Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal Texts 4.2015

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

Ilya E. Pechenkin Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century 6

Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya “A Man-peasant” 22

Vladimir F. Shukhov Most significant modern monuments in Russia and their condition. Phenomenon of the Russian avant-garde (Moscow architectural school of 1920s). Main problems of conservation 31

Katerina S. Kadzova To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments of monumental and decorative plastics of Ossetians’ Christian and pagan ideas in the context of Soslanbek Edziev’s creativity 44

Elena A. Borovskaya N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work. To the creative portrait of an outstanding historiographer of Russian art 55

Tatiana G. Malinina Processes of integration of art in modern architecture and other forms of art; methods of their study 73

Anna V. Ryndina The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth.Reflections on Anatoly Komelin’s Exhibition at the State Tretyakov Gallery 101

Maria A. Burganova The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format. Exhibition of sculpture in Moscow state museum “Burganov House” 114 Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

Ilya E. Pechenkin PhD, associate professor Russian State University for the Humanities e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia ITALIANITÀ AND RUSSIAN ARCHITECTURE OF XIX CENTURY

Remember the yesterday’s night <…> when Neva turned into Tiber… Konstantin Vaginov “Koslinaya pesn’”

I. “What is the difference between France and Italy! There you admire works, you want to adopt everything and fit it to our buildings; everything seems to be nice and various, you try to bear everything in mind — ​ everything: forms, structures, methods of execution, location, in short, all the details. And in Italy the architecture is poetry. I look at a building, a painting, a bas-relief, a statue and it seems that my soul is delighted with contemplation of the beautiful — ​the great…”1 — ​these are words, written at the end of 1830s by Russian architect Mikhail Bykovsky, outstanding and deeply convinced representative of Eclecticism2. The practice of the Eclecticism opposition to the Classicism, stepping forward as a sign of Russian architecture participation in the international architectural process, is accepted long ago in the native bibliography on History of Russian architecture. The idea of “italianità” in its relation with Russian Classicism of the end of XVIII — ​beginning of the XIX century embodies in the concrete architectural images and names, such as Giacomo Quarenghi, Domenico Gilardi, Luigi Rusca and others. With deviation from Classicism as an international aesthetic “norm” Italy — ​a direct heir of antique world and mediator in the transmission of classical taste in contemporary Europe — ​seems to drop out of Russian architects’ sight, synchronous reorientation of architecture on the non-classical traditions of West and East.

— 6 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

Eclecticism in architecture used to be blamed by authors3, that followed after “miriskusniki”, and in particular after Alexandre Benois, exactly for “faithlessness” to Classics of XIX century. In such foreshortening the presence of relation of architecture with classical prototypes serves as a pawning of its artistic solvency. At this point it is appropriate to remember about the only, but, undoubtedly, model architectural experience of Igor Grabar — ​the building of the Hospital named after Grigory Zakharyin in Kurkino, in which project he had as an object the exact reproduction of Palladinism4. “Secession” of the Eclecticism from the Italian sources of European architecture (i. e. from “European” basis as such) served as an accurate argument to the definition of it as an epoch of architectural “timelessness”, which overcoming is connected yet with neoclassical raise of 1900–1910s, commemorated also with the “return” to Italy. This historical and architectural concept attracts with its logic, which however threatens to simplify the situation excessively. It is necessary to note that the theme of Italian reflections in Russian architectural theory and practice of the mid — ​second part of XIX century actually was not specially investigated. As an exception can be quoted a Dmitry Shvidkovskiy’s outline from a book published with the participation of Italian side “Italy-Russia: a thousand years of architecture” (2013)5. However, even here the author traditionally gives consideration to the classicism of abroad XVIII–XIX centuries and neoclassic of 1910s, whereas the architecture of historicism is described by him in passing. The presence of “Italian theme” in Russian architecture of the mid — ​ second half of the XIX century is confined, by Dmitry Shvidkovskiy, by the frames of Neo-Renaissance — ​one of the most imposing versions of historicism, oriented on the heritage of Italian Renaissance. Given the lack of specific works, which have Russian and Italian architectural relations in the post classic period as a subject, the monograph of Maria Naschokina, devoted to the history of the research and interpretation of antique heritage the Nikolay I epoch, has a considerable value6. However, this work intersects with our theme only in part, as “italianità” and “antichità” are relative but different concepts. A number of Tatiana Rozanova’s publications, which

— 7 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

1. Trinity Church called “na Gryazyah” in Moscow. M. Bykovsky 1856–1861. From Naydenov’s Album. 1882 importance is defined by a mature necessity to overcome the above- mentioned historic and art criticism prejudices, were devoted in recent years to order (or “classicistic”) school in Russian Eclectic architecture7. I emphasize that it is not a question of some concrete school of eclectic

— 8 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

multistylism. I would like to focus on the aspects of Italian “presence” in the professional culture of Russian architects of the Eclectic time without respect to stylistic formula.

II. Despite the reservations made, nevertheless one cannot deny that the oldest and the most durable relation of Russian architecture of the New time with Italy consisted in the necessity to honor the classical antique tradition, which mechanism was debugged within academic process. In the XIX century in the schools of architecture, especially the Imperial Academy of Fine Arts, the classics has been never discounted, it took the function of tutorial that disciplined eye and hand. But that was not the only way. The Eclectics did not approach the antique heritage with demands measurement and perceived the nuances of style forming, hidden usually under the generalization of the Classicism. It is characteristic, that this “discovery” of antique multistylism was not realized in academic classes, but on the terrain — ​during academics’ pensioner travels to Agrigento and Selinunte, Paestum and Pompeii. Following Vinkelman’s precepts, academies disciples aspired to Apennines and Sicilia to contemplate first of all the monuments of Greek art. However, their view had a romantic impressionability, reflected, for example, in one of the Society for the Arts Encouragement pensioner, architect Alexander Bryullov, which got to Rome the spring 1823: “… here you involuntary imagine a Roman — ​ ancient Roman, medieval and a Roman in evening dress. The temples of their gods indicate the first one, huge buildings of a nasty taste — ​the second one and everything insignificant, weak, bad — ​the third one” 8. Bryullov — ​in the near future one of the early Russian eclectic leaders — ​ecstatically paints water-color views of antique ruins in Siracusa and Agrigento, though he needed something else for the pensioner return. In pursuance of his preceptors’ instructions, he investigates in detail Pompeii terms. Bryullov’s ouvrage devoted that ancient structure was published soon in Paris9. Pompeii theme, taken in a variety of aspects — ​beginning with from imitation of concrete decorative motives, found in its ruins, to the

— 9 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

2. Architect-pensioner of Imperial Academy of Arts S. Soloviov in Pompeii. 1886. From the archives of S. Solovyov’s heirs

— 10 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

reflection about its fatal destiny — ​is extremely popular during the first half of XIX century (at this point one cannot but recall the Karl Bryullov’s famous painting, though it was just one consequence of a broad romantic passion to the image of a lost city). At that time the pilgrimage to Pompeii ruins becomes desired not only for artists and architects but also for all the travelers that suppose to be related with culture, that means — ​ interested in contact with antiquities. In 1840s appear works by Russian authors, who have visited this “living museum”10. Exactly the aspiration for breathing a new life into it is characteristic for Pompeii romantic perception, in contrast to “antiquarian” interest of XVIII century. It looks like romantics saw a good ground for the escape from the boring contemporaneity in such “reviving”. “Many people would learn latin purposely to taste the delight of one or two years of Roman-like life” 11, — ​argues Nestor Kukolnik, talking about the possibility of Pompeii repopulation. In the epoch of Biedermeier “imitation of the ancient” do not presupposes heroism and it is rather interpreted in an aesthetic way, as a special kind of life-style. “Roman- like life” appears as a continuation of romantic idealization of Italy. Do not forget about the fact, that Sylvester Shchedrin’s Neapolitan landscapes, imbued with the spirit of dolce far niente, were created shortly before the described here years. “I forget the age in which I live, — ​Alexander Bryullov writes from Pompeii, — ​I dream to see this city in its state of flourishing…”12. For him, as for romantic, antique ruins are not so much an evidence of architecture “in the past”, as a possibility of architecture “in the future”. As for architect, they are the richest factual material and a professional objective organization for him. He investigates pedantically the composition of Pompeii terms and sculptural and pictorial decoration of every lodgment. In the same years young Konstantin Thon, future founder of officious “Russian-Byzantine style”, does not just measures the Palatine Hill ruins, but also works up a project of Roman Caesars’ Palace restoration13. In Russian architectural practice (however, also in European) Pompeian motives actualized in connection with the formation of the Greek Revival style. Pompeii heritage, which was associated with ancient Hellenes culture14, was considered now as a profitable alternative

— 11 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

3. Project of Grand-Ducal castle in the South of Russia. The program on competition for Grand Gold Medal of the Imperial Academy of Arts. S. Soloviov. 1883. Section view. Museum of Russian Academy of Ar to the bored empire style. In the context of Nikolai I court building, accomplished by Andrei Shtakenshneider, references to Pompeian architecture seem to be an attempt to broaden the nomenclature of styles, made use in country constructions (compare with “Roman bath”, which was built a little earlier in Potsdam Charlottenhof designed by Schinkel). The same thing can be said about the palace interiors. In particular, in 1836–1839 Alexander Bryullov designs “Pompeian dining room” in Winter palace — ​unfortunately, it did not save its decoration, which is known thanks to Konstantin Ukhtomskiy’s water-color (1874). Noteworthy reflection of “Pompeian taste” became Bryullov’s own house on Kadetskaya liniya of Vasilyevskiy Island. Without changing the main façade, architect essentially transformed the planning of the gala hall, having approached it to the typical for Mediterranean dwellings scheme with two atrium courts. The architects’ of past times bas-relief portraits were brought in the gala hall decoration (“builders of Parthenon, St. Peter’s cathedrals dome, Venice palaces, <… .> Rafael”)15. The fact of Bryullov’s addressing to Mediterranean tradition of private house during his own dwelling improvement, in respect to

— 12 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century conversation about “italianità” in Russian architects’ life and creative work seems eloquent. The architect’s own house is a genre, which presupposes a maximal freedom of creative self-expression, not constrained by the third-party customer’s regulations. And Bryullov makes a free choice in favor of his Italian impressions, undoubtedly, the strongest ones that he has gone through abroad. Because “only in Italy you can hear the presence of architecture and its strict grandeur as an art”16. In these words, belonging not to an architect, but to a literary man, is nicely observed the emotional susceptibility peculiar to a Russian pilgrim, who found himself on the Italian earth. Mikhail Bykovskiy’s son Konstantin, one of the leading Moscow architects of the end of XIX century wrote, remembering his visit to Italy with his father and the family at the age of seventeen: “This trip remained in the memory like a wonderful dream; I owe him my composition of the definitive desire to devote myself to architecture”17.

III. Having seen how significant were personal impressions of the Russian architects of the century before last in Italy, it is useful to glance at the place that the idea of “italianità” took in the discursive field of Russian culture of this time. The architects, whose creative flourishing falls on the second third of XIX century, were related by their education with the traditions of classics and their comprehension of the nature of an architectural form itself was classic, order. The sketches of “Russian orders” were discovered among Moscow architect and journalist Nikolai Dmitriyev’s papers18. Mikhail Bykovskiy, who gained fame for his statement against the universal obligatoriness of the classical rules and declared the aim of creation of “own, national architecture”19, demonstrated in his project and building practice inclination for Italianizing forms. A break in the world outlook happened already in the time after reforms. “We, the youngest of great nations, <…> are living in an endless struggle between the bents of our own nature, own development and all- powerful European influence”, — ​wrote Slavophil Nikolai Strakhov in 187520. In such context the inclination for Italy was interpreted like a sort

— 13 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

4. The facade of the rebuilt edifice of Stroganov School in Moscow. S. Soloviov. Photo of the end of XIX century. Museum of the Moscow Architectural Institute of looking back to the West on account of underestimation of self-state of Russian culture. On the other hand, Italy itself of that time has largely lost the romantic image of “motherland of arts”, having turned up at the periphery of a relevant art process. “After Gogol Italy went away from Russian writers’ heart and mind almost by as much as fifty years” — ​ stated Pavel Muratov in the preface to his famous book21; slightly below he defined 1880s as the time of “the greatest <…> alienation from Italy and, it seems that also from all kinds of cultural values”22. However, these words seem to be not so fair. Italy has actually almost vanished out of Russian literary men’s sight, but its art riches — ​ monumental Basilica facades, stone portals carving, beautiful frescoes ornaments, picturesque canvases — ​have soundly entered into the category of art and historicism architecture sources. In the early 1830s, the president of the Imperial Academy Alexei Olenin, underlining the importance for a modern architect of a basis on the works of architecture, created by the outstanding epochs, ranked among them Gothic and Byzantine ones23. Such opinion suited the romantic tendency of overestimation of non-classical heritage. Italy was imagined then by Europeans as not only the country of antique ruins and the scene for

— 14 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

5. Portal of the reconstructed building of the Stroganov School in Moscow. Photo of the end of XIX century. Museum of the Moscow Architectural Institute

Renaissance titans, but first of all — ​Giotto’s, Petrarka’s and “Divine comedy” author’s motherland. In St. Petersburg in 1881 was published Alexey Vysheslavtsev’s work “Giotto and Giottists”, which appeared under the strong influence of western researchers. Russian independent contacts with medieval Italy art heritage was made conditional upon the needs of the church art formal language renewal with a support on Early Christians and Byzantine examples. The geopolitical realities of the middle and second half of the century made Constantinople — ​Istanbul, just like most of Eastern Christian territories, inaccessible for Russian travelers, including academic pensioners. They could see Byzantine monuments only in Caucasus and in Italy — ​in Ravenna, Venice and Norman cities of Sicily. For example, Alexander Pomerantsev, who became famous mainly as an author of the building of the Upper Trading Rows on Red Square in Moscow, was awarded in 1884 with the title of academician of the

— 15 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century architecture for his detailed measurements of the Palatine Chapel in Palermo, presented to the Academy’s council24. Byzantine masters’ buildings exerted an enormous influence on Russian architecture of the second half of XIX — ​beginning of XX century, and not only within the respective areas of Neo-Byzantine historicism. As an example can be cited not preserved Alexander Nevsky cathedral in Warsaw (1894–1912). Its architect, Leontiy Benois offered the general composition of five-domed four-pillared cathedral in the manner of medieval Vladimiro-Suzdal churches, he not only applied a monumental scale, peculiar to XIX century (reminding in the first place of Thon’s works), but also included into the figuration of the facades the theme of Venetian San Marco Cathedral, with its deep arched portals, filled up with frescoes25. Benois’ apprentice Ivan Kuznetsov used Warsaw cathedral as a model while projecting the church for Tesino village (1908–1911), near Ivanovo-Voznesensk. However its building also contains direct links to the Venetian monument: for example, beautiful shafts, carrying archivolt heels of zakomary on the Eastern facade.

IV. In the second half of the XIX century Neo-Renaissance turned up to be the most appropriate one for contemporary needs both in the utilitarian and aesthetic sense, moved to the leading positions in various European countries. The epoch saw a “positive example of use of antiquity forms” without prejudice to the spiritual contents of art in such version of revivalism26. For 1880s’ architectural writers Renaissance was to be the highest among “historic styles”, and therefore most worthy of revival in current conditions27. Its forms expressed not only important for the epoch idea of all-embracing beauty, but also idealistic aspirations of bourgeois Europe, inclined to associate itself with Italian city-states, whose culture and consumer lifestyle was “opened” by Georg Voigt and Jacob Burckhardt to their contemporaries about 186028. In Russia politic connotations of Neo-Renaissance use were unlikely pertinent. Associations with ideas of nobility, respectability, financial solvency turned up to be more preferable for Russian customer. In particular, bank buildings of XIX–XX centuries demonstrate that well.

— 16 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

6. Architects-pensioners of Imperial Academy of Arts in Pompeii. 1886. From the archives of S. Soloviov’s heirs

Their facades were likened to Florentine quattrocento palazzo — ​as a reminding about Medici, who made a fortune on bank operations. Aristocratic aesthetics of Neo-Renaissance was predictably most demanded in St. Petersburg, primary in palaces and mansions buildings. Already in 1846 it embodies in the reconstruction of Count Grigory Kushelev-Bezborodko’s house on Fontanka embankment of Andrei Shtakenshnejder’s project, who built also the most grandiose Neo- Renaissance edifice — ​Nakolayevskiy palace (1853–1861). Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich’s palace at the Palace Embankment has chrestomathy fame, its facade imitate Italian quattrocento palazzo (arch. A. Rezanov, I. Kitner, 1867–1872). The facade of Count Nikolai Kushelev- Bezborodko’s former mansion, so-called “Small Marble Palace” (now the European University in St. Petersburg) is decorated in the Neo- Renaissance style, with its typical bifor-windows, rustication and floor small order. Resemblance of this building to the XV century Italian

— 17 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century palazzo was the result of reconstruction in 1857–1862 under Edward Shmidt’s project, which reflected homeowner’s passion for collecting art29. In Russian architecture of the “smart choice” “italianitá” got a concrete “antiquarian and museum” undertone, proved by the memory about Lorenzo the Magnificent’s patronage. Here it seems useful to point out two art and industrial museums, appeared about 1890 at Baron Alexander Stieglitz’s Central School of technical drawing in St. Petersburg and at Stroganov school in Moscow. Both they were architecturally focused on the image of “Palace of arts” inspired by the Italian Renaissance architecture, whose splendor XIX century aspired not only to repeat, but also to make it popular for the general public. The building of the museum in St. Petersburg was built up and decorated to Maximilian Messmacher’s project in 1885–1895 and it was unique for its engineering and technical parameters. The main exhibition hall with area of 34x17 m occupied the dominant place in it, and it was covered by a metal-glass light, which provided interior with natural daylight. In Russia at that time there was no such grandiose by bays translucent ceilings. But, in addition, the museum building, compositionally and stylistically related to the earliest building of the school itself (arch. R. Gedike, A. Krakau, 1879–1881), became the most amplitudinous realization of idealogic and artistic program based on idealization of Italian Renaissance in Russian architecture30. Messmacher’s work represents an ensemble, in which architecture is firmly associated and even depending on the sculpture, frescoes, majolica, etc. Interiors and main facade are characterized by the discharge of decoration, which is a feature of eclectic artistic language. In the end, plastic “verbosity” of the facade results in a literal narrative when in the frieze of entablature appear sculptural portraits and mosaic names of prominent art masters of past eras — ​mostly of the same Italian Renaissance. This kind of “monumental literature” is a spectacular addition to eclectic architecture. The complex of Stroganov school and museum buildings was rebuilt under him from classicist University clinic with Sergei Soloviov’s project31. Renewed facade of the main building was sated with Renaissance allusions and obviously appeared with the capital

— 18 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century experience: the decoration in the spirit of “monumental literature” recalls Messmacher’s work, while the total composition is very similar to Gedike’s and Krakau’s building. But, perhaps, no less interesting is prepared by Soloviov and remaining unfulfilled project of the new building of the school (1889–1890). Apparently, its architect based on samples of German and Austrian Neo-Renaissance while working on it (Industrial Art Museum in Vienna, H. von Verstel, etc.), but the nature of portal processing, Florentine windows, Pompeian motives of ornamental panels — ​all this gives the project an Italian shade. Moreover, exactly these elements were undoubtedly supposed by the architect as the most important, because he did not deny them even when it turned up that the new building would not be made, and only a reconstruction would take place32. It is interesting to note that in his own mansion in Moscow (1901–1902) Soloviov used the images of the Old Italian art, accentuating the significance of the place which impressions of the pensioner trip to Apennines took in his memory luggage. During the short-term, but vigorous pressure of Modern style “Italian” theme actually practically disappears from the Russian architects’ circle of interests. Unlike Franco-Belgian, Scandinavian and Austro-German version of Art Nouveau architecture, the Italian “liberty” almost did not influence on Russian masters. However, only in a few years Italy (in a wide range from Paestum Doric to Palladian villas) would regain its formal appeal for Neoclassicism architects. One of the main promoters of this movement, Georgy Lukomsky in his famous book “Modern Petersburg” justified Neoclassicist retrospectivism of the newest building in the capital of Russian Empire, creating the parallels with Italian Renaissance, who managed once “to use Roman parts for XV, XVI centuries” 33.

