An Unusual Gift of Russian Prints to the British Museum in 1926

An unusual gift of Russian prints to the British Museum in 1926

by GALINA MARDILOVICH

IN MARCH 1926, at a time of cautious diplomacy between the Soviet Union and Britain, the British Museum, London, received a gift of 218 Russian prints presented by a group of twenty Russian artists. The impetus for the donation was a gift of prints by the British artist Frank Brangwyn to the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts in the late summer of 1925.1 In his note in The Studio on this ‘unusual artistic exchange’, Pavel Ettinger wrote that it was an example of ‘a rare proof of international brotherhood in the domain of art’.2 Upon accepting the Russian gift, Campbell Dodgson, Keeper of Prints and Drawings at the British Museum, petitioned Brit- ish printmakers to contribute prints to be presented to the Russian institution as a reciprocal gesture of thanks. The ensuing British donation of more than two hundred works was received and exhibited in Moscow in September 1926. These prints, along with Brangwyn’s, are still kept in the Museum, which was renamed the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in 1937. Were these donations intended simply to augment insti- tutional holdings, either those of the British Museum or of the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts, or was the exchange ar- ranged to bridge political and cultural divides? What made it so ‘unusual’, to use Ettinger’s term? In the collection of the British Museum, this group comprises more than one-tenth of the institution’s total number of Russian prints. But it is within the context of official Soviet programmes in the 1920s, which often 7. Illustration to Nikolai Gogol’s The Portrait, by Aleksei Kravchenko. 1924. used art as a form of cultural diplomacy, that this episode broke Woodcut, 10.7 by 9.4 cm. (British Museum, London). dramatically from typical state-sanctioned practices. This gift of Russian prints was unusual because it was privately initiated, included the work of émigré artists, and managed to avoid in 1932. In Russia, Brangwyn had been recognised for some political subtexts. This gift, and the surrounding events, serve time, and a number of his works featured in World of Art (Mir as a testament to the resilience of art in the politically charged iskusstva) exhibitions. In turn, the artist was concerned with the environment of the 1920s. political situation in Russia, contributing an illustration for the Brangwyn’s presentation of his complete printed œuvre of 352 cover of Leonid Andreev’s Russia’s Call to Humanity: An Appeal works to the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts included etchings, to the Allies, published in London in 1919, and even possibly lithographs and woodcuts. While little-studied now, at the visiting Moscow in the winter of 1924–25.3 Brangwyn had a time Brangwyn was considered one of the most eminent Brit- history of presenting works to support charitable causes, such as ish printmakers. In the series Modern Masters of Etching, Mal- the Red Cross and the National Institute for the Blind, so his colm C. Salaman devoted two volumes to Brangwyn: one in donation to the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts was not entirely 1924, which marked the beginning of the series, and the second surprising.4

Research for this article was made possible by the Franklin Research Grant oblasti izobrazitel’nogo iskusstva, 1917–1940, materialy i dokumenty, Moscow 1987, awarded by the American Philosophical Society. Part of this work was presented pp.36–38 and 115–25; and W. Werner: ‘Khronika razrushennykh nadezhd: at the Cambridge Courtauld Russian Art Centre’s conference ‘Exhibit “A”: Obmen graviur mezhdu Moskvoi i Londonom v 1925–1926 gg.’, Pamiatniki kul’tury. Russian Art: Exhibitions, Collections, Archives’, held at the Courtauld Institute Novye otkrytiia. Pis’mennost’. Iskusstvo. Arkheologiia. Ezhegodnik 1992 (1993), pp.292– of Art, London, 21st–22nd March 2014; I am grateful to the organisers and other 311. Werner believes Brangwyn donated his works sometime in the summer of 1925, participants for their invaluable feedback. I would also like to thank Claire Knight whereas Aleshina and Iavorskaia claim it was in September of that year. for her insightful comments on drafts of this article. 2 P. Ettinger: ‘Moscow-Reviews’, The Studio 91 (1926), pp.142–43. 1 There are two published accounts of the exchange: L. Aleshina and N. 3 Werner, op. cit. (note 1), p.292. Iavorskaia: Iz istorii khudozhestvennoi zhizni SSSR: Internatsional’nye sviazi v 4 L. Horner: Frank Brangwyn: A Mission to Decorate Life, London 2006, p.139.

