Interesting still lifes. Still lifes. We draw what is at hand. Briton Cecil Kennedy

Let's move on to the final stage of this series of posts about the still life genre. It will be dedicated to the work of Russian artists.

Let's start with Fyodor Petrovich Tolstoy (1783-1873). Still life graphics by F.P. Tolstoy, a famous Russian sculptor, medalist, draftsman and painter, is probably the most outstanding and valuable part of his creative heritage, although the artist himself said that he created these works “in his free time from serious studies.”

The main property of Tolstoy’s still life drawings is their illusory nature. The artist carefully copied nature. He tried, in his own words, “with strict clarity to convey from life to paper the copied flower as it is, with all the slightest details belonging to this flower.” To mislead the viewer, Tolstoy used illusionistic techniques such as the image of dew drops or translucent paper covering the drawing and helping to deceive the eye.

Ilya Efimofich Repin (1844-1930) also more than once turned to such a still life motif as flowers. Such works include the painting “Autumn Bouquet” (1892, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow), where the artist depicts with equal attention autumn landscape, a young woman standing against a background of golden trees, and a modest bouquet of yellow and white flowers in her hands.

I. Repin. Autumn bouquet. Portrait of Vera Repina. 1892, Tretyakov Gallery

The history of the painting “Apples and Leaves” is somewhat unusual. The still life, combining fruits and leaves, was staged for Repin’s student, V.A. Serova. The teacher liked the object composition so much that he decided to paint such a still life himself. Flowers and fruits attracted many artists, who preferred these among other things, which most poetically and beautifully showed the natural world. Even I.N. Kramskoy, who disdained this genre, also paid tribute to still life, creating the spectacular painting “Bouquet of Flowers. Phloxes” (1884, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow).

Valentin Aleksandrovich Serov (1865-1911) is known to most of us as an artist who paid attention in his work to landscape, portraiture and historical painting. However, it should be noted that the subject in his work always played an important role and often occupied the same equal position as other elements of the composition. A little higher, I already mentioned his student work “Apples on Leaves,” 1879, completed under the direction of Repin. If you compare this work with a work written on the same topic by Repin, you can see that Serov’s still life is more etude-like than his teacher’s painting. The novice artist used a low point of view, so the first and second plans are combined and the background is reduced.

The painting “Girl with Peaches,” known to everyone since childhood, goes beyond the portrait genre and it is no coincidence that it is called “Girl with Peaches” and not “Portrait of Vera Mamontova.” We can see that the features of portrait, interior and still life are combined here. The artist pays equal attention to the image of a girl in a pink blouse and a few but skillfully grouped objects. Pale yellow peaches lie on a white tablecloth, maple leaves and a shiny knife. Other things in the background are also lovingly painted: chairs, a large porcelain plate decorating the wall, a figurine of a toy soldier, a candlestick on the windowsill. The sunlight pouring from the window and casting bright reflections on objects gives the image a poetic charm.

Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vrubel (1856-1910) wrote: “And again it hits me, no, it doesn’t, but I hear that intimate national note that I so want to catch on the canvas and in the ornament. This is the music of a whole person, not dismembered by the distractions of the ordered, differentiated and pale West.”

At the Academy of Arts, Vrubel’s favorite teacher was Pavel Chistyakov, who taught the young painter to “paint with form” and argued that volumetric forms They should not be created in space with shading and contours, they should be built with lines. Thanks to him, Vrubel learned not just to show nature, but to conduct an intimate, almost loving conversation with her. The master’s wonderful still life “Rose Hip” (1884) was made in this spirit.

Against the background of exquisite drapery with floral motifs, the artist placed an elegant round vase painted with oriental patterns. The delicate white flower rose hips, shaded by blue-green fabric, and the leaves of the plant almost merge with the dimly shimmering black neck of the vase. This composition is filled with inexpressible charm and freshness, which the viewer simply cannot help but succumb to.

G.N. achieved great skill in creating “fake” still lifes. Teplov and T. Ulyanov. Most often they depicted a plank wall on which knots and veins of wood were drawn. Various objects were hung on the walls or tucked behind nailed ribbons: scissors, combs, letters, books, music notebooks. Clocks, inkwells, bottles, candlesticks, dishes and other small items are placed on narrow shelves. It seems that such a set of items is completely random, but in fact this is far from the case. Looking at such still lifes, one can guess about the interests of artists who played music, read, and were interested in art. The masters lovingly and diligently depicted things dear to them. These paintings touch with their sincerity and spontaneity of perception of nature.

Boris Mikhailovich Kustodiev (1878-1927) also devoted a lot of his work to the still life genre. On his cheerful canvases you can see bright satin fabrics, sparkling copper samovars, the shine of earthenware and porcelain, red slices of watermelon, bunches of grapes, apples, and delicious cupcakes. One of his remarkable paintings is “Merchant's Wife at Tea”, 1918. It is impossible not to admire the bright splendor of the objects shown on the canvas. A sparkling samovar, bright red pulp of watermelons, glossy apples and transparent grapes, a glass vase with jam, a gilded sugar bowl and a cup standing in front of the merchant’s wife - all these things add a festive mood to the image.

