Design Education and the Quest for National Identity in Late Imperial Russia: the Ac Se of the Stroganov School Wendy Salmond Chapman University, [email protected]

Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons

Art Faculty Articles and Research Art

1994 Design Education and the Quest for National Identity in Late Imperial Russia: The aC se of the Stroganov School Wendy Salmond Chapman University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/art_articles Part of the Art and Design Commons, and the Slavic Languages and Societies Commons

Recommended Citation Salmond, Wendy. "Design Education and the Quest for National Identity in Late Imperial Russia: The asC e of the Stroganov School," Studies in the Decorative Arts, 1.2 (1994): pp. 2-24.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Art at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Art Faculty Articles and Research by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Design Education and the Quest for National Identity in Late Imperial Russia: The aC se of the Stroganov School

Comments This article was originally published in Studies in the Decorative Arts, volume 1, issue 2, in 1994.

This article is available at Chapman University Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/art_articles/8 WENDY R. SALMOND DesignEducation and theQuest forNational Identityin Late ImperialRussia: The Case of theStroganov School

Of thethree major industrial art schools operating in Russiaon theeve of the 1917Revolution, the Imperial Central Stroganov School of Technical Design in Moscow was the oldest,the mostinnovative, and the most controversial.1The StroganovSchool was the first art institution in Russia to confrontthe dauntingproblems of moldingconsumer taste and of improvingmanufactured goods aestheticallyby providingthe Empire's factories,workshops, and schoolswith well-trained industrial artists. For over halfa century,it blazed a trailfor other industrial art schoolsto follow,as its museumfacilities, curriculum, publications, exhibitions, workshops,and factoryinternships all demonstrateda thoughtfuland imaginativeadaptation of modernWestern ideas to local conditions. Above all, the Stroganovwas knownfor championing a distinctively Russianstyle in manufacturedobjects, its mission being to wean Russian consumersfrom what was consideredtheir inordinate love of foreign productswhile at the same timeopening up new marketsfor Russian goodsabroad. None of thesegoals was at all uniqueto Russia,of course. That the nationaleconomy of any industrializingnation could benefitfrom the injectionof aestheticsand the marksof nationaldistinctiveness into variousmanufacturing sectors was an acceptedfact by the mid-nineteenth century,and theproliferation ofindustrial art schools throughout Europe, England,and Americaacknowledged the role that art educationwas believedcapable of playingin economiclife. What made the Stroganov School'smission so unusual,and so problematic,was thematrix of social, cultural,and economicfactors in whichit operated.Allocated a central part in the creationof a new Russian producerand consumer,the Stroganovcame face to facewith long-standing issues of Russian identity that it was powerlessto resolve. In its effortsto forgea stylistic compromisebetween Russian and European culture (the so-called Stroga- nov stylewas essentiallya Russianvariant of ArtNouveau), the school involuntarilyexacerbated the tensionsthat arose when a traditional agrarianculture confronted the demands of modern industrial society.

Wendy R. Salmond is Assistant Professorof Art History at Chapman University,Orange, California.

2 Studiesin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 3

ThePrehistory of the School (18254859) Althoughit was not until 1860 that the StroganovSchool was officiallyestablished, historians of the school have thought it importantto begintheir narrative in 1825.2In thatyear Count SergeiStroganov, a prominentfigure in Moscowartistic, literary, and archaeologicalcircles, foundeda "DrawingSchool Relatedto theArts and Crafts"in Moscow.3 On a visit to Paris in 1822 the count had been "astonishedby the perfectionthat the Parisianworkers bring to all the goods producedin theirworkshops/' and he attributedit to uthelarge number of educational institutionsthat serve all levelsof society."4He particularlynoted the emphasisplaced on drawing."Only withits aid," he wrote,"will [the worker]be able to attainthat purity of formand confidentexecution withoutwhich the arts and craftsare now nothing."5 Returning home, he receivedpermission from Czar Alexander I to founda drawingschool that would"teach elementary rules of practicalGeometry, Architecture, and variouskinds of drawingrelated to the Mechanicalarts to artisans, apprentices,boys, and childrenof poor parents (both freemen and serfs), therebyproviding them with the means to plytheir principal trades with greaterconvenience and skill,and withoutresorting to outsidehelp."6 An importantpractical motive for the count'sgenerosity was his desireto counteractthe strong preference that Russian consumers showed forforeign products, and theirdisdain for anything home-grown. "We decorateour rooms with French goods, and all themechanical goods we use areEnglish," he pointedout. "Luxury makes us a slaveto theFrench, and a whimsicalpassion for improvements subjugates us to theEnglish."7 Thoughhis schoolmight be obligedat firstto borrow"models of refined tasteand correctness"from more civilized nations, he cautiouslyhoped thatRussia might in timedevelop those national qualities that made the productsof France and England so admirable. Beforethat could happen,however, the wretchedstatus of the industrialand applied arts in Russiahad first to be addressed.A systematic demotionof the industrial arts had begunearlier in thecentury when the Academyof Fine Arts dropped the teaching of crafts (masterstva) from its curriculum,thereby establishing the hegemonyof the "freearts" of paintingand sculpture(introduced from abroad by Peter the Great in the early1700s) over traditional Russian crafts such as enamel,filigree, gold- and silverwork,and woodcarving.8 The lowlystatus thus conferred on a careerin theuseful arts was further compounded by the primitive state of Russianmanufacturing and the undiscriminatingtastes of the Russian public.On graduatingfrom the count's school, many pupils gladly chose a poorlypaid but sociallyrespectable position as a drawingteacher in a

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 Studiesin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

remoteprovincial town, rather than take up the lifeof a factorydraftsman, which was lucrativebut viewed as uncouth and demeaning:

A manufacturerwhose main purpose is to satisfythe tastes of the public has veryspecific demands in mindas regardspatterns, and a youngman who has graduatedfrom a specializededucational institution must put asidethose creative aspirations that his teachers inspired in him The specializedartist is set to workcopying ready-made designs adapted to publictaste, and onlyafter going through this training and adjustingto newconditions can he relyon a moreor less stableincome. Moreover, his personalaspirations and individualgifts are not freeto developand with everyyear become increasinglystifled. The artistdisappears, leavingonly the practicaldraftsman who not onlyfails to shape the tastesof the public, but actually spoils the little that society has gained fromart.9

The Russian factoryin the pre-Reformera was no place for those with artisticaspirations, and the complete lack of practicaltraining received in the count's school virtuallyguaranteed that factoryartists would fail in their loftygoals. When the school was transferredto the Ministryof Finance's jurisdictionin 1843, the curriculumwas weightedstill further towardtraining drawing and calligraphyteachers for the Empire'sgrowing education system. It is not surprising,therefore, that the count's institutiondid more to define the massive problemsfacing industrial art education in Russia than to solve them.