t h e b u r l i n g t o n m a g a z i n e • c l i x • j u n e 2017 453

LAY_MARDILOVICH_RussianPrints.indd 453 16/05/2017 16:40 A GIFT OF RUSSIAN PRINTS

8. Landscape with pyramids, by Konstantin Bogaevskii. 1922. Lithograph, 34.7 by 53.3 cm. (British Museum, London).

Brangwyn offered his ‘modest gift’5 as a gesture of ‘a sincere sented by the artists through M. N. Romanoff’.10 Dodgson had respect and admiration for the Art of Russia’.6 Asserting his written earlier to the Museum’s trustees to say that this gift was belief in the universality of art, he observed that the ‘Republic a ‘unique opportunity of securing a collection of Russian prints of Art is a true brotherhood of men knowing not the frontiers which are entirely unknown in this country’, and which ‘form of States or the barrier of politics’.7 In the catalogue accompany- a very desirable acquisition as a collection’.11 In his published ing the exhibition of Brangwyn’s donation, Nikolai Romanov, commentary on the gift in the September 1926 issue of The Brit- the Director and Keeper of Prints at the Moscow Museum, ish Museum Quarterly, Dodgson specified that ‘among the most explained that the prints ‘have something in common with the interesting of these prints’ were the etchings by Vasilii Masiutin, art of our days, similarly seeking to find the monumental, [. . .] Ignatii Nivinskii (Fig.12) and Pavel Shillingovskii, the wood- eloquent and clear style of a new art’.8 Romanov also acknow- cuts by Aleksei Kravchenko (Fig.7), Il’ia Sokolov and Nikolai ledged in his essay that in response to Brangwyn’s donation, Kupreianov, and the colour prints by Anna Ostroumova- Russia’s ‘best painter-printmakers’ were giving a collection of Lebedeva and Vadim Falileev.12 Dodgson noted that many of their prints to Brangwyn with the intention of presenting it to the prints, such as Florence by Konstantin Kostenko (Fig.11), the British Museum – an element of the story that Ettinger also were produced in the colour linocut technique, ‘a process now emphasised in his note in The Studio.9 becoming popular in England’. The gift presented to the British Museum comprised a vari- Shortly after accepting the Russian gift, Dodgson drafted ety of techniques and subject-matter (Fig.8). The Print Room a letter to British printmakers requesting donations of prints: Register recorded on 10th April 1926 that the prints were ‘Pre- ‘I feel that it is very desirable that some similar collection of

5 ‘скромный дар’, Aleshina and Iavorskaia, op.cit. (note 1), p.115. (Translations 9 ‘лучших художников-граверов’, ibid., p.3; Ettinger, op. cit. (note 2), p.143. are author’s own unless otherwise noted). 10 The artists included were Konstantin Bogaevskii, Matvei Dobrov, Vladimir 6 ‘сочуствием и восхищением перед их творчеством’, anon: ‘Khronika’, Favorskii, Vadim Falileev, Ekaterina Kachura-Falileeva, Adrian Kaplun, Sergei Zhizn’ muzeia. Biulletin Gosudarstvennogo Muzeia iziashchnykh isskustv 2 (1926), p.37. Kolesnikov, Konstantin Kostenko, Aleksei Kravchenko, Elizaveta Kruglikova, 7 ‘Республика искусства есть истенное братство людей, не знающих границ Nikolai Kupreianov, Vasilii Masiutin, Ignatii Nivinskii, Anna Ostroumova-Leb- государств или барьеров политики’, ibid. edeva, Pavel Pavlinov, Aleksandr Pavlov, Ivan Pavlov, Pavel Shillingovskii, Il’ia 8 ‘есть что-то общее с исканиями искусства наших дней, стремящегося Sokolov, and Vasilii Vatagin. For a complete list of works see Werner, op. cit. также найти монументальный, [. . .] для всех красноречивый и понятный (note 1), pp.304–08; British Museum, London, Registry, 10th April 1926, ‘Mod - стиль нового творчества’, in N. Romanov: Katalog vystavki graviury Franka ern Russian Prints’, nos.5–222. Brengvina, Moscow 1926, p.11. 11 British Museum, London, Trustee Reports, report dated 27th March 1926,

