Van Gogh: the icon of the agnostiks

Pictures from the exhibition

Alexander Genis: Recently, an event of a local nature, but very important for lovers of painting, especially for Van Gogh fans, who are very many in New York and all over the world, occurred in the Metro Museum. The fact is that New York is the owner of the richest collection of Van Gogh in the Western Hemisphere, there are no more paintings by Van Gogh than in New York anywhere. There are 16 canvases in one metro, or rather 18, but two do not yet belong to the metro, they are bequeathed to this museum. It is very difficult to see them together, because the museum constantly brings these pictures to other museums, and they hang in different departments of the museum.

Now the curators have arranged an exhibition from the paintings of Van Gogh, which all belong to the metro, but for the first time they became available at once. Taster blow, I would say. You can look at Van Gogh and carefully understand his role in world art, because the metro is an encyclopedic museum, you can compare. Wherever you go, you all the time come across rivals, friends or idols Van Gogh. Moreover, mainly New York work is the best pictures of the best period of Van Gogh when he lived in the south, in Provence is the most valuable part of his heritage.

You know, Solomon, I once went to Provence specifically to look at Vangogov places, I was in Arle, in Saint-Remium and everywhere followed the trail of Van Gogh. The red line is drawn there right along the road, so you can see where he went. In the place where Van Gogh painted his paintings, there are reproductions of these paintings. This is very well done, you can follow the artist - as if you are walking next to him and looking over him over his shoulder. But there are no paintings by Van Gogh in Provence, no one has ever bought a single picture from him. Imagine how the pictures that he wrote there looked good in Arle. But no, not a single picture is there. But you can look at the landscapes that Van Gogh wrote and compare them with reproductions. After all, nothing has changed, landscapes remained the same as they were during the time of Van Gogh.

This is an agricultural area, rich lands: olives everywhere, vineyards, wheat fields that he especially liked, and mountains, low pre -alpine hills that I would call “alpenatia” (not quite adult mountains). But in a striking way, this landscape has little to do with what is drawn. You see how a cute, handsome landscape in the picture turns into a mythical sight. You see what Van Gogh made with reality: he blushed her, he thickened her, he gave her such intensity that she curled up - solid balls of energy.

During these years, Van Gogh lived with Gauguin there. Everyone knows about how he cut his ear in a quarrel with Gauguin - it was on a Christmas night, in the morning Gauguin left Provence. Why didn't they come together? In particular, because they were people of a different nature, Gauguin was very neat, loved order, in the end he was an exchange Mcler at one time, and Van Gogh was a bohemian man, he scattered everything - it was very annoyed. But they had aesthetic disagreements of a curious nature. Gauguin considered it possible to draw not what he sees, but what he imagines, Van Gogh was categorically against this. He needed an object. He changed reality, but for this he needed reality. And it is here, in my opinion, the border between art and contemporary art, Van Gogh, was at once both there and there on the border.

Solomon, what is Van Gogh for you?

Solomon Volkov: One of the most beloved artists. The person who managed his mental state, and he, of course, was more and more inflated over the years, managed to convey so that the psychic energy of a not completely healthy person, a person exalted to the limit, on the verge of a nervous breakdown, simply whipped him from the paintings. And you willy-nilly are charged with this sensation, looking at the paintings of Van Gogh, and you begin to look at the world around you with increased excitability.

Alexander Genis: Akira Kurosava set the film "Dreams". One of the fragments of this film takes the hero to the world of Van Gogh. Kurosawa created a decoration that reproduces the picture of Van Gogh, and put a hero there. After all, Kurosawa himself was an excellent artist, like many directors. Looking at the screen, you understand that you cannot live in this world. Van Gogh did not succeed. The universe of his paintings is too intense to exist a normal person in him. Van Goghu was very difficult to be a normal person.

