Author: art critic Marina Zershchikova
For 5 years I have been a student of the faculty of the Institute of Physics and Technology of the OZO of the Russian Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg. During this time, I have written six course works affecting topical issues of Russian fine art. The last of them, “Vladimir School of Painting: from impressionistic tendencies to decorativeness”, was defended several weeks ago. I present to you a review of it. It was written by Associate Professor of the Department of Russian Art at the I.E. Repin Academy of Arts, S.N.Levandovsky, Senior Researcher at the State Russian Museum.
Review of the course work of the 5th year student of the Institute of Physics and Technology OZO M.V. Zershchikova “Vladimir School of Painting: from impressionistic tendencies to decorativeness”.
“The aim of the course work is to identify the main artistic trends of the Vladimir School of Painting, from the 1950s to the 2000s.
The Vladimir School of Painting is a bright phenomenon that arose in the second half of the 20th century and was associated with the work of a group of artists united by the unique “genius of the place”, having the unity of artistic principles and having their own followers. Its main representatives are Kim Britov, Vladimir Yukin, Valery Kokurin, Nikolai Modorov, Valery Egorov. The list is quite exhaustive. Perhaps you can add the name of Nikolai Mokrov, Honored Artist of Russia, participant in the Great Patriotic War. However, the author mentions both Vladimir Kalinin, and Yuri Zharov, and Nina Lugovskaya, stipulating that “there is no possibility within the framework of one work to relate in detail to their works.” There is no serious generalizing work on the topic, and the concept itself is not sufficiently concretized, so the task — to consider the work of its main representatives — is completely legitimate.
The work consists of two parts. In the 1st chapter, “The Development of the Vladimir School of Painting in the Context of Soviet Art of the 1940-1980s, we are talking about the artistic life of the city and the traditions of the domestic landscape, in particular, about the problem of decorativeness in Russian art. In the 2nd chapter, “Evolution from impressionistic tendencies to decorativeness”, the works of the main masters of various periods are presented.
The introduction is already very informative, where a substantive review of a wide variety of literature is given – monographs by O. Voronova and N. Sevostyanova, memoirs, catalogs of personal and collective exhibitions, articles from newspapers and magazines, interviews, which makes it possible to trace how the attitude towards the work of Vladimir artists has changed. During the formation period, along with a realistic basis, impressionistic traits were largely characteristic. In the next period, with bit of the influence of Matisse and Van Gogh, particular importance is attached to color. One of the most important characteristics is bright decorativeness.
Critical reviews of the 1960s-1970s are not hidden, reproaches are that works similar in style, filled with the energy of colorfulness, are weak from the point of view of the drawing, that “some successfully found techniques and color combinations pass from work to work, that decorativeness sometimes becoming self-depressing. ” Such definitions as “pictorial stamp” were also used (an article by T. Nordstein on the 1964 exhibition at the Manege in the Artist, No. 8): “decorativeness became an end in itself, perspectives, tonal relationships are destroyed for it, the shape of objects mercilessly flattened. The landscape turns into a kind of carpet. ” Such excesses are also mentioned: when in 1962 the exposition of the works of V. Yukin’s art studio opened, which was close in time to the scandalous Manege Exhibition, it provoked the indignation of the administration, the Palace of Culture was sealed, and the teacher was forced to leave the studio. But although at the Regional Exhibition of 1964 artists were accused of “primitiveness” and imitation of each other, authoritative art critic MP Sokolnikov expressed “praise to the Vladimir landscape”, noted “the culture of poetry and the culture of artists. Great imaginative solutions in the landscape. The pride of art in Vladimir: Britov, Yukin, Kokurin. “
In 1970, the chairman of the Union of Artists G. Korzhev said: “An increased interest in their painting style, too soon popularity, led Vladimir artists not to new discoveries, but to endless experiencing (perhaps chewing) of the same motives.” Gradually, criticism becomes softer, the term decorativeness began to give way to “neo-primitivism.”
