, Saint Petersburg
For over 30 years, the great Russian scientist was connected by bonds of friendship with the wonderful landscape artist A. I. Kuindzhi, a native of our city.
D. I. Mendeleev plays chess with A. I. Kuindzhi
Their acquaintance apparently took place in the mid-70s, when the name Kuindzhi began to become increasingly famous. Dmitry Ivanovich loved painting and was a keen expert and connoisseur of it. He did not miss a single significant opening day, made acquaintances with artists, and visited their workshops. He became so interested in painting that he began buying paintings and amassed a significant collection. His knowledge in this area was so serious that Mendeleev was subsequently elected a full member of the Academy of Arts.
In the history of Russian culture, Mendeleev’s “environments” are widely known, where the creative intelligentsia of the capital, the flower of Russian culture, gathered. Almost all the Itinerants visited here: Kramskoy, Repin, Kuindzhi, Yaroshenko, Vasnetsov, Shishkin. Kuindzhi also met Mendeleev at Kirill Vikentievich Lemokh, who since the 80s became perhaps Arkhip Ivanovich’s closest friend among artists. Mendeleev’s eldest son from his first marriage, Vladimir, a naval officer, who in the last century drew up a project for the “Azov dam,” that is, blocking the Kerch Strait with a dam, which, according to the author of the project, would change the better fate Sea of Azov in general, and Mariupol in particular. Both Kuindzhi and Mendeleev regularly attended Lemokh’s “Tuesdays,” which brought together the Itinerants, professors of the Academy of Arts and people from the world of scientists.
Dmitry Ivanovich was well acquainted with all the Wanderers, but he established especially close and friendly relations with three: Kuindzhi, Yaroshenko and Repin. He had the closest friendship with the first of them.
Having an excellent understanding of painting, Mendeleev nevertheless never spoke in print on this topic. He made the only exception to this rule for Kuindzhi, when his “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper” appeared. The delight caused by this masterpiece of Russian painting was so great that Dmitry Ivanovich wrote an article about it.
Mendeleev was, of course, among those who saw “Night on the Dnieper” at daylight, that is, in the artist’s apartment. And many times. He brought to Kuindzhi’s house a young student of the Academy of Arts, A.I. Popova, who soon became the wife of Dmitry Ivanovich. (I will note in parentheses: Anna Ivanovna outlived her husband by 35 years. She died in 1942. I dare say - in besieged Leningrad from hunger. If this is so, the wives of both friends suffered a similar fate - death from hunger. In the same city . Only with a difference of 21 years),
In his memoirs “Mendeleev in Life”, an excerpt from which we have included in this collection. Anna Ivanovna painted the following portrait of the artist: “The door swung open and Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi himself appeared. In front of us stood a man of small stature, but large, thick-set, broad-shouldered; his large beautiful head, with a black cap of long wavy hair and a curly beard, with brown sparkling eyes, resembled the head of Zeus. He was dressed completely at home, in a worn gray jacket, from which he seemed to have grown out of. ...We sat for a long time in front of the painting, listening to Dmitry Ivanovich, who spoke about the landscape in general.”
These considerations formed the basis of the aforementioned article “Before Kuindzhi’s painting,” in which the great chemist noted, in particular, the existing connection between art and science. Apparently, not without the influence of Mendeleev, Kuindzhi already in the second half of the 70s became convinced that it was necessary to use new chemical and physical discoveries to perfect pictorial effects. A genius without a systematic education, Arkhip Ivanovich began studying the interaction of light and colors, which he obtained by intuitive mixing, as well as the properties of colorful pigments. He realized that those amazing colors that he obtained by intuitively mixing paints could be unstable and fade over time. And the artist persistently searched in science for a means to achieve a durable combination of colors.
Mendeleev introduced Kuindzhi (like many Itinerants) into the circle of scientists, introduced him to the outstanding physicist, professor at St. Petersburg University Fyodor Fomich Petrushevsky. Among other things, this scientist was engaged, in short, in the scientific development of painting technology. This is what Ilya Efimovich Repin writes in his memoirs: “In a large physics room on the university courtyard, we, the Perdvizhniki artists, gathered in the company of D. I. Mendeleev and F. F. Petrushevsky to study under their leadership the properties of different paints. There is a device that measures the sensitivity of the eye to subtle nuances of tones. Kuindzhi broke the record in sensitivity to ideal subtleties, and some of his comrades had this sensitivity that was laughably crude.”
