С. СудейкинъS. Soodeikin.
satisfy Larionov, as he felt that they were somewhat remote from his soul. He saw equal and deeper “depths” in his surroundings and at every step, as in a sign, a painted box etc. he detected the charm of blending colours. In the provincial dandy with his overdressed companion, the polite barber with his arsenal of scissors, razors and bottles, the hussar, the bar-keeper, the sedate “Gentleman”, the girl in a blue corset against the background of attractive wall-paper — he did not merely convey to us scenes of everyday life, but laid bare the inner world of these lonely souls, plainly visible beneath their trappings. They were akin to
the washerwomen and horsewomen of Degas, the women of Lautrec, the workmen and elders of Sezanne and Van Gogh.
This was Larionov’s outlook when he came to Paris at Diaghilev’s invitation to take part in the Russian section of the Autumn Salon.
Artistic Paris in 1905 represented a strong reaction against impressionism which had become academic, against the dull
survival of realism, of symbolism, in a word, of the mediocrity expressed in the International Exhibition of 1900. This reaction prodaimed its own idols: Sezanne, Serre and Van Gogh, who had won the firm admiration of the younger talents — Matisse, Derain, Picasso, Brake. Larionov was thus confronted with the question that had tormented him, and he realised that others had reached, like himself, the borderline of a new outlook, that here, too, young and self-confident forces were nervously destroying and searching ....
Upon his return to Moscow he took part in the Exhibitions of “The World of Art” (“Mir Iskusstva”, organised by Diaghilev), “The Union of Russian Painters” and the “Artistic Circle of Moscow”. In 1907 he exhibited his own works and created much excitement as an “extreme modernist”. He also helped to organise and took part in the Exhibition of the “Golden Fleece” to which Matisse, Brake, Picasso and others were also invited.
In the autumn of 1909 he was compelled to serve bis term in the ranks of the Army (military service was compulsory in Russia) and joined an infantry regiment. There was every reason
to fear that his artistic activities would come to a temporary standstill. How indeed could inspiration be found in the dreary and rigid barrack life, with early risings in the dark, cold, with the sergeant major roughly handling the slovenly ranks at the
roll-call, with the routine of barrack guards, scrubbing and distributing the daily rations? The huge windows of the barrackroom were like eyes without pupils. A motley of small targets were glued to the glass for practice, and the rifles lined the walls.
Sombre, dense colourings were used by Larionov in his illustrations of barrack life, of the movements, never changing facial expressions and of the surroundings of the soldiers. His “Soldiers Venus” belongs to that period.
Manet’s “Olympia” which evoked such a storm of criticisms now seems as classical as Giorgione, Rubens or Aingre. Great indeed is the merit of Renouar and Degas who showed us for the first time not the scented and smiling woman, but the woman engaged in unseemly persuits. Larionov’s achievement was also worthy in that he discarded the “Venus” of the elect and created the real popular goddess of love.
Larionov’s Venus is the replete, sweating prostitute with heavily painted cheeks and thin hair. She is reclining on a pyramid of pillows, a large soft bed such as becomes the goddess of popular imagination. She is partly sheltered under a rich
crimson blanket covering her legs and dislosing that which she was seemingly trying to hide. Her lover, a fat-faced soldier with staring eyes and up-turned moustache is seen in the distance.
Larionov produced a storm of indignation. He organised a series of exhibitions in 1910 — “The Knave of Diamonds”, “The Donkey’s Tail” — all of which created a great sensation and were fiercely attacked in the press. The public was revolted. This work of organisation did not prevent Larionov from developing his ideas on the art of painting. His theory of “Rays” was the outcome of these musings. In June 1912 he published a pamphlet, translated into English and Italian, in which he expounded his discovery. It produced a certain impression in Russia and abroad. Guillaume Apollinaire, a prominent French critic and one of the leaders of modern aesthetics, described this theory of “Rays” as a revelation “Not only in Russian pictorial art, but in the art of Europe” (Paris-Journal, 18/6, 24). This theory is derived from two currents in art: Cubism, which freed the art of painting from the narrow bounds of uniform treatment of the subject, and Futurism, which broadened the subject by presenting it in its various movements. Larionov’s discovery promoted these searchings.