ENDNOTES 1 Quoted from: Bykovskiy K. M., Bykovskiy N. M., “Mikhail Dorimedontovich Bykovskiy. Khudozhestvennoe razvitie i architecturnaya deyatelnost’ do pervoi poezdki za granitsu (1801–1838)”, in: Russkiy Khudozhestvenniy Archiv. Moscow, 1892, Issue 2, p. 75. 2 Bykovskiy M., “Rech o neosnovatelnosti mneniya chto architectura Grecheskaya ili Greco-Rimskaya mozhet byt’ vseobscheyu i chto krasota architectury osnovyvaetsya

— 19 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

na pyati izvestnykh chinopolozheniyakh, govorennaya na torzhestvennom acte Moskovskogo dvortsovogo architecturnogo uchilischa academikom, chlenom conferentsii onogo Mikhailom Bykovskim maya 8 dnya 1834 goda”. Moscow, 1834. 3 For example see: “Istoriya russkoi architectury. Kratkiy kurs”. Мoscow, 1951; and Il’in M., “Architectura Moskvy, in: Istoriya Moskvy”. M., 1954. Vol. 4. 4 Grabar’ I. E., “Moya zhizn’: Avtomonografia”, in: Grabar’ I. E., Moya zhizn’: Avtomonografia; Etudy o khudozhnikah, Moscow, 2001, p. 227. 5 Shvidkovskiy D. O., “Italianskaya tema v russkoi architecture XIX — ​nachala XX veka”, in: Italia — ​Rossia: tysyacha let architectury. Umberto Allemandi & C., 2013. pp. 269–293. 6 Naschokina M. V., “Antichnoye nasledie v russkoi architecture nikolaevskogo vremeni: ego izuchenie i tvorcheskaya interpretatsiya”, Moscow, 2011. 7 See: Rozanova T. M., “K probleme vozniknovenia neoclassicisma v russkoi architecture (na primere rabot moskovskih architectorov rubezha XX veka)”, in: Architectura v istorii russkoi cultury, Issue 6: Perelomy epoch. Moscow, 2005, pp. 278–315. 8 Quoted from: Ol’ G. A., “Alexander Bryullov”. Leningrad, 1983, p. 24. 9 Brulloff A., “Thermes de Pompei”. Paris, 1829. 10 See: Levshin A. “Progulki russkogo v Pompei”. St. Petersburg, 1843; Klassovskiy V., “Sistematicheskoe opisanie Pompei I otkrytykh v nei drevnostei”, St. Petersburg, 1848. 11 N. K. [Kukolnik Nestor] “Italianskie pis’ma”, quoted from: Naschokina M. V. Ibid. P. 396. 12 Quoted from: Ol’ G. A. Ibid. P. 32. 13 See: Slavina T. A. “Konstantin Thon”, Leningrad, 1989, p. 24. 14 See: Petrova T. A., “Architektor A. I. Shtakenshneider”, St. Petersburg, 2012, p. 200. 15 “O dome Bryullova”, in: Khudozhestvennaya gazeta, 1841, n. 2, p. 3. 16 Gogol N. V., “Rim”, in: Gogol N. V. Povesti. Myortviye dushi, Moscow, 2004, p. 461. 17 Quoted from: Soloviov S. U., “Nekonoriye danniye o deyatelnosti K. M. Bykovskogo”, in: Drevnosti. Trudy Komissii po sohraneniyu drevnih pamyatnikov Imperatorskogo Moscovskogo archeologicheskogo obschestva. Moscow, 1907, Vol. 1, pp. XXIX — ​ XXXIII. 18 See more: Pechenkin I. E., Saygina L. V., “Moscovskaya architecturnaya zhizn’ serediny XIX veka v kriticheskih publikatsiyah N. V. Dmitrieva (1822–1866)”, in: Architecturnoye nasledstvo, Issue 52, Moscow, 2010, pp. 263–270. 19 Bykovskiy M. Ibid., p. 10. See also: Kirichenko E. I., “Architecturniye teorii XIX veka v Rossii”, Moscow, 1986, pp. 124–130. 20 Strakhov N. N., “Iz poezdki v Italiyu (v 1875 godu)”, cit. by: Sternin G. Yu. “Khudozhestvennaya zhizn’ Rossii serediny XIX veka”, Moscow, 1991, p. 51. 21 Muratov P. P., “Obrazy Italii”, Vol. 1, M., 2005, p. 12. 22 Ibid, p. 13. 23 See: Slavina T. A. Ibid, p. 20. 24 RGIA (Russian State Historical Archive), f. 789, inv. 9, 1874, item 161, sheet 147. 25 Lisovskiy V. G., “Leontiy Benois I peterburgskaya shkola architectorov- khudozhnikov”, St. Petersburg, 2006, p. 138.

— 20 — Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

26 See: Kozhar N., “‘Renaissance des beaux arts’ I neorenessans v architecture XIX veka”, in: Architectura mira. Zapad-Vostok: architecturniye shkoly Novogo I Noveishego vremeni, Issue 7, Moscow, 1998, pp. 89–95. 27 See: Pevsner N., “Some Architectural Writers of the Nineteenth Century”, Oxford, 1972, pp. 301, 308. 28 I mean the first editions (in German): Voigt G., “Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus”, Berlin, 1859; and Burckhardt J., “Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien”, Basel, 1860. 29 Kirikov B. M., Stieglitz M. S., “Peterburg nemetskih frchitectorov. Ot barokko do avangarda”, St. Petersburg, 2002, pp. 170–171. Name of an architect who originally built this edifice is unknown. See more: Andreeva V. I. “Maliy mramorniy dvoretz”, in: Pamyatniki istorii I cultury Peterburga: Issledovaniya I materialy, St. Petersburg, 1994, pp. 6–20; Zherikhina E. I. “Chastnye dvortzy Peterburga”, St. Petersburg, 2013, pp. 36–40. 30 Tyzhnenko T. E., “Maximilian Messmacher”, Leningrad, 1984, p. 78. 31 See: Pechenkin I. E. “Sergei Soloviov”, Moscow, 2012, pp. 45–67. 32 See more: Pechenkin I. E., Starostenko Yu. D., “Noviye danniye k stroitelnoi istorii compleksa zdaniy Imperatorskogo Stroganovskogo uchilischa — ​Moskovskogo Architecturnogo Instituta (1889–1890)”, in: Nauka, obrazovanie, experimentalnoe proectirovanie. Trudy MArchI: materialy nauchno-practicheskoi conferentsii, Moscow, 2013, pp. 147–152. 33 Lukomskiy G. K., “Modern Petersburg”, St. Petersburg, 2002, p. 24.

— 21 — Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya. “A Man-peasant”

Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya Ph.D. in History of Arts Art Critics and Art Historians Association(AIS) The Russian Association of The German Modern Art Research e-mail: [email protected] Russia, Moscow “A MAN-PEASANT”

Wolfgang Borchert (1921–1947) is one of the most outstanding representatives of German post-war literature. In the 30s he was arrested twice for anti-fascist persuasions, sentenced to death, pardoned, the war years he served his time in the units of wehrmacht, and returned to the motherland terminally ill. The play “The Man Outside” (1946) that had a deafening success in Germany was written in just one week — ​ he talked in it about the tragedy of not understanding, alienation of two generations from each other — ​those who had passed the front and stayed on the home front, who had learned nothing and understood nothing. The representative of the second one is one of the most famous painters and graphic artists — ​Emil Nolde (1867–1956). Everything divides them, starting from the age, down to life experience. It was him who convinced Goebbels that he was a creator of German authentic fine arts, that he became nazi when Germany had no idea about the Nazism. He was rejected. The participant in notorious exhibition of “degenerated art” of 1937 in Munich, he got an interdiction to work only in 1941, and his paintings were also confiscated, sold out, it was prohibited to expose them. In 1946 Nolde limited by the recognition that “the noble spirituality just like the cruelest instinct” reside Germans. And this man would offer one of his water-colors to Borchert for Christmas 1946, it was one out of hundreds so-called by him “unpainted canvases” 1941–1945, of the “underground” period. After 1933 the image of a man would leave Schmidt-Rottluff’s creative work, and his landscapes, still lives, interiors became full of cosmic despair. Nolde’s tiny water-colors, his “unpainted canvases” — ​

— 22 — Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya. “A Man-peasant”

landscapes, flowers, sea, people are full of equilibrium, calmness feeling… Even rejected, Nolde does not live in a hostile to him world. The inscription on the water-color gift read — ​“From the old man- peasant”. An old man whether teaches art to a young man or shares with him his experience of perception of the world. Apparently, guided by certain tradition, habits, B. Rust — ​nazi minister of upbringing, education and science could affirm in 1934 that city children should be send for the first 6 years of their lives in the peasant families, educated from 12 till 18 years old in primary and secondary country schools, to get Hitler’s veritable followers, heroic Germans, ready to fold the head for the country and the race. Up to 12 years they should have been kept out of any religious influence.2 From this point of view it is interesting to look at the biography of an “old man-peasant” F. Nolde — ​a magnificent painter and graphic artist. The sea, the fields sown with wheat, oak groves, herds, 68 residents with their 4 houses and 65 outbuildings. Behind Nolde’s residents were a dozen of generations who have lived in this village near Thornton in Schleswig, near Denmark. A way of life, developed by these generations, a habit to rely on their own strength, to communicate among themselves, taking advantage of an amazing mix of German, Danish dialects. Elementary School with the obligatory teaching of the foundations of religion, and the long winter evenings boy Hansen will avidly read the Bible, which played a very important role in the artist Nolde’s creative work, in the history of German art. With the acquisition of the religious paintings of the master Hans Sauerland — ​director of the museum “Moritzburg” (Halle-Saale) in 1908–1909 would begin to transform it into the first German collection of avant-garde art. In 1912, 9-part “Christ’s Life”, destined for an exhibition of religious art in Brussels, would cause howls of protest of the Catholic Church and would not be shown there. Fascist Germany did not need Protestantism, and especially Catholicism, and Nolde with his statement: “Heroes of the Bible — ​the Jews” — ​was unacceptable. Christ, the apostles, the Virgin, Mary Magdalene — ​plebs with big hands and legs, with emaciated faces, not benevolent. Here one can see joy in all its immediacy, and the greatest pain, deep sorrow; everything is

— 23 — Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya. “A Man-peasant” in motion — ​impulsive lines, nervous paints. The artist goes his own way, ignoring the authorities. But if we return to master’s native village, we will hear not Wagner’s operas, but farm laborers’ simple songs, folklore, which did not award attention of any German composer. There was not a single word about Nietzsche, Kant and Schopenhauer. F. Nolde would have troubles to maintain a conversation with Karl Schmidt-Rottluff (at the initiative of the latter, he joined the Dresden group “Bridge”), which owned great philosophical categories. It is hard to say if Nolde’s literature education came to reading of Victor von Scheffel’s forgotten long time ago historic novel “Ekkehard”. Max Vittier — ​a friend told him about Knut Hamsun, Maxim Gorky, August Strindberg, he read him aloud some of their works. Unlike many expressionists, Nolde was not a well-read man and from this angle corresponded to the Nazi ideal. Unlike A. Macke, F. Marc, he was not going to devote himself to the reform of theatrical language. During one of Berlin theatrical seasons Nolde would walk almost daily to Kammerspiele or to the Deutsches Theater, only to draw in the dim light actors’ footlights — ​ facial expressions, movement, mise en scene. He was deaf to the subject, acting technique of disclosure of image. Not by chance he worked even harder in various cabarets and variety shows. He was particularly attracted by the “new” expressionist dance with generating by it formula of expression of characteristic, sometimes grotesque movement, liberated from the music, from the canons of academic ballet. From now on, even fight can be changed into the dance. Unlike F. Mark, Nolde did not complain about the need to release the image of contemporary from a variety of masks, hiding it. Unlike E. Barlach, to which Nolde — ​almost countrymen — ​had a special liking, he was not tormented by averaging the image of the modern educated European inhabitant. Nolde did not try to see the individuality in all the richness, complexity of its inner world. He is interested in the external and not internal. He conceived this world through the eyes, the desire to fix what he saw, love to saturated, sonorous color declared themselves in childhood. Masters’ credo was: “Colors — ​is power. The strength — ​that’s life”.

— 24 — Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya. “A Man-peasant”

Nolde’s father believed that the studies of art was an unworthy affair for a man, and his 17-year-old son on the edge of the world for centuries should, relying only on his own strength, go a long way to achieve the goals he had set. Many Expressionists started with the craft school, arts and crafts workshop with a way to easel. Nolde would learn the craft of wood carver in Flensburg (1884–1888). Throughout his life he would remember multifigured altar carved composition of the beginning of XVI century in the Marienkirche, with kirch crowning figure of Christ lifted on the 11-meter height. Exhibition of Applied Arts (1888) would allow Nolde get acquainted with the Catholic Munich. Afterwards would follow the work (1888–1889) at the company Ziegler and Weber’s factory, evening classes of Applied Arts in Karlsruhe attending, Berlin (1889– 1891) — ​with unemployment, odd jobs, finally, the largest furniture factory at the time, where he would draw arabesques, all kinds of ornaments, and finally an invitation to take the place of a teacher of drawing in the industrial and crafts Museum in St. Gallen, Switzerland (1892–1898). The unexpected success of the series of postcards “Fantasia.” would allow him to say goodbye to his hateful occupation. Munich Academy of Fine Arts would refuse him in admission, and Nolde would attend private schools, a few months in total he would be engaged in Julien Paris Academy; Louvre, Fontainebleau, Versailles, familiarity with the old and new art, but in it the school was not significant, it was only the artist with his characteristic vision of the world and its transforming into a work of art. In the future, a significant part of Nolde’s life and work would be connected, as for many other artists-expressionists, to challenging for him metropolis — ​Berlin, but with the coming of spring, he will be sent to the island of Alsen — ​fishing village Utenvarf where would be built a house by the artist’s sketch. Seebuel was home for him where he would live and work. The fact that many Nolde’s colleagues discovered “nature”, lost natural, for him it was a return to the sources brought him up. It is no coincidence that F. Hansen chose the name of his native village — ​Nolde as an alias, no accident, that working on the memories; he widely used local turns of speech, mixing dialects, categorically rejecting editing.

— 25 — Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya. “A Man-peasant”

When the border part of Schleswig-Holstein between Denmark and Germany with its Utenvarfom will go to Denmark (1921), Nolde acknowledges that “Germany draws” him while he “wanted to remain fidelity to his dear Schleswig-Holstein”. We have already mentioned that Kammerspiele and the Deutsches Theater, Berlin cabaret and variety shows played a role in Nolde’s works, but among his heroes we can find hurrying somewhere resident of the city, and the man sank to the bottom. However, they did not define the creative career of the artist. The Bible and the sea predominate and, of course, in the Nolde’s works the native landscape would take a very important place, dear to his heart home, flowers, garden, intimate interior. The artist, so fond of clean, bright, clear colors, at first, referring to the theme of the Motherland (the work of same name on canvas, 1901), his home, he makes it wonderfully soft, on the midtones, no daring, sharp lines — ​a bit veiled by swell cold smooth of water, withered verdure, impending gloomy sky, grounded mass of houses, outbuildings. Sadness and yearning for this corner of the earth, lost in the world, are in this Nolde’s work. A man who grew up in these conditions, perceiving the surrounding by his eyes, had to strive to see the world in all its diversity, but to see it from a certain initially obtained angle. Not to mention the mandatory for the artist France and Italy, were Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, of course, Denmark, with which Nolde was closely related by cognate ties, took place the participation in the medical and demographic Neoguinea German expedition of 1913– 1914 (one and a half years later via Moscow, Siberia, Manchuria, Korea, China, Japan to New Guinea). And everywhere Nolde would paint, draw. He did not like Moscow; it seemed carelessly rebuilt after 1812, although he should have acknowledged that it “has given him and his companions a lot of beauty”. He was impressed by the Kremlin, Palace, the building of the food stores, churches with unusual for a Protestant architecture, with many worshipers, priests, incense, choir boys, atmosphere of detachment from the mundane fuss. For Nolde Russians are “difficult and serious people”, the artist needed time to understand them, but he had none. Anyway, the “Nordic” cast of mind and soul of Siberians could not leave him indifferent. F. Nolde’s pencil drawing of three Siberians strikes by

— 26 — Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya. “A Man-peasant”

its surprising perfection of laconic language and striking verified accents, beyond which is a strongly marked specificity of a particular trait. Pinning hopes on France, Nolde wrote that it gave him not much. Manet, Daumier, Van Gogh, Gauguin would remain the greatest French masters… Renoir’s and Pissaro’s canvases would be excessively sugary. The French merit consists in the fact that “in the last century they have proved the possibility of the appearance of a large modern art next to the old one”. In Italy, as in no other country was doing badly, Nolde hostile took the Italian Renaissance, which imposed “sugary Biblical art” on the world (he contrasted it with folksy, loud-voiced, unkempt art). Gothic wooden sculpture of the Cathedral of Hamburg with its fearlessness in the face of suffering, dressed in grotesque forms, filled with higher truth, and not the beauty, was nearer to Nolde. He was struck by the British Museum, the National Gallery in London with their number of works of the highest level — ​Turner, Gainsborough, Reynolds, and, of course, Holbein and Rembrandt. According to Nolde, British, Scandinavians and Germans reached purest expression in the works of their great masters. There were Barcelona, ​​Granada, Madrid, Toledo, Madrid again. Spain has struck him by the unusual architecture, presence of Moorish principles in it. In Murillo’s, Ribera’s and Goya’s paintings Nolde was struck by the contrast between black and white — ​and the majestic and austere, and tragic in its expressiveness, completeness. He felt an interchange in the understanding of nature, in the absence of fear of the ugly in the old German and Spanish masters’ works. For Nolde El Greco was not enough Spanish and he felt another blood in him. Peculiar man, peculiar artist, he chooses his own special way in the art. Of course, he could not find a common language with the “apprentices” of the group “The Bridge” (1906–1907, Dresden), as such, who did not recognize the right to make an individual “handwriting”. Nolde would consider his enrollment in the ranks of the Expressionists as an intellectuals’ fiction. Although he had a surprisingly clean, local, bright color inherent to Expressionists, he also would be working hard over the woodcut. Nolde would give “Nordic tone” to this color only. Having visited Palau (New Guinea, 1913), he would say that “the tropics

— 27 — Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya. “A Man-peasant”

are not saturated with colors such as commonly believed. The only people, birds and fish were colored. Sunset … could be great in their orgies of color, but only for a few minutes … In cool areas of our northern countries … everything is much more multicolored”. If for a person of a “Nordic” turn “Bridge” was too “internationalist”, then even more unacceptable was the “Blue Rider”, multinational by its nature and being drawn towards the language of abstract and musical forms Nolde’s viewpoint. He broke off with the “New Secession”, “attacked” in the press “Secession”, headed by Max Liebermann and representing the art of yesterday. Nolde thought about those with whom and in what gallery to exhibit his works. From the beginning German expressionism was quite multifaceted, and Nolde would emphasize his “nordness” like the artists of the “Bridge”, “Blue Rider”, Rhine group, he would not accept the epoch of Gründer in Germany, as they have, he would perhaps even more loudly protest by all his creativity against the offensive machine. But Nolde would search for the Promised Land not in the slurred future of Christian communism in Tolstoy’s understanding or at no less utopian idea of a dematerialized era. Having been to Palau, having worked there like a madman, he would declare that primitive people live only there, even cannibals are “real people”. Their destruction by beautiful words, pretty civilized Europeans was the machinations of the Devil”. Such form of visions of the future also existed in the German expressionism, like the distant past, which allowed Nolde throw a bridge to Nazism. However, rejecting the present, the artists of the “Bridge” — ​Kirchner, Heckel, and Nolde would start to speak about the fact that the time of creation of a new German school of fine arts, equal to the school of the German Renaissance has come. From this perspective, Kirchner would speak about Holbein, Cranach, Beham brothers. Nolde would name the era of Grünewald, Holbein, Durer. In 1908, in one of his letters he would speak about the formation of the “second great period in the history of German art”.3 Of course, during rather complicated and romantic for Germany 20s Nolde would be far from any politic and cultural battles.