The Directorshipof Victor Butovsky (18604881) The firstof several metamorphosesin the historyof the Stroganov School took place in 1859, when the Ministryof Finance mergedit witha drawing school founded in 1836 by the Moscow Court Architectural Institute.The followingyear Victor Butovskywas appointed as the new school's director.A career bureaucrat in the Department of Trade and Industry,Butovsky had no formaltraining in the arts,but he did possess a keen appreciationof the measures needed to jolt Russian manufacturing out of its humiliatingrut. AfterEngland's successes at the international exhibitionsof the previousdecade, no European nation could ignorethe benefits of a state-sponsored industrial art education, and Russia's reputationfor slavishlyimitating the goods of other countrieswas now recognized as a significantdeterrent to industrial growth. Butovsky's solutionwas to promoteindustrial art education as "one of the best means of ensuringthe prosperityof the country,as well as strengtheningnational ideas." Under his direction,the Stroganov School was to lead a national campaign to give Russian manufacturing"that distinctivecharacter in

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 5 conjunctionwith artistry, the lack of whichwas one of the principal reasonsfor [Russian]industry's negligible significance in the eyes of Europe."10 By 1870 Butovskyhad pushedthrough two astonishinglyambitious projectsto promotethe school as firstand foremosta bastion of national ideas.Taking the South Kensington Museum and themuseums of Lyons and Berlinas models,in 1863 he beganto drumup supportfrom Moscow manufacturersfora museumof industrial art. On thepremise that Russian manufacturingshould draw for inspirationon national ornamental traditions,he instituteda comprehensiveplan forcollecting in facsimile form(plaster casts and drawings)selected ornamental details from the majorexamples of precedine Russian architecture,applied art, and manuscripts.Together with genuine artifacts (enamels, niello, jewelry, plate,weapons, harness, fabrics, furniture, and liturgicalobjects), these facsimilesformed the basis of the StroganovMuseum's Russian section whenit finally opened in 1868 (Fig.1). Encouragedby the responsethat a selection of the facsimile ornamentselicited at exhibitionsin Moscow,Vienna, and Paris,Butovsky nextundertook the monumentaltask of publishingone hundredmanu' scriptilluminations, a volume he titledHistoire de V ornement russe du Xe au XVIe siècled'après les manuscrits(Fig. 2). In his forewordto thisdeluxe publicationof 1870-1873,he definedits practical benefits as follows:

Itattempts toshow Russian artists and artisans the sources and types for a truenational style. ... Itis a collectionof materials and ideas for use in all areasof ornamentation:designs for fabric weaving and printing, decorationsfor furniture and furnishings,forworks in goldand for jewelry,chasing and repoussé, ceramics, engraving, painting on glass and crystal,and bookbinding.11

To demonstratethat his claimcould be realized,Butovsky set up several workshopsattached to the museumon MiasnitskaiaStreet, and free access was givento anyonewanting practical experience in weaving, fabricprinting, modeling, chromolithography, and paintingon pottery, faïence,and porcelain.A varietyof prototypes for the application of bona fideRussian ornament to functionalobjects were producedhere, and these goods were exhibitedand sold in the 1870s with considerable success.However, it was oftenartisans who actuallyproduced these examplesof an "Old Russianstyle," the Stroganovstudents themselves being involvedin copyingand compilingdesigns from the extensive resourcesnow available to them,an activitythat was evidently considered moresuited to theircreative aspirations.

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 Studiesin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

In all of these endeavors,Butovsky's attention seemed focused exclusivelyon changingthe external perception of the Stroganov School as the necessaryprerequisite to reformingit fromwithin. This would explainhis deferential attitude to Frenchopinion, which at firstglance sits ratheroddly with his nationalistintentions. As his primarymentor, he chosenot a notedRussian scholar, like Fedor Buslaev or Vladimir Stasov, but the French authorityon industrialart, Natalis Rondot,whose three-partplan of 1858for the Lyons Industrial Art Museum was adopted in fullfor Moscow.12 It was also at Rondot'sprompting that Butovsky chose to have his Histoirede l'ornementrusse published in Parisin 1870. Fullyalive to the dangersof "designespionage" among the English,he appearedoblivious to anyulterior motives on Rondot's part.Thus, when HenryCole and Owen Jonesoffered to buy some of his ornamental drawingsat the 1867 ParisExposition, Butovsky "was afraidof giving FIGURE 1 Englandour nationaldesigns and declined,demanding a far higher The Russian section of the Museum of Butit tooka Frenchobserver, Alfred Darcel, to out IndustrialArt attached to the Stroganov price."13 cynical point School, Moscow. From Iskusstvoi the value thata grammarof Russianornament might have forFrench khudozhestvennaiapromyshlennost 3 (1898). textilemanufacturers: "If the Lyons silk makers are to continueto findan*

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 7

FIGURE 2 Plate fromHistoire de l'ornementrusse du Xe au XVle siècled'après les manuscrits(Paris, 1870-1873).Photo: Getty Center for the Historyof Art and theHumanities, Santa Monica,California. outletin Russia,"Darcel wrote, "they need to transformthemselves in line withthis revival of taste [forRussian popular art]."14 It seemsprobable that Butovskydeliberately chose to ally himselfand his school with France,Europe's acknowledged capital of good taste.If NatalisRondot praisedthe direction that the schoolhad taken,what philistine Russian woulddare to contradicthim? Butovsky'smore scholarlycompatriots were both impressedand irritatedby the spectacle of Russia taken under the wing of France. True, he had succeededin attractingforeign attention to his school and to traditionalRussian culture, but whychoose a Frenchpublisher over a Russian?Why was a grammarof Russian ornament, purportedly intended forhumble Russian artisans, so prohibitivelyexpensive (a hundredrubles forthe complete set)? And why were Russia's Byzantine origins, with their unfortunatetaint of cultural assimilation from without, privileged over all othersources of an ornamentalrenaissance, most notably those derived frompeasant culture? According to his foremostcritic, Vladimir Stasov, Butovskywas "full of patriotism, but full of ignorance too" in hisattempts to revivean Old Russianstyle for the industrial arts based exclusively on thearistocratic habits of a Byzantine-dominatedRussian court. "It is now clearto manypeople that there is no specialhonor for Russians in anysort of Byzantinism,"Stasov wrote."Does anyone now, except for Mr. Butovskyand his associates,have any desiremerely to pass on stale foreignnews?"15 Whateverits flaws, the Histoire d'ornement russe brought the Stroga- nov School, and Russianindustrial art, to nationaland international prominence.It inciteda healthyrivalry with the School of the Society for