454 j u n e 2017 • c l i x • t h e b u r l i n g t o n m a g a z i n e

LAY_MARDILOVICH_RussianPrints.indd 454 16/05/2017 16:40 A GIFT OF RUSSIAN PRINTS

9. Hanging garden, by Paul Nash. 1924. Wood engraving, 16.7 by 14 cm. 10. The jetty, Sennan Cove, by John Edgar Platt. 1922. Colour woodcut, (Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow). 26.8 by 23.5 cm. (Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow).

British prints should be offered to Russia, not merely as a quid later that year.14 In her subsequent review of the British gift, pro quo, but for the sake of making British art more known than Nevezhina shrewdly reflected that these prints were significant it is in that country’.13 He elaborated that in Russia ‘modern ‘on the one hand, as milestones that marked the course of art, British art means just – Beardsley and Brangwyn’. Many art- and on the other – as those examples of technical achievement, ists responded to the appeal, and in August 1926 the Moscow artistic finesse and consistency of style, which can never lose Museum of Fine Arts received a gift of more than two hun- their value’.15 Nevezhina continued: ‘All these artists, great and dred prints by over fifty British printmakers. Included were small, are important to the history of printmaking for they are works by Robert Gibbings, George Underwood, Francis Syd- both the necessary links between the present moment and the ney Unwin, John and Paul Nash (Fig.9), Sylvia Gosse, Mal- brilliant past of English prints, and the inspirational figures pre- colm Osborne, Job Nixon, John Edgar Platt (Fig.10), Robert paring the path of graphic art of tomorrow’.16 Bevan and Marion Cowland. As with the Russian donation, What on the surface seemed to be a mere exchange of prints these prints were by established British artists. Several of the between British and Russian artists, or an attempt by a Soviet contributors held prominent teaching positions at London’s institution to augment its holdings, was in fact a delicate stra- Royal College of Art, for example, and many were featured tegic move. By the mid-1920s there was an established practice in Dodgson’s 1922 publication Contemporary English Woodcuts. of officially sanctioned exchanges in the USSR. Soviet organi- The British prints were exhibited in Moscow in September, sations such as the All-Union Society for Cultural Ties Abroad accompanied by a catalogue that reiterated the chain of events (VOKS), which was formed in 1925, explicitly encouraged cul- leading up to the gift: Brangwyn’s donation and the response tural reciprocity in the form of exhibitions, exchanges and do- of the Russian printmakers, whose works, as the curator Vera nations of books in order to foster diplomacy between the newly Nevezhina wrote, were to be exhibited at the British Museum formed Soviet Union and other countries. In its initial dealings

Campbell Dodgson to the Trustees. Translation of the letter into Russian is pub- путей, с другой – как такие примеры высокого технического совершенства, lished in Werner, op. cit. (note 1), pp.303–04. артистической тонкости и выдержанности стиля, которые никогда не могут 12 C. Dodgson: ‘Contemporary Russian Art’, The British Museum Quarterly 1 утратить своего значения’, V. Nevezhina: ‘Angliiskaia graviura XX v. Muzeia (September 1926), p.53. iziashchnykh iskusstva’, Zhizn’ muzeia. Biulletin Gosudarstvennogo Muzeia iziashchnykh 13 British Museum, London, Trustee Reports, copy of letter dated 10th April iskusstv 3 (1927), pp.12–16, as quoted in Aleshina and Iavorskaia, op. cit. (note 1), p.124. 1926 from Campbell Dodgson to ‘Dear Sir’. Translation of letter into Russian is 16 ‘Все эти авторы, великие и малые, ценны для истории гравюры, ибо они published in Werner, op. cit. (note 1), p.304. – необходимые звенья, связывающие современный момент с блестящим 14 V. Nevezhina: Katalog vystavki. Sovremennaia angliiskaia graviura i litografiia, Mos- прошлым английской гравюры, и вдохновенные деятели, уготовляющие cow 1926, pp.3–4. пути графическому искусствy завтрашнего дня’, Nevezhina, op. cit. (note 15), 15 ‘с одной стороны, как вехи, знаменующие этапы пройденных искусством p.124.