— 28 — Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya. “A Man-peasant”

With the Nazis’ coming to power, Nolde, Kirchner would believe that the time of “high German art”, “new German art” has come. In 1935, Kirchner, one of the founders of “The Bridge”, would claim that “his heart is German, his art is German, and he feels himself as the representative of the new German art”, in 1938 he admitted that he was proud that among the persecuted and destroyed by Nazi works art there were some of his ones. Up to the end Nolde would defend his right to the recognition as a genuine German artist, but to no avail. However, the confiscated part of his works was returned, he was not allowed to work only in 1941. The ideas of the great national school revival were not enough. The theme of Nazi art and Nolde requires a special discussion. In structure of the imperial chamber of art were included 1000 artists (400 “degenerate” were excluded), not all of them, based on ancient tradition, like A. Breker, aimed to the creation of a new aesthetic form in Germany, they relied, apparently, on domestic Renaissance traditions, on the tradition of Biedermeier, read again. Of course, the biblical scenes were not acceptable, perhaps, the lack of pathos principles for all the brightness of colors in Nolde’s rural landscapes, his flowers, sea? Surrounded by the associates by “faith”, Nolde was a stranger in the art. But even stranger he would feel himself in conditions of 1946, a stranger as a citizen and as an artist. He will remain in the western zone of occupation, in the art sphere, thoughtless followed the “international modern”, abstract art, hurrying to join the general flow of its development. There would be also remembered that such an alien to Nolde “Blue Rider” came from Munich. Maybe the “man-peasant”, presenting his watercolor to terminally ill Borchert, asked to understand him?

ENDNOTES 1 Emil Nolde. Mein Lieben. Vorwart von Manfred Renther und einem Nachwort von Martin Urban. Köln. Dumont-Verlag. 2008. S. 8. Subsequent Nolde’s statements are quoted from the named above book of 2008 edition.

— 29 — Zinaida S. Pishnovskaya. “A Man-peasant”

2 Diplomat auf dem heissen Boden. Tagebuch des KSA Botschaftess William B. Dodd in Berlin 1933–1938. Hrsg. Von E. und Martha Dodd mit einer Einführung von Chrales A. Beard. B. Verlag der Nation 6 Auflage. S. 219–220. 3 Manifeste Manifeste 1905–1933. Schriften deutscher Künstler des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderste Band I gesammelt und hrsg. Von Diether Schmidt. Verlag der Kunst. Dresden. S. 67. 4 In der letzte Stunde. 1933–1945. Schriften deutscher Künstler … Band II. S. 75, 151.

— 30 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

Vladimir F. Shukhov historian of architecture member of Moscow Union of Artists Chair of DOCOMOMO Russia president of Shukhov Tower Foundation e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia MOST SIGNIFICANT MODERN MONUMENTS IN RUSSIA AND THEIR CONDITION. PHENOMENON OF THE RUSSIAN AVANT- GARDE (MOSCOW ARCHITECTURAL SCHOOL OF 1920S). MAIN PROBLEMS OF CONSERVATION

The most interesting and significant contribution of Russia to the development of the world’s architecture is the Russian architecture of the 20–30th years of the XX century. With all its disadvantages the Russian revolution opened the widest possibilities for the creation of the brand new works of art and, of course, for the actually revolutionary solutions in the field of architecture. The new ideology demanded the creation of the new public and living spaces. Along with the Russian architects, such as Konstantin Melnikov, Ivan Nikolaev, Vladimir Tatlin, Vesnin brothers and others, the outstanding foreign architects, including Le Corbusier, worked in Russia. Among the entire variety of authors and their projects a special attention, of course, deserves Konstantin Melnikov with his Rusakov (see Figure 1) and Burevestnik clubs, Bakhmetevsky lorry garage (Moscow, Obraztsova street, Konstantin Melnikov — ​Vladimir Shukhov, 1926), passenger bus garage (Moscow, Novoryazanskaya street, Konstantin Melnikov — ​Vladimir Shukhov, 1926–1929) and, of course, his famous house-studio of the cylindrical form. A special attention deserves the USSR pavilion built according to Konstantin

— 31 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

1. Konstantin Melnikov. Rusakov club, Moscow 1929. Photo — ​Moscow Department of Culture

Melnikov’s project for Paris exhibition in 1925. The administrative building constructed according to Le Corbusier’s project (Moscow, office building of Tsentrsoyuz, 1928–1936) (see Figure 2) is the biggest building of such type among the architect’s creative works. The famous Narkomfin house of architect M. Ya. Ginzburg (Moscow, 1930) (see Figure 3). The workers settlements and sanatoriums in various cities of Russia. The Maslennikova factory communal kitchen built according to Ekaterina Maksimova’s project (Samara 1930–1932). The printing house according to El Lissitzky project (Moscow 1930–1932). The Uralmash water tower (White Tower) built according to architect M. V. Reyscher’s project (Ekaterinburg 1928–1931). And, of course, the famous radio tower “Shukhov tower” on Shabolovka street in Moscow (1919–1922) (see Figure 4). At the moment of erection and long after that the tower was the highest structure in Eastern Europe and Asia, and due to its

— 32 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

2. Le Corbusier’s office building of Tsentrsoyuz, Moscow 1928–1936. Photo — ​ Sergei Arseniev architectural-engineering solutions it became the model to emulate in the XXI century. The phenomenon of the Russian avant-garde architecture formed under the influence of the Moscow higher school of architecture and art which today is widely known by the name of VKHUTEMAS. This school is talked about in the context of professional activity of the artists and architects who also worked in other institutes, but who had creative contacts. In the center of attention is Nikolai Ladovsky, creator of the introductory course on the architectural composition who taught along with many authoritative Moscow architects-utilitarians, such as Alexander Kuznetsov, Vesnin brothers and others. The higher school of architecture and art in the soviet Russia had a decisive influence on the formation of the avant-garde architecture. This school originated in the Mossovet architectural studio, where Ivan Zholtovsky, Ivan Rylsky, Alexey Shusev taught, and further developed

— 33 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

3. M. Ya. Ginzburg, Narkomfin house, Moscow 1930. Photo — ​Vladimir Shukhov as part of the Free artistic studios established on the basis of the former Moscow college of painting, sculpture and architecture and Stroganov college of technical drawing. At that time there formed two innovatory training studios of Nikolai Ladovsky and Ilia Golosov (he worked with Konstantin Melnikov). From 1921 the whole training complex was called the Higher artistic-technical studios (VKHUTEMAS), and from 1927 — ​the Higher artistic-technical institute (VKHUTEIN), which in 1930 was discontinued. Till 1930 in Moscow also functioned the architectural faculty of the Moscow higher technical school — ​MVTU (Moscow institute of civil engineers — ​MIGI) — ​under the guidance of Alexander Kuznetsov. Viktor Vesnin, Moisei Ginzburg and others taught there, and more attention was given to the engineering part of the business than in VKHUTEMAS-VKHUTEIN, where the important advantage was that one Institution of Higher Education integrated the future architects, printers, painters, ceramists, craftsmen on the artistic working of metal, wood, etc. But in 1930 the separate Institutions of Higher Education were established on all the lines of profession, including the Moscow architectural-structural institute (ASI) and then — ​the Moscow architectural institute (MAI). The reason of reorganization was the government’s fear of the student unrests which were prepossessed by the democratic atmosphere formed at that time. In the same 1930 many non-governmental organizations were also disbanded — ​“Old Moscow”

— 34 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

committee, Society for the study of Russian manor and others, and some of their members were repressed. A strong influence on the development of the innovatory architectural ideas was exerted by the scientific Institute of artistic culture (INHUK) which was established in 1920 within the Department of fine arts of Narkompros on the basis of the early formed group of the artists-painters (Council of craftsmen), among whom was Vasily Kandinsky who was the first to head its directorate. Many innovatory principles of the form-generation, which exerted influence on the pedagogical system of VKHUTEMAS, also took shape in the works of the “Zhivskulptarkh” organization, the members of which strived to find ways for the development of art through the fusion of arts (the initial name was “Sinskulptarkh”). The leading role was played there by Nikolai Ladovsky (see Figure 5). A specific attention he devoted to the dynamics of the forms and simple volumes, which the viewer “cannot disintegrate”, but which together form the complex compositional structures. At the very same time Ilia Golosov strived to formulate the universal laws of architectural composition without leaving ways for chaos. Both architects were just united by their interest to the dynamic forms, which were vividly manifested in their own projects. However, unlike Ladovsky Ilia Golosov emphasized “the organic link of the architectural form with the design and main idea of the structure”. A significant point in Ladovsky’s system was the designing of models, which the students made from clay. The whole work started from this and the plans and facades of the structures were drawn afterwards. Many Ladovsky’s learners worked under his guidance further on within the United studios — ​OBMAS (1921–1923), where Nikolai Dokuchaev and Vladimir Krinsky were on the payroll as chiefs. The “abstractive” task there was the determination of geometric properties of the form, spatial expressiveness, mechanical-and-physical properties (mass and weight), design, dynamics, rhythm and proportions. These themes were simultaneously worked also as “the production assignments” (small industrial facilities). In 1923, there was established the Main department of VKHUTEMAS which prepared specialists of all the specialties, but not only architects,

— 35 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

4. Vladimir Shukhov, radio tower “Shukhov tower”, Moscow 1922. Photo — ​ Sergei Arseniev

— 36 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

on the subjects common for everybody: “Space” (Nikolai Ladovsky), “Graphic Arts” (Alexander Rodchenko), “Color” (Alexander Vesnin and Lyubov Popova, further on — ​Gustav Klutsis). In the estimation of Selim Khan-Magomedov the subject “Space” was the key one in the architectural-artistic education unlike the other subjects. He saw this as the major difference of the Moscow Institution of Higher Education from the German Bauhaus, which had an affect on the development of the object design worldwide. In 1960s the course of modeling according to Ladovsky’s system was resumed in the Moscow architectural institute (MARKHI) by Vladimir Krinsky and his learners Mikhail Turkus and Ivan Lamtsov. But one should not forget that Vladimir Tatlin also worked at VKHUTEMAS, moreover exactly as a designer, and his creative work could not but have an affect on the architects (see Figure 6). The specific “plastic” method of the form-generation, which reflected the concept of “rationalism”, set forth by Ladovsky, supposed the “rational” perception of the architectural form (the term was used only within that epoch). The compositions from simple geometrical bodies (cube, parallelepiped, prism, pyramid, cylinder, cone) Ladovsky equaled to the refusal from the architectural orb. This artistic process developed not without the influence of the European trends: cubism, futurism, expressionism, which disturbed the traditional architectural logic (see Figure 7). The other method of form-generation — ​“constructivism” — ​ was manifested in the works of students from the senior classes of VKHUTEMAS-VKHUTEIN, done under the guidance of the well- known architects-utilitarians and also in MIGI–MVTU under the guidance of Kuznetsov and his learners (George Vegman, Alexander Vlasov, Ivan Nikolaev, brothers Boris, Vladimir and Gennady Movchan, and others), who orientated on the new construction technologies. Relatively recently an interesting detail was found out — ​at the same time some of them attended classes at VKHUTEMAS as well (Vegman, for example). This fact suggests the mutual influence of the two architectural Institutions of Higher Education, as the number of teachers combined their work in these two Institutions. In 1923, Ladovsky established the Association of new architects (ASNOVA), which was joined by his learners. In 1925, there was

— 37 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

5. N. Ladovsky. Temple of the people communication. Experimental project in the Zhivskulptarkh group,1919. Image — MARCHI (Moscow Architecture Institute) museum

— 38 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia formed the Union of modern architects (OSA) more known abroad than ASNOVA thanks to the magazine “Modern architecture”, which Alexander Vesnin edited together with Moisei Ginzburg — ​the principal theorist of that grouping. Ginzburg called the works of his like-minded fellows the “constructivism” (earlier the term was used in the context of creations of the avant-garde artists, such as Vladimir Tatlin, Alexander Rodchenko and others) and criticized hard the creations of the ASNOVA members as “formalism”. Despite heated discussions between the teachers, projects of the VKHUTEMAS and VKHUTEIN students were often more extravagant than their own. That sort of the project is the project of the Lenin Institute of library science (diploma of student Ivan Leonidov) or project of the Komintern building (diploma of student Lidia Komarova), which became so much famous as the works of their chief Alexander Vesnin. The creative method of the VKHUTEMAS members to a large extent correlated with the sculpture works of Malevich and his learners in the Vitebsk art school, who established the union “Confirmers of the new art” (UNOVIS). The works of the best learners of Malevich, Ilia Chashnik and Nikolai Suetin were exhibited in Moscow, and his own creations of the same kind in the form of pyramids and pillars Malevich called at first “planity” and then — ​“arkhitektony”. Though he did not set a task of remaking them into the concrete buildings or monuments, he talked about architecture as of the most progressive field of artistic creativity in that time. While working with Malevich in Vitebsk, Lazar Lisitsky (architect by education) created the graphic “prouny” (projects of confirmation of the new). It is worthy of note that he was the member of the Dutch group De Stijl, published his creations at the West, decorated the soviet exhibitions, as well as taught in VKHUTEMAS-VKHUTEIN and intercommunicated a lot with the members of OSA grouping — ​ constructivists. By this example it can be seen that many craftsmen of the avant-garde worked in 1920s in cooperation or in the form of creative dialogue. The reflections of philosophers of that time corresponded to the searches of the new architectural language. It is no coincidence that

— 39 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

6. VKHUTEMAS studio G. Klutsasa, “ Volume and color”. Image — MARCHI (Moscow Architecture Institute) museum

Vladimir Favorsky, while being the VKHUTEMAS rector (1923–1926), invited the outstanding philosopher, scientist-physicist, priest Pavel Florensky to give a course of lectures on the perspective, which (as the educational subject) he taught himself. Just as Ladovsky, Florensky talked about the properties of geometry of the architectural form, its dynamics and statics, spatial movement, about the duration of comprehension of the artwork and condition of the viewer. That is to say, he developed the idea about searching a sort of “genetic code” of the artistic decision and, in particular, of the space arrangement. The expression, specific to the creations of the Moscow architectural school teachers and students, was partly induced by the absence of the latest construction technologies. The impossibility to implement the projects facilitated the stretch of their imagination without limitations. The search of the new architectural ideas was as well caused by the excessive social ambitions, what is distinctly shown by the projects of

— 40 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

7. Students I. Lamtsov, V. Petrov, N. Krasilnikov. Production assignments. Water tower. Chief N. Ladovsky. 1921. Image — MARCHI (Moscow Architecture Institute) museum the spatial structures meant for the buildings of the far future and also for the space objects. Unfortunately, the current condition of many mentioned objects may be called critical. Some of them are not subject to scientific restoration and are doomed for demolition or serious reconstruction, and part of the monuments are simply destroyed by the time and nonobservance by the owners of their protection liabilities. As an exception, modern Russia knows solitary examples of the competent scientific conservation and subsequent restoration of a number of monuments of Modernist architecture. The restoration of the library building constructed in the city of Vyborg in 1933–1935 according to the project of the famous Finnish architect Alvar Aalto (see Figure 8) may be considered as one of the examples of such a successful preservation of architectural heritage of that period. The initiative of

— 41 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia

8. Alvar Aalto library building, Vyborg 1933–1935. Photo — ​Vladimir Shukhov activists and scientific community of Finland for the preservation and subsequent restoration of the library in 1992 was backed by the activists and scientific community of Russia, which enabled to compel the two countries to decide on allocating the necessary funds and on commencing the work. The work was carried out during the period from 1994 to 2013 and was an exemplar of scientific restoration of architectural objects of that period and of implementing the joint international projects on the examination and preservation of Mordenist architecture. The restoration and adaptation to the new function of the Rusakov club in Moscow (see Figure 1) built according to the project of Konstantin Melnikov in 1929 may be considered as another successful example. In this project the commissioners of the work were the theater under the direction of Roman Viktyuk and the Moscow City Government. The work was carried out during the period of 2012–2015 and was repeatedly stopped due to violation of the scientific restoration requirements and attempts of the building owner to make significant modifications in its architecture and design. The skillful joint actions of the Moscow City Government, theater management and specialists in the field of the architectural monuments’ preservation and restoration managed to preserve and in certain cases to restore the lost historical look of the building and at the same time to adapt it to the modern requirements

— 42 — Vladimir F. Shukhov. Most significant modern monuments in Russia imposed on the theater spaces. The building is fitted with all the necessary engineering and technical systems and equipment. The following problems may be reckoned among the major ones that emerge during the preservation of architectural objects of this period: 1. Incomprehension and often complete non-admission of architecture of this period by the state 2. Absence of a clear legal framework and, as a result, non- fulfillment of their protection liabilities by the owners of monuments of the architectural heritage 3. Passive and low level of public conscience 4. Lack of education and incompetence 5. Complexity and high cost of work on the scientific restoration and further exploitation 6. Inconformity of the original materials of the buildings with the present-day safety requirements Only steady dialogue and practical interaction between public organizations, specialists in the history of architecture and restoration, owners of the objects of architectural heritage and state authorities may result in the preservation and further economic use of the objects of the Modernist architectural heritage. One of the key questions arising during the coordination of construction-restoration work is the question of technical re-equipment and of bringing the building in conformity with the modern standards of safety, and in this case the protectors of architectural heritage and restorers should make compromises and find new innovatory solutions.

REFERENCES 1. Khan-Magomedov S.O., Pioneers of Soviet Architecture, Moscow 1987, p. 618. 2. Khan-Magomedov S.O., Nikolay Ladovsky. Heroes of Avant-Garde, Moscow 2011, p. 304. 3. Ovsyannikova Elena, Shukhov Vladimir, Phenomenon of the Russian Avant-garde. Moscow Architectural School of the 1920s, DOCOMOMO journal for an architect training № 49, Lisbon 2014, p. 22–27.

— 43 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

Katerina S. Kadzova lecturer Sergey Andriaka Moscow State Specialized School of Water Colour e-mail: [email protected] Mosсow, Russia TO THE PROBLEM OF STUDY AND PRESERVATION OF THE MONUMENTS OF MONUMENTAL AND DECORATIVE PLASTICS OF OSSETIANS’ CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN IDEAS IN THE CONTEXT OF SOSLANBEK EDZIEV’S CREATIVITY

Summary: The preservation of cultural heritage of a nation is a necessary aspect for existence and flourishing of any ethnos. In this connection the study, fixation, introduction to the scientific turn and professional restoration of safe objects of Ossetin’s monumental and decorative plastic is an actual theme. Particular interest in this sphere is dedicated to the creative heritage of original master, forerunner of Soslanbek Ediev’s contemporary Ossetian sculpture. This article is dedicated to these problems. Keywords: Tsyrt, Ossetia, Soslanbek Edziev, memorable signs and headstones, Ossetian sculpture. There is an idea that it is possible to learn more about the people, their culture and traditions “having set off to the places of burial of the dead”. When it comes to ancient traditions, in which the archaic ancestors laid the genetic code of an entire nation, this phrase is especially true. Attitude to death and the memory of the deceased person preservation stays for centuries as an important part of any culture. Exactly in the traditions and rituals of the funeral cult concentrated the outlook of whole ethnic groups. Nowadays, equally with the search of identity of various monuments of culture is raised a question of study and preservation of the objects

— 44 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

1. Tombstone from the village Dzivgis. Kurtat gorge. North Ossetia-Alania. Photo by Katerina Kadzova

— 45 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

2. Tombstone semi-underground vault in a dual-chamber. Hanaz. Presumably, the work by Soslanbek Edzieva. Uruhskoe gorge. North Ossetia-Alania. Photo by Ruslan Tavasiev

— 46 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments of Ossetians’ monumental and decorative plastics, which includes memorial signs-pillars and headstones, so-called “tsyrts” (Osset. Kængæ dur). However, despite the acuity of problem, the degree of these constructions destruction is critic, a part of heritage is lost each day because of incorrect preservation or unprofessional restoration. Memorial signs and headstones of Alans’ descendants deeply reflect the Christian and pagan syncretism of past centuries, historic formation of nation as a whole, and the preservation of this part of cultural heritage of a nation seem to be probably more important than any active propaganda and support of actual problems of contemporary art and up-to-the-minute life. At present time the traditions of Ossetians’ ancient funeral rites stay similar to the archaic ones. V. F. Miller [6], N. F. Takoeva [7], B. A. Kaloev [5], Z. D. Gagloyeva [3], A. B. Kokoeva [4], L. A. Chibirov [10] A. H. Hadikova [9] and others devoted their labors to the issue of identity. V. H. Tmenov [8] appealed to the study of Northern Ossetia medieval architecture. From these studies, in particular, it is clear that the system of organization of burial places changed over the centuries, their structure transformed, and stylistic features of funeral monuments evolved. In the early Middle Ages a large number of types of burial was represented in the Caucasus — ​ground burials with interments situated in simple pits (often covered by a plate) and stone coffins, stone vaults (underground, semi-underground and aboveground), linings (single or double), catacombs (earthen or rock). In its turn, the analysis of burials and graveside steles in the context of Ossetian traditions demonstrates that this enumeration did not exhaust the variety of Ossetia funeral constructions, whose system was utilized in the period of Middle ages. Solitary standing pillar “tsyrt”, dating from the Alans’ culture — ​Scythians, equally with the roadside and monumental purpose, was used in the funeral structure from the beginning of the XIX century. These monuments were a prototype of all Soviet funeral constructions. “Tsyrt” is a vertically standing stone, reminiscent Paleolithic menhirs by its architectonic, was significantly inferior in height to the ancient megalithic structures. Originally it embodied male image, according to

— 47 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

3. Men’s tombstone in the village Karman-Sindzikau. Presumably, the work by Soslanbek Edzieva. Digoriya. North Ossetia-Alania. Photo by Arcady Hadzaragov

— 48 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

4. Tombstone in the village Karman-Sindzikau. Presumably, the work by Soslanbek Edzieva. Digoriya. North Ossetia-Alania. Photo by Arcady Hadzaragov

— 49 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

5. Men’s Tombstone in the village Sindzikau. Presumably, the work by Soslanbek Edziev. Digoriya. North Ossetia-Alania. Photo by Arcady Hadzaragov

— 50 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

6. Tombstone for a Kaitukov Family in the village Sindzikau by Temuruk and Tembulat Temiraevs. North Ossetia-Alania. Photo by Arcady Hadzaragov

— 51 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

7. Tombstone by Soslanbek Edziev. North Ossetia-Alania. Photo by Alex L. researchers. From the XIX century began to be executed also as female headstones. It is defined by the similar traits with monumental and sacred monuments of other nations. Horizontally the stone is divided into several (usually three) parts, which represented the ideological representations of the world structure (by the elements) or a separate fact, for example, male. In this case, a memorial stone included the symbolic designation of the attributes of men’s suits, objects related to the life and human activities. The upper part has traditionally been the seat of the solar sign, which most likely includes more profound philosophical connection with the “eye of human soul”. Today a great deal of such monuments keeps safe on the territory of Ossetia. Many of them are included in the Unified State Register of Cultural Heritage of the Russian Federation [11]. However, the problem is that a historic reference of majority of them is absent. In its turn, in the context of the interactive project “Lost Ossetia” organized about one and a half year ago, realizes the work on the written consolidation of information about the monuments of material and spiritual culture of Northern and Southern territories of Ossetia [12].

— 52 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

The program of the enterprise is aimed to the fixation of safe heritage by the archive and historic method. All this makes it somewhat limited and narrow binding of information about these monuments. It should therefore be actively involved in the work of art historians, to expand the understanding of the ancient roots and traditions of the nation, using figurative and stylistic analysis of the evolution and transformation of these buildings for centuries or decades until they are not completely lost. Among the safe tsyrts a particular place take memorable signs — ​ headstones of Ossetian sculptor Soslanbek Edziev’s creative heritage. He is named as a forerunner of modern Ossetian sculpture. He has never received a formal artistic education, but professionals regard his heritage with respect, and art lovers feel a genuine interest. The personality of this man is surrounded by the legends and the facts from his life and creative work make us sure that he has been “kissed by God”. He is truly “nugget” of his time, and his name can be put without any doubt in the row of his famous contemporaries Marc Chagall and Nico Pirosmanishvili. Soslanbek Edziev is an outstanding Ossetian sculptor, who lived in the last third of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. From brief and scrappy evidences about his biography is known that Soslanbek Edziev has taken over the treatment with stone from his father, to whom many villagers made the requests of construction. Learned literacy in his native village, as a boy he moved to another village (Sadon) where he continued his life with the work of bricklayer and plasterer. The first experience that has brought him fame in the stone carving became the execution of funeral steles, historically assigned the title “Tsyrt.” Exactly with Soslanbek Ezdiev’s creativity is related the idea of a successive transition of commemorative pillars in the context of secular burials. In 2015 Ossetia has celebrated the 150th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding master. Trade fairs and events organized in connection with this date are intended to arouse interest not only to the identity of the artist, but also to cause a wave of social indifference to the problem of preservation of cultural monuments.

— 53 — Katerina S. Kadzova. To the problem of study and preservation of the monuments

The study, in particular, of Soslanbek Edziev’s creation dedicated his work Ossetian art historian Anatoly Dzantiyev [2]. A book “Soslanbek Edzity” was recently published by two authors — ​Cromwell Biazarti and Lyudmila Byazrova [1]. Their study, which began in 1980, culminated in the publication only in 2013. However, despite the circumstances, Edziev’s monuments of creative heritage, which today are lost and were recorded only in old photographs, are included in the book. This makes this edition unique and proves once again that the problem of the preservation, study and introduction into the scientific turn of Ossetians’ monumental and decorative plastic, including the diversity of safe tsyrts, is acute for the specialists.

REFERENCES 1. Biazarti, K., Byazrova, L. 2013. Soslanbek Edzity. Vladikavkaz. 2. Dzantiyev, A.A. 1979. Soslanbek Edziev. Leningrad: Artist of the RSFSR. 3. Gagloyeva, Z.D. 1974. “The cult of the dead of Ossetians”, News YUONII, vol. XVIII, Tbilisi, pp.63–74. 4. Kokoeva A. B. 1980. “From the history of funerary rites of Ossetians”, News YUONII, vol. XXIV, Tbilisi, pp 28–41. 5. Kaloev, B.A. 1984. “Ethnogenetic focus funeral customs and rites of the Ossetians”, Caucasian ethnographic collection. vol. VIII, Moscow. 6. Miller, V.F. 1887. Ossetian etudes. Moscow 7. Takoeva, N.F. 1957. Burial and funeral rites of Ossetia in XIX century. Moscow 8. See: Tmenov. W.H. 1984. Medieval historical and architectural monuments of North Ossetia. Ordzhonikidze. 9. Hadikova, A.H. 2003. Traditional etiquette of the Ossetians. St. Petersburg. 10. Chibirov, L.A. 1984. The oldest layers of the spiritual culture of Ossetians. Tskhinvali. 11. United State Register of Cultural Heritage of the Russian Federation. Objects of cultural heritage [official site]. URL http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru/monuments. php?id=1500000665 (the date of appeal: 05.11.2015). 12. Lost Ossetia. Multimedia map of cultural monuments and abandoned villages of North and South Ossetia [official site] http://lostosetia.ru/ (the date of appeal: 05.13.2015).

— 54 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

Elena A. Borovskaya Doctor of arts, candidate of architecture (PhD), Professor Repin State academic institute of painting, sculpture and architecture Art Historian Association member (AIS) e-mail: [email protected] St.Petersburg, Russia N. P. SOBKO’S UNPUBLISHED WORK. TO THE CREATIVE PORTRAIT OF AN OUTSTANDING HISTORIOGRAPHER OF RUSSIAN ART

N. P. Sobko is well known, first of all, as a historiographer of Russian art. At the same time he as a critique1, as an eminent figure of the artistic life of his time, he was given clearly insufficient attention in art historic literature. Even in O. S. Ostroy’s2 rather detailed work a number of moments of his biography and creative life did not find its lightening. In the analysis of its creative heritage the fundamental attention is given to the bibliographical works and “Vocabulary of Russian artists”. But also other Sobko’s materials (not only bibliographical and not only destined for the “vocabulary” materials, published and archive, but also prepared by him catalogues of traveling exhibitions, his articles and monographies3) are widely used by art historians. That is why, in our opinion, it would be rather important to make up certain notion of such outstanding figure for art historic of Russian art studies. In this article we will turn to a practically unexplored aspect of Sobko’s life and creative work — ​to his activity in the Society of the Encouragement of Arts (OPH), and more subjective — ​to his unpublished work on the history of St. Petersburg drawing school, administrated by OPH and the editor’s work published under the auspices of the Society of journal “Art and artistic industry” encouragement.

— 55 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

N. Sobko received the position of OPH secretary since the beginning of 1884, and almost all subsequent years he was closely associated with the activities of the Society and its publications. Although the task of recreating full N. Sobko’s biography steps beyond our investigation, nevertheless, we considered it necessary to give some biographical information, and to some extent clarify the existing ideas about Sobko as an art historian and critique. Existing materials devoted to Sobko (encyclopedic articles, comments to various publications, containing his name, as well as the above mentioned O. Ostroy’s article), present him as an art personality of democrat direction, familiar to V. V. Stasov. Such characteristic seems to be correct but it looks too generalized. Rather detailed information about Sobko’s creative biography contains in the author’s preface to the first volume of his main work — ​ “Vocabulary of Russian artists, sculptors, painters, architects, drawers, gravers, litographs, medaliers, mosaicists, icon-painters, moulders, chisellers, etc. from ancient times to the present day (XI - XIX centuries.)”, named by the author as a “History of my book in connection with the works of my predecessors4”. Meaningful assessment of his life and work is presented in the obituary of Sobko written by V. Stasov and Stasov’s speech at his funeral5. Nikolay Petrovich Sobko was born in 1851 in the family of professor of the Institute of Railway Engineers Pyotr Ivanovich Sobko, prominent railway and construction engineer. In a number of guides you can find an indication that N. Sobko graduated from the Institute of Civil Engineers, but in the “History of my book …” this fact is not mentioned, but noted the acquaintance with N. P. Durov (“owner of a wonderful library of books and articles about Russia at various languages”) and the habitués of his “Fridays”, including D.A. Rovinskiy6. In 1869 N. Sobko traveled to Europe, where, according to his words, he “planned to compose his own summary directory in Russian, in alphabetical order, to all the works of art, scattered in different galleries, with biographical information about the artists7” — ​very ambitious and quite an impossible undertaking, witnessing, however, about the apparent failure of existing reference materials on art, especially Russian,

— 56 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

and a conscious effort to overcome the apparent backlog of Russian art historiography. Sobko devoted his creative life to the collection and systematization of necessary materials; he began with the extensive Russian translation of the German “Dictionary of Artists” by Mueller. V. Stasov, with whom Sobko met at the beginning of the 1870s, and whose support and friendliness he enjoyed throughout life, advised a young researcher to take the job. To the time of OPH Secretary Sobko already had a considerable fame as an art historian, bibliographer, an active participant in the artistic life, close to the Wanderers, who prepared several exhibition catalogs of the Society for Travelling Art Exhibitions. He also prepared a detailed catalog of the Russian art-department at the Paris World Exhibition in 1878 (the catalog has not been published, but the fact of its preparation, as well as Sobko’s participation in the selection of exhibits were well known in art circles). In the same 1878 Sobko made another trip to Europe, during which he supplemented the information for one of his works — ​“The ancient images of Russian tsars and their embassies abroad”. At the turn of 1870–1880s Sobko has prepared a series of Russian artists’ biographies for the Meyer’s German art dictionary (“Allgemeines Künstler-Lexicon”), published several articles in national and foreign periodicals and reference books, including articles on L. Karavak (the first detailed publication about the artist), Perov, Vereshchagin, and others. At the same time, until the assuming office of the OPH Secretary, Sobko worked as a “volunteer” in the Public Library, actually as Stasov’s assistant. All of this extensive Sobko’s activity had the aim in preparation for his chief work — ​“The Vocabulary of Russian artists”. Generally speaking, the work done by N. Sobko for 30 years interrupted by his untimely tragic death, strikes in its scope and can not help but evoke a great respect. Half of the period of his artistic career N. Sobko took up a post of OPH secretary (from 1884 to 1900). The invitation of Sobko to the post of OPH Secretary was a successful “tactical move” for the Society of encouragement. Sobko has already had quite a great fame in artistic circles, and his work as a critic and art historian showed his conscientiousness, thoroughness, rare vigor and

— 57 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

striking ability to work. Sobko’s proximity to the Wanderers, firstly, removed the possibility of accusations of OPH aristocracy and closure, and secondly, in the circumstances of the loss of former unity among the Wanderers, outlined by the mid 1880s, allowed to involve the artists, who experienced disappointment or dissatisfaction with the general state of affairs, or his own position in the Association of traveling exhibitions into the closer cooperation with OPH. Furthermore, the OPH Committee (as its supreme body) could justifiably believe that Sobko, flattered by an offered him post, would be less independent than D. V. Grigorovich who was in this position for almost twenty years. The duties, accepted by Sobko, meant participation in decision-making related to the activities of the Society, as well as the implementation of a number of administrative functions and the informal role of OPH and Drawing School historiographer. At this point we have to generally rate the unreleased N. Sobko’s work devoted to the Drawing school, stored in the Manuscript Department of the National Library (OR RNB) in St. Petersburg. In the vast N. P. Sobko’s Fund (Fund 708), to which apply many researchers of Russian art, contains over 1,300 files (items), and materials on the history of the Drawing School can be found in many of them. However, we will focus on the work, entitled on the front page as “History of Industrial Arts Education in Russia. Historical sketch of the St. Petersburg Drawing school for free-coming, administered by the Imperial Society for the Encouragement of Arts 1839–1889”, which Sobko prepared for publication in connection with the 50th anniversary of the institution. We will call this work (in contrast to the published short version)”large”; materials for it — ​both written and prepared for print layout and some proofreading galleys with author’s litters — ​are contained in several volume folders (storage units 23, 24, 25, 78, 126). Apparently, preserved lists give an incomplete picture of this work: in the report on the celebration of anniversary of the OPH Drawing School published in “Art news” (annex to the “Bulletin of Fine Arts”) contains references to the fact that during the celebration was “read a brief historical sketch of Drawing School by Sobko, Secretary of the Society (this work in its entirety constitutes in a volume of 531 pp.8)”.

— 58 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

And in A. S. Suvorin’s note in the “New time” is indicated that the list of names of students “takes 340 pages in Sobko’s book and each page contains at least a hundred names9”. The volume of materials stored in the Manuscript Department on the history of the school is much smaller, but perhaps some of them are in other archival files — ​we note once again, that Sobko’s archive is very extensive and far from being fully understood. Undoubtedly, Sobko’s “big” job contains the most complete and impeccably reliable materials on the history of the Drawing School in the first five — ​ten years of its existence. Unfortunately, many sources used by the author are not available, and detailed verification of cited by the researcher data would require a very laborious researches. So, Sobko had the opportunity to examine the necessary extent both of the Ministry of Finance archives (for almost two first decades of its work the school was controlled by the Ministry), mostly preserved to this day, and a complete archive of the school, including the now lost materials. It is beyond question that given in his work excerpts from archival documents are quite correct. We in no way impugn N. Sobko’s research conscientiousness, as, indeed, and none of the historians, art historians and bibliographs, who had to rely on this indefatigable adherent’s of Russian art published and unpublished materials10. At the same time, referring to Sobko’s “big” work, one should always remember that it is just not quite complete layout of a never published book. And it is not to the end read out by the author material to which are attached several sheets of slips and a few handwritten supplements. Thus, it is no wonder, that it is possible to detect certain discrepancies in N. Sobko’s data and, for example, in the data quoted by N. Makarenko11. These discrepancies, however, are usually unimportant. In the work there are also unresolved and not commented by author factual contradictions. However, the most important facts from the history of our schools have been established by other materials, which mostly confirmed a high level reliability of Sobko’s work as a historiographic source. When it comes to some generalizations and conclusions, we must acknowledge that in this part Sobko’s work requires a very critical view. Today it is difficult to judge why the study has not seen the light. Perhaps it is because Sobko, as it was repeatedly pointed out by his

— 59 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

contemporaries, developed at the same time a number of different directions — ​articles, indexes, catalogs, vocabularies. And in an effort to implement any of his ideas, he could postpone the completion of this work. Sobko’s work was timed to the 50th anniversary of the Drawing School, which at that time more than 30 years was under the patronage of the OPH and was the pride of the Society; in particular it concerned the role of the school in the development of art industry, to which OPH received a considerable attention. The publication of the book could unlikely require the unbearable financial costs. Even if Sobko did not have time to fully complete his work to the deadline, the publishing could still take place. However, the work was interrupted on the final stage. As far as we know, Sobko’s relationships with other OPH prominent figures were formed at the turn of 1880–1890s without any significant conflicts. Thus, the unknown subjective factor that could predetermine the fate of the publication is also cannot be taken into account. But it is impossible not to note the subjective factor in the maintenance of the labor, especially with regard to its conceptual aspects. The same “jubilee” character of the study had to affect the overall tone of the work, which can be characterized as not very critical, and sometimes frankly panegyric. We do not impugn the undoubted merits and achievements of the Drawing school — ​in fact, from the historical distance the significance of the school in the development of national art and art pedagogy seems to be even greater and more diverse than it was considered in 1880s. But the modern view discovers in the school’s history also a deep inner problematic, which, unfortunately, is not reflected in Sobko’s work; especially with respect to relations of the school with the artistic process of its time, its real content, positive aspects and its conflicts. And the difficulties that appeared in school life, Sobko inclined to reduce the extremely adverse external circumstances and subjective influences. Among the conceptual shortcomings of the analyzed labor we should note an obvious exaggeration of the role that Sobko assigned to the minister of finance Count E. F. Kankrin in the creation of the school. What could be the reason? It seems that the answer to this question concentrates many claims that can be addressed to the considered work. Once again, we are talking about an unfinished work; that is why

— 60 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

the considerations expressed below are in no way trying to discredit N. Sobko as the historiographer of Russian art, but they purpose a different object: sooner or later, this material will be drawn into the orbit of historic and art study, and we would like to warn future researchers about the necessity of a very balanced, critical, scientifically correct attitude to this source. Kankrin, who died in 1845, shortly before leaving the post of minister, by the end of the 1880s mythologized in the public consciousness. The period of his activity was called “the golden age of Russian finance”. Kankrin was perhaps the only statesman of his age, which was favorable both to conservative and liberal views; in general, the reign of Nikolay I was perceived as a “timeless” — ​the period of reaction, stagnation, spiritual depression, missed opportunities of economic and cultural development of Russia. However, during Alexander III reign, the state of society and social and economic situation in Russia also for obvious reasons did not entirely suit his contemporaries. Economic growth was accompanied, in particular, by the instability, reminiscent to “Kankrin’s reform”, focused on the stability of the financial system that contrasted (not always reasonably and rightly) to the minister of finance I. A. Vyshnegradskiy’s policy. The latter, in general, supported the OPH — ​for example, in establishing the suburban departments for the Drawing School. Veiled comparison of the current minister and the legendary Kankrin, in the questions where it was possible to trace the continuity of some of their positions, it was kind of a compliment to Vyshnegradskiy. Sobko was unlikely guided by such considerations, but he was either hardly fully free from the impact of public opinion in the part in which this opinion formed certain stereotypes of thinking of his era and prompted certain models of positioning on certain issues. However, another fact is more significant: Alexander III government paid, according to contemporaries, insufficient attention to the development of public education; in addition, significantly tightened estate restrictions in the education system (the infamous decree of 1887 “on the cooks’ children”). In the social and historical context of the late 1880s, an appeal to the origins of the Drawing School with its undoubted original democratism contained a very definite, although

— 61 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

somewhat veiled reproach to the authorities. Sobko tried as much as possible to mitigate this aspect of his work. At the same time, with exaggerated attention to Kankrin, founder and the first curator of the school K. H. Reyssig’s figure receded to the background12. Such interpretation was politically loyal, which certainly suited the Society of the Encouragement of Arts, which became, with the Reyssig’s departure, who was a patron of the Drawing School. In addition, Sobko could justifiably fear that the very situation of transition of the school under the OPH administration will show the last one not in the best light, and, compared with Reyssig’s wide scale person and activity next immediate directors of the school, and especially its director E. A. Sabaneev, would look much more modest. Similar causes can be seen also in the fact that Sobko strongly holds the thought of creation of a kind of industrial arts education (school network) on Kankrin’s initiative that took place in the 1840s. However, as it is seen today, “the spread of artistic and industrial education of the masses”, which was carried out, according to Sobko, as a result of “Count Kankrin’s worries” was short-lived. The idea of ​Reyssig’s unified methodical direction of similar schools also has not been implemented. Thus, Sobko’s implicit approval about Kankrin’s attempts to form a network of industrial and arts schools as a kind of whole educational structure clearly does not endure the criticism. Such incorrectness may be due to the fact that in the late 1880s, the problems of creating a system of industrial and arts education (with certain hopes pinned on the ministry of finance and the minister Vyshnegradsky) were widely discussed. The tendentiousness in the presentation of the material may have been intended to serve as the quickest positive resolution of the question due to a supposedly available precedent. Review of the history of the school for 50 years of its existence, even in purely factologic key, could not bring the attentive reader to the idea of the fact that over these years the system of public education in Russia did not receive necessary development and the system of industrial arts education and did not form. Undoubtedly, the role of the OPH also looked far from being perfect as it should have appeared in the anniversary edition.

— 62 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

If we turn to the initial period of the history of the Drawing School, then another explanation of underrepresentation of Reyssig’s role in the creation of the school and, respectively, the role of the school of “Reyssig’s period” in the development of national art the labor Sobko, can be artistic and aesthetic views prevailing in Russia in the 1880s. Reyssig’s aesthetic preferences affected the practical forming of his educational system, it was associated primarily with classicism. It is clear that Sobko, who was in the orbit of Stasov’s ideological influence, such artistic beliefs might seem retrograde. At the turn of 1880–1890s, under the conditions of the crisis of realism formation and recognition of the value of the classic approach to the plastic form and the traditional art pedagogic would be perceived as a retreat from the position of the Wanderers that was unacceptable for Sobko. OPH, also generally more conservatively oriented, prefers to avoid categorical designations of own aesthetic priorities, and more a confrontation with the Wanderers, which are gradually taking a more strong position in the artistic life. Largely, due to these circumstances also the fact of the study of history of Drawing School, attempted by Sobko, to a smaller extent affects issues of ideological and aesthetic content of the work and pedagogical principles of this institution. Preferential attention is paid to such issues like the number and composition of students, material and technical equipment of the educational process, the completion of the educational fund, the relationship of the school with the authorities, etc. The foregoing observations can be largely attributed to the section of Sobko’s labor concerning the decade from 1879 to 1889. Sobko’s personal involvement to fixed events (beginning of Sobko’s contacts with OPH is accounted about 1870–1880-ies) allows to talk about quite clearly expressed author’s position, which is due to both the system of art and aesthetic views itself and the position which Sobko agreed to take in OPH, that even the nature of his memoirs imparts to the material. This section represents approximately 30 pages of typesetting (including several type rages of corrected by author slips) and 7 sheets of handwritten additions (mostly biographical data about the teachers of the school), and it has a particular value as the testimony of an eyewitness and direct participant in many of the events described. And, of course, it requires

— 63 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work verification, particularly, as the author could not be impartial. The anniversary nature of the planned edition predestined special attention to the latest events of the time, which were served as the unconditioned achievements what, according to the author, must have witnessed as a steady progressive development of the school under the direction of OPH and not without its acting secretary’s participation. It is difficult to accuse N. Sobko in it, but this circumstance also can not be ignored. Perhaps some lost fragments change a bit the character of the material presentation. But in this case, our assumption about discontent of leadership of OPH of the jubilee labor, and the author himself, could receive the additional justification. In this case remains only to emphasize the integrity of N. Sobko’s research which, judging from the documents studied by us, did not insisted on the publication of his work. This is much more curious because certain resources for the preparation of the book publication had already been used up, and they were significantly larger than it might be required to complete the work and print the edition. The main body of the text, including many quite extensive tables, was not only set up, but also laid out. This part of the preparation for the book printing, in terms of hand set and layout was the most expensive; the edition of the book could not be too large, so the cost of paper, printing and binding would not have constituted a significant amount. In the practice of publishing of those years an edition was printed on paper of varying quality (in our case, apparently, only a limited number of copies of gift would require expensive paper) and went out of the press, usually in uncut notebooks, often unbound. But the publication of a nearly completed work was not realized. It is curious, that in OPH reports for 1888, 1889 and 1890 the costs of preparing the book are not marked (however, the cost of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the school, in general, were not noted in the report). There is no corresponding record for 1891, when Sobko’s work, apparently, still had to go to press (this year is stated on the front page of a layout). The year on the title strengthens us in the thought that Sobko’s work, dedicated to the celebration, referred in the press reports about the school anniversary in 1889 as already appeared13, has not been

— 64 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work published. As well as the publication does not seem to be held later. Searches in libraries, appeals to bibliophiles did not help to discover this book; there is no information about the publication of the book in the Book Chamber. Sobko’s work as a school historiographer did not cease after the anniversary. The annual OPH reports that Sobko composed on account of his duties of the secretary of the Society, contained issues related to the school, as well as the events in one way or another affected the practice of its organizational and educational work were reflected in detail. We can only note that during the 1890s the materials, associated with the school, are gradually becoming a smaller place in OPH reports. However, such involution has nothing to do with Sobko’s position, but rather, to other circumstances, including, in particular, the reform of the Academy of Arts and convergence of Drawing School and the Academy. Our attention to N. Sobko is caused, aside from the obvious reasons, by the fact that this figure has originally concentrated objective and subjective problems both in the artistic process, and in the attempt to understand the artistic life, especially the comprehension from the “inside”, from the positions of not ordinary, but quite influential participant of it. With all the values of different kinds of historical testimonies, left by the participants, directly involved in the event, each of these evidences bears an imprint of subjectivity. Over the years, a lot of purely personal observations and comments begin to acquire the features of mythologized “historical truth”. It is probably inevitable, but it should not avert a conscientious art historian from attempts to build an objective picture of a historical stage of an artistic process; by desire, so to speak, to separate the wheat from the chaff — ​to distinguish subjective and objective in a historical source, to establish the relationship and interdependence of private and common, but not substitute one for the other. We do not want to be limited just by “the promulgation” of information about the discussed above Sobko’s work and of necessity of a brief commentary. Behind the given facts and some conclusions can also be seen a wide range of issues, affecting the ideological and artistic problems of the struggle of the late XIX and early XX century. We believe that much of what has been suggested above, concerning

— 65 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

Sobko’s unpublished work and the accompanying circumstances, was continued in the life of another publishing initiative, associated with the Society for the Encouragement of Arts and N. Sobko’s activities — ​ magazine “Arts and art industry”. The question of the organization of its own periodical was discussed in OPH for several years, but with no real consequences. The situation changed in 1897, when, according to P. P. Marseru’s note, according to which the monthly magazine of art and art industry should serve “for greater dissemination of useful knowledge on that part in the masses”, a special commission on the practical preparations for the publication was created14. The consideration of the project, produced by the Commission under Marseru’s leadership, was held at the special meeting of the OPH full members on the April 26, 1898. But even earlier, on March 7 were elaborated some preconditions — ​“first, to find a publisher who would take care of all the costs and damages; second, to appoint an editor, responsible before the Society for the articles and drawings placed in the edition, and, third, to necessarily include the material provided by the Society” (Report 1898, p.2). Having approved the project, the special meeting unanimously voted for the publication of the magazine. A special committee on the practical preparations for the magazine was organized “composed by A. N. Alferaki, R. R. Golike, I. S. Kitner, P. P. Marseru and N. P. Sobko”. The meeting has taken a number of other decisions and has formed several another committees, of which only one, “according to the publication organ, could finish their works in time” (Report 1898, p.3, 20). Most likely, Princess M. K. Tenisheva’s and Mamontov’s initiative served as an acceleration of the commission’s work, they supposed to issue their own “Art Magazine”. Although, the special meeting formally favorably reacted to Tenisheva’s note on the subject (and decided to “notify Princess Tenisheva of the readiness of the Committee to provide her with asked assistance in procuring the material, as far as possible”), such a publication, of course, was perceived as a serious competition to plans of the Society. Tenisheva’s and Mamontov’s project (that has never implemented in its original form, but transformed in the magazine “World of Art”) gave rise to a very interesting decision of the OPH

— 66 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work commission “on the publishing organ”, supported by the committee of the Society: “… not to consider the undertaken by individuals edition of art as an obstacle to the implementation of decisions taken by the Society to publish its own organ, especially since the Society is unable to predict what art trend can be developed by the private edition of the same kind; whereas it itself, pursuing well-known, certain tasks must necessarily have its own organ to be able to spread its influence throughout the country, by virtue of its Charter” (Report 1898 s.3–4). OPH aspired to take an exceptional position in the artistic life, and the establishment of the magazine was to serve this purpose; as seen from the quoted decision, it is not about the primary educational direction of the magazine (“dissemination of useful knowledge”), but about “spreading the influence”. New edition for that matter, apparently assigned such a prominent role, that it was started, even without solving the issue of the publisher and “means required for the publication”, having stated that “the cost of printing of the first three books will be taken over by persons helping this affair” (Report 1898, p.4). The haste of taking the decision about the publication of the magazine and the crudity of the financial side of the enterprise were quite unusual, unprecedented for OPH practice of work. The assumption that the financial issue will be resolved in time safely, proved to be wrong. But perhaps even more significant miscalculation was to suppose that the magazine would be able to substantially strengthen the position of the Society in the promotion of the artistic life. However, exactly this was believed by OPH leadership, which even had to forgo the release of collections of art and industrial drawings of the Drawing School students and obtain a permission to direct means to the needs of the new edition that the Ministry of finance allocated for the publication of collections, published as models for artisans, craftsmen and in general for “graceful industry” for this project. It is interesting, that as soon as OPH has suspended the release of collections, to an analogous publication launched in Baron Stieglitz’s School. The first issue of “Art and Art Industry” was published in the autumn of 1898 (almost simultaneously with the first issue of “World of Art”). By polygraph design the magazine corresponded to the highest

— 67 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work standards of its time (paper, type, printing, etc.). The content, judging by its contemporaries’ references, was disappointing. It should be noted, however, that the traditions of periodicals related to fine arts, have not yet formed in Russia (by the way, the first issue of “Art and Art Industry” is opened by Sobko’s article on the topic — ​“What are the Russian art magazines of 1807–1897”). As well as the orientation on Western publications of this kind could only a little help due to mismatch, so to speak, of the format of the artistic life in Russia and, for example, in France or Germany. We will note, that the magazine “World of Art” encountered with the same problems. One hundred years later, even the expert has difficulties to see a major, fundamental difference in the approach to the formation of the portfolio in both editions; the difference in the positions is mainly seen in the individual preferences and literary style of authors, published in these journals sharply competing as it seemed to their editors, but in fact very close, as it is seen today. In the realities of the artistic life of this time each of the magazines, undoubtedly, had its own face, which, however, did not provide any of them serious public success. In one of his last letters P. M. Tretyakov quite eloquently presented the position in relation to these editions, typical, at least for the older generation of Russian art, but probably not alien to the younger: “I do not know who is worse — ​Sobko or Diaghilev15”. Soon the disappointment befell OPH. After the release of the first three numbers the losses amounted to more than 20 thousand rubles. But even more disappointing was the fact that the magazine, rather objectively recording events and the state of the art life, just as objectively showing the position of the OPH in the cultural process — ​a noticeable position, but to the end of the XIX century it has not dominated and unlikely having the potency to become one. The claims, of course, were preferred to Sobko as the editor in chief, what was true only formally, and partly because any OPH events were illustrated in detail in the journal and in the benevolent spirit. Sobko, however, accepted these claims and declared his readiness to resign from the post of chief editor. OPH Committee did not accept his resignation, and they managed to produce a few more issues. When it became clear that the continuation of publication does not make sense for OPH,

— 68 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

Sobko volunteered to continue the issue of own resources, what was permitted, but without mentioning the Society for the promotion as a patron publishing. At the same time, it meant Sobko’s resignation from the post of secretary of the Society for Encouragement of Arts. The history of the magazine, mainly in the bibliographic aspect was examined by O. Ostroy who names “the Wanderers’ “ direction, supported by Sobko, as the main reason of the magazine failure and the reason for its claims16. There are certain grounds for this judgment. In fact, the materials, related to Wanderers’ art, occupy a significant place in the magazine. But the art of other areas (except perhaps the traditional academic, clearly having not that strong positions and anachronistic for the Academy itself at the turn of the century) could not find in this issue any detailed coverage as “decadent”, which the magazine struggled by its program to fully conform in this respect the position of OPH. The choice of artistic material for display in the magazine was not too broad and to a large (if not decisive) extent it was predetermined by the preferences of Society of encouragement. Justified, perhaps, seems a reproach that art and industrial direction in the magazine was presented rather poorly. Also for objective reasons, but Sobko believed that issues related to the status and development of the art industry interested a rather narrow circle. O. Ostroy rightly points out that “despite the editor’s best intentions, the journal has not turned out to be brilliant. And controversy with the so-called decadent, more precisely, with miriskuniki, was talented not in all cases17”. If they have talked about “Wanderers’ bank” in the magazine, the leadership of OPH could be dissatisfied by this circumstance not only from the ideological and aesthetic, but from an organizational point of view (the OPH could believe that it strengthens the position of “Wanderers’ “ Academy). Fairly sharing O. Ostroy’s assertion that the main reason for the “short existence” of the magazine was the fact that “its content conflicted with the leading trends in cultural life18”, we think it is important to note that, in contradiction with the leading trends of artistic life came, first of all, the very Society for the encouragement of arts, with its pretentions to the exclusive role and leading position in the cultural process. In this situation Sobko turned out to be a hostage of OPH ambitions,

