Great catch of fish. A.P. Losenko

(“A wonderful catch of fish” based on a plot from the Gospel. Artist A.P. Losenko). The historical genre dominated the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, however, it did not receive such development as the portrait. As a rule, graduates of the Academy were given the task of painting a picture in the historical genre upon graduation. The themes were usually mythological or biblical subjects. Painting was required in the style of classicism. Artists in the style of classicism imitated ancient sculptors, so in the paintings the figures often look like Greek and Roman statues, the characters perform heroic deeds.

The founder of the historical genre in the style of classicism in Russia is A.P. Losenko (1737 - 1773). Among his canvases there are paintings on both ancient and biblical subjects. Losenko also painted the first painting on a national theme - "Vladimir and Rogneda" (1770).

Vladimir and Rogneda. A.P. Losenko (1770)

The painting depicts the daughter of the prince of Polotsk, whom Vladimir, having defeated the army of her father and brothers, forcibly made his wife. Losenko was guided by a chaste idea - to show Vladimir not as a rapist, an invader, but as a groom who came on a first date. In Russian historical painting of the 18th century, scenes of violence, perfidious acts, and murders were practically excluded. The picture should always be positive.

Farewell of Hector to Andromache. A.P. Losenko (1773)

The master turned to the ancient Greek epic. The painting depicts the Trojan hero Hector leaving to fight the enemy who has laid siege to the city. He will have to cross arms with Achilles, and the outcome of the combat is a foregone conclusion (as a baby, Achilles' mother dipped into the waters of the Styx, which made his body invulnerable). However, Hector wants to set an example of courage for the defenders of Troy and strengthen their stamina by his own death. In the tragic moments of farewell to his family, he turns to the gods with only one request to help his wife Andromache raise a young child as a worthy son of Troy. The picture is painted in the spirit of classicism: the farewell scene is full of theatricality, the figures resemble Greek statues. The plot of the picture is filled with the spirit of high citizenship, imbued with love for the motherland.

Celebration of the wedding contract. Mikhail Shibanov

Household (genre) painting in the XVIII century was very little developed. The Academy of Arts treated her as a minor, unimportant. But some artists still dared to paint such pictures. Although, of course, these attempts were not always successful, the plots often embellished real events, the images were too contrived. The most famous at that time was the artist Mikhail Shibanov (? - after 1789). His painting "The Celebration of the Wedding Contract" shows one of the most solemn moments in Russian peasant life: the wedding of young people. The artist lovingly depicted elegant Russian clothes, attractive faces.

F.Ya.Alekseev. View of Palace Square from the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Landscape painting also developed in the second half of the 18th century. Its most prominent representatives are F.Ya. Alekseev and S.F. Shchedrin.

F. Ya. Alekseev (1753 or 1754 - 1824). At the Academy of Arts, he studied theater painting, but became a landscape painter. At first he copied the landscapes of many cities, painted a lot of views of St. Petersburg and managed to bring deeply peculiar features into the image of this city. Alekseev essentially became the ancestor of the landscape in Russia. During these years, a holistic image of the "Northern Palmyra" (Petersburg) was formed, and Alekseev displayed it in many of his paintings. In the famous views of the Palace Embankment, the Peter and Paul Fortress, the artist conveys the harmonious unity of the beauty of architecture and landscape - the high sky, the ever-moving, bright surface of the Neva. At the beginning of the 19th century, Alekseev traveled a lot around the cities of Russia, painting views of provincial towns and Moscow. He is attracted by the old capital with the ancient Kremlin, crowded Red Square

S. F. Shchedrin. Petersburg.

S. F. Shchedrin (1745 - 1804). He entered the history of Russian art primarily as a depiction of Gatchina, Pavlovsk, Peterhof. His paintings resemble an English landscape park, freely spread among lakes and channels, with picturesque islands decorating them with palaces and pavilions. Lovingly and soulfully Shchedrin conveys curly greenery gilded by the sun, pinkish sand that covers the paths of the park, and the fragile beauty of flowers. Beautiful bridges and obelisks, towers, columns are harmoniously combined with natural nature. The peaceful smoke of fires, the clouds reflected in the still water, the majestically calm crowns of trees create the feeling of an ideal being.

S.F. Shchedrin. Veranda covered with grapes. 1828

Species landscape.

Since the 17th century The topographic landscape is widely distributed (engravers - the German M. Merian and the Czech V. Gollar), the development of which was largely predetermined by the use of the camera obscura, which made it possible to transfer individual motifs to canvas or paper with unprecedented accuracy. This kind of landscape in the XVIII century. reaches its peak in the vedutas saturated with air and light by Canaletto and B. Belotto, in the works of F. Guardi, which open a qualitatively new stage in the history of the landscape, and stand out for their virtuoso reproduction of a changeable light-air environment. Species landscape in the XVIII century. played a decisive role in the formation of the landscape in those European countries where until the XVIII century. there was no independent landscape genre (including in Russia, where the largest representatives of this type of landscape were the graphic artists A.F. Zubov, M.I. Makhaev, the painter F.Ya. Alekseev).

The genre of landscape emerged rather late. Its appearance is associated with the founding of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, where in 1767 a landscape class was established to train landscape painters. The classes of perspective and theatrical scenery, from which many landscape painters came from, also contributed to the establishment of this genre. Narrow specialties, including landscape, were instituted in the engraving class.

The landscape class from 1776 to 1804 was taught by Semyon Shchedrin, a student of the Academy of Arts. The well-known landscape painter Fyodor Alekseev left the perspective class. Difficulties arose with the search for a teacher for the class of theatrical scenery. Therefore, in 1776, the Academic Council decided to send two students to the theater master - Yakov Gerasimov and Fyodor Matveev, later a famous landscape painter.

Of great importance for the development of the landscape genre were the retirement trips of the most gifted graduates of the Academy. Studying in Italy and France with great masters, pensioners improved their skills, reaching the level of European art. They have been abroad, and some have stayed there. famous Russian landscape painters: Maxim Vorobyov, Alexander Ivanov, Mikhail Lebedev, Semyon Shchedrin, Fyodor Matveev. Fedor Alekseev, Sylvester Shchedrin and many others. This allowed the landscape genre to equalize with European art and continue to live its own Russian life, finding its own face, responding to the problems of the spiritual reality of the country.

The landscape performed by Semyon Fedorovich Shchedrin (1745 - 1804) took shape as an independent genre, not burdened with various kinds of sandy loam. These were no longer exercises in perspective views, but images of terrain views. As a pensioner of the Academy of Arts, Shchedrin studied in France, where he was patronized by the Russian ambassador in Paris, Prince DA Golitsyn, in fact, the first Russian art critic who wrote an essay on the theory and history of art. Judging by the early work of Shchedrin Noon(1779), executed in the wake of his stay in Italy, the artist was clearly influenced by classicism. A characteristic plot with a herd and ruins, a color scheme typical of classicism, dividing the composition into plans - brown near and blue in the distance, decorative interpretation of trees, not natural, but transformed into a fluffy cloud, are evidence of the appearance of the genre of the composed landscape.

Upon arrival in Russia, Shchedrin received a number of orders for landscape panels for the Mikhailovsky Castle (1799-1801), murals and panels for Gatchina, Pavlovsk and Peterhof. AA Fedorov-Davydov noted the development of park art at the end of the 18th century, which influenced Shchedrin's painting. Regular or free, in the English spirit, parks were created in Pavlovsk, Peterhof, Tsarskoye Selo, Gatchina. Landscape paintings were intended to decorate palaces and therefore, along with palace panels, they carried decorative functions. These functions determined the meaning and structure of the St. Petersburg period of Shchedrin's work, including easel landscapes executed by him in 1792-1798: Mill in Pavlovsk(1792), View of the Gatchina Palace from Long Island(1796). View in Gatchina park(1798). The artist retained in them all the signs of conventionality: brown color, slightly tinted with green and blue, "mongrel" trees, staffing figures, pointing to the motive of contemplation. Time seems to be frozen in the picture, and it requires reflection.

It cannot be said that the landscape was completely composed by Shchedrin. It is based on a specific look, but it is arbitrarily transformed by the artist. Yes, in the landscape Mill in Pavlovsk the decorativeness of the letter is clearly visible, inspired by some residual baroque, which did not have time to disappear with the advent of the new time. It seems that the “Shchedrin Baroque” was influenced by the style of Russian icon painting of the 17th-18th centuries, as well as the interiors of the Naryshkin Baroque. In two views - the Gatchina Palace from Long Island and the Gatchina Park - along with decoratively treated trees, the depth of real space built by light is visible. The traces of the classicism style are too timid, but the understanding of the landscape as an image of some idyllic land corresponds to the concept of classicism, which corrected the “mean” nature by aligning it with antiques. Nature, as if trimmed to a standard decorative pattern, is far from Russian nature. The landscape is a kind of canon of style, executed according to the rules of the game of this style. But it also contains a live observation of nature, marked by a desire to capture the awe of nature and the beauty of reality. More directly, reality was embodied in two Views of the Kamennoostrovsky Palace(1803 and 1804). The river and the palace are written according to the rules of perspective. They are clear and believable. The picture shows the influence of another landscape painter - Fyodor Alekseev with his airy and spatial views of St. Petersburg. In Shchedrin's landscapes, the image was replaced by a composition. The composed landscape was a fiction, based on the view of a very specific area, but so modified that it was left to guess about its real prototype. Shchedrin's fictional landscape was a landscape of prototypes, not landscapes. For this reason, landscapes cannot be recognized as specific, despite the fact that they bear names species.

Classicism had its own ideological and plastic concept. The given plot and theme are visible in the picture noon, for which the artist received the title of academician. The academic program prescribed: "I will imagine noon, where cattle, shepherds and shepherds are required, often a forest of water, mountains, bushes, etc." Similar bucolic scenes are depicted in the paintings View in the vicinity of Stary Russa(1803) and Landscape with shepherds and flock the original Russian Arcadia had nothing to do with reality. The artist pursued in the landscape the ideology of classic art, the visual system of which provided for a distance between reality and fiction, giving preference to a fictionally composed picture of life and the conventions of its plastic interpretation.

In 1799-1801, commissioned by Paul I, Shchedrin painted a panel for the Mikhailovsky Castle. In them, the artist not only enhanced the decorative features of his manner, but changed the nature of the landscape as a genre that had been outlined in his previous works. In panel Stone bridge in Gatchina near Connetable Square the meaning and purpose of the Shchedrin landscape change significantly. The panel fits into the interior of the palace, being subordinate to the task of purposefully decorating the halls. The landscape itself, that is, the image of the area, becomes only an excuse for the implementation of a different function of the work, adjusted to the architectural style of the interior. The seeming or earlier autonomization of the landscape as an independent genre is subordinated to the task of decorating the interior of the palace. From this follows the strengthening of the decorative beginning of the work, which neglects the exact transfer of the subject of the image. The functions of decorative and easel works are different. Submitting to decorative tasks, the landscape genre turned into an illusion of a genre, losing or narrowing its independence in posing genre and landscape problems, in reflecting and reproducing life.

Fedor Yakovlevich Alekseev (1753 - 1824) took the first step in Russian landscape painting towards the real depiction of the landscape. The subject of his art was the urban landscape. In this sense, a line of urban perspectives has been outlined in the Russian landscape, as if inheriting the art of Canaletto, Bellotto, Guardi and others.

Alekseev creates an airy landscape thanks to the panoramic construction of plans. Perspective and aerial environment are crucial components of his landscapes. The artist's works do not respond to ideas that are outside the landscape image, so they are devoid of an element outside the artistic interpretation of the subject of the image. A gentle range of cold tones usually prevails in Petersburg perspectives. Light painting corresponds to the real color of the city, and the air environment seems to demonstrate the emotional excitement of the artist. The interpretation of the landscape through the air was an innovation in Russian art. Perhaps only the Dutch, Claude Lorrain and Joseph Turner turned to this technique, which became one of the essential means of pictorial solution of the theme. Alekseev's landscapes are contemplative. Calmly pouring light gives some of his works a sense of peace. In Alekseev's Petersburg landscapes, one can feel the influence of Francesco Guardi, who turned to aerial panoramas when depicting Venice.