t h e b u r l i n g t o n m a g a z i n e • c l i x • j u n e 2017 455

LAY_MARDILOVICH_RussianPrints.indd 455 16/05/2017 16:41 A GIFT OF RUSSIAN PRINTS

11. Florence, by Konstantin Kostenko. 1913. Colour linocut, 21 by 42.7 cm. (British Museum, London).

VOKS exploited existing personal connections as a way to cul- rapprochement of the two peoples’.19 Bakshy went on to say that tivate broader public support in Western countries for the nas- barring unforeseeable problems, upon Brangwyn’s return to cent Soviet regime.17 Similarly, the British Society for Cultural London, the critic would send the gift to Romanov via a cour- Relations between the Peoples of the British Commonwealth ier. This letter confirms that Brangwyn initiated the donation and the USSR, founded in 1924, could have facilitated and of his prints to Russia, but that it was intended as a gesture not promoted such an artistic exchange. But, as gleaned from new towards the new Soviet state, but rather for the broadly defined archival evidence, that was not the case. While the exchange in Russian art world, and that there was no plan for a Russian gift part mimicked the typical structure of VOKS’s early activities, in return. Brangwyn’s intention, however, was not realised; and the Russian gift was exceptional in side-stepping government a subsequent letter from Bakshy to Romanov, dated 16th Jan- control and thus avoiding political implications. In fact, the gift uary 1925, alludes to Brangwyn’s abrupt postponement of his of Russian prints was a rare episode at this time of volatile gift until ‘a more auspicious moment’ – presumably alluding to relationships between states: instigated by a British artist and the Revolution.20 The critic had decided to approach Brangwyn developed by a Russian émigré, the exchange was carefully or- again and persuaded him to reconsider his donation, to which chestrated, and seized on by Romanov and a group of Russian the artist responded ‘with the same enthusiasm as before’.21 Bak- artists as a unique chance to assert themselves in a period of shy was thus writing to Romanov to see if this gift would still great social and political instability in the Soviet Union. be accepted, this time by the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts, of In Romanov’s personal archive, held by the Pushkin State which the Rumiantsev Museum became part in 1924, and of Museum of Fine Arts’ manuscript department, there is a reveal- which Romanov was director. If so, Bakshy recommended an ing set of letters between the curator and Aleksandr Bakshy, a immediate course of action to ‘prevent the chance of seeing his Russian art critic living in London, who acted as a go-between [Brangwyn’s] action as a political act’, possibly because Brang- with Brangwyn.18 It becomes apparent that Brangwyn had first wyn was hesitant of being stigmatised as a supporter of the Soviet offered his gift not in 1925, but before the October Revolution Union.22 First, Bakshy advised, the Museum should formally re- in 1917. In the earliest letter, dated 6th October 1917, Bakshy re- quest such a donation from Brangwyn; second, it should propose sponded to Romanov’s proposal to accept Brangwyn’s donation that a collection of prints by Russian artists be presented to ‘say, for the Rumiantsev Museum, Moscow, agreeing that the insti- the British Museum’, an idea Brangwyn himself had suggested tution would be the most appropriate Russian museum for the when reconsidering his gift.23 It appears that the establishment British artist’s gift, ‘the aim of which is to assist in the spiritual of diplomatic relations between Britain and the Soviet Union,