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 Studiesin theDecorative Arts /Spring 1 994

the Encouragementof the Arts in St. Petersburg,which one year later published its own, very differentversion of a grammar of Russian ornament,Stasov's Russian Folk Ornament,But perhaps most important for Butovsky'spromotional purposes, his book earned the approval of visitorsfrom abroad, such as the English criticA. BeavingtonAtkinson, who reportedin 1872 that "l'École Stroganoff"might indeed be able to "supplythose aestheticwants which are nevermore keenly felt than at the turningpoint when a nation is passing out of barbarisminto nascent civilization."16

The Reformsof Nikolai Globa (18964917)

Between 1881, the yearof Butovsky'sdeath, and 1896, the Stroganov School suffereda temporarysetback. The workshopswere closed down, fundingwas tight,and because of the lack of practical trainingmost graduates took teaching positions in the provinces,much as theyhad in Count Stroganov'sday. Meanwhile,Moscow was fastbecoming the hub of a nationwide railwaynetwork and the center of a rapidlygrowing textile industry.The Moscow industrialregion's need fortrained design person* nel was urgent,and Butovsky'sachievements had scarcely affectedthe realitiesof industrialproduction, as the followingdescription of cut-and* paste designpractices in a textilefactory demonstrates:

Let's say a new pattern for a calico, batiste, upholsterycretonne, or velveteen is asked for.The factoryhas an artistfor this purpose, but very rarelyis this "artist"really one. In most cases he's a peasant fromKholui, Mstera,or Palekh, villages in Vladimirprovince employed exclusively in icon painting.The poor chap, having been raised on images withascetic faces and figures,and straightdrapery folds, turns up at the factoryas a "draftsman,"and instead of St. Basil or St. Nicholas he has to design "a nice jolly littlepattern." ... He sits and sweats over his patternmaking, using as models calico patternsthat are alreadyout of fashion.From one he takes a sprig,from another a leaf, a flowerfrom a third,and voilà! a colorfulmonstrosity.17

The aesthetic shortcomingsof Russian manufacturingwere not lost on Count SergeiWitte, minister of finance from 1892 to 1903 and a strong supporterof both art education and industrialexpansion. In 1896 Witte appointed his protégé,Nikolai Globa, to the post of Stroganov director. Globa was alreadywell acquainted with the dismal state of industrialart education in Russia. A graduateof the Academy of Arts,he had taughtfor several years in the Women's Drawing Class at the Society for the Encouragement of the Arts in St. Petersburg,before being appointed

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 9 inspectorof industrial art education by Witte in 1895.In thiscapacity he helpedto formthe Society for the Propagation of Industrial Art Education in Moscow,with a membershipincluding some of the city's leading textile magnatesand manufacturers.18He also deviseda plan forsetting up specializeddesign schools throughout the Empire, but soon found the lack oftrained instructors a serious obstacle.19 As thenew director, Globa immediatelyundertook a set ofsweeping reformsdesigned to transformthe Stroganov from a drawingschool into a fullyfledged industrial art institute, where practical training would take its properplace alongsidetheoretical knowledge. Old workshopswere reactivatedand new ones graduallyadded, withfunds from both the Ministryof Financeand the manufacturingsector: donations from the Sapozhnikov,Morozov, Mikhailov, and Rybakovfirms, for example, helpedto equip thereopened weaving workshop with six new looms.In 1897 Globa involvedthe city'sindustrialists still more closelyin the school'saffairs by introducinga systemof annual designcompetitions, withlocal firmsoffering prizes for original patterns that could be putinto immediateproduction. It now becameobligatory for students to spend theirsummer holidays as factoryinterns in theirfields of specialization. Along with these practicalmeasures, the school's alreadystrong associationwith a nationalstyle was strengthened in everypossible way. If at thebeginning of his tenure Globa's aims were of the vaguest kind - "to use drawingto developthe students' ability to capturethe idea ofartistic form,their understanding of the lawsof beauty and refinement,and the communicationof theirideas in beautifulforms that would satisfythe demandsof developedaesthetic taste" - by 1900 the school's most importantgoal was "to directthe students' artistic instinct toward seeking and developinga distinctivebeauty in nationalRussian art."20 Beginning in 1899,excursions were organized to St. Petersburg,Iaroslavl, Vladimir, Rostov,and otherhistoric cities, "to acquaintstudents with old Russian architecture,painting and appliedart, and also withpeasant handicrafts and factoryproduction."21 When local jewelry,ceramics, or textilefirms offeredprizes in theannual design competitions, they frequently specified a Russianor Byzantinestyle. In 1899,for example, the fiveprizes were describedas follows:

I. Prizefor a hangingbronze lamp in the Louis XV or XVI style, givenby Grand Duchess Elizaveta Fedorovna. II. Prizefor a juteupholstery fabric in the Russian style, given by V. G. Sapozhnikov. III. Prizefor a tombstoneina ByzantineorRussian style, given byA. List.

