Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal Texts 2.2015
Bruxelles, 2015 EDITORIAL BOARD Chief editor Burganova M. A.
Bowlt John Ellis (USA) — Doctor of Science, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures in University of Southern California; Burganov A. N. (Russia) — Doctor of Science, Professor of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University, Full-member of Russia Academy of Arts, National Artist of Russia, member of the Dissertation Council of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University; Burganova M. A. (Russia) — Doctor of Science, Professor of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University, Full-member of Russia Academy of Arts, Honored Artist of Russia, member of the Dissertation Council of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University, editor-in-chief; Glanc Tomáš (Germany) — Doctor of Science of The Research Institute of East European University of Bremen (Germany), and assistant professor of The Charles University (Czech Republic); Kazarian Armen (Russia) — Architectural historian, Doctor of Fine Arts in The State Institute of Art History, Advisor in Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences; Kravetsky A. G. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, research associate of Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Lavrentyev Alexander N. (Russia) — Doctor of Arts, Professor of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University and Moscow State University of Printing Arts; Alessandro De Magistris (Italy) — PhD, Full-Professor of History of Architecture Politecnico di Milano Department of Architecture and Urban Studies; Misler Nicoletta (Italy) — Professor of Modern East European Art at the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples; Pavlova I. B. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, Senior Researcher of Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
ISSN 2294-8902 © TEXTS, 2015 Pletneva A. A. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, research associate of Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Pociechina Helena (Poland) — Doctor of Science; Profesor of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn; Pruzhinin B. I. (Russia) — Doctor of Sciences, Professor, editor-in- chief of Problems of Philosophy; Ryzhinsky A. S. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, Senior lecturer of Gnesins Russian Academy of Music; Sahno I. M. (Russia) — Doctor of Sciences, Professor of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; Sano Koji (Japan) — Professor of Toho Gakuyen University of Music; Shvidkovsky Dmitry O. (Russia) — Vice-President of Russian Academy of Arts and its secretary for History of Arts, and Full member; Rector of Moscow Institute of Architecture, Doctor of Science, Professor, Full member of Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences, Full member of the British Academy; Tanehisa Otabe (Japan) — Doctor of Sience, Professor, Head of Department of Aesthetics at Tokyo; Tolstoy Andrey V. (Russia) — Doctor of Sciences, professor in the History of Art at the Moscow State Institute of Architecture, a Full member of the Russian Academy of Fine Arts and President of the Russian National section of International Association of Art Critics (AICA) affiliated with UNESCO; Tsivian Yuri (USA) — Doctor of Science, Professor, University of Chicago, Departments: Cinema and Media Studies, Art History, Slavic Languages and Literatures;
Editor Smolenkova J. (Russia)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tatiana G. Malinina A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch — the Result of a Collective Interdisciplinary Research 8
Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art 20
Elena V. Noskova The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin in the Development of Russian Ceramics of the 19th‑20th centuries 29
Diana V. Keypen-Warditz Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo 42
Maria A. Burganova Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919 57
Elena V. Lobanova Unknown Pages of Nikolai Myaskovsky’s Chamber and Vocal Creativity 73
Ekaterina Matveeva The concept of culture in language teaching process: Secondary Linguistic Personality 77
Peter Hagsér The exhibition Silent sound of human nature at the art gallery in Trollhättan by Viktor Korneev 82 Dear Readers,
The tenth issue of The Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal TEXTS is before you. For us, this is the first anniversary and we are glad to celebrate it with you! We are grateful for your attention to our journal. The publication of relevant research papers bytop-class scientists, who are unique and leading experts in their respective fields, is one of the strategic objectives of the journal. In our journal, we aim to create a dialogue space for different cultural fields. We aim at the preservation of cultural heritage and an expansion of cultural and scientific relations. These objectives determine the high selection criteria and are the key to high-level scientific publications.
Sincerely, Maria A. Burganova Editor-in-Chief
— 6 — Our thanks
The Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal TEXTS is created by remarkable highly professional and friendly team, to whom our gratitude is addressed now. Thanks to our wonderful editorial board from different countries and continents: John Ellis Bowlt, Alexander N. Burganov, Maria A. Burganova, Tomáš Glanc, Armen Kazarian, Alexander G. Kravetsky, Alexander N. Lavrentyev, Alessandro De Magistris, Nicoletta Misler, Irina B. Pavlova, Alexandra A. Pletneva, Helena Pociechina, Boris I. Pruzhinin, Alexander S. Ryzhinsky, Irina M. Sahno, Koji Sano, Dmitry O. Shvidkovsky, Tanehisa Otabe, Andrey V. Tolstoy, Yuri Tsivian.
Your professionalism and attention allow us to develop and become better!
We thank all the employees of the Moscow and Brussels offices for the excellent work.
We thank our wonderful English translator Anna Pchelkina and our French translators Valery Matveev and Rusina Shihatova! We thank our editor Julia Smolenkova and our layout designer Alexander Tovpeko!
We thank all our authors for their interesting articles and scientific research papers! This project would not have been realised without you ☺ Thanks to all our readers for your interest in our work!
We thank our Editor-in-Chief Maria Burganova for her selfless work, patience, attention, professionalism and energy that make this journal better and more interesting with each issue as well constantly expand!
— 7 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch
Tatiana G. Malinina Doctor of Art History, Professor, Chief Researcher at the Research Institute of Theory and History of Fine Arts of the Russian Academy of Arts. [email protected] Moscow, Russia A WORK OF ART AS A DOCUMENT OF AN EPOCH — THE RESULT OF A COLLECTIVE INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
Summary: The conference paper by T. Malininа “A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch — the Result of a Collective Interdisciplinary Research”. The author of the concept, an organizer and a participant, analyzes materials and summarizes the International research and practical conference “A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch” (Research Institute of Arts, Russian Academy of Arts, 23—24.03, 2011), which became the first one in a series of contemporary interdisciplinary humanities forums dedicated to studying methodological experience of interpretation of a work of art.
In present-day historical studies, a pronounced tendency to widely use visual sources has brought to the fore a development of methodology of interdisciplinary researches. Their immediate aim is to create a coordinate system, which would allow a deeper insight into the meaning of what is happening; to get answers to new questions, addressed to the experience of the past by science today; to form a more complete, integrated picture of a cultural epoch, seen through the eyes of a modern man and reflecting the modern view on history in the methods of interpretation. Art plays an important role in modern methods of studying human — society — culture. Interests of different humanities focus in a work of art like in a lens. The movement of science toward art has its own specifics at present. Relation of art to reality becomes more and more indirect.
— 8 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch
Science seeks truth, while art has truth in itself. Scientists are researching “strategies” to work with visual sources on the basis of understanding the specifics of artistic creativity. A historian does not consider an image in art to be a “mould of reality” or the fruit of imagination anymore; as it becomes clear only in an appropriate discourse, a historian sees his task of “solving”, “decoding”, “reading” the message contained in an artwork. In turn, a work of art — its form, the symbolism, semantics, methods of transmission and the accuracy of the extracted information, become the subject of reflection and art criticism. Today theoretical thought in art is related to an urgent need of art to use methodological tools of the humanities while maintaining its proper subject foundations and meanings. Due to the development of cultural, sociological and other approaches, discourses, methods of scientific statements, the fact of creating a work of art and its function and meaning of art, appear to be secondary to its not immanent theory. Art in these structures disperses its identity to a great extent, becoming a comment and an illustration. Since the time of N. Tchernyshevskiy’s thesis defense (“Aesthetic Relation of Art to Reality”), the interpretation of interrelations between an artistic expression and a fact, fiction and a fact in an artistic environment as well as in any criticism led either to complication and aggravation of the conflict between these spheres, or to their full and final decoupling. Today, such categories of art as “design thinking”, “stadiality of mimesis” are evidence of a formed balance, equilibrium in relation to the meanings of the formal and the figurative, the real and the imaginary, the objective and the subjective in a work of art. Other aspects of the relations are put in the forefront. Understanding the meaning of a rapidly changing reality, clarifying them within the sphere of the creator’s understanding becomes relevant for art and science, which is struggling to find a way to a man — the creator as well as the object of art, referring to different areas of human knowledge. There is a great need for new approaches — the return of “self-identification” specificity to art, when it will again be able to present itself in its integrity, in the entirety of existence of its true senses, not dwelling on different projections from the outside.
— 9 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch
These considerations gave rise to the initiative of the scientific conference devoted to the phenomenon of a work of art. The direction of research (selected by historian E. Ogarkova (Volgograd), my co- author of the book Memory and Time (Moscow, Галарат, 2011), and me) suggested a radical change of optics, when a work of art appears as a meaning generating substance, becomes the object of interdisciplinary researches. Scientific knowledge must gain new qualities, overcoming narrowness of techniques, expansion of which causes art to reduce its territories from continuous expansions again and again. In the stated approach, art itself is the source and the reason rather than a brief summation of the actual experience and strategies. The International Scientific and Practical Conference (March 23— 24, 2011), held on the initiative of The Research Institute of Theory and History of Fine Arts of the Russian Academy of Arts, came first in a series of interdisciplinary methodological humanities forums of the recent times, aimed at strengthening the energy of the search; it offered a new perspective on the problems of methodology renewal as well as put the issue of exchanging methodological experience in interpreting works of art in spotlight. The conference materials underlie the collective monograph, which, we hope, will soon be published. The formulated theme “A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch” was aimed at identifying various aspects of comprehension of it and attracted attention of a wide range of experts — philosophers, historians and art theorists, art critics, linguists, sociologists, culturologists. Participation in the work of researchers, united by a common interest in the designated direction, developing certain questions or thoroughly comprehending the problem of the relations between art and reality, facilitated a demonstration of multilateral approaches, an identification of new means of understanding and interpretation of a work of art, different levels of learning new methods and, at the same time, quite deeply rooted stereotypes of a straightforward identification of the phenomena of art and reality. Not only representatives of various humanitarian professions made speeches at the conference: philosophers, art historians, philologists, historians, sociologists, culturologists, but also reports, prepared by groups of authors, which included specialists in different profiles, were
— 10 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch
also presented. Respected scholars were part of the writing staff of the collective research: workers of scientific research institutes, professors and graduate students of universities, workers of museums in England, Austria, Italy, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Volgograd, Krasnoyarsk, Vladivostok and other cities in Russia. The range of historical and contemporary art material coverage appeared to be as wide as the number of participants and the geography of the scientific world, represented in the forum. The different scale and diversity of research tasks identified the specific optics of a collective reflection-saying, which, in a sense, refers to postmodern principles of mosaic structure and fractality. This material of different aspects has, so to say, “self-organized”, denoting three vectors of the perspective: theoretical, historical and contemporary. The theoretical vector of the study, which is a correlation of the artist’s works (“as the artist has the ability to think and inquire about being”) with the realities and the spirit of his time, is facing a triad: “the artist’s world”, “artistic world”, “modernity”. This can be judged by main currents of thought. The following questions are put forward in the foreground: what information science is ready to gather from artistic sphere, whether the art has resistant transhistorical properties that can indicate a historical era, how our present shows itself in different languages of today’s art. Art history, looking for approaches or finding answers to the raised questions, conceptually enriching, either proposes to introduce new typological differentiations in art, or trying to set coordinates in which a model is hypothetically structured, matching ontological and innovative components of an artistic expression. Documentation, which is a set of properties with the help of which a work acquires a status of a historical document and a witness of time and it roots in it, serves as a “touchstone” to identify one of the main ontological properties of a work of art in this collective study. However, “historical time”, imprinted in art, resonates in the art space of a work, where the facts, meanings, emotions typical of an era, are refracted and presented in an figurative light. The creator’s talent and means of artistic expression confer a work of art with an ability to “revive”, aggravate the sense of time.