17 M. David-Fox: Showcasing the Great Experiment: Cultural Diplomacy and Western 22 ‘предотвратил бы возможность толкования его поступка, как выступления Visitors to the Soviet Union, 1921–1941, Oxford 2012, pp.28–97. политического’, GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 6. 18 Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow (Gosudarstvennyi muzei izo- 23 ‘скажем, Британскому Музею’, GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 6. brazitel’nykh iskusstv imeni A. S. Pushkina), Department of Manuscripts (cited 24 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 17. hereafter as GMII), f. 14 (Nikolai Romanov), op. III, ed. khr. 5–16. 25 For more on the reorganisation of the Department of Prints and the Rumian- 19 ‘цель которого содействовать духовному сближением двух народов’, tsev Museum, see K. Bogemskaia, ed.: Era Rumiantsevskogo muzeia: Graviurnyi GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 5. kabinet; Iz istorii formirovaniia sobraniia GMII im. A. S. Pushkina , Moscow 2010, II, 20 ‘более благополучного момента’, GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 6. esp. pp.38–63. 21 ‘с таким же энтузиазмом, как и раньше’, GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 6. 26 ‘В самое последнее время граверное искусство пришло у нас в заметный

456 j u n e 2017 • c l i x • t h e b u r l i n g t o n m a g a z i n e

LAY_MARDILOVICH_RussianPrints.indd 456 16/05/2017 16:41 A GIFT OF RUSSIAN PRINTS

albeit still strained in 1924, revived the idea of an artistic exchange that had been conceived much earlier. Romanov was still eager for the donation to be made, even though the political situation in Russia had shifted, and was only too willing to follow the recommended steps. Although his correspondence has not been found, his archive contains a letter from Brangwyn, who wrote: ‘In your letter so generous in appreciation of my work, you remind me of the offer which I made several years ago to present to the Artists of Russia a collection of my prints. I respond to your reminder all the more readily’. 24 Such a prestigious exchange offered the opportunity for Romanov both to affirm his position and to support Rus- sian artists whom he had known for years. The destabilisation and reorganisation of artistic and educational institutions had become a common occurrence since the Revolution, which, in addition to the growing scarcity of art materials, contributed to a decline in public interest in certain media, especially fine-art prints. As the first Russian public museum to collect Russian prints systematically, the Rumiantsev Museum was known for advancing contemporary printmaking by holding exhibitions of artists such as Ostroumova-Lebedeva, Falileev, Nivinskii and Masiutin, all of which were organised by Romanov. Yet in 1924, following extensive discussion and debate, the Rumian- tsev Museum was closed, and its collections subsumed into the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts.25 Although the curators of the Rumiantsev’s print department, including Romanov, Vladimir Adariukov and Erikh Gollerbakh, were transferred to the new museum, the future of contemporary Russian printmaking was 12. St Sebastian, by Ignatii Nivinskii. 1915. Etching, 39.5 by 33.2 cm. unclear. Already in 1922 Gollerbakh had written, ‘In the most (British Museum, London). recent times, the art of printmaking here [in Russia] has suf- fered a perceptible decline. It is true that there are individual artists [. . .] who continue to work, but their productivity has Falileev, Kravchenko, Favorskii, Kupreianov and others’.30 This waned noticeably’.26 notion underscores the urgency with which the artistic intelli- As attested by the example of the Rumiantsev Museum, gentsia sought to assert the importance of printmaking in the Russian prints, both old and contemporary, were receiving changing hierarchy and value of art in the Soviet Union. some critical attention under the new Soviet regime. In 1922, Due to the volatility of the political climate, the exchange for instance, besides Romanov’s monographs on Masiutin and of prints had to be made carefully. Additional letters in Ro- Falileev, and Adariukov’s volume on Ivan Pavlov, Gollerbakh manov’s archive unravel the layers of precise co-ordination in published his book Contemporary Russian Printmakers, which was the exchange that ensued. Bakshy relayed to Romanov, for ex- followed in the next year by his History of Engraving and Lithogra- ample, that before Brangwyn could fully commit to his do- phy in Russia.27 That same year, the Russian Museum in Petro- nation, the artist needed to ensure that the British Museum grad held an exhibition with an accompanying catalogue on would accept the Russian gift.31 Although Dodgson would Russian lithography of the previous twenty-five years.28 Rus- not guarantee it immediately, he assured Brangwyn that ‘[i]t is sian printmaking was promoted again when Ksenia Zelenina quite certain that the proposed offer of Russian prints would published Past Russian Printmakers and Lithographers in 1925. 29 be accepted, and welcomed’ (this letter was then forwarded by Yet, in 1926, the year the Russian donation arrived at the Brangwyn to Romanov).32 In early February 1925, two weeks British Museum, Aleksandr Chaianov implied that all this after Bakshy’s renewed proposal, Romanov began to approach attention to Russian prints and printmakers had not been Russian printmakers for contributions to the planned gift to enough: ‘Based on the interest in classical printmaking, there Brangwyn and the British Museum. In a letter to Ostroumova- should inevitably arise an interest in contemporary graphic art, Lebedeva, Romanov explained that Brangwyn wanted to which can then further enable the development of new Rus- avoid any political connotations and so, to make it appear very sian graphic art, so brilliantly begun by the works of Masiutin, clearly a private gift of an artist appreciative of Russian art,

