Sergey Konstantinovich Makovsky was able to find young talents. The famous illustrator of Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky Nikolai Vasilyevich Kuzmin, was a schoolboy in the Volga city of Serdobsk, when he gained courage and sent by mail to Apollo. vignettes, painted by him in the style of the then fashionable Englishman Beardsley. Vignettes were published, and a few years later their author was in St. Petersburg and was accepted in the editorial office of the magazine. He described the meeting this way:  In the reception room came to me the editor - Sergey Makovsky: tall, beautiful, representative, dressed with accentuated sophistication, with long groomed nails, with a bracelet-chain on his hand, with cufflinks on cuffs the size of a plate - the kind of perfect dandy. I only knew about Dendyism from books. Until now, my mind and thought have appeared to me in the gray guise of a sparrow-intellectual, in a squirrel, in a jacket and crumpled pants with bubbles on my lap.Makovsky invited me to the next room and ceremoniously introduced me. It was: N. Wrangel.[1]N. Gumilev, E. Znosko-Borovsky. Znosko-Borovsky, editorial secretary and famous St. Petersburg chess player, had the appearance of a correct business. Wrangel with a bored look played his monoclem. Then the artist S. Sudeikin appeared in the room - black-browed, elegant, in a cylinder. And I wore my gray student blouse, was provincially wild and shy and felt constrained and awkward in this company. I opened the folder and put its contents on the table.Makovsky liked my graphics and took some drawings for Apollo. He had the idea to instruct me to make some more vignettes for poetry.  I left my St. Petersburg address at Znosko-Borovsky's and left with a vague feeling. I had nothing to complain about: I was received in the editorial office with the utmost goodwill, and yet I was disappointed. I was alone in the capital, in need of advice, and this tone of St. Petersburg’s icy courtesy put an obstacle to all sorts of “heart-to-heart conversations.”[2]Unlike, The young Nikolai Punin was a quite secular St. Petersburg man. An older friend brought him to Makovsky's house.  poet and count Vasily Alekseevich Komarovsky[3]. In Punin's diary, which describes the event that marked the beginning of his collaboration with Apollo, the same notes of timidity and inner wariness, covered with irony, are heard, however:  " Today he wrote his article “On the problem of Byzantine art” to Makovsky. Article adopted... Makovsky - tall, nervous, with a "good" but thin face, too feminine in lines, but too coarsely masculine in expression; gestures exaggerated, quick and not graceful enough. He had us in his office:  Komarovsky, Levitsky[4]and me. When the reading was over, there was not always such a terrible silence. Makovsky bluntly, with a certain pathos, which he probably always has, said: "It's beautiful, Nikolai Nikolaevich," and  Then a whole series of praises, of which I remember only his phrases: "You have a real writer's temperament, with great harmony and (I don't remember what) language, I am sure, if you want, you can write a beautiful fictional work..."[5]

Two upheavals accompanied the Russian artistic life of the turn of the century. One of them is the discovery of ancient Russian painting as the highest art.  In 1913, an exhibition of restored icons of HSH - HUP centuries was organized in Moscow, which became a real sensation.  The popular opinion about the youth of Russia does not accord well with the now undoubted circumstance that the flowering of such a great and beautiful art as Russian painting was experienced in the tenth century.IVand the fifteenth century. At first glance, the isolated brilliance of this phenomenon is striking on the general, still dark in our ideas, cultural background of that distant era. It seems, however, that this isolation is only apparent and that the idea of it will be dispelled by renewed efforts of historical and artistic enthusiasm.”[6]"- says in the introductory article published in the first issue of the magazine "Sofia" (the magazine appeared in 1914 and a few months later, in connection with the outbreak of the First world war and general mobilization, was closed). The article "The Age of Russia" is presented on behalf of the editorial board; apparently, it was written by the editor-in-chief of the magazine, the famous art critic Pavel Muratov. The second no less grandiose event was the new French painting, which inspired  Many Russian artists.

