Portfolio Vitana Sosnovskaya design

v,, , ,

aita

n

. . . . 18.12.15 31.01.16. , , , -, .

. . 1-

2015

. , , , - 2014 . , , , , , , . - , - , , , , . , , . - , - ( , ). , , . Solid and Fluid . , . - , , , , , . , , , , , - . , , , , , , . , , , , , . , . , , . , , , , research, ( ) , - . ( ). , , , : , , , . , , , , , . , , ZIP, , , , . , , . , , , , - , . , , . - 2015 artist run space, . , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , . , , . , , , , , , . , , , , . , , . , , . , , , , , . , , -, . 2013 , , , . , , . , , . . , , , . , , , . , , , , , . -, , , - , . , , , . , . 1990- . . , . , : , , , , , . , , , . , . , , verbatim, , , . , , . , , . , , , , . , , , , 2015 , , - ( ). -. , . , , , . , : , , . , , . : , . ?, . , , . ( , , , ) , . , , , . . . , , , . , , , . . , , , - 2014 . , , , , , , . - , - , , , , . , , . - , - ( , ). , , . Solid and Fluid . , . - , , , , , . , , , , , . , , , , , , . , , , , , . , . , , . , , , , research, ( ) , - . ( ). , , , : , , , . , , , , , . , , - ZIP, , , , . , , . , , , , , . , , . - 2015 artist run space, . - , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , . , , . , , , , , , . , , , , . , , . , , . , , , , , . , , -, . 2013 , -, , . , , . , , . . , , , . , , , . , , , , , . -, , -, , . , , , . , . - 1990- . . , . , : , , , , , . , , , . , . , , verbatim, , , . , , . , , . , , , , . , , , , 2015 , , - ( ). . , . , , , . , : , , . , , . : , . ?, . , , . ( , , , ) , . , , , . . . , , , . , , , - . . , , , - 2014 . , , , , , , . - , - , , , , . , , . - , - - ( , ). , , . Solid and Fluid . , . - , , , , , . , , , , , - . , , , , , , . , , , , , . , . , , . , , , , research, ( ) , - . ( ). , , , : , , , . , , , , , . , , ZIP, , , , . , , . , , , , , . , , . - 2015 artist run space, . , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , . , , . , , , , , , . , , , , . , , . , , -. , , , , , . , , -, . 2013 , - , , . , , . , , . . , , - , . , , , . , , , , , . -, , , , . , , , . , . 1990- . . , . , : , , - , , , . , , , . , . , , verbatim, , , . , , . , , . , , , , . , , , , 2015 , , - ( ). . , . , , , . , : , , - . , , . : , . ?, . , , . ( , , , ) , . , , , . . . , , , . , , - , . . , , , - 2014 . , , , , , , . - , - , , , , . , , . - , - ( , ). , , . Solid and Fluid . , . - , , , , , . , , , , , - . , , , , , , . , , , , , -. , . , , . , , , , research, ( ) , - . ( ). , , , : , , , . , , , , , . , , ZIP, , , , . , , . , , , , - , . , , . - 2015 artist run space, . , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , . , , . , , , , , , . , , , , . , , . , , . , , , , , . , , -, . 2013 , , , . , , . , , . . , , , . , , , . , , , , , . -, , , , . , , , . , . 1990- . . , . , : , , - , , , . , , , . , . , , verbatim, , , . , , . , , . , , , , . , , , , 2015 , , - ( ). . , . , , , . , : , , . , , . : , . ?, . , , . ( , , , ) , . -, , , . . . , , , . , , , . . , , , - 2014 . , , , , , , . - , - , , , , . , , . - , - ( , ). , , . Solid and Fluid . , . - , , , , , . , , , , , - . , , , , , , . , , , , , . , . , , . , , , , research, ( ) , - . ( ). , , , : , , , . , , , , , . , , ZIP, , , , . , , . , , , , - , . , , . - 2015 artist run space, . , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , . , , . , , , , , , . , , , , . , , . , , . , , , , , . , , -, . 2013 , , , . , , . , , . . , , , . , , , . , , , , , . -, , , , . , , , . , . 1990- . . , . , : , , - , , , . , , , . , . , , verbatim, , , . , , . , , . , , , , . , , , , 2015 , , - ( ). . , . , , , . , : , , - . , , . : , . ?, . , , . ( , , , ) , . , , , . . . , , , . , , - , . . , , , - 2014 . , , , , , , . - , - , , , , . , , . - - , - ( , ). , , . Solid and Fluid . , . - , , , , , . , , , , , . , , , , , , . , , , -, , . , . , , . , , , , research, ( ) , - . ( ). , , , : , , , . , , , , , . , , ZIP, , , , . , , . , , , , - , . , , . - 2015 artist run space, - . , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , . , , . , , , , , , . , -, , , . , , . , , . , , , , , . , , -, . 2013 , , , . , , . , , . . , , , . , , , . , , , , , . -, , , , . , , , . , -

108

1991

: , . , , - - (, , ), , -, .

- : , - . , -, , , , . - . , , - , , . : , . , - . , , . . , , - , - .

, - . - 1710 , ,

, - , . 20 16 , , , - - , . , , -. , - . , , - , : , - . , - , - , , . , - . , , . , . - , , , , - . - , , - , . : , , ; , , - , . ..

109 |

. . 2015. , . 122,585

. . 2015. , . 122,585

113

|

.

. 2

015.

,

. 1

508

0

78

. , , , -, .

. - .

? . , . ,

. , : -

, , . - : , , !.. , !..

!.. .

, . ! . , . , , - ?

. , , -, - .

? . . ? ?

, ! , . , , .

, , . , , , , . . , . , . , , , . -, . , . - , : , ?

, -. , . -? , :

, , , !

, . . , . -: - ! , , , - , . , .

, , :

, ! - !

. . 2015. . 3045

2015. . 3045

|

, . . . . 2015. . 130180

. . 1-

4- .