упадок. Правда, отдельные художники [. . .] продолжают работать, но 30 ‘На почве интереса к старой графике неизбежно должен возникнуть продуктивность их значительно понизилась’, E. Gollerbakh: Sovremennye интерес и к графике современной, что может дать достаточную почву russkie gravery, Petrograd 1922, p.8. для дальнейшего развития новой русской гравюры, так блестяще начатой 27 N. Romanov: Oforty V. N. Masiutina (1908–1918), Moscow 1920; N. Romanov: работами Масютина, Фалилеева, Кравченко, Фаворского, Купреянова и V. Falileev, Moscow and Petrograd 1923; V. Adariukov: Graviury I. N. Pavlova друг’, A. Chaianov: Staraia zapadnaia graviura. Kratkoe rukovodstvo dlia muzeinoi (1886–1921), Moscow 1922; Gollerbakh, op. cit. (note 26); idem: Istoriia graviury i raboty, Moscow 1926, p.13. litografii v Rossii, Moscow 1923. 31 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 8. 28 V. Voinov: Russkaia litografiia za poslednie 25 let, Petrograd 1923. 32 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 19. 29 K. Zelenina: Starye russkie gravery i litografy, Moscow 1925.

t h e b u r l i n g t o n m a g a z i n e • c l i x • j u n e 2017 457

LAY_MARDILOVICH_RussianPrints.indd 457 16/05/2017 16:42 A GIFT OF RUSSIAN PRINTS

reputation as the foremost Soviet illustrator of printed books. Several printmakers who participated in the donation had struggled to adjust to the demands of the Soviet regime and emigrated. Vasilii Masiutin, for example, had trained as a printmaker at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture and taught etching at the Free State Art Studios (SVOMAS) in Moscow from 1918, alongside Falileev and Ivan Pavlov. But in 1920, Masiutin moved to Riga with his family, and from there to Berlin the following year. At first he main- tained an active connection with the Russian art world, pub- lishing the manual Engraving and Lithography and contributing illustrations to numerous Russian publications in Germany.38 But jobs soon became scarce, and in 1926 Falileev, who was also living in Berlin, wrote to Romanov that Masiutin could not find stable work, and was constantly sick and hungry.39 Falileev (Fig.15) had also been a prolific and reputable print- 13. St Petersburg: ruins and renaissance, the Palace Embankment in 1921, by Pavel Shillingovskii. 1923. Woodcut, 10.3 by 15.2 cm. (British Museum, London). maker well before the Revolution and was responsible for in- troducing the colour linocut to Russian printmaking. Between

