And unfortunately, Grabar painted light-filled landscapes and still lifes, was an architect and art critic. It was he who carried out the redevelopment of the Tretyakov Gallery and compiled its first scientific catalogue. Grabar also organized exhibitions of Soviet artists abroad and carried out work to preserve ancient icons and frescoes.

"The sweet, wonderful smell of fresh paint"

Igor Grabar. Self-portrait (fragment). 1942. State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Igor Grabar. Self-portrait with a palette (fragment). 1934. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Igor Grabar. Self-portrait with a hat (fragment). 1921. Private collection

Igor Grabar was born in 1871 in Austria-Hungary (today Hungary), in Budapest. His father Emmanuel Grabar was a lawyer and member of the Hungarian parliament. Because of his Russophile views, he was forced to leave for Russia in 1876. In the city of Yegoryevsk, Ryazan province, Emmanuel Grabar became a teacher at the local gymnasium. Later his wife and children moved in with him.

Igor Grabar fell in love with art as a child: “I don’t remember not drawing, I can’t imagine myself without a pencil, an eraser, without watercolors and brushes.” The boy drew from his imagination and copied portraits of military men from magazines. At the Yegoryevsk gymnasium, where he studied, a local artist taught drawing, and he got Grabar interested in painting.

I was dying to get to see him somehow, to see with my own eyes how paintings were painted and what kind of oil paints they were, which I only knew about by hearsay. I thought I couldn’t stand the happiness that filled my chest, especially when I smelled the sweet, wonderful smell of fresh paint.

In 1882, 11-year-old Igor Grabar went to study at the Moscow Imperial Lyceum in memory of Tsarevich Nicholas. Life at the Lyceum was not easy. He was a “living scholarship student” there, and he was surrounded by boys from wealthy families who did not miss the opportunity to make fun of Grabar’s poverty. He plunged headlong into painting and drawing: “I had four opportunities to work from life within the walls of the Lyceum: to paint from windows, to paint portraits of others, to pose still lifes for myself and to compose scenes from the life and everyday life of the Lyceum, copying details from life.” He painted teachers and workers of the lyceum, acquaintances and classmates. He spent his weekends at the Tretyakov Gallery and at Moscow exhibitions.

Grabar graduated from the Lyceum with honors, and from Moscow he went to the capital. In 1889, he entered two faculties of St. Petersburg University at once - law and history and philology. He managed to write biographies of artists and humorous stories for the popular magazine Niva, draw illustrations and act as an art critic with reviews of exhibitions.

Igor Grabar. Abramtsevo. Wattle fence (fragment). 1944. Samara Regional Art Museum, Samara

Igor Grabar. Spring landscape. April (fragment). 1939. Private collection

A craving for art led Grabar to the workshop of the famous teacher, Professor Pavel Chistyakov, from whom Vasily Polenov and Valentin Serov studied over the years. Grabar wrote about classes in the studio: “Having arrived at the workshop, the newcomer, in an enthusiastic mood, sat down in front of the model and began to draw it, and sometimes even directly write. Chistyakov appeared, and when it was his turn, the teacher began to analyze every millimeter of the sketch he had begun, and accompanied his destructive criticism with such jokes, words, grins and grimaces that the poor man broke into a cold sweat and was ready to fall from shame and embarrassment into the underworld . In conclusion, Chistyakov recommended giving up thinking about painting for now and limiting himself to drawing alone...”

And yet, Igor Grabar chose a career as an artist: after graduating from university, in 1894 he entered the Academy of Arts, where he studied in the studio of Ilya Repin. A year later, Grabar went on his first trip to Europe, which lasted for several years. He visited Paris and Italy, studied in the studio of artist-teacher Anton Aschbe in Munich, popular with European masters. Soon he was teaching there himself, heading one of the school’s departments, and continued to study painting, sculpture and architecture.

In the spring of 1900, Igor Grabar visited the World Exhibition in Paris. He recalled: “The impressions I gained from the retrospective section of the exhibition, in which such giants of French art as Millet, Courbet, and Manet were so fully presented for the first time, are unforgettable. But this exhibition suggested to me an idea that has haunted me since then - the idea that an artist should sit at home and depict his own life, close and dear to him. Millet, Courbet and Manet wrote what they saw around them, because they understood it better than someone else’s, and because they loved it more than someone else’s.” In 1901, Grabar returned to his homeland.

“Fantastic beauty”: winter landscapes and still lifes

Igor Grabar. February blue (fragment). 1904. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Igor Grabar. Frost (fragment). 1905. Yaroslavl Art Museum, Yaroslavl

Igor Grabar. March snow (fragment). 1904. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

In the capital, he became one of the main critics in the art magazine “World of Art”. In 1903, the painter moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow. At one of the Moscow exhibitions, he met the artist Nikolai Meshcherin, and he invited Grabar to his hospitable Dugino estate. Since then, he spent a long time at the estate and here he met his future wife Valentina, the niece of Nikolai Meshcherin. There were picturesque places around the estate; Russian nature greatly inspired the artist. He worked a lot: he got up at five or six o'clock in the morning and went to sketches, wrote, forgetting about rest and food.

In the early 1900s, Grabar became interested in impressionism. He loved winter and winter landscapes; on this theme he created works “February Blue” (1904), “March Snow” (1904), “Rime” (1905). Changes in nature and lighting occurred quickly, and the artist painted with passion, “throwing paints onto the canvas as if in a frenzy, without too much thinking or weighing.”

Igor Grabar. Untidy table (fragment). 1907. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Igor Grabar. Delphinium (fragment). 1908. State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Igor Grabar. Chrysanthemums (fragment). 1905. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

The idea for “February Blue” was suggested to the artist by nature itself during a walk in the forest. He stared at the birch tree and dropped the stick, leaned over it and accidentally looked up. In the book “My Life” Grabar wrote about this incident:

I stood near a marvelous specimen of birch, rare in the rhythmic structure of its branches. When I looked at the top of the birch from below, from the surface of the snow, I was stunned by the spectacle of fantastic beauty that opened before me: some chimes and echoes of all the colors of the rainbow, united by the blue enamel of the sky... I immediately ran for a small canvas and in one session sketched nature sketch of the future painting.

To achieve the impression of a low horizon, he made a trench in the deep snow and positioned himself there with an easel and a large canvas. Grabar used different shades of blue to convey the color of the “blue enamel of the sky.” In two and a half weeks he completed the canvas entirely on location. The artist himself called “February Azure” his most significant work.

Igor Grabar often said that with the end of winter, the landscape genre lost its attractiveness for him. Then he began to paint still lifes. In Dugin, flowers grew in the garden and greenhouse all year round, and among the still lifes of the 1910s, floral ones began to predominate in Grabar’s work - he created the canvases “Chrysanthemums” (1905), “Untidy Table” (1907), “Delphinium” (1908).

