University of Glasgow

Istoriya Russkogo Iskusstva by I. E. GrabarReview by: John E. BowltSoviet Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jan., 1971), pp. 467-471Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/149622 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 08:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and University of Glasgow are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Soviet Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:11:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

It is a curiosity of Soviet publishing that an author's best works are fre-

quently the last to appear. Hundreds of Lunacharsky's articles have been

republished in the last ten years (including an 8-volume Sobranie sochinenii) but few that I read with such enjoyment as his essay 'Temptations and dangers of high culture', written for D. B. Ryazanov, then Director of the Marx-

Engels Institute, on the occasion of his 6oth birthday in 193o. Ryazanov was an eccentric, and it must be admitted that Lunacharsky presented him with an eccentric tribute. For if there was anyone-other than Lunacharsky himself-who was a Soviet embodiment of high culture with its temptations and dangers, it was Ryazanov. Lunacharsky discusses the temptations of eclecticism, over-refinement of taste, intellectual elitism, irony, love of

paradox, cultivation of individuality. He also discusses their opposites: narrow orthodoxy, intellectual crudity, vulgarization, over-categorization- the sins, in fact, of the Averbakhs and Dinamovs, though Lunacharsky deals with them as pure abstractions. It becomes clear that Ryazanov is guilty of

high culture in all its dangerous forms. (Ryazanov was apparently not flattered by this, and objected to the essay's publication.) But Lunacharsky, like Ryazanov, was a lover of paradox. His conclusion is both paradoxical and seriously meant: 'I just wanted to throw a glance at the dangers of high culture,' Lunacharsky wrote, 'to illumine them, and at the same time to hope that the greatest possible number of people were subjected to those dangers --of course, on condition that they were able to overcome them. Because

every kind of high culture is not only "universal" and "very great", but

absolutely necessary to a class which wants to build the world anew.'

London S. FITZPATRICK

I. E. Grabar' (ed.), Istoriya russkogo iskusstva. Vol. io, Book 2. Moscow, 'Nauka', 1969. 560 pp. (Tirage 12,200.)

BOOK 2 of Volume 1O in this many-volumed series on Russian and Soviet art is probably the most important contribution which Soviet art historians have made to the study of the so-called 'leftist' movements immediately before the revolution. The book is concerned with the evolution of the Russian visual arts, particularly painting, between the mid-igoos and 19I7. Not since the late I920S and early I93os, when such able critics as Gollerbakh, Punin and Matsa were still active in this field, has any comprehensive examination of the period been undertaken by Soviet scholars (our long wait for this particular volume since Volume 2 in I957 and Volume 9 in I965 has at last been rewarded).

Apart from its value as a source of reference, the importance of this book lies in its treatment of the avant garde movements, for the attitude towards them emerges not as one of utter negation or censure but, at least, as one of hesitation and even tentative justification. As with Book I of Volume Io, which dealt specifically with the 'World of Art' movement, and with the recent two-volume monograph Russkaya khudoghestvennaya kul'tura kontsa

It is a curiosity of Soviet publishing that an author's best works are fre-

quently the last to appear. Hundreds of Lunacharsky's articles have been

republished in the last ten years (including an 8-volume Sobranie sochinenii) but few that I read with such enjoyment as his essay 'Temptations and dangers of high culture', written for D. B. Ryazanov, then Director of the Marx-

Engels Institute, on the occasion of his 6oth birthday in 193o. Ryazanov was an eccentric, and it must be admitted that Lunacharsky presented him with an eccentric tribute. For if there was anyone-other than Lunacharsky himself-who was a Soviet embodiment of high culture with its temptations and dangers, it was Ryazanov. Lunacharsky discusses the temptations of eclecticism, over-refinement of taste, intellectual elitism, irony, love of

paradox, cultivation of individuality. He also discusses their opposites: narrow orthodoxy, intellectual crudity, vulgarization, over-categorization- the sins, in fact, of the Averbakhs and Dinamovs, though Lunacharsky deals with them as pure abstractions. It becomes clear that Ryazanov is guilty of