Van gog "shoes"

When I bring my friends to the metro, and I definitely insist that the guests of New York visit the metro, I always lead them to Van Gogh, because it seems to me that our selection of metro van Gogh is the most representative. My favorite picture there is "shoes." This is a very famous picture of his, which depicts a pair of worn shoes, it gave rise to a huge number of interpretations. In 2009, in Rotterdam there was a special exhibition dedicated to this particular picture. The Bashmaks Van Gogh found the market in the Parisian flea market, but they did not suit him, then he decided not to wear them, but to draw them. The question is what kind of boots are these? Heidegger, who saw this work back in the 1930s, says that it was a peasant woman’s shoes, they heard Haydegger poetically, a dumb cry of the earth that this peasant trampled for many years. But Heidegger had critics, for example, Meyer Shapiro, a well -known art critic who said: why did Heidegger get that these were peasant's shoes? These are workers' shoes in which factory soot gathered. And Derrida, the father of the deconstruction, who overwhelmed the same boots, began with the fact that he asked: is it true that this is a couple?

In fact, shoes are boots, another thing is important that energy expires of them. For me, Van Gogh is an artist who painted a radial picture of the world.

Solomon Volkov: If we draw parallels between Van Gogh and literature, in this case Russian, then I see these parallels in the work of two writers who do not cross each other in a strange way - on the one hand Dostoevsky, reading which you feel this inflated, very uncomfortable energy, and on the other hand, Andrei Bely. It is believed that Andrei Bely continued the traditions rather than not Dostoevsky, but Gogol. But there is a paradox: I, when I read Gogol, although we know that Gogol ended the life of a mentally ill person, in his works in the most frightening, most fantastic, most ridiculous, most surrealistic, I do not feel perch. The world of Gogol is a fairly ordered world for me.

Alexander Genis: In fact, he is very comfortable, despite all the monsters.

Solomon Volkov: And the world of Andrei Bely is very uncomfortable for me, plunging into it, I begin to feel under the influence of a mental field harmful to me.

Alexander Genis: Van Gogh - the apostle of expressionism in all its categories, together with Dostoevsky, by the way. German expressionist artists left Van Gogh. But if we talk about literature, then, probably, the classic of expressionism Knut Hamsun is closest to it. The “hunger” of Knuta Gamsun is a book that resembles the painting of Van Gogh. But here everything is not so simple. A trouble appears through his paintings, we feel that something is wrong here. But, on the other hand, we feel ecstatic joy, looking at the exalted paintings of Van Gogh. In order to understand and evaluate this duality, you need to look at the main picture in the canon of Van Gogh and the best picture in New York-his "star night". To do this, you need to leave the subway and go south of Manhattan, to the Museum of Modern Art, where since 1941 this picture hangs and is the pride of New York.

In New York there are several paintings that have become business cards for the city, how you like to speak. This is Bruegel’s “harvest” in the metro, this is the “portrait of ADLIE” Klimt in the Austrian Museum and, of course, “Star Night”. Moreover, it is "Star Night" that has special attractiveness. Every time I come to the Museum of Contemporary Art, I visit this picture, it’s just stupid not to do it. Near her there is always a guard nearby so that some madman does not spoil her. Near this picture there is a lot of curious. I once saw such a scene: the guy knee -deep, took out a ring and put it on the finger of his beloved girl. Everyone around slammed, of course. But this did not happen in the church, not in the city hall, but near the picture of Van Gogh, who covered this romantic scene with its presence. Why is this happening?

Van Gogh himself was afraid of this picture, he was afraid of her, he did not like her, he scolded her. At this time, he lived in a hospital, he was not allowed to leave his room in the evening and at night. So this night he saw through the window, he liked the night landscapes, but this time, as he said, the stars were too large. And these “too large stars” gave rise to whole literature. There is a legend that he predicted pictures of spiral galaxies that looked like these stars. But Van Gogh himself believed that in this picture the religiosity was spilled in which he lacked his whole life, but which he denied the presence in every possible way in this picture. He said that he did not return to romantic ideas about religion, which were characteristic of his young years. Nevertheless, he felt something like that, that all of us, looking at the night sky. Only Van Gogh had the sky closer than all of us. That is why this picture became an icon of agnostics, it is for those people who crave religious experience, but are not ready to accept it in the church. This is not even ecumenical, but primary religious experience, arche-pipe. This is what this picture is so dear to everyone.

