And paradigms

The interaction of paradigms as languages ​​of Russian artistic culture of the end of x1x =? the beginning of the twentieth century on the example of the attitude to the monument

The paradigms that have become so familiar to the scientist hearing (therefore never ! ( 1 ) appeared in this article as the times huddled in a flock. This metaphor in our case is deciphered as follows: by time we mean monuments that we consider as a chronotope ( 2 ), a kind of “time spent”; under flocks =? Paradigms ( 3 ), or the systems of forms of one and the same (in the same (in the same grammar =?

The existence of several directions in the Russian artistic life of centuries, personified by V.Kandinsky, K. Malevich, V. Tatlin, I. Grabar, N. Roerich, P. Florensky, A. Lunacharsky, A. Benois and others, proven, is not doubtful, and I pronounce this only because of the desire to expose these faces. However, we note: people have the ability to change their essence depending on what quality prevails in them =? They suddenly become either faces , then by the larch .

So far, we call the named and personified directions in passing paradigms and consider them as languages ​​of artistic culture. Thus, the paradigm (or the language of artistic culture) =? Each with its originality, integrity, extraordinary elasticity and transparency (these qualities =? Our and only our figurative representation of the paradigm) is personified and contains chronotopes. So we see the fabric of artistic culture, cunning from paradigms.

A few more preliminary remarks: we would like to note the absolute impossibility of the existence of one paradigm without another (each manifests itself only in relation to the paradigm-opponent. This is especially noticeable when studying the modern stated problem of criticism =? We quote a lot mainly in order to show the appropriate stylistics); The presence (according to Kondakov, and he =? Following Berdyaev) two trends =? revolutionizing and conservative . And most importantly for us =? The paradigms showed themselves most vividly at the turn of the century in relation to the protection of monuments. (According to our assumptions, the protection of monuments =? This is always the most striking place of manifestation of the paradigm =? A kind of acute conversation .)

So, we will consider the interaction of the paradigm as languages ​​of Russian artistic culture on the example of attitude to the monument as a chronotope.

Now =? What was meant by the monument to V. Kandinsky, K. Malevich, V. Tatlin, I. Grabar, N. Rerei, P. Florensky, A. Lunacharsky, A. Benois, who personified several directions in the artistic life of Russia in the beginning of the century, and, without a doubt, influenced it due to the undeniable personality of each of them.

V. Tatlin, K. Malevich =? Radical representatives of the avant -garde =? We saw their monument in the future (a kind =? Dream of the monument, chrono =? Time =? Future, and topos, of course, shameful); V.Kandinsky =? "Moderate" avant -garde =? I thought that the monument =? A phenomenon caused by actualization . (This point of view seems to us the most modern. Choons and topos here and now.) I. Grabar =? I represented a classicizing trend =? Only a work appeared to be a monument, which appeared up to the first third of the 20th century; P. Florensky =? represented the national (Slavophil) trend (in both cases =? Chrono =? In the past ) A. Lunacharsky expressed an official point of view (in principle, it could be close to any of the directions), but this one gradually closed with the classicizing . Significant differences in the views of the artists were reflected both in the fate of art and the fate of the protection of monuments, and, ultimately, in the fate of the artists themselves.

Thus, not only the contradictions between social and cultural phenomena, cases of mutual inconsistency between social subjects and their cultural meanings, when the future (past) sought to be realized, but not always could do this, but the personal “temporary” orientation, acquire. In addition, observed in the framework of each direction of “protective” and “revolutionizing” trends are significant for interpretations. We find evidence of this in a detailed consideration of the attitude to the monument at the beginning of the twentieth century =? time of the “bookmarks” of the monument to our beloved hero =? A blue horseman ...

The super -task of many artists was to correspond to the trend associated with the greatly increased attention to the past art eras. (A little later, it received the name “neoacemicism”, or “neoclassicism.”) Outwardly, this property of the artistic consciousness of the turn of centuries was manifested, including in the significantly intensified socially narcous interest in the artistic monuments of the past. In the X1x century, only the structures of Ancient Rus' were included in the number of architectural monuments to be protected. The art of the St. Petersburg period refused artistry and defense. Miriskniks were the first to recognize the need for their protection. This direction was found in the magazines Apollo, World of Art, Golden Fleece, Old Years. The classicizing line can be traced in various anniversary exhibitions of M.F. Kazakova =? In Moscow, A.N. Voronikhina, Tom de Tomon and A.D. Zakharova =? in St. Petersburg; In various publications, for example, N. Lancer: “... not to mention the projects of the Church in the Byzantine style that is completely not suitable for PTB, ..” ( 4 ); In the cycle of the articles of G. Lukomsky “Materials on the history of vandalism in Russia”: “At the beginning of the X1x century, the influence of classical ideals in architecture was so strong and widespread that in our, sometimes the most provincial province, you can now see very curious, and sometimes sad architectural mixtures. A porch is attached to the church built in the hup of the church in the form of a strict portico of doric columns ... ”( 5 ).

