Paint an icon in the academic style in the icon-painting workshop of Northern Athos. Byzantine icon painting

Many experts interested in icon painting ask the question - what can be considered an icon in our time? Is it enough to just follow the canons that were laid down several centuries ago? However, there is a point of view whose followers argue that it is still necessary to maintain the stylistic direction when creating this type.

Canons and style

Many people confuse these two concepts: canon and style. They should be separated. Still, the canons, in their original sense, are more of a literary part of the image. For him, the plot of the depicted scene is more important: who is standing where, in what attire, what they are doing and other aspects of fine art. For example, the one shown in is a shining example expressions of the canon.

In the stylistic component, a more important role is played by the artist’s way of expressing his thoughts, which influences ours and makes us understand and better understand the purpose of creating an artistic image. It is necessary to understand that each painting’s style combines both the individual characteristics of the artist’s painting method and the shade of the genre, era, nation and even the direction of the chosen school. Thus, these are two different concepts that should be separated if you want to understand icon painting.

Let's highlight two main styles:

• Byzantine.
• Academic.

Byzantine style.

One of the most popular theories about the creation of icons is that which favors only works of art painted in the “Byzantine” style. In Russia, the “Italian” or “academic” shade was more often used. That is why followers of this movement do not recognize icons from many countries.

However, if you ask church ministers, they will answer that these are fully-fledged icons and there is no reason to treat them any differently.

Thus, the exaltation of the “Byzantine” method over the others is false.

Academic style.

However, many continue to rely on the “lack of spirituality” of the “academic” style and do not accept icons with similar shades. But there is a rational grain in these arguments only at first glance, since after looking closely and thinking carefully, it is clear that it is not for nothing that all these names are mentioned in the literature in quotation marks and very carefully. After all, they themselves are a combination of many factors that influenced the artist and his style of self-expression.

Officials completely ignore and do not want to distinguish between such trifles. Therefore, these concepts in most cases are used only in disputes between ardent advocates of one and another style direction.

(Despite the fact that they continue to comment on the sixth chapter, and comment well, I am starting to post the seventh).

Style in icon painting

So, is it enough to follow - even if undisputedly, flawlessly - the iconographic canon for an image to be an icon? Or are there other criteria? For some rigorists, with the light hand of famous authors of the twentieth century, style is such a criterion.

In everyday, philistine understanding, style is simply confused with canon. In order not to return to this issue again, we repeat once again that the iconographic canon is the purely literary, nominal side of the image : who, in what clothing, setting, action should be represented in the icon - so, theoretically, even a photograph of costumed extras in famous settings can be flawless from the point of view of iconography. Style is a system of artistic vision of the world that is completely independent of the subject of the image. , internally harmonious and unified, that prism through which the artist - and after him the viewer - looks at everything - be it a grandiose picture of the Last Judgment or the smallest stalk of grass, a house, a rock, a person and every hair on the head of this person. Distinguish individual style the artist (there are infinitely many such styles, or manners, and each of them is unique, being an expression of a unique human soul) - and style in a broader sense, expressing the spirit of an era, nation, school. In this chapter we will use the term “style” only in the second meaning.

So, there is an opinion

as if only those painted in the so-called “Byzantine style” are a real icon. The “academic” or “Italian” style, which in Russia was called “Fryazhsky” in the transitional era, is supposedly a rotten product of the false theology of the Western Church, and a work written in this style is supposedly not a real icon, simply not an icon at all .

Dome of the Cathedral of St. Sofia in Kyiv, 1046

V.A. Vasnetsov. Sketch of the painting of the dome of the Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv. 1896.

This point of view is false already because the icon as a phenomenon belongs primarily to the Church, while the Church unconditionally recognizes the icon in the academic style. And it recognizes not only at the level of everyday practice, the tastes and preferences of ordinary parishioners (here, as is known, misconceptions, ingrained bad habits, and superstitions can take place). Great saints prayed in front of icons painted in the “academic” style. VIII - XX centuries, monastic workshops worked in this style, including workshops of outstanding spiritual centers such as Valaam or the monasteries of Athos. The highest hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church ordered icons from academic artists. Some of these icons, for example, the works of Viktor Vasnetsov, have remained known and loved by the people for several generations, without conflicting with the recently growing popularity of the “Byzantine” style. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky in the 30s. called V. Vasnetsov and M. Nesterov national geniuses of icon painting, exponents of conciliar, folk art, an outstanding phenomenon among all Christian peoples who, in his opinion, at that time did not have any icon painting at all in the true sense of the word.

Having pointed out the undoubted recognition of the non-Byzantine icon painting style by the Orthodox Church, we cannot, however, be satisfied with this. The opinion about the contrast between the “Byzantine” and “Italian” styles, about the spirituality of the first and the lack of spirituality of the second, is too widespread to not be taken into account at all. But let us note that this opinion, at first glance justified, is in fact an arbitrary fabrication. Not only the conclusion itself, but also its premises are highly questionable. These very concepts, which we put in quotation marks here for a reason, “Byzantine” and “Italian”, or academic style, are conventional and artificial concepts. The church ignores them, scientific history and art theory also do not know such a simplified dichotomy (we hope there is no need to explain that these terms do not carry any territorial-historical content). They are used only in the context of polemics between partisans of the first and second. And here we are forced to define concepts that are essentially nonsense for us - but which, unfortunately, are firmly entrenched in the philistine consciousness. Above we have already talked about many “secondary features” of what is considered the “Byzantine style,” but the real divide between “styles,” of course, lies elsewhere. This fictitious and easily digestible opposition for semi-educated people comes down to the following primitive formula: academic style is when it “looks like” from nature (or rather, the founder of the “theology of the icon” L. Uspensky thinks it looks like), and Byzantine style - when it “does not look like” (according to opinion of the same Uspensky). True, the renowned “theologian of the icon” does not give definitions in such a direct form - as, indeed, in any other form. His book is generally a wonderful example of the complete absence of methodology and absolute voluntarism in terminology. There is no place at all for definitions and basic provisions in this fundamental work; conclusions are immediately laid out on the table, interspersed with preventive kicks to those who are not used to agreeing with conclusions out of nothing. So the formulas “similar - academic - unspiritual” and “dissimilar - Byzantine - spiritual” are nowhere presented by Uspensky in their charming nakedness, but are gradually presented to the reader in small digestible doses with the appearance that these are axioms signed by the fathers of the seven Ecumenical Councils- It’s not for nothing that the book itself is called - no less than - “Theology of the Icon of the Orthodox Church.” To be fair, we add that the original title of the book was more modest and was translated from French as “Theology of the Icon V Orthodox Church,” this little preposition “in” disappeared somewhere in the Russian edition, gracefully identifying the Orthodox Church with a high school dropout without a theological education.

But let's return to the question of style. We call the opposition between “Byzantine” and “Italian” primitive and vulgar because:

a) The idea of ​​what is similar to nature and what is not similar to it is extremely relative. Even for the same person, it can change quite dramatically over time. Give your own ideas about similarity with the nature of another person, and even more so other eras and nations - is more than naive.

b) In figurative fine art of any style and any era, imitation of nature does not consist in passively copying it, but in skillfully conveying its deep properties, logic and harmony visible world, subtle play and unity of correspondences that we constantly observe in Creation.

c) Therefore, in the psychology of artistic creativity, in the audience’s assessment, resemblance to nature is an undoubtedly positive phenomenon. An artist who is sound in heart and mind strives for it, the viewer expects it and recognizes it in the act of co-creation.

d) An attempt at a serious theological substantiation of the depravity of similarity with nature and the blessing of dissimilarity with it would lead either to a logical dead end or to heresy. Apparently, this is why no one has made such an attempt so far.

But in this work, as mentioned above, we refrain from theological analysis. We will limit ourselves to only showing the incorrectness of the division of sacred art into “fallen academic” and “spiritual Byzantine” from the point of view of history and theory of art.

You don’t need to be a great specialist to notice the following: the sacred images of the first group include not only the icons of Vasnetsov and Nesterov, reviled by Uspensky, but also icons of Russian Baroque and Classicism, completely different in style, not to mention all Western European sacred painting - from the Early Renaissance to Tall, from Giotto to Durer, from Raphael to Murillo, from Rubens to Ingres. Inexpressible richness and breadth, entire eras in the history of the Christian world, rising and falling waves of great styles, national and local schools, names of great masters, about whose life, piety, mystical experience we have documentary data much richer than about “traditional” icon painters . All this endless stylistic diversity cannot be reduced to one all-encompassing and a priori negative term.

And what is unhesitatingly called “Byzantine style”? Here we encounter an even cruder, even more unlawful unification under one term of almost two thousand years of history of church painting, with all the diversity of schools and manners: from the extreme, most primitive generalization of natural forms to an almost naturalistic interpretation of them, from extreme simplicity to extreme, deliberate complexity, from passionate expressiveness to the most tender tenderness, from apostolic directness to manneristic delights, from great masters of epoch-making significance to artisans and even amateurs. Knowing (from documents, and not from anyone’s arbitrary interpretations) all the heterogeneity of this huge layer of Christian culture, we have no right to evaluate a priori as truly ecclesiastical and highly spiritual all phenomena that fit the definition of “Byzantine style.”

And, finally, what should we do with the huge number of artistic phenomena that stylistically do not belong to one particular camp, but are located on the border between them, or, rather, at their merging? Where do we place the icons by Simon Ushakov, Kirill Ulanov and other icon painters of their circle? Iconography of the western outskirts of the Russian Empire XVI - XVII centuries?

Hodegetria. Kirill Ulanov, 1721

Our Lady of Korsun. 1708 36.7 x 31.1 cm. Private collection, Moscow. Inscription at the bottom right: “(1708) written by Alexy Kvashnin”

"Joy of all who mourn" Ukraine, 17th century.

St. Great Martyrs Barbara and Catherine. 18th century National Museum of Ukraine

Works of artists of the Cretan school XV - XVII centuries, a world-famous refuge for Orthodox craftsmen fleeing the Turkish conquerors? The phenomenon of the Cretan school alone, by its very existence, refutes all speculations opposing the fallen Western manner to the righteous Eastern one. The Cretans carried out the orders of the Orthodox and Catholics. For both, depending on the condition,in manieragreeca or in maniera latina. Often they had, in addition to a workshop in Candia, another one in Venice; Italian artists came from Venice to Crete - their names can be found in the guild registers of Candia. The same masters mastered both styles and could work alternately in one or the other, like, for example, Andreas Pavias, who painted “Greek” and “Latin” icons with equal success in the same years. It happened that compositions in both styles were placed on the doors of the same fold - this is what Nikolaos Ritsos and the artists of his circle did. It happened that a Greek master developed his own special style, synthesizing “Greek” and “Latin” characteristics, like Nikolaos Zafouris.

Andreas Ritsos. con. 15th century

Leaving Crete for Orthodox monasteries, candiot masters improved themselves in the Greek tradition (Theofanis Strelitsas, author of icons and wall paintings of Meteora and the Great Lavra on Athos). Moving to countries Western Europe, they worked with no less success in the Latin tradition, nevertheless continuing to recognize themselves as Orthodox, Greeks, Candiots - and even indicate this in the signatures on their works. The most striking example is Domenikos Theotokopoulos, later called El Greco. His icons, painted in Crete, undeniably satisfy the most stringent requirements of the “Byzantine” style, traditional materials and technology, and iconographic canonicity.

His paintings from the Spanish period are known to everyone, and their stylistic affiliation with the Western European school is also undoubted.

But Master Domenikos himself did not make any essential distinction between the two. He always signed in Greek, he preserved the typically Greek way of working from samples and surprised Spanish customers by presenting them - to simplify negotiations - with a kind of homemade iconographic original, standard compositions of the most common subjects he had developed.

In the special geographical and political conditions of the existence of the Cretan school, it always manifested itself in a particularly bright and concentrated form. the inherent unity of Christian art in the main - and mutual interest, mutual enrichment of schools and cultures . Attempts by obscurantists to interpret similar phenomena as theological and moral decadence, as something originally unusual for Russian icon painting, are untenable either from theological or from a historical and cultural point of view. Russia has never been an exception to this rule, and it was precisely to the abundance and freedom of contacts that it owed the flourishing of national icon painting.

But then what about the famous controversy? XVII V. about icon painting styles? What, then, about the division of Russian church art into two branches: “spirit-bearing traditional” and “fallen Italianizing”? We cannot turn a blind eye to these all-too-famous (and too-well-understood)phenomena. We will talk about them - but, unlike popular icon theologians in Western Europe, we will not attribute to these phenomena a spiritual meaning that they do not have.

The “dispute about style” took place in difficult political conditions and against the backdrop of a church schism. The clear contrast between the refined works of centuries-old polished national style and the first awkward attempts to master the “Italian” style gave the ideologists of “holy antiquity” a powerful weapon, which they were not slow to use. The fact that traditional icon painting XVII V. no longer possessed strength and vitality XV century, and, becoming more and more frozen, deviating into detail and embellishment, marched towards the Baroque in its own way, they preferred not to notice. All their arrows are directed against “lifelikeness” - this term, coined by Archpriest Avvakum, is, by the way, extremely inconvenient for its opponents, suggesting as the opposite a kind of “deathlikeness”.

St. Righteous Grand Duke George
1645, Vladimir, Assumption Cathedral.

Solovki, second quarter of the 17th century.

Nevyansk, beginning 18th century

St. Venerable Nifont
turn of the 17th-18th centuries Permian,
Art Gallery

Shuya Icon of the Mother of God
Fyodor Fedotov 1764
Isakovo, Museum of Icons of the Mother of God

We will not quote in our brief summary the arguments of both sides, which are not always logical and theologically justified. We will not subject it to analysis - especially since such works already exist. But we should still remember that since we do not take the theology of the Russian schism seriously, we are in no way obliged to see the indisputable truth in the schismatic “theology of the icon.” And even more so, we are not obliged to see the indisputable truth in the superficial, biased and divorced from Russian cultural fabrications about the icon, which are still widespread in Western Europe. Those who like to repeat easily digestible incantations about the “spiritual Byzantine” and “fallen academic” styles would do well to read the works of true professionals who lived their entire lives in Russia, through whose hands thousands of ancient icons passed - F. I. Buslaev, N. V. Pokrovsky, N. P. Kondakova. All of them saw the conflict between the “old manner” and “livelikeness” much more deeply and soberly, and were not at all partisans of Avvakum and Ivan Pleshkovich, with their “gross split and ignorant Old Belief”. All of them stood for artistry, professionalism and beauty in icon painting and denounced carrion, cheap handicrafts, stupidity and obscurantism, even if in the purest “Byzantine style”.