# , , , , # , , #UNHEIMLICH , ,

# , # , , , , # , , # , # ,

# , , , , # , , , # , # , , , ,

# , , # , # , # , #VANITAS , , ,

#, , , , # , # # , , , , ,

# , , , # , , # # , , # , , #

# , , # , ,, , , # #, , , # , , #

#THE GOTCHA! #RESEARCH , # , # , , # , , , ,

. . .

. , 2015

VLADIMIR NEMUKHIN

MMOMA 2015

the faces of formalism

9

, . , , -, - , . , - . - , . ? ? ? - .

, - , , 1960- . , , , - , . , . , . , , , , , , , - . , . - , , , -, . ; ; ; ; . . - , . - . , - - . , , , . - - . - , (, , ) ().

-. . - . ,

. 1991 .

Vladimir Nemukhin in Priluky. 1991Vladimir Nemukhin`s archive

14

-. - , 1960- , - , , - -. 1974 . . , , , . , . - 1932 . - , , . , , , - . , . , , - . - . . , , , - , . , , -. . -, , . - , .

. - ( , ), - ( ), - ( ), , . , - . , , - 1910- 1920- . . , - , . , , - . - . - , - . , . , - , . . . , , . - -, , 1. , - - - , , 2. ? , . , , , , , ,

1 . . . Photographer.ru, .2 .

15

. 1963 , , 70 80 , Composition. 1963 Tempera, collage on paper 70 80 Collection of Evgeny Nutovich, Moscow

18

vladimir nemukhin against the backdrop of modern russian and western art

Andrei Erofeev

The name of Vladimir Nemukhin is familiar to practi-cally everyone interested in modern Russian art. His paintings are often exhibited and can be found in the collections of major Russian museums; they are reproduced in all editions dedicated to the renais-sance of independent art in the post-Stalinist USSR and are in high demand among art collectors. At the same time, Nemukhins creative work has been barely studied. Although the artists place and role in the history of our culture is indisputable, their real sig-nificance has not yet been revealed. To what artistic movement does Nemukhin belong? What kind of ideas does his art embody? How does it interact with the world artistic process? This exhibitions objective is to outline possible answers to these questions.

Vladimir Nemukhin is considered a typical repre-sentative of the nonconformist artistic movement that was formed in Moscow, Leningrad and a few other cities of the Soviet Union in the 1960s. This movement, dubbed by Soviet art critics other art, was developing in parallel with the officially sanc-tioned, ideologically legitimized art of the Academy of Arts and the Artists Union. These two artistic cur-rents did not come in contact with each other, their members did not consider the representatives of the other current as ideological opponents, but avoided communication with them. Basically, the situation illustrated the famous Marxist culturological concept of two cultures. If the official culture possessed pub-licity, held a monopoly on exhibition halls, museums, publications, included media figures, the unofficial culture was nestling in the private houses, forming within the circle of family and friends and represented a form of individual utterance about the world and intimate communication with like-minded people. The isolation of this alternative culture imposed by Soviet educative institutions in conjunction with law enforcement agencies, the cordoning-off of the other art from the outside world inevitably left an imprint on the nonconformist mentality. A peculiar quality of this art is escapism its refusal to react to everyday reality, its closing in on itself, together with a depar-ture into alternative reality (historical, geographical, dreamlike and mystical) of another world that was felt as spiritually more akin. Thus, Dmitry Plavinsky would delve into the archaeological layers of the past; Vladi-mir Veisberg would soar into the enlightened world of ideal entities; Alexander Kharitonov would paint the visions of angelic sobornost [the spiritual unity of the Orthodox believers]; Dmitry Krasnopevtsev chose

crypts and sarcophagi as his subject; Nikolai Vechto-mov embarked on a fanciful journey into the depths of the universe. The list may easily go on. These nonconformists drew attention to their separation not only from the official bombast of the Soviet culture, but also from international modern art. Their works are intentionally old-fashioned. Often they are ex-ecuted in the traditional style of past centuries with multilayered paint application, nuanced color transi-tions, glaze and lacquer. Even socialist realism itself in its fundamental principles was closer to modern art than this unofficial art that received the name of metaphysical. It was indeed other compared to the main tendencies of European and American avant-garde. If there be anything in world art that is akin to it, it is perhaps the underground art of the marginal German and Italian hold-outs in the Nazi Germany (Dix, Gross, Bellmer) and the fascist Italy (Morandi).

Vladimir Nemukhin was not only a member of the Moscow metaphysicians, but the heart of their company. For two years these painters regularly gathered in his workshop on Sadovoye Koltso (Ring Highway). He sincerely loved their art and on many occasions in the 1970s and 1980s curated their exhi-bitions, helped in the creation of the first private col-lections of their works and even dedicated a number of his own works to them by way of homages to their artistic concepts. However, in his creative and per-sonal aspirations Nemukhin has always been remote from the archaizing, transcendental and egocentric nature of the metaphysical art. His work is a com-plete opposite of the metaphysical artistic concept. Even in the works of the 1960s-1970s, created at the time of his closest proximity to the metaphysi-cians, in his famous ombre tables executed in a multilayered painterly technique with glazing, the representational motif is not the artists flight into his own imagination, but an interactive game of cards. Nemukhin seems to reproduce the atmosphere of crisscross communication, the occasionally hard-hitting, unrestrained debates over the heavy kitchen table in his workshop.

The dialogic aspect is the crucial feature of Nem-ukhins art. His art is not a story about the surround-ing world that employs whatever language comes easiest, when the literary narrative is more important than the formal composition of the visual text. Nem-ukhin steers clear of all kinds of stories. He is focused on the language. In its formal elements he seeks a reflection of the psychological states conditioned

19

. 1959, 29 42

Evening in Priluky. 1959Monotype on paper 29 42The State Tretyakov Gallery

bythemodernworld.Thingsdonotgofurtherthanthenotionsofenlightenment,transparency,open-ness,profundity,lightnessor,onthecontrary,com-pression,constriction,stuffiness,conflictbutthatisquitesufficientforNemukhin.Ontheotherhand,heworkswithscrupulousnessonthelanguageitself,onitscomponentsandtheirconsonance,tryingnottoinventanything(adauntingtaskforanindividual),buttotakein,studyandmaster.Hence,hisorienta-tiontowarddialoguewiththeworksthatusethelanguageoftoday.