In this sense, publication in the "old years" I. Grabar, which is also close to a classicizing tendency, is indicative. He is notable for his idea =? Consider the history of art as a history of culture. But the main thing =? It is important to us what influence in the future has had an attitude to a cultural heritage, in particular on the protection of monuments. The main thing for I. Grabar was the identification of the artistic significance of the monuments of the past. However, this is also very important to note for a more accurate understanding that the art of the X1x century denied the grabar, not considering art. This position in 1986 was present in the Ministry of Culture of the Methodological Recommendations for the compilation of a set of monuments: "Monuments from ancient times of 1 third of the 20th century are included in the set almost completely, since they are unique and relatively small." The article “On the limits of vandalism” in which the grabar explains the possibility and impossibility of demolition of two buildings: impossibility =? Petersburg warehouses in the Saloma Buyan (construction of T. Tomon) and the opportunity =? A small “pharmacy corps”, standing on the Mokhova between the right wing of the university and the Church of St. George on Krasnaya Gorka (architect D. Grigoryev ): “... the Grigoryevsky house gives the impression of a bastard (stylistics! = Then he notes: "Vulch D. Grigoryev." Grigoryev’s house did not fit into the concept of grabar. Similar selectivity is further characteristic in the practice of protecting monuments. So, in the campaign in the 1920s to discredit the artistic merits of the bell tower of the Kazan Cathedral (the middle of the 20th century), the Church of Nicholas Red Ring (1858) in Yushkovo Lane, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior I. Grabar took part on his concept. P. Palamarchuk noted: “Of the artists, the act on the“ anti -art ”of the temple (Christ the Savior =? A.R. ) signed only I. Grabar, guided by personal tastes” ( 8 ). Note: classicizing against the Slavophile. Everything in the past, which means that the time of culture (cultures) is also subjectively unequal. Point of view =? in the limit =? ideological. And because =? In case of coincidence with the main ideology =? Extremely dangerous for opponents. There is a curious statistics that reflect the directions of the artistic life at the 1st Congress of Russian architects in 1911: out of 20 reports =? In 14, the ideas of retrospectivism were affirmed. Classicism enjoyed special attention. Among all projects for the Russian pavilion at the International Art Exhibition in Rome in 1911, the V. Schuko project was chosen in the neoclassicism style ( 9 ).

In 1922, Abram Efros wrote, as if summing up the past decades: “From the depths of human souls, thirsts rising more and more: clarity, harmony, simplicity. That is why the classic, the severity of its forms, the balance of its parts, the accuracy of its prosodies attracts us. ” ( 10 )

The group that turned out to be closer to this direction, =? New Society of Artists (D. Cardovsky =? The permanent chairman, K. Bogaevsky, P. Neadovsky). They were close to the tradition of the St. Petersburg school and the lessons of Munich (meaning the school of A. Ashbe in Munich) ( 11 ). Among the students of Ashbe were D. Kardovsky, Al. Yakovlev,

V. Kandinsky, A. Yavlensky, I. Grabar, M. Verevkina, M. Dobuzhinsky. The school of A. Ashbe played an important role in the worldview of Russian artists. In exhibitions of the company, I. Fomin, V. Schuko, A. Shchusev, I. Grabar participated.

The Kardovsky S. Makovsky, the artist and organizer of art, opened in January 1909 the “Salon”, in which V. Kandinsky, V. Surikov, D. Burliuk, V. Serov, A. Yavlevsky, I. Levitan participated. This exhibition is indicative that Makovsky hoped to “exhaust advanced Moscow” ( 12 ). Makovsky is not interested in the entire “artistic line”, but its middle part: with a “myrisicusic” nucleus. He wrote: “Russian artists do not have the right to break away from the soil ... No matter how seductive the“ last words ”of the French are, we are obliged to reckon with the peculiarity of our, Russian life ...” ( 13 ). The exhibitions of N. Kulbin =? Teacher of the Military Medical Academy, a lodant artist, criticism, "an active and energetic man." In 1908, he arranged the exhibition "Modern Towers in Art", which was a lesser success than Makovsky. N. Khadzhiev characterizes Kulbin as a supporter of “artistic agreement” ( 14 ). That is why N. Kulbin played an important role for Kandinsky: they were ideologically close, and Kandinsky instructed Kulbin to read his report at the congress of Russian artists.

Representatives of the “world of art”, adherents of classics and Westerners, rejection caused the Russian style of the X1x century. In A. Benois and V. Kurbatov, dislike spread to its origins =? The art of Ancient Rus'. A. Benois in the article “Picturesque Petersburg” wrote: “There is more real life in Moscow, but is Moscow more beautiful =? This is another question ... A stone fairy tale Kremlin =? Something completely incomparable, but the Kremlin is not all of Moscow, and the whole city is more likely ugly and it is impersonal =? Provincial, deaf, county city ... ”( 15 ).