In the views of Nikolaev and Kherson, the artist paid more attention to objectivity, characteristic of the works of Antonio Canaletto and especially Bernardo Bellotto. Alekseev's landscapes are sparsely populated, but where there is a semblance of an everyday genre, the landscape theme wins. For Canaletto, the life of the city is almost the core of the image, and therefore it is rather difficult to determine the genre based on the subject of the image. The genre in general often changes its essence, acquiring a completely different meaning from which it is habitually endowed. For Canaletto, the landscape is not a view of the area, but a display of the life of the city. This discrepancy is very important, because the evaluation of the work from the point of view of genre typology is difficult. Like Canaletto, Alekseev presents the city both as a view of the area and in the integrity of its life, and not just enjoying its architectural features. (View from Vasilyevsky Island to the English Embankment, 1810s). On the contrary, the landscapes of Moscow focus on the sights of antiquity, on the "ruins" characteristic of the landscape of classicism. The city of Alekseev is lively, populated by working people, especially in the picture Red Square in Moscow(1801) and images of St. Petersburg embankments. In this respect, the paintings are not like the staffage landscapes of Semyon Shchedrin or Benjamin Patersen.

The landscapes of Moscow are strikingly different from the spatial, light and airy landscapes of St. Petersburg. It seems that a certain prejudice, a deliberately accepted view of things, hovers over everything. The ancient capital appears in the halo of “old times”, the green gamma is like a patina. The drawing is characterized by intricacy that deforms nature. Because of this, the image acquires a decorative effect, drawing art back to Semyon Shchedrin. Alekseev's landscape seemed to move in jerks. At first, he went along the path of realistic perfection, then returned to a very superficial decorative effect.

The Russian landscape began, in fact, as an urban landscape, which made significant adjustments to the classicist scheme. He destroyed it, because he was incompatible with the ideas of the majestic, pathetic, civic art of classicism. From the very beginning, the urban landscape was established as a low genre, since it was forced to turn to urban life, to the everyday genre, with which it was clearly combined. Alekseev's work stands apart in Russian art of the 18th century. It coexisted with the decorativism of Semyon Shchedrin and the classicism of Fyodor Matveev, but went against them, as if anticipating the realistic tendencies of the subsequent landscape.

Fyodor Matveevich Matveev (1758 - 1826) continued the Renaissance dream of a harmonious life. Classicism as a whole took advantage of the Renaissance imagination, based, in turn, on the gospel legends. He supplemented nostalgia for a harmonious life with regret for the lost antiquity. The classical landscape of the 18th century limits its idea of ​​a beautiful life to the glorification of ancient realities that are encountered in reality and reminiscent of the once harmonious existence of man and nature. Matveev's classical landscape is predominantly elegiac. He is alien to Lorrain's clarity, which is read as if in a hymn sung to the sun and light. Matveev's landscape is a bright elegy sounding on the same note, in which reality and the past are united. The landscape, as it were, is retrospective not in style, but in the feelings and moods inherent in Renaissance artists, who correct the spiritual structure of old art, passing off what is desired for reality. rim razvaliny foruma

Matveev also retained decorative elements. This suggests that classicism grew out of decorative painting, preserving its plasticity as an atavism. Decorativeness is felt in the stylization of nature. The modification of forms concerns the image of trees, glossy, crushed, as if minted foliage of the middle plan, as well as color, clearly bluish or overgreen.

In the work of Matveev, a whole philosophy of landscape arises, comprehension of worldview problems through the landscape. The landscape sounds like pictorial symphonies, where the author's reflections on the world space, on the frailty of earthly existence are clearly heard. Philosophizing is framed by a plot outline.

In classicism, pictorial art is based on a conditionally transformed essay on the theme of the real qualities of nature, natural and life circumstances. Matveev's early 19th-century classicism has a completely different theme than 18th-century classicism. Previously, classicism fantasized about ancient or mythical themes (Nicolas Poussin, Claude Lorrain), now it is, as it were, reality, in which one of its aspects is chosen: the “remains” of ancient culture, transformed by the artist according to his philosophy, regretting the past, which is embodied in the form of an illusory reality.

The "majestic" (in the terminology of classicism) is extracted from nature itself, where the appropriate motif of grandiose mountains or spaces is chosen, and enhanced by the ruins of ancient monuments. When Pyotr Chekalevsky said that painting “chooses the most perfect spectacle of nature in general, connects different parts of many places and the beauty of many private people”, this primarily applied to Matveev. His communication with reality turned into its idealization - a sign of a classic landscape. Fedorov-Davydov writes: “In classicism, the landscape from nature and the landscape of the imagination are not so much combined as they are fighting with each other”2. The natural tendency, as it were, is subject to fiction. Fedorov-Davydov cites the words of Matveev, confirming this consideration: “The artist does not want to leave those beautiful, naturally decorated places that seem to have been deliberately made by the artist.”

In Matveev's work, the appeal to reminders of past cultures is completely different from that of Claude Lorrain or Hubert Robert, where the ruins were fictional, but corresponding to Renaissance architecture. Matveev's ruins have a real character: the Colosseum, for example, or the Temple of Paestum (Heroic landscape). The real view was perceived through the prism of the author's "transforming" concept. Often, as in the View of Rome. Colosseum, the naturalness of the view begins to prevail over the "philosophy" and the landscape, despite the severity of classical architectonics, looks like an ordinary natural image. Sometimes it seems that Matveev's art is a textbook of examples and rules of classicism. Indeed, his work provides for classic normativity. Many compositions have a stable regularity, are flanked by trees, balanced by mountain horizontals and architectural verticals. The same view of Rome, the Colosseum has a reasonable regularity of construction. It shows a strict delimitation of plans: the first is written in detail, in detail; the middle plan, containing the main idea of ​​the landscape, is painted green, the distant plan "melts" in a bluish haze, serving as a kind of background for the plot. However, in many other works Matveev retained the principles of decorative landscape. In Vida in Paestum, the classical scheme of the stage building is broken by a group of trees located almost in the compositional center. In the Heroic Landscape, the mass of trees on the right side of the picture overwhelms the weak counterbalance of the left side. Elements of decorative painting, not limited to a displaced composition, are preserved in the technique of decorative construction of the view, stable and monotonous. The drawing tends to be decorative, especially noticeable in the way each leaf of huge tree crowns is minted, clearly readable against the brightened sky. The classicism of the 19th century retained from the decorativeism of the late 18th century the thoroughness of the subject study and the brown color, which has two or three meager shades. The color in Matveev is extinguished, becomes boring, does not excite emotions. The main thing is the composition and drawing, sometimes clear, sometimes monogrammed, intricately sophisticated. The developed template leads to one result: composition and transformation based on reality. Nature in the landscape View in the vicinity of Bern (1817), being transformed, loses its real forms and is translated into an ideal majestic panorama, as if not a specific area was depicted, but the artistic concept of "the whole earth" was being implemented. Matveev has his own version of the ideal landscape. He is not always heroic and majestic. Idealization concerns not only the image of the beautiful earth, but also the particulars that make up the whole. For example, trees are conditional, they personify the idea of ​​​​a luxurious tree, but do not convey its real look.

The landscape with figures in antique clothes is distinguished by careful detailing of the image, filigree finish. The foreground, as well as the crown of the tree on the right, are drawn with jeweler's precision. However, does the thoroughness of writing contradict the generalization of the image? To some extent, definitely. But only at the level of realistic generalization. In classicism there is a different generalization. The classic image is the same. It does not respond to the specificity of particulars and the whole. It generates an image-ideal, which is supposed to designate some quality. In this version, the tree embodies the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bluxurious flora. This is not a symbol, but, so to speak, “a typical detail * in the system of classic artistic measurements. With slight variations, this applies to other elements (ruins, mountains, plains, plants, valleys) that appear in all interpretations of nature. The artist, as an architect, operates with “typical details*, established pictorial matrices, constructing a streamlined, emotionally tuned image of the world.

The world in Matveev's works is motionless. The mountains are solemn and static, the sky is calm and enlightened, the rivers are smooth and calm. The picture of the world in its rational equanimity, as it were, opposes its other element - the restless sea. And if the mountains become a symbol of classic tranquility, then the sea and cascades are a sign of a romantic impulse.

Landscape painters of the early 19th century (mostly graduates of the Academy of Arts) do not reach artistic heights. However, some of their works unexpectedly express a significant trend. Thus, a landscape of national color appears in the painting by Andrey Efimovich Martynov (1768 - 1826) View of the Selenga River in Siberia (1817) or Timofey Alekseevich Vasiliev (1783 - 1838) View of the Nikolaev pier at the source of the Angara River from Lake Baikal (1824), which retain the classic significance and scale of the species. But these are no longer heroic landscapes, although they are guided by specific effects. Effectiveness is a pathos that will be preserved by Russian art for a long time to come. In these landscapes, not so much nature is contemplated as life on earth. It is significant that, despite the traditional classicistic techniques, ordinary, everyday life is depicted, which in its essence destroys the sublime classical motifs. In cases where nature retains a majestic appearance, the everyday shell of human life begins to contradict classical impressiveness.

The decorative and classicist trend in art has a special relationship to the subject. The subject does not attract the attention of the artist with its independent value, capable of causing a desire to know it and discover aesthetic qualities in it. The subject is involved in the circle of philosophical reflections and has no independent meaning. It stands among the other components of the picture as a secondary element, necessary to indicate the situation generated by the author and the image of a panoramic view that expresses the author's philosophy. Therefore, subjects are not studied, not investigated, but, in fact, play the role of staffing, which, along with other components, should create a “general” picture of the world. In classicism, the standard for depicting villages, mountains, space, plans was worked out. With rare exceptions, a tree is drawn in general, without a breed, unless the pine is recognizable. Thus, the idea of ​​a luxurious crown is embodied, the idea of ​​mountains, turning into flat decorations. In other words, a natural approach to nature has not yet been developed, which diminishes the concrete significance of things. The classic image is far from understanding the life of nature. Rather, it represents the movement of the author's thought, the author's idea of ​​the landscape, where nature is assigned a third-rate role. Nature has nothing to do with time. It does not show a specific situation. Lack of specificity leads to convention. In the relationship between nature and artistic consciousness, the objectivity of the image of nature is distracted by the illusory author's thinking. Semyon Shchedrin and Fyodor Matveev, and even earlier Fyodor Alekseev, are showing a clear change in the depiction of the objective world. In their art, the growing role of objectivity is taken under the scope of observation and study. But this happens in full measure in the landscapes of Sylvester Feodosievich Shchedrin (1791 - 1830).

Sylvester Shchedrin was born in the family of the sculptor Theodosius Shchedrin. The landscape painter Semyon Shchedrin was his uncle. Almost all of his life was spent in Italy, where he was sent as a pensioner and where he died at a young age. The vast majority of his work is devoted to Italy. His first works bear the stamp of the residual influence of decorativeism: View from Petrovsky Island in St. Petersburg (1811). View from Petrovsky Island to Tuchkov Bridge and Vasilyevsky Island in St. Petersburg (1815), View of Petrovsky Island in St. Petersburg (1817). Unlike Alekseev's landscapes, Shchedrin has no air. It seems that it is pumped out of the picture, thanks to which the colors do not fade, but gain true strength. They bring an unbiased sense of object colors glowing within a classic scheme built on the contrast of a densely shaded foreground and brightened background. The description of the tree crowns of the conditional pattern looks like the decorative outlines of the trees of Semyon Shchedrin. The figures in the landscape are of a staffing nature. They do not live in it, do not act - they signify life, enlivening the landscape.