In the still life genre, much attention was paid to the so-called “trick still lifes.” Many still lifes are “fake”, despite the fact that they main task was misleading the viewer, have undoubted artistic merits, especially noticeable in museums, where, hung on the walls, such compositions, of course, cannot deceive the public. But there are exceptions here. For example, “Still Life with Books”, made by P.G. Bogomolov, is inserted into an illusory “bookcase”, and visitors do not immediately realize that it is just a painting.

“Still Life with a Parrot” (1737) by G.N. is very good. Teplova. With the help of clear, precise lines turning into soft, smooth contours, light, transparent shadows, and subtle color nuances, the artist shows a variety of objects hung on a plank wall. The wood is masterfully rendered, its bluish, pink, yellowish shades helping to create an almost real feeling of the fresh smell of freshly planed wood.

Russian “false” still lifes of the 18th century indicate that artists are not yet skillful enough in conveying space and volumes. It is more important for them to show the texture of objects, as if transferred to canvas from reality. Unlike Dutch still lifes, where things absorbed by the light environment are depicted in unity with it, in the paintings of Russian masters, objects painted very carefully, even meticulously, live as if by themselves, regardless of the surrounding space.

IN early XIX century, a major role in the further development of still life was played by the school of A.G. Venetsianov, who opposed the strict distinction of genres and sought to teach his students a holistic vision of nature.

A.G. Venetsianov. Threshing floor, 1821-23

The Venetsian school opened a new genre for Russian art - interior design. The artists showed various rooms of a noble house: living rooms, bedrooms, offices, kitchens, classrooms, servants' rooms, etc. In these works, an important place was given to the depiction of various objects, although still life itself was of almost no interest to representatives of Venetsianov’s circle (in any case, very few still lifes made by students of famous painter). Nevertheless, Venetsianov urged his students to carefully study not only the faces and figures of people, but also the things around them.

An object in Venetsianov’s painting is not an accessory; it is inextricably linked with the rest of the details of the picture and is often the key to understanding the image. For example, a similar function is performed by sickles in the painting “The Reapers” (second half of the 1820s, Russian Museum, St. Petersburg). Things in Venetian art seem to be involved in the unhurried and serene life of the characters.

Although Venetsianov, in all likelihood, did not paint still lifes himself, he included this genre in his teaching system. The artist wrote: “ Inanimate things are not subject to those various changes that are characteristic of animate objects; they stand, hold themselves at attention, motionless in front of an inexperienced artist and give him time to delve more accurately and more judiciously, to peer into the relationship of one part to another, both in lines and in light and shadow with the color itself , which depend on the space occupied by objects”.

Of course, still life played a big role in the pedagogical system of the Academy of Arts in the 18th century. XIX century x (in the classrooms, students made copies of still lifes by Dutch masters), but it was Venetsianov, who encouraged young artists to turn to nature, who introduced into his first-year curriculum a still life composed of such things as plaster figures, dishes, candlesticks, multi-colored ribbons, fruits and flowers. Venetsianov selected subjects for educational still lifes so that they would be interesting to beginning painters, understandable in form, and beautiful in color.

In the paintings created by Venetsianov’s talented students, things are conveyed truthfully and freshly. These are the still lifes of K. Zelentsov, P.E. Kornilov. In the work of the Venetian artists there are also works that are not still lifes in their essence, but, nevertheless, the role of things in them is enormous. One can name, for example, the paintings “Office in Ostrovki” and “Reflection in the Mirror” by G.V. Magpies kept in the collection of the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg.

G.V. Magpie. “Office in Ostrovki.” Fragment, 1844, Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Still lifes in these works do not appear independently, but as parts of the interior uniquely arranged by the master, corresponding to the general compositional and emotional structure of the picture. The main connecting element here is light, gently moving from one object to another. Looking at the canvases, you understand how interesting the world around us an artist who lovingly depicted every object, every smallest thing.

The still life presented in the “Office in Ostrovki”, although it occupies a small place in the overall composition, seems unusually significant, highlighted due to the fact that the author fenced it off from the rest of the space with a high back of the sofa, and cut it off on the left and right with a frame. It seems that Soroka was so carried away by the objects lying on the table that he almost forgot about the other details of the picture. The master carefully wrote out everything: goose feather, pencil, compass, protractor, penknife, abacus, sheets of paper, candle in a candlestick. The point of view from above allows you to see all things, without any of them blocking the other. Attributes such as a skull, a watch, as well as symbols of “earthly vanity” (a figurine, papers, abacus) allow some researchers to classify the still life as a vanitas type, although such a coincidence is purely accidental; most likely, the serf artist took advantage of what was lying on the table his owner.

