Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal Texts 2.2014

Bruxelles, 2014 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. () — Doctor of Science, Professor of Stroganoff 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, NaplesPavlova I. B. — Candidate of Sciences, Senior Researcher of Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

ISSN 2294-8902 © TEXTS, 2014 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 (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

Maria A. Burganova The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture 6

Peter L. Baranov St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank 23

Guzel R. Galiamova The Sculpture of 41

Tatiana G. Malinina “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept and its greater extension in architectural criticism by the XXIst century Methodological notes 49

Julia A. Smolenkova Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept of monumental sculpture in the new architectural program. The second half of the XXth century 62

Frederick Turner The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald 74

Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014 86

Valery I. Perfiliev Konstantin Persidsky 100 Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

Maria A. Burganova Full Member of the Russian Academy of Arts, Doctor of Arts, Professor Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy [email protected] Russia, Moscow THE IMAGE OF GOD THE FATHER IN RUSSIAN SACRED SCULPTURE

Summary: The article deals with the image of God the Father and his interpretation as a central image in the space of the church. The questions of the iconography are considered on the example of the typical monuments. Keyword: God the Father, the Lord of Sabaoth, sacred sculpture, canon, iconography

The problem of uniting a sacred idea, canon and a religious feeling with the practice of creating an artistic image is one of the most important problems in religious art. In fact, these important components are not dissoluble. But modern scholars at times consider the works, that fill the space of the temple, relying only on canonical programs, replacing the research of the work of religious art with seeing only church dogmas in its composition and plastics, or on the contrary, analyzing only the artistic image. However, the history of religious art is replete with examples of masterpieces, leaving the scope of the canon through artistic originality of solutions and expressiveness of images. That is, based on their understanding, new sacred images appeared, multiple versions and interpretations of the original plot were created. A religious feeling, based on a sacred idea, is constantly looking for special forms of its expression. And sometimes priorities in choosing the iconographic repertoire are determined not by a canonical idea but by a religious feeling.

— 6 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

1. Burnt Notke. Fatherland. 1500. St.-Annen-Museumü, Lubeck

— 7 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

One of the examples that have illustrated these processes in religious art for a long time is the image of God the Father (the Lord of Sabaoth). The existence of a variety of iconographic recensions of this image and its various interpretations during centuries of religious means that there is a possible divergence of religious program and religious feelings. There isn’t a lot of research dedicated to the study of the image of God the Father in the church sculpture. And for the most part it is related to the controversy on the church councils regarding a mismatch of dogmata and practices of artistic reflection of God. The famous dispute between the Metropolitan Macarius and clerk Viskovatov at the Council in 1554 was just about it. The very possibility of a realization of the God the Father image onto iconic images was discussed. His images in paint, especially in a three-dimensional sculptural expression, relying on the declared fact of an immaterial intangible invisible essence of the Lord of Sabaoth, were sharply criticized. At opposite poles were those who believed his appearing in the prophetic visions to be a sufficient argument, and those who denied the possibility of transmitting the image of God the Father by graphic means. Such ambivalence about this issue constantly accompanied the image of the Lord of Sabaoth in the comments to the church fine arts. Great Moscow Council acted firmly and definitely on the matter: “… и да престанет всякое суемудрие не праведное, иже обыкоша всяк собою писати безсвидетельства: сиречь Господа Саваофа образ в различных видех. Повелеваем убо от ныне Господа Саваофа образ в предь не писати: в нелепых и не приличных видениих зане Саваофа (сиречь Отца) никтоже виде когда воплоти» (Moscow Council Acts 1666 and 1667, Moscow, 1893) It is also necessary to note that the issue of the image of God the Father was repeatedly raised in the preceding and subsequent periods in the eastern and western Christian churches, which means the separation of the widespread church art practice from the dogmas of religious ideas Today, despite a certain attitude of the Church to this problem, one can rarely find a temple, where there would not be a consecrate image of the Lord of Sabaoth. Desire and ability to create and contemplate God, which reflected the religious feelings during the whole period of

— 8 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

2. God the Father with the body of Christ. Beginning of the XVI century. Suermont-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen

— 9 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

existence of the image of God the Father in fine arts, were in constant conflict. Such a position of the image in a number of selected subjects, a constant criticism and at the same time stubborn reluctance to abandon the image of God the Father attract attention and put certain questions, the answers to which are in the specifics of the coexistence of historicism and in Christianity, the weave of senses and reason. The topic of depicting God did not exist in the first centuries of turning into Christianity. And even after the end of the catacomb period this problem was not discussed by the Church due to the absence of the subject matter — the anthropomorphic images of the Lord of Sabaoth. God the Father almost never occured during the formation of Christian iconography and the development of artistic canons of figurative images him. His place in the program of sacred space was not determined. One can only conclude that the image of Lord of Sabaoth is found on the images on the objects which did not organize a church space, but which were “broughht” into it — on the reliefs of the sarcophagi, the decor of cult utensils. The image of God the Father on the scene of the blessing by Eve, who was created from Adam’s rib, on the reliefs of the Big Lateran sarcophagus is an example of this. In this monument the group of the Holy Trinity is located on the periphery of the composition on the left side of the relief. God the Father is seated on a throne, holding out his hand to Eve. To his right is the Christ, to the left rear — Holy Spirit. The face of God the Father is not particularly highlighted. An iconographic image of the Ancient of Days has yet to developed and age boundaries between persons of the Holy Trinity are missing. The hypostasis of the Lord of Sabaoth is accentuated by the fact that He is represented seated on a throne. This highlights his person in relation to Christ and the Holy Spirit. The composition of the reliefs is clearly stamped with “historicism” and characteristic of narrative. Series of plots are placed consecutively in chronological order; it defines a peripheral place of the Trinity in the general compositional space of the monument. But examples like the Great Lateran sarcophagus are very rare. The most common image of the Lord of Sabaoth till the XII century was a picture of an indicating or a blessing right hand. And this tradition

— 10 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

3. God the Father with the body of Christ and Mary. Fatherland. XV–XVI centuries. Suermont-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen

has been preserved in both the East and the West up to the present time. The compositional scheme of such images is usually universal: one sees an outstretched hand of the Lord in a gesture of blessing from the clouds, that are at the top center or at top right of the composite field. This image has the same symbolic meaning as in the pre-Christian era, and is firmly fixed in the minds of generations and in the artistic language as a sign of a certain speaker or someone appealing somebody. In fact, this is an “image” of God’s voice. A new image of the Lord of Sabaoth appears in church art in the form of Ancient of Days in about 12th century. This iconographic variant originated in the Byzantine tradition, and then was widely distributed in the Christian East and West. Age characteristics are especially

— 11 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

4. St. George. Novgorod. the end of XV–XVI centuries. Andrey Rublev Central Museum of old Russian Art

emphasized with uniting in a single composition Father as an old man along with the image of Jesus — God’s incarnation in his prime. Among the early sculptural works depicting God the Father in the form of an Elder is the relief on the Surb Karapet temple in a monastery

— 12 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

in Noravank dated 13–14th centuries. The composition of the relief, located in a niche of keeled forms, is unique in its content. The Lord of Sabaoth is blessing the sacrifice of the Cross with his right hand — the crucifixion of Christ; he is holding the head of Adam with his left hand. There is the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove between them. A special symbolic value of the Lord’s right blessing hand and the left — a punitive one is manifested in this composition. The victim of the Crucifixion serves as an atonement of Adam’s sin; they acquire here a special didactic sense. The composition itself, erected at the top of the wall in a tympanum, becomes the title story, dominating all artistic and informative meanings. Its place in the structure of sacred architecture is defined as dominant, which gives the image of God the Father a status of a Macrocosm top. Western European sculptors created unique iconographic images, presenting their own interpretation of this image. The 16–18 th centuries become the peak of the scenes with the image of God the Father. The masterpieces of medieval sculpture include sculptural composition “Fatherland” by eminent German sculptor Bernt Notke of Luebeck, representing a full-length standing figure of God the Father with the body of Christ. The figures are created as an indissoluble whole. This is a single essence of God, presented in two ways: in death, embodied in the human incarnation, and eternal life — a timeless incarnation of God the Father. Fallen Christ’s hands are seen from a distance, the same as the hands of the Lord of Sabaoth. During some moments a naked relaxed body of the Son, especially with frontal perspective, becomes the body of God the Father. The artist managed to create a striking image of interpenetration of two divine hypostases of the First and the Second Person of the Trinity. This composition was popular and frequently quoted in Europe, including in shortened texts. Among the best is a sculpture “God the Father with the body of Christ. Fatherland” by a Dutch artist from the Aachen Suermont-Ludwig Museum. Both figures are depicted up to the waist. In God the Father’s hands lies a drooping naked body of Christ. The lower part of the composition is framed by large stylized

— 13 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

5. Righteous Princes Boris and Gleb. XIX century. (by the iconography of the end of XV–XVI centuries beginning.) Copper alloy, expanded cast. Andrey Rublev Central Museum of old Russian Art

— 14 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

6. Salary icon “Mikhail of Tver.” Petersburg. T. Rockman. 1817. Hermitage Museum

clouds. This element is most commonly found in compositions with a halffigure image of the Lord of Sabaoth. One of the most dramatic images of God the Father in European sculpture is the “God the Father and Mary with the body of Christ” composition. It was created in the workshops of southern Germany and

— 15 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

7. Tabernacle. Master Lund. 1787. Petersburg. State Hermitage Museum

dates back to 15–16th centuries. God the Father, on his knees, is holding the dead body of the Son and mother is bending above it. They present a poignant scene of human tragedy. This humanistic interpretation of the story reflected the transitional period and the religious quest in German society. This was the time of Martin Luther, who gave new

— 16 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

commentaries on the Bible. It was his words about Christ as a reflection of the paternal love of God that can be considered the motto of these sculptural works. An image of a grieving father became one of the most common in European sculpture of this period; it was created in the context of new interpretations of the Biblical story. A Russian sculptural tradition of depicting the Lord of Sabaoth bears the imprint of that experience, which gained the Christian culture as a whole. However, some subjects received certain priorities, and others are not reflected at all. Each of iconographic the finials are repeatedly presented in church documents, reflecting a stormy debate on depiction of God. Among the most talked about images is the “Fatherland” composition, while the images of the Old Testament Trinity, and Trinity image of the Lord in the Baptism, Transfiguration and Pentecost compositions are considered the rite of consecration. The images of the Trinity in the interpretation of the Old Testament, developed into independent compositions. For example, the New Testament Trinity gained a stable place in the finials flaps of the “Twelve Great Feasts’ folding. These images were most widely used in relief cast icons. However, unlike the western iconographic recension where the faces of God the Father and Christ were often almost indistinguishable, the incarnation of God in the Orthodox artistic tradition has clear definitions of age. Russian cast icons, repeatedly depicting the image of the Lord of Sabaoth, are a unique example of the variability of the composition. Due to the specific technology that allowed to make various parts into new structure while casting, the image of God the Father overshadowed a variety of subjects, ranging in the finials of the crucifixes and over the figures of selected saints, and manifested in various iconographic recentions. One of the most common ones is an image of blessing right hand; it occurs often in cast embossed icons and crosses. This iconographic recension does not practically undergo any changes over time. The hand of the Lord in a segment of a circle is placed, according to tradition, in the upper right corner on the group of small cast icons of the 14–16th centuries with the “George and the Dragon” and “Righteous Princes Boris and Gleb” subjects. The depiction of the Lord’s blessing

— 17 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

8. Icon “Saints Zosima and Savvaty Solovetsky.” XVIII century. Bone carving. Museum of Classical and Contemporary Arts “Burganov Center”

hand took a strong position, and until the early 20th century it is seen in the compositions dedicated to the holy warriors that highlight one of the Lord of Sabaoth’s incarnations as the patron of the heavenly host. A depiction of the presence of God the Father by abstracted symbolic means is a special topic that spread not only in sculpture, but also in other kinds of religious art. A symbolic triangle, identical to the triangular halo of God the Father and denoting the image of this incarnation of

— 18 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

the Lord in the context of the dogma of God’s undetectable image, can be attributed to such images. The triangle with the outgoing radiance and with the letters “БГЪ” placed on its surface can be seen on the facade of the temple, in the decoration of church interiors, iconostasis, and frameworks. Iconographic type of the Angel Good Silence in small plastic is especially common among other common allegorical symbol of the first person of the Trinity. This image has repeatedly attracted the attention of prominent researchers. In this work the interest in it is due to an octagonal halo around the head of the young angel. Typically, such a halo is inherent to the image of the Lord of Sabaoth. It’s possible to assume that this is an image of a young God before incarnation at the moment of creation of the world. A full-length image of God the Father becomes the most widespread image in Russian sculpture in 18–19th centuries. This expressive iconography is present in the works of folk artists who created large temple images, and in small plastics. Though the group of full-length images of the Lord of Sabaoth is rather large, it is less in quantity compared with another iconographic recension. His up to the waist image became the most common one in the Russian sculpture. Such an interpretation of the image of God the Father is spread in numerous cast relief of the crucifixion and many icons and folding of the 18–19th centuries. Monumental from carved wood half figures of the Lord of Sabaoth with open arms were established in the finials of an iconostasis. For the most part, this composition was presented in the provincial temples. One of the impressive images, made in this recension is the image of the Lord of Sabaoth at Perm Art Gallery, created by a carver Domnin in late 18th — early 19th centuries. It is a special image of the Lord of Sabaoth — an energetic creator and Sustainer. The trappings of power — the scepter and orb are in His hands. The composition is pronouncedly geometric. The subject of a triangle is repeated here many times — pediment, a glow around the figure, indicated by clear lines of rays, a halo, even the bending of the elbows. Each shape is a triangle. The whole image is imbued with power and energy, as opposed

— 19 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

9. Domnin, D.T. Sabaoth. Beginning of the XIX century. Perm State Art Gallery.

to a large group of images of the blessing Lord of Sabaoth with arms outstretched and head bowed. A fundamental change of many times repeated in various monuments of the Christian world of the 18 century and established the beginning of the 19 th century iconography of the Ancient of Days became a feature of this sculpture. The Perm Lord of Sabaoth, a white-haired old man, and a young, energetic creator with an antique profile and a sensuous mouth ajar. His large brown strands of hair frame a thin outline of the face light, reflecting the connection of a classic line and

— 20 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture folk art so characteristic of the sculptures of the Russian province at the 19 th century. Another monumental figure of the Lord of Sabaoth from a Moscow private collection is a common type of up to the waist image of the Lord of Sabaoth — with outstretched hands in a gesture of blessing and his head bowed. The theme of forgiveness and blessings is clearly read in His image. The figure of God the Father grows out of a steep twisted ring of clouds. A head of a big size with a fine modeling is bowed to the right shoulder. A powerful horizontal line of a large cloak, stretched on outstretched hands gives a feature to the composition. But in general, the formal structure of the composition has a lot in common with the Western European tradition of waist images of the Lord of Sabaoth. While analyzing the iconographic composition of this story in the interpretations of the Eastern and Western worlds it can be noted that there is a commonality in seeing the fundamental images of Christian culture in general. Despite the fact that the origins of some iconographic recensions lie in the Byzantine tradition, while others have their origins in the Western Middle Ages, it is difficult to see in their free overflow the features of a simple copy or formal borrowing. The coincidence of compositional schemes in the interpretation of images of the Lord of Sabaoth in the East and West is the result of a union of plurality of aspects. Among them is the personal experience of the biblical texts, whereby the rigid framework of religious ideas is mobile and flexible. Stable elements, coupled with the symbolic, allegorical and historical trends in religious art can be seen in the variety of types of God the Father image. Specific shades in compositions devoted to the image of God the Father’s are varied. A richness of iconographic recentions of sacred images appears because of this variability in the broader framework of de facto canonical tenets in Christian art. This is not only a reflection of the temporal and regional conditions, but also the lack of a clear iconographic program as the result long church controversy. However, we can say that in spite of everything, a religious feeling along with artistic practice seeks in the sacred ideas the basics and justification for the creation of this image and its organic inclusion in the temple space.

— 21 — Maria A. Burganova. The image of God the Father in Russian sacred sculpture

REFERENCES 1. Bogoslovskiy, I.N. 1893. God the Father, the first Person of the Holy Trinity, in the monuments of ancient Christian art, Moscow 2. Burganova М. А. 2003. Russian sacral sculpture, Moscow 3. Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov. 1937. Icon and the veneration of icons. Dogmatic essay, Paris 4. Retkovskaya, L.S. 1963. “The emergence and development of the song “Fatherland” in Russian art XIV–XVI centuries”, Old Russian Art XV century — the beginning of XVI century, Moscow, pp. 235–262 5. Serebrennikov, N.N. 1928. Perm Wooden Sculpture: Preliminary study materials and inventory, Perm 6. Uspenskiy, L.A. 1997. Theology of icons of the Orthodox Church. 7. Bcespflug, 1984. Dieu dans art, Paris 8. Liebmann, M.J. 1982. Die deutsche Plastik 1350–1550, Leipzig. 9. Grimme, E.G. 1977. Europäische Bildwerke vjm Mittelalter zum Barock. Koln,

— 22 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

Peter L. Baranov Art historian Member of Art Critics and Historians Association (AIS) Member of the Moscow Union of Artist of Russia Member of the Vorontsov Society [email protected] Russia, Moscow ST. CLEMENT’S CHURCH IN MOSCOW AND ARCHITECT KARL BLANK

Summary: The article makes more precise the time and circumstances of creating and rebuilding of the Church of Climent the Pope of Rome in Moscow, analyses its special features, shows the arguments for the possible authorship of its last renovation by the architect K. I. Blank (the follower of B. Rastrelli), who gave the building the image of the Barokko palace with obvious transitional features of Classicism. Keywords: K. I. Blank, architecture, Russian , Rastrelli, Russian Classicism.