Eventhemostself-containedartistsevinceinter-estintheartofothers.Butthemajoritytakescaretoconcealthisinterest,nottospeakaboutit.Theyfeartheaccusationofimitation.Nemukhin,onthecontrary,advertiseshisloveforavarietyofmanifesta-tionsofmodernart.Todemonstratehisconnectionwithaparticularobjectthathehappenstorecallwhileatworkandtomakethatconnectionpalpable,easilygraspablefortheviewer,heintroducesintohisworksidentifiabletraitsofanothersstyleorman-ner,shapesandobjectsofanothersartsuchas,forexample,theguitars,masksandnewspaperclippingsofthecubists,theendlessbeachesofTanguyorDali,thebiomorphicwavyplanesofArp,thecowofMa-levich,thegreentalmudicscholarofChagall,etc.Suchallusionssometimeslookplayful,buttheyarealsomakingaseriousstatement:Nemukhinseeshisartintheconvergentpointofdifferenttendenciesofmodernartwherethemaineventsofthe20thcen-turyartaretakingplace.Theactorsoftheseeventsarehisgoodacquaintancesonemightsay,hisneighborsinthebuildingtheyallinhabit.WhatstrikesoneinNemukhinisnotonlyhisdetailedknowledgeofmodernartaknowledgevastlysuperiortothelearningofamereartspecialist.Heisalsoabigcon-noisseurinthebiographiesofartists.Forexample,hecantellaboutPollocksillnessesandmanias,oraboutdeKooningsfamilyproblems.He,infact,nevermetthoseartistsandsawfewoftheirworksintheoriginal,yetheisconfidentofinnerbelongingtotheircircle.Thisworldviewisindeedalmostinconceiv-ableforanartistfromatotalitarianstate,anartistdrivenintoabasementwherealltheinformationaboutmodernarthastobescrupulouslycollectedbybitsandpieces.

Alreadyinhisyouth,inthedarkestyearsofStalinism,NemukhintookfromhisteacherPiotrSokolovandhisolderfriendsKuznetsov,Mashkov,LentulovtheaxiomthatSovietartwasaprofana-tion.Socialistrealism,Nemukhinrecalls,wasneverevendiscussedintheircompany,shortofretellingsomeabsurdgaffsofitsideologues.InsteadtheydiscussedCezanneortheJackofDiamondscircle.Nemukhinhuntedforbooksabouttheminoldbooksshops.OnceduringthewarhestumbleduponthefamoustreatybyKandinskyTheSpiritualinArt.HereaditandunderstoodthemeaningofrealartthatintheUSSRwasmalignedandbanned,butwasrelevantaseverforSokolov,hisfriendsandpupils.SincethenNemukhinwouldbecallinghimselfformalist,whichistosay,anartistconsciouslycom-mandinghisexpressivemeans.Forhimapainting

isnotastagingofsomelegendbutacompositionoflines,spotsandfabricsthattransmitaspecificstate.Theimpressionfromanobjectoraland-scapeisonlyanexcuse,apointofdepartureforhiswork.Astheworkgrows,comingintoitsown,thepalpablecontoursofthemotifmeltawaytilltheyalmostcompletelydisappear.FollowingSokolov,awaryartistwhodidntcompletelybreakwiththerealisticwayofseeing,Nemukhindidnotaimtomastertheextremevarietiesofabstraction.Hedidntrefusenatureoutright,thoughhewascon-sistentlyreducingtherepresentationalmessagetoaminimum,preferringinsteadsimplifiedlandscapesandstilllivesthathewouldanatomizeandlaybareonthesheetsplaneintheJackofDiamondsvein.ButifwearetoevaluatetheseworksincomparisonwithIoganson,GerasimovandModorovwhoatthattimewereestablishingthedirectionofSovietart,theyouthfulradicalismofNemykhinbecomesappar-ent.Weseeanartistwhohassteppedwellbeyondtheframeofaestheticrebellion.WeseeamanwhohasseparatedhimselffromSovietreality,albeitnotfullyrealizinghimselfastheregimespoliticaloppo-nent.Likehisfriendsmetaphysicians,Nemukhin,whenspeakingabouthiswork,usesthewordleav-ing:TogetherwithSokolovIwouldleaveforthelandscapetosavemyselffromtheobtrusivepaint-ingsofsocialistrealism.Butthatflightfromtheworldchargedwithideologytotheworldofnaturewasnotanescapefromreality.Rather,itwasanattempttolivethroughtherealitythewayPasternakdidontheothersideofSovietschemes,awayfrompolitics,notfocusingonthesocialaspectsoflife.

Nemukhinsearlierworksarerepletewithdia-loguewiththehistoricavant-garde.Heseemstobebuildingabridgetothepasttothepoquethatischronologicallyrecentbutmadeinconceivablyremotebytheinterposingwarandmassterroratimewheneverythingwasstillnormalandartwasfree.Fromthemodernismofthepasthetakesready-madeformsandtheoreticalargumentsforhisownwork.Inotherwords,betweenthe1940sandthe1950sNemukhin(alongwithseveralpeoplelikehimasyetunac-quaintedwithoneanother)spontaneouslyarrivedattheprincipleofretrospectivemodernism.TheideawasthatanartistwouldchooseapatronforhimselffromtheinnovatorsoftheSilverAgeoravant-gardeandwouldbegintoaddtheelementsofhisrolemodelsartisticlanguagetohisown.Theimitationofnaturethathewastaughtatschoolhewouldseasonwiththeimitationofanotherslanguage.Nemukhinsvisionatthattimehadnotyetrejectedtherealisticshortsightedness,buthewasalreadydiligentlyevadingthetruthoflifeforthesakeofthetruthofart.AsimilarmodelofcreativeworkcanbeeasilydiscernedamongfamouspoetsoftheThaw:BellaAkhmadulinachoseTsvetaevaasheridol,RobertRozhdestvenskychoseMayakovsky,AndreyVoznesenskychoseKhlebnikov.Asforartists,thismethodofre-creatingofmodernart,alongsideNemukhin,canbemosteasilyseenintheearlyworksofOlegTselkov(whoseidolswereKonchalovskyandLeger),YuriVasilyev-Mon(idolizerofVanGogh),Yuri

27

, . - - : , . . , . , - . , . ( , , ). - . , , , - . . . . . .

