Before the Communists destroyed their art...
William Palmer
well-illustrated book on Russian art in the
years just before the revolution. Frankly,
I am far from expert on the subject of
Russian art, I had not even heard of most
of the artists discussed. Part of that is
due to the fact that Russian art never has
had the attention it deserves in Britain and
the U. S., but some of the reason for the
neglect is that the Communists did not
like the sort of art I refer to. It
was too individualistic and imaginative,
and it did not glorify the "workers'
revolution." I suspect, too, that the
Communists either literally destroyed
these artists or, if not, simply made
sure that they could not earn a living
by their art, unless they toed the line
for Lenin. One of my favorites is
Valentin Serov, and I especially like
his "Odysseus and Nausicaa," and his
"Peter the Great." The latter picture
strikes me as funny and awesome at the
same time because of the angle in which
Peter is depicted striding along with
his walking stick with his ministers
bowed down yet walking along behind
him. It really does convey an amazing
sense of Peter the Great as a human
being, not just one of the many great
figures we read about in history. Serov
painted that picture in 1907. I also
like Yevgeny Lancray, whose "Ships from
the Age of Peter the Great" is striking.
There is something of the illustrator
(in the highest sense)in both these
artists. The pictures I have mentioned
above would rival works by Pyle and N. C.
Wyeth for dynamism. There is nothing
static about them.
My own theory: In 1908 Ivan Bilibin
did a series of postcards depicting
figures from Mussorgsky's opera "Boris
Godunov." One of depicts a fierce,
menacing officer with a rifle and wicked-
looking axe of the type sometimes
described in plain English as a "head
chopping axe." This figure was a RED
cloak that dominates the picture. Was
Bilibin, in addition to illustrating for
the opera, sending a message of warning
of terrifying things to come?
But this post is getting too long and
I have barely scratched the surface
regarding the superb art that was
being created in Russia before the
revolution. Perhaps I will talk
about some other Russian artists in
a later post. In the meantime, I would
like to know if any other readers are
familiar with the period I am referring
to above. a.g.b-p.
Edward G. Nilges
But note that the "beautiful" portrait of Peter the Great celebrates
the brutal subordination of everybody to one man's will. You
romanticise the beauty of a boneyard in the SAME way lovers of
Communist socialist realism (all two of them) romanticise portraits of
Stalin and little kids, which celebrate someone who we agree was a
mass murderer.
As it happens, under the old Bolshevists until the mid-1920s, there
was in fact a revival of Russian art. Until the end of Lenin's New
Economic Policy, artists were in fact encouraged to experiment in ways
they had not been under official art policy of the Tsars (who followed
the centralised academic approach of the French.)
Tsarist era visual art was in fact second-rate knockoffs of French
garbage, celebrating in realist style various Slavic myths which
obscured the reality of suffering.
And, in the 1990s, Russian art has returned to these roots in that it
caters to gangstas and biznessmenie of low culture. As such its
highest achievement is the Faberge easter egg whose "quality" consists
in the use of expensive materials and thus easily understood by the
new bourgeois who cannot understand art and therefore demands an
underlying hedge of gold and silver in the event he is booted out of
whatever country he lives in and has to liquidate.
I do not hate the bourgeois: I am bourgeois myself. But as a human
ideal, the bourgeois should represent, not an aspiration but a level
to which everyone should be encouraged to raise themselves, and be
assisted as necessary. As Francois Furet has pointed out, the
self-definition of the bourgeois is one that excludes, by the nature
of things, aspiration to anything higher than the economic nexus, and
this is why the TYPICAL bourgeois, in an art museum or at the opera,
is modally bored out of his skull.
Bertolt Brecht said "culture is dogshit". Too much of it is
prepurchased by people who don't understand it. Ordinary slobs who
love opera in San Francisco can't afford tickets while the wealthy men
who can afford to indulge their wives waste their money, by bailing
after the first act, to watch the Giants in the opera house bar.
Ultimately, Mani's skill converges to this financial pandering where
artists who define skill as acceptance by the wealthy regress to the
level of the Faberge egg: incorporating precious metals because
"skill" has been reified.
Not all socialists, nor even all Communists, are exclusively "for"
socialist realism. Socialist realism was Stalin's bright idea because
like most thugs, from Tony Soprano up, are bored and troubled by art
which raises questions such as how many people did you kill today.
Indeed, the apogee of Adorno's bored bourgeois at the opera is the
dictator, a sort of isolated bourgeois to whom power has devolved,
watched anxiously at the Shostakovich premiere by the apparatchikskis
for signs of his dangerous *ennui*.
This resulted in Stalin's diktat that art and music be celebratory and
positive exclusively and in pictures of tractors and the hammerings
and haverings of Shostakovich.
But what's interesting is that many people, now that Stalin is safely
dead, actually like Socialist Realism. It has a brutal, hairy-chested
charm, and the Russkies are now attracting tourist dollars by selling
items of this ilk. It happens to meet the same low needs as Boogeroo
for it is accessible to the artistic unwashed. It's hard-hat kitsch
for people who punch out at Cubism but who know about things like
hydroelectric plants back in Wyoming.
Chris
There's a pretty good resource for this work at http://www.abcgallery.com;
they have quite a collection of Russian work on show. I haven't poked
through a whole lot of it, but do find a good deal of it interesting. Re
Serov, his a link to their pages on him:
http://www.abcgallery.com/S/serov/serov.html
If you are interested in modern Russian art under the Communists, you might
find the book "The Ransom of Russian Art" worth a look.
In general, it looks like since the end of the communist era Russian art is
going through quite a renaissance- from its icon painters (take a look at
http://www.iconofile.com ) to the abstract. A really interesting site (for
the icons) is: http://www.wco.ru/icons/ .
Cheers;
Chris
"William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cbc76035.02121...@posting.google.com...
William Palmer
> willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote in message news:<cbc76035.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> But note that the "beautiful" portrait of Peter the Great celebrates
> the brutal subordination of everybody to one man's will.
That is really silly. Have you ever actually seen
the painting I am talking about? You seem to think
it is just another one of those innumerable European
portraits glorifying various members of the royalty.
That picture is nothing like that. The painting
gives an amazing impression of movement, and
strongly suggests a man, a real human being, of
purpose. Suggestive of Wyeth and Pyle, it is a
masterpiece of illustration as well as a superb
example of Russian fine art during the period I
was talking about. Further, you seem to be
confusing Peter the Great with Ivan the Terrible.
The only way you can judge Peter fairly is to
contrast him with some of the other royal rulers
of countries during the same historical period.
When you do that, Peter doesn't come off as so
bad, in fact, there is much good that can be said
about him, especially considering that when he
began to rule Russia, in many ways it could be
said to be still in the Dark Ages.
a.g.b-p
Erik A. Mattila
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message news:<f5dda427.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote in message news:<cbc76035.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>But note that the "beautiful" portrait of Peter the Great celebrates
>>the brutal subordination of everybody to one man's will.
>
>
> That is really silly. Have you ever actually seen
> the painting I am talking about?
How could one answer that, as you've failed to identify the painting?
Serov did several paintings of Tsar Peter - which one are you talking about?
Serov was a terrific painter, in my view. And the other you've
mentioned - Lancerey was too. But I'm puzzled why you put this under
the rubric "Before the Communists destroyed their art." Your text must
have mentioned, at least, that Serov sided with the communists after the
1905 revolution. He died before the October Revolution, but there is
little doubt if he had lived beyond his 46 years that he would have been
right in there with the St. Petersburg avant garde.
Additionally, look at the providence of most of the Dagilev circle
paintings, and you'll see that these art works have been pampered and
cared for throughout the Soviet period, in the Hermitage, The Russian
Museum in St. Petersburg, and various other Russian art museums.
You seem to think
> it is just another one of those innumerable European
> portraits glorifying various members of the royalty.
> That picture is nothing like that. The painting
> gives an amazing impression of movement, and
> strongly suggests a man, a real human being, of
> purpose. Suggestive of Wyeth and Pyle, it is a
> masterpiece of illustration as well as a superb
> example of Russian fine art during the period I
> was talking about.
Personally, I think Serov owes a much greater debt to Honoré Daumier
than Wyeth or Pyle. I'm surprised you didn't see this, in view of your
interest in 19th C. French art. I think a historical connection might
be possible between Serov and Daumier considering Peter's ambition to
build his little "Paris" of the swamps. Just kidding.
Further, you seem to be
> confusing Peter the Great with Ivan the Terrible.
> The only way you can judge Peter fairly is to
> contrast him with some of the other royal rulers
> of countries during the same historical period.
> When you do that, Peter doesn't come off as so
> bad, in fact, there is much good that can be said
> about him, especially considering that when he
> began to rule Russia, in many ways it could be
> said to be still in the Dark Ages.
Yes, of course. That is why Pete imprisoned his wife, Eudoxia, and
sister, Marta, in a convent. He was such a jolly old soul, dancing on
the scaffolds while hanging all the soldiers of the Strelitz rebellion.
To save Russia from the Dark Ages. Shall I go on?
Erik
Andrew Werby
wonder why you felt it was necessary, in the course of praising Mr. Nilges'
contributions (sentiments I share), to attack Mr Palmer? I know that Mani's
a "net kook" by definition, but why is William put in this category? While I
may not agree with everything he has to say, he's said it pretty
effectively, and he started some threads here that have brought up topics
that gave me something to write about, and others, like Mr. Nilges, a chance
to shine as well. Really, I can't think of any symptoms of "kookism" in his
writings that I've seen- did I miss something? Or does lack of faith in the
ideals of Modern Art, which I suppose he's shown at times, automatically put
him in the Kook camp, like Holocaust denial or belief in UFOs? Wouldn't
things be better here if we spent our time talking about art, instead of
each other?]
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20021213103212.534$4...@newsreader.com...
> Edward -
>
> Just to let you know I enjoy reading your posts.
>
> It is tempting at times to think that this group is overrun by the inane
> nonsense of Mani, WILLIAM PALMER, and other net kooks - but I try to keep
> in mind that we have yourself, Erik, Chris, Marilyn, Andrew, and other
> interesting, erudite contributors as well. Actually, as someone pointed
out
> to me, the kooks serve a purpose in providing a springboard or baseline
for
> reasonable discussion of the ideas they mangle - as in your recent posts
on
> Socialist Realism.
>
> I try to make myself useful by answering more practical questions about
art
> and the art world, and countering some of the more egregious errors posted
> as fact. There are others like me here, and from the emails I get I know
we
> can do some good. That's why I stay.
>
> Please continue to post. I look forward to reading more.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Dan
> http://www.danfoxart.com
Edward G. Nilges
Thanks, Dan and Andrew. I agree with Andrew that William is no kook
and I believe that even Mani has much to contribute.
John Rune
Nilges) wrote:
Tolerance? On r.a.f.? A novel concept. <g>
Happy Holidays,
John the Red
William Palmer
> wonder why you felt it was necessary, in the course of praising Mr. Nilges'
> contributions (sentiments I share), to attack Mr Palmer? I know that Mani's
> a "net kook" by definition, but why is William put in this category? While I
> may not agree with everything he has to say, he's said it pretty
> effectively, and he started some threads here that have brought up topics
> that gave me something to write about, and others, like Mr. Nilges, a chance
> to shine as well. Really, I can't think of any symptoms of "kookism" in his
> writings that I've seen- did I miss something? Or does lack of faith in the
> ideals of Modern Art, which I suppose he's shown at times, automatically put
> him in the Kook camp, like Holocaust denial or belief in UFOs? Wouldn't
> things be better here if we spent our time talking about art, instead of
> each other?]
Thank you for your friendly and reasonable thoughts.
I think there are two reasons for Dan Fox's
continuing attacks on me. For one thing, he does
not agree with my opinions. On top of that, he
has "discovered" the fact that I wear quite a few
hats on the net, and I have my rather kooky
entertainment rountines which I save for appropriate
groups. In other words, Fox proves far too limited
in intellect to grasp that someone could post a rather
kooky entertainment post in a group like alt.usenet.
kooks, and then turn around a make a very serious
posting in topical groups like rec.arts.fine or
rec.arts.comics.misc or soc.culture.russian. And,
of course, since I am a flaming champion of long
standing, there is no end of scurrilous material
about me floating around, having been posted by
vindictive "spankards" (flame war losers). (Once
you get well-enough known as a net writer, they
start crawling out of the woodwork after you.) Out
of respect for this group, I have ignored most of
Fox's attacks, but if he keeps annoying me for
attention, I may get around to "starring him"
in a lampoon in some appropriate newsgroup,
hmm...Some interesting headlines are already
coming to mind... a.g.b-p
William Palmer
> William Palmer wrote:
> > spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message news:<f5dda427.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer) wrote in message news:<cbc76035.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >>But note that the "beautiful" portrait of Peter the Great celebrates
> >>the brutal subordination of everybody to one man's will.
> >
> >
> > That is really silly. Have you ever actually seen
> > the painting I am talking about?
>
> How could one answer that, as you've failed to identify the painting?
> Serov did several paintings of Tsar Peter - which one are you talking about?
It is just called "Peter the Great." It was done in 1907
and is tempura on paper. (64 by 86 cm). It is obviously
a painting of Peter inspecting the shipyards.
>
> Serov was a terrific painter, in my view. And the other you've
> mentioned - Lancerey was too. But I'm puzzled why you put this under
> the rubric "Before the Communists destroyed their art." Your text must
> have mentioned, at least, that Serov sided with the communists after the
> 1905 revolution. He died before the October Revolution, but there is
> little doubt if he had lived beyond his 46 years that he would have been
> right in there with the St. Petersburg avant garde.
Yes, but a lot of artists who sided with the revolution
were destroyed too. That should be no mystery. After
all, the revolution soon pervaded every aspect of Russain
life. There would have been tremendous psychological
pressures on artists and writers to produce works, not
that they were inspired to do, but which instead would
"serve the workers" (meaning have the party's approval).
As a result, a great many creative geniuses were reduced
to being hacks--and nobody had to put a gun to their
heads, either.
>
> Additionally, look at the providence of most of the Dagilev circle
> paintings, and you'll see that these art works have been pampered and
> cared for throughout the Soviet period, in the Hermitage, The Russian
> Museum in St. Petersburg, and various other Russian art museums.
\
Yes, because the Russian communists were far more intelligent
than the Chinese Red Guard and the Taliban. The Russian
communists were generally careful to preserve thing of value,
knowing that they could be used in many ways, such as for
art excanges, etc.--things which would lend prestige and
legitimacy to the communist government.
>
> You seem to think
> > it is just another one of those innumerable European
> > portraits glorifying various members of the royalty.
> > That picture is nothing like that. The painting
> > gives an amazing impression of movement, and
> > strongly suggests a man, a real human being, of
> > purpose. Suggestive of Wyeth and Pyle, it is a
> > masterpiece of illustration as well as a superb
> > example of Russian fine art during the period I
> > was talking about.
>
> Personally, I think Serov owes a much greater debt to Honoré Daumier
> than Wyeth or Pyle. I'm surprised you didn't see this, in view of your
> interest in 19th C. French art.
Well, maybe I was careless in my phrasing. I did not
mean to give the impression that Serov was actually
influenced by N. C. Wyeth or Pyle, since I do not know
that to be the case. What I meant was that it seemed
remarkable to me how Serov's training and experience
led him to a place where he was doing fine art which
had all the remarkable elements of Wyeth and Pyle at
their best.
I think a historical connection might
> be possible between Serov and Daumier
Don't you think it is likely that Sevov was
influenced by many of the same 19th century
artists who incluenced N. C. Wyeth and Pyle?
considering Peter's ambition to
> build his little "Paris" of the swamps. Just kidding.
>
> Further, you seem to be
> > confusing Peter the Great with Ivan the Terrible.
> > The only way you can judge Peter fairly is to
> > contrast him with some of the other royal rulers
> > of countries during the same historical period.
> > When you do that, Peter doesn't come off as so
> > bad, in fact, there is much good that can be said
> > about him, especially considering that when he
> > began to rule Russia, in many ways it could be
> > said to be still in the Dark Ages.
>
> Yes, of course. That is why Pete imprisoned his wife, Eudoxia, and
> sister, Marta, in a convent. He was such a jolly old soul, dancing on
> the scaffolds while hanging all the soldiers of the Strelitz rebellion.
> To save Russia from the Dark Ages. Shall I go on?
You are not really being fair. In the first place,
almost all powerful rulers of Peter's day could be
rightly accused of committing or at least
countenancing all sorts of wrongs, some of them
very ugly. However, you also have to look at what
the ruler started with (regarding the condition
of his country) and what was eventually accomplished.
a.g.b-p.
Mani Deli
>Thank you for your friendly and reasonable thoughts.
>I think there are two reasons for Dan Fox's
>continuing attacks on me. For one thing, he does
>not agree with my opinions.
Fox gets furious when contradicted and when criticism is expressed in
satire and humor. His lack of humor leads him to uninspired name
calling and psychobabble which he repeats often.
Fox is a typical product of Academic art schools and somewhat of a
frat boy jerk,
As to psychobabble here's my take on Fox. Unlike many here Fox
probably makes a living as a charlatan. However, his work is a symptom
of depression.
Fox just can't understand why he gets essentially no place apeing
blue- chip moderns who won the Modern Academic Art lottery. He thinks
his long stint at university and his pedigrees make it reasonable that
he should have gotten further along then the millions of failure
artists who crank out similar drivel.
Fox does have positive qualities. Unlike most of the babblers here who
he considers to be on his side, Fox did learn how to make clearly
written statement. At least we can determine what he is talking
about. To his credit Fox doesn't pretend to know how to draw so that
his wall decoration can be cleanly criticized. He is a perfect butt
for satire.
Fox, unlike many here, at least has a modicum of intelligence. If he
didn't call you a kook three times a day after meals we would have
nothing more then the likes of Marilyn "Fuck off" Welch clones
cranking out even duller abuse.
For those who might want art instruction which teaches something, Fox
is a perfect example of what to avoid . He serves a good purpose here.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/