The European artistic traditions and Russian academic school at the turn of XIX-XX centuries

To the end of the XIX century Russian art school was subjected restructuring (as a result of the «Peredvizhniki's'» reform of the Academy in 1893-94), accompanied by clearly «entropic» phenomenon. At the same time, after the social upheavals of the beginning the XX century, the Russian Higher Art School, first as the Higher Artistic and Technical Workshops, and then as a system of art institutes, demonstrated high vitality and powerful potential precisely as the union of individual creative workshops under the guidance of artists who gained the prestige by their own creative activity. That system, similar to that which was conceived, but failed (as a result of the reform in 1893), relied not on the traditions of Russian Imperial Academy of Arts and Academies of XVIII century, but on the European academic traditions dating back to the XVI-XVII centuries and further, to the Renaissance academies, such as the Platonic Academy of M. Ficino. And in this beneficial change of the "paradigm", the main role was played by the Russian students of Munich private studios, who headed the national art school after the Revolution, such as: V. A. Favorsky, I. E. Grabar, and D. N. Kar-dovsky. Exactly from that point of view the article discusses the problem of continuity of academic traditions in the Russian Academy at the late XIX - early XX century. This approach to the problem can be considered original, because in the works of foreign researchers, dedicated to the schools of Azbe and Hollosy, their pedagogical and creative activity is considered mainly from the standpoint of style, the subjects of consideration appears the influences of trends in art of modernism (impressionism, post- and neoimpressionism, Cezannism, emerging expressionism). In addition, some foreign studies are entirely devoted to the political discourse about Russian emigre artists in Munich, but not the problems of the art school. The fact of such influences and connections is unquestionable, but this does not explain the piety with which the Russian artistic youth treated exactly to the pedagogical method of Azbe - Hollosy, to the fundamental, non-stylistic and non-national foundations of that schools. The works of Russian researchers, from the classical monograph by N. Moleva and E. Be-lyutin, to the latest research of Baranovsky and Khlebnikova, tend to reduce the problem to P. Chist-yakov's relations with professors-peredvizhniki, to misunderstanding or ignoring Chistyakov's system. Such an approach today seems insufficient, and in this connection, it seems relevant to consider the theoretical contradictions contained in previous works. In this article, the solution of such contradictions is presented trough the problem of cultural identity, encompassing two aspects: the professional aspects of creativity and art education, and the mental, the cultural features of the educational systems.

Keywords

Authors

References