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 10 Studksin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

IV. Prizefor a completesilver writing set for a man'sdesk in the Russianstyle, given by M. P. Ovchinnikov. V. Prize fora tea set in the Russianstyle, given by M. S. Kuznetsovand Co.22

Over time,the revivalof national traditionsbecame an integralpart of the basic curriculum,which was now divided into a five-yearLower School program and three years of composition classes in the Upper School. The firsttwo "historyof style" classes taught at the Stroganov were devoted exclusivelyto Russian styles,

in viewof the acknowledgedability of childrento assimilatethings withcomparative ease and to rememberthem for the restof their lives.Naturally, in a Russianschool the study of one's native history, and in art schools of one's native art antiquities,should take precedenceover the study of the art history of other nations, and one mustthink that the forms of one's nativeart, stored away during the yearsof greatestreceptivity and curiosity,will alwaysremain an unshakablefoundation upon whichever^newer forms dear to the spiritof Russian art will subsequently be developed.23

In 1908 the drawingcourses were reorganizedand expanded to encourage greaterindependence and imagination.A class in "creative drawing"was introducedto develop uthecreative abilities with which Russian youthare especiallyendowed, but which are usually stifledfrom earliest childhood by that urge to imitatethat is so widespreadin Russian society."24Instead of "the drypedantic tracingof dull models, pupils [were] taughtto make both line and color drawingsof objects familiarto them fromtheir home environment,or shown them fromthe Museum collection."25Academic drawingfrom casts was deferreduntil the fourthyear, by which timepupils would have acquired "a sufficientstore of theirown individualthoughts and observations."26And in the seniorcomposition classes forstudents in theirfinal three years, the firstclass was devoted exclusivelyto designing in a Russian style. These adjustmentsto a systemof arteducation importedfrom abroad seem rational and necessarysteps to producinga new breed of Russian designer,one capable of independentthought and naturallypredisposed toward primaryaesthetic habits acquired in childhood- in short, to a native Russian style. This, after all, was the goal to which Count Stroganovhad hoped his school mightaspire. But it was also the direction in which Russia was being prodded by other nations, not merelyout of self'interest (to protect theirown markets),but also in response to the specterof an industrializedworld in which all nations would be culturally homogeneous. As the nineteenth century drew to a close, backward

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The StroganovSchool 11 countrieslike Russia were increasinglyexhorted to protecttheir pre- industrialculture before it disappeared.In the wordsof one English observer,"What was wanted[in Russia]was thatthe national art should be fostered,so thatthe world should not becomemore commonplace, as theresult of commercial enterprise and travellingfacilities."27 Free trade was a dangerthreatening that "Russia would be speedilysupplied with waresfrom other European markets, which would ultimately lead to the sameresults that had to be deploredin India,the decayof native art."28 These veiled prescriptionswere not lost on the StroganovSchool's administration.It is no accidentthat the launchingof a distinctive Stroganovstyle occurred at the 1900 Paris Exposition,where Art Nouveau and the culturesof countrieshitherto dismissed as primitive werecelebrated in tandem.

The StroganovStyle Butovskyhad establisheda Russianstyle for the StroganovSchool thatwas rootedin the relativelynew scienceof archaeology,and that stressedfidelity to originalsources. By contrast, Globa's reforms promoted the conceptof stylizationas a fundamentaldesign principle. Although artifactscontinued to serveas models,the creative process was no longer confinedto selectingornament for passive reproduction. Students were nowencouraged to transformmotifs and formsthrough the prism of their fin-de-siècleage and theirown experience.It could certainlybe argued that,by distorting, exaggerating, and simplifyingboth natural forms and thenational cultural heritage, they were only responding to theworld as theirmedieval ancestors had done,or as the Russianpeasant still did.29 But mostobservers merely saw the insidiousinfluence of "Vienna and Munichchic" at work,a tendencydismissed as "decadence." Thisfundamentally xenophobic conclusion was not reached immedi' ately.Initially it was observedthat "the attemptof the new directorto raisethe level of our wretchedso-called industrial 'art' deservesevery attention."30When the StroganovSchool scored an unexpectedand unprecedentedsuccess at the1900 Paris Exposition, with two Grands Prix and six goldand six silvermedals awarded by an internationaljury, the winningentries were praisedprecisely because theywere "not simple copiesof familiar motifs from our antiquities but free compositions based on our ancientstyle. One senses in themthe breathof the past and somethingnew, something unique to themselves."31 By 1901, however,a reviewerof the annual Stroganovexhibition soundeda note of caution:"The Russianstyle predominates, although someworks reflect an enthusiasmfor fashionable tendencies. ... In the

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 12 Stuäesin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

"32 'Stylizationof Flowers' class one senses a desire to 'go decadent/ Two yearslater, it was observedin more pointed language that the school was "imbuing designs and finishedobjects with a life and nature that are foreignto our spirit,that are more like work fromsome German or new Zionist school Everythingshown here reveals well-establishedprin- ciples of applied art borrowed fromGerman stylemoderne publications. The workshopscan go no furtherin thisdirection."33 The immediate source of this problematic new style was not the availabilityof artjournals such as Jugend,Pan, and Studio,as these reviews mightsuggest, but the Stroganovfaculty itself, which from1898 included the most progressivearchitects and artiststhen involved in articulatinga new Russian style.To teach the seniorcomposition classes, Globa invited the architectsFedor Shekhtel, Lev Brailovsky,Lev Kekushchev, Sergei Solovev, Konstantin Bykovsky,Ivan Zholtovsky,Sergei Vashkov, and Alexander Shchusev. Anatomyclasses were taughtby Sergei Goloushev, a medical doctor more famous forhis art criticism,which appeared under FIGURE 3 the pseudonymSergei Glagol. KonstantinKorovin, whose designsfor the Design fora fireplace,c. 1898. From Zapiski Russian pavilionsat the 1900 Paris Expositionwere widely seen as the first MoskovskogoArkhitektumogo Obshchestva. viable prototypefor a neo-Russian style in architecture,was Ezhegodnik1 (1909). appointed head of the stage design program.And Mikhail Vrubel, then approaching the peak of his notorietyas a "decadent" painter,was invitedto teach two new courses called "Plant Stylization"and "Exercises in Stylization." During the 1890s, Vrubel had been the creative force behind the success of the Abramtsevo Ceramic Factory, a commercial enterprise fundedby the railwaymagnate and art patron Sawa Mamontov, where painters like Korovin, Valentin Serov, Vasily Polenov, and Vrubel experimentedwith art ceramics, majolica, and new glazes. Signs of the Abramtsevo influencecan already be detected in a Stroganov student's design fora tiled fireplace(a favoriteVrubel project) fromthe late 1890s (Fig. 3). In itself a very "Russian" object, the fireplacecombines two varietiesof plant ornament(one traditional,one more fantastic)with the squat, bulbous columns that were an integral part of the Russian architecturalvocabulary. Under the direction of the sculptor Nikolai Andreev, the Stroganov ceramics workshop acquired an international reputationfor new forms,new ornamentation,and new high-fireglazes and metalliceffects (Fig. 4).34 In the weaving and fabricprinting workshops, the peculiar brand of neo-Russian ornamentfavored there was also indebted to the decorative experimentsof artistsfrom the Abramtsevo circle, above all to Elena Polenova, Alexander Golovin, and Natalia Iakovlevna Davydova. In the 1890s these artistshad devised a new grammarof Russian ornamentbased

