Topic 4. Russian art nerve half 18th century
(Peter's reign I, Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna)
The position of Russian art at the beginning of the 18th century: “the necessity of the Renaissance.” The tasks of the Renaissance (“discovery of the world and man”) were solved by inviting foreign masters and training Russians abroad. Artistic policy of Peter I (1682-1725): construction and decoration of St. Petersburg, glorification of the victories of Russian weapons (predominance of applied tasks). - Spiritual and formal heritage of icons and parsunas. - Creativity of foreigners who contributed to Russian culture: Italian sculptor Carlo Bartolomeo Rastrelli (1675?-1744; in Russia from 1716), his “Bust of Peter I” (St. Petersburg State Museum and State Russian Museum, 1719), an equestrian statue of Peter I (in front of the Engineering Castle), a statue of Anna Ioannovna with a small little black (1741). Painters: Saxon Johann Gottfried Tannauer (1680-1737; in Russia from 1711); French people François Jouvenet (1664-1749; in Russia from 1718 to 1723) And Louis Caravaque (1684-1754; in Russia from 1716), Italian Pietro Antonio Rotari (1707-1762; in Russia from 1756). Their works characterize the average (with some exceptions - for the better) level of European art in the Baroque and Rococo style.
Russian painters: I.N. Nikitin (1690?-1742), “Peter’s pensioner” in Italy; the most important works: “Portrait of the Floor Hetman” (Russian Museum); “Portrait of Chancellor G.I. Golovkin"; "Peter I on his deathbed" (1725). A.M. Matveev (1701-1739?), pensioner in Holland; author of the first self-portrait in Russian art (“Self-portrait with his wife”, 1729). - The reign of Anna Ioannovna (1730-1740) and Elizaveta Petrovna (1741-1762). Further development Russian art: founding of the Academy of Arts (1757). - Painters: AND I. Vishnyakov (1699-1762)- author of children's portraits S.E. Fermor and V.G. Fermor (1740s); A.P. Antropov (1716-1795), his “Portrait of Peter III” (1762), an example of a ceremonial portrait in the Rococo style; paintings by Antropov: “Portrait of Countess M.A. Rumyantseva" (1764), "Portrait of the Cossack Ataman F.I. Krasnoshchekov" (1763?).
Literature
Alekseeva T.V. Engraving from the time of Peter the Great. - L.: Artist of the RSFSR, 1990;
Allenov M.M. Russian art of the 18th - early 20th centuries. - M.: Shamrock, 2000;
Andreeva V.G. Andrey Matveev. - L.: Art, 1983;
Evangulova O.S. Fine art in Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century. - M.: Art, 1987;
Alexey Fedorovich Zubov 1682-1751. Exhibition catalog [from the collection of the State Russian Museum and the Pushkin Museum named after. A.S. Pushkin]. - L.: Art, 1988;
Ilyina T.V. Ivan Yakovlevich Vishnyakov. Life and art. - M.: Art, 1979;
Ilyina T., Rimskaya-Korsakova S. Andrey Matveev. - M.: Art, 1984;
Lebedeva T.A. Ivan Nikitin. - M.: Art, 1975;
Sharandak N.P. Russian portrait painting of the time of Peter the Great. - L.: Artist of the RSFSR, 1987.
Topic 5. Russian art of the Enlightenment (second half XVIII century)
General concept“Enlightenment”: the era of rationalism, belief in the omnipotence of reason, “encyclopedism”, “enlightened monarchy”. Empress Catherine II (1762-1769), her cultural policy, patronage of the arts and sciences. New charter of the Academy of Arts, building of the Academy (architects A.F. Kokorinov and J.-B. Vallin-Delamotte; 1764-1788). The most important portrait painters: painter F.S. Rokotov (1735?-1808), master of psychological characterization: “Portrait of the poet V.I. Maykova" (c. 1765); "Portrait of A.P. Struyskoy" (1772); “Portrait of Countess E.V. Santi" (1785). -Painter D.G. Levitsky (1735-1822), author of program works: “Catherine II the Legislator” (with variants, 1783), a series of portraits of pupils Smolny Institute- “Smolyanka” E.I. Nelidova (1773), E.N. Khrushchova and E.N. Khovanskaya (1773), G.I. Alymova (1776; the entire series is in the State Russian Museum). Stylistic features of “Enlightenment” ceremonial portraits. - Sculptor EM. Falcone (1716-1791): monument to Peter I in St. Petersburg = “Bronze Horseman” (portrait head executed by M.-A. Callot; 1782). - Painter V.L. Borovikovsky (1757-1825), creator of the “sentimental” trend in the portrait genre: “natural man in the lap of nature.” “Catherine II on a walk in Tsarskoye Selo Park” (with variants, 1794-1800s), “Portrait of M.I. Lopukhina" (1797); “Portrait of Countess A. Bezborodko with her daughters” (1803), “Portrait of Emperor Paul I in the vestments of the Grand Master of the Order of Malta” (1800). Religious painting by Borovikovsky. Russian art and “later” European Enlightenment- related features and differences.
Literature
Alekseeva T.V. Vladimir Lukich Borovikovsky and Russian culture on turn of the XVIII- XIX centuries. - M.: Art, 1975;
Gershenzon-Chegodaeva N.M. Dmitry Grigorievich Levitsky. - M.: Art, 1964;
Evangulova O.S., Karev A.A. Portraiture of Russia in the second half of the 18th century. - M.: Art, 1994;
Kuznetsov S. Unknown Levitsky. Portrait work of the painter in the context of St. Petersburg myth. - St. Petersburg: Logos, 1996;
Dmitry Grigorievich Levitsky 1735 - 1822. Catalog [exhibitions from the collection of the State Russian Museum]. - L.: Art, 1987;
Moleva N.M. Dmitry Grigorievich Levitsky. - M.: Art, 1980;
Russia - France: Age of Enlightenment. Russian-French cultural relations in the 18th century [Exhibition catalogue]. - L.: publishing house of the State Hermitage, 1987.