, : . - . -, , . . , - , , , , . -. - . . , , , , . , , - .

, . - 1961 . , - . : -, , , , 1.

1 Une histoire del'abstraction en peinture,18601960. Paris,Gallimard, 2012, p. 241

28

Nemukhin prefers to call his early abstract works simply compositions as is customary in the abstract movement. However, on the back side of the paint-ings some of the initial authorial titles survive: Spring in the City, Moscow Courtyard. Evening. Using these directions, it is easy to discern in the array of spots and thick dark lines the landscape foundation of these works that at first sight dont look representational. Almost all paintings are constructed in the similar compositional technique of three different planes that recede into the depths of the painterly space. The forefront of the painting is usually marked by a hori-zontal line that cuts off the lower third of the pictorial field. This is the segment used to enter the painting and is highlighted by color (light or dark). There Nem-ukhin most often places a cross-like figure. The sec-ond, intermediate, plane is the concentration of color blotches, spots and bursts of light gleaming in the rifts of the net-like construction. Sometimes the cross and the net change places. The third plane the background is only partially visible. It sometimes gleams with airy tones through the figures and spots. Sometimes, against the light background, one can divine the contour of a bright light source: the Sun or the Moon. Branch-like backdrops that appear in some works reinforce landscape allusions. The artist tells us that he painted his first abstract picture based on a dream: he was walking in the woods and through shrubbery branches in the contre-jour he saw a cross. The artist leaves it to the viewer to guess the meaning of this iconographic shape of his first creative period.

Some might see a crucifix in it. Nemukhins cross is almost always at an angle. The oblique cross, sometimes dubbed the facet, can be seen on common items in the countryside: on distaffs, ladles, dippers, etc. as a kind of familial sign. Nemukhin was fond of collecting such items. But one can also see in this cross a sign of a tree or just a telegraph post. The connoisseurs of abstractionism will doubtlessly recall the leaning cross-like shape in the painting The White Cross by Vasily Kandinsky, the father of ab-stractionism and one of Nemukhins idols. Be it as it may, the leaning cross, as well as the torn, restless nets and branches impart to the painting a kind of dynamics. They reinforce the physical sense of movement whether the viewers through the woods thicket or that of the foliage fluttering under his gaze. Nemukhins first abstract works are stylistically close to the works of the New Paris School that are custom-ary called lyrical abstraction. Nemukhin would have seen some of those works at the French national exhi-bition in Sokolniki in 1961. The French artists thought that landscape allusions filled an abstract painting with live emotional content and made it humanistic. The historian of lyrical abstraction Georges Roque notes: The wish to reconcile the abstract and the figurative is symptomatic and can be observed in such different persons as the artists Bazaine and Manessier and the critics Estienne and Tapie and is expressed by the term abstract landscape introduced by Michel Ragon to designate the synthesis that was taking place1.

1 Georges Roque. Qu est-ce que l art abstrait? Une histoire de l'abstraction en peinture, 1860-1960. Paris, Gallimard, 2012, p. 241

Andrei Erofeev abstract works of the thaw period

abstraction at the edge of landscape

29

. 1960-x , 60 75 , Composition. Early 1960s Oil on canvas 60 75 Collection of Alexander Mechetin, Moscow

a

bstr

actio

n at

the

edge

of l

ands

cape

36

( ). 1960 , 140 110 ,

Composition (Dedication to Bach). 1960Oil on canvas 140 110 Private collection, Moscow

125

- 1960- , , - - . , - , 1.

- , . a a , , . - - , 2. , , , (, , ). - -, . , , -, . : , .

, - 1960- . , - , -: , , , - . , , - ! , ...3. . , - . - .

. , . , , , - I . , , .

. xx

1 . // Kenda and Jacob Bar-Gera. Wladimir Nemuchin. Galerie Bargera. 1988. P. 145.2 . // . -. . . . .: , 2012. . 127.3 . . 84.

iconography

143

8. . 1967, , . 81 98 ,

8. Oscar Rabins Shirt on the Beach. 1967Collage, oil on canvas. 81 98Private collection, France

3. (, , 2) 1967 (1962), , . 59,5 40 .. , : ..

3. Composition (black, red, white 2). 1967 (1962)Wax, ink on paper. 59,5 40The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, MoscowProvenance: From the ollection of Vsevolod Nekrasov Published for the first time

7. . 1989, . 72 80 Tsukanov Family Foundation,

7. Memories of Lianozovo. 1989Canvas, mixed media. 72 80Collection of Tsukanov Family Foundation, London

2. . 1961, . 84 69,5 .. , : . .

2. Abstract Composition. 1961Oil on canvas. 84 69,5The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, MoscowProvenance: From the ollection of Vsevolod Nekrasov

6. . 1988, . 77 70 Tsukanov Family Foundation,

6. MoscowLianozovo. 1988Oil on canvas. 77 70Collection of Tsukanov Family Foundation, London

1. . 1964, . 93 72

1. Composition. 1964Oil on canvas. 93 72Collection of Alexander ReznikovMoscow

5. . 1992, . 65 50 ,

5. Autumn in Germany. 1992Charcoal on paper. 65 50Private collection, Germany

4. . 1959 , . 50 64,8 .. : .. .

4. Fresco. 1959. Monotype on paper50 64,8. The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts Provenance: From the collection of Vsevolod Nekrasov. Published for the first time

152

: , , -, 1950- ?

: . , , , 1930-. . . , , : - , , - - . . , , . - , , , . . , , , , , . , - , . , .

..: , , - ?

..: --, , . , - , . , 1973 . . , -, . , .

..: , , ?

..: , . , , . , . . , , - , - . , . , , . , , , .

..: 1950- -, . - , , , , , - , .