        Visiting the exhibition of association in November 1913  "Union of Youth", N. N. Punin wrote to his bride, A. E. Arens:"Dear friend." When you receive this letter, we will probably see each other by now, but I am writing to you now, today, because I cannot help but write to you.   I was in the Union of Youth and shouted to the whole world: "This great art is Futurism; this is all that is worth thinking about..."From these words we can see thatNikolai Punin first discovered Futurism (and solemnly deduced it in a letter with a capital letter) in late 1913. Punin’s colleague on Apollo Vsevolod Dmitriev by that time  He has already been a member of the Youth League and left it.  His thoughts, which later became the basis of his critical method, Dmitriev outlined in a special letter-project.published in the autumn of 1912 in the "Artistic Chronicle" (appendix to "Apollo"). The editors prefaced it with a short introduction: 

“Another artistic society is emerging. Its founders recently sent out their "invitation" to the editorial office, the text of which is placed here in its entirety, since the thoughts expressed in it are certainly timely and deserve sympathy.

Artists, sculptors, as well as art students are invited to jointly organize a new partnership. We think there is a need for this fellowship, despite the large number of art societies that already exist.The fact is that if we exclude societies that pursue only commercial interests, non-party societies, that is, groups with random composition, and communities that are already quite established, then we can name only the “Union of Youth” from the St. Petersburg groups as a young society with certain tasks.But this group represents that part of the youth who, in their enthusiasm for the "last words" of European art, change one conventional formula to another, even more one-sided and conditional.Contemporary French art is the result of the consistent work of several generations; this result can be successfully applied to Russian art only if Russian art has already been prepared for this by a certain work; but we understand that up to the very last days Russian art went in a different way.

      Our task is to group artists, different in their technical and spiritual quests, but united by one goal - to understand, study and compare Russian art and the art of other countries, the laws of development of our art, and already relying on this basis, to work on personal development. This does not mean that our goal is to unite artists of a single, necessarily national genre or inspired by examples of exclusively Russian painting.We want to unite those who are aware of the enormous importance of studying and understanding the historical course of the development of the arts and the necessity of their work.  personal search to align with this development. About the practical foundations on which it is supposed to build a partnership, we will give information to everyone personally and in writing.

      (You. Island.) University building, square 10  V.A.Dmitriev. Personally from 1 to 3, except for opening and celebrating. [7]

The university address is no accident. After the death of his father, who served as chief accountant of the Noble Land Bank[8]In the Dmitriev family there were three minor children, who together with their mother were assigned a modest pension. The guardian and educator of Vsevolod was the husband of his older sister, Vasily Davidovich Trofimenko.[9]Vasily Davidovich taught Russian language and history at once in several St. Petersburg gymnasiums, and in 1905 he was elected Secretary of the Council of St. Petersburg University.  He settled in a state university apartment. Vsevolod Dmitriev lived in the Trofimenko family all this time. After graduating from high school, he did not without difficulty earn bread, serving from time to time in small offices.

In the archives of A.N. Benoit, two letters from the young artist Vsevolod Dmitriev, without exact dates, have been preserved.  Clarifying the maturation of the future critic:

                “Dear Alexander Nikolaevich.

        Thank you very much for your letter. It really helped me understand myself. I think I understood you fully and seem to agree with your definition and assessment of my talent.

        What is unclear to me is your advice to "dive into life," for I cannot imagine what you mean by this.

        I believe that if I live, then, consequently, I plunge into life to the same extent as the ability to plunge is given to me, and it seems to me that to force myself to plunge more than I want is only harmful and even ridiculous.

        Perhaps I will not be able to fulfill your other advice to "throw away books", this will not allow me to do just a feature of my inspiration.

        It seems to me that you value art for the sake of art, form for the sake of form, but I value art only for its high benefit and form only enlightened by the spirit, otherwise it is for me a “coffin”.

         After all, it is not my fault that I have always been almost inspired by any book text in my drawings since early childhood; this is probably a necessary feature of mine, and I can get rid of it without running away from books, but only by overcoming them.

         By drawings for The Idiot I freed myself from Dostoevsky (from the desire to illustrate him). But now I want to portray Chichikov, and I will certainly try to paint his portrait in the summer, and maybe some of the heroes of Dead Souls.

         And I know that if I try to give up that thought, I'll only get bored.

         Forgive me for my verbiage, but I wanted to find out why I, fully agreeing with your assessment of the current situation of my work, probably will not be able to follow your advice in the future.