Topic 6. Russian Academy of Arts at the turn of the century XVIII-XIX centuries:
Canons of a Baroque ceremonial portrait A. P. Antropov (1716 -1795) Portrait of Emperor Peter III 1762 Charles-Joseph Natoire (1700 -1777) Portrait of Louis, Dauphine of France 1747
Variations of the imperial ceremonial portrait A. P. Antropov (1716 -1795) Emperor Peter III against the background of the battle 1762 A. P. Antropov (1716 -1795) Portrait of Emperor Peter III Sketch, 1762
Church (ecclesiastic) portrait A. P. Antropov (1716 -1795) Portrait of an archbishop Portrait of Archbishop S. P. Kulyabka. 1760 Plato (Levshin). 1775 Anton Raphael Mengs (1728 -1779) Portrait of Pope Clement XIII 1758
Allegories of the reign of Catherine II Francesco Fontebasso (1709 -1768/9) Allegory of the accession to the throne of Catherine II 1762 Stefano Torelli (1712 -1780) Allegory of the conquest of the Turks and Tatars by Catherine II Around 1772
Early (student?) work by F. S. Rokotov (1732? 5? -1808) Portrait of Empress Catherine II 1760s. Martin van Meytens (1695 -1770) Portrait of Empress Maria Theresa 1759
Portrait by Rokotov - “Roslin type” F. S. Rokotov (1732? 5? -1808) Portrait of Catherine II 1780 Alexander Roslin (1718 -1793) Portrait of Catherine II. OK. 1780 Drottingholm, royal palace
Portraits of “high-ranking children” Portrait of Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich; 1761 F. S. Rokotov (1732? 5? -1808) Portrait of Princess E. B. Yusupova; beginning 1760s
“Hero, drink and caustic time” Jean-Honoré Fragonard (1732 -1806) Inspiration Approx. 1769 F. S. Rokotov (1732? 5? -1808) Portrait of the poet V. I. Maykov Approx. 1766 “Then for the sake of glorious deeds from the time of protection, Piitas are born into the world with the heroes, In order to impose shackles on it And to destroy the power of its causticity. So, when the singers sang of heroes, They hoped to live with heroes forever. Forgive me, great husband, you are my weakness, I want to live forever with your glory; When descendants begin to read these poems, Of course, they will remember me with you too.” V. I. Maikov “Message to Count P. I. Rumyantsev”, 1775
“Mysterious hero” of the Enlightenment era F. S. Rokotov (1732? 5? -1808) Portrait young man in a cocked hat Early 1770s Benjamin West (1738 -1820) Self-Portrait 1770
“Eccentric hero” of the Enlightenment era F. S. Rokotov (1732? 5? -1808) Portrait of N. E. Struisky 1772 Joseph Ducrot (1725 -1805) Self-portrait as a scoffer 1789 -91
“Mystery” and coquetry (?) F. S. Rokotov (1732? 5? -1808) Portrait of A. P. Struyskaya 1772 Alexander Roslin (1718 -1793) Portrait of a lady with a veil 1769
Young lady of the “Rococo style” F. S. Rokotov (1732? 5? -1808) Portrait of an unknown woman in a pink dress. 1770s Alexander Roslin (1718 -1793) Portrait of Madame de Lamballe 1770s.
Nude figure in the “Rococo style” F. S. Rokotov (1732? 5? -1808) Nude girl 1770-80s. Francois Boucher (1703 -1770) Toilet of Venus 1740s.
An elderly lady in Russia and France I. P. Argunov (1729 -1802) Portrait of A. A. Lazareva Late 1760s. Louis Toquet (1696 -1772) Portrait of Madame Danget at her needlework 1753
“Natural Man” in the lap of nature Adolf Ulric Wertmüller (1751 -1811) Madame d’O, friend of Queen Marie Antoinette, dressed as a milkmaid. 1787 I. P. Argunov (1729 -1802) Portrait of a young woman in a peasant costume 1784 “The sun ends its circle, spring comes to the meadows, Amuses the creature and renews the light. The snow has disappeared, the zephyr is blowing on the flock: The springs are murmuring, and the lark is singing. Those dearest hours have come, For the shepherd to see the shepherd’s beauty.” A. P. Sumarokov (1717 -1777) Eclogue “Palmyra”, 1787
Eclogue and pastoral on the theater stage N. I. Argunov (1771 -1829?) Actor I. Ya. Yakimov in the role of Cupid 1790 Laurent Pache the Younger (1733 -1805) Actors dancing on stage 1760s.
Status / role self-portrait of the artist D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Self-portrait 1783? (1790s?) Joseph Ducrot (1725 -1805) Self-portrait in a naval uniform 1795
Portrait of an “enlightened ruler” D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Catherine II the legislator in the Temple of Justice. 1783 Pompeo Girolamo Batoni (1708 -1787) Emperor Francis I Stefan, defender of justice. 1768
Aspects of the image of the “enlightened empress” D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Catherine II legislator in the temple of justice. 1783 F. I. Shubin (1740 -1805) Catherine II - legislator 1789 -90 D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of Catherine II (in the form of Minerva). 1780s
Portrait of an enlightened nobleman (I) D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of the architect A. F. Kokorinov 1769 -1770 Anton von Maron (1733 -1808) Portrait of Johann Joachim Winckelmann 1768
Portrait of an enlightened nobleman (II) D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of P. A. Demidov 1773 Jean-Louis de Velli (1730 -1804) Portrait of Count I. I. Shuvalov 1755 -57
“To soften morals and create a new breed of people” D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of F. S. Rzhevskaya and N. M. Davydova 1772 George Romney (1734 -1802) Portrait of the Cumberland girls 1772 -73
Study program at Smolny: dance D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of Ekaterina Nelidova 1773 Jacques-Louis David (1748 -1825) Mademoiselle Gimar as Terpsichore 1773 -74
Study program at Smolny: secular manners D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of Natalia Borschova 1776 Thomas Gainsborough (1727 -1788) Portrait of Giovanna Baccelli 1782
Study program at Smolny: music D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of Glafira Alymova 1776 Pompeo Girolamo Batoni (1708 -1787) Princess Hyacinth Orsini Buoncampagni Ludovisi. 1770s
Study program at Smolny: natural science D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of Ekaterina Molchanova 1776 Jacques-Louis David (1748 -1825) Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier with his wife 1788
Enlightened leadership of the “free arts” D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of Count I. I. Shuvalov 1780s. Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723 -1792) Self-portrait as President of the Royal Academy of Arts 1773
Reason and feelings in the “enlightened life” (I) D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of Ursula Mnischek 1782 Joseph Ducrot (1725 -1805) Portrait of Queen Marie Antoinette 1782
Play and passion in the “enlightened life” D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of the actress Anna Davia Bernuzzi 1782 Thomas Gainsborough (1727 -1788) Portrait of the actress Sarah Siddons 1783 -85
Reason and feelings in the “enlightened life” (II) D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of A. D. Lansky 1782 Johann-Baptiste Lampi (1751 -1830) Portrait of His Serene Highness Prince G. A. Potemkin-Tavrichesky. 1792
Enlightened mind: philosopher D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of Denis Diderot (?) 1773 -74 Jean-Honoré Fragonard (1732 -1806) Portrait of Denis Diderot Ok. 1769
Enlightened mind: mystic D. G. Levitsky (1735 -1822) Portrait of N. I. Novikov 1797 (?) Carl Frederick von Breda (1759 -1818) Portrait of Emmanuel Swedenborg 1817
E. -M. Falconet - the main artist of the Sevres manufactory Etienne-Maurice Falconet (1716 -1791) Allegory of winter Cupid shaking a finger Flora 1771 1757 1750s.
