The Influence of the Vienna School of Art History on Soviet and Post-Soviet Historiography: Bruegel’S Case
The influence of the Vienna School of Art History on Soviet and post-Soviet historiography: Bruegel’s case Stefaniia Demchuk Introduction Soviet art historiography has remained a terra incognita for Western scholars for decades. Just a few names succeeded in breaking through the Iron Curtain. Mikhail Alpatov, Boris Vipper and Viktor Lazarev were among this lucky few.1 Although these sparks of recognition, if not sympathy, were insufficient to expose the theoretical or/and ideological underpinnings of Soviet art history. Today’s knowledge of the Soviet and post-Soviet realm is marked by deep- rooted misinterpretations and simplifications. Scholars addressing the Soviet art historical legacy deal with several tropes. Lithuanian-born American art historian Meyer Shapiro in his paper of 1936 scrutinizing ‘the New Viennese School’ had laid foundations for the first one that highlighted Russian/Soviet intellectual unity with the so-called New Vienna School through the personality of Mikhail Alpatov. 2 At 1 Translations made during the Soviet times from Soviet scholars’ works include but not limited to: Mikhail Alpatov, Nikolai Brunov Geschichte der Altrussischen Kunst : Textband, Augsburg: B. Filser Verl., 1932; Mikhail Alpatov, Russian impact on art, New York, Greenwood Press, 1950; [Trésors de l'art russe.] Art treasures of Russia, by M.W. Alpatov: notes on the plates by Olga Dacenko, translated by Norbert Guterman, London : Thames & Hudson, 1968; Mikhail Alpatov, Leonid Matsulevich, Freski tserkvi Uspeniia na Volotovom Pole, Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1977; Boris Vipper, Baroque art in Latvia, Riga, Valtera un Rapas, 1939; Boris Vipper, L'art letton: essai de synthèse historique, Riga : Izdevnieciba Tale, 1940; Viktor Lazarev, URSS icones anciennes de Russie, Paris: New York Graphic Society en accord avec l'UNESCO, 1958.
[Show full text]