Most recently the restoration of St. Clement’s Church on Pyatnitskaya Street in Moscow was finally completed. Despite the fact that this church can be called the most enigmatic and impressive architectural monument in Zamoskvorechye District, no fundamental research has yet been published about this building. Its architecture is known to be created in several stages since the mid till the 90es of the 18th century. The researchers saw in its “Rastrelli style” features of different architects — D. Ukhtomsky, I. Michurin, A. Evlashev, P. Trezini; but these attributions didn’t happen to be convincing when this building was compared with their known creations. The materials, to which we link in this article, were found in Central Historical Archive of Moscow (ЦИАМ)1 in 2010 and did not previously attract attention of specialists. When studying this architectural monument, it is interesting to clarify the following: the date and the circumstances of the refectory, bell

— 23 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

tower and alter part construction; the authorship of each of the three parts of the structure; the anticipated role of the architect Karl Blank (1728–1793) in the renewal of the temple in the 70es of the 18th century. St. Clement’s Church is an ensemble, built on a same axis, consisting of a main volume of an alter part, a refectory and a bell towers, which are linked by passages. The tradition of such ternary composition goes back to the church construction of the 17th century — a “ship” plan. A famous Russian researcher M. Ilyin 2 admitted St. Clement’s Church to be one of the most interesting churches of the baroque architecture of the middle of the 18th century. He drew attention to the differences in the architecture of the bell tower, the church and the refectory; to the impressive five cupolas which have a commanding view over the panorama of Zamoskvorechye district, to the similarity of the church with Baroque palaces because of its accented multistoried composition. The researcher noted a peculiar role played by large window casings and droves on the domes of the church, which continue the verticals of the lower floor columns and the entablature crepe of the light tholobates (drums) — a kind of a third floor of the building. M. Ilyin noticed some features characteristic of the Baroque architecture while opposing heavy and massive to light and sharp, as well as in decorative moldings “with its bizarre plant shoots and cartouches, skillfully placed among geometrized architectural details”. But the lightweight of the order church decoration, which, according to M. Ilyin is a peculiarity of its architecture language, betrays definitely classical trends. They are seen especially in the vertical rhythm of the column zones, picking up the movement from the basement to the floor with tholobates and they give the construction a triumphant harmony (here V. Bazhenov’s project of the triumphal arch comes to mind). The geometric order more typical of classicism imparts to elongated windows with triangular and bow-shaped pediments connected to the window casings in a single elongated vertical framing. Therefore, the main feature of this building becomes not a clear blending into the Baroque architecture but its stylistic transience. Nobody knows who and for what reason laid the foundation of a now not extant original church on this place in Zamoskvorechye

— 24 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

District in the Middle Ages. On the “Godunov’s drawing” (assumed to be composed before 1605) the location of one of the churches on Pyatnitskaya Street exactly coincides with the location of the present St. Clement’s Church. The church was first mentioned in chronicles in 1612.3 The church was built from stone in 1657. During the last restoration (2009–2014) a masonry wall was found inside the church that confirms that date. The completion of the construction of the Church of the Sign “at Clement’s’ at the expense of Alexander Durov4 — a clerk of the council, is marked in the archives dated 1662, in which the references about “Clement” can be found from 1625. Since then the church is referred to under one name or another, but as one and the same church. Over time, the reconstructions and renovations made it of a great size and gave it an exceptional importance: an unusually large number of alters was formed there.5 The dedication to Clement I — a Roman Pope, was gradually assigned to the whole church, as the martyr Clement is special for Russia,6 confirming the succession of faith from the Apostles. A smith Ivan Komlenihin rebuilt the church in 1720. Its appearance is unknown to us. The date of commencement of the refectory and bell tower construction was 1758 and it was finally completed with the construction of the church by 1770-es. These two parts of the ensemble, most likely created by a Russian architect A. Evlashev, who was V. Rastrelli’s student and who lived and worked in Moscow. He was a major of architecture from 1749 to 1760 and in fact was the chief architect of Moscow. The version of his authorship was supported by P. Sytin7, I. Mashkov8 and M. Ilyin. On the 17th of May, 1762, parishioners asked permission to break Znamenskay church with the Chapel of St Nicholas and to build a new five altar one because the bell tower and the new refectory had been renewed, but the old church remained decrepit. This was realized soon: the church was built from 1771 to 1774 and clearly by another architect than the bell tower and the refectory. This dating is published for the first time — it was found in the documents of the Imperial Moscow Architectural Society, which was engaged in the 19th century in the creation of certificates for all monuments

— 25 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

in Moscow and the Moscow region.9 And this dating helps to explain the stylistic features that distinguish the complex program of the main bulk of the five-domed church. Certainly, the new architect didn’t separate the church from the refectory, and created a unified composition. The existence of an early bell tower set the height of the first tier of the church according to the height of the first tier of the already existing building. Some lowering of the basement is explained by this, which is compensated by a raising of the verticals of the second main tier and by the domes crowning the building, which visually transform into a third floor. And the upper tier of the bell tower is equal to the completion of the church itself. The refectory and the bell tower are modest compared to the church, although the refectory has an “impressive” number of windows (the refectory height is 7 m, length — 21 m, width — 16.5 m). There is a simple pyramidal roof above the refectory. The bell tower looks pretty heavy and lapidary. A complete domination of the church size in this three-part composition is obvious, but it is justified in the purpose and does not have a sense of a dissonance. It is easy to imagine how majestically it dominated the skyline of Zamoskvorechye during the time of low building. The delicacy in the architect’s manner in the final composition with which he adjusts and harmonizes the different parts of the composition is noteworthy. The customer of the renewal was an important nobleman at Elizabethan era — Alexey Bestuzhev-Ryumin,10 Count of the Roman Empire, who first began the construction works in the reign of Elizabeth, and the church acquired its final appearance under Catherine II. These two stages were directly related to his personal fate. The count’s “boyar chambers’ were in the parish of Clement’s church in Zamoskvorechye. He was twice sentenced to death, after these falls he again promptly rose to the heights of power. The first time the nobleman who was caught in political intrigues was remembered by Empress Elizabeth. An emphatic honoring of Pope Clement during her reign is considered nonrandom: the coup, which resulted in Peter’s daughter coming to the throne, was on the 25th of November, 1741, on the feast day of this saint. Elizabeth in gratitude to the Guards of the Preobrazhensky Regiment who proclaimed the daughter of a queen

— 26 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

ordered to build the Transfiguration church in St. Petersburg with the Chapel of the Clement. And Bestuzhev-Rumin — a parishioner of St. Clement’s church in Moscow, in gratitude for the happy outcome of his cases decided to erect a new church to replace the dilapidated, giving 70 thousand rubles for a good cause. At the end of Elizabeth’s reign the Count, deprived of all rights for the second time, lived in his residence near Moscow building “St. Clement” in secret from the court. He prayed for God’s mercy. This time Bestuzhev-Rumin was saved by Catherine II, who came to the throne in September 1762; she returned him his good name, and raised him in Field Marshals. Prior to the pardon the role of a front man as a church founder was likely played by a wine and tobacco publican — “Collegiate Assessor Kozma Matveev”, who served under the Count dealing with “foreign business”. Matveev built his own house — a two-storey chamber — it was also here, opposite the St. Clement’s church (was located on Pyatnitskaya street, 31). An inscription on one of the eight bells on the bell tower is in confirmation of Matveev’s participation. This is a large bell built in 1770: “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; this bell was cast for the Church of the Transfiguration and for the side-chapel of Saint Martyr Clement the Roman Pope and Peter of Alexandria, under prosperous and autocratic Great Empress Catherine, All-Russian autocrat and under Tsarevich and Grand Duke Paul, collegiate assessor Kozma Matveev, 1770 August 14, weight 170 pounds, Master Simeon Mozhzhuhin”11. The construction of the church continued, the second bell is dated 1782: “This bell was cast in Zamoskvorechye for the church of Clement the Roman Pope and Peter of Alexandria, in February 1782, molten in Moscow. On the factory of Leon Strugovshikov weight 84 pounds”.12 There was a small silver reliquary that hung on the St. Nicholas icon in the form of panagia with the saint’s relics, under the legend, what is confirmed by the church documents. Reliquaries with saints’ relics and 30 relics of other saints hung on the icons of “Roman Pope Clement” and “Peter of Alexandria” what was very popular during the times of Elizabeth and Catherine II.

— 27 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

St. Clement’s Church in Zamoskvoreche has always been notable in the church hierarchy. Synodic (a book with a name record of people who died) was kept there from 1770 to 1938, it is extant. In the early 20th century, the church was restored several times. In 1900, the seventiered iconostasis and all utensils were gilded; the domes were gilded as well what is known from the records which are now in the church. The church was also renovated in 190213; later, paint on the exterior walls was repeatedly restored and the original color scheme was kept. The railings played an important role in the appearance of the church. Only a small part of it near the bell tower with a solid stone wall between the pillars was preserved in original form; several elements of elegant wrought railing characteristic to the Moscow type of the middle of the 18th century were restored near the refectory. This railing (from the side of Pyatnitskaya Street) included in its rows the massive size of the pavilion: the Propylaea, surrounded by columns bearing the pilaster side, repeated the elements of decor on the main building. It had a rare trapezoidal plan with a pass to the church grounds made into it; in other words, the pavilion was at the same time the front gate of the domain. The significance of the pavilion and the town-planning validity of its place created a necessary distance for the perception of the church building, making the church complex a part of the street ensemble (the pavilion was restored in 2011). Due to the difference of the time the parts of the architectural composition were built, we can consider the church separately as an independent monument of the second half of the 18th century, combining secular trends with the traditions of church architecture of the 17th century. These include the five domes, which were renewed in the Elizabethan era.14 Apparently, A. Bestuzhev-Rumin and his architect followed Empress’s order. The combination of red and white colors in the color of the exterior walls refers the renewed church to another strong tradition of Moscow architecture — a coloristic one. The contrast between the masonry walls and white stone details gave the architecture an unconditional elegance and solemnity, and with time this color scheme established itself as a “transparent” motif and many Moscow architects followed it for centuries. This are the Kremlin towers,

— 28 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

the Gate Church and the bell tower of the Novodevichy Convent, Church of the Ascension in Kadashi, Church of the Intercession at Fili, Menshikov Tower, Red Gate, the ensemble in Tsaritsyno, Petrovsky Palace and many other landmarks of Moscow. Probably, the previous version of the church Clement was also two-tone. The St. Clement’s church is painted in red on stucco, with prominent white details — pediments, plaster moldings, columns, pilasters, which create a rich relief of the building. The size of the church is made by one cube and massive five domes. The main part of the church has a height of 26.5 meters to the dome, in length — 25.6 m, width — 22 m. It tends to be square on the plan, and only small projection of the avant-corps on each side make the angles not so rigid. A smaller square is inscribed into larger one; the smaller square is formed by four pillars and it supports the tholobate of the central dome of the building. A lack of apses emphasizes the secularism of this monument. Outside this building is divided into floors with white horizontal delimitations — profiled cornices. A wide white stone cornice separates the five domes of the main temple as well, emphasizing its independence in the composition structure. The facades have high windows, giving the predominantly vertical tendency to the architectural composition. Windows are topped with pediments of white stone and they also participate in the upward movement. The window casings are smooth, without thread. Scallops are beneath the windows, which are also white; they symbolize the theme of Fame. The order crowning different parts of the building as well as on the dome tholobates, repeats the columns of the first floor (second level). A frieze arrangement of the large windows of each floor lightens the impression of the dominant flatness of walls, and together with the white decor it enhances the confrontation between fine and massive, giving the church a plastic elegance. The corners of the church are “cut” and there are two pilasters with niches on the sides. This roundness of size supports the cylindrical form of the domes. Pilaster sides repeats the niche motif as one of the pairs of the columns falls on the corner. The pilaster sides are also on the nervures which are on the domes. The volutes on the bays smoothly connect

— 29 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

the cupolas, going down on the nervures. All elements of the church are united with one impulse of the verticals, making a rich and surprisingly coherent architectural composition of the whole church. A higher and more complex top takes the main emotional burden. And this powerful crowing does not suppress, but rather freely rises above the massive of the building. The domes are also individual architectural constructions, among which the most important and massive is the central one. A strict logic does not allow them to break up into separate parts visually, and they thus united into a single completion of this monumental building. The bases of the domes are raised to the height of the plinth of the central dome. The tholobate of the side domes does not merge into a single mass with the central one, but rather serves as a constructive vertical continuation from the pedestal. The crowning of the church creates some complications in the completion of the entire building. But the first tier is simple and is similar to the plinth with its strongly bulging rusticated pilasters; the pylons on the first floor merge into pedestals. Architectural rhythm increases from the center to the loaded corners of risalit, on which paired columns are placed, and below it increases from the pedestal up to the crosses finalizing the composition. The center of the rizalit is isolated with a semicircular pediment with a cartouche in the middle, and lucarne windows of the central dome repeat its form. They prepare the last accent — the central dome with the main tracery cross. The side domes of the church with blue and gold stars, which had to serve as a direct association with a starry sky, add extra showiness to the church. A monumental, rich, palace-like look of the church continues in its even more spectacular richness of the interior. The ground floor has an alternation of square as well as rectangular in plan spatial divisions. The side aisles are covered with cross arches. An influence of secular architecture of this time is manifested in the fact that the first layer tends to a single space: separate volumes are so wide that the pillars become nearly invisible. The similarity with secular buildings is enhanced in the aisles and passages thanks to enfilade spaces. The palace-like look is also manifested in the lighting of the interior, where the windows are located on the same axis as the passages into the side naves. Certainly

— 30 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

the exaggerated bright central cupola space in this church is dominant. The other four domes with their graceful forms and slotted stretching to the sky windows open onto the gallery. From the inside vertical openings of the central and side tholobates, as well as lucarnes of the dome top, turn the church into a double-height one. The ground-floor windows and the gallery create a strong and even light illumination, and the light tholobates fill the space with additional light. Initially, the church and refectory walls were not painted. Only in the 19th century the refectory upper arches were painted. The main decoration of the interior is a magnificent carved iconostasis, consecrated to the Transfiguration of the Lord. It is done in the Baroque and Rococo style. The whimsicality of its sculptural forms is reminiscent of the outer stucco decorations, but it surpasses it in detailed modeling and abundance of used techniques. The impression is reinforced with the gloss of gilding and pictorial compositions on traditional evangelical and biblical subjects inserted into curved and carved openings. The magnificence of the iconostasis focuses attention on the central space. Its architecture is complemented by six carved gilded angels (a height of about 1.5 m), made by Russian woodcarvers in the early 1770еs. Sculptural works play an important role in the interior and exterior of the monument and are made at a high level. Apparently, a significant group of sculptors, carvers and modelers, who completed very similar creation in Resurrection Cathedral in New Jerusalem, worked here in Moscow during the construction and decoration of St. Climents Church in the second half of the 18th century. A subjection to ideas of the same architectural synthesis are seen in St. Clement’s Church as well as in the Cathidral of New Jerusalem, despite the peculiar hipped top of it. This allows the author to create organic complexes, connecting the features of the Late Baroque and Rococo, and setting a new harmony of classicism. A masterful use of techniques, which are familiar to us from V. Rastrelli’s buildings in St. Petersburg (he, as we know, did not build in Moscow himself), show us his outstanding follower who had a great artistic and constructive experience that allowed him to deal with complex artistic circumstances of restructuring buildings,

— 31 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

to adapt to individual customer problems and programs. Karl Blank, a representative of “Rossika” second generation, possessed these qualities; and the time of construction of the latest St. Clement’s Church coincides with the heyday of his creativity in Moscow. Whimsical cartouches and floral decorative motifs, dual angel-cupid heads, shells and cartouches, festoons and fascias, favored proportions of the windows and the shape of domes are characteristic of his style. We assume that the reason of invitation of the architect Karl Blank to resume St. Clement’s Church could be the same as it was when the count Ivan Vorontsov appealed to him for the erection of St. Nicholas church “in Zvonari” (on Rozhdestvenkaya Street). The art historian Igor Grabar points out this reason. Blank finished restoring the cathedral of the New Jerusalem monastery in 1759 and immediately “unprecedented pilgrimage began to the New Jerusalem. All visited Moscow visited this place, and people came from afar to admire the remarkable rich in decor rotunda”. “Blank immediately becomes the first architect of Moscow, the Moscow nobility and the rich flood him with orders, first on church designs and constructions and then on mansion and estate designs”.15 It is no coincidence that Chancellor Aleksandre Vorontsov, a connoisseur of European culture, addressed him to renovate his houses. A grand hipped roof of the New Jerusalem Cathedral at Resurrection Monastery on Istria river near Moscow was erected in 1756–1761 by Karl Ivanovich Blank and made due to Rastrelli’s drawings.16 The whole finishing of this construction, which was extremely lush with extensive use of modeling, filled with light, festive, quite secular in nature belonged obviously to Blank. The similar features of architectural details and decoration of the New Jerusalem Church and St. Clement’s point to the K. Blank’s authorship in both cases. And we must remember that Ivan Vorontsov and Aleksey Bestuzhev- Rumin were close enough to each other in the social circle, by their position at court, and the choice of the same architect was predetermined by Blank’s success and the compliance with Muscovites’ tastes of those years. Apraksin’s house on Pokrovka Street may serve as a proof to this, which was carried out in Rastrelli’s style, when classicism prevailed already in the capital of Russia — St. Petersbourg. Historians have