“Sculptural allegory of the Russian Enlightenment” Marie-Anne Collot (1748 -1821) Head of Peter I Bas-relief of Peter I 1767 1769 -70 Etienne-Maurice Falconet (1716 -1791) Monument to Peter I on Senate Square 1766 -1782
“Enlightenment allegory” in the urban environment “The grand opening of the monument to Peter I on August 18, 1782” Engraving by A. Melnikov (1830) based on a drawing by A. F. Davydov; 1782 ↖ Unknown artist Transportation of the “Thunder-Stone” (November 1769 – February 1770) Colorized engraving, 1780s. ← Benjamin Patersen (1748 -1815) View of Senate Square and the monument to Peter I. 1799
Catherine's Court - in sculpture F. I. Shubin (1740 -1805) Portrait of a field marshal Portrait of the Secretary of State, Chief Chamberlain Portrait of P. A. Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky A. A. Bezborodko M. V. Lomonosov 1778 1798 1792
Allegory of art: “the painter is the monkey of God” I. I. Firsov (c. 1733 -1785) Young painter After 1765 Jean-Baptiste Simeon Chardin (1699 -1779) Monkey-painter Paris, 1740
Didactic “everyday scene” ← I. F. Tupylev (1758 -1821) Prankster game 1790s Georges de La Tour (1593 -1672) Fraud with the Ace of Diamonds. 1635 -47 Michelangelo da Caravaggio (1571 -1610) Card swindlers. 1596.
“Reverse side”Enlightenment (I) ← Unknown artist Portrait of D. -A. -F. de Sade Early 1760s Unknown artist Portrait of A. N. Radishchev (1749 -1802) Around 1790 Donatien-Alphonse-François Marquis de Sade (1740 -1814) First edition of the novel “Justine, or the Misfortunes of Virtue” (Amsterdam/Paris, 1791)
“The other side” of the Enlightenment (II) Jean-François Turcati (1763 -?) Jean-Paul Marat on the platform From the original by S. Petit; OK. 1792 Unknown artist Portrait of E. I. Pugachev (c. 1742 -1775) Approx. 1775 -80 G. -H. Siewking (1751 -1799) Execution of King Louis XVI on January 21, 1793 Colored engraving, 1793
“Natural man” is immersed in nature (I) V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Catherine II on a walk in Tsarskoye Selo Park. 1794 Francois Boucher (1703 -1770) Jeanne-Atnoinette Poisson, Marquise de Pompadour. 1759
“Natural man” is immersed in nature (II) V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Catherine II on a walk in Tsarskoye Selo park. 1790s Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun (1755 -1842) Queen Marie Antoinette with a rose in her hand. 1783
New “canon of sentimental portrait” V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Portrait of E. N. Arsenyeva. OK. 1795 Portrait of Skobeeva. OK. 1795
Sentimentalism or Empire style? (I) V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Portrait of M. I. Lopukhina 1797 Jacques-Louis David (1748 -1825) Portrait of an unknown young lady 1798 
“Natural man” is immersed in nature (III) V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Portrait of D. A. Derzhavina 1813 Antoine-Jean Gros (1771 -1835) Portrait of Christine Boyer Ok. 1800
“The Beginning of Russian Orientalism” V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Murtaza Quli Khan, brother of the Persian Shah Agha Mohammed. 1796 Jacques-André-Joseph Aved (1702 -1766) Pasha Mehmed Said, ambassador of the Turkish Sultan to France. 1742
The image of the military hero Antoine-Jean Gros (1771 -1835) General Bonaparte on the Arcole Bridge. 1796 V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Portrait of General F. A. Borovsky 1799 “Like a storm, gloomy lightning, Flapping wings of noise in the ravine, The Russians rushed to battle again. Their spear does not know rest, Their chests rise from the frequent puff, Sweat and blood flow from them in a stream” V.P. Petrov (1736 -1799) “Ode on the Capture of Ishmael” (1790)
Lady's “empire” portrait (I) V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Portrait of E. V. Rodzianko 1821 Jean-Auguste-Domenic Ingres (1780 -1867) Portrait of Madame Leblanc 1823
Lady's “empire” portrait (II) V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Portrait of Madame A. -L. -AND. de Stael Around 1812 Jacques-Louis David (1748 -1825) Portrait of Madame Henriette de Verignac 1802
Stability of the canon of a ceremonial portrait V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Portrait of Prince A. B. Kurakin, vice-chancellor of the court of Paul I 1801 -02 Antoine-Jean Gros (1771 -1835) J. -C. -M. Duroc, Duke of Friulia, Marshal of the Court of Napoleon I 1804
Stability of the canon of the “most august” portrait (I) V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Portrait of Emperor Paul I 1800 Robert Lefebvre (1755 -1830) Coronation portrait of Napoleon I 1804
Ascetic (quasi-romantic?) portrait of S. S. Shchukin (1762 -1828) Portrait of Emperor Paul I 1797 -99 Antoine-Jean Gros (1771 -1835) Bonaparte - first consul 1802
Stability of the canon of the “most august” portrait (II) V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Portrait of Emperor Alexander I 1807 -08 Sir Thomas Lawrence (1769 -1830) Portrait of George IV, King of England 1820
Religious painting of the Enlightenment V. L. Borovikovsky (1757 -1825) Virgin and Child with Angels ← 1823 Dead Christ in the tomb 1824 -25 ↓ Jacques-Louis David (1748 -1825) Crucified Christ 1782
The eighteenth century in Europe is called the “century of enlightenment.” In Russia, this definition can be attributed to the last decades of the century, to Catherine’s time, and with significant reservations. The Enlightenment affected only a thin cultural layer of society - the nobility, and not all of them, and a small number of people from the people who, thanks to talent or enterprise, advanced into the spheres of the intelligentsia and merchants. A unique national version of the culture of the Enlightenment was colored by the specific conditions of Russian reality.
The state position of the nobility changed - by the law of 1762 it was indefinitely exempted from compulsory service, which was now acquired for the best people the nature of public debt. The resulting leisure and enormous resources obtained by serf labor from even more enslaved peasants were used in different ways. During Catherine's time, not only did social discord intensify. The ideological stratification of the nobility became clear: those falling into “ancient savagery and savage to the point of salty serfdom and those who believed the meaning of life was in the service of the Fatherland or in their own intellectual and aesthetic improvement. More and more honest minds are beginning to judge the injustices and vices of society, seeing the path to their correction in the ennoblement of the individual. Documents, letters, literary works replete with the words “Fatherland,” “enlightenment,” “society,” “good morals,” “philanthropy,” “care for the common good,” “feelings of the human heart.” This vocabulary came to us precisely from Catherine’s time. Satires, exposing vices and abuses in the name of good morals and public benefit, are becoming a popular genre. All poetry is filled with appeals to the nobility; dozens of examples can be given. Here are just a few: A.P. Sumarokov - “And in the nobility, everyone, no matter what their rank, not in title, in action must be a nobleman; M. M. Kheraskov - “Be courageous in the military field, in days of peace, a good citizen, do not adorn yourself with your rank, decorate your rank with yourself; G. R. Derzhavin - “A nobleman should be composed of a sound mind, an enlightened heart, (...) all thoughts, words, deeds should be benefit, glory, honor. The utopianism of the program of the Enlightenment - first to ennoble a person, and then to improve his living conditions - is now clear to us, we remember Pugachev and Radishchev, but we must be grateful to these ideas, which served as fertile soil for a wonderful artistic culture.
Along with moral education and thoughts about the common good, naturally, there was freethinking, a passion for the works of French educators, who were read and translated in abundance in Russia. Starting from Catherine herself, they read Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Mercier, Lessing, Richardson, developing in themselves “an ancient taste for valor (from Catherine’s Notes). “Under Peter, a nobleman went abroad to study artillery and navigation; Afterwards he went there to learn high society manners. Now, under Catherine, he went there to bow to the philosophers. In general, reading, more than ever before, is becoming one of my favorite pastimes. Many could say about books, like the Yaroslavl landowner Opochinin: “They were my first treasure, they alone fed me in life; if it weren’t for them, then my life would be in constant grief...
Such were the sentiments of the enlightened people of that time, of that emerging cultural community, which we learn about from memoirs, from published letters of Russian writers, and to which our best portrait painters belonged. Is it any wonder that their creations are warmed by a high idea of human personality that in their painting one can feel the dream of a perfect man?
In portraiture, again, as in Peter’s time, the presence of a civic ideal is felt. This was facilitated by the victory in art and literature of the aesthetic principles of classicism and its task of “imitating beautiful nature and expressing educational ideas.” The painter must be “a philosopher and an educator of mortals in colors” (Ya. B. Knyazhnin). The work of a French theorist from the late 17th century, popular in Russia, eloquently speaks about how the tasks of a portrait painter in the fine arts were normatively understood by the theorists of classicism. early XVIII century by Roger de Pil, which was freely translated into Russian by Arkhip Ivanov (1789), with his own additions. The artist was instructed to work in such a way that “the portraits seemed to be speaking about themselves and as if announcing: look at me, I am that invincible king... I am that patron of the noblest arts, that lover of finesse... I am that dignified lady, who with her noble appeals does herself honor... I am that cheerful one who loves only laughter and fun... To achieve this goal, the artist, although he must “imitate both flaws and beauties, can “correct both a crooked nose and “The chest is much dry, and “the shoulders are too high. In “Discourse on the Perfect Painter by P. P. Chekalevsky” (1782), each part of the face in the portrait was assigned its own task: “frankness on the forehead and eyebrows, intelligence in the eyes, health on the cheeks and good nature or friendliness on the lips.” The following year, I. F. Urvanov writes about the “portrait artist: “... it is necessary that all parts of the head express the same property, either cheerful or important...
Classical normativity, even dogmatism, to some extent standardized the portrait, especially, of course, the ceremonial one, but the inherent attachment to reality of Russian artists broke out beyond the norms, without arguing with them, but creating that alloy of rules and individuality that can be called the style of the time . We will see further how greatest masters the ideal ennobled reality, not taking away its concreteness, but endowing it with significance or poetry. Their standard rose to the level of typicality, to aesthetically moral programming.
1. I. Argunov. Portrait of a peasant woman in Russian costume. 1784. Moscow, Tretyakov Gallery. (I. Argounov. Paysanne en costume russe (Portrait d'une actrice). 1784, Galerie Tretiakov, Moscow.)
2. J.-B. Leprince. The interior of a peasant hut. Mascara, Moscow, Museum fine arts them. A. S. Pushkin. (Jean-Baptiste Le Prince. Interieur d "une izba paysanne. Encre de Chine. Musee des Beaux-Arts Pouchkine, Moscow.)
5. Church of the Intercession in Fili in Moscow. 1693 - 1694. (Eglise de 1 "Intercession de la Vierge de Fili. Moscow. 1693 - 1694.)
7. Sun. Folk carving. XVIII century Moscow, Historical Museum. (Soleil. Sculpture sur bois folklorique. XVIIIe s. Musee d "Histoire de Moscou.)
8. M. Kazakov. Church of Metropolitan Philip in Moscow. 1777 - 1788. (M. Kazakov. L "Eglise du Metropolite Philippe. 1777 - 1788. Moscow.)
10. V. Bazhenov. Pashkov's house in Moscow. (State Library of the USSR named after V.I. Lenin). 1784-1786. (V. Bajenov. L "h6tel Pachkov. Bibliotheque nationale Lenine. 1784-1786. Moscow.)
20. Jug. Gzhel ceramics. 1791 Moscow, Historical Museum. (Cruche, Ceramiques de Gjelsk. 1791. Musee d'histoire, Moscow.)
It is known that the Age of Enlightenment was a time of profound changes in the economic and social life of all of Europe. Manufactures are being replaced by large factories using machines. With the emancipation of the oppressed classes, more and more attention is paid to public welfare. The economic needs and aspirations of progressive minds are bringing the abolition of the feudal order closer. There are known differences between the defenders of various doctrines: defenders of reason and defenders of the exact sciences, adherents of antiquity and admirers of the human heart. If the Age of Enlightenment can be considered an era that ended with the abolition of the old order, then in fact the bourgeois revolution occurred only in France.
Russia remained a predominantly agricultural country. True, E. Tarle noted long ago that in the 18th century it was not indifferent to the industrial development of Europe ( E. Tarle, Was Russia under Catherine an economically backward country? - „ Modern world", 1910, May, p. 28.). Enlightenment quickly spread throughout the country. But the third estate, which in France led the struggle against the privileged classes, was little developed in Russia. The successes of capitalism did not improve the living conditions of serfs. On the contrary, the participation of landowners in trade led to an increase in corvee and quitrent. During the second half of the 18th century, peasants rebelled several times. Pugachevism threatened the empire. Although the government dealt with the rebels, their resistance did not weaken.
In France, the complaints of rural residents show the belief that by satisfying their requests, their situation can be improved ( E. See, La France economique et sociale au XVIIIe siècle, 1925, p. 178.). In Russia, as one contemporary put it, the peasants were not even able to realize the full extent of their oppression ( G. Plekhanov, Works, vol. XXI, M.-L., 1925, p. 255.). One folk song of that time it is said that the masters were accustomed to treating them like cattle. To understand the Age of Enlightenment in Russia, one cannot avoid this main contradiction.
In its legislative initiatives and reforms, the government of Catherine II made extensive use of the ideas of the Enlightenment. The order of the Commission of Representatives was expressed in such radical tones that the royal censorship banned it in France. Catherine felt the need to support public opinion in Europe. She called on the nobility to be more prudent so as not to cause an uprising of the oppressed ( “Anthology on the history of the USSR”, vol. II, M., 1949, p. 173.). But all of her domestic politics, especially in the second half of the reign, tended to strengthen the police regime ( "The Eighteenth Century". Historical collection, published by P. Bartenev, vol. Ill, M., p. 390.). Education became the privilege of the nobility. Liberation ideas were brutally persecuted. After 1789, suspicions of sympathies for Jacobinism could destroy anyone.
The Russian government relied on the nobility and the highest administration. But among the nobility there were people who realized the approaching crisis of the monarchy. They rebelled against corruption and the decline of morals and demanded that the nobility be more effective and virtuous. Only the fulfillment of civic duty can justify his privileges ( P. Berkov, L. Sumarokov, M.-L., 1949."). The conservative nobility thought only about amendments to what existed, not allowing the thought of changing the social order.
Another layer of the nobility, disappointed with the state of things, was inclined to such an attitude towards life, which can be defined by the modern term “escape”. Russian Freemasons sought to improve their own personality. Tired of the court and social life the nobility was ready to admire the impulses of the heart and sensitivity, as well as the delights of rural nature ( G. Gukovsky, Essays on Russian literature of the 18th century, M. - L., 1937, p. 249.).
The most radical revolutionary views were defended by A. Radishchev. Formed under the influence of Enlightenment thinkers, Radishchev goes further than his inspirations. Sympathizing with the suffering of the human race, Lorenz Stern shines in “Sentimental Journey” most of all in the analysis of his deeply personal experiences. In “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” Radishchev is completely captured by the picture of the suffering of the people ( A. Radishchev, Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow. T. I-II, M.-L., 1935.). All his thoughts and aspirations are aimed at improving the lot of oppressed people in all latitudes of the world, including the New World. Novikova's satire exposed the vices of the privileged classes and thereby had a strong impact on the minds ( G. Makagonenko, N. Novikov and enlightenment in Russia in the 18th century, M.-L., 1951.).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Mably recognized the right of the people to rise up against feudal abuses. But Voltaire doubted the mental powers of the people and did not hide his contempt for the “rabble.” In the West, they argued that it was necessary to first free the soul, that is, to educate the people, before freeing their body. Russian enlighteners had great confidence in ordinary people. Radishchev was convinced that as soon as the people gained freedom, they would give birth to heroes.
In search of a golden age, Western thinkers turned to primitive society Arabs and Indians. Russian thinkers discerned in the working and patriarchal life of Russian peasants the wisdom that secular society lacked. The modest gift Radishchev received from a blind beggar is considered by him as a sign of his heartfelt agreement with the people.
Representatives of the third estate in France paid little attention to the needs of the peasantry, and this became the source of their constant disagreements. In Russia, progressive representatives of the nobility were destined to defend the interests of the people. With their interest in epic poetry, fairy tales, and folklore, the Russians were ahead of Schlegel and Percy. The 18th century composer E. Fomin, whose significance was discovered quite recently, was the author of the opera “Coachmen”, entirely woven from folk tunes ( B. Dobrokhotov, E. Fomin, M.-L., 1949.).
During her lifetime, Catherine won European fame with her philanthropy. This fame continued long after her death. Catherine knew how to take advantage of the enormous resources at her disposal and guessed the talents of the poets and artists who surrounded her throne. One might think that in Russia in the 18th century everything happened in art at the will of the sovereigns and in their honor.
In reality, crowned patrons of the arts and their associates were not always sensitive to the needs of art. E. Falcone faced resistance from the imperial bureaucracy ( “Correspondence of Falconet.” Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society, St. Petersburg, 1879.). The Grand Duchess reproached Cameron for violating the “rules of architecture” ( L. Hautecoeur, L "architecture classique a Saint-Petersbourg a la fin du XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1912, p. 60.). But the main thing is that the meaning of the art of this era cannot be reduced to the glorification of the monarchy and serfdom. Lomonosov and Derzhavin were forced to devote their odes to the empresses, but most of all they were inspired by the glory of their homeland, the richness of its nature, and the fate of the people. Great architects of the 18th century, Russian and foreign, built palaces for sovereigns and nobles. But at court, shy etiquette and servility reigned, oppressive luxury. Meanwhile, in the park and in the pavilions of Pavlovsk, noble simplicity and a sense of proportion reign, worthy of a sage who left the depraved world. In his recent book, Rudolf Zeitler rightly notes the internal kinship between the utopias of this time and the statues and paintings of classicism ( R. Zeitler, Klassizismus und Utopie, 1914.). Many palaces and parks of the 18th century look like the embodiment of the dreams of humanists of the Enlightenment ( P. Chekalevsky, Discourses on the liberal arts with a description of the works of Russian artists. St. Petersburg, 1792. The author praises the artists Ancient Greece, “since they did not humiliate their minds in order to decorate the house of a rich man with trifles according to his taste, since all works of art then corresponded to the thoughts of the entire people.” In this statement one can guess the aesthetic program of the Russian artist of the 18th century.).
It is not possible to associate each individual artist with a certain social stratum and consider it a representative ( V. Bogoslovsky, Social nature and ideological essence of the architecture of Russian classicism of the last thirds of the XVIII century. - “Scientific Notes of Leningrad University.” Series historical sciences, vol. 2, 1955, p. 247.). It is more important not to lose sight of general dependence the art of the Enlightenment from social issues, the constant dependence of the best minds of the era on that ferment of thoughts. Russian artists of the Enlightenment era served the task of liberating humanity from the diseases of the age. Imagining a social system based on truth, nature, justice, they painted in their creativity ideal pictures of the sought-after harmony. This is the connection between art and the historical background of the era.
St. Petersburg is the most regular city among all the capitals of Europe; it is more imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment than others. The Europeanization of Russian art was facilitated by the presence of first-class Western masters in Russia at that time and, on the other hand, by the educational travels of young Russian artists to France and Italy. The Age of Enlightenment was deeply imbued with the belief that the same moral and aesthetic principles could find application in all latitudes. The French language - as the universal language of the “republic of fine literature” - strengthened this confidence. As a result, the national character of culture often fell into oblivion. It was not for nothing that the admirer of everything French, Frederick II, did not show sensitivity to the German culture of his time.
The revival of the classical order and the veneration of the column in architecture, mythological motifs and allegories in sculpture, features of court secularism in portraiture - all this was more or less characteristic of art XVIII century in all European countries. Until recently, it was generally accepted that Russia was no exception to this rule. At one time, A. Herzen believed that in the 18th century Russian civilization was entirely European. “What remained national in her,” in his words, “was only a certain rudeness” ( A. Herzen, On the development of revolutionary ideas in Russia. - Collection soch., vol. VII, M., 1956, pp. 133-262.). A close study of both the Russian culture of this time and other European countries convinces that each of them had its own characteristics.
According to the plan for the reconstruction of the Kremlin, developed by V. Bazhenov in 1769-1773, this sanctuary of the Mother See was to be turned into the center of the entire Russian Empire ( M. Ilyin, Bazhenov, M., 1945, p. 41; A. Mikhailov, Bazhenov, M., 1951, p. 31.). The main arteries of the country, the roads from St. Petersburg, from Smolensk and from Vladimir, were supposed to converge on the main square of the Kremlin. This was to a certain extent reminiscent of the arrangement of three roads that converged in front of the Palace of Versailles. The center of the residence of the French monarch was to be his luxurious bedchamber. Bazhenov's plan was more democratic in nature. The palace remained to the side; the center of the Kremlin was occupied by a wide round square, intended to serve as a place for national holidays. This semblance of an amphitheater was supposed to be filled with a crowd of spectators. In the words of the Russian architect, the rebuilt Kremlin was supposed to serve “for the joy and pleasure of the people.” Bazhenov’s contemporaries guessed the utopianism of this project. Karamzin compares Bazhenov with Thomas More and Plato ( N. Karamzin, About the sights of Moscow. - Works, vol. IX, 1825, p. 252.). Bazhenov's project remained unfulfilled. Only a wooden model gives some idea about it. But the architectural thought of the great master was reflected later, in the semicircular square of K. Rossi in front of the Winter Palace ( A. Mikhailov, decree, op., p. 74.).
Bazhenov was not alone. The Tauride Palace, erected by I. Starov for Catherine's favorite Potemkin, was considered by contemporaries as an attempt to revive the glory of the capitals ancient world. Indeed, crowned with a dome supported by columns, its central hall seems designed to rival the Roman Pantheon. Classicists Western Europe We didn’t set ourselves such grandiose goals. The interior of the Parisian Pantheon by J. Soufflot is more dissected, lighter and does not make such an impressive impression. A notable feature of Russian domed buildings is their pyramidal structure. Palaces, like ancient Russian temples, seem to grow out of the ground, forming an inseparable part of the nature that surrounds them. This is the epic power of Russian architecture.
The classicism of the 18th century in all European countries revered the ancient order with all its elements as an unshakable dogma. However, Goethe was already ahead of his age, admiring in 1771 the Strasbourg Cathedral and the beauty of Gothic architecture, which was almost forgotten at that time. Just four years after him, V. Bazhenov, who himself sought to get closer to folk traditions, admitted artistic value Russian medieval architecture and was inspired by it in his own creation.
This was most clearly reflected in his construction of the royal residence in Tsaritsyn near Moscow. One of Tsaritsyn’s buildings, the so-called Bread Gate, gives an idea of the method of the remarkable architect. In it one can see a peculiar fusion of the classical three-span arch of Septimius Severus and the purely Russian type of church - a tower topped with kokoshniks and a dome. One should not think that the artist limited himself to a mechanical combination of ancient and medieval motifs. The interaction and interpenetration of heterogeneous elements gives the creation of the Russian master a unique originality.
The departure from classical canons also makes itself felt in the Tsaritsyn Bridge, built of pink brick, with its pointed arches. Bazhenov's style in Tsaritsyn is usually called pseudo-Gothic or neo-Gothic. Meanwhile, there are no openwork structures characteristic of Gothic here. Bazhenov’s architecture is more juicy, full-blooded, the wall retains its meaning in it. The Tsaritsyn Bridge is closer to ancient Russian traditions. It is reminiscent of the mosques and iwans of Central Asia with their mighty pointed arches and colorful tiles.
Bazhenov’s architecture was prepared by the research of the architects B. Rastrelli, S. Chevakinsky and D. Ukhtomsky who worked before him in Russia. In Russian applied art of this time, next to the strictly classical, beautiful, but somewhat cold forms of vases, more archaic, colorful types of jugs are preserved, especially in Gzhel ceramics. national character. One of the buildings in Tsaritsyn is crowned with a round disk with Catherine’s monogram, which has no analogues in classical architecture. But it is very similar to the so-called “wooden suns” with which folk carvers decorated ships.
In his speech at the foundation stone of the Kremlin Palace, Bazhenov, as the most beautiful building in Moscow, mentions the bell tower of the Novo-Devichy Convent, a characteristic monument of the so-called “Naryshkin style.” But Bazhenov’s aspirations to revive national forms did not find support from the authorities. They say that Catherine called Tsaritsyn’s with disapproval construction of the prison and suspended further construction. Meanwhile, simultaneously with Bazhenov, another Russian architect, I. Starov, was building the Potemkin Palace in Ostrov on the Neva as a semblance of a medieval castle. He revived the whiteness and smoothness of the walls of ancient Novgorod architecture ( A. Belekhov and A. Petrov, Ivan Starov, M., 1951, p. 404.).
Russian taste in architecture was reflected not only in the nature of the decorations and walls, but also in the general arrangement of buildings. The palace in Pavlovsk, created by the great English master Charles Cameron, goes back to the Palladian type ( V. Taleporovsky, Ch. Cameron, M., 1939; G. Loukomsky, Ch. Cameron, London, 1943; M. Alpatov, Cameron and English classicism. - “Reports and messages Faculty of Philology Moscow University", I, M., 1846, p. 55.). It is surrounded by an English park. But the location of the palace on a high hill above the Slavyanka River goes back to the ancient Russian tradition. The cubic volume of the building does not suppress the surrounding nature and does not come into conflict with it. It seems to grow out of the soil, like its dome from the cube of a building. Charles Cameron had the opportunity to learn Russian tradition and Russian tastes when, after arriving in Russia, he built a cathedral near Tsarskoye Selo ( S. Bronstein, Architecture of the city of Pushkin, M., 1940, fig. 146, 147.).
Russian classicism of the 18th century prefers a freer arrangement of architectural masses than classicism in other European countries. The architectural mass of its buildings gives a more organic and lively impression. The Petit Trianon of A. J. Gabriel forms a cube, clear, balanced and isolated; a graceful cornice separates the top edge from the space. In the Palace of the Legion of Honor by the architect P. Rousseau, the cornice is more emphasized than the dome above it. There is nothing like this in the Pashkov house, created in 1784-1789 by Bazhenov. True, its elegant decoration is reminiscent of the so-called Louis XVI style ( N. Romanov, Western teachers of Bazhenov. - “Academy of Architecture”, 1937, No. 2, p. 16.). But the location of the building on a hill, its slender pyramidal silhouette, emphasized by the side wings, the upward movement of its middle building, and finally its relief thanks to the belvedere (unfortunately damaged in the fire of 1812) - all this, rather, goes back to the traditions of folk architecture Ancient Rus'. In Western architecture of the 18th century one can find palaces with belvederes, but the organic growth of the building does not achieve the same force of expression as in the building of Bazhenov and some of his compatriots. Here we also need to recall the works of Bazhenov’s contemporary and friend M. Kazakov. His Church of Metropolitan Philip of 1777-1788 in Moscow with all the elements of its architecture belongs to Palladian classicism: a portico, rectangular windows and windows with platbands, and finally, a light rotunda - all this is taken from the repertoire of classical forms. But the silhouette of this temple, its resemblance to a step pyramid, involuntarily makes us recall the Naryshkin churches, which were before the eyes of Moscow architects and always attracted their attention.
Western architects preferred symmetry, or at least a stable balance of parts, in their buildings. Two identical buildings on the Place de la Concorde in Paris provide an example of this. On the contrary, Russian architects of this time often deviated from strict order. The educational home in Moscow, built in 1764-1770 by the architect K. Blank, was conceived in the spirit of the pedagogical ideas of the Enlightenment and, accordingly, had a clear, rational plan. At the same time, the building is strongly stretched along the Moskva River embankment. The smooth white walls over which the tower rises are reminiscent of the monasteries of Ancient Rus', those impregnable fortresses located on the banks of lakes and rivers, with white stone walls and towers at the corners. These features give originality to Russian urban planning of the 18th century: there is less orderliness, balance and symmetry, but more sensitivity to the harmony between the building and the vast expanses of the country and the virgin nature surrounding the cities.
As for sculpture, Russia in the 18th century did not have a continuous connection with the tradition of the Middle Ages, which played a large role in all Western countries. However, thanks to the diligence of the French sculptor Gillet, a professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, a whole galaxy of Russian masters was formed at the end of the 18th century. Falconet's masterpiece Bronze Horseman"also contributed to the development of taste for this type of art. However, Russian masters did not limit themselves to imitation.
In his terracotta sketch “Ajax Saves the Body of Patroclus,” M. Kozlovsky, like many other masters of his time, was inspired by the ancient group “Menelaus with the body of Patroclus” in the Uffizi. But in the work of the Russian master there is not a trace of that sluggish and artificial classicism that was then instilled at the Academy. Ajax's tense body looks stronger in contrast to the body of his dead friend. His sculpting is emphasized. The drama of the hero's situation, saving his friend in the midst of a heated battle, is of a romantic nature. M. Kozlovsky anticipates the sculptural experiments of T. Gericault. It is not surprising that, unlike his contemporaries, Kozlovsky highly valued Michelangelo ( V. Petrov, Sculptor Kozlovsky. - Journal. “Art”, 1954, No. 1, p. 31.). Perhaps the posture of his Ajax indirectly reflected something of the valor of Suvorov’s warriors, which then aroused universal admiration, something of that faith in man that underlies the “art of winning” of the great Russian commander.
In the 18th century, the peasant genre nowhere had such a unique character as in Russia. French painter J.-B. Leprince, as a foreign traveler, did not notice the miserable existence of Russian serfs. The interior view of a peasant hut in his drawing of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts looks like a mythological scene in the spirit of Boucher. The hut is spacious and illuminated, like a palace hall, and accordingly, the figures of its inhabitants are easily and gracefully conveyed. We find something completely different in the drawings of I. Ermenev, a Russian draftsman of the 18th century, almost unknown until recently, who has now occupied almost the same place in Russian art as Radishchev in literature ( About Ermenev: “Russian Academic Art School”, M.-L., 1934; “Literary Heritage”, vol. XXIX-XXX, M., 1937, p. 385.). (To understand Ermenev’s state of mind, one must remember that when he was in France, he witnessed the storming of the Bastille and captured this event in one of his drawings.) The plight of Russian peasants, the poor, and the blind is expressed by Ermenev with merciless truthfulness. The balance of the composition and the lapidary forms enhance the impact of these drawings, in which the master did not have to resort to the techniques of grotesque and hyperbolization. This artist of the Enlightenment, in essence, anticipated much of what later attracted the Wanderers. His small drawings look like sketches for monumental frescoes. Their power of influence surpasses even the epic images of M. Shibanov in his paintings “Peasant Wedding” and “Peasant Lunch” in the Tretyakov Gallery.
One must assume that D. Diderot would have approved of the portrait of a peasant woman, or rather, the portrait of the serf actress Count Sheremetyev in Russian folk costume(Tretyakov Gallery), since the “social state” of a person is very clearly expressed in it. This creation of the serf artist Ivan Argunov captivates with its deep humanity, which was often lacking in secular portraits ( I. Danilova, Ivan Argunov, M., 1949; T. Selinova, I. P. Argunov. - Magazine “Art”, 1952, September-October.). The cuteness of the young woman, her spiritual purity - all this anticipates the peasant images in Venetsianov and in the novels of Turgenev and Tolstoy. It is necessary to compare this still slightly timid and constrained image of a serf woman with the elegant secular portraits of the 18th century by F. Rokotov and D. Levitsky in order to measure the depth of the abyss that divided the then Russian society.
The general concept of “Enlightenment”: the era of rationalism, belief in the omnipotence of reason, “encyclopedism,” “enlightened monarchy.” Empress Catherine II (1762-1769), her cultural policy, patronage of the arts and sciences. New charter of the Academy of Arts, building of the Academy (architects A.F. Kokorinov and J.-B. Vallin-Delamotte; 1764-1788). The most important portrait painters: painter F.S. Rokotov (1735?-1808), master of psychological characterization: “Portrait of the poet V.I. Maykova" (c. 1765); "Portrait of A.P. Struyskoy" (1772); “Portrait of Countess E.V. Santi" (1785). -Painter D.G. Levitsky (1735-1822), author of program works: “Catherine II the Legislator” (with variants, 1783), a series of portraits of students of the Smolny Institute - “Smolyans” E.I. Nelidova (1773), E.N. Khrushchova and E.N. Khovanskaya (1773), G.I. Alymova (1776; the entire series is in the State Russian Museum). Stylistic features of “Enlightenment” ceremonial portraits. - Sculptor EM. Falcone (1716-1791): monument to Peter I in St. Petersburg = “Bronze Horseman” (portrait head executed by M.-A. Callot; 1782). - Painter V.L. Borovikovsky (1757-1825), creator of the “sentimental” trend in the portrait genre: “natural man in the lap of nature.” “Catherine II on a walk in Tsarskoye Selo Park” (with variants, 1794-1800s), “Portrait of M.I. Lopukhina" (1797); “Portrait of Countess A. Bezborodko with her daughters” (1803), “Portrait of Emperor Paul I in the vestments of the Grand Master of the Order of Malta” (1800). Religious painting by Borovikovsky. Russian art and the “later” European Enlightenment - related features and differences.
Literature
Alekseeva T.V. Vladimir Lukich Borovikovsky and Russian culture at the turn of the 18th - 19th centuries. - M.: Art, 1975;
Gershenzon-Chegodaeva N.M. Dmitry Grigorievich Levitsky. - M.: Art, 1964;
Evangulova O.S., Karev A.A. Portraiture of Russia in the second half of the 18th century. - M.: Art, 1994;
Kuznetsov S. Unknown Levitsky. Portrait work of the painter in the context of St. Petersburg myth. - St. Petersburg: Logos, 1996;
Dmitry Grigorievich Levitsky 1735 - 1822. Catalog [exhibitions from the collection of the State Russian Museum]. - L.: Art, 1987;
Moleva N.M. Dmitry Grigorievich Levitsky. - M.: Art, 1980;
Russia - France: Age of Enlightenment. Russian-French cultural relations in the 18th century [Exhibition catalogue]. - L.: publishing house State Hermitage, 1987.
Topic 6. Russian Academy of Arts at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries: principles of education, normative aesthetics, system of genres
St. Petersburg Academy of Arts is an educational institution and a stronghold of “normative aesthetics.” Art as an exceptional creation of beauty: “An artist who wants to make his work elegant must try to surpass the substance itself with the image of mental beauty” (from “Discourse” by P.P. Chekalevsky, 1792). Students' orientation towards the idealization of nature: an “anatomizing” view ( écorche), the use of motifs and poses of ancient sculpture, copying paintings by masters of the Renaissance and classicism of the 17th century. The importance of the “moral super task”; hierarchy of genres; the meaning of historical and mythological painting. - A.P. Losenko (1737-1773), founder of the historical genre in Russian painting. Losenko's training in Russia, France and Italy; the most important works: “The Sacrifice of Abraham” (1765), “Zeus and Thetis” (1769). The painting “Vladimir and Rogneda” (1770) is the first work based on a plot from national history. Other works: “Hector and Andromache” (1773); portraits of Losenko.
Other academic historical painters and their works: P.I. Sokolov (1753-1791) “Mercury and Argus” (1776), “Venus and Adonis” (1782); - G.I. Ugryumov (1764-1823) “Test of the strength of Jan Usmar” (1796), “The calling of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom” (1797-99); - A.I. Ivanov (1776-1848)“The Feat of a Young Kievite” (c. 1810), “The Duel of Prince Mstislav the Udal with Rededey” (1812); - A.E. Egorov (1776-1851)“The Torment of the Savior” (1814): the use of ancient “visual codes” to idealize/glorify characters. The significance of the works of these authors; general conclusion about the “academic approach” to representation and artistic heritage.
Academic sculpture (brief description). M.I. Kozlovsky (1753-1802) “Monument to A.V. Suvorov" (1799-1801): the commander is depicted as the god of war, Mars; - I.P. Martos (1754-1835) “Monument to Minin and Pozharsky” in Moscow (1804-1818): ancient stylization/heroization; - IN AND. Demut-Malinovsky (1784-1833)“The Russian Scaevola” (1813): the national hero is presented as a Roman character. Ancient heroes B.I. Orlovsky (1797-1837): “Paris” (1824), “Faun playing the syringa” (1825-1838).
Literature
Daniel S. European classicism. - St. Petersburg: ABC-classic, 2003;
Kaganovich A.L. Anton Losenko and Russian art of the mid-18th century. - M.: Art, 1963;
Karev A. Classicism in Russian painting. - M.: White city, 2003;
Kovalenskaya N.N. Russian classicism: painting, sculpture, graphics. - M.: Art, 1964;
Moleva N., Belyutin E. Pedagogical system of the Academy of Arts of the 18th century. - M.: Art, 1956;
Moleva N., Belyutin E. Russian art school of the first half of the 19th century. - M.: Art, 1963.