The objectives of our research do not allow us to dwell on the controversy for long XVII V. between representatives and ideologists of two directions in Russian church art. Let us turn rather to the fruits of these directions. One of them did not impose any stylistic restrictions on artists and self-regulated through orders and subsequent recognition or non-recognition of icons by the clergy and laity, the other, conservative, for the first time in history tried to prescribe an artistic style to icon painters, the subtlest, deeply personal instrument of knowledge of God and the created world.

The sacred art of the first, main direction, being closely connected with the life and culture of the Orthodox people, underwent a certain period of reorientation and, having somewhat changed technical techniques, ideas about convention and realism, the system of spatial constructions, continued in its best representatives the sacred mission of knowledge of God in images. The knowledge of God is truly honest and responsible, not allowing the artist’s personality to hide under the mask of an external style.

And what happened at this time, from the end XVII to XX c., with “traditional” icon painting? We put this word in quotation marks because in reality this phenomenon not at all traditional, but unprecedented: until now, the icon painting style was at the same time a historical style, a living expression of the spiritual essence of the era and nation, and only now one of these styles has frozen into immobility and declared itself the only true one.

St. Reverend Evdokia
Nevyansk, Ivan Chernobrovin, 1858

Nevyansk, 1894
(all Old Believer icons for this posting are taken )

This replacement of a living effort to communicate with God by an irresponsible repetition of well-known formulas significantly lowered the level of icon painting in the “traditional manner.” The average “traditional” icon of this period, in its artistic and spiritual-expressive qualities, is significantly lower not only than icons of earlier eras, but also contemporary icons painted in an academic manner - due to the fact that any even talented artist sought to master the academic manner , seeing in it a perfect instrument for understanding the visible and invisible world, and in Byzantine techniques - only boredom and barbarism. And we cannot but recognize this understanding of things as healthy and correct, since this boredom and barbarism were indeed inherent in the “Byzantine style”, which had degenerated in the hands of artisans, and were its late, shameful contribution to the church treasury. It is very significant that those very few high-class masters who were able to “find themselves” in this historically dead style did not work for the Church. The clients of such icon painters (usually Old Believers) were for the most part not monasteries or parish churches, but individual amateur collectors. Thus, the very purpose of the icon for communication with God and knowledge of God became secondary: at best, such a masterfully painted icon became an object of admiration, at worst, an object of investment and acquisition. This blasphemous substitution distorted the meaning and specificity of the work of the “old-fashioned” icon painters. Let us note this significant term with a clear flavor of artificiality and counterfeit. Creative work, who was once a deeply personal presence of the Lord in the Church and for the Church, has undergone degeneration, even to the point of outright sinfulness: from a talented imitator to a talented forger is one step.

Let us recall the classic story by N. A. Leskov “The Sealed Angel.” A famous master, at the cost of so much effort and sacrifice, found by the Old Believer community, who values ​​his sacred art so highly. who flatly refuses to dirty his hands with a secular order turns out to be, in essence, a virtuoso master of forgery. He paints an icon with a light heart, not in order to consecrate it and place it in a church for prayer, but then, by using cunning techniques to cover the painting with cracks, wiping it with oily mud, to turn it into an object for substitution. Even if Leskov’s heroes were not ordinary swindlers, they only wanted to return the image unjustly seized by the police - is it possible to assume that the virtuoso dexterity of this imitator of antiquity was acquired by him exclusively in the sphere of such “righteous fraud”? And what about the Moscow masters from the same story, selling icons of marvelous “antique” work to gullible provincials? Under the layer of the most delicate colors of these icons, demons are discovered drawn on gesso, and cynically deceived provincials throw away the “hell-like” image in tears... The next day the scammers will restore it and sell it again to another victim who is ready to pay any money for the “true” one, i.e. -an ancient written icon...

This is the sad but inevitable fate of a style that is not connected with the personal spiritual and creative experience of the icon painter, a style divorced from the aesthetics and culture of its time. Due to cultural tradition, we call icons not only the works of medieval masters, for whom their style was not stylization, but a worldview. We call icons both cheap images thoughtlessly stamped by mediocre artisans (monks and laymen), and the works of “old-timers” that are brilliant in their performing technique. XVIII - XX centuries, sometimes originally intended by the authors as fakes. But this product does not have any preemptive right to the title of icon in the church sense of the word. Neither in relation to contemporary icons of the academic style, nor in relation to any stylistically intermediate phenomena, nor in relation to the icon painting of our days. Any attempts to dictate the artist's style for reasons extraneous to art, intellectual and theoretical considerations, are doomed to failure. Even if the sophisticated icon painters are not isolated from the medieval heritage (as was the case with the first Russian emigration), but have access to it (as, for example, in Greece). It is not enough to “discuss and decide” that the “Byzantine” icon is much holier than the non-Byzantine one or even has a monopoly on holiness - one must also be able to reproduce the style declared to be the only sacred one, but no theory will provide this. Let us give the floor to Archimandrite Cyprian (Pyzhov), an icon painter and the author of a number of unfairly forgotten articles on icon painting:

“Currently in Greece there is an artificial revival of the Byzantine style, which is expressed in the mutilation of beautiful forms and lines and, in general, the stylistically developed, spiritually sublime creativity of the ancient artists of Byzantium. The modern Greek icon painter Kondoglu, with the assistance of the Synod of the Greek Church, released a number of reproductions of his production, which cannot but be recognized as mediocre imitations of the famous Greek artist Panselin... Admirers of Kondoglu and his disciples say that saints “should not look like real people” - like who are they supposed to look like?! The primitiveness of such an interpretation is very harmful to those who see and superficially understand the spiritual and aesthetic beauty of ancient icon painting and reject its surrogates, offered as examples of the supposedly restored Byzantine style. Often the manifestation of enthusiasm for the “ancient style” is insincere, revealing only in its supporters pretentiousness and the inability to distinguish between genuine art and crude imitation.”

Eleusa.
Fotis Kondoglu, 1960s, below - the same brushes of Hodegetria and Self-Portrait.

Page 1 of 4

In the Russian Empire in the 18th-19th centuries. There was an opinion (and not only among the Old Believers) that only those painted in the so-called “Byzantine style” were a real icon. The “academic” style is supposedly a rotten product of the false theology of the Western Church, and a work written in this style is supposedly not a real icon, simply not an icon at all. This point of view is false simply because the icon as a phenomenon belongs, first of all, to the Church. The Church, of course, recognizes an icon in the academic style. And it recognizes not only at the level of everyday practice, the tastes and preferences of ordinary parishioners (here, as is known, misconceptions, ingrained bad habits, and superstitions can take place). Icons of the academic style began to exist in Holy Rus' from the middle of the 18th century, and became widespread in the first half of the 19th century. Many famous icon painters of this time worked in an academic manner.

Written in the strict style of Russian Art Nouveau

without imitating the members of the "Abramtsevo" circle

with an emphasis on Russian-Byzantine decor.

Icon "St. Elizabeth". St. Petersburg, beginning of the 20th century. 26.5x22.5 cm.

Setting - A.B. silverware factory Lyubavina.

Icon "Holy Queen Helena". St. Petersburg, beginning of the 20th century.

Setting, silver, gilding. 84º. 92.5x63 cm.

Painting is pure modern. Reminds me

Gustav Klimt ("Salome" and "The Kiss". 1909-10)

Icon of the Mother of God "Kazan".

Wood, mixed media, gold leaf. 31x27x2.7 cm.,

Stylistics of Russian Art Nouveau. Moscow, beginning of the 20th century.

Icon “St. Great Martyr Healer Panteleimon.”

Wood, oil, Russia, late XIX - early XX centuries,

size with frame 72x55 cm.

The frame is also in Russian Art Nouveau style:

wood, gilding, enamel painting.

Stylistics of Russian Art Nouveau.

Wood, oil. Brass basma.Russia, after 1911.

Circle of Mikhail Nesterov.

"Lord Almighty." Around 1890. 40.6x15.9 cm.

Board, oil, gilding.

Circle of Nesterov-Vasnetsov.

Three temple icons (Triptych). Icon "Lord Almighty" (h=175 cm).

Icon "Archangel Michael" (h=165 cm.).

Icon "Archangel Raphael (h=165 cm.). Turn of the XIX-XX centuries.

Stylistics of Russian Art Nouveau.

Our Lady of Jerusalem with the upcoming Apostle John

Theologian and Equal-to-the-Apostles Queen Helena. 1908-1917

Oil, zinc.

Silver frame with enamel frame by Khlebnikov. 84º.

Moscow, 1899-1908. 12x9.6 cm.

S.I. Vashkov. Firm Olovyanishnikov and Co.

Moscow. 1908-1917. 13x10.6 cm.

In the style of Russian Art Nouveau.

PREFACE

The era of Art Nouveau at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries is trembling for the Russian ear. - the era of the Silver Age of all Russian culture with its pale wax cult of symbolism undoubtedly led to radical changes in the worldview of Russian people. Trilogy D.S. Merezhkovsky's "Christ and Antichrist", in which the writer expressed his philosophy of history and his view of the future of humanity, was begun by him in the 1890s. Her first novel, “Death of the Gods. Julian the Apostate,” the life story of the 4th century Roman emperor Julian, was later called by critics among the strongest works of D.S. Merezhkovsky. It was followed by the novel “The Resurrected Gods. Leonardo da Vinci" (1901); critics noted, on the one hand, the historical accuracy of the details, and on the other, tendentiousness. In 1902, “Julian the Apostate” and “Leonardo da Vinci” were published as separate books by M.V. Pirozhkov - like the first two parts of the trilogy. At the beginning of 1904, New Path (No. 1-5 and No. 9-12) began publishing the third novel of the trilogy, Antichrist. Peter and Alexey" (1904-1905) - a theological and philosophical novel about Peter I, whom the author "paints as the incarnate Antichrist", as noted, largely under the influence of the corresponding idea that existed in the schismatic environment. Ask what this has to do with Russian icon painting - the most direct: after all, Emperor Peter the Great, who rejected not only national artistic tastes, but also what his subjects liked in the West - high Catholic baroque, is considered the "gravedigger" of this very "high" baroque only in architecture, but also in painting. When in 1714 the Tsar banned stone construction throughout Russia except St. Petersburg, the creators of the “Naryshkin” Baroque masterpieces were of no use in the new capital. European mediocrity was built there, the Protestant “Holland” invented by Peter was created. And what? After the lifting of the ban in 1728, and even earlier - after the death of Peter in 1725, all over Russia they turned to the interrupted tradition, and Peter’s Petersburg remains the appendix of Russian culture, causing virtually no imitations. Once again, something alien is rejected, the bridge is thrown, the tradition continues to live. Baroque is back. In the first half of the 18th century, Russia still preferred professionally painted images, which artistically continued the “Armory style” with a combination of medieval and new painting techniques. The volume in these images was modeled very restrainedly, the color was highly decorative, gold spaces were widely used, which is why icons of this trend were called “gold-space”. The manner of “gold-gold writing” in the 18th–19th centuries. was considered ancient, “Greek-Orthodox”, its stylistic side was influenced by the Elizabethan Baroque, but turned out to be quite stable in relation to classicism.

Bryullov K.P. "Crucifixion". 1838 (Russian Russian Museum)

At the same time, the canonical icon is being replaced by icons of “academic writing” - paintings on religious themes. This style of icon painting came to Russia from the West and was developed in the post-Petrine era, during the synodal period of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, and with the development of the influence of the Academy of Arts, pictorial icons in the academic style, painted in oil technique, began to spread widely in icon painting. This direction, which used the technical and formal means of post-Renaissance painting, became noticeably widespread only towards the end of the 18th century, when the activities of the Academy of Arts, founded in 1757, fully developed.

Borovikovsky V.

Holy and blessed prince

Alexander Nevskiy.

Wood, oil. 33.5x25.2 cm.Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.

Icons for capital churches were previously commissioned from artists of new training (works by I. Ya. Vishnyakov, I. N. Nikitin and others - for the Church of St. Alexander Nevsky in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St. Petersburg, 1724, D. G. Levitsky - for churches of Saints Cyrus and John on Solyanka and St. Catherine on Bolshaya Ordynka in Moscow, 1767), but usually this was associated with orders from the court. There are also cases when individual icon painters studied with professional artists (I. Ya. Vishnyakov, I. I. Belsky), but these cases still remained isolated. Until academic education and, accordingly, academic icon painting became a relatively widespread phenomenon, pictorial images remained the property of the most educated and wealthy elite of society. The spread of secular painting, especially portraiture, contributed to the perception of the icon as a realistic portrait of a saint or as a document recording a particular event. This was reinforced by the fact that some lifetime portraits of the 18th–19th centuries. after the canonization of the ascetics depicted on them, they began to function as icons and formed the basis of the corresponding iconography (for example, portraits of Saints Demetrius of Rostov, Mitrofan of Voronezh, Tikhon of Zadonsk).

VladimirBorovikovsky.

Icon"St. Catherine" from

Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. 1804-1809.

Cardboard, oil. 176x91 cm. Timing belt.

Icons made in the academic style, which is characterized by solemnity and historicity, adorn a huge number of Russian churches. The great saints of the 18th - 20th centuries prayed before icons painted in this style; monastic workshops worked in this style, including workshops of outstanding spiritual centers such as Valaam or the monasteries of Athos. The highest hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church ordered icons from academic artists. Some of these icons, for example, the works of Vasily Makarovich Peshekhonov, remain known and loved by the people for many generations, without coming into conflict with the icons of the “Byzantine” style.