— 32 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

noted that Moscow has always allowed itself a manor building liberty and patriarchy. Church of St. Nicholas “in Zvonari” (1760–1762) is of a small size, it was part of a Ivan Vorontsov’s estate, which went down to the river Neglinka. A high slender octagonal, decorated with double pilasters at the corners, is put on a rectangular bulk, stretching from south to north. Each facet has a verticaly elongated window with a semicircular completion, decorated with casing, which consists of thin wall columns flanking window openings, and an arched completion rest upon its capitals. The main distinctive detail is above the arched completion: it is a relief filling the plane between the opening and a protruding triangular finial. A high relief of a cherub’s head is inserted into the center of this decorative element of a trapezoidal shape with concave sides. Below the sill the wall plane is decorated with floral garland in a shape of an arc and with freely hanging ends. The volume of the dome is compressed and stretched vertically, which emphasizes the striving upwards. It is crowned with a small dome with a light drum and a small onion dome, which give poignancy and grace to the entire silhouette. Four of the eight dome faces are provided with protruding round light lucarnes with semicircular bow-shaped frames. They are orientated on four axes of the building. A white narrow embossed belt is stretched below the windows approximately in the middle of the distance towards the base of the quadrangular. Many of these details and elements are repeated in the external decoration of the St. Clement’s church. But all its decorative and semantic program is deployed in accordance with its size, meaning and composition of round in cross-section towers with domes, which took on the role of the Orthodox traditional five-domes. The solution for windows turns out to be a common technique for both churches, as well as a set of and logic of elements of the tower domes. In the second tier of St. Clement’s church the windows are diversified by bow-shaped tops. The shape for the basement windows is rectangular; the casings are straightened, and all projections acquire a rustication pattern that makes the ground floor a decent base — a podium — for rich and ceremonial play of forms of the basic and tower domes tiers. St. Clement’s church is enriched with elements — columns appear

— 33 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

instead of pilasters, there are three molded cherubs’ heads instead of one in the decor of the casings — in comparison with the church of St. Nicholas. The porticos of the second tier have pediments with volutes and overhanging length of the eaves is corresponded to the columns, thereby the baroque forms become more energetic and identified. This confirms the sequence of creation of these two churches. A number of architectural elements of St. Clement’s church dates back to techniques, which were used in the renewed Resurrection Cathedral in New Jerusalem, and the plastics of the iconostasis — a device used in the iconostasis of John Chrysostom side-chapel. The resumption of construction works, which changed the appearance of Resurrection Cathedral, refers to 1749–1759, and it was undertaken by order of Empress Elizabeth.17 A wooden steeple over rotunda of the Life-giving Holy Sepulchre, built in 1759 under the project of the architect V. Rastrelli, had a 60 lucarnes that created an effect of airiness of the tiered dome which passed through itself light that went to the sky. Stone barriers were dismantled, space was cleared, perspectives bathing in light appeared. Windows and doorways were widened, portals were moved, arches appeared instead of walls. The language of architectural forms of the 17th century and theological language of ceramic decoration changed. The walls were covered with moldings, oil painted and gilded. Icons on wood were replaced with icons on canvas, painted with oil paint — imitating and copying the Italian masters. Stucco cartouches, cherubs’ heads, decoration of window casings, carved iconostasis of St.Clement’s church have direct analogues in the New Jerusalem ensemble, unfortunately better known only on photographs of the early 20th century.18 An iconographic program with its main theme — the theme of heavenly patrons of Empress Elizabeth, were reflected in the iconostasis of Zacharias and Elizabeth side-chapel.19 Dedication of a Moscow church to the fourth Pope of Rome apparently entailed an imaginative solution of the church as well. It demonstrates not only the architect’s knowledge of European architectural forms, but also a deliberate resemblance to the main Roman cathedrals in

— 34 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

silhouette and composition. We can assume that this association was deliberate. And the work on arrangement Russian Palestine — the New Jerusalem Monastery — gave impetus to the development of such a course of architectural thought. In this building — St.Clement’s church — Roman allusions had to be seen by an enlightened society. “Taking in” of Rome by Moscow had to point the continuity of the early Christian tradition by the Third Rome. The architecture of Moscow churches shows its rootedness in the European context. The most grandiose Cathedral — St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome, with its ribbed dome with nervures, lucarnes, skylights, double columns of the drum, side dome towers, comes to mind. These same techniques are seen in the facade of Sant Agnese church (1666), and in the portico of Santa Maria church in Campitelli (1660–1667) (both in Rome) and in La Superga church in Turin (1717– 1731); volutes — counterforts of the drum, pilaster sides and double semi-columns, porticos without apses of Les Invalides church in Paris (1677–1706). The construction is also similar with the Frauenkirche in Dresden, with Church of St. Charles Borromeo in Vienna (1715). And, of course, closeness to Varfolomey Rastrelli’s works is undoubted, he was Karl Blank’s teacher. Here the Cathedral of Smolny Convent in , Churches of the Winter houses and palaces of Peterhof can be remembered. Among the buildings outside the capital Rastrelli himself mentions Saint Andrew’s Cathedral20 in Kiev (1748– 1762) as important for him. Although the building of the cathedral was erected on the draft by Ivan Michurin, it is definitely a hit and a benchmark for the followers. Designed with respect to the picturesque location on a hill near the Dnieper, elegant cathedral is crowned by five domes and refined silhouette. Interior decor has been preserved where a wooden gilded carving combines with large picturesque inserts, as in St. Clement’s Church. There is a “generic” similarity, but the Moscow Church has greater severity, power and geometric volumes, as well as other more economic form of order which is already familiar with the limitations of classicism. Rastrelli wrote in his notes on the requirements with respect to a good architect: “it is not enough for him to make a building project,

— 35 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank which he is required to build, it is necessary that he draws it on a large scale and would be continuously present at the construction site, which he leads… More than that, he should make drawings of the parts of the building, whether for carpentry work, for modeling, and so on.; and even to draw it on a large scale, otherwise something always would have to be redone which would entail a loss of time and high costs”. An architect, who created St. Clement’s Church, fully followed this program. By known reviews this was exactly how Karl Blank21 watched all the small details on the construction site for what he was invited to complex design works that required special skill for the completion and restructuring of old buildings or one that were started earlier. Customers diligently sought his participation. He was one of the favorite disciples of the great Rastrelli and it seems logical that he replaced the maestro himself during the construction in Moscow, and the famous Italian remained the architect of the building. Moscow customers, apparently, wanted not only to pay tribute to the fashion of the capital, but also to be guaranteed of good quality and individuality of buildings. That architect Blank was German-born and the belonging to his craft in the second generation were also a quality assurance. His engineering abilities are supported with documents on the restoration of the dismantled by Bazhenov Kremlin wall with towers and hill slopes.22 A daring for Moscow composition of volumes and internal space solution of St. Clement’s Church fit into the European tradition of searching for the perfect image of a church starting from the Renaissance era.23 The architect who undertook the renovation of this building was guided by this particular feeling and by his own rootedness in European culture. In the union of Russian and Western traditions an attempt is seen to create a synthetic church as well, which would combine the best architectural traditions. It is no coincidence that a mixed arsenal of methods is used in the church decoration that meets the tastes of the Elizabethan era accustomed to embody in architecture a common desire to demonstrate the well-being and wealth. This time encouraged the development of decorative techniques of finishing, which in turn led to a significant enrichment of facades, in the compositions of which projections, ledges, pilasters, semi-columns were abundantly used

— 36 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

as well as columns closely set against the walls and creating a rich relief. Stone and wooden decorative sculpture, intense color of buildings were widely used, and in the interior — gilded wooden carvings and painting. Many of these techniques, in particular the emphasis on building corners by columns, a contrast stress of decorative parts and elements of the order placed on a background of brightly colored walls are typical of the time. But Karl Blank’s own character is seen in proportions, in volume ratio, attachment to certain forms, keenness on dome and lighting system, as well as a respect for the Russian and even Moscow architectural heritage. This is especially revealed in St. Clement’s church: in its simplicity and clarity of cubic volume of the church, in calm contours of its massive five-domes characteristic of Moscow cathedrals of the preceding centuries. St. Clement’s Church is referred to the style of Russian architecture of the middle of the 18th century, which is usually named as the Russian baroque, but, nevertheless, this church already announces the beginning of a new style — classicism, which won St. Petersburg and Moscow by the end of the century. A transitional nature of this church building is especially clear if you put it on a par with secular buildings, in the construction of which Carl Blank took part — for example, the Orphanage on the Moscow River, Sheremetev’s Palace in , Catherine Palace in Lefortovo. Blank’s authorship becomes even more compelling when St. Clement’s church is carefully compared with works among his other church buildings. That is the Church of Boris and Gleb near the Arbat Gates (1763–1768, did not survived, but is known from photographs), St. Catherine’s Church on Ordynka street, Cyrus and John on Solianka Street (1763–1768), church of the Holy Virgin in the Omoforovo estate (1769), St. Nicholas in Danilovskoe village (1768–1771), Holy Trinity in Troitsk-Kaynardzhi (1774), church of Holy Savior’s Image in the village of Kiowa (1762–1763), church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in Svitino, church of Boris and Gleb in Belkino, church of St. Nicholas in Zvonari (1762), church of Elias Prophet in Kalikino, church of Holy Savior’s Image in Voronovo (1763) and several other monuments. But, of course, we won’t find among them a second large-scale work, equivalent to St. Clement’s Church.

— 37 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

Karl Blank had to show the magnitude only at the renewal of the Resurrection Cathedral in New Jerusalem Monastery, which survived to our time in a distorted form after the second destruction during the war and post-war reconstruction. This fact obscured for long the opportunity for comparisons of the architectural features of St. Clement’s church and the Resurrection Cathidral. Due to his transitivity and ability to combine the old and the new, it seems that Karl Blank is one of the most interesting figures in the creative life of Moscow of 1750s-1790s. From an artistic point of view his synthesis of lessons of classical European architecture with Russian construction traditions and church architecture complemented the treasury of architectural ideas of his time with the development of hall spaces and concise dome compositions which prepared the advent of the classicism.

ENDNOTES 1 TsIAM — Central Historical Archive of Moscow (Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy, TsIAM) 2 Ilyin, M.A. 1963, Moscow, pp. 275–276. 3 In the 17th century in the neighbor of St. Clement’s Church an important event occurred and affected the history of Moscow and the whole of Muscovy in the strongest possible terms. There on the 24th of August in 1612 Russian militia of Minin and Pozharsky forced a burg-fortress where troops of Polish-Lithuanian invaders ensconced. It was the turning point of the battle between the militia and the intervention. “After defeat near Clement’s burg, forces of Hotkevich retreated to St. Catherine Church on Bolshaya Ordynka Street where their wagon train with provisions and weapons for besieged in the Kremlin invaders was situated”. (Romanyuk, S.K. 2000, From the History of Moscow By-streets. Moscow. Ch. 25) 4 Clerk in the Boyars’ Council Alexander Durov attached to czar Michael Fyodorovich was slandered in 1636 and condemned to death. The day before execution, he got a sigh from icon which he took with him in prison that he was going to keep alive. The same night the same apparition made czar reconsider the case and declare clerk not guilty. In commemoration of his redemption Durov on that exact place built a stone church in honour of the Sign («устрой на том месте, иде же бысть его дом, церковь каменну, украсив ею всяким благолепием, в честь… Знамения»). Till 1935 interior of the church was florid by old icons. According to recollections and documents there were Life-giving Trinity, Assumption Day, Intercession of the Holy Virgin icons among them. Many icons were transferred from the old broken-up building. According to the other descriptions, there were

— 38 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

“Our Lady and Saint Nicholas of the Sign” icons (“Знамение Божье Матери и Святителя Николая — старого письма, в серебрено-позолоченных окладах, помещеные за клиросами, в особых резных иконостасах”). There was the inscription under the “Our Lady of the Sign”: “this is miraculous image of Our Lady of the Sign from the house of Clerk in the Boyars’ Council Alexander Durov” («сей чудотворная образ знамения пресвятой богородицы из дома Думного дьяка Александра Стефановича Дурова»). His house stood on that place and following his promise he established there the church in the days of grand prince Michael Fyodorovich. This information confirms the historical note about the 17th century’s church located in there. 5 The high altar was consecrated in honor of the Transfiguration of Our Saviour. 6 First relics, which were in Russia, were the relics of pope Clement (St. Vladimir brought them to Russia). St. Clement always revered in Russia. 7 Sytin, P.V. 1958, From the History of Moscow Streets. Moscow. 8 Guide to Moscow. Edited by I. P. Mashkov. Moscow, 1913. 9 TsIAM archive fond 1061, case 17, list 17 “О дозволении перестройки храма”. 10 The name of Alexey Petrovich Bestuzhev-Rumin (22 Mai (1 June) 1693, Moscow — 10 (21) April 1768) went down in history as diplomatic figure, he also known as the author of “бестужевских капель” in pharmacological references. He lived a long time abroad and in St. Petersburg, where he was vice-chancellor, Chancellor- Minister of Foreign Affairs. 11 TsIAM archive fond 203, case. 203, list 3. 12 ibid 13 According to the recollections of old parishioners already in 1932 the fence was destroy and the church was closed in 1934–1935. The space was converted into a library warehouse. First documents of returning church to believers came in August 1990 14 Elizabeth ordered to build five-domed churches by her personal decree. 15 Ilyin, M.A. 1963, Moscow, p. 263. 16 Old hipped roof (second half of XVII century) collapsed in 1723. 17 Recovery and repair works were required in connection with the destruction of the rotunda and the cross part of the Cathedral. As a result, the hipped roof was erected over the rotunda, and the church received a new decoration. “Another goal was to make parts of the Resurrection Cathedral in maximum compliance with the temple of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Transfigured similarity principle, which followed by Patriarch Nikon, was replaced by the principle of literal similarity prototype. As a result”. Zelenska, G.M. 2003. New Jerusalem. Moscow, p. 47. 18 Hipped roof over Resurrection Cathedral was completed under the supervision of K. Blank. He lasted until the Great Patriotic War. 19 The accession to the throne of Empress happened November 25, 1741, the feast day of martyr Peter of Alexandria and Pope Clement. Their icons, as well as other patrons were placed in the lower tier of the iconostasis in the Cathedral of New Jerusalem. 20 Was mentioned in the list of works compiled by V. V. Rastrelli 21 Kazhdan, T.P. 2000. “Biography page of the architect Carlo Blanca. On the history of the construction of the Moscow Orphanage”, Iskysstvoznanie, no.1 Moscow, p. 406–425

— 39 — Peter L. Baranov. St. Clement’s Church in Moscow and Architect Karl Blank

22 Vasily Bazhenov. Letters. Explanation of the project. Contemporaries. Biographical documents, Compiled by Yu. Ya. Gerchuk. Moscow, 2001 23 Tempetto temple in Rome, architect Bramante, sketches of an ideal temple of Leonardo da Vinci, etc.

REFERENCES 1. Vipper, B.R. 1978, Architecture of Russian Baroque. Moscow. 2. Zamoskvorechye. Monuments of Architecture in Moscow, 1994, Moscow. 3. Ilyin, M.A. 1963, Moscow. Moscow. 4. History of Russian Fine Arts. Under the editorship of I. Grabar, 1961, Moscow. 5. Kazhdan, T.P. 1994, “Baroque Reminiscences in K. I. Blank’s art”, The Baroque in Russia. Moscow. 6. Kazhdan, T.P. 2000, “Pages of K. I. Blank’s Biography”, Topics of art criticism. Moscow. 7. Monuments of Architecture of the Moscow Region, 1999, Moscow. 8. Sytin, P.V. 1958, From the History of Moscow Streets. Moscow. 9. Sytin, P.V. 1959, Where Names of Moscow Streets Come from. Moscow. 10. Shvidkovsky, D.O. 1994, Commissioner in the History of Russian Architecture. Moscow. 11. Baranov, P.L. 2011. “The Church of Climent the Pope of Rome in Moscow and the Architect Karl Blank”, Scientific and analytical journal “Burganov house. The space of culture”, vol.4, pp.114–165 CENTRAL HISTORICAL ARCHIVE OF MOSCOW (TSENTRAL’NYI ISTORICHESKII ARKHIV MOSKVY) TSIAM 1. “St. Clement’s Church which is on Pyatnickaya Street” (inventory of the church from 1738–1806/10), fund 203, case 203. 2. April of 1756, “About demolition of run-down buildings”, fund 1055, case 11, list 26. 3. “Permit for construction by collegiate assessor K. Matveev”, fund 1060, case 16, list 21. 4. “About approval of the church reconstruction”, fund 1061, case 17, list 17. 5. “About approval of Iconostasis renewal”, fund 1100, case 56, list 19.

— 40 — Guzel R. Galiamova. The Sculpture of Paul Gauguin

Guzel R. Galiamova PhD Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy [email protected] Moscow, Russia

THE SCULPTURE OF PAUL GAUGUIN

Summary: Article reveals activity of Paul Gauguin on field of sculpture and objects of decorative art. Sculpture became a key element for important ideas of his style. Firstly his ideas were formed in the way of symbolistic school of Pont-Aven, after them were completed with the impressions of life on the faraway islands. Images of his plastic enriched with exotic statues of taitian gods, after find development in monumental sculpture such as Oviri, bas-relief War and Peace, decorative panels of House of Pleasure. Gauguin worked in all sculpture materials in personal symbolistic way that helps us to understand message of his art, which contemporary called “primitive”. Keywords: Gauguin, sculpture, symbolism, Pont-Aven school, ceramic, Oviri, War and Peace, Noa-Noa, House of pleasure.

