The importance of critical activity of V.V. Stasov for the development of Russian art

Vladimir Stasov, art and music critic, art historian and one of the organizers of the Association of Itinerants (d. 1906), was born on January 14, 1824.

The history of Russian music and painting of the 19th century in the highest manifestations of its genius cannot be imagined without this man. He himself did not paint pictures or pore over scores, and yet painters and composers worshiped him. Vladimir Stasov defined the prospects for the development of national art for a century to come.

As a child, Stasov dreamed of graduating from the Academy of Arts and in some ways repeating the path of his father, the architect Vasily Petrovich Stasov. Instead, I went to the School of Law. The path of a sworn attorney did not attract him: “I firmly intended to say everything that had been lying in me for a long time...

When I began to disassemble all the existing works of art and together began to consider everything written about them... then I did not find artistic criticism in the sense that it should be.”

The goal was defined, but the strict daddy was zealous in his persistence: art, even if it is criticism, requires talent, and for a titular adviser just perseverance is enough. The service record was decorated with the first entry - “Landing Department of the Government Senate.” Later serving in the Ministry of Justice, Stasov nevertheless considered the study of art to be his main business. To a large extent, he was helped by his acquaintance with Anatoly Demidov, for whom he served as secretary in Italy for three years. Demidov's father Nikolai Nikitich was at one time appointed envoy to Florence and significantly expanded the family collection of paintings, books, and icons there. And Stasov, accompanied by Anatoly Demidov, who bought himself the title of Italian prince of San Donato, participated in the study of this original collection and its transportation from Florence to Russia - on two ships! Stasov seriously studied the history and theory of art. And so his musical and artistic articles, reviews of French, German and English literature (he knew six languages) began to appear in the magazines Otechestvennye zapiski, Sovremennik, Vestnik Evropy and Library for Reading.

Stasov became the first indisputable authority in Rus' in the field of professional art criticism and the scientific history of fine art. Furthermore. At that time, when the rulers of thoughts were nihilistic critics and subversives, Stasov found himself depending only on common sense and his own, even if sometimes subjective, biases. He was never possessed by tendentious ideas.

He served at the Public Library for half a century. At first, without any salary at all, then he became an assistant director, and even later - the head of the manuscript and art departments and, according to his ranks, rose to the rank of state general - privy councilor. He compiled a catalog of publications relating to Russia - “Rossika”, and wrote a number of historical works for the reading of Alexander II. “Stasov,” Marshak recalled, “did not have his own separate office. In front of the large window overlooking the street stood his heavy desk, fenced with shields. These were stands with portraits of Peter the Great engraved at different times... However, the Stasovsky corner of the library could not be called “peaceful”. Arguments were always in full swing here, the soul of which was this tall, broad-shouldered, long-bearded old man with a large, aquiline nose and heavy eyelids. He never slouched and until his very last days he held his unyielding gray head high. He spoke loudly and, even if he wanted to say something in secret, he almost did not lower his voice, but only symbolically covered his mouth with the edge of his palm, as ancient actors did when pronouncing the words “to the side.”

Natalia Nordman, Stasov, Repin and Gorky. Penates. Photo by K. Bulla.

And on Seventh Rozhdestvenskaya his home office is a narrow room, strict old furniture and portraits, among which two Repin masterpieces stand out - on one Leo Tolstoy, on the other - Stasova's sister Nadezhda Vasilievna, one of the founders of the Bestuzhev Women's Courses. Mussorgsky, Borodin, Rimlyanin (as Stasov called Rimsky-Korsakov), Repin, Chaliapin visited here more than once... Whomever did he know in his lifetime! His huge hand once shook Krylov’s hand, Herzen’s hand. Fate blessed him with friendship with Leo the Great - as he invariably called Tolstoy. He knew Goncharov and Turgenev... Contemporaries recalled how Stasov and Turgenev once had breakfast in a tavern. And suddenly - lo and behold! - their opinions coincided. Turgenev was so amazed by this that he ran to the window and shouted:
- Tie me up, Orthodox Christians!

In essence, he was a man of the era. Born in the year of Byron's death. In his childhood, everyone around him still talked about the Patriotic War, as an event they personally experienced. The memory of the Decembrist uprising was fresh. When Pushkin died, Stasov was thirteen years old. As a young man, he read Gogol, published for the first time. He was the only one who saw off Glinka, who was leaving forever abroad.