..: , 1960- , , - , , - - . . , - . - ,

- 1950- 1960- .

. 1977 .

Vladimir Nemukhin. 1977Vladimir Nemukhin`s archive

162

Andrei Erofeev: Volodya, with whom and with what, to your opinion, does the history of the new Russian art start in the 1950s?Vladimir Nemukhin: Let me put it this way: there was an official art that everybody knows and there was an unofficial art that had existed in Moscow for a long time since the formation of the Moscow Art-ists Union in the 1930s. There were many discussions at the time. The leftist artists were in favor of the union as they thought that the state would support them and free them from the humiliating necessity to sell their paintings, so that they would completely devote themselves to their art. Other artists wanted to preserve their old unions The Knife, The Thir-teen, Ost without lumping themselves together. That opposition smoldered for a long time. Of course, life wasnt easy for those artists. For instance, Chirik-ov, a very interesting expressionist artist, worked as a restorer under the direction of Grabar.

..: So you think that the alternative line, the chain of non-official art can be traced throughout the period of Stalinism?

V.N.: Yes, of course. An opposition did exist, but it was represented by the artists who werent clamorous or who really aspired to fame. Altman died relatively recently, in 1973, and almost no one knew him.

..: Did that opposition have a particular aesthetic program?

V.N.: I think that overall that was a political op-position. Russian, Soviet artists always favored a kind of self-ideology, seeing themselves in the context of life. This is what sets them apart from Western artists. Usually we hear talk of Soviet ideology, but there was also a different, non-Soviet one. Take for example Bulatov a purely ideological artist, who, even having made it to the West, hasnt changed and continues to seek possibilities of creating his new paintings on the basis of a new ideology.

..: I remember once you told me that in your circle you, Masterkova, Vechtomov, Lev Kropiv-nitskiy considered yourselves modern artists in contrast to the artists that preceded you ...

V.N.: The modernity in art arose in conjunction with the artists ability to see modernity in life. Khrushchevs Thaw was a period that enabled one to see oneself in some different space to think and feel differently. But the concomitant surreptitious thinking about one-self was not caused by the Thaw alone. The historical moment indeed was at the root of many things, just as Perestroika would later become the provoking cause

of Sots Art, though neither was connected to each other it is just that the sign that had been blocking us from the eternal, beneficent God-created space changed. The situation in 1956 was like when a prison door opens but the inmate is afraid to step out. To me, the point of departure for the concept of modernity is the World Festival of Youth and Students. The year 1957 gave us a bewildering exhibition in the Moscow Park of Culture and Recreation named after Maxim Gorky a completely new vision of space. The youth segment of the festival simply gave us all wings.

..: Did you exhibit your works there?V.N.: No. There worked Plavinskiy, Kandaurov, and

especially Zverev who struck all with his emotional-ity, gathered crowds around him. Americans were simply overwhelmed by his expressivity and asked: Why arent you with us, rotting instead in this country?

..: And all these artists then tried for the first time to paint like that?

V.N.: As for Zverev, expressionism had been smol-dering in him for long time. Though he himself insisted that his best works were executed in tachisme when I was painting with blood thats 1959 through the 1960s, after the Festival. And then there was 1959 the exhibition America in Sokolniki that simply blew everybodys mind. Having seen Pollock, de Kooning and many other American artists, no one wanted to do anything anymore. I would even say that the exhibi-tion stopped many people. As for the French exhibition (1961, also in Sokolniki) that contrasted markedly with the American one, it showed us that there was still some restraint in art. In 1963 there was an exhibition of American graphic art and another one of modern British art. The latter has since been largely forgotten but at the time it did calm down the artists some-what, drew them back to the easel. So you see how much time had passed: in six years artists can become modern. They simply found their self-identification in something completely different. That doesnt mean they were copying somebody. In Moscow, a schism would take place: the positions would become defined, someone would turn toward abstraction, others would remain figurativists but would also change. It became clear that we no longer could pull together with many of the artists, however interesting. Many from Favor-skys group simply couldnt be the same as us.

..: You mean they didnt experience this shock-wave of abstractionism?

V.N.: Some tried themselves secretly or showing to friends. Chernetsov, for instance, or Edenstein, also

Vladimir Nemukhin Speaks about Himself and the Nonconformist Artists of the 1950s 1960s. A Conversation with Andrei Erofeev

163

of Favorskys school. I saw his works of course, they had none of our aggressivity.

..: And aggressiveness, you think, was some-thing that was borrowed from America?

V.N.: I wouldnt say specifically from America. Rather, from everything at once: from what was seen, heard, from the conversations with one another. A completely new history was beginning, and I would say that its first stage was from 1957 to 1974. That stage would end with the bulldozers, and the history would take a different turn after that.

..: What did it mean for you to be modern in 1957 1958?

V.N.: If you pose the question about modernity, abstractionism is the closest to it. Abstractionism was aggressive. The artists who were not touched by that tendency Kharitonov, Krasnopevtsev, Veisberg were absolutely not modern if one were to compare their works with our aggression vis-a-vis the canvas. Today, for example, Brenner challenges the public he is a modern artist. And Kabakov is he modern today? Probably not.

..: It is perhaps at such moments that one feels responsible for new art which is relevant?

V.N.: Well, I didnt feel particular responsibility at the moment. There was a particular feeling though to feel oneself in an abstract canvas, in the pictorial space itself. Just the day before I was painting land-scapes and now suddenly a paradigm shift! When I saw the exhibition in the Park of Culture I was simply speechless. I was there together with Masterkova, and on our way back to the village 100 km on a plod-ding train we were sitting in silence, not exchanging a word: so intensely were we brooding over what we had seen. It was unbelievable. On arrival, Lidya was the first to paint an abstraction in gouache. I was able to feel how much in her had changed it her eyes, in her face she had become a different person. I hadnt tried anything yet though I already felt that never again would I take my sketchbook with me.

..: Can you tell me how the word tachisme come about?

V.N.: I, for one, never used the term. It was Zverev: he thought that tachisme is when you can paint with and by anything you want rags, sponges, tobacco, stomping, hurling things or spitting. Thats how he painted with stains as if dancing on the canvas, and after he was done dancing, you would see a portrait of Kostaki. For him tachisme was a technique, not a vision.