In the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the predominant form of recognition of merit in all types of activities was the title of court supplier. In 1856, by decree of Emperor Alexander II, the title of Iconographer of the Court of His Imperial Majesty, and with it the right to use it on the workshop sign National emblem Russia and the inscription “Privileged Master of the Court of His Imperial Majesty” was granted to Vasily Makarovich Peshekhonov. Obtaining the title of Iconographer of the Court of His Imperial Majesty was preceded by a long work.

V.M. Peshekhonov. Nativity of the Mother of God - Annunciation. 1872

Wood, gesso, mixed technique, gold embossing.

Size 81x57.8x3.5 cm.

Or here's another:

Brief information: For more than ten years, Vasily Makarovich Peshekhonov painted icons for all newborn babies of the imperial family: the icon of St. Alexander Nevsky for Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor Alexander III (1845–1894); the image of St. Nicholas - for Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich (1843–1865); icon of Holy Prince Vladimir - Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich (1847–1909); an icon of St. Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow, for Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich (1850–1908). Already in the position of court icon painter, V.M. Peshekhonov wrote for all the children of Emperors Alexander II and Alexander III “images in proportion to their height,” that is, icons whose size corresponded to the height of tall newborn babies. The last order of Vasily Peshekhonov for the imperial family, mentioned in archival sources, was made for the newborn Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna in 1882. Biographical information about the Peshekhonov family is very scarce. Vasily Makarovich Peshekhonov came from a family of hereditary icon painters. His grandfather Samson Fedorovich Peshekhonov and his wife Praskovia moved to St. Petersburg from the Tver province at the beginning of the 19th century, which is why in literature the Peshekhonovs are sometimes called Tver residents. In the 20s of the 19th century, their son Makari Samsonovich Peshekhonov (1780–1852) moved to St. Petersburg with his family - his wife and four sons. Alexey, Nikolay and Vasily were also skilled icon painters; Fyodor did not engage in icon painting due to disability. Makari Samsonovich was a master of personal and personal writing and founded the Peshekhonov workshop, known throughout Russia. Since the 30s of the 19th century, the workshop and house of the Peshekhonovs were located in St. Petersburg at the address: “on the Ligovsky Canal opposite Kuznechny Lane, in the Galchenkov House, No. 73.” Writer Nikolai Leskov repeatedly visited the workshop and noted the stylishness, high professional and moral qualities of the Peshekhonovs. He expressed his impressions from these visits in his stories, creating collective images of icon painters. In 1852, Makariy Samsonovich died along with his son Alexei during a storm on the Black Sea, and the icon-painting artel was headed by Vasily Makarovich. The activities of the Peshekhonov workshop and the flowering of the Peshekhonov style of icon painting date back to the 1820s–80s. In addition to works for the imperial family, the workshop under the leadership of Vasily Makarovich completed more than 30 iconostases for monasteries and churches in Russia and abroad. Restoration work, iconostases for 17 churches in St. Petersburg, as well as Samara, Saratov, Tver and St. Petersburg dioceses, Cathedral in Tokyo, the Trinity Cathedral of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem, seven iconostases for the churches of the Valaam Monastery, as well as wall and icon case icons - this is far from full list workshop works. Iconostases by V.M. Peshekhonov decorated the cathedrals and other cathedrals of such cities as Rybinsk, Volsk, Tver, Kirillov, Novaya Ladoga, Simbirsk, Chistopol. In 1848–1849, the Peshekhonovs participated in the restoration of the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. The work was headed by Makariy Samsonovich Peshekhonov. He was given the task of preserving ancient painting and restoring it only in lost fragments. According to contemporaries, Peshekhonov's frescoes were executed at a high artistic level. Unfortunately, the painting resumed by the Peshekhonovs was almost completely destroyed by the development of mold. This fact is the reason for unjustified criticism of the Peshekhonovs as restorers, because the results of the restoration of St. Sophia of Kyiv in 1843–1853 scientific literature usually assessed as a failure: the ancient frescoes were almost completely recorded. However, it should be taken into account that by 1853 only five fragments of works from Peshekhonov’s workshop remained; Currently, only one has survived - a restoration insert for the mosaic in the sail of the main dome with the image of the Apostle John the Theologian - an excellent illustration of the skill and talent of the Peshekhonovs.

And at the same time, the academic style of icon painting causes heated controversy, both among icon painters and connoisseurs of icon painting. The essence of the controversy is as follows. Supporters of the Byzantine style, who create icons “in the canon,” accuse icons in the academic style of lack of spirituality, and a departure from the traditions of icon painting, but in a philosophical sense, this is still the same debate about what is more important for us: the soul of a specific living person with its sins and errors or inanimate church canons that prescribe the behavior of this soul. Or is there still some kind of golden mean: a compromise between the canon and reality, tastes, fashion, etc. Let's try to understand these accusations. First about spirituality. Let's start with the fact that spirituality is a rather subtle and elusive matter; there are no tools for determining spirituality, and everything in this area is extremely subjective. And if someone claims that the miraculous image of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, painted in an academic style, and saved, according to legend, Saint Petersburg during the war, less spiritual than a similar icon in the Byzantine style - let this statement remain on his conscience. Usually, as an argument, you can hear such statements. They say that icons in the academic style have physicality, rosy cheeks, sensual lips, etc. In fact, the predominance of the sensual, carnal principle in the icon is not a problem of style, but of low professional level individual icon painters. One can cite many examples of icons painted in the “canon” itself, where the “cardboard” inexpressive face is lost in numerous curls of extremely sensual decorations, ornaments, etc. Now about the departure of the academic style from the traditions of icon painting. The history of icon painting goes back more than one thousand five hundred years. And now in Athos monasteries You can see blackened, ancient icons dating from the 7th-10th centuries. But the heyday of icon painting in Byzantium occurred at the end of the 13th century, and is associated with the name of Panselin, the Greek Andrei Rublev. Panselin's paintings in Karey have reached us. Another outstanding Greek icon painter, Theophanes of Crete, worked on Mount Athos at the beginning of the 16th century. He created paintings in the Stavronikita monastery and in the refectory of the Great Lavra. In Rus', the icons of Andrei Rublev of the first third of the 15th century are rightly recognized as the pinnacle of icon painting. If we take a closer look at this entire almost two-thousand-year history of icon painting, we will discover its amazing diversity. The first icons were painted using the encaustic technique (paints based on hot wax). This fact alone refutes the popular belief that a “real” icon must necessarily be painted in egg tempera. Moreover, the style of these early icons is much closer to icons in the academic style than to the “canon.” This is not surprising. To paint icons, the first icon painters took as a basis Fayum portraits, images of real people that were created using the encaustic technique. In fact, the tradition of icon painting, like everything in this world, develops cyclically. TO XVIII century, the so-called “canonical” style fell into decline everywhere. In Greece and the Balkan countries this is partly due to the Turkish conquest, in Russia with Peter’s reforms. But this is not the main reason. Man’s perception of the world and his attitude towards the world around him, including the spiritual world, is changing. A man of the 19th century perceived the world around him differently than a man of the 13th century. And icon painting is not an endless repetition of the same patterns according to the drawings, but a living process based both on the religious experience of the icon painter himself and on the perception of the spiritual world by the entire generation. This free competition of styles, which exists in Russia today, is very beneficial for the icon, since it forces both sides to improve quality, to achieve true artistic depth, convincing not only for supporters, but also for opponents of a particular style. Thus, the proximity of the “Byzantine” school forces the “academic” to be stricter, more sober, and more expressive. The “Byzantine” school’s proximity to the “academic” school keeps it from degenerating into primitive craftsmanship.

But there were icon painters in Russia who managed to find a middle ground between these two styles. These include Ivan Matveevich Malyshev.

Signed icon "St. Nicholas the Wonderworker".

Artist Ivan Malyshev.

22.2x17.6 cm. Russia, Sergiev Posad,

studio of the artist Ivan Malyshev, 1881

At the bottom of the icon, on a gilded field

an inscription in the old spelling is placed:

“This icon was painted in the workshop of the artist Malyshev

in Sergievsky Posad in 1881."

On the back is the workshop's signature seal:

"Artist I. Malyshev. S.P.

The most revered icon in Rus'. Since Ivan Matveyevich died in 1880, and the icon is dated 1881 and bears the seal of SP (and this corresponds to the last icons of Malyshev himself), and not TSL, then we can safely say that he managed to write down the personal, and everything else was completed by his sons. Obviously, the artist himself could not complete such a number of icons. In Malyshev’s workshop there was a division of labor usual for that time; he was helped by hired workers and students. Three sons of the artist are known. The eldest sons, Konstantin and Mikhail, apparently learned the art of icon painting from their father and worked with him. In the monastery statements for the payment of salaries, they are mentioned together with their father, and, as a rule, Ivan Matveevich himself signs for the receipt of the salary. According to the same statements, it is clear that if the minister was illiterate, then another one signed for him, and the reason was indicated. It is difficult to imagine that the sons of Ivan Matveevich were illiterate; rather, this was the way of relationships in the family. After the death of Ivan Matveevich, Konstantin headed the family workshop, which was located in a house on Blinnaya Gora (the house burned down at the beginning of the 20th century). Konstantin Ivanovich also assumed the responsibilities of the headman of the Elias Church. In 1889–1890 he renewed the wall paintings of the Elias Church. Through his diligence, the floor of the temple was laid out from fire-resistant tiles, similar to the ceramic coating in the Refectory Lavra Church. In 1884, under his leadership, the iconostasis of the Kazan Church was painted (the dome of which had previously been painted by Ivan Matveevich). Ivan Matveevich's youngest son Alexander, like his father, was educated at the Imperial Academy of Arts. He studied in St. Petersburg from 1857 to 1867. Upon completion, he received the title of class artist of the third degree. Apparently, he did not return to his hometown, got married and remained to live in St. Petersburg. The names of Ivan Matveevich and Alexander Ivanovich Malyshev appear in the register of professional artists.

Brief information: Malyshev,Ivan Matveevichis one of the most famous icon painters of the second half of the 19th century. In 1835, an important event occurred in the life of Ivan Matveyevich: he left for St. Petersburg and entered the Imperial Academy of Arts as a free student. According to the Charter of the Academy, for free-students (or outsiders), training lasted six years. Few Russian icon painters can boast of such education. Ivan Matveevich Malyshev (1802–1880) is one of the most significant icon painters of the second half of the 19th century, who worked in the Lavra (we can see the icons of his workshop today in the Ilyinsky Church of Sergiev Posad and in the Spiritual Church of the Lavra). Systematic teaching of icon painting in the Lavra began in 1746 with the establishment of the Icon Painting Class at the newly created seminary and continued, with varying degrees of success, until 1918. In the process of establishing the Lavra icon painting school as an educational structure, several stages can be distinguished, and the most striking of them is this is the period of the mid-19th century (from 1846 to 1860–1870). This is the time when the Lavra was ruled by Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) and the governor, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev). Under them, the icon painting school found a rebirth, expanded and became known throughout the Orthodox world. The icon painter Ivan Matveevich Malyshev was also at the origins of this revival. Under the direct leadership of the Lavra's governor, Fr. Anthony in the 1850s, Malyshev directed the Lavra icon painting school towards the revival of traditional icon painting. This path turned out to be neither short nor simple, but this is exactly how it seemed at that period of time and development. The intended goal - “for the development and maintenance of the Greek Style of writing” - is clearly indicated in the manual that was given to Malyshev as the leader, or rather the “owner of the school,” Fr. Anthony. This manual is a set of 16 rules that stipulate both moral requirements for students and teachers, and artistic priorities that should be adhered to when training future icon painters. Malyshev was also the founder of a large icon-painting workshop, which he created in the city. He was known to the royals and was awarded many awards. Coming from a poor peasant family, Ivan Matveevich was able to get a good education at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts (apparently, like his older brother Nikolai, an architect). Malyshev's work was highly appreciated by his contemporaries. Here, for example, is a review that was placed in the Irkutsk Diocesan Gazette for 1864: “The icons in the iconostasis, on the high place, at the altar and some on the walls were painted in the Sergius Lavra by the artist Malyshev. They were painted in the Byzantine-Russian style and are distinguished by their artistry , so, especially, with a pious and edifying character. Looking at them, you do not stop only at the artist’s talent, the grace of colors, the richness of imagination, as in Italian painting, but your thought goes beyond the ordinary, human; contemplates the spiritual, heavenly, divine; feeling your soul is filled with reverence and aroused to prayer; your soul is nourished by the thoughts and feelings of the Bible and the Holy Church...”

Temple icon "Lord Pantocrator".

Wood, oil, gold leaf.152x82 cm.

Russia, Sergiev Posad, studio of the artist I. Malyshev, 1891.

At the bottom of the icon, above the gilded field, is the inscription:

“This icon was painted in the artist’s workshop

Malyshev in Sergiev Posad in 1891.”

Christ sits on the throne in bishop's robes and with the Gospel opened. In fact, on the icon we see the iconographic version of “Christ the Great Bishop,” but supplemented by a characteristic element of the version “Christ the King as King” - a scepter in the left hand of Christ. Ivan Malyshev headed the icon-painting workshop of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra from 1841 to 1882. Here, in the main Russian icon-painting workshop, icons were created for the most significant churches, as well as for orders from the royal court, the aristocracy and the highest clergy. The artist personally created a special icon painting style, which determined the style of the works of the entire workshop as a whole and had a huge influence on mass icon painting in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. Malyshev retained the main features of the traditional, canonical style, but brought them to a special harmony in accordance with the principles of classicism and academicism, thereby bridging the hitherto existing gap between traditional and academic manners in icon painting. The works of the mature icon painter Malyshev are distinguished by the finest glaze elaboration of faces and garments, classical proportions, realistic plasticity of figures and a number of other qualities inherent in the presented icon.

GENESIS OF THE NATIONAL RUSSIAN ICON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE 19TH CENTURY

In the 80s-90s of the 19th century in Russian religious “academic” painting,as in all Russian art, there is a dynamic process of creating its own national school. Major achievements in the field new form and the decoration of the icon were directly related to the traditions of Russian national art, culture and craft, the origins of which we find, of course, in the Russian popular print and in the design of ancient Church Slavonic manuscripts. And this happened just in the 80s. During this decade, critical realism dominated in painting, and the early impressionism of V. Serov, K. Korovin and I. Levitan was formed. Against this background, new trends began to appear - a gravitation towards modernity was revealed, its gradual formation, and in some cases its complete acquisition, as happened with Mikhail Vrubel. In Abramtsevo, where interest in folk art arose and an attempt to revive it merged with early forms of modernism, in 1882 V. Vasnetsov and D. Polenov built a small church, which gave a reorientation from the pseudo-Russian style to the neo-Russian one. It combines the forms of Art Nouveau with the forms of ancient Russian architecture of the pre-Mongol era. The small-sized Abramtsevo church became the forerunner of Russian Art Nouveau and became firmly entrenched in the history of Russian art. Although Russian architecture had to wait another decade and a half before the Art Nouveau style more or less certain forms. In painting and, especially, in monumental religious painting, this happened somewhat faster. To some extent (albeit distantly) the forerunner of Art Nouveau was the late academic painting of Semiradsky, Bakalovich, Smirnov and other artists who gravitated towards “beautiful” nature and to “beautiful” objects, spectacular subjects, that is, to that “a priori beauty” the presence of which has become one of the prerequisites for the Art Nouveau style. The cult of beauty was becoming a new religion. “Beauty is our religion,” Mikhail Vrubel stated bluntly and definitely in one of his letters. In this situation, beauty and its direct carrier - art -endowed with the ability to transform life, to build it according to a certain aesthetic model, on the principles of universal harmony and balance. The artist - the creator of this beauty turned into an exponent of the main aspirations of the time. At the same time, the strengthening of the role of socially transformative ideas of beauty of that time is very symptomatic, because in Russia the overwhelming majority of the population lived below the poverty line. It turns out that the theme of beauty was forced to coexist next to the theme of compassion for these unfortunate people (the Wanderers artists). Only religion could unite them.

The artistic ideology of the national neoclassical Russian icon of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the author of which is considered to be V.M. Vasnetsov, is clearly based on a belief in a special religious meaning of beauty and bears the clear influence of the aesthetics of F.M. Dostoevsky, who declared beauty to be an absolute value in his novel “The Idiot”. In the novel (Part 3, Chapter V), these words are spoken by the 18-year-old youth Ippolit Terentyev, referring to the words of Prince Myshkin conveyed to him by Nikolai Ivolgin and ironizing the latter:

“Is it true, Prince, that you once said that the world would be saved by “beauty”? “Gentlemen,” he shouted loudly to everyone, “the prince claims that the world will be saved by beauty!” And I claim that the reason he has such playful thoughts is that he is now in love. Gentlemen, the prince is in love; Just now, as soon as he came in, I was convinced of this. Don’t blush, prince, I’ll feel sorry for you. What beauty will save the world? Kolya told this to me... Are you a zealous Christian? Kolya says that you call yourself a Christian. The prince looked at him carefully and did not answer him.”

F.M. Dostoevsky was far from strictly aesthetic judgments - he wrote about spiritual beauty, about the beauty of the soul. This corresponds to the main idea of ​​the novel - to create an image of a “positively beautiful person.” Therefore, in his drafts, the author calls Myshkin “Prince Christ,” thereby reminding himself that Prince Myshkin should be as similar as possible to Christ - kindness, philanthropy, meekness, a complete lack of selfishness, the ability to sympathize with human troubles and misfortunes. Therefore, the “beauty” that the prince (and F.M. Dostoevsky himself) speaks of is the sum of the moral qualities of a “positively beautiful person.” This purely personal interpretation of beauty is typical for the writer. He believed that “people can be beautiful and happy” not only in afterlife. They can be like this “without losing the ability to live on earth.” To do this, they must agree with the idea that Evil “cannot be the normal state of people,” that everyone has the power to get rid of it. And then, when people are guided by the best that is in their soul, memory and intentions (Good), then they will be truly beautiful. And the world will be saved, and it will be precisely this “beauty” (that is, the best that is in people) that will save it. Of course, this will not happen overnight - spiritual work, trials and even suffering are needed, after which a person renounces Evil and turns to Good, begins to appreciate it. The writer speaks about this in many of his works, including the novel “The Idiot.” For example (part 1, chapter VII):

“For some time, the general’s wife, silently and with a certain shade of disdain, examined the portrait of Nastasya Filippovna, which she held in front of her in her outstretched hand, extremely and effectively moving away from her eyes.

Yes, she’s good,” she said finally, “very much so.” I saw her twice, only from a distance. So do you appreciate such and such beauty? - she suddenly turned to the prince.

Yes... like that... - the prince answered with some effort.

So that's exactly what it is?

Exactly like this.

For what?

There is a lot of suffering in this face...- the prince said, as if involuntarily, as if talking to himself, and not answering the question.

“You may be delirious, however,” the general’s wife decided and with an arrogant gesture she threw the portrait back onto the table.”

The writer in his interpretation of beauty is a like-minded person of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who spoke about “the moral law within us”, that “beauty is a symbol of moral goodness.” The same idea by F.M. Dostoevsky develops this in his other works. So, if in the novel “The Idiot” he writes that beauty will save the world, then in the novel “Demons” (1872) he logically concludes that “ugliness (anger, indifference, selfishness) will kill...”

Mikhail Nesterov. Philosophers (Florensky and Bulgakov).

And finally, "The Brothers Karamazov" - last novel F.M. Dostoevsky, which the author wrote for two years. Dostoevsky conceived the novel as the first part of the epic novel “The History of the Great Sinner.” The work was completed in November 1880. The writer died four months after publication. The novel touches on deep questions about God, freedom, and morality. During times historical Russia The most important component of the Russian idea was, of course, Orthodoxy. As we know, the prototype of Elder Zosima was Elder Ambrose, now glorified among the saints. According to other ideas, the image of the elder was created under the influence of the biography of schemamonk Zosima (Verkhovsky), the founder of the Trinity-Hodegetrievskaya Hermitage.

Do you really have such a conviction about the consequences of people’s depletion of faith in the immortality of their souls? - Elder Ivan Fedorovich suddenly asked.

Yes, I stated this. There is no virtue if there is no immortality.

Blessed are you if you believe so, or are you already very unhappy!

Why are you unhappy? - Ivan Fedorovich smiled.

Because, in all likelihood, you yourself do not believe in the immortality of your soul, or even in what has been written about the church and the church issue.

Three brothers, Ivan, Alexey (Alyosha) and Dmitry (Mitya), “are busy resolving questions about the root causes and ultimate goals of existence,” and each of them makes his own choice, trying in his own way to answer the question about God and the immortality of the soul. Ivan’s way of thinking is often summed up in one phrase:

"If there is no God, everything is permitted"

which is sometimes recognized as the most famous quote from Dostoevsky, although it is not in this form in the novel. At the same time, this idea “is carried through the entire huge novel with a high degree of artistic persuasiveness.” Alyosha, unlike his brother Ivan, is “convinced of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul” and decides for himself:

“I want to live for immortality, but I don’t accept half a compromise.”

Dmitry Karamazov is inclined to the same thoughts. Dmitry feels “an invisible participation of mystical forces in the lives of people” and says:

“Here the devil fights with God, and the battlefield is the hearts of people.”

But Dmitry is no stranger to doubts at times:

“And God is torturing me. This alone is tormenting. What if He doesn't exist? What if Rakitin is right, that this is an artificial idea in humanity? Then, if He does not exist, then man is the chief of the earth, of the universe. Fabulous! But how will he be virtuous without God? Question! I’m all about it.”

A special place in the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” is occupied by the poem “The Grand Inquisitor”, composed by Ivan. Dostoevsky outlined its essence in his introductory speech before the reading of the poem by a student at St. Petersburg University in December 1879. He said:

“One atheist suffering from unbelief, in one of his painful moments, composes a wild, fantastic poem in which he depicts Christ in a conversation with one of the Catholic high priests - the Grand Inquisitor. The suffering of the writer of the poem occurs precisely because he truly sees a true servant of Christ in the depiction of his high priest with a Catholic worldview, so far removed from ancient Apostolic Orthodoxy. Meanwhile, his great Inquisitor is, in essence, an atheist himself. According to the great Inquisitor, love must be expressed in unfreedom, since freedom is painful, it gives rise to evil and makes a person responsible for the evil done, and this is unbearable for a person. The Inquisitor is convinced that freedom will not be a gift for a person, but a punishment, and he himself will refuse it. In exchange for freedom, he promises people a dream of an earthly paradise:“...We will give them the quiet, humble happiness of weak creatures as they were created. ...Yes, we will force them to work, but in the hours free from work we will arrange their life as a child’s game, with children’s songs, choirs, and innocent dances.”

The Inquisitor is well aware that all this contradicts the true teachings of Christ, but he is concerned about the organization of earthly affairs and maintaining power over people. In the inquisitor’s reasoning, Dostoevsky prophetically saw the possibility of turning people “as if into a herd of animals,” preoccupied with obtaining material wealth and forgetting that “man does not live by bread alone,” that, having had enough, sooner or later he will ask the question: I’m full, but what? what next? In the poem “The Grand Inquisitor,” Dostoevsky again raises the question that deeply worried him about the existence of God. At the same time, the writer sometimes put into the mouth of the inquisitor quite convincing arguments in defense of the fact that, perhaps, it really is better to take care of earthly, real happiness and not think about eternal life, abandoning God in the name of this.

“The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor” is the greatest creation, the pinnacle of Dostoevsky’s creativity. The Savior comes to earth again. Dostoevsky conveys this creation to the reader as the work of his hero Ivan Karamazov. In Seville, during the period of the rampant Inquisition, Christ appears among the crowd, and people recognize Him. Rays of light and power flow from his eyes, He stretches out his hands, blesses, works miracles. The Grand Inquisitor, “an old man of ninety, tall and erect, with a withered face and sunken cheeks,” orders him to be imprisoned. At night he comes to his captive and begins to talk to him. “Legend” – monologue of the Grand Inquisitor. Christ remains silent. The old man’s excited speech is directed against the teachings of the God-man. Dostoevsky was confident that Catholicism, sooner or later, would unite with socialism and form with it a single Tower of Babel, the kingdom of the Antichrist. The Inquisitor justifies betrayal of Christ with the same motive with which Ivan justified his fight against God, with the same love for humanity. According to the Inquisitor, Christ was mistaken about people:

“People are weak, vicious, insignificant and rebels... Weak, eternally vicious and eternally ungrateful human race... You judged people too highly, for, of course, they are slaves, although they were created by rebels... I swear, man is weaker and He was created lower than You thought about him... He is weak and vile.”

Thus, the “Christian teaching” about man is contrasted with the teaching of the Antichrist. Christ believed in the image of God in man and bowed before his freedom; The Inquisitor considers freedom to be the curse of these pitiful and powerless rebels and, in order to make them happy, he proclaims slavery. Only a chosen few are able to bear the covenant of Christ. According to the inquisitor, freedom will lead people to mutual destruction. But the time will come, and weak rebels will crawl to those who will give them bread and bind their disorderly freedom. The Inquisitor paints a picture of the “childish happiness” of enslaved humanity:

“They will tremble in relaxation at our anger, their minds will become timid, their eyes will become teary, like those of children and women... Yes, we will force them to work, but in the hours free from work, we will arrange their life like a children’s game with children’s songs , in chorus, with innocent dancing. Oh, we will allow them sin... And everyone will be happy, all the millions of creatures, except for the hundreds of thousands who control them... They will die quietly, they will quietly fade away in your name, and beyond the grave they will find only death...”

The Inquisitor falls silent; the prisoner is silent.

“The old man would like him to tell him something, even if it’s bitter and terrible. But He suddenly silently approaches the old man and quietly kisses him on his bloodless, ninety-year-old lips. That's the whole answer. The old man shudders. Something moved at the ends of his lips; he goes to the door, opens it and says to Him: “Go and come no more. Don’t come at all... Never, never!”

And he releases Him into the “dark stacks of hail.”

What is the secret of the Grand Inquisitor? Alyosha guesses:

“Your inquisitor does not believe in God, that’s his whole secret.”

Ivan readily agrees.

“Even so! – he answers. “Finally, you guessed it.” And, really, really, really, that’s the whole secret...”

The author of "The Karamazovs" presents the fight against God in all its demonic grandeur: the Inquisitor rejects the commandment of love for God, but becomes a fanatic of the commandment of love for one's neighbor. His mighty spiritual powers, which were previously spent on the veneration of Christ, are now turned to serving humanity. But godless love inevitably turns into hatred. Having lost faith in God, the Inquisitor must also lose faith in man, because these two faiths are inseparable. By denying the immortality of the soul, he denies the spiritual nature of man. “Legend” completes Dostoevsky’s life’s work – his struggle for man. He reveals in her the religious basis of personality and the inseparability of faith in man from faith in God. With unheard of force, he affirms freedom as the image of God in man and shows the Antichrist beginning of power and despotism. “Without freedom, man is a beast, humanity is a herd”; but freedom is supernatural and supra-rational; in the order of the natural world, freedom is only necessity. Freedom is a divine gift, the most precious asset of man.

“It cannot be substantiated by reason, science, or natural law - it is rooted in God, revealed in Christ. Freedom is an act of faith."

The Antichrist kingdom of the Inquisitor is built on miracle, mystery and authority. In spiritual life, the beginning of all power is from the evil one. Never in all of world literature has Christianity been presented with such amazing force as a religion of spiritual freedom. Dostoevsky's Christ is not only the Savior and Redeemer, but also the One Liberator of man. The Inquisitor, with dark inspiration and red-hot passion, denounces his Prisoner; he remains silent and responds to the accusation with a kiss. He does not need to justify himself: the enemy’s arguments are refuted by the mere presence of Him who is “the Way, the Truth and the Life.”

A well-known, albeit relative, approach to the Art Nouveau style is noticeable in the painting of V. Vasnetsov of the 80s. At the moment when the artist moved away from the everyday genre and began to look for forms to express his ideas related to national folklore, neither the realistic system of the Wanderers nor the academic doctrine completely suited him. But he took advantage of both, greatly modifying each of them. At the point of their convergence, distant analogies with modernity appeared. They make themselves felt in the artist’s unconditional appeal to the form of panels, to large-sized canvases designed for public interiors (remember that most of the works of the 80s were created by order of S.I. Mamontov for the interiors of railway departments). The theme of Vasnetsov’s paintings also gives rise to comparison with the Art Nouveau style. Russian realists of the 60-80s extremely rarely, rather as an exception than a rule, turned to fairy tales or epics. Throughout European art of the 19th century, the fairy tale was the prerogative of the romantic movement. In neo-romanticism at the end of the century, interest in fairy-tale plots revived again. Symbolism and Art Nouveau adopted this “fashion for fairy tales,” as exemplified by numerous works by German, Scandinavian, Finnish, and Polish painters. Vasnetsov's paintings fit into the same row. But, of course, the main criterion for belonging to a style should be the pictorial system, the formal language of art itself. Here Vasnetsov is more distant from the Art Nouveau style, although some shifts towards the latter are outlined in his work. They are especially noticeable in the painting “Three Princesses of the Underground Kingdom” (1884). The standing poses of the three figures, characterizing the action as a kind of theatrical performance, the usual union of naturalness and conventional decorativeness for the Art Nouveau style - with these features Vasnetsov seems to be moving “into the territory” of the new style. But much remains on the old territory. Viktor Vasnetsov is far from refined stylization, he is simple-minded, the dialogue with nature is not interrupted. It is no coincidence that the artist, like the realists of the 70s and 80s, so readily uses in his paintings sketches written from peasants and village children. Creativity V.M. Vasnetsov, as well as the activities of many other artists of the Abramtsevo circle, indicate that modernism in Russia was formed in line with national concepts. Russian folk art as a heritage for professional art, national folklore as a source of subject matter for painting, pre-Mongol architecture as a model for modern architecture - all these facts speak eloquently about the interest in national artistic traditions. There is no doubt that the artists of the previous period - the Peredvizhniki - faced the problem of the national uniqueness of art. But for them the essence of this originality was contained in the expression of meaning modern life nation. For artists of emerging modernism, national tradition was more important. This tilt towards national issues is generally characteristic of the Art Nouveau style of the series European countries . The early work of M. Nesterov, who acquired his theme and his artistic language at the very end of the 80s, is also connected with this trend. He looked for his heroes in religious legends, among Russian saints; represented national nature in an ideal, “purified” form. Along with these thematic and figurative innovations came new stylistic qualities. True, modernist tendencies appeared in these early works in their infancy and in erased forms, which is generally typical for many phenomena of Russian painting of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, when different, sometimes opposing artistic directions simultaneously developed, mixing and influencing each other. In Nesterov’s “The Hermit” (1889), thoughtful picturesqueness, the ethereality of the figure, the emphasized role of its silhouette, the dissolution of the social motive in a state of idyllic tranquility - that is, the features that bring Nesterov closer to symbolism and modernity are combined with the spontaneity of the perception of nature. In “Vision to the Youth Bartholomew” (1890), Nesterov creates a “conditionally real” landscape and connects the mythological with the real. In the work of this artist, Art Nouveau breaks through the dominant principles of the Moscow school of painting, oriented towards plein air and impressionism. This tendency manifests itself to an even greater extent in Levitan, however, already in the first half of the 90s, when he created “Above Eternal Peace” (1894). In this picture, which was the highest point of philosophical meditation of the famous landscape painter, who in the 80s strictly focused on the plein air, the barely audible notes of Böcklin’s “Island of the Dead” or the mysterious, although quite real, landscapes of V. Leistikov, the famous German Secessionist of the 90s, sounded years. However, it should be borne in mind that Levitan’s dramatic, almost tragic lyricism had completely different origins, which greatly alienated the Russian artist from both the Swiss and the German master. Levitanov's grief returns us to Nekrasov's muse, to thinking about human suffering and human sorrows. In the future, we will touch on other variants of Russian Art Nouveau, which arose in painting as a kind of development of certain stylistic trends that suddenly received the opportunity to develop into Art Nouveau. True, everything that we listed above was still an approach to a new style. However, there was one master in Russia who, in the 80s, had already established Art Nouveau as a style and symbolism as a way of thinking. This master was M. Vrubel. In 1885, after leaving the St. Petersburg Academy, the so-called Kiev period of the artist’s work began, which lasted until 1889. During these years, Vrubel's style was formed, which formed an organic part of the Russian version of the Art Nouveau style. Vrubel's creativity had different starting points of movement than Vasnetsov's, Nesterov's or Levitanov's. He was not keen on plein air (Vrubel has almost no plein air works); he was far from the realism of the Itinerants, who, in the opinion of young painters, neglected formal tasks. At the same time, Vrubel has noticeable academic features - in the a priori nature of beauty, which is deliberately chosen as a certain object of reconstruction, in the careful assimilation of Chistyakov’s principles of constructing form, in his attraction to the stable rules of art. Mikhail Vrubel overcomes academicism much more consistently and quickly, rethinks nature, and rejects the alliance with naturalism that was so characteristic of late European academicism.

M. Vrubel. Funeral lament. Sketch. 1887.

M. Vrubel. Resurrection. Sketch. 1887.

Unrealized sketches of the paintings of the Vladimir Cathedral in Kiev, remaining in watercolor sheets, dedicated to two subjects - “The Funeral Lament” and “The Resurrection” (1887), most clearly indicate the above. In one of the versions of “The Tombstone,” made in the technique of black watercolor, Vrubel transforms real space into an abstract convention, using the language of understatement and allusion designed for recognition. In “Resurrection” he lays out forms as if from luminous crystals, and includes flowers in the composition that weave patterns across the surface of the leaf. Ornamentality becomes distinctive quality graphics and painting by Vrubel. “Girl against the background of a Persian carpet” (1886) includes ornament as the subject of the image and at the same time puts forward the ornamental principle as the principle of the composition of the picture as a whole. Sketches of ornaments made by Vrubel were realized in ornamental panels located along the ships of the vaults of the Vladimir Cathedral. The artist created the ornaments in a new style, choosing images of peacocks, lily flowers and a wickerwork of plant forms as the initial forms. “Models” taken from the animal and plant world are stylized and schematized; one image seems to be woven into another; the pictorial element in this situation recedes into the background in front of the pattern, abstracted by linear and color rhythm. Vrubel uses curved lines. This makes the ornament tense and associated with a living form capable of self-development. M. Vrubel entered modernity in several ways, being the first among Russian artists to figure out the general direction of movement of European artistic culture. His transition to new paths was decisive and irrevocable. However, the Art Nouveau style acquired a more widespread character in Russia already in the 90-900s. D.V. Sarabyanov "Modern Style". M., 1989. p. 77-82.

THE BIRTH OF RUSSIAN MODERN MODERNITY

Vasnetsov V.M. "Our Lady

with a child on the throne."

Late XIX – early XX centuries.

Canvas, wood, gold leaf,

oil. 49 x 18 cm

Decorated in antique style

wooden carved frame.

Vasnetsov,VictorMikhailovich was born on May 3/15, 1848 in the village of Lopyal, Vyatka province, into the family of a priest who, according to the artist, “infused into our souls a living, indestructible idea of ​​the Living, truly existing God!” . After studying at the Vyatka Theological Seminary (1862-1867), Vasnetsov entered the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, where he seriously thought about the place of Russian art in world culture. In 1879, Vasnetsov joined the Mamontov circle, whose members held readings, painted and staged plays in the winter in the house of the outstanding philanthropist Savva Mamontov on Spasskaya-Sadovaya Street, and in the summer they went to his country estate Abramtsevo. In Abramtsevo, Vasnetsov took his first steps towards a religious-national direction: he designed a church in the name of the Savior Not Made by Hands (1881-1882) and painted a number of icons for it. The best icon was the icon of St. Sergius of Radonezh is not canonical, but deeply felt, taken from the very heart, a dearly loved and revered image of a humble, wise old man. Behind him stretches the endless expanses of Rus', the monastery he founded is visible, and in the heavens is the image of the Holy Trinity.

“The history of the church in Abramtsevo is amazing because it was essentially an activity for a group of friends - talented, energetic, enthusiastic people. The result is what is proudly called “the first work of Russian Art Nouveau” (1881-1882) and is characterized as “a subtle antique stylization, harmoniously combining elements of various schools of medieval Russian architecture.” It’s not for me to judge what modernism has to do with it, but the church is really good. It seems to me that this combination of the complete seriousness of the idea of ​​​​the building (the creators were deeply religious people) with the friendly and joyful atmosphere of its creation determined the unique spirit of this building - very joyful and a little “toy-like”.

Victor Vasnetsov:

“We are all artists: Polenov, Repin, myself, Savva Ivanovich himself and his family set to work together, enthusiastically. Our artistic assistants: Elizaveta Grigorievna, Elena Dmitrievna Polenova, Natalya Vasilievna Polenova (then still Yakunchikova), Vera Alekseevna Repina are not from us We drew facades, ornaments, made drawings, painted images, and our ladies embroidered banners, shrouds, and even on the scaffolding, near the church, carved ornaments in stone, like real stonemasons... The rise in energy and artistic creativity was extraordinary: everyone worked tirelessly, with competition, unselfishly. It seemed that the artistic impulse of creativity of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance was in full swing again. But then cities, entire regions, countries, peoples lived there with this impulse, and we only have the Abramtsevo small artistic friendly family and circle. But what a disaster, I could breathe deeply in this creative atmosphere... Now the curious go to Abramtsevo to see our small, modest, without ostentatious luxury, Abramtsevo church. For us - its workers - it is a touching legend about the past, about the experience, the holy and creative impulse, about the friendly work of artistic friends, about Uncle Savva, about his loved ones..."

V.D. Polenov“Annunciation” (1882) (gate of the iconostasis).

From a letter from E.G. Mamontova:

“How wonderful our church turns out. I just can’t stop looking at it... The church doesn’t even let Vasnetsov sleep at night, everyone draws different details. How good it will be inside... The main interest is the church. There was talk and speculation about it all day yesterday "Heated debates. Everyone is passionately passionate about carving ornaments... Vasnetsov's window looks really lovely; not only the arches, but all the columns are covered with ornaments"
Vasnetsov did not want to see anything ordinary in the church; he wanted this creation of creative inspiration to correspond to the joyful mood with which it was built. So, when the turn came to the floor and Savva Ivanovich decided to make it ordinary - cement mosaic (there were no slabs), Vasnetsov fiercely protested.

“Only artistic layout of the pattern”, - he insisted and began to lead her.First, the outline of a stylized flower appeared on paper, and then the drawing was transferred to the floor of the Abramtsevo church.

"... Vasnetsov himself, - recalls Natalya Polenova, - several times a day he ran into the church, helped lay out the pattern, directed the curves of the lines and selected stones according to tones. To everyone's joy, a huge fantastic flower soon grew along the entire floor."

The church was consecrated in 1882, and almost immediately after that V.D.’s wedding took place there. Polenov - he became friends with his wife during the construction of the church.

The choirs are painted with images of flowers and butterflies by V.M. Vasnetsov.

Based on drawings by V.M. Vasnetsov made a mosaic floor

with a stylized flower and construction date:

1881–1882 in Old Church Slavonic.

At the top left is the festive rite of the iconostasis.

At the top right is the prophetic order of the iconostasis.

In Mamontov’s estate “Abramtsevo” near Moscow, art workshops were created in which folk art objects, including toys, were produced and collected. To revive and develop the traditions of Russian toys, the “Children’s Education” workshop was opened in Moscow. At first, dolls were created in it, which were dressed in festive folk costumes of different provinces (regions) of Russia. It was in this workshop that the idea of ​​creating a Russian wooden doll was born. In the late 90s of the 19th century, based on a sketch by artist Sergei Malyutin, local turner Zvezdochkin turned the first wooden doll. And when Malyutin painted it, it turned out to be a girl in a Russian sundress. Matryoshka Malyutin was a round-faced girl in an embroidered shirt, sundress and apron, in a colorful scarf, with a black rooster in her hands.

Abramtsevo. Folk crafts. Origins of Russian Art Nouveau.

The first Russian nesting doll, carved by Vasily Zvezdochkin and painted by Sergei Malyutin, had eight seats: a girl with a black rooster was followed by a boy, then a girl again, and so on. All the figures were different from each other, and the last, eighth, depicted a swaddled baby. The idea of ​​​​creating a detachable wooden doll was suggested to Malyutin by a Japanese toy that Savva Mamontov’s wife brought to the Abramtsevo estate near Moscow from the Japanese island of Honshu. It was a figurine of a good-natured bald old man, the Buddhist saint Fukurum, with several figures embedded inside. However, the Japanese believe that the first such toy was carved on the island of Honshu by a Russian wanderer - a monk. Russian craftsmen, who knew how to carve wooden objects nested inside each other (for example, Easter eggs), mastered the technology of making nesting dolls with ease. The principle of making a nesting doll remains unchanged to this day, preserving all the techniques of turning art of Russian craftsmen.

"Fathers" of the Russian nesting doll:

philanthropist Savva Mamontov, artist

Sergey Malyutin and turner Vasily Zvezdochkin

Brief information: Abramtsevo is the former estate of Savva Mamontov, whose name is associated with an informal association of artists, sculptors, musicians and theatrical figures of the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th century. The circle, founded in 1872 in Rome, continued to exist on an estate near Moscow. Unique Church of the Savior Not Made by Handsimagewas built in 1881-1882 according to the design of Viktor Vasnetsov(he won the “family” competition from Polenov)architect P. Samarin, such famous artists as Ilya Repin, Nikolai Nevrev, Mikhail Vrubel, Mark Antokolsky and other members of the Abramtsevo circle participated in the design of the interior decoration of the temple.The Mamontov family of capitalists and all close artist friends participated in a detailed discussion of the project and its implementation (physically, with hands and feet).The construction of the Orthodox church united the creative potential of outstanding authors, which resulted in the birth of the national-romantic movement of Russian Art Nouveau.