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 13

FIGURE 4 The ceramicworkshop of the Stroganov School,under the direction of Nikolai Andreev,early 1900s. From K. E. Pruslina, Russkaiakeramika(Moscow, 1974). on stylizedmotifs from local floraand fauna,which was intendedto breathenew life into Russia's declining kustar art industries - traditional peasantcrafts such as embroidery,fabric printing, and wood carving.35 (Kustarwas apparentlya corruption of the German word Künstler, artist.) Theirlegacy is especiallyvisible in twofabric designs that were published in a Moscow architecturaljournal in 1909. In one, a hen pecks at a sprawlingbush with spatulate leaves that undulate upward to endin giant circularblooms (Fig. 5). The other,a repeatpattern of cloudberriesand fantasticfoliage on a darkground (Fig. 6), recallsthe splendidwoven brocadesfor which Russia had longbeen famous, but more vividly it calls to mind the plant fantasiesof Elena Polenova with theircuriously grotesquehyperboles and expressionist stylizations.36 Stroganovpupils were also aware of activitiesat Talashkino,the Smolenskestate of Princess Maria Tenisheva, where a revivalof peasant craftswas attemptedin the early1900s. Tenisheva's Moscow store The Source sold an arrayof one'of'a'kinddecorative objects produced by peasantcraftsmen using designs by prominentMoscow artists,and the princesswas knownto haveselected two Stroganov graduates in 1903 to headher Talashkino workshops.37 Withoutaccess to the Stroganov'sarchives, any pictureof the school'sinteraction with both the major centers of progressive design and theleading commercial firms remains frustratingly incomplete.38 It seems clear, however,that the school acted as the primary

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 Studiesin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

FIGURE 5 S. Markelov, design forthe textile workshop at the Stroganov School. From Zapisid MoshovskogoArkhitektumogo Obshchestva. Ezhegodnik1 (1909).

intermediarybetween the "avant-garde"Moscow art world and the middle-classconsumer, disseminating its own formof Russianmoderne throughits store on RozhdestvenkaStreet. Here the Moscow public could buygoods made in theschool's seventeen workshops, including "ceramics, silver,bronze, copper work, enamels, furniture, icons, embroidery, textiles, glassware,work in leatherand horn,bookbinding, chromolithography, etching,and otherforms of printmaking."39Similarly, at the annual exhibitionsof student work, the visitor could buy decorative objects of the kindfeatured in theposter advertising the 1913-1914student exhibition: a metalcup with fernlike spirals for handles, a repoussémetal teapot, and a lengthof boldly printed naboika (block printed fabric) suitable for a portière (Fig.7). The decorativeeffect that could be achievedby combining the best effortsof all seventeenworkshops was demonstratedin 1908,when the school exhibitedseveral model interiorsat the InternationalArt and ConstructionExhibition in St. Petersburg(Fig. 8). The walls of the crampeddining room were lined with cumbersome buffets, side tables, chairs,and a divan,hanging cupboards and shelves,decorative majolica, and wooden platters.On everysurface, caskets and kovshchi(both traditionalRussian shapes in wood and metalwork)jostled Jugendstil clocksand vases.The diningtable was set withevery kind of decorative utensil,beneath the shadow of an impressivemetal lampshade. The sheer

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 15 clutterconfirms the school'sallegiance to the productionof consumer goodsrather than to theUtopian aestheticization ofeveryday life.

The Campaignfor Graphic Literacy In 1902 theStroganov's sphere of influence, previously confined to a fairlylimited geographical area and a welUtO'dosocial stratum,was dramaticallyexpanded when the Ministry of Finance passed a Statuteon ArtEducation. For the nextdecade the schoolbecame the nucleusof a nationwidecampaign for "graphicliteracy," training designers and teachersfor all levelsand branchesof industrialproduction throughout

FIGURE 6 V. Akimov, design forthe textile workshop at the Stroganov School. From Zapiski MoskovskogoArkhitektumogo Obshchestoa. Ezhegodník1 (1909).

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16 Studiesin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

FIGURE 7 Posterfor the Exhibition of Student Work at theStroganov School 1913-1914.From N. I. Baburina, Russkiiplakat vtoroipoloviny XlX-nachaiaXXveka(Leningrad, 1988).

the Empire.40Within its officialpurview now came all of those issues which the schools of fineart had traditionallyignored: "questions about the general aesthetic education of the people, about art in the lifeof the child at school, about the developmentof folkart throughthe kustarand the artisan,and the statusand goals of our industrialart."41 Particularattention was given to the aesthetic education of Russia's kustarpopulation, comprising some threemillion peasants who produced a range of consumer products under a cottage industrysystem. In the 1870s the revivalof certainkustar arts and craftshad been recognizedas a

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 17 potentialsource of revenue and a wayof maintaining the social status quo in the countryside,while celebratingindigenous cultural traditions. Widelyconsidered Russia's last directlink with those native arts which Westernculture had supplantedin theeighteenth century, Russian kustar art was now perceivedas an economicgold mine that with proper managementcould yield good returns. The Stroganov'soutreach effort began with the openingof branch schoolsin the villagesof Ligachev,Rechitsa, Sergius Posad, and Os- trogozhsk,all importantcenters of kustar furniture, wood carving, and toy production.A networkof schools and trainingworkshops was subse- quentlyestablished in key kustardistricts like Kamenets-Podolskin Poltavaprovince, an areawell known for its ceramics. A 1913photograph FIGURE 8 of the KamenetS'PodolskArts and CraftsTraining Workshop's produc- The diningroom exhibited by the Stroganov tionreflects the emphasisthat the school'sadministration placed on all School at theInternational Art and aspectsof drawing (Fig. 9). Itsdirector, Nikolai Root, ardently supported ConstructionExhibition in St. Petersburg, an arteducation system based on Westernprinciples, claiming: "We have 1908.From Niva 32 (1908).

