----------------- AT THG------------- HRRRimdll IRSTITUTR Volume 2, Number 11 The Art of Ilya Repin How can an artist so important to his country and his cunning.” The painting won acclaim both at home and time be virtually unknown in the West today? That was the abroad, where it was said that Russia had at last produced question Elizabeth Valkenier posed at the start of her talk art that was not a pale imitation of Western European art. on the great nineteenth-century Russian artist Ilya Repin. A Russian Grand Duke purchased the canvas. Valkenier, an adjunct professor at the Harriman Institute, In the hothouse political environment of the time, spoke to students and faculty February 14, 1989. Her though, critics interpreted the painting to suit their own remarks were based on her biography of the artist, Ilya purposes. Vladimir Stasov, a liberal critic and strong Repin and the World of Russian Art, which Columbia proponent of realism in art and music, “welcomed it for University Press will publish in late 1989. being an expression of liberal aspirations of the nation, and Valkenier answered her own question by noting that as an example for his argument he pointed out a young man Repin is seen as a minor actor in Western art history, and in the painting... symbolic of the future rising of the Russian consequently is little-known. For Russians, he is their people.” Conservative writer Fedor Dostoevsky, on the foremost painter of the nineteenth century as well as being other hand, thought the painting was an illustration of the an important figure in the cultural scene of that volatile Russian people “as a group that harmoniously accepts its period. But “nowadays we pay attention to Russian art fate.” After Repin left St. Petersburg for three years of beginning with the Diaghilev group, which tried to integrate further study in Paris, Stasov continued to promote him as Russian art into a Western context” “a liberal and political painter.” This label stuck, even though it was “a patent distortion of Repin’s views.” Russian Realism Back From Paris Repin was bom in 1844 in the provincial village of Chuguev in the southern Ukraine, and came to St. Upon his return from Paris, Repin exhibited three new Petersburg in 1863 to study at the Imperial Academy of Art. paintings, which in political terms were “highly am- By that time, realist art was making its hesitant beginnings, bivalent.” One, “Sadko,” represented the first showing of in sharp contrast to the prevailing neoclassical and “sen- the fantastic in Russian art. Valkenier, showing a slide of timental” art. The popularization of realist art, though, is the painting, stated that “it was an important painting in attributed to Repin — “its flowering, its glorious period is terms of Russian art, in that it introduced the imaginary, and associated with him.” Repin joined artists who had seceded it’s not as bad as it looks here.” Another of the paintings from the Academy and called themselves Peredvizhniki, or was titled “Paris Cafe.” Although his paintings were praised Wanderers. Their Association of Traveling Art Exhibits for their technique, Repin was criticized by liberals for was the only independent exhibiting society in Russia in the failing to address current political concerns. One said that late 19th century, and was instrumental in spreading the “it was a crime to paint a cosmopolitan subject like a Paris taste for realist art throughout the country. cafe, because Repin was bom to render savage Russian The painting that made Repin famous was “The Volga organisms.” Boathaulers” of 1873. An unusually large canvas, it depicts His sponsors thought ,that some time in the heartland peasants respectfully rather than sentimentalizing them. would cure Repin of Parisian influence, and the painter, “Repin spent two summers on the Volga studying and who was “malleable,” spent a year back in Chuguev. One painting the boathaulers, and came to respect them as the of his works from this time was “The Arch-Deacon” (1878). embodiment of some ancient and primeval wisdom and It was innovative both artistically, because of his technique THE W. AVERELL HARRIMAN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY OF THE SOVIET UNION COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY • 420 West 118th Street • 12th Floor • New York, New York 10027 of using broad brush strokes, and politically, since it was an siding with Tolstoy in the writer’s conflict with the Or- unflattering portrait of a church official. “It was a hidden thodox Church over the virtues of individual worship. Be- criticism of the church, which the liberals regarded as one cause of this political intent, the painting was banned from of the pillars of autocracy,” Valkenier said. The government exhibition by authorities. refused to allow it to be shown abroad because it was a “disrespectful rendition of the Russian clergy.” Repin’s Influence “The Arch-Deacon” was Repin’s first exhibited paint- ing as a full member of the Association of Traveling Art Perhaps Repin’s greatest influence on Russian art was Exhibits, and he was soon its “pearl.” His paintings were his insistence on personalizing history. He eschewed epic always highly accomplished, no matter what the subject or battles for realistic human dramas, such as the painting of style. But the ones that spoke to the public were the large Ivan the Terrible cradling the body of his son, whom he had panoramas of rural Russian peasant life, the crowd-pleasers just killed. In the painting “They Did Not Expect Him,” a which Valkenier calls “realistic machines.” As an example, man is entering his own house, unexpected by his family. she showed a slide of a painting titled “Procession of the He is apparently a radical returning from prison. Some Cross in Kursk Province.” conservatives praised the painting because the ex-prisoner Portraiture was another area in which Repin excelled, looks regretful. But radicals saw Christ-like references to and where he had a dramatic impact on Russian art. their kind in Repin’s work, a response which is mentioned Valkenier noted that “he introduced into portraiture the in the writings of many later revolutionaries. treatment of his sitters as real persons, and not as public “Repin renovated Russian art in the sense of invigorat- figures,” thus achieving emotional impact. For instance, the ing and opening up the eyes of the next generation,” portrait of Modest Moussorgksy, completed shortly before Valkenier added. Some of those he influenced are now the composer’s death, depicts him in his bathrobe, as a sick better known, but it was Repin who was responsible for and tired man. When first shown, it created a scandal “awakening them to the possibilities of pure painting.” because it was “disrespectful.” The same was said of Until his death in 1930—and long after—Repin continued Repin’s 1901 portrait of Leo Tolstoy, who is shown to be a controversial figure in the world of Russian art. barefoot and praying in the woods. Repin was actually Reported by Paul Lerner Now available in paperback from Columbia University Press — Russian Realist Art: The State and Society: The Peredvizhniki and Their Tradition by Elizabeth Valkenier Studies of the Harriman Institute The Harriman Institute Columbia University 420 West llSth Street New York NY 10027.