I.E. Repin. “Savior Not Made by Hands” (1881–1882).

N.V. Nevrev."Nicholas the Wonderworker" (1881)

V.M. Vasnetsov. Icon "Sergius of Radonezh." (1881)

E. D. Polenova.Icon "Saints Prince Fyodor

with sons Konstantin and David" (1890s)

The temple contains one of the most original and new works of Russian church art - an artistic iconostasis, which includes the icons “The Savior Not Made by Hands” by Ilya Repin, “Nicholas the Wonderworker” by Nikolai Nevrev, “Sergius of Radonezh” and “The Mother of God” by Viktor Vasnetsov, “The Annunciation” by Vasily Polenov and others. The Vasnetsov Church made a breakthrough into a completely new artistic space: it was called “Novgorod-Pskov” with “Vladimir-Moscow” elements, but it was neither Novgorod, nor Pskov, nor Vladimir, nor Yaroslavl, but, simply, Russian. Neither the church “a la” XII century, nor the church “a la” XVI century, but the church of the twentieth century, completely lying in the tradition of Russian architecture of all previous centuries. Declaring this, V. Vasnetsov, apparently, still felt insecure, which is why he attached buttresses to the new church, as if it were an “ancient” temple, which was subsequently strengthened. This technique would later be successfully repeated by A. Shchusev in the Trinity Cathedral of the Pochaev Lavra, but this time confidently, as a sign, affirmingly.

“Abramtsevo is the best dacha in the world, it’s just ideal!” wrote I.E. Repin. In the spring of 1874, the Mamontovs, traveling from Rome to Russia, visited Paris, where they met I.E. Repin and V.D. Polenov. Both of them spent their retirement there, receiving gold medals for their diploma works from the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts. Both comrades were destined for artistic careers in Russia, and both stood at a crossroads, undecided where to settle. The acquaintance with the Mamontovs, the exceptional impression gained from this acquaintance, convinced both of them to choose Moscow as their place of residence. So, since 1877, Repin and Polenov settled in Moscow, spending the winter in the cozy house of Savva Ivanovich on Sadovo-Spasskaya, and moving to Abramtsevo in the summer. An artist of inexhaustible temperament, Repin worked always and everywhere, he worked easily and quickly. The inhabitants of Abramtsevo were surprised: as soon as the sun rose, Ilya Efimovich was already on his feet, saying: “The hours of the morning - best watch of my life". The atmosphere of the estate, the general creative enthusiasm, the constant communication of artists, the absence of interference with creativity - all this made Repin’s period of stay in Abramtsevo especially fruitful. Ilya Efimovich practically did not work in the Art Nouveau style - it was not his style. In 1881, for the iconostasis of the Abramtsevo church, Repin painted a large image of the Savior Not Made by Hands, executed with an academicism unusual for church painting. 10 years later, Ilya Repin painted two more icons: “The Lord in the Crown of Thorns” and “The Virgin and Child.” Ilya Repin painted icons in his youth; at the age of 17 he was already considered a gifted icon painter. But then he left icon painting for painting. The great Russian artist created these icons when he was already an adult, after the death of his father. In May 1892, the great Russian artist Ilya Repin (1844 - 1930) acquired the Zdravnevo estate, 16 versts from Vitebsk. Here, during 1892 - 1902, the artist created a number of his famous paintings and drawings. In this list, a special place is occupied by the icons “Christ in the Crown of Thorns” and “The Virgin and Child.” The Orthodox faith was an integral part of the artist’s life and work. Ilya Efimovich more than once reproduced in his paintings scenes from the Holy Scriptures, the deeds of saints, and episodes from the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. Let us also remember that Ilya Repin acquired his first lessons in craftsmanship from icon painters in his native Chuguev and began as an icon painter himself, although he subsequently rarely returned to this genre. In the holy land of White Rus', the small wooden Church of the Nativity became the center of spiritual attraction for Repin and his family. Holy Mother of God in the village of Sloboda (now the village of Verkhovye). And, of course, this would hardly have happened if not for the strength of faith and moral qualities of the priest Dimitry Diakonov (1858 - 1907), the rector of the temple at that time. Father Dimitri gave himself entirely to the ministry:

“He loved to serve, he loved to preach, he fulfilled the duties at the first call,” recalls a contemporary. The rector’s special concern was the splendor of the temple: “Fr. Demetrius was an artist at heart: in his church, not only was it always remarkably clean and tidy, but all the existing sacred things and icons were placed in the highest degree symmetrically and with great taste: the modest iconostasis was always elegantly decorated with greenery and flowers; In general, the hand and eye of the artist were visible in everything in the temple. And so it happened that in this church, furnished with such taste, as if as a reward for Fr. For his love of art, local icons of the Savior and the Mother of God by the famous Russian artist Repin were donated to Dmitry.”

Ilya Repin. The Lord is crowned with thorns. 1894.

Ilya Repin. Virgin and Child. 1895-96.

Vitebsk. Galvanized iron, oil. 101x52.5 cm.

Vitebsk Regional Museum of Local Lore.

For many, Russian Art Nouveau is, first of all, the fantastically beautiful mansions of Fyodor Shekhtel in Moscow, huge crystal chandeliers, but not properly round, but oval, with a capricious slope, table lamps with a thickened leg covered with a bright linear ornament; wooden decor wriggling like a snake into long curved lines and varnished in places with dark, in others with light ocher... For others, these are objects of Russian decorative and applied art, made in the aesthetics of Art Nouveau. For example, in the Abramtsevo estate with its nature, church and wooden houses, icons in carved and painted frames, carved wooden furniture and Vrubel majolica. Talashkino is known almost as widely as Abramtsevo. There is Savva Mamontov, here is Princess Maria Tenisheva. It was thanks to her that Talashkino became an artistic center known throughout Russia. In Flenovo, which is located about 1.5 km from Talashkino, there is the building of Tenisheva’s art workshop, as well as two buildings in the pseudo-Russian style with elements of the Art Nouveau style - the Teremok hut, built according to the design of the artist Sergei Malyutin in 1901-1902 , and the Church of the Holy Spirit, created according to the design of Sergei Malyutin, Maria Tenisheva and Ivan Barshchevsky in 1902-1908. The church in 1910-1914 was decorated with mosaics based on sketches by Nicholas Roerich, assembled in the private mosaic workshop of Vladimir Frolov. The church is amazing. It is located at the top of a forested hill. The church is very extraordinary. First of all, its form is more fantasy than Orthodox. Ocher brick; roofs - motley terracotta; a thin, defenseless neck with a heavy-looking dark crown and a thin golden cross; heart-shaped lines of kokoshniks hanging over each other in three tiers and Mosaic on the facade of the main entrance. It is called “Savior Not Made by Hands.” The color of the mosaics is still very rich - azure, deep crimson, pure ocher. The face of Christ with a detached and at the same time attentive gaze is stunning.

Mosaic "The Savior Not Made by Hands" by N.K. Roerich.

By 1905, construction of the Temple was almost completed. In 1908, the princess invited her close friend N.K. to paint the Temple. Roerich. Then the decision came to dedicate the Temple to the Holy Spirit.

The work of Nicholas Roerich (including the church work) at the beginning of the 20th century was one of the significant and deeply respected phenomena of Russian culture. N.K. Roerich was the author of the mosaics of the Church of Peter and Paul in the village of Morozovka near Shlisselburg (1906), the Church of the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the village of Parkhomovka in Ukraine (1906), the Trinity Cathedral of the Pochaev Lavra in the Ternopil region, also in Ukraine (1910), the iconostasis of the Church of the Kazan Mother of God in Perm (1907), paintings of the chapel of St. Anastasia in Pskov (1913).

Drawing of the western facade from the funds of the Smolensk Museum-Reserve.

“I just dropped the word, and he responded. This word is a temple... - recalled M.K. in Paris in the 1920s. Tenisheva.- Only with him, if the Lord leads, I will finish it. He is a man who lives in spirit, the chosen one of the Lord’s spark, through him God’s truth will be revealed. The temple will be completed in the name of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the power of Divine spiritual joy, connecting and all-encompassing being with secret power... What a task for an artist! What a great field for imagination! How much can you contribute to the Spiritual Temple of Creativity! We understood each other, Nikolai Konstantinovich fell in love with my idea, he understood the Holy Spirit. Amen. All the way from Moscow to Talashkin we talked heatedly, carried away by plans and thoughts into the infinite. Holy moments, grace-filled..."

Mosaic interior surface of the entrance arch.

Nikolai Konstantinovich also left his memories of this meeting with Maria Klavdievna in 1928, the year of the princess’s death:

“We decided to call this temple the Temple of the Spirit. Moreover, the central place in it should have been occupied by the image of the Mother of the World. The joint work that connected us before was even more crystallized by common thoughts about the temple. All thoughts about the synthesis of all iconographic ideas brought Maria Klavdievna the liveliest joy. Much had to be done in the temple, which we knew about only from internal conversations.”

“Turning to a broad understanding of religious principles, we can assume that Maria Klavdievna responded to the needs of the near future without prejudice or superstition.”

The result of the “internal conversations” of Maria Klavdievna and Nikolai Konstantinovich, the creators of Russia spiritually close to each other, was the creation of a new Orthodox church - the Temple in the name of the Holy Spirit. Since ancient times in Rus' there was a tradition of building churches dedicated to the Descent of the Holy Spirit, in which the events described in the Acts of the Apostles were sung:

“And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as from a rushing strong wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And cloven tongues as of fire appeared to them, and one rested on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

There was an iconography developed over centuries depicting the apostles or the Mother of God with the apostles, on whom tongues of flame descend. The peculiarity of the Temple in Flenov is that it is dedicated not to the Descent, but to the Holy Spirit himself. There is every reason to assert that the Temple in Flenov was the first in Rus' and in Russia to have such a dedication.

For the first time the image of the Mother of the World N.K. Roerich captured it in 1906. The famous orientalist, scientist and traveler V.V. Golubev ordered N.K. Roerich to paint the Church of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary on his estate, in the village of Parkhomovka, near Kiev. It was then that a sketch of the altar image “The Queen of Heaven Above the River of Life” appeared. Canon N.K. Roerich was inspired by the mosaic image of Our Lady Oranta - the Unbreakable Wall (as it was popularly called) - in the altar of the 11th-century Church of St. Sophia of Kyiv.

“When writing the sketch, many legends about miracles associated with the name of the Lady were renewed in my memory,”- the artist recalled.

“Who does not remember this Kiev Shrine in all Her Byzantine grandeur, Her hands raised in prayer, blue-blue clothes, red royal shoes, a white scarf behind her belt, and three stars on her shoulders and head. The face is stern, with large open eyes, facing the worshipers. In a spiritual connection with the deepened mood of the pilgrims. There are no fleeting everyday moods in him. Those who enter the Temple are seized by a particularly strict prayerful mood,” ― the artist wrote about Our Lady of Kyiv.

In the depiction of the Queen of Heaven, the artist, relying on the Orthodox tradition, also synthesized two types of ancient Russian iconography: Hagia Sophia and the Mother of God. Only images of St. Sophia and the Mother of God according to Psalm 44, which reads: “The Queen appears at Your right hand in robes of gold and robes”, in the ancient Russian tradition are found in royal vestments, and only the Mother of God can be found in icons seated on a throne with her hands raised to her chest. But the sketch was not destined to come true, because... brother V.V. Golubeva, who directly supervised the work of painting the church, did not accept N.K.’s idea. Roerich. The fact is that the artist showed in the image not only the ancient Russian tradition, but also combined pagan and oriental ideas about the Mother of the World in the appearance of the Queen of Heaven. It should be noted that the artist thought of this image in connection not only with the Church of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary, but also with the Temple, the construction of which was started by M.K. Tenisheva. I saw N.K. in her Temple. Roerich has an image where “all our treasure of the Divine should not be forgotten.” Collaborating with the princess starting in 1903, and often visiting her estate, conducting excavations near Smolensk, Nikolai Konstantinovich wrote about Talashkin in 1905:

“I also saw the beginning of the temple of this life. He still has a long way to go. They bring the best to him. In this building the miraculous heritage of old Rus' with its great sense of decoration can be happily realized. And the insane scope of the design of the outer walls of the Yuriev-Polsky Cathedral, and the phantasmagoria of the churches of Rostov and Yaroslavl, and the impressiveness of the Prophets of Novgorod Sophia - all our treasure of the Divine should not be forgotten. Even the temples of Ajanta and Lhasa. Let the years pass in quiet work. Let her realize the precepts of beauty as fully as possible. Where can we desire the pinnacle of beauty, if not in the temple, the highest creation of our spirit?”.

So, according to N.K. Roerich, and it happened: years later, the artist embodied the image of the Mother of the World in the Temple of the Holy Spirit in Flenov.Nicholas Roerich depicted above the altar not the Russian Mother of God, but his Mother of the World. What do we see now?Inside there are only bare walls... In the materials of the All-Union Central Research Laboratory for the Conservation and Restoration of Museum Art Values ​​(VTsNILKR, Moscow) for 1974 you can read:

“No more than one-fourth of the painting has survived. Lost along with the plaster was that part of the paintings where the face of the Queen of Heaven, the central figure of the composition of the paintings, was located. The main reason for the loss is the destruction and fall of plaster layers along with the painting. Undoubtedly, the premises of the temple, together with the painting, experienced all the vicissitudes of the fate of the building, which was abandoned and then used for other purposes. But at the same time, it is obvious that during the construction and then the preparation of the wall for painting, serious miscalculations and unreasonable combinations of various incompatible materials were made.”

“Currently, the department of monumental painting of the All-Russian Central Scientific Research Center has developed a method for restoring the surviving fragments of paintings in the Church of St. Spirit and conservation work began on the monument. But the technological sophistication in the execution of paintings also played a negative role here. Conservation techniques and methods have also become incredibly complex, and it will take a very long time to fully complete the restoration process.”

But there was a unique painting by Nicholas Roerich “The Queen of Heaven on the Bank of the River of Life”:

“Fiery, golden-scarlet, crimson, red hosts of heavenly forces, the walls of buildings unfolding above the clouds, in the middle of them is the Queen of Heaven in a white dress, and below is a dim cloudy day and the icy waters of the everyday river of life. What is strangely striking and perhaps attractive about this composition is that, although all the elements in it are apparently Byzantine, it is of a purely Buddhist, Tibetan character. Whether the white clothing of the Mother of God among the purple hosts, or the tightness of the heavenly forces over the dim expanse of the earth gives this impression, but in this icon something more ancient and eastern is felt. It’s deeply interesting what impression it will make when it fills the entire space of the main nave of the church above the low wooden iconostasis,” was written by the symbolist poet and landscape artist Maximilian Voloshin, who was lucky enough to see the frescoes of Nicholas Roerich in the Temple of the Spirit in Flenov.The village priest, who was invited to consecrate the church, was lucky enough to see them. I can imagine how taken aback he was when he saw these frescoes in a church without an altar, without an iconostasis, which, of course, were laid out according to the Orthodox canon. Father did not understand what a masterpiece was in front of him, so he did not consecrate the non-canonical temple with non-canonical paintings. The village priest did not understand to whom and what the temple was dedicated.It should be noted that periodically disagreements with representatives of the Orthodox Church arose not only among N.K. Roerich. There were similar problems in the work of M.A. Vrubel, and V.M. Vasnetsova, and M.V. Nesterova, and K.S. Petrova-Vodkina. The process of ambiguous searches for a new style in church art, which by the beginning of the 20th century already had an almost 1000-year history, the diversity of tastes of customers, including representatives of the Church - all this could contribute to misunderstandings between the artist and the customer. It was a natural creative process, and in the case of Nikolai Konstantinovich it always ended in a compromise on both sides. That's whyRoerich himself interprets this event completely differently. Sketches of paintings for the Temple in Flenov were discussed with representatives of the Smolensk diocese and were approved.

“When the Church of the Holy Spirit in Talashkino was conceived, an image of the Lady of Heaven was proposed on the altar apse. I remember how some objections arose, but it was the proof of the Kyiv “Unbreakable Wall” that stopped the unnecessary debate,”- the artist recalled.

The Temple of the Holy Spirit was not consecrated solely because of the outbreak of the First World War, which prevented the completion of the paintings.

“But it was in the temple that the first news of the war was heard. And further plans froze, never to be completed again. But, if a significant part of the temple walls remained white, then the main idea of ​​this aspiration still managed to be expressed,”- recalled Nikolai Konstantinovich. Initially, the work of Princess Maria Klavdievna was in tune with N.K. Roerich with his understanding of the deep intertwining in Russian culture of the traditions of the East and the “animal style” of paganism.

“But, remembering the distant cradle of enamel, the East, I wanted to go further, to do something more fantastic, more connecting Russian production with its deep beginnings,” wrote N.K. Roerich, reflecting on the animal figures created by the princess using the enamel technique and presented at the Paris exhibition in 1909. “Near the concepts of the East, images of animals always crowd: beasts cursed in motionless, significant poses. The symbolism of animal images may still be too difficult for us. This world, closest to man, evoked special thoughts about fabulous animal images. Fantasy clearly cast images of the simplest animals in eternal, motionless forms, and powerful symbols always guarded the frightened life of man. Prophetic cats, cockerels, unicorns, owls, horses took shape... They established forms that were necessary for some, and idolatrous for others.
I think in the latest works of the book. Tenisheva wanted to use ancient craftsmanship to capture the ancient idolatry of the hearth. Bring to life the forms of forgotten talismans sent by the goddess of prosperity to guard a person’s home. In the set of stylized forms, one senses not an animal artist, but dreams of talismans of antiquity. Ornaments full of secret meaning especially attract our attention, and so is the real task of the book. Tenisheva expands the horizons of great artistic immersions,”- noted the artist in the article “The Sworn Beast”.

“Symbols strong in spells are needed for the wanderings of our art,” ― he concluded. In the animal symbols of N.K. Roerich saw the eternal, cosmic meaning of Being, which has come down to us from the depths of centuries. The artist will call it: “buried treasure”, “lower than the depths”. From generation to generation, our ancestors, through the images of animals, conveyed the knowledge of the laws of the Cosmos through the language of symbols. The symbols of animals in the ancient mysteries spoke of the earthly nature of man, his connection with dense matter, which is transformed through the spiritual battle of St. George with the Serpent, Theseus with the Minotaur, through the “descent into hell” of Orpheus for Eurydice, Demeter for Persephone. These same “symbols powerful with spells” have come down to us in the so-called Stone Age caves, which also served as a space for the transformation of matter, a temple of mysteries, and a labyrinth for the hero. Slaying the Dragon-Minotaur in its depths, the hero freed from the snares of hell from the power of Pluto a soul that could have, like the hero, different names: Elizabeth, Eurydice, Persephone. It is no coincidence that Christian churches were often decorated on the outer façade with chimeras or frightening masks.

In 1903, Vyacheslav Tenishev passed away. He died in Paris. Maria Klavdievna decided that his resting place would be their native Talashkino, where they were happy together. The Temple of the Spirit was simultaneously built as a crypt - the burial place of the spouse, and in the future, hers. There, in the basement of the temple, as if in a crypt, the embalmed body of Prince Tenishev was buried. In 1923, “Kombedov activists” opened the Temple of the Spirit and dragged the deceased Prince Tenishev out of there. The body of the “bourgeois” was thrown into a shallow hole without any honor. However, local peasants, for whom the Tenishevs created an exemplary farm on their estate and for whose children they organized an agricultural school, took Vyacheslav Nikolaevich’s body out of the pit at night and reburied it in the village cemetery. The place of his burial was kept secret, so his grave was lost.

In 1901, according to the design of the artist S.V. Malyutin, the fabulous “Teremok” was erected. Initially, it housed a library for students of the agricultural school. The building itself is very original. With its fantastic paintings, curls of monstrous flowers, strange animals and birds, it resembles a house from folk tales.

Inside there is evidence of Talashkin's artistic life. Musicians, artists, artists came here. Many of them stayed and worked at the estate for a long time: A.N. Benoit, M.A. Vrubel, K.A. Korovin, A.A. Kurennoy, M.V. Nesterov, A.V. Prakhov, I.E. Repin, Ya.F. Tsionglinsky. Repin and Korovin painted portraits of the owner in Talashkino - M.K. Tenisheva. But the Talashkin art workshops, which opened in 1900, brought true fame to these places. The artist S.V. was invited to lead the new business. Malyutina.

Over the five years of its existence, the carving, carpentry, ceramics and embroidery workshops produced many household items from children's toys and balalaikas to entire furniture sets. Sketches for many were made by famous artists: Vrubel, Malyutin, Korovin, etc. In the building of the former agricultural school there is now an interesting exhibition, testifying to another direction of M.K.’s activity. Tenisheva. One of the largest collections of folk art was collected in Talashkino.

V.M. Vasnetsov.Icon "Our Lady". (1882).

It was precisely this icon that was sometimes perceived as the image of the Mother of God of Vasnetsov, which first appeared in the iconostasis of the Abramtsevo Church and which the students of the Committee of Trusteeship of Russian Icon Painting were called upon to paint. Vasnetsov himself discussed the romantic rapprochement between the idea of ​​beauty and the icon of Christ:

“By placing Christ as the light center of the tasks of art, I do not narrow its scope, but rather expand it. We must hope that artists will believe that the task of art is not just the negation of good (our time), but also good itself (the image of its manifestations).” The image of Christ in the Vladimir Cathedral was clearly designed for a special mystical contact between the artist - the author of the icon - the artisan and the viewer. Moreover, this internal connection could be achieved under one condition - the creative perception of a religious image. A special creative act was required from the artisan and the viewer in comprehending the idea of ​​absolute beauty that the artist put into the prayer image. Since art was often considered (following John Ruskin) as the self-expression of a nation, it was necessary to find the key to a special emotional perception of the “national spectator”.

Vasnetsov himself looked for this key not by copying an ancient icon, but in the artistic culture of European romanticism, as well as in the field of national epic and Russian religious philosophy. This was also noted by Igor Grabar:

“Vasnetsov dreamed of resurrecting the spirit, and not just primitive techniques; he wanted not a new deception, but a new religious ecstasy, expressed by modern artistic means.”

V.M. Vasnetsov. "The Virgin and Child". 1889.

Canvas, oil. 170x102.6 cm.

Gift of the Moscow Theological Academy from

His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'

Alexy I in 1956.

Signed at the bottom left with a brush in brown pigment - “March 2, 1889 V. Vasnetsov”; below, with a brush and a white-orange pigment - “Emily and Adrien”. For the first time to the image of the Mother of God V.M. Vasnetsov converted in 1881-1882, painting an icon for the Church of the Savior Not Made by Hands in Abramtsevo. Subsequently, this theme was developed in the grandiose composition of the Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv (1885-1895). The head of the work on painting the cathedral was St. Petersburg University professor A.V. Prakhov. V.M. Vasnetsov was inspired by the famous mosaic “Our Lady of the Unbreakable Wall” of the Kyiv St. Sophia Cathedral and the “Sistine Madonna” by Raphael. In the center of the composition is a walking Mother of God with the Child Christ in her arms. The Child, wrapped in a shroud, leaned forward with his whole body and raised his hands, blessing those present. The heads of the Mother of God and the Child are surrounded by a soft glow. This iconography was subsequently often used in Russian icon painting. The dedicatory inscription on the painting “The Virgin and Child” indicates that it was painted by V.M. Vasnetsov as a gift to the Prakhovs after completing the paintings of the Vladimir Cathedral.

So, is it enough to follow the iconographic canon - even if it is undisputed, impeccable - for an image to be an icon? Or are there other criteria? For some rigorists, with the light hand of famous authors of the 20th century, style is such a criterion.
In everyday, philistine understanding, style is simply confused with canon. In order not to return to this issue, we repeat once again that the iconographic canon is a purely literary, nominal side of the image: who, in what clothing, setting, action should be represented on the icon - so, theoretically, even a photograph of costumed extras in famous the scenery can be flawless in terms of iconography. Style is a system of artistic vision of the world, completely independent of the subject of the image, internally harmonious and unified, the prism through which the artist - and after him the viewer - looks at everything - be it a grandiose picture of the Last Judgment or the smallest stalk of grass, a house, a rock, a man, and every hair on that man's head. There is a distinction between the individual style of the artist (there are infinitely many such styles, or manners, and each of them is unique, being an expression of a unique human soul) - and style in a broader sense, expressing the spirit of an era, nation, school. In this chapter we will use the term “style” only in the second meaning.

So, there is an opinion that only those painted in the so-called “Byzantine style” are a real icon. The “academic” or “Italian” style, which in Russia was called “Fryazhsky” in the transitional era, is supposedly a rotten product of the false theology of the Western Church, and a work written in this style is supposedly not a real icon, simply not an icon at all.

This point of view is false already because the icon as a phenomenon belongs primarily to the Church, while the Church unconditionally recognizes the icon in the academic style. And it recognizes not only at the level of everyday practice, the tastes and preferences of ordinary parishioners (here, as is known, misconceptions, ingrained bad habits, and superstitions can take place). The great saints of the 18th - 20th centuries prayed in front of icons painted in the “academic” style; monastery workshops worked in this style, including workshops of outstanding spiritual centers such as Valaam or the monasteries of Athos. The highest hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church ordered icons from academic artists. Some of these icons, for example, the works of Viktor Vasnetsov, have remained known and loved by the people for several generations, without conflicting with the recently growing popularity of the “Byzantine” style. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky in ZOe. called V. Vasnetsov and M. Nesterov national geniuses of icon painting, exponents of conciliar, folk art, an outstanding phenomenon among all Christian peoples who, in his opinion, at that time did not have any icon painting at all in the true sense of the word.

Having pointed out the undoubted recognition of the non-Byzantine icon painting style by the Orthodox Church, we cannot, however, be satisfied with this. The opinion about the contrast between the “Byzantine” and “Italian” styles, about the spirituality of the first and the lack of spirituality of the second, is too widespread to not be taken into account at all. But let us note that this opinion, at first glance justified, is in fact an arbitrary fabrication. Not only the conclusion itself, but also its premises are highly questionable. These very concepts, which we put in quotation marks here for a reason, “Byzantine” and “Italian”, or academic style, are conventional and artificial concepts. The church ignores them, scientific history and art theory also do not know such a simplified dichotomy (we hope there is no need to explain that these terms do not carry any territorial-historical content). They are used only in the context of polemics between partisans of the first and second. And here we are forced to define concepts that are essentially nonsense for us - but which, unfortunately, are firmly entrenched in the philistine consciousness. Above we have already talked about many “secondary features” of what is considered the “Byzantine style,” but the real divide between “styles,” of course, lies elsewhere. This fictitious and easily digestible opposition for semi-educated people comes down to the following primitive formula: academic style is when it “looks like” from nature (or rather, the founder of the “theology of the icon” L. Uspensky thinks it looks like), and Byzantine style - when it “does not look like” (according to opinion of the same Uspensky). True, the renowned “theologian of the icon” does not give definitions in such a direct form - as, indeed, in any other form. His book is generally a wonderful example of the complete absence of methodology and absolute voluntarism in terminology. There is no place at all for definitions and basic provisions in this fundamental work; conclusions are immediately laid out on the table, interspersed with preventive kicks to those who are not used to agreeing with conclusions out of nothing. So the formulas “similar - academic - unspiritual” and “dissimilar - Byzantine - spiritual” are nowhere presented by Uspensky in their charming nakedness, but are gradually presented to the reader in small digestible doses with the appearance that these are axioms signed by the fathers of the seven Ecumenical Councils - not without reason and the book itself is called - no more nor less - “Theology of the Icon of the Orthodox Church.” To be fair, let us add that the original title of the book was more modest and was translated from French as “The Theology of the Icon in the Orthodox Church,” but in the Russian edition the small preposition “in” disappeared somewhere, elegantly identifying the Orthodox Church with a high school dropout without a theological education.

46 - Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky. The main distinctive features of the Russian people are in icon painting and in the feast of the Resurrection of Christ. - "The Tsar's Messenger". (Serbia), 1931. No. 221. - In the book. Theology of the image. Icon and icon painters. Anthology. M. 2002. p. 274.