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 18 Stuäesin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

FIGURE 9 nothingto fearfrom the Europeanization of industrial art education. The View of the Kamenets-Podolsk Arts and Russianartist in the appliedarts, having assimilated the achievementof CraftsTraining Workshop's section at the Second All-Russian Kustar Exhibition in Europe,as shownby thehistory of Russianart in all spheres,can create Petrograd,1914. From SolntseRossü (1913). nothingthat is notRussian and notnational, if the basis for industrial art educationis establishedon cultivatedprinciples."42 But as thecampaign to educate the Russiankustar progressed, a major questionarose. If peasant art were valued for its "naïveté,spontaneity, and colorful 'savagery,'"43 - forbeing "untutored" - wouldit be ableto maintainthose qualitiesin the faceof an educationsystem that valued correct drawing, technicalprecision, and refinement?Would the "real" Russian art practicedin countlesspeasant villages be able to holdits own against the reconstituted,updated style russe moderne officially espoused by the StroganovSchool? By 1913 severalclasses of "Stroganovtsy"trained under the Globa systemhad graduatedand found positionseither in factoriesand workshops,or as instructorsand artisticdirectors in provincialschools. Some conscientiouslypracticed the nationalist principles that their alma materhad taughtthem. Ekaterina Vorobeva became directorof the

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 19

MariinskyLace Schoolin St. Petersburg,a state-run school committed to thepreservation of traditional women's handcrafts. During the 1910sand intothe 1920s,a numberof former students worked as staffartists for the importantMoscow KustarMuseum in Leontie vsky Lane, helpingto designnew products for a varietyof kustar art centers.44 In the southern provinceof Poltava, V. I. Cherchenkodeveloped a kind of "neo- Ukrainian"decorative style for the carpentryworkshops run by the Poltavaprovincial zemstvo, or local government (Fig. 10). Therewere also instances, however, where Stroganov-trained instruc- torswere the source of extraordinarystylistic anomalies. Under the directionof foursuch instructors,students at the Bolshoe Krasnoe trainingworkshop for gold- and silversmithsin Kostromaprovince were introducedto the Biedermeierrevival then fashionable in the Russian capitals(Fig. 11). In similarfashion workers in the "Marble"Lapidary FIGURE 10 TrainingWorkshop in theUrals town of Ekaterinburgproduced frames, Carved sideboard made in the carpentry paperweights,and statuettesin a neo-Egyptianstyle, thanks to the workshopof the Poltava provincial zemstvo, initiativeof the Stroganov-trained A. N. Shapochkin(Fig. 12). c. 1913. From Russicoenarodnoe iskusstvo na Instancesof this sortfueled a bitterdebate over the wisdomof vtoroivserossiishoi kustamoi vystavke v interferencefrom government agencies such as the StroganovSchool in Petrogradev 1913 g (Petrograd,1914).

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 20 Studiesin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

FIGURE 11 Silver,gilt, and enameled goods made by formerstudents of the Bolshoe Krasnoe Arts and CraftsSchool, Kostroma province,c. 1913. From Russkoenarodnoe iskusstw.

the natural evolution (or decline) of Russian peasant culture. Far from raisingthe wretchedRussian kustarto a level of taste and cultureon a par with that of Europe,the Stroganovseemed to conspirein erodingthe last shredsof those qualities that constituted his absolutevalue and difference. Such incidents also suggest that the "psychological training" in national values that the school triedto emphasizewas both superficialand artificial.Few people, it seemed,really believed that the neo-Russianstyle, with its tendencytoward theatricalexcess and impracticality,was more than a clever marketingdevice best suited for internationalexhibitions and the exporttrade. Although the StroganovSchool doggedlyattempted uto instillin Russian societygreater confidence in its own artisticpowers and to have a broad moral and practical significance,"45it ultimately provedpowerless to withstandthe tyrannyof a consumingpublic that still looked to Europe to findout what it should buy. With the exception of religiousart, where national stylewas alwaysconsidered most appropriate, the demand forthe neo-Russian stylein everydaylife lasted onlyas long as it was valued abroad.

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 2 1

The StroganovSchool after 1917 In theory,the historyof the ImperialCentral Stroganov School of IndustrialArt ends in September1918 when,by decreeof the People's Commissariatof Enlightenment,it was amalgamatedwith the Moscow School of Painting,Sculpture, and Architectureto formthe Free State ArtStudios, or SVOMAS. Two yearslater the SVOMAS werereconsti- tutedas theHigher State Art Studios, or VKhUTEMAS, and forseveral yearsthe school was an arena forthe experimentsand debatesof the Constructivistfaction as representedby Alexander Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova,and other young VKhUTEMAS faculty.46 Yet sweepingchanges in name,structure, and personnel,designed to put as muchdistance as possiblebetween the Soviet presentand the discreditedbourgeois past, could not whollyobliterate the veryreal FIGURE 12 continuitybetween VKhUTEMAS and the StroganovSchool. For one Carved marble and stoneworkmade by thing,the VKhUTEMAS missionwas virtuallyidentical to thatof its pupils of the "Marble" LapidaryTraining dedicatedto masterartists for predecessor, preparing"highly qualified Workshop of the Ekaterinburgdistrict industryas wellas instructorsand directorsof professional and technical zemstvo,Perm province,c. 1913. From education,""developing and encouragingartistic activity among the Russkoenarodnoe iskusstoo.

