinsky or Stelletsky; however, we will not put him in the same group as the artists just named, but will highlight, as well as the artist.  "very difficult."  Altman. All the freedom that Dobuzhinsky and Kustodiyev and Saryan can afford is a little bit.   n    oc    on    exaggerate, emphasize or  "let out"  In nature, Grigoriev is calm and determined.    and with    nature  Just like Altman does. One leg grows out of the other’s knee.  “Not true” in the ordinary sense, but it is not true in a completely different sense than at least the too massive legs of a woman in Saryan’s sketch. Sapyan has only a bold and sharp emphasis on nature. Grigoriev's nature changes for the sake of   I don't know.   c and l   and   d   I don't know.   the contents of his painting. We will not say that Grigoriev is more insightful.  No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no. Rather, on the contrary, let us say that in comparison with these masters, Grigoriev’s observation is somehow  And so on and so forth, it's focused on other things. This is it.  "suffocation"  Recently such a sharpened and passionate look into nature and seems to us a sign of the times and the main attraction of modern art.

 

Let us suggest to any connoisseur of the elegant, unsophisticated and inexperienced in modern artistic theories, to look more closely at  "Garden."  Grigorieva; first of all, such a connoisseur will hasten to find and with malice point out a heap of blunders and grammatical errors (in his opinion) - like those already indicated by us.  "anatomical features"  Girl's feet with the ball. But we will stop the just reproaches of the connoisseur and suggest to him that he, the connoisseur, could still   "forgive"  and accept this thing. We do not doubt that we will hear the usual in such cases: "It is written childishly, helplessly and naively, but sincerely."

But we'll talk about  "Garden."  Grigorieva, that this is not only sincerity - here are signs of calculation,  "picture"  design and ability to subordinate form to the needs of design. In short, here are the remote approximations.  To the same ends that were so perfectly resolved sometimes in the ancient Russian icon. However, we are in a hurry to notice - in  "icon"  There is still something which is incomparably more expensive than any “smart painting.” it's  “Service,” their wise subordination of the artist’s will to higher ends. I utter dangerous words, from which for many years we have been frightened, as from fatal, life-threatening art. But, we ask, without these forbidden words, was art saved?

 

Identifying what most appeals to us now  smartwork   We will certainly look back at our old Academy. This is where we learned to make pictures wisely! But we must not forget that such artists as Basin, or Andrei Ivanov, or Egorov, or Shebuev, with almost religious force believed in an exceptional, absolute artistic life.  I don't think so.   those Western masters they sought to attain or at least to reflect. By this I mean that our  The “academists” were in essence the same strong and stubborn faith, not obscured by doubts, as was the faith of the icon painter in the rightness and beauty of his pictorial canon – the same faith, only turned not to the East, but to the West. But we, taught in the period  "aesthetics"  To understand all languages, to worship on all sides - is the most important thing for us now?  "Side," where do we turn to face? Rather, we dare to say that we are looking for the most    It does not matter where it turns as an ideal: to the west or to the east. Or inside yourself...

Here is an illustrative example – “Self-Portrait” by von Wiesen, an artist whom we know very little, from whom we will not undertake to determine either the main path of his searches or his main hobbies, but rather we will even ask: is it not just an accident?  “Self-Portrait” and will it pass without a trace both for its author and for the history of Russian painting? If we forget about these, so to speak,  "professional"  We sincerely like this work, perhaps even more than all the others reproduced here. However, we repeat: this work does not seem to us logically to follow from the best achievements of our time: this artist, probably, will have to completely change his work.  “Form” if he finds the strength to deepen and develop further what is now only flickering in his mind.  "Autoartrete." It's just one thing.  "shimmering"  It allows us to somehow unexpectedly and even joyfully   That's right.  in this portrait. No doubt it's not here.  "intelligent painting", which seems to us the main aspiration of modern painting, but there is another; here we heard something like this.   What makes art subordinate, which frees the picture from the exorbitant burden of being   This makes art only a means, only a mirror, only an embodiment.  E at x a.

I would like to compare von Wiesen with another artist, one of the representatives of the current brewing in Russian painting, which is looking for a new school and, together, comes into contact with our Bryllovsky and pre-Brullovsky Academy Yakovlev (was presented at the last exhibition).  "World of Art"  a lot of work. Here is who has a determined and clear approach to  "picture"  You are the master of the works of Yakovlev.   How tiresome we are now all the search for style, color, all the tricks and hacks  "forms." We are tired because we do not hear the main thing.   I'm a sc   Contemporary Creativity – There is no justification for existence  "paintings." Perhaps von Wiesen has an excuse.  (I consider it necessary to state once again that I take this artist as an example at my fingertips, without any intention of evaluating the works of von Wiesen on the part of their historical significance), but then this artist still has a huge and hard work (and just one or almost one that Yakovlev has already done), the work of freeing his inspiration from the thickness of accidents.

 

If on today's aesthetic scales Yakovlev and von Wiesen have proved to be equivalent, then is it not right to deduce from this that only from the combination of similar, now seemingly incompatible principles must arise that future, which by its power and beauty will please and conquer us? Russian art is going through a time when one art understanding, which once seemed genuine and comprehensive, has become conditional and insufficient and must be replaced by another.Now are the hours of the common slave, of perplexity and doubt, and the hours when a new banner is to be raised, gathering again the many who are now divided and therefore powerless. This banner, which unites many, must be raised by the force of the very course of Russian artistic life, only then will it be as high and vital as the recent one.

Waiting for the birth of such a miraculous  We know only one thing firmly: this word should unite the divided now.

I tried, new as it may seem, and therefore difficult, to draw lines which, in my opinion, unite Yakovlev, von Wiesen, Grigoriev, and Altman into one common channel, towards one common goal. They start from places so different and far apart that they now seem alien. You bet! After  "multilingualism"  and the isolation sown by the age  Russian art must move in difficult and different ways towards a new unification. When will it be? Those hints of brewing  The "unanimity" which we have been able to find and point out, we rather want to see than we really see - we can not yet clearly determine whether our instructions are a mirage caused by our desire, or living features of the opening of a new page of native art.However, if I am mistaken and mistaken in the threads with which I tried to unite our young art, does this mean that the very path of our search is also wrong, that the very idea of the possibility - the modern confusion of Russian art - should be abandoned and united into a single and strong movement?