The landscape in Russia was just beginning to take shape. It bears the stamp of academic convention. But he had the opportunity to be released, because he did not suffer from the plot and thematic connectedness that reigned in other genres. In the first two decades of the 19th century, this freedom was acquired by the artist abroad, mainly in Italy, where the students of the Academy went on an internship (retirement). Shchedrin's first landscapes have a dual property. They are full of size and slowness. They are static, as if stopping for a moment from the chain of time. On the other hand, filling the picture of the city with staffing gives the landscape a genre shade, which reduces the feeling of the majesty of the motif. The introduction of fractional everyday components: interweaving of bridges, horse-drawn carts, random buildings, fishermen - puts the landscape on the verge of the everyday genre that arises inside the landscape.

Landscapes of the 1810s are clearly not natural. After drawing blanks, the picture was brought from memory. Due to the fact that the landscape in the genre register was not in the forefront, it was believed that it could not embody moral and religious ideas. As soon as the landscape gained freedom, he hurried to free himself from canonical biases and speak in the natural language of nature, preferring it to "high calm". The genre's natural attraction to authenticity did not at all mean that realism became its ultimate goal. Equally competent was the composed landscape, which organized the picture according to a given idea. The idea, as a rule, created a kind of myth about a beautiful country, if it was not a divine idea, denoting and embodying the presence of a divine spirit or cosmic forces in earthly nature. Shchedrin's impulse to realism, upon his arrival in Italy, did not at all constitute the pinnacle of his work, although it gave the world remarkable examples that expanded the pictorial and plastic range of art. The artist pursued beauty - the only and ultimate goal of art.

In Italy, Shchedrin worked side by side with Matveev, who had some influence on him. It is noticeable in the painting Colosseum in Rome (1822), compositionally comparable to Matveev's Colosseum, as well as in the canvas View of Naples from the road to Posilippo (1829). In this work, while maintaining the classicist scheme, Shchedrin tried to overcome it. He carefully observed the objective world, which distracted him from the composition of the landscape image. But the artist has not yet succeeded in creating a unity of color relations.

Another important discovery that changed the "philosophy" of the landscape was the light penetrating the trees and illuminating the sea or the ruins (Old Rome, 1824). Light immediately changed the understanding of nature. Actually, the “window to the world” was opened with the help of illumination of the visual space. In this regard, Shchedrin neglected the understanding of the world as a universe. It was replaced by attention to concrete life. This life was perceived harmoniously, as a happy being of a person. Conjecture, imagination left the picture, replaced by a clearly realized real landscape, interpreted as a happy destiny of man. People in the artist's paintings are working, fishing, relaxing, contemplating the sea, which expands the scope of the landscape to the everyday genre. The observed world of quiet life is carefully studied, or rather, contemplated, which gives it peace and immutability. Unlike classicism, Shchedrin's works are being democratized. He paints not palace parks, not metropolitan prospects, but a country of people, prosaic workers. The circle of knowledge has expanded, opening not only new subjects, it has been enriched with a different worldview. The most important factor in Shchedrin's landscape was the artist's natural entry into nature, which he painted in complete harmony with its breath. Nature is perceived in connection with the commoner. She is inhabited by him, and in this habitation one sees a new property of landscape plots and motifs. The former grandiosity of the world is replaced by humanity. The artist sees the world in its material form, as a luxury given by the Creator. The touch of the beauty of the sea, the physical perceptibility of trees, the air, the enlightened space, the lightness and transparency of the sky gave rise to a world of harmony. For this reason, the study of nature becomes one of the main factors in the changed attitude towards the landscape. The natural environment loses the conventionality of the image. Therefore, the picture is no longer built according to the rules of a majestic spectacle, but, in accordance with the new artistic concept, refers to private views, fragments of nature or seaside towns: the Embankment in Naples (1825), View of Amalfi near Naples, the Small harbor in Sorrento, On the island of Capri ( all - 1826).

The light in Shchedrin's paintings is diffused, gently enveloping distant mountains, coastal houses and trees. From this, many color tints of the sea, sky, velvet mountains, shaded in blue, appear. In the blessed nature, one feels the legacy of ancient times, perceived as a paradise for a calm human being. In Shchedrin's Italian landscapes, the principle of "composition" was completely replaced by the reproduction of nature in its finest qualities.

Fedorov-Davydov notes Shchedrin's mastery of the plein air. This real conquest of the landscape of the 1820s placed Shchedrin among the outstanding landscape painters of Europe. His plein airism is still imperfect. In comparison with the juicy, saturated with reflexes, bold painting of Alexander Ivanov, Shchedrin's plein air is timid, as if academically smoothed. It is more like a speculative reflection of color on color than an object viewed through a color-light medium. It is important, however, that both the color monochrome and the local gamut of the open color are overcome. Presented in a spectacular expression, nature has demonstrated that the beautiful in life is adequate to the beautiful in art. Sylvester Shchedrin combines the panoramic principle of space, left over from classicism, with a new principle - a “window to the world”, which is especially clearly seen in the “tunnel” landscapes and in the views from the photos, where the depth is built by the color shaded in the foreground and the airy distance . This is a breakthrough of the picture of the plane into the opening space: Grotto in Sorrento overlooking Vesuvius (1826), Grotto Matrimonio on the island of Capri (1827), Veranda entwined with grapes (1828), Terrace on the seashore (1828), Lake Albano in the vicinity of Rome ( 1825), View from the grotto of Vesuvius and Castello dell'Ovo on a moonlit night (1820s).

Calm contemplation of the world collapses in the "night" landscapes of Shchedrin. There are elements of drama. But this is not the drama of real life, but the concentration of the author's state projected onto nature. From here, elements of the conditional transmission of the night sky, clouds beating in the wind, etc. arose again, but the convention is colored this time with features of romantic pathos Naples on a moonlit night, 1829; two versions of Lunar Night in Naples, 1828).

Landscape is one of the genres of painting. Russian landscape is a very important genre for both Russian art and Russian culture in general. The landscape depicts nature. Natural landscapes, natural spaces. The landscape reflects the perception of nature by man.

Russian landscape in the 17th century

Saint John the Baptist in the Wilderness

The first building blocks for the development of landscape painting were laid by icons, the background of which was, in fact, landscapes. In the 17th century, the masters began to move away from icon-painting canons and try something new. It was from this time that painting ceased to "stand still" and began to develop.

Russian landscape in the 18th century

M.I. Maheev

In the 18th century, when Russian art joins the European art system, the landscape in Russian art becomes an independent genre. But at this time it is aimed at fixing the reality that surrounded the person. There were no cameras yet, but the desire to capture significant events or works of architecture was already strong. The first landscapes, as an independent genre in art, were topographical views of St. Petersburg, Moscow, palaces and parks.

F.Ya. Alekseev. View of the Resurrection and Nikolsky Gates and the Neglinny Bridge from Tverskaya Street in Moscow

F.Ya. Alekseev

S.F. Shchedrin

Russian landscape at the beginning of the 19th century

F.M. Matveev. Italian landscape

At the beginning of the 19th century, Russian artists painted mainly Italy. Italy was considered the birthplace of art and creativity. Artists study abroad, imitate the manner of foreign masters. Russian nature is considered inexpressive, boring, therefore even native Russian artists paint foreign nature, preferring it as more interesting and artistic. Foreigners are warmly welcomed in Russia: painters, dance and fencing teachers. Russian high society speaks French. Russian young ladies are taught by French governesses. Everything foreign is considered a sign of high society, a sign of education and upbringing, and manifestations of Russian national culture are a sign of bad taste and rudeness. In the famous opera P.I. Tchaikovsky, based on the immortal story by A.S. Pushkin's "The Queen of Spades", the French governess scolds Princess Lisa for dancing "in Russian", it was a shame for a lady from high society.

S.F. Shchedrin. Small harbor in Sorrento overlooking the islands of Ischia and Procido

I.G. Davydov. Suburb of Rome

S.F. Shchedrin. Grotto of Matromanio on the island of Capri

Russian landscape in the middle of the 19th century

In the middle of the 19th century, the Russian intelligentsia and artists in particular began to think about the underestimation of Russian culture. Two opposite directions appear in Russian society: Westernizers and Slavophiles. Westerners believed that Russia was part of world history and excluded its folk identity, while Slavophiles believed that Russia was a special country, rich in culture and history. The Slavophiles believed that the path of development of Russia should be fundamentally different from the European one, that Russian culture and Russian nature were worthy of being described in literature, portrayed on canvases, and captured in musical works.

Below will be presented paintings, which will depict the landscapes of the Russian land. For ease of perception, the paintings will be listed not in chronological order and not by authors, but by the seasons to which the paintings can be attributed.

Spring in the Russian landscape

Savrasov. The Rooks Have Arrived

Russian landscape. Savrasov "The Rooks Have Arrived"

Usually, spiritual uplift, expectation of joy, sun and warmth are associated with spring. But, in Savrasov’s painting “The Rooks Have Arrived”, we do not see the sun or heat, and even the temple domes are painted in gray, as if still unawakened colors.

Spring in Russia often begins with timid steps. The snow is melting, and the sky and trees are reflected in the puddles. Rooks are busy with their rook business - they build nests. The gnarled and bare trunks of birch trees become thinner, rising to the sky, as if reaching for it, gradually coming to life. The sky, at first glance gray, is filled with shades of blue, and the edges of the clouds are slightly lightened, as if the rays of the sun are peeping through.

At first glance, the picture can make a gloomy impression, and not everyone can feel the joy and triumph that the artist put into it. This painting was first presented at the first exhibition of the association of the Wanderers in 1871. And in the catalog of this exhibition it was called "The Rooks Have Arrived!" there was an exclamation point at the end of the name. And this joy, which is only expected, which is not yet in the picture, was expressed precisely by this exclamation mark. Savrasov, even in the title itself, tried to convey the elusive joy of waiting for spring. Over time, the exclamation mark was lost and the picture became simply called "The Rooks Have Arrived."

It is this picture that begins the assertion of landscape painting as an equal, and in some periods the leading genre of Russian painting.

I. Levitan. March

Russian landscape. I. Levitan. March

March is a very dangerous month - on the one hand, the sun seems to be shining, but on the other, it can be very cold and dank.

This spring of air filled with light. Here, the joy of the arrival of spring is already more clearly felt. It is still as if it is not visible, it is only in the title of the picture. But, if you look closely, you can feel the warmth of the wall, warmed by the sun.

Blue, saturated, sonorous shadows not only from trees and their trunks, but also shadows in the snow ruts along which a person walked

M. Claude. On arable land

Russian landscape. M. Claude. On arable land

In the painting by Mikhail Claude, a person (unlike a modern urban dweller) lives in the same rhythm with nature. Nature sets the rhythm of life for a person who lives on earth. In the spring, a person plows this land, in the fall, he harvests. The foal in the picture is like a continuation of life.

Russian nature is characterized by flatness - you rarely see mountains or hills here. And this lack of tension and pathos Gogol amazingly accurately characterized as "the indissolubility of Russian nature." It was this “continuity” that Russian landscape painters of the 19th century sought to convey in their paintings.

Summer in the Russian landscape

Palenov. Moscow courtyard

Russian landscape. Palenov "Moscow courtyard"

One of the most charming paintings in Russian painting. Business card of Polenov. This is an urban landscape in which we see the ordinary life of Moscow boys and girls. Even the artist himself does not always understand the significance of his work. Here is depicted both a city estate and an already collapsed barn and children, a horse, and above all this we see a church. Here and the peasantry and the nobility and children and work and the Temple - all the signs of Russian life. The whole picture is permeated with air, sun and light - that's why it is so attractive and so pleasant to look at. The painting "Moscow Yard" warms the soul with its warmth and simplicity.