Architect, art critic and director of the Tretyakov Gallery

Igor Grabar. Winter evening (fragment). 1903. State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Igor Grabar. Frost. Sunrise (fragment). 1941. Irkutsk Regional Art Museum named after V.P. Sukacheva, Irkutsk

Igor Grabar. September snow (fragment). 1903. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

The master's talent manifested itself not only in painting and graphics, but also in architecture. Ekaterina Zakharyina, the widow of the famous doctor Grigory Zakharyin, suggested that Igor Grabar build a memorial hospital on their estate in memory of their deceased son. He took on the project with enthusiasm. Based on Grabar’s design, design engineers and builders built a large modern hospital with several buildings, houses for doctors and an operating room. After completing the project, he wanted to take up architecture again, but had to choose between architecture and science: at that time he was doing extensive work on the multi-volume History of Russian Art. Grabar became the editor and author of several key sections in the multi-volume work for the publishing house of Joseph Knebel. He collected archival materials throughout the country and practically did not paint. “This “History of Art” is, in essence, almost the history of Russian culture. I would like to publish 12 volumes... We need an entertaining story, close to the description of life and everyday life in different eras, illustrated with works of art,”- he wrote.

The first issue of History was published in 1908; a total of eight volumes were published before 1915. The books were successfully published, but work on the multi-volume set was stopped: during the First World War, Knebel's publishing house was destroyed, many glass negatives were lost forever. Grabar wrote: “After all, that’s why I was forced to stop publishing “History” because all the negatives - up to 20,000 pieces - filmed under my leadership, and to a large extent by me personally, were destroyed. Among them were not hundreds, but thousands of the most precious unique documents, now no longer recoverable, for I traveled all over Russia, the entire North, all the significant estates in the central provinces.” After this event, the artist was unable to work for several months. The monumental work “History of Russian Art” became an important stage in Russian art criticism.

Igor Grabar. On the lake (fragment). 1926. State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Igor Grabar. Rowan trees (fragment). 1924. State Museum-Reserve "Rostov Kremlin", Rostov, Yaroslavl region

Igor Grabar. Autumn. Rowan and birch (fragment). 1924. Nizhny Novgorod State Art Museum, Nizhny Novgorod

In 1913, Igor Grabar headed the Tretyakov Gallery. In his letters, he said that he agreed to this position in order to study the art of artists not through glass, “but closely, by touch, with a thorough study of the technique, the signature, all the features.” He carried out a large-scale redevelopment of the museum's exposition, which caused discussions in newspapers and even at meetings of the State Duma. The walls in the gallery halls before Grabar’s arrival were loaded from floor to ceiling with paintings, without any logic - “tiny sketches next to huge canvases.” Grabar based the new exhibition on monographic and historical principles that were innovative for that time. The museum staff redesigned some of the halls and removed shields and partitions. The private collection has turned into a European-style museum. The transformation was supported by artists: artist Ilya Repin said that “a huge and complex work was done for the glory of Pavel Tretyakov’s gallery.”

Grabar also compiled the first scientific catalog of the gallery: under his leadership, more than four thousand exhibits were checked and re-described. He also acquired for the Tretyakov Gallery paintings by classics of Russian art Orest Kiprensky and Pavel Fedotov, as well as paintings by the “newest” artists - Ilya Mashkov, Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin. Igor Grabar remained director of the gallery until 1925.

Grabar-restorer

Igor Grabar. Pears on green drapery (fragment). 1922. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Igor Grabar. Lilacs and forget-me-nots (fragment). 1905. Yaroslavl Art Museum, Yaroslavl

Igor Grabar. Apples and asters (fragment). 1926. Taganrog Art Museum, Taganrog, Rostov region

After the October Revolution, the artist remained in Russia and was engaged in administrative museum work. In 1918, on his initiative, the Central Restoration Workshops were opened in Moscow.

In the first third of the 20th century, historians and restorers did a lot of work to uncover examples of ancient Russian and Byzantine art - paintings and icons that survived in ancient monasteries and churches. Thanks to Grabar, many works of icon painting were preserved and restored. At the beginning of the century, restoration was called repair, and the masters had a corresponding approach: they did not conduct scientific research before restoration. Grabar wanted to make restoration a science: he involved scientists - chemists, physicists and microbiologists - in the work. He organized and participated in expeditions to Novgorod and Pskov, to the cities of the Volga region, to the Crimea and the Caucasus. Expeditions were carried out to find, restore and strengthen monuments of art and antiquity. In a letter to his wife Valentina, he said: “And now I organized work to clear all the cycles of frescoes and icons of Rublev, and at the same time to clear the walls of Vladimir churches and mainly the famous miraculous icons of the Mother of God of Bogolyubskaya, Maksimovskaya and Vladimirskaya... And I must say, the results exceeded our wildest hopes: we already know things that were not even dreamed of recently... The entire history of ancient Russian painting has to be redone.”

Despite the fact that in the 1920s Igor Grabar was engaged in social work, he did not give up painting. The artist painted still lifes to “maintain the fluency of his hand”: “still life exercises” - that’s what he called his canvases. In his compositions, he combined different fruits and fabrics, achieving a contrast of textures and rich colors of warm and cold colors, as in the paintings “Apples and Asters” (1922), “Pears on a Green Drapery” (1922).

In the 1930s, Igor Grabar created portraits of famous people: composer Sergei Prokofiev, poet Korney Chukovsky, academicians Sergei Chaplygin and Vladimir Vernadsky, art critics Abram Efros and Anatoly Bakushinsky. The artist traveled a lot around the world and was invited by museums as an art expert. He was the initiator of the creation of the Town of Artists: on Verkhnyaya Maslovka Street in Moscow there were houses with workshops and apartments for painters, including Grabar’s workshop.

In later years, the artist was the director of the Abramtsevo museum-estate and directed. At the end of his life, Igor Grabar settled in the holiday village of Abramtsevo, a favorite place of many Russian artists. He continued to paint and work on the History of Russian Art. In a letter to a colleague, Grabar wrote: “You would see the Russian expanse that opens up from the third floor of my dacha - it’s simply breathtaking. I've been painting all summer..." He created summer and winter landscapes, turning to his favorite winter theme in the works “Rime” (1952), “Winter Landscape” (1954).

In 1960, Igor Grabar died at the age of 89. He is buried in Moscow at the Novodevichy cemetery.

A rare universality of interests and creative possibilities characterizes the activities of Igor Emmanuilovich Grabar (1871-1960). A renowned landscape painter, one of the greatest masters of still life among Russian painters, he distinguished himself both in architectural creativity and in scientific research and museum work, which required enormous work and broad erudition, and was a prominent art critic and scientist. Grabar's activities took place at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries and after the October Revolution. Like Nesterov, he belongs to two eras and passed on the legacy of the previous era to the new revolutionary Russia.

The artist’s first significant paintings were created in the early 1900s, at a time of active rise of advanced social forces, which was reflected in the major attitude expressed in them. With these works, Grabar introduced impressionistic techniques of color decomposition (divisionism) into modern Russian painting.