high culture in all its dangerous forms. (Ryazanov was apparently not flattered by this, and objected to the essay's publication.) But Lunacharsky, like Ryazanov, was a lover of paradox. His conclusion is both paradoxical and seriously meant: 'I just wanted to throw a glance at the dangers of high culture,' Lunacharsky wrote, 'to illumine them, and at the same time to hope that the greatest possible number of people were subjected to those dangers --of course, on condition that they were able to overcome them. Because

every kind of high culture is not only "universal" and "very great", but

absolutely necessary to a class which wants to build the world anew.'

London S. FITZPATRICK

I. E. Grabar' (ed.), Istoriya russkogo iskusstva. Vol. io, Book 2. Moscow, 'Nauka', 1969. 560 pp. (Tirage 12,200.)

BOOK 2 of Volume 1O in this many-volumed series on Russian and Soviet art is probably the most important contribution which Soviet art historians have made to the study of the so-called 'leftist' movements immediately before the revolution. The book is concerned with the evolution of the Russian visual arts, particularly painting, between the mid-igoos and 19I7. Not since the late I920S and early I93os, when such able critics as Gollerbakh, Punin and Matsa were still active in this field, has any comprehensive examination of the period been undertaken by Soviet scholars (our long wait for this particular volume since Volume 2 in I957 and Volume 9 in I965 has at last been rewarded).

Apart from its value as a source of reference, the importance of this book lies in its treatment of the avant garde movements, for the attitude towards them emerges not as one of utter negation or censure but, at least, as one of hesitation and even tentative justification. As with Book I of Volume Io, which dealt specifically with the 'World of Art' movement, and with the recent two-volume monograph Russkaya khudoghestvennaya kul'tura kontsa

RE VIE WS RE VIE WS 467 467

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:11:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

XIX-nachala XX veka (M. 1968-69), a distinct shift of policy towards Russian leftism is noticeable. The volume is divided into four chapters-'Painting and Graphics', 'Sculpture', 'Architecture and Art Industry' and 'Folk Art'- and by far the most important both as regards number of pages (25o) and content is the first. The latter, in turn, is divided into six sub-sections dealing with the painter and critic I. E. Grabar' (0. I. Podobedova), the 'Union of Russian Artists' (R. S. Kaufman), 'New Tendencies in Painting, I907-1917' (D. Z. Kogan), 'Theatrical Decor Art' (M. V. Davydova), 'Graphics' (V. N. Petrov and A. A. Sidorov) and 'Magazine Drawings in the Revolu-

tionary Period, 1905-1907' (V. N. Petrov and A. A. Sidorov). Podobedova's article on Grabar' is a partial condensation of her detailed

monograph on him (M. I965), although the emphasis is on his work in oil between 1900 and 1917. Essentially, the survey introduces no new informa- tion apart from archival quotations from letters to contemporaries.

Kaufman's appraisal of the 'Union of Russian Artists' (in itself a by no means progressive society) is useful as a collection of names and dates. Kaufman examines the movement from the standpoint of its leading mem- bers-Yuon, Vinogradov, Rylov, Turzhansky-painters, who, at the height of their careers, remained but epigones of the great Levitan and of the 'Wanderers'. For the Western observer such names mean little, shadowed as

they have been by the more dynamic figures of Malevich and Tatlin: Kaufman's essay provides us with a cultural perspective, a sense of balance to the extremism which, like most periods of cultural transformation, has so often been judged out of context. The author's establishment of those tradi- tional patterns which were still very much alive before 1917-landscape painting, the partial assimilation of Impressionism via Grabar' and Korovin, the concern with realist content and not with formal experimentation- provides a necessary back-drop (however uninteresting in itself) to the

ensuing essay on the avant garde. Kogan's article forms the pivot of the book. Her survey begins with a