The countdown of Paul Gauguin’s biography (1848–1903) as a biography of a “full time artist” is generally assumed to start from 1883– 1885, when he left the job of a respectable stockbroker and stepped onto an unexplored path full of creative expression after leaving his family. Gauguin received his first sculpture lessons in Jean-Emile Bouillot’s studio. Jean-Emile Bouillot created clay and wax models for other sculptors. He had three workshops on Furno street (rue Fourneaux) in Paris, where workshops of many sculptors were located, as well as Rodin’s. Portraits of people close to him, relatives, became Gauguin’s first works. Portraits of his wife Mette, as well as children — Aline, Emile and Clovis, were made from various sculptural materials: marble, bronze, wax, what allows us to judge Gauguin’s technical competence in this area. A marble bust of Mete by Gauguin participated in the V Impressionist exhibition in 1880. Gauguin also mastered the technique

— 41 — Guzel R. Galiamova. The Sculpture of Paul Gauguin

of wood carving; his relief “The Singer” can serve as an evidence of this, here he interprets stories of everyday life in Degas’s style. Subsequently Gauguin will work much with wood as with the most obtainable natural material. The year 1886 became for him a landmark for building his own theoretical system in art. He spent that year in Pont-Aven town in Breton, where, surrounded by numerous disciples, he developed his own theory of “synthetism” subsequently making a strong influence on the art of the “Nabis” group and, especially, on Paul Serusier. A qualitative change occurs in Gauguin’s work, and he begins to use the experience of long months in Breton as the basis of his own artistic language for arts and crafts. According to an American researcher Robert Brettel from Chicago Art Institute, the clay reliefs on the surface of the rectangular jardinieres were inspired by previous works in the form of reliefs from a pear tree, as for example, “At the toilet” 1882. So the previous experience in stone, plaster and wood happened to be useful in working with ceramics. A jardiniere of 1886–1887 is an example of a pastoral scene in Brittany. A Breton girl in a suit and a white cap, sitting near a wooden fence, is depicted on the top of the jardiniere in a low relief. Wooden sabots — footwear typical for this region, are exposed from her wide long skirt. A black goat and a white goose are grazing next to the girl. The relief has a polychrome painting using engobes and enamels, it has a rich texture. Gauguin himself painted his works, and here we see a perfect command of this technique, rich in nuances. Many researchers have noted a special interest in the ceramics technique, the study of which occurred in winter 1886–1887 in the workshop of a famous ceramist of the E. Chapleton era on Blome Street (rue Blome), who also went down in history as a master of French ceramics of orientalizm style, largely imitating Far Eastern works. The first works from porcelain and stone masses (grés) are characteristic of classical modelling, in line with . This period proved to be the most fruitful for Gauguin’s ceramics. As he mentioned in his letter to Felix Bracquemond — an artistic director of a painting studio at Sèvres manufactory, he created a frame from

— 42 — Guzel R. Galiamova. The Sculpture of Paul Gauguin

1. Gauguin P. La Guerre et la Paix. 1901. wood

55 ceramic works. It must be noted that in this text Gauguin refers to his own works as to “little things of my high madness”, which indicates a passion, a creative impulse and even some obsession with work. The very first experience in working with ceramics were made in winter of 1886 in the workshop of a famous ceramist Ernest Chaplet, one of the founders of “The Art of Fire” (“Art du feu”), a significant phenomenon in the applied arts of . At first, Gauguin only decorated with scenes of the Breton life, the composition of which was perfected in numerous sketches, on the surface of cylindrical vases and other ceramic pieces. The “Vase with Breton girls” 1886–1887 belongs to this period, partially reproducing the song “Four Breton girls”.

— 43 — Guzel R. Galiamova. The Sculpture of Paul Gauguin

At first glance behind simple observations of rural life there are big notional generalizations about a kinship of all things in the world, and the form a cylindrical vase is interpreted as a form of infinity, in which the fate of each individual is reflected. A formal construction of individual figures in the paintings are often reduced to an expressive line silhouette, into which enamel shades are fused. In this kind of creativity Gauguin could realize in practice his artistic and decorative ideas on line and color justified in the context of applied work. So, the color enhancement, its luminosity, even the choice of color of enamels and glazes are highly symbolic. White colour as a symbol of purity and innocence, blue as a symbol of eternity, red- ocher as a manifestation of the flow of life, the beginning of the earth. Subtle nuances of color transitions due to the spreading of the enamel, its uneven texture only emphasizes the spiritualistic aspect of the image, where subtle spiritual visions seem to become apparent. Another group of works of this period include images of bathers and women in plants who seem to dissolve in the natural environment surrounding them. A vase “Bather under Trees” and “A Bowl with a Figure of a Bathing Woman” are perhaps marked with an influence of Cezanne’s works, whose favorite theme for almost four decades was the plot showing naked women on the river. The tectonic and plastic construction of the “A Bowl with a Figure of a Bathing Woman” is particularly interesting, it doesn’t seem to have analogues in the history of ceramics. Wide horizontal surface is in the form of a water lily leaf, the inner surface imitates the bottom of a reservoir with rocks and aquatic vegetation. The foot of a bowl is divided into three elements — here Gauguin did not consider the specifics of the ceramic material: the foot is too lightweight in relation to the massive top. Once a chipping appeared in the base of the bowl, it was installed on to a wooden base, i. e. the mass was equilibrated with the upper portion. The handle of the bowl resembles a long stem of a water plant, and here, by the author’s will, it interlaces into a strange ornate shape, echoing the Art Nouveau style, which was the man style in the arts and crafts of those years. A bowed figure of a woman is the compositional center of the bowl. A tension is felt in her fettered

— 44 — Guzel R. Galiamova. The Sculpture of Paul Gauguin

silhouette; she gently seems to touch with her foot the river bottom in fear of the unknown. A syncretic union of a man and nature has become a leitmotif of post-impressionism. Cezanne, advising his disciples to visit the Louvre, finished his speech by saying that “seeing the great masters who are buried there, it is necessary to get out of there as soon as possible and to contact with the nature, to revive one’s own artistic instincts and feelings”. Thus, we can understand the common themes of the two masters, which were based on a commonality of views on the problems of art and pantheism to natural principles. The theme of a bathing woman in waves is repeated on a wooden relief “Be Mysterious” (“Soyez misterieuses”) 1890. Gauguin pending his first trip to Polynesia anticipates the expected discoveries. Pagan overtones of the story, obviously, indicate personalized images of natural forces. Thus, the lunar disk symbolizes a profile image of a woman with red hair in the upper right corner of the composition, and the water element is represented by an undine with green hair, who as if pushes the bather with an expressive gesture of the right hand. So the idea of a predestination of a human behavior by the influences of external forces of nature becomes obvious. Gauguin sees the supreme wisdom in harmony between a man and nature, as a following of natural instincts and feelings. This story becomes a big step forward compared to previous work in 1889, where the pathos of instinctuality seems to be rougher in the relief “Love and be happy”. The analysis of the relief “Love and be happy” (“Soyez amoureuses et vous serez heureuses”) (wood) reveals numerous iconographic reminiscences towards the Gauguin’s works in other genres and materials. The relief is framed with a wide frame of green with red trim, it sets the necessary measure of conditionality and so to say prepares the viewer to perceive this work as a kind of metaphysical vision, full of allegories and symbols that need to be taken figuratively. An image of a naked woman with exotic non-European features stands out in the left part of the composition. Wide lips, flat nose and smooth hair spilled over her shoulders, rather let her be attributed to the type of Maori, who inhabited the Polynesian island, where Gauguin was

— 45 — Guzel R. Galiamova. The Sculpture of Paul Gauguin

so eager to come to. Some researchers argue that a scene of violence is depicted. Perhaps this is confirmed by an image of a fox in the lower right corner. As it is known, it is a symbol of debauchery and carnal lust in India. Gauguin portrayed himself in the upper left corner, but in a very unfavorable light. A gesture of his left thumb in the corner of his mouth is especially characteristic. It can not be interpreted unambiguously, some tend to see it as a sign of thoughtfulness, internal introspection. But, anyway, it sends us into the sphere of an instinct. It is known that one of the basic instincts in perinatal practice are a grasping and food reflexes. Here they seem to connect. So Gauguin sends us into the sphere of unconscious, original, and tries to reconcile us with him in his somewhat obsessive pathos. In Polynesia, wood becomes the most affordable natural material for the artist. Here his picturesque creativity reached its peak, but sometimes, Gauguin after spending all the art materials from Europe: canvas, oil paints, decorates his life with creations of his own hands. “Fortunately, he still had his incisors, and Tamanu, tou and chrism — tall trees with a dark striped or pink timber, grew in the mountain gorges. Just masterful and confident as he painted in oils and watercolors, made engravings and lithographs, sculpted out of clay and processed marble, Gauguin turned one wooden block after another into frightening Tahitian idols. At any case, they are usually called so. Gauguin himself preferred the hard translated name bibelot sauvages, and it’s much more true as it was a pure fiction, not associated with traditional Tahitian art”. An idol with a shell (wood) and a vase with Tahitian Gods (ceramics) participated in the Durand-Ruel gallery exhibition in November 1893. Gauguin as if imitating the style of monumental stone sculptures of the pagan gods, which often appear in his picturesque motives, resorts to grotesque stylization in a vase with Tahitian gods. The gods are shown at the moment of a dialogue — the moon goddess Hina beseeches the Earth god Tefatou to give people immortality, but is refused. A whole gallery of exotic Polynesian gods comes out from under Gauguin’s cutter. Often, in full accordance with ancient magical rituals, Gauguin combined wood with natural materials: shells, bones, etc. We can conclude that he was

— 46 — Guzel R. Galiamova. The Sculpture of Paul Gauguin very fascinated by religion and beliefs of the natives, with whom his Tahitian wife Tehamina (Tehura) acquainted him. So much fascinated that even in 1893 he started to write a book in which he hoped to make his own art more accessible to the European understanding and to reveal the poetic world of life, untouched by civilization. He made dozens of woodcuts for this edition that was titled “Noa Noa”, i. e. he created relief images on wooden boards for further printing. The end of December 1894 was marked by Gauguin’s second attempt to work with ceramic material. In Ernest Shapley’s workshop he creates a symbolic sculptural work Oviri, which still can not be interpreted unambiguously. Gauguin himself saw an embodiment of secret supernatural forces of terror and death in it, and bequeathed to install it on his grave. Also, recalling his life in Tahiti, he sculpts “A Head of a Savage” from memory, and it as if complements the gallery of his ethnographic images, which were implemented in the works “A Head of a Tahitian Woman,” “Black Venus”, etc. The second period of Gauguin’s life in Tahiti begian from 1895. Arriving after a two-year stay in his motherhood, Gauguin again plunged into the world of his tropical workshop, though this time his health became worse, but it did not prevent him to create works which became vertices of his artistic genius. To earn money for treatment Gauguin starts to work on a relief image “War and Peace” commissioned by a collector Gustave Fayet. Here a frieze principle of the figure arrangement echoes with the painting “Who are we? Where are we from? Where are we going?” 1897. It became Gauguin’s spiritual testament. Many researches of Gauguin’s creative work agree that the artist brings this compositional principle to his art from a reproduction of a relief in Borobudur temple on Yava island. These images were found in the Gauguin’s archives, he probably bought them at the International Exhibition in Paris in 1889, where he was particularly interested in the colonial section. Gauguin started to build “A House of Pleasure” in September 1901, which he built on land purchased from the local bishop Martin on Hivaoa island. Gauguin decorated his “house of pleasure” with carved wooden panels rather of a large size, in which he liked to re-implement

— 47 — Guzel R. Galiamova. The Sculpture of Paul Gauguin

all his previously expressed symbolic aims. The lower part of this distinctive frieze is decorated with profile pictures of women’s heads protruding from the undergrowth of stylized images of plants. Two inscriptions, previously encountered in the Gauguin’s works, read: “Be Mysterious” (“Soyez Misterieuses”) and “Love and be Happy” (“Soyez Amoureuses et Vous Serez Heureuses”). The fact that Gauguin repeatedly reproduced these phrases in the motives of woodcarving, allows us to speculate about a special significance that the artist gave to them. The entrance to the second floor of Gauguin’s hut, which in the description after the artist’s death appears as a “wooden house with walls made of bamboo, thatched with palm leaves” is framed with picture of naked standing women of Polynesian type. Today, these reliefs are preserved in the Paris Musee d’Orsay; they managed to survive longer for more than a hundred years the dilapidated building in the tropics, and they have not lost their monumental expressiveness. So, summing up the review of Gauguin’s plastics, we can note a programme value in his sculptural works. Indeed, sculptural materials: wood, stone, ceramics, suggest a careful forethought, they can’t transmit spontaneous impulses at such a level as painting and drawing can. Each sculptural work is the result of a thoughtful and deep reflection felt by the author. Artist’s intellectual and creative pursuits appear in it before us in a concentrated form.

REFERENCES 1. Gauguin. 1989. Regard from Russia, Moscow, Leningrad, р. 278. 2. Danielson, B. 1973. Gauguin in Polynesie, Мoscow, р.107 3. Kochik, O. 1991. World of Gauguin, Moscow. 4. Kruchkova, V.A. 2007. Gauguin, Moscow, р.27. 5. Adreani, C. 2003. Le céramique de Gauguin. 6. Bretell, R., Fonsmark, A.-B. 2007. Gauguin and Impressionism, р. 148 7. Bodelsen, M. 1964. Gauguin’s ceramics, London, Faber and Faber, p. 13. 8. Bodelsen, M. 1960. Gauguin ceramics in Danish collections, Copenhagen. 9. Gauguin, P. 1974. Oviri, écrits d’un sauvage, Gallimard. 10. Grey, C. 1963. Sculpture and ceramics of Paul Gauguin, N.Y.

— 48 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

Tatiana G. Malinina Doctor of Arts, Professor Research Institute of Theory and History of Fine Arts Russian Academy of Arts [email protected] Russia, Moscow “MODERNISM” AND “THE MODERNISM”: THE MEANING OF THE CONCEPT AND ITS GREATER EXTENSION IN ARCHITECTURAL CRITICISM BY THE XXIst CENTURY METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Summary: The selected angle in the study of the artistic phenomenon of modernism is dictated by a desire to offer our own comments to the current state of the issue: to many different interpretations, as well as to an expansion of its time limits that keeps continuing before our eyes, which is observed in the exhibition practice, critical articles and historical research. Keywords: modernism, the modernism, architectural criticism, concept

The selected angle in the study of the artistic phenomenon of modernism is dictated by a desire to offer our own comments to the current state of the issue: to many different interpretations, as well as to an expansion of its time limits that keeps continuing before our eyes, which is observed in the exhibition practice, critical articles and historical research. The evolution of our ideas about modernism (first, phasic changes in its own borders, then undulatory returns of hidden or obvious domination of one or another existing within it concepts) provides a basis to characterize the metamorphosis of its revival in the ideology of architectural trends, marked either as “energy of style formation” (neobrutalizm) or as postmodern “radical conservatism”, or as a revival of innovational spirit in the deconstructivism paradigm,

— 49 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

by analogy with the “the Renaissance” and “the Realism”, that is “the Modernism”. The research idea came a long way since the words “modern”, “contemporary” were referred to false, superficial pseudofunctionalism interpretations and to the time when these definitions began to be used in a positive sense. Nowadays, the term Modernism is used by researchers to refer to convergent phenomena in a composite system of artistic integration, bringing together the cultural space of the first half of the 20th century. Returning nowadays to the methods of studying the culture and art in Modernism times, it should be noted that the fact of a discussion arena formation in modernism art space study process is important. Here you can easily determine the direction of search, see the results of this peculiar intellectual storm undertaken by scientists of Europe, the U.S. and, a little later but no less effective, of Russia. The influence of resonant moments on the change in perspectives, unexpected interpretations of the facts and conclusions, as discussed later, is also important. In the 1920s, the processes of integration, a dialogue between innovation and tradition were taking place before our eyes; probabilistic view of the situation with the supposition of different possible variants for the future development is hidden in the conflicting judgments, in particular, at the Paris Exposition in 1925. The judgments of insightful critics became known much later, and the more valuable they seem now. The reliance on cubism, persistence of certain classic positions, a significant influence of Futurism and Expressionism in the newly born art allows Modernism to retain “the pulse of life”, notes Stephanie Zahorski, a Polish critic, in an article about the Paris exhibition of 1925. “The main thing, — she stresses, — the competition between two opposite concepts apparently transfers to the next phase — their mutual penetration. Two opposites interact between each other even against their will and create a new integrity. Though, this integrity has no name yet. One of the main attitudes explaining the phenomenon of modernism grows from the expressed guess — the judgment about the artistic space of Modernism as a mobile one, though a morphologically stable system, like a huge foundry, where a variety of different flows,

