next »

[dark_globe]

Dark_globe,

Marxism is, of course, the ultimate Modernist ideology.

I am so happy you say this! But again - wrong, where is post-modernism, post-industrial society theory, and there is one recent thing, I forgot the name?

Post-Modernism is outside my field of interest. Ziauddin Sardar wrote an interesting book on the subject, though.

Burliuk? May be because he left there his friend Mayakovsky and was sure the work will be done?

No. I realize Burliuk's history is pretty obscure and not many know the details of his sojourn. He was protecting his family.

I can not forgive A. Block.

Why? Because of "The Twelve"?

Gerasimov's Stalin, some 50 meters long, with that stupid white glove,  was chosen for Historical Museum, so he outsmarted, alcoholic, my uncle.

I've seen lots of Gerasimov's work. Stylistically it is conservative realism, not even on a par with the Peredvizhniki of the 1870s-80s. But more than that it's political propaganda, as is all Socialist Realism.

Borovikovsky - junk? His work I absolutely adore and everybody does.

OK, technically Borovikovsky was a fine painter, but like the Socialist Realists he painted propaganda. Have you ever seen "Catherine II with her Dog"? The other painters of the period were the same only without Borovikovsky's talent. Ever heard of "ulybaiushchii stil'"? Painters were required to paint everyone looking happy because, of course, there could be no dissatisfaction under Catherine (Pugachev notwithstanding).

For me, Russian art really begins with Kiprensky.

Did you see originals? May be you mean someone else? But no one did junk at this time! Catherine II was a superbly educated woman (don't forget the subject of this thread) and she bought all the masterpieces for Russia. Have you been to Russia? You forgot Savrasov.

Do you know Mellon affair?

I've lived in Russia and spent extended periods there on numerous occasions. I taught at Literaturnyi Institut imeni Gor'kogo. I've been to the Tretyakov dozens of times as well as the Russian Museum, the Hermitage, the Rublev Museum and virtually every cultural spot in Moscow and Petersburg. I've seen every Russian masterpiece in the original many times.

I mentioned Savrasov. Don't you love his "Grachi prileteli"?

Catherine did collect European art, very true. But she turned the Petersburg Academy into a real propaganda machine. Have you ever read "U Istokov Russkogo Zhanra: XIII Vek" by Ya. V. Bruk? He describes in great detail how the artists were directed to paint specific subjects and in specific ways.

Never heard of the Mellon affair.

[pyshnov]

Dark_globe,
Block served communists as an intellectual. "Twelve" of course is only a poem, and marred by politics. Earlier poetry was better.

OK, technically Borovikovsky was a fine painter, but like the Socialist Realists he painted propaganda.

I don't see how subject of a painting can make the painting to be disliked. Best Italian pictures were ordered by a Pope or a Duke. I automatically ignore social content and things like this. I ask only the questions: is it beautiful? Are there spots that the painter neglected or are painted unskillfully? It can be any manner, if it pleases my eyes. I reject later "art" because it is basically caricatures, and caricature is very easy to make - you exaggerate to avoid correct colour and correct drawing and you say it's new, original and interesting. You add social content and people say it's "significant". Delacroix is horrible, not because he had social content, he chose social content to cover the absence of harmony. Then, even caricature became impossible and the sheer ugliness was justified by saying: I have suffering inside in my soul and I express it in my painting. But why I have to look at this? Well, I can say: This painter had suffering inside. His painting is ugly.

I am so happy you saw all this. I did not see so much probably. Yes, "Grachi prileteli", truly Russian. And now tell me again, imagine you are seeing "Grachi prileteli", is there anything in a painting except the painting? doesn't it, itself, i.e. simply how it is painted, tell you thousand times more then its content? To me, how is the only thing.

I never heard of "ulybaiushchii stil' or read Bruk; how art is interpreted in words is far outside of my interest, I even may loose something if I read.
Simple history and especially technique are interesting, but not social conditions or interpretations. And, I don't call the above my philosophy. The thing comes through the eyes, that's all about it.

(This also may be the answer to red_queen.)

Mellon was US ambassador(?) to Russia, amassed considerable collection of paintings, but was forced to give it to US Govt. to avoid scandal.