Brangwyn suggested that Russian artists send a collection of their works to the British Museum as if instigated by them.33 Romanov noted that he had already approached Shillingov- skii, and asked Ostroumova-Lebedeva to invite others, such as Kruglikova (Fig.14) and Kostenko, to participate. He also wrote to printmakers living abroad, including Falileev and Ma- siutin.34 In August 1925 Bakshy wrote to Romanov to say that Brangwyn’s gift had been put together and sent to the Soviet embassy.35 By December of that year Bakshy had received the Russian gift in return.36 The Russian offering was wide-ranging and involved several émigré printmakers who had fled from the Soviet Union. Most of the contributing artists were established names before the Revolution of 1917, and while some printmakers struggled to continue making work, others became celebrated Soviet artists. Pavel Shillingovskii, for example, first made his name in the 1910s with an individual style of etching that combined mod- ernist aesthetics with neo-classicism. Although etching had fallen partially out of favour, Shillingovskii was able to apply his style to woodcuts and wood engravings, producing numerous book illustrations from the 1920s, and taught printmaking in the graphic art department at the Academy of Arts, Len- ingrad (Fig.13). Ostroumova-Lebedeva, too, was recognised as one of the most innovative Russian printmakers in the early 1900s, and was lauded as the instigator of a novel approach to colour woodcut and relief printmaking in Russia.37 After the Revolution, she briefly turned to watercolour and lithography due to shortages of art materials, and from the 1930s sporadical- ly taught graphic art at official institutions. Her student Nikolai Kupreianov, on the other hand, was heralded as a master of Sov- iet graphic art, creating prints with ‘revolutionary’ subject-matter such as tanks and the cruiser Aurora and appropriating modern- ist stylistic trends. Likewise, Vladimir Favorskii, who donated 14. Boul’ Mich, by Elizaveta Kruglikova. 1914. Colour monotype, 46.8 by 32.5 cm. his wood engravings for The Book of Ruth (1924), established his (British Museum, London).

33 National Library of Russia, St Petersburg, Department of Manuscripts (cited in S. Ernst and A. Benua, eds.: Ostroumova-Lebedeva, Moscow and Petrograd 1923, hereafter as RNB), f. 1015 (Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva), ed. khr. 836, letter p.46. dated 2nd February 1925. 38 V. Masiutin: Graviura i litografiia, Moscow and Berlin 1922. 34 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 178, 187; Werner, op. cit. (note 1), pp.301–02. 39 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 187. 35 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 10. 40 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 178 and 180. 36 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 13. 41 The British Museum, London, Recent Acquisitions, notes dated 4th October 37 N. Romanov: Katalog vystavki. Graviury na dereve A. P. Ostroumovoi-Lebedevoi, 1926, and 3rd November 1926. Moscow 1916, pp.8–9; S. Ernst: ‘Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo Ostroumovoi-Lebedevoi’, 42 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 40, 192; RNB, f. 1015, ed. khr. 836, letter dated