— 50 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

directions freely interact forming stable synthetic forms or leveling and reciprocally devastating. The way of developing new criteria, that allow the course of the 20th century architecture development be presented more objectively and the nature of modernism understood, runs through critical reflection of Clement Greenberg’s (1909–1994) seeming inconsistency in the placing of theoretical coordinates to determine the origins, the time and artistic boundaries of Modernism, its place in the culture of the era. Comparing the contents of two essays by Greenberg — “Avant- Garde and Kitsch” (1939) and “Collage” (1959), critics noted that Modernism in its interpretation had opposite meanings compared with an innovative view on the present and future in its early definition. Obscurity in the relationship of art to society and to the problems of its own development, highlighted in the conceptional incompleteness of the Greenberg’s theory, still is a matter of controversy and is variously explained. Russian researcher, A. Rykov, the author of the book “Postmodernism as a ‘radical conservatism’”, notes that many contemporary scientists share Greenberg’s view on the priority of formal tasks in the art of Modernism and relates the critic to the founders of the modern conservative movement in art, alluding to the fact that he begins to see not avant-garde priority but the priority of modernist nature of innovation in the new postmodern paradigm. Commenting Greenberg’s texts, Paul Gladkoff, a young Russian researcher, translator of the essay “Collage”, reflects on the two “layers” in his theory of art as follows. On the one hand, there are social processes that put the artist in very rigid frames. On the other — the logic of the avant-garde art is built entirely by the “internal” processes. On the one hand, we can say that the researcher doesn’t indicate a direct link between the two levels of art existence, on the other — it is unequivocally stated in the “Avant-garde and Kitsch” about conscious isolation of the avant-garde artists. For the author the so-called layers in the theory by Greenberg, who spent forty years working on this problem, are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. It does not matter in what order his thoughts are expressed. It is already a convinced view from the 21st century, when many phenomena, that were regarded as hostile

— 51 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

by contemporaries and the struggle between them was characterized in terms of fighting, are now seen as interdependent elements of a single mechanism operating synchronously in his system (Y. Lotman “Culture and Explosion” Moscow: Gnosis, 1992). The understanding comes that the aggressiveness of different trends in relation to each other stimulates the development of each of them and, considering them only in the aggregate, it is possible to create a model of a flow of integration processes in the course of a huge experimental workshop of the art of Modernism instead of a plain scheme with linearly aligned rows of revealed laws. The opposition “new — old” is the main classification principle in explaining modernism, and consequently art appears to be split into two streams. The first stream combines movements that are the most consistently associated with the principles of the avant-garde, the second — with the search for methods of “reconstruction” of the classics based on formal discoveries of the same avant-garde. It is no coincidence therefore that one way of explaining Modernism becomes its comparison with the avant-garde. Paul Valery (died in 1945), who drew attention to the difference in relation to the formal side of creativity in the system of regarding avant-garde and modernism, argued that the form itself was associated with repetition, and therefore “the cult of novelty”, which was inherent to the avant-garde, was the opposite of caring for form, from what followed the conclusion of completeness, richness and expressiveness of modernistic forms. Such comparison becomes useful when, highlighting differences, their natural affinity is focused on, so to say the recognition of the avant-garde as a product of modernism. Like a conquistador, it penetrates into the extra-artistic sphere, helping to expand the boundaries of art with new conquests. “Masters of the avant-garde, — says V. Turchin, — noticed a gap existing between art and life, and all their energy was directed to increase it…”. In the system of modernism, the avant-garde spirit is seen in a directive on constructive endeavour, integration, transformation, as well as the desire for renewal of artistic language, recognition of a formal experiment as a basis for the artistic method. The epoch of modernism in an avant-garde dimension gave an idea of a strong

— 52 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

1. Cubist trees by the Martel Brothers. The International Exposition of Modern Industrial and Decorative Arts. October, 1925. Paris

tension of energy generating new ideas, reliably and for long providing a solid “safety margin” of culture. An expansion of temporal and spatial boundaries of modernism in historical research and criticism happened and is still happening for different reasons. One of the reasons is connected with the in-depth study of the avant-garde architecture development line (“the avant- garde modernism” or “radical modernism”), which is the sphere of its greatest influence. In 1994 and 1995 — “at the turn of the times” first books about Russian Constructivism in Russian by E. Sidorina — “Through the entire 20th century” (which is dedicated to the analysis of artistic design concepts of the Russian avant-garde) and “Russian constructivism: origins, ideas, practice” are published. These texts, published on a bad paper, almost without illustrations, were not only a deep and original research, but also an attempt to understand

— 53 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

the mechanism of inheritance, the fate of the avant-garde gene in the second half of the century. Sidorina sees not the direct adherence and not denial as “echoes” of constructivism, but the output of the avant- garde into a field of a dialogue with other areas and other forms of art. Sidorina dedicates her article of 2009 “This sophisticated constructivism…” to G. Yakulov, modernist artist, arguing her statement that “the practice of constructivists blew up their theoretical setting”. The author admits that there is no mark of the constructivist ideology in George Yakulov’s creative mind. He can be regarded as implicated in constructivism, which is interpreted in a conceptually weakened (far from certain) variant of a wide cultural and artistic phenomenon. Finally, in a recent book by Sidorina — “Constructivism without shores. Research and studies of the Russian Avant-garde”, the avant-garde is compared, correlated, co-present with other phenomena (in culture, consciousness, language) and placed in the space of “complex mediate correlations, sence-formating conversions, upgrades”, so to say into the space of modernism. The coordinates “constructive — decorative”, specified by Sidorina, are looked upon as polar sides of a unity in a same system. Based on Bakhtin’s method, one can imagine the whole system by using a formula that gives a structural expression of an ongoing dialogue between the avant-garde and the classics like the poles of the spectrum within which many intermediate stages are found. Reasoning from the main intrigue of the 20th century art — the dialogue between the avant-garde and the classics, a researcher may consider, if necessary, its historicism component. The historicism measurement of potential possibilities of modernism in the works of Walter Kidney, Robert Stern, Andrew Ikonnikov gives an opportunity to judge the protective functions of the respectable conservative institutions of culture and communicative function of historical memory. Style coordinates of modernism open up possibilities for researchers in this technique. Two paradigms of modernism dominate in the artistic dialogic space. Its radical wing, close to the avant-garde in style, is defined as an International Style in its stylistic parameters, and the parity, median, in later versions close to historicism and academic interpretations development line — as Art Deco style. The modernism

— 54 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

researchers divided into those who study the innovative component of the Arts and those who study its classical component. Exceptions are rare. These include the works of A. Ikonnikov — a reputable researcher of the 20th century architecture. He explored the century three times, dedicating his first book to a modern movement, his second — to historicism, and he tried to create an overall picture of the architecture of the last century in his third one. It seems important to me today that the interpretation of the phenomenon of modernism, the definition of its role and place in the architectural process were actively influenced by new architectural theories, as well as approaches and evaluation of historians who based their views on deep connections of the modern language of architecture with its essential, ontological properties, that were discovered and rooted in the centuries-old process of creative experience. Young experimenters and theorists of architecture, students of Louis Kahn, Colin Rowe (author of the article “The Mathematics of an Ideal Villas”), Robert Slutsky, B. Hesli, creators of a new theoretical concept of studying forms and structures, whose names are now remembered among the initiators of the “mental turn” which contributed to the birth of the poetics of the modern architecture, distancing from the “modern movement”, noticed that supposedly absolutely pure doctrine contains in itself something different, officially discarded or ignored. They had no purpose to incriminate the “founding fathers” of inconsistency. The only wish was to characterize modernism in general as a cultural phenomenon of the 20th century, which required going beyond functionalist criteria and its correlation with the historical architectural experience. When asked what the purpose was of Rowe and his co-authors when comparing Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe’s works with Palladio’s works, one can find a clear answer in the book “Transparency”, the third edition of which in English was published with comments by Bernard Hesley in 1997. “This gave us an opportunity — writes Hesley — to see familiar historic structures with new eyes: with the relations independent between ‘historic’ and ‘modern’ < … > The fact that it must be not only for us, even it goes without saying, shows a special relationship to the development of architecture since 1918: it must be considered as a story.

— 55 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

Apparently the familiar image of modernism is a history with its traditional canonical continuity, with devoted followers, unchanged pagans and heretics, and this means that the ‘modern architecture’ is placed in a historical perspective. There was a significant climate change: ‘modern movement’ became a history”. Modernism as a method has a number of significant features. The basis of modern art is the counterpoint of synthetic structures. Polyphonic creations, built on composite resonances, contrappostos and counterpoints, need special analytical approaches. If the classics of formal school of the last century generalized and looked for a complete, stable and unchanging structure of formal elements, subordinate to one main pattern of artistic shaping, the modern researcher, taking into account the presence of multivariate artistic development in the era of modernism, puts not only simple similarity of formulations into the basis of analysis, but also the method of constructing a form, the principles of communication between the individual elements. “Do not try to teach shaping. Teach the principles,” — appeals F. L. Wright. New principles of shape analysis are created in modern science during overcoming misconceptions that in our minds separated with an impenetrable wall the modern movement and all the previous experience of art. The understanding that the art of the 20th century, built on the dialogue between the avant-garde and the classics, requires a study of developing the criteria that take into account this constant interaction. The introduction of such a concept as “suprematist order”, as well as a comparison of the Greek and Suprematist orders, which were conducted in the Department of Architecture at the Suprematist Institute of Artistic Culture, testify to the desire of the avant-garde for self- knowledge through the classics. The comparison of a new architectural language and the language of the classical order served for the avant- garde representatives to emphasize the timeless character of their own ideas. Researchers point to the similarity of the K. Malevich and A. Hildebrandt’s main formal positions, coming to the conclusion that a supremacist and a classic use same terms that are understood adequately. “So is the constructivism constructive? — questions V. Loktev, an architectural theorist. — In its best creations, it is glaringly antitectonic.”

— 56 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

In Loktev’s arguments a certain sequence is seen: functional and structural schemes are built on the basis of spatial representations that were developed by Cubism; the Cubism space was formed with the influence of antitectonic trends of compositional thinking. The author discovers these trends in the methods of Michelangelo’s “contrapposto” (“a complex and subtle compositional technique of imitation, parody and refutation of the theme) where both its conducts ‘by oices’ are perceived simultaneously and on equal terms.” The same techniques of polyphony and contrapposto are identified during the analysis of the composition of Le Corbusier, Vladimir Tatlin and K. Melnikov’s works. The expansion of temporal and spatial boundaries of modernism is happening today and into the “depth” of history. Historians, with the same goal to stand against the historic apology of modernism, seek to build modernism into historical perspective and finally get rid of “illusions of its singularity and specialness”. E. Kirichenko proposes to move the boundaries of modernism to prehistory in her article “The Architecture of Modernism and Art Nouveau”, which was published in 2009: “Art Nouveau is the first phase or the first stage of modernist art — she says. — The art of modernist era should be regarded 1890– 1950-ies, not 1910–1950-ies, including the time of existence of art nouveau.” All stories of the 20th century, as it is known, begin from the middle of 19th century. There has been seen a change of accents in the studies of the first decade of this century. In a book “From Ornament to the Object: the Genealogy of Architectural Modernism”, published in the 2012 by an American historian Alina Payne, the author strongly emphasizes the fact that the trends, with which habitually define the beginning of a new stage in the development of architecture, are the dominant point of its previous stages. So Bauhaus should not be considered as the beginning, but as the end of the “1851era”, just as the ideas of A. Loos and Le Corbusier should be considered as the culmination of one of the lines of development of architecture of 19th century This redeployment happens because a researcher discovered new, seemingly to him as the most important today the laws of morphogenesis in architecture. The same author in the Rudolf Vittkover’s biography indicates a keen

— 57 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

interest of the leading architects-modernist in the history of architecture. Le Corbusier is one of the most typical examples in architecture, a person who showed genuine interest in the architecture of ancient Greece and Rome, in the Mediterranean folk architecture, capturing architectural monuments in his sketches. He freely projected historical examples in the present. Ancient Rome was an example for him of the house building on a mass scale, the Parthenon — the perfect design functionality. The ensemble of the Athenian Acropolis became one of the key aspects of his urban concept — a consistent change of view plans. Russian science began to actively use the concept of “architectural modernism” or “modernism in architecture” of the new century. Not so much the difference but many similarities amazed when a historian came out from Sovietology into the vast expanses of architecture. But the difference still had to be identified — and so a new term was born — “social modernism”. An American critic Viktor Tupitcin wrote in the late 1990s: “social modernism of 1930s which was not pleasing to zealots of pure avant-garde, nor to art connoisseurs of Stalinist art, and which was abbreviated — ‘sotsmodernizm’… etc”. He was wrong only in contrasting good social modernism to poor social realism. From our perspective, social modernism is a Russian analogue of a worldwide artistic development of 1910–1940-ies, which is defined as modernism, without any preferential extraction of names, without separation of artists on “clean” and “unclean” as the object of reconstruction and modernization becomes the entire creative experience of mankind, the whole sphere of culture, all the art movements — from the avant-garde to academicism. But social modernism is a dry instruction of ideologues in which art could neither be born nor exist. No matter to which product of that time, let it even be the most ideologized, one puts this label, it will still have some “redundant information”. Thus, at the beginning of a new 21st century the picture of the world modernism was enlarged with the Russian analogue. Despite all the difficulties of the “inheritance procedure”, analyzed by historians of architecture and design, in recent times the period of industrial construction since 1955 and up to 1990s is defined as a modernist period. During the “thaw” period, when there was a general

— 58 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

reassessment of values, practicing architects, theorists and art historians were confident that they continued the forcibly interrupted development of Constructivism ideas. The combined industrial architecture of 1960– 1970’s with its colorful mosaic panels and frescoes, metal graphics and plastics was a new modification of the modernist method. At that time the monumental and decorative art with its original decisions and conceptionalism compensates the undeveloped architectural forms under stagnant economy and limited capacity of the construction industry. Arised postmodern aesthetics, the spirit of postmodernism and its style are formed in monumental art in particular, from which the ideological pathos was going away and into which the stream of joy of life and beauty gushed. The combining of two separate phasic periods into a chronological one colored the Russian art of nearly two decades in specific tones, determining many artistic conflicts and discussion of that time. New avant-garde tendencies, which actualized because of the state of economy and aggravated social problems, appeared in recent years, to replace a skeptical attitude towards the avant-garde that is a radical modernism, which had been growing during the postmodern period. The pendulum of preferences sharply swang in this direction. Modern architectural issues inspire a new generation of historians who seek to reinterpret the modernism method taken in a new chronological framework. Modern register of monuments of architectural modernism includes objects of 1960–1990-ies. A Viennese exhibition “Soviet modernism. 1955–1991. Unknown History”, which was held in November 2012 and where projects and constructions of all Union republics except the Russian Federation were presented, announced the world of an appearance of a Soviet regional “modernism”. Behind this choice there certainly was an intention to see the architecture of former Soviet republics as colonial — that was to give a political tinge to this principle of classification. However, architects’ appearances — the authors of works presented at the exhibition, young researchers from the U.S., European countries and Russia, showed how much interesting the new aspect could be for science, how important

— 59 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept

it was to understand what features this found in the new Soviet regional architecture “modernism” have. New ideas and concepts in the architecture of the end of the last and the beginning of the new, 21st century, which are associated with changes in ideas about the purposes of creativity and the search for means to achieve them, are as always adopted in a dispute with the precepts and values of modernism. The spirit of modernism in post-postmodernism time is perceived and interpreted in a peculiar polylogue of most diverse ideologies. A special understanding of the situation is needed. First important steps in this direction were made by Irina Alexandrovna Dobritsyna in the article “A Dialogue with Modernism in architectural poetics of new avant-garde”. A revision of a philosophical architectural program in the 1980s, which went down in history as the Deconstruction and which united intellectual leaders of this period — neomodernists, should be pointed out from the experience of the last few decades as an example of a significant progress in theory and experimental fields. The influence of post-structuralism philosophy gave impulse to a free use of form in architecture, led to a development of a new interpretive approach, which opened the possibilities for an artist- intellectual of creative realization. Deconstructionists presented a set of inventive, original, often shocking with their audacity and absurdity solutions, which shatter deep-rooted ideas underlying the perception of architecture, but always carrying energy of intellectual tension. Authors, declaring their enthusiasm for Russian avant-garde and constructivism, are far from a source of inspiration in their decisions. New modernism aesthetics is in search of new principles of the game with modernist forms. They are more concerned not about allusions or associations connected with architectural impressions, but about a speculative idea of beyond historic form, and the aim of imaginative solution becomes grotesque and paradoxical qualities. The spirit of modernism in postmodern times is perceived and interpreted in a peculiar polylogue of diverse ideologies. The work is added for theorists, they will need to understand what the tendency of “modernism without borders’ is fraught with. Most likely, the focus will be on some universals, which have a special resistance, a sort

— 60 — Tatiana G. Malinina. “Modernism” and “The Modernism”: the meaning of the concept of “matrix” in which methodological experience of creativity in the modern age “crystillized”. The thoughts of researchers like Rykov, which today are close to the estimation of post-modernism as a final stage of modernism, lead to this idea. Thus, a parody historicism — ironic, playful, semiotic — having exhausted its capacity, frees space for the revival of the classical modernism ideal in all its purity and clarity, opened to a harmonization of ontological and innovation components of the creative act, that is the idea, that can give inspiration endlessly.