In relation to representatives of the national style, neoclassicians do not know condescension. Architecture of the era of two Alexandrov (P and Sh) =? synonym for deep decline. In the reign of Nicholas 1, they distinguish only that which dates back to the classical tradition, and completely reject everything related to the revival of nationality in architecture and with the name of a person who became the personification of this revival =? K. Tone. It is clear that the neo -Russian style sees its mission in the revival of the moral ideals of Christianity. Neoclassica has no religious background. The tone itself wrote about the introduction of "completely new and not formed in Russia methods and techniques of construction art, which the temple was set

(Christ the Savior = E. Kirichenko notes ( 17 ) that the most massive, truly universal and comprehensive distribution of the Russian style received in wooden architecture of the middle of x1x =? The beginning of the twentieth century. In it, as in the Russian Slavophilism, the processes = processes =? A peculiar expansion of the peasant by its origins of folk architecture in urban, country, manor, village construction. In Russian merchants there was a powerful layer =? The Old Believers, who were guided by the pre -Petrine era (in the second half of the hush century, they preferred pseudo -Gothic). In recent times, they supported the church construction and decoration of temples, and in the period we were considering transferred the baton to their children: so, Sergey Timofeevich Aksakov in his youth experienced the influence of A. Shishkov (ideological opponent N. Karamzin). And his sons =? Ivan and Konstantin Aksakov =? Prominent figures of the Slavophil circle, together with I. Mamontov and F. Chizhov. And the activity of the mammoth circle =? This is the creation of the Russian private opera, the restructuring of the Yaroslavl station, M. Vrubel at the exhibition in Paris, the work of V. Vasnetsov. First of all, the new version of the Russian style is owed to them? Neo -Russian style. Moreover, the sphere of existence of the neo -Russian style is unusually expanding at the beginning of the twentieth century. She captures fine art. Thus, a retrospective tendency reflected the activities of the Bunny Valet company. The objective meaning of their aspirations was Russian Lubok, a provincial sign, booth scenes, this line is close to N. Roerich, which organized a museum of pre -Petrine culture. Many publications are an illustration of this trend: for example, a letter from N. Roerich to the editorial office of the magazine “Old Years”: “Recently, a poisoning phenomenon is noticed among the broad circles of society =? There is a genuine interest in antiquity and in the whole past life in Russia. The consciousness awakens that the beautiful monuments of the past are needed not only as museum rarities, but as the strongest steps of the country's future culture ”( 18 ). V. Kandinsky participated in the exhibitions of the Bunny Valeta, but always emphasized that not styles are important, but the personality of the artist.

The relationship of the paradigm, represented by the extreme “left” artists, for example, Malevich, with a paradigm of neoclassicism developed acutely. In 1933, the artist recalled that, being at the crossroads of artistic capabilities in 1905, he chose the art of icon, peasant art of the aesthetic systems analyzed by him, rejecting movement as “the art of propaganda and denunciation”, antiquity and revival as a culture of “aristocrats and palaces”, “art for beauty” ( 19 ). In 1915, Malevich turned to Renaissance quite categorical invectives: “And the realism of the X1x century is much more than the ideal forms of aesthetic experiences of the Renaissance and Greece ... All the masters of the Renaissance achieved great results in anatomy. But the impression of the body did not reach the veracity. Their painting does not transmit the bodies, and the landscapes do not transmit the living lights, despite the fact that bluish veins show them in the bodies of their people ... And if the masters of the Renaissance would have found a picturesque essence, then it (the picturesque essence) would be higher than any Madonna and Jaconda ”( 20 ).

In 1924, in the manuscript “On my picturesque experience ...” Malevich unites into one category “Buying ugly phenomena to the value of art” masters, Rublev, Vrubel, Vasnetsov. Accordingly, neoclassicians are called by him “tomb -diggers of traces of the past culture, which they think to dress in new clothes picturesquely” ( 21 ). Malevich reason exclusively as a painter, moreover, as a painter very aggressively “promoting” painting into society. A similar position, as well as its considerable authority in the artistic environment in the revolutionary period “carried” it on the crest and left it in the members of the RVC. And he became with all the fervor, the good had the opportunity to bring this line to life. Hence his articles and very aggressive statements, perfectly coinciding with the idea of ​​the Communists about the plan of monumental propaganda, nominated by Lenin in early 1918, and the demolition of monuments to the tsars and their subjects. Of course, it is impossible to approach the ideas of Malevich. Just at a certain stage, the goal of the artist and power (only partially!) Coincided. The artist, quite sincere in his plans, was later rejected by power as a “formalist”. Social bait made it possible to swallow the artist.

