MASTERPIECES

MIKHNOV-VOITENKO Evgeny Grigorievich (1932–1988) Christmas. Triptych. 1959. Hardboard, oil, nitroenamel. 180 × 52 each panel

Mikhnov-Voitenko is a Leningrad nonconformist artist, an outstanding abstract expressionist. On the posters, they usually wrote simply Mikhnov. This is the name of the mother. Voitenko is the father's surname. Mikhnov-Voitenko is a loner. So much so that he did not even participate in high-profile exhibitions of unofficial art in the Nevsky Palace of Culture and the Gaza Palace of Culture. In principle, he avoided any policy. Yes, and did not like publicity. Friends had to persuade him hard so that he agreed to arrange the first exhibition when he was 46 years old. He died early. Such a very restless Petersburg story. Mikhnov-Voitenko worked as a turner, studied at the Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages, then at the Theater Institute at the staging department. He worked at an art plant, made custom decorative panels and signs.

He entered the history of art with the works made “for the table”. As a distinctive abstract expressionist. Art historians believe that in individual creative discoveries Mikhnov-Voitenko was the first in the world, ahead of the Americans and Europeans. It is no coincidence that collectors hunt for his trademark “tubes” and for paintings of the “spontaneous method”. And one of the masterpieces is in front of us. Nitroenamel. Cosmogonic cycle “Christmas”. Works of fabulous beauty and phenomenal labor intensity. The authenticity is confirmed by the expertise of Valery Silaev. In which it is also noted that the work was written at a high artistic level, is a collectible value and may have museum value.

RUSSIAN CLASSICS

VOLOSHIN Maximilian Alexandrovich (1877–1932) Landscape with a tree. September 22, 1928. Watercolor on paper. 8.6 × 14.1

Maximilian Voloshin. Legendary personality. A famous poet of the Silver Age. Freemason. Psychic. Artist. Critic. Preacher of modernist aesthetics. The founder of the so-called Cimmerian school of painting (along with Bogaevsky and Aivazovsky). Great original. Founder of the “Koktebel Republic” and the leader of the “goons”. And also a duelist who fought for a woman, and even with Nikolai Gumilyov himself.

There is evidence that an accident forced the poet Voloshin to concentrate on the fine arts. At one point, he was boycotted and his poems were no longer published. The reason was the criticism of Repin's painting “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan on November 16, 1581”. In 1913, Abram Balashov carved a painting in the Tretyakov Gallery. In the ensuing public discussion, Voloshin unexpectedly defended the impressionable icon painter. And he did it publicly at his lecture at the Polytechnic Museum, where Repin was present. Voloshin's message was that what happened was inevitable, given the horror concentrated in this work. Repin left the hall. After that, the newspapers stoned Voloshin. He found himself isolated. Even bookstores are said to have refused to sell his works. And at that moment he plunged into the visual arts.

His masterly watercolors often depict not real Crimean landscapes, but fictional, fantasy ones. It is difficult to work with watercolors from nature, so Voloshin preferred to paint in the studio. In the silence and noise of his Crimean house-ship, inspired watercolors were born, which Pavel Florensky called works of “meta-geology”.

And one of these works is before us. The size is small, but very characteristic and principled. This was also Voloshin's idea. He believed that the time of the old painting of gigantic proportions had passed; it was suitable only for palaces. And living in a modern home requires more comfortable formats.

On the reverse side of the watercolor you can see an autograph: “To Danya: Dear Danya — our house is empty and there is a magnificent sunny autumn. If you have the slightest opportunity, come and rest with us. Max. Marusya”.

We asked the owner who is the addressee? Who is Danya? And this is what he told us:

Behind these simple lines written by Maximilian Voloshin, there is a huge historical abyss — it contains the mysteries of the Romanovs' house, secret mystical societies led by leaders — artists and poets, the bloody Chekists of the 30s and the well-being of today's Uzbekistan.

It all started with theft. It took place in 1874 in St. Petersburg in the Marble Palace. The owner of the palace, Grand Duchess Alexandra Iosifovna Romanova, discovered that the diamond crowns on the icon frame in her bedroom were broken off. An unimaginable scandal arose, which had no less scandalous consequences. The son of the princess, Grand Duke Nikolai Konstantinovich Romanov, grandson of Emperor Nicholas I, was suspected of stealing diamonds from the icon.