Over time, decorativeness became the main feature of the work of many representatives of the Vladimir School of Painting, as well as for many other artists of those years – Nyssky, Popkov, Obbrossov, and many others. (There are typos in the transcription of the names of E. Bragovsky and B. Birger (Briger, Brigovsky) when quoting K. Britov. It is possible to assume that this was the case in the text of the provincial newspaper “Call”, but this does not change the matter.
I have verified this inaccuracy. In the newspaper “Call” from March 10, 1963, there is an article by K. N. Britov entitled “The love of the people is the main criterion”. It really says: “We saw the paintings” Naked “Falk,” Geologists “Nikonov,” creations “of Drevin, Shterenberg, Brigovsky and Briger.” The quote was presented exactly according to the source.]
The Vladimir school is considered in two aspects: firstly, the influence of folk decorative art and icon painting, the trends of impressionism and post-impressionism are noted. On the one hand, the important problem of special education is posed, since many painters did not have sufficiently consistent training. The educational process was reduced to working from nature, respectively, many works suffered from etudes. As a result, artists comprehended the skills of creating paintings on their own.
In great detail, with the involvement of a mass of sources, the artistic life of Vladimir is described. The role of the members of the Board of Artists’ Union N. Sychev (former director of the Russian Museum), decorators V. Gladyshev and A. Kalmykov, painter D. Rokhlin is emphasized in the work. The border of the 1960-1970s. became the time of addition of the main backbone of the Vladimir school. Little-known, but very indicative data are given that many artists took their skills from students of famous masters of the turn of the XIX – XX centuries. So, uncle Yukina Pavel Ivanovich was a restorer of the Tretyakov Gallery, at the beginning of the XX century. worked hand in hand with I. Grabar. F Modorov, a famous Soviet artist whom Yukin posed and “proudly wore his sketchbook”, organized a Creative House in the vicinity of Mstera, where many Muscovites came to the open air. Britov’s first teacher was S. Chesnokov, a student of N. Feshin and P. Benkov, who in turn studied with Repin. Yukin and Britov had a common teacher at the Mster School, K. Mazin, who studied at the Academy under A. Kiselev. Yukin in the Ivanovo school was taught by a student Val. Serova M. Pyrin.
The concepts of decorativeness and generalization are widely discussed in the work. The author reflects on the correlation in the painting of subject and non-subject, about the role of color. In a conversation between the author and Britov’s daughter, it turned out that the artist did not focus on “decorativeness”, often using the term “generalization”. This was typical of the whole period of the development of Russian art of the 1960s and 80s, which can be explained not only by the influence of monumental and folk art, but also by the “severe style”. It is known that V.Popkov was a friend of Britov, who, together with Yukin, posed for him for a portrait of Vladimir Artists (1965). G. Myznikov’s painting “Song” (his exhibition was recently held at the State Russian Museum) reflects his trip to the North with Yukin, Britov and Popkov, where Popkov had the idea of a series of “Memoirs”.
The author offers a periodization associated with the evolution of painting by Vladimir masters. The first, initial, period is realistic-impressionistic (1950s). The second stage, the time of formation of a group of like-minded people (1960-70s) – the formation of decorativeness, the third period (1980-90s) – the heyday of the school. The locality of color, the expressiveness of coloristic relations, spatial planning, the combination of different points of view, the passion for Russian folk culture make it possible to characterize the works of artists of the Vladimir school as a whole as decorative. The conclusion comes down to the fact that it is possible to talk both about the stylistic unity of the paintings of the Vladimir school, and about the development of the individuality of each master within the framework of the stylistic community.
Attracted works from various public and private collections. In the album part, the works of N. Sychev, K. Korovin, V. Popkov, O. Renoir, A. Sisley are given as analogues. The effects of post-impressionists can be judged by a copy of Britov from the work of Van Gogh (1950). Included are photographs of the author of the term paper (Britova’s Workshop, a copy of the 17th-century fresco by A. Nekrasov). “The work was thoroughly, efficiently, saturated with a lot of factual material, contains convincing conclusions and deserves high praise.”
Original article: http://artnavis.ru/info/avtorskie-stati/retsenziya-na-kursovuyu-rabotu.html