The importance of critical activity of V.V. Stasov for the development of Russian art

STASOV, VLADIMIR VASILIEVICH(1824–1906), Russian music and art critic. Born in St. Petersburg on January 2 (14), 1824 in the family of the architect Vasily Petrovich Stasov (1769–1848); V.V. Stasov’s brother is lawyer Dmitry Vasilyevich Stasov (1828–1918). He graduated from the School of Law in 1843 and studied piano with the famous teacher A.L. Genselt. Served in the Senate and the Ministry of Justice. From 1856 he worked at the Public Library (now the Russian National Library, RNL) in St. Petersburg, from 1872 until the end of his life he was in charge of its art department. In this post, he constantly advised writers, artists, composers, collected manuscripts of Russian artists, especially composers (largely thanks to Stasov, the Russian National Library now has the most complete archives of composers of the St. Petersburg school).

Along with new Russian music, Stasov strongly supported new Russian painting, in particular, he took part in the activities of the Artel of Artists (later the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions - “Peredvizhniki”); created a number of monographs about Russian artists. A special layer of Stasov’s activity consists of his historical and archaeological research - including works on folk ornaments, the origin of epics, as well as on ancient Russian singing; He collected extensive materials on all these topics, which he often passed on to other scientists for use.

Stasov has always been a figure of “extreme”, radical views, and he was often accused (and is accused) of one-sidedness. For example, he highly valued the operatic work of Glinka and the entire St. Petersburg school, but he valued Tchaikovsky almost exclusively as a symphonist, and not as an opera composer (which did not prevent him from maintaining very warm personal relations with Tchaikovsky); For quite a long time he opposed the system of conservatory education, believing that it neutralizes the national uniqueness of Russian talents. In his beloved work of the St. Petersburg school, Stasov fully accepted everything done by Mussorgsky and Borodin, but, for example, he did not immediately appreciate the evolution of Rimsky-Korsakov’s art. This was due to the main positions of Stasov, to which he remained faithful throughout his life - with the concepts of “realism” (which meant, first of all, the choice of topics relevant to modern times, anti-academicism) and “nationality” (Stasov considered this category absolutely mandatory when assessing works of art, and in the new Russian music, based on national material, he saw the future of all European art). His particular preference was for artistic concepts based on authentic historical material; he extremely highly appreciated the experiments of Dargomyzhsky and Mussorgsky in conveying the intonations of living speech in music; Stasov’s special “horse” was the “oriental theme,” which was for him an integral component of the new Russian art. The rigidity of Stasov’s attitudes and the categorical nature of his speeches were balanced, however, by his deep devotion to the interests of science and art, the sincerity of his desire for “new shores,” and the artistry of his nature. Stasov was often unfair and harsh, but he was always noble and generous and completely devoted to his friends.

Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov(January 2, 1824, St. Petersburg - October 10, 1906, St. Petersburg) - Russian music and art critic, art historian, archivist, public figure.

Son of the architect Vasily Petrovich Stasov. Vladimir's elder sister, Nadezhda (1822-1895) was an outstanding public figure, his younger brother Dmitry (1828-1918) was an outstanding lawyer.

Biography

In 1836, Vladimir Stasov was sent to the School of Law. While still at school, Stasov became imbued with a keen interest in music, but did not find any special talents as a composer in himself, and decided to try his hand at being a critic for the first time. In 1842, he wrote an article about F. Liszt, who came to St. Petersburg, although he did not publish it anywhere.

After graduating from college in 1843, he entered the service as an assistant secretary in the Land Survey Department of the Senate, from 1848 he served as a secretary in the Heraldry Department, and from 1850 as an assistant legal adviser in the Justice Department. Stasov was fluent in six languages.

In 1847, with the publication of his first article in Otechestvennye zapiski - about the French composer Hector Berlioz - his literary-critical activity began. In the same year, Stasov was invited by the publisher of Otechestvennye Zapiski Kraevsky to collaborate in the department of foreign literature. From that time on, Stasov began to write short reviews on painting, sculpture, architecture and music. In 1847-1848 he published about 20 articles.

In 1848, for his connection with the Petrashevites, Stasov was removed from work in the magazine, arrested and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress. In 1851, V.V. Stasov retired and, as the secretary of the Ural industrialist and philanthropist A.N. Demidov, a very rich man, a fan of the arts, went abroad. Worked in major libraries and archives. He was a librarian at the Demidov estate in San Donato near Florence, and often visited Russian artists and architects who lived in Italy - Alexander Bryullov, Sergei Ivanov, Vorobyov and Aivazovsky.

In May 1854, V.V. Stasov returned to St. Petersburg. At that time, with his help, an artistic association of composers took shape, which became known under the name given by Stasov, The Mighty Handful. In the 1860s, Stasov supported the “Association of Traveling Exhibitions”, with which all his activities were closely connected. Stasov was one of the main inspirers and historian of the “Itinerants,” and took an active part in the preparation of the first and a number of their subsequent exhibitions. At the end of 1856, the director of the Public Library in St. Petersburg, M. A. Korf, offered Stasov a job as his assistant, namely, to collect materials on the history of the life and reign of Nicholas I.

In 1856-1872, Stasov worked at the Public Library, having his own desk in the Art Department. On his initiative, a number of exhibitions of ancient Russian manuscripts are being organized. In November 1872 he was hired as a full-time librarian, and until the end of his life he was in charge of the Art Department. In this post, he constantly advised writers, artists, composers, collected manuscripts of Russian artists, especially composers (largely thanks to Stasov, the Russian National Library now has the most complete archives of composers of the St. Petersburg school).

In 1900, simultaneously with his friend L.N. Tolstoy, he was elected an honorary member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

He died on October 23, 1906 in St. Petersburg. He was buried in the necropolis of masters of art of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. The bronze monument over the grave is the work of the sculptor I. Ya. Ginzburg and the architect I. P. Ropet.

