“GREAT” – “SIGNIFICANT” – “GREAT” AGAIN: HOW VASILY VERESHCHAGIN'S PLACE IN THE SOVIET CULTURE OF THE 1920s AND 1960s WAS SOUGHT
Keywords:
Vasily V. Vereshchagin, perception, assessment, discourse, cultural stereotype, batalist, Soviet cultureAbstract
Vasily Vereshchagin’s cultural reputation has been popularly viewed and scholarly treated as a narrow space between two dominant genres in his artistry – battle scenes and ethnographical (or even Orientalist) paintings. Since the 1950s, the former has prevailed, so the narrative formula khudozhnik-batalist (“the battle painter”) has become an obvious cliché to characterize Vereshchagin’s role in art history, especially within the context of 19th-century Russian realistic painting. Based on both archival and published sources, the article traces the academic, ideological and personal circumstances that led to the development of this discursive concept from the 1920s to the 1960s. It also shows how controversial the final evolution of this concept was when it became a stereotype during the years of late Stalinism. But making Vereshchagin “one of the greatest battle painters in the world art history” (as art historian Andrey K. Lebedev proclaimed in his fundamental monograph published in 1958) has also led to his recognition as one of the greatest Russian classic painters, which was rather more disputable. In the Soviet hierarchy of classic artists, Vereshchagin did not achieve high status until the late 1930s, due to his bourgeois background and colonialist implications of his work, found and then castigated by some Marxist critics. Nevertheless, he was perceived as close (sometimes confusingly) to the circle of Peredvizhniks, and was considered to share a common ideological and aesthetic program with them. Such ambivalence can be seen as a sign of Vereshchagin’s artistic marginality. However, we can argue that, due to the relation to the Peredvizhniki movement and his ideological and stylistic unity with it (as was scholarly established by A. K. Lebedev’s studies in the 1930s – the 1960s), Vereshchagin’s personality and heritage were given a long-awaited permission to claim a distinct place in Soviet culture.References
Дианина К. Искусство на повестке дня. Рождение русской культуры из духа газетных споров / пер. с англ. Е. Гавриловой. СПб.: Academic Studies Press / Библиороссика, 2023. 498 с.
Вебер М. Понимающая социология / пер. с нем. М. Левиной. М.: АСТ, 2021. 480 с.
Розанов И.Н. Литературные репутации / сост. Л.А. Озеров. М.: Советский писатель, 1990. 464 с.
Шишкова Т. Внеждановщина: советская послевоенная политика в области культуры как диалог с воображаемым Западом. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2023. 384 с.
Юрчак А. Это было навсегда, пока не кончилось. Последнее советское поколение / предисл. А. Беляева; пер. с англ. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2014. 664 с.
References
Dianina, K. (2023), Iskusstvo na povestke dnya. Rozhdenie russkoi kul'tury iz dukha gazetnykh sporov [When art makes news: Writing culture and identity in Imperial Russia], Academic Studies Press / Bibliorossika, St. Petersburg, Russia, 498 p.
Rozanov, I.N. (1990), Literaturnye reputatsii [Literary reputations], Sovetskiy pisatel', Moscow, Russia, 464 p.
Shishkova, T. (2023), Vnezhdanovshchina: Sovetskaya poslevoennaya politika v oblasti kul'tury kak dialog s voobrazhaemym Zapadom [Vnezhdanovschina: Soviet post-war cultural policy as a dialogue with the imaginary West], Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, Moscow, Russia, 384 p.
Veber, M. (2021), Ponimayushchaya sotsiologiya [Understanding Sociology], AST, Moscow, Russia, 480 p.
Yurchak, A. (2014), Eto bylo navsegda, poka ne konchilos'. Poslednee sovetskoe pokolenie [It was forever, until it was over. The last Soviet generation], Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, Moscow, Russia, 664 p.
