Secular sculpture in Russia began to develop in the first quarter of the 18th century, thanks to Peter the Great's reforms. Under Peter I, foreign masters from Italy, France, Germany, and Austria worked in Russia. They created sculptural works that decorated palaces and parks under construction.

In the Peter and post-Petrine eras, the most famous sculptor in Russia was Carlo Bartolomeo Rastrelli(1675-1774). A Florentine who worked in Paris in 1716. was invited to Russia, where he was able to fully realize his talent. Rastrelli began as an architect, but his artistic achievements lie in the field of sculpture. Rastrelli created a whole gallery of sculptural portraits of Peter I and figures of his era.

The sculptor’s masterpiece was a bronze bust created during the life of the sovereign, in which Peter is depicted in ceremonial armor with the ribbon of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called. The portrait is distinguished by its strict solemnity and richness of plastic modeling.

Rastrelli also participated in the design of the Grand Cascade in Peterhof and in the work on creating a model of the Triumphal Pillar in honor of the victory in the Northern War.

After the death of Peter I, in the 40s. XVIII century K. B. Rastrelli created the first monumental monument to the Russian emperor. The equestrian statue represents Peter I as a triumphant warrior, crowned with a laurel wreath.

In the second half of the 18th century. sculpture achieved significant success. Such genres as monumental, portrait, landscape, animal and memorial sculpture developed.

Main artistic style this time was classicism.

The fame of a talented sculptor in the second half of the 18th century. rightfully won Fedot Ivanovich Shubin (1740-1805). The son of a Pomor peasant, Shubin has been involved in bone carving since childhood. In 1759, thanks to the support of M.V. Lomonosov, whose countryman he was, Shubin came to St. Petersburg. On the recommendation of I.I. Shuvalov, the capable young man, who worked as a stoker at the royal court, was assigned to the Academy of Arts, where he studied in 1761-1767, and then improved his skills in “statuary art” in Paris and Rome. Shubin made sculptural portraits of Catherine II, Paul I, I.I. Shuvalov and others. With special love, the sculptor created a marble bust of his patron M.V. Lomonosov.

Fyodor Gordeevich Gordeev (1744-1810), educated in sculpture classes at the Academy of Arts, was the author of reliefs for the facades and interiors of the Ostankino Palace in Moscow, for the facades of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg, sculpted the marble tombstones of the Golitsyn princes, and supervised the casting of bronze statues for the fountains of Peterhof.

Mikhail Ivanovich Kozlovsky (1753-1802) belonged to the generation that completed the development of Russian sculptures XVIII century. His work is imbued with ideas of enlightenment, humanism and vivid emotionality. He owns such sculptures as “Samson tearing apart the mouth of a lion”, made by him for the Grand Cascade in Peterhof, “Yakov Dolgoruky tearing up the royal decree”, etc. The most famous of Kozlovsky’s works was the monument to A.V. Suvorov, erected in 1799- 1801 on the Field of Mars in St. Petersburg. Designed in a classical style, the monument reflects not so much the personality of the great commander as the idea of ​​Russia’s military triumph.

Among Russian sculptors of the second half of the 18th century, they enjoyed fame Feodosy Fedorovich Shchedrin (1751-1825), Ivan Prokofievich Prokofiev (1757-1828) and etc.

Of the foreign sculptors who worked in Russia in the 1760-1770s, the most significant was the Frenchman Etienne Maurice Falconet (1716-1791).

Arrived in Russia in 1766 on the recommendation of famous philosopher D. Diderot sculptor, became famous for the equestrian statue of Peter I, installed on Senate Square in St. Petersburg in 1782 (the sculpture was made together with his student M. Collot). This monument was given the name “ Bronze Horseman" On the monument it is written in Latin: “Peter I - Catherine II.” By this, the Empress wanted to emphasize that she was a continuator of the actions of Peter I.

Falconet’s monument to Peter I, according to researchers (A.G. Romm), “eclipsed everything that had been created by the sculptor earlier, and all the equestrian statues of his predecessors. Everything is extraordinary about this sculpture: its power of influence, its role in world poetry, its historical destiny.

I.M.Schmidt

Compared to architecture, the development of Russian sculpture in the 18th century was more uneven. The achievements that marked the second half of the 18th century were immeasurably more significant and diverse. The relatively weak development of Russian plastic arts in the first half of the century is due primarily to the fact that here, unlike architecture, there were no such significant traditions and schools. It had its effect on a few sides, limited by the prohibitions of the Orthodox christian church development of ancient Russian sculpture.

Achievements of Russian plastic arts of the early 18th century. almost entirely associated with decorative sculpture. First of all, the unusually rich sculptural decoration of the Dubrovitsky Church (1690-1704), the Menshikov Tower in Moscow (1705-1707) and the reliefs on the walls of the Summer Palace of Peter I in St. Petersburg (1714) should be noted. Executed in 1722-1726. The famous iconostasis of the Peter and Paul Cathedral, created according to the design of the architect I. P. Zarudny by carvers I. Telegin and T. Ivanov, can be considered, in essence, as the result of the development of this type of art. The huge carved iconostasis of the Peter and Paul Cathedral amazes with its solemn splendor, virtuosity of woodworking, and the richness and variety of decorative motifs.

Throughout the 18th century. Folk wooden sculpture continued to develop successfully, especially in the north of Russia. Despite the prohibitions of the synod, works of religious sculpture continued to be created for Russian churches in the north; Numerous wood and stone carvers, going to the construction of large cities, brought with them the traditions and creative techniques of folk art.

The most important state and cultural transformations that took place under Peter I opened up opportunities for Russian sculpture to develop outside the sphere of church commissions. There is great interest in round easel sculpture and portrait busts. One of the very first works of new Russian sculpture was the statue of Neptune, installed in Peterhof Park. Cast in bronze in 1715-1716, it is still close to the style of Russian wooden sculpture of the 17th-18th centuries.

Without waiting for the cadres of his Russian masters to gradually form, Peter gave instructions to buy antique statues and works abroad modern sculpture. With his active assistance, in particular, a wonderful statue was acquired, known as the “Venus of Tauride” (now in the Hermitage); various statues and sculptural compositions were ordered for the palaces and parks of St. Petersburg, the Summer Garden; foreign sculptors were invited.

Giacomo Quarenghi. Alexander Palace in Tsarskoe Selo (Pushkin). 1792-1796 Colonnade.