Views

Stasov actively supported the Peredvizhniki movement and opposed the uncontested dominance of academic art. His critical articles and monographs about the now famous representatives of Russian art (N. N. Ge, V. V. Vereshchagin, I. E. Repin, M. P. Mussorgsky, A. P. Borodin, K. P. Bryullov, etc. ), as well as extensive correspondence with them, are of the greatest interest. He is also known as an opponent of the music critic (and former friend) A. N. Serov in discussing the merits of two operas by M. I. Glinka; Stasov was a researcher and promoter of the composer's work.

Stasov was the ideologist of a new direction in music, represented by a group of St. Petersburg composers, which he called the “Mighty Handful.”

Stasov was also an active critic of anti-Semitism, and was a connoisseur of Jewish art. So, in response to Richard Wagner’s essay “Jewishness in Music,” he responded in the essay “Judaism in Europe /According to Richard Wagner/” (1869), where he sharply criticized the composer’s anti-Semitism

Addresses in St. Petersburg

01/02/1824 - 1830 - 1st line of Vasilyevsky Island, 16;
1854-1873 - Mokhovaya street, 26;
1873-1877 - Trofimov’s house - Shestilavochnaya street, 11;
1877-1881 - Sergievskaya street, 81;
1881-1890 - apartment building - Znamenskaya street, 26, apt. 6;
1890-1896 - apartment building - Znamenskaya street, 36;
1896 - 10.10.1906 - 7th Rozhdestvenskaya street, 11, apt. 24.

Memory

In 1957, a memorial plaque was installed on the house at 26 Mokhovaya Street with the text: “The outstanding Russian art critic Vladimir Vasilyevich Stasov lived and worked in this house from 1854 to 1873.” .

Perpetuation of the name

I. S. Turgenev:

Argue with a person smarter than you: he will defeat you... but you can benefit from your very defeat. Argue with a person of equal intelligence: whoever wins, you will at least experience the pleasure of fighting. Argue with a person of the weakest mind: argue not out of a desire to win, but you can be useful to him. Argue even with a fool! You won’t gain either fame or profit... But why not have fun sometimes! Just don’t argue with Vladimir Stasov!

In Lipetsk there is Stasova Street.
In Vladimir there is Stasova Street.
In Krasnodar there is Stasova Street (since 1957).
"Children's music school named after. V.V. Stasov" in Moscow.
There is Stasova Street in Minsk.

V. V. STASOV AND HIS IMPORTANCE AS AN ART CRITIC

The activities of V.V. Stasov as an art critic were inextricably linked with the development of Russian realistic art and music in the second half of the 19th century. He was their passionate promoter and defender. He was an outstanding representative of Russian democratic realistic art criticism. Stasov, in his criticism of works of art, assessed them from the point of view of the fidelity of artistic reproduction and interpretation of reality. He tried to compare the images of art with the life that gave birth to them. Therefore, his criticism of works of art often expanded to criticism of the phenomena of life themselves. Criticism became an affirmation of the progressive and a fight against the reactionary, anti-national, backward and bad in public life. Art criticism was also journalism. Unlike previous art criticism - highly specialized or intended only for specialist artists and connoisseurs, art connoisseurs - the new, democratic criticism appealed to a wide range of viewers. Stasov believed that the critic is an interpreter of public opinion; it must express the tastes and demands of the public. Stasov's many years of critical activity, imbued with deep conviction, principled and passionate, truly received public recognition. Stasov not only promoted the realistic art of the Itinerants, but also the new, democratic, progressive criticism itself. He created authority and social significance for her.

Stasov was an extremely versatile and deeply educated person. He was interested not only in fine arts and music, but also in literature. He wrote studies, critical articles and reviews on archeology and the history of art, on architecture and music, on folk and decorative arts, read a lot, spoke most European languages, as well as classical Greek and Latin. He owed his enormous erudition to continuous work and his inexhaustible curiosity. These qualities of his - versatility of interests, well-read, highly educated, habit of constant, systematic mental work, as well as a love of writing - were developed in him by his upbringing and life environment.

Vladimir Vasilyevich Stasov was born in 1824. He was the last, fifth child in the large family of the outstanding architect V.P. Stasov. From childhood, his father instilled in him an interest in art and hard work. He taught the boy to systematically read, to the habit of expressing his thoughts and impressions in literary form. Thus, from his youth, the foundations of that love for literary work, that desire and ease with which Stasov wrote were laid. He left behind a huge literary legacy.

Having graduated from the School of Law in 1843, young Stasov served in the Senate and at the same time independently studied music and fine arts, which particularly attracted him. In 1847, his first article appeared - “Living paintings and other artistic objects of St. Petersburg.” It opens the critical activity of Stasov.

Stasov’s work as a secretary for the Russian rich man A.N. Demidov in Italy, in his possession of San Donato, near Florence, brought great benefit to Stasov. Living there in 1851 - 1854, Stasov worked hard on his artistic education.

Soon after returning home to St. Petersburg, Stasov begins working at the Public Library. He worked here all his life, heading the Art Department. Collecting and studying books, manuscripts, engravings, etc. further develops Stasov’s knowledge and becomes the source of his enormous erudition. He helps with advice and consultation to artists, musicians, directors, obtaining the necessary information for them, looking for historical sources for their work on paintings, sculptures, and theatrical productions. Stasov moves in a wide circle of prominent cultural figures, writers, artists, composers, performers, and public figures. He formed especially close ties with young realist artists and musicians who were looking for new paths in art. He is keenly interested in the affairs of the Itinerants and musicians from the “Mighty Handful” group (by the way, the very name belongs to Stasov), helps them in both organizational and ideological matters.

The breadth of Stasov's interests was reflected in the fact that he organically combined the work of an art historian with the activities of an art critic. Living, active participation in modern artistic life, in the struggle of democratic, advanced art with the old, backward and reactionary, helped Stasov in his work on studying the past. Stasov owed the best, most accurate aspects of his historical and archaeological research and judgments about folk art to his critical activity. The struggle for realism and nationality in modern art helped him better understand issues of art history.