cursory description of the 'Blue Rose' movement and exhibition, a stage which, quite justifiably, she sees as the beginning of the 'crisis of aesthetic values': Kogan examines the leaders of the movement-Kuznetsov, Krymov, Sapunov, Saryan and Sudeikin-both biographically and artistically, dwelling at some length on the 'safest' of them, Saryan. Unfortunately, Kogan hastens to dismiss the first 'Blue Rose' works of these masters, works which in many ways were their most original and most audacious, and in the case of Kuz- netsov and Saryan moves on to their more conventional, Gauguinesque can- vases of 1910-I2; Krymov and Sudeikin, too, receive more attention with

regard to their later, more stylized work. Sapunov, however, is afforded a more comprehensive appraisal, perhaps by virtue of the fact that he died in 1912 before any drastic formal transformation, and that he has already been

recognized as a positive contributor to the development of Russian art:

Kogan's approach to his work is symptomatic of the general shift of critical emphasis observed above, especially in such analyses as: '[Sapunov's] bouquets of paper flowers . . . are embodied in images liberated from sensual veracity of the model .... At the same time the artist subordinates

RE VIE WS 468

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:11:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

colour to decorative and dramatic expression . . . and creates images both tender and courageous, both intimate and monumental ....' Such descrip- tions point away from the exclusively tendentious criticism associated with Soviet art historians towards a more flexible (dare one say formalistic?) method. Kogan rightly traces the genesis of Neo-primitivism to the Moscow 'Wreath' exhibition at the end of 1907 (an exhibition which she erroneously equates with 'Stefanos', a St. Petersburg showing of I908) when the 'Blue Rose' artists were confronted with the louder newcomers, the Burliuks, Larionov and Goncharova; however, she omits to mention other occasions for this development, such as the Burliuks' collection of peasant art, the

retrospective Gauguin exhibition in Paris in I906 which many would-be leftists had seen, or the general shift of artistic allegiance from St. Petersburg to Moscow and the provinces. Kogan's survey of Neo-primitivism is con- centrated on the 'Knave of Diamonds' group and takes the form of comment- aries on its individual members: because such names as Konchalovsky, Kuprin and Mashkov have already been accepted by Soviet art historians

(they subsequently rejected 'extremism' and were among the first to turn to Socialist Realism) and have already been studied in some detail, their treat- ment here is of limited significance, the more so since the information is of a

general nature. Of the parallel, St. Petersburg 'Union of Youth' movement with its orientation towards national and Eastern primitive art-only a fleeting mention is made. Nevertheless, the biographical and artistic details on Fal'k and Lentulov, who until recently have been consistently neglected, make up in part for the generalizations and omissions. In the context of Neo-

primitivism Kogan touches on the well-known exhibitions of the 'Donkey's Tail', the 'Target' and 'No. 4', but, sadly, their history, function and impact are not considered and thus our knowledge of them-three of the most decisive turning-points in the leftist movement-is not supplemented. On the other hand, the reader is confronted with a surprisingly detailed descrip- tion of Chagall's contemporary work-valuable, of course, to the Russian student, but not strictly relevant to the evolution of Russian Neo-primitivism and Cubo-futurism; in this respect Kandinsky is apportioned too long a description-the point.being that neither Chagall nor Kandinsky exerted a

profound influence on this period of Russian art. Instead, a good deal more

space might have been assigned to Filonov, Malevich and Tatlin, who, while receiving long overdue attention, are still not allowed to appear as the

explosive and transformative figures which they undoubtedly were immedi- ately after I9I2 . True, Tatlin again receives comment in the section on

sculpture, but his position or that of Malevich is never defined or evaluated vis-a-vis the avant garde movement; similarly, the constant cross-fertilization of ideas both between the painters themselves-the Burliuks, Larionov, Malevich, Shevchenko, Tatlin-and between the Futurists of literature and the Futurists of painting is hardly indicated.