The famous master of object compositions of the first half of the 19th century century there was an artist I.F. Khrutsky, who painted many beautiful paintings in the spirit of the Dutch still life XVII century. Among his best works are “Flowers and Fruits” (1836, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow), “Portrait of a Wife with Flowers and Fruits” (1838, Art Museum Belarus, Minsk), “Still Life” (1839, Museum of the Academy of Arts, St. Petersburg).

In the first half of the 19th century in Russia, “botanical still life”, which came to us from Western Europe. In France at this time, works by botanists were published. beautiful illustrations. The artist P.Zh. became very famous in many European countries. Redoute, who was considered “the most famous flower painter of his time.” “Botanical drawing” was a significant phenomenon not only for science, but also for art and culture. Such drawings were presented as gifts and decorated albums, which thus put them on a par with other works of painting and graphics.

In the second half of the 19th century, P.A. paid great attention to the depiction of objects. Fedotov. Although he did not actually paint still lifes, the world of things he created delights with its beauty and truthfulness.

Objects in Fedotov's works are inseparable from people's lives; they take a direct part in the dramatic events depicted by the artist.

Looking at the picture “ Fresh gentleman” (“Morning after the feast”, 1846), you are amazed at the abundance of objects carefully painted by the master. A real still life, surprising in its laconicism, is presented in Fedotov’s famous painting “The Major’s Matchmaking” (1848). The glass is tangibly and realistically conveyed: wine glasses with high stems, a bottle, a decanter. The thinnest and most transparent, it seems to emit a gentle crystal ringing.

Fedotov P.A. Major's matchmaking. 1848-1849. Tretyakov Gallery

Fedotov does not separate objects from the interior, so things are shown not only authentically, but also in a picturesque subtlety. Every ordinary or not very attractive object that takes its place in the common space seems surprising and beautiful.

Although Fedotov did not paint still lifes, he showed an undoubted interest in this genre. His instinct told him how to arrange this or that object, from what point of view to present it, what things would look next to him not only logically, but also expressively.

The world of things, which helps to show human life in all its manifestations, endows Fedotov’s works with a special musicality. Such are the paintings “Anchor, another anchor” (1851-1852), “Widow” (1852) and many others.

In the second half of the 19th century, the genre of still life practically ceased to interest artists, although many genre painters willingly included elements of still life in their compositions. Things acquire great importance in the paintings of V.G. Perova (“Tea Party in Mytishchi”, 1862, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow), L.I. Solomatkin (“City Slavers”, 1846, State Historical Museum, Moscow).

Still lifes are presented in genre scenes A.L. Yushanova (“Seeing Off the Chief”, 1864), M.K. Klodt (“The Sick Musician”, 1855), V.I. Jacobi (“The Pedlar”, 1858), A.I. Korzukhina (“Before Confession”, 1877; “In the monastery hotel”, 1882), K.E. Makovsky (“Alekseich”, 1882). All these paintings are now kept in the collection of the Tretyakov Gallery.

K.E. Makovsky. “Alekseich”, 1882, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

In the 1870-1880s, everyday life remained the leading genre in Russian painting, although landscape and portrait also occupied an important place. The Wanderers, who sought to show the truth of life in their works, played a huge role in the further development of Russian art. Artists began to attach great value working from life and therefore increasingly turned to landscape and still life, although many of them considered the latter a waste of time, a meaningless passion for form, devoid of internal content. So, I.N. Kramskoy mentioned the famous French painter, who did not neglect still lifes, in a letter to V.M. Vasnetsov: “A talented person will not waste time on depicting, say, basins, fish, etc. This is good for people who already have everything, but we have a lot to do.”

Nevertheless, many Russian artists who did not paint still lifes admired them when looking at the paintings of Western masters. For example, V.D. Polenov, who was in France, wrote to I.N. Kramskoy: “Look how things go here, like clockwork, everyone works in their own way, in the most various directions, what anyone likes, and all this is valued and paid for. For us, what matters most is what is done, but here it is how it is done. For example, for a copper basin with two fish they pay twenty thousand francs, and in addition they consider this coppersmith to be the first painter, and, perhaps, not without reason.”

Having visited the exhibition in Paris in 1883, V.I. Surikov admired landscapes, still lifes and paintings of flowers. He wrote: “Gibert’s fish are good. The fish slime is rendered masterfully, colorfully, mixing tone on tone.” There is in his letter to P.M. Tretyakov and these words: “And Gilbert’s fish are such a miracle. Well, you can really take it in your hands, it’s written to the point of deception.”

Both Polenov and Surikov could become excellent masters of still life, as evidenced by the masterfully painted objects in their compositions (“Sick” by Polenov, “Menshikov in Berezov” by Surikov).