US Ambassador's Spass House

Today, on Spaso-Peskovsky Lane, on the site of the courtyard depicted by Palenov, there is the residence of the American ambassador Spass House.

I. Shishkin. Rye

Russian landscape. I. Shishkin. Rye

The life of a Russian person in the 19th century was closely connected with the rhythms of the life of nature: sowing grain, cultivating, harvesting. In Russian nature there is breadth and space. Artists try to convey this in their paintings.

Shishkin is called the "king of the forest", because he has most of all forest landscapes. And here we see a flat landscape with a sown rye field. At the very edge of the picture, the road begins, and, winding, runs among the fields. In the depths of the road, among the tall rye, we see peasant heads in red scarves. In the background, mighty pine trees are depicted, which, like giants, are striding through this field, on some we see signs of wilting. This is the life of nature - old trees wither, new ones appear. Overhead, the sky is very clear, and closer to the horizon, clouds begin to gather. A few minutes will pass and the clouds will move closer to the leading edge and it will rain. We are also reminded of this by birds that fly low above the ground - they are nailed there by air and atmosphere.

Initially, Shishkin wanted to call this painting "Motherland". While writing this picture, Shishkin thought about the image of the Russian land. But then he left this name so that there would be no unnecessary pathos. Ivan Ivanovich Shishkin loved simplicity and naturalness, believing that it was in simplicity that the truth of life was.

Autumn in the Russian landscape

Efimov-Volkov. October

Russian landscape. Efimov-Volkov. "October"

"There is in the autumn of the original ..."

Fedor Tyutchev

Is in the autumn of the original
Short but wonderful time -
The whole day stands as if crystal,
And radiant evenings ...

Where a peppy sickle walked and an ear fell,
Now everything is empty - space is everywhere -
Only cobwebs of thin hair
Shines on an idle furrow.

The air is empty, the birds are no longer heard,
But far from the first winter storms -
And pure and warm azure pours
On the resting field…

Efimov-Volkov's painting "October" conveys the lyrics of autumn. In the foreground of the picture is a young birch grove painted with great love. Fragile birch trunks and brown earth covered with autumn leaves.

L. Kamenev. Winter road

Russian landscape. L. Kamenev . "Winter road"

In the picture, the artist depicted an endless expanse of snow, a winter road along which a horse drags firewood with difficulty. A village and a forest can be seen in the distance. No sun, no moon, just a dull twilight. In the image of L. Kamenev, the road is covered with snow, few people drive along it, it leads to a village covered with snow, where there is no light in any window. The picture creates a dreary and sad mood.

I. Shishkin. In the wild north

M.Yu.Lermontov
"In the Wild North"
Stands alone in the wild north
On the bare top of a pine tree,
And dozing, swaying, and loose snow
She is dressed like a robe.

And she dreams of everything that is in the distant desert,
In the region where the sun rises
Alone and sad on a rock with fuel
A beautiful palm tree is growing.

I. Shishkin. "In the Wild North"

Shishkin's painting is an artistic embodiment of the motive of loneliness, sung by Lermontov in the poetic work "Pine".

Elena Lebedeva, website graphic designer, computer graphics teacher.

I took a lesson on this article in high school. The children guessed the authors of the poems and the names of the paintings. Judging by their answers, schoolchildren know literature much better than art)))

Household genre (I. Firsov, M. Shibanov, I. Ermenev)

The secular art that appeared in the 18th century gave preference to the genre of portraiture and historical painting. With the exception of a few Russian artists trained in Russia and abroad, the face of Russian painting was determined by invited masters from European countries. The genre of landscape emerged rather late. Its appearance is associated with the founding of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, where in 1767 a landscape class was established to train landscape painters. The classes of perspective and theatrical scenery, from which many landscape painters came from, also contributed to the establishment of this genre. Narrow specialties, including landscape, were instituted in the engraving class.

The landscape class from 1776 to 1804 was taught by a student of the Academy of Arts Semyon Shchedrin. A well-known landscape painter came out of the perspective class Fedor Alekseev. Difficulties arose with the search for a teacher for the class of theatrical scenery. Therefore, in 1776, the Academic Council decided to send two students to the theater master - Yakov Gerasimov and Fyodor Matveeva, later a famous landscape painter.

Of great importance for the development of the landscape genre were the retirement trips of the most gifted graduates of the Academy. Studying in Italy and France with great masters, pensioners improved their skills, reaching the level of European art. Famous Russian landscape painters visited (and some stayed there) abroad: Maxim Vorobyov, Alexander Ivanov, Mikhail Lebedev, Semyon Shchedrin, Fyodor Matveev, Fyodor Alekseev, Sylvester Shchedrin and many others. This allowed the landscape genre to equalize with European art and continue to live its own Russian life, finding its own face, responding to the problems of the spiritual reality of the country.

Fedor Yakovlevich Alekseev (1753 - 1824)

He took the first step in Russian landscape painting towards the real depiction of the landscape. The subject of his art was the urban landscape. In this sense, a line of urban perspectives has been outlined in the Russian landscape. Alekseev creates an airy landscape thanks to the panoramic construction of plans. Perspective and aerial environment are crucial components of his landscapes. The artist's works do not respond to ideas that are outside the landscape image, so they are devoid of the element of extra-artistic interpretation of the subject of the image. A gentle range of cold tones usually prevails in Petersburg perspectives. Light painting corresponds to the real color of the city, and the air environment seems to demonstrate the emotional excitement of the artist. The interpretation of the landscape through the air was an innovation in Russian art. Perhaps only the Dutch, Claude Lorrain and Joseph Turner turned to this technique, which became one of the essential means of pictorial solution of the theme. Alekseev's landscapes are contemplative. Calmly pouring light gives some of his works a sense of peace. In Alekseev's Petersburg landscapes, one can feel the influence of Francesco Guardi, who turned to aerial panoramas when depicting Venice.

IN views of Nikolaev and Kherson the artist paid more attention to objectivity. Alekseev's landscapes are sparsely populated by people, but where there is a semblance of a domestic genre, the landscape theme wins.

Alekseev presents the city both as a view of the area and in the integrity of its life, and not just enjoying its architectural features ( View from Vasilyevsky Island to the English Embankment, 1810s). On the contrary, the landscapes of Moscow focus on the sights of antiquity, on the "ruins" characteristic of the landscape of classicism. The city of Alekseev is lively, populated by working people, especially in painting Red Square in Moscow(1801) and images of St. Petersburg embankments. In this respect, the paintings are not like the staffage landscapes of Semyon Shchedrin or Benjamin Patersen.

Semyon Fedorovich Shchedrin (1745 - 1804)

The landscape performed by Semyon Fedorovich Shchedrin (1745 - 1804) took shape as an independent genre, not burdened with various kinds of sandy loam. These were no longer exercises in perspective views, but images of terrain views. As a pensioner of the Academy of Arts, Shchedrin studied in France, where he was patronized by the Russian ambassador in Paris, Prince DA Golitsyn, in fact, the first Russian art critic who wrote an essay on the theory and history of art. Judging by the early work of Shchedrin Noon(1779), executed in the wake of his stay in Italy, the artist was clearly influenced by classicism. Classicism had its own ideological and plastic concept. The predestination of the plot and theme is visible in the painting Noon, for which the artist received the title of academician. A characteristic plot with a herd and ruins, a color scheme typical of classicism, dividing the composition into plans - brown near and blue in the distance, decorative interpretation of trees, not natural, but transformed into a fluffy cloud, are evidence of the appearance of the genre of the composed landscape.

Landscape paintings were intended to decorate palaces and therefore, along with palace panels, they carried decorative functions. These functions determined the meaning and structure of the St. Petersburg period of Shchedrin's work, including easel landscapes executed by him in 1792-1798: Mill in Pavlovsk (1792), View of the Gatchina Palace from the Long Island (1796), View in the Gatchina Park (1798).

It cannot be said that the landscape was completely composed by Shchedrin. It is based on a specific look, but it is arbitrarily transformed by the artist.

In 1799-1801, commissioned by Paul I, Shchedrin wrote panel for the Mikhailovsky Castle. In them, the artist not only enhanced the decorative features of his manner, but changed the nature of the landscape as a genre that had been outlined in his previous works. In the panel Stone Bridge in Gatchina near Connetable Square, the meaning and purpose of the Shchedrin landscape change significantly. The panel fits into the interior of the palace, being subordinate to the task of purposefully decorating the halls. The landscape itself, that is, the image of the area, becomes only an excuse for the implementation of a different function of the work, adjusted to the architectural style of the interior. The seeming or earlier autonomization of the landscape as an independent genre is subordinated to the task of decorating the interior of the palace. From this follows the strengthening of the decorative beginning of the work, which neglects the exact transfer of the subject of the image. The functions of decorative and easel works are different. Submitting to decorative tasks, the landscape genre turned into an illusion of a genre, losing or narrowing its independence in posing genre and landscape problems, in reflecting and reproducing life.

household genre

In the second half of the 18th century the first sprouts appear in Russian painting household genre. The Academy considered the genre of everyday life as a lower kind of painting compared to the historical picture. The genre themes recommended by the Academy reduced everyday painting to unsophisticated everyday writing, oriented artists towards the heritage of the so-called small masters of Dutch painting of the 17th century. The genre scenes allowed by academic aesthetics in the landscape were idyllic or ethnographic in nature.

In contrast to this, works began to appear in Russian art that truly depict the image of the Russian peasant. The themes of these first experiments in Russian realistic genre painting have a distinctly democratic orientation. One of the first works of Russian everyday genre - painting Ivan Firsov (c. 1733 - after 1784) "Young painter" (1765-1770; Tretyakov Gallery), executed by the artist, apparently in Paris and clearly based on the experience of French realistic genre painting. The painting depicts a scene in an art workshop, painted in soft pink and gray tones. It is notable for the artist's interest in the private life of middle-class people and is imbued with sympathy for the people depicted.

Among the most significant phenomena in the field of Russian everyday genre of this time are two works by a serf artist Mikhail Shibanov. His creative activity (he also worked as a portrait painter) unfolded in the 1770s. His paintings date back to this time. "Peasant Lunch"(1774) and "Wedding Pact Celebration"(1777) (both in the Tretyakov Gallery). All the images of the first picture - the old peasant, and the old woman gathering on the table, and the young man cutting bread, and the woman preparing to feed the child - are significant, full of self-esteem. At the same time, they are quite individual: the artist notices solemn seriousness and traces of fatigue in the face of an old man, the indifference of a tired person in the face of an old woman, restrained tenderness in the pose and expression of a young peasant woman with a child. The simplicity of the composition, in which all unnecessary details are omitted, the restraint and severity of the coloring of the picture, sustained in brown tones, enhance the significance of the images. Realism, spiritual nobility of images are also inherent in the "Festival of the Wedding Contract", the composition of which is somewhat constrained by echoes of academic canons. The lovingly attentive attitude to the peasant and his life is also expressed here in the fact that the artist not only conveys with ethnographic accuracy the features of the peasant festive attire, but also seeks to reveal its aesthetic significance.

Another remarkable phenomenon in Russian art of the second half of the 18th century. was creativity Ivan Alekseevich Ermenev(1746 - after 1792), still very little studied. In the 1770s he executed a series of watercolors depicting blind beggars wandering along country roads or singing in village squares. The images of the beggars Ermenev are not devoid of mournful grandeur. Their stern, suffering faces, figures bent by illness and poverty, dressed in shabby robes, falling in straight, large folds, contain elements of monumentality.

The appeal of the first Russian genre painters to the peasant theme is not accidental. After the peasant war of 1773-1775. the peasant question firmly entered the circle of problems that worried the noble intelligentsia. The peasant problem was the main one in the life of the first half of the next, 19th century; It was on this basis that the Russian household genre was formed.