Nikolai Konstantinovich stood out among the Romanovs. He became the first Romanov to enter a higher educational institution — the Academy of the General Staff, which he graduated with honors. He took part in the Central Asian campaigns, where he headed the forward detachments. He was a collector of paintings and a scientist — the Grand Duke explored the territory of Central Asia, conducted geological, hydrographic and topographic research.

As always, the culprit was a woman — the American dancer Fanny Lear. Or rather, so the investigation found, believing that the diamonds were stolen to pay her a certain amount of money. This version still raises questions among historians — the prince was already rich, and it was not at all necessary for him to break the icon of his mother. He pleaded not guilty. But Alexander II decided otherwise. The prince was deprived of his name, property, the right to live where he pleases, the right to marry, and was declared insane. He did not repent and turned into the iron mask of the Romanovs — a man of mystery.

Colonel Volynsky (as Romanov was now called) was sent all over the country — from one city to another. He, having entered the role, proved to the imperial family that he did not care about their opinion. In Orenburg, he married a noblewoman named Dreyer. He was divorced and exiled to Tashkent, where he received the surname Iskander (Iskander in Arab countries is the name of Alexander the Great). The wife left with him. The prince revealingly (with Dreyer and children alive) married two more women and sometimes went out with his entire harem. One of the wives was a Cossack woman — Darya Chasovitina. She gave the Prince a daughter, Darya (Danya) Chasovitina. Her father called her Danya, and it was under this name that she was known to others.

Note that Romanov-Iskander was not just having fun with the ladies. The prince developed Central Asia — he built canal systems and, in fact, created the future cotton industry of the USSR and Uzbekistan. He improved Tashkent, opening literally everything in it — from the first brothel to the first cinema and theater — built roads, provided lighting and developed science. Darya-Danya Chasovitina was brought up in the best traditions of the Romanovs' house — before the October Revolution, she received her musical education at her father's expense in Norway and St. Petersburg (she was, in particular, a student of the famous violinist and music teacher L. S. Auer).

And then the revolution came. The prince died in 1918, and Darya Chasovitina, the great-granddaughter of Nicholas I, was carried away by mysticism — a fashionable anthroposophical movement. In Russia and then in the RSFSR, it had public leaders — the poet Andrei Bely and the artist Voloshin. Chasovitina was a member of the Russian Anthroposophical Society, and after the Society was closed by order of the authorities in 1922, she continued to participate in the work of anthroposophical circles that arose around Andrei Bely. Darya Nikolaevna is mentioned among 36 anthroposophists who visited Bely's country house in Kuchin near Moscow (now the territory of the city of Zheleznodorozhny, which, in turn, is part of the city of Balashikha) in the period from 1925 to 1931. She was known as a “typist” who worked with Bely, Shaginyan, Platanov, Kataev and many other writers — this was her official form of employment. Rumor said that the writers liked that their texts were printed by the heiress of the Romanovs. In reality, she was called a friend and companion.

Chasovitina's acquaintance with Maximilian Voloshin, who was also close to anthroposophists, is also described: in particular, in 1924, Darya Nikolaevna visited him in Koktebel, where her portrait was painted by the artist A. P. Ostroumova-Lebedeva. The autograph on our watercolors is one of the evidence of the closeness of the poet and artist of the Silver Age and the great-granddaughter of Nicholas I, mystic and disciple. In 1932 Voloshin died, two more years later Andrei Bely died. And then, in 1934, the Chekists arrested all the anthroposophists. Mysticism and miracles seemed to be over.

But Chasovitina remained intact. According to the recollections of people who knew her, Chasovitina “began to be dragged to the GPU, they were not imprisoned, and some investigator even advised: "Stay at home and never go to work"”. She died in 1966. It was not without mysticism — on the day of her death an earthquake began in Tashkent, which destroyed many of her father's deeds.

After Chasovitina's death in 1966, her archive was taken over by her longtime friend and colleague in the anthroposophical movement Galina Kireevskaya. Kireevskaya was an actress of the Chamber Theater, to whom Voloshin's autograph was addressed in another watercolor.

