Bruxelles, 2015 Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal

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

Load more