“During the years of silence,” Kuindzhi’s friendship with the great scientist became even closer. “We knew everything that happened to him,” A.I. Mendeleeva writes in her memoirs, “his thoughts, plans. In addition to “Wednesdays,” Arkhip Ivanovich came in on other days, and when he experienced something, then several times a day. He often played chess with Dmitry Ivanovich. I loved watching them nervous, always interesting game, but I loved it even more when they left chess for conversation.”
They talked about many things, but most of all, of course, about art, the questions of which were no less close to Mendeleev than the problems of science. Dmitry Ivanovich enthusiastically outlined grandiose plans for the economic reconstruction of Russia and, like a poet, dreamed of a happy future.
Arkhip Ivanovich was also an original interlocutor. Contemporaries recall that his speech was not very coherent and smooth, but no matter what he talked about, he knew how to find a new side to a matter or issue. The solutions he proposed were always simple and practical. His views on art and authors often surprised him with their originality and accuracy. They always reflected, on the one hand, a kind of unfamiliarity with what others thought and said about it, and on the other, the ability to look at things from an unexpected angle.
On November 4, 1901, after a break of almost twenty years, Arkhip Ivanovich opened the doors of his workshop to a small group of people, among them, of course, primarily Dmitry Ivanovich and Anna Ivanovna Mendeleev.
The paintings made a great impression. The writer I. Yasinsky, who was present, says in his memoirs that when Kuindzhi showed the painting “Dnieper,” Mendeleev coughed. Arkhip Ivanovich asked him:
Why are you coughing like that, Dmitry Ivanovich?
I’ve been coughing for sixty-eight years, it’s nothing, but this is the first time I’ve seen a picture like this.
The new version of “Birch Grove” also caused general delight.
What's the secret, Arkhip Ivanovich? - Mendeleev began the conversation again.
There is no secret, Dmitry Ivanovich,” Kuindzhi said, laughing, holding the picture closed.
“I have many secrets in my soul,” Mendeleev concluded, “but I don’t know your secret...
“Our friendship with Kuindzhi,” writes A.I. Mendeleeva, “continued until the end of Arkhip Ivanovich’s life.” This means that even after the death of the great scientist, “Arkhip Ivanovich outlived his friend by three years,” the Kuindzhi and Mendeleev families continued to be friends at home.
2. In 1880, the artist staged an extraordinary exhibition in the hall of the Society for the Encouragement of Artists. People stood in line for hours to get into the hall, where only one painting was shown in a dark hall - “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper.”
There were rumors that it was painted with magical lunar paints, which Mendeleev himself invented. Impression of shimmering moonlight it was so incredible that some viewers looked behind the painting to see if the canvas was illuminated by a lamp, while others stated that phosphorus was mixed into the paints.
The mystery of the “luminous” paintings was not special composition paints The colors were ordinary, the painting technique was unusual...
The effect was achieved through multi-layered painting, light and color contrast, thereby deepening the space, and less dark strokes in illuminated areas created a feeling of vibrating light. He contrasted the warm reddish tone of the earth with cold silvery shades.
In the summer and autumn of 1880 A.I. Kuindzhi worked on this painting. Rumors spread throughout the Russian capital about the enchanting beauty of “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper.”
For two hours on Sundays, the artist opened the doors of his studio to those interested, and the St. Petersburg public began to besiege her long before the completion of the work.
The picture gained truly legendary fame. I.S. Turgenev and Ya. Polonsky, I. Kramskoy and P. Chistyakov, D.I. Mendelev came to the workshop of A.I. Kuindzhi, and the famous publisher and collector K.T. Soldatenkov had an eye on the painting. Directly from the workshop, even before the exhibition, “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper” was bought by Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich for huge money.
He had been working towards this picture for a long time. I went to the Dnieper, perhaps, precisely for this story. For days, weeks, Kuindzhi almost did not leave the workshop. The work engrossed him so much that even as a recluse, his wife brought him lunch upstairs. The intended picture, shimmering and alive, stood before the artist’s eyes.