Thus, for Russian painting, the 18th century was a period of birth and formation of its main genres - historical painting, everyday genre, landscape; at the same time, this was the first period of the bright flowering of Russian portrait art. The realistic tendencies of Russian painting of this century received the deepest and most consistent expression precisely in the portrait. The portrait embodied the progressive views of the era on the value of the human person. The best examples of Russian portraiture of this time are characterized by concreteness and vivid emotional expressiveness of psychological characteristics, the diversity and completeness of the types of portraiture themselves. Russian portrait made a bright and original contribution to the development of European portraiture of the 18th century.

In the second half of the 18th century in Russian painting, certain techniques and rules for creating a multi-figure, plot picture that embodied the principles of classicism have developed. The patriotic and civic ideals of the era found their expression here. Having a very great importance for the Russian culture of their time, the works of historical painting as a whole, however, are significantly inferior to the portrait in terms of the degree of objectivity of the interpretation of reality, in terms of artistic skill.

In the second half of the 18th century Russian landscape painting is also taking shape, reaching by the end of the period under review the first successes in the formation of a method of truthful reflection of the appearance of the surrounding world. The individual works of the Russian everyday genre that have come down to us, both by their nature and by virtue of their relative small number, do not constitute an integral artistic direction; nevertheless, in the best works of this kind, those fruitful tendencies are laid, which in the new historical period - in the 19th century - contributed to the remarkable flourishing of the Russian narrative picture dedicated to the life of the people.

• Specialty HAC RF17.00.04
• Number of pages 187

Chapter 1

Chapter 2. Landscape genre at the Academy of Arts 41

Chapter 3. Typological and compositional features of the landscape in the Rkom TV of the XVIII century

Chapter 4

Chapter 5. Landscape as an element of other genres 117

Chapter 6. The Place of Landscape in Art Collections and Interiors of the 18th Century 132

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Fine and decorative arts and architecture", 17.00.04 VAK code

• Russian Landscape of the Middle of the 19th Century: The Problem of Formation and Ways of Development 2000, candidate of art criticism Krivondenchenkov, Sergey Viktorovich

• MM. Ivanov and landscape graphics in Russia in the second half of the 18th century 2005, Candidate of Art History Kaparulina, Olga Anatolyevna

• Landscape painting of Altai in the 1960s-1970s 2002, candidate of art criticism Nekhvyadovich, Larisa Ivanovna

• Decorative paintings by Italian artists in the interiors of St. Petersburg in the late 18th - first third of the 19th century 2005, candidate of art history Trefilova, Irina Viktorovna

• Typology of landscape images by the masters of the "World of Art" in the context of Russian artistic culture of the late 19th - early 20th century 2013, candidate of art criticism Grishina, Ekaterina Valerievna

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Landscape in Russian Artistic Culture of the 18th Century: Features of the Genre and Its Existence"

The work is devoted to the Russian easel landscape of the 18th century, as well as works related to the landscape genre in graphics, monumental painting, decorative and decorative arts.

The history of the landscape genre in the context of the problematics of the national artistic culture of the 18th century has been considered for a long time in works devoted to the fine arts of this era. In modern art history, with varying degrees of detail, she received coverage in the multi-volume History of Russian Art, ed. I.E. Grabar, in the fundamental works of N.N. Kovalenskaya ("History of Russian Art of the 18th Century" and "Russian Classicism"), A.A. Sidorov "Drawing of old Russian masters" (1) and other studies. In these works, on the basis of rich factual material, the work of the most prominent masters of the landscape genre in easel and decorative painting, as well as in the field of graphics, is characterized.

Issues related to the creation of picturesque landscapes at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts are discussed in the book by N. Moleva and E. Belyutin "The Pedagogical System of the Academy of Arts in the 18th Century". (2) It analyzes the theoretical foundations and practical methods of teaching in the landscape and perspective classes, raises the question of the role of the genre in the structure of academic education.

Information about the features of the development of the landscape genre is also contained in the works devoted to the history of engraving and monumental and decorative painting. The most significant of them is the MA book. Alekseeva about Russian engraving of the 18th century and the monograph by V. Belyavskaya "Paintings of Russian Classicism". (3)

The number of monographic studies on Russian landscape painters of the 18th century is relatively small. Among them, we highlight the work of M.S. Konoplev about Sem.F. Shchedrin, which contains materials for the biography of the artist (4) and numerous articles by M.A. Alekseeva, covering the activities of M.I. Makhaev. The main attention of art historians was attracted by F.Ya. Alekseev. Books and articles about the master of urban views at different times were written by I. Grabar, A.A. Fedorov-Davydov, E.N. Atsarkina, M.I. Androsova, N.N. Skornyakova. (5)

The only comprehensive study devoted to Russian landscape painting of the 18th - early 19th centuries belongs to A.A. Fedorov-Davydov. (6) Published in 1953, it retains great scientific value to this day. Extensive factual material gives this work a truly encyclopedic character. Along with the historical and chronological approach, a problematic approach is used here, which made it possible to trace the formation of the landscape as a genre in Russian art. In the context of general issues, the author analyzes the work of the most significant representatives of the landscape genre of the 18th and early 19th centuries: Semyon Shchedrin, Fyodor Matveev, Mikhail Ivanov, Fyodor Alekseev, Sylvester Shchedrin.

In the undertaken work, we largely relied on this fundamental work. It served as an important support in the study of the topic, a kind of starting point, which largely determined the idea of ​​the undertaken research. However, some of its provisions and attribution information require updating and may become the subject of discussion.

A.A. Fedorov-Davydov considers the 18th century as the initial stage in the formation of the Russian landscape school. One of the main tasks of the researcher is to identify its national identity. The scientist presents the general formation and development of the landscape genre in Russian art of the 18th century as a steady, progressive movement from a decorative, conventional landscape image to semantic and pictorial realism. Today, this position needs some adjustment.

The possibility of further study of issues related to the history of a very important genre for Russian art is far from being exhausted. This also applies to the artistic features of easel and decorative landscapes, as well as the problem of existence, closely related to their participation in the formation of the artistic environment of the era. The role of Western European landscape painters and their works that existed in the context of Russian artistic culture has not been fully clarified. For quite a long time, the desire to emphasize the independence and originality of the development of domestic fine arts was accompanied by a lack of attention to the pan-European context.

The original meaning of the terms used to characterize easel and decorative landscapes in the 18th century also needs to be clarified and clarified. In modern literature, their inaccurate interpretation often leads to a distortion of the content and a mixture of different types of landscapes. All this determines the relevance of the study of one of the leading genres of Russian painting.

It should be noted that the dissertation put forward for defense does not represent another history of the landscape in Russian art of the 18th century. The main goal is to study the "landscape vision" era ah?

Features of the creation and further existence of a picturesque landscape as a subject of professional art in the Russian artistic life of that time. Identification of the relationship between the spheres of artistic production and consumption in the field of landscape genre determines the scientific novelty of the study.

The purpose of the work necessitates the formulation and solution of a number of problems in it. Particular attention is focused on the analysis of judgments about the content of the landscape image, which were expressed by contemporaries: theorists of fine arts, writers, lovers of fine arts. In the context of the problem of perception, we considered it necessary to compare the features of the figurative and compositional structure of the pictorial and literary landscape in the second half of the century.

The dissertation examines the position of the landscape genre in the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, reveals the relationship of the easel landscape with similar works in decorative and monumental painting, engraving, original graphics, and porcelain painting. The decorative and semantic possibilities of the landscape as an element of other genres are revealed.

One of the most important tasks is to clarify the role of the pan-European tradition in the process of formation of the domestic genre structure. In the context of the problem of educational copying, a number of Western European landscape "samples" used within the walls of the Academy are specified. The peculiarities of the perception and existence of architectural and natural views in Russian art are demonstrated by the classification of the typological structure of the genre carried out in the dissertation.

The easel landscape is being studied as a collectible and one of the ways of decorating interiors. The meaningful role of easel and decorative views in various kinds of apartments is reconstructed.

To solve the tasks set, a number of paintings from the funds of the State Tretyakov Gallery, the State Russian Museum, the State Historical Museum were studied, a wide range of various publications and materials from the funds of the Russian State Historical Archive, the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts, the scientific and bibliographic archive of the Academy of Arts were used , Department of Manuscripts of the State Tretyakov Gallery and the State Public Library in St. Petersburg.

The study of the ideas of contemporaries about the role and tasks of the landscape genre was based on the works of Russian theorists of fine arts of the 18th century, which served as guides for students of the Academy of Arts: A.M. Ivanova, I.F. Urvanova, P.P. Chekalevsky, A.I. Pisarev, (7) as well as the works of Western European philosophers and figures in the field of fine arts. Of particular value in this sense are the works of the French art critic D. Diderot.

Important sources containing numerous information about Russian landscape painters who studied at the Academy of Arts and reflecting the history of its landscape and perspective classes are the Collection of Materials on the History of Imp. Academy of Arts P.N. Petrova, Dictionary of Russian Artists N.P. Sobko, Dictionary of Russian engravers, ed. YES. Rovinsky. (8)

The material for studying the role of easel landscapes in public and private collections is contained in the work of J. Shtelin, published by K. Malinovsky, "A brief inventory of objects that make up the "Russian Museum" by Alexander Svinin." (9) Valuable evidence of the significance of the works of Western European landscape painters in the field of domestic art education was discovered by us when working with collection registers and inventories, as well as with a collection of impressive publications and prints in the library of the Academy of Arts, where the best collection of engravings in the world has been preserved since the 18th century. .-B. Piranesi, French and English editions of the 17th and 18th centuries.

The time frame of the dissertation covers the period from the beginning of the 18th to the turn of the 19th century. The greatest attention is paid to the second half of the 18th century - the time of active creation of its own genre structure based on the common European tradition.

The research method used in the work combines art criticism and historical and cultural analysis.

Notes:

1. History of Russian art / Ed. Academician I.E. Grabar / Academy of Sciences of the USSR. M., 1961; Kovalenskaya N.N. History of Russian art of the XVIII century. M., 1962; Kovalenskaya N.N. Russian classicism. Painting, sculpture, graphics. M., 1964; Sidorov A.A. Drawing by old Russian masters. M., 1956.

2. Moleva N. Belyutin E. Pedagogical system of the Academy of Arts in the XVIII century. M., 1956.

3. Alekseeva M.A. Engraving of Peter's time. M., 1990; Belyavskaya V.

Paintings of Russian classicism. JI.-M., 1940.

4. Konopleva M.S. S.F. Shchedrin. Materials for the biography and characteristics of creativity // Materials on Russian art. JL, 1928, pp. 143-160.

5. Grabar I. Fedor Yakovlevich Alekseev // Old Years, 1907, July-September. pp. 357-390; Fedorov-Davydov A.A. Fedor Yakovlevich Alekseev. M., 1955; Atsarkina E.N. F. Alekseev // Communications of the Institute of Art History. M., 1954. No. 4-5. pp. 76 - 96; Androsova M.I. Fedor Alekseev. JL, 1979; Skornyakova N.N. Views of Moscow in the early 19th century. Paintings and drawings by F. Alekseev and his workshop // Pages of the artistic heritage of Russia in the 16th-20th centuries. Proceedings of the State Historical Museum. Issue. 89. M., 1997. S. 33-48.

6. Fedorov-Davydov A.A. Russian landscape of the 18th - early 19th centuries. M., 1953.

7. Ivanov A.M. The concept of a perfect painter, which serves as the basis for judging the works of painters, and a note on portraits. St. Petersburg, 1789; Pisarev A. Inscription of Arts or Rules in Painting, Sculpture, Engraving and Architecture, with the addition of various passages regarding the arts selected from the best writers. SPb., 1808, Urvanov I.F. A brief guide to the knowledge of drawing and painting of a historical kind, based on speculation and experience. Composed for students by the artist I. U. St. Petersburg, 1793; Chekalevsky P.P. Discourse on free arts with a description of some works of Russian artists. Published for the benefit of the students of the Imperial Academy of Arts by the Counselor of the Embassy and

Academy Conference Secretary Peter Chekalevsky. SPb., 1792 (reissued by the Research Institute of Theory and History of Fine Arts, M., 1997. Footnotes to the reprint.)

8. Rovinsky D.A., comp. Detailed dictionary of Russian engravers of the XVI-XIX centuries. SPb., 1895. T. 1-4; Collection of materials for the history of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Arts for a hundred years of its existence. Published under the editorship of P.N. Petrov and with his notes. St. Petersburg, 1864; Sobko N.P., comp. Dictionary of Russian artists. St. Petersburg, 1893.

9. Svin'in P.P. Collection of Excellent Produced by Russian Artists and Curious Domestic Antiquities Belonging to Pavel Svinin. Started in 1819. St. Petersburg; Shtelin Ya. Notes of Jakob Shtelin about fine arts in Russia. M. 1990. T 12.

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Fine and decorative arts and architecture", Usacheva, Svetlana Vladimirovna

Conclusion

The work carried out showed that the processes of creating and using picturesque landscapes in various areas of Russian artistic culture are closely interrelated. As we have seen, the peculiarities of the existence of easel landscapes largely determined the development of the national landscape school. In the first half of the century, they came to Russia mainly from the outside as a collector's item. In the second half of the century, the process of creating a domestic typological and figurative structure of the genre began. It took place in line with the common European tradition. As evidenced by the reviewed material, being in collections and interiors, the works of foreign landscape painters participated in shaping the tastes of Russian customers and made it possible for domestic artists to get acquainted with the principles and practical methods of creating landscapes. Ideas about the content of species and the tasks of landscape painting in Russian culture reflected the opinions that were widespread throughout Europe.

Analysis of the collected material revealed the significance of the role of samples or "originals" of the Dutch, Flemish, Italian and French schools in the training of landscape painters at the Academy of Arts, where the copying method was one of the main ones in the preparation of painters. The importance of landscape in the academic genre structure is evidenced by the participation of landscape elements in other pictorial genres. The landscape background played a special role in portrait and genre painting.

The Academy, being one of the main collectors of Western European easel landscapes, was the place where a domestic landscape structure was created. The classification of landscape types carried out in the work demonstrates the intensity of the development of the old Western tradition and, at the same time, its creative interpretation. The domestic landscape genre is an organic part of the pan-European landscape culture of the 18th century. This primarily applies to image types. Among them, views of cities, primarily metropolitan ones, as well as Italian and manor landscapes predominate. As we have tried to show, these types have the characteristic features of "topographical" landscapes (that is, depict real-life locations and monuments), and, at the same time, follow the classical landscape "scheme", which includes generally accepted techniques for spatial and coloristic construction of paintings, as well as certain points of view on the most famous architectural structures and natural views.

This situation reveals the greatest proximity to the English artistic culture. The ancestor of the "topographical" landscape, valued by customers for its "portrait" authenticity, is considered to be A. Canaletto, an outstanding representative of the classical landscape tradition, a master of city leads. His work, widely popular in England, served as an impetus for the development of his own landscape school, which was dominated by urban and manor views.

However, if in England such types of landscapes, according to D. Wedgwood, were common not only in the homes of the nobility, but also in gentlemen, in Russia they became primarily a part of the noble culture. Thus, the specificity of the artistic features of the domestic landscape, as in other countries, largely depended on the social context.

The collected material shows that the main place in Russian collections (primarily tsarist collections) was occupied by "rural" types of Dutch and Flemish artists, the most democratic in content. They also played an important role in the education of Russian painters, attracting academic teachers with the artlessness of landscape motifs and "careful", that is, reliable transmission of nature. More refined park views with gallant scenes, as well as landscapes with exotic architectural monuments and fantastic ruins, were more often used for interior painting and porcelain painting. Easel landscapes, which were used to decorate palace and private interiors, were also predominantly decorative.

Today, the most promising is the further study of picturesque landscapes and "landscape vision" as part of the artistic environment of the era. The structure of the genre appears in this case as the result of joint efforts of customers and creators of works. At this stage, without pretending to final conclusions and generalizations, we will make some assumptions in this area.

In our opinion, the circle of customers, initially limited to the nobility, largely determined the typological features of the emerging structure of the landscape genre and its further development. In particular, the popularity of estate species, widely represented in Russian painting and engraving, was a reflection of the flourishing of estate culture in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. At the end of the century, we can talk about the expansion of the social environment in which landscapes exist, both pictorial and engraved. The interest of customers of different social status in the types of cities, old and new, domestic and foreign, is indicative. So, the engravings of J.-B. Piranesi, representing the architectural antiquities of Rome, were commissioned by I.I. Shuvalov at the same time for Catherine II and the Academy of Arts. At the same time, they went on free sale in St. Petersburg. About attention

The popularity of the landscapes of St. Petersburg and Moscow by F.Ya. Alekseev, orders for which he carried out for the Academy and individuals. The works of B. Patersen, which he created especially for sale, as well as the works of other artists who painted views of the capitals and their environs, had success with the general public. Further study of the commercial activities of the Academy, in particular, sales from Factorskaya, may make it possible to more accurately determine the circle of customers for landscapes and identify their preferences.

It can be said that the identification of links between the spheres of creation and existence of picturesque landscapes makes it possible to consider the development of the landscape genre in the national school as an integral process that unites the creators of works and their consumers.

List of references for dissertation research candidate of art criticism Usacheva, Svetlana Vladimirovna, 2001

1. Alekseeva M.A. "Collection of Russian and Siberian cities". A series of engravings of the 18th century // Communications of the State Russian Museum. D., 1964. S. 65-75.

2. Alekseeva M.A. New data on the method of work of M.I. Makhaeva // Communications of the State Russian Museum. Issue. IX. D., 1968. S. 6568.

3. Alekseeva M.A. Documents about the work of M.I. Makhaeva // Russian art of the 18th-first half of the 19th century. Materials and research. M., 1971. S. 238-294.

4. Alekseeva M.A. Engraving of Peter's time. M., 1990.

5. Alekseeva T.V. Vladimir Lukich Borovikovsky and Russian culture at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. M., 1975.

6. Alekhnovich Yu. Library of the Academy of Arts. L., 1940. Androsov S.O. Painter Ivan Nikitin. SPb., 1998. Androsova M.I. Fedor Alekseev. L., 1979.

7. Antonov V.V. Painters-decorators Scotty in Russia // Russian Art of the Second Half of the 18th and First Half of the 19th Centuries. Materials and research. M., 1978. S. 69-107.

8. Artsikhovskaya-Kuznetsova A.A. A.S. Stroganov as a type of Russian collector // Panorama of the Arts. Issue. 11. M., 1988. S. 282-291.

9. Arkhangelsk. Album. M., 1983.

10. Atsarkina E.N. F. Alekseev // Communications of the Institute of Art History. M., 1954. No. 4-5. pp. 76-96. "G

11. Atsarkina E.N., comp. Sylvester Shchedrin. Letters. M., 1978.

12. Bannikov A.P. Astrakhan collection of A.P. Sapozhnikova // Panorama of the Arts 11. M. 1988. P. 314-326.

13. Bannikov A.P. Collection of General A.I. Korsakov. Experience of reconstruction // Monuments of culture. New discoveries. 1995. M., 1996.

14. Bardovskaya JI.B. English engravings in the collection of the Catherine's Palace Museum and their influence on the formation of the Catherine's park in the 70s of the XVIII century // Russian Artistic Culture and Foreign Masters. Abstracts of reports. M., 1982. S. 43-45.

15. Batte Sh. Fine arts reduced to a single principle // History of aesthetics. Monuments of world aesthetic thought. M., 1964. T. II. Aesthetic teachings of the XVII-XVIII centuries. pp. 376-390.

16. Batyushkov K.N. Works. M., 1955.

17. Belavskaya K.P. Palace Museums and Repositories of the 18th century of the 19th century // Essays on the History of Museum Affairs in Russia. M. 1960-1961. Issue. 3.

18. Belyavskaya V. Murals of Russian classicism. JI.-M., 1940.

19. Benois A. History of painting of all times and peoples. SPb., 1912. T. 1-4.

20. Benois A. Guide to the art gallery imp. Hermitage. SPb.

21. Benoit F. Art of France in the era of revolution and the first empire. M.-L., 1940.

22. Bityutskaya S.I. Materials on the history of Russian collecting. Archive of the State Tretyakov Gallery. F.104. D. 67.

23. Bolotina I.S. Russian still life. M., 1993.

24. Brook Ya.V. At the origins of the Russian genre. 18th century M., 1990.

26. Wallis M. Canaletto painter of Warsaw. Krakow, 1955.

27. Veselovsky A.N. V.A. Zhukovsky. Poetry of feeling and "cordial imagination". M., 1999.

28. Voronikhina JI.H. "Green Frog Service". L., 1962.

29. Voronikhina JI.H. About the landscapes of the "Green Frog Service". Museum 9. Art collections of the USSR. M., 1988. S. 166-174.

30. XVIII century". Collection 15. "Russian literature of the XVIII century. in its connections with art and science". M., 1986.

31. Wrangel N.N. Wreath of the dead. SPb., 1913.

32. Wrangel N.N. Old estates. Essays on the history of noble culture. SPb., 1999.

33. Gavrilova E.I. Russian drawing of the 18th century. JL, 1983.

34. Gachev D.I. Aesthetic views of Diderot. M., 1961.

35. Georgi I.G. Description of the Russian-imperial capital city of St. Petersburg and sights in its vicinity. 1794-1796 With a plan. SPb., 1794.

36. Gerchuk Yu.A. Imaginary architecture in painting and graphics // Western European artistic culture of the 18th century. M., 1980. S. 89-103.

37. Goethe I.-V. Journey to Italy. Collected works of Goethe in translations of Russian writers. Ed. N.V. Gerbel. T. 7. St. Petersburg, 1879.

38. Goethe I.-V. Articles and thoughts about art. L.-M., 1936. Goethe I.-V. About art. M., 1975.

39. Goldovsky P.N., Znamenov V.V. Monplaisir Palace. L., 1981.

40. Golitsyn D.A. Description of the famous works of schools and emerging from these artists // Kaganovich A.L. Anton Losenko and Russian Art of the Middle of the 18th Century. M., 1963. S. 310.

41. Gollerbach E.F. History of engraving and lithography in Russia. Pg., 1923.

42. Gollerbach E.F. Russian art porcelain. L., 1924.

43. Golovenkova R.V. Pensioners-painters of the Academy of Arts in the XVIII century // Issues of art education. Issue VIII. L., 1974.

44. Golombievskiy A. Abandoned estate. The village of Nadezhdino, the former estate of the princes Kurakins//Old Years. 1911. January. S. 3 25.

46. ​​Grashchenkov V.N. Giacomo Quarenghi and Venetian Neoclassicism // Soviet Art History. Issue. 20. M., 1986. S. 301-366.

47. Grech A.N. Wreath to estates. Monuments of the Fatherland. Issue. 32. M., 1994.

48. Grimm G.G. The graphic legacy of Quarenghi. L., 1962.

49. Gurevich I.M., Znamenov V.V., Myasoedova E.G. Great Peterhof Palace. L., 1979.

50. Davydov V.A. On the issue of the history of copying European painting in Russia // Foreign Artists and Russia. Part I. SPb.-, 1991. S. 39-49.

51. Davydov V.A. Copying European painting in the system of the Academy of Arts in the 60s of the XVIII century // Problems of development of foreign art. Part II. SPb., 1993. S. 3-12.

52. Davydova M.V. Essays on the history of Russian theatrical and decorative art of the 18th - early 20th centuries. M. 1974.

53. Delisle Jacques. Gardens. L., 1987.

54. Denis Diderot and the culture of his era. Digest of articles. M, 1986.

55. Derzhavin G.R. Anacreon songs. M, 1986.

56. Deryabina E.V. Paintings by Joseph Vernet in the Hermitage // Western European Art of the 18th Century. Publications and research. Digest of articles. L., 1987. S. 47 55.

57. Deryabina E.V. Some aspects of the early work of Hubert Robert and his paintings in the Hermitage // Problems of development of foreign art. Sat. articles. Part I. St. Petersburg, 1994. S. 66 74.

58. Deryabina E.V. Decorative Ensembles by Hubert Robert in Russia // Proceedings of the State Hermitage. Issue. XXIX. St. Petersburg, 2000. S. 86 111.

59. Diderot D. Aesthetics and literary criticism. M, 1980.

60. Didro D. Works. T. 1-2. M, 1986.

61. Diderot D. Salons. T. 1-2. M, 1989.

62. Dmitriev I.I. Poems. M, 1987.

63. Dukelskaya L.A. Art of England of the 16th-19th centuries. Essay guide. L. 1983.

64. Dulsky P. Drawings and engravings by M.F. Kazakova // Architecture of the USSR. 1938. No. 10. S. 41-45.

65. Evangulova O.S. Fine Arts in Russia in the First Quarter of the 18th Century. M, 1987.

66. Evangulova O.S. On the problem of interaction between painting and literature in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. Tips for artists // Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 8. History. M, 1993. No. 1. S. 42-55.

67. Evangulova O.S. Russian theorists about the arts of imitation in their relation to nature. (On the history of artistic consciousness in Russia in the 18th century) // Moscow University Bulletin. Ser 8. History. M., 1998. No. 2.

68. Evangulova O.S., Karev A.A. Portrait painting in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. M., 1994.

69. Zharkova I.M. F.Ya. Alekseev. M., 1981.

70. Zvezdina Yu.N. Emblematics in the world of ancient still life. M., 1997.

71. Ivanov A.A. Houses and people. From the history of Petersburg mansions. L., 1997.

72. Ivanov A.M. The concept of a perfect painter, which serves as the basis for judging the works of painters, and a note on portraits. SPb., 1789.

73. Ilatovskaya T.A. J.-F. Hackert and His Drawings in the Hermitage Collection // Western European Art of the 18th Century. Publications and research. Digest of articles. L., 1987. S. 95 106.

74. History of Russian art / Ed. Academician I.E. Grabar / Academy of Sciences of the USSR. T. 5-7. M., 1961 1961.

75. Kaganov G.Z. Venice on the Neva // Proceedings of the scientific conference "Vipper Readings 1986". Issue. XIX. The Art of Venice and Venice in Art / State Museum of Fine Arts. A.S. Pushkin. M., 1986. S. 265-278.

76. Kaganovich A.L. Anton Losenko and Russian Art of the Middle of the 18th Century. M., 1963.

77. Kalyazina N.V., Saverkina I.V. Picturesque collection of A.D. Menshikov // Russian culture of the first quarter of the XVIII century. Menshikov Palace. Collection of scientific papers. SPb., 1992. S. 54-61.

78. Kaminskaya A.G. Acquisition of paintings in Holland in 1716 // Russian culture in the first quarter of the 18th century. Menshikov Palace. Collection of scientific papers. SPb., 1992. S. 36-53.

79. Kamensky Z.A. Russian aesthetics of the first third of the XIX century. Classicism. Intro. article // Russian aesthetic treatises of the first third of the 19th century. T. 1.M., 1974.

80. Karamzin N.M. Letters from a Russian traveler. Tales. M., 1980.

81. Kashuk JL Landscape Semyon Shchedrin and Pavlovsk Park // "Art" 1989. No. 6. pp. 62-68.

82. Kovalenskaya N.N. Russian classicism. Painting, sculpture, graphics. M., 1964.

83. Kovalenskaya N. N. History of Russian art of the XVIII century. M., 1962.

84. Komelova G.N. Engraving class of the Academy of Arts and Russian engraving of the second half of the 18th century. Dissertation abstract. D., 1967.

85. Komelova G.N. Types of Petersburg and its environs in the middle of the XVIII century. Engravings based on drawings by M. Makhaev. JL, 1968.

86. Komelova G.N. "Panorama of St. Petersburg" engraving by A.F. Zubova // Culture and art of the time of Peter the Great. L., 1977. S. 111-143.

87. Komelova G.N. St. Petersburg is the capital of the Russian Empire // State. Hermitage Museum. From war to peace. Russia - Sweden. XVIII century. Exhibition catalogue. Issue. 4. Two capitals. SPb., 1999.

88. Komelova G. Printseva G. Petersburg in the works of Patersen. M., 1978.

89. Konopleva M.S. S.F. Shchedrin. Materials for the biography and characteristics of creativity // Materials on Russian art. L., 1928. S. 143 160.

90. Konopleva M.S. M.I. Makhaev // Proceedings of the All-Russian Academy of Arts. M.-JL, 1947. Issue. I. S. 87-97.

91. Konopleva M.S. Theater painter Giuseppe Valeriani. Materials for the biography and history of creation. L. 1948.

92. Koskul N. Adam Silo and some Dutch marine painters of the time of Peter the Great // Starye Gody, 1914, July. pp. 12-31.

93. Kotzebue A. Brief description of the Imperial Mikhailovsky Palace. 1801 // "Russian archive". 1870. Ed. P. Bartenev. M. 1871. S. 970-998.

94. Kochetkova N.D. Hero of Russian sentimentalism. 2. Portrait and landscape in the literature of Russian sentimentalism // XVIII century. Collection 15. Russian literature in its relations with art and science. pp. 70-96.

95. Kraineva I.B. Imitation theory and realism in English aesthetics of the 18th century // Philosophy of art in the past and present. M., 1981.

96. Krylova L.N. Copies, original works of Russian academic artists of the 18th century and standards for copying at the Academy of Arts // Russian Painting of the 18th century. Research and restoration. Collection of scientific papers. M., 1986. S. 65-101.

97. Kudryavtseva T.V. Decorative and applied art of the Catherine era // State Hermitage Museum. Catherine the Great. Russian culture of the second half of the 18th century. Exhibition catalogue. SPb., 1993. S. 28 36.

98. Kurbatov V.Ya. Perspectivists and Decorators // Old Years, 1911, July-September. pp. 114 - 124.

99. Kuchumov A.M. Russian arts and crafts in the collection of the Pavlovsk Palace Museum. L., 1981.

100. Lanceray N. Forgotten suburban estate of the XVIII century Zhernovka on Okhta // Among collectors. Monthly journal of art and artistic antiquity. The art of the Russian estate. 1924, No. 7 8. S. 36 - 44.

101. Lebedev G. Russian painting of the first half of the XVIII century. L.-M. 1938.

102. Levinson-Lessing V.F. History of the Art Gallery of the Hermitage. L., 1985.

103. Leslie C.R. Life of Joseph Constable, Esq. M., 1964.

104. Lisenkov E.G. English art of the 18th century. L., 1964.

105. Lisenkov E.G. Methods of teaching engraving at the Academy of Arts during the time of I.S. Klauber. Scientific and bibliographic archive of the Academy of Arts. F. 11. On. 1. D. 73.

106. Lukomsky G. "Pokrovskoye" // Capital and Manor. No. 28. 1915.

107. Marisina I.M. Journey to the estate in the second half of the 18th century // Russian estate. Collection of OIRU No. 2 (18). M., 1996. S. 236-246.

108. Martynov A.E. A scenic journey from Moscow to the Chinese border by Andrey Martynov, advisor to the Academy of Arts. SPb., 1819.

109. Masters of art about art. T. 3. XVII-XVIII centuries. M., 1967.

111. Mikats O.V. Copying in the Hermitage as a School of Mastery of Russian Artists of the 18th-19th Centuries. SPb., 1996.

112. Mikhailova K.V. Sylvester Shchedrin. L., 1984.

113. Mishin V.A. On the problem of mastering the artistic heritage in French drawing of the 18th century // Age of Enlightenment. Russia and

114. France. Materials of scientific conference "Vipper's readings". Issue. XX. M., 1989. S. 88 104.

115. Moleva N. Belyutin E. Pedagogical system of the Academy of Arts of the XVIII century. M., G "956.

116. Moleva N. Belyutin E. Picturesque masters. M., 1965.

117. Nekrasova E.A. Turner's work U / Problems of landscape in European art of the 19th century. Materials of scientific conference. (1976) State Museum of Fine Arts. A.S. Pushkin. M., 1978.

118. Nekrasova E.A. Thomas Gainsborough. M., 1990.

119. Nikiforova JI.P. Russian porcelain in the Hermitage. JL, 1973.

121. Odar-Boyarskaya KN Library of the Academy of Arts for 225 years and its role in art education and upbringing of artists // Questions of art education. Issue. XXXIII. JL, 1978.

122. Ovsyannikova S.A. Private collecting in Russia in the 18th-first half of the 19th century. // Essays on the history of museum business in Russia. Issue. 3. M., 1961.

123. Olenin A.N. Brief historical information about the state of the Imperial Academy of Arts from 1764 to 1829. SPb., 1829.

124. Description of the palace in Pavlovsk, compiled and written by the Grand Duchess Maria Fedorovna in 1795 // Art Treasures of Russia. SPb., 1903. No. 9-12.

125. Orlov P.A. Russian sentimentalism. M., 1977.

126. Domestic Notes. 1823. No. 42.

128. Peterhof in the XVIII century. Monplaisir Palace // Art Treasures of Russia. 1902. No. 7-8.

129. Pigarev K. Russian literature and fine arts of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th century. Essays. M., 1966.

130. Pilyavsky V.I. Giacomo Quarenghi. Architect. Artist. JI, 1981.

131. Pisarev A. Inscription of Arts or Rules in Painting, Sculpture, Engraving and Architecture, with the addition of various passages regarding the arts selected from the best writers. St. Petersburg, 1808.

132. Popov V.A. Russian porcelain. private factories. JI, 1980.

133. Presnova N.G. Collection of paintings by Counts Sheremetevs in the Kuskovo estate in the 18th and first half of the 19th century. Dissertation abstract. M, 2000.

134. Pronina I.A. Decorative arts at the Academy of Arts. From the history of the Russian art school of the XVIII first half of the XIX century. M, 1983.

135. Landscape problems in European art of the 19th century // Proceedings of the scientific conference "Vipper Readings" / State Museum of Fine Arts. A.S. Pushkin. M, 1986.

136. Pushkin A.S. Poems. T. 1-3. M, 1985.

137. Reymers G. Imperial Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg. From the time of its foundation to the reign of Alexander I // Russian Art Archive. St. Petersburg, 1892. Issue. V VI.

138. Reynold D. Speeches given by Chevalier Reynolds at the Aglin Royal Academy of Arts in London. Per. I. Tatishchev. St. Petersburg, 1790.

139. Rostovtseva G.A. Two series of views of the Kuskovo estate of the 18th century. 1956. Scientific library of the museum-estate "Kuskovo". Manuscript of the report.

140. Roche D. List of Russian and Polish artists, whose names appear in the lists of the Paris Academy of Painting and Sculpture // Old Years, June. With. 306 315.

141. Roche D. French influence on the Russian art school // Russian academic art school in the XVIII century. M.-J1. 1934.