..: And how did you call yourselves back then? As a group abstractionists? Or formalists, tachistes?

V.N.: I had just visited the exhibition of Yakov-lev and yes, our abstractionism was of the tachiste kind expressive and very emotional. Zuzin and Zverev had portrait abstractions, very surprising ones. I certainly had landscape abstractions, with an ideal-ization of light and air, of states in general. Masterk-ovas abstractionism was rather of a still life kind.

..: And Lev Kropivnitsky?V.N.: Id prefer to mention him separately as he had

a great influence on us. He always acutely reacted to modernity, was expressive and active... I think that as

a painter Lev was not gifted by nature, rather, he was someone who was very gifted in his ability to perceive and follow the times as a talented art connoisseur.

..: Who else, not from your circle, would you also mention?

V.N.: I very much liked Slepyan. And also Zlot-nikov, whose papers I saw. His works actually gave me a pause, made me think. And then, of course, there was Kulakov and his exhibition at Tsirlins. Now, he actually used the tachiste method huge canvases created or rather woven with cadmium and red. He was probably painting with entire tubes, in a kind of a daring, expansive manner. Those were indeed works in Pollocks vein though in a different emotional key.

..: But Kulakov sparked so briefly and disap-peared, didnt he?

V.N.: Well, what was it to spark back then? To spark and to remain forever to be remembered. Artists thought tenaciously and remembered things for good. Plavinsky, for instance, had this one abstraction: black lacquered and matt stickers a kind of funeral mass by Bach, somber and grave. His works always displayed gravity. I was also very much impressed by Yura Vasilyev-Mons picture of a man with a split watermelon. So, this man was carrying it and suddenly dropped and now he is standing over it shattered in several pieces. It can happen to anyone, but the man in that painting wasnt just an average Joe.

..: I would like to think back to 1964 the year that marked a strong turn for everyone and you too, Volodya, because for you it was a turn toward objects. For Lyda Masterkova it was a turn toward material substances, she began making black-and-white col-lages. For Lev Kropivnitsky it was a turn towards the figurative. This is when also Chernyshovs geometry appeared ultimately simplified collages built on the principle of multiplication, division and doubling prin-ciples, rather than spaces or surfaces. In fact, 1964 was a turning point for the abstractionist movement.

V.N.: This is a very interesting subject, where there are two questions, including a sad one about who changed and how. Indeed, the years 1962 and 1963 were very active and by 1964 many had changed whether abruptly or not but everyone had tried some attempts to see oneself in something else. They would start looking back, like from the top of a mountain: So, I managed to climb up, how do I get down now? Getting down is more frightening than climbing up and that is something that everyone experienced in his own way. I suddenly saw unusual naturalism in my own abstraction. I was trying to cre-ate a color that was no ones. Take red for example whose is it? All over sudden this red hue depicts some phenomenon with particular liveliness and vivacity. I first noticed something like that in Kandinskys works. I mean I was drawing some lines and they turned out to be more alive that the bushes that were pushing through sand: alive, almost biologically so. So suddenly they begin to stir, to turn into a living being. I remember one foreign lady bought a painting of mine (I was happy that I had something to live on), but then she wanted to return it, saying that there was a ducks bill painted there. And in fact, come

LYDIA MASTERKOVAlyrical abstraction

. 1

974

.-

.

.

L

ydia

Mas

terk

ova.

197

4 A

rchi

ve o

f G.-

G. G

eron

Ph

oto

by Ig

or P

alm

in

7

. , , , . , . ( , ) , . , . .

1950- 1960- - , - , , . 1965 - , , , - .

. - . . - , , . . . . . - . . , , .

. - . .

, , -. . 1940- -, , . , -, .

( )

. 1959, . 46,7 66,5

Abstract Composition. 1959Gouache on paper. 46,7 66,5*The State Tretyakov Gallery* All sizes are in cm.

13

from lyrical abstraction to visionary artAndrei Erofeev

The name of Lydia Masterkova is usually mentioned in tandem with the name of Vladimir Nemukhin. This pairing of names is as established in the his-tory of our art as the famous tandems of the historic avant-garde: Larionov Goncharova, Matyushin Guro, Rodchenko Stepanova. Of course, in current artistic life familial unions of artists make a lot of sense. Being husband and wife (a common-law wife in Masterkovas case), artists are in a constant com-munication and work side-by-side, often in a rather similar manner. They exhibit their works together and are jointly discussed by art critics. They unitedly take part in debates and public actions.

Over the twelve years that they lived together (in the 1950s-1960s) Nemukhin and Masterkova created an entirely new artistic movement lyrical abstrac-tion whose style is noticeably different from the cosmic abstraction of Vladimir Slepyan and Yuri Zlot-nikov, the pointillist abstraction of Vladimir Yakovlev, the expressionism of Lev Kropivnitsky and the biomor-phism of Nikolai Vechtomov. In 1965, the Nemukhin-Masterkova family union synchronously transformed lyrical abstraction into other artistic systems that in their turn shared many formal qualities the accentu-ated one-dimensionality, the extreme reduction of a variety of colors to an austere, almost black-and-white palette.

However, in retrospect, artists unions based on family ties look less convincing. From the historical vantage point, the differences in artistic objectives become more apparent. The artistic tandems depen-dence on their family status noticeably weakens. Today art history research of familially connected artists is rather a tribute to the established tradition. In that tradition, the discrimination of the female participant of the tandem, typical of Russian civi-lization, shines through. The unwritten rule holds that the man is always the head of a family artists union. The mans art receives the lions share of the researchers attention, while the wife or girlfriend is cast in a supporting role. Her works are presented as an addition or extension of the husbands work. This problem cannot be solved by simply restoring the politically correct balance. The subordinate role of females artistic work in a tandem sometimes distorts the very essence of the wifes contribution and leads to an erroneous interpretation of the whole.

Such distortions are particularly noticeable in the case of Lydia Masterkovas artistic career. In analogy with Vladimir Nemukhins works, her works are usu-

ally interpreted as formalist exercises in transforming still life arrangements or landscape views into ab-stract compositions free of nature motifs. Her artistic path appears as an evolution of one type of pure abstraction into another from expressive bright-blotches painting to the geometric rigor of simple and austere color solutions.

Vladimir Nemukhin was indeed programmatically moving to pure art which he understood as mani-festing on the canvas the aesthetic language of ob-jective reality. For that, as early as the 1940s he had narrowed down to landscape views the reality permit-ted to enter his paintings. He would not care to notice or admit to his painting anything that had to do with Soviet daily life, social and political conflicts or hu-man interest stories. His choice of nature motifs was rigorously stripped of historical, national and regional coloring. Nemukhin paid attention only to what was present always and everywhere the reflection of sunbeams on the river surface, the light breaking through the cobweb of branches in an overgrown orchard, the twilight of a thicket in the woods, etc. He wasnt retelling those motifs through the imitation of natural forms, but, as it were, strained out their emotional states that he then communicated through a combination of lines and colors. The nature-based foundation is almost always felt in his paintings but is never directly depicted. For Nemukhin it is only impor-tant that he takes color and linear combinations from the outside from the observation of nature. He is concerned with the self-styled language of nature that exists separately from Man. That is why his abstract compositions are not meant to open the inner world of the author, nor are they the images of dreams or revelations of other worlds.

With Masterkova things are different. Her abstrac-tion is subjective. The operation of abstracting oneself from the descriptive portrayal of nature in Masterkova is connected with the desire to reorient painting from the description of the outer world to the conveyance of the authors personal emotions and psychic states. If Nemukhins lyrical abstraction is contempla-tive and in its character akin to the down-to-earth landscape abstractionism of the artists of the Second Paris School (the 1940s 1950s), the subjectless work of Masterkova is symbolic and mystical. The designa-tion of visionary art suits it better. It conveys the struggle of the bodily and the spiritual in a person and aspires to find visual equivalents of transcendental reality.

(Reconstructing the Artistic Path of Lydia Masterkova)

. 1962, 50 39,5 ,

Composition. 1962Pencil on paper 50 39,5Collection of Sergey Alexandrov, Moscow

16

l

yric

al a

bstr

actio

n

. 1962 , . 64 83 ART4.RU,

Untitled. 1962 Tempera on paper. 64 83Collection of ART4.RU Contemporary Art Museum, Moscow

62

..: , , ?

..: , . : .... 1959 , - . . , . . , -, , . . . .

..: ?..: ? , . , . .

?..: . , , ...: . - . ,

. , . . , , . - , . .

..: , , 1950- ?..: , , , . , ...: , ?..: . , -

. , , . . , , , , , . , . - . . . , .

..: , , , , , -. , , - - ,

..: , . , ..: , . .

...: . , ,

. , -: , , / ! / , , / , ! ? : , , , . , . . , . , ? .

..: , . - ?

..: ? , , -, . . , . , . , .

..: ! , , , , ?..: . ,

, , ...: ?..: . ,

, . , , -. , , . , , . . . -, . , , , . , . - , . , , . , , ? .

(). 1967 , , 99 81 ,

Composition (collage). 1967Collage, oil on canvas 99 81Collection of Alexander Reznikov, Moscow

74

, , 1976 .

, . - - 1962 , -, . , . , - . 1971 , , -. , . . , , , , . ; , , . -, 1. ( ; ; ). .

1975 , , . - , . 1976 () , - .

, , , . , .

1976 , - . - . , ( - )2. , . , , .

, , . , , , . - , , , , . . , , , .

- , , , . . - 3. 1960-.

, , 1950- . - ,

(19762008)

. . , 1988. , ! . 25 25 1977. , . . 1967. 2 .

, ,

75

. , 1956 -. . . , . , , .

VI , 1957 , . (, , ) - () - . , . , . , ? -4. , . -. , . : , - . , -, , , , - , , , - 5.

1957 , - , . , , , . , , .

. 1960 , 6.

, - .

1961 . , .

: 1969 , , . -, , -. , 1990- , , 10 000 .

1967 , . . , - , . - , . , , , .

, , . - . : 1976, , , - 19811982.

4 , ! . 25 25 1977. , .5 .6 .

80

1980 , , , - , . . , ... Ee [] , 21. , .

, ... , - 22. : , , . 200 . 23 .

, 24.

1980 : , . . . - . . . , , . - , , , , . . , . . , ?25

13- : , -

( 1976 1981 .), , -, 26. 30 15 1980 . - , .

2- . , , 29 1974 .

Lydia Masterkova on the Second Autumn Open Air Exhibition in Izmaylovsky ParkSeptember 29, MoscowPhoto by V. Sychev

81

1981 , . - , . , , 27.

. . . , , , . -, , . , - , ; 28.

, , . , -, , , , . , , - , . : , , , , ... . , , , , 29. -, , .

. , 1977 , - , . - , -, , . , , , , 30.

, , , . , - . - , , . - , . - : ; ( )31.

, , , , . , , . . , , , , - . , . - ( ), , -. , , . : , , , , . - . (, - , )32. , , , - . , . , , , . -, - , , , ; . . , , - . , , . , .

21 3 1980 .22 12 1980 .23 19 1980 .24 , 28 2015 . 25 20 1980 .26 19 1980 .27 22 1981 .28 . . , 1988.29 , 28 2015 .30 , 28 2015 .31 , , 2007 .32 , 28 2015 .

, 2015

:

,

-

-

-

-

8

10

12

38 40

52

66

82

96

124

! 154

? 194

236

, , , , , , . , , - . . : - , . , : - , , , .

, . - . -, . , , .

. , , . , , : , , . . , . - !

, . -, , .

-, , . , , . - , . , , .

, , , .

8

, , , . . . -, . , , - , , . !

. . , , , . . , - , : - , , , , , , , .

, - , . , , , !

, , , , . . , , , . , , . .

. - , , . , , , , - , .

. , . !

9

200 200 1 1 31/2

c : . . , . 20-25 190.

126

1 4 1/2 1 1/2

( )700 ( )1 1 2-3

c : , . , 3/4 . . 2 . , . , , . , . 40-45 . 190.

127

300 , , ? , , .

3 70 40 2 2

c : . . , . , , , 6-8 . , , . , , , .

, . , , - . .

1 200

c : , . . 5 , , . , .

: .

22

?! . . , .

1 2 ( 100 ) 2 ,

c : , . , , . , . , , , . , . , , , . , , . , .

23

!

168

2 ( 500 ) 2-3 1/2 3-4 3-4 3/4 2

c : . , . , , , .

()

1 700 3 2 500 4 - - 1 ,

c : , , , , - .

!

169

, ...( )

, . , , . , , , , . , . .

20-30 , 30-40 15%

c :, ; . , 12 . .

, . , .

!

188

189

!

.

6 , , 2008

-, . , -. .

-, - . . ( ) -

. , - , . .

, - , , -. .

- , -, ,

1-3 18

, . - . . - , - . . .

, . -, , , , -. .

-

-

-, . , -. .

-, - . . ( ) - . , - ,

. .

, - , , -. .

- , -, , - , .

4 20

-

4 21

- , 2003 . -

-, . , -. .

-, - . -

- . (- ) - . , - , . - .

|

- 1 6

-

, 2003 . -

, - , , -. .

- , -, , -

, . - . . - , - .

|

- 1 7

|

3 34

-, . , -. .

-, - . . ( ) - . ,

- , . .

, - , , -. .

- , -, , - ,

. - . - . , . . .

, . , - , , - , . . .

- -, .

. - , -, , .

1997 - - - - . - .

3 35

|

- -, -

3 44

|

-, . , -. .

-, - . . ( ) . , - -

, . .

, - , , -. .

- , , , - , . -

3 45

|

- -

. . , . . .

, . -, , , , . . . -

, .

. - , -, , .

1997 - - - - . - . - -,

2003 1 II

-, -. , - . .

-, . - - . ( ) - . - , , .

1 56

, -

.

, - , , -. .

- , -, , - , . - . . -

, - . . .

, . -, , , , . . .

- -, .

1 57

|

19:21 ( ) 17:33- ()a 16:22 () 20:59 - () 10:06 PERMM 24:37 () 46:13 10:02 16thLINE (--) 19:27 () 3 06 , 2013

, , | --

3Z

STU

DIO

16+

CD/DVD , 2014

,

,

.

-- C ...

CD/DVD , 2014

, 2014

. ( )

3 , , 2005

. ( ITC Stenberg)

3 , , 2005

. ( Kabel)

3 , , 2005

. ( ITC Bauhaus)

3 , , 2005

. , 2011

. 1990-2010

. 1990-2010

- - , , - . - . , , - , , , - , . , , , .

, , . 2008 , - - , , . , Zeit Magazin Leben. : , . . . , -. , . . -. , 10 , . . , 10 . , - .

, ( ). - : . - , . - . , 20 . , - : , 1.

, -, , ,

1 Stark Ph. Ich schame mich dafur. Die Fragen stellte Tillmann Prufer // Zeit Magazin Leben. 27.03.2008. 14. S. 41.

100

, : - , , , , --, , . , - -, , -, , , - ; - , , , ,

. , , , , , , - 2.

. - . . . - . . , , - , - . - - . :

, , - -. . , - , , , , . , . - . , 3.

(1973) , , , , -, , , . , - -

2 Sottsass, Ettore. Scritti. Neri Pozza Editore Vicenza, 2002. P. 127.

3 Ibid. . 129.

- Domus - . . 19801981

101

, , . . . , , , , . - . . , , . - - . . , . , , , - , , , - , . , , -, , 4.

1929 , . MIAR (Movimento Italiano Architettura Razionale ), , - - .

- -, , . 1934 . - , - . - . , , - , . 1937 , , , , - - .

1939 . -. , . -, - . - .

4 Sottsass, Ettore. When I was a very small boy// Terrazzo, Number 5, Fall 1990. PP. 110, 112.

- Domus -. - . 19801981

102

. - 1943 . . , , , , . . , , - , -, - .

-, : , . . 5.

, . - , - . , , . , , - (, 1946), . - , - VIII . .

, - , . , , .

1949 - , !, - . , - - .

1956 , - . : 25 . . -, , - , . ,

- Valentine for Chrismas

103

Olivetti -. , - , . 19501970-

, 6. - . - .

1958 , - . - , 25 - -, -. , - , (), - . Poltronova, -, - .

1959 -9003. - - , . - . , - , ( - ), . , - , , -

5 Sottsass, Ettore. Scritti. P. 85.

6 Sottsass, Ettore. Zeichnungen aus 4 Jahrzehnte. Katalog. Ikon. Galerie fur Design-Zeichnungen. Frankfurt-am-Main, 1990. S. 81.

TDI=F9>FGDAB95RDB&,e9G?~fD9IQF4;AOC46=?PBAr;AB^BD9=A4VE9@=DAB6OEF46>96l4AI495O?89>BD=DB64A8648J4FPR5G>64@=>BD9E>B7B4?H46=F4I4A7O?=EBDB>4FOESK4@=D4E>D4L9AAOI4?R@=A=96OIC?4EF=AB>~u}t}

]AEF4??SJ=S5D4FP96dBA4A4=qD64A4UGDG??9>B66@4DE9?PE>B@;=?B@>B@C?9>E9_9^BD5RB@C?9>E_9^BD5R

fB@4Ei9~c46=?PBAV9?=>B5D=F4A==eB5BDE9@SAA4VE9@=DAB6OEF46>96l4AI49~VOCB?A9A=BAABBCF=K9E>=I4>D=?B6OIEF9D;A98?=ABzx@E6AGFD9AA=@=E69FB6B84@=A4>BAJ9>BFBDOI6@BAF=DB64AO>4CEG?OEE9@9A4@=D4EF9A=6E9I>BAF=A9AFB6=4@=??9A=G@4$&,CB8_BA8BAB@~u}t}

Documents

Portfolio Vitana Sosnovskaya design