The memories of Kuindzhi’s wife are interesting: “Kuindzhi woke up at night. The thought was like an insight: “What if... “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper” was shown in a dark room?!” He jumped up, lit a kerosene lamp and, shuffling with slippers, ran up the stairs to workshop. There he lit another lamp, placed both of them on the floor at the edges of the picture. The effect was striking: the space in the picture expanded, the moon shone, surrounded by a flickering glow, the Dnieper played with its reflection, but more beautiful, more elevated. at the right distance, as he believed, he sat down, leaned back and looked, looked until it was dawn outside the huge window. Amazed by the effect he found, he knew that he had to show “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper” in a dark hall, alone...”
The painting was exhibited on Bolshaya Morskaya Street in St. Petersburg. The artist’s performance with a personal exhibition, and even consisting of only one small painting, was an unusual event. Moreover, this picture did not interpret some unusual historical plot, but was a landscape of a very modest size (105 x 144). Knowing that the effect of moonlight would be fully manifested under artificial lighting, the artist ordered the windows in the hall to be draped and the painting illuminated with a beam of electric light focused on it. Visitors entered the dimly lit hall and, as if enchanted, stood before the cold glow of moonlight.
A.I. Kuindzhi focused his efforts on illusory transmission real effect lighting, in search of a composition of the picture that would allow the most convincing expression of the feeling of broad spatiality. And he coped with these tasks brilliantly. In addition, the artist beat everyone in distinguishing the slightest changes in color and light relationships.
Kuindzhi used the property of warm colors to ignite from lamp light, and of cold colors to be absorbed by it. The effect of such exposure was extraordinary. I.N. Kramskoy exclaimed: “What a storm of enthusiasm Kuindzhi raised!.. Such a charming fellow.”
Kuindzhi's success gave rise to imitators of his bright, intense painting, his amazingly constructed space with a striking illusion of depth. Among the imitators generated by the “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper” effect, this is primarily L.F. Lagorio, who wrote “Moonlit Night on the Neva” in 1882, then Klodt, Yu.Yu.Klever...
Kuindzhi’s unprecedented triumph gave rise to envious people who spread ridiculous rumors about the artist. The atmosphere of envy was captured by P.P. Chistyakov: “All landscape painters say that the Kuindzhi effect is a simple matter, but they themselves cannot do it.”
"D.I. Mendeleev and A.I. Kuindzhi"
|
For many years, one of D.I.’s closest friends. Mendeleev was the Russian artist Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi (1842-1910). It should be noted that painting, in all its manifestations, interested Mendeleev since teenage years. This interest was not idle, not “outside-contemplative,” but was a logical consequence of the general worldview ideas of the great scientist. Mendeleev believed that art and science have common roots, common patterns of development, general tasks. This point of view is most clearly expressed in two primary sources: a letter from V.V. Stasov (1878) and the article “Before the painting by A.I. Kuindzhi" (1880). The first is a response to a critic’s article about an exhibition of Russian artists at the Academy of Arts. Emphasizing his complete agreement with Stasov, Mendeleev expresses his opinion as follows: “The Russian school of painting wants to tell one external truth, it has already said it, although this talk is the babbling of a child, but a healthy, truthful one. There is no talk of truth yet. But truth cannot be achieved without truth. And Russian artists will tell the truth, because they are eager to understand the truth... me in Lately I am very interested in Russian painting, and the chance brought me into contact with many of its representatives. Thank you for them. It seems to me both significant and important that mutual understanding and sympathy that I see between artists and natural scientists. Both of them don’t want to lie, but even if they say a little, it’s the truth, even if it’s not solemn or pretentious, just to comprehend it – and then it will go.” |
|
Article “Before the painting of A.I. Kuindzhi" is dedicated to the stunning impression that the landscape "Moonlit Night on the Dnieper" made on Mendeleev. Without falling into enthusiastic glorification (so uncharacteristic of him), the scientist, once again, ahead of his time, makes deep generalizations and asks the question: what is the reason that the picture is admired even by those who would remain indifferent when contemplating the lunar moon itself? nights? And the answer to this question is unusual: the author draws the reader’s attention to the fact that in antiquity, including the Renaissance, landscape as a genre was either absent or played a very subordinate role. |
|