NONCONFORMIST ART

RABIN Oscar Yakovlevich (1928–2018) Still life with herring and vodka. 1964. Felt-tip pen on paper. 27 × 33

The drawing is absolutely collectible quality. The first is the most valuable Lianozovo period. 1964, on the eve of moving to Cherkizovo. The second is the most important topic. All the “primary symbols” of Rabin are represented — vodka, herring, and window bars. The third is quality. This is the finished graphics. Not a sketch — an independent self-valuable, carefully performed work. And, finally, the fourth — immediately with the expertise of NINE. Well, in addition, the fifth is a comfortable “Voloshin” size. In a word, a ready-made investment package. Not to mention that this is a real decoration of the collection.

GLAZUNOV Ilya Sergeevich (1930–2017) Petersburg. On the embankment. Illustration for the novel “White Nights” by F. M. Dostoevsky. 1970s. Charcoal, lead pencil on paper. 47.9 × 35.4

Ilya Sergeevich Glazunov is one of the brightest and most controversial figures of his era. There is still no single attitude towards him. In the memory of some, he remained as an uncomfortable person with a position, an original master, a heroic pessimist, not afraid of difficult topics. For others, on the contrary, Glazunov is almost an opportunist, seeking the protection of the authorities, and even a kitsch artist.

Ilya Sergeevich gave reasons for both. The artist, who in his youth was going to take monastic tonsure, no longer sought peace. Always annoyed someone. So, during the time of implanted internationalism, ostentatious atheism and hypocritical patriotism, he did not hesitate to talk about the tragedy of the Russian people, about the conversion to faith, about the catastrophe of the past war. He often got into trouble for deliberate “orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”. For “flirting with God”. Glazunov's paintings have often been severely criticized. For example, the “decadent” painting “Roads of War” about the catastrophe of retreat in 1941 was removed from the 1964 exhibition as humiliating the heroism of the victorious people. Later, as they say, there was a decision to destroy it. Glazunov in the USSR was really not allowed to turn around to the fullest (one might think, they allowed it to someone). But in other way, is it possible to speak of a “clamp” when your patron is the author of the anthem Sergei Mikhalkov? Can we talk about repressions when, instead of psychiatric hospitals, camps and exile, you paint Gina Lollobrigida in Italy? Is it possible to speak of disgrace when you are provided with the Manege for exhibitions, where huge queues line up. And, finally, is it possible to talk about the insidiousness of the authorities when Putin comes to your anniversary and talks on creative topics. Remember that famous art criticism dialogue:

— Why does Prince Oleg have such a short sword? It looks like a penknife...
— You are right, I will redo it.

There is also no consensus regarding the art of Glazunov. Many appreciate and love his publicism, sharpness, reverent attitude towards Orthodoxy. Others think that all this is “too much” in Glazunov. And in his attitude to iconographic imagery, he reaches the limit, to the grotesque. However, there are still others. Who, not doubting the talent of the master, recognize in the work of Glazunov both unconditional successes and frankly disappointing examples. A little bit of everything.

And this time in one work we have merged the energy of three pillars at once: Dostoevsky, Glazunov and also the village writer Vladimir Soloukhin. This is an illustration for Dostoevsky's novel “White Nights”. A romantic image of a dreamer, insecurity, a drama of unrequited love. And for those who are deeply interested in Dostoevsky and Glazunov, I would advise you to find and flip through the 1979 book by Vladimir Soloukhin and Ilya Glazunov “The Writer and the Artist”. I wouldn't be surprised if this drawing is published there. Check it out.

WORLDS OF VLADIMIR NEMUKHIN

NEMUKHIN Vladimir Nikolaevich (1925–2016) Three cards. 2003. Cardboard, collage, assemblage. 30 × 70

Have you ever seen this? Cards, water, stones on the shore... We have long promised to tell where the theme of cards came from in Nemukhin's work. What is it? Passion for the game? Chanting excitement? System? Conceptualist move? All by. Valery Dudakov, who was friends with Nemukhin, told us how and what. Once Nemukhin in Priluki went to the banks of the Oka river and saw a submerged deck of cards in the water. Where from? Maybe blown away by the wind from some kind of feast. No matter. But the beauty of this spectacle so bewitched Nemukhin that the theme was born. That is, cards are the essence of an impressionistic theme in Nemukhin's work. Who would have thought it!

And since we recalled Repin’s Ivan the Terrible in Voloshin's fate, we will say that this work became fateful for Nemukhin. This is how Vladimir Nikolayevich himself told about it: “My first meeting with high art ended in embarrassment. As a child, I was considered to be good at drawing. I was 11 years old when my father took me to the Tretyakov Gallery. That is, long before the war. And my father told me that in the gallery there would be a cruel painting by Repin "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan on November 16, 1581" — he let go of fear. As a result, as I saw it, I felt so sick, they carried me out into the street without feeling. Such is the unforgettable acquaintance with the Tretyakov Gallery”.