REFERENCES 1. Zahorska, S. 1924–1925. “Przeglod usilowan”, Sztuk Pie Kne, Krakow, p.569–570 2. Greenberg, K. 1993. A collection of essays and criticism, vol.1, Chicago, p.9 3. Greenberg, К. 1993. A collection of essays and criticism, vol.4, Chicago, p. 87 4. Rykov, А.V. 2007. Postmodernism as a “radical conservatism”, St. Petersburg. 5. Turchin, V. 2003. The image of the twentieth … past and present, Moscow, p.612 6. Malinina, Т.G. Stylistic dimension of art’s modernist era pp.428–449 7. Malinina, Т.G. 2011. “Hidden “Palladio” in the Le Corbusier’s creation. On the trail of critical thought in the second half of the twentieth century”, ArtKnowledge, vol.1–2, pp.348–360 8. Goldstein, А.F. 1973. Frank Lloyd Wright, Мoscow, p. 39. 9. Loktev, V. “At the crossroads of classic and avant-garde”, Architecture of the USSR, 1982, № 10 10. Loktev, V. 1980. “Object-spatial environment’s style. Questions of theory. Demands of practicec — a formalized means of art expression”, Proceedings of the conference “style, corporate style, styling, fashion”. Мoscow, p. 23. 11. Kirichenko, E.I. 2009. “Modernist architecture and modern style”, Fedor Shekhtel and Era of Modern, Мoscow, p.5 12. Payne, Alina. 2012. From Ornament to Object: Genealogies of Architectural Modernism. Yale University Press. pp. 230–236 13. Florkovskaya, А. 2009. “Art Deco influence on domestic monumental painting 1970s”, Modernist art: art deco style. 1910–1940-ies. pp. 269–277 14. Soviet Modernism 1955–1991.Unknown History. 2012. Park Books. 15. Dobritsyna, I. 2009. “Dialogue with modernism in architectural poetics of neo- avant-garde”, Modernist art: art deco style. 1910–1940-ies, p.283

— 61 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

Julia A. Smolenkova PhD, Assistance professor Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy [email protected] Moscow, Russia STROGANOV SCHOOL OF SCULPTURE. THE NEW CONCEPT OF MONUMENTAL SCULPTURE IN THE NEW ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAM. THE SECOND HALF OF THE XXth CENTURY

Summary: The article considers a turning point in the history of the Stroganov school of Sculpture associated with a new concept of the architectural image. Initially focused on a dialogue with the architecture, it is one of the first to test a new plastic language of clean large spaces that appeared in the architecture of the 60s and later strongly developed in the 70s of the 20th century. Difficulties gave a jump-start to finding innovations in the creative interpretation of the situation. A new finding of the relief became a special topic, which turned from a subsidiary kind of sculpture, usually placed on secondary meaningfully places in architectural structure, into a leading practical form of art. Keywords: Stroganov School of Sculpture, relief, architecture, sculpture, synthesis.

The year 1945 became a brand new and extremely important stage in the history of Stroganov School of Sculpture. It was the year of rebirth of the Stroganov School — it was given the status of institution of higher education. Only in 1945, when grandiose plans for the new architecture were created and war-torn cities began to be restored, it became apparent that to create a new artistic image and new architecture required a participation of a sculptor — monumentalist. High buildings, new metro station, triumphal arches in entrances to parks, public buildings,

— 62 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

and memorial ensembles had to transform Moscow and other cities. Unlike cosmopolitan constructivism new architectural style should have had a human face, been a direct continuation of the high classics. Its richness in fine arts was to demonstrate the spiritual wealth of the winners. Unlike other art schools, “Stroganovka” was recreated as an educational institution, focusing on the training of specialists who could professionally collaborate with architects to create works of monumental and decorative art, organically complementing and developing the artistic image of architectural spaces. The Department of Sculpture, that was symbolically called “the Department of Architecture and Decorative Sculpture”, was headed by a prominent sculptor George Motovilov — an intellectual, a polyglot, a connoisseur of ancient literature, fluent in ancient Greek, a wonderful teacher. Within a few years he did a tremendous job of creating methodological foundation of the department curriculum. It was based on the accumulated experience of its early predecessors, years of searching, and discoveries in the field of form design, innovations in finding a plastic language, new artistic imagery that was not copying the reality but modifying it according to the tasks dictated by architecture. The fusion of architecture and sculpture determining the specificity and creative face of the Stroganov School of Sculpture became the main concept of all tasks. He had built the programmes and teaching methods so that they covered almost all kinds of sculpture, especially in that area, which was dominated by its monumental and decorative forms. From the first tasks on the first course to the final degree project students worked under the guidance of the main teacher of their speciality and the teacher of architect. Throughout the years, the architectural training in the Stroganov School was led by such prominent personalities and high professionals in the field of architecture as A. Schusev, L. Polyakov, G. Zakharov. With their contribution the Stroganov School of Monumental Art acquired a vivid dialogue between the plastics and architecture. The emergence and adoption of new techniques and creative concepts at the Department of Architecture and Decorative Sculpture continued

— 63 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

1. Sculptor А. N. Burganov. Relief Muse on the facade of the Palace of Culture of Metallurgists in Izhevsk (forged bronze, 1973) for just a decade. The Decree of 1955 “On elimination of excesses in the design and construction”, partly bordered by a declaration of the ban on the architectural and decorative sculpture, was a documentary statement of the general prerequisites for radical changes of style. “Unjustifiable tower superstructures, numerous decorative colonnades and porticos and other architectural excesses borrowed from the past became a mass phenomenon in the construction of residential and public buildings, which resulted in the overdrawn of public funds for the housing in the recent years…”. The new concept of the architectural image that had been already tested in Europe received a documented approval of the authority. Declaratively new architecture declined the order system, the monumental arts in architecture, the classical tradition: “The presence of some major flaws and distortions in the architecture is largely due to the fact that the former Academy of Architecture of the USSR (headed

— 64 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

by Mordvinov) oriented architects to address mainly the outer sides of the architecture, to the detriment of facilities planning, technical feasibility, cost of construction and maintenance of buildings. This erroneous orientation was reflected in the works of many architects and design organizations and contributed to the development of aesthetic taste and archaism in architecture. The former Academy of Architecture of the USSR and its research institutes didn’t give timely critical assessment of the manifestation of formalism and other major flaws in architecture. This academy was the bearer of a one-way aesthetically understanding of architecture, it exaggerated and distorted the role of classical heritage, instilled an uncritical attitude toward the heritage in many of its works”. Architectural studios gave up developed projects. The look of many buildings under construction changed directly in the course of construction. The architectural and decorative plastics, rusts and textures disappeared, profiled cornices broke off. Art schools, which continued to operate under the old program, were reorganised not fast enough; it was immediately mentioned in government documents: “Much of the faculty cultivates students’ uncritical attitude to the use of architectural techniques and forms of the past, it focuses students only on the development of artistic problems, and that essentially instills in them a disdain for convenient planning and economic issues”. A free-standing park sculpture became one of the important topics of students” projects, especially at the junction of a critical era, dealing with matters of urban planning and architecture. After a fabulous heyday of the Stalin’s Empire style came the time of the Khrushchev minimalism, an official ban of monumental arts. In practice, this could mean the collapse of just revived traditions of architectural and decorative sculpture. It is obvious that the artistic process of the 60– 70s differed with not less intensive development than the previous one. Like the previous one, it was closely associated with the socio- cultural situation in the country, but also was focused on general artistic processes in Europe. This was especially true of architecture and related monumental arts. Search began for environment planning with a dominant free-standing sculptural work which would be separate

— 65 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept from the architectural structure. A theme of scientific and technological progress, space exploration and ecology appeared in artistic images. A. Chekalov — an arts critic, a Stroganov school graduate, perfectly commented on the specifics of the new plastic language and correlation of a content-shaped component of sculpture to the general ideas: “Lattice structure, Beckley’s linear composition, Norbert Crean’s radial constructions as if materialize ideas of speed, flight, rhythm of iron forms and transparent skyscrapers, structure of an atom and galaxies, general principles of complex communication systems. This is not the plastics of an impermeable mass, but so to say a bare scheme of an internal circuit of an object associated with intersections of power roles and outlines of movement. This model requires from the viewer not an emotional contemplation, but a known effort of a clever mind. If one can talk here about an aesthetic expression, the roots should be sought not in the usual associations with living creatures, but in the world of machine forms with their exceptional beauty”. This generalization, born in the Stroganov workshops, gave rise to a new understanding of architectural and decorative sculpture, to the emergence of large format abstract relief forms. In the context of an invasion of a world of science and technology into an everyday living space, a dialogue between a man and nature acquired one of the key meanings. A new interpretation of the theme of war, feat appeared; but the pathos of a mass heroism gave place to a personal feat of one person. Attention was drawn to the fate of individuals. Humanistic movement in art in general as well as in sculpture manifested with certainty. A typical housing construction of large-blocks was ranked since the 60s. Architects seeked to find the most constructive solutions, to end the practice of decorations. But the new architecture was facing the problem of monotony, typicality, predominance of functionality, loss of ensemble. Building were deprived of facades. The need to engage monumentalists in architectural building process gained new urgency. The Stroganov School of Sculpture, which initially focused on a dialogue with architecture, was one of the first to test a new plastic language of large clean spaces that appeared in the architecture of the 60s and later strongly developed in the 70s of the 20th century.

— 66 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

2. Sculptor A. Moseichuk. Sculpture for Aviamotornaja metro station

The difficulties gave an impetus to finding innovations in the creative interpretation of the situation. A special topic was a new finding of a relief which from a subsidiary kind of sculpture, usually placed on secondary meaningfully places in architectural structure, became the leading practical art form. Relief started to appear on large smooth plane facades. Changes should be noted which influenced the whole space of culture in general during this period, and which undoubtedly had a great influence on the development of art and artistic environment of educational processes as well. The First All-Union Congress of Soviet artists took place in 1957. It became clear that the state identified a new cultural strategy, from the standpoint of which the past and the directions of art processes development for the future were considered. Why can this event be considered important in the context of the

— 67 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

analysis of educational art programs? The answer is in the concept of the Stroganov School of Sculpture, including priorities declaring a synthesis with architecture. Architecture and monumental art in this period of Russian history fully met government strategies of the presentation of cultural ideals. Undoubtedly, the realization of tasks set by the state, which was the only customer of monumental art at that time, was important. A new artistic vocabulary began to crystallize which was based on the ideas of universal consolidation, amalgamation of national art schools into a common cultural space, highlighting the shared cultural norms and heroes, slightly flavored with markers of national traditions. Its plastic language operated with such concepts as the laconicism, an easy storyline, specificity of images. This implies simplicity and some lapidary composition, strict design and decorative shaping. Very soon it gave a certain artistic reaction in the form of isolating the personal humanistic ideals in the content of art images and themes as priority ones (Motherhood and childhood, adolescence, love, contemplation, meditation), while maintaining the arsenal of plastic means. In this situation, for the Stroganov School graduates, who had received a thorough architectural training, it was possible to implement in practice their knowledge and capabilities. New sculptural materials for architectural facades, squares and park ensembles started to be used actively. Concrete, forged metal, ceramics were used along with the traditional bronze for monuments, plaster and stone for architectural and decorative plastic. Metal plastic (forged metal) was the most effective mobile form of development of free and large geometric surfaces. It took the leading position on the facades, on external volumes of buildings and in large public interiors. Stroganov sculptors, who had a good practice in creating sculptures in different materials, were the first to start working under the new architecture. The tradition of making sculptures out of wrought iron, fixed to the frame, has been preserved at the Department of Architecture and Decorative Sculpture since the VHUTEMAS time and since Mukhina was teaching.

— 68 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

The properties of this material had a fundamental importance: the copper noble golden-brown color or the aluminum silver-gray color, visual lightness, flexibility, dynamics and luminosity. These metals in sheet form were quite easily transformed, creating a possibility of modeling the generalized concise silhouette and graphical compositions. It was this style that was the most acceptable for decoration of extended architectural surfaces. The problem was not how to fill up an entire wall with figurative motifs, but to create a powerful visual emphasis. Monumental reliefs and sculpture, made in 1960–70s by A. Burganov, V. Siddur Y. Alexandrov, I. Kazansky, became convincing examples of the development of a new plastic language. The first experiences in the new plastic were reflected in A. Bourganov’s relief “Bird” on the building of the Moscow House of Cinema (1967). The House of Cinema building (architect K. Topuzridze) has four equivalent walls. The only thing that distinguishes the central facade is a relief with the image of a flying bird with a small branch. One of its wings is being transformed into a recoiling reel. The theme was continued by I. Kazansky, who created a sculptural relief on the facade of the Institute of Biochemistry and Microbiology USSR in Pushchino, Moscow Region (1969–1972). During this period, the Russian art space included a whole pleiad of great Stroganov sculptors: V. Siddur, A. Burganov, Y. Orehov, Y. Alexandrov, M. Voskresenskaya, M. Smirnov, I. Kazansky. Vadim Abramovich Siddur is one of outstanding masters of Stroganov School of sculpture. Siddur’s art work fully expressed the expressive movement in modern sculpture. His works combined symbolism and architectonics, a limited intensity of emotions, psychological expression and powerful, concise, reduced to a sign plastic form. His original style is convincing and significant. Early sculptures by V. Siddura were performed in the tradition of socialist realism. In the early 1960s, he drastically alters his style. The dynamics of generalized geometric forms comes to the fore; the art works acquire the qualities of a complex architectural design. The artist refers to the tradition of constructive and subject sculpture of the 1910s — 1920s, primarily to the legacy of A. Arkhipenko, J. Lipshitz, C. Brancusi. Monumental architectonic

— 69 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

3. Sculptor Yu. Alexandrov. Flora. on the facade of the Floriculture and Greenery pavilion at the Exhibition Centre in Moscow. 1972

abstraction is inherent to all the sculptures by V. Siddur, who during this period had found his personal plastic recognizable creative character. The main findings of plastic lexicon of the Stroganov School of Sculpture are actively manifested in V. Sidurra’s sculptures — the dynamics of volumes, rhythmic arrangement of masses, equating of the opening, the “holes” in the sculpture body to the significance of the full volume form. He made many sculptures as transparent objects, the light goes through them easily, a free space becomes an integral part of the work. This effect becomes the primary means of expression in the monument “The Formula of Sorrow”. Alexander Burganov entered the professional artistic life in the 1960s in the heyday of the “severe style” — one of the most expressive movements of the Russian art.

— 70 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

A. Bourganov’s relief “Muse” on the facade of the Palace of Culture of Metallurgists in Izhevsk (forged bronze, 1973) becomes a manifesto of a new sculptural language. The artist revealed with laconic means the impressive features of a metal relief. As a true goddess, Muse widely spreads her arms and holds a vast space. Her body is turned into a column with the same ease with which female figures on the Erechtheion building are turned into Caryatids. The composition is dynamic and stable at the same time. The horses race, a bird soars, the waves of draperies splash, the vortex of motion is in all directions, covering the whole vast architectural surface. Muse, elevated in the center, unites all rhythms, all motifs in a single indissoluble ensemble. We can say that A. Bourganov’s Muse became a true muse of a new architectural relief. Besides this work, A. Burganov created a monument “Friendship of Peoples” (1973) for Izhevsk, which is a fine example of architecture and sculpture synthesis. The sculptor found concise and succinct form of allegorical images, presenting the theme of peace with two female figures in Russian and Udmurt national costumes; the army theme in the form of a dynamic group of soldiers; the theme of labor — a powerful figure of a blacksmith who is raising a hammer over an anvil. Hallmarks with figures are placed between two pylons. In fact a new formula of a memorial monument is presented. Another Stroganov sculptor, V. Alexandrov, was active during this period. He proposed a new concept of a relief after finishing the “Flora” composition on the facade of the “Floriculture and Greenery” pavilion at the Exhibition Centre in Moscow (forged copper, 1972). A refined, transparent silhouette of “Flora”, surrounded by flowers and fruit, appears as a three-dimensional ink drawing. The relief is receding from the wall, partly passing into a sphere of a round sculpture; it makes a powerful emphasis on an austere architectural environment. The relief “Quiet Flows the Don” in the courtyard of the hotel “Intourist” in Rostov-on-Don (dolomite, 1973) is another significant work by Yuri Alexandrov, performed in collaboration with Ivan Kazan. A whole landscape is metaphorically depicted from a bird’s-eye view. There are brave Cossack men and Cossack women in the center of the composition.

— 71 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

Undulating rhythms of the relief are very impressive; they impact the dynamics of water flows. The plot and purely visual rhythmic effects are aligned here. A striking feature is that the relief is made in stone (dolomite). A game with historical styles became a new feature of the Art of the 1970–1980s. It was not a pastiche, but a kind of citation. Alexandrov was one of the first to use this technique in his monumental works. He was fascinated by folklore, folk street theater, old sculpture, stone carving of ancient cathedrals. He easily made, transformed and united multiple historical and cultural associations. Y. Orehov was among the most prominent representatives of the Stroganov School of Sculpture. During this period he created a monument to soldiers killed in the Civil War and World War II in Yalta (1968); to Yaroslav Tolbukhin — the Hero of the Soviet Union, Marshal of the Soviet Union (1972); to Yuri Gagarin in Gagarin (1974). One of Y. Orehov’s work for the Marble Hall of the Kremlin (1983) is especially significant among interior sculptural ensembles of the 1980s. A hard task was before the artists — to show symbolically the main stages of the Soviet state history, or to show a particular stage in the history of the Soviet Union: “All power to the Soviets”, “Land to the Peasants,” “We the Blacksmiths”, “World War II”, “Bread”, “Red army”, “Surround”, “Science”, “Work”, “Peace” (all marble, height 240 cm). Creating certain socio-historical character types, Y. Orehov based on the experience of the Russian sculpture of the 1920s, particularly on the works of I. Shadr (a series of sculptures for banknotes) and the famous allegorical composition “October” by Alexander Matveev. As an artist of Stroganov School, he undertook a complex sculptural-architectural ensemble. Y. Orehov developed a special type of sculpture — an intimate portrait — the monument. Heads, carved in stone, get an architectural design — they are installed on powerful support — columns (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1976), Bach, Peter I (1978)). A column, as the dominant vertical, transmits the portrait of everyday space into the scope of historical time. These kinds of portrait monuments with high pedestals, columns were installed in the late 1910s in Moscow and Petrograd according to the “monumental propaganda” plan.