The most prominent of them was Carlo Bartolomeo Rastrelli (1675-1744), who came to Russia in 1716 and remained here until the end of his life. He is especially famous as the author of the remarkable bust of Peter I, executed and cast in bronze in 1723-1729. (Hermitage Museum).

Carlo Bartolomeo Rastrelli. Statue of Anna Ioannovna with a little black. Fragment. Bronze. 1741 Leningrad, Russian Museum.

The image of Peter I created by Rastrelli is distinguished by its realistic portrayal of portrait features and at the same time extraordinary solemnity. Peter's face expresses the indomitable willpower and determination of a great statesman. While Peter I was still alive, Rastrelli removed the mask from his face, which served him both to create a clothed wax statue, the so-called “Wax Person,” and for a bust. Rastrelli was a typical Western European master of the late Baroque. However, in the conditions of Peter’s Russia greatest development received the realistic aspects of his work. Among Rastrelli's later works, the statue of Empress Anna Ioannovna with a little black little girl (1741, bronze; Leningrad, Russian Museum) is widely known. What is striking in this work is, on the one hand, the unbiased truthfulness of the portrait painter, and on the other, the magnificent pomp of the decision and the monumentalization of the image. Overwhelming in its solemn heaviness, dressed in the most precious robes and mantle, the figure of the empress is perceived even more impressive and menacing next to the small figure of a little black boy, whose movements with their lightness further emphasize her heaviness and representativeness.

Rastrelli's high talent was manifested not only in portrait works, but also in monumental and decorative sculpture. He participated, in particular, in the creation of decorative sculpture of Peterhof, worked on the equestrian monument of Peter I (1723-1729), which was installed in front of the Mikhailovsky Castle only in 1800.

In the equestrian monument of Peter I, Rastrelli in his own way implemented numerous solutions for equestrian statues, ranging from the ancient “Marcus Aurelius” to the typically Baroque Berlin monument to the great Elector Andreas Schlüter. The peculiarity of Rastrelli's solution is felt in the restrained and austere style of the monument, in the significance of the image of Peter himself, emphasized without excessive pomp, as well as in the superbly found spatial orientation of the monument.

If the first half of the 18th century. marked by a relatively less widespread development of Russian sculpture, the second half of this century is the time of the rise of the art of sculpture. It is no coincidence that the second half of the 18th century. and the first third of the 19th century. called the “golden age” of Russian sculpture. A brilliant galaxy of masters in the person of Shubin, Kozlovsky, Martos and others are moving forward into the ranks of the largest representatives of world sculpture. Particularly outstanding successes have been achieved in the area sculptural portrait, monumental and monumental-decorative plastic arts. The latter was inextricably linked with the rise of Russian architecture, estate and urban construction.

The formation of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts played an invaluable role in the development of Russian plastic arts.

Second half of the 18th century. in European art - a time of high development of the art of portraiture. In the field of sculpture, the greatest masters of the psychological portrait-bust were Gudon and F.I. Shubin.

Fedot Ivanovich Shubin (1740-1805) was born into a peasant family near Khol-mogory, on the shores of the White Sea. His abilities for sculpture first manifested themselves in bone carving - widely developed in the north folk craft. Like his great countryman M.V. Lomonosov, Shubin as a young man went to St. Petersburg (1759), where his abilities for sculpture attracted the attention of Lomonosov. In 1761, with the assistance of Lomonosov and Shuvalov, Shubin managed to join the Academy of Arts. After its completion (1766), Shubin received the right to travel abroad, where he lived mainly in Paris and Rome. In France, Shubin met J. Pigal and took his advice.

F. I. Shubin. Portrait of A. M. Golitsyn. Fragment. Marble. 1775 Moscow, Tretyakov Gallery.

Returning to St. Petersburg in 1773, Shubin in the same year created a plaster bust of A. M. Golitsyn (the marble copy, located in the Tretyakov Gallery, was made in 1775; see illustration). The bust of A. M. Golitsyn immediately glorified the name of the young master. The portrait recreates the typical image of a representative of the highest aristocracy of Catherine’s time. In the light smile sliding on his lips, in the energetic turn of his head, in the intelligent, although rather cold, expression of Golitsyn’s face, one can feel the secular sophistication and at the same time the inner satiety of a man spoiled by fate.

By 1774, Shubin was elected to the Academy for his completed bust of Catherine II. He is literally bombarded with orders. One of the most fruitful periods of the master’s creativity begins.

F. I. Shubin. Portrait of M. R. Panina. Marble. Mid 1770s Moscow, Tretyakov Gallery.

By the 1770s refers to one of the best female portraits of Shubin - a bust of M. R. Panina (marble; Tretyakov Gallery), which is quite close to the bust of A. M. Golitsyn: before us is also the image of a man who is aristocratically refined and at the same time tired and jaded. However, Panina is interpreted by Shubin with somewhat greater sympathy: the expression of somewhat feigned skepticism, noticeable in Golitsyn’s face, is replaced in Panina’s portrait by a shade of lyrical thoughtfulness and even sadness.

Shubin knew how to reveal the image of a person not in one, but in several aspects, in a multifaceted way, which made it possible to penetrate deeper into the being of the model and understand the psychology of the person being portrayed. He knew how to sharply and accurately capture a person’s facial expression, convey facial expressions, gaze, turn and position of the head. It is impossible not to pay attention to what various shades of facial expression the master reveals from different points of view, how skillfully he makes one feel the good nature or cold cruelty, stiffness or simplicity, inner content or self-satisfied emptiness of a person.

Second half of the 18th century. was a time of brilliant victories for the Russian army and navy. Several busts of Shubin immortalize the most prominent commanders of his time. Bust of Z. G. Chernyshev (marble, 1774; Tretyakov Gallery) is marked by great realism and unpretentious simplicity of the image. Without striving for a showy solution to the bust, refusing to use draperies, Shubin focused all the viewer’s attention on the hero’s face - courageously open, with large, slightly rough features, which, however, were not devoid of spirituality and inner nobility. The portrait of P. A. Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky (marble, 1778; Russian Museum) was designed differently. True, here Shubin does not resort to idealizing the hero’s face. However, the overall design of the bust is incomparably more impressive: the proudly raised head of the field marshal, his upward gaze, the conspicuous wide ribbon and superbly rendered drapery give the portrait features of solemn splendor.

