Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
From naïve art to art of psychic warmth
Attention!
The following text
was translated from the Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been
edited.
So it can be used
only for general introduction.
1.
To begin with - small excursion to lay readers in the history of naive
art. For the art historian, this tour can be a starting point for
reconciliation "with the author.
So, what is naive art? (In Russian tradition - primitivism, I personally
prefer the term "naivizm).
In the classic sense is over, formed in the 20-30th years of XX century,
and embodies them moral impulse Amateurs (Niko Pirosmani, Henri Rousseau) and
beginning professionals (Marc Chagall). In future, the most striking naivisty -
Grandma Moses (USA), generalić (Yugoslavia), Maria Primachenko
(Ukraine)...
The list can go on, but the overall impression of the canonical naivizma
- "painting of pensioners", "moral impulse Amateurs",
"children's play of adults.
Naivizm today recognize the art, perhaps, almost all critics, but the
attitude is often one of the above.
This is a classic understanding naivizma, and here I stop the search for
common starting point with traditional art history and ask the critics
questions:
It seems to me that the color and shape of Paul Gauguin (especially
Polynesian period) strongly resemble naivizm. And, for example, Alfred Sisley
" can I take it to naivizmu? (Answer I already know: no and no! Only to
impressionism or post-impressionism).
And Konstantin Somov? (Answer: "World of art").
As Alexander Benois? (The answer is the same, but even more hard-line).
And Maurice Denis? (Answer: to symbolism).
And Edvard Munch? (Answer: to expressionism).
And Tatiana Mavrina? (Answer: to the folk style, to the Russian specifics,
and so on).
And Joan Miro? (Answer: to surrealism).
And Nicholas Krymov? (Answer: to realism).
Well, okay. It's tough formed point of view on the school of painting of
the twentieth century, and not for me to refute.
2.
Leave naive painting in its "classic" sense and ask the
question from an entirely different area:
Why classical Greek art in the middle ages was replaced by icons,
Romanesque, and then Gothic style?
Here is this question clear answer except "Came the Huns and all
destroyed, and the secrets of Praxiteles were lost", no.
Activate and I dispute what happened to the secrets of the proportions
of the Venus de Milo and the Apollo Belvedere.
Contemplate Romanesque and Gothic image. Who do they remind us?
"Classic" naive! The same twisted perspective, bright colors,
strange big men... And look at the Rublev's "Trinity" not as a top
professional icons, but as a painting nearby, for example, with Madonna by
Raphael, or the same Apollo Belvedere, and tell me what it is not naive in the
classical sense.
That (forgive me Patriarchate), with Russian icons is not big creatures,
not a flat perspective, not incomprehensible given, not applicative bright
colors?
It's rather interesting analogy, and it must be analyzed.
Let us recall some of the provisions of all the Gospels, which were
based spiritual awareness of the early ideas:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of
heaven";
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God";
"Truly I say to You, unless you turn and become like children you
will not enter the Kingdom of heaven.
So whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child is the
greatest in the Kingdom of heaven...".
Afraid to go to the style of a theological treatise, but I dare say that
the early Christian idea of goodness was formed that way and it was then, when
the foundations of the art of the middle ages.
Not like it all said the concept naivizma? For some reason, a spiritual
impulse to goodness, regardless of skill level and put it in the fifth and
fifteenth and twentieth centuries in a large head, flat, clumsy, applicative
man...
Otherwise, if a priori be considered Amateurs nalistov twentieth century
compared with the achievements of academic painting, compared to Praxiteles
will consider Rublev Bogomazov village, lost two thousand years all the
secrets.
Then, indeed, to all the great art of the middle ages would have to say:
come to
Modernity also requires recognition: naivizm is painting, professional,
serious and deep. So why is it still treated like a side of art?
3.
Let's try to answer this question,
Since we moved from Rublev to the recent
Who is Mavrina? (The answer was already).
Who is Yuri Vasnetsov? (Answer: Illustrator).
Who Konashevich? (Answer: Illustrator).
And who in the
This is, unfortunately, and present attitude towards naivizmu. And if
art historians generally lack the breadth of vision to recognize naivizma least
as areas having the right to life, for the General public naivisty - not
artists. Of course - where naivistam to Salvador Dali! What is the expression
of any magnitude, what nightmares - wow! A strange abstractionists - so it's
yelling at them Khrushchev! So, if abused, it's good (aphorism coined not by
me).
So what, I blame the Soviet power? No, the problem is much wider. And
it's not traditional for Russian art lovers pole attitudes and propensity to
extremes (if not "social", "sur").
We are all children of the twentieth century. Century, by the way,
turning for the first time humanity has acquired the physical ability to
destroy itself (nuclear weapons stockpiles have accumulated more than enough).
And this is more than enough accumulated ideals of humanism! As the human
subconscious to accept this historical paradox?
And Auschwitz and
Though why go for example to the Germans in
Demand, as is known, gives rise to supply. Clearly, what part of the
soul are put in such a situation on canvas by an overwhelming majority of
artists of the XX century.
Unfortunately, the loss of good ideas, Christianity, humanity leads not
only to the black cloth with erotic fantasies in the spirit of the Marquis de
Sade. Not for me to explain what is the source of war, genocide and
Pros example. Why in order to impart to the boy love to drugs, usually
one or two doses? And for the love of the Pushkin takes great effort and many
years?
It is true that Jesus Christ spoke about the wide and easy path that
leads to destruction, and the narrow and difficult way. And my conclusion from all
this, too, probably, not new:
The overwhelming majority of people of the twentieth century easier
perceived black, scary painting, written dark colors.
And the enormous success of "
And, of course, it does not fit not only a modest naivisty, but Claude
Monet, and Andrei Rublev.
4.
The intelligent people, of course, enough latitude of sight and out, and
another, and to assess on a single intuitive scale called "art".
And yet let us contemplate paintings by eyes of the inhabitant of black
stinking door, crowded subway, the streets are wet lumps of dirty snow (God
grant that no blood stains). What he unconsciously closer?
And now I propose to turn around a hundred and eighty degrees and look
at this world and this man, the eyes of the artist.
That I, as an artist, can for this man to do?
I'm afraid of slipping on the position of desire happiness of mankind.
What follows from this, we know - we had and the Decembrists, and in 1917, and
taking the ideas of communism in the countries of people's democracy in 1956
and 1968, and
But still, can I have something to do at least one person who came to
the exhibition? Opened a magazine or newspaper? Turn on the TV?
You can, if you'll accept for himself as an artist, an iron rule:
The audience is tired from blood, and eroticism and concrete. Each
viewer has remained in my heart at least one pure, uncomplicated area, and I
can give him that gave not only the "classical" naivisty but Rublev,
Claude Monet, and Tatiana Mavrina - a grain of warmth and peace.
What unites all the artists that I asked at the beginning of the
article? To which direction painting they belong? If I say "naivizm, it
will be too strongly contradict the traditions of art criticism. Then I say, "warmth".
With this you agree?
And if I come back to the question of "degeneration" of
ancient Greek art in the middle ages and say that the early Christian concept
of good and love was expressed in iconography and the Romanesque style, and is
one of the earliest forms of the warmth of art? Would you agree with that?
I would argue also that: but what about chimeras of Notre Dame, and by
the way, and miniatures from the fires of the Inquisition?
So, to the "art of warmth" can be attributed not all of the
Romanesque style, as not all of the classic naivizm. A very good example -
children's drawings. It would seem warmer and lighter nowhere? And you saw that
draw children from orphanages and families of alcoholics? There was even a
documentary film "I'm afraid to paint my mother. I watched as a child and
remembered for the whole life. But one must try to still it was smaller...
By the way, about his childhood. For the vast majority of people memoirs
about him is the best source of positive emotions and their expression in the
art of warmth. Because, really, when we still see the world without the second,
third and tenth plans? Where an adult man to take that same child clean, if not
the art of warmth?
Look at the fabric of most of the Impressionists! Need there be some
sort of symbolism? And if Renoir start writing dirty colors - you can imagine
it?
But Soms with its harlequin? And Benoit with its puppet figures?..
Art warmth really very multifaceted and does not fit in any traditional
style, especially in the classic naivizm.
And this is his strength! It brings us something any of us are sorely
lacking. So let's fed positive energy from the warmth of art!
Look, the same audience, leaving the art salon, suddenly one day will
want to do some regular abomination...
© Sergey Zagraevsky