|
During the first half of the century few
people were interested in landscape pictures. The artistic taste of this period
was dominated by Karl Briullov and Alexander Ivanov, two of the best
representatives of the Russian academic school of painting. The change came
when the new generation of painters became more concerned about the landscape
itself and made an effort to reproduce its real beauties and forget about its
romantic side. The native countryside became the object of attention not only
for the painters but for the public too. This was part of the much larger
change in taste that coincided with the liberation of serfs and which affected
almost all aspects of life. The evolution of painting followed the tendencies
that occurred first in literature, dominated by a newly formed school of
liberal and radical writers and literary and art critics.
The beginning of the second half of the 19th century marked their rising
influence, which soon resulted in the reappraisal and new understanding of
aesthetic values. A group of literary critics, writing for the avidly read St.
Petersburg journal "Otechestveniya Zapiski" and the review
"Sovremenik," strongly influenced, or better to say, imposed their
views on most writers, painters, composers and other artists. The leading
members of this group were Chernishevskii, Dobroliubov, Pisarev, Nekrasov,
Lavrov and Mikhailovski. In 1855 N.G. Chernishevskii, 1828-1889, published his
"Aesthetic Relations of Art and Reality," (1855) which marked the
beginning of a new utilitarian approach to literature and art. For him
intelligentsia was under obligation to expose reactionary forces and tendencies
that are thwarting happiness for everyone. He called on writers and artists to
develop "social sense of responsibility" and fight for new
understanding of "beautiful." Nekrasov later challenged the
intellectuals by telling them: "You may not become a poet, but you must be
a citizen." Pisarev denied any value to literature and art unless they
served revolutionary purposes. Their criticism was seldom used to evaluate
artistic qualities of a work, but merely to preach their own political views.
They demanded rejection of the past for the sake of social progress and kept
inviting the intellectuals, not without a good dose of demagoguery, to fulfill
"Their obligation towards the people." Their well written articles
and essays had a deep effect on readers, and not only on radical youth, that
quite rapidly resulted in a new way of thinking and feeling. For a period of
time the decline of arts and literature was obvious. Painters were not spared
from it either. They were told that regardless of how artistically or greatly
they paint, their pictures would be worthless unless they express something
socially useful or contain a moral message. In other words, painting must serve
a purpose and propagate an ideology. Its value is not judged by how the canvas
was painted and which colors were used, but what it tells to the public. At the
same time the advocates of the new art were strongly against the governing
class using it for its purposes, but they did not want the art to be neutral
either or just express aesthetic values. They wanted it to become highly
militant political and moralizing force that will fight for "Universal
justice" and serve social and revolutionary purposes. Not many painters
and writers found their inspiration in this tendentious revolutionary campaign.
The art philosophy of Chernishevskii and his group called by them :Lofty
realism," had to wait for the establishment of the Soviet regime in Russia
to be instituted by force under the name of "Socialist Realism." IN
the meantime further steps away from the academic conventionality were made by
some painters, who either followed Fedotov's fastidious social satire, or made
attempts to free themselves from stale academic practices.
|
|