Such artists as Malevich and Tatlin thought of the future. They could not realize their projects in the present. And if it is true that our assumption that each individual can be a bearer of different times, then several individuals can be combined by this temporary community (here they are =? Flocks of easy times!). In general, they form various fields of time that can exist in parallel. How do these fields exist and interact? A kind of system of forms =? The question to which we tea is to get an answer. Individuals are born and die in their fields of time; The boundaries of the fields are the carriers of the time themselves. The speed of any idea for centuries will depend on the density of the field. For each individual, only the monument that is besieged in its field of time, falling like a crystal on a field of time, will be valued. About the free course of time wrote about. Pavel Florensky: “But if everyone agrees, and not knowing the principle of relativity, that in various systems ... its time flows, with its speed and with its own measure, then not everyone ... thought about the possibility of time to flow with infinite speed and even, turning through itself, through the transition through the endless meaning of its course. Meanwhile, time can really be instant and turned, from the future to the past, from the consequences to reasons ... and this happens precisely when our life from visible goes into invisible, from real =? In imaginary ”( 22 ). In this sense, all the artistic attempts of Malevich, Tatlin are directed exclusively to the future, excluding the past (and hence the present). (The future without the present?) The architectonics of the Suprematic objects of Malevich found real embodiment in the structure and plastic of mirror skyscrapers of the United States, Canada, France in the 1970s =? 1980s, in modern Russia. In the designs of “cities of the future”, Malevich often has associative images =? "The motive of the monument." It is curious that in the period of preparation for the international competition for the project of the Monument-Mayaka Columbus in San Domingo in 1928 =? 1929 Malevich was nominated to the international jury.

V. Tatlin constructs his “Model of the project of the monument to the Communist International”: “It seemed to me that I looked into the crack and saw the XX1 century”, =? I. Ehrenburg wrote about this. We would clarify: rather the end of the 60s =? The beginning of the 70s of the twentieth century, when such complex and ambiguous works began to appear as the center of Georges Pompidu (bobur) or the pyramid of the Louvre, which reflected the concept of Bauhaus and visibly represent the ideal dreams of Tatlin, which the idea of ​​synthesizing arts leads to rethinking of fairly familiar forms. So, the monuments (their “how”, that is, form) are considered as a synthesis of individual genera of art, and existing not in the present or in the past, but in the future. This design on paper of future monuments is unusually fruitful. Here is what V. Tatlin wrote about this in the article “On Monuments”: “The shape of the monument corresponds to all currently invented art forms. In the current position of arts, these forms, obviously, will be the simplest: cubes, cylinders, balls, cones ... Monuments are desirable to make large as possible. Part of the simplest forms (Cuba) should contain lectures, halls for gymnastic exercises ... The monument further contains a campaign center, from which various kinds of appeals, proclamations, and brochures are converted throughout the city. In addition, it was suggested that on one of the extensive wings of the monument <...> it is necessary to place a giant screen, which in the evening would convey the last news of the cultural and political life of the world visible at a great distance ... ”( 23 ). Almost the geometry of Kandinsky with a naive connection of the subject-subject and the object of work, a kind of functional art design ... a monument in honor of the future. And ourselves =? Deprived of memory: personal, historical ...

Left artists are united by the fact that they consider the monuments (their “how”, that is, form) as a synthesis of individual arts (is synthesis possible?); Moreover, V. Tatlin =? as existing not in the present or in the past, but in the future. And V. Kandinsky =? as actualized as necessary.

V. Kandinsky is difficult to attribute to any of these trends. He at times adjoined each of them. And yet ... he kept a mansion. This was expressed among other and in relation to heritage, which he did not deny as radical artists did. The measure for the artist was not participation in a particular group, but the personality of the artist. “Each artistic work =? A child of his time and often it is made by the mother of our feelings ”, =? He wrote ( 24 ).

And he: “Spiritual life, which is part and one of the mighty engines is art, is a complex movement, but definite and capable of accepting expression in a simple formula: forward and up. This movement is the path of knowledge. It can take different forms, but always the same internal meaning remains at the base, t ( 25 ) a goal. ”

Since, in his opinion, imitation is based, but not a simple, monkey, but based on the similarity of internal aspirations in the entire moral and spiritual atmosphere, aspirations for goals, which were already pursued on the main basis, but later were forgotten =? So our sympathies arose, our understanding, our inner kinship with primitives. Kandinsky claims that each certain period can cause internal moral and spiritual points of contact. He writes: “The roots of another art capable of further formations are also in him in the modern spiritual era. But this other art at the same time is not only an echo of this era and its mirror, but it carries a future prophetic force pouring in Dali and in the depths ”( 26 ).

In the work “Point and line on the plane” ( 27 ), the artist identifies and considers several main geometric shapes, including a point. In such a consideration, you can trace the tradition coming from Pythagoras =? Plato =? Neoplatonikov: One =? The synthesis of the maximum and unlimited. The geometric image of God, they saw a point at which diametral opposites coincide, that is, it contains in itself in a folded form all other methods of being. Kandinsky develops this position: point =? The unity of being and non -being, the connection of silence and speech. Kandinsky believes that points, despite their significance, nevertheless remain only points. The artist’s task is to get them out of a state of balance, to create a work of art. How to tear out a point from a narrow circle of its usual meaning, make its internal properties sound? The point is translated from an almost appropriate state into inappropriate =? Therefore =? ally. The normal order is violated, and the point begins to play a new role. In the role of the Creator, Kandinsky is an artist who will seek to arouse more subtle feelings, which now do not have a name. This man was mysteriously given the power of "see" hidden in him. Such a role was assigned to the artist in accordance with the Schelingsian tradition. The artist captures the plan of the Creator, revealed symbolically, and then embodies him (productive ability of imagination).