— 11 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch
Time is one of the basic concepts that constitute the essence of human existence. Notions of time are the basis of any culture. The process of comprehension and understanding of time is reflected in theexperience of contemporaneity. Art with the help of means of its language is capable to reveal the complex content of the concept of the modern: to reflect conflicts of the historical, the present and the future in the cultural space of an era, its different value points and development directions. That is why a work of art remains a serious cause for artistic reflection, on the background of a “loss of taste for generalization”, inherent to contemporary criticism and artistic environment. Wonderful Russian animator Yuri Norstein called a work of art “a documentary projection of a soul”. Combining such concepts as documentation, projectivity and a soul, meaning imagination, fantasy, sensitivity, intuition, he was able to say the main about an artistic creation in his unexpected and yet capacious poetic formula. The expression “a documentary projection of a soul” appears to be a metaphor, capturing signs of the fruitful work of an artist’s creative spirit affecting the fabric of human history. An original presentation of tools of a theoretical analysis, which gives an idea of how artist’s impressions, his “experience of modernity” and a response to a rapidly changing world refract and result in a work of art, is made in the speeches, putting forward the problem of the theme of the conference. The questions on the epistemological and form-creative potential of a work of art, on the applicability of “the progressive — the conservative” criteria to the artistic means of expression, are raised. The processes of modification of function and structure of a work of art under the influence of factors of modernity, as well as “natural”, essential properties of artistic expression, which remains unchanged, are the object of the analysis. Such problems as understanding the documentary, authentic and genuine in art, the meaning of actual and modern in it, transformation of existential and spiritual in the structure of a work of art, perceptual and objective in the artistic experience, saying, gesture, are analyzed by authors of articles-researches in the theoretical section. Articles concerning the magnitude problems of philosophical ontology, the theory and history of art are notable among them; their authors raise to the level of broad generalizations, referring to the essence of such
— 12 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch limiting concepts as Time and Memory. In his article A Work of Art — from Monument to Mnemotop, S. Vaneyan reflects on “natural” qualities of a work of art; on its ability to cause a variety of experiences — not only aesthetic, which are sensual, but also emotional, intellectual, moral, showing itself as a source of a whole range, a whole system of affects. An acquisition, an accumulation of some temporary experience are, what is most significant, in the basis of these experiences; hence there is a desire to retain or restore something, though lost but important. Highlighting the time factor of the content of a work of art, the author chooses to analyze types, endowed to the greatest extent with a quality of a memorial and robed in monumental forms — memorials and monuments. As the author explains, we find ourselves face to face with a “very remarkable and almost essential determinations of visuality and artistry” while studying works of monumental art, which have a memorial character. Considering a monument as a “plastic thickening of an all-embracing human experience” (G. Lyuttseler) and regarding monumentality as the universum, Vaneyan introduces a criterion which allows an “artistic document”, which is a work of art, to become a property of mankind and remain in its memory forever. The article Artistic Images of Chronos and Kairos as an Embodiment of a Language Conceptual Metaphor of Time, written by philologist A. Yegorova and art historian I. Putiatin, is a fruitful result of an interdisciplinary research. To answer the question of how such an abstract concept as time can be represented as a visual image, what mechanisms of human consciousness allow the perfect to be transferred into the material, giving it a visual image and making the image easily recognizable, the authors refer to metaphorical thinking. A metaphor, reflecting ways of perceiving events, emotions, ideas as material essences and substances, is used here as a tool, acquiring a meaning of a “conceptual metaphor”. The authors’ analysis of metaphorical compatibility of the word “time” shows how the concepts of time are expressed in the language. Researchers, giving multitude examples and showing the ways of a semantic transfer of a metaphor in all the richness of its types, are creating a clear typologically differentiated
— 13 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch
and vivid picture of the idea of time change in culture and in a work of art throughout centuries. Art history thought, occupied with the issues of art creativity, is turned to a radically changing reality of the modern world and its art, responding differently to accelerated rhythms of change. From the middle of the last century and to the beginning of a new, twenty-first century, performances, in some way or another concerning the phenomenon of modernity and the forms of its experience, indicate a tense polemic atmosphere in art criticism, exacerbated by a sharp isolation of paradigmatic poles. Art is ambiguous and reacts differently to a new structure of reality, to challenges that are addressed to traditional culture by the present. Wanting to be modern, art offers variable, sometimes conflicting versions of responses to the challenge of time. In random structure of the modern artistic process, a work of art itself can give an idea of the forms of interaction between different tendencies, as different impulses are actively integrated in it, often contrary to the intentions of its creators. It is here that one can observe curious phenomena, indicating if not a dialogue, then movement, grip, random intersections, which mean an establishment of ties between the two languages used by the culture, the ways of meaning making, symbolic content, that is, everything that leads to the birth of a single but an extensive system of imagery. The general direction of the collective search expresses the desire to overcome a segmentary feature of critics’ view; to find ways to identify new combinatorial methods, modifying the model of formation as a whole, in principles of structuring a contemporary art work. Therefore it is no coincidence that almost every article either opens or ends with posing a question. In his article “Art and Reality”, A. Jakimovich addresses a question to contemporary art-science, “What is the panorama of history, society, human soul, seen with the help of a work of art in the middle and second half of the twentieth century?” The author’s working hypothesis is based on the thesis that “ in the twentieth century the art changed its mode of existence”; objects and actions, situations, visual and verbal “messages” do not play the role of art masterpieces (i. e. not independent entities), but rather symptoms and signs of processes taking place in the
— 14 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch historical reality itself. A researcher, tracing the history of art (as well as pseudo art, anti-art), should keep in mind that so much “history of masterpieces” is in question, but rather “history of symptoms”. “Our task,” the author concludes, “is to feel, to understand and to describe the changes and processes, indicated by these symptoms.” L. Liman, who bases on the position that the current level of understanding history and peculiarities of the present art is inseparable from new forms of communication, concludes her speech “Remembrance, Monument and Document in Theoretical Reflection of the Postmodern” by posing questions. The author offers her answers to the questions: what are the ways of art after the “end of art”, what are the aesthetic features of the new media, what is seen in a monument and document, an opening of meaning and a ternary search. Reflecting on the impact of electronic technologies on the methods and forms of the researcher’s work, on the role of modern media in the formation of new principles of cultural identity, in the perception of historical time and space, the author focuses on the procedural nature of the cognitive processes, their principal openness and inability to obtain final results. While noting that the learning process itself becomes attractive for its openness for truth, the ability to take its incompleteness, the researcher gives thus an aesthetic evaluation of new methods and criteria as well. Today not only artists are occupied with problems of preservation of spontaneity, liveliness and originality of artistic expression. The question of a need for an in-depth study of a creative process in the theory of programming, of a thorough development of art methods is considered in the speech “On the Technical and Creative Aspects of Computer Visualization of Architectural Design” (by T. Malinina, the author of the present article). If the “information model” of an architectural structure gives an idea of technological, design, energetic, environmental, and other parameters of the project, then the aesthetic, artistic component of the “author’s model” remains largely undeveloped. The analysis of the experience of mastering computer technologies in an architect’s work shows how digital technologies in formative processes, affecting transformation and creation of different versions of architectural typology, opening up new possibilities in the methodology
— 15 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch of urban design (on the background of turbulent reflection on the prospects of positive and negative sides of “digital architecture”, on optimistic and apocalyptic scenarios of the further destiny of the profession), are being actively explored in recent decades. The moments of transition to a virtual reality become a part of an architect and a designer’s creative process; and probably the visual language will be able to follow the modern aesthetic trends in the future. Possibilities of a computer are endless; the constantly improving computer technologies can become a subtle and sensitive instrument in the hands of a man, whose imagination and fantasy are inexhaustible. I. Dobritsyna (An Architectural Work as Drama of Perception. On the Problem of Meaning Symbolization) explores a problem field in which the following questions are actualized: Has the power of art as a source of knowledge already exhausted itself? What forms does the aesthetic, based on sensory perception, acquire in contemporary art? Has the very ability of sensual perception of the world by a recipient been already lost or not? The author leads the reader to the answers through formulating a problem of novelty in art, understood as “an act, laying the foundation for whole historic worlds” (H. Gadamer). “Exploring a single work (or a series of works) as a document of a particular time, we always mean its value in the eternal attempt to reflect the movement of the global — as a kind of “revelation” and as a living reflection of the time. The severity and diversity of experiments in the present is the key to shaping the future,” Dobritsyna points out. A work of art as a result of an architectural experiment, as its new quality, translates new ideas related to a change of notions of the creativity goals and a search for means to achieve them. From the experience of the last decades as an example of significant advances in the theory and experimental field, the author chooses a philosophical review of the architectural program of the 1980s, which went down in history as deconstructivism and which united the intellectual leaders of that period. Creative laboratory of an architect-experimenter, the specificity of his work and the reflection of how a philosophical scheme, a creative impulse and personal motives agree or disagree in a work, are of interest to the author. The figure of Peter Eisenman, a bright personality, theorist and practitioner of
— 16 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch
deconstructivist architecture (whose works are facing the history of the art culture and, at the same time, facing the future — the space of his possible interpretations), is, of course, put forward to the foreground. The development of an art criticism idea is determined by new issues, with which every era (in this case, our time) turns to the past. Thus the question of a criteria for evaluating a work is once again raised before a historian of art. Returning to the subject of the content of form in art, G. Zagyanskaya raises the question of whether the concepts of the “progressive” and the “conservative” are applied to the artistic means of expression. A. Rykov reflects on the questions of the progressive and the conservative in art. The intention of both authors to harmonize the space of the art world, inhabited by different paradigms, does not look naive and impractical, since it is quite obvious that art takes a more complex form of evolution than the progress in the development of civilization. The difference in the optics of addressing the problems makes it possible to approach it from different angles: the nearest one — from Zagyanskaya’s point of view, and the historical — а from Rykov’s standpoint. Innovative spirit of art of the twentieth century gave rise to new forms, introduced new artistic criteria; however, it revived the primordial and the traditional (primitive) art, “thereby restoring the unity of cultural history”. The art world of the new twenty-first century is diverse, colourful and aggressive; it asserts itself, as if not leaving space for memories and historical association; without giving a reason to a critic and audiences to think about succession, about a single, consistent, discretely or dramatically evolving artistic process, making the theme of succession banal and pointless. Not only the understanding that the language of traditional art is now irrelevant and is not able to express thoughts and feelings of a modern man, but a categorical denial of possible compromises stands to reason now. Today’s onslaught of new technologies and priority of design turn the ousting of the traditional plastic arts, its exile from modernity and a raise to the rank of historical rarity into a tendency. Meanwhile, a set of intermediate versions, placed closer to either one or the other pole, is observed on the scale (the poles of which are the tradition and innovation, the progressive and the conservative, the elitist and the mass). This set of options contains
— 17 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch
potential “ovaries” of future “sprouts”. It is this state of affairs that provides the basis for Zagyanskaya to state, “We live in the time, when none of the artistic strategies can be considered as the only new and progressive”. Reflecting on the paradoxes of artistic development, in particular, on the return of a critical attitude to theorists’ form creativity of relevant art, Zagyanskaya compares the acquisition and the lost. It seemed that the firm step of time, the inexorability of the all- conquering progress require to accept the inevitable expulsion of fine contemplative and lyrical view of the world from the contemporary. The conclusion, as it were by itself: these are the ways of artistic ideas, the art perspectives are similar — evolution from the private to the general, from the concrete to the conditional, from mimesis to abstraction, from complex to more complex. However, neither Zagyanskaya nor Rykov are ready to take such a position. Concluding her article, Zagyanskaya says, “Not all new forms
— 18 — Tatiana G. Malinina. A Work of Art as a Document of an Epoch is most natural and fruitful for an art historian. It is generated by the phenomenological approach to a work of art; the approach, which is the richest in theoretical generalizations”, the author concludes, noting at the same time that the occurring anti-historical conception are only capable of a very limited impact. Despite a diversity of themes, epochs, countries, considered genres and the researchers’ personal viewpoints, the conference materials are a system of an open type, pierced through with intertextual connections. Thus, the theme of the interpretation of the antiquity is connected with order ensembles in St. Petersburg, G. Semiradsky’s paintings and M. Quinn’s sculpture. In Kalmyk images of a White old man Tsaganava, analogies can be found with icons of St. Nicholas. Next to the paintings of Italian cassoni of the Renaissance, it becomes apparent that the Tabriz miniature of the sixteenth century reflects not only the culture of the Iranian Safavid dynasty, but also, with a high degree of probability, suggests acquaintance of miniaturists with the Renaissance perspective. “Chronos and Kairos” as historically developing images of time, the problem of an archetype and an ideal type in the artistic forming are united among themselves with the theme of combination of the eternal and the changeable. All structural, semantic, value levels, presented in this context, are another confirmation of the universality of art, capable of documenting an era in all its modes and act as a historical and cultural document at the same time. The dialogue between history and modernity, offering more new possibilities of interpreting the art of the past, actualizing previously unclaimed forms of cultural memory and imagination, is unfolded on the pages of articles- studies, giving an opportunity to feel the historic movement of art and philosophical idea in their consonances and dissonances. Witnesses of eras are found at all structural levels of art and express themselves when considering any aspect of its existence. The disclosure of these features, as the attempted “brainstorming” convinces, can be possible from different research perspectives, with the most diverse sharpness of “analytical optics”.
— 19 — Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya. Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art
Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya PhD e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia BIEDERMEIER AND ITS PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF GERMAN ART
Summary: The article discusses the stages of development and metamorphosis of Biedermeier in Germany: its reflections on the political and social events. The author considers this style on the example of brilliant artists from different centuries. Keywords: Biedermeier in Germany, W. Sitte, M. Luther, E. Nolde, E. Kirchner, G. Schrimpf, O. Zinger.
The word “bieder” means a honest, sincere, straightforward man in German; “mayer” — a farmer, a tenant, a head, an owner of a manor, a dairy farm manager, an overseer. Ultimately, a representative of petty bourgeoisie — a burger, a plebeian, a philistine. It can be regarded as something positive with some friendly tinge of irony or with bad sarcasm, which was actually happening during more than one decade. A style, which declared itself in 1815 and exhausted itself by the “days before March”, on the eve of the revolution of 1848, owes its appearance to Biedermeier. In German history this period was marked by the end of the war with Napoleon, under the sign of the battle of Leipzig and Dresden, which brought it universal recognition. The war escalated the sense of national identity, of belonging to a single nation to the highest degree. Metternich’s contrivance to create a single state remained a dream that did not prevent the happening of revolution in science. Though scientists’ achievements in the field of natural science research in theory and practice remained only their property; however, everyone came in contact with the first steam engine, the first locomotive, first railways. In the minds of intellectuals the memory of the Great French Revolution of 1789—1795 years was still fresh, the echoes of the
— 20 — Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya. Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art
Sturm und Drang period had not yet died out. Classicism had not yet become a part of history; however, it was already leaving the stage. The Empire style was out of the question in 41 German states. Extremely emotional, diverse, multiform Romanticism, which received worldwide recognition at the beginning of the nineteenth century, made itself known in poetry, literature, painting, drawing already at the end of the eighteenth century. Referring to Romanticism in art, the name of Caspar David Friedrich (1774—1840) comes to mind. He was honoured with Goethe’s visit, with a meeting with the future Russian Emperor Nicholas I; he made friends with Heinrich von Kleist, maintained relations with Zhukovsky, who made German romantic poetry known for Russian readers 1, over the years. Biedermeier found its place in the niche of Romanticism as well; however, it could not by its very nature define the face of an era, so diverse, marked by a drastic revaluation of values. Of course, a further stratification of society, the vast majority of which would long be burghers — artisans, merchants, shop and retail shop owners, rural teachers, doctors, officials of low rank, was taking place in these conditions. Nevertheless, they would inherit neither the power of protest, nor the power of creation from their forerunners of the Reformation, the Peasants War, the era of great change. Martin Luther and his followers were the ones who would not be afraid to oppose democratism of Protestant faith to aristocratic Catholicism, with its splendor, complexity of hierarchy, sacred ceremonies and at the same time the right of indulgence, a possibility to buy off the accomplishments of sin. The Bible was being translated into German, the first printer Johann Gutenberg appeared, the history of a book began to start, the Bible was starting to be in public domain, it was already starting to be studied at school. Xylography was born — the most democratic form of art. At the beginning of the distant twentieth century, Kirchner brought the famous Nuremberg boards to Dresden. Out of this — of one of the most ancient arts, enriched with new expressive possibilities, a poster was born. After escaping to open spaces, it would speak in a language accessible to the masses. At the beginning of the sixteenth century a gravure was a possibility, above all, to illustrate the Bible. In the twentieth century, another German artist, expressionist Franz Nolde,
— 21 — Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya. Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art an artist of the “Nordic mentality”, in his own words, would not accept the “sugary Biblical art” 2 of the Italian Renaissance and would oppose it with his folksy, uncombed one. If we refer to the work of Cranach the Elder, Holbein, and many other, less well-known, to the work of Durer, who grasped something of the Italians, we would find that the truth and not the beautiful was above all for them. Representativeness was present when it came to a portrait of an Elector, a Duke… However, interest in nature prevailed in this case as well, personal relations were reflected. Deposits of precious metals were found, printing was developing; not only linen, but wool and even silk fabrics were being woven, trade was developing. The feudal system of life was exploding from inside. Yesterday’s poor man the next day could become if not rich, but, in any case, a respected man. Let’s not talk about numerous paintings and graphic portraits of Martin Luther; here are no less famous portraits of Hans and Margaret Luther — his parents, by Cranach the Elder. The father is broad-faced, with a large forehead, bald, with high cheekbones, a tightly closed mouth, a steadfast gaze of small eyes, separately placed eyebrows, sunken cheeks; his hands, his posture, concentration — all this hide some confidence in his abilities, in a victory gained during his life. The mother, Margaret, had never won; a thread of a toothless mouth, sunken cheeks, an absent gaze — there was a lot of work, worries, taken as inevitable and now — memories about the past, work-worn hands; she, a faithful companion, who knew her place all her whole life, had never went to the fore. “The Apostles” (1526) by Albrecht Dürer — they had to warn the Council of the city of Nuremberg about the false prophets, and that is why John is quoting Luther. They, with feet on the ground, massive, solid, with the exception of John — a thinker, do not leave the viewer with doubt that Matthew, Peter, Paul are at home only here. And if the left board is a focus on spiritual matters and there is heaven behind it, the right one is earthly, it is ruled by caution, prudence. Dürer would not be afraid to portray his mother (1514, charcoal), beautiful in herself, who bore and brought up 18 children, had more than one serious illness, who knew poverty, contempt, ridicule, as an ugly old woman, marked by the approaching death.