— 69 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work his own ambitions as an editor and his own artistic preferences. In addition, the chief editor was extremely impractical. “An excellent, noble, honest man, animated by sincere and passionate love to the art, he was a very bad administrator and not a businessman”, — ​wrote about Sobko Stasov’s niece V. D. Stasova-Komarova who knew him close19. After parting with OPH, Sobko during a year continued to publish the magazine at his own expense, until the company has not grasped the financial collapse. Parting OPH with Sobko, it should be noted, was arranged outwardly quite decently: the Imperial Society for the encouragement of arts endeavored not to carry any problems out of its limits, especially of a personal nature20. In the opinion of public art Sobko’s resignation did not link to the failure of the magazine. But this resignation was widely discussed, including in the press. In the most influential newspaper “New Time” appeared a lengthy article of a permanent author, columnist of the artistic life and theater, the novice, but rather well-known novelist A. I. Kosorotov, published under the pseudonym of Side. In the article, entitled “The important thing”, it is about the OPH and, in particular, Sobko’s resignation. It must be noted that the author has not too favorable attitude to the Society’s activities, especially in the period of Sobko’s work in it. According to the author, after the years that have passed since Grigorovich’s resignation from the position of the Secretary OPH, the Society has seriously surrendered its positions. So, the Society and its new Secretary have a lot to do to “break the ice… between undertakings of the society and the Russian public21”. OPH alienation from the real task of art is presented in the article as an objective reality. By itself, an article in the “New time” is quite interesting and deserves attention for a number of interesting details, but it is important to point out that an unflattering review about Sobko does not relate to the magazine. A negative evaluation of Sobko’s activity as an OPH secretary was seen in artistic circles a non-justice. It is believed that the issue was discussed quite lively and sharp. In any case, after 10 days the Side had to return to the subject and put a note in the newspaper, disavowing his

— 70 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work earlier judgments of Sobko: “Let’s hope that sooner or later the truth will prevail and g.Sobko will return to his so cruelly abandoned place, for the benefit and prosperity of the orphaned Society22”. Returning to Sobko’s never published work, we will emphasize once again that the work at critical to its terms is very important and valuable. We would like to draw the attention of historians and art historians to it as a whole to an extremely rich Sobko’s heritage, which is still waiting for its research, which would allow to fully scientifically correct use a vast array of materials of the largest national art historiographer.

ENDNOTES 1. M. Dobuzhinsky mentions Sobko as one of the few prominent art critics of 1880– 1890-ies: “Only occasionally in the newspapers and in the “thick” journals were published articles on artistic themes. Only D. Grigorovich, Sobko, Stasov, continued his panegirics to the Wanderers, and A. I. Somov wrote critical articles about art” (M. Dobuzhinsky’s Memoirs. M., 1987, p. 146). 2. Ostroy O. S. Works in which affected the age. St. Petersburg, 2004. p.132–152. 3. To Sobko’s pen belonged the first monographs, for example, about V. Perov’s, F. Iordan’s, G. Myasoedov’s work, detailed catalog of I. Kramskoy’s posthumous exhibition and other works of art history and critics. 4. Sobko N. P. Dictionary of Russian artists …, vol. 1–3, St. Petersburg., 1893–1899 5. Stasov V. V. Articles and notes, published in newspapers and not included in the books publication. M., 1954. Vol.1. Obituary for N. P. Sobko. pp.199–202 6. V. Stasov wrote in Sobko’s obituary that he “has got just home education”. And further: “Nevertheless he educated himself with the first years of youth, more in the field of fine arts, which has always had a true passion” (op. Cit., 199). 7. Sobko N. P. Dictionary of Russian artists …, vol. 1. SPb., 1893, p. 6. 8. Cited by: Art School named after Nicholas Roerich. Pages of history // The author- composer Romanovskaya E. M. SPb., 2001, p. 153. 9. “New time”, 1899, 2 (14) of November. 10. V. Stasov in a speech at Sobko’s funeral said: “He was busy collecting information and materials about the Russian artists for 30 years or more. His eagerness in this affair was amazing by its energy, unwavering thirst for conquest of the information he needed, whenever it was possible” (V. V. Stasov. Articles and notes published in newspapers and not included in books publication. M., 1954. vol.1, p.201). What about Sobko’s researcher good faith as a historiographer Russian art, in professional circles, is considered as a model: “The name was Sobko — ​and left! — ​Synonymous of the thoroughness and accuracy of the driven data” (Moleva N. Nikitin Ivan. M., 1972, p. 68). 11. N. E. Makarenko. School of the Imperial Society for the Encouragement of Arts. 1839–1914. Sketch drawn up on behalf of the Committee IOPH. Pg. 1914

— 71 — Elena A. Borovskaya. N. P. Sobko’s unpublished work

12. Borovskaya E. A.: K. H. Reyssig — ​trustee of St. Petersburg Drawing School / Problems of the development of Russian art, Issue 8, St. Petersburg, 2009, pp.75–90. 13. A. S. Suvorin in the “New Times” wrote: “… Yesterday, the school celebrated its 50th anniversary, and today came the history of this school, composed by g. Sobko …” (“New Time”, 1899, 2 [14] of November) . 14. OPH Report 1897, p. 19. Further references to reports OPH are given in the text with the year and the page 15. TG Archive, f.48, depository unit 981, sheet 1. Op. by: Iovleva L. Gallery without Tretyakov // Our Heritage, 2006, № 78 16. Ostraya O. S. The magazine “The Art and Art Industry” (To the history of the publication) // Book Publishing in Russia in the second half of XIX — ​early XX centuries. L., 1990, vol. 5. pp. 112–123. 17. Ostraya OS The magazine “The Art and Art Industry”. S. 118. 18. Ibid. 122. 19. Karenin B. [Stasov-Komarova V.D.] Vladimir Stasov. Essay on his life and work. L., 1927. S. 566. 20. OPH report for 1900 records the event as follows: “In the internal management of the society there were some changes. Chief among them should be recognized N. P. Sobko’ resignation from the post of Secretary of the Society, where he served for more than 16½ years (since February 26, 1884 to 1st September 1900). During this period the society, with his direct participation, managed to significantly expand its activities and increase its material resources that are why the Committee relates with gratitude for the previous g.Sobko’s works” (P.8) However, the conflict was quite serious. Sobko even was accused of overspending 10 thousand rubles on a magazine edition. Expressed by OPH “gratitude” in the report was a mere formality: in 1904, being in extremely cramped circumstances, Sobko submitted “a request for a pension to the office of president of the Society, Princess E. M. Oldenburgskaya, because of his past secretaryship he had the right to this pension. However, the request was rejected on May 23, 1905” (Ostroy O. S. Works, that reflected a century, p. 135). Sobko’s tragic death in August next, 1906, gave rise to rumors of his suicide because of bankruptcy. 21. Side [Kosorotov A. I.]. The important thing // New Times, 1900, issue 8856, October 22 (November 4). 22. Side [Kosorotov A. I.]. Notes of art // New Times, 1900, issue 8865, 31 October (13 November).

— 72 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

Tatiana G. Malinina Doctor of Arts, Professor Research Institute of Theory and History of Fine Arts Russian Academy of Arts [email protected] Russia, Moscow PROCESSES OF INTEGRATION OF ART IN MODERN ARCHITECTURE AND OTHER FORMS OF ART; METHODS OF THEIR STUDY

Based on materials from the roundtable of Research Institute of Theory and History of Fine Arts of the Russian Academy of Arts, November 18, 2015

On the question of forming models of arts interaction Tatiana Malinina, Doctor of Arts, Ch. Scientific Researcher of Research Institute of Theory and History of Fine Arts at the Russian Academy of Arts Our today’s roundtable can be considered as a first step towards the realization of a large-scale interdisciplinary research project, actualizing the problem of interaction of arts. A significant break in the work on these problems is clarified by the departure of monumental and decorative art from architecture from the beginning of the 1980s and the movement of the entire art conceptualistic into the architecture itself, to the field of its formation. In this sphere also moved the interests of researchers — ​art historians and from here they are reborn today, inspired by an active reflection of an architectural thought, exacting of the realization of creative energy in the profession of architect today. At the same time the issues, relating to the objectives and means of modern art, its language, forms and principles of integration are actualizing and problematizing in art studying. By studying the sphere

— 73 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

1. Rainer Hugt. Big walking. 1984. Paderborn. Germany

— 74 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture of contact and intersection of two these survey movements, we aimed to develop the methods and tools that can be used to generalize, correlate and summarize the results of observations. As the study is focused on the search for approaches and methods of the analysis of the latest trends in the sphere of art integration, in the centre of attention are the modern theoretic developments and experiments. Therefore, it is important today to participate in this workshop, what is essentially the round table, representatives of philosophical and aesthetic thought, authoritative specialists studying different kinds of art. Such important aspects of the research program, which exhibit a specific system of contemporary art, stand out as the main coordinates defining the overall picture of the complex processes of interaction between art forms. One is them is the analysis of methods of artistic and symbolic formation (from the primary form element to the development of spatial structures); the other — ​the study of models of a modern city space formation and socially oriented environment (from personal creative concepts to global strategies of relevant urbanism). The problem points in the subject of reports of the planned conference will be accentuated according to the set in chronological order lines. The conference will have to perform this kind of monitoring function. Considering that the world of modern science and the art medium are highly fragmented, it is necessary to give the floor to representatives of different movements, creative associations, schools, and, of course, outstanding creative personalities, prominent artists, to present the practical situation. And the more this picture is varied, the more confidently you can judge the operating today synthesis models (avant-garde, modernist, post-modernist, structuralist and others). It is supposed to give special attention to the enrichment of the artistic language by new means of expression, the principles of formation and imaginative specifics of works of art; identify the approaches to the analysis of unique, so-called iconic objects, typical for the present time, created during the interaction of architecture, sculpture, design, An active introduction of innovative technologies and new materials in modern construction, the rise of types of buildings, monumental and decorative compositions of symbiotic nature (combining the

— 75 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

2. Alberto Giacometti. A man crossing the square functions, uniting different time fragments, architecture and landscape) complicates the language of architectural forms, generates new imagery, having drastically changed the familiar aspect of a today city image. The role of the artist (in the broad sense of the word) in human adaptation to a new urban space and the architecture is great. Exactly these complex relationships of a modern man and the realities of his environment cause an acute research interest and aspiration for a new understanding of traditional general cultural problem of interaction or synthesis of arts. As a result, both among professionals (practicing architects, artists, designers), and in society in general, appears a cultural demand to the knowledge renovation in the area of formation of an aesthetically complete, favorable for human living environment. We are beginning to conduct the research exactly with consciousness of relevance of such demand.

— 76 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

3. V. Koch. Mathematician. Koch Museum. Rietberg. Germany The objective of our research program is to identify perspective tendencies in new environment transformation strategies, which involve taking into account a variety of factors, appeal to various techniques of creative concepts with the aim of mastering the instruments of embedding and both regulation of spontaneously occurring processes to achieve the desired organic. It is important, in particular, to clarify our relationship to the figurative and communication capacities of these types of work, as the installation in an urban environment, the monumental forms of assemblage, a symbiosis of landscape and architectural structures, as well as other multilateral relations. The objects of the analysis must be the most famous, causing professional interest competitive and realized recently projects, both in Russia and abroad. As a part of our research it is necessary to describe and analyze this experience, to give it a rating. We need to understand how

— 77 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

4. Washerwomen on the Pader. 1994. Paderborn today developed strategies can influence on human’s existence and well- being, involve a person in the creation of public and personal living space. Cultural globalization in which conditions exists modern art, has a unifying character. Its processes have particular impact on the language of art, becoming more stereotyped in its content and means of expression. Value systems of cultural identity as a necessary condition of a people-world are opposed to the stereotypes of globalization. At present time it is possible to speak about the successful researches, consisting in identifying and formulating the principles of systematizing of the new character of the interaction of art, their artistic integration. Now, I would like to briefly present my research project. My interest in the small urban spaces organization is determined by the conditions of

— 78 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture life in the modern metropolis, it is dictated by the necessity to find and mark the new features of the environment, its auratic nuances. Spatial impressions live in us from childhood, fed by the images of literature and, of course, personal impressions. I would like to differentiate the experiences of residence and well-being in these spaces and re-classify them. The fact that I draw examples only from my own experience, only experienced and felt personally, selected for the description, analysis and own photo fixation, ensures the independence of the work carried out and its usefulness.

Plastic deformation of forms: artistic integration of “right” and “wrong” art Oleg Krivtsun, Head of Art Theory Research Institute of Theory and History of Fine Arts at the Russian Academy of Arts, Doctor of Philosophy, professor, member of Russian Academy of Arts Art integration processes can be studied in two courses: 1. As an interference of painting, sculpture and architecture languages 2. As a stylistic complementarities of works of art of different types within the city, region, block areas. Or it can be considered simply as a review. The process of integration of so-called “right” and “wrong” art is very obvious. One matured from another. Recall Cezanne: the space of his paintings is overstrained; it is divided into squares, triangles, cylinders. Afterwards Picasso appeared. There was his portrait of Gertrude Stein (1906). A plastic of cubism was in the air. Was Georges Braque, Robert Delaunay was, was Maurice Vlaminck — ​cubism had to be put into practice. So — ​it is an expression of the spirit of the age. And an expression of the spirit of time is a classic. Of course, a fundamental question is what characteristics of the system ensure its maximum integrity, unity?

— 79 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

5. The residential complex “Iceberg”. Aarhus. 2012

There are dozens or even hundreds of different ways to convey the expressive artistic integrity — ​to accent a detail — ​necessary background to accompany her, something contrasting with it, etc. — ​but the artist has to reinvent every time the methods of pairing of expressive details, gestures, fragments anew. The new building of “Helikon-Opera” — ​the first is the lobby — ​ a glass floor, clear, there, on a depth of 20 cm, in the sand lie the pieces of architecture of the house of the 18th century. They are highlighted in yellow below. Triumph Square — ​always so harsh with brutal Mayakovsky, hard and uncomfortable for pedestrians transport hub — ​and suddenly — ​ there are set stationary pavilions, on the left they are open, and there

— 80 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture are stationed swings. And here I go and see this aggressive stream of cars on the crowded Tverskaya, and across the street a girl peacefully swinging in some unconsciousness on a swing. I remembered Chirico’s city painting, or its more relaxed variant — ​Edward Hopper’s — ​city blocks in which everything is neat and tidy, but which are somehow repugnant for a man replacing all human. I have told about this episode to ask — ​did the NEW specific panorama of the Triumph Square in combination with the perspective of the Garden Ring found a kind of integrity now? Or in front of us is the eclecticism? And then I would like to tell an important thing: an expressive integrity of plastic is not only what we have before our eyes, but also what we have in mind. The historical background of the historical and current artistic forms feeling is required. One looks, and does not bind this oasis in an expressive unity. And the other one looks and binds the same view in an expressive unity. Therefore, it is necessary to remember the important thing — ​each of us has a tuning-fork in the eye, it is a collection of experiences, taste, artistic intuition, which must be flexible and responsive This applies both to artists and to photographers — ​the same town plan is perceived by one as routine, while other poeticizes it. So, this is a kind of moment of artistic integrity birth. It turns out that in this case, the integration is provideв not by the properly chosen and re-created nature, but a PLASTIC FEELING of the artist. An aesthetic unity has traditionally been an absolute value in the integration processes. That means such kind of unity, which connects the different works, artifacts with different types of artistic expression. It is in general the trend of our time. Tarkovsky, Andrei Rublev — ​the scene of Kupala night — ​he threw a goose and a frightened bird was in this commotion… The moment of randomness and moment of DEFORMATION are the constituent elements of the integration of art or an artistic generalization. The importance of the element of deformation was discovered and confirmed in art by Expressionists — ​Kirchner … group “Bridge”. A whole of works of art arises as a kind of plastic system, not just as a set, but a community.

— 81 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

6. Park Malmö. “Propylaeum”. Denmark. 2014

— 82 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

Now in the world art theory is established the following thesis: “The perception is more important than reality”. — ​It opens up for us a source of sense forming, which is especially used by the media, movies, computer graphics.. These are the methods of reality transmission. The artist also has ways of presenting reality. Not “what” and “how”. It always has been. (Of course, the source of sense forming is carried by the thing the subject, the style itself. In this sense, Wolfflin does not go out of time with his concept of “Art history without names”. And in that case what is the identification sign of the essence of the subject — ​it is a principle of forming in which the subject is included. It is the principle of linearity or the principle of picturesqueness? This is an open or a closed form. I undertake to assert that the processes of integration of different kinds of art are also held under the auspices of such principles of formation: for example — ​plasticity in painting … in the literature — ​the story or focus on psychologism; …, in music — ​melodic development or primarily — ​harmonic, etc …) Architecture also has its polarity — ​a clear constructivism and minimalism — ​and rich expressionism with expressive ornaments, with plenty of additional details of architecture. The same thing goes on with painting: harmony does not come out as a central category of the theory of the arts for a long time, as well as the concept of beauty. But in the forefront were put such concepts as expressive. Attracting, stopping the attention, wondering, interesting. Painting of the twentieth century is perceived by spectator not as “blessedness”, but it should scratch those who perceive it. — ​Today there are many beautiful things at fairs, exhibitions, but these are designer products. Or even differently it is the interior painting. To understand the nature of art integration today it is important to address to the development of these concepts: What is the “plastic system”, in today’s opinion? What is a plastic drama? What is a plastic feeling? What is the creativity of a plastic deformation? This new content of the most important concepts can help us to understand the boundless range of expressive forms.