It was not for nothing that Shubin was considered at the Academy to be the most experienced specialist in marble processing - his technique was amazingly free. “His busts are alive; the body in them is a perfect body...", wrote one of the first Russians in 1826 art critics V. I. Grigorovich. Knowing how to perfectly convey the living awe and warmth of the human face, Shubin just as skillfully and convincingly depicted accessories: wigs, light or heavy fabrics of clothing, thin lace, soft fur, jewelry and orders of those portrayed. However, the main thing for him always remained human faces, images and characters.

F. I. Shubin. Portrait of Paul I. Marble. OK. 1797 Leningrad, Russian Museum.

Over the years, Shubin gives deeper, and sometimes harsher, psychological characteristics images, for example, in the marble bust of the famous diplomat A. A. Bezborodko (most researchers date this work to 1797; Russian Museum) and especially the St. Petersburg police chief E. M. Chulkov (marble, 1792; Russian Museum), in whose image Shubin recreated the rough, internally limited person. The most striking work by Shubin in this regard is the bust of Paul I (marble in the Russian Museum; ill., bronze casts in the Russian Museum and Tretyakov Gallery), created in the late 1790s. In it, bold truthfulness borders on the grotesque. The bust of M.V. Lomonosov is perceived as imbued with great human warmth (it came to us in plaster - the Russian Museum, marble - Moscow, Academy of Sciences, and also in bronze cast, which is dated 1793 - Cameron Gallery).

Being primarily a portrait painter, Shubin also worked in other areas of sculpture, creating allegorical statues, monumental and decorative reliefs intended for architectural structures (mainly for interiors), as well as for country parks. The most famous are his statues and reliefs for the Marble Palace in St. Petersburg, as well as the bronze statue of Pandora installed in the ensemble of the Great Cascade of Fountains in Peterhof (1801).

Etienne Maurice Falconet. Monument to Peter I in Leningrad. Bronze. 1766-1782

In the second half of the 18th century. One of the prominent French masters, highly regarded by Diderot, worked in Russia - Etienne Maurice Falconet (1716-1791), who lived in St. Petersburg from 1766 to 17781. The purpose of Falcone's visit to Russia was to create a monument to Peter I, on which he worked for twelve years. The result of many years of work was one of the most famous monuments in the world. If Rastrelli, in the above-mentioned monument to Peter I, presented his hero as an emperor - formidable and powerful, then Falcone places the main emphasis on recreating the image of Peter as the greatest reformer of his time, a daring and courageous statesman.

This idea underlies the plan of Falcone, who in one of his letters wrote: “... I will limit myself to a statue of a hero and depict him not as a great commander and winner, although, of course, he was both. Much higher is the personality of the creator, the legislator...” The sculptor’s deep awareness historical significance Peter I was largely predetermined by both the design and the successful solution of the monument.

Peter is presented at the moment meteoric rise onto a rock - a natural block of stone, hewn like a rising huge sea wave. Stopping the horse at full speed, he extends his right hand forward. Depending on the point of view of the monument, Peter’s outstretched hand embodies either harsh inflexibility, then wise command, then, finally, calm peace. Remarkable integrity and plastic perfection were achieved by the sculptor in the figure of the rider and his mighty horse. Both of them are inextricably fused into a single whole, corresponding to a certain rhythm and general dynamics of the composition. Under the feet of a galloping horse, a snake trampled by him wriggles, personifying the forces of evil and deceit.

The freshness and originality of the concept of the monument, the expressiveness and meaningfulness of the image (in the creation portrait image Peter Falcone was assisted by his student M.-A. Collo), a strong organic connection between the equestrian figure and the pedestal, taking into account visibility and great understanding spatial arrangement of the monument over a vast area - all these advantages make Falconet’s creation a true masterpiece of monumental sculpture.

After Falconet left Russia, the completion of work (1782) on the construction of the monument to Peter I was supervised by Fyodor Gordeevich Gordeev (1744-1810).

F. G. Gordeev. Tombstone of N. M. Golitsyna. Marble. 1780 Moscow, Museum of Architecture.

In 1780, Gordeev created the tombstone of N. M. Golitsyna (marble; Moscow, Museum of Architecture of the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR). This small bas-relief turned out to be a landmark work in Russian memorial sculpture - from the Gordeev relief, as well as from the first tombstones of Martos, the type of Russian classical memorial sculpture of the late 18th - early 19th centuries developed. (works by Kozlovsky, Demut-Malinovsky, Pimenov, Vitali). Gordeev’s tombstones differ from the works of Martos in their lesser connection with the principles of classicism, the pomp and “magnificence” of the compositions, and the less clear and expressive arrangement of figures. As a monumental sculptor, Gordeev primarily paid attention to sculptural relief, of which the most famous are the reliefs of the Ostankino Palace in Moscow, as well as the reliefs of the porticoes of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. In them Gordeev adhered to a much more strict style than in the tombstones.

The work of Mikhail Ivanovich Kozlovsky (1753-1802) appears before us as bright and full-blooded, who, like Shubin and Martos ( The work of I. P. Martos is discussed in the fifth volume of this publication.), is a remarkable master of Russian sculpture.

M. I. Kozlovsky. Polycrates. Gypsum. 1790 Leningrad, Russian Museum.

In Kozlovsky’s work, two lines are quite clearly visible: on the one hand, there are his works such as “The Shepherd with a Hare” (known as “Apollo”, 1789; Russian Museum and Tretyakov Gallery), “Sleeping Cupid” (marble, 1792; Russian Museum), “Cupid with an Arrow” (marble, 1797; Tretyakov Gallery). They demonstrate the elegance and sophistication of the plastic form. Another line is works of heroic-dramatic nature (“Polycrates”, plaster, 1790, ill., and others).

At the very end of the 18th century, when major work began on the reconstruction of the ensemble of Peterhof fountains and the replacement of dilapidated lead statues with new ones, M. I. Kozlovsky was given the most responsible and honorable assignment: to sculpt the central sculptural composition of the Grand Cascade in Peterhof - the figure of Samson tearing his mouth lion

Erected in the first half of the 18th century, the statue of Samson was directly dedicated to the victories of Peter I over the Swedish troops. The newly performed “Samson” by Kozlovsky, in principle repeating the old composition, is solved in a more sublimely heroic and figuratively significant way. Samson's titanic build, the strong spatial reversal of his figure, designed to be viewed from different points of view, the intensity of the fight and at the same time the clarity of its outcome - all this was conveyed by Kozlovsky with true mastery of compositional solutions. The temperamental, exceptionally energetic sculpting characteristic of the master could not have been more suitable for this work.

“Samson” by Kozlovsky is one of the most remarkable works of park monumental and decorative sculpture. Rising to a height of twenty meters, a stream of water gushing from the lion’s mouth fell down, either carried to the side, or broken into thousands of splashes on the gilded surface of the bronze figure. “Samson” attracted the attention of the audience from afar, being an important landmark and the central point of the composition of the Grand Cascade ( This most valuable monument was taken away by the Nazis during the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 After the war, “Samson” was recreated from surviving photographs and documentary materials by the Leningrad sculptor V. Simonov.).

“Hercules on Horseback” (bronze, 1799; Russian Museum) should be considered as the work that immediately preceded the creation of the monument to A.V. Suvorov. In the image of Hercules - a naked young horseman, under whose feet rocks, a stream and a snake are depicted (a symbol of the defeated enemy), Kozlovsky embodied the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bA. V. Suvorov's immortal transition through the Alps.

M. I. Kozlovsky. Vigil of Alexander the Great. Sketch. Terracotta. 1780s Leningrad, Russian Museum.

M. I. Kozlovsky. Monument to A.V. Suvorov in Leningrad. Bronze. 1799-1801

Kozlovsky's most outstanding creation was the monument to the great Russian commander A.V. Suvorov in St. Petersburg (1799-1801). While working on this monument, the sculptor set out to create not a portrait statue, but a generalized image of the world-famous commander. Initially, Kozlovsky intended to present Suvorov in the image of Mars or Hercules. However, in the final decision we still see not God or ancient hero. Full of movement and energy, the swift and light figure of a warrior in armor rushes forward with that indomitable speed and fearlessness that distinguished the heroic deeds and exploits of the Russian armies led by Suvorov. The sculptor managed to create an inspired monument to the unfading military glory of the Russian people.

Like almost all of Kozlovsky’s works, the statue of Suvorov is distinguished by its superbly found spatial structure. In an effort to more fully characterize the commander, Kozlovsky gave his figure both composure and dynamism; the measured strength of the hero’s step is combined with the courage and determination of the swing right hand holding a sword. At the same time, the figure of the commander is not devoid of features characteristic of 18th century sculpture. gracefulness and ease of movement. The statue is beautifully mounted on a high granite pedestal in the form of a cylinder. The bronze bas-relief composition depicting the geniuses of Glory and Peace with the corresponding attributes was made by sculptor F. G. Gordeev. Initially, the monument to A.V. Suvorov was erected in the depths of the Champ de Mars, closer to the Mikhailovsky Castle. In 1818-1819 The monument to Suvorov was moved and took a place near the Marble Palace.

M. I. Kozlovsky. Tombstone of P. I. Melissino. Bronze. 1800 Leningrad, former Necropolis. Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

Kozlovsky also worked in the field of memorial sculpture (tombstones of P. I. Melissino, bronze, 1800 and S. A. Stroganova, marble, 1801-1802).

At the end of the 18th century. a number of major sculptors are quickly emerging, creative activity which also continued throughout almost the entire first third of the 19th century. These masters include F. F. Shchedrin and I. P. Prokofiev.

Feodosia Fedorovich Shchedrin (1751-1825), brother of the painter Semyon Shchedrin and father famous landscape painter Sylvester Shchedrin, was admitted to the Academy in 1764 at the same time as Kozlovsky and Martos. With them, after completing his studies, he was sent to Italy and France (1773).

To the number early works F. Shchedrin includes small figurines “Marsyas” (1776) and “Sleeping Endymion” (1779), executed by him in Paris (the bronze castings available in the Russian Museum and the Tretyakov Gallery were made at the beginning of the 20th century based on the surviving original models of F. Shchedrin). Both in their content and in the nature of execution, these are completely different works. The figure of Marcia, restless in the throes of death, is performed with great drama. The extreme tension of the body, the protruding mounds of muscles, and the dynamism of the entire composition convey the theme of human suffering and his passionate impulse for liberation. On the contrary, the figure of Endymion, immersed in sleep, breathes idyllic calm and serenity. The young man's body is sculpted in a relatively generalized manner, with little light and shadow detailing; the outlines of the figure are smooth and melodic. The development of F. Shchedrin's creativity as a whole completely coincided with the development of all Russian sculpture in the second half of the 18th - early 19th centuries. This can be seen in the example of such works by the master as the statue “Venus” (1792; Russian Museum), the allegorical figure “Neva” for the Peterhof fountains (bronze, 1804) and, finally, the monumental groups of caryatids for the Admiralty in St. Petersburg (1812). If the first of the named works by Shchedrin, his marble statue of Venus, both in the exquisite grace of his movements and in the sophistication of his image - typical job sculptor of the 18th century, then in a later work created at the very beginning of the 19th century - in the statue of the Neva - we see undoubtedly greater simplicity in the solution and interpretation of the image, clarity and rigor in the modeling of the figure and in its proportions.

An interesting and unique master was Ivan Prokofievich Prokofiev (1758-1828). After graduating from the Academy of Arts (1778), I. P. Prokofiev was sent to Paris, where he lived until 1784. For his works submitted to the Paris Academy of Arts, he received several awards, in particular gold medal for the relief “The Resurrection of the Dead Thrown on the Bones of the Prophet Elisha” (1783). A year earlier, in 1782, Prokofiev executed the statue “Morpheus” (terracotta; Russian Museum). Prokofiev gives the figure of Morpheus on a small scale. In this early work of the sculptor, his realistic aspirations and simple, not so refined style (compared, for example, to the early Kozlovsky) clearly appear. It is felt that in “Morpheus” Prokofiev sought more to recreate the real image of a fallen man rather than a mythological image.

In the year of his return to St. Petersburg, I. P. Prokofiev in a very short time fulfills one of his best works in a round sculpture - the composition “Actaeon” (bronze, 1784; Russian Museum and Tretyakov Gallery). The figure of a rapidly running young man, pursued by dogs, was executed by the sculptor with excellent dynamics and extraordinary ease of spatial design.

Prokofiev was an excellent master of drawing and composition. And it is no coincidence that he paid so much attention to sculptural relief - in this area of ​​creativity, knowledge of composition and drawing acquire special importance. In 1785 - 1786 Prokofiev creates an extensive series of reliefs (plaster) intended for the main staircase of the Academy of Arts. Prokofiev's reliefs for the building of the Academy of Arts are a whole system of thematic works in which ideas are carried out educational value"sciences and fine arts". These are the allegorical compositions “Painting and Sculpture”, “Drawing”, “Kithared and the Three Most Noble Arts”, “Mercy” and others. By the nature of their execution, these are typical works of early Russian classicism. The desire for calm clarity and harmony is combined in them with a soft, lyrical interpretation of images. The glorification of man has not yet acquired the social-civil pathos and rigor that it did during the period of mature classicism in the first third of the 19th century.

When creating his reliefs, the sculptor subtly took into account the features of their location, different formats, and visibility conditions. As a rule, Prokofiev preferred low relief, but in cases where it was necessary to create a monumental composition with a significant distance from the viewer, he boldly used the high-relief method of depiction, sharply enhancing the light and shadow contrasts. Such is his colossal relief “Copper Serpent”, placed above the passage of the colonnade of the Kazan Cathedral (Pudozh stone, 1806-1807).

Along with the leading masters of Russian sculpture of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Prokofiev participated in the creation of works for the Peterhof fountain ensemble (statues of Alcides, Volkhov, a group of tritons). He also turned to portrait sculpture; in particular, he owns two not devoid of merits terracotta busts of A.F. and A.E. Labzin (Russian Museum). Executed at the very beginning of the 1800s, both of them are still closer in their traditions to the works of Shubin than to the portraits of Russian classicism of the first third of the 19th century.

Second quarter of the 18th century. - the time of development of such an art form as sculpture. The largest Russian sculptor remained Bartolomeo Carlo Rastrelli, the father of the architect mentioned above. The most famous work of this author is the monumental group “Anna Ioannovna with the Little Arab.”

Anna Ioannovna with a little black arap

In that sculptural work both the solemn pomp and decorative pomp characteristic of Baroque, and the amazing truthfulness and expressiveness of the image were reflected. An ermine robe, a luxurious dress strewn with pearls and diamonds, a precious scepter - everything testifies to the wealth of the empress. Her majestic pose symbolizes the sovereign power and strength of the empire. For greater persuasiveness, Rastrelli uses his favorite Baroque technique - a contrasting juxtaposition of the figures of the powerful empress and the small, graceful blackamoor.

Etienne Maurice Falconet

Of the foreign masters, the most famous was Etienne Maurice Falconet (1716-1791), the author of the famous monument, installed in St. Petersburg, - “The Bronze Horseman”. The sculptor wanted to “show people the beautiful image of a lawgiver extending his right hand over the country.”

Bronze Horseman

On August 7, 1782, thousands of St. Petersburg residents rushed to Senate Square. There stood a monument covered with shields, around which troops were lined up. The crowd was buzzing with anticipation. Finally, a rocket took off into the sky. The wooden shields collapsed. Cannons fired from the Peter and Paul and Admiralty fortresses and from ships stationed on the Neva. The orchestra's music began to play. A monument to Peter I by the French sculptor Falconet was unveiled in the capital.

After the 1720-1730s, the “time of palace coups” and the era of “Bironovism,” a new rise of national self-awareness began, intensified by the struggle against foreign domination. The accession of Elizaveta Petrovna, daughter of Peter I, was perceived by Russian society as the beginning of the revival of Russia and the continuation of Peter's traditions. Under her, Moscow University and the Academy of the Three Most Notable Arts were founded, which would later play a huge role in the training of domestic personnel in the field of science and art.

One of the first professors of the newly opened Academy of Arts was the French sculptor Nicolas Francois Gillet, a representative of the late Baroque, who taught students professional mastery various types plastic arts, teacher of many subsequently famous masters.

Andreas Schlüter (1660/1665-1714)

Conrad Osner (1669-1747)

Bartolomeo Carlo Rastrelli (1675-1744)

The most significant master of Russian sculpture in the first half of the 18th century was the Italian-born Count Bartolomeo Carlo Rastrelli. Without having done anything significant in Italy and France, he arrived in St. Petersburg in 1716, where he began to carry out large government orders, first for Peter I, then for Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna.

Working in Russia until his death, the sculptor created a number of outstanding works of monumental, decorative and easel sculpture.

Chapter “The Art of Russia. Sculpture". Section "Art of the 18th century". General history of art. Volume IV. Art of the 17th and 18th centuries. Author: I.M. Schmidt; under the general editorship of Yu.D. Kolpinsky and E.I. Rotenberg (Moscow, State Publishing House "Art", 1963)

Compared to architecture, the development of Russian sculpture in the 18th century was more uneven. The achievements that marked the second half of the 18th century were immeasurably more significant and diverse. The relatively weak development of Russian plastic arts in the first half of the century is due primarily to the fact that here, unlike architecture, there were no such significant traditions and schools. The development of ancient Russian sculpture, limited by the prohibitions of the Orthodox Christian Church, had an effect.

Achievements of Russian plastic arts of the early 18th century. almost entirely associated with decorative sculpture. First of all, the unusually rich sculptural decoration of the Dubrovitsky Church (1690-1704), the Menshikov Tower in Moscow (1705-1707) and the reliefs on the walls of the Summer Palace of Peter I in St. Petersburg (1714) should be noted. Executed in 1722-1726. The famous iconostasis of the Peter and Paul Cathedral, created according to the design of the architect I. P. Zarudny by carvers I. Telegin and T. Ivanov, can be considered, in essence, as the result of the development of this type of art. The huge carved iconostasis of the Peter and Paul Cathedral amazes with its solemn splendor, virtuosity of woodworking, and the richness and variety of decorative motifs.

Throughout the 18th century. Folk wooden sculpture continued to develop successfully, especially in the north of Russia. Despite the prohibitions of the synod, works of religious sculpture continued to be created for Russian churches in the north; Numerous wood and stone carvers, going to the construction of large cities, brought with them the traditions and creative techniques of folk art.

The most important state and cultural transformations that took place under Peter I opened up opportunities for Russian sculpture to develop outside the sphere of church commissions. There is great interest in round easel sculpture and portrait busts. One of the very first works of new Russian sculpture was the statue of Neptune, installed in Peterhof Park. Cast in bronze in 1715-1716, it is still close to the style of Russian wooden sculpture of the 17th-18th centuries.

Without waiting for the cadres of his Russian masters to gradually form, Peter gave instructions to buy antique statues and works of modern sculpture abroad. With his active assistance, in particular, a wonderful statue was acquired, known as the “Venus of Tauride” (now in the Hermitage); various statues and sculptural compositions were ordered for the palaces and parks of St. Petersburg, the Summer Garden; foreign sculptors were invited.

The most prominent of them was Carlo Bartolomeo Rastrelli (1675-1744), who came to Russia in 1716 and remained here until the end of his life. He is especially famous as the author of the remarkable bust of Peter I, executed and cast in bronze in 1723-1729. (Hermitage Museum).

The image of Peter I created by Rastrelli is distinguished by its realistic portrayal of portrait features and at the same time extraordinary solemnity. Peter's face expresses the indomitable willpower and determination of a great statesman. While Peter I was still alive, Rastrelli removed the mask from his face, which served him both to create a clothed wax statue, the so-called “Wax Person,” and for a bust. Rastrelli was a typical Western European master of the late Baroque. However, under the conditions of Peter’s Russia, the realistic aspects of his work received the greatest development. Among Rastrelli's later works, the statue of Empress Anna Ioannovna with a little black little girl (1741, bronze; Leningrad, Russian Museum) is widely known. What is striking in this work is, on the one hand, the unbiased truthfulness of the portrait painter, and on the other, the magnificent pomp of the decision and the monumentalization of the image. Overwhelming in its solemn heaviness, dressed in the most precious robes and mantle, the figure of the empress is perceived even more impressive and menacing next to the small figure of a little black boy, whose movements with their lightness further emphasize her heaviness and representativeness.

Rastrelli's high talent was manifested not only in portrait works, but also in monumental and decorative sculpture. He participated, in particular, in the creation of decorative sculpture of Peterhof, worked on the equestrian monument of Peter I (1723-1729), which was installed in front of the Mikhailovsky Castle only in 1800.

In the equestrian monument of Peter I, Rastrelli in his own way implemented numerous solutions for equestrian statues, ranging from the ancient “Marcus Aurelius” to the typically Baroque Berlin monument to the great Elector Andreas Schlüter. The peculiarity of Rastrelli's solution is felt in the restrained and austere style of the monument, in the significance of the image of Peter himself, emphasized without excessive pomp, as well as in the superbly found spatial orientation of the monument.

If the first half of the 18th century. marked by a relatively less widespread development of Russian sculpture, the second half of this century is the time of the rise of the art of sculpture. It is no coincidence that the second half of the 18th century. and the first third of the 19th century. called the “golden age” of Russian sculpture. A brilliant galaxy of masters in the person of Shubin, Kozlovsky, Martos and others are moving forward into the ranks of the largest representatives of world sculpture. Particularly outstanding successes were achieved in the field of sculptural portraits, monumental and monumental-decorative plastic arts. The latter was inextricably linked with the rise of Russian architecture, estate and urban construction.

The formation of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts played an invaluable role in the development of Russian plastic arts.

Second half of the 18th century. in European art - a time of high development of the art of portraiture. In the field of sculpture, the greatest masters of the psychological portrait-bust were Gudon and F.I. Shubin.

Fedot Ivanovich Shubin (1740-1805) was born into a peasant family near Kholmogory, on the shores of the White Sea. His ability for sculpture first manifested itself in bone carving, a widely developed folk craft in the north. Like his great countryman M.V. Lomonosov, Shubin as a young man went to St. Petersburg (1759), where his abilities for sculpture attracted the attention of Lomonosov. In 1761, with the assistance of Lomonosov and Shuvalov, Shubin managed to join the Academy of Arts. After its completion (1766), Shubin received the right to travel abroad, where he lived mainly in Paris and Rome. In France, Shubin met J. Pigal and took his advice.

Returning to St. Petersburg in 1773, Shubin in the same year created a plaster bust of A. M. Golitsyn (the marble copy, located in the Tretyakov Gallery, was made in 1775; see illustration). The bust of A. M. Golitsyn immediately glorified the name of the young master. The portrait recreates the typical image of a representative of the highest aristocracy of Catherine’s time. In the light smile sliding on his lips, in the energetic turn of his head, in the intelligent, although rather cold, expression of Golitsyn’s face, one can feel the secular sophistication and at the same time the inner satiety of a man spoiled by fate.

By 1774, Shubin was elected to the Academy for his completed bust of Catherine II. He is literally bombarded with orders. One of the most fruitful periods of the master’s creativity begins.

By the 1770s refers to one of the best female portraits of Shubin - a bust of M. R. Panina (marble; Tretyakov Gallery), which is quite close to the bust of A. M. Golitsyn: before us is also the image of a man who is aristocratically refined and at the same time tired and jaded. However, Panina is interpreted by Shubin with somewhat greater sympathy: the expression of somewhat feigned skepticism, noticeable in Golitsyn’s face, is replaced in Panina’s portrait by a shade of lyrical thoughtfulness and even sadness.

Shubin knew how to reveal the image of a person not in one, but in several aspects, in a multifaceted way, which made it possible to penetrate deeper into the being of the model and understand the psychology of the person being portrayed. He knew how to sharply and accurately capture a person’s facial expression, convey facial expressions, gaze, turn and position of the head. It is impossible not to pay attention to what various shades of facial expression the master reveals from different points of view, how skillfully he makes one feel the good nature or cold cruelty, stiffness or simplicity, inner content or self-satisfied emptiness of a person.

Second half of the 18th century. was a time of brilliant victories for the Russian army and navy. Several busts of Shubin immortalize the most prominent commanders of his time. Bust of Z. G. Chernyshev (marble, 1774; Tretyakov Gallery) is marked by great realism and unpretentious simplicity of the image. Without striving for a showy solution to the bust, refusing to use draperies, Shubin focused all the viewer’s attention on the hero’s face - courageously open, with large, slightly rough features, which, however, were not devoid of spirituality and inner nobility. The portrait of P. A. Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky (marble, 1778; Russian Museum) was designed differently. True, here Shubin does not resort to idealizing the hero’s face. However, the overall design of the bust is incomparably more impressive: the proudly raised head of the field marshal, his upward gaze, the conspicuous wide ribbon and superbly rendered drapery give the portrait features of solemn splendor.

It was not for nothing that Shubin was considered at the Academy to be the most experienced specialist in marble processing - his technique was amazingly free. “His busts are alive; the body in them is a perfect body...”, wrote one of the first Russian art critics, V. I. Grigorovich, in 1826. Knowing how to perfectly convey the living awe and warmth of the human face, Shubin just as skillfully and convincingly depicted accessories: wigs, light or heavy fabrics of clothing, thin lace, soft fur, jewelry and orders of those portrayed. However, the main thing for him always remained human faces, images and characters.

Over the years, Shubin gives a deeper, and sometimes more severe, psychological description of the images, for example, in the marble bust of the famous diplomat A. A. Bezborodko (most researchers date this work to 1797; Russian Museum) and especially the St. Petersburg police chief E. M. Chulkov ( marble, 1792; Russian Museum), in the image of which Shubin recreated a rude, internally limited person. The most striking work by Shubin in this regard is the bust of Paul I (marble in the Russian Museum; ill., bronze casts in the Russian Museum and Tretyakov Gallery), created in the late 1790s. In it, bold truthfulness borders on the grotesque. The bust of M.V. Lomonosov is perceived as imbued with great human warmth (it came to us in plaster - the Russian Museum, marble - Moscow, Academy of Sciences, and also in bronze cast, which is dated 1793 - Cameron Gallery).

Being primarily a portrait painter, Shubin also worked in other areas of sculpture, creating allegorical statues, monumental and decorative reliefs intended for architectural structures (mainly for interiors), as well as for country parks. The most famous are his statues and reliefs for the Marble Palace in St. Petersburg, as well as the bronze statue of Pandora installed in the ensemble of the Great Cascade of Fountains in Peterhof (1801).

In the second half of the 18th century. One of the prominent French masters, highly valued by Diderot, worked in Russia - Etienne Maurice Falconet (1716-1791), who lived in St. Petersburg from 1766 to 17781. The purpose of Falcone's visit to Russia was to create a monument to Peter I, on which he worked for twelve years. The result of many years of work was one of the most famous monuments in the world. If Rastrelli, in the above-mentioned monument to Peter I, presented his hero as an emperor - formidable and powerful, then Falcone places the main emphasis on recreating the image of Peter as the greatest reformer of his time, a daring and courageous statesman.

This idea lies at the heart of Falcone’s plan, who wrote in one of his letters: “... I will limit myself to a statue of a hero and depict him not as a great commander and winner, although, of course, he was both. The personality of the creator, the legislator is much higher...” The sculptor’s deep awareness of the historical significance of Peter I largely predetermined both the design and the successful solution of the monument.

Peter is presented at the moment of a rapid takeoff onto a rock - a natural block of stone, hewn like a huge sea wave rising. Stopping the horse at full speed, he extends his right hand forward. Depending on the point of view of the monument, Peter’s outstretched hand embodies either harsh inflexibility, then wise command, then, finally, calm peace. Remarkable integrity and plastic perfection were achieved by the sculptor in the figure of the rider and his mighty horse. Both of them are inextricably fused into a single whole, corresponding to a certain rhythm and general dynamics of the composition. Under the feet of a galloping horse, a snake trampled by him wriggles, personifying the forces of evil and deceit.

The freshness and originality of the concept of the monument, the expressiveness and meaningfulness of the image (his student M.-A. Kollo helped in creating the portrait image of Peter Falcone), the strong organic connection between the equestrian figure and the pedestal, taking into account visibility and an excellent understanding of the spatial arrangement of the monument over a vast area - all these merits make Falconet's creation a true masterpiece of monumental sculpture.

After Falconet left Russia, the completion of work (1782) on the construction of the monument to Peter I was supervised by Fyodor Gordeevich Gordeev (1744-1810).

In 1780, Gordeev created the tombstone of N. M. Golitsyna (marble; Moscow, Museum of Architecture of the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR). This small bas-relief turned out to be a landmark work in Russian memorial sculpture - from the Gordeev relief, as well as from the first tombstones of Martos, the type of Russian classical memorial sculpture of the late 18th - early 19th centuries developed. (works by Kozlovsky, Demut-Malinovsky, Pimenov, Vitali). Gordeev’s tombstones differ from the works of Martos in their lesser connection with the principles of classicism, the pomp and “magnificence” of the compositions, and the less clear and expressive arrangement of figures. As a monumental sculptor, Gordeev primarily paid attention to sculptural relief, of which the most famous are the reliefs of the Ostankino Palace in Moscow, as well as the reliefs of the porticoes of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. In them Gordeev adhered to a much more strict style than in the tombstones.

The work of Mikhail Ivanovich Kozlovsky (1753-1802) appears before us as bright and full-blooded, who, like Shubin and Martos (The work of I.P. Martos is discussed in the fifth volume of this publication), is a remarkable master of Russian sculpture.

In Kozlovsky’s work, two lines are quite clearly visible: on the one hand, there are his works such as “The Shepherd with a Hare” (known as “Apollo”, 1789; Russian Museum and Tretyakov Gallery), “Sleeping Cupid” (marble, 1792; Russian Museum), “Cupid with an Arrow” (marble, 1797; Tretyakov Gallery). They demonstrate the elegance and sophistication of the plastic form. Another line is works of heroic-dramatic nature (“Polycrates”, plaster, 1790, ill., and others).

At the very end of the 18th century, when major work began on the reconstruction of the ensemble of Peterhof fountains and the replacement of dilapidated lead statues with new ones, M. I. Kozlovsky was given the most responsible and honorable assignment: to sculpt the central sculptural composition of the Grand Cascade in Peterhof - the figure of Samson tearing his mouth lion

Erected in the first half of the 18th century, the statue of Samson was directly dedicated to the victories of Peter I over the Swedish troops. The newly performed “Samson” by Kozlovsky, in principle repeating the old composition, is solved in a more sublimely heroic and figuratively significant way. Samson's titanic build, the strong spatial reversal of his figure, designed to be viewed from different points of view, the intensity of the fight and at the same time the clarity of its outcome - all this was conveyed by Kozlovsky with true mastery of compositional solutions. The temperamental, exceptionally energetic sculpting characteristic of the master could not have been more suitable for this work.

“Samson” by Kozlovsky is one of the most remarkable works of park monumental and decorative sculpture. Rising to a height of twenty meters, a stream of water gushing from the lion’s mouth fell down, either carried to the side, or broken into thousands of splashes on the gilded surface of the bronze figure. “Samson” attracted the attention of spectators from afar, being an important landmark and the central point of the composition of the Grand Cascade (This most valuable monument was taken away by the Nazis during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. After the war, “Samson” was recreated from surviving photographs and documentary materials by the Leningrad sculptor V. Simonov.).

“Hercules on Horseback” (bronze, 1799; Russian Museum) should be considered as the work that immediately preceded the creation of the monument to A.V. Suvorov. In the image of Hercules - a naked young horseman, under whose feet rocks, a stream and a snake are depicted (a symbol of the defeated enemy), Kozlovsky embodied the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bA. V. Suvorov's immortal transition through the Alps.

Kozlovsky's most outstanding creation was the monument to the great Russian commander A.V. Suvorov in St. Petersburg (1799-1801). While working on this monument, the sculptor set out to create not a portrait statue, but a generalized image of the world-famous commander. Initially, Kozlovsky intended to present Suvorov in the image of Mars or Hercules. However, in the final decision we still do not see a god or an ancient hero. Full of movement and energy, the swift and light figure of a warrior in armor rushes forward with that indomitable speed and fearlessness that distinguished the heroic deeds and exploits of the Russian armies led by Suvorov. The sculptor managed to create an inspired monument to the unfading military glory of the Russian people.

Like almost all of Kozlovsky’s works, the statue of Suvorov is distinguished by its superbly found spatial structure. In an effort to more fully characterize the commander, Kozlovsky gave his figure both composure and dynamism; the measured strength of the hero’s step is combined with the courage and determination of the swing of his right hand holding the sword. At the same time, the figure of the commander is not devoid of features characteristic of 18th century sculpture. gracefulness and ease of movement. The statue is beautifully mounted on a high granite pedestal in the form of a cylinder. The bronze bas-relief composition depicting the geniuses of Glory and Peace with the corresponding attributes was made by sculptor F. G. Gordeev. Initially, the monument to A.V. Suvorov was erected in the depths of the Champ de Mars, closer to the Mikhailovsky Castle. In 1818-1819 The monument to Suvorov was moved and took a place near the Marble Palace.

Kozlovsky also worked in the field of memorial sculpture (tombstones of P. I. Melissino, bronze, 1800 and S. A. Stroganova, marble, 1801-1802).

At the end of the 18th century. A number of major sculptors quickly emerged, whose creative activity also continued throughout almost the entire first third of the 19th century. These masters include F. F. Shchedrin and I. P. Prokofiev.

Feodosia Fedorovich Shchedrin (1751-1825), brother of the painter Semyon Shchedrin and father of the famous landscape painter Sylvester Shchedrin, was admitted to the Academy in 1764 at the same time as Kozlovsky and Martos. With them, after completing his studies, he was sent to Italy and France (1773).

Among the early works of F. Shchedrin are small figurines “Marsyas” (1776) and “Sleeping Endymion” (1779), executed by him in Paris (the bronze castings available in the Russian Museum and the Tretyakov Gallery were made at the beginning of the 20th century based on the surviving original models of F. Shchedrin). Both in their content and in the nature of execution, these are completely different works. The figure of Marcia, restless in the throes of death, is performed with great drama. The extreme tension of the body, the protruding mounds of muscles, and the dynamism of the entire composition convey the theme of human suffering and his passionate impulse for liberation. On the contrary, the figure of Endymion, immersed in sleep, breathes idyllic calm and serenity. The young man's body is sculpted in a relatively generalized manner, with little light and shadow detailing; the outlines of the figure are smooth and melodic. The development of F. Shchedrin's creativity as a whole completely coincided with the development of all Russian sculpture in the second half of the 18th - early 19th centuries. This can be seen in the example of such works by the master as the statue “Venus” (1792; Russian Museum), the allegorical figure “Neva” for the Peterhof fountains (bronze, 1804) and, finally, the monumental groups of caryatids for the Admiralty in St. Petersburg (1812). If the first of the named works by Shchedrin, his marble statue of Venus, is a typical work of an 18th century sculptor both in its exquisite grace of movement and in the sophistication of its image, then in a later work created at the very beginning of the 19th century - in the statue of the Neva - we see undoubtedly greater simplicity in the solution and interpretation of the image, clarity and rigor in the modeling of the figure and in its proportions.

An interesting and unique master was Ivan Prokofievich Prokofiev (1758-1828). After graduating from the Academy of Arts (1778), I. P. Prokofiev was sent to Paris, where he lived until 1784. For his works submitted to the Paris Academy of Arts, he received several awards, in particular a gold medal for the relief “The Resurrection of the Dead Thrown on the Bones of the Prophet Elisha” (1783). A year earlier, in 1782, Prokofiev executed the statue “Morpheus” (terracotta; Russian Museum). Prokofiev gives the figure of Morpheus on a small scale. In this early work of the sculptor, his realistic aspirations and simple, not so refined style (compared, for example, to the early Kozlovsky) clearly appear. It is felt that in “Morpheus” Prokofiev sought more to recreate the real image of a fallen man rather than a mythological image.

In the year of his return to St. Petersburg, I. P. Prokofiev in a very short time performed one of his best works in round sculpture - the composition “Actaeon” (bronze, 1784; Russian Museum and Tretyakov Gallery). The figure of a rapidly running young man, pursued by dogs, was executed by the sculptor with excellent dynamics and extraordinary ease of spatial design.

Prokofiev was an excellent master of drawing and composition. And it is no coincidence that he paid so much attention to sculptural relief - in this area of ​​creativity, knowledge of composition and drawing acquire special importance. In 1785 - 1786 Prokofiev creates an extensive series of reliefs (plaster) intended for the main staircase of the Academy of Arts. Prokofiev's reliefs for the building of the Academy of Arts are a whole system of thematic works in which the ideas of the educational significance of the “sciences and fine arts” are carried out. These are the allegorical compositions “Painting and Sculpture”, “Drawing”, “Kithared and the Three Most Noble Arts”, “Mercy” and others. By the nature of their execution, these are typical works of early Russian classicism. The desire for calm clarity and harmony is combined in them with a soft, lyrical interpretation of images. The glorification of man has not yet acquired the social-civil pathos and rigor that it did during the period of mature classicism in the first third of the 19th century.

When creating his reliefs, the sculptor subtly took into account the features of their location, different formats, and visibility conditions. As a rule, Prokofiev preferred low relief, but in cases where it was necessary to create a monumental composition with a significant distance from the viewer, he boldly used the high-relief method of depiction, sharply enhancing the light and shadow contrasts. Such is his