Stasov's view of art and artistic beliefs developed in an environment of high democratic upsurge in the late 1850s and early 1860s. The struggle of revolutionary democrats against serfdom, against the feudal class system, and against the autocratic police regime for a new Russia extended to the field of literature and art. It was a struggle against the backward views of art that reigned in the ruling class and had official recognition. The degenerating noble aesthetics proclaimed “pure art”, “art for art’s sake”. The sublime, cold and abstract beauty or the cloying conventional external beauty of such art was contrasted with the real surrounding reality. Democrats counter these reactionary and deadened views of art with life-related, nurturing views. This includes realistic art and literature. N. Chernyshevsky in his famous dissertation “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” proclaims that “the beautiful is life”, that the field of art is “everything that is interesting for a person in life.” Art should explore the world and be a “textbook for life.” In addition, it must make its own judgments about life, have “the meaning of a verdict about the phenomena of life.”

These views of revolutionary democrats formed the basis of Stasov’s aesthetics. He sought to proceed from them in his critical activity, although he himself did not rise to the level of revolutionism. He considered Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev “column leaders of the new art” (“25 years of Russian art”). He was a democrat and a deeply progressive person who defended the ideas of freedom, progress, art related to life and promoting advanced ideas.

In the name of such art, he begins his struggle with the Academy of Arts, with its educational system and with its art. The Academy was hostile to him both as a reactionary government institution and because of its outdatedness, isolation from life, and pedantry of its artistic positions. In 1861, Stasov published an article “On the exhibition at the Academy of Arts.” With it, he begins his struggle with outdated academic art, which was dominated by mythological and religious subjects far from life, for a new, realistic art. This was the beginning of his long and passionate critical struggle. In the same year, his large work “On the significance of Bryullov and Ivanov in Russian art” was written. Stasov views the contradictions in the work of these famous artists as a reflection of the transition period. He reveals in their works the struggle of the new, realistic principle with the old, traditional one and seeks to prove that it was these new, realistic features and trends in their work that ensured their role in the development of Russian art.

In 1863, 14 artists refused to complete their graduation topic, the so-called “program,” defending freedom of creativity and a realistic depiction of modernity. This “revolt” of the academy students was a reflection of the revolutionary upsurge and awakening of the public in the field of art. These “Protestants,” as they were called, founded the “Artel of Artists.” From it grew the powerful movement of the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions. These were the first not government or noble, but democratic public organizations of artists, in which they were their own masters. Stasov warmly welcomed the creation of first the “Artel” and then the Association of the Wanderers. “He rightly saw in them the beginning of a new art and then in every possible way promoted and defended the Wanderers and their art. Our collection contains some of the most interesting of Stasov’s articles devoted to the analysis of traveling exhibitions. The article “Kramskoy and Russian Artists” is indicative for its defense of the positions of advanced, realistic art and its outstanding figures. In it, Stasov passionately and rightly rebels against the belittling of the importance of the remarkable artist, leader and ideologist of the Wandering Movement - I. N. Kramskoy. An interesting example of the defense of works of realistic art. from reactionary and liberal criticism is Stasov’s analysis of I. Repin’s famous painting “They Didn’t Expect.” In it, Stasov refutes the distortion of its social meaning. The reader will find this in the article “Our artistic affairs.”

Stasov always looked for deep ideological content and life truth in art, and from this point of view, first of all, he evaluated works. He argued: “This is the only art that is great, necessary and sacred, which does not lie or fantasize, which does not amuse itself with old toys, but looks with all its eyes at what is happening everywhere around us, and, having forgotten the former lordly division of plots into high and low, with a flaming chest it presses against everything where there is poetry, thought and life” (“Our artistic affairs”). He was even inclined at times to consider the desire to express large ideas that excite society as one of the characteristic national characteristics of Russian art. In the article “25 Years of Russian Art,” Stasov, following Chernyshevsky, demands that art be a critic of social phenomena. He defends the bias of art, considering it as an open expression by the artist of his aesthetic and social views and ideals, as the active participation of art in public life, in the education of people, in the struggle for advanced ideals.

Stasov argued: “Art that does not come from the roots of people’s life is, if not always useless and insignificant, then at least always powerless.” Stasov’s great merit is that he welcomed the reflection of people’s life in the paintings of the Wanderers. He encouraged this in their work in every possible way. He gave a careful analysis and high praise for the display of images of the people and folk life in Repin’s paintings “Barge Haulers on the Volga” and especially “Religious Procession in the Kursk Province.” He especially put forward such pictures in which the protagonist is the mass, the people. He called them "choral". He praises Vereshchagin for showing the people in war, and in his appeal to the people of art he sees similarities in the works of Repin and Mussorgsky.

Stasov here really captured the most important and significant thing in the work of the Wanderers: the features of their nationality. Showing the people not only in their oppression and suffering, but also in their strength and greatness, in the beauty and richness of types and characters; Upholding the interests of the people was the most important merit and life feat of the Itinerant artists. This was true patriotism of both the Wanderers and their spokesman - criticism of Stasov.

With all the passion of his nature, with all his journalistic fervor and talent, Stasov throughout his life defended the idea of independence and originality in the development of Russian art. At the same time, the false idea of the supposed isolation, or exclusivity, of the development of Russian art was alien to him. Defending its originality and originality, Stasov understood that it generally obeys the general laws of the development of new European art. Thus, in the article “25 years of Russian art,” speaking about the origin of Russian realistic art in the work of P. Fedotov, he compares it with similar phenomena in Western European art, establishing both the commonality of development and its national originality. Ideology, realism and nationality - Stasov defended and promoted these main features in contemporary art.

Stasov fought against the theories of “pure art”, “art for art’s sake” in all their manifestations, be it topics far from life, be it the “protection” of art from “rough everyday life”, be it the desire to “liberate” painting from literature, be it and finally, the contrast between the artistry of the works and their practical usefulness and utilitarianism. In this regard, the letter “Introductory lecture by Mr. Prahov at the University” is interesting.