— 83 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

Ways of art integration in modern architecture Mikhail Dutsev, Head of Design of the architectural environment department of Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Construction (NNGASU), doctor of architecture, professor, RAASN advisor An urgent task of modern science is to find the ways to create a new architectural and artistic integrity at all levels of the product, environment and activity. Today, the architect has a circle of acute problems, in the first place concerning the breaking of both intraprofessional and external bonds, determining the life of an architectural work in the environment and the perception by the addressee, which is accompanied by a deep crisis of artistic quality in architecture. The new scientific direction of the achievement of required integrity was proposed by the author in his doctoral dissertation “The concept of the integration of art in modern architecture”, defended in 2014, in which idea of ​​“field” became binder, as a metaphor for the complex interactions and mutual influences, variability and instability of architectural phenomena. According to the concept, is introduced a system of “fields” of artistic integration: the spatial and temporal, artistic, personal. Scale of the theme needed an addressing to a vast array of theoretical integral approaches in science and philosophy, as well as to the basic foundations of integrity in art. The whole variety of contexts of an architect’s creativity, real and fictional, is concentrated in the spatial and temporal “field”, which includes the integral spaces of modern city, temporal aspects of the formation of archetypes and space memory, the spatial and temporal interrelation in their ongoing dialogue with the person. The “Field” of integration of the whole range of arts and architecture is marked by the influence of the primary artistic languages, established and forming types of creative activity, as well as the universal laws of artistic form. The impact of each of the artistic language can be direct or indirect, functional or figurative-symbolic. Today, three lines of artistic integration of “field” are particularly important: “concept”,

— 84 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

7. M. Mozer. The installation “Pink Sea”. 2013. Residential complex “Iceberg”. Quay

“theatre” and “design” as well as natural and humanistic foundation of architectural activity. Individually-personal integration “field” has a special system- forming significance, giving rise to creative impulses in the work of the author-architect and emotionally meaningful responses in the perception of the addressee. This set of individual architectural and artistic ways of integration, which are organized on a number of relevant areas: architecture of artistic order and economy of means of expression; architecture of communication in the system of contexts; architecture of natural interrelations; architecture that follows nature; architecture of an illusory image; architectural design and social dialogue; architecture of analytical study and social strategies; architecture of expression and freedom of shaping; high-tech architecture. “Field” approach allows us to highlight the integration centers: rational and emotional, contextual and semantic beginnings, as well as humanistic and dialogue, natural and engineer-technological basics. The dynamic state of artistic landmarks allows certain centers to be common for the architects of different stylistic belongings, as well as actualize in the one author’s work with varying intervals.

— 85 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

Among the most universal principles governing the process of integration of art is, primarily, an important principle of origin and birth, the defining moment of simultaneous appearance of design, inspiration, and creative impulse at the transition from the simple sum of qualities to a single integral quality of the product. The presence of “repercussions” that allow you to see images of one “field” in the other in the new artistic quality, is described by the principle of free artistic interpretation and transformation. The principle of meta-system and poliintegration is realized in the expanded value of architecture as a meta-art, meta- science, meta-activity towards a new architectural and artistic integrity.

The phenomenon of an author’s space Sergey Orlov, a leading researcher at the Research Institute of Theory and History of Fine Arts at Russian Academy of Arts, Ph.D., corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Arts The collective experience of European modernism became volume and bright apparent in the phenomenon of author’s space. The most important task to embody own model of the intellectual environment, to express one’s own vision of the world inspired artists of different stylistic directions. The space of action and overcoming, misgiving and discovery is formed in painting, sculpture, graphics, design, monumental objects. The cloth of spatial drama unfolds in a wide range of author’s initiatives in expressionism, cubism, futurism, analytical art. One of the sources is Rodin’s works of art. The master discovered THE MOTIVE OF STEP, symbolic step into the unknown, into the outside world with the new parameters of space, time, movement. Alberto Giacometti embodied a different formula of a step — ​“Man, crossing a square” (1949). At the base of a sculpture is situated a massive bronze plinth. The heavy plinth imperiously thinned down to earth, easy, wire walking figure. The antagonism of statics and dynamics, gravity and inertial mass and not bending vitality is visibly expressed. Author’s

— 86 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

8. The monumental assemblage. District Vastra Haman. Quay. Malmö. 2013 space is conceived as the field of maximal physical, emotional effort. A square overcoming is identical to way of life. Giacometti explores the space as a psychological substance. The threat and aggression is “a point, directed to the eye” (paper, ink, pen, 1932), the inner liberation — ​weightless, free movement of “Chariots” (bronze, 1950). Imaginary space is indirectly correlated with a concrete reality, events, vital incentives and way of life of the era. However, two areas often do not match, the master of modernism create their own reality with extensional time coverage. One of Pavel Filonov’s paintings is called “Heads, blockhouses, crystals” (paper, m., middle of the 1930s). Substances split up, multiply, fragments of forms are intersecting, the artist recreates the matter in its inexhaustible depth. Most of Filonov’s compositions can be counted as pictorial and graphic heraldry. Its essence is to find the innumerable properties of objects and phenomena. The artist wrote: “As I know, analyze, see,

— 87 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

9. Fountain. District Vastra Haman. Quay. Malmö. 2013 intuition that any object do not have just two predicates, shape and color, but the whole world of visible or invisible phenomena”. The idea of multiplicity of phenomena appeared in relation to the mythological subjects. For each of them the artist has seen and felt the abyss of repetitions, variants, historical and modern analogies. Filonov has the “predicate” of king, wise men (the prophet), worker, farmer. They are often merged into a single genotype. Filonov has created an impressive mythology of head. “Living heads” represent the universe of forms. Often they are crowned and combine the image of Christ and the image of the Universe. If the essence of the face is concentrated in a transparent pupil, then the whole face can be turned into a single multi-structured pupil. The representation of face becomes a funnel into the mystery of space. In Vassiliy Kandinsky’s graphic and pictorial compositions of 1910s (abstract and figurative) pulsates, moves, sounds and breathes the protomatter of author’s space. In an abundant world appear flowers, ships, cities, prancing riders, gentlemen and ladies in elegant costumes of Pushkin’s time. During the tragic 1910s Kandinsky recreates the world of the Russian Empire — ​the era of lifting of Russian culture

— 88 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

10. Copenhagen. In the new residential area. 2010 and statehood. Refined, sublime image of the Empire passes a series of historical conflicts, passes over the centuries. In the building of the Central House of Artists in Moscow in 1981 has opened became legendary exhibition “23s”. It heralded a turning point in the fine arts at the turn of the 1970s — ​1980s, the change of art priorities. The exhibition “23s” as a magic lens focused a panorama of new phenomena in the artistic culture, new sense of the world. In one of the halls of the exhibition Leonid Baranov showed the multi-figured composition “Pushkin” (gypsum, 1977–1981). It represents eleven sculptural portraits, repetitions of shapes, duplication of characters. Doubles differ by their posture, clothing, facial expression; they appear in a full-length in the form of the bust (Pushkin). The figure of Natalia Goncharova is repeated for three times. Next to Pushkin and Gogol are their doubles — ​sculptural portraits in ornate frames. There is no plot and action, but the silent dialogue is strongly expressed. The space between the figures is permeated by invisible threads of intersections of thoughts and destinies. Free positioning and moving sculptures, the artist builds up a space of parallel dialogues. Poet mentally refers to Gogol, to Natalia Goncharova, to himself, to Providence. The whole scene is confessional, contemplative and dramatic.

— 89 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

11. H.Heinsen. Monumental composition. 2010. Copenhagen. New building

The composition “Pushkin” identified the opportunities and the importance of author’s space in the sculpture. All the elements are fused into a single substance. In the 2000s — ​2010s art, defined as “monumental”, evolves, merges with other art forms, takes multiple forms. One of these forms is the author’s sculpture exhibition. An artist, by force of circumstances, becomes both the customer and the executor of his own ideas.

— 90 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

For many authors the form a personal exhibition (sculptural) becomes almost identical to a monumental project, which is created for a short time and without intervening external constraints. In the short term the exhibition halls become the field of a creative experiment, realizes close to the author’s heart artistic organization. Author drama closes sculpture and object, forms concentration and pause, caesura, breakthroughs. Omissions are not less important, because they are saturated with dramatic tension. The entire exhibition merges into a single work of art. The idea of ​​proportional to a person emotionally capacious environment is originally translating into the ensembles, closing the architecture, sculpture, monumental installations, lighting and park design, engineering and electronics. The object of the artistic design often becomes a landscape, an artificially created, deployed outside or inside a giant architectural volume. An impressive object is “Khan Shatyr” in Astana (opened in 2011). Hipped, suspended, multilevel building of height of 150 meters is based on the steel structure of the three pillars (Tripod). Transparent polymer covering lets through the sun. Inside the tent is situated the mall, concert halls, cafes, artificial landscape with tropical plants, a botanical garden, a pond, a beach with sand, delivered from the Maldives. Another phenomenon of a man-made environment is the tropical park “Gardens by the Bay” in Singapore (opened in 2012). “Gardens” on the multimeter steel trees with suspended bridges at different levels provide an opportunity to go inside the building. The trunks of the steel trees are decorated with climbing plants, in the evening the whole panorama gets illuminated. The authors of the project revived the legends of the Gardens of Babylon. “Gardens by the Bay” is also associated with the titanic landscapes of Jurassic period (cyclopean trees) and habitat of the hypothetical civilization of the XXI century, when the Megapolis space becomes an integral part of nature. New landscaping creativity enters into dialogue with the architecture, nature, looks for an opportunity to design, create and build according to its laws. Sculptural, theatrical, entertainment, as well as technological excellence of it become the essential components of the futuristic ensemble.

— 91 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

“The geometry of sound” or the artistic interpretation of the space of modern musical and audiovisual works Olga Hvoina, Vice-Rector of Humanitarian Institute of TV and broadcasting them. MA Litovchina (GITR), Ph.D., Professor Both in the music and the theater arts spatial sound effects were used at least since ancient times. They consisted in the location of sound sources on both sides of the listener in order to maximize the impact on him in a ritual (antiphonal singing in the temple area) and attraction (environment of a listener by instrumentalists during the performance of popular music in the open air). The aim to fill the given space by the sound each time had a customized solution, depending on the specific, including acoustic conditions. Beginning to sound, the space was perceived as an artistically transfigured, made poetry. In some cases, the composers focused on this transformation, treating it as a departure to the transcendent. Large-scale artistic ideas of this kind required the construction of special rooms (Wagner opera house in Bayreuth, an unrealized project of a temple in India for the performance of “Mysteries” by A. Scriabin). The emergence and continuing up to our days active development of electro-acoustic equipment has greatly simplified the distribution of sound sources in the space of any size and shape, and stimulated the intense artistic searches in this area. Art history has recorded the emergence of such phenomena as spatial music and volume (or surrounding) sound in the cinema. The composer has ceased to be the only one who is engaged in the distribution of sound in space — ​it is now part of the professional duties of a sound engineer and sound designer.1 Technical innovations became essential to the development of new aesthetic trends. The physical space is beginning to be realized as an independent artistic image, the deployment of sound material in space can become poetic and / or constructive idea of a work. Now the static and kinetic spatial are extracted in the usual problem of filling the space with sounds. The sensitivity of the ear to the basic characteristics of the space (back and forth, up and down, right and left) gives the

— 92 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

composer a variety of features: creation of an artistically meaningful static disposition or work with the movement of sounds and sound masses (the latter is characteristic of Rodion Shchedrin’s works, whose name is rendered in the title of the article — ​“The geometry of sound”). Iannis Xenakis (as it is known, he worked for several years as an engineer and later as a designer in Le Corbusier’s studio) has shown in his work a brand new, peculiar only to the XX century relation to the space. He was interested not in the filling of the real space, but its ideal image, sketched by the sound ideal architectural form. In Xenakis’ work, as well as in some Karl Stockhausen’s works the convergence of music and architecture seems to have reached its limit. It is significant that both composers wrote the music for the special exhibition architectural projects, thinking it as an integral part of architectural design. Imaginative and meaningful variants of artistic interpretation of a space in music, film, not to mention the very young multimedia art, continue to multiply, and are all new material for research. At the same time the music, in Brian Eno’s words, is experiencing a period of “departure from the narrative to the landscape, from the performer’s turn to the sound space” (A. Ross: “Next — ​noise. Listening to the XX century”, Moscow, 2012, p. 450) interest in this subject is natural.

Spatial search of Suprematism as an example of artistic integration. The birth of the new principles of forming Anastasia Chaladze, art historian, member of the Department of Contemporary Art at the State Hermitage Museum Referring to the integration of art, we are turning to the synthesis of arts, which idea sends us back to the end of the XIX century. The epoch of Modern formed a cultural request to create a “grand style”. But this search has not been successful, as was not established a vocabulary of formal elements with whose help it would be possible to identify the “big style”. The appearance of this kind of vocabulary is connected with the ascent of abstract art in the early XX century.

— 93 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

Abstract art is changing the traditional system of aesthetic criteria, which developed for centuries in European culture. In abstract art visual characteristics are the bearers of self-valuable meanings. It is important for a common language creation, through which the integration of different kinds of art became possible. The separation of certain elements of pictorial form, the analytical division of it into its component parts, that is, reproduction of the real integral image in the painting, its design gets reduced to the manipulation of certain marks. These signs were involved in the design of a new reality in the course of a research experiment. In an experiment conducted by Russian avant-garde artists, originate formative concepts that have been further developed in the architecture, design, exhibition activities. But before going out into the substantive environment, Russian avant-garde artists’ spatial searches in the figurative art played an important role in the development of spatial and constructive thought. In this regard, it is interesting to consider the spatial Supremacist module as an example of a synthetic fusion of arts. The Suprematism as a formative concept shapes around the unit.2 At the heart of this module is the free soaring of geometric shapes (planes) in the space or its imitation by a white background.3 It is important to note that the process of generation of spatial strategies originates in Malevich’s pictorial experiments; he comes to the idea of creating a new “classical” architecture as an art form based on the achievements of Suprematism in painting. Suprematist forms of new world emerged from drawing and painting began to assert in the applied arts and in the abstract design. To the experience ofintroduction of Suprematist system in practice can be attributed to Malevich’s and his students’ decoration of campaign stands in Vitebsk, decorations of the town for the holidays. It also includes Malevich’s and his followers N. Suetin’s and I. Chashnik’s experiments in china. The integration of Suprematist painting into volume and spatial design develops in two directions. The first one is also related with the Vitebsk period and became a result of Malevich’s collaboration with Lissitzky. The latter, thanks to architectural education, could see and develop the potential of three-dimensional Suprematism in prouns. The culmination

— 94 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

of Lissitzky’s experiments became the “Proun Room”, presented in Berlin in 1923. “Room” marked a new principle of space organizing. The second tendency is connected with Malevich’s activity after Vitebsk. In the process of architectural search, Malevich distinguished two “types of architecture”: “architecture as a problem” and “architecture in life”4. Malevich himself preferred the first one and developed concept of creating a new architectonic, based on the system invented by him in the art. The starting point of these searches should be considered the Suprematist painting “white on white”. The result of the development of “architecture as a problem” was the establishment of the concept of “Suprematist order”, which embodied in Malevich’s architectons (1923). The concepts of synthetic formation, inherent in Malevich’s and Lissitzky’s works are reflected in the projects of modern architects. An example of this “influence” can be the early Zaha Hadid’s works. In the research work “Malevich’s tectonic” Hadid designed an inhabited bridge over the Thames. In this project, the architect uses painting as a design method. “Malevich’s tectonic” inherits the architectonics of Suprematism founder’s gypsum projects. Zaha Hadid’s completed projects of Firehouse Wirth and CSI Cincinnati remind Lissitzky’s projects. Geometric volumes are organized in a way that if they were removed from the context and placed on a white abstract background, they would be aesthetically akin to prouns… The principle of a Suprematist education as the search for new three-dimensional solutions can be regarded as an abstract design. The relevance of this method consists in the principle of the possibility of generation of different variants of spatial forms construction based on Suprematist module in some illusory space. Accumulating and junction of a volumes in a representative space became possible thanks to the abstract art, that divided an art form is into its constituent parts. An example, reflecting the relevance of abstract design methodic, can serve the works studio Asymptote. One of the key activities of the workshop is the creation of virtual buildings that use cyberspace. You can draw a parallel between the modern studio projects and searches that were conducted by Malevich and his followers almost one hundred years ago.

— 95 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

12. H.Hertsog, P.Merron. Forum in Madrid 2007–2013

— 96 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

13. Figure 1

The methodology of searching for new forms, laid by Malevich and Lissitzky, remains relevant up to our days and it is used with the modern lexicon, but with the developed in the early XX century way..

Figurative compositions in the late Soviet art, recent installations and performances: conceptual and thematic parallels Anna Shukurova PhD, leading research associate, NII RAH

The present abstract discusses conceptual and thematic parallels between a number of prominent murals, reliefs and mosaics from the late Soviet period and recent installations and performances by artists such as Christo and Gudrun Kristjansdottir.

— 97 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

14. Figure 2

One of the artistic devices characterising works of the late Soviet period is the illusion of the absence of a wall and the penetration of nature into the interior of a building. The most known example of this genre of work is a mural at the Conference hall of the Nikitsky Botanical Garden in Crimea (by O. Filatchev, 1978). The mural represents a view of rich subtropical vegetation, garden features, visitors and workers of this horticultural institution. In order to invite a viewer for a virtual walk-through of an illusionary open space, artists occasionally used the motifs of arches, gates and other entrances or passages, as can be found in one of the mosaics at the World Trade Centre in Moscow (by B. Thalberg, 1981). There the image of a neo-Gothic bridge with an arched entry points the way into the picturesque environment of the former Empress estate, Tsaritsyno. Although representing a different artistic object, the installation “The Gates” by Christo and Jeanne-Claude at New York’s Central Park (2005) can be compared with the above mentioned compositions.

— 98 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

15. Figure 3

However, its gate-constructions with drooping fabric (sometimes hiding the buildings around the park) actually invited people for a walk along a path marked out by the artists and, thus, actually generated the sense of the spatial transition. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to mention another kind of figurative composition here. These compositions are images of particles of matter that could be seen through an optical device. One of them is a wall decoration at the Polytechnic university building in Samara (by V. Zamkov, 1978. Fig. 1) made in mixed technique of relief and mosaic. The wall decoration pictures different forms of liquid crystals and a scientist with an electronic microscope — ​according to the artist, the scientist ‘investigates the mysteries of the microcosm’. In this case we can see the parallel with recent art events, e. g. the performance ‘Water’ by Gudrun Kristjansdottir held at Hallgrimskirkja church in Reykjavik (2013. fig. 2,3,4). Here the sound of rhythmical water dripping and images of reflections of water circles, together with

— 99 — Tatiana G. Malinina. Processes of integration of art in modern architecture

16. Figure 4 the actions of the priest and the scientist resulted in photographs of differently structured water molecules and, thereby, investigating the mysteries of the microcosm. The material was prepared by T. G. Malinina

ENDNOTES 1 It is significant that the emergence of the latter profession was directly connected with the task of distributing the sound sources in the space of the cinema as well as a designer distributes the material objects in the room that he decorates 2 Here, the module refers to a structural element of the organization of space 3 Khan-Magomedov S. O. The architecture of the Soviet avant-garde in two books: Bk. 1: Problems of formation. Masters and currents. — ​M .: Stroyizdat, 1996. — ​p. 92 4 Op. by: Zhadova L. Suprematist order, Problems of the history of Soviet architecture. M., 1983, p. 34

— 100 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

Anna V. Ryndina Doctor of Arts Professor Active member of Russian Academy of Arts e-mail: [email protected] Moscow Russia THE SIGNS OF BEING: HEAVEN AND EARTH. REFLECTIONS ON ANATOLY KOMELIN’S EXHIBITION AT THE STATE TRETYAKOV GALLERY

And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. Psalm 1(3) The structure of the display echoes the master’s figurative definition of the nature of his art, so naturally combining large and smaller forms, a wide range of materials and addressing both the material and the sacred worlds: “My house has two doors; I shall exit through one and enter through the other”. The exhibition at the State Tretyakov Gallery is small and does not feature the larger “flat” sculptures, and yet fully reflects the creative image of the artist. Some authors have correctly noted that he “follows his idea, rather than serves his perceived observer”. And indeed, Komelin is thinking about his audience least of all. The sculptor “speaks” a tongue so unique that the meaning and style of his works cannot be interpreted save with great exertion of eye and thought. Despite the seeming diversity of genres and materials he works with, the artist is more than distant from creating conventional abstractions, as well as from copying the existing subjects. He construes the world as a “special reality”, revealing all planes of the visible and invisible, as a Cosmic Event, rather than an assembly of particular objects

— 101 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

1. A. Komelin in his studio

— 102 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

or historical events (bird, flower, landscape, portrait, monumental structures of the “flat” sculpture and evangelical subjects). After one takes in Komelin’s art in all its entirety and integrity, even his workshop appears as a likeness of the House of the Creator of all that is, where “…even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young— a place near Your altar” (Psalm 84(4)). This metaphor in no way contradicts the common view on the artistic “minimalism” of the master, since he perceives his creatures as they exist in the present with the measure of inner freedom that does not presuppose dressing the visible and the sacred objects into full “clothing”. In this context, it would be simply imprudent to insist on the blatantly folklore origins of the sculptor’s “smaller world”, as well as on the exclusively orthodox address of his religious subjects, since both folklore and religion resound with the beat of the Act of Universal Creation, where all — ​the Earth, Heaven, Luminaries, as though they were inanimate and without feeling, call upon the Angels of Heaven to rejoice (John Damascene). Formless matter becomes mountains, hills, flowers, trees, and people. As a promise to them, the Lord has created Eden with the Tree of Life, presaging the Holy Cross, through which mankind’s being in the Eternity truly began. It is no accident that the master described his Calvary Cross (1991–2002) as the Beginning, and that his trees and flowers in various materials, almost without exception, are shaped as all manner of crosses, variations of angelic figures and Eden lilies. Even a landscape in the form of a pitted spade with a hole in the middle appears to our senses as the Tree of Eden with a window into the world, and in the smallest creature — ​the Midge (wire, tin), the master sees a rightful part of Nature. The pulse of life is felt even more acutely in a small composition, “The Rooks Have Arrived”, where the motive of a “pickaxe bird” taking wing over tin roofing presents not only the surprisingly accurate image of a rook, but also the sensation of fresh and humid days of early spring, the harbinger of joy. An iron-beaked sparrow, cut out from stone paradoxically seems to consist of bits of soft down. Holy Hierarch Luka Voyno-Yasenetsky affirms that the entire plant and animal kingdom possesses, at the very least, the humblest of the Holy Spirit’s gifts — ​the Spirit of Life, and the Spirit and Soul of man are, while he lives, one entity.

— 103 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

2. A. Komelin. Fragment of the iconostasis. Stone

— 104 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

This single entity is seen even in those of the master’s portraits that are usually construed in the context of “minimalism”. But, even in the “brevity” of their plastic solution one may “glimpse” those aspects of the personality that eventually fall into a manifold image, which is especially vivid in self-portraits. At times, the artist is a “Birdman”, or a “Winter-Man” (self-portrait in a winter hat), oddly resembling a small carved-out XVIII century figurine of Nikolaos the Wonderworker, his head lovingly topped with a hat by the maker (lest he shall catch a cold!). From the standpoint of symbolism, it is the self-portrait in a fedora that appears to be of special importance. What we find on the artist’s head is not a fedora, however, but a metal crown of thorns, which is an allusion to the version of “Sorrowful Christ” widely found in Russian wooden plastic art. This meaning is further emphasized by seminal touches of red, blue and black paint (Resurrection, Heaven, Death). Finally, the self-portrait of the master down to his waist no longer brings to the forefront a mere metaphor, but explicitly projects the image of Komelin the maker. The vigorously depicted, robust, powerful arms of the sculptor are ready to conquer the material. Despite the terseness of the block itself, with its coarse dressing, the portrait elicits a strong feeling of strain of the living flesh. To comprehend the scale of challenges the sculptor faces when working at church complexes, we should first address the monumental versions of the so-called “flat” sculpture. Here, I would like to highlight the spatial composition called the “Myrrhbearers”. Not exhibited in the State Tretyakov Gallery, it nonetheless provides an insight into the essence of such “structures”, helps to perceive the true nature of the design. On the surface, they may seem to be a stack of abstract objects, in whose context the specificity of inscriptions (Myrrhbearer…) is perplexing. But in fact, what we are looking at is a time-stalled performance, not unlike those performances that were staged as a sacred act in both Eastern and Western monasteries and cathedrals on the eve of the Resurrection of Christ, in the XI and XII centuries. Thus, at the heroon (the imperial tomb) of the Komnenoi (XII cent.), there was an institute of the Myrrhbearers, likening the tomb to the Church of the Resurrection; and the tomb of

— 105 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

3. A. Komelin. Tree. Metal

— 106 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

Manuel I Komnenos was sealed with the stone, on which the Saviour’s Body was laid after the Descent from the Cross. Of course, such “plays” were voiced by clerics and the “Myrrhbearers”. In Komelin’s art, this dialogue is embodied in the inscriptions that accord to the composition the authenticity of the everlasting Event in New Jerusalem. Compared to stone, wood carvings take a relatively humble place in Komelin’s art, although on the scale of Christian values wood is prime, being the matter of the Tree of Life (the Holy Cross), Christ’s sacrifice for the salvation of man: “…death has been brought low… hell plundered, resurrection bestowed… the gates of paradise opened…”. The master is now completing an oak cross with scenes of the Passion of Christ for the Church of St. Paul and St. Peter in Tarusa. The language of carving, due to the nature of the material itself, communicates plastic freedom that allows to “abate” the overpowering expressive force of the Passion-related subjects. The Crucifixion, canonical for carved crosses, gives way to Christ in the Sepulchre. The pointedly incorporeal image of the Saviour, compared to the rather solid border scenes, creates a special aura, a “light zone” purified of all that is earthly, in the centre of the cross. If we compare it to the white-stone relief with the same name (“Two in a Boat” exhibition, Russian Academy of Arts), we will see that the latter is clearly inferior. The exaggerated massiveness of the Saviour’s bulky torso with stick- skinny arms and weirdly “swollen” face visibly “ground” him. Out of the centre of the Peter and Paul cross, like from a sacred spring, come “flowing” the scenes of the Passions, devoid of intense emotions and taciturn in their own unique way, like Christ in the Sepulchre with his seemingly “sealed” lips. The border scenes are characteristically bare of frontal figures — ​even despite the tendency of turning them to face the observer, the carver strives to soften the strict enface posture, according to the composition a lively rhythm. The broad and rather sturdy, but yet light figures are from time to time livened up by fluttering, as is “quivering” details, where the master intentionally “animates” the natural texture of wood with gentle cuts. The austere faces, which the author seems to have no more than briefly touched with the chisel, are nonetheless not deprived of expressive power.

— 107 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

4. A. Komelin. Flower. Metal, wood, colore

— 108 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

At times, Komelin introduces original “meaningful details” into the interpretation of separate scenes. Thus, the master distinctly personalizes the images of the bandits in the Way to Golgotha. The cross held high by the one following Christ crosses the Saviour’s doleful burden. The bandit is holding his cross with both hands, and his lips are touching the shaft. It is evident that it is he to whom the Crucified Saviour will prophesize that he shall soon be in Heaven. The other bandit, doomed to eternal death, cowardly turns back. His cross is small and flimsy. The rare interpretation of the Descent from the Cross is also remarkable. Unlike the white-stone variation displayed at the Russian Academy of Arts, here we see Christ’s Body expressly likened to the Holy Cross, as it “absorbs” the vertical bar. Against the background of the scarce floral elements of the border scenes, the tree behind Jesus in the Agony in the Garden strikes with meaningfulness. Its canopy, turned to the Saviour, is formed as a roughly sharpened saw with large teeth, and forebodes His suffering. The scene depicting the Myrrhbearers at the Sepulchre, largely inspired by the Novgorod carved icons of the XIV–XVI centuries, is unique in its arrangement of the burial shrouds. These, like curly waves, run down from under the palm of the Angel sitting on the tomb. For Komelin, such completion of the composition is rhythmically logical. Perhaps, by pure intuition had the master divined here another motive — ​ the one of the old Adam being lead out of Hell and into the New Life — ​at the bottom of the Cross we can see Golgotha with Adam’s skull. On the monumental XVII century Cross in the Ivanovo art museum, the same composition features Adam sitting under the Cross in that exact place. The Angels of the Trinity at the top of the Cross resemble light-winged dragonflies, ready to soar at any moment. Comparing the Trinity to the consonant version from the tombstone from the Danilovskoye cemetery allows us to feel the unique character of the master’s carving style. The material dictates massive and voluminous round faces, “crudely modelled” from unwieldy wood, firm bodies, as if grown into the seats, lush palm- like trees to both sides of the supper scene and a wide cross in its bottom. Their wings no longer “call” for flight, but, on the contrary, “ground” their forms with their weight, as is appropriate for a tombstone.

— 109 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

5. A. Komelin. Cappadocia. 2006. Wood, metal, colore

The wooden surface of the Peter and Paul cross pulsates, forming a single energy field, whose plane is not “isolated”, but merged with the reliefs as an equal part of the whole. Everything, however, is different with stone — ​it lays down its own laws, giving the sculptor the opportunity to guess “its living soul”, bring it out and embody it in concrete images. The sculptor works with limestone and, less frequently, with the local white stone, quite pliant for hewing. In completing big-scale designs, such as the Peter and Paul iconostas, however, the intense “struggle” with the material is inevitable, but the author is always victorious. The very phenomenon of his monumental carved ensembles boldly challenges the stringent rules of the Synodical period that disfigured the nature of religious sculpture and thwarted its development in Russia. However, the position of the “patriarchs” of Peter’s times runs counter to the ancient Byzantine tradition. It is no accident that A. Grabar

— 110 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth

believes that it is the relief forms installed before the adytum of churches that gave the pious the opportunity to come into the closest possible contact with the grace of God. The image of a stone as a symbol of Christ appeared back in the apostolic age. According to John the Apostle, “Christ is the cornerstone, the living stone, chosen, precious — ​a white stone with a new name written on it”. This sacred value of the stone, I believe, was the starting point for the creation of Komelin’s iconostas with the Deisis and Feasts in Tarusa and his other works both inside cathedrals and on their walls (Moscow, Tarusa, Peredelkino). The earliest reliefs, the most “Old Russian” by their style, were manufactured by the master for the Church of the Small Ascension in Moscow. But the Peter and Paul iconostas is the epicentre of Komelin’s mastery over stone. Many versions and schemes of the Tarusa cathedral were referenced in a number of later cycles (such as the Holiday “display” for the church in Peredelkino). However, the master’s “penetration” into the stone flesh here is devoid of active force due to the sheer size of the Holiday scenes and the character of the intended interior. The Entry into Jerusalem scene deserves special attention in terms of interpretation of the narrative. Here, Komelin offers an unconventional construction of the group of apostles, literally “sprouting” from the Saviour’s back, like His children. This composition is an almost word- for-word translation of the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it”. Contrary to the usual version, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are not welcoming Him at the city gates, but are fearfully peeking out of a window that resembles one of a prison cell. There is only one palm branch, and with it they “pierce” the canopy of the tree with a young man sitting in it. The tree to the left is literally likened to a spear on a tall shaft — ​the Saviour’s fate is sealed. The composition, built almost exclusively out of geometrical shapes, gives the impression of rigid order, which was fairly noted by S. Shikhachevsky on the Peter and Paul iconostas, as he marked its peculiarity as compared to the images on painted altar walls in Russian churches. I am convinced that this Order is a modification of the strict canon that originates in the early Christian world but naturally stems from the

— 111 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth traditions of the ancient civilizations of the East. They were invariably based on the beginning of learning about the world, supported by the way the ancients saw the world and their mystical beliefs. Thus, for instance, academician B. Rauschenbach construed the rigid canon of the Egyptian stone reliefs in mortuary temples as a geometrical projection of the human figure on a flat surface. Similar “projections” of the Eternity in the figurative versions of the original Christian culture were formulated at the dawn of New Belief by the masters of pilgrimage eulogias that spread around the world the knowledge of the sacred places of Palestine, where the key events of the New Testament history had taken place. They existed practically without any change and with the unvarying composition of images performed in various materials since the early Christian era up to the XI– XII centuries in castings, stone carvings and engravings, representing the “key words” for the “reading” of the New Epoch. Some stones (such as steatite) were regarded as incorruptible and valued as relics. The stylistic of Komelin’s stone works, with its multitude of composite elements (the XII–XIII century sculpture of Vladimir-Suzdalean churches, the XI–XII century Georgian monumental reliefs, the monuments of Roman plastic arts, Old Russian carvings, the Cappadocian frescoes, etc.), is not merely an “amalgamation”, but rather a purely creative interpretation, whose result — ​a unique “author’s world” having no analogues and thus worthy of the most careful study — ​is the matter of the time to come. One of the master’s most deeply thought through experiments, aimed at achieving a synthesis of limestone and white stone, is found in his Transfiguration of Christ (State Tretyakov Gallery, Russian Academy of Arts). Resounding in it are not only the motives of the Old and New Testaments, but also the subject of the Light of the Mount Fabor, depicting which seems impossible in sculpture. The composition consists of four fragments. Christ’s figure on a wooden panel is flanked by almost three- dimensional images of Moses and Elijah, who resemble “Eastern idols”. The most telling in the context of the subject is the artist’s solution for the group of apostles, the witnesses of the Event. Executed in snow-white stone as a separate fragment, it is placed under Jesus’s feet. Here, their spatial meaning can be “read” in the minuscule size of their figures as compares

— 112 — Anna V. Ryndina. The Signs of Being: Heaven and Earth to the Saviour. Their brilliant whiteness embodies the Light of the Mount Fabor, a truly ingenious solution of the sculptural composition by the master. Well after the exhibition at the State Tretyakov Gallery, Komelin completed a wonderfully expressive Lamentation from a small block of white stone (exhibition at the Russian Academy of Arts). Madonna’s figure seems to be “trailing” over the tomb, as if spreading the Sepulchral Shroud over it. At the same time, here, Mary plays her symbolical role of the altar for the Living Bread (Christ). This version of the scene is not fully conventional for the Byzantine-Balkan and Russian traditions, where she has been placed to the left, supporting the Son’s Head as a relic. The master does include in the Lamentation scene the canonical, but unconventionally solved figures of John the Apostle, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who came with a vessel of incense to embalm the shrouds. They seem to be looking from behind Mary’s back; at that, Joseph is tugging at the edge of the loincloth, wishing to imbue it with the balm he had brought. Despite the relatively small size of the flat stone, the author masterly achieves the effect of spatiality through the subtlest difference in depth. The motive of diagonal movement (Joseph pulling the cloth) lends rhythm into the strict horizontal alignment of Madonna’s figure. I was able to find only one other monument executed on taffeta with the use of appliqué — ​the late XVII Shroud from Tsar’s icon-painter Vassily Poznansky from the Church of the Cross in the Terem Palace — ​ with similar structure of the composition, most likely oriented at some old reference. *** Komelin, detached from anything transitory, appears to be looking at the world from above, sensing the harmony of the existence that in an ordinary man’s mundane life falls into myriads of episodes of little individual value. In this context, the wooden construction the master named “Helicopter” deserves reflection. It should seem that he is not longing for wings, craved by many generations of artists, but for some sort of “heaven sleighs”, which he could use to slide on the snowdrifts of the clouds, observing his native icebound river Oka, the pine forests, the fir trees and oaks, the rocky hills, that is, all that wondrously inspires his creations, so diverse and sometimes fantastical, but not yet fully appreciated and understood.

— 113 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

Maria A. Burganova Full Member of Russian Academy of Arts Doctor of Arts, Professor National Artist of Russia Stroganov Moscow State Art-Industrial Academy e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia THE ART OF SCULPTURE: MODERN FORMAT. EXHIBITION OF SCULPTURE IN MOSCOW STATE MUSEUM “BURGANOV HOUSE”

Contemporary sculpture has not only saved its traditional form today, but it also actively promotes and presents a completely new formats. In the era of virtual images and spaces, refusal of architecture to engage monumental art in a dialogue, the general enthusiasm to the concepts, where gestures and action are more important than the result, the sculpture has found its place and means of expression for creating not only new images, but a whole new direction. Now to the sculpture as a kind of art relate installations and design-objects; architecture, bored by the minimalism finds much more sculptural forms; new, not peculiar before to this kind of art materials are drawn; sculptors transform landscapes by the plastic facilities. Sculpture is everywhere! In this connection a new experience and conception of sculpture appears. Modern format of the sculpture appears multiform, interactive and multidirectional. Modern sculpture is an outstanding and striking phenomenon, forming its new specific boundaries, challenging both itself and the spectator, the dialogue with whom about the opportunities and prospects of the development of art, preservation of traditions and innovative search is very important today. The exhibition brings together sculptors, actively looking for a new visual language and preserving classical traditions. Currents that these masters present do not exhaust the full range of the art of sculpture, but allow assessing the condition in which this kind of art is positioned today.

— 114 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

1. Sculptor A. N. Burganov. 2008. Chimera. Bronze

— 115 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

2. Sculptor M. A. Burganova. 2015. Still Life with Watermelon.Wood

— 116 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

3. Sculptor L. M. Baranov. 2012. Expulsion from Paradise. Bronze

— 117 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

4. Sculptor A. Zeinalov. Walking. Bronze

— 118 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

5. Sculptor Yu. Zlotya. 2015. S. Prokofiev. Gypsum

— 119 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

6. Sculptor A. V. Mishin. 2013. Fish catcher. Bronze

— 120 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

7. Sculptor G. A. Petrosyan. 2015. Adam. Metal

— 121 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

8. Sculptor A. P. Smolenkov. 2015. Adam. Stone

— 122 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

9. Sculptor J. A. Smolenkova. 2015. Morning

— 123 — Maria A. Burganova. The Art of Sculpture: Modern Format

10. Sculptor S. Damamme. 2015. Hero. Composite materials

— 124 — 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: VKHUTEMAS studio G. Klutsasa, “ Volume and color”.

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