— 22 — Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya. Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art
The fundamental principle is democratic; coming back to the era of radical breakthrough, which followed the Reformation and was marked by Biedermeier as well, it can be stated that there was no place for an open fight, nor for an active opposition. Everything was accomplished calmly, quietly, without attracting undue attention. It was necessary to preserve the familiar, to maintain the centuries-old experience of being. Here, compared with the era of the Reformation, the customer was different by nature as well as the artist who could not be even compared with Dürer, Cranach, Holbein. An artist-craftsman had come. Fathers, grandfathers, grandchildren, children, a maid, who had served her time and was now living out her days here, were all under one roof. An artisan was at the head of the house. A husband and a master, an owner, whose wish was the law and would not be discussed. The house was built; however, there were no large rooms there, it was not designed neither for balls, nor for receptions. Integrity, humility, faithfulness, moderation and thrift were in value. People read — a lot of poetry and prose to certain groups of people’s taste was published. Music was played — a flute, a bassoon, a violin. A piano had not yet appeared, a grand piano was extremely expensive, though there was no place for it in this house anyway. One wanted to make his life more attractive. Paintings, drawings of small size appeared; sculpture was misplaced here. Such was the scene of paintings and drawings, restrained in color, balanced in composition — a house, a street, an intimate world, beyond which none of its inhabitants wanted to go. The first role belonged to the owner of the house, the master. He was followed by his wife, daughter, grandmother, who were busy knitting, a daughter embroidering, unobtrusively posing for the artist; a family playing music could be pictured, a man reading newspapers, a modest family celebration, a still life, an outdoor urban or rural scene, occasionally a figure of peasant or a soldier. A lack of sacred motifs staggers; there seemed to be no habitual reading of the Bible, no pastors, no paintings of worship. In Catholic Bavaria the art of under glass painting was thriving as well as folk art, the works of which were presented to a pastor or a Lutheran church on the occasion of this or that holiday. Catholic Bavaria, of course, was different
— 23 — Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya. Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art
from the Protestant Prussia. Did Biedermeier find its place there? The question remains open. Under all conditions, Germany did not have any known master of Biedermeier art at this stage. The already formed, which for those around had developed quietly (common language; synonym — imperceptibly), disappeared just as quietly. The loudness (synonym — a desire to attract attention) would not be its hallmark. Suddenly, the revival of Biedermeier style began to be talked about at the beginning of the twentieth century. Again it would be a time for fundamental changes, a drastic revaluation of values, which served as a beginning of a glorious and shameful page in the history of Germany. The dream of a united country embodied. By the beginning of twentieth century, it became one of the most powerful states in the world with an unusually high level of development of industry, trade, science and education. However, it had been late for a redistribution of the colonies, so now it was preparing to join the battle for them. Some were waiting for the war, relying on an extraordinary increase in rank or salary, waiting for honours. Ernst Barlach would be glad about the beginning of war as a force that turned a scattered into an integrity. Artists from The Bridge movement with a sense of faith in the unknown for them bright future, under the sign of protest against the mechanization, mechanization, Americanization would expect a miracle — an enlightenment, a rebirth of humanity, its liberation from profanation, from the upcoming war. Interestingly, the avant-garde artists with their approval of new canons of art — flatness of the image, its deformation of locality of bright saturated colours, were similar to the artists of the much reactionary Homeland Art movement (Heimatkunst). The Middle Ages, not only with their craftsmen and apprentices, with an absence of division by craftsmen and artists — easel painters, application engineers, but also with rising high cathedrals, would serve as a base. This time, in contrast to Biedermeier of the early twentieth century, its heir, reminding those around to recall Biedermeier, would declare itself not just loudly but thunderously with just one word “Homeland”. And if the originated national socialism did not fade the scene, the art generated by it, whatever it is now called, would not
— 24 — Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya. Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art
go away as well. It would be developing under the sign of racism, a political and religious basis; it would call for a “simple life”, for the “good old days”. The lifestyle, so beloved of burgher and petty bourgeois, would be quietly praised at the beginning of the nineteenth century. A village, a province, a peasant would be praised at the early twentieth century. A large industrial city was seen as the devil incarnate. With extraordinary aggressiveness the Homeland Art movement assailed industry, miscegenation, liberalism; it accused the city with its mills, factories, offices and infinite vanity that it was depriving a person of harmonic merger with the wonderful world of nature. Representatives of Homeland Art remember that Germany in its time was the Land of nobles, peasants and artisans, and such, as they think, it should have remained. It was a question of destruction of factories and replacement of them by medieval guilds; goods made by hand had to replace the “machine” ones. Related literature was published. Homeland Art, which became the famous Blood and Soil (Blut und Boden), was formulated sharper and clearer. In short, the medieval Germany of a burgher, plebeian, philistine had no right to leave the scene. At first, the Homeland Art movement turned against impressionistic Secession, afterwards — against expressionists. A road to the fascist art was being laid. At the same time, we must not forget that, as mentioned above, a large industrial city was seen as the devil incarnate by many artists. Suffice it to recall Henry Fogel with his Worpswede, infinitely distant from the Homeland Art, with its archaism and nationalism. Fritz Boel (1873—1916), a painter, graphic artist, sculptor, who worked in Frankfurt (Main), Munich, was perhaps one of the most famous representatives of the latter. Most of his paintings were devoted to rural life, rural landscape. Contemporaries, associates understood his work as “a successful synthesis of Durer with Mare, as one, deeply rooted in the domestic, perceived in its monumental forms” 3. The artist gave preference to a German peasant, appearing, in his works, in all age groups — from a child, a young men and to an old man. They were engaged in their work; his character, shown from the front, would communicate directly with the audience, present him his ideological credo, and then go away, lost in thought. The artist retained the distance between him and a viewer,
— 25 — Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya. Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art
his peasant was someone who deserved the highest respect and did not allow to overstep certain bounds to come closer to him. Other times would come twenty years after. The war, unleashed by Germany, would be devastatingly lost by it, the infamous Treaty of Versailles would come to it, the Weimar Republic would come to replace the Empire, the November Revolution would cease. Communist Party appeared, and on the other hand — “the National Socialist Workers’ Party, which insisted that it would arrange all of the financial affairs and all men and women would get a job, earnings and an enjoyable holiday” 4. There was noone to recall the Biedermeier; however, from our point view, its echo can be seen in “pragmatic art”, which denied expressionism as a revolutionary art with its specific point of view on the world. It was Georg Gross who first shouted out, “To hell with expressionism”, though it would not prevent the latter to evolve further. However, this time it was not on behalf of a burgher, not on behalf of a rural resident but on behalf of an urban resident of working- class suburbs, looking for earnings, though, not only in terms of its name, someone would limit himself to only prosaic statement of facts; the artists, representing “pragmatic art”, would abandon suggestive rebellious subjects. From this perspective, it suffices just to recall George Schrimpf (1889—1958) with his resting girls, woman from urban suburbs, looking out of a window… Here, we are dealing with a person, living in urban suburbs, engaged in his work or free from it; the question of the outskirts would be “expounded” in an understandable to all, picturesque, graphic language, that did not require any explanation or comment. Actually it was the “hero” of the “new pragmatism” who would vote in 1933 for the National Socialists, accept fascism. Artist Oleg Zinger, who by fate happened to be in Germany at that time, would recall later, “As I said, the Germans flourished again. Fans of order and regime were satisfied with the regime, in spite of the fact that good books were publicly burned, good pictures were confiscated from museums. As it is known, a pot in which to cook one’s own food is more important to a crowd than the Apollo Belvedere. Only few understanding people felt that such economic prosperity would lead to a disaster. Nobody knew anything and did not
— 26 — Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya. Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art understand, let alone a German citizen. All the filth, the cruelty and barbarity of the regime was appearing very slowly, quietly, and had not yet been understood by all”. 5 As it is known, the Nazis deprived 400 artists of the right to work in their specialty, to exhibit their works, sell them; however, 1000 artists successfully retained these rights. The principles of Homeland Art, therefore “basic elements” of Biedermeier inherent in it as well as the art of a tradesman, received universal acceptance, improved, enriched. And the year 1945 is the last, in our point of view, stage in its history. Soviet occupation zone: its administration hurried to introduce the excellent work of “degenerate” artists to the Germans almost the next day after the end of the war. In the eastern zone of occupation the years 1945—1949 were also marked by appearance of very talented works, in which yesterday received an adequate expression of it. However, neither works of the “degenerate” art, nor anti-fascist works, which saw the light of the day at the end of the war, would not resonate with so many “honest, candid, upright” burghers, inhabitants of city suburbs. It were them who would assume the role of Biedermeier “consumers” in the middle of the twentieth century. It would take Socialist Realism, with its accessibility, distinctness, to introduce them to a new reality. It is no accident that in GDR Academician Peter Feist would speak on the national characteristics of the German fine arts only in the years 1975—1976, and not accidentally it would be so difficult for different masters, as for sculptor and graphic Theo Balden, for painter Villers Zitte, who did not tend to follow the tastes of the audience, brought up on the principles of Biedermeier. Interestingly, in the 30s Theo Balden went through an arrest, emigration to Czechoslovakia, England; he did not return to Germany but to the German Democratic Republic. Ville Zitte was a participant of the Second World War, went over to the guerrillas, and naturally chose the GDR. However, neither one nor the other accepted the plain language of the fine arts in this country. That format, as such, was of no interest to them.
— 27 — Zinaida S. Pyshnovskaya. Biedermeier and Its Place in the History of German Art
NOTES 1 Emmerich Jrma, Caspar David Friedrich: Eine Kunstheftreiche aus dem Verlag der Kunst, Dresden, 1971, p. 27. 2 Nolde Emil: Mein Leben, Koln: Dumont-Verlag, 2008, pp. 401—402. 3 Hamann Richard, Hermand Jost: Stilkunst um 1900, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1967, p. 191. 4 Zinger Oleg: Где в гостях, а где дома. Воспоминания. Париж, Moscow: “Московская палитра”, 1994, p. 107. 5 Zinger Oleg: Где в гостях, а где дома. Воспоминания. Париж, Moscow: “Московская палитра”, 1994, p. 110.
REFERENCES 1. Emmerich, Jrma, Caspar, David Friedrich. 1971. Eine Kunstheftreiche aus dem Verlag der Kunst, Dresden, p. 27. 2. Nolde, Emil. 2008. Mein Leben, pp. 401—402. 3. Hamann, Richard, Hermand, Jost. 1967. Stilkunst um 1900, Berlin, p. 191. 4. Zinger, Oleg. 1994. Memories. Paris, Moscow, p. 107, p. 110.
— 28 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
Elena V. Noskova Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia THE ROLE OF MIKHAIL VRUBEL AND PETER VAULIN IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN CERAMICS OF THE 19TH‑20TH CENTURIES
Summary: The article is devoted to a little-known side of the creative collaboration between Mikhail Vrubel, a genius artist and innovator, and Peter Vaulin, an outstanding master-technologist. It made a significant influence on the development of monumental and decorative art in Russia at the turn of 20th century and on the revival of the national style in ceramics. The important role of Peter Vaulin’s technological discoveries is logically and convincingly emphasized in this article. Ceramic works by famous Russian artists, which were created in a new for them ceramic material, acquired a vivid personality, stylistic innovation and unique colours owing to his experiments, fantastic knowledge and work. The fact that Vrubel could not have implemented his own unique creative ideas in an unknown for him material without Peter Vaulin’s help is pointed out in the article. Keywords: Mikhail Vrubel, ceramics, reduction glazes, decorative arts, Art Nouveau.
Favorable conditions for the emergence of new trends in the decorative arts began to appear in Russia at the turn of the 20th century. The key role in this process belongs to famous painters who chose artistic ceramics for their creative experiments. Ceramics was also of great interest to architects and it gradually became a popular artistic material of the art nouveau style. It allowed to fulfill a variety of decorative elements in the architectural space, which were easy to manufacture, cheap and had unlimited possibilities for colour and plastic.
— 29 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
1. P. K. Vaulin During this period, Mamontov created the Abramtsevo circle in his estate, bringing together prominent artists who were working in different fields of art. Among them were Ilya Repin, Polenov, Mikhail Vrubel, Konstantin Korovin, V. Vasnetsov, E. Polenova, M. Yakunchikova and A. Golovin.
— 30 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
In addition to academic education and talent, practical experience and deep knowledge in the field of technology, which the well-known Russian artists did not have, were needed to create ceramic works. Of course, they were the authors of ideas and colour sketches; however, often their works were done in material by professional potters. These artists had never worked with a ceramic colour palette and never fired their works. This difficult mission S. Mamontov put on Peter Vaulin, a young talented genius, ceramist and technologist, who brilliantly solved complex colouristic tasks assigned to him by artists. Peter Vaulin can rightly be called the co-author of all ceramic works created by Russian artists of that time. His experiments led to a unique discovery, owing to which, works of these artists acquired a vivid personality, stylistic innovation and unique colours. For example, “Mikhail Vrubel’s ceramics is unimaginable without the amazing colour decor, which largely determined its emotional- colour essence. Who was that amazing magician, who realised in material creative ideas of the Mamontov Circle members in Abramtzevo, and who was at the beginning of the birth of Russian architectural and decorative ceramics of the art nouveau style? The name of this unique craftsman of ceramics is Peter Kuzmich Vaulin, and it should certainly be inscribed in the history of Russian art in gold lettering”, writes V. Maloletkov1, Doctor of Arts. Mikhail Vrubel was one of the first artists to devote himself entirely to the passion for the new material. K. Makarov, the famous researcher of Russian ceramics, rightly pointed out, “Vrubel lacked volume and plastic means of expression. He wanted to obtain not just volume, but the volume fused with colour and rhythm of music. He wanted the fullness of sight, hearing and touch senses… The dream of a complete fusion of artistic experience could only be implemented in one material — plastic, colourful, musical and eternal — ceramics. Ceramic material gave a new opportunity to enter into the architecture”.2 In his works, Vrubel harmoniously combined delicate drawing, plastic form and colour. One of the reasons for Vrubel to turn to ceramic art was, by his own definition, “the passion to embrace the form as fully as possible”3. His
— 31 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
2. Mikhail Vrubel. Sculpture “Lel”. Majolica, colored glaze, painted polychrome, 1899—1900
— 32 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin active work in Vaulin’s ceramic studio in Abramtsevo, where all the necessary conditions for the development of a unique creative gift of both artists were created, made a significant impact on M. Vrubel’s interest in the decorative art. Their close cooperation opened up new possibilities in the search for diversity and harmony of colour, a synthesis of colour and form, plane and volume. Vrubel and Vaulin developed a completely new in ceramics colour scheme of white and pink, blue and purple, lavender, brown and golden hues; they created their own ornamental motifs. The majolica panel Princess of Dreams, which became the main element of the colour decoration of the hotel Metropol facade (Moscow), is a good example of a creative cooperation between Vrubel and Vaulin in the field of monumental and decorative ceramics. In this work, the ceramic painting is applied to an almost imperceptible traditional sutural grid that creates an impression of composition integrity. During the creation of the ceramic fireplace Mikula Selyaninovich and Voliga, Vaulin, who knew the specifics of the ceramic material, advised Vrubel to make changes in the composition and to make it more decorative, based on a combination of clear graphic lines and bright colour. A completely new approach to the colour palette of the ceramic painting and to the technique of manufacturing was the particularity of this work. In this work Vrubel and Vaulin use form shaping of the tiles based on the plot drawing. In this case they contour and cut the raw ceramic pieces into separate pieces, which constitute one single composition after firing. At the same time, the joint becomes an important decorative element of the artistic design. To preserve the integrity of the graphic image, Mikhail Vrubel and Vaulin applied false joints and grooves on damp clay surface, the depth and the width of which varied depending on the semantic and ornamental character of the plot. Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin masterfully used the generalization method; sophisticated colours were organically combined with imaginative interpretation and plastic structure of the work. A skillful use of the technique of ceramic painting, a combination of local accents and beautiful colours, the use of a new moulding technique, as well as a monumental interpretation of the plot allow to consider
— 33 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
3. Mikhail Vrubel. Fireplace “Mikula Selyaninovich and Volga”. Majolica, relief, colored glaze. 1899 the fireplace Mikula Selyaninovich and Voliga the most striking work created in the mainstream of national traditions. The majolica sculptures Sadko and Snow Maiden give the most complete picture of Vrubel and Vaulin’s creative method, of the features of the decorative style and universal nature of artistic thinking. The masters, continuing their successful colour experiments due to subtle colour palette, created a very expressive decorative image in these sculptures. Plastic interpretation of sculptural characters convincingly confirmed the depth of the imaginative vision of Mikhail Vrubel. No
— 34 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin less expressive are the female images in the artist’s works An Egyptian and A Girl in a Wreath. Unlike externally stylized works, created in the modern era, these sculptures are original and portrait-individual. Superb colour scheme obtained by coating a sculpture in polychrome enamels, glazes of restorative fire and multiple experimental firing procedures became possible only owing to the unique talent and skill of Peter Vaulin. An artistic device of metaphor and transformation are especially characteristic of Vrubel’s creative style. Vrubel’s bright individuality is easily traced in his ceramics, in which a real image of nature and its decoratively fantastic transformation naturally interact with each other. Ceramic works created by Mikhail Vrubel together with Peter Vaulin indicate the origin of a new plastic culture in Russian art. Reducing roasting technique, amazing range of glazes created by Vaulin imparted depth of artistic forms and a mystery to Vrubel’s ceramic works. Vaulin developed a totally new colouristic palette of ceramic paints, reestablished the luster technique with its iridescent shine and shimmer. In this extremely complicated process the master covered the pottery with white enamel, which he painted with transparent glazes containing metal oxides, after the first flame treatment. Then, bringing the temperature to 600 C, he put a small woodpile of birch wood and a crucible with ammonium chloride and copperhead into the furnace, whereupon the oven was closed. The firing took place without oxygen and metal oxides, losing oxygen, recovered into metal. The furnace was filled with copper vapours, which sedimented on the molten glazes in the form of glittering spots. The recovery was also possible during normal firing (with oxygen access), especially in the smoke-filled part of the furnace. Often a occurrence of a metallized effect on the master’s works were considered to be spoilage. A combination of matte and shiny surfaces created a completely different, unusual for Russian ceramic art image of a product; it perfectly corresponded to the Art Nouveau style, the main principles of which were movement, volatility, fluidity of form and colour. Mikhail Vrubel was the first person who saw in Vaulin’s technological experiments a new direction in the art of ceramics. Solely owing to Vaulin, the metallic glaze won general interest and became a hallmark
— 35 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
4. P. K. Vaulin. Details ceramic ornament portal for the Russian pavilion at the International Hygiene Exhibition in Dresden. 1911 of Russian artistic and architectural ceramics of the late 19th century. An individual decorative style created by Vrubel and Vaulin largely affected the national-romantic nature of the art nouveau era. Together,
— 36 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
5. P. K. Vaulin. Ceramic portal for the Russian pavilion at the International Hygiene Exhibition in Dresden. 1911 (currently adorns the library of the Institute of Experimental Medicine. St. Petersburg) they raised the craft of ceramics to the level of true art that did not have analogues in Russia before.
— 37 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
6. P. K. Vaulin. Dome of the mosque at Trinity Square. St. Petersburg . 1913
By the beginning of the 20th century, Peter Vaulin, due to a fruitful creative collaboration with Mikhail Vrubel, became an undisputed authority in the field of ceramics; he published theoretical articles, carried out his own monumental and decorative ceramic works. His architectural ceramics of the portal, dome and minarets of the mosque at Trinity Square (St. Petersburg, 1913) were an undoubted success. There Peter Vaulin used a new technology method: the details of the mosaic were not cut out from ceramic plates but were cast in a soft material, then were fitted tightly, forming an intricate arabesque pattern. The artist had worked on formulating and producing a colour palette of blue, turquoise and blue enamels for about a year. A ceramic portal, created by the master for the Russian pavilion of the International Hygiene Exhibition in Dresden (1911), differed with its artistic integrity and richness of colour and plastic unity. A bizarre phoenix, horses, pegasi, floral ornament resonated with stone carvings of ancient Vladimir-Suzdal churches in it. Later the library building of
— 38 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
7. P. K. Vaulin. Cathedral Mosque at Trinity Square. Element. Fragment. St. Petersburg . 1913 the Institute of Experimental Medicine (Saint Petersburg, 1913) was decorated with this work. Vaulin’s own works differed with stylistic diversity: his ceramics blended in harmoniously with the classical and neo-Russian architectural movements. Vaulin’s creative activities of this period were largely determined by the further development of Russian ceramics. Works for many cities in Russia, Bulgaria and Romania were also created in the artist’s studio. New methods for producing ceramic paints, which significantly expanded and enriched the artistic possibilities of architectural ceramics, were developed in his unique experimental laboratory. Unfortunately, during the First World War, a fire occurred in Vaulin’s factory in Kikerino, which destroyed many ceramic works and Vaulin’s unique archives. After the revolution, Vaulin’s huge practical experience was widely used by the new government in the production of electroporcelain for
— 39 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
8. P. K. Vaulin. Facade Trading House Guards’ Economic Society. St. Petersburg. 1909
HPP, facing slabs on the Rosfarfor association building and in the Proletariy Porcelain Factory. With exceptional organizational skills and pedagogical talent, Peter Kuzmich Vaulin contributed to the development of vocational education in Russia and Ukraine. However, Vaulin’s contribution to the revival of decorative art and the formation of the creative world of many professional artists working in the field of ceramics and sculpture is most invaluable. According to V. Maloletkov, “He (Peter Vaulin) left a deep mark in the creative destiny of many prominent Russian artists at the turn of the 20th century. His unique experiments in the field of monumental ceramics undoubtedly had a significant impact on the development of a unique school of Russian ceramics at the turn of the 21st century”.4 In 1936 the Soviet authorities deported Vaulin from Leningrad to Kuibyshev. Later, the master moved to Ukraine, where he worked with his son on a ceramic factory. During the First World War, the artist was arrested on false charges of collaboration with the Germans during the occupation of the Ukraine. The life of Peter Vaulin, a master and a genius engineer, who had a significant impact on the development of Russian monumental and decorative ceramics, ended in prison in 1943.
— 40 — Elena V. Noskova. The Role of Mikhail Vrubel and Peter Vaulin
In our opinion, Peter Vaulin’s name should take its rightful place in the history of Russian art. He created numerous own creative works and co-authored the unique ceramic works created by outstanding Russian artists of the turn of the century. The joint activities of the brilliant artist Mikhail Vrubel and the brilliant master technologist Vaulin had a powerful influence on the development of art in Russia. Their numerous searches and experiments in the field of ceramics contributed to the emergence of new schools in the decorative arts.
NOTES 1 Maloletkov V. A.: Мозаика памяти. Мoscow, 2013. 2 Makarov K.: Керамика Врубеля, К 125-летию со дня рождения художника // Декоративное искусство, 1981, № 12 3 Vrubel M.:, Письма к сестре. Воспоминания о художнике Анны Александровны Врубель. Отрывки из писем отца художника. Вступительная статья А. П. Иванова. — “Комитет популяризации художественных изданий при Государственной академии материальной культуры”, Leningrad, 1929, P. 113. 4 Maloletkov V. A.: Мозаика памяти, Мoscow: 2013
REFERENCES 1. Benois, A. 1980. My memory, V. 1—2, 2nd edition. 2. Vaulin, P. K. 1904. “How to turn iridescent metal chandelier”, Ceramic Review, no.141. 3. Vaulin, P. K. 1993. “My biography”, Арс, no.2. 4. Dmitrieva, N. A. 1984. “Mikhail A. Vrubel”, Artist of the RSFSR. 5. Makarov, K. 1981. “Ceramics of Vrubel, to the 125th anniversary of the artist”, Decorative Arts, no. 12. 6. Maloletkov, V. A. 2013. Mosaic of memory, Мoscow. 7. Сorrespondence between M. Vrubel and A. Vrubel, 1892, July, Abramtsevo.
— 41 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo
Diana V. Keypen-Warditz secretary of academic council Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture and Urban Planning e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia RUSSIAN CHURCH OF CHRIST THE SAVIOR IN SAN REMO
Summary: The paper presents an attempt of artistic analysis of the Russian Church in San Remo (Italy), created by conceptual project of the outstanding architect of Neo-Russian style A. V. Shchusev. The project has been specified and made out by local architect, and the result was not typical for the master’s works, and has never entered into field of researchers’ vision. Here presents an attempt to reconstruct the original author’s intent and the extent of the changes made by the executor, as well as to determine the place and importance of this project among of other Shchusev’s buildings. Keywords: Neo-Russian style, architect A. V. Shchusev, Russian church in San Remo, church architecture, national architectural heritage. Russian church in the name of Christ the Savior, great martyr Catherine and St. Seraphim of Sarov, chiesa russa, is the brightest and most remarkable monument of architecture in contemporary San Remo. Even a tourist, unfamiliar with the city, cannot but pass it: it is located in the center at the beginning of the famous boulevard of the Empress, which was built along the coast, and is visible from afar owing to onion- like cupolas, rising high into the sky, and colourful facades, seen above the evergreen trees surrounding the church. Despite its visual appeal and an undeniable artistic interest which it presents, the church has long remained out of researchers’ sight. The fact that the authorship belongs to Alexey Shchusev, an outstanding architect of the Russian Revival style, was learnt relatively recently, in the early 1990s. Until that time, this monument wasn’t mentioned
— 42 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo among his works in none of monographs1, dedicated to the work of the architect. The author of the project and its developers were established as a result of studying construction documents in the city and church archives by activists-parishioners. A marble plaque, installed at the entrance of the church in 1990, says, “based on architect A. Shchusev’s drawings and under the direction of architect Agosti”. A historian and writer, M. Talalay, was the first researcher of the church. An entire range of documentary and photographic materials on the history of the Russian community, parish and the construction of the church in San Remo is presented in his book Russian Church in San Remo2. The section on the churches of Italy in a fundamental study Russian Churches and Monasteries of Europe3, the authors and compilers of which set themselves a daunting task to compile and archive scientific data and results of field surveys in all preserved and even closed Russian Orthodox churches and monasteries, was also written by Talalay. He recounts the story of the church construction in detail, introducing it to Russian researchers, as the San Remo edition is not available for us due to little circulation and remoteness of the book publication. Historical material on Orthodox church construction in Italy (including publications of diary and epistolary materials of individuals involved in it) is presented with maximum fullness by Talalay in his last monograph Russian Church Life and Church Construction in Italy4. Memoirs of A. Suhanina (an initiate of the church construction), published with some abridgements of the annex to this publication and now stored in Bakhmetevsky archive at Columbia University (USA), are of particular value. However, a detailed analysis of the artistic design of the monument and especially a determination of its place in the works of A. Shchusev were not undertaken before the publication of the monograph The Church Architecture of A. Shchusev by the author of the present article5. Still, there was no possibility to fully cover it thoroughly due to extensiveness of material. New facts, which had appeared since then, requested revision and reconsideration of some observations and conclusions. Thus, this article proposes to fill a gap in the consideration of an artistic image of the construction and to try to decide whether
— 43 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo
1. General view
— 44 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo it was an accidental curious experience or a logical step in architect A. Shchusev’s creative development as well as who and how was responsible for the result. The idea of building an Orthodox church for Russian patients and vacationists at the “Italian Riviera” and a creation of a building committee date back to 1910. Suhanina, the initiator of the church construction (due to a vow in gratitude for the recovery of her daughter) and one of the members of the building committee, offered her cousin, architect A. Shchusev, who was working at a construction of a Russian church and a hospitium in Bari at that time, to implement the project. Initially, according to Suhanina, he proposed a project as a formal and compositional structure development of his own church of Saint Sergius of Radonezh at Kulikovo Field resembling monuments of ancient Russia. However, laconicism and simplicity of the project did not find understanding among the main benefactors of this work — the count and countess Tallevich. Thus, in 1911 Shchusev made a new variant reminiscent of the Church of the Savior on the Spilled Blood in St. Petersburg, which had been recently finished with final finishing, on the site of the assassination of Alexander II (architects A. Parland and Archimandrite Ignatius (Malyshev), 1883—1907), and reminiscent of St. Basil’s Cathedral on Red Square in Moscow as a distant primary source. A sketch, basic drawings and cost estimates were made for the couple. Italian architect Pietro Agosti, recommended by a local building contractor A. Tornatore6, did the working drawings on Shchusev’s conceptual design, orienting reference and architectural supervision of its implementation. Obviously, construction of Orthodox churches was not an accidental episode for Agosti in his artistic biography; his letter of the 27 of November, 1911, with a proposal of his services as an architect and engineer for the construction of the complex in Bari7 is kept in the Bargrad Committee fund of RSHA (Russian State Historic Archieve). Shchusev usually conducted a supervision of construction himself, driving to his sites during the entire building summer season, while a permanent architectural supervision was carried out by his approved assistants: contractor Nechayev — at the construction of the church on the Kulikovo field and the Martha and Mary Convent; students of the
— 45 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo
Academy of Arts L. Vesnin and V. Maximov — in Ovruch; a beginning architect A. Rukhlyadev — in Natalevka. Perhaps, a strong pressure of work in Russia played a role in this case (design and preparation of the construction of the Kazan railway station in Moscow, an urgent completion of a number of church buildings before the upcoming move to Moscow). However, his absence led to the fact that namely Agosti (who was adapting Shchusev’s sketch idea to local conditions) quickly began to appear as the author of the construction at the Building Construction Committee and the authorship of Shchusev was not mentioned, despite repeated interventions of Suhanina and promises to restore justice. Judging from the date of installation of a memorial plaque on the church, justice wasn’t obtained soon… We can try to compare the realized church with other church buildings by Shchusev and appreciate the place and importance of the church in the work of the architect. On November 26, 1912, a ceremony of laying the foundation stone of the church took place. The main building was finished a year later in December, 1913. Despite uncompleted finishing, the church was consecrated on December 10, 19138. War and a difficult legal and economic situation of the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church during the interwar period prevented further work on the church. Almost all of interior and exterior decoration has not been fulfilled so far for financial reasons. The church has a triple dedication: to Christ the Savior, to great martyr Catherine and to St. Seraphim of Sarov. The principle dedication among these is explained by the fact that the laying of foundation stone of the church took place in 1912, when the entire country and the diaspora were widely commemorating the Patriotic War of 1812; moreover, the dedication of the main altar, of course, reminds of the main Russian church built in Moscow in memory of the heroes of that war. Talalay explains the other two dedications by the name days of the Saints of the early deceased children of the main grantor, count V. Tallevich9. However, one cannot exclude that the second dedication is indirectly successive concerning the previous Russian house church that had existed in San Remo since 1896 at the villa Gloria of Ekaterina
— 46 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo
2. Iconostasis. Artist A. M. Molchanov. 1994—2005
— 47 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo
Alekseevna Chelishcheva10. Naturally, the house church was consecrated in honor of the patron saint of the mistress of the house. At first glance, the Russian Church in San Remo looks unexpected among other Shchusev’s church buildings of the second half of the 1900s and early 1910s oriented on the monuments of Novgorod and Pskov architecture. This church was the only one where he appealed to the Russian ornamental style of the 17th century, while he had repeatedly and very successfully used this style when working on civil building constructions of the 1910s. Just then, in November 1911, he won a contest for a design of a new building of the Kazan railway station, proposing a brilliant artistic decision just in that style. Earlier, in the same 1911, Shchusev fulfilled in the same style unrealized projects of a private museum of handicraft and folk art commissioned by M. Bardygin, a merchant and philanthropist, in Yegorievsk and branches of the State Bank in Nizhny Novgorod. Thus, after three experiences in designing secular architecture based on the Russian ornamental style of the 17th century, Shchusev undoubtedly saw an opportunity to try to use mastered architectural motifs and forms in another genre, familiar to him. Here we have an important and interesting phenomenon in Shchusev’s work. During the first decade of his activity, the architect, who deliberately chose to work in a national style, worked out creative principles and methods after a ten years school of mastering professional skill of church architecture in the Russian Revival style. The master’s experience and deserved reputation turned out to be in demand in the field of civil architecture in the early 1910s: first orders for public secular building began to appear. To gain experience in this building, the architect refers to existing monuments of secular (residential and public) Russian architecture, which are most clearly presented by Moscow buildings of the 17th century. Thus, while mastering new sources of formal imagery of modern national style for secular architecture, the architect expanded the range of his preferences. Achievements and developments, acquired during the design of civil constructions, were transferred by him to church building, which still remained an important sphere of his activity. Thus, established in the early 1910s, the relation and interaction of both spheres of the architect’s creativity contributed
— 48 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo to the development of his creative potential, which opened in a more complete and versatile manner in the next, Soviet, period of his work. An order for the church particularly in the Moscow and Yaroslavl ornamental style of the 17th century (provided that it was the wish of the customers, not the idea of Shchusev) can be explained by a tradition, established for the construction of Orthodox churches abroad, where they were supposed to represent a certain image of Russian architecture, an image which was most grand and festive. It is also possible that this grandiose and expensive style was regarded as the most appropriate for the Italian resort, traditionally one of the favourite places for treatment and rest of Russian aristocracy. Finally, the most vivid and impressive Orthodox Cathedrals of the Nativity of Christ and St. Nicholas (1899—1903) in Florence and St. Nicholas (1903—1912), designed by Academician of Architecture, Mikhail Timofeevich Preobrajensky, and which were implemented and created a great impression on the audience, could inspire the choice of the members of the building committee headed by Vladimir Karlovich Sabler11, the former Chief Procurator of the Synod. A variant of similar colour palette, though more graphical, was proposed a little earlier by Academician of Architecture, Grigory Kotov, for the Cathedral of St. Nicholas and Prince Alexander Nevsky Cathedral12 in Vienna (1893—1899). Kotov and Preobrajensky were academicians and professors of the Imperial Academy of Arts in the class of architecture, of which Shchusev was also a graduate. Through the influence of his mentor Kotov, “the most sensitive to the Russian architecture, though standing on Italian platform”, as Shchusev13 wrote about it later, the young architect determined the direction early: study and creative interpretation of Russian antiquity. His project for the church of San Remo was naturally the last monument of academic tradition of religious architecture abroad, presented by creations of Kotov and Preobrajensky; it focused on Moscow and Yaroslavl churches of the 17th century. However, Shchusev already had an extensive experience in the construction of churches and did not amount to nothing more than mere repetition of known plans and motives.
— 49 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo
The church is situated on a very small area, which does not allow to use a traditional Moscow scheme of the 17th century: a church as a ship. Shchusev used a more compact volume-planning decision and directed the development of the volume not in breadth but upwards, emphasizing the twenty meters height of the construction. The chetverik and the dome are significantly higher than the bell tower, which faded into the background, into the depth of the site. The architect wanted to make the building a local art dominant, like churches in traditional Russian cities, to which the height of the building contributed. A powerful high chetverik with a low, as the height of the first tier, semi- circular in plan altar apse, plays a major role in the volume-spatial decision. The chetverik is crowned with three rows of corbel arches, creating a transition to compactly designed five domes. The hipped roof and a small cupola of the asymmetrically positioned bell tower impart picturesquesness to the silhouette of the building. The bell tower is adjacent to the church on the south side and it is possible to approach it only once you are on the forested territory of the monastery. It is a simple construction of an octagon structure on a chetverik, with a passage in the lower tier into a cozy patio and with an open upper tier of the chime. A “marquee”, entrance, is adjacent to the front on the west side. The need to place also a church house, directly adjacent to the church, in the northeast corner of the site did not allow to achieve a circular tour of the building; thus, there was no need for the change of angles, typical of Shchusev, to see all facades. When designing the shape of the church in the spirit of the Russian ornamental style, Shchusev did not use his best-known compositional techniques of asymmetry or fusion of masses, as he used to do when working with forms based on Novgorod and Pskov architecture. Here he paid particular attention to contrasts and grotesque. Shchusev tried to make the architecture of the facades not to look exactly like a set of copied ancient forms with their small ornamental finishing. The details were to give scale and significance to the small church, deviating from an impression of a toy, too unnatural for homeland of classical architecture. Along with the most beautiful and recognizable parts of Moscow architecture of the 17th century (variegated onion-like domes
— 50 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo and hipped roof, powerful arched gables, corbel arches, “belts of square decorative brickwork”, coupled columns with bonds, an entrance arch with a “weight”), much more massive elements borrowed from the Byzantine and Romanesque monuments (Wyatt windows with wide casings, cube-shaped capitals, cornices with palmettes), reminiscent of Christian architecture “of the first and second Rome”, are included in the decor. In most important places the scale of the plastics, according to the author, was to significantly increase, creating an impression of a game of architectural forms, their permeation with movement and force so that they would not look like an easy application on a particular topic. Schusev’s favourite technique of shape enlargement to grotesque, saturating it with energy, is used here. A composition of each facade is based on a repetition of plastic forms of the basic elements: arches with carinated crowns and with powerful vertical half-columns and “belts of square decorative brickwork”14, forming clear tectonics of the façade structure. On the main, western and northern facades, the traditional three- bladed division is change by emphasizing the width of the central part, to which the entrance marquee is attached. The side parts are decorated with marked by colour (white on a common red-brick wall background) triple capitals with double columns. In general, both side parts create an impression of two large pylons, bordering a large central part. The central arched gable is much larger in size than the side one; however, it does not look like a natural extension of the wall but it looks as if imposed from above and living its own life, manifesting itself even in wave-like contours of the arched gable edges. Another favourite Shchusev’s technique from his concept of the Russian Revival style style formation is used here — an arched gable obscures the overlying ledge of the chetverik, covers it a bit, giving again an opportunity to play with architectural forces. The wall itself is multi-layered; it does not have a simple, clearly legible surface, which could be called the basis of everything. Large three-part Byzantine windows, though decorated with Russian casings in the form of perspective portals, are at the center of all three facades.
— 51 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo
The next tier of corbel arches surprises with its acute angle in the center of each side formed by two corbel arches and converted to the viewer — a motive which seems to be invented by Shchusev. All this is crowned by five domes, four of which are done in the spirit of the “faceted” completions of St. Basil’s Cathedral, while the fifth, almost completely devoid of walls between windows and consisting of only glass pieces, so that the central onion-like cupola as if hangs in the air. And this deprives the final appearance of the construction of a powerful plastic accent. Planned colouring of the church is impressive; however, its implementation leaves much to be desired. Constructively looking details and ornaments of white colour, standing out against the background, are superimposed on the main volume of the brick-red colour. These primary colours, evoking brand stylistics of the “Naryshkin Baroque”, are supplemented by colourful tile coverings, which apparently were originally assumed to be rich-green, as in the original draft of the Kazan railway station, and not turquoise, entering into dissonance with big blue window planes. Large ornamental inserts are situated deep in the plane of the facade or imposed on it; they create not only colour but also plastic emphasis on free surfaces of the walls. The author laid an impression of conviviality of Moscow architecture into the project. In some way the architecture of the building resembles forms of the latest stages of Russian architecture development on the eve of modernity, when architects, trying to overcome pettiness of decor, could use deliberately ponderous Byzantine-Romanesque forms, giving the whole an impression of monumentality. The interior of the church had remained unfinished for a long time, as there were no funds for the finishing, and it seems that now it is just a rough basis of what was supposed to be. (In recent years, the parish community has been trying to gradually implement the interior finishing.) It is a pillarless growing up centric space, square in plan. In the interior, the architect used a constructive idea of a dome standing on arches and topped with a skylight — the central dome of the five. The interior of the church has no relation to ancient examples, and the mood, corresponding to its outer architecture, could only be created by painting in an appropriate style; however, as there is no such painting,
— 52 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo the current view of the interior can greatly disappoint the visitor. There is no plastic beauty, nor contrivances, it’s just a simple preparation for the mural. Compared to other church interiors by Shchusev, shaded by pillars (though basically they are also made of concrete, so no need for pillars as a structural support for arch and dome ceilings) and filled with a romantic twilight because of small sparse windows, a very different feeling appears here. This space is free, comfortable by feeling, flooded in a bit monotonous blue light from colored glasses. The frames of the arched gables and corbel arches (in which, by analogy with a church in Nice, one would expect an appearance of mosaic compositions and polychrome tiles as additional accents of colour solutions) as well as the lower tier of the bell tower remained empty in the exterior finishing of the church. The church doors are also random. Shchusev’s draft project is unknown neither in any publications nor even in indirect evidence. One can judge the extent to which the author’s intention were implemented in the construction only on the basis of the concept of Shchusev’s forming and in comparison with his other projects and constructions done in the same spirit. The presentation of only conceptual design to the construction committee and its refinement by local architects had led to a weakening of the planned predominance of a plastic beginning and increase of the graphical. When doing a detailed design and implementation of the project, Italian architect Pietro Agosti tried to make the church look “Russian” as much as possible, and he focused mainly on a rich nature of decoration reminiscent of the neo- baroque style in the spirit of Charles Garnier. Apparently, in the look of Russian forms and details, he was guided by the nearby and similar by spirit church in Nice, regarding it as a model. Shchusev’s project, if to look into it using the author’s conception of national style formation, of course, emphasized the sculptural and the plasticity, and therefore there is a greater expressiveness of implemented forms. Shchusev proposed a powerful look of consolidated plastic decorative forms of capitals, cornices; whereas Agosti gave them greater graphic quality, accenting the thorough ornamental carving on the structuring elements of the facades and volume. The church looks better from a distance when overdried faceted forms, sophisticated
— 53 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo detailing of cut cornices and ornaments become visible. Generalization and compactness of form, colour contrast, intelligent division of the facades and tier completions work on a creation of a harmonious appearance of the church from a distance. Here Shchusev’s original plan becomes more obvious. Agosti, a representative of a classical architectural consciousness, could not (or did not understand the need for it) achieve an asymmetry, characteristic of other Shchusev’s projects, in the distribution of numerous ornamental details on the facades, which look a bit eclectic because of this. Multicolored colons of artificial marble on the corners of the marquee entrance as well as the brownish (not gold or green) dome coating look as a dissonance regarding the colour scheme. Apparently, this was also an initiative of the local master, gravitating to the excellency of colour and splendor as the main features of Russian national architecture. However, a desire to strengthen purely Russian, as seen by the developer, motifs (colour, carving) in the appearance of the church led to a coarsening of forms and an appearance of ethnographic exoticism scent. In general, we should talk about Shchusev’s own design as a conception of a piece of work, masterly composed of invented details of some nonexistent architecture, but, oddly enough, associated with Old Russian and Byzantine and Romanesque traditions. Shchusev is true to himself here as well, working principally on the level of monument impressions not copying their forms. In assessing any style by its laws, he saw the values and beauty of its time in it, which he embodied in his work. In this project, he also tried to use the most expressive motifs of architecture of the 17th century (vivid colour based on contrast, contrast of textures, splendour, complexity and a variety of decorative forms) with good effect; he increased sculptursqueness of forms as well as details, following an accepted for himself principle of plasticism in the overall artistic decision. The church project in San Remo chronologically appeared to be intermediate between Shchusev’s projects of civil buildings realized in the same spirit in 1911 (Yegorievsk Museum, Department of the State Bank, the contest project of the Kazan railway station), 1913 and in subsequent years (pavilion in Venice, new variants of the Kazan
— 54 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo railway station). From the formal and stylistic aspect, the project of the church became a stage of experimentation with a new source of form, a transition to further development of the railway station and a creation of a magnificent exhibition hall. For the first time architectural forms, borrowed from the Roman, Byzantine and Venetian architecture, begin to communicate and be actively used in these buildings with forms of Moscow architecture of the 17th century. A parallel between the projects of the Kazan station, the church of San Remo and the pavilion suggests itself, since all three works were made to emphasize, in artistic treatment, national characteristic of appearance, creating a triumphal “gateway to the East”, to the former Khanate of Kazan, a Russian church or a building at the International Exhibition abroad. In this connection it is interesting to note that it was the church architecture in Shchusev’s pre-revolutionary work that became the sphere of experiments, achievements and the experience of which was successfully applied in civil architecture. Despite the fact that the author’s preliminary design of the church in San Remo was later designed and implemented in detail by the local architect, the imaginary approach, characteristic of the creativity of Shchusev’s work in the Russian Revival style, preserved in the general composition look of the building. It is interesting as an exclusive example (among his church architecture) of working with the excessively decorative style of the Moscow architecture of the second half of the 16—17th centuries, the most popular and most commonly used in the construction of Russian churches abroad. It is interesting compared to the principal idea of Shchusev’s creative style to use little known or even forgotten, ancient, original and authentic (not distorted by later changes and rearrangements) monuments of architecture — not only Russian, but also Byzantine, Roman, Balkan, and Ukrainian and others, as models. This allows talking about a monument as a testimony of a certain stage of the architect’s experimental search for an extension of the range of sources of church and civil architecture and ways of working with them to develop a modern national style.