Recall that the artist imagines the spiritual life of society in the form of a triangle, in the very tip of which sometimes stands completely one person. Its internal seeing is the most sad =? Nobody understands him. But in each part of the triangle there are artists, and the one who is able to see through the edges of their environment is the Prophet in this part and helps the movement of the “stubborn thief” . By the definition of the Kandinsky “seizing” the artist is rarely understood. Thus, good and evil, according to Kandinsky, are determined by the vector of aspiration of the artist: if they do not understand him, but he suffers all the hardships in his aspiration to the highest, =? This is good for people who will later reach the spiritual level of the artist. But, if the artist decided to make life easier and began to create for momentary purposes, then this is evil, since the artist used his strength to serve low needs, including the “unclean” content in the artistic form, thereby helping people to self -notify. Such actions inhibit the course of spiritual life. Such periods in history, devoid of highly standing creator, are devoid of enlightened bread, are periods of decline in spiritual life. In such dumb and blind times, people are especially pronounced and especially exclusively appreciate external successes, their aspirations =? Material good, their achievement =? Technical progress. For art, such periods are marked, according to Kandinsky, the loss of the question “what”, the only remaining =? "How" =? becomes a symbol of faith; Art loses the soul.

V. Kandinsky is surprisingly close in the understanding of spiritual life by the views of P. Florensky, who wrote: “So in artistic work the soul is delighted from the Holy World and rushes into the world of the mountain. There, without images, she feeds on the contemplation of the essence of the mountain world, tangs the eternal noumena of things and, having fed, burdened with the lead, descends again into the world of the prelucky. And here, at the same time, on the border of entry into a more derlet, its spiritual acquisition is clothed into symbolic images =? Those who, being fixed, give a work of art ... The art of descent, no matter how incoherently motivated, very theologically, =? The crystal of time ... on the contrary, the art of the ascent was built mechanically, in accordance with the time from which it was sent, i.e. The artist, going from real to imaginary, gives an imaginary image of reality, an empty likeness of everyday life ... ”( 28 ).

It is no coincidence that V. Kandinsky comprehends the concept of “monument” in the work “On Spiritual in Art”, since it is the spiritual, in his opinion, that underlies any work, including the monument. When, as a result of the uneven movement of the spiritual triangle, one of the more crowded parts of the triangle reaches the place where the lonely artist once stood, there is an awareness of his ideas and an attempt to recreat the artist’s bodily shell. “Often, the traces of his bodily“ I ”are not left on earth; It was then that they grab at all funds to recreate this bodily “I” of marble, cast iron, bronze, stone, in gigantic size. It is as if it is a flesh has a special price for these servants of the God -man, it is for them, who knew how to turn away from the bodily in order to serve the spiritual. In any case, the moment when people grab such goals for marble, there is a moment of achievements by a large number of people of the point on which the now glorified one was once ”( 29 ). This moment of reconstruction is an indicator that a large number of people reached the point at which the now famous stood. The desolation and destruction of the monument indicates that the next generations have not yet reached the fact that it was realized by the previous one.

“How many years did it take, =? wrote V. Kandinsky, =? So that one of the more crowded parts of the triangle reaches the place where he once stood lonely. And contrary to all monuments (are some monuments a sad answer to this question?) How many really reached this place? ” ( 30 ). The monument, the indicator of the spiritual circulation of people, is actualized by the liberated consciousness. Monument for Kandinsky =? This is the same point of unity of opposite concepts: matter and spirit. How is the work of art =? A child of his time =? Can appear the mother of our feelings? According to Kandinsky, this happens at the time of his materialization by the artist. Kandinsky defined his time as a conscious search “how” (that is, a form) in order to express “what” through it (that is, the essence). He believed that never in the last times of art as such have never stood closer to each other, since they saw them =? The aspirations for the anatural, for internal nature. This artist see the basis for the synthesis of art. Based on the concept of a “aggregate” work (Gezamkunzherk), Kandinsky comes to the concept of “monumental” art. Kandinsky spiritualizes the thing, believing that comprehension of the spiritual essence in material manifestations =? This is a step in comprehending the "spirit in general." Moreover, the criterion of beauty is given from the point of view of spirituality. In such a position, timelessness is visible, it assimilates and synthesizes the trends we have noted. And that is why it seems the most relevant at present, coming close to understanding a modern trend. The time of time is not subject. Is it not to eternity? ..

An interesting fact, in our opinion, is the “impression” of Kandinsky in 1911. They are closely related to the direct impressions of the artist. So, in the impression “Moscow”, the buildings, streets, signs are distinguishable, and the “gendarme” impression is based on the assumption of D.V. Sarabyanova ( 31 ), the impression of the monument to Alexander Sh was the work of P. Trubetskoy. (The monument was erected on Znamenskaya (station) square in St. Petersburg in 1909.)