But let's return to the question of style. We call the opposition between “Byzantine” and “Italian” primitive and vulgar because:

1. a) The idea of ​​what is similar to nature and what is not similar to it is extremely
2. relatively. Even in the same person it can occur over time.
3. change quite a lot. To bestow your own ideas about similarities with the nature of another person, and even more so of other eras and nations, is more than naive.
4. b) In figurative fine art of any style and any era, imitation of nature does not consist in passively copying it, but in the skillful transfer of its deep properties, logic and harmony of the visible world, subtle play and unity of correspondences that we constantly observe in Creation.
5. c) Therefore, in the psychology of artistic creativity, in the audience’s assessment, resemblance to nature is an undoubtedly positive phenomenon. An artist who is sound in heart and mind strives for it, the viewer expects it and recognizes it in the act of co-creation.
6. d) An attempt at a serious theological substantiation of the depravity of similarity with nature and the blessing of dissimilarity with it would lead either to a logical dead end or to heresy. Apparently, this is why no one has made such an attempt so far.
7. But in this work, as mentioned above, we refrain from theological analysis. We will limit ourselves to only showing the incorrectness of the division of sacred art into “fallen academic” and “spiritual Byzantine” from the point of view of history and theory of art.

49 I. Buslaev. Original according to the 18th century edition. - In the book. Theology of the image. Icon and icon painters. Anthology. M. 2002. p. 227

Let us recall the classic story by N. A. Leskov “The Sealed Angel.” The famous master, who at the cost of so much effort and sacrifice was found by the Old Believer community, who values ​​his sacred art so highly that he flatly refuses to dirty his hands with a secular order, turns out to be, in essence, a virtuoso master of forgery. He paints an icon with a light heart, not in order to consecrate it and place it in a church for prayer, but then, by using cunning techniques to cover the painting with cracks, wiping it with oily mud, to turn it into an object for substitution. Even if Leskov’s heroes were not ordinary swindlers, they only wanted to return the image unjustly seized by the police - is it possible to assume that the virtuoso dexterity of this imitator of antiquity was acquired by him exclusively in the sphere of such “righteous fraud”? And what about the Moscow masters from the same story, selling icons of marvelous “antique” work to gullible provincials? Under the layer of the most delicate colors of these icons, demons are discovered painted on gesso, and the cynically deceived provincials throw away the “hell-like” image in tears... The next day the scammers will restore it and sell it again to another victim who is ready to pay any money for the “true” one, i.e. in the old way written, icon...

This is the sad but inevitable fate of a style that is not connected with the personal spiritual and creative experience of the icon painter, a style divorced from the aesthetics and culture of its time. Due to cultural tradition, we call icons not only the works of medieval masters, for whom their style was not stylization, but a worldview. We call icons both the cheap images thoughtlessly stamped by untalented artisans (monks and laymen), and the works of “old-timers” of the 18th-20th centuries, brilliant in their performing technique, sometimes initially intended by the authors as fakes. But this product does not have any preemptive right to the title of icon in the church sense of the word. Neither in relation to contemporary icons of the academic style, nor in relation to any stylistically intermediate phenomena, nor in relation to the icon painting of our days. Any attempts to dictate the artist's style for reasons extraneous to art, intellectual and theoretical considerations, are doomed to failure. Even if the sophisticated icon painters are not isolated from the medieval heritage (as was the case with the first Russian emigration), but have access to it (as, for example, in Greece). It is not enough to “discuss and decide” that the “Byzantine” icon is much holier than the non-Byzantine one or even has a monopoly on holiness - one must also be able to reproduce the style declared to be the only sacred one, but no theory will provide this. Let us give the floor to Archimandrite Cyprian (Pyzhov), the author of a number of unfairly forgotten articles on icon painting:

“Currently in Greece there is an artificial revival of the Byzantine style, which is expressed in the mutilation of beautiful forms and lines and, in general, the stylistically developed, spiritually sublime creativity of the ancient artists of Byzantium. The modern Greek icon painter Kondoglu, with the assistance of the Synod of the Greek Church, released a number of reproductions of his production, which cannot but be recognized as mediocre imitations of the famous Greek artist Panselin... Admirers of Kondoglu and his disciples say that saints “should not look like real people” - who are they? are they supposed to look alike?! The primitiveness of such an interpretation is very harmful to those who see and superficially understand the spiritual and aesthetic beauty of ancient icon painting and reject its surrogates, offered as examples of the supposedly restored Byzantine style. Often the manifestation of enthusiasm for the “ancient style” is insincere, revealing only in its supporters pretentiousness and the inability to distinguish between genuine art and crude imitation.”

50 - Archimandrite Cyprian (Pyzhov). Towards knowledge of Orthodox icon painting. In the book. Theology of the image. Icon and icon painters. Anthology. M. 2002. p. 422.

Such enthusiasm for the ancient style at any cost is inherent in individuals or groups, out of unreason or out of certain, usually quite earthly, considerations, but no church prohibitory decrees that would concern the style still do not exist and never have existed.

The canonicity of iconography and the acceptability of style are determined by the Church “by touch”, without any prescriptions, but by direct feeling - in each individual case. And if in iconography the number of historical precedents for each subject is still limited, then in the field of style it is not at all possible to formulate any prohibitive regulations. An icon that has deviated from the “Greek manner” to the “Latin” and even painted in a purely academic manner cannot, for this one reason, be excluded from the category of icons. Likewise, the “Byzantine style” in itself does not make the image sacred - neither in our time, nor centuries ago.

In this regard, we will present here another observation that has escaped the attention of the “theologians of the icon” of the famous school. Anyone who is even superficially familiar with the history of art in Christian countries knows that the style called “Byzantine” served not only for sacred images, but during a certain historical period was simply the only style - for lack of another, for the inability of another.

Icon painting - easel and monumental - was in those days the main field of activity of artists, but still there were other areas, other genres.

The same craftsmen who painted icons and decorated liturgical manuscripts with miniatures had to illustrate historical chronicles and scientific treatises. But none of them resorted to any special “non-sacred” style for these “non-sacred” works. In the front (illuminated, containing illustrations) chronicles we see images of battle scenes, panoramas of cities, pictures of everyday life, including feasts and dances, figures of representatives of the Basurman peoples - interpreted in the same style as the sacred images of the same era, preserving all those features that are so easily attributed to spirituality and an evangelical view of the world.

There is also a so-called “reverse perspective” in these pictures (or rather, combinations of various projections that give stable, typified images of objects), there is also the notorious “lack of shadows” (more correctly called the reduction of shadows, reducing them to a distinct contour line). There is also a simultaneous display of events remote from one another in space and time. There is also what the “theologians” of a well-known school take for dispassion - the statuary nature of human figures, conventionality and some theatricality of gestures, a calm and detached expression of faces, usually turned to the viewer full-face or in 3/4. Why, one might ask, is this dispassion for warriors in battle, dancing buffoons, executioners or murderers, whose images are found in chronicles? It’s just that the medieval artist did not know how to convey an emotional state through facial expression, he did not know how and did not really strive for this - in the Middle Ages, the subject of the image was the typical, stable, universal, and the particular, transient, random did not arouse interest. Changeable emotions and subtle psychological nuances were not reflected either in literature, or in music, or in painting - neither in secular art, nor in sacred art.

Perhaps it will be objected to us that historical chronicles in the Middle Ages were in a certain sense a high genre, which was compiled and decorated by monks, and that therefore there is nothing surprising in the transference of a “sacred style” to them. Well, let’s go down one more step, proving what is obvious not only for a professional art critic, but also for any person at all sensitive to art: a great historical style is not automatically spiritual or automatically profane, it is equally applied to high , and to low.

Let us turn to Russian popular prints, widespread since the 17th century. (but existed before). At first these were drawings, colored with water paints, then colored prints of engravings on wood, and then on copper. They were produced by both monastic and secular printing houses, their authors were persons of the most different levels of artistic and general educational training, and all of Russia bought them - urban and rural, literate and illiterate, rich and poor, pious and not at all pious. Some bought icons, moral stories in pictures, views of monasteries and portraits of bishops. Others preferred portraits of generals, scenes of battles, parades and celebrations, historical paintings and views of overseas cities. Still others chose illustrated lyrics of songs and fairy tales, funny jokes, anecdotes - even the saltiest and most frank.

In the collection of Russian popular prints by D. Rovinsky there were a fair number of such ungodly images - they are given a whole separate volume in the famous facsimile edition. Stylistically, this “cherished” volume is absolutely similar to others, which contain “neutral” and sacred pictures. The only difference is in the plot: here is cheerful Khersonya, supportive of everyone, here is a funny gentleman squeezing a pancake cook, here is a soldier with a vigorous girl on his lap - and no traces of “fallen liveliness”. The perspective is “reverse”, shadows are “absent”, the coloring is based on local colors, the space is flat and conditional. Combinations of different projections and changes in natural proportions are widely used. The characters appear hieratically to the viewer, facing him full-face (occasionally in % and almost never in profile), their legs hover above the conventional pose, their hands are frozen in theatrical gestures. Their clothes fall in sharp folds and are often covered with flat, spreading designs. Their faces, finally, are not just similar, but identical to the faces of the saints from another volume of the same collection. The same blissful and perfect oval, the same clear, calm eyes, the same archaic smile of the lips, carved with the same movements of the pen: the artist simply did not know how to depict a libertine other than an ascetic, a whore other than a saint.

What a pity that E. Trubetskoy, L. Uspensky and the disseminators of their wisdom were three hundred years late with their “theology”: they would have explained to the artist for which pictures lifelikeness would be more suitable for him, and for which only the “Byzantine” style is suitable. Now nothing can be done: without asking their advice, the masters of the Russian popular print made full use of the “only spiritual style” for purposes other than their intended purpose. And they haven’t forgotten anything, these villains: even the inscriptions are present in their funny pictures. “Pan Tryk”, “Khersonya”, “Paramoshka” - we read large Slavic letters next to the images of characters who are not at all holy. Explanatory inscriptions are also included in the composition - we will refrain from quoting them: these common folk verses, although witty, are completely obscene. Even symbolism, the language of signs that only an initiate can read, has a place. For example, on the completely impassive face of a lady standing before the viewer in a completely impassive pose, one can see a combination of flies (artificial moles), meaning, for example, a passionate appeal to share the joys of love, or a contemptuous refusal, or despondency in separation from one’s subject. In addition to the language of flies, there was also a very developed symbolic language of flowers - certainly not with sublime theological interpretations of scarlet and purple, gold and black, but with other interpretations adapted to the needs of flirting ladies and gentlemen. There are also simpler symbols, understandable without explanation in their straightforward imagery - for example, a huge red flower with a black center on the skirt of an accessible girl or a saucer with a couple chicken eggs at the feet of a daring young man preparing for a fist fight... It remains to add that in the art of Western Europe, whether in the Middle Ages or in the New Age, “unsacred images in a sacred style” existed in the same way - apparently, no one there bothered to explain in time artists, which style is profane and which is sacred.

As we see, it is not at all so simple - to determine the stylistic features that make an icon an icon, constitute significant difference between the sacred and the profane, even obscene. It is even more difficult for a non-specialist. Anyone who undertakes to talk about an icon as a work of art must have at least basic knowledge in the field of history and theory of art. Otherwise, he risks not only ruining himself in the eyes of experts with his ridiculous conclusions, but also contributing to the development of heresy - after all, an icon, whatever you say, is still not only a work of art. Everything false that is said about the icon in the scientific field also affects the spiritual field.
So, we have to admit that attempts to sacralize the “Byzantine” style - as, indeed, any other great historical style - are fictitious and false. Style differences belong to the field of pure art criticism, the Church ignores them - or rather, it accepts them, since the great historical style is an era in the life of the Church, an expression of its spirit, which cannot be fallen or profane. Only the spirit of an individual artist can be fallen.

That is why the Church maintains the custom of submitting each newly painted icon to the hierarchy for consideration. The priest or bishop recognizes and consecrates the icon - or, keeping the spirit of truth, rejects the dissimilar icon. What does the representative of the hierarchy consider in the icon presented to him, what does he examine?

The level of theological training of the artist? But the iconographic canon exists for this reason, so that masters of the brush can, without further ado, devote themselves entirely to their sacred craft - all the dogmatic development of icon subjects has already been done for them. To judge whether an icon corresponds to one or another known scheme, one does not have to be a member of the hierarchy, or even a Christian. Any scientific specialist, regardless of his religious views, can judge the dogmatic correctness of the icon - precisely because the dogma is stable, clearly expressed in the iconographic scheme and thus intelligible. Then, perhaps, the hierarch subjects the style of the icon to judgment and evaluation? But we have already shown - on broad historical material - that the opposition between the “Byzantine-unlike-from-nature” and the “academic-similar” styles, invented by the end of the second millennium AD, never existed in the Church. The fact that individual members of the hierarchy recognize only the first does not prove anything, since there are - and in considerable numbers - members of the hierarchy who recognize only the second, and find the first rude, outdated and primitive. This is a matter of their taste, habits, cultural outlook, and not of their right-wing or perverted spirit. And conflicts do not arise on this basis, since the issue of style is resolved peacefully, through market demand or when ordering - an artist is invited, whose stylistic orientation is known and close to the customer, a sample is selected, etc. We allow ourselves to express the opinion that this is free competition styles that exist in Russia today is very beneficial for the icon, since it forces both sides to improve quality, to achieve true artistic depth, convincing not only for supporters, but also for opponents of a particular style. Thus, the proximity of the “Byzantine” school forces the “academic” to be stricter, more sober, and more expressive. The “Byzantine” school’s proximity to the “academic” school keeps it from degenerating into primitive craftsmanship.

So, what then does the hierarchy accept - or reject - to whose judgment the sacred images are presented, if the issues of iconography are decided in advance, and the issues of style are external to the Church? What other criterion have we missed? Why not - with such freedom granted to the icon painter by the Church, it still does not recognize every image that claims to be an icon? This - in essence, the most important - criterion will be discussed in the next chapter.