— 55 — Diana V. Keypen-Warditz. Russian Church of Christ the Savior in San Remo
NOTES 1 Sokolov N. B: Shchusev, Moscow,1952; Drujinina-Georgievskay E., Kornfeld J.: Architect А. V. Shchusev, Moscow, 1955; Afanasieva K: А. Shchusev, Moscow, 1970. 2 Talalay М.: Russian Church in San Remo, San Remo, 1994. 3 Russian Churches and monasteries in Europe/ Ed. Antonov V, Kobak A., St. Peterburg, 2005. pp. 154—157. 4 Talalay M.: Russian Church’s live and temple construction in Italy, St.Peterburg, 2011. pp. 125—140. 5 Keipen-Vardic D.: Temple architecture of A. V. Shchusev, Мoscow, 2013. 6 Russian Churches and monasteries in Europe / Ed. Antonov V, Kobak A., St. Peterburg, 2005. p. 155. 7 RSHA, f. 799, d. 31, op. 591, № 20. 8 Russian Churches and monasteries in Europe / Ed. Antonov V, Kobak A., St. Peterburg, 2005. p. 155. 9 Talalay M.: Russian Church’s live and temple construction in Italy. St.Petersburg, 2011. P. 128. 10 Chelishcheva E. — a daughter of the famous poet, philosopher and Slavophile Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov and poet N. Iazykov’s sister Catherine Mikhailovna. The name Catherine was traditional in their family, every generation certainly had its bearer, in honor of the Empress Catherine II. 11 Pay attention to a repeat mistakes in the indication of Sabler’s positions during this period. He was the acting, not the former Chief Procurator of the Synod, taking this position from May 2, 1911, to July 4, 1915. Prior to that, in 1892—1905, he served as a fellow of the Procurator of the Synod K. Pobedonostsev, because of disagreements with whom he left his post. See.: Talberg N.: История русской церкви. Мoscow, 2008. 12 Dedication of Russian churches abroad, especially the largest — in the capitals, embassies and resorts, loved by nobles — were not different in variety. The holy patrons of emperors and their families, for whom almost exclusively princes and queens as the heavenly patron saints were selected: Saint Nicholas, Alexander Nevsky, Martyr Tsarina Alexandra, missus Princess Olga, etc. Construction of the most important temples was carried out under the patronage of members of the ruling house, which made large donations, so the choice of initiation was often justified. 13 Typewritten autobiography of A. Shchusev, 1948, is deposited in the archives of A. Shchusev SRMA . 14 Square decorative brickwork — a motif of ancient ornament representing a square perspective deepening towards the center, where polychrome tile was sometimes placed. The horizontal or vertical row of squares is called “square decorative brickwork belt”.
— 56 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
Maria A. Burganova Full Member of the Russian Academy of Arts Doctor of Arts Professor of the Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy e-maill: [email protected] Moscow, Russia MONUMENTAL SCULPTURE IN RUSSIA IN 1918—1919
Summary: This article is devoted to a unique situation in the field of monumental art in Russia in 1918—1919, which has no parallel in history. A large-scale initiative to form a new art, information and ideologically saturated city environment by means of monumental sculpture and architecture of small forms was carried out during severe post-war devastation, famine, civil war in the country. It sounds like a paradox; however, the heyday of monumental sculpture began after the 1917 October Revolution. Keywords: monumental sculpture, monument, Lenin’s Plan of “Monumental Propaganda”. There was a unique situation in the field of monumental art in Russia in 1918—1919, which has no parallel in history. A large-scale initiative to form a new art, information and ideologically saturated city environment by means of monumental sculpture and architecture of small forms was carried out during severe post-war devastation, famine, civil war in the country. It sounds like a paradox; however, the heyday of monumental sculpture began after the 1917 October Revolution. The initiative of mass installation of monuments on streets and squares of Russian cities belonged to V. Lenin, inspired by the idealistic program of Campanella’s City of the Sun. On April 4, 1918, Lenin invited the People’s Commissar of Education, A. Lunacharsky, and presented him his own plan of “monumental propaganda”.
— 57 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
1. Sculptor L. V. Sherwood. The 2. Sculptor S. T. Konenkov. A monumental bust of Radishchev. memorial composition “fell in the Gypsum. Opened in September 22, struggle for peace and brotherhood 1918 in St. Petersburg, the Winter among peoples.” Cement. Opened in Palace November 7, 1918 on The Red Square
A special decree “On Removing Monuments Erected in Honor of Tsars and Their Servants and Developing a Project for Monuments Dedicated to the Russian Socialist Revolution” was prepared in an extremely short period of time and promulgated on April 14, 1918. It was followed by a detailed elaboration of concrete proposals, which received a general name of Lenin’s Plan of “Monumental Propaganda”. The names of the leaders of the revolution, of Russian and world culture were listed in the list of sites planned for implementation, issued in August 1918. The names of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the first in the huge list. They were followed by Spartacus, Lassalle, Marat, Robespierre, Danton, Stepan Razin; noble revolutionaries Pestel and Ryleev, the heroes of the People, Plekhanov, Lomonosov, Mendeleyev, Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Nikolai Nekrasov, Fyodor Dostoevsky; painters
— 58 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
3. Sculptor S. D. Mercurov. Monument 4. Sculptor V. A. Sinaysky. Monument to Dostoevsky. 1911-1913. Granite. Ferdinand Lassalle. Gypsum. Opened Opened in November 7, 1918 in in October 1918 on the Nevsky Moscow Prospekt in St. Petersburg. The author’s version in granite (1922) in The Russian State Museum Andrei Rublev, Orestes Kiprensky, Alexander Ivanov, Mikhail Vrubel and many others. The list was a vivid picture of historical and cultural values that the new revolutionary government accepted. A decree of the CPC on erection of 50 monuments in Moscow and “The List of Persons Who Were Offered to Install a Monument in Moscow and Other Cities of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic” were published in Izvestia newspaper in July 24, 1918. “The terms of the contest-order for Moscow Trade Union of Sculptors-Painters of 50 Monument Portraits” were published here as well. Creative moments, which were of crucial importance to the formation of Soviet art, were also discussed in the terms. An artist-sculptor was given complete freedom to express the idea of a monument in the form of a bust, figure
— 59 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
or bas-relief, as well as relations between the pedestal and the bust of the figure. A right to submit drafts of monuments was granted not only to professional artists, but also to any citizen, provided that their work would be paid only if the draft was considered worthy of attention. The idea of “monumental propaganda” gave artists a powerful creative impulse despite difficulties with workshops, fuel and sculptural material. Originally one monument was supposed to be opened in Moscow and Petrograd every 5. Sculptor V. A. Vatagin. A monument Sunday. Although this intention to Andrei Rublev. Gypsum. Opened was not fulfilled in practice, the in November 7, 1918 on the southern project development was at a truly wall of the monastery Andronievskaya Savior in Moscow astonishing rate. Twenty three monuments and 2 obelisks were opened in Moscow during 1918—1919, according to documented reports. Another 29 models were prepared; however, they were not used. Fifty two out of the 90 ordered monuments were made in Moscow. In Petrograd, 15 monuments and 3 obelisks were erected during the same period; there were still 31 models in workshops, ready for erection. Only 46 of the 84 ordered monuments were made. Monuments were opened in Penza, Saratov, Smolensk, Pskov, Tula, Samara, Tver, Vyatka, Yekaterinburg, in many other cities of Russia and even in villages during 1918—1919. To some extent erection of two identical monuments to Radishchev in Petrograd and Moscow by sculptor L. Sherwood was a significant event in 1918. In March 1918, the government moved from Petrograd to Moscow, and it became necessary to change ideological content of the main city squares. Before moving, Lenin saw and approved the draft of
— 60 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
6. Sculptor S. T. Konenkov. A monument to Stepan Razin. Wood. Opened in May 1, 1919 on The Red Square . Fragments of the monument are in the State Russian Museum the monument to Radishchev. After the move he had the idea to repeat the monument for Moscow, which was then the capital of the Soviet state. On September 18, 1918, Lenin sent to Lunacharsky in Petrograd the following telegram, “Today heard Vinogradov’s report on busts and monuments, terribly angered; nothing is done in months; so far not a single bust, disappearance of the bust of Radishchev is a comedy. There is no outdoor bust of Marx yet, nothing is done for propaganda slogans on the streets. Reprimand for criminal and negligent attitude, demand sending me the names of all those responsible for bringing them to justice. Shame on saboteurs and idlers. Predsovnarkom Lenin”. In a response telegram of September 23 Lunacharsky answered, “Yesterday a monument to Radishchev was inaugurated. A monument to Lassalle is going to be opened on Sunday”. The monumental bust of Radishchev was the first monument erected in Petrograd. The grand opening took place on September 22, 1918.
— 61 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
7. Sculptor D. P. Osipov. Obelisk of the Soviet Constitution. Opened in November 7, 1918 in Moscow, in front of the Moscow City Soviet, on Skobelevskaya Square, renamed to Soviet Square. Obelisk supplemented with allegorical statue of Liberty, executed by sculptor N.A. Andreev in November 1919
— 62 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
Columns of workers from various city districts, detachments of Red Guards and sailors filled the square outside the Winter Palace, where the bust was installed. Lunacharsky addressed the people, “… We forced the Winter Palace, the former residence of the tsars, to stand aside for Radishchev… The monument to the first prophet and martyr of the revolution would not be ashamed to stand here like a guard at the Winter Palace, as we are turning it into the Palace of the People…”. In Moscow, a monument to Radishchev was opened on the 6th of October at Triumph Square (Mayakovsky Square now). A duplicate of the monument was sent from Petrograd. The plaster bust was mounted on a pedestal, nailed together from pine boards with a carved inscription “Radishchev”. In contrast to the one in Petrograd, soon destroyed during a storm, the Moscow monument stood for about twenty years. In the early 1930s, due to with the square reconstruction, it was dismantled; the bust was consigned to the Museum of the Revolution of the USSR. Since the late 1940s, the bust is located in the Shchusev State Research Museum of Architecture. In Sherwood’s interpretation, Radishchev is, as Catherine II defined, “not a rebel, worse than Pugachev”, not a man who suffered for his beliefs, but an inspired poet and a romantic hero. This image corresponds to a free, beautiful manner of performance. Sublimely romantic pathos was expressed to a great extent in the monument in Petrograd. The bust was lifted up onto a high triumphal column. The celebration of the first anniversary of the October revolution was prepared as a grand spectacle. Many professional and amateur artists, sculptors and architects were attracted to decorate the capital. In Moscow, the celebration lasted for one and a half days. On November 6, factory whistles stopped work at enterprises, institutions, schools at 12:00; meetings and solemn assemblies began. In the morning of November 7, columns of demonstrators from all Moscow districts headed to the established monuments, and then, by 11 o’clock, to Red Square. Clubs, theaters, cinemas were free in the evening of that day. The new monuments were of important ideological and political significance in the extensive complex of celebrations. The opening of the monument to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels by S. Mezentsev
— 63 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
8. Sculptor N. A. Andreev. The head of the Statue of Liberty. Concrete. State Tretiakov Gallery. 1919 was crowded and solemn. Lenin arrived to the Bolshoi Theatre, where delegates of the VI Russian Extraordinary Congress of Soviets assembled at 9.30, and went at the head of the delegates to Revolution Square, to the place of the installation of the monument. On the same day a memorial plaque “For Those Who Fell in the Struggle For Peace and Brotherhood of Peoples” was opened on Red Square, to where the columns from all Moscow districts, numerous military units and detachments of foreign visitors arrived.
— 64 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
Other memorials and monuments were opened in a solemn ceremony. A monument to Khalturin by sculptor S. Aleshin was opened by participants of the festive columns of Butyrsky district; to Zhores by sculptor S. Sentinel — from Presnensky and Khamovniki; to Verhaeren by sculptor S. Merkurov — from Suschevsko-Marinsky; to Kaliayev by sculptor Boris Lavrov — from the City district; to Sofia Perovskoy by sculptor Ivan Rakhmanov — from Butyrsky; to Heine by sculptor G. Motovilova — from the City district; to Saltykov-Shchedrin by sculptor A. Zlatovratskiy — from Lefortovo; to Dostoevsky by sculptor S. Merkurov — from Sushchevsko-Maryino; the sculpture “A Thought” by S. Merkurov — from Sushchevsko-Maryino; obelisks to Soviet Constitution by architect D. Osipov and to revolutionary thinkers by architect N. Vsevolozhsk — from the City district. In Moscow, erection of monuments after November 7, 1918, was temporarily stopped and was resumed on February 2, 1919, with an opening of a monument to Danton by sculptor Andreev on Revolution Square. Speakers at the mass-meeting noted a prominent role of Danton as a leader of revolutionary masses, pointed to an integral connection of the Great October Socialist Revolution with the Great French Revolution. An opening of the monument to Stepan Razin took place on Red Square at the Lobnoye Mesto on May 1, 1919. The author of the monument, sculptor Sergey Timofeyevich Konenkov (1874—1971), recalled, “Red Square was overcrowded. A sea of heads and banners. A wonderful spring day of May Day. Representatives of the revolutionary Cossack Committee attended the opening of the monument. This was a kind of interchange between centuries. Red cavalrymen with lances adorned on purebred horses as if epic heroes — heirs of Razin’s Fame. All this was happening where archers quartered the folk hero on a black block, set against the Lobnoye Mesto, two and half centuries ago”. At the same time with this event, an opening of a monument to one of the leaders of the French Revolution — Marat, by sculptor A. Imhanitsky, was held in the Simonovsky suburb. In Petrograd, at Senate Square a monument to Chernyshevsky by sculptor T. Zalkalna was inaugurated on November 17, 1918. The speakers talked about Nicholay Chernyshevsky as a true patriot of Russia.
— 65 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
9. D. P. Sukhov. Monument to the Soviet Constitution. Ink, pen. 1923 An opening of the monument to Shevchenko, on November 29, 1918, on Krasnije Zory Street, was crowded and colorful. Guards of honor of the Red Army with two banners and military music orchestras arrived to the celebration. The celebration was opened with “The Internationale”. An opening of the monument to Shlisselburg people by sculptor I. Günzburg took place at the end of November 1918. In Petrograd, all monuments were opened with participation of delegations from factory collectives. All delegations came to the meeting with banners and orchestras. Workers and Red Army representatives were active participants in these political events. Not only they listened to the speakers, but were willing to do so as well. On November 6, 1919, in the midst of a fierce fighting with the troops of Yudenich, a monument to the Revolution Fighters on the Mars field was inaugurated. The monument to the Revolution Fighters is unique in a series of revolutionary monuments. It was built by architect L. Rudnev and resolved by purely architectural means. Its majesty is in simplicity and lapidary form. At the heart is a huge parallelepiped, on a front section of which an epic inscription is carved. What is surprising is that many of the works, created without any prior training in an extremely short time, became iconic, went down in
— 66 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
history of Russian art of the twentieth century. Such is a monumental sculptural relief, created by Sergey Konenkov, “For Those Who Fell in The Struggle for Peace and Brotherhood of Peoples”, mounted on a wall of the Moscow Kremlin that faces Red Square. The commemorative plaque by Konenkov is one of the first sculptural works created under the “monumental propaganda” plan. Konenkov, fascinated by an idea of “sculpto-painting”, combined a low relief and polychrome (colour cement). The artist wanted to find a visual language capable of expressing the sublime idea of a memorial. A figure of a winged creature in a crown, with a palm branch is associated with images of art of the ancient East. A sword, bent flags and an inscription “For Those Who Fell in The Struggle for Peace and Brotherhood of Peoples” are depicted at the bottom of the relief. According to Konenkov, the initiative to create a memorial in memory of the fallen fighters of the October Revolution belonged to Lenin. In August 1918 the Moscow City Council announced a contest, in which six people participated, including sculptors Babichev, Gyurdzhan, Mezentsev. After a public discussion, the Commission selected Konenkov’s project. The Commission made a reasoned review, “The advantage of Konenkov’s work, according to experts, is expressed in the fact that, being in colour, it vanquishes the gray twilight that reigns in that place. In addition, the board by its appearance would be in harmony with the whole area where the multicoloured St. Basil’s Cathedral, the golden domes and painted tiles of the towers are. / … / Not temporal moments of struggle are taken as the topic but ultimate ideals, depicting the victory of peace over war, and the power of the figure indicates the strength of the one who carries the world”. This review was published in Pravda newspaper on September 21, 1918. The story of the birth of the composition design is amazing. Konenkov recalled, “I remembered a tapestry America which I had seen in the manor house of my aunt Maria Feodorovna Schupinskaya. A woman from the tribe of North American Indians with a crown of eagle feathers on the head sparked imagination. Thin silk of the tapestry, embroidered by serf girls, prompted that the bas-relief on the Kremlin wall would be in colour”.
— 67 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
10. The banner of the Moscow City Council by architect D. Osipov. 1920 In 1919, Konenkov, following the plan of “monumental propaganda”, created a sculptural group Stepan Razin And His Gang. The artist performed the work in wood — the material to which he had a particular commitment and that was most consistent with his boundless creative imagination. The composition was fundamentally different from other monuments, created at that time. It was multi-figured and didn’t have a common pedestal. The group consisted of several separate figures which could be rearranged, freely positioned in space, and one could form new composite combinations. New characters could be included. Konenkov invented a new type of dynamic monument that had no final completion, able to transform itself again and again. It was a form of open art project. Each statue combined easel and monumental qualities. It is important that already in the early 1920s, the artist was looking for a new form of existence of the plastics, an ability to make it self-sufficient, independent of any single particular “place of permanent presence”. The Lobnoye Mesto, where Stepan Razin is believed to be executed, served as a pedestal. After the monument had stood a few days in the open air, the sculptor took it to his studio. It is now in Konenkov Moscow Museum.
— 68 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
An element of conventionality, almost grotesque, is present in the figures of Razin and his associates; however, the characters are revealed so clearly and powerfully, as if taken straight from nature. The artist strived for being imbued with a free, powerful spirit of the Cossacks. In Konenkov’s work Stepan Razin And His Gang and S. Aleshin’s project “Monument to Karl Marx”, a historic hero was depicted with surrounding non-portrait characters personifying the people. It is essential that the senior figures there are not separated from the others; all the characters are in a same temporal and spatial dimension, they are three-dementional, equal in size and relatively independent. A significant monument was erected on Tverskaya Square at the initiative of architect Dmitry Osipov and sculptor Nikolay Andreyev. They had an idea of creating an obelisk of the Soviet Constitution in front of the Mossovet, which should have given the square a civic enthusiasm in the spirit of the French Revolution of the eighteenth century. However, an approval of a new civicism could happen only through a destruction of the other, no less important civicism. Namely, a monument to General Skobelev, which was already standing on the square. Skobelev had to be destroyed. The monument to the Soviet Constitution was created in two steps: first, a high obelisk with a massive base (architect D. Osipov) was erected. The obelisk was unveiled on the first anniversary of the revolution. Twenty six meters triangular stele was built of brick and plastered on the square in an extremely short period of time. Wooden boards with the text of the first Soviet Constitution were mounted in the niche base of the monument. Later, the text was cast on bronze panels. In a speech at the opening of the stele, Commissar of Education A. Lunacharsky compared it to “a granite crystal, symbolizing a desire of the proletariat to go forward”. On June 27, 1919, the Statue of Liberty, made in concrete, was set in front of the obelisk. The monument was designed by the authors in architectural and sculptural forms, inspired by mainly the art of Russian classicism of the first half of the nineteenth century. The allegorical figure of Liberty, created by Andreev, symbolizing revolution and an emergence of a new society, is associated with examples of ancient Hellenistic sculpture.
— 69 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
An impact of Antoine Bourdelle is also noticeable. The fact that many monuments were performed in a completely different style was an essential feature of the “monumental propaganda” plan. A genre- narrative approach, typical of the sculpture of the second half of the nineteenth century, dominated in some; some were made as easel, interior ones. However, a constructive approach prevailed in most of the works, the artists managed to find a succinct, concise image, proportionate to urban space. Such is a monument to Karl Marx by Matveeva (1918— 1919, not preserved), erected on November 7, 1918 in front of Smolny Cathedral. The sculptor 11. Sculptor B. D. Korolev. Monument to Mikhail Bakunin. Concrete. waived details, features; he gave Established in June 1919 in Moscow, at the figure monolithic, structural Myasnitsky gate. Dismantled in 1920 elegance. Spontaneously, a new genre, which can be described as a monumental portrait head, appeared. Many authors, independently of one another, abandoned picturing a figure; they referred to energetic, lapidary form of a portrait head, multiply enlarged in scale. A gigantic head of Danton, molded by Nikolay Andreyev (the monument was installed in February, 1919, at Revolution Square in Moscow), was the most impressive object. By multiply enlarging the head, Andreev turned it into a superobject. Danton, with stern uncompromising face, is likened to a superman, a demiurge, ruling over human destinies. This hyperbolic portrait-symbol is associated
— 70 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
12. Sculptor N. A. Andreev. Monument Danton. Concrete. Opened in February 2, 1919 in Moscow, at the Theater Square, renamed to Revolution Square with giant statues of ancient Rome. A monumental head of Lassalle, fashioned by B. Sinaisky (opened in October, 1918, on Nevsky Prospect in St. Petersburg), gives the same impression. A monument to Bakunin by sculptor Boris Korolyov is connected with one of the most amazing stories. The monument was erected in Moscow in the summer of 1919; however, it was not officially opened, as Moscow workers opposed to that. The monument was enclosed with wood paneling, which was taken away bit by bit in the winter of 1919— 20 due to lack of fuel; thus, Bakunin “opened” himself. A cubist figure of Bakunin with remnants of the surviving wooden structures rose above the square at Myasnitskiye Vorota for several months.
— 71 — Maria A. Burganova. Monumental Sculpture in Russia in 1918—1919
The monument to Bakunin (to the Russian anarchism leader) seemed “anarchic” by its very form, shocked the audience with unusual design. The artist combined sculpture with architecture, combined portrait with abstract cubes and parallelepipeds. Korolyov can rightly be called the pioneer of cubist monumental statue, which later became an integral part of the twentieth century sculpture. With few exceptions, “monumental propaganda” monuments collapsed or were destroyed. Today, they are perceived not as objects of “propaganda”, but as a legend and a great artistic utopia. Bright, catchy, often experimental works of the “monumental propaganda” period became a source of ideas for further Soviet sculpture development . The role of Lenin is primary in the deployment of “monumental propaganda”. He also revived the tradition of demolition and destruction of monuments, ongoing since Ancient Rome. After the Soviet government moved to Moscow, monuments to Alexander II in the Kremlin and to Alexander III on the square of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, both designed by sculptor A. Opekushin, were quickly demolished. There is no doubt that the years 1918—1919 were the most intense ones, a concentrated stage in the implementation of “Lenin’s plan of monumental propaganda”. Erection of monuments continued in subsequent years; however, this short period gave the most vivid image of an ambitious artistic initiative.
REFERENCES 1. Bakushinsky, A.V. 1939. Andreev. 1873—1932, Мoscow. 2. Burganova, M.A. 2012. Portrait and a symbol. Monumental sculpture of Russia in the twentieth century. Мoscow. 3. Konenkov, S.T. 1988. My century. Memories, Мoscow. 4. Merkurov, S.D.1953. Sculptor’s notes, Мoscow. 5. Sculpture and drawings sculptors of late XIX — early XX century, STG catalogue, Мoscow, 1977. 6. Ternovez, B.N. 1922. Russian Sculpture, Мoscow. 7. Trifonova, L.P. 1987. N. А. Andreev, Leningrad. 8. Shmidt, I.M. 1989. Russian Sculpture of second half of XIX — beginning of XX century, Мoscow.
— 72 — Elena V. Lobanova. Unknown Pages of Nikolai Myaskovsky’s Chamber and Vocal Creativity
Elena V. Lobanova The Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation Gnessin Russian Academy of Music Department of Music History e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia UNKNOWN PAGES OF NIKOLAI MYASKOVSKY’S CHAMBER AND VOCAL CREATIVITY
Summary: The article is devoted to almost unknown (in research and performing practice) vocal works by Nikolai Myaskovsky with Zinaida Gippius’s verses set to music. Characteristics of the musical genre of romance are examined by the author. The reasons, for which, in the author’s opinion, a considered stratum of Myaskovsky’s creativity stays away from the broad performing and research interest, are also stated in the article. Keywords: Nikolai Myaskovsky, Zinaida Gippius, romance, poetry, style.
Until now vocal works by Myaskovsky with Gippius’s verses set to music remained almost unstudied among the composer’s romances. In Russian chamber and vocal music, poetry of Gippius, the “white devil”, a refined decadent, one of the brightest representatives of poetic symbolism, appeared to be far behind her fellow poets — K. Balmont, Blok, V. Ivanov. However, Zinaida Gippius’s poetic world — sophisticated, antinomic, tragic, where hopeless despondency suddenly gives way to ecstatic rapture, an insight of the ultimate meaning of human existence, happened to be surprisingly similar to the mindset of young Myaskovsky. An extreme psychological isolation, a painful search for his creative vocation were reflected in Myaskovsky’s early compositions. Boris Asafyev defined the overall tone of the composer’s music as “a state of anxiety in varying degrees, and colour of its manifestations” (Glebov, Igor, 37). In Myaskovsky’s works, Daniel Zhitomirsky heard
— 73 — Elena V. Lobanova. Unknown Pages of Nikolai Myaskovsky’s Chamber and Vocal Creativity a “dark and tragic ‘raging’, poignant in its psychological restraint, … without air, without prospects” (D. Zhitomirskiy, 60). Nikolai Myaskovsky is the only composer1 whose creative aspirations were so much in tune with broken, somewhat morbid lyrics of Gippius, the main meaning of which was a constant tragic duality of the world. In her poems, Zinaida Gippius often embodied images that went beyond generally accepted aesthetic standards of that time. The poetess was attracted to the aesthetically “ugly”: leeches, spiders, dust and cobwebs. Undoubtedly, at the beginning of the twentieth century it was regarded as a transition over the boundary of “the permitted by the classical Aristotelian aesthetics of understanding and reflection of beauty” (Y. Durandina, 2005, p. 161). In the chamber and vocal heritage of Myaskovsky, Gippius’s poetry is represented with 27 romances which were included in the “On the Verge” (comp.4), “From Z. Gippius’s Poetry” (comp.5), “Premonitions” (comp.16) cycles. Unfortunately, the stratum of the composer’s legacy, which is interesting and important for understanding the sources of creativity as well as the mature style, is insufficiently studied by researchers and is rarely performed in concert practice; the record of songs is not realized. There are several reasons for this. First, since 1946, none of the romances by Myaskovsky with Gippius’s verses set to music were reissued either in the USSR or abroad. A vast majority of publications were to put out in small editions until 1922. Romances with Gippius’s verses were not included in the 12-volume edition of the composer’s selected works2 and in the collection of his vocal compositions3; therefore musical texts of the romances were simply not available to many researchers and performers. Moreover, four of the romances (“A Knock”, “A Christian”, “Another Christian”, “The Limit”) have never been published and are left only as manuscripts4. A peculiarity of their musical style is another reason for the “unpopularity” of the romances. Researchers (B. Asafyev, D. Zhitomirsky, E. Ruchevskaya, I. Stepanova) note an intensive process of “intellectualization” that took place in the genre of romance at the beginning of the twentieth century, related to a penetration of modern
— 74 — Elena V. Lobanova. Unknown Pages of Nikolai Myaskovsky’s Chamber and Vocal Creativity poetry, its new imaginative spheres and principles of versification, into the chamber and vocal music. This was manifested in an increasing complexity of all elements of musical fabric: in the domination of declamatory and recitative melodics, in gradual movement of harmony towards atonality, in a maximum richness of a piano part, which often became a bearer of musical symbols. All these traits turned out to be highly concentrated in Myaskovsky’s romances with Zinaida Gippius’s verses set to music. Nikolai Myaskovsky, deeply feeling a poetic duality of the poetess’s world, selected musical means, almost exactly corresponding with Gippius’s sombre contemplative lyrics. All of these feature — a sharp acuteness of intonation cells, often a lack of grains of theme in the melody of the designed, harmony saturation with alternative chromatic accords, an extreme density of texture in conjunction with, as a rule, dark, tragic, sometimes “appalling” (“Leeches”, “Spiders”, “Pain”) content of a poetic text — of course, complicate the perception of romances. E. Koposova-Derzhanovskaya, the first performer of the romances with Gippius’s poems and a close friend of Myaskovsky, writes about this in her memoirs, “I was very attracted to N.’s romances. They constitute an important part in his work, and have a special place in the vocal literature. Here, the names of Mussorgsky and Dostoyevsky come to my mind first of all <…>. N.’s romances leave a deep impression in the minds of the performer and the listener — not because of a foreign prettiness, <…> but because of the depth and intensity of the creative thought; therefore they are so difficult to implement and perceive” (Koposova-Derzhanovskaya, E., 208). These lines, written half a century ago, remain relevant to this day. “The complexity of performance and perception”, so accurately noted by E. Koposova-Derzhanovskaya, was, in our opinion, the main reason, the “stumbling block”, which stood in the way of performers and listeners to comprehend the music of romances. Going back to the style of the romances, we note that the researchers (D. Zhitomirsky, V. Protopopov, T. Levaya, Sokolov, E. Durandina) associate it with the musical expressionism movement, with Mussorgsky, Scriabin, A. Schoenberg’s creative work. Moreover, of all the Myaskovsky’s chamber-vocal heritage, it was in the songs with Gippius’s verses set to music in which the leading, “vanguard”
— 75 — Elena V. Lobanova. Unknown Pages of Nikolai Myaskovsky’s Chamber and Vocal Creativity tendencies of the genre development were most powerfully embodied at the beginning of the twentieth century. Of course, Myaskovsky’s romances with Zinaida Gippius’s verses set to music are a bright and original phenomenon in the Russian chamber and vocal music of the first half of the twentieth century. In fact, they represent an anthology of Gippius’s musical creativity. And we should hope that this yet little-known stratum of creativity of one of the greatest composers of the twentieth century will soon enter into the sphere of interest of a wide range of researchers, artists and students.