During the revolutionary confusion, which demanded from artists of specific actions, many of them (almost all!) Took up the protection of monuments and the organization of museums. It was in relation to the monument, in what they understood by this word that they expressed, and most vividly, all their previous addictions and antipathy. This can be explained that the functions of protecting the monuments were also taken by the art commission, organized in March 1917 and which included I. Grabar, S. Schukin. At the same time, members of the artistic section of the artistic and educational department of the Moscow Council took up the protection of the monuments, where K. Malevich was the Commissioner for the Protection of Monuments of antiquity and art (appointed November 12 (25), 1917). In this regard, I. Grabar recalled: “We“ museum ”and“ guarded ”, while the artists destroyed more ...” ( 32 ). Now it is clear that the assessment of the grabar is far from self -criticism, but it reflects realities. As if confirming the words of Grabar, N. Punin commented on the “art of communes”: “... at the moment ... a cruel and deaf struggle between artists and the so -called museum figures is felt” ( 33 ).

Grabar, Mashkovtsev, Bakushinsky formed in March 1918 the Committee for the Protection of Art Treasure. On May 22, 1918, the museum department was organized, the purpose and principles of which were formulated by I. Grabar as follows: the entire complex of immovable monuments should not be younger than 50 years; The highest category should include buildings until 1613, less significant buildings until 1725, in buildings from 1725-1825, only facades should be preserved, all the others erected after 1825 were considered not having historical value ( 34 ). The collegium sought to find a way to create conditions favorable for the prosperity of Russian museums .., develop the main types of museums, combine the activities of individual museums .... In the museum department I.E. Ek Grabar =? was the deputy head of the department; The members were: I. Bondarenko, V. Gorodsov, B. Vipper, N. Mashkovtsev, G. Yatmanov.

Kandinsky, like many artists, in 1918 became a member of the Department of the People's Commissariat of People's Commissariats. In 1919, he headed the organization of the Museum of Picturesque Culture =? Center for Modern Art. He expressed his attitude to this museum in the article “The Museum of Picturesque Culture”: “... Museums professionals differ in museum construction with excessive caution, fearing any new in art and recognizing it usually not even from the moment of its heyday (this happens in rare exceptions), but from the moment of its flowering and decline” ( 35 ). The principle of MZHK according to V. Kandinsky =? “... Complete freedom to grant the right to each innovator in art to seek and receive state recognition, encouragement and a decent assessment =? Here is an unprecedented achievement in the museum business, which is carried out by the Department of the People's Commissariat of People's Commissariats. ” The commission for his organization also included representatives of the department for museums and the protection of monuments. In the idea of ​​organizing a museum of picturesque culture, it is visible in the same way as in the case of Tatlin, foresight, which has come to life only after more than half a century, for example, the Center for Contemporary Art in Paris, which has all modern directions, which, of course, dreamed of V. Candynsky. [The museum was located in the building of Vhutemas (b. Stroganovsky school) on the street. Christmas, 11. Its description ( 36 ) was preserved: “The museum set out the goal of not only ordinary to meetings of picturesque works, but partly pedagogical and cultural, wanting to introduce the viewer into the circle of modern artistic and technical searches and illuminate him the complex and sometimes little clear paths that they follow. The museum consists of six halls: in the first three (a, c, c) =? Volumetric group =? Mashkov, Lentulov, Konchalovsky, Kuprin; In the rest (D, E, F) =? Flat: exter, Pevzner, Popova, Udaltsova, Malevich, Klun, Rozanova, Tatlin, Kandinsky. ”]. From November 1919 to March 1921, Kandinsky headed the All -Russian procurement commission at the Museum Bureau. P. Florensky also engaged in the protection of monuments; On October 22, 1918, he entered the Commission for the Protection of Monuments of Art and Old Trinity-Sergius Lavra. His letter is known to the heiress of the estate Abramtsevo A.S. Mamontova of July 30, 1917: “Everything that happens around us, for us, of course, painfully. However, I believe that, having exhausted himself, nihilism will prove his insignificance, all the hate of himself will be hateful and then, after the collapse of all this abomination, the heart and minds are not still, sluggish and with an eye on, but he is hidden, turn to the Russian idea, to the idea of ​​Russia, to Holy Rus' ... but I believe that the crisis will cleanse the Russian atmosphere, even the world An atmosphere spoiled almost from the hup of the century. Then Abramtsevo and your Abramtsevo will be evaluated; Then they will have and protect every log of the Aksakovsky house, every picture, every legend in Abramtsev ... and you must take care of this for the sake of future Russia, contrary to all exclamations and screams ... I will say the worst. Если бы Абрамцево уничтожить физически, то и тогда, несмотря на это великое преступление уничтожения пред русским народом, если будет жива идея Абрамцева, не все погибло» ( 37 ).

Как мы можем заметить, Флоренский мыслит в рамках славянофильской парадигмы. Но ему принадлежит идея «живого» музея при сохранении каждого предмета в конкретной связи с обстановкой его возникновения и жизни=? в этом нам видится его близость В.Кандинскому, который также стремился к синтезу искусств. Но особенно существенна для нас идея материализации идеи как кристалла чистого времени, претворенного в личной памяти.

У «левых» художников формируется скорее негативное отношение к официально проектируемым и сооружаемым памятникам монументальной пропаганды. Н. Пунин, комментируя замысел В.Татлина, отмечал, что «...Дело с памятниками малоуспешно. Why? Идея ставить памятники великим героям революции=? не вполне коммунистическая. Героев нет, тем более великих. Время героического понимания истории прошло... Коль скоро задание имеет целью овеществить героическую личность, наши художники=? ваятели, люди еще малоопытные и консервативные, не могут понять задания иначе, как реалистически=? значит, дескать, и надо сделать фигуру, или голову великого человека. Они их и делают... Агитационные памятники незаметны не только потому, что они временны и малы, но также и потому, что форма, в которой они сделаны, форма реалистического овеществления личности=? изжита... фигурные скульптуры никому, в конце концов, неинтересные... Всякий фигурный памятник производит на нас... ложноклассическое впечатление... здесь дело не в правдоподобии, как таковом; есть условности изжитые, мертвые, обломочные, бездушные, сплошной атавизм... Татлин.., совершенно отрицая всякую художественную ценность возводимых в настоящее время памятников, предлагает совершенно новую и, как нам кажется, математически верную форму памятника... Как принцип, необходимо утвердить: во первых, чтобы элементами памятника были все технические аппараты современности, способствующие агитации и пропаганде, и во вторых, чтобы памятник был местом наиболее напряженного движения: меньше всего в нем следует стоять и сидеть, вас должно нести механически, вверх, вниз, увлекать против вашей воли, перед вами должна мелькнуть крепкая, и лаконическая фраза оратора=? агитатора, и дальше=? последнее известие, постановление, решение, последнее изобретение...» ( 38 ). В силу определенной направленности «левые» не только конструируют новые формы памятников, но и среди «старых» принимают, а, как следствие охраняют, далеко не все формы. Так, К. Малевич отмечал: «Самые лучшие постройки обязательно подопрутся греческими колонками, как костылями калека... Казанский вокзал и Дом казенной палаты по Афанасьескому переулку доказывают бездарность строителя наглядно...Я живу в огромном городе Москве, жду ее перевоплощения, всегда радуюсь, когда убирают какой-нибудь особнячок, живший при Алексеевских временах...» ( 39 ). Между левыми наметился раскол, который можно уже в 1919 году проследить в небольшой рецензии Н. Пунина на монографию В.Кандинского, вышедшую в 1918 году : «Кандинский пишет вдумчиво и искренно, как живет: честный человек и честный художник... Живописцем он перестал быть в тот самый день, когда почувствовал и тем самым, что почувствовал «в вечерний час солнце Москвы»... Кандинский одинок, но не потому, что определил человечество, а только потому, что сошел с дороги...» ( 40 ). Заметим, с дороги, определенной радикально настроенными «левыми» художниками.

В силу того, что авангардизм сам творит всецело новую реальность (и в малой мере, не отражая), он был совершенно не нужен правящему классу. Официальная линия к 1930-м годам практически сформировалась и приняла классицизирующее направление за основу. Небольшая программная статья А. Луначарского прекрасно это доказывает. В ней утверждается, что классики марксизма обращали особое внимание на классическое наследие. В пример приводится неоконченная глава «Введения» к «К критике политической экономии» К.Маркса. Луначарский пишет: «И опять-таки та культурная система, в которой жили греки, вполне позволяла подчинять политику морали, политически-морально руководить людьми...» ( 41 ), вычленяя именно руководство людьми как самое важное.

Стремление разрушать к тому времени уже было первично удовлетворено, бывшие союзники превращались в «отпрысков буржуазного мира... и... представляют собой выражение той эпохи, когда буржуазия начинает совершенно отказываться от всякого содержания». Особо ценимым властью оказывается наследие классиков, которое «дает нам нормы и образцы для нашего собственного творчества или заполняет в нашей культуре такие пробелы, какие мы заполнить не в состоянии...» Статья завершается перечислением тех эпох, которые могут стать образцами: «античность, Ренессанс, конец ХУШ=? начало Х1Х века, а у нас в России наивысшего проявления дворянской и в особенности разночинской культуры...» Только прошедшее время. Без настоящего (вне настоящего). Но=? во имя ускоряемого будущего. Иначе: ломка естественного хода бега времени. А значит, и ломка человеческой природы .

Искусственность навязываемой схемы, на наш взгляд, могла привести лишь к тому, к чему охрана памятников была приведена, то есть к уничтожению в конце концов большого количества памятников, так как в принципе лишь свободное существование различных парадигм обеспечивало им существование. Другими словами, чем разнообразнее общество и чем легче оно признает свободомыслие (свободный дух), тем лучше обстоят дела и с охраной памятников, то есть с вменяемостью памяти, вменяемостью людей. Еще раз подчеркнем мысль В.Кандинского о том, что памятник возникает лишь тогда, когда определенные массы достигнут определенной точки духовного развития. Памятник, по Кандинскому, несовместим с зашоренным сознанием.

Возникает вопрос: возможен ли памятник?