Early in her essay Kogan observes that the boundaries between each group so often overlapped, yet she does, in fact, fail to transmit the great aspiration of the age towards synthesism, towards a cohesive style-the fragmentation of values on all fronts was surely but the result of a frantic search for a

REVIE WIS 469

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:11:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

discipline, a School. Consequently, the picture Kogan presents is one of a

complex of arbitrary experiments devoid of any sense of evolution or

organicality. The insertion towards the end of the article after the meagre reference to Suprematism of accounts of Yakovlev, Shukhaev and Grigor'ev, who were quite alien to the avant garde movement, and the virtual postscript on Petrov-Vodkin (who so obviously should have been discussed in the context of the 'Blue Rose') emphasize the overall impression: here is a col- lection of names, dates, archival quotations and general descriptions all very useful in themselves, but lacking the proper perspective and dimension of

comparative criticism which would have raised this essay from the level of a not always reliable directory to that of a worthwhile compendium.

Davydova's contribution on theatrical decor is essentially an expansion of her essay in Russkaya khudo-Khestvennaya kul'tra . . . (Book 2, pp. 2z2-38). Again, the omission of details on the 'Union of Youth' is to be regretted; the more conventional area of stylized decor-Bakst, Benois, Golovin, etc. -is, however, comprehensively presented. Of particular value are the lines on Goncharova and Exter as theatrical designers, an aspect (especially in the case of Exter) which has been shamefully underrated both in Russia and in the West.

The Petrov-Sidorov essays on graphics could well have been allotted more

space at the expense of the Grabar' or 'Union of Russian Artists' sections. As it stands, the first article is too unbalanced, and the second article, devoted to the satirical journals of 1905-07, is a reiteration of what is already known and contributes no new material. The whole area of Futurist book illustra- tion, which assumed such importance in the years 1912-16, is ignored in the first article, and neither of them give any indication of the tremendous role which graphics would play in the first years of the Soviet regime.

Chapter 2 contains a single essay on sculpture by M. L. Neiman. The author begins sensibly with an appraisal of Trubetskoi and traces the subse-

quent development of Russian sculpture through Golubkina, Konenkov, Andreev and Matveev. The paragraphs on Matveev's early work are of

particular interest because of his close association with the 'Blue Rose' painters, and new details are provided which recent monographs on him have lacked. Neiman devotes the last pages of his article to a brief survey of the leftist sculptors Archipenko and Tatlin, but, as in Kogan's essay, no

attempt is made to place Tatlin's work in its historical perspective or to assess its impact on the subsequent development of Russian sculpture. Gabo, Lipshits and Zadkin are mentioned 'en passant'-but the fact that they are mentioned and are not overtly censured further points to a less rigid attitude.

Chapter 3 contains two essays-on architecture by E. A. Borisova (with a contribution by T. P. Kazhdan) and on the applied arts by V. F. Rozhan- kovsky-both of which contain some new material. Borisova deals compre- hensively with the 'Art Nouveau' and Neo-classical styles which so permeated Russian urban architecture in the 90oos. Apart from background details to such projects as the Ryabushinsky house (now the Gorky Museum), the MKhAT building or the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, items which one now takes for granted, such as the complex of railway stations on (now)

RE VIE WIS 47?

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:11:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Komsomol'skaya ploshchad' or the Neo-Gothic TsUM stores in Moscow are analysed and documented. In isolated instances the Abramtsevo colony is referred to, but much more could have been said on the indigenous traditions of Russian 'Art Nouveau' and of the impulse which Abramtsevo, Talashkino and the retrospectivism of the 'World of Art' undoubtedly gave to the

appearance of modernism in Russian architecture. Moreover, Borisova confines herself to the main ensembles of Moscow and St. Petersburg and affords little attention to the contemporary developments in the provinces (e.g., Kiev, Odessa). The latter criticism can be levelled at Rozhankovsky's essay on the applied arts (cf. his similar article in Russkaya khudozhestvennaya kul'tura ... pp. 376-83): much is provided on the furnishings of Moscow and St. Petersburg houses and on the glassware and porcelain of the main factories, but the interaction between rural traditions and imported ideas is not studied.