NOTES 1 We are aware of only three songs on poems Z. Gippius, written by other composers: S. Prokofiev “gray dress” L. Drizo “no cheating — one love” Ya.Ugarova “Follow me.” 2 Selected Works, V. 11, Vocal Compositions / Ed. com.: Glier R., etc. Moscow: Музгиз, 1956. 3 Myaskovsky N. Vocal Works: For Voice and Piano in Two Volumes / Ikonnikov A. Moscow: Музыка, 1981, 1982. 4 The manuscripts of romances are stored in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI), f. 2040.
REFERENCES 1. Glebov, Igor. 1964. Myaskovsky as symphonies. N. Ya. Myaskovskiy Collection of materials in two volumes, vol.1. Moscow: Publishing house “Music”, pp. 27—38. 2. Durandina, E. 2005. Vocal chamber music genres in Russian XIX—XX centuries: historical and stylistic aspects. Moscow: Publishing house “Russian Gnesin’s Academy of Music “, p. 240. 3. Zhitomirskiy, D. 1964. To the study of Miaskovsky’s style. N. Myaskovsky Collection of materials in two volumes, vol.1. Moscow: Publishing house “Music”, pp. 45—77. 4. Koposova-Derzhanovskaya, E. 1964. Memory of a friend. N. Myaskovskiy Collection of materials in two volumes, Vol.2. Moscow: Publishing house “Music”, pp. 201—226.
— 76 — Ekaterina Matveeva. The concept of culture in language teaching process
Ekaterina Matveeva Master of Arts in “Crossways in Cultural Narratives” Affiliated researcher of investigation group ‘Galabra’ in Santiago de Compostela Founder of Europeonline School of foreign languages University of St Andrews e-mail: [email protected] London, UK THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE IN LANGUAGE TEACHING PROCESS: SECONDARY LINGUISTIC PERSONALITY
Summary: Being an extract from a dissertation report, this article covers the topic of cultural and linguistic studies. The author re-reads the concept of culture through the prism of recent researches in the field of education, examining culture in a linguistic context, where differences are understood through the interactive creation of various communicative repertoires. Keywords: culture, teaching, multilingual, inter-cultural, interculture
Secondary Linguistic Personality According to the theory of Karaulov “linguistic personality — a person, expressed in a language and through a language, a person, reconstructed in his/her main features on the basis of linguistic means. It is development and additional content of the concept of personality at all” (Karaulov. Russkiy yazyk i yazykovaya lichnost. — Moskva, 1987. — 38). Karaulov considered linguistic personality as “multi-layered and multi-component set of language abilities, skills, readiness for speech acts of different degrees of difficulty, and acts classified, on the one hand, by the kinds of speech activity (speaking, listening, reading and writing) and, on the other, by levels of language, i. e. phonetics, grammar and lexis” (Karaulov. Russkiy yazyk i yazykovaya lichnost. — Moskva, 1987. — 29).
— 77 — Ekaterina Matveeva. The concept of culture in language teaching process
As a consequence, the result of any language education should be a formed primary linguistic personality, and the result of foreign languages education — a secondary linguistic personality as an indicator of a person’s ability to fully participate in cross-cultural communication (Galskova Teoriya obucheniya inostrannym yazykam: lingvodidaktika i metodika. — Moskva, 2004. — 65). The concept of “secondary linguistic personality” is highlighted as a central category in modern lingual didactics. Linguodidactical interpretation of the concept was proposed by Khaleeva who defines the formation of secondary linguistic personality as one of the main goals of learning a foreign language. Khaleeva believes that the description of the model of secondary linguistic personality must take into account the processes occurring in an individual in the course of mastering a non-native language. According to her opinion, the result of mastering a language is acquiring by linguistic personality the features of secondary linguistic personality, able to get into the essence of a studied language and culture of the people — subjects of intercultural communication (Khaleeva Osnovy teorii obucheniya ponimaniyu inoyazychnoy rechi (podgotovka perevodchika). — Moskva, 1989). Implementing different approaches to language education, scientists transform the concept of secondary linguistic personality, adding to it different qualities and characteristics: personality realising herself/ himself as a cultural and historical subject, with planetary thinking (development of socio-cultural approach to learning a language); interpreter with secondary socialisation, prepared for cross-cultural communication through formation of minimum of cultural knowledge appropriate to specific cultural norms of foreign society (study of the problem of formation of intercultural competence), personality, able to carry out cross-cultural communication (development of linguisticcultural approach in teaching foreign languages). On the whole, secondary linguistic personality is defined as a person’s ability to communicate in an intercultural level. This ability is a result of mastering of verbal and semantic code of a studied language, i. e. “language view of the world” of native speakers (formation of secondary
— 78 — Ekaterina Matveeva. The concept of culture in language teaching process language consciousness) and “global (conceptual) view of the world” (Galskova Teoriya obucheniya inostrannym yazykam: lingvodidaktika i metodika. — Moskva, 2004. — 68). The secondary linguistic personality is characterised by the ability to create and perceive foreign-language texts that differ by the degree of structural-linguistic complexity, depth and accuracy of reality’s reflection, and certain target areas. With the above concepts researchers closely link the category of “multicultural linguistic personality”. For instance, Elizarova and L. P. Khalyapina take into account the existence of the invariant part in the structure of each linguistic personality, which determines the national language type and determines belonging of an individual to a particular lingual-cultural community. It is the invariant part of the structure of linguistic personality that enables mutual understanding of representatives of different social, national and cultural codes (Elizarova Formirovanie polikulturnoy yazykovoy lichnosti kak trebovanie novoy globalnoy situatsii // Yazykovoe obrazovanie v vuze. — Sankt-Peterburg, 2005. — S. 8—21.). Galskova describes secondary linguistic personality as a person capable of foreign language communication on an intercultural level, which is defined as “… adequate interaction with other cultures’ representatives” (Galskova Teoriya obucheniya inostrannym yazykam: lingvodidaktika i metodika. — Moskva, 2004. —35). The main feature of the formed multicultural (secondary) linguistic personality is her/his willingness to communicate at all levels of intercultural communication: global, ethnic, interpersonal. Thus, the formation of multi-cultural linguistic personality in the process of learning the English language should be associated with the development of qualities of linguistic personality in Russian and secondary linguistic personality in English. The study of other languages and cultures while preserving cultural identity of a person, formation of multicultural linguistic personality — requirement of a new global situation. The solution of this problem, according to Elizarova, — the development and implementation of special lingual methodical training model aimed at formation of secondary (or multicultural) linguistic personality in the process of learning foreign languages, the personality, ready for
— 79 — Ekaterina Matveeva. The concept of culture in language teaching process multicultural activity (Elizarova. Formirovanie polikulturnoy yazykovoy lichnosti kak trebovanie novoy globalnoy situatsii // Yazykovoe obrazovanie v vuze. — Sankt-Peterburg, 2005. — S. 8—21.). This type of multicultural (secondary) linguistic personality is formed by extending primary linguistic personality aware of her/his cultural identity. Cultural diversity, cultural pluralism is perceived by such personality as manifestation of the underlying foundations of creative potential and self- determination of a person in time and space. It is important to note that in the process of learning a foreign language “cultural competence, complex of cultures available for an individual (national, regional, social) actively interact to form integrated multicultural competence, part of which is multilingual competence interacting with other competences” (European competences of language proficiency, 2005). In our understanding multicultural linguistic personality — a person seeing herself/himself as a subject of dialogue of cultures, as a creative, humanistic, multilingual, and tolerant individual, having cultural competence, self-identity, multi-cultural communication skills in situations of cultural pluralistic environment, adapting to different cultural values. It can be stated that multicultural linguistic personality in the process of learning a foreign language is extension of qualities of linguistic personality in the frames of a native language and development of qualities of secondary linguistic personality in the frames of a foreign language. The concept of linguistic personality helps to deepen and broaden our understanding of personal values and associate it with national character, refracted through linguistic forms of perception of reality. It is productive because it ties into some kind of ontological unity all features of linguistic personality, including her/his authenticity in the mastery of a native language and traits acquired in the process of learning of non-native language. Hence, the concept of multicultural linguistic personality consists of diverse layers. It includes a number of components, criteria, a system of personal qualities. Educating of such an individual requires high level of professional and personal development, basic knowledge of values of the world and national cultures. However, implementation of this challenge is a necessity of life, which is required by the present reality.
— 80 — Ekaterina Matveeva. The concept of culture in language teaching process
REFERENCES 1. Anikin, D. V. 2004. Issledovanie yazykovoy lichnosti sostavitelya “Povesti vremennykh let”, Barnaul, p. 205 2. Vorkachev, S. G. 2001. Lingvokulturologiya, yazykovaya lichnost, kontsept: stanovlenie antropotsentricheskoy paradigmy v yazykoznanii, Philological sciences, no.1, pp. 64—72. 3. Galskova, N. D. 2003. Modern methods of teaching foreign languages, Moscow, p. 165 4. Galskova, N. D. 2004. Theory of teaching foreign languages: Linguodidactics and methodology, Moscow, p. 336 5. Dmitriev, G. D. 1999. Multicultural education, Moscow. 6. Elizarova, G. V. 2005. “Formation of multicultural language personality as a requirement of the new global situation”, Language education at the university, Sant-Petersburg, pp. 8—21. 7. Karaulov, Yu.N. 1987. Russian language and linguistic identity, Moscow, p. 268 8. Kolobova, L. V. 2006. A formation of personality of a pupil in multicultural education, Orenburg. 9. Makaev, V. V. 1999. “Multicultural education — an actual problem of modern school”, Pedagogy, no. 4, pp. 3—10. 10. Common European Framework of proficiency. Learning, Teaching, Assessment, 2005. Moscow, p. 247 11. Sysoev, P. V. 2003. The concept of a language polycultural formation, Moscow, p. 401 12. Khaleeva, I. I. 1989. Fundamentals of the theory of learning a foreign speech understanding (training of translators), Moscow. 13. Khalyapina, L. P. 2006. “The key categories of cognitive linguistics as a basis for the formation of a multicultural linguistic personality in a prosses of learning foreign languages”, Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, pp. 68—73. 14. Khalyapina, L. P. 2006. Methodical system of formation of a multicultural linguistic identity through the Internet communication in a prosses of learning foreign languages, Sant-Petersburg, p. 48
— 81 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
Peter Hagsér curator e-mail: [email protected] Trollhättan, Sweden THE EXHIBITION SILENT SOUND OF HUMAN NATURE AT THE ART GALLERY IN TROLLHÄTTAN BY VIKTOR KORNEEV
During the summer 2015, the art gallery in Trollhättan presents a comprehensive exhibition made by the Russian sculptor Viktor Korneev. Viktor Korneev was born 1958 in Tambov, Russia, and since 1998 he is resident of Fjällbacka. After studies at Moscow Stroganov Art 1986—1991 and Penza Savitsky Art College 1979—1983, he has with great variation created everything from small sculptures to monumental public works mainly made of materials like granite, marble, bronze or oak. Korneev is a highly skilled and all-round sculptor. In a classic figurative tradition he creates a modern design. He acts between the traditional academic world and the grotesque and his interest of mixing aesthetic systems from different ages, make these works timeless. In these living sculptures you can see a combination of reality and metaphysics, figurative truth and artistic paradox, strict form and strong expression. As he puts it himself: “I try to understand the surrounding world through the world inside of me. The artist and the world around are parts of a common world, they are one.” In his motifs he seeks the power and harmony of the human body. “The human being means a lot to my work. It is an eternal source for inspiration. Every human being has its own mind, plasticity and form that must be caught and expressed in its own symbolic way.” Koornev´s sculptured characters are often making gestures, fall on their backs or freeze in strange positions, standing, sitting or lying down. This makes them look flexible, as if they were alive. He works and polishes the sculptures or leaves the surface raw. In certain cases
— 82 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
1. Sculptor V. Korneev he paints them or uses unusual combination of materials, which gives surprising and unexpected results. The architecture and rhythm in Viktor Korneev´s sculptures create a musical composition in form, expression and presence. To strengthen this feeling, Viktor has invited the composers Patrik Wingård and Sebastian Ring to create the piece of music called Echoes, which has been inspired by his sculptures. During the summer exhibition these forms of art will meet. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature at the art gallery in Trollhättan is Viktor Korneev´s largest solo exhibition in Sweden, so far. Here you can watch around 50 different sculptures from his strong artistry.
— 83 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
2. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 84 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
3. Sculptor V. Korneev
4. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 85 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
5. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 86 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
6. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 87 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
7. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 88 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
8. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 89 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
9. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 90 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
10. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 91 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
11. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 92 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
12. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 93 — Peter Hagsér. The exhibition Silent sound of human nature
13. Sculptor V. Korneev
— 94 — The Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal «TEXTS» has a humanitarian nature. Articles are published in French, English, German and Russian. The Journal focuses on research papers about the theory, history and criticism of art, literature, film, theater and music. The Journal is published four times a year.
Its electronic version will be publicly available via the website www.art-texts.com
The Journal is also published in paper form, because reading paper texts is a historical tradition and an integral part of European culture. We would like this new Journal to become a common intellectual platform for researchers from different countries as well as to contribute to the development of scientific, creative and friendly connections.
Cover photo: Sculptor N. A. Andreev. Monument Danton. Concrete.
Our Address in Bruxelles: Belgique, Bruxelles, 1000, rue de la Tête d’Or, 7 tel.: +34 483 09 10 64 [email protected]
Our representation in Moscow: Address: 15/9 B. Afanasievskiy street, Moscow, Russia 119019 tel.: +7 495 695-04-19 [email protected]
Circulation: 500 Published: 4x/yr