There is a phenomenal fact in the history of Russian culture - a community of music enthusiasts, essentially amateurs, who made a kind of revolution in the art of composition. They created a new Russian music school. Self-taught Balakirev, officers Borodin and Mussorgsky, fortification specialist Caesar Cui... The military sailor Rimsky-Korsakov was the only one who professionally mastered all the intricacies of the art of composition. Stasov, with his comprehensive knowledge, became the spiritual leader of the circle. He was inspired by the idea of ​​making Russian national music leading in the ensemble of European musical arts. This goal became the alpha and omega of Balakirev’s circle.

The entire Stasov family was noted for their talents and gifts. Brother Dmitry was known as a lawyer involved in many high-profile political trials, for example, in the case of the attempted murder of Tsar Karakozov. By the way, his daughter Elena actually became a professional revolutionary and became an ally of Lenin. At the same time, Dmitry Stasov was one of the organizers of the Russian Musical Society and the creators of the St. Petersburg Conservatory, which his brother Vladimir zealously fought against. After all, when Rubinstein, with the support of the imperial government, opened a conservatory and invited foreign teachers, Vladimir Stasov and his comrades subjected him to impartial criticism. Behind this confrontation were tense relations between Slavophiles and Westerners. According to Stasov, the creation of the conservatory was a barrier to the formation of a national culture. Balakirev generally believed that systematic “school” education, the study of established rules, norms and laws, could only harm the original talents of his students. He recognized only such a teaching method, which consisted of playing, listening and joint discussion of musical works by recognized masters of the past and present. But this path was suitable only for exceptional individuals and special circumstances. In other cases, it only gave rise to amateurism. The conflict was settled in 1872, when Rimsky-Korsakov agreed to become a professor at the conservatory.

In 1883, Stasov wrote a programmatic article “Our Music for the Last 25 Years,” where he emphasized that when Glinka thought that he was creating only Russian opera, he was mistaken: he was creating an entire Russian music school, a new system. (By the way, Stasov devoted over thirty works to the analysis of Glinka’s work.) Since Glinka’s time, the Russian school has existed with such unique features of physiognomy that distinguish it from other European schools.

Stasov with Marshak and the future sculptor Herzel Hertsovsky, 1904.

Stasov highlighted the characteristic features of Russian music: an appeal to folklore in the broadest sense, mostly associated with large choral parts and “exoticisms” inspired by the music of the Caucasian peoples.

Stasov was a sparkling polemicist. If somewhere in society he saw someone as an enemy of his ideas, he immediately began to smash the suspected enemy. And it was possible to disagree with him, but it was impossible not to take his opinion into account. For example, when the Rumyantsev Museum was transferred from St. Petersburg to Moscow, Stasov’s indignation knew no bounds: “The Rumyantsev Museum is known throughout Europe! And suddenly he was wiped away like with an eraser. What an example and a lesson for future patriots, when they will know that we have nothing solid, nothing durable, that with us everything can be moved, taken away, sold!”

Stasov did a lot, but did not have time to complete his main work - on the ways of development of world art, and yet he had been preparing to write this book all his life.

Those who give advice don't have headaches. There is something paradoxical and destructive in the fact that some people try to create something, while others teach them. But there is criticism that not only heals the souls of creators, not just guides the path of their thoughts, not only eliminates problems, but also strives to outline the future. Is this possible? It is certainly possible if the critic himself is a creative and purposeful person; Vladimir Vasilyevich Stasov was precisely such a creator.
Bruno Westev

Name Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov I somehow can’t wrap my head around being a composer and a musician. And at the same time, he was the ideological inspirer of the most significant Russian composer formation of the mid-nineteenth century -.

Stasov was a music and art critic, art historian, archivist, and, of course, a public figure.

The future ideologist of the Great Russian Five came from an intelligent St. Petersburg family. His father, architect Vasily Petrovich Stasov, participated in the design of public holidays during the coronation of Emperor Alexander, traveled to different countries, and completed an internship in France, Italy, Austria and Poland. Later he entered the Cabinet of Structures and Hydraulic Works. He designed a complex of buildings for the Provision Warehouses, the Catherine and Alexander Palaces. And he became the first master of the Russian style. Needless to say, this could not help but subsequently have an impact on his son, Vladimir Vasilyevich, who was born on January 2, 2010. 1824?

In 1836, Vasily Petrovich sent his son Vladimir to study at the newly created School of Law. There the young man became keenly interested in music. But I didn’t see myself as a composer. He didn’t have any special inclinations, or maybe he was simply afraid to develop them in himself. And, as is usual in such cases, he boldly gave in to criticism.

He wrote his first article in 1842. It was dedicated to what was then popular. He just came to St. Petersburg with a concert. But the article was never published.

After studying at the school, which ended in 1843, Vladimir began serving as an assistant secretary in the Land Survey Department of the Senate.

Five years later he already had the position of secretary in the Department of Heraldry. Two more years later he became assistant legal counsel at the Department of Justice. At that time he was already fluent in six languages. In addition, Stasov began his career as a music critic and published in Otechestvennye zapiski.

Their publisher once invited Stasov to the foreign literature department, and the young man also began publishing notes covering issues of painting, sculpture and architecture.

But the idyll did not last long. In 1848, for his connection with the Petrashevites, Stasov was removed from work in the magazine, and then completely imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

The Petrashevites were distinguished by excessive freethinking, and that is why they began to be persecuted. This circle later went down in history, in no small part because the young Dostoevsky took part in it. What was the cost of just staging their death penalty? The convicts were put through all the preparations, and only at the very end did they learn about the pardon. Many of the Petrashevites were arrested simply because they did not report on the meetings, and even because of the distribution of Belinsky’s letters.

1851. Stasov retired and went abroad. There he became the secretary of the Ural industrialist Demidov. He was a very rich man, and also a sincere lover of art.

Demidov

Despite his Russian name and certainly Russian origin, Anatoly Nikolaevich Demidov was born in Florence, lived and worked both in Russia and in France. In addition to being considered a Russian philanthropist, he was also the Prince of San Donato. He bought this title, which allows one to judge the magnitude of his wealth. He rarely appeared in Russia, since Nicholas the First did not like him, quite rightly believing that Demidov was simply taking an enormous amount of money out of Russia. On the other hand, if it weren’t for Demidov, no one would have gotten them anyway. And so, thanks to this entrepreneur, much of what we now consider cultural heritage has become available.

Stasov worked in San Donato, where Demidov bought the princely title. He had ample opportunities to work in libraries, and he worked not so much as a secretary, but as Demidov’s librarian. Vladimir had the opportunity to often visit various Russian artists and architects who lived in Italy. Among them, for example, were Alexander Bryullov, Sergei Ivanov and Ivan Aivazovsky.

In 1854 he managed to return to St. Petersburg. He was constantly inspired by his creative work, and therefore quickly formed the ideology of the circle, which would later become known as the “Mighty Handful.” A man of enormous erudition, Stasov simply amazed with the versatility of his interests. Consistently defending independent national paths of development of the Russian school of composition, he had an invaluable influence on the formation of the aesthetic and creative principles of the Great Five.

In addition, Vladimir Stasov, starting in the sixties and for the rest of his life, supported the activities of the traveling exhibitions partnership. He even became one of the main inspirers and historians of the movement.

“True art looks with all eyes at what is happening around us,” said Stasov. “And around us people live, work, and suffer. This means that the heroes of the paintings should not be six-winged angels, not kings, ancient and present, not counts and marquises, but men, workers, officials, artists, scientists.” And he added: “Only there is real art, where people feel at home.” That is why the works of the Itinerants were so dear to Stasov.

In 1856-1872, Stasov worked at the Public Library, where he had a personal desk in the art department. During his work, he organized an exhibition of ancient Russian manuscripts. Then he was hired as a librarian, and until the end of his life he was in charge of the art department.

Working in this position, he could freely advise artists, writers, and, of course, composers.

In 1900, he was elected an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

During his life he did a lot: he was a researcher and promoter of the work of M. I. Glinka, compiled monographs about composers M. P. Mussorgsky, A. P. Borodin, artists K. P. Bryullov, A. A. Ivanov, V. V. Vereshchagin, V. G. Perov, I. E. Repine, I. N. Kramskoy, N. N. Ge, M. M. Antokolsky and others. Stasov supported the work of A. K. Glazunov, A. K. Lyadov, A. N. Scriabin, F. I. Shalyapin. Vladimir Vasilyevich was one of the first to begin systematic work on collecting and publishing the epistolary heritage of Russian artists and composers (letters from Kramskoy, Antokolsky, A. A. Ivanov, Glinka, Dargomyzhsky, A. N. Serov, Mussorgsky). As an art historian, he affirmed the importance of the great realistic traditions of the works of D. Velazquez, Rembrandt, F. Hals, F. Goya. In Russia, Stasov promoted the music of L. Beethoven, F. Liszt, G. Berlioz, F. Chopin, E. Grieg and others.

Turgenev once wrote about Stasov. Read these lines, and you will see the inner world of this wonderful man more clearly:

Argue with a person smarter than you: he will defeat you... but you can benefit from your very defeat. Argue with a person of equal intelligence: whoever wins, you will at least experience the pleasure of fighting. Argue with a person of the weakest mind: argue not out of a desire to win, but you can be useful to him. Argue even with a fool! You won’t gain either fame or profit... But why not have fun sometimes! Just don’t argue with Vladimir Stasov!

V. V. STASOV AND HIS IMPORTANCE AS AN ART CRITIC

The activities of V.V. Stasov as an art critic were inextricably linked with the development of Russian realistic art and music in the second half of the 19th century. He was their passionate promoter and defender. He was an outstanding representative of Russian democratic realistic art criticism. Stasov, in his criticism of works of art, assessed them from the point of view of the fidelity of artistic reproduction and interpretation of reality. He tried to compare the images of art with the life that gave birth to them. Therefore, his criticism of works of art often expanded to criticism of the phenomena of life themselves. Criticism became an affirmation of the progressive and a fight against the reactionary, anti-national, backward and bad in public life. Art criticism was also journalism. Unlike previous art criticism - highly specialized or intended only for specialist artists and connoisseurs, art connoisseurs - the new, democratic criticism appealed to a wide range of viewers. Stasov believed that the critic is an interpreter of public opinion; it must express the tastes and demands of the public. Stasov's many years of critical activity, imbued with deep conviction, principled and passionate, truly received public recognition. Stasov not only promoted the realistic art of the Itinerants, but also the new, democratic, progressive criticism itself. He created authority and social significance for her.

Stasov was an extremely versatile and deeply educated person. He was interested not only in fine arts and music, but also in literature. He wrote studies, critical articles and reviews on archeology and the history of art, on architecture and music, on folk and decorative arts, read a lot, spoke most European languages, as well as classical Greek and Latin. He owed his enormous erudition to continuous work and his inexhaustible curiosity. These qualities of his - versatility of interests, well-read, highly educated, habit of constant, systematic mental work, as well as a love of writing - were developed in him by his upbringing and life environment.

Vladimir Vasilyevich Stasov was born in 1824. He was the last, fifth child in the large family of the outstanding architect V.P. Stasov. From childhood, his father instilled in him an interest in art and hard work. He taught the boy to systematically read, to the habit of expressing his thoughts and impressions in literary form. Thus, from his youth, the foundations of that love for literary work, that desire and ease with which Stasov wrote were laid. He left behind a huge literary legacy.

Having graduated from the School of Law in 1843, young Stasov served in the Senate and at the same time independently studied music and fine arts, which particularly attracted him. In 1847, his first article appeared - “Living paintings and other artistic objects of St. Petersburg.” It opens the critical activity of Stasov.

Stasov’s work as a secretary for the Russian rich man A.N. Demidov in Italy, in his possession of San Donato, near Florence, brought great benefit to Stasov. Living there in 1851 - 1854, Stasov worked hard on his artistic education.

Soon after returning home to St. Petersburg, Stasov begins working at the Public Library. He worked here all his life, heading the Art Department. Collecting and studying books, manuscripts, engravings, etc. further develops Stasov’s knowledge and becomes the source of his enormous erudition. He helps with advice and consultation to artists, musicians, directors, obtaining the necessary information for them, looking for historical sources for their work on paintings, sculptures, and theatrical productions. Stasov moves in a wide circle of prominent cultural figures, writers, artists, composers, performers, and public figures. He formed especially close ties with young realist artists and musicians who were looking for new paths in art. He is keenly interested in the affairs of the Itinerants and musicians from the “Mighty Handful” group (by the way, the very name belongs to Stasov), helps them in both organizational and ideological matters.

The breadth of Stasov's interests was reflected in the fact that he organically combined the work of an art historian with the activities of an art critic. Living, active participation in modern artistic life, in the struggle of democratic, advanced art with the old, backward and reactionary, helped Stasov in his work on studying the past. Stasov owed the best, most accurate aspects of his historical and archaeological research and judgments about folk art to his critical activity. The struggle for realism and nationality in modern art helped him better understand issues of art history.

Stasov's view of art and artistic beliefs developed in an environment of high democratic upsurge in the late 1850s and early 1860s. The struggle of revolutionary democrats against serfdom, against the feudal class system, and against the autocratic police regime for a new Russia extended to the field of literature and art. It was a struggle against the backward views of art that reigned in the ruling class and had official recognition. The degenerating noble aesthetics proclaimed “pure art”, “art for art’s sake”. The sublime, cold and abstract beauty or the cloying conventional external beauty of such art was contrasted with the real surrounding reality. Democrats counter these reactionary and deadened views of art with life-related, nurturing views. This includes realistic art and literature. N. Chernyshevsky in his famous dissertation “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” proclaims that “the beautiful is life”, that the field of art is “everything that is interesting for a person in life.” Art should explore the world and be a “textbook for life.” In addition, it must make its own judgments about life, have “the meaning of a verdict about the phenomena of life.”

These views of revolutionary democrats formed the basis of Stasov’s aesthetics. He sought to proceed from them in his critical activity, although he himself did not rise to the level of revolutionism. He considered Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev “column leaders of the new art” (“25 years of Russian art”). He was a democrat and a deeply progressive person who defended the ideas of freedom, progress, art related to life and promoting advanced ideas.

In the name of such art, he begins his struggle with the Academy of Arts, with its educational system and with its art. The Academy was hostile to him both as a reactionary government institution and because of its outdatedness, isolation from life, and pedantry of its artistic positions. In 1861, Stasov published an article “On the exhibition at the Academy of Arts.” With it, he begins his struggle with outdated academic art, which was dominated by mythological and religious subjects far from life, for a new, realistic art. This was the beginning of his long and passionate critical struggle. In the same year, his large work “On the significance of Bryullov and Ivanov in Russian art” was written. Stasov views the contradictions in the work of these famous artists as a reflection of the transition period. He reveals in their works the struggle of the new, realistic principle with the old, traditional one and seeks to prove that it was these new, realistic features and trends in their work that ensured their role in the development of Russian art.

In 1863, 14 artists refused to complete their graduation topic, the so-called “program,” defending freedom of creativity and a realistic depiction of modernity. This “revolt” of the academy students was a reflection of the revolutionary upsurge and awakening of the public in the field of art. These “Protestants,” as they were called, founded the “Artel of Artists.” From it grew the powerful movement of the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions. These were the first not governmental or noble, but democratic public organizations of artists, in which they were their own masters. Stasov warmly welcomed the creation of first the Artel and then the Association of the Wanderers. “He rightly saw in them the beginning of a new art and then in every possible way promoted and defended the Wanderers and their art. Our collection contains some of the most interesting of Stasov’s articles devoted to the analysis of traveling exhibitions. The article "Kramskoy and Russian Artists" is indicative for its defense of the positions of advanced, realistic art and its outstanding figures. In it, Stasov ardently and rightly rebels against the belittling of the importance of the remarkable artist, leader and ideologist of the Wandering Movement - I. N. Kramskoy. An interesting example of the defense of works of realistic art from reactionary and liberal criticism is Stasov's analysis of the famous painting by I. Repin “They Didn’t Expect". In it, Stasov refutes the distortion of its social meaning. The reader will find this in the article “Our artistic affairs.”

Stasov always looked for deep ideological content and life truth in art, and from this point of view, first of all, he evaluated works. He argued: “This is the only art that is great, necessary and sacred, which does not lie or fantasize, which does not amuse itself with old toys, but looks with all its eyes at what is happening everywhere around us, and, having forgotten the former lordly division of plots into high and low, with a flaming chest it presses against everything where there is poetry, thought and life” (“Our artistic affairs”). He was even inclined at times to consider the desire to express large ideas that excite society as one of the characteristic national characteristics of Russian art. In the article “25 Years of Russian Art,” Stasov, following Chernyshevsky, demands that art be a critic of social phenomena. He defends the tendentiousness of art, considering it as an open expression by the artist of his aesthetic and social views and ideals, as the active participation of art in public life, in the education of people, in the struggle for advanced ideals.

Stasov argued: “Art that does not come from the roots of people’s life is, if not always useless and insignificant, then at least always powerless.” Stasov’s great merit is that he welcomed the reflection of people’s life in the paintings of the Wanderers. He encouraged this in their work in every possible way. He gave a careful analysis and high appreciation of the display of images of the people and folk life in Repin’s paintings “Barge Haulers on the Volga” and especially “Religious Procession in the Kursk Province.” He especially put forward such pictures in which the protagonist is the mass, the people. He called them "choral". He praises Vereshchagin for showing the people in war, and in his appeal to the people of art he sees similarities in the works of Repin and Mussorgsky.

Stasov here really captured the most important and significant thing in the work of the Wanderers: the features of their nationality. Showing the people not only in their oppression and suffering, but also in their strength and greatness, in the beauty and richness of types and characters; upholding the interests of the people was the most important merit and life feat of the Itinerant artists. This was true patriotism of both the Wanderers and their spokesman - criticism of Stasov.

With all the passion of his nature, with all his journalistic fervor and talent, Stasov throughout his life defended the idea of ​​independence and originality in the development of Russian art. At the same time, the false idea of ​​supposed isolation, or exclusivity, of the development of Russian art was alien to him. Defending its originality and originality, Stasov understood that it generally obeys the general laws of the development of new European art. Thus, in the article “25 years of Russian art,” speaking about the origin of Russian realistic art in the work of P. Fedotov, he compares it with similar phenomena in Western European art, establishing both the commonality of development and its national identity. Ideology, realism and nationality - Stasov defended and promoted these main features in contemporary art.

The breadth of interests and wide-ranging education of Stasov allowed him to consider painting not in isolation, but in connection with literature and music. The comparison of painting and music is especially interesting. It is characteristically expressed in the article “Perov and Mussorgsky”.

Stasov fought against the theories of “pure art”, “art for art’s sake” in all their manifestations, be it topics far from life, be it the “protection” of art from “rough everyday life”, be it the desire to “liberate” painting from literature, be it and finally, the contrast between the artistry of the works and their practical usefulness and utilitarianism. In this regard, the letter “Introduction Lecture by Mr. Prahov at the University” is interesting.

The heyday of Stasov's critical activity dates back to 1870 - 1880. His best works were written during this time, and during this time he enjoyed the greatest public recognition and influence. Stasov continued, until the end of his life, to defend the public service of art, arguing that it should serve social progress. Stasov spent his entire life fighting against opponents of realism at different stages of the development of Russian art. But, closely associated with the Peredvizhniki movement of 1870-1880 as a critic formed on the basis of this art and its principles, Stasov was subsequently unable to go further. He was unable to truly perceive and understand new artistic phenomena in Russian art of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Being fundamentally right in the fight against decadent, decadent phenomena, he often unfairly included among them the works of artists who were not decadent. The aging critic, in the heat of polemics, sometimes did not understand the complexity and inconsistency of new phenomena, did not see their positive sides, reducing everything only to error or limitation. Naturally, we omit such outdated statements by Stasov in this collection.

But, of course, even in the best works of criticism, not everything is true and acceptable to us. Stasov was a son of his time, and in his views and concepts there were, along with very valuable, weak and limited sides. They were especially significant in his scientific historical studies, where he sometimes retreated from his own positions on the independence of the development of the art of the people, identified the concepts of nationality and nationality, etc. And his critical articles are not free from errors and one-sidedness. So, for example, in the heat of the struggle against the old art that was becoming obsolete, Stasov came to deny the achievements and value of Russian art of the 18th - early 19th centuries as allegedly dependent and non-national. To a certain extent, he shared here the misconceptions of those contemporary historians who believed that the reforms of Peter I allegedly broke off the national tradition of the development of Russian culture. In the same way, in the fight against the reactionary positions of the contemporary Academy of Arts, Stasov went so far as to completely and absolutely deny it. In both cases, we see how an outstanding critic sometimes lost his historical approach to the phenomena of art in the heat of passionate polemics. In the art closest to him and contemporary with him, he sometimes underestimated individual artists, such as Surikov or Levitan. Along with a deep and correct analysis of some of Repin's paintings, he misunderstood others. Stasov’s correct and deep understanding of nationality in painting is opposed by its external understanding in contemporary architecture. This was due to the weak development of the architecture itself of his time, its low artistry.

It would be possible to point out other erroneous or extreme judgments of Stasov, caused by polemical fervor and the circumstances of the struggle. But it is not these mistakes or misconceptions of a wonderful critic, but his strengths, the correctness of his main provisions that are important and valuable to us. He was strong and truly great as a democratic critic, who gave artistic criticism great social significance and weight. He was right in the main, main and decisive things: in the public understanding of art, in defending realism, in the assertion that it is the realistic method, the connection of art with life, the service of this life that ensures the flourishing, height and beauty of art. This affirmation of realism in art constitutes the historical significance, strength and dignity of Stasov. This is the enduring significance of his critical works, their value and instructiveness for us today. Stasov's works are also important for familiarization with the historical development and achievements of Russian realistic art. The reader will find in the collection general essays, such as “25 years of Russian art,” as well as articles about individual works, for example, about the portrait of Mussorgsky or L. Tolstoy by Repin. They are examples of close, skillful consideration of a single outstanding work.

What is instructive and valuable for us in Stasov the critic is not only his great integrity, the clarity and firmness of his aesthetic positions, but also his passion and temperament with which he defends his convictions. Until the end of his days (Stasov died in 1906) he remained a critic and fighter. His love for art and devotion to what he considered authentic and beautiful in it were remarkable. This living connection of his with art, the feeling of it as his own business, practical and necessary, was correctly characterized by M. Gorky in his memoirs about Stasov. Love for art dictates both its affirmations and its denials; “the flame of great love for beauty always burned in him.”

In this direct experience of art, in the passionate defense of its vital meaning and importance, in the affirmation of what is realistic, necessary for the people, serving them and in their life drawing its strength and inspiration from art, lies the most important and instructive, highly valued and respected by us in the works of Stasov .

A. Fedorov-Davydov

Russian bibliographer, art historian, music and art critic, archaeologist.

Served in the Senate and the Ministry of Justice. In 1851 he retired from government service.

Since 1856 V.V. Stasov worked in the public library in St. Petersburg (now the Russian National Library named after M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin), where from 1872 until the end of his life he was in charge of its art department.

« Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov rendered great services to Russian art in all its fields, especially the field of music. The rule of his life was “to be useful to others, if you yourself were not born a creator.”
And in fact, possessing enormous knowledge and serving in the Public Library, he provided invaluable services to many artists and the entire Russian culture.
Counting Glinka genius, he wrote about him 48 articles explaining the greatness of his work. Fascinated by the Russian national style of music, he called "mighty bunch" group of composers - Balakireva, Mussorgsky, Cui, Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin- and rendered them great services. He gave Mussorgsky the plots of “Khovanshchina” and “Boris Godunov”, Borodin- the plot of “Prince Igor”.
At the same time, he pointed out to the composer the historical sources necessary to get acquainted with the corresponding era. Thus, he also participated in the work Rimsky-Korsakov over "Sadko" and "Pskovityanka". His efficiency and love for work were extraordinary.
Even on Sundays he came to the Public Library in his office and worked there. He refused orders and titles. When Minister Bogolepov offered him the post of director of the Public Library, he Not accepted this position for the sake of preserving freedom.
He valued freedom as a principle , and therefore defended Poles and Jews, valuing the national identity of each people. Lev Tolstoy he called Leo the Great and wrote these words only in capital letters, but he valued only the artist in him and reproached Tolstoy for not overcoming two barriers - “deity” and “Christianity”. He was outraged by the structure of the world and “blasphemously cursed the world order,” finding death everywhere. For forty years he prepared the work, which he wanted to give the title “Destruction” or “Carnage generab” or “Massacre generab”. In it, he was going to prove himself an anarchist and pessimist “in this, in all parts, and not at all just political.” In all of humanity, he thought, there are only a few dozen or hundreds of worthy people, and the rest deserve the cesspool.
He was outraged that liberal editors of magazines and newspapers behaved in the same way as government censors. In his book, he also intended to destroy many generally recognized geniuses: Raphael he did not consider him a great artist, he spoke of false greatness Michelangelo.
In his relationships with people, in defending his opinions, Stasov showed extreme passion.
He loved argument - furious, but, always carried away by the essence of the matter, he forgot personal grievances. The nicknames given to him express his passionate nature.
He was called: “Furious Stasov”, “Trumpet of Jericho”, “Critic of Gromoglasov”.

Lossky N.O., The search for absolute good, characteristic of the Russian people, leads to the recognition of the high value of every personality (Excerpts from the book “The Character of the Russian People”), in Collection: Russian Individualism. Collection of works of Russian philosophers of the 19th-20th centuries, M., “Algorithm”, 2007, p. 44-46.

"He was a wonderful man Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov. He knew how to accurately identify what was most characteristic of the talent of all his many friends - composers and artists.
Possessing enormous knowledge in the field of literature, art, history, and for several decades heading the manuscript department of the St. Petersburg Public Library (now the State Public Library named after M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin), he not only suggested interesting topics and plots of new works to his friends, but also helped with apt directions, advice, selection of documentary material, etc.
He lived by the needs and interests of his talented friends, and widely promoted all their bold undertakings in his critical articles. Brought up in the spirit of the ideas of the great Russian revolutionary democrats, Stasov did not recognize art divorced from life. “For me, reality in art is everything,” he said.”

Ratskaya Ts.S., N.A. Rimsky-Korsakov, M., “Music”, 1977, p. 82-83.

Stasov considered art and music criticism to be the main work of his life. Since 1847, he systematically published articles on literature, art, and music. A figure of the encyclopedic type, Stasov amazed with the versatility of his interests (articles on Russian and foreign music, painting, sculpture, architecture, research and collecting works in the field of archaeology, history, philology, folklore, etc.). Adhering to advanced democratic views, Stasov in his critical activities relied on the principles of aesthetics of Russian revolutionary democrats - V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky. He considered realism and nationalism to be the foundations of advanced modern art. Stasov fought against academic art that was far from life, the official center of which in Russia was the St. Petersburg Empire Academy of Arts, for realistic art, for the democratization of the arts and life. A man of enormous erudition, connected by friendly relations with many leading artists, musicians, and writers, Stasov was for a number of them a mentor and adviser, a defender from the attacks of reactionary official criticism.

Stasov's musical and critical activity, which began in 1847 ("Musical Review" in "Notes of the Fatherland"), spans more than half a century and is a living and vivid reflection of the history of our music during this period of time.

Having begun in a dark and sad time of Russian life in general and Russian art in particular, it continued in the era of awakening and a remarkable rise in artistic creativity, the formation of a young Russian music school, its struggle with routine and its gradual recognition not only in Russia, but also in West.

In countless magazine and newspaper articles, Stasov responded to every somewhat remarkable event in the life of our new music school, passionately and convincingly interpreting the meaning of the new works, fiercely repelling the attacks of opponents of the new direction.

Not being a real specialist musician (composer or theorist), but having received a general musical education, which he expanded and deepened with independent studies and acquaintance with outstanding works of Western art (not only new, but also old - old Italians, Bach, etc. .), Stasov went little into a specifically technical analysis of the formal side of the musical works being analyzed, but with all the greater fervor he defended their aesthetic and historical significance.

Guided by a fiery love for his native art and its best figures, a natural critical instinct, a clear consciousness of the historical necessity of a national art direction and an unshakable faith in its ultimate triumph, Stasov could sometimes go too far in expressing his enthusiastic passion, but relatively rarely was he mistaken in the overall appreciation of everything significant, talented and original.

With this, he connected his name with the history of our national music in the second half of the 19th century.

In terms of sincerity of conviction, disinterested enthusiasm, fervor of presentation and feverish energy, Stasov stands completely apart not only among our music critics, but also among European ones.

In this respect, he partly resembles Belinsky, leaving aside, of course, any comparison of their literary talents and significance.

Stasov's great merit to Russian art should be given to his unnoticeable work as a friend and adviser to our composers (Starting with Serov, whose friend Stasov was for a long number of years, and ending with representatives of the young Russian school - Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Cui, Glazunov, etc.), who discussed with them their artistic intentions, details of the script and libretto, took care of their personal affairs and contributed to the perpetuation of their memory after their death (the biography of Glinka, for a long time the only one we have, biographies of Mussorgsky and our other composers, publication of their letters, various memoirs and biographical materials, etc.). Stasov also did a lot as a historian of music (Russian and European).

His articles and brochures are dedicated to European art: "L" "abbe Santini et sa collection musicale a Rome" (Florence, 1854; Russian translation in the "Library for Reading", 1852), a lengthy description of the autographs of foreign musicians belonging to the Imperial Public Library ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1856), "Liszt, Schumann and Berlioz in Russia" ("Northern Vestnik", 1889, Nos. 7 and 8; extract from here "Liszt in Russia" was printed with some additions in " Russian Musical Newspaper" 1896, Nos. 8--9), "Letters of a Great Man" (Fr. Liszt, "Northern Herald", 1893), "New biography of Liszt" ("Northern Herald", 1894 ) and others. Articles on the history of Russian music: “What is beautiful demesne singing” (“News of the Imperial Archaeological Society,” 1863, vol. V), description of Glinka’s manuscripts (“Report of the Imperial Public Library for 1857”) , a number of articles in the third volume of his works, including: “Our music over the last 25 years” (“Bulletin of Europe”, 1883, No. 10), “Brakes of Russian art” (ibid., 1885, No. 5--6 ) and etc.; biographical sketch "N.A. Rimsky-Korsakov" ("Northern Bulletin", 1899, No. 12), "German organs among Russian amateurs" ("Historical Bulletin", 1890, No. 11), "In memory of M.I. Glinka" ("Historical Bulletin", 1892, No. 11 and seq.), "Ruslan and Lyudmila" M.I. Glinka, to the 50th anniversary of the opera" ("Yearbook of the Imperial Theaters" 1891--92 and others), "Glinka's Assistant" (Baron F.A. Rahl; "Russian Antiquity", 1893, No. 11; about him " Yearbook of the Imperial Theatres", 1892-93), biographical sketch of Ts.A. Cui ("Artist", 1894, No. 2); biographical sketch of M.A. Belyaev ("Russian Musical Newspaper", 1895, No. 2), "Russian and foreign operas performed at the Imperial Theaters in Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries" ("Russian Musical Newspaper", 1898, Nos. 1, 2, 3 and others), "Composition attributed to Bortnyansky" (project for imprinting hook singing ; in "Russian Musical Newspaper", 1900, No. 47), etc. Stasov's editions of letters from Glinka, Dargomyzhsky, Serov, Borodin, Mussorgsky, Prince Odoevsky, Liszt, etc. are of great importance. The collection of materials for the history of Russian is also very valuable church singing, compiled by Stasov in the late 50s and transferred by him to the famous musical archaeologist D.V. Razumovsky, who used it for his major work on church singing in Russia.