satisfy Larionov, as he felt that they were somewhat remote from his soul. He saw equal and deeper “depths” in his surroundings and at every step, as in a sign, a painted box etc. he detected the charm of blending colours. In the provincial dandy with his overdressed companion, the polite barber with his arsenal of scissors, razors and bottles, the hussar, the bar-keeper, the sedate “Gentleman”, the girl in a blue corset against the background of attractive wall-paper — he did not merely convey to us scenes of everyday life, but laid bare the inner world of these lonely souls, plainly visible beneath their trappings. They were akin to
the washerwomen and horsewomen of Degas, the women of Lautrec, the workmen and elders of Sezanne and Van Gogh.
This was Larionov’s outlook when he came to Paris at Diaghilev’s invitation to take part in the Russian section of the Autumn Salon.
Artistic Paris in 1905 represented a strong reaction against impressionism which had become academic, against the dull
survival of realism, of symbolism, in a word, of the mediocrity expressed in the International Exhibition of 1900. This reaction prodaimed its own idols: Sezanne, Serre and Van Gogh, who had won the firm admiration of the younger talents — Matisse, Derain, Picasso, Brake. Larionov was thus confronted with the question that had tormented him, and he realised that others had reached, like himself, the borderline of a new outlook, that here, too, young and self-confident forces were nervously destroying and searching ....
Upon his return to Moscow he took part in the Exhibitions of “The World of Art” (“Mir Iskusstva”, organised by Diaghilev), “The Union of Russian Painters” and the “Artistic Circle of Moscow”. In 1907 he exhibited his own works and created much excitement as an “extreme modernist”. He also helped to organise and took part in the Exhibition of the “Golden Fleece” to which Matisse, Brake, Picasso and others were also invited.
In the autumn of 1909 he was compelled to serve bis term in the ranks of the Army (military service was compulsory in Russia) and joined an infantry regiment. There was every reason
to fear that his artistic activities would come to a temporary standstill. How indeed could inspiration be found in the dreary and rigid barrack life, with early risings in the dark, cold, with the sergeant major roughly handling the slovenly ranks at the
roll-call, with the routine of barrack guards, scrubbing and distributing the daily rations? The huge windows of the barrackroom were like eyes without pupils. A motley of small targets were glued to the glass for practice, and the rifles lined the walls.
Sombre, dense colourings were used by Larionov in his illustrations of barrack life, of the movements, never changing facial expressions and of the surroundings of the soldiers. His “Soldiers Venus” belongs to that period.
Manet’s “Olympia” which evoked such a storm of criticisms now seems as classical as Giorgione, Rubens or Aingre. Great indeed is the merit of Renouar and Degas who showed us for the first time not the scented and smiling woman, but the woman engaged in unseemly persuits. Larionov’s achievement was also worthy in that he discarded the “Venus” of the elect and created the real popular goddess of love.
Larionov’s Venus is the replete, sweating prostitute with heavily painted cheeks and thin hair. She is reclining on a pyramid of pillows, a large soft bed such as becomes the goddess of popular imagination. She is partly sheltered under a rich
crimson blanket covering her legs and dislosing that which she was seemingly trying to hide. Her lover, a fat-faced soldier with staring eyes and up-turned moustache is seen in the distance.
Larionov produced a storm of indignation. He organised a series of exhibitions in 1910 — “The Knave of Diamonds”, “The Donkey’s Tail” — all of which created a great sensation and were fiercely attacked in the press. The public was revolted. This work of organisation did not prevent Larionov from developing his ideas on the art of painting. His theory of “Rays” was the outcome of these musings. In June 1912 he published a pamphlet, translated into English and Italian, in which he expounded his discovery. It produced a certain impression in Russia and abroad. Guillaume Apollinaire, a prominent French critic and one of the leaders of modern aesthetics, described this theory of “Rays” as a revelation “Not only in Russian pictorial art, but in the art of Europe” (Paris-Journal, 18/6, 24). This theory is derived from two currents in art: Cubism, which freed the art of painting from the narrow bounds of uniform treatment of the subject, and Futurism, which broadened the subject by presenting it in its various movements. Larionov’s discovery promoted these searchings.