At St. Petersburg University, then at the Academy of Arts (1894-1896) and, finally, during his stay abroad (1896 -1901), Grabar received a broad and varied education. At the Academy he studied in the workshop of I. E. Repin (1895). In Munich he studied with Ashbe (1896-1898), whom he highly valued as a teacher. “Ashbe... had his own system,” Grabar recalled, “he drew the students’ attention only to the main thing, the main thing, forcing them to discard the little things. All that mattered was the “big line” and the “big shape.” At the same time, Ashbe was guided by a very simple and clear “ball principle,” using an example of which he showed the pattern of arrangement of illuminated and shaded parts of an object.” In European museums, Grabar enthusiastically studied old masters, took a special interest in painting technology, and became more familiar with the paintings of E. Manet, the Impressionists, and Van Gogh. Grabar’s first theoretical and critical articles date back to this time, in which he promoted the innovative quest of modernity.

Since 1901, upon returning to Russia, the artist’s intensive activity began. He creates numerous landscapes, paints equally numerous still lifes, develops tireless critical work, and takes an active part in the reorganization of the Tretyakov Gallery into a museum of national significance. Grabar is constantly looking for new opportunities to promote art and its impact on life, on the everyday life of a contemporary, on aesthetic ideas.

During the years spent abroad, the artist’s horizons expanded, he acquired considerable experience as a painter, became acquainted with new Western art, and upon returning to Russia, he became determined in his passion for landscape, since a long separation from his homeland sharpened his perception of his native nature: “I haven’t been here for a long time, I reveled in the impressions...” wrote Grabar. One after another, his most famous works were created: “September Snow” (1903, Tretyakov Gallery, ill. 55), “February Blue” (1904, Tretyakov Gallery, ill. color IX), “March Snow” (1904, Tretyakov Gallery, ill. 56). As we see, Grabar used the cyclical method, studying the same phenomenon of natural life—snow—in different conditions, as was typical of the impressionists.

“The spectacle of snow with bright yellow foliage was so unexpected and at the same time so beautiful that I immediately settled down on the terrace and within three days painted the painting that is now in the Tretyakov Gallery and is called “September Snow,” says in the artist's automonography. This is a plein air landscape, his painting is still somewhat traditional, it well conveys the materiality of everything depicted, and especially the light, shining whiteness of the first snow. The colorful harmony of this piece is based on the combination of pale cold, grayish shades of snow, the grayish-brown color of wet terrace wood and the dull gold of autumn leaves.

At the same time, the painting also reflected the features of the impressionistic creative method: the momentary, passing state of nature was captured (after all, such snow will melt very soon!). He painted the snow using the techniques of divisionism, as evidenced by Grabar himself: “...painting the snow, its fluffiness and apparent whiteness, with a deep tonality, were achieved using non-mixing of colors, that is, in the end, through moderate divisionism.”

An equally poetic and even more joyful and festive image of Russian nature was created in the painting “February Blue,” which was painted in pure spectral color using divisionist techniques. Separate strokes impart a lively vibration to the colors of the sky.
This is a painting, and not a random sketch from life. While working on it, the artist very carefully thought through the very process of creating the necessary effects in nature that delighted him: “In nature,” he wrote in his automonography, “something extraordinary was happening, it seemed that she was celebrating some unprecedented holiday—a holiday of azure skies, pearl birch trees, coral branches and sapphire shadows on lilac snow. I was standing near a marvelous specimen of a birch tree, rare in the rhythmic structure of its branches... when I looked at the top of the birch from below, from the surface of the snow, I was stunned by the spectacle of fantastic beauty that opened before me: some chimes and echoes of all the colors of the rainbow, united by blue enamel sky."

In order to convey in the picture everything he saw exactly as it was discovered by chance (the artist bent down to pick up a stick), Grabar came up with an original way of working on the intended canvas. He wrote: “I dug a trench over a meter thick in deep snow, in which I placed myself along with an easel and a large canvas in order to get the impression of a low horizon and the heavenly zenith with all the gradations of blue - from light green below to ultramarine above. I prepared the canvas in advance in the studio for glazing the sky, covering it along the chalky, oil-absorbing surface with a thick layer of dense lead white of various tones.” “...I painted with an umbrella painted blue, and I placed the canvas not only without the usual tilt forward, facing the ground, but with its front side facing the blue of the sky, which is why reflexes from the snow hot under the sun did not fall on it and he remained in the cold shadow, forcing me to triple the strength of color to convey the fullness of the impression. I felt that I managed to create the most significant work of all that I have written so far, the most original, not borrowed new in concept and execution.”

“February Azure” opened a new path in Russian art of that time, still unknown.

Indeed, no one had ever conveyed such colors of Russian nature at that time; the techniques of divisionism were also unfamiliar in Russia; it was also an original version of impressionism, unlike the impressionism of other European schools.

The work “March Snow” is permeated with a cheerful feeling of the coming spring. Grabar recalled: “I was very interested in the theme of spring, March snow, settled, furrowed by horse and human tracks, eaten away by the sun. On a sunny day, in the openwork shade of a tree, in the snow, I saw whole orchestral symphonies of colors and shapes that had long attracted me. Having settled down in the shade of a tree and having in front of me the prospect of a road that had been torn apart and hilly distances with a new log house, I began to write with enthusiasm. Having covered almost the entire canvas, I suddenly saw a peasant girl in a blue jacket and pink skirt walking across the road with a rocker and buckets. I screamed with admiration and asked her to stop for ten minutes, I blended her into the landscape. I have long wanted to paint the figure of a woman with buckets crossing the road, finding this motif one of the most typical for the Russian village and most often striking to a visitor. This entire sketch was done in one session. The next day, I only touched a few things in places, also by nature, increasing my strength and improving my relationships. I painted with such passion that I threw paints onto the canvas, as if in a frenzy, not too much thinking and weighing, trying only to convey the dazzling impression of this cheerful, major-key fanfare.”

Divisionism, which emerged quite clearly in “February Blue,” intensified in “March Snow.”

All of these paintings were created when the impressionist movement spread to all European countries. However, impressionism was reflected in Grabar’s work
peculiar. In most of his paintings, he sets himself not the narrow task of conveying light and air, although these tasks do not escape his attention, but to convey the feeling of reality at a given moment, which artists call “state.” In Grabar’s paintings one almost never observes that dissolution of the subject in a light-air environment, which is so characteristic of the paintings of the French impressionists. In addition, its color most often takes on a distinctly decorative character. Understanding the picturesque beauty of the Russian village connects Grabar with the realistic democratic tradition of contemporary Russian art.

In the creative process, the artist is characterized by method and great rationality. Having undertaken to study any natural phenomenon in painting, for example frost, he practically established a huge variation of its varieties. They were recorded in numerous sketches, when he painted frost in the morning and evening, on a gray day and in the sun, making literally instant pictorial sketches in the cold in a few minutes, until the paints had time to freeze.

The “Day of Frost” suite was conceived on twelve canvases. It also included the canvas “The Tale of Frost and the Rising Sun.” Here Grabar wanted to summarize everything that he could take from impressionism, but move on to synthesizing tasks. He deliberately simplified color and lighting effects and achieved decorativeness. “From all these sketches and notes, I combine in the studio a large composition, very complex from a technical point of view, built on all sorts of tricks, without which it would be difficult to convey an effect that is both graphic and picturesque, observed on some frosty days with certain types of frost, for the latter are very varied and heterogeneous...

There are few moments in the world as stunning in their colorful polyphony as a sunny day of frost, where the color scheme, changing every minute, is painted in the most fantastic shades. In relation to painting, and thus to my own painting, a noticeable shift began towards purely color tasks, with a clear departure from impressionistic attitudes... It was not the impression of nature that was now the focus of my attention, but the transmission of trembling light,” noted Grabar.

In addition to landscapes, a series of still lifes was written in which similar creative problems were resolved. Grabar wrote a whole series of still lifes of this kind, calling them paintings. They are of a special, complex type, which soon became a household name for the artist Grabar. In a word, this is the type of painting in which a still life and an interior are connected together, always lived-in and in the general figurative structure having the same meaning as the things in it. This is a picturesque picture of everyday life, jubilant, colorful. The interior is usually full of light and air.

An example is one of the first still lifes - “Flowers and Fruits” (1904, Russian Russian Museum) - a reflection of forget-me-nots, white and yellow flowers on the black polished lid of a piano. To the flowers, Grabar added two apples and an orange, all three in colored crumpled lightweight pieces of paper and in a bunch of green shavings from a fruit box. All this was located against the background of two windows, reflected in the lid of the piano, and on one of the windows there were pots with lilac campanula. The still life was painted, according to Grabar, “with all the freedom of the brush that he was capable of.” “Chrysanthemums” (1905, Tretyakov Gallery, ill. 57) is one of the artist’s best works in terms of the beauty and sophistication of the painterly tone. On a table covered a snow-white tablecloth, there is a crystal vase with a bouquet of pale yellow chrysanthemums. The room is filled with diffused light, softening the colors and outlines of objects. Light reflections of light tremble on the crystal dishes and tablecloth, reflections lie down. The picturesque charm of the canvas lies in the subtle contrast between delicate flowers and soft, transparent shine of crystal.

In the picture, as Grabar himself noted, “there is a single tone, connected by a color chord, covering everything, from top to bottom and from left to right, but the divisionist solution of the problem and the intruding light problem give this picture a place somewhere close to impressionism.”

“An Untidy Table” (1907, Tretyakov Gallery) completes the series of the artist’s most significant impressionistic still lifes.

He believed, however, that the impressionistic task was partly overshadowed in this picture by another: “... to convey the contrast of a rough tablecloth, shiny dishes and matte delicate flowers using the texture and character of coloring corresponding to each object. The entire picture was painted in oil, but for the flowers I took tempera preparation, finishing it on top with watercolor glazes. We got the desired contrast.”

The named still life is similar to impressionism in the task of depicting the play of light on the surface of objects. The brushstroke of the painting is very fractional, it will create the desired effect, and the greenish reflections from the wallpaper enhance it even more.

“Pears” (on a blue tablecloth, 1915, Russian Museum) was Grabar’s final departure from impressionism—a transition from light painting to a purely color perception of nature. This work is part of a series of still lifes painted by the artist without a background; the easel was located almost at the level of the actual painting, and the point of view was chosen from above, and with all these techniques the decorativeness of the image was achieved.

We can say that Grabar is one of the most significant masters of still life painting.

Grabar was a participant in a number of initiatives that were noteworthy for the artistic life of the 1900s–1910s. In 1901, an artistic enterprise-exhibition called “Modern Art” arose, headed by Grabar.

It was something like a permanent exhibition of paintings, artistically designed interiors and applied arts (furniture, porcelain, jewelry, embroidery). The purpose of this enterprise was to promote the synthesis of modern forms of art, which, according to its organizers, should penetrate into different areas of life. This idea was put forward by the association “World of Art”, and its participants, interested in an unusual matter, created examples of modern artistically designed interiors by A. N. Benois, L. S. Bakst, E. E. Lansere, I. E. Grabar himself, A. Y. Golovin, as well as K. A. Korovin, who designed the “Tea Room”).

“Modern Art” organized an exhibition of Japanese engravings, about which Grabar wrote a small brochure, and an exhibition of works by K. A. Somov, and published a monograph about his work. However, the enterprise did not live long: it was not created on a commercial basis and did not have the expected success.

Grabar was an active participant in another collective initiative that arose on his initiative and on the initiative of the World of Art group, namely the publication in 1905-1906 of the famous revolutionary magazines “Bug” and “Hell Mail” (see Chapter Twelve).

In his architectural work, Grabar proceeded from the traditions of the classical style. Having an architectural education, he built an entire ensemble of buildings near Moscow in the spirit of the great Italian Renaissance architect Andrei Palladio - a hospital (now named after A.G. Zakharyin, 1909-1914). Practical studies in architecture helped Grabar master the specifics of architectural form infinitely more deeply than a book education could have given him.

Starting to publish a huge work, “History of Russian Art,” which brought together many leading scientists in this field, Grabar was able to judge architecture with full knowledge of the matter, not from books, but as a practicing architect. This desire to know in all depth the subject that interested him forms the main feature of Grabar as an art critic, art historian and museum worker.

In this regard, Grabar found common goals with the “World of Art” association that arose at the same time (about this association, see Chapter Eight). As long as the “World of Art” functioned, Grabar was among its participants and active figures, especially in artistic and educational work. Its crowning achievement was the multi-volume History of Russian Art. It was not possible to complete the publication. In addition to the large introductory section, volumes devoted to Ancient Rus', as well as Russian sculpture of the 18th and 19th centuries, were published. They laid the foundation for a deep study of Russian art in conjunction with all artistic culture. A lot of new data, documents, monuments were published, many valuable, weightily reasoned hypotheses were put forward, national independence and the high aesthetic value of art, especially the previously underestimated 18th-early 19th century, were affirmed. However, erroneous views also had an impact, in particular the significance of the Peredvizhniki stage, which determined the enormous rise of the entire spiritual culture of Russia. The view, widespread at the beginning of the 20th century, was corrected by the scientist later, when he began working on a monograph about his teacher, I. E. Repine.

In parallel to the study of the history of Russian art of previous centuries, Grabar devotes a number of fundamental monographs of our time. Together with S. Glagol, he writes a monograph about I.I. Levitan, creates a monograph about V.A. Serov.

In these books, Grabar affirms the value of realist artists in the years when anti-realist movements began to intensify.