Such an omission is partly compensated for by the short last chapter on folk art by T. M. Razina. While this area has already been adequately investigated, and Razina herself advances little original material and gives no archival references, the section-like Kaufman's-serves to provide a more balanced presentation of the whole period: one is made aware of the non-leftist, but parallel developments into which artistic energies were also

being channelled. As important as the text is the abundant photographic material: a few

reproductions are in colour, overall quality varies. The illustrations to the architectural and applied art sections contain ground plans, architectural details and interiors not readily accessible to the scholar.

Despite the many weaknesses in Book 2, its inadequate organization, its

generalizations, its omissions, it is to be welcomed as a major contribution by Soviet art historians to the study and understanding of their own culture. Whether this adjustment of critical focus reflects a genuine revision of Soviet criteria or whether it is merely a fortuitous oversight remains to be seen: it is known that: many leading art historians are now turning their attention to the serious study of Russian modernism (monographs covering Fal'k, Goncharova and Larionov are at least awaiting publication), and we can but

hope that the fruits of their labours will follow the new directions tacitly promised by this volume.

Lawrence, Kansas JOHN E. BOWLT

J. G. Zielinski, Lectures on the Theory of Socialist Planning. London, OUP (for the Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Ibadan), 1968. xiii+ I 70 pp. is. (paperback).

DR. ZIELINSKI, unlike some other East European economists who have communicated information about central planning to the developing coun- tries, is a realist. In the 195os and early I96os, the group of economists to which he belongs, headed by the late Professor A. Wakar, tenaciously argued

Komsomol'skaya ploshchad' or the Neo-Gothic TsUM stores in Moscow are analysed and documented. In isolated instances the Abramtsevo colony is referred to, but much more could have been said on the indigenous traditions of Russian 'Art Nouveau' and of the impulse which Abramtsevo, Talashkino and the retrospectivism of the 'World of Art' undoubtedly gave to the

appearance of modernism in Russian architecture. Moreover, Borisova confines herself to the main ensembles of Moscow and St. Petersburg and affords little attention to the contemporary developments in the provinces (e.g., Kiev, Odessa). The latter criticism can be levelled at Rozhankovsky's essay on the applied arts (cf. his similar article in Russkaya khudozhestvennaya kul'tura ... pp. 376-83): much is provided on the furnishings of Moscow and St. Petersburg houses and on the glassware and porcelain of the main factories, but the interaction between rural traditions and imported ideas is not studied.

Such an omission is partly compensated for by the short last chapter on folk art by T. M. Razina. While this area has already been adequately investigated, and Razina herself advances little original material and gives no archival references, the section-like Kaufman's-serves to provide a more balanced presentation of the whole period: one is made aware of the non-leftist, but parallel developments into which artistic energies were also

being channelled. As important as the text is the abundant photographic material: a few

reproductions are in colour, overall quality varies. The illustrations to the architectural and applied art sections contain ground plans, architectural details and interiors not readily accessible to the scholar.

Despite the many weaknesses in Book 2, its inadequate organization, its

generalizations, its omissions, it is to be welcomed as a major contribution by Soviet art historians to the study and understanding of their own culture. Whether this adjustment of critical focus reflects a genuine revision of Soviet criteria or whether it is merely a fortuitous oversight remains to be seen: it is known that: many leading art historians are now turning their attention to the serious study of Russian modernism (monographs covering Fal'k, Goncharova and Larionov are at least awaiting publication), and we can but

hope that the fruits of their labours will follow the new directions tacitly promised by this volume.

Lawrence, Kansas JOHN E. BOWLT

J. G. Zielinski, Lectures on the Theory of Socialist Planning. London, OUP (for the Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Ibadan), 1968. xiii+ I 70 pp. is. (paperback).

DR. ZIELINSKI, unlike some other East European economists who have communicated information about central planning to the developing coun- tries, is a realist. In the 195os and early I96os, the group of economists to which he belongs, headed by the late Professor A. Wakar, tenaciously argued

RE VIE WIS RE VIE WIS 47I 47I

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:11:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions