generalized form. This is the case, for example, in the above-mentioned
portraits of E. Kirkaldi and Rubanovich, where there is a conflict between
different orders of reality; the live models are set in opposition to the
figures depicted on the panel and carpet, but nothing seems completely
authentic. It is the same in the painting Russia and Napoleon (The Russian
Venus) (1912, Moscow, private collection), where the model is shown against
the background of a carpet depicting Napoleon in a sleigh, while the
Emperor's troika seems about to run her over.
At this point Mashkov was to some extent influenced by European Cubism.
However, he interpreted the ideas of Cubism in his own particular way,
linking this new passion with his old enthusiasm for folk toys and the
lubok. In his portrait of the poet S. Rubanovich (1910), the artist
renounces colour and represents the subject through geometric forms. But
living rhythms manage to burst in upon this geometric world, enlivening the
grey-black abstractions. Fascinated by Cubism, Mashkov still sought
expressiveness in his art; retaining his interest in the distinctiveness of
the figure he wishes to paint, he exaggerates the likeness to the point of
caricature. Mashkov's humour, alien to the abstractions of Cubism, is what
links his portraits here with the products of folk art.
Folk expressiveness of form was henceforth to remain the artist's
ideal, but about 1913 he was on the edge of new ventures. At this time his
artistic idiom becomes noticeably more complex. However, in the still life
entitled Loaves of Bread (1912) this new complexity is not yet apparent.
The whole surface of the canvas is more or less filled by the
representation of the loaves, ornamental both in their detail and in their
total effect; perspective is narrowed, surface is compressed. One feels the
artist's passion for the primitive, particularly for sign-painting.
In the still life Camellia (1913), the artist is aiming at a synthesis
of decorativeness and materiality. He directs his attention here to the
problem of rendering the effect of light, which, however, never becomes an
end in itself, as it was for the Impressionists. The camellia plant with
its sharply drawn, rigid leaves stands out against a background vibrating
with light; the knot-shaped bun, the fruit and the glass bowl with fancy
cakes are both decorative and substantial at the same time.
This concentration on the material substance of things and, to a lesser
extent, on the problem of light, involved a certain danger, that of
illusion, which Mashkov did not altogether avoid even in his Camellia. This
feature would occasionally reveal itself in some of his later works. A
feeling for the three-dimensional quality and texture of objects as well as
for light effects is particularly marked in the Still Life with Brocade
(1914). Although the colours are vivid, the painting lacks sharpness of
form; faience dish, plums, plate of strawberries, pumpkin, carafe of red
wine-all are equally exaggerated in mass, although the position of these
objects in perspective is not the same. Their outline is retained, but
their expressiveness is lost. Mashkov's tendency towards an ever greater
complexity of artistic expression is obvious in other respects as well. The
artist begins to be attracted by projects of a monumental nature, though
remaining loyal to easel painting. This may be seen in works of different
genres. In the landscapes painted between 1910 and 1915, the fragmentary
and rather static method of portrayal typical of Л Town View and Л Town
View in Winter gives way to complex three-dimensional arrangements aimed at
conveying majestic images (Italy. Nervi, 1913; Lake Geneva. Glion, 1914).
His portraits display a similar attempt at resolving the problem of
monumentality. Though less successful and thorough-going, his searches here
led him in various directions. In the portrait of Fiodorova-Mashkova (Lady
with a Double-Bass, 1915—16), the artist's interest in problems of style
brings him close to the painters of the World of Art group. Like them, he
was fascinated by the problem which confronted Russian portrait painters in
the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries — namely, that of combining
decorative appeal with a feeling for detail and subtle modelling. However,
Mashkov aimed not at creating deeply psychological portraits, nor did he
take any great interest in the objects surrounding his models. His
portrayal of man and his surroundings is no departure from the conventions
of still-life painting. Imitating the naive manner of old portraiture, with
its peculiar ostentation, he tries not to conceal the model's pose, indeed
he emphasizes it, though making only outward use of this device. A
different approach to the problem of monumentality is apparent in the
portrait of N. Usova (1915), which is comparatively simple in design, j
Although the portrait is executed in a strictly stylized manner, the artist
does succeed in conveying the living features of the model. Here, too, one
is aware of the element of pose, but this time Mashkov, as in his Cubist
experiments, takes the expressiveness of the folk toy as his point of
departure.
The still lifes painted by Mashkov between 1914 and 1917 are amongst
his most remarkable creations. He probes more and more deeply the problem
of conveying in art the tangible substance of things. This may be seen in
such works as Pumpkins (1914), Still Life with a Horse's Skull (1914) and
Still Life with a Samovar (1916), where his tendency to experiment gives
way to the achievement of a powerful synthesis, and where what was
problematic in his artistic vision is renounced in favour of a forceful
affirmation of life. In his earlier works a somewhat generalized method of
portrayal tended to conceal the concrete nature of objects. Now, he manages
to convey more convincingly than ever before the material character of
things, their full diversity of colour, density, texture and weight.
Some of the above-mentioned still lifes (Still Life with a Horse's
Skull, Still Life with a Samovar) reflect the dramatic tensions of the
period. With the sharpness of his artistic vision, Mashkov noticed how
useless everyday household articles had become, like so much scrap metal.
With their uneasy rhythms and their dark, harsh colours, his still lifes
symbolize the spirit of those difficult and restless times. Mashkov's rare
talent for expressing the mood of his age reminds one of the words uttered
by Mayakovsky in 1914: "You are no artist if you do not see reflected in
the shining apple of a still-life composition an image of those that were
hanged at Kalisz. You may choose not to depict the war, but you must paint
in the spirit of the war."
The forceful perception of reality displayed in Still Life with a
Horse's Skull and Still Life with a Samovar testifies to the artist's
attempt, well before the October Revolution, to reveal the inner essence of
his subjects.
Mashkov tried to reflect the reality of Soviet life in works of
different genres. Although he painted some interesting portraits and
landscapes, his talent manifested itself most clearly in the field of still
life, where he would attain the true artistic realism so typical of the
second half of his creative career. The few works produced by Mashkov
between 1918 and 1922 revealed his desire to express that special
optimistic mood which was characteristic of Soviet society in its early
years. Mashkov's paintings of this period, such as Model (1918), Still Life
with a Fan (1922) and the Portrait of N. Skatkin (1921—23), show great
variety.
In his Model the principles underlying Mashkov's painting of still
lifes of the 1914—1916 period are replaced by a search for monumentality
and expressiveness. The emotional quality of his work reflected the new
mood of a free society, which was very different from the dramatic outlook
of the previous decades. Now the artist was interested not so much in
conveying the tangible substance of things as in expressing the energy of
life itself, and he indulged in bold combinations of colour and form.
Monumentality was achieved by means of compositional devices, as well as by
the manner of pictorial representation as a whole. The small size of the
canvas brings the portrayal of the model into greater prominence, while the
strong build of her body is sharply emphasized. Mashkov was not at all
concerned with depicting her body, the draperies or the furniture in their
real colours. His brushstrokes are vigorous and unconstrained; he does not
divide his canvas into separate areas of colour, however, but rather
juxtaposes various shades of pink, red, lilac, golden-brown, blue and
green. The darkish gold of the body is spotted with emerald and lilac with
a sprinkling of a cold, dark blue. He abandons full verisimilitude of
colour here so as to enhance the expressive value of the portrait.
In Still Life with a Fan a feeling of energy and animation is conveyed
by it? very design and richness of colour.
Mashkov's desire to achieve an ever fuller expression of his age is
also apparent in the portraits. The method developed in still-life
paintings, however, was scarcely appropriate to the demands of portraiture.
Of poor compositional design, the portraits of this period are usually
overloaded with accessories; the artist was interested in depicting the
kind of object which he would often introduce into his still lifes. This
was a temptation which he could not resist even in the portraits of A.
Shimanovsky (1922) and N. Skatkin (1921—23). But in these paintings the
still- life approach doe's coincide with an attempt to convey the living
features of his subjects.
Between 1918 and 1922 Mashkov was particularly enthusiastic about the
techniques of drawing. He preferred to use such materials as charcoal,
pastels, sanguine and coloured pencils, which was natural for him as an
artist. Comparatively few of these works have been preserved but amongst
those which have, there are some well executed drawings of nude models, as
well as some portraits which are strikingly true to life.
The logical development of Mashkov's art was bound to lead him towards
a consistent form of realism. From the years 1923 and 1924 onwards the
artist evolves a sharper sense of reality, which was to remain with him
until the end of his creative life. It is in this quality of realism,
achieved by pictorial and plastic means alone, that one recognizes the
strength of the still lifes and landscapes which he began to exhibit in the
second half of the 1920s and during the 1930s.
Joy in the fullness of life and in the powerful forces of nature
becomes the leading motif in the subsequent development of his art. As he
once said: "Physical health, abundance, growing prosperity. . . new
people—resolute, powerful, strong. . .—this is the world which nourishes my
art, these are the surroundings which bestow joy in creation." "Beauty may
be found," he goes on to say, "in the bronzed, weather-beaten faces of
collective farm workers, in young people at a holiday home, gladdened by
the sun, the sea and the south wind, and finally in the abundance of the
'fruits of the earth', by the boundless decorative possibilities of which I
have always been captivated. . ."
Mashkov's attempts to work in various genres were not always
successful. If the artistic method which he developed in the field of still
life was scarcely suitable for portraiture, then it was even less
appropriate for paintings depicting a complex theme. Far from dissuading
him, however, the art critics of the time actually encouraged his efforts
in this direction. In short, he tried to overreach himself, which explains
the failure of a painting like Partisans, for example.
Similarly, it is scarcely possible to count those paintings depicting
new industrial projects as being amongst Mashkov's creative achievements,
although they do display his interest in contemporary life. Yet at the same
time, in the twenties and thirties. Mashkov did paint some magnificent
landscapes, remarkable for their sweeping perspectives and expressiveness
of form. The studies which he made in the environs of Leningrad (1923), in
Bakhchisaray (1925) and in the Caucasus are full of sunlight and warmth;
the clearness of the air seems almost palpable. Mashkov was indeed as full
of admiration for nature herself as for her abundant gifts of vegetables
and fruit.
The most significant works created by Mashkov during the two last
decades of his life are undoubtedly his still lifes. Although he continued
to paint the same fruit, vegetables and flowers, his artistic conceptions
were of a quite different order, as was his attitude to life in general.
Amongst these paintings are the two still lifes displayed at the seventh
exhibition of the AARR, entitled Moscow Meal. Meat, Game and Moscow Meal.
Loaves of Bread (1924), both of which have since become widely known. Being
conceived as separate works — different in size, composition and colour —
they are linked by an inner unity of content. The artist wished to express
in them the popular notion of abundance, wealth and beauty of the physical
world. In contrast to the somewhat simplified nature of his earlier works,
here decorative expressiveness and the over-concentrated use of colour are
subordinated to the real characteristics of the objects, their solidity,
weight and texture. Intensity of colour, far from being an obstacle to the
paintings' unity, on the contrary, emphasizes it. Making bold use of
contrast and placing warm colours by the side of cold ones (bright red,
pink, lilac and brownish-orange in Moscow Meal. Meat, Game), Mashkov relies
here on his own profound knowledge of the laws of colouring.
The painter now achieves a synthesis of great artistic skill and
objectivity. He is able to transform a pile of fruit lying on a table into
a festival of colour. At the same time he can reveal in objects qualities
one would have thought impossible to communicate in painting. His still
lifes breathe forth the fragrance of the flame-coloured oranges, the dark-
red roses and the strawberries which they depict; they exude the juice of
sliced lemons, pumpkins, pineapples and water-melons. . . Every time the
artist conveys the heaviness of a bunch of grapes differently, according to
whether they are lying on a table, in a dish or simply hanging down over
the side.
During the last years of his life Mashkov did not abandon his search
for new artistic possibilities. He renounced all too intense an emphasis on
colour and decorativeness, giving to his representations a more tranquil
and intimate form. Among his last works, two are of particular interest,
namely Still Life. Pineapples and Bananas (1938) and Strawberries and a
White Jug (1943). Their subtle execution, their light but deliberate
brushstrokes, re-creating form and distinguishing light from shade, their
dignified colours — all harmonize here with a vivid and poignant feeling
for life.
However experimental the practice of his art, Mashkov remained
essentially faithful to a true-to-life interpretation of nature. He devoted
a great deal of his time to exploring the elements of formal expressiveness
in painting, greatly enhancing our understanding of the problem. His own
solutions were of considerable objective value. Some unequal results in
varying genres bear witness to a certain one-sidedness in his approach, but
Mashkov's position in the history of Russian art is fully assured; a
leading exponent of still-life painting during both the pre-revolutionary
and Soviet periods, some of his achievements in this genre possess genuine
grandeur.
The vivid colours of Mashkov's canvases, his delight in the infinite
variety of the surrounding world, his pronounced feeling of social reality
— all conspire to make his work one of the great achievements of Russian
art. Igor Grabar was to distinguish in the work of Mashkov "a profoundly
independent and individual interpretation of nature, refracted through an
exceptionally pictorial mind and imagination". Creating canvases of an
"arch-concrete and realistic" kind, Mashkov never ceased to admire the
form, texture and colour of what he was painting. He shares with the
onlooker his own love of nature and life, his spirit of joy, courage and
optimism.
G. Arbuzov
V. Pushkariov