142. Russian academic art school in the XVIII century. M.-JL, 1934.

143. Russian literature and fine arts of the 18th - early 20th centuries. L., 1988.

144. Russian aesthetic treatises of the first third of the XIX century. T. 1-2. M., 1974.

145. Ryazantsev I.V. The problem of heritage in the work of sculptors and architects of Russia in the second half of the 18th century // Proceedings of the Academy of Arts of the USSR. Issue. 4. M., 1987. S. 128-152.

146. Savinskaya L.Yu. Letters from Ya.F. Hackert to Prince N.B. Yusupov. (On the history of collecting in Russia in the 1770s-1780s) // Monuments of Culture. New discoveries. Yearbook. 1989. M., 1990. S. 232 243.

147. Savinskaya L.Yu. Illustrated catalogs of private art galleries in the second half of the 18th and first third of the 19th century // Actual problems of domestic art. Issue. I. M., 1990. S. 49 - 65.

148. Savinskaya L.Yu. Collecting French Painting in Russia in the Second Half of the 18th and First Third of the 19th Centuries (on the Material of Private Collections) Abstract of the dissertation. M., 1991.

149. Svin'in P.P. Collection of Excellent Produced by Russian Artists and Curious Patriotic Antiquities Belonging to Pavel Svinin. Started in 1819. Saint Petersburg. GTG. Inv. 20996.

150. Svin'in P.P. F.Ya. Alekseev // "Notes of the Fatherland", 1824. Ch. 20, No. 54.

151. Svin'in P.P. Sights of St. Petersburg and its environs. SPb., 1997.

152. Sidorov A.A. Drawing by old Russian masters. M., 1956.

153. Serman I.Z. The Problem of "Talking Painting" in Derzhavin's Poetry // Artistic Culture of the 18th Century. State Museum of Fine Arts. A.S. Pushkin. Materials of scientific conference. M., 1974. S. 334-355.

154. Sipovskaya N.V. Porcelain of the Imperial Factory, last quarter of the 18th century. On the problem of rocaille traditions in classicism Russian classicism of the second half of the 18th and early 19th centuries. M., 1994. S. 121126.

155. Skyr A.Ya. The object of art in the aesthetics of Diderot. Minsk, 1979.

156. Skomorokhova S.N. Albums of Alexander Cozens in the Hermitage // Problems of landscape in European art of the 19th century. Pushkin Museum im. A.S. Pushkin. Materials of scientific conference. 1976. M., 1978. S. 72-96.

157. Skornyakova N.N. Views of Moscow in the early 19th century. Painting and graphics by F. Alekseev and his workshop // Pages of the artistic heritage of Russia in the 16th-20th centuries. Proceedings of the State Historical Museum. Issue. 89. M., 1997. S. 33-48.

158. Stadnichuk N.I. Italian painting of the 16th-18th centuries from the collection of the Gatchina Palace Museum // Museum. Issue. 10. Art collections of the USSR. M., 1989.

159. Spilioti K. Imperial Porcelain Factory // "Art Treasures of Russia" T. 4. 1904. No. 6 8. P. 127 - 138.

160. Stanyukovich V.K. On the issue of art galleries of Russian nobles of the 18th century // Notes of the Historical and Everyday Department of the State Russian Museum. L. 1928. T. 1. S. 89-94.

161. Stanyukovich V.K. Fortress painters of the Sheremetevs // State Russian Museum. Notes of the historical and household department. L., 1928. T. 1.S. 169-171.

162. Stennik Yu.V. Pushkin and Russian literature of the 18th century. SPb., 1995. "Capital and Manor". 1914-1916.

163. Stolpyansky P. Trade in works of art in the 18th century // Old Years, 1913, May November.

164. Sumarokov ATP. Selected works. JL, 1957.

165. Syrkina F.Ya. Pietro di Gottardo Gonzaga. 1751-1831. Life and art. Works. M. 1974.

166. Syrkina F.Ya. Kostina E.M. Russian theatrical and decorative art. M, 1978.

167. Tarasov Yu.A. Dutch landscape of the 17th century. M, 1983. Thread Vakovsky V. Poems. M, 1953.

168. Troitsky V.Yu. Romantic landscape in Russian prose of the 30s-40s.

169. 19th century // Russian literature and fine arts of the XVIII beginning

170. XX century. L., 1988. S. 96-118.

171. Trubnikov A. Pensioners of the Academy of Arts in the XVIII century // Old Years, 1907, July September. pp. 348 - 353.

173. Trubnikov A. The first pensioners of the Imperial Academy of Arts // Old Years, 1916, March June. pp. 67 - 92.

174. Trubnikov A. French school in the Gatchina Palace II Old Years, 1916, July-September. pp. 49 67.

175. Unanyants N.G. French painting in Arkhangelsk. M, 1970.

176. Urvanov I. A brief guide to the knowledge of drawing and painting of a historical kind, based on speculation and experiments. Composed for students by the artist I. U. St. Petersburg, 1793.

177. Uspensky A.I. Materials for the description of the artistic treasures of the Pavlovsk Palace II Artistic Treasures of Russia. 1905.

178. Fedorov-Davydov A.A. Semyon Fedorovich Shchedrin. M.-L, 1946.

179. Fedorov-Davydov A.A. F.Ya. Alekseev. M., 1955.

180. Fedorov-Davydov A.A. Russian landscape of the 18th and early 19th centuries. M. 1953.

181. Fedorov-Davydov A.A. Russian landscape of the 18th - early 20th century. M., 1986.

182. Fekhner E.Yu. Dutch landscape painting in the Hermitage. L., 1963.

183. Fomicheva T.D. Types of Dresden and Pirna. Architectural landscapes by Bernardo Belotto. L., 1959.

184. Tselishcheva JI.H. Formation of the painting collection of the museum of the Academy of Arts and its role in the professional education of artists // Issues of art education. Issue. XXXIII. SPb., 1983. S. 3846.

185. Private collecting in Russia. Proceedings of the scientific conference "Vipper's Readings 1994". Issue. XVII / State Museum of Fine Arts. A.S. Pushkin. M., 1995.

186. Shvidkovsky D.O. Enlightenment concept of the environment in Russian garden and park ensembles of the second half of the 18th century // Age of Enlightenment. Russia and France. Proceedings of the scientific conference "Vipper readings 1987". Issue. XX.

187. Shtelin Ya. Notes of Jacob Shtelin about fine arts in Russia. M. 1990. T 1-2.

188. Strimmer N.M. A series of engraved views of the environs of St. Petersburg at the beginning of the 19th century and an English landscape engraving of the second half of the 18th century // Tsarskoye Selo State Museum-Reserve.

189. Russia England. Dialogue pages. Summary of reports of the V Tsarskoye Selo scientific conference. St. Petersburg. 1999. S. 55 - 58.

190. Shchavinsky V. Paintings by Dutch masters in the Gatchina Palace // Old Years, Г916. July September. pp. 68 - 92.

191. Shchedrin Sylvester. Letters from Italy. Ed. A. Efros. M.-JL, 1932.

192. Ewald V.F., comp. Sculptor Samuil Ivanovich Galberg in his foreign letters and notes. 1818 1828. St. Petersburg, 1884.

193. Emme B.N. Russian art porcelain. M.-L, 1950.

194. Ernst S. Yusupov Gallery. French school. L., 1924.

195. Diderot's aesthetics and modernity. Digest of articles. M., 1989.

196. Yablonskaya T.V. Classification of the portrait genre in Russia in the 18th century. (On the problem of national specifics). Dissertation abstract. M., 1978.

197. Yakovleva N.A. The system of genres of painting at the Academy of Arts of the late 18th century and its development in the first half of the 19th century // Questions of art education. Issue. XV. L., 1976.

199. Yaremich S. Paintings of minor Italian masters of the 18th century and Old Years, 1916, July September. pp. 42 - 48.

200. Baetier K. Glorious nature: British Landscape painting. 1750 1850. N.Y. 1993.

201. Clark K. Landscape into art. new york. 1991. The Country twenty-two miles round London. 1783. Felibien A. Histoire de la ville de Paris. V.I-III. Paris, 1725 Felibien A. Description de la Grotte de Versailles. Paris, 1679.

202. Grand tour. The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century. tate gallery. 1996.1.nescu C. M. Eorren. Bukarest, 1983.

203. Kronig W. Philipp Hackert und Russland. 1966.1.vey M, La peinture about Venise au XVIII siecle. 1968.1.nks J. G. Canaletto and his patrons. London, 1977.

204. Meyer L. Masters of English landscape. Paris, 1993.

205. Piranesi G. Vedute di Roma. Roma, 1748-1778.

206 Roethlisberger M. Im licht von Claude Lorrain. Munchen, 1983.

207. Voyage pittoresque des environs de Paris, on description des maisons royalles, chateaux et autres lieux de plai sansse. Paris, 1768.

208. Walls A. Select views in London and Westinster. London. 1800.

209. Catalogs and reference books:

210. Wrangel N.N. Catalog of ancient works of art stored in the Imperial Academy of Arts // Starye Gody. Application. SPb., 1908. S. 1 35.

211. Gonzaga P. Sketches of scenery and paintings. State. Hermitage Museum. Exhibition catalogue. L., 1980.

212. State Tretyakov Gallery. Collection directory. A series of drawings of the 18th-20th centuries. T. 1. Drawing of the 18th century. M., 1996.

213. State Tretyakov Gallery. Collection directory. A series of paintings of the 18th and 20th centuries. T. 2. Painting of the XVIII century. M., 1998.

214. State Museum of Fine Arts. A.S. Pushkin. Painting catalog. M., 1995.

215. State Russian Museum. Painting. XVIII century. Catalog. T.1. SPb., 1998. *

216. Catherine the Great. Russian culture of the second half of the 18th century.

217. Exhibition catalogue. SPb., 1993.

218. Western European miniature of the 16th-19th centuries. Catalog of the exhibition from the collections of the State Hermitage. JL, 1982.

219. Isakov S.K., comp. Museum of the Imperial Academy of Arts. Catalog. SPb., 1915.

220. Italian painting of the XVIII century from the museums of Italy. Exhibition catalogue. M., 1974.

221. Krol A.E. English painting of the 16th and 19th centuries. in the Hermitage. Catalog. L., 1961.

222. Miniature in Russia in the 18th and early 20th centuries. Exhibition catalog from the Hermitage funds. L., 1981.

223. The world of the Russian estate. Exhibition catalogue. M., 1995.

224. Unforgettable Russia. Russians and Russia through the eyes of the British. XVII-XIX centuries. Exhibition catalogue. M., 1997.

225. German and Austrian painting of the 18th century from the collections of the Hermitage.

226. Exhibition catalogue. M., 1986.

227. Nemilova I.S. Hubert Robert and the architectural landscape of the second half of the 18th century. Painting, graphics. Exhibition catalogue. L., 1984.

228. Nemilova I.S. French painting of the 18th century in the Hermitage. Scientific catalog. L., 1982.

229. Nikulin N.N. German landscape painting of the 18th century. From the funds of the Hermitage. Exhibition catalogue. L., 1978.

230. Nikulin N.N. Ludwig Philipp Tischbein and his drawings in the Hermitage. Exhibition catalogue. SPb., 1993.

231. Nikulin N.N. Jacob Philipp Hackert. Exhibition catalogue. SPb. 1998.

232. Petrov P.N., comp. Collection of materials for the history of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Arts for a hundred years of its existence. SPb., 1864.

233. Rovinsky D.A., comp. Detailed dictionary of Russian engravers of the XVI-XIX centuries. SPb., 1895. T. 1-4.

234. Svin'in P.P. A Brief Description of the Objects Constituting the Russian Museum of Pavel Svinin. SPb., 1829.

235. Index of works in the Academy, alphabetically by the names of artists and objects // Monument of Arts. SPb., 1842.

236. Uspensky A.I. Dictionary of artists who wrote in the Imperial Palaces in the 18th century. M., 1913.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.