Grabar’s tireless activity extended to museum work. As a trustee of the Tretyakov Gallery, he set about transforming it into a national museum, widely acquiring works of past centuries and the modern school, arranging the exhibition in chronology and the unity of the creative aspirations of the artists, taking into account the rules for preserving the things themselves; developed an inventory form and began compiling a catalogue. After the October Revolution, Grabar’s activities unfolded throughout the entire country as multifaceted as before, and did not stop until his death.

Works mentioned in the article:

“September Snow” (1903, Tretyakov Gallery)

“February Azure” (1904, Tretyakov Gallery)

“March Snow” (1904, Tretyakov Gallery)

"Rime. Sunrise" (1941, Irkutsk Regional Art Museum)

"Rime" (1905, Yaroslavl Art Museum)

“Flowers and Fruits” (1904, Russian Russian Museum)

“Chrysanthemums” (1905, Tretyakov Gallery)

“Untidy table” (1907, Tretyakov Gallery)

“Pears” (on a blue tablecloth, 1915, Russian Russian Museum)

Literature: History of Russian art. Volume 2. - Moscow, Fine Arts, 1981.

Preface

Chapter I. The most ancient art of Eastern Europe. V.D. Blavatsky

Chapter II. Art of the ancient Slavs. B.A. Rybakov

Chapter III. Art of Kievan Rus
Kievan Rus. V.N. Lazarev
Architecture of Kievan Rus. N.N. Voronin
Painting and sculpture of Kievan Rus. V.N. Lazarev
Applied art of Kievan Rus. IX - XI centuries and southern Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. B.A. Rybakov
Applied art in everyday life
Artistic craft and its technique
Ornament
Subjects of applied art
Cultural heritage of Kievan Rus. V.N. Lazarev

Chapter IV. Art of Western Russian principalities. N.N. Voronin and V.N. Lazarev
Introductory Notes
Galntsko-Volyn land
Principality of Polotsk
Principality of Smolensk

Chapter V. Art of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'
Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. V.N. Lazarev
Architecture of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. N.N. Voronin
Sculpture of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. V.N. Lazarev
Painting of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. V.N. Lazarev
Applied art of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. B.A. Rybakov
The Tatar yoke and the fate of Vladimir-Suzdal art. V.N. Lazarev

Bibliography
Pointer
List of illustrations

Preface

Explaining the history of Russian art, covering the entire path of its development from ancient times to the present day, is a scientific task of great difficulty and great political significance. An attempt to resolve it, made in 1908-1915, in connection with the First World War was not completed: only five volumes of the planned publication were published (I.E. Grabar. History of Russian Art. Vol. I-III, V-VI. M., publishing house Knebel).

Now this task is being posed again in conditions that are completely incomparable in their capabilities. They were created by the Great October Socialist Revolution, which opened up unprecedented prospects for scientific research and artistic creativity, armed science and art with Marxist-Leninist theory, and raised the interest of the broad masses in the culture and art of the great Russian people to unprecedented heights.

The new “History of Russian Art” is conceived in the form of a large multi-volume work carried out by a team of researchers united around the Institute of Art History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The first four volumes are devoted to the history of ancient Russian art, two volumes - to the art of the 18th century; three volumes - on the art of the 19th century and three volumes - on Soviet art.

The main goal of this work comes down to giving the Soviet reader a picture of the development of Russian art in connection with the general processes of development of Russian social life, the struggle of various class ideologies. The authors set themselves the task, first of all, to reveal that independent and original thing that the Russian people contributed to the treasury of world art and of which they can rightfully be proud. Particular attention is paid to the folk foundations of Russian art, which make themselves felt so clearly already at the earliest stages of development and which later manifested themselves with such force.

Based on the fundamental principles of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, the team of authors consciously highlighted realistic quests and trends that were leading throughout the development of Russian art. They are discussed in the first volumes, and in volumes devoted to the art of the 18th-19th centuries, and especially in those volumes where the reader will find the history of Russian ideological realism. In the volumes on Soviet art, which marks a new stage in the development of both Russian and all world artistic culture, the central problem is socialist realism, the struggle for which determined all the best creative quests of Soviet artists.

The first volumes of this publication are devoted to ancient Russian art and its origins. Since during the period of feudal fragmentation local art schools were of exceptionally great importance, the material in the first and second volumes is grouped in such a way as to highlight the historical role of these schools more clearly. That is why the earliest stages in the development of Novgorod art, although they are inextricably linked with the art of Kyiv, are still combined with later stages in the history of Novgorod artistic culture. Therefore, a number of later monuments of Novgorod and Pskov art are examined in the second volume, although they arose during the period when Moscow became the center for gathering Russian national forces. This approach to Russian art of the 11th-15th centuries allowed the team of authors not to split the history of individual art schools into small historical segments, but to present them in large arrays, which helped to more clearly outline their contours and determine their creative originality. Adhering to the same principle, the team of authors sets out in the third volume the history of Moscow art from its origins in the 13th century to its heyday in the 16th century.

In the field of studying ancient Russian art, the old pre-revolutionary science worked a lot. Works of the greatest scientists of the past (V.V. Stasov, F.I. Buslaev, N.P. Kondakov, D.V. Ainalov and their students, as well as historians of architecture V.V. Suslov, N.V. Sultanov, A. M. Pavlinov, I.E. Zabelin, M.V. Krasovsky and others) laid the foundation for the development of the history of ancient Russian art. However, in their historical views and applied methodology, the old researchers were far from correctly posing questions about the history of ancient Russian art. The comparative and iconographic method dominated in the study of painting, and only in the pre-revolutionary years were tasks of stylistic analysis put on the agenda, but the latter was understood extremely narrowly and incorrectly, as an analysis of form alone. In the field of architectural studies, interest in the purely archaeological study of monuments prevailed; a general, sufficiently complete history of ancient Russian architecture was not created, the problem of the architectural image remained almost undeveloped, since the main attention was paid to typology and technological aspects. In general, ancient Russian art was interpreted mainly as an art that arose only with the adoption of Christianity and was entirely dependent on Byzantine culture for almost the entire duration of its centuries-old development. These views were partly determined by the state of knowledge about the monuments of art themselves: the discovery and restoration of monuments of painting and architecture had just begun in the pre-October years, the gaze of an art historian had not yet turned to archaeological monuments, and the general historical perspective disappeared after the study of individual monuments.

The Soviet era was marked by a particular intensity of research in this area of ​​knowledge. It can be said without exaggeration that more has been done in the last thirty-five years than in the entire previous century.

Archaeological research by Soviet scientists has now made it possible, albeit sketchily and only in general terms, to determine the origins of Russian art, which go back to the artistic culture of the Slavic tribes and to the art of the ancient and Scythian Black Sea region. The Byzantine contribution lay on the solid ground of strong Slavic artistic traditions, which determined the decisive creative processing of imported Greek forms and the originality of the most ancient monuments of Russian monumental art.

The grandiose work of uncovering and restoring monuments of ancient painting, carried out in our time, confronted researchers with an unprecedented abundance of wonderful creations of the Russian people, which had to find a place in their artistic development. It was necessary to reveal in the works of worship but for their purpose, created by the brush of ancient Russian artists, those folk features that invariably penetrated into the world of religious ideas and which contributed to the softening of medieval asceticism; it was necessary to trace this path in the dialectical changes in the content and form of art, in the growth of its national identity. His understanding was greatly enriched by the consideration, along with painting, of monuments of artistic craft, which had previously been almost not included in the general history of Russian art.

In the same way, the history of ancient Russian architecture included first-class monuments discovered by Soviet archaeologists. Of the previously known most important monuments, many, as a result of architectural and archaeological research, appeared before us in their new, authentic form. The authors saw the contours of the most important historical stages of ancient Russian architecture: the architecture of the Kyiv state of the 10th-11th centuries; architecture of the period of feudal fragmentation of the XI-XIV centuries, with an amazing richness of shades of style of regional architectural schools; finally, the period of the formation of national features of Russian art, when dominance passed to Moscow. From the depths of centuries the names of great Russian architects have risen, firmly holding the fate of the art of construction in their hands. In the history of architecture of the 17th century, facts were discovered that testify to the development of many elements of modern architecture in the depths of pre-Petrine Rus' and, consequently, to the deep organic nature of this new stage.

In other words, it was necessary to build a completely new history of Russian art on rich new material. The authors sought, on the basis of the only scientific Marxist methodology, to re-evaluate the connection of Russian artistic culture with world art, and sought to determine its independence and national identity.

Naturally, not all of these problems are solved in this work with equal completeness and certainty. There is still not enough factual material to answer many questions; others require special research. So, for example, the most difficult question of determining the national characteristics that crystallized during the development of ancient Russian art cannot be considered finally resolved: these national characteristics changed in the course of the historical life of the Russian people, and it is not yet possible to show this process in all its completeness and specificity . There are also many controversial issues in resolving more specific issues related to the identification or assessment of certain monuments or masters. The authors and editors of “The History of Russian Art” therefore considered it necessary to present the monuments themselves in descriptions and illustrations as completely as possible, so that the reader could independently judge what was presented by comparing it with data from the history of art.

To wait for the time when everything will become indisputable and clear would mean to deprive the Soviet reader for a long time of a book that reveals to him a majestic picture of the artistic creativity of the Russian people. And this cannot be delayed: knowledge of all the best that has been created by the people in the distant and recent past is one of the foundations of conscious patriotism and ardent love for the Motherland.

The beginning of Russian artistic history.

Previously, I have already presented volumes of essays devoted to architecture. The theme of the sixth volume proposed today is pre-Petrine painting.

Monuments of ancient Russian painting can be divided into two main types: wall painting and icons on wood. Important but auxiliary monuments are manuscript miniatures and church embroidery. I. Grabar notes that a serious study of mural monuments is still ahead: ancient Russian frescoes are few in number, poorly preserved, and a significant part of them are distorted by unsuccessful restorations. He has no idea that in a few years most of the church paintings will be barbarously destroyed by the Soviet regime. The main part of the volume is devoted to icon painting. In Russian chronicles there are contrasts between the terms “icon painting” and “painting,” but these contrasts, corresponding to the literal meaning of the words, do not go further than the contrast between idealistic art and art based on reality. Therefore, icon painting should certainly be considered as a type of painting art. After all, we do not distinguish “icon painting” from “painting”, for example, in Raphael. The term “icon painting” retains only a certain technical meaning, just like “fresco” and “miniature”. The peculiarity of icon painting is that the artist’s activity is largely limited by church tradition. The limitation to a certain, albeit very large, selection of topics forced the Russian artist to concentrate all his talent on the stylistic essence of painting. In terms of its sense of style, Russian painting occupies one of the first places among other arts. The icon painter put the entire volume of his soul into the formal interpretation of the theme, knowing how to be deeply individual in his composition, in his color, in his line, but he never dared to enhance the effect of holy images by adding his own feelings to them. “The Russian artist made little claim to the depiction of internal movements, and equally little was attracted to his depiction of external movement. Stillness follows from the idealistic basis of Russian painting. Its existence does not require movement, which could disrupt the integrity of the sacred image and replace its timeless unity with episodicity. In Russian painting there is no thought about sequence in time. It never depicts a moment, but some infinitely lasting state or phenomenon. In this way she makes it possible to contemplate a miracle.”

Russian painting until the mid-17th century

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN PAINTING
II. ORIGIN OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN PAINTING
III. PAINTING OF THE PRE-MONGOL PERIOD
IV. FOURTEENTH CENTURY
V. THE ERA OF RUBLEV
VI. NOVGOROD SCHOOL IN THE 15TH CENTURY
VII. DIONYSIUS
VIII. NOVGOROD AND MOSCOW IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 16TH CENTURY.
IX. MOSCOW SCHOOL AT GROZNY AND ITS SUCCESSORS
X. STROGANOV SCHOOL
XI. THE ERA OF MIKHAIL FEODOROVICH

Royal café painters and painters of the 17th century

XII. FOREIGN PAINTERS IN MOSCOW
XIII. SIMON USHAKOV AND HIS SCHOOL

Ukrainian painting of the 17th century

XIV. REVIVAL OF UKRAINE IN THE 17TH CENTURY

Wall paintings in Russian churches of the 17th century

XV. THE LATEST ESSENCES OF GREAT STYLE
XVI. FRESCO-LUBKI
XVII. WESTERN INFLUENCES

A special feature of this volume is the presence of colored tabs.

Unfortunately, “The History of Russian Art” remained unfinished. The 6th presented today was the last in this edition
(I cannot offer the missing 4th 5th volumes, dedicated to the history of sculpture).
In the 50-60s of the last century, under the editorship of the same Igor Emmanuilovich Grabar, a new version of “The History of Russian Art” was published in 13 volumes (16 books). However, this is a completely different publication: it is structured according to a chronological principle, and some of the volumes are devoted to Soviet art.

Moscow, edition by I. Knebel, 1909-1917. Publisher's semi-leather bindings with triple gold edges and gold embossing on the spines and covers. With numerous illustrations in the text and on separate sheets. Volume 4 in a modern hardcopy binding, stylized as a publishing one.

Content:

Volume I. History of Architecture. Pre-Petrine era. , 513 pp., 4 l. ill.
Volume II. History of architecture. Pre-Petrine era (Moscow and Ukraine). 480 pp., 4 l. ill.
Volume III. History of architecture. St. Petersburg architecture in the 18th and 19th centuries. 584 pp., 5 l. ill.
Volume IV. History of architecture. Moscow architecture in the era of Baroque and Classicism. Russian architecture after classicism (only 1 issue was published).104 p., ill., 1 l. ill.Rarity!
Volume V. Wrangel N.N. History of sculpture. 416 pp., 4 l. ill.
Volume VI. History of painting. Pre-Petrine era. 536 pp., 4 l. ill.

Academician I.E. Grabar was the initiator and editor of the multi-volume work “History of Russian Art”, the author of a number of its most important sections. The most valuable artistic and archival material collected in this work made it possible to widely show the richness and greatness of Russian art. The most famous and prominent figures of Russia took part in the processing and publication of numerous parts: Russian artists A. Benois, I.Ya. Bilibin, A.M. Vasnetsov, Baron Von N.N. Wrangel, architects F.F. Gornostaev, S.P. Dyagilev, academicians of artistic arts N.P. Kondakov, S.K. Makovsky, prof. G.G. Pavlutsky, architect. V.A. Pokrovsky, N.K. Roerich, priv.-assoc. N.I. Romanov, prof. M.I. Rostovtsev, priv.-assoc. A.A. Spitsyn, priest. ON THE. Skvortsov, prof. architect V.V. Suslov, V.K. Trutovsky, prof. A.I. Uspensky, prof. B.V. Farmakovsky, architect. I.A. Fomin, architect. A.V. Shchusev and others. It is no coincidence that it was I.E. Grabar became the creator of the complex multi-volume History of Russian Art. The idea of ​​publishing “The History of Russian Art” first occurred to Grabar in 1902, when the publisher of the magazine “Niva” A.F. Marx asked him to revise and supplement “The History of Art” by P.P. Gnedich. Refusing to “rework” Gnedich, Grabar proposed publishing “The History of Russian Art” and, having received consent, for many years delved into the study of the archives of the Academy of Arts, Academy of Sciences, Senate, Synod, Ministry of the Court, etc. The first version of the program “History of Russian Art” was ready in January 1907. The entire publication was to consist of 12 volumes (3000 illustrations); the architecture was supposed to be separated into special volumes. In 1909-16, 5 volumes were published, and Grabar was not only the editor, but also the author of the most important sections. The most valuable artistic and archival material collected in this work made it possible to widely demonstrate the richness and greatness of Russian art. To this day, this study remains the most complete and thorough work on Russian painting, architecture and sculpture.

Let's take a closer look, for example, at volume 6: Igor Grabar. History of Russian art. Volume 6 "Painting. Pre-Petrine era". The book contains a large number of black and white illustrations and several color ones. The theme of the proposed sixth volume is pre-Petrine painting, the beginning of Russian artistic history. Monuments of ancient Russian painting can be divided into two main types: wall painting and icons on wood.

Important but auxiliary monuments are manuscript miniatures and church embroidery. I. Grabar notes that a serious study of mural monuments is still ahead: ancient Russian frescoes are few in number, poorly preserved, and a significant part of them are distorted by unsuccessful restorations. He has no idea that in a few years most of the church paintings will be barbarously destroyed by the Soviet regime. The main part of the volume is devoted to icon painting. In Russian chronicles there are contrasts between the terms “icon painting” and “painting,” but these contrasts, corresponding to the literal meaning of the words, do not go further than the contrast between idealistic art and art based on reality. Therefore, icon painting should certainly be considered as a type of painting art. After all, we do not distinguish “icon painting” from “painting”, for example, in Raphael. The term “icon painting” retains only a certain technical meaning, just like “fresco” and “miniature”. The peculiarity of icon painting is that the artist’s activity is largely limited by church tradition. The limitation to a certain, albeit very large, selection of topics forced the Russian artist to concentrate all his talent on the stylistic essence of painting. In terms of its sense of style, Russian painting occupies one of the first places among other arts.

The icon painter put the entire volume of his soul into the formal interpretation of the theme, knowing how to be deeply individual in his composition, in his color, in his line, but he never dared to enhance the effect of holy images by adding his own feelings to them. “The Russian artist made little claim to the depiction of internal movements, and equally little was attracted to his depiction of external movement. Stillness follows from the idealistic basis of Russian painting. Its existence does not require movement, which could disrupt the integrity of the sacred image and replace its timeless unity with episodicity. In Russian painting there is no thought about sequence in time. It never depicts a moment, but some infinitely lasting state or phenomenon. In this way she makes it possible to contemplate a miracle.”

Contents of the volume:

RUSSIAN PAINTING UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE 17TH CENTURY I.

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN PAINTING II.

ORIGIN OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN PAINTING III.

PAINTING OF THE PRE-MONGOL PERIOD IV.

FOURTEENTH CENTURY V.

THE ERA OF RUBLEV VI.

NOVGOROD SCHOOL IN THE 15TH CENTURY VII.

DIONYSIUS VIII.

NOVGOROD AND MOSCOW IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 16TH CENTURY. IX.

MOSCOW SCHOOL AT GROZNY AND ITS SUCCESSORS X.

STROGANOV SCHOOL XI.

THE ERA OF MIKHAIL FEODOROVICH Royal icon painters and painters of the 17th century XII.

FOREIGN PAINTERS IN MOSCOW XIII.

SIMON USHAKOV AND HIS SCHOOL Ukrainian painting of the 17th century XIV.

REVIVAL OF UKRAINE IN THE 17TH CENTURY Wall paintings in Russian churches of the 17th century XV.

THE LAST ESCORTS OF GREAT STYLE XVI.

FRESCO-LUBKI XVII.

WESTERN INFLUENCES.

Grabar, Igor Emmanuilovich(March 25, 1871, Budapest, Austria-Hungary - May 16, 1960, Moscow, USSR) - Russian Soviet artist-painter, restorer, art historian, educator, museum activist, teacher. People's Artist of the USSR (1956). Winner of the Stalin Prize, first degree (1941). Nature endowed I. E. Grabar with many talents, which, to the considerable surprise of those around him, he was able to realize. He became a significant artist, art historian, art critic, restorer, teacher, museum worker, wonderful organizer, even an architect. At the same time, for almost sixty years, thanks to his frantic temperament, he was one of the most active participants and leaders of the country's artistic life. Born into the family of Emmanuel Grabar, a Galician-Russian public figure, member of the Austrian parliament. Baptized by an Orthodox priest of Serbian origin, the recipient was Konstantin Kustodiev, uncle of the artist Boris Kustodiev. Grabar's maternal grandfather was Adolf Dobryansky, an outstanding figure in the Galician-Russian movement, and his mother was Olga Grabar, who was also involved in Russian educational activities in Galicia. Soon after the birth of his son, the father and his family were forced to flee from Hungary to Italy, where he got a job as a home teacher for the children of millionaire P. P. Demidov, and after about three years he moved with them to Paris. In 1876, the family moved to the Russian Empire. From 1880 to 1882 he lived with his family in Yegoryevsk, Ryazan province, where his father taught at the local gymnasium; studied at a pro-gymnasium and attended classes with Varvara Zhitova, the half-sister of the writer Ivan Turgenev. From 1882 to 1889, Igor Grabar studied in Moscow - at the Lyceum of Tsarevich Nicholas (graduated in 1889 with a gold medal), then at the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University, from which he graduated in 1893. Unlike his older brother, Vladimir, who became a famous lawyer, Igor chose a career as an artist. While still in Moscow, he attended drawing classes at the Moscow Society of Art Lovers and in 1894 entered the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, where I. E. Repin was his director for some time. He graduated from the Academy in 1898, and then studied in Paris and Munich. Participated in the work of creative associations “World of Art” and “Union of Russian Artists”. In 1900 Grabar returns to Russia, and here, as the artist admits, his very “creative period” begins. After a long separation, he again falls in love with Russian nature, is stunned by the beauty of the Russian winter, and endlessly writes “a supernatural tree, a fairy tale tree” - a birch. His most famous works were created in the Moscow region: "September Snow" (1903), "White Winter. Rooks' Nests", "February Blue", "March Snow" (all 1904), "Chrysanthemums" (1905), "Untidy Table" ( 1907) and others. Grabar writes in the open air, taking into account the achievements of the French impressionists, but, not wanting to blindly imitate them, he writes in Russian, loving “materiality and reality.” "February Azure" is a majestic "portrait" of a birch tree. We look at it from the bottom up, from a deep trench in the snow, which the author dug and in which he worked, despite the severe frosts, overwhelmed with joy from “the chimes and calls of all the colors of the rainbow, united by the blue enamel of the sky.” The landscape is painted in pure colors, the strokes are laid in a dense layer. “March Snow” - “a brightly impressionistic piece in concept and texture” - the artist also painted in the open air “with such passion and excitement that he threw paints onto the canvas, as if in a frenzy, without too much thinking and weighing, trying only to convey the dazzling impression of this cheerful major fanfare." In these works, Grabar managed to create another, new (after the Russian landscape painters of the 19th century), generalized image of Russian nature. Back in the fall of 1902, Grabar made a trip to the Russian North, to the Vologda and Arkhangelsk provinces (he had visited Novgorod and Pskov even earlier). This trip awakened in him a passion for Russian art, which became the basis of his entire life. Travels along the rivers Vychegda, Sukhona and Northern Dvina, where he sketched and measured churches, mills, huts, photographed icons, utensils, ancient sewing, confirmed his desire to comprehend and publish the collected material. Some of the drawings and photographs made in those years in the North were published in Russia on postcards. In 1903 he moved to Moscow. From that time on, Grabar took part in World of Art exhibitions at the Salon and the Union; his works were exhibited abroad - in Munich, in Paris, at the Salon d'Automne, in 1906 at an exhibition of Russian art organized by Sergei Diaghilev, in Rome at an international exhibition in 1909, etc. Soon after moving to Moscow, Igor Grabar met with artist Nikolai Meshcherin; repeatedly visited the Meshcherins' estate Dugino (now the village of Meshcherino in the Leninsky district of the Moscow region). After the October Revolution, Grabar was also actively involved in painting, creating both landscapes and official, “court” compositions. In addition to creating paintings, research and educational work played an important role in the artist’s life. I. E. Grabar wrote a lot about art in magazines - in “World of Art”, “Libra”, “Old Years”, “Apollo”, “Niva”, etc. He authored the text in the publication “Paintings of Contemporary Artists in Colors” , of which he was also an editor; he was also the editor and largest contributor to the publication “History of Russian Art” launched by I. N. Knebel, as well as the series of monographs “Russian Artists”. At the beginning of 1913, the Moscow City Duma elected Grabar a trustee of the Tretyakov Gallery; he remained in this position until 1925. 1910-23 The artist called it a period of departure from painting and a passion for architecture, art history, museum activities, and monument protection. He conceived and carried out the publication of the first “History of Russian Art” in six volumes (1909-16), wrote the most important sections for it, and published monographs about V. A. Serov and I. I. Levitan. For twelve years (1913-25) Grabar headed the Tretyakov Gallery, significantly changing the principles of museum work. After the revolution, he did a lot to protect cultural monuments from destruction. In 1918, on the initiative of Grabar, the Central Restoration Workshops were created, with which he would be associated throughout his life and which now bear his name. Many works of ancient Russian art were discovered and saved here. Grabar was a key figure in the artistic life of Soviet Russia. He was friends with Leon Trotsky's wife Natalya Sedova, whom he met while working together in the museum department of the People's Commissariat for Education. At the very beginning of Stalin's purges, Grabar resigned from all his responsible posts and returned to painting. He painted a portrait of a girl named Svetlana, which suddenly became incredibly popular.

From 1924 to the end of the 1940s. Grabar again paints a lot and is especially interested in portraits. He depicts his loved ones, paints portraits of scientists and musicians. The artist himself called “Portrait of a Mother” (1924), “Svetlana” (1933), “Portrait of a Daughter against the Background of a Winter Landscape” (1934), “Portrait of a Son” (1935), “Portrait of Academician S. A. Chaplygin” (1935) the best ). Two self-portraits of the artist are also widely known (“Self-portrait with a palette”, 1934; “Self-portrait in a fur coat”, 1947). He also turns to thematic paintings - “V.I. Lenin at the Direct Wire” (1933), “Peasant Walkers at a Reception with V.I. Lenin” (1938). Of course, he continues to paint landscapes, still preferring snow, sun and a smile to life: “The Last Snow” (1931), “Birch Alley” (1940), “Winter Landscape” (1954), a series of paintings on the theme “Rime Day” . Grabar works in the traditions of Russian realistic painting of the late 19th century, remaining, as in other areas of his activity, a guardian of Russian culture. “The best rest is a change from work,” said the artist. When he was not painting, he was teaching, performing, preparing exhibitions, or doing art historical research. In addition, Grabar in 1918-1930 headed the Central Restoration Workshops in Moscow, and since 1944 he worked as a scientific director of the workshops and headed numerous commissions involved in the removal, which was often a form of salvation from inevitable destruction, of paintings from estates and icons from monasteries. He took a direct part in the restoration of Andrei Rublev’s “Trinity” icon. The modern All-Russian Art Research and Restoration Center, which grew out of the Central Restoration Workshops created by Grabar, bears his name. He was a consultant to the Academic Council on restoration work in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, of which Ignatius Trofimov was appointed scientific director and chief architect. At the beginning of 1943, Grabar put forward the idea of ​​compensating for the losses of Soviet museums by confiscating works from museums in Germany and its allies. He headed the Bureau of Experts, which compiled lists of the best works from European museums, prepared “trophy brigades” sent to the front, and received trains with works of art. It is noteworthy that at the beginning of the war, the Nazis confiscated works from the territories they conquered as part of the Linz project, and a considerable part was confiscated from the territory of the USSR. Death found him working on a new multi-volume edition of the History of Russian Art. “We should consider it a blessing for Russian art that such a person really existed,” S. said about him. V. Gerasimov. Full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1943). Full member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1947). He was buried in Moscow at the Novodevichy Cemetery (site No. 8).