(Music)

Alexander Genis: Solomon, I propose to devote our musical part to one curious topic. Who is Van Gog, first of all? Unrecognized genius. There was probably no person in art that would have such a status with a great foundation than Van Gogh. He did not sell anything during his lifetime, he was not known to anyone, he never achieved recognition, not having lived to him for several years, a little more-and he would become a star, whom he turned out, his paintings are frantic money, we love him, and this is an idol of bohemia, because every bohemian artist dreams of becoming Van Gogh. What about this in music?

Solomon Volkov: You know, the life of Van Gogh, what you outlined it is an ideal legend about an unrecognized artist who was created in the era of romanticism, the first romantics invented the story of an unrecognized artist who challenges the bourgeois society, this society rejects him, the artist dies in poverty, and after death there comes universal recognition, glory and everything that is glory and all that is glory and everything that is glory and everything that is glory and everything that is glory and everything that is glory. It is supposed to, but the artist himself can only observe this from somewhere from above. Society is very like this kind of legends, they make up a significant part of attractiveness. In particular, Van Gogh is also so famous and so loved now that he lived the life of an ideal rejected artist, so to speak.

I myself am with some skepticism to this kind of legends. I always recall Pushkin’s amazing lines on this subject: "Darkness of low truths is more expensive for me to be a rise in deception." That is, we are all guilty of this, we all prefer the lifting deception of the darkness of low truths. Since we are so attracted by such a romantic fate of the rejected artist, we willingly believe in those fate, genuine or fictional, which the history of culture offers us. But in music, for example, once Tatan Mironovich Milstein, a wonderful Russian-American violinist, with whom I released a book of dialogs, said: what is the difference between painting and music? In painting, you can draw a picture quickly, in an hour, not studying anything, everyone will say at once - you are shit, bad artist, you didn’t succeed. In music, this happens: you study 10 or 20 years, work hard for five hours a day, go out onto the stage, then they tell you that nothing of you will work out.

Alexander Genis: I had a conversation on this topic with Bakhanyan, who was a bohemian artist, of course, Van Gogh was both his and my idol. This is also easy to understand, because Van Gogh is such an attractive figure that when I studied in the 8th grade, I read the book of Irving Stone "Life of Life". Many today scold the Irving Stone, but then she made a grand impression on me. I wrote a graduation work in the 8th grade, the topic was called this: "To do life with whom." These are verbal disabled people beloved for the Soviet school as those for works. So I wrote: “How from whom? With Van Gogh.” As a result, they called parents to school. It was necessary to write about Matrosov.

Solomon Volkov: Or about Mayakovsky.

Alexander Genis: Van Gogh is a figure that can easily quarrel with society. Vagrich said that it is easier for the artist to go crazy, because he is alone with the canvas - what he wants, he does. And the composer is already humble.

Solomon Volkov: I always in such cases say that Yesenin could write a dying poem with his blood, but it is impossible to imagine a composer who writes a dying symphony with his blood - too much work and too much blood needs it. The work of the composer, paradoxically, it sounds, purely for practical considerations needs such professionalism, which excludes the possibility of the existence of an unrecognized genius.

Alexander Genis: But there are composers unrecognized.

Solomon Volkov: A figure that most corresponds to the stereotype of an unrecognized romantic artist is Schubert. Indeed, he died young, during his lifetime he was played little, not very encouraged, not very praised, and after death they erected music to the rank of chosen geniuses. But there are relatively few of them.

But there are a huge number of legends, already created retroactively precisely in order to create a posthumous biography according to the patterns of the myth of a romantic artist. This is a finished scheme, it only needs to be filled out, and it is invariably successful to the present day with society. The most common legend is associated with Mozart. Firstly, the story is known to everyone that Salieri allegedly poisoned him-this is a fully discredited version, no one poisoned him, he died of a sudden, still not very understandable disease, then it was bad with medicine.

The second legend, which is still stubborn. If you are talking with a non -specialist, you will definitely hear about her: Mozart was buried in a common grave for the poor. He was so unrecognized composer during his lifetime that he almost threw his body into some pit, buried, dispersed and everyone. This is the absolute untruth too. There were clear rules in the Vienna cemetery, according to which aristocrats were buried in one part, in the other non -aristocrats, to which Mozart belonged, there he was buried according to the generally accepted laws of that time.

Alexander Genis: I must say that Vienna was generally very strict rituals. This is the only city, as far as I know, where there is a museum of the funeral.

Solomon Volkov: In addition, there are also discrepancies, what the weather was on the day of the funeral. There is a version according to which rain and snow were simultaneously on this day, so a few people came to bury Mozart. Among them, by the way, was Salieri, who allegedly poisoned him. It is unlikely that the poisoner would go to the funeral of a person poisoned by him. The widow, for example, Mozart did not come, which again in retroactively can be understood. Firstly, not every widow wants to attend the funeral of her husband, in this case rain and snow were added, and she chose not to appear there.

Another legend that he died in poverty. Mozart earned very well and spent a lot. Therefore, really at the time of death, he was in debt. But the wife turned to the emperor with a request to appoint a pension for her as a widow of a respected composer, and this request was satisfied, she received a decent pension. Moreover, she began to publish the works of Mozart and simply got rich. So this version also turned out to be a legend. We will now listen to the essay that a huge number of legends about Mozart is associated with is his “Requiem”.

(Music)

Solomon Volkov: In our time, another type of unrecognized genius has appeared, the direct opposite - this is, on the contrary, a person who is still proclaimed during his life by a genius, and together. This is also very indicative for our time, when the press and specialists, curators in the field of painting, musicologists are in a hurry to proclaim any person who appears with some entertaining idea, immediately declare his genius and begin to trumpet about him on all squares. And we went through this during our lifetime many times.

Carlheinz Shtokhausen

In the 1950-70s, when I studied music in the Soviet Union, the names came from the West all the time, covered in the glory of a modern genius. They, in particular, were the German composer Karlheinz Shtokhausen. By the way, relatively recently they celebrated his 90th anniversary, he did not live to live before and died in 2007. Shtokhausen was proclaimed simply the Messiah of modern music. But now, in connection with the 90th anniversary, several articles have appeared where one immutable fact has been stated: this composer was practically stopped performing. В таких случаях мы можем вспомнить замечательную на все века сказку Андерсена "Платье голого короля", когда король шествует, все кричат "ура", а мальчик указывает на короля, провозглашает, что он голый. В данном случае роль такого мальчика сыграла публика, которая перестала ходить на исполнение произведений Штокхаузена, соответственно, его перестали включать в программы.

Сейчас в связи с юбилеем задается вопрос: что же случилось с мэтрами авангарда, которые обладали такой колоссальной, не снившейся композиторам прошлого прижизненной славой, когда каждое их сочинение встречалось критической осанной, и их сочинения навязывались в итоге публике. Это – новая ситуация, когда любой авангардный жест расценивается как жест гения. Мой товарищ нью-йоркский художник Гриша Брускин любит вспоминать в таких случаях об итальянском художнике Мандзони, который догадался первым продавать запечатанные баночки со своими экскрементами, они очень высоко ценились – это тоже рассматривалось как жест гения. Это те свойства современного искусства, к сожалению, которые во многом в определенный период, где-то с 1950-х по 1980-е годы, были ведущими, когда каждый авангардный жест, каким бы он ни был отпугивающим и недоступным для публики, приветствовался как жест гения. Опусы Штокхаузена, мне кажется, относятся к этой категории.

Я предлагаю завершить нашу программу типичным сочинением Штокхаузена, о котором писали вот так, это очень типичное высказывание глубокомысленное о его музыке: "Штокхаузен относится к звуковому событию не столько как к элементу некоей структурной модели, сколько как к самодовлеющей сущности". Это цитата из одного солидного музыковедческого отечественного, кстати, труда. Типичный образец музыковедческого жаргона по поводу авангардных жестов. Таким авангардным жестом является его произведение “Пьеса для фортепиано № 11” 1956 года. Это алеаторика, метод сочинения, при котором звуковая ткань зависит в значительной степени либо от случая, либо воли исполнителя. Конечно, исполнители радуются необычайно, они могли садиться к роялю, тыкать пальцем и изображать все, что им угодно.

Александр Генис: Алеаторика – от латинского корня alea, игорная кость. Это метод сочинения с помощью жребия, Кейдж тоже так делал.

Соломон Волков: Кейдж – это отдельная, очень любопытная фигура в этом плане, мы как-нибудь о нем поговорим. А сейчас я предлагаю послушать эту фортепианную пьесу Штокхаузена.

(Music)