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 22 Studiesin theDecorative Arts /Spring Î 994

People/' and fostering"the enormousrole" that industrialart would play in "the internationalexchange market."47Principles that had formedthe cornerstoneof Globa's reformedStroganov School in the early 1900s- practical training, links with industrythrough internships,mass art education- were replicatedas essentialcomponents of the Constructivist ethos. And an unusuallyhigh numberof avant-gardeartists committed to the restructuringof Soviet art and life were themselves former "Stroganovtsy,"among them Alexander Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, Olga Rozanova, Konstantin Vialov, Aleksei Morgunov, Georgii and VladimirStenberg, and KonstantinMedunitsky.48 As late as 1922 it was still possible and permissibleto acknowledge the obvious continuitybetween the formerStroganov School and its restructuredself, as an encyclopedia entryfor that year demonstrates: "Having begun by trainingcraftsmen, the Stroganov School later shifted to educating drawing teachers and factorydesigners. Around 1900 it began to steer a course toward the trainingof kustarartists, and finally VKhUTEMAS has made its primarygoal the creation of a closer bond between the related branches of our industry."49By 1927, however, changes in the political climate had made it extremelydifficult to discuss the StroganovSchool, or forthat matterany prerevolutionaryinstitution, outside the rhetoricof class struggle.The highlycritical reminiscences of IgnatiiNivinsky, a formerpupil and teacherat the formerStroganov, were symptomaticof thisgrowing intolerance:

I was educatedat the StroganovSchool duringthe era of "artistic reaction."The mainobject and thedominant idea behind our studies wasthe so-called "applied arts," ornamentation, the accumulation of uselessbut "chic" details for objects that had no specificpurpose. All vitalthought was absentfrom the program, and it was impossibleto findthe slightestallusion to fundamentalproblems. Everywhere, in boththe classrooms and theworkshops, there reigned the desire to satisfythe public taste, a desirethat was sustainedby the shop that was opened in the school.... In fact,the school producedclever compilerswhose ideal was to makeobjects that "sold well"on the industrialart market.50

For the past seventyyears, such caricaturesof the Stroganov School's complex historyhave effectivelyobscured its contribution to design education in Russia. With the passing of Communismand the waning of Modernism,it may now be possible to reintegratethe Stroganov School and all that it standsfor - the quest fornational identity,the formationof popular culture, the integrationof the decorative and functional- into the historyof Russian art in its broadestsense.51

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TheStroganov School 23

NOTES

1. The other two schools were both in St. 9. Gartvig,Shkola risovaniia, 282-83. (Brailovsky,Bykovsky, Zhukovsky, Kekushev, Shekh- Petersburg.The School of the Society for the tel) and thoseindustrialists most closely involved in 10. ViktorI. Butovskii,Russkoe iskusstvo i mnenie o Encouragementof the Arts was foundedas a industrialart education:Sawa Mamontov,Sergei nemViollet-le-Duc i F. 1. Buslaeva[Russian Art and drawingschool in 1839,and in 1862 expandedto T. Morozov,M. P. Ovchinnikov,Ivan Tsvetaev, the Opinion of Viollet-le-Ducand F. I. Buslaev includeapplied arts. In 1906,when Nikolai Roerich and PetrShchukhin. RegardingIt] (Moscow,1879), 4. was appointeddirector, the school was reformed 23. Otchet,20. alongthe lines of the Stroganov School in Moscow. 11 . Musée d'artet d'industriede Moscou,Histoire See Nikolai Makarenko,Shkola Imperatorskogode l'ornementrusse du Xe au XVle siècled'après les 24. Ibid.,19. ObshchestvaPooshchreniia Khudozhesto LXXV [The manuscrits,vol. 1 (Paris,1870), 1. 25. Ibid. School of the ImperialSociety for the Encourage- 12. On the Museumof IndustrialArt in Moscow, mentof the Artsl (Petrograd, 1914). The Shtieglits 26. 21. II Museum of Ibid., CentralSchool of TechnicalDrawing (founded in later renamed the Alexander et 1874)was well known for its excellent facilities and IndustrialArt, see NatalisRondot, "Musée d'art 27. E. DelmarMorgan, "Russian Industrial Art," d'industriede des beaux-arts25 technicalpreparation, and for its fundamentally Moscou,"Gazette Journalof the Society of Arts 14 (May 19, 1894): 662. Germanfaculty and curriculum. (July1868): 82-85. 28. Ibid. 13. Russkoe 172. 2. The majorhistory of the school before 1860 is A. Butovskii, iskusstvo, 29. A similarpoint was made by the popular Gartvig,Shkola risovaniia v otnoshenii k iskusstvam i 14. AlfredDarcel, "L'art russe," Gazette des beaux- illustratorIvan Bilibin, who described the ornament remeslam,uchrezhdennaia v 1825 GrafomS. G. arts17 (March1878): 285. on embroideredpeasant towels as "so fantastical Stroganovom.Ee vozniknovenie i razvitie do I860 [The that if an illustratorused an exact copy in a DrawingSchool Relatedto the Arts and Crafts, 15. VladimirStasov, "Eshche raz po povodukritika " publicationthe public would proclaim,'What a Foundedin 1825 by Count S. G. Stroganov.Its 'MoskovskikhVedomostei,' Sobraniesochinenii " decadent.' Ivan Bilibin, "Ostatici iskusstvav Origins and Developmentto 1860] (Moscow, ["Once More Regardingthe Critic for 'The russkoiderevne," Zhumal dlia vsekh ["The Remains 1901). See also Moskvich[pseudonym], "Stroga- MoscowGazette,'" CollectedWorks], vol. 2 (St. of Artsin the RussianCountryside," Magazine for novskoe tsentralnoeuchilishche tekhnicheskogo Petersburg,1894), 285. Everyone]10 (1904): 617. rizovaniiav Moskve,"iskusstvo i khudozhestvennaia 16. J.Beavington Atkinson, An ArtTour to Russia promyshlennost[A Muscovite,"The Stroganov 30. "Izvestiia,"Khudozhestvennye sokrovishcha Rossii (London,1986), 251. CentralSchool of Technical Drawing in Moscow," ["News,"Art Treasures of Russia] 4 (1901): 63. Artand Industrial 3 and S. Art] (1898): 286-93; 17. A. P-v. [MaximGorky], "Khudozhestvennaia VKhUTEMAS 31. "Zametka,"Iskusstvo i khudozhestvennaiapro- Khan-Magomedov, (Paris, 1990), promyshlennost,"Iskusstvo ["Industrial Art," Art] 5 myshlennost["A Note,"Art and IndustrialArt] 12 145-57. (1936): 140. (1899): 1046. 3. It is worth that,whereas by mid-century noting 18. Membersincluded N. A. Naidenov(president Russia farbehind in industrialart 32. "Vystavka v Stroganovskomuchilishche," lagged England of the Moscow Stock ExchangeCommittee), the school a Arkhitektumyemotivy ["Exhibition at theStroganov education,Count Stroganov's predatesby M. A. V. G. industrialists Morozov, Sapozhnikov, Architectural 25 1. decadethe foundation of the first English school of School," Motifs] (May 1901): Sergei and Savva Morozov (all heads of major in 1837. The betweenthese first design, parallels textile concerns),M. S. Kuznetsov(ceramics), 33. B. [articlesigned with initial only], "Vystavka Moscow and London schools are striking.See M. P. Ovchinnikov(gold and silver),and the uchenischeskikhmasterskikh Stroganovskogo QuentinBell, The Schools of Design (London, 1963). railwaymagnate Sawa Mamontov.Novosti dnia uchilishcha,"Iskusstvo stroitelnoe i dekorativnoe ofthe 2. of the Student at the 4. Gartvig,Shkola risovaniia, 105. [News Day] (January14, 1896): ["Exhibition Workshops StroganovSchool," Building and DecorativeArt] 3 Globa's is outlined in "S'ezd v 5. Ibid.,106. 19. program (1903): 24. Moskve,"Novoe vremia["Congress in Moscow," 6. Ibid. New Times]7134 (January8, 1896): 3. 34. On the ceramicworkshop at the Stroganov School, see Klara N. Pruslina,Russkaia keramika 7. Ibid.,136. 20. Recueilsdes compositionsdes élèvesde l'école [RussianCeramics] (Moscow, 1974), 91-109. à Moscou,vol. 1 (Moscow,1900), 1. 8. worksof and some Stroganoff "Only painting sculptural 35. On aspectsof the kustar revival movement, see works to the freearts. The rest actuallybelong 2 1. Otchetpo imperatorskomuStroganovskomu Tsen- Wendy Salmond, "The Solomenko Embroidery relatemore to mechanicalworks and some,such as tralnomuKhudozhestvenno-Promyshlennomu UchiUsh- Workshops,"Journal of Decorativeand Propaganda and are crafts carpentry lathe-turning, essentially chu za 1909 g [Reporton the ImperialStroganov Arts (Summer 1987): 126-43, and idem, "La thatbear no relationto worksof art Their price CentralIndustrial Art School for1909] (Moscow, riscopertadell'arte popolare," Ricerche di storia is determined thenumber of workers and usually by 1910),46. dell'arte39 (1989): 39-52. daysrequired to producethese works, as wellas by thevalue of thematerials." Cited in I. A. Pronina, 22. "Konkursy,"Iskusstvo i khudozhestvennaia pro- 36. On Polenova,see WendyRuth Salmond, "The Dekorativnoeiskusstvo v Akademii khudozhestv [Deco- myshlennost["Competitions," Art and Industrial Modernizationof Folk Art in Russia:The Revivalof rativeArt in the Academyof Arts] (Moscow, Art]9-10 (1899): lxxiv.The jurywas made up of theKustar Art Industries 1885-1917" (Ph.D. diss., 1983),140 n. 53. bothartists and architectson theStroganov faculty Universityof Texas at Austin,1989), chaps. 1-2.