458 j u n e 2017 • c l i x • t h e b u r l i n g t o n m a g a z i n e

LAY_MARDILOVICH_RussianPrints.indd 458 16/05/2017 16:42 A GIFT OF RUSSIAN PRINTS

1920 and 1924, he worked as a professor of the lithographic studio at the Higher Art and Technical Studios (VKhUTE- MAS) and contributed to several publications on printmaking. Yet, like Masiutin, Falileev fled from Russia. With his wife and fellow artist Ekaterina Kachura-Falileeva, he attempted to accompany an exhibition of Soviet art to America in 1924 but was denied a visa. Instead, he and his family moved to Stockholm and, less than two years later, to Berlin. Numerous letters between Falileev and Romanov reveal how difficult it was for the artist and his wife to find work abroad: few galleries or mus- eums were interested in acquiring their prints, and they had to rely on making advertisement posters to pay the rent.40 This correspondence, as well as that between Romanov and Masiu- tin and others, sheds more light on why so many Russian artists were willing to be included in the Russian gift. That an institution like the British Museum held their work in its collection could only help advertise their art elsewhere in Europe. In fact, following the display of the Russian gift at the British Museum 15. The overflowing of the Volga, by Vadim Falileev. 1916. Colour linocut, 26.8 by in November 1926,41 one of the earliest exhibitions of Soviet art 35 cm. (State Russian Museum, St Petersburg). in the United Kingdom, British collectors approached several Russian artists, including Falileev and Ostroumova-Lebedeva, Pavlov and Kravchenko.48 Both groups stress Romanov’s seeking to buy their prints.42 significance in the development of their careers and in the As Romanov was co-ordinating the Russian gift in October popularisation of contemporary Russian printmaking in 1925, Bakshy wrote to the director to enquire whether a further Russia and abroad – giving as an example the exchanges donation by other British printmakers would be accepted by with Brangwyn and the British Museum. These letters the Russian museum.43 Romanov ostensibly approved the idea, ultimately helped save Romanov from an unthinkable since by late December Bakshy was informing him that several fate, and although he was still forced to leave the museum British printmakers were keen to participate.44 By May 1926, world – under the official pretence of a mysterious theft Bakshy had again written to Romanov that Dodgson had now of paintings from the institution – he was able to return to assumed the responsibility of assembling the British donation scholarship in the mid-1930s and resume his work at the – which, Bakshy later snidely commented, would explain the Moscow State University. rather conservative composition of the collection.45 Although With Romanov’s removal from the Moscow Museum in the reasons behind the change of organiser are unclear, it is 1928, the unusual gift was never again mentioned publicly, possible that Dodgson wanted to assert some control and af- and so this exceptional example of artistic exchange between firm the apolitical nature of the exchange. In his letters Bakshy Russian and British printmakers has been largely forgotten. recognised the effect on the exchange of the recent disruption In Ostroumova-Lebedeva’s Autobiographical Notes the artist made of diplomatic relations between Britain and the Soviet Union no reference to donating over thirty of her prints to the British (as a result of British suspicions of Soviet provocation in the Museum. This omission is particularly glaring given both her General Strike of May 1926). He lamented to Romanov that excitement in the memoir when one of her prints, Perseus and certain left-leaning artists could not be included, noting that Andromeda (1899), was given to the museum by a friend in 1921, ‘[i]t would have been especially nice to get for you works by and her positive reference to the exchange in the 1928 letter of Augustus John and Walter Sickert’.46 support for Romanov.49 Ivan Pavlov, too, failed to mention the Although more than fifty British artists contributed to the episode in his memoir Life of a Russian Printmaker, although he donation, the exchange was of far greater importance for Rus- extolled the importance of Romanov ‘in the history and de- sian printmakers and the Russian director. In a file compiled velopment of Russian graphic art’.50 By the 1930s a centralised between 1928 and 1929 and held in Romanov’s archive are num- system of cultural diplomacy had been established, and the sort erous documents testifying to the value of the curator’s work, of private artistic exchange conducted by Romanov with the written in response to his dismissal as Director and Keeper of West and with émigrés would have been seen as suspect and the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts.47 Among these are two counter-revolutionary. letters from groups of printmakers, one from Leningrad, and With the acceptance of this gift by the British Museum, the other from Moscow, signed by many of the artists who however, Russian prints claimed for themselves a place within contributed to the gift, including Ostroumova-Lebedeva, the broader history of the development of printmaking that no Kruglikova, Pavlinov, Nivinskii, Favorskii, Dobrov, Ivan political machinations or ideological shifts could undermine.

27th January 1927; RNB, f. 1015, ed. khr. 1020. November 1928, and the letter from Moscow is undated. 43 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 12. 49 A. Ostroumova-Lebedeva: Avtobiograficheskie zapiski, Moscow 2003, III, p.35. 44 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 14. Archival information further indicates that Ostroumova-Lebedeva was responsible 45 GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 15 and 16. for drafting the letter of support for Romanov, see RNB, f. 1015, ed. khr. 307, 46 ‘Особенно хотелось бы достать для Вас работы Augustus John’а и Walter letter dated 23rd November 1928. Sickert’а’, GMII, f. 14, op. III, ed. khr. 16. 50 ‘в истории и развитии русского графического искусства’, I. Pavlov: Zhizn’ 47 GMII, f. 14, op. II, ed. khr. 26. russkogo gravera, Moscow 1963, p.253. 48 GMII, f. 14, op. II, ed. khr. 26, the letter from Leningrad is dated 24th

t h e b u r l i n g t o n m a g a z i n e • c l i x • j u n e 2017 459

LAY_MARDILOVICH_RussianPrints.indd 459 16/05/2017 16:42