SOKOLOV Petr Efimovich (1882–1964) Landscape. 1930s. Canvas, oil. 35.5 × 51

The context is especially interesting here. Before us is an example of how the artist Petr Efimovich Sokolov, a former participant of the “Russian avant-garde stopped on the run” and the teacher of Vladimir Nemukhin, painted in the 1930s. They met in 1943. Sokolov worked in a decalcomania artel, which was engaged in the manufacture of decals for the industry. And the teenager Nemukhin worked at a military plant, and in snatches between shifts he studied painting. This is how Nemukhin talked about Sokolov: “With a couple of my trial works ("Tishinka" and "Church"), I came in 1943 to the artist Sokolov's home. His house is a 14-meter room, in which Sokolov himself and his wife Anna Fedorovna Blagova lived. Sokolov himself is an artist from the book "Avant-garde Stopped on the Run" about painters who, ironically, remained unrecognized, were not included in the main avant-garde. The photo, a few works — that's the little that is known about him today. But he studied under Mashkov, he was going to open art workshops in 1923. Sokolov was not a party member, but he always seemed to me to have a Bolshevik way of thinking. For some reason, it was in him — faith in the historical mission of the proletariat. However, this was the case with many avant-garde artists. Petr Efimovich collected his "museum" — reproductions from cheap magazines, newspapers, everything that he could get hold of. Over time, he collected such a homemade art library, packed in folders. And so, I remember, he opened these folders for me, and there... Malevich, Chagall... It is clear that my head quickly went round. Sokolov, on the other hand, opened Cubism to me, which fascinated me very much. So much so that my third work immediately became Cubist. To do this, I collected boxes in the courtyard, painted them white, put on each other and began to paint this "cubism" from nature. The works that I did, I brought to show Sokolov. The artist approved of this work as an exercise, but immediately warned that otherwise this Cubism was nonsense. Petr Efimovich himself long ago moved away from formalism and was engaged in figurative painting as much as possible. Now I understand that the influence of Ilya Mashkov was guessed in those still lifes. As an artist, Sokolov remained unrecognized during his lifetime, the state did not need such old people. As a result, his works were once bought cheaply by "Central Asian Tretyakov" Igor Vitalievich Savitsky for the Karakalpak State Museum of Arts (Nukus, Uzbekistan) — there they managed to compile a very good collection of Russian avant-garde, including one "stopped on the run".

My training with Sokolov lasted quite a long time: all these years 1943–1947 I brought him my works to hear opinions and comments. And in 1947 he began to teach me to work from nature in nature. He and his wife rented a country house in Zagoryanka near Moscow, and I often went out of town to see them. I still have a landscape painted under his influence, with his corrections, around 1950. These early landscapes are dear to me in their own way. It is clearly visible on them how Sokolov corrected them with his own hand. Many of these landscapes are actually painted together. In the mid-1950s, Sokolov left for Aksakovo, and there we no longer worked with him.”

RUSSIAN AVANT-GARDE

UDALTSOVA Nadezhda Andreevna (1886–1961) Portrait of a Man. Second third of the XX century. Canvas, oil. 81.5 × 62.8

Yes, this is Nadezhda Udaltsova. Twenty years away — and the famous “avant-garde Amazon”. Avant-garde, suprematist, cubo-futurist. Participant of the exhibition “Jack of Diamonds” and Kazimir Malevich's Supremus society. VKHUTEMAS, INKHUK, First free workshops — everywhere she stood out for her talent, energy and passionate search for something new.

And her journey to the Amazons of the avant-garde began not in her native land, but in Paris, at the Académie de La Palette, which at that time was one of the “hotbeds” of Cubism. It was from France that Udaltsova came as a convinced cubist, with works, ideas, revolutionary plans.

After 1930, the innovative artists were declared formalists. Most of them had to change course under threats of physical harm. And the threats were by no means empty. So, Udaltsova's husband, avant-garde artist Alexander Drevin, was arrested and shot. Udaltsova herself became the wife of an enemy of the people. The paintings of her and her husband were saved from destruction only by a miracle. What happened next? Then there were landscapes, portraits, still lifes — a quiet life, a quiet art.