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 24 Studiesin the Decorative Arts /Spring 1994

37. See PrincessM. K. Tenisheva,Vpechatleniia noe obrazovaniev Rossii i za granitsei,"Zodchii 48. Forbiographical data on theseand otherartists moeizhizni [Impressions of My Life] (Leningrad, ["IndustrialArt Education in Russiaand Abroad," ofthe Russian avant-garde, see TheAvant-Garde, in 1991),208. The Architect]1 Ganuary3,1910): 1. Russia Ì 910- I 930. Neu; Perspectives,ed. Stephanie Barron and Maurice Tuchman, exh. cat. (Los 38. Afterthe 1917 Revolution,the Stroganov's 42. Nikolai Root,"Khudozhestvenno-promyshlen- Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, museumcollections and its archivewere noe obrazovaniei Kamenets-Podolskaiakhudo- dispersed 1980). and in some cases destroyedin the courseof the zhestvenno-remeslennaiauchebnaia masterskaia," school'stransformation, first into SVOMAS (the Iskusstvov luzhnoi Rossii ["Industrial Art Education 49. N. Tarasov,"Stroganovskoe uchilishche tekh- Free State Art Studios) and thenVKhUTEMAS and the Kamenets-PodolskArts and CraftsTrain- nicheskogorisovaniia v Moskev,"Entsiklopedicheskii (the Higher Art and Technical Studios). See ing Workshops,"Art in SouthernRussia] (Kiev) slovar russkogo bibiiograficheskogoinstituía Granat Khan-Magomedov,VKhUTEMAS, 151. 9-10 (1913): 405. ["The StroganovSchool of TechnicalDrawing in Moscow," Encyclopediaof the Granat Russian 39. Zapisid Moskovskogo Arkhitektumogo Obsh- 43. GeorgiiLukomskii, "Vserossiisskaia vystavka v BibliographicalInstitute], vol. 41, pt. 5 (Moscow, chestva.Ezhegodxuk [Notes of the Moscow Architec- Kieve," ["The All-RussianExhibition in Apolon 1922),col. 33. turalSociety. Annual] 1 (1909): xxi. Kiev,"Apotio] 7 (September1913): 72. 40. The statute instituteda four-tier 50. Quoted in Khan-Magomedov,VKhUTEMAS, system 44. Amongthem were E. G. Teliakovskii,B. N. of education institutions: arts 152. drawingschools, Lange,and Z. D. Kashkarova. andcrafts workshops, industrial art schools (shkoly), 51. The factthat the school survives to thisday, as and industrialart institutes(uchilishcha). See 45. Otchet,49. theMoscow Higher Industrial Art School (formerly E. Baumgarten,"Khudozhestvenno-promyshlennoe theStroganov), is a tributeto itsexceptional ability obrazovanie,"Zodchii ["Industrial Art Education," 46. On this,see ChristinaLodder, Russian Construc- to survivepolitical and socialupheavals intact. The The Architect]28 (1902): 322. tivism(New Haven,1983), 109-44. schooland itsmuseum (now considerably depleted) 41. NikolaiRoot, "Khudozhestvenno-promyshlen- 47. Ibid.,112-13. are locatedat 9 VolokolamskoeShosse in Moscow.

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:06:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions