blood. Muratov is right in saying that Saint-Petersburg was built by Italians. But where would they all be, Rastrelli, Guarengui, Rossi, Gonzago — without the Russian vastnesses, without the immeasurable “Sarmat” plain? These figures assumed heroic dimensions on Russian soil. Could Falconnet have created the “Brazen Horseman”[*)] anywhere else than on the banks of the Neva?
What then is the art that we may call Russian? Is it the art created by masters who were Russian by birth? I doubt it.
How can we write the history of Russian art if we omit our Frenchmen — Brullov and Ghé, the Greek Venezianov, the German Kiprenski? How can we describe Russian landscape painting without mentioning the Jew Levitan? Or the old Academy without the Italian Bruni, and the new without the Greek Kuinji? What would remain of the group ’’The World of Art” were we to exclude Bakst, Benois, Lanceret or Roerich? And what about tho portrait painters of the 18th century? It is not by accident that Louis Reau emphasizes the “Little-Russian” origin of Levitzki and Borovikovski and their cultural connection with “Kiev and Galicia”. At the same time — the thirty years disaster[**)] of the “Moving Exhibitions” was undoubtedly the work of Russians.
Shall we then describe as representatives of the Russian school the painters who lived and worked in Russia? Alexander Ivanov, one of the greatest geniuses among Russian painters,
spent nearly all his life in Italy. He died suddenly in Russia during an epidemic which saved him from complete isolation.
He did not leave a single pupil. Sylvester Stchedrin worked and died in Italy. Shall we discard them?
The history and the definition of the essence of the Russian school of painting cannot be constructed on racial or territorial lines. At present it is almost impossible to rationalise it. We see. however, that its existence is something real, and not only mystical. To disentangle the Russian creative genius from the
maze of contradictions is the task of science which is as yet embryonic. Those among us who have been driven into European exile should make a survey of our inheritance, compare it with
the masterpieces of European Art and acquaint our foreign hosts with Russian works. By comparing the works of Levitzki with French portraits, or Borovikovski with the great British portraitpainters, Kiprenski with Gericault or Brullov with Aingre we may form an idea of this intangible Russian essence. By making
a comparative study of the history of Russian and European art we may be able to solve the problem: “What are we to lean upon, and where are we to find a starting point for a new bound into the future?
The illustrations given in the current number of the “Fire- Bird” as the beginning of a series will serve as the first land marks on this journey in quest of “Our House”[***)].
Andrew Levinson.
“L’art de Michel Larionov révèle une personnalité extrêmement forte qui arrive à exprimer les nuances des sentiments et des sensations éprouvés par l’artiste avec une rigueur qui fait de son art lumineux, extrêmement sobre et précis, une merveilleuse découverte esthétique.” Guillaume Apollinaire.
The striking features of Larionov’s art are its scope and boldness. Viewing it even with a cursory glance, one perceives a vast universe of varied searchings. None can say that Larionov has ever succumbed to the influence of his milieu. He sees a world of his own, whatever his experience may be. Be it his native steppes of the Black Sea coast, the “nature morte” of Chekhov’s provincial heroes, the soldiers life with its Asiatic licence and irksome discipline, picturesque, carousing Moscow, or the feverish hustle and noise of the world-capitals — the artist is equally interested in detecting everything characteristic, vital, elemental.
Larionov is known to us as the leading spirit of the new generation of the Russian painters, our contemporaries. He is known to us as the organiser of buoyant exhibitions, as the exponent of his own style of “Rays”, the author-decorator of many ballets produced by Mr. Diaghilev in the capitals of the Old world and the New, and as a choreographer.
The main features of his art were manifest since his early childhood.
In Moscow, where he studied as a boy, the obsolete rusty, foundations of culture were undergoing a process of removal.
The voice of the West was being heard more loudly, new enlightenment was arising, and Moscow, the dreamland of Chekhov s “Three Sisters”, was its cultural centre. Distinguished writers such as Brussov, Ivanov, Biely, Balmont, imparted to the youth of Moscow the newest tendencies and the world-culture. The social utopias of Tolstoi and Dostoyevski were no longer regarded as ‘ daring fantasies”, but had found an echo in the life of the State. Mr. Shaniavski was laying plans for a popular University.
Mr. Stchukin was founding a most interesting collection of paintings of the most progressive artists. Mr. Diaghilev was studying the art of ancient Russia and discovering its affinities with modern art. There was a great variety of exhibitions, lectures, literary circles, favourite teachers, debates on art, literature and politics, conducted by the enthusiastic and ever impassioned young generation.
As early as in 1890 Larionov began to exhibit: at the “Moving” Exhibition, the “Periodical” Exhibition and the “Exhibition of the Moscow Society”. In 1903 he organised an exhibition of his own works at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of which he was a pupil. His displayed a great richness of impressions and was always striving to express the depth of these impressions which gave them power and unity. At first, but not for long, he was attracted by the old Russian masters Fedotov, Venezianov,
Ivanov, the icons and the ancient stone figures of women. He soon found that not all colour was impressed upon the walls of the Tretiakov gallery (a vast and magnificent private collection in Moscow). He recalled the real peasant girls, so “live” in comparison with the artificiality of Maliavin’s “Peasant women”. Was Moscow herself with her picturesque signs any worse than these picture galleries? The gold of a loaf painted over a bakery, the blue of a sign with details in red — all these colours were
as bright as any gilded image. The old ladies in Moscow kept their finest table linen in painted boxes, and they still wore plush cloaks. Larionov approached all these quaint things with reverence, studying their fascinating colour schemes. Not only in respect of colour, but also of spiritual impressions, the galleries dit not
[*)] The famous statue of Peter the Great in Petrograd (Saint-Petersburg).
[**)] The writer refers to yearly exhibitions organised in St. Petersburg since the eighties of the last century and which after a few weeks were transferred to Moscow and other towns. With the exception of a few masters such as Repin, the average artistic level of these exhibitions was low. The group Mir Iskustva (World of Art) was brought into being by Diaghilev chiefly as a protest against this stereotyped and decaying art.
[***)] The foregoing article is written in connection with the worts of old Russian masters reproduced in the current issue.
What then is the art that we may call Russian? Is it the art created by masters who were Russian by birth? I doubt it.
How can we write the history of Russian art if we omit our Frenchmen — Brullov and Ghé, the Greek Venezianov, the German Kiprenski? How can we describe Russian landscape painting without mentioning the Jew Levitan? Or the old Academy without the Italian Bruni, and the new without the Greek Kuinji? What would remain of the group ’’The World of Art” were we to exclude Bakst, Benois, Lanceret or Roerich? And what about tho portrait painters of the 18th century? It is not by accident that Louis Reau emphasizes the “Little-Russian” origin of Levitzki and Borovikovski and their cultural connection with “Kiev and Galicia”. At the same time — the thirty years disaster[**)] of the “Moving Exhibitions” was undoubtedly the work of Russians.
Shall we then describe as representatives of the Russian school the painters who lived and worked in Russia? Alexander Ivanov, one of the greatest geniuses among Russian painters,
spent nearly all his life in Italy. He died suddenly in Russia during an epidemic which saved him from complete isolation.
He did not leave a single pupil. Sylvester Stchedrin worked and died in Italy. Shall we discard them?
The history and the definition of the essence of the Russian school of painting cannot be constructed on racial or territorial lines. At present it is almost impossible to rationalise it. We see. however, that its existence is something real, and not only mystical. To disentangle the Russian creative genius from the
maze of contradictions is the task of science which is as yet embryonic. Those among us who have been driven into European exile should make a survey of our inheritance, compare it with
the masterpieces of European Art and acquaint our foreign hosts with Russian works. By comparing the works of Levitzki with French portraits, or Borovikovski with the great British portraitpainters, Kiprenski with Gericault or Brullov with Aingre we may form an idea of this intangible Russian essence. By making
a comparative study of the history of Russian and European art we may be able to solve the problem: “What are we to lean upon, and where are we to find a starting point for a new bound into the future?
The illustrations given in the current number of the “Fire- Bird” as the beginning of a series will serve as the first land marks on this journey in quest of “Our House”[***)].
Andrew Levinson.
M. F. LARIONOV
“L’art de Michel Larionov révèle une personnalité extrêmement forte qui arrive à exprimer les nuances des sentiments et des sensations éprouvés par l’artiste avec une rigueur qui fait de son art lumineux, extrêmement sobre et précis, une merveilleuse découverte esthétique.” Guillaume Apollinaire.
The striking features of Larionov’s art are its scope and boldness. Viewing it even with a cursory glance, one perceives a vast universe of varied searchings. None can say that Larionov has ever succumbed to the influence of his milieu. He sees a world of his own, whatever his experience may be. Be it his native steppes of the Black Sea coast, the “nature morte” of Chekhov’s provincial heroes, the soldiers life with its Asiatic licence and irksome discipline, picturesque, carousing Moscow, or the feverish hustle and noise of the world-capitals — the artist is equally interested in detecting everything characteristic, vital, elemental.
Larionov is known to us as the leading spirit of the new generation of the Russian painters, our contemporaries. He is known to us as the organiser of buoyant exhibitions, as the exponent of his own style of “Rays”, the author-decorator of many ballets produced by Mr. Diaghilev in the capitals of the Old world and the New, and as a choreographer.
The main features of his art were manifest since his early childhood.
In Moscow, where he studied as a boy, the obsolete rusty, foundations of culture were undergoing a process of removal.
The voice of the West was being heard more loudly, new enlightenment was arising, and Moscow, the dreamland of Chekhov s “Three Sisters”, was its cultural centre. Distinguished writers such as Brussov, Ivanov, Biely, Balmont, imparted to the youth of Moscow the newest tendencies and the world-culture. The social utopias of Tolstoi and Dostoyevski were no longer regarded as ‘ daring fantasies”, but had found an echo in the life of the State. Mr. Shaniavski was laying plans for a popular University.
Mr. Stchukin was founding a most interesting collection of paintings of the most progressive artists. Mr. Diaghilev was studying the art of ancient Russia and discovering its affinities with modern art. There was a great variety of exhibitions, lectures, literary circles, favourite teachers, debates on art, literature and politics, conducted by the enthusiastic and ever impassioned young generation.
As early as in 1890 Larionov began to exhibit: at the “Moving” Exhibition, the “Periodical” Exhibition and the “Exhibition of the Moscow Society”. In 1903 he organised an exhibition of his own works at the School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of which he was a pupil. His displayed a great richness of impressions and was always striving to express the depth of these impressions which gave them power and unity. At first, but not for long, he was attracted by the old Russian masters Fedotov, Venezianov,
Ivanov, the icons and the ancient stone figures of women. He soon found that not all colour was impressed upon the walls of the Tretiakov gallery (a vast and magnificent private collection in Moscow). He recalled the real peasant girls, so “live” in comparison with the artificiality of Maliavin’s “Peasant women”. Was Moscow herself with her picturesque signs any worse than these picture galleries? The gold of a loaf painted over a bakery, the blue of a sign with details in red — all these colours were
as bright as any gilded image. The old ladies in Moscow kept their finest table linen in painted boxes, and they still wore plush cloaks. Larionov approached all these quaint things with reverence, studying their fascinating colour schemes. Not only in respect of colour, but also of spiritual impressions, the galleries dit not
[*)] The famous statue of Peter the Great in Petrograd (Saint-Petersburg).
[**)] The writer refers to yearly exhibitions organised in St. Petersburg since the eighties of the last century and which after a few weeks were transferred to Moscow and other towns. With the exception of a few masters such as Repin, the average artistic level of these exhibitions was low. The group Mir Iskustva (World of Art) was brought into being by Diaghilev chiefly as a protest against this stereotyped and decaying art.
[***)] The foregoing article is written in connection with the worts of old Russian masters reproduced in the current issue.