И как возможен. Не является ли дерзкое желание проявить что-либо во времени, то есть придать временные характеристики небытийственным? Не об этом ли Платон? А временные=? значит конечные (раньше или позже). Стало быть, памятник как выразитель какой-либо идеи конечен. Он предназначен к разрушению (самое запомнившееся из последних времен=? разрекламированная акция талибов, так сказать поговорили с оппонентами), и этот разрушитель заложен в нем самом в виде запала хроно . Так стоит ли?

Of course, it’s worth it. Безумству храбрых , так сказать- Стало быть, памятник как хронотоп своего рода форма, парадигма=? система форм, а все вместе=? язык общения (сосуществования или наоборот) идей. Так ли уж никогда парадигмы? Парадигма как форма разумения-

V.S. Библер: Накануне XXI века европейская культура сосредоточивается как некое «многоместное множество» коренным образом отличающихся друг от друга форм разумения, или, если взять сопоставление из иной сферы, трудный контрапункт самостоятельных Разумов, различных ответов на (различным образом поставленный) вопрос: «Что означает понимать-»=? себя, других людей, вещи, мир?

Так каким быть памятнику? Где и когда?..

---

Notes
1. = Так выразился на одном заседании ученого совета РИКа В.Л. Рабинович.
2. = идея рассматривать памятник по-Бахтински принадлежит В.Л. Рабиновичу
3. =в основу нашего размышления о парадигмах российской художественной культуры рубежа веков положена система И. В. Кондакова , но приспособленная, а тем самым переосмысленная, к нашему, т.е. художественному делу. См. Кондаков И.В. Введение в историю русской культуры. M., 1997.
4. =Лансере Н. Еще разрушения, еще вандализм//Старые годы, апрель , 1910, с.69
5. =Лукомский Г.К. Материалы по истории вандализма в России//Старые годы, 1910, с.45
6. =Методические указания по подготовке Свода памятников истории и культуры народов СССР. M., 1986, p. 19
7. = Грабарь И.Э. О пределах вандализма//Старые годы, 1911, с.49
8. =Паламарчук П.Г. Сорок сороков. М., 1994,т.2, с. 169
9. =Соколова Н. Из истории архитектурных Съездов. Проблема стиля и художественного наследия русских зодчих//Архитектура СССР, 1935, » 6, с. 59
10. =Эфрос А. От символизма до Октября. М, 1933, с.243
11. =Добужинский М.В. Memories. М., 1987, с.147
12. =Стернин Г.Ю. Художественная жизнь России 1900-1910-х годов. M., 1988, p. 160
13. =Маковский С. Художественные итоги//Аполлон, 1910, » 10 (сент), с.33
14. = Хаджиев Н.Г. К истории русского авангарда. Stockholm. 1976, с. 29
15. =Бенуа А.Н. Живописный Петербург//Мир искусства. 1902,т. 7, с.1, 3-5
16. =Славина Т.А. Konstantin Tone. Л., 1989
17. =Кириченко Е.И. Русское купечество и русский стиль//Вопросы искусствознания. М., 1994, » 2-3, с. 269-311
18. =Рерих Н. Письмо в журнал//Старые годы, 1910, с. 69
19. =Малевич Казимир. 1878-1935. Выставка: Ленинград 1988. Москва, 1988-1989. Амстердам, 1989. Каталог. Амстердам, 1988, с.111
20. =Он же. От кубизма и футуризма к супрематизму. New picturesque realism. М., 1916, с.6
21. =Малевич: художник и теоретик. M., 1990, p. 205
22. =Флоренский П.А. Iconostasis. М., 1994, с.38
23. =Татлин В. О памятниках//Искусство Коммуны. Пг., 1919, » 14, 9 марта
24. =Кандинский В.В. О духовном в искусстве. Из архива русского авангарда. Л., 1990, с.9
25. =Там же, с.11
26. =Там же, с.9
27. =Point et «igne sur Plan. Paris, 1970
28. =Флоренский П.А. Iconostasis. М., 1994, с.47
29. =Кандинский В.В. О духовном в искусстве. Из архива русского авангарда. Л., 1990, с.12
30. =Там же, с.12
31. =Сарабьянов Д.В., Автономова Н.Б. Vasily Kandinsky. Путь Художника. Художник и время. М., 1994, с.43
32. = Кузина, с. 103
33. =Пунин Н. В Москве//Искусство коммуны. 1919, » 10
34. = Сидорова Н.Ю. Отношение к памятникам искусства и старины в 1920-е годы//Художественное наследие. M., 1994, p. 185
35. =Кандинский В.В. Музей живописной культуры//Художественная жизнь, 1920, » 2, с. 18
36. =Перцев Художественные музеи Москвы. Guide. Л., 1925, с.81
37. =Флоренский П.А. Iconostasis. М., 1994, с.9-10
38. =Татлин В. О памятниках//Искусство Коммуны, 1919, » 14, 9 марта
39. =Малевич К. Архитектура как пощечина бетоно-железу//Искусство коммуны,1918, » 1, сб., 7 дек.
40. =Кандинский В.В. Текст художника. Ступени. М., 1918, с.12-13.
41. =Луначарский А.В. О наследстве классиков/Статьи о литературе. М., 1957, с.101