         Thank you again for your letter.

                   Respectful.

                                          Vsevolod Dmitriev[10]

Benoit marked the side of the letter.  pencil: "Gymnasist Dmitriev." This suggests that the letter could have been written in 1907-8. Just at this time graduates of the First St. Petersburg Gymnasium  decided to stage a play on Blok's "Balaganchik" and turned for help to the composer (and poet) Mikhail Kuzmin. He made friends with the initiators of the play, took them to visit.  A friend. “Gymnasist Dmitriev” was the artist-decorator of this production, he is mentioned in the diary of M. Kuzmin.[11]  Maybe,He introduced a daring schoolboy. with his future main opponent, the great and famous A. N. Benoit.

In March 1913, Vsevolod Dmitriev sent a letter to S. K. Makovsky: Dear Sergey Konstantinovich! Your sympathetic attitude to my "Invitation", printed in the "Annals of Apollo" for October 1912, gives me hope that you will agree to read my article "The Way of Russian Painting", in which I try to find out the laws of the development of our art, and will be so kind to me that you will give an opinion about it.

                              Sincerely respectful You.

                                                               Vsevolod Dmitriev

                                              You. Island, University, square 10”[12]

 Two months after that note, into N5 "Apollo" (1913) was published article Vs. Dmitriev "The Testaments of Vrubel".

It starts like this:  We are spectators and participants of a significant reassessment: ancient Russian icon painting, which until recently was dead and unnecessary for us, now attracts us with more and more force as a spring of beauty alive and close.This revaluation, which significantly changed our taste and requirements, also affected Vrubel; it was precisely those of his works that, when they appeared, caused the greatest outrage, and then became the subject of the greatest delights, that is, we became calmer to the works of his mature period (up to the nine hundredth years).They begin to seem to us a tribute to their time, the same tribute as Ivanov’s Appearance of the Messiah or Ge’s historical paintings were to theirs – while the paintings of the Kirillov Church, sketches for the Vladimir Cathedral and the last, “Byzantine” works of Vrubel, previously understood only as an introduction and conclusion to the main Moscow period of the artist’s work, we want to push forward as the main, as the most vital in Vrubel.[13]  Dmitriev didn't mention it.  Ivanova and Ge. “In the works of these artists we find not only distinct attempts to elevate the vague forms of their time to the stiffness of style, but, most significantly, we find a thread connecting their paths one with another; a single basic theme is revealed in each of them with a new force and a new depth; and this theme is the same as is now evident to us in ancient icon painting.This gives us the courage to point to them as indispensable stages of Russian painting; it gives us the joyful opportunity to say that we have a normal sequence of development, that we have a history connected not only by temporal succession, but also by the succession of artistic growth.[14]  A large article about N. N. Ge was published in the 10th issue of Apollo. In the same year, 1913. By volume, it occupied half of the magazine space.  Ivanov and Vrubel have been repeatedly pointed out as the highest manifestation of Russian genius; it is true that in most cases they confined themselves to ecstasy without drawing proper conclusions from this, but Ge did not deserve this either. This is partly due to the peculiarities of Ge’s personality and talents, but mainly to the fact that Ge too resolutely separated himself from the dominant quests of his time, touched too close a historical thread invisible to his contemporaries, and therefore became invisible himself.  Studying the life of Ivanov, Ge, Vrubel, we find a fact that explains a lot. There were rumors about Ivanov’s last years that he was going crazy. Ge wrote: "The name of a madman I have long carried." Everyone remembers Vrubel's fate. Of course, the calmest way to interpret this as an accidental coincidence is to explain the personal characteristics of these artists. But do we not transfer the cause - sparing ourselves - from a sick head to a healthy one? While the work of these artists took place in clearly unprofitable conditions, burned out in a tragic struggle with the demands of their time, in the same conditions, ordinary talents gave an exhaustive and abundant color.Hence the conclusion that until now artistic concepts in our country have been extremely profitable for ordinary talents and disastrous for geniuses.[15]

“Dear Galochka,” wrote Nikolai Punin in the letter we quoted earlier, “today I thought a lot about art, because I watched the hall of modern masters for a long time.” None of them satisfy me except Vrubel. Serov is a very good artist, but completely devoid of creativity, inspired only by his manner, his strokes, he has absolutely no spirit, intuition, inner sincerity. Somov is a good artist, but it shows how dangerous it is.Rejoice at any form found... Oh, Talachka, what a crazy, terrible thing that is art. Never stop, believe nothing, seek all the time, run from the past without looking back, cut off from yourself what you just found and what you just rejoiced, and as a result, if you remember Vrubel, Cezanne or Leonardo - a lifetime of unrecognition, neglect, loneliness, madness and longing. Unfathomable.[16]

During the five pre-revolutionary years (from 1913 to 1917), Vsevolod Dmitriev published more than thirty articles, reviews and notes on Russian art in Apollo. Among them: “Konstantin Somov. Experience of Historical Determination", "Nikolai Nikolaevich Ge", "The Image of Serov", "P.A. Fedotov" and others. One  This book has been published in a separate book.  The theoretical problems that the critic set and tried to solve were annoying to many. Art science, especially in Russia, was still too young and by no means academic.  Dmitriev carefully watched, compared, studied the available sources, was, as it seemed to him, sincerely open to meaningful polemics. He was looking for an organic line.  lively continuity not only in the recognized classics, but also in the current malice of the day. "The pen of criticism is neither a whip nor a laurel branch, but a scalpel in a calm hand, which should strengthen and facilitate the maturation of what still has to give color, and hasten the death of what must perish. Mistakes in such a high responsibility are intolerable; all the art and work of the operator go to waste, turn into a mockery of himself if he carves out the living instead of the patient.” Dmitriev wrote about Petrov-Vodkin, about Boris Grigoriev, about Moscow artists and artists, allowed myself to object  "mathram" The world of art, primarily Benoit. The era of the Silver Age, replete with bright talents, preferred, however, as well as the  all other times, disputes - grievances, discussions - group conflicts.  "Artistic quarrels" - so Dmitriev called one of his articles.  Promoting Dmitriev and Punin to the editorial board of the new edition of Russian Icon, Makovsky met considerable resistance, but overcame it. "Russian Icon" appeared in 1914 simultaneously with "Sophia", managed to come out in three numbers, and then - "all went to the front." Dmitriev’s articles “Essays on the History of Icon Studies” and “Ancient Russian Art Understanding”, as well as the work “Karl Bryullov and Viktor Vasnetsov” did not have time to come out. Find manuscripts  The archives haven't succeeded yet.

In the summer of 1915, at the height of the war, Vsevolod Dmitriev wrote to Moscow to his closest, gymnasium friend, artist Mikhail Tsekhanovsky[17]:

“Dear Mikhail Mikhailovich.

Where are you now? I'm writing to you at your winter address. I am very sorry if you have changed your place of residence without telling me. We were waiting for you and your wife in the spring, because we assumed that you would visit Petrograd and would not fail to come to us. I did not write, because I was waiting for my fate to be clarified, and I expected to visit you in military uniform before going to the front, but alas!I found myself even under the present, more than condescending sets, unfit for military service. But the procedure of conscription, examination, and then lying in a military clinic took up enough time. And only now I again begin to get involved in civilian life, again get used to civilian life and take up the pen. Yes, sad as it may seem, the pen seems to be the only weapon with which I am destined to rattle the coffin for the glory of the homeland.[18]. And in another letter: "In three or four years we will be thirty. And we have to say not "I will" but "I am." I have to admit it's damn damn right.  a difficult and boring necessity! So, our paths are being mapped out and very  oc  Instead of free Michelangels, we are going to show the world you are a professor of painting, and I am a professor of art history.[19]

In September 1916, Nikolai Punin’s brother, Leonid, the commander of a partisan detachment, was killed. Punin’s father, a doctor, was at the front at the time.  Here are extracts from the diary.  N.N. Punina at the time:  "Germany!" - confusion in every heart, recollection, anxiety, hatred. (...) Should we be at war? Yes, we do. We must fight for our national life, for our rights to the future. A nation that has no past must have a future. (...) I've been obsessed with strange ideas for a month and I don't find peace at night. What about Germany? To fight against what saves you, what unites and liberates you. The best ideas are futuristic ideas and socialism.Not Marx, but healthy socialism, life. "Transformation into Beauty" (Nietzsche). Only before Tatlin's "reliefs" do you experience how insignificant the world is. Pieces of creativity, pieces of beauty, pieces of truth. The era of European aesthetics. The only way.[20]That feeling was deep in him.  In 1923 he took students of Vkhutemas Moscow to the Russian Museum. In the evening he wrote in his diary: The history of Russian art is tragic; in the very skill there are such tragic moments: Ivanov, Fedotov, Vrubel. A soulful history where people suffocated because there was no circle, no tradition, no culture in them.[21]

 At the end of 1913 the editor of the magazine "Economiste  Europeen"     Edmond Terry conducted, on the instructions of the French government, a study of Russian economy. He is.  If the affairs of the European nations proceed from 1912 to 1950 as they did from 1900 to 1912, Russia in the middle of this century will dominate Europe politically, economically and financially.[22].  The First World War revealed a weakness not seen by Edmond Terry. “Rus was gone in two days. At most, three. Even “New Time” could not be closed as soon as Russia closed.  Vasily Rozanov in the winter of 1918 under the fresh impression of the October Revolution.  Not everyone mourned the lost state. Disgust for the recent past for many was stronger than the losses experienced. In the spring of 1921, after a long, painful illness, Alexander Blok  Out of the house. After several years of suffering and hunger, he  I saw private shops, cafes and restaurants (the first phenomena of NEP). Blok then wrote to his mother in a letter: “As he walked now, on the streets from all the cracks, from all the doorways, porches, shops – sounds of disgusting vulgarity, some disgusting foxtrots and homegrown gypsies crawled from everywhere ...” Mom, is all this coming back? It's scary![23]  

In the winter of 1918, Vsevolod Dmitriev sent his wife and young daughter  From Petrograd, dying of hunger and cold, to his relatives to the south, he did the same with his family and his family.  his friend Mikhail Tsekhanovsky. They lived together in an icy apartment on the Catherine Canal, went on business trips of the People's Commissariat for Provincial Affairs - to save works of art in ruined estates. And at the same time to organize revolutionary holidays on the ground.[24]Their chief was Nikolai Punin, at that time the commissioner of the Russian Museum and  Hermitage, he trustedA.V.Lunacharsky, and even at one time was his official deputy.  Museums and Monuments Protection. Under the editorship of N. Punin at the Petrograd department of the IZO of the People's Commissariat, the newspaper "Art of the Commune" was published. The paper was a nest of futurism, It printed V. Mayakovsky, D. Sternberg, M. Chagall, O. Brik, V. Shklovsky and others. The arrival of Vsevolod Dmitriev in these ranks It was noted by N. Punin as a huge victory. Anyone who knew Vsevolod Dmitriev as a long-standing and rather vivid exponent of so-called "passeism" will understand that this is not a new "system of thought", but a more catastrophic and revolutionary internal revolution.  Vsevolod Dmitriev has long been a responsible employee  "Apollo," and if he cannot be regarded as an "aesthetic" or a "skilled world," it has never occurred to anyone to regard him as a defender of "futurism" on any side.In this respect, we even had reason to consider Vsevolod Dmitriev dead for the new art, for in the last two years, in which "futurism" became so widespread, Vsevolod Dmitriev seemed to go even deeper into the past, engaged in museum work, and the few ties that he had with contemporaries seemed to finally break.And then suddenly, after a trip to the province, where Dmitriev had to face the new, awakened Russia directly, he realized that his usual work – “theoretical scientific work” – was somewhat untimely, and that the crowds “are looking for a new, sharply new”, and that this new can only be given by “futurists” and, finally, in order to implement this new one, a centralized dictatorship of an artistic revolutionary minority is needed.[25].  This article is titled “How Could It Be Different?”  It was published in the 7th January issue of the newspaper for 1919 - in response to Dmitriev's Provincial Impressions, printed in the previous, 6th issue of the newspaper, on January 12. DmitrievthereIn the county town where I stayed for a few days (it passed into the hands of Soviet troops only two or three weeks ago), there already existed a Palace of Labor, hastily adapted for new needs from the former café-chantant. . This house of rest for the working people in the evening hours was filled with a motley crowd of local youth, workers, peasants, women who filled all the nooks of the building shoulder to shoulder.This crowd marveled at the porcelain, bronze, furniture and carpets taken from the surrounding estates and palaces, but it was clear that this “luxurious” spectacle did not satisfy it. These crowds greedily sought a new, abruptly new in art, the same unusual and different as their social and political life became different and unusual.  As for the artistic values that Dmitriev was supposed to save from destruction, they seemed monstrous to him. In the same Palace of Labor, I was taken to a room - the grain of the future local museum - where a bad copy of Aivazovsky's bad work, some smudge from the epigones of the Movement, was enthusiastically shown, and I shuddered, imagining what abomination local "aesthetics" could breed on the now bare walls of the Labor Palace.

And here is what the author suggested in this regard: Ancient Russian art should become a sacred example for our time. Just as then the provincial masters in their paintings were unconditionally subject to a single canon, as then their work was limited to the translation of inscriptions on the walls, as then in thousands of churches we saw all the same thing, but this monotony did not tire, on the contrary, it cut deeply into the mind, like a single harmonious song of a thousand voices - so it must be now.Let the Palace of Labor be created in Petrograd, and let its painting, worked out by our best communal masters (headed, for example, by Tatlin) become a painting.canonin the painting of provincial palaces.”[26]Two months later, on March 16, 1919, Dmitriev published a second article in The Art of the Commune. There he writes that after the first publication, he gave himself a vow to remain silent until he proved something by deed. Now, after two months of wandering, struggling with the dexterous and awkward footsteps of our countless suspicious friends and obvious enemies, hard purely physical labor and trials, I finally hold in my hands this first small business result.And I have to admit, I'm very pleased. I am so satisfied and happy with the result that sometimes I clearly fall into a new temptation: I dream that I have that magic wand, which, with one magic trick, will suddenly push all the disorder of modern artistic life into a harmonious channel, suddenly pour truth and warm blood of life into our “only words”. What is my first sober result?First of all, a purely visual experience: those very counter-reliefs and constructive combinations of planes and materials that seem sharply revolutionary at exhibitions, they are also brought to the streets and squares.  On the other hand, too individual and even easel, seem to be pictures only posted in the air.  Painting is dead, or at leastIt's not important or necessary.Futurism also died, as the last exacerbation of the completely worn-out individualism. These are all precautionary steps when needed.jump. The path to follow is clear and simple. Art, painting in the sense it was understood before, gives way  I don't know. Hierarchy is being turned right over. Craft - making furniture, dishes, signs, dresses ... As true life creativity becomes the foundation for new inspiration, becomes the basis and meaning of art, and easel painting and in general “high art” become applied, appendage to the first, drawing in the craft all their experience and life-giving principle.This is a cruel, purifying crucible in which it is so necessary, so saving, to burn out modern art.[27]

The original idea that came to mind Vsevolod Dmitriev and so pleased him, soon found embodiment in the applied art of the 20s.[28]But by that time he was no longer in the world.  The article in The Art of the Commune was probably the last publication.[29].

In 1932, a student of Leningrad University Vsevolod Nikolaevich Petrov entered the service of the State Russian Museum.[30]The section of drawings in the museum at that time was headed by his teacher, Nikolai Nikolaevich Punin. In the hands of the young researcher was an undisassembled archive of Apollo. “I needed information about the wonderful Russian art critic Vsevolod Dmitriev,” says V.N. Petrov in his memoirs. - Him.  The critical articles in Apollo struck me with their insight and some special grace of thought.

            - Yes, Punin told me. Vsevolod Alexandrovich Dmitriev was an extraordinary man and the finest critic. He was highly regarded in the Apollo newsroom. I once wrote him an enthusiastic letter. And his fate is very sad and very characteristic of the revolutionary years.

             After the revolution, Dmitriev was left without a job and wanted to go to the province. I helped him get a job in the People's Commissarship; he was sent as the commissioner of the IZO department to Pskov. And in 1919, Pskov was captured for several days by the SR partisan detachment of Colonel Bulakhovich. The massacre of communists and commissars began. Dmitriev was non-partisan, but they did not understand whether he was a commissar on art or something else. He was shot.[31]

Information about the death of Vsevolod Dmitriev in the spring of 1919 is confirmed by letters and diaries of people close to him.

Handbook "Civil War and Military Intervention in the USSR" reports thatBey-Bulak-Balakhovich Stanislav Nikodimovich (1883-1940)One of the leaders of the counter-revolution in the North-West of Russia, Major General (1919). Peasants. Participant of the 1st World War, chief of staff. Since February 1918 in the Red Army, he formed the Luga partisan regiment. In November 1918 he joined the Whites. The newspaper "Pskov Warning" in the article "Bloody Trinity" described the three-day capture of the detachment Bulak-Balakhovich neighboring Pskov city of Gdova in the spring of 1919:  " On the avenue of the main street, dressed up, an elegant audience of local intellectuals, workers of Soviet institutions, merrily and ceremoniously walks under the handle with the atamans of the robber gang “Batka Balakhovich”, heading or pointing them to the apartments of responsible workers, Communists, members of executive committees and commissars.[32]Interesting information about Bulak-Balakhovich was published in 1920 by the Tbilisi newspaper “Monday”, reprinting material from the French edition.  Balakhovich is a white "batko" as the soldiers call him "sons" - a very talented and democratic man. He is an undoubted patriot, and his childhood eyes inspire sympathy and trust. Savinkov, the most legitimate representative of the Russian revolution, is in great friendship with Balakhovich and certainly believes him.[33], -  So explained to the correspondent of the Paris newspaper writer Dmitry Merezhkovsky. On the same newspaper page published an interview with E.P.Kedrin, former mayor of the city.  Petrograd and the Minister of Justice of the North-Western Government: I know this adventurer well. I had a warrant to arrest him, but he escaped, and only his closest accomplice, Nikolai Engelhardt, was arrested. Together they were engaged in the plunder and robbery of rich people, accusing them of Bolshevism, under the threat of an immediate gallows.Those who did not pay were hanged to frighten other merchants and industrialists, and the hanger was General Balakhovich personally. Hanging and shooting people - this occupation he considered not only his specialty, but also "rest", and this "rest", without hiding his pleasure, he usually indulged in the afternoon.[34].  

The Bey-Bulak-Balakhovich detachment captured Pskov on May 24, 1919. Vsevolod Dmitriev was 29 years old at that time.

After the terrible years of civil war, accompanied by famine, repression, terror, the disappearance of a person could not surprise anyone. Vsevolod Dmitriev didn't live.  before the "futuristic rise", which raised several famous artists to world recognition, nor to the ruthless "struggle against formalism" in Soviet art.

The questions he sought to answer in the history of Russian painting were also forgotten.

Vsevolod Dmitriev concluded one of his Apollonian articles: Russian art was saved from many disappointments and humiliations by its isolation from the general artistic history. European historians of our art almost did not study, and Russian historians wrote about Russian creativity in individual works, and, the measure that was used here, was much smaller than the one that measured world art.Everything in our work we perceived as if through a magnifying glass, all raised on stilts and from little people composed Titans. Is it not for this reason that Western historians, turning to our art, looked at it rather through diminutive glasses?It is possible that only recently it was necessary and worthy to deceive ourselves and others and to pretend to be joyful where in reality we were only indifferent, to excessively admire what in fact was only mediocre; perhaps, until recently it was a merit to the motherland to show the Russian art to amazed viewers in the colors of joyful and excessive and to follow, in this respect, in the footsteps of our patriotic ancestors, who saw, as we know, in imitations of Russian art.Ido Reni - rivals to this master, in copies from Van Dyck - victory over him.  Now, however, our national pride imperatively demands something else: a calm and clear awareness of our weakness where we are obviously and really weak, but an equally firm and determined defense where our creativity is worthy of the most careful attention. Finally, let us refuse to regard Russian art as separate from the general movement of world art, recognize it as a full member of world life, and assume all the obligations and obligations that follow from it.  p.a. in accordance with such recognition. Let us then have to give up many sweet self-deceptions—for how much of our art will stand the very standard by which we have learned to measure Western European art—but we have the right to demand—and we know—that which will victoriously withstand such a temptation.   t  and  will be - attention and evaluation  (c) In general.[35]