— 72 — Julia A. Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. The new concept

Recent decades of Strogonov School of Sculpture are associated with the name of the outstanding sculptor A. Bourganov. During almost half a century of teaching, 30 years of which he has been the head of the Department, A. Burganov has trained a pleiad of outstanding painters and sculptors, including the People’s and Honored Artists of Russia, academicians, laureates of international and Russian state awards. It was during these years when the School overcame the applied direction of architectural sculpture and is now currently working in almost all kinds of genres and types of art sculpture, giving the fundamental basis to its students not only in the figurative art, but also in the field of free plastic and abstract art, showing the internal laws of constructing sculptural forms and artistic images regardless of any art movement.

REFERENCES: 1. Barkhin, B. Experience and masters of the classical heritage in teaching practice 40–50-ies. pp. 191–194. 2. Barkhin, M.G. 1981. Architect’s Method of working. Moscow 3. Burganova, M.A. 2009. “The Last Utopia of Soviet Epoch. Power and Art during the ‘Thaw’. Journal “Collection”, no 1. Moscow 4. Smolenkova, J.A. 2009.” Stroganov School of sculpture as a phenomenon of Russian art of the twentieth century”, Scientific and analytical journal “Burganov House. The Space of Culture”, no. 4, Moscow 5. Smolenkova, J.A. 20013. “Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period. VKhUTEMAS: Sculpting Methodologies and Programs”, Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal TEXTS,no.2, Bruxelles

— 73 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

Frederick Turner lecturer, scholar, Founders Professor School of Arts and Humanities The University of Texas at Dallas [email protected] Dallas, USA THE PHOENIX AND THE FIRE REFLECTIONS ON THE ART OF RICHARD MACDONALD

Summary: Two wonderful artists met in this article. A great writer, poet, lecturer Frederick Turner wrote an article about the creative process and art of an outstanding contemporary American sculptor Richard MacDonald Keywords: Richard MacDonald, sculpture, realism

No handiwork of Callimachus, Who handled marble as if it were bronze, Made draperies that seemed to rise When sea-wind swept the corner, stands; His long lamp-chimney shaped like the stem Of a slender palm, stood but a day; All things fall and are built again… — William Butler Yeats, “Lapis Lazuli” When Richard MacDonald stood before the charred remains of his California studio, which had contained all his work and wealth, and even his dog, it seemed as if he had been defeated. He had faced such a terminus years before — as an abused and suicidal youth, whose much-loved brother had just died and whose parents had undergone an ugly divorce. Art had been his salvation then; with the help of a wise and generous uncle, he had found his astounding talent for representation in two and

— 74 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

1. Richard MacDonald

then three dimensions and had turned it into a profitable commercial business. In the then climate of postmodern art his virtuosity and his popular success were overlooked by the fashionable avant-garde art world — and now he had been deprived of the material means and fruits of his work. It is harder to rise from despair the second time. Worse, he was sued by a client whose project had melted in the flames, and who saw the relationship with the artist purely as a business transaction; he who lives by the sword of profit, it might seem, dies by it. But MacDonald drew once more on the deep current of vitality that was always in him, this time without a mentor. In person MacDonald becomes quickly flushed when he is engaged and excited; he has a pent- up energy that is both frightening and endearing. Perhaps he could turn his devastating experience of defeat into an inspiration for others who have come to the end of their rope — and do it through his art. But it

— 75 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

2. Elena III, 2005

— 76 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

takes courage to draw on that interior energy, to adventure its destruction in the vicissitudes of life. Like the phoenix, he rose from the fire. And he became bolder still, and set out to do something rejected by both modernism and its lesser offspring postmodernism — to challenge the art world on its own ground, and to do it by means of the despised mechanism of the market. What was so bad about Rubens, Shakespeare, Verdi, Rodin, Kubrick, Warhol, Frederick Hart, and so many others who became wealthy through their art? MacDonald would by sheer talent weld together art of unquestionable integrity with a business model that is a textbook case of inspired entrepreneurship. But MacDonald does not just overturn the socio-economic clichés of the contemporary art world. He defies virtually all the nostrums and stereotypes of academic art theory. Instead of exploiting his verifiable status as an abused victim, by the kind of artistic whining, malice, political one-upmanship, moral blackmail, and paranoia that we see everywhere, he unabashedly celebrates the glory of the human body and spirit. Instead of slyly undermining the artistic means of representation that are given by nature and tradition to artists, as so many postmodernists have done — biting the hand that feeds us, so to speak — MacDonald honors the grand mimetic tradition by emulating and surpassing it. Instead of evading moral responsibility for his work by ironic obfuscation, he commits himself to its subject and spirit, makes himself vulnerable to the spirit of his models, puts himself at the mercy of his audience. The Greeks fought naked, and so does he. Instead of evading his own virtuosity — the display of virtuosity is almost the worst sin of many contemporary artists in all forms, as if one must shackle oneself so as not to offend the self-esteem of others — he frankly vaunts his miraculous powers of observation and imitation. No photos, no despicable life molds. Instead of cutely giving curators headaches by the use of perishable or noxious materials, thus implicitly sneering at the artist’s gift to posterity, he works in the most enduring sculptural material of all, bronze. And all he has to do it with is the hand and the eye. One of MacDonald’s characteristic practices is to use models who are formidable artists in themselves, and submit his art to theirs.

— 77 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

3. Leap of Faith, 2008

— 78 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

4. Richard MacDonald in London Studio sculpting dancer Sergei Polunin

— 79 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

5. Richard MacDonald sculpting in his art Studio

— 80 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

6. Transcendance (Sasha II), 2006

— 81 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

The traditional relationship between artist and model, so shockingly exposed by Picasso in his last phase in all its implied exploitation and domination, is abolished. MacDonald does not rule but serve his models, and becomes the producer-director of their talent. He enters into their skin and re-expresses their spirit in the sculpture from the inside — a reversal of Michelangelo’s method, of cutting away all the stone that contained the work of art itself, but a reversal that honors his predecessor. There is an important philosophical issue at stake here. Genetics and neuroscience have in the opinion of some thinkers radically challenged our accepted principle of free will (the essential factor in all ethics, jurisprudence, and artistic taste). If our DNA determines our bodies and our bodies” brains, and our bodies and brains determine our thoughts, feelings, and decisions, then what becomes of our liberty, our agency, our praise- or blameworthiness, our sense of beauty? Are they all automated reactions? MacDonald’s answer could be said to be simple: it is the sculpted foot of any of his dancers or acrobats. No sculptor has understood the humble foot as does MacDonald. The point is that that foot is not the foot given to the model by nature alone. It is the product of agonizing discipline whose agony is completely cancelled by its emergent reward. The foot is as much the dancer’s creation as the sculpted foot is that of the sculptor. The amazing thing about human beings is that we can change ourselves: by our own decisions we can turn on whole banks of silent genes that would otherwise play no part in our structure and behavior. This is the message of the new revolution in biology — epigenetics, with its ramifications in the fields of evolution, development, and medicine. By attributing mind to ourselves and to others we enact mind in ourselves and others. The higher social animals (including ourselves), especially the social predators with their binocular vision and their uncanny ability to predict what you are going to do, now turn out in many studies to possess a trait once attributed only to humans — Theory of Mind. His act of sculpture is also an act of such attribution — it gives mind to the sculpture as he allows the model to give her mind to him. MacDonald once borrowed several live predators — big cats —

— 82 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

7. Tango study II

and entertained them in his studio in order to study their own theory of mind, their own subjectivity. What MacDonald has intuited is precisely this: that we are not the helpless victims of our bodies and our biological inheritance. He knows this by experience. On the contrary, our inheritance is an enormous storehouse of potential talents, an Aladdin’s cave of magical lamps and rings, to be unearthed by the enterprising and the courageous. And we are in charge of it, if we dare to take charge. When we have chosen our gifts, as he has and as have his models, like Elena, Sasha, Rudolph Nureyev, and the acrobats of the Cirque du Soleil, we have taken on the power to change ourselves by training, education, meditation, art, and the cultivation of our own habits and desires. Thus, though at the moment of surprise or emergency or challenge we will probably act as our brain/body tells us to act, that brain-body is already our own sculpted instrument. The dancer at the moment of

— 83 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

infinite strain and muscular exertion (there has never been a sculptor who could catch such moments as MacDonald does) may not have time to do anything but exactly what her training has conditioned her to do: but she chose her training, she is the agent, she is responsible, and she deserves the applause. All is action for him — as in the opposed dynamism of his tango dancers, where the apparently passive, dragged woman is actually in charge of the big muscular man, who is amazingly in retreat even though his posture is one of pushing forward. But is his retreat a dragging of her back to his den? Or is she, seductive foot curled up behind her with its arrogant shoe — the one who is dictating the trip to the cave? MacDonald is fascinated by performers in another sense: he is aware of the great tradition of theater and intrigued by the conventions of the Greek tragic drama, the Commedia dell’ Arte, the Comédie Française. We make our masks, and then they make us. All the world’s a stage, said Shakespeare, and all the men and women merely players. But as players, Shakespeare knew, we are freer than we are as the “poor, bare, forked animal” of his greatest tragic play. Morally, the greatest gift we can make is of our best self, at the disposal of others. Self- presentation is not necessarily an insincere piece of public relations: it can be a generous act of creation to be claimed by our fellow human beings. Like the great artists and heroes of the Renaissance, MacDonald fashions himself, and enthusiastically celebrates the self-fashioning of his models. We find our immortality in the heroic act we fashion, as his models find theirs in the bronze that will outlast them. MacDonald’s radical reversals of modernist/postmodernist convention are symbolized most clearly, perhaps, by his reversals of gravitation. He loves to sculpt figures who in the flesh are hanging on to a rope or silks attached to the ceiling (or to the gantry of a theatrical stage or circus tent). In bronze, however, there is no ceiling or gantry — the sculptural “picture” is cut off at some distance above the figure. Is she going to fall, if there is no sky-hook to hold her up? Perhaps not — perhaps she is not a puppet after all, but has taken charge of her fate. Indeed, it is the remains of the sculpted rope or silk drape that has drifted to the ground that, in bronze, support her. The tether has turned

— 84 — Frederick Turner. The Phoenix and the Fire Reflections on the Art of Richard MacDonald

into a slim but bronze-sturdy staff and pedestal. She is grounded by her own chosen art. Perhaps the most remarkable of MacDonald’s works in this mode is Transcendence: the acrobat/dancer, in a reverse crucifixion, is hanging upside down from a twined pair of silks, clinging on with his feet as he spreads the two silks apart with his outstretched arms, allowing the remaining silks to drift to the floor (and become, in bronze, a pedestal). In the history of sculpture, this is one of the more radical — and surprisingly comprehensive — statements of the human condition. The dancer here is indistinguishable from his performance. O body swayed to music, O brightening glance, How can we know the dancer from the dance? — William Butler Yeats, “Among School Children”

— 85 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

Elena A. Cheburashkina Lecturer of department “Furniture design” Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy [email protected] Moscow, Russia Kirill N. Cheburashkin Head of department “Furniture design” Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy [email protected] Moscow, Russia RUSSIAN DESIGN AT MILAN DESIGN WEEK 2014

Summary: Annual International Design Week was held in Milan from the 7th to the 13th of April. Every year it attracts to Milan thousands of journalists and specialists in the field of architecture, interior design, industrial products, fashion industry and especially experts in the field of furniture. Within this week I Saloni, the largest international furniture exhibition, is held. I Saloni is the main and therefore the most massive and crowded event at the Milan Design Week, which is organized by non-governmental private company Cosmit. At this year’s design week in Milan was presented a record number of Russian designers… Keywords: Isaloni, SaloneSatellite, Russian Design, Furniture, Russian Design Pavilion, IZBA project

Annual International Design Week was held in Milan from the 7th to the 13th of April. Every year it attracts to Milan thousands of journalists and specialists in the field of architecture, interior design, industrial products, fashion industry and especially experts in the field of furniture. Within this week I Saloni, the largest international furniture exhibition, is held. I Saloni is the main and therefore the most massive and crowded event at the Milan Design Week, which is organized by non-governmental private company Cosmit.

— 86 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

Cosmit — is a company that has been organizing the Milan Furniture Fair since 1961, an exhibition that is a trendsetter in the furniture and interior design. In addition to the Milan Furniture Fair, the International Exhibition of Interior Objects and exhibition of works by young SaloneSatellite designers are held every year. Cosmit organizes Euroluce, Eurocucina exhibitions and the International Bathroom Exhibition on the even years, and during the odd ones — Salone Ufficio. Together, these events are united by one exhibition — i Saloni. The exhibition is held in the RHO FieraMilano exhibition center; it occupies a total area of 24 pavilions — 345 thousand square meters. More than 300 thousands of people visit the exhibition annually. There is a special section of the exhibition for young designers — SaloneSatellite. Marva Griffin, the founder and director of SaloneSatellite, organized this contest fifteen years ago. The contest was designed to support young designers who could not afford to participate in the main exhibition, and to bring back the spirit of innovation to the Milan Salon, the spirit that made it famous in the 60s. Many successful today designers — Nendo, Patrick Jouin, Matali Crasset, Satiendra Pacal, Nick Zupank, Xavier Lust, Lorenzo Damiani — began their careers on SaloneSatellite. Cosmit also cares about an extensive cultural program that is held together with the exhibitions — projects in the fields of fashion, art and even gastronomy, which bring out the most unexpected results in combination with the design. One of the last projects was a theatrical production Design Dance by Francesca Molteni and Michele Marelli which was shown during I Saloni in Milan in April 2012. The authors tell the story of post-war Italian design with the help of theater and acrobatics, unique pieces of furniture become direct participants in the action, which at one time turned the view on design. More informal exhibitions are held in parallel with the official activities organized by Cosmit around Milan. The contingent of visitors and exhibitors is radically different from I Saloni. If large international furniture companies with a worldwide reputation are exhibited at the Salon, for which the participation is necessary to maintain the status and to expand their market, the alternative exhibitions, the participation

— 87 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

1. Bush-stool Maslov Gosha 2. Bar stool Wild West Chair Victoria Kazachek

in which is much cheaper, are mostly represented by young designers and new creative teams that have come here to look for manufacturers. This year, young designers including Russian were presented at three sites: at the traditional SaloneSatellite, held for the 15th time as part of I Saloni; annual Zona Tortona area; and a brand new place for expositions in the quarter Ventura Lambrate. SaloneSatellite There are three ways for a designer from Russia to become a participant in Milan SaloneSatellite: – qualify for entry and pay for the stand on general grounds One hundred and twenty individual stands are organized in the pavilion for SaloneSatellite; any designer under 35 may apply for participation, but as the number of those who to participate is always several times higher than the number of available stands, not all can pass. But nevertheless if you qualified for entry, you

— 88 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

3. Stand of furniture design department on SaloneSatellite 2014

must pay the cost of the stand rent (2,500 euros) and you can start to prepare for the exhibition. – take a prize at the stage in Moscow Moscow stage of the competition SaloneSatellite takes place at the exhibition I Saloni WorldWide Moscow in Moscow every year. Beforehand all those designers who wish to participate, who is under 35 years from the post-Soviet time send their application, and the jury chooses a few dozen finalists, whose works are exhibited in Moscow. The jury determines three winners

— 89 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

during the exhibition; the prize for them is the participation in SaloneSatellite in Milan. – exhibit with the Russian school invited by the organizers From 15 to 20 design schools from around the world present their works on SaloneSatellite every year in addition to individual designers and small creative teams. This year schools were presented from the USA, Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Spain, the UK, Malaysia and school from Russian — Moscow State Stroganov Academy of Industrial and Applied Arts — for the first time in the history of SaloneSatellite. Russian designers were presented with all of the above ways on SaloneSatellite 2014 where “Design, Innovations + Craftsmanship” was the main theme. The Department of Furniture Design represented Moscow State Stroganov Academy of Industrial and Applied Arts at the stand of 24 square meters. During the 6 days of the exhibition, the stand of Moscow State Stroganov Academy of Industrial and Applied Arts was presented with 20 prototypes of course and diploma works of the Furniture Design students. Constant interest of the audience was arisen by a degree work — a project of equipment for a work place by a 6th year student Antonina Lantsova. The equipment was presented with a series of lamps consisting of table and ceiling lamp in different versions. The frames were made of birch plywood, the light source was LED strip hidden behind a light-diffusing plastic. An interesting addition and the main distinctive features of the project were “pear-sockets” and “pear- lamps”, they presented a turning electrified products shaped as a pear, made of beech wood; the sockets and bulbs hanging from the branching lamp looked like real fruit from fruit trees and served as additional light or electricity source for recharging laptops, pads and phones. This was especially relevant at the exhibition, where the phone due to the amount of photos taken needed to be recharged in less time than half of the day, so many came up to the stand of Stroganov Academy not only to touch the prototypes but also to “recharge”. Of no less interest was the project of an office chair — “Move it chair”, by the student Semion Lavdansky. The office chair that was

— 90 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

4. Electric pears by Antonina Lantsova

completely made on a CNC milling machine from birch plywood and MDF, collapsible design provides a compact storage and easy transportation. The chair has a bright memorable artistic image. The silhouette resembles a skeleton of an animal, the central ridge is attached to the base and it is a bearing member for 24 bars that make up the backrest and the seat, each bar moves relative to the central axis of the central ridge, providing an unusual ergonomics. Thus, the human body is constantly in motion, what improves circulation and promotes good posture. Two coursework projects of a stool were also pointed out: A course project “Bush-stool” by the 2nd year student Gosha Maslov. The base of the stool really looks like a bush, and the feeling that you have to sit on a thorny bush is increased thanks to the transparent seat.

— 91 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

5. Furniture Collection O-zone Shashmurin and Alexey Bykov

6. Gorinich Detachable toy (tree). Alexander Kanygin

— 92 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

Perhaps that was why every second visitor wanted to try to sit down on this product, to ensure that it was very comfortable to sit despite the expected “sharp” sensations. Not only the object itself was interesting, but also the manufacturing method: after assembly a base made of beech wood by a lathe method was inserted into still liquid and not yet stark two component polyurethane resin, and that provided a high solidity after congelation. A course project of a bar stool “Wild West Chair” by the student 2nd year Victoria Kazachek attracted everyone by an unusual way of seat: it was offered to sit on the stool like on top of a horse. And the usual step (in the case of standard design of a bar stool) turned into stirrups. The example presented at the stand was made in eco-style; the body from extra flexible plywood, the seat of molded PVC plastic. In total, the stand was visited by over 10,000 people during the exhibition. Of these, there were 57 journalists from different countries. In particular, a crew from the Russian NTV channel worked at the stand; a photojournalist from the international journal of residential interior design “HOME”; Vladimir Samoilov — the founder of the largest Russian Internet — resource in the field of design “DESIGNET.RU”; Olga Kosyreva — the leading Russian journalist in the field of the history of design; Marva Griffin — the founder and the head of the largest international competition of young designers of furniture and interior “Salone Satelitte”, etc. Russian school of furniture design and interior, that was introduced on “Isaloni” for the first time, aroused great interest among the visitors of the fair, many of whom estimated the Moscow State Stroganov Academy of Industrial and Applied Arts exposition as the best among the submitted design schools from Germany, Italy, the U.S. and other countries. Also, a stand of the winners of the Moscow stage of the SaloneSatellite WorldWide Moscow 2013 contest was traditionally presented at the salon. Since one can not only take part in the competition with prototypes of furniture but also with any objects of industrial design, only one office chair was presented this time at the stand — an office chair “ErGo” for people with disabilities designed by Maria Ignatova from St. Petersburg, who took the 3rd place in the Moscow stage;

— 93 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

7. Inflatable kokoshnik weather Anna Druzhinina

a series of wall clocks and 2 lamps were presented as well. Evia Kraukle (Latvia) took the first place; she presented to the jury a sliding lamp with two lamps with replaceable height and width positions. The second prize was won by a Russian designer Wishnya who designed a series of eco-friendly pendants — The Culle, made from cardboard. The main motive was an attempt to revive the material that was once a part of nature by recreating the structure of the living matter. But most of the exposition at SaloneSatellite is still not only presented by schools and winners of the previous stages but by more commercially motivated design studios that invest in the exhibition hoping to find a producer and to get useful business contacts. Among them a Russian team is rare to find, but this year, Russia was represented by a successful young designer in the field of interior design and just starting out as an industrial designer — Ekaterina Elizarova. She is a graduate of the Ural State Academy of Architecture and Art in Russia and Huddersfield University of Architecture and Design in the UK. Elizarova’s studio

— 94 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

8. Move-it chair by Semen Lavdanskiy

presented its works at two sites: ISaloni Satellite and Ventura Lambrate. For each exhibition there were different collections, in accordance with the concept of the exhibition. More commercial products For ISaloni and art objects for Ventura Lambrate. Incidentally, so to say a game design appeared at the latter — an interesting timeless console with two rotating mirrors. Perfect varnish, 100% gloss, the coating like on a piano. The console is called “An Alien”. And it really justifies its name as it is not clear when it was done — yesterday or forty years ago. IZBA Project The general concept of this big project is uniting eight independent designers from Moscow and St. Petersburg is the rethinking of Russian traditions, lifestyles, cultural values and objects which have been surrounding a Russian man in his everyday life for centuries. Designers approached the task responsibly — supporters thoroughly studied the storerooms of the Ethnographic Museum in St. Petersburg and constantly consulted the museum specialists while working on the project,

— 95 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

9. Stand by Ekaterina Elizarova on SaloneSatellite 2014

read relevant literature, studied the traditional living space — the izba — and deeply immersed into the subject of life and folklore. The starting point was the traditional Russian izba, a minimalistic and incredibly and efficiently organized living space, and items forming its interior. The joint stand of the IZBA Project was designed by designers as a relative installation of the interior of the Russian izba in which each object took its place. A metal shelf by Maxim Maximov “The Red Corner for the Most Important” was put at the red corner — the most important place in the house. A traditional bench was installed in the center as well as a big long table at which one could sit down to catch one”s breath and to have a closer look at the other items of the collection. An object by Maxim Shcherbakov, who reinterpreted the traditional chests that replaced cupboards for a Russian man and who designed a modular storage system “Dowry, was presented near a boarded wall.

— 96 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

10. Dowry. Modular system for storage

“The Beard” on drawstrings by Alexander Kanygin and an inflatable weatherproof “Kokoshnik” by Anya Druzhinina arose maximum attention and stable interest of the guests of the IZBA Project stand and a desire to try it on. Another object for the exhibition was made by Anya Druzhinina, called Fedor Toy as well, — “A Slide” which was made from pillows of different sizes; the designer turned it into a pretty hassock thanks to a single pillowcase design with a gradient effect. Alexander Kanygin — the author of a detachable beard and a lover of wood, also found fairy tale characters to his liking in the Russian folklore. The designer brought a wooden “Bear”s Head” and a collapsible toy “Dragon” to Milan.

— 97 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

Jaroslav Misonzhnikov, taking as the basis a design of a ratchet (a folk musical instrument), significantly altered it to make a baby rocker — also a mandatory object at the traditional izba. Catherine Kopytina finalized the mechanism of a stand for a burning torch, which was the former main source of light in homes until the beginning of the 20th century. Using an elementary principle of its work, the designer designed “Svetets” which turns any hanging lamp into a high floor lamp. The project will be presented in St. Petersburg this summer and in Moscow — in autumn. Russian Design Pavilion RDP is a multi-year project organized by Krylova (Creativirus) and Mary Twardowski (Profi2profit) in collaboration with Italian partners — Promote Design and Bealux Best Selection agencies, for promotion of Russian design abroad. The team represented Russian design for the third time on the international stage; before that they organized a pavilion in Florence at the 100% Design exhibition during the design week in London. Another exhibition format was chosen this time unlike the pavilions in Florence and London: since the aim of the project was the constant experimentation with exponential forms, the organizers decided to show Russian design in an industrial trade format after the show room and the classic stand. Sergei Shashmurin and Alexei Bykov, designers from Yekaterinburg, showed themselves with high-expectation in working with acrylic stone DuPont TM Corian and in its processing. The designers, using innovative material and basing on national craft traditions, presented an interpretation of the Gzhel painting style and motifs of traditional toys and utensils of ancient Russia in the collection O-zone for Expromt. Furniture bureau Woodi continued the expansion of its collection in Scandinavian style presenting new pieces of furniture and home accessories, which main qualities are comfort and functionality. Alex Petunin, an architect and industrial designer from St. Petersburg, once again amazed European audiences by bold avant-garde forms, light and color effects. He presented a collection of floor lamps made of several layers of laminated plastic.

— 98 — Elena A. Cheburashkina & Kirill N. Cheburashkin. Russian design at Milan Design Week 2014

Here is what the organizers say about the results of the past events: “The project RUSSIAN DESIGN PAVILION, having existed for three years and received international recognition, reaches a new level of development where it is no longer necessary to prove the existence of Russian design; so it is now possible to discover new names, set trends while remaining true to the main principle of the project: to give an opportunity to everyone who is confident in his abilities and wants to get a professional response from the international community to present his or her design”. In conclusion, it”s worth noting that Russian design without a doubt becomes a full member of the European design movement. It is gradually abandoning the exploitation of national folklore motifs and infinite interpretations on the Russian avant-garde topic. Russian designers have finally managed to overcome the longstanding problem of cultural identity. The rethinking of their cultural roots, traditions, the extraction of not a formal popular side but the deep essence and the underlying cause of design give a rich soil for further development of Russian design as an important and distinctive part of the international design experience. Also a successful debut of the Russian students of the Moscow State Stroganov Academy of Industrial and Applied Arts at the international SaloneSatellite causes optimism. Hopefully this experience will help the younger generation of young Russian designers feel themselves as full members of the global design community.

— 99 — Valery I. Perfiliev. Konstantin Persidsky

Valery I. Perfiliev art historian, corresponding-member of the Academy of Art Criticism, expert of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation [email protected] Moscow, Russia KONSTANTIN PERSIDSKY

Summary: This article is about art of an interesting Russian artist, graphic, painter, teacher Konstantin Persidsky. His bright individual style relied on the basis of surrealism. However, this is only external resemblance. Deep philosophy and individual artistic concept are inherent in his images Keywords: Konstantin Persidsky, artist, surrealism.

In 2014 we will be celebrating 60 years since the birth of the famous Moscow artist Konstantin Persidsky. He lived a short but brilliant life. He recognized his vocation early and went through all the training stages — studied in Zaporozhye art school, Dnepropetrovsk Art College and Art Institute. He knew student ambiance very well, was friendly and responsive, had many friends, was loved by his students and appreciated by his colleagues. While on the trips and plein airs he used to be in the center of attention, smoothing all the problems with his positive attitude and kind humor. Should an artist’s biography be reflected in his works? It’s a strange question — yes and no. It’s different for everybody. In a different way, through a complex chain of associations artist life experience is reflected in his creation, according to his talent, skills, training, world outlook, his interests and misconceptions, searches and findings and emotional reflections. Why is it worth remembering while speaking about the artist Konstantin Persidsky (1954–2008)? An artist and a teacher, who taught younger generation to comprehend classic art through graphic, was intensive in all his manifestations, absorbed all kind of social and

— 100 — Valery I. Perfiliev. Konstantin Persidsky

artistic information and took an active part in cultural and social life, was intentionally multifaceted in his artistic creations. Turning to the artist’s creative legacy, one can mark several cross-cutting themes that are implemented in drawing, painting and sculpture, which do not come one after another but exist simultaneously, in parallel, and then coming to the fore due to some significant twists and turns in the artist’s life. From paper to canvas and vice versa, sometimes obsessively repeating themes and motifs, playing with scale and forms the artist creates his own parallel symbolic world of dreams and fantasies. No wonder the author has defined his style as philosophical realism. Philosophical reflections on life and death, male and female, a series of philosophical erotica, still lifes, where differently scaled vegetables, fruit, people, fish are added into the phantasmagorical poem of fairy and beyond as well as more prosaic genres — landscape and portrait — all this is naturally inherent to K. Persidsky. In the plot there are no direct confrontations between man and woman, and women appear in a metaphorical — symbolic form as an inaccessible vision with its own rhythm of existence. Seriality, as the principle of artistic vision, folk motif found in endless rhythmic proportions, the game of masses and volumes, brutal saturated and weighty, but at the same time hovering in the complex juxtaposition in a vacuum on the dark or tint backgrounds, give this sculptural forms underlined pretentiousness and evoke emotionally ambiguous impression. Newfound freedom of female figures, (freedom of flight and freedom from usual forms and scales, underlining exaggeratedly powerful thighs and thin hands) gently, but strictly limited by thin ropes, binding figure’s hands and feet. And since the body parts are powerful and active in their movements, the strength of these threads is so great that you believe — women do not fly, they are tied to the land by very small geometric figures (Uzi, 1995). The varying motive of flying female figures complemented by volume figures, colored backgrounds and rhythmical compositions becomes one of the main leitmotifs of K. Persidsky’s art.

— 101 — Valery I. Perfiliev. Konstantin Persidsky

1. Self-portrait in “Thermal Spring”. 1984. Canvas, mixed technique 180×150 cm

Constrained freedom is the main inner theme of this series with an obvious tragic accent. Though there is a choice. In a painting “The Menu” (1995), the composition is divided into three horizontal zones, each is in its own color palette. Above — there is a fish on a platter, ready for consumption; in the center — a nude woman in blue tones on the same platter;

— 102 — Valery I. Perfiliev. Konstantin Persidsky

on a similar dish beneath — a violin in pinkish-brownish tones. There is a plaster cast in the center above each fragment, to clarify the meaning: over the fish — a cast of a mouth, over the woman — an eye, over the violin — an ear. Such plastic casts hang on the walls in the classrooms for drawing. Here it is — a choice, programmed by the artist, which is done in watercolor — transparent, easily, eliminating the sexually hedonistic beginning in the painting, and demonstrating the breadth and humorous tone of equated in the image “simple” choice between the carnal, spiritual and erotic one. That is why his still lifes, painted at the open-air in Uryupinsk on the river Hopper, look like metaphysical fantasies on the theme of gifts of nature, where the Cossacks, lying on a table under a vase with fruit, are the same gifts of nature as fish, watermelons, crayfish the size of a crawfish (Uryupinsky Stilllife, 1999; Uryupinsky Large Still Life with a little cornet, 2002). They are monumental and significant — large in size, with expanded horizontal front, close to the viewer. In his early papers, K. Persidsky looked for semantic ambiguity, composite convincingness, he introduced a play in the stories. Thus, in “Self-Portrait in ‘Hot Key’” (1984) the portrait of the artist is actually hanging on the wall and his clothes are expanded on the bed, there are shoes and an easel. So where is the artist? Or is it enough just to see his clothes and attributes, and the portrait on the wall to create a character or maybe his shell? Inclination for asking questions, that are essential for an artist and his life, remains throughout his career. This is clearly demonstrated in the work “A Trip” (1987). On the left of the canvas — there is an architectural landscape with furbished bell tower, in the center — stretchers, making an ornamental geometric composition, to the right — the same disassembled stretchers and a rolled canvas. Above each fragment there is K. Persidsky’s favorite technique — a sign of his personal monogram above the picture — KP in a circle; over the subframes — a picture in a picture — a man carrying a pile of hay, to the right — there is a finished landscape. There are broad options for reading the meanings — from the embodiment of visual impressions on canvas, and before us is the backbone (the subframe),

— 103 — Valery I. Perfiliev. Konstantin Persidsky

the basis for subsequent visual images; it carries an ordered harmony of the composition itself, and there is a lot unassembled laths for the convenience of travel, a blank canvas, which must be attached to the folded in a certain order laths — it is a far way still to fill all the canvas, and we do not know exactly what will be on the canvas, maybe it will be an architectural landscape, and maybe an everyday scene — here, look, a man is dragging the hay. The choice is wide in art, no one knows where the road will lead an artist, the road that arises under the painter’s brush. Theme of art, a creator, a model that is eternal for artists, is interestingly interpreted in the diptych “A Studio” (1987). The left part of the diptych is the sculptor’s workshop, in the center there is a frame for a figure. To the left — the artist, to the right — a nude model. The artist looks at the model; they are in a same space — indoors, two living subjects of creativity. The right part of a diptych attracts our eye with a marble figure of a model on a plinth, prepared and used metal structures are around, as well as a low machine, kettle and two cups. The work is finished in material, there is a result, but where is the author, the model? The cups are only his or her signs. And again there is a watching eye on the wall of the workshop — an indispensable hint on the all-seeing eye. And the students that learn to draw hone their skills to draw on such a plaster fragment. The beginning of the path to the arts and its result, a sculpture in a solid material are revealed the audience with a convincing clarity. K. Persidsky traveled a lot. He traveled to India in the early 1990s, to the Himalayas, to the places of Svetoslav Rihter. Naturally, he was impressed and he said: “In those years, I did a series of works completely different in style, compared with what I was doing before… The feeling of grandeur of the universe and the insignificance of the human importance, the human who is capable to realize all of this, overwhelms you”. The artistic result is not so much important (it seems that his Indian works are hard to attributed to great achievements of the author) as the self-awareness as a person, the emergence of new attitudes and approaches.

— 104 — Valery I. Perfiliev. Konstantin Persidsky

His life activity leads to participation in art workshops and open- airs in Serbia and Montenegro, Austria, Russia, France, Belgium and Luxembourg. He taught in China; he was the President of the International Non-government Organization of Artists “Sun square”, which worked a lot in the Vologda region and abroad. K. Persidsky was a member of the Austrian Art Association. He brought delicate lyrical landscapes from his trips, many of them are marked with not only acuteness of vision, but also emphatic desertedness, where a presence of a person is not even needed for staffage. But here’s a notable observation of the artist: “France was so beautiful that it was only left the heart. Shocked, I almost did not work inspired by this country”. And this is after mesmerizing India… A mysterious soul of the artist. The many facets of K. Persidsky’s creativity were seen in his series of letters and arabesques. A wonderful academic draftsman, who taught for many years drawing at the Moscow State University of Industrial Art, tears shackles of certain traditions, he creates compositions resembling hieroglyphic masterpieces, basing on completely different examples — the Eastern Calligraphy. Free association, lightness and intensity of color stains, rhythmic richness, internal tension, clashes of lines and spots, a game of forms give pleasure to the artist. The mastery of a professional, enjoying a game of “personal” Arabic script lines, is visible even in small monochrome “signatures — scrawls”. His “berdsleev” composition are more close to society, they are graphically redundant, subtly rich, decoratively attractive. They repeat all the motifs and themes of the artist’s creative works, but they have illustrations character. It seems that K. Persidsky’s sculpture has a subordinate value, as a field for author‘s experiment, fully expressed in painting and drawing. His works are in major museums in Russia — the State Tretyakov Gallery, the State Russian Museum, museums in Sochi, Vologda, Salekhard, Cherepovets and in other, as well as in private collections in Russia, France, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, USA.

Personal site of artist http://www.persidski.ru/

— 105 — 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: Sabaoth. 1784. Great Ustyug. Wood, gesso, tempera.

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