Both artists and thinkers were inspired only by man. And then they began to realize that it is impossible to fully comprehend a person without his connection with nature. “They began to study nature, natural science was born, which neither the ancient centuries nor the Renaissance knew... At the same time - if not earlier - with this change in the system, landscape was born... Just as natural science is due for even higher development in the near future, so is landscape painting - between objects art." In the bewitching colors of Kuindzhi, Mendeleev intuitively felt a kind of “inflection point” in the development of artistic thought, its rapid transition to a qualitatively new state. Starting from the brilliant canvas, taking it as a kind of associative model, Mendeleev’s genius was able to discern the coming changes in natural science, which, as we know, did not take long to arrive... By the way, the memoirs of Ilya Efimovich Repin talk about unusual lessons, which Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev gave to artists. During these lessons, the scientist introduced painters to physical properties paints One day he demonstrated to his “students” a device for quantitatively measuring the sensitivity of the eye to the subtle nuances of color shades and invited them to “test themselves.” It turned out that nature gifted Kuindzhi unique eyes. In this testing he had no equal - according to Repin, “he broke the sensitivity record to perfect accuracy.” History with photography Mendeleev and Kuindzhi had another common passion: they were big fans of chess. As a player, Arkhip Ivanovich, apparently, was somewhat superior to Dmitry Ivanovich. Probably A.I. Kuindzhi played with the strength of a first-category student at the time, which corresponds to the current candidate for master. |
|
However, a “small” chronological discrepancy is striking. If the photograph was really taken in 1882, then Mendeleev should be 48 years old in it, Kuindzhi should be 40 years old, and A.I. Popova is actually 22 years old. We won’t comment on the lady’s age and appearance, but as for the male characters in the photo, they look noticeably older. And, indeed, let’s compare this photo with a “photo model”, the date of creation of which is precisely known. “Model” is a photograph of A.I. Kuindzhi, made in 1907. A comparison with a “chessboard” photograph indicates that the age of the artist in both cases is approximately the same. But if this is so, then “chess” photography takes on special value. The fact is that D.I. Mendeleev died on January 20 (February 2), 1907, and in this case, this photograph is one of the last (if not the last) authentic image of the great scientist. Is it so? This question remains to be answered... |
I. Aivazovsky. Off the Crimean coast
Geniuses are born whimsically, without agreeing on where and when to be born. But if until the 40s of the 19th century most of the good painters in Russia were St. Petersburg and Muscovites, then in the years 1836-1848 the provinces overtook the capitals. Here are the most famous names: Savrasov - Moscow, 1836, Kramskoy - Ostrogozhsk 1837, Kuidzhi - Mariupol, 1841, Semiradsky - Pecheneg village of Kharkov province, 1843, Polenov - Petersburg, 1844, Repin - Chuguev, 1844, Surikov - Krasnoyarsk, 1848 year, Vasnetsov - Lopyal village Vyatka province, 1848.
A painting by one of the “provincials,” Arkhip Kuindzhi, puzzled the St. Petersburg public in 1880. The longest queue stood from Nevsky along Bolshaya Morskaya to the exhibition space of the Society for the Encouragement of Artists, to the hall where only one painting hung: “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper.” They gave rubles to the doorman so that he could skip the line.
V. Vasnetsov. Portrait of the artist A. Kuindzhi
Newspapers wrote that this landscape completely kills all the other paintings in the exhibition. She was glowing. The water, the moon, and the night itself glowed. Spectators looked behind the canvas - maybe there was a hidden lamp there, which
illuminates the picture? Rumors circulated around St. Petersburg: Kuindzhi was friends with the famous chemist Mendeleev, who invented amazing luminous paints for his friend. And in general, Kuindzhi is an impostor who killed a real artist and took possession of his paintings. What did the idle townsfolk come up with!
Forty years before Kuindzhi’s triumph, another Russian landscape painter, Ivan Aivazovsky, amazed Europe in the same way. His contemporary F. Jordan wrote: “Even arrogant Paris admired his paintings, one of which, depicting a sunrise or sunset, was painted so vividly and faithfully that the French doubted whether there was a trick here, whether there was a candle or lamp behind the picture.” . And even earlier, in the 17th century, Georges de La Tour, who was called the “painter of the nights,” also amazed his contemporaries. Main character his paintings are not a person, but light, the light of a torch or candle.
A. Kuindzhi. Moonlit night on the Dnieper
The subjects and titles of the paintings are the most common, common in those days: “The Sorrowful Magdalene”, “The Nativity”, “The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian”, “The Appearance of an Angel to St. Joseph”, “Job and His Wife”... And the paintings turned out to be amazing and original - from -because the candles and torches painted by the artist burn “for real.”
This same clear, fantastic light imparted some kind of grandeur and a sense of miracle even to those canvases that depict “low” subjects: “Rounder”, “Woman Catching a Flea”, “Payment”. “How is this done?” - the spectators were surprised.
In fact, sometimes artists actually resorted to various technical tricks, and luminous paints are not a myth or a product of our time (modern paints with the addition of phosphorus glow). In the 6th century in Ajanta (India), a cave temple was painted so that in the dark the figures appear three-dimensional, protruding from the depths. And they glow, and it is not clear why - chemists cannot unravel the secret of ancient paints. And in Japan in the 18th century it was popular next appointment: The background of the engraving was covered with a thin layer of mica powder. The result was a shimmering surface that gave the whole work a mysterious quality. This is how Kitagawa Utamaro and Toshusai Sharaku worked, for example.
But Aivazovsky, Kuindzhi, La Tour and many other artists did not use “technical” methods. They achieved success by combining light and dark tones. All the more amazing is the wonderful light pouring from their canvases.
Good Zeus
The truth about Kuindzhi was stranger than gossip. A Greek shepherd from Mariupol comes to the capital to enter the Academy of Arts, fails for two years, enters for the third... only to soon leave, because the Academy, in his opinion, is outdated.
Shows his paintings at exhibitions of the Itinerants, surprising with the light pouring from the canvases. He doesn't live well. Every afternoon he comes out with a bag of food - and birds flock to him. Then he decides that it is not only the birds that need to be “fed”. He embarks on some unimaginable financial adventures and becomes rich. But he still lives with his wife in a small apartment, furnished with shabby furniture, but he gives one hundred thousand rubles to train young painters. He explains it this way: “This... this, what is this? If I am rich, then everything is possible for me: to eat, drink, and study, but if there is no money, then it means that you will be hungry, sick, and you cannot study, as was the case with me.
But I achieved my goal, and others are dying. But this is not so, this needs to be corrected, this is so that there is a lot of money and it is given to those who need it, who are sick, who want to study...” (real words of Kuindzhi). Outwardly, he looks like the kind Zeus - regular facial features, a curly beard. His students adore him, his nickname is “father” (perhaps the most famous of his students is N.K. Roerich). He writes a lot, successfully exhibits, his paintings are still bought in the studio, “on the vine.”
And suddenly he stops sending his paintings to exhibitions, explaining that “an artist needs to perform at exhibitions while he, like a singer, has a voice. And as soon as his voice subsides, he must leave...” And, no matter how much he was persuaded, he did not send a single painting to exhibitions for more than 20 years (and painted them every day, one better than the other!).
He died of heart disease - it hurt too much for all those suffering. He left a small pension to his beloved wife, and bequeathed a fortune of two million rubles to the Society for the Encouragement of Artists. “There was a lot going on behind Kuindzhi’s coffin. strangers who received help from him, and orphaned birds circled above the house,” wrote one of his friends. And no one has ever solved the mystery of his shining paintings...
Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi, being a famous landscape painter, did not undertake plot works. The painting “Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane” is an exception; this is his only work painted on a gospel subject. She appeared after a long creative break. And as always with Kuindzhi, the main thing active principle the painting is Light. Today, on the 106th anniversary of the death of this great artist, a talented self-taught person, let us remember the life of Kuinzhi and his unique work in his creative heritage.
“Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane” is an eternal theme of search for many artists from different times and peoples. Many great people began to write a gospel series, but not everyone was able to understand, feel, or experience it. Polenov, Ge, Kramskoy, Kuindzhi, Vrubel, Dore, Durer, Gauguin... The theme is the same, but the paintings seem to be about different things: everyone sees something different, everyone has their own accents.
In this row is a painting by A.I. Kuindzhi remained underestimated, as did its author. In the world of academic painting, Kuindzhi was known as a lone rebel and a “savage” - his painting technique was so far from the established canons.
Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi was born in 1842 in Ukraine, on the outskirts of Mariupol, into a Russified Greek family. He was the son of a shoemaker, but, having lost his father and mother at an early age, he was raised by relatives. He did not have the opportunity to receive a systematic education. From the age of ten, Arkhip worked - first herding geese, then working for a construction contractor and a bread merchant.
Kuindzhi early felt a passion for drawing. His owner, the grain merchant Durante, gave him letter of recommendation to I.K. Aivazovsky. In 1855, Kuindzhi went on foot to Crimea from Mariupol. In Aivazovsky's workshop in Feodosia, Kuindzhi received the basics of painting. And although he did not have the opportunity to study with Aivazovsky himself, he considered himself his student.
Since 1856, he worked as a retoucher for a photographer, while continuing to paint independently. Later Kuindzhi moved to St. Petersburg. While continuing to work as a retoucher, he attended the landscape class of the Academy of Arts as a volunteer student. And although Kuindzhi did not complete the academic course, in 1878 he received the title of class artist of the 1st degree for a number of his paintings.
Genius or amateur?
Kuindzhi became close to students of the Academy of Arts who were looking for new paths in art - I. E. Repin, V. M. Vasnetsov, I. N. Kramskoy.
From the mid-1870s characteristic feature His art becomes the study of light in nature. Kuindzhi was fascinated by lighting effects and the color contrasts they caused. He strove to faithfully recreate natural light on canvas in the depiction of sunsets, sunrises, midday sun and moonlit nights. His canvas “Ukrainian Night” deeply impressed viewers with its superbly realized illusion of moonlight. “Master of Light” was the nickname given to Kuindzhi by his contemporaries.
His work aroused great delight among the audience. But the reaction of venerable artists was more than restrained. Even the sensitive and far-sighted I.N. Kramskoy wrote about his paintings: “There is something in his principles about color that is completely inaccessible to me; perhaps this is a completely new pictorial principle... his setting sun on the huts is decidedly beyond my understanding. I see that the very light on the white hut is so true that it is as tiresome for my eye to look at it as at living reality; after five minutes my eye hurts... In short, I don’t quite understand Kuindzhi.”
Light or backlight?
The novelty of Kuindzhi’s paintings, with their generalized forms, sharpness and laconism of compositions, color and light effects and a special poetic interpretation of nature, did not meet with due understanding among artists. Benois believed that Kuindzhi “was a man of little culture, praised beyond measure by his contemporaries; he did not create anything absolutely beautiful or artistically mature. In technology he remained an amateur; in his motives he indulged the crudest demands for showiness; in the poetry of his design he did not stray from the “commonplaces.”
Indeed, in his paintings there are no cunning compositional schemes or complex author's plans. Only light vibration. Sometimes powerful, overwhelming the will; sometimes soft. And sometimes cold, evoking involuntary fear. Some called Kuindzhi the “Russian Monet” for his masterly exploration of the possibilities of paint. Others accused the artist of striving for cheap effects and using secret techniques, such as hidden illumination of the canvases.
In the end, at the peak of the noise around his name, Arkhip Ivanovich simply went into voluntary exile for 30 years. After that, until the end of his life he did not open his workshop to anyone except the narrowest circle of friends.
“Some kind of dazzling, incomprehensible vision”
It was during this period of creative “silence” that the painting “Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane” was painted. Russian writer I.I. Yasinsky, having looked at the painting “Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane” at the only showing, wrote: “The black calico gathered into folds again - and we saw a dark leafy cedar and Shrovetide garden on the Mount of Olives with a bright dark blue clearing in the middle, along which, drenched in dark in the moonlight, the Savior of the world walked. This is not a lunar effect, this is moonlight in all its indescribable power, golden-silver, soft, merging with the greenery of trees and grass and penetrating the white fabrics of clothing. Some kind of dazzling, incomprehensible vision.”
The expressiveness of the artistic means of the painting “Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane” allowed the artist to go beyond the boundaries of a specific plot. It is in this canvas that the magical light, characteristic of Kuindzhi’s works, materializes into the figure of Christ.
The picture shocked the audience. It was not like any other works of contemporary artists who turned to the gospel theme. In most artists, Jesus Christ is presented either as a rebel or as a missionary, but in all these cases He is a mortal man. Kuindzhi approached the image of Christ differently: there is no prosaic descriptiveness in the picture, few details acquire a symbolic meaning.
Light and shadow
Kuindzhi the landscape painter remains true to himself. The plot of the painting was decided by the artist using landscape means. The composition of the work and the dramaturgy of the theme were developed quite straightforwardly: the lonely figure of Christ, bathed in moonlight, was located in the center, the pursuers of Christ are depicted in the shadows. Intensifying the tragic intensity of the scene, the artist sharply juxtaposed additional colors: the background was painted in cold blue-green tones, the foreground in warm brownish-reddish tones. In the figure of Christ, the colors suddenly lit up with blue, yellowish, pinkish hues. The artist conveyed the clash of good and evil by contrasting light and shadow.
In the canvas “Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane”, like in no other work of his, a pictorial method is expressed, based on the comparison of illuminated and darkened color planes. Kuindzhi uses the effect of moonlight to convey the tension and drama of the situation. The figure of Jesus is illuminated by an invisible light source so that the illusion of the Savior Himself is illuminated.
The light that came into the world, so that whoever believes in Him would not remain in darkness. This light outlines the figures of those who follow Christ, his successors. Looking closely, we can distinguish the figures of three adults and a child. Everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed, because they are evil, but he who does righteousness comes to the light, so that his deeds may be revealed, because they were done in God (John 3:20). -21). The first lines refer to those hiding among the giant trees of the garden - the Roman legionaries preparing to capture Jesus Christ. The entire Garden of Gethsemane is covered in impenetrable darkness.
I.E. Repin in a letter to I.S. Ostroukhov writes: “But the rumors about Kuindzhi are completely different: people are amazed, some even cry in front of his new works - they touch everyone.”
Artist and Christian
This picture most concentratedly embodied the artist’s ideas about the moral ideal. Kuindzhi interpreted the Gospel plot in accordance with his experience of the meaning of existence: the figure of Christ illuminated by the moonlight really shows in his picture “light from light” and is captured in sharp contrast with the surrounding darkness, with which the carriers of evil approaching Christ merge. The greatness and at the same time lonely doom of the image of the Savior are conveyed by Kuindzhi with deep, hard-won expressiveness.
Arkhip Kuindzhi was Orthodox. Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky called his paintings a frozen prayer. The artist and his wife often visited.
Persistence, hard work, focus, constancy in love and friendship - these are precisely these personality traits of Arkhip Ivanovich that are primarily emphasized by his colleagues and contemporaries who described him.
There were no children in Arkhip Ivanovich’s family, but he managed to become a loved one for many of his students. Kuindzhi was an excellent teacher; protecting his students from imitation, he sought to develop originality in each of them, to breathe into them his ardent love for nature.
He loved people not in words, but in deeds. Arkhip Kuindzhi was sincerely perplexed: “This... what is this? If you don’t have money, that means you’ll be hungry, sick, and you can’t study, as was the case with me...” And he tried to save his students from want. A man of exceptional kindness, he helped people a lot and selflessly, protected, donated huge sums to help strangers in need, and he and his wife lived modestly, did not keep servants. The readiness to effectively help others was Kuindzhi’s most touching trait until the very end. “Since childhood, I’ve gotten used to the fact that I’m stronger and have to help,” said Arkhip Ivanovich.
He died on July 11, 1910, and, feeling orphaned, several of his students and friends bequeathed to be buried next to Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi after their death.
Prepared by Oksana BALANDINA
Kuindzhi drove his contemporaries crazy with the secrets of his craft. There were even rumors that he sold his soul to the devil for them.
He actually used technical secrets. First, bitumen paints:
Asphalt paint is made from asphalt and belongs to oil paints. In its own way brown color, perfect transparency and ease of guidance, is used mainly for glazing. This paint mixes easily with other paints, with the exception of white, and at the same time gives them velvety and strength; in a weak solution, asphalt only revives other paints, like varnish. The inconvenience of using asphalt paint is that it dries slowly and therefore breaks the varnish; Another inconvenience is that over time it blackens everything with which it is combined, so it is preferably used in dark combinations in which this feature cannot disturb the harmony of colors. We also tried grinding asphalt in alcohol and applying it in this form to watercolor painting. - Asphalt paint // encyclopedic Dictionary Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg, 1890-1907.
The lack of this paint led to a significant loss of preservation of his masterpiece
In the Russian Museum (St. Petersburg) there is a painting that has been on a journey:
In the Tretyakov Gallery (Moscow) the painting (author's repetition) is in better preservation:
Secondly, the system of complementary colors he used.
These are colors that, when mixed, produce shades of gray from white to black (achromatic color), and when placed next to each other they give a feeling of maximum contrast.
On the color wheel these colors are located oppositely:
Here you can play: Click the “contrast” icon and on the circle mark the color to which you want to match the contrast. On the right you will see how these colors combine.
If you take a closer look at the French impressionists of that time, you will guess who impressed Kuindzhi:
Claude Monet
But modern impressionists also glow:
Jeremy Mann
bitumen varnish is not asphalt paint. They were used back in the 16th century, but then apparently there were malts. Malta is not only the name of the island, but the Greek name for the natural intermediate element of oil, more precisely oil with wax - apparently there was enough of it there. It was used as a paint, but due to imperfect technology it dried quickly (faster than other paints on walnut or linseed oil and showed cracks. There is a term in restoration called floating craquelure; it is caused by cracking of bitumen and produces wide cracks, unlike other types of craquelure. Bitumen was widely used by Rembrant and Rubens. In principle, all imprimature Flemish painting owes its glow to bitumen, but not to Kunji. Because Kuindzhi is already a different technological generation. Yes, he knew the spectrum of color combinations well. I could do everything to make them “glow” - it’s not difficult in principle. But I would not assign the decisive role here to the issue.
Answer
Comment
"Moonlit Night on the Dnieper"(1880) - one of the most famous paintings Arkhip Kuindzhi. This work created a real sensation and acquired mystical fame. Many did not believe that the light of the moon could be conveyed in this way only artistic means, and looked behind the canvas, looking for a lamp there. Many stood silently for hours in front of the painting, and then left in tears. Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich bought “Moonlit Night” for his personal collection and took it with him everywhere, which had tragic consequences.
The artist worked on this painting in the summer and autumn of 1880. Even before the exhibition began, rumors spread that Kuindzhi was preparing something completely incredible. There were so many curious people that on Sundays the painter opened the doors of his studio and let everyone in. I bought the painting even before the exhibition started. Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich.
Kuindzhi was always very zealous about exhibiting his paintings, but this time he outdid himself. It was a personal exhibition, and only one work was shown - “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper”. The artist ordered to drape all the windows and illuminate the canvas with a beam of electric light directed at it - in daylight the moonlight did not look so impressive. Visitors entered the dark hall and, as if under hypnosis, froze in front of this magical picture.
There was a queue for days in front of the hall of the Society for the Encouragement of Artists in St. Petersburg, where the exhibition took place. The public had to be allowed into the room in groups to avoid crowding. The incredible effect of the painting was legendary. The shine of the moonlight was so fantastic that the artist was suspected of using some unusual mother-of-pearl paints brought from Japan or China, and was even accused of having connections with evil spirits. And skeptical viewers tried to find reverse side canvas hidden lamps.
Of course, the whole secret lay in Kuindzhi’s extraordinary artistic skill, in the skillful construction of the composition and in such a combination of colors that created the effect of radiance and caused the illusion of flickering light. The warm reddish earth tone contrasted with the cool silver tones, thereby deepening the space. However, even the professionals could not explain the magical impression that the painting made on the audience with skill alone - many left the exhibition in tears.
I. Repin said that the audience froze in front of the painting “in prayerful silence”: “This is how the artist’s poetic charms acted on selected believers, and they lived in such moments with the best feelings of the soul and enjoyed the heavenly bliss of the art of painting.” The poet Ya. Polonsky was surprised: “I honestly don’t remember standing in front of any painting for so long... What is this? Picture or reality? And the poet K. Fofanov, impressed by this painting, wrote the poem “Night on the Dnieper,” which was later set to music.
I. Kramskoy foresaw the fate of the canvas: “Perhaps Kuindzhi combined together such colors that are in natural antagonism with each other and after a certain time will either go out, or change and decompose to the point that descendants will shrug their shoulders in bewilderment: why did they come to the delight of the good-natured spectators? So, in order to avoid such unfair treatment in the future, I would not mind drawing up, so to speak, a protocol that his “Night on the Dnieper” is all filled with real light and air, and the sky is real, bottomless, deep.”
Unfortunately, our contemporaries cannot fully appreciate the original effect of the painting, since it has survived to our times in a distorted form. And it's all to blame - special treatment to the canvas of its owner, Grand Duke Constantine. He was so attached to this picture that he took it with him on trip around the world. Having learned about this, I. Turgenev was horrified: “There is no doubt that the painting will return completely destroyed, thanks to the salty fumes of the air.” He even tried to persuade the prince to leave the painting for a while in Paris, but he was adamant.
Unfortunately, the writer turned out to be right: the salt-saturated sea air and high humidity had a detrimental effect on the composition of the paints, and they began to darken. Therefore, now “Moonlit Night on the Dnieper” looks completely different. Although the moonlight still has a magical effect on viewers today, it still arouses constant interest.
Loading...