Military Review

Painting as a cast with reality or a symbolism based on lies?

48
It is hardly necessary for anyone to prove the well-known truth that art is a reflection of reality passed through a person’s consciousness and enriched by his worldview. But ... all people see the world around them in their own way and which is also very important, often they also work on order. And what is more important in this case: the artist’s own vision, the vision of the customer who buys his skill, or ... just the money that the maestro paid for the work? That is, it is obvious that art can lie, as a person himself lies. Another thing is that this lie can have different reasons and, accordingly, it can be condemned to a greater or lesser extent. And it should be noted that voluntarily or involuntarily, but artists have always lied. That is why their work, no matter how “vital” they look, must always be very, very suspicious, or in any case, nothing should be taken for granted. An exception may be landscapes and still lifes, because the same historical sculptures or canvases for the most part show us not at all what was or is actually happening! We here have somehow already considered the column of Emperor Trajan as a historical source. And now the time has come for painting, especially since this topic has also been raised here.


Well, I would like to start with a picture of the famous Polish artist Jan Matejko, the author of the epic canvas “The Battle of Grunwald”, written by him in 1876 and located today at the National Museum in Warsaw. He painted this picture for three years, with a banker from Warsaw, David Rosenblum paid 45 thousands of gold for it and bought it even before it was finished!

The picture is indeed very large, almost nine meters long, and certainly impressive. And our Russian painter, I. Ye. Repin, spoke of it in this way:
“The mass of overwhelming material in the Battle of Grunwald.” There are so many interesting, live, and screaming pictures in all corners that you simply wear out with your eyes and head, perceiving the whole mass of this colossal work. There is no empty place: both in the background and in the distance - everywhere new situations, compositions, movements, types, expressions open up. It amazes like an endless picture of the universe. ”

And this is true, but it all hurt on the canvas. Different episodes of the battle, which took place at different times and not in one place, were merged together. But we can somehow agree with this, bearing in mind that this is, so to speak, a historical allegory. Especially since the picture in the sky depicts a kneeling saint Stanislav, the heavenly patron of Poland, who is praying to God for giving the Poles victory.


Grunwald battle. Jan Matejko.

But here the horses on the canvas are obviously small, and these are knightly horses, destriers, specially bred in order to carry on them riders in full knightly arms. And you see what kind of horse is under Prince Vitovt, in the very center of the canvas. And why is the knight Marcin of Wrocimowitz on his right wearing a characteristic helmet on his head ... of the XVI century, and not the beginning of the fifteenth? Or, say, Zavisha Black, a knight from Gabrovo. Probably the most famous knight of the Polish kingdom, always walking in black attire. But on the canvas he is wearing clothes of a different color. Is the black paint over? And for some reason he took the spear obviously in the tournament, and not in combat! The Master of the Teutonic Order dies at all at the hands of a half-naked warrior, dressed for some reason in a lion's skin, and far away, in the background, the back "wings" of the Polish "winged hussars" are clearly visible, again as if later could be! It is clear that art critics will tell me that this canvas is “the most characteristic example of romantic nationalism” and they will be right. But why all this most could not be drawn with complete historical accuracy and without any “romantic” fantasies ?! Moreover, almost everything is known about the battle, and in the samples of armor and weapons in the then Polish museums, the deficit was not observed! So, looking at this picture, you are somewhat “exhausted by the head”, and you want to ask the author, why so?

But to answer the same question "why so", given in relation to the picture already by I.E. Replay "Barge Haulers on the Volga" will be quite easy. After all, the author obviously wanted to present a single mass phenomenon to him, and since he was a talented person, he did it. Meanwhile, this picture, although it does not contain direct fiction, really shows their work is not at all the same as it actually is, and that this is really so you can learn by reading the monograph by I. A. Shubin “Volga and Volga Shipping , published in the USSR back in 1927 year.

And it turns out that these barge haulers worked in a completely different way. Up along the Volga, with their feet on the ground, they did not walk, and that would have been impossible. Even if you take the left bank, even if the right bank - all the same along the water you cannot go far! The Coriolis force right bank undermine! And so, on the barges, the upper deck was therefore arranged to be even - we are talking about barges, that they were self-propelled upward, because, how else were the floats and tow barges. She had a big drum at the stern. A rope was wound on the drum, to which three anchors clung at once.

As it was necessary to go up the river, people got into the boat, took a rope with an anchor and floated upstream on it, and there they threw the anchor. Behind him is another and third, while there is enough rope. And here we had to work barge haulers. They attached themselves to the rope with their rooks and then walked along the deck from the bow to the stern. The rope gave up the slack, and it was rolled up on the drum. That is, the barge haulers came back, and the deck under their feet went ahead - that’s how these vessels moved!

Thus, the barge floated up to the first anchor, which was raised, and after that also the second, and then the third was raised. It turns out that the barge, as it were, was crawling up the rope against the stream. Of course, this work was not easy, like any physical work, but not the way Repin showed it! In addition, every burgher artel, hiring for work, negotiated grubs. And that's how much they were given only one meal: no less than two pounds of bread per person per day, half a pound of meat, and “how much to eat” fish (and crucians were not considered fish at all!), And how much oil was scrupulously counted sugar, salt, tea, tobacco, cereals - all this was stipulated and fixed by the corresponding document. Everything else on the deck could still stand and a barrel of red caviar. Whoever wanted - could have approached, cut off the top crust from his loaf of bread and eat with spoons as you like. After lunch, it was supposed to sleep for two hours, it was considered a sin to work. And only if the pilot drunk planted the barge aground, only then the artel had to climb into the water, as Repin wrote, and take the barge away from the shore. And then ... before that, they again agreed, for how much they would do it, and the merchant would set vodka for it! And a good barge could earn so much money for a working summer season that it could not work in the winter, and neither his family nor he did not live in misery. That was common, typical! And the fact that there is a picture in Repin - this is a single thing - a rarity! And why he wrote it this way is also clear: to cause the audience pity for the working people. At that time, the Russian intelligentsia had such a fashion - to have compassion on those engaged in physical labor, and Ilya Efimovich was far from alone in showing their sufferings as “compassionate” as possible!


Barge Haulers on the Volga. Ilya Repin.

Against the background of this kind of symbolic work, the battle canvases of Soviet artists, depicting the “Ice Battle” with the drowning of “knight dogs” in the polynyas, look like a normal phenomenon. But artist P.D. Korin very talentedly and equally untruthfully portrayed both Prince Alexander himself on his famous triptych (“Northern Ballad”, “Alexander Nevsky”, “Ancient Tale”) and the name “Alexander Nevsky” named by him. It is clear that the matter is here, as always in the "little things", but these little things are significant. The crosshair of the sword is “not that”, the armor on the prince is not from that era, like the plate on the legs. Western knights have leggings that had hook-and-bolt fasteners marked only at the end of the 13th century. And on his triptych - the middle, and even the prince and in the latest fashion sabatons, and chased kneecaps on him, and this, judging by his effigy, even the knights of Britain did not have. And the prince’s yushman on the torso (there is one in the Armory), and from the 16th century, could never appear in 1242. “While working on a triptych, the artist consulted with historians, employees of the Historical Museum, where he wrote chain mail, armor, helmet from nature - all the equipment of the protagonist, whose image he recreated on canvas in just three weeks,” was written on one of the modern Internet sites. But this is just a "figure of speech." Because it is not difficult to make sure that either he consulted with the wrong historians, or he looked at the armor in the museum, or he didn’t really care. Although from the point of view of mastery of the execution of claims to him, of course not!

Today we have grown a new galaxy of already modern painters, and they have much less blunders than before. Less ... but finally they have not disappeared for some reason so far. Just look at the canvas of the artist V.I. Nesterenko "Getting rid of troubles", written by him in 2010 year. “The historical plot required a unique performance, where life-sized riders, archers and knights immerse us in the atmosphere of the seventeenth century. The painting is made in the traditions of Russian and European realism, causing associations with classic battle works. ” Well written, isn't it? Well - the picture is really quite large - an eight-meter canvas, over which the artist worked for four whole years. And unlike the Battle of Grunwald, there are horses of what size you need, armor, and ammunition are written out so carefully and, you can say, lovingly, that it’s time to study the history of military affairs from them. However, only its material part, because everything else in this picture is nothing more than a set of absurdities, one incoherent to the other!

Thus, it is known for certain what moment is depicted on this canvas, namely, the attack on the 300 Poles of the cavalry noblemen together with Minin, who jumped on the enemy, and the word “horse” must be emphasized. On the canvas, we see riders interspersed with infantrymen, and, judging by what positions they are depicted and how cantermen Minin’s comrades rush at the enemy, the question arises, how did they all turn out to be here at the same time ?! On the left, archers: some with a berdysh, some with a musket and they do not run, but stand. But right next to them the cavalry jumps and it is not clear how the Poles allowed themselves to be close to their enemies, while horsemen, along the aisles left in advance for them, did not reach them at the most decisive moment. And, directly behind the riders, we again see infantrymen shooting at the enemy. What, they, along with the horses, reached the position of the Poles, and then stood in a pose and shoot? It turns out this way, however, and this is not all ... The Poles in the right-hand corner are shown by some ridiculous crowd: horsemen are mixed up with infantry, but this could not be by definition, since the infantry never mixed with cavalry. Polish hussars had to either stand in front and meet the attack with a blow to the blow, but not with the spears raised towards the sky (well, they are not fools, in actual fact!). Or go under the protection of pikemen and musketeers. Moreover, the former must stop the cavalry of the enemy with a palisade peak, and the latter must shoot over their heads with muskets. And then the artist portrayed the gang is not a gang, but a crowd of some kind of “stupid” in Polish armor, which are clearly not worth the trouble to beat. That is, he would draw only Russian horsemen led by Minin and the Poles demoralized by the attack. And that's it! But no, for some reason the artist was also drawn to the infantry ...

It is clear that there are many banners in the picture, which are turned to face the viewer - after all, they are the images of Orthodox saints. And why the banner in the hands of Minin, and why he spread his hands in such a sacrificial way is also understandable - these are all symbols. But ... take such a banner and gallop with him on horseback. You will see that it will develop in the course of movement, and not at all as depicted in the picture. Strong wind? But why then hang the Polish flag in the very center of the canvas? Symbolism, of course. But isn't it too much here?

It is also surprising (and this oddity is also present in the picture of Jan Matejko), as in both artists archers act on their canvases. In Mateiko, a man with a bow is trying to shoot him right in the crowd, and he is aiming somewhere upwards, which clearly indicates his weak mind. V.I. Nesterenko, again, only two shoot directly at the target, while others are somewhere in the sky. Yes, that was how they shot, but not those who were in the front ranks of the cavalry, jumping on the enemy. These, then, chose their goals directly in front of themselves, and why it should be so clear to everyone: why kill someone away, if the enemy is under your nose? So although the picture at first glance makes a strong impression, the author just wants to say it with the words of K.S. Stanislavsky: "I do not believe!" I do not believe and that's it!

Of course, they can argue that here, they say, symbolism, that the author wanted to show pathos, heroics, unity of the people ... But if pathos and symbolism dominate everything else, then why write out so carefully the bells on the harness? The reference to the fact that most people do not know this is clearly from our recent past. Like, for the ignorant, and so it will come down, and the most important is the idea! But do not get away! Today it just will not get away, because behind the window is the age of the Internet and people are beginning to listen to the opinions of specialists, including historians, and get offended when in the picture they, say, together, show “sprawling cranberries” of oak! In addition, it simply diminishes the heroism of our ancestors, and in fact the artist should ideally strive for the opposite! And, by the way, we have battle painting and sculpture from someone to learn! Do you know who? North Koreans! This is where the monument is, that the battle canvases, the accuracy in details is simply amazing. If the commander has a Mauser in his hand, this is K-96, and if the machine gun ZB-26 is drawn, then yes, it really is up to the very last detail. And for some reason they can, but here we have again some difficulties and fantasies. It is clear that in the sculpture without obvious symbols can not do. “Motherland” at the top of Mamayev Kurgan, with a revolver in his hand, would have looked just silly, but this is exactly the case when symbolism is more important than realism.

But why artist S. Prisekin in his painting “Ice Battle” drew a sword with a “flaming” blade and a crossbow with a “Nuremberg knob” - it is not clear! The first one is fantasy fit for illustration in the fairy tale about Kashchei the Immortal, and the second one in 1242 simply did not exist! There are also cuirasses, and halberds of the 17th century, and helmets of the wrong era. And everything is written out very carefully! What for?! Why draw something that really did not exist, when any idea and symbol can be fully expressed through real things and well known to specialists. Let them then become known to everyone, right?

So the characters are symbols, but nobody has canceled the truth of life, and I really want our artists who attempt to historical painting in their patriotic impulses not to forget about it, but to consult with good specialists!
Author:
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Laiza_sib
    Laiza_sib 11 June 2015 06: 50
    +1
    And how much did one anchor weigh on the Volga barge? About 3 anchors can be more detailed, these are not simple fisherman hooks both in weight and in application.
    In general, the desire of the creators to embellish the detail is understandable, again, it is necessary to sell. The essence of Repin’s picture in the steam tug in the background, but it is more expensive than the hacks.
    1. kalibr
      11 June 2015 08: 30
      0
      I do not know about the anchor. But about this in the book at Shubin is written in great detail. And without any ideologization, which is directly striking. Well, it was published in 1927, and he collected the material much earlier, so why is it so clear.
      1. alebor
        alebor 11 June 2015 10: 15
        +4
        Mentioning about the hacks, I immediately recall the famous lines of Nekrasov:
        "Go out to the Volga: whose groan is heard
        Over the great Russian river?
        This groan is called a song
        Then the barge haulers are on the line! .. "
        Nekrasov, too, like everyone else who lived at that time and caught the hounds, for some reason does not talk about how they ate red caviar with spoons, but shows their exhausting work.
        1. kalibr
          11 June 2015 10: 42
          0
          It probably didn't hurt one another!
        2. Elk
          Elk 12 June 2015 05: 35
          +1
          Nekrasov, too, like everyone else who lived at that time and caught the hounds, for some reason does not talk about how they ate red caviar with spoons, but shows their exhausting work.

          So hard physical labor also means normal nutrition. Otherwise, a person will simply stretch his legs in a few days.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 11 June 2015 20: 59
        +1
        Burlatsky labor was banned in 1930, but during the Great Patriotic War for some time had to return due to the lack of tugs. The author highlights discrepancies in the details, but he himself does not understand that if the barge haulers on the deck go to the stern, then they are pulling the anchor, and the barge is in place, it is easier to make a gate in this case that would no longer rotate the barge haulers, but the winches, winding scourge on the drum, a picture is a picture, but what about documentary photography. In the encyclopedia 'World War II' during the capture of Berlin, you can see the Sau-152 with road wheels from the T-34. 57 mm Zis-2 cannon, with a shield at the top of the T-34 engine compartment. When the 1941 photograph shows officers in uniform standing next to the IS-2 tank. And here are the pictures.
    2. FAZE
      FAZE 11 June 2015 10: 35
      +1
      About the canvas by Jan Matejko
      it hurt on the canvas he was all mixed up
      I believe that the Battle of Grunwald as the decisive battle of the "Great War" simply cannot be "smeared" into several paintings dedicated to its various stages, therefore, it is necessary to fit everything together, to the detriment of realism! Well, symbolism has not been canceled)
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 11 June 2015 07: 53
    0
    Orest Kiprensky with his painting "Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo Field" is in great debt to the author ... smile A biologist came to one artist, he showed him his painting "The Tree of Knowledge", where Eve passes the fruit from this tree to Adam .. and the artist asked the biologist's opinion about the picture .. He answered that the apple was not drawn correctly, because this variety of apples was withdrawn not long ago, and during the time of Adam and Eve it did not exist .. By the way, the story is genuine .. I have forgotten the names of the participants ..
    1. kalibr
      11 June 2015 08: 33
      0
      Yes, I also read about this funny fact, but this is just like the example with the painting "Morning ..." just positive examples. But the painting "Morning ..." has no emphasis on armor, there is something completely different and, by the way, the horses are on a scale. The apple is not important, the image is important, because the very fact that it was so is generally unprovable! But when an artist lovingly draws out a 16th century helmet and places it on a canvas from 1242 - that's not good!
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 11 June 2015 09: 48
        +1
        "Bathing the Red Horse" - Petrova-Vodkina, negative example smile There are no red horses smile I wrote last time, do not shoot at artists, they draw as they can .. smile And to denounce them in something that they say ... the grenades of the wrong system depicted ... not worth it .. hi
        1. kalibr
          11 June 2015 11: 42
          0
          Bathing a horse is not a battlefield with a claim to historicity.
  3. fomkin
    fomkin 11 June 2015 08: 18
    11
    The most truthful picture in all details is Malevich's Black Square.
  4. Grigorievich
    Grigorievich 11 June 2015 09: 18
    +2
    Quote: fomkin
    The most truthful picture in all details is Malevich's Black Square.

    good
  5. Semyonych
    Semyonych 11 June 2015 09: 21
    +3
    Quote: parusnik
    Orest Kiprensky with his painting "Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo Field" is in great debt to the author ... smile A biologist came to one artist, he showed him his painting "The Tree of Knowledge", where Eve passes the fruit from this tree to Adam .. and the artist asked the biologist's opinion about the picture .. He answered that the apple was not drawn correctly, because this variety of apples was withdrawn not long ago, and during the time of Adam and Eve it did not exist .. By the way, the story is genuine .. I have forgotten the names of the participants ..

    The story can be genuine, but not a single self-respecting gardener and agronomist can claim an unknown variety by the appearance of the fruit, and even the one drawn.
    It is clear that there are many banners in the picture, which are turned to face the viewer - after all, they are the images of Orthodox saints. And why the banner in the hands of Minin, and why he spread his hands in such a sacrificial way is also understandable - these are all symbols. But ... take such a banner and gallop with him on horseback. You will see that it will develop in the course of movement, and not at all as depicted in the picture. Strong wind? But why then hang the Polish flag in the very center of the canvas? Symbolism, of course. But isn't it too much here?
    Why cling to creative people, they have their own cockroaches in their heads, the artist creates as he sees it, he is not a surveyor or a biologist. He may just be mistaken.
    Let the author of the article better explain contemporary incidents and by no means artistic ones.
    For example, this one:
    1. kalibr
      11 June 2015 11: 40
      0
      I am not an expert in space research.
      1. erseer
        erseer 14 June 2015 03: 32
        +1
        Quote: kalibr
        I am not an expert in space research.
        Well, can you make out shadows from objects?
        especially from the flag and the astronaut standing on the same line :-))

        and this ... on a barge, a barrel under the mast is standing. probably with caviar ...
    2. Aljavad
      Aljavad 14 June 2015 03: 27
      0
      The story can be genuine, but not a single self-respecting gardener and agronomist can claim an unknown variety by the appearance of the fruit, and even the one drawn.


      In the described era (Garden of Eden) there were no varieties at all - only wild animals. From this and "danced" in the mentioned story.
      But the garden is not anyhow, but paradise. And perhaps all varieties always existed there. That's why he and the Garden of Eden.
      And how many angels still fit on the end of the needle?
    3. Aljavad
      Aljavad 14 June 2015 03: 28
      0
      The story can be genuine, but not a single self-respecting gardener and agronomist can claim an unknown variety by the appearance of the fruit, and even the one drawn.


      In the described era (Garden of Eden) there were no varieties at all - only wild animals. From this and "danced" in the mentioned story.
      But the garden is not anyhow, but paradise. And perhaps all varieties always existed there. That's why he and the Garden of Eden.
      And how many angels still fit on the end of the needle?
  6. igordok
    igordok 11 June 2015 09: 45
    +3
    One of the 1872th century fakes is the painting by Yan Moteiko "Stefan Bathory near Pskov". A painting by Jan Matejko in XNUMX depicting an episode of the Livonian War and the embassy of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible to the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Stefan Batory with a request for peace.
    In fact, Pskov withstood the siege, and peace negotiations did not go under the walls of Pskov and Batory did not conduct these negotiations personally and the negotiations were more or less successful for Russia. Mateiko gathered together disparate facts and put them in one picture.
    The first sketches for the painting “Bathhouse near Pskov” were written by Jan Matejko in the 1869 year. Three years later, the picture was completed. In 1874, Mateiko exhibited a painting in Paris. As a result, an enthusiastic reception of the painting and the election of Mateiko as a member of the Institut de France, immediately followed by the election of a member of the Berlin Academy of Arts. If Russophobic - it means good. angry
  7. alebor
    alebor 11 June 2015 10: 38
    +3
    It is surprising why the author did not subject the author to crushing criticism of artists of an earlier era, centuries like the XV-XVI, when biblical and antique characters were often depicted as contemporaries of the artist, in clothes and interiors corresponding to the time when the painting was painted. But the artists, both of that time and later ones, did not engage in petty historical reconstruction, they tried to convey the idea to the viewer, to help them feel the "taste" of the event.
    In general, if artists painted battle and historical canvases one-on-one corresponding to how they really were - how boring, inexpressive and compositionally poor they would look! The same can be said of novels and movies - without intrigue, without time-concentrated events, without bright heroes - they would be lethargic, drawn out, boring. But this is the strength of the artist’s art, that he can present the story in such a way that it is impossible to break away from it.
    1. kalibr
      11 June 2015 10: 47
      0
      Why can not you truly show the entourage and intrigue at the same time? Would it be boring to be true? But in my opinion there is nothing more interesting. Or is the spreading cranberry more beautiful?
      "In general, if the artists wrote battle and historical canvases one to one corresponding to how it really was - how boring, inexpressive and compositionally poor they would look!" - How did it come to your mind to write such a thing?
      1. alebor
        alebor 11 June 2015 11: 22
        +3
        Remember the famous monument to Minin and Pozharsky on Red Square! It was created at a time when the style dominated in art - classicism, when ancient beauty was glorified, and no one was interested in realism. Minin, a barefoot man, stands next to the sitting prince Pozharsky, who, sorry, has no pants at all! The sculptor knew perfectly well that Pozharsky could not dress like that, but he portrayed him as an ancient hero, as was customary at that time. For a significant part of the XNUMXth century, the style dominated in art - romanticism, when artists were also not too much interested in exact historical details, it was more interesting for them to show the heroes, their greatness and glory, and therefore there is a lot of convention in their art. In art, a lot is determined by the spirit of the times, fashion, the style of the era. As Pushkin wrote: "Why argue aimlessly with the century. Custom is a despot among people."
        And now about the accuracy in depicting the story. No matter how great the historical figure, but most of his life consists of small and uninteresting everyday details. I woke up, stretched, scratched myself, went (I apologize) to the toilet, had breakfast, etc. etc. But who cares? The events of his life depict richly, concentratedly in time, it is a great deed after another, bright, catchy, dynamic ... and not boring for the viewer. The same is true in wars and battles - they are far from being as beautiful as in the pictures. The same thing in novels, etc.
        An illustration in a history textbook is one thing and a battle in a painting of the Baroque era is another thing. The first should be extremely reliable in order to give the viewer an accurate idea, but the second was never required, she had completely different tasks.
        1. kalibr
          11 June 2015 11: 26
          0
          Yes, everything is so, but Matejko could draw more horses and not insert "winged hussars" in 1410, eh? What's so hard about it? In addition, by the end of the 19th century, the baroque was long over, critical realism reigned!
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. kalibr
      11 June 2015 11: 35
      0
      I don’t remember in which film the gunners were commanded by the sight, then the pipe, and the explosion took place on the ground. But if a "pipe", then it is shrapnel and an explosion in the air. What insipid influence does this imprecision have on intrigue? She alone shows that either the consultants pushed it without looking, or the director doesn't care. But the devil is just hidden in the little things ... Here is a trifle, there is a trifle ... and then everything fell apart, look ...
      1. tasha
        tasha 11 June 2015 13: 37
        +2
        Not sure if you gave a good example. If you make a mistake in the distance to the target when installing the tube, the fuse will fire when the projectile hits the ground.
        1. kalibr
          11 June 2015 21: 57
          0
          So they were all wrong and did not know well the artillery case ...
  8. parusnik
    parusnik 11 June 2015 10: 51
    0
    Quote: Semyonitch
    The story can be genuine, but not a single self-respecting gardener and agronomist can claim an unknown variety by the appearance of the fruit, and even the one drawn.

    You forgot that when you see a lion, you don’t notice gold, but when you see gold, you lose a lion.
  9. utlyakov
    utlyakov 11 June 2015 10: 58
    +1
    Quote: alebor
    Mentioning about the hacks, I immediately recall the famous lines of Nekrasov:
    "Go out to the Volga: whose groan is heard
    Over the great Russian river?
    This groan is called a song
    Then the barge haulers are on the line! .. "
    Nekrasov, too, like everyone else who lived at that time and caught the hounds, for some reason does not talk about how they ate red caviar with spoons, but shows their exhausting work.

    it’s best to read Gilyarovsky about the barge haulers - he was there - so they went like in the picture of Rein, but they also ate red caviar, not every day - but it was not a special delicacy for them
    1. kalibr
      11 June 2015 11: 37
      0
      Yes, Gilyarovsky read very interesting. More interesting Nekrasov ...
    2. kalibr
      11 June 2015 11: 38
      0
      Yes, Gilyarovsky read very interesting. More interesting Nekrasov ...
  10. utlyakov
    utlyakov 11 June 2015 11: 01
    0
    [quote = Semenych] [quote = parusnik]
    The story can be genuine, but not a single self-respecting gardener and agronomist can claim an unknown variety by the appearance of the fruit, and even the one drawn.
    [/ Quote]
    if about the drawn more or less agree, then in appearance - sorry, but do not distinguish, for example, the Red Prince apple from the Glory of Russia in appearance - you must have a lack of vision
  11. tasha
    tasha 11 June 2015 11: 18
    +1
    "if you read the monograph by I. A. Shubin" The Volga and the Volga Shipping, published in the USSR in 1927. "

    If you read the mentioned monograph, you can find out that the total number of barge haulers reached 600. The method of movement, described by the author of the article, was used in the lower reaches of the Volga, "from about the middle of the path ... there was an opportunity to go on windless days, instead of giving, a whip." Shubin is devoted to at least 000 pages.
    1. kalibr
      11 June 2015 11: 30
      0
      Well, and something is written wrong? Or did you read these 30 pages. You decided that the haulers were on the right bank the whole distance from Astrakhan to the Lower? And I wrote that the work was easy? Any physical work was hard at the time, that the loader, that barge hauler. It's about the typical and exceptional that the artist showed.
      1. tasha
        tasha 11 June 2015 11: 41
        +1
        Should I put all these pages here? Find the courage to admit that you in this case simply did not show the proper curiosity or hard work in preparing the article.
        1. brn521
          brn521 11 June 2015 12: 39
          0
          Well, yes, it would not hurt at least Wikipedia to start to see what. So in vain the author of the article ran into the barge haulers.
          1. kalibr
            11 June 2015 13: 07
            0
            So after all, usually for links to Wikipedia here just criticize and put a minus. Like, for us, this is not the source ...
        2. kalibr
          11 June 2015 13: 02
          0
          Now is the age of the Internet. Let others take an interest and honor. It will enrich their intelligence, as your enriched, is not it. It was about the categories of the individual and the universal, in relation to this, what is wrong? That this technique was more common in the lower reaches of the Volga. I read this book in graduate school in Kuibyshev in 1987 year. I have all the basic statements, you can look at the Internet. Where more curious?
          1. tasha
            tasha 11 June 2015 13: 29
            0
            Once again, read the section of your article dedicated to the painting by IA Repin "Barge Haulers on the Volga". You, in an effort to ascribe to the artist the desire to show the suffering of the working people "as pitifully as possible", and thereby obtain additional material for the article, did not bother to collect the available information about the barge haulers and even carefully read the book you are referring to.

            You write: "But ... all people see the world around them in their own way, and what is also very important, they often also work to order. And what is more important in this case: the artist's own vision, the vision of the customer who buys his skill, or ... just the money that is paid to the maestro for work? That is, it is obvious that art can lie, just as a person himself is lying. Another thing is that this lie can have different reasons and, accordingly, it can be condemned to a greater or lesser extent. , wittingly or not, but the artists have always lied. "

            The same goes for journalists. Is not it?
            1. kalibr
              11 June 2015 21: 59
              0
              One thing is the world of words, the images of which all represent in their own way and another image, signs that approximately all see the same. No wonder it says, better to see ...
              1. tasha
                tasha 12 June 2015 06: 57
                0
                "The truth of life has not been canceled, and I really want our artists who encroach on historical painting in their patriotic impulses not to forget about this, but to consult with good specialists!"

                Here writers and journalists do not need to do this. Write what comes into your head.
                Oh you ..
  12. Val_y
    Val_y 11 June 2015 12: 32
    +1
    Quote: igordok
    As a result - an enthusiastic reception of the painting and the election of Mateiko as a member of the Institut de France, immediately followed by the election of a member of the Berlin Academy of Arts. If Russophobic - it means good.

    Hmm ... so many years have passed, three formations have occurred in Russia (monarchy, communism, capitalism-democracy) and nothing has changed in this fucking gayrop. If Russophobic means good, pah, and how many tsarist and Soviet wars have perished that these geyropsky cattle are saved, first from the Ottomans then from the Fritz, and WHY !!!!!!!! They SAME EVERYTHING EQUALLY HATE US !!!!!! EH .... maybe this generation will already begin to live on the Block
    "..
    But we ourselves are no longer a shield to you,
    From now on, we will not enter the battle ourselves,
    We'll see how the mortal battle is boiling,
    With his narrow eyes.

    We will not move when the ferocious Hun
    In the pockets of corpses will fumble,
    Burn the city, and drive the herd into the church,
    And fry white brothers meat! ...
    And now their Arabs in Europe are already wow ... and soon the scimitar will whistle ...
  13. Semenov
    Semenov 11 June 2015 12: 52
    0
    An informative and interesting article, but the author was clearly infringed on by the artist, did not consult, perhaps ...
  14. lao_tsy
    lao_tsy 11 June 2015 13: 36
    +2
    The author wrote correctly. An artistic fiction which is subsequently taken as pure truth. And so crowds of historians study the pictures in the folios and say: "It turns out what kind of people lived (no matter where) with dog-headed heads, and wore Armenians, not skull-caps. And skull-caps are generally only Central Asia!" Or they seriously study the maps of the "near Middle Ages" and draw conclusions on this.
  15. Support
    Support 11 June 2015 13: 41
    0
    I believe that artists' paintings on historical topics and something in any historical period are their purely personal fantasies. For brightness, plot expressions or fulfill someone's order. And they will study the historical period reflected in the picture should not. It's always a lie. Just like learning history from historical feature films. Just nonsense .....
  16. Resistance
    Resistance 11 June 2015 14: 09
    -1
    V. Gilyarovsky was a barge hauler and described this work in detail. Very interesting, the exact opposite of Repin.
    1. tasha
      tasha 11 June 2015 14: 20
      0
      And you can’t compare with Tchaikovsky at all, are you talking about this?

      If serious:

      "And Repka, Balaburda, Pashka, the Gopher himself, the barge haulers who walked thousands of miles in a strap and strewn with their bones the coastal sands of Mother Volga - this experience of mine seems like a fairy tale."
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. RiverVV
    RiverVV 11 June 2015 16: 06
    0
    Reminded ... In my student years, I worked with another comrade at a rescue station near Kazan. They were considered as assistants to the diver. We looked after those swimming on the beach, sometimes they took part in diving activities. The diver was an old Tatar nicknamed Aby. Once I had to swim with the cops for a drowned man thrown into a shallow ... Aby poured each of us and himself a glass of alcohol, smeared in one gulp and climbed the corpse into a bag to pack. Alcohol helped. Half an hour later we chopped off, and in the morning we could not remember anything.

    So ... A boat about ten meters long we easily pulled in tow together.

    And then they kicked us out. Valerik dragged the girl on that boat. They drank, ate fish soup and the girl became interested in a rubber diving suit. Valerik helped her to dress him, jammed and screwed his helmet, and while she could neither yell nor resist, tr @ slammed her. The station chief spotted this case. He later said that with a diver in front of him this was the first time they had done so.

    Here is such a historical truth ...
  19. kin
    kin 11 June 2015 16: 12
    +1
    - Is it a sower?
    - The sower!

    Everyone can offend an artist.
  20. Anatoly_1959
    Anatoly_1959 11 June 2015 17: 14
    0
    I have always respected you as a historian for your good knowledge of the material. But this is a creative matter. If you remember the first thing that comes to mind, then the monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow, Suvorov in St. Petersburg, too, cannot serve as a source for the study of historical weapons. This is not necessary. This is not a reference book, but the artist's vision, the freedom of his creativity. It is not necessary to drive everything into the framework of "authenticity": 999 people out of 1000 do not care what the crosshair of the sword is or where the strings on the armor are located. The main thing is the message that a work of art sends, for that it is fictional, not documentary. You cannot comprehend harmony with algebra. And you don't need ...
  21. Type 63
    Type 63 11 June 2015 20: 07
    0
    "It is unlikely that anyone needs to prove the well-known truth that art is a reflection of reality passed through the consciousness of a person and enriched by his perception of the world" - an exclusively Marxist definition and in no way capable of claiming absolute truth. Before writing the article, Shpakovsky should have picked up a textbook on aesthetics and read about the concepts of positivists, pragmatists, and intuitionists. PMSM, art is self-expression that is influenced by the historical setting, personal inclinations, life experience, subconscious drives, etc.
    1. kalibr
      11 June 2015 22: 03
      0
      We have a MILITARY REVIEW site here and it’s about artists drawing weapons on battle canvases correctly. Are you against?
  22. Type 63
    Type 63 11 June 2015 23: 23
    -1
    I am opposed to writing about philosophical rubbish by people who are not versed in the humanities. And the message about the correctness of weapons is false initially, because:
    1. Correctness is a conditional concept, and historians disagree on many issues.
    2. The correctness of the guard / stock / epaulettes will be understood by one out of a hundred people.
    3. A work of art is not a photograph; it should not pretend to realism; it has other tasks.
    1. kalibr
      12 June 2015 07: 14
      -1
      Then it is not me, but someone else writes non-philosophical nonsense!
    2. kalibr
      12 June 2015 07: 16
      0
      Then it is not me, but someone else writes non-philosophical nonsense! And by the way, even this one of a hundred is important to me, and you are not? Then you are a supporter of a totalitarian state, and this is very sad!
  23. Free wind
    Free wind 12 June 2015 05: 40
    0
    And you look at the sculpture "Worker and Collective Farm Woman"; instead of "hello", they often stood up like that? And the sledgehammer was never called a hammer. Assistant blacksmith, hammer, worked with a sledgehammer.
  24. tokens2
    tokens2 12 June 2015 08: 38
    0
    The author of the article in Repin's painting
    "cut off" a sailboat going "downwind".
    However, a smoking chimney in the background can be seen.
    A sort of burlak background of the struggle of multidirectional forces.
    But actually barge haulers are all humanity.
    With a barrel of caviar, yes funny ..
    Caviar barrel versus Brent barrel laughing
    PS Brent is of course fiction. Artistic.
  25. AZB15
    AZB15 12 June 2015 14: 26
    0
    Oh, damn it !!! Before I was the first to write about Gilyarovsky, look at how many clever people are in the country. Read, understand! Then about another. Nobody has yet decided to write about a barrel of RED caviar on the deck of a barge on the VOLGA. Hmm, there is salmon. This is to our island of Sakhalin, there, in principle, you can also barge along the coast, hmm, though in some places ...
  26. kin
    kin 12 June 2015 17: 22
    0
    Perhaps this dispute is akin to: "How much history and logic are broken in 17 moments of spring"?

    Is it possible to achieve harmony (and to what extent) between historical truth, logic and artistic creation?
  27. Aljavad
    Aljavad 14 June 2015 03: 51
    0
    It's a very funny activity to catch an artist (writer, director, etc.) on inaccuracies. But from the point of view of the artists themselves, it is permissible to evaluate their works EXCLUSIVELY within the framework of their genre. Is this painting? Evaluate colors, color, composition, play of light, "situations, compositions, movements, types, expressions". And the armor .... We are talking about high things, and you are with prose ... According to the canons of classicism, everyone, regardless of the era, should have been painted naked.

    As a document, a work of art can and should be considered. But solely taking into account the specifics of this art itself. In portraits of the artist's contemporaries, the uniform (armor) is documented. But on battle canvases - no. After all, this is only part of the artistic image, about which the author first of all thinks. On battle canvases do not draw historical reality, but their idea of ​​such. Here the battle canvases can serve as a document of this. Mateiko was convinced that the order was defeated by the Poles, the rest - well, if not in the way. And in his eyes the glorious gentry - of course, the winged hussars (this is so romantic!).

    And in general, real battles are not picturesque.
    Popular wisdom: "The battle in the Crimea, everything is in smoke, nothing is visible!"