The heyday of Stasov's critical activity dates back to 1870 - 1880. His best works were written during this time, and during this time he enjoyed the greatest public recognition and influence. Stasov continued, until the end of his life, to defend the public service of art, arguing that it should serve social progress. Stasov spent his entire life fighting against opponents of realism at different stages of the development of Russian art. But, closely associated with the Peredvizhniki movement of 1870-1880 as a critic formed on the basis of this art and its principles, Stasov was subsequently unable to go further. He was unable to truly perceive and understand new artistic phenomena in Russian art of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Being fundamentally right in the fight against decadent, decadent phenomena, he often unfairly included among them the works of artists who were not decadent. The aging critic, in the heat of polemics, sometimes did not understand the complexity and contradictoriness of new phenomena, did not see their positive sides, reducing everything only to error or limitation. Naturally, we omit such outdated statements by Stasov in this collection.

But, of course, even in the best works of criticism, not everything is true and acceptable to us. Stasov was a son of his time, and in his views and concepts there were, along with very valuable, weak and limited sides. They were especially significant in his scientific historical studies, where he sometimes retreated from his own positions on the independence of the development of the art of the people, identified the concepts of nationality and nationality, etc. And his critical articles are not free from errors and one-sidedness. So, for example, in the heat of the struggle against the old art that was becoming obsolete, Stasov came to deny the achievements and value of Russian art of the 18th - early 19th centuries as allegedly dependent and non-national. To a certain extent, he shared here the misconceptions of those contemporary historians who believed that the reforms of Peter I allegedly broke off the national tradition of the development of Russian culture. In the same way, in the fight against the reactionary positions of the contemporary Academy of Arts, Stasov went so far as to completely and absolutely deny it. In both cases, we see how an outstanding critic sometimes lost his historical approach to the phenomena of art in the heat of passionate polemics. In the art closest to him and contemporary with him, he sometimes underestimated individual artists, such as Surikov or Levitan. Along with a deep and correct analysis of some of Repin's paintings, he misunderstood others. Stasov’s correct and deep understanding of nationality in painting is opposed by its external understanding in contemporary architecture. This was due to the weak development of the architecture itself of his time, its low artistry.

It would be possible to point out other erroneous or extreme judgments of Stasov, caused by polemical fervor and the circumstances of the struggle. But it is not these mistakes or misconceptions of a wonderful critic, but his strengths, the correctness of his main provisions that are important and valuable to us. He was strong and truly great as a democratic critic, who gave artistic criticism great social significance and weight. He was right in the main, main and decisive things: in the public understanding of art, in defending realism, in the assertion that it is the realistic method, the connection of art with life, the service of this life that ensures the flourishing, height and beauty of art. This affirmation of realism in art constitutes the historical significance, strength and dignity of Stasov. This is the enduring significance of his critical works, their value and instructiveness for us today. Stasov's works are also important for familiarization with the historical development and achievements of Russian realistic art. The reader will find in the collection general essays, such as “25 years of Russian art,” as well as articles about individual works, for example, about the portrait of Mussorgsky or L. Tolstoy by Repin. They are examples of close, skillful consideration of a single outstanding work.

What is instructive and valuable for us in Stasov the critic is not only his great integrity, the clarity and firmness of his aesthetic positions, but also his passion and temperament with which he defends his convictions. Until the end of his days (Stasov died in 1906) he remained a critic and fighter. His love for art and devotion to what he considered authentic and beautiful in it were remarkable. This living connection of his with art, the feeling of it as his own business, practical and necessary, was correctly characterized by M. Gorky in his memoirs about Stasov. Love for art dictates both its affirmations and its denials; “the flame of great love for beauty always burned in him.”

In this direct experience of art, in the passionate defense of its vital meaning and importance, in the affirmation of what is realistic, necessary for the people, serving them and in their life drawing its strength and inspiration from art, lies the most important and instructive, highly valued and respected by us in the works of Stasov .

A. Fedorov-Davydov

Pages:

V.V. Stasov. From the series “Mass Library”. 1948. Author: A.K. Lebedev

In the article “Artistic Statistics,” Stasov sharply criticized the policy of the autocracy, which in the 80s, during the period of reaction, in every possible way prevented the entry of “cook’s children” into schools and closed the doors of the Academy of Arts to people from the people.

In his article “Exhibition at the Academy of Arts” (1867) he highly evaluates the painting Born in the village of Luzhniki (Tula province) in 1832 into a peasant family. Initially he studied with an icon painter in Mogilev, then (1847-1858) he studied at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (MUZHVZ); while continuing to paint icons. He taught at MUZHVZ... « . 1862 Oil on canvas, 173 x 136"for the denunciation of women's lack of rights expressed in it. Analyzing its contents, he writes: “An old general, a dilapidated mummy with stars on his chest and, probably, bags of gold in caskets, marries a young girl whose eyes are swollen and red from crying - this is a victim sold by a caring mother or aunt.” “It seems that you see in the very reality of this old groom, with the last of his hair sticking out, pomaded and perfumed, you see his shaking head... it seems that you hear what this unfortunate sold girl is thinking, who is already offering her hand to the priest, and herself with drooping with her head and downcast eyes she almost turns away from the disgusting old Groom, looking askance at her; her hands seem to be dead, they are ready to fall, the wedding candle, it seems, is about to slip out of her cold fingers and light up the rich lace on her dress, which she has now forgotten about, and they probably played an important role when all her relatives persuaded the poor girl marry a rich general."

Having thus revealed the artistic image, explaining and condemning the meaning of the depicted phenomenon, Stasov emphasized that “this motif is repeated almost every day everywhere.”

Each of his analyzes is structured as if life itself were before the viewer’s eyes, and not just its reflection in art.

About Repin's " . 1872—1873 Oil on canvas, 131.5×281 cmState Russian Museum“He writes: “In front of you is the wide, endlessly stretching Volga, as if melting and falling asleep under the scorching July sun. Somewhere in the distance a smoking steamer flashes, closer to the golden inflating sail of a poor boat, and ahead, walking heavily along the wet shallows and imprinting the traces of their bast shoes on the damp sand, is a gang of barge haulers. Harnessing themselves into their straps and pulling on the lines of a long whip, these eleven people walk at a pace, a living cart, bending their bodies forward and swaying to the beat inside their collar.”

Assessing the emerging picture A great Russian artist, painter, the greatest master of historical painting. Studied at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts. He was a member of the Association of Itinerants from 1881 to 1907, then moved to the Union of Russian Artists. Since 1895 there was... « . 1887 Oil on canvas, 304 x 587.5State Tretyakov Gallery"And having depicted in bright colors the fanatical schismatic and all these people who sympathize and mock her, Stasov turns to Russian life itself in the 17th century and says: "...We can no longer be concerned about the interests that worried this poor fanatic two hundred years ago ... but one cannot help but bow before this strength of spirit, before this indestructibility of the female mind and heart of the noblewoman, who, according to the ideas of the people, lamented about their needs and grief.”

“We shrug our shoulders at strange delusions, at vain, colorless martyrdom, but we no longer stand on the side of these laughing boyars and priests, we do not rejoice with them stupidly and brutally. No, with our sympathetic gaze we are looking for something else in the picture: all these drooping heads, drooping eyes, quietly and painfully glowing, all these meek souls who at that moment were the best and most sympathetic people, but compressed and oppressed, and therefore they had no power say your real word..."

The style, character and methods of criticism of Stasov are worthy of attention.

Stasov revealed first of all the idea of the work. Only based on the content of the work, he also considered its form, and more than once pointed out to artists the shortcomings of their artistic language, the shortcomings of the drawing, the dullness of color, and called for the improvement of their skills.

“...No matter how great and beautiful the content may be, our time, because of it alone, will not reconcile itself with the ineptitude of the form; more than ever, it requires from the artist strict, deep teaching, mastery, complete mastery of the means of art, otherwise it recognizes the works as not artistic,” he wrote.

An important feature of Stasov’s critical method is its historicism. He never considered new phenomena of artistic culture without looking back at the history of art. He well understood the enormous determining significance of the surrounding social life in the formation of the art of a particular era and at the same time took into account the role of the internal connection of the phenomena of art. Thus, considering the art of the Peredvizhniki as the brainchild of the social upsurge of the 60s and 70s, he sees in the artist a kind of predecessor of this direction. And in turn to Great Russian artist, founder of critical realism. Painter, graphic artist. Master of genre painting. Born on June 22, 1815 in Moscow, in the family of a poor official. I studied in the 1st Moscow Cadet Corps, all my free time... Stasov draws creative threads from the small Dutch and the English artist of the 18th century Gogarth.

Considering each new work of the artist, Stasov analyzes it in connection with the previous works of this master, thus determining his creative path. This gives the critic the opportunity to always note the growth and further development of artists, to note the emergence of new features in their work.

Stasov's criticism was distinguished by the breadth of its coverage of cultural phenomena. He understood fine art in close connection with literature, architecture and music. Stasov, for example, saw in Russian literature the “older sister” of fine art, more advanced and developed. Therefore, comparing painting with literature sounded like high praise from Stasov.

« - a realist, like Gogol, and just as deeply national as he is. With unparalleled courage among us... he plunged headlong into the full depth of people’s life, people’s interests, people’s pressing reality,” Stasov said in connection with the appearance of Repin’s “ . 1872—1873 Oil on canvas, 131.5×281 cmState Russian Museum».

Analyzing individual works Russian artist. Son E.I. Makovsky and the artist’s brother. He received medals from the Academy of Arts: in 1864 - 2 silver medals; in 1865 - 2 silver medals for the painting "The Artist's Workshop"; V..., Stasov compares them with the works of Ostrovsky, works - with the works of Turgenev, individual Repin paintings - with the works of Pushkin, etc. Stasov in a number of cases compares works of painting and sculpture with works of music. For example, he wrote a large special article about The largest artist of the second half of the twentieth century, a representative of critical realism. A wonderful portrait painter, author of paintings on historical and biblical themes.... and Mussorgsky, in which he draws a parallel in their work and considers both artists as sons of the era of social upsurge of the 60s.

As a particularly positive feature of Stasov’s critical activity, one should note his everyday friendly and comradely assistance to artists. Vladimir Vasilyevich was a critic-friend, comrade, adviser to artists and helped their creative growth in everything he could. Stasov gave artists numerous references and advice on various areas of knowledge in connection with the creative tasks they faced. When Great Russian artist, painter, master of genre and historical painting, portrait painter. Teacher, professor, headed the workshop, was the rector of the Academy of Arts. Author of the book of memoirs "Distant Close". Among his students... paints a picture " . 1972 Oil on canvas Moscow State Conservatory Moscow", Stasov selects biographical material for him about the characters in the picture; When Great Russian artist, painter, master of genre and historical painting, portrait painter. Teacher, professor, headed the workshop, was the rector of the Academy of Arts. Author of the book of memoirs "Distant Close". Among his students... working on " . 1879 Oil on canvas, 204.5 x 147.7State Tretyakov Gallery", Stasov finds him ancient images of Sophia. During work above the statue . 1882 Marble State Russian Museum“Stasov tirelessly helps him with his information about the life, costumes, utensils, and customs of Holland in the 17th century. Being well acquainted with the librarians of the largest book depositories in the capitals of European states, Stasov constantly turns to them in order to find the material needed for his artist friends from rare editions. Under the influence of Stasov’s friendly instructions and advice, they were created by artists, including Great Russian artist, painter, master of genre and historical painting, portrait painter. Teacher, professor, headed the workshop, was the rector of the Academy of Arts. Author of the book of memoirs "Distant Close". Among his students..., many outstanding works of Russian painting and sculpture. According to Stasov's instructions Great Russian artist, painter, master of genre and historical painting, portrait painter. Teacher, professor, headed the workshop, was the rector of the Academy of Arts. Author of the book of memoirs "Distant Close". Among his students... significantly remade and improved his picture " . 1884—1888 Oil on canvas, 160.5x167.5State Tretyakov Gallery" The artists deeply appreciated and respected this friendship of the critic, sharing with him their creative plans, impressions and thoughts.

To the workshop Famous Russian artist, master of battle painting. In 1860 he entered the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, but left it in 1863, dissatisfied with the teaching system. Attended the workshop of Jean Leon Gérôme at the Paris School of Fine Arts (1864)...., where access was closed to everyone, Stasov had free entry. The letters from artists addressed to him express great gratitude to the venerable critic.

In his letter to Stasov The most prominent sculptor of the second half of the 19th century. For the statue "" the artist was awarded the title of academician. Corresponding member of the Paris Academy. Awarded the Order of the Legion of Honor. Honorary member of many Western European... said (1896): “I am proud of the friendship of such a great citizen as you, who carried within himself such a great soul, whose soul is enough for everyone and everything that is dear to Russian art and humankind in general. But I wanted to tell you this: my triumph yesterday was won by you, and won victoriously, with glory.”

At the same time, Vladimir Vasilyevich’s criticism was distinguished by its directness. Even in relation to the artists closest to him, whom the critic considered outstanding masters, Stasov did not betray this principle.

A positive feature of Stasov’s artistic criticism is its systematic nature. Speaking over the course of half a century of his activity on any significant event in the field of fine arts, he did not ignore new works of artists, lectures on art, exhibitions, art education, new artistic societies, or critical speeches of newspapers. and magazines. Such systematic art criticism, based on a serious everyday study of artistic life, greatly increased its impact on society and contributed to the establishment of a strong connection between the author and artists and wider circles of society.

Stasov's articles were intended not only for specialists, but also for the general public. They are distinguished by their simplicity, imagery, accessibility and excitement, and often contain folk sayings and proverbs.

In his polemical speeches, images taken from literature are constantly cited. For example, addressing artists who are moving away from ideological realism and national themes in art towards academicism, Stasov said that they are defectors, like “Andriy Bulba in a foreign camp, in the arms of a beautiful Polish woman, having forgotten duty, shame, and honor , and the truth."

He is witty and knows how to turn his opponent’s arguments into an evil caricature of him. So, for example, fighting for the free choice of topics for theses by students graduating from the Academy of Arts, Stasov, objecting to an article by the rector of the Academy Bruni, whom he calls “the lawyer of the Academy,” writes: “The lawyer of the Academy” continues to imagine that there is no way to decide who is between students deserve some kind of reward, if you don’t put them on the same topic. Why is this? He is thus paying a very bad compliment to the Academy; he seems to be asserting that academic specialists are only able to judge between objects of exactly the same content, and as soon as this content is different, they will immediately become confused. After this, is it really possible to decide only which of the two peaches is better, and if the question is which is better: a good peach or a bad turnip, then we must already run aground.”

In a polemic with the reactionary newspaper “Novoe Vremya,” which absurdly tried to “debunk” the Wanderers by comparing their work with the works of Leo Tolstoy, Stasov wrote: “The references to Count Leo Tolstoy are also very good... Count Leo Tolstoy has now already addressed the writer of “New time” with a mallet to hit those you don’t like over the heads. Who doubts that Leo Tolstoy is a great writer? But who said that everyone should create their works only in his manner and not take a step to the side? Whatever he has, be sure to give it to him, but if he doesn’t give it, it’s a slap on the head. Why, why aren't you Leo Tolstoy? Both simple and smart."

Stasov, like the “artel workers” and the Wanderers inseparable from him, spoke out with a bold, full of militant democracy, criticism of the old, outdated, feudal-serf world. This was the strong point of Stasov's work. But he did not see clear ways to transform society. He proceeded only from one ardent desire for a “reasonable” and “natural” life, he proceeded from faith in a happy future for humanity. With the development of society and the increasing complexity of social relations, Stasov could not understand many phenomena of the surrounding life. In this regard, many artistic phenomena of the 90s and 900s remained ununderstood for the critic. Having been a leading democratic art critic for several decades and exerting a huge influence on the development of art in the era of reforms and the post-reform period, Stasov in the 90s lost to a certain extent his former influence on the fate of art, although his passionate speeches in defense of ideological realistic art against mysticism , symbolism and formalism were correct and progressive until the end of their lives.

In its heyday, Stasov's criticism was full of a sense of civic duty. She nurtured the growing national art. She developed love for him, and through him for the homeland, among the broad masses of Russian society. She participated in the democratic movement of the era and ardently fought with her means for the vital interests of the broad masses. Stasov was not only a critic of works of music, painting and sculpture, but also an outstanding expert on the history of art, in particular the history of applied and decorative arts. He created a major work on the history of ornament. His archaeological research into ancient images in Crimean caves is of great interest to science.

The memory of Stasov is dear to our people. Repin was right when he predicted that the significance of the outstanding critic would be appreciated in the future.

“This man is a genius in his make-up, in the depth of his ideas, in his originality and sense of the best, the new, his glory lies ahead,” he wrote Great Russian artist, painter, master of genre and historical painting, portrait painter. Teacher, professor, headed the workshop, was the rector of the Academy of Arts. Author of the book of memoirs "Distant Close". Among his students... about Stasov. “But many years later, when the original creations of Dargomyzhsky, Mussorgsky and others, who are still covered with the dung of routine, emerge more and more, people will turn to Stasov and will be amazed at his insight and correct statements about the undoubted merits of the creations of art.”

Words Great Russian artist, painter, master of genre and historical painting, portrait painter. Teacher, professor, headed the workshop, was the rector of the Academy of Arts. Author of the book of memoirs "Distant Close". Among his students... came true. In the Soviet era, Stasov was highly regarded and appreciated.

Stasov's critical activity represents a rich heritage that must be deeply studied in the interests of the development of Soviet art and our artistic culture.

Activities of the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions. Main representatives. Art criticism about the art of the Wanderers.

The Peredvizhniki deliberately opposed themselves to representatives of official academism. The founders of the society were I. N. Kramskoy, G. G. Myasoedov, N. N. Ge and V. G. Perov. In their activities, the Wanderers were inspired by the ideas of populism. The Peredvizhniki carried out active educational activities, in particular, organizing traveling exhibitions; The life of the Partnership was built on cooperative principles. On November 9, 1863, 14 of the most outstanding students of the Imperial Academy of Arts, admitted to compete for the first gold medal, turned to the Academy Council with a request to replace the competition task (painting a painting based on a given plot from Scandinavian mythology “The Feast of the God Odin in Valhalla”) with a free task, painting a picture on a theme chosen by the artist himself. In response to the Council's refusal, all 14 people left the Academy. This event went down in history as the “Riot of the Fourteen.” It was they who organized the “St. Petersburg Artel of Artists” later, in 1870 it was transformed into the “Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions”.

The heyday of the Association of Itinerants occurred in the 1870-1880s. The Wanderers at different times included

· I. E. Repin,

· V. I. Surikov,

· N. N. Dubovskoy,

· V. E. Makovsky,

· I. M. Pryanishnikov,

· A. K. Savrasov,

· I. I. Shishkin,

· V. M. Maksimov,

· K. A. Savitsky,

· A. M. and V. M. Vasnetsov,

· A. I. Kuindzhi,

· P. I. Kelin,

· V. D. Polenov,

· N. A. Yaroshenko,

· R. S. Levitsky,

· I. I. Levitan,

· V. A. Serov,

· A. M. Korin,

· A. E. Arkhipov,

· V. A. Surenyants,

· V.K. Byalynitsky-Birulya,

· A. V. Moravov,

· I. N. Kramskoy

and others. Participants in the exhibitions of the Partnership were M. M. Antokolsky, V. V. Vereshchagin, A. P. Ryabushkin, I. P. Trutnev, F. A. Chirko and others. A major role in the development of the art of the Peredvizhniki was played by the famous art researcher and critic V.V. Stasov; P. M. Tretyakov, purchasing works by the Itinerants for his gallery, provided them with important material and moral support. Many of the works of the Peredvizhniki were commissioned by Pavel Mikhailovich Tretyakov.

The last head of the partnership, elected in 1918, was Pavel Aleksandrovich Radimov. The paintings of the Wanderers were characterized by heightened psychologism, social and class orientation, high skill in typification, realism bordering on naturalism, and an overall tragic view of reality. The leading styles in the art of the Itinerants were impressionism and realism.

The importance of critical activity of V.V. Stasov for the development of Russian art.

The activities of Vladimir Vasilyevich Stasov (1824-1906) as an art critic were inextricably linked with the development Russian realistic art and music in the second half of the 19th century . He was their passionate promoter and defender. He was an outstanding representative of Russian democratic realistic art criticism. Stasov, in his criticism of works of art, assessed them from the point of view of the fidelity of artistic reproduction and interpretation of reality. He tried to compare the images of art with the life that gave birth to them. Therefore, his criticism of works of art often expanded to criticism of the phenomena of life themselves. Criticism became an affirmation of the progressive and a fight against the reactionary, anti-national, backward and bad in public life. Art criticism was also journalism. Unlike previous art criticism - highly specialized or intended only for specialist artists and connoisseurs, art connoisseurs - the new, democratic criticism appealed to a wide range of viewers. Stasov believed that the critic is an interpreter of public opinion; it must express the tastes and demands of the public. Stasov's many years of critical activity, imbued with deep conviction, principled and passionate, truly received public recognition. Stasov not only promoted the realistic art of the Itinerants, but also the new, democratic, progressive criticism itself . He created authority and social significance for her.

Soon after returning home to St. Petersburg, Stasov begins working at the Public Library. He worked here all his life, heading the Art Department. Collecting and studying books, manuscripts, engravings, etc. further develops Stasov’s knowledge and becomes the source of his enormous erudition. He helps with advice and consultation to artists, musicians, directors, obtaining the necessary information for them, looking for historical sources for their work on paintings, sculptures, and theatrical productions. Stasov moves in a wide circle of prominent cultural figures, writers, artists, composers, performers, and public figures. He formed especially close ties with young realist artists and musicians who were looking for new paths in art. He is keenly interested in the affairs of the Itinerants and musicians from the group “ Mighty bunch "(by the way, the very name belongs to Stasov), helps them in organizational and ideological issues.

Stasov's view of art and artistic beliefs developed in an environment of high democratic upsurge in the late 1850s and early 1860s. The struggle of revolutionary democrats against serfdom, against the feudal class system, and against the autocratic police regime for a new Russia extended to the field of literature and art. It was a struggle against the backward views of art that reigned in the ruling class and had official recognition. The degenerate aesthetics of the nobility proclaimed “pure art”, “art for art’s sake”. The sublime, cold and abstract beauty or the cloying conventional external beauty of such art was contrasted with the real surrounding reality. Democrats contrast these reactionary and deadened views of art with realistic art and literature, which is connected with life and feeds on it. N. Chernyshevsky in his famous dissertation “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” proclaims that “the beautiful is life”, that the field of art is “everything that is interesting for a person in life.” Art should explore the world and be a “textbook for life.” In addition, it must make its own judgments about life, have “the meaning of a verdict about the phenomena of life.”

In the name of such art he begins his the fight against the Academy of Arts, with its educational system and with its art. The Academy was hostile to him both as a reactionary government institution and because of its outdatedness, isolation from life, and pedantry of its artistic positions. In 1861, Stasov published an article “On the exhibition at the Academy of Arts.” With it, he begins his struggle with outdated academic art, which was dominated by mythological and religious subjects far from life, for a new, realistic art. This was the beginning of his long and passionate critical struggle. In the same year, his large work “On the significance of Bryullov and Ivanov in Russian art” was written. Stasov views the contradictions in the work of these famous artists as a reflection of the transition period. He reveals in their works the struggle of the new, realistic principle with the old, traditional one and seeks to prove that it was these new, realistic features and trends in their work that ensured their role in the development of Russian art.

In 1863, 14 artists refused to complete their graduation topic, the so-called “program,” defending freedom of creativity and a realistic depiction of modernity. This “revolt” of the academy students was a reflection of the revolutionary upsurge and awakening of the public in the field of art. These “Protestants,” as they were called, founded the “Artel of Artists.” From it grew the powerful movement of the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions. These were the first not governmental or noble, but democratic public organizations of artists, in which they were their own masters. Stasov warmly welcomed the creation of first the Artel and then the Association of the Wanderers. He rightly saw in them the beginning of a new art and then in every possible way promoted and defended the Wanderers and their art. The article “Kramskoy and Russian artists." In it, Stasov passionately and rightly rebels against the belittling of the importance of the remarkable artist, leader and ideologist of the Peredvizhniki movement - I. N. Kramskoy. An interesting example of the defense of works of realistic art from reactionary and liberal criticism is Stasov's analysis of the famous painting by I. Repin "They Didn't Expect". "In it, Stasov refutes the distortion of its social meaning. The reader will find this in the article “Our artistic affairs.”

Stasov always looked for deep ideological content and life truth in art, and from this point of view, first of all, he evaluated works. He stated: “Only this is art, great, necessary and sacred, which does not lie and does not fantasize, which does not amuse itself with old toys, but looks with all eyes at what is happening everywhere around us, and, having forgotten the former lordly division of subjects into high and low , with a flaming chest presses against everything where there is poetry, thought and life" (“Our artistic affairs”). He was even inclined at times to consider the desire to express large ideas that excite society as one of the characteristic national characteristics of Russian art. In the article “25 Years of Russian Art,” Stasov, following Chernyshevsky, demands that art be a critic of social phenomena. He defends the bias of art, considering it as an open expression by the artist of his aesthetic and social views and ideals, as the active participation of art in public life, in the education of people, in the struggle for advanced ideals. Stasov argued: “Art that does not come from the roots of people’s life is, if not always useless and insignificant, then at least always powerless.” Stasov’s great merit is that he welcomed the reflection of people’s life in the paintings of the Wanderers. He encouraged this in their work in every possible way. He gave a careful analysis and high appreciation of the display of images of the people and folk life in Repin’s paintings “Barge Haulers on the Volga” and especially “Religious Procession in the Kursk Province.” He especially put forward such pictures in which the protagonist is the mass, the people. He called them "choral". He praises Vereshchagin for showing the people in war, and in his appeal to the people of art he sees similarities in the works of Repin and Mussorgsky.

Stasov here really captured the most important and significant thing in the work of the Wanderers: the features of their nationality. Showing the people not only in their oppression and suffering, but also in their strength and greatness, in the beauty and richness of types and characters; upholding the interests of the people was the most important merit and life feat of the Itinerant artists. This was real patriotism of both the Wanderers and their spokesman - criticism of Stasov.

With all the passion of his nature, with all his journalistic fervor and talent, Stasov throughout his life defended the idea of independence and originality in the development of Russian art. At the same time, the false idea of the supposed isolation, or exclusivity, of the development of Russian art was alien to him. Defending its originality and originality, Stasov understood that it generally obeys the general laws of the development of new European art. Thus, in the article “25 years of Russian art,” speaking about the origin of Russian realistic art in the work of P. Fedotov, he compares it with similar phenomena in Western European art, establishing both the commonality of development and its national identity. Ideology, realism and nationality - Stasov defended and promoted these main features in contemporary art.

The breadth of interests and wide-ranging education of Stasov allowed him to consider painting not in isolation, but in connection with literature and music. The comparison of painting and music is especially interesting. It is characteristically expressed in the article “Perov and Mussorgsky”. Stasov fought against the theories of “pure art”, “art for art’s sake” in all their manifestations, be it topics far from life, be it the “protection” of art from “rough everyday life”, be it the desire to “liberate” painting from literature, be it and finally, the contrast between the artistry of the works and their practical usefulness and utilitarianism. The heyday of Stasov’s critical activity dates back to 1870 - 1880 . His best works were written during this time, and during this time he enjoyed the greatest public recognition and influence. Stasov continued, until the end of his life, to defend the public service of art, arguing that it should serve social progress. Stasov spent his entire life fighting against opponents of realism at different stages of the development of Russian art. But, closely associated with the Peredvizhniki movement of 1870-1880 as a critic formed on the basis of this art and its principles, Stasov was subsequently unable to go further. He was unable to truly perceive and understand new artistic phenomena in Russian art of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Being fundamentally right in the fight against decadent, decadent phenomena, he often unfairly included among them the works of artists who were not decadent. The aging critic, in the heat of polemics, sometimes did not understand the complexity and contradictoriness of new phenomena, did not see their positive sides, reducing everything only to error or limitation. But, of course, even in the best works of criticism, not everything is true and acceptable to us. Stasov was a son of his time, and in his views and concepts there were, along with very valuable, weak and limited sides. They were especially significant in his scientific historical studies, where he sometimes retreated from his own positions on the independence of the development of the art of the people, identified the concepts of nationality and nationality, etc. And his critical articles are not free from errors and one-sidedness. So, for example, in the heat of the struggle against the old art that was becoming obsolete, Stasov came to deny the achievements and value of Russian art of the 18th - early 19th centuries as allegedly dependent and non-national. To a certain extent, he shared here the misconceptions of those contemporary historians who believed that the reforms of Peter I allegedly broke off the national tradition of the development of Russian culture. In the same way, in the fight against the reactionary positions of the contemporary Academy of Arts, Stasov went so far as to completely and absolutely deny it. In both cases, we see how an outstanding critic sometimes lost his historical approach to the phenomena of art in the heat of passionate polemics. In the art closest and most contemporary to him, he sometimes underestimated individual artists, such as Surikov or Levitan. Along with a deep and correct analysis of some of Repin's paintings, he misunderstood others. Stasov’s correct and deep understanding of nationality in painting is opposed by its external understanding in contemporary architecture. This was due to the weak development of the architecture of his time, its low artistic quality. He was strong and truly great as a democratic critic, who gave artistic criticism great social significance and weight. He was right in the main, main and decisive things: in the public understanding of art, in defending realism, in the assertion that it is the realistic method, the connection of art with life, the service of this life that ensures the flourishing, height and beauty of art. This affirmation of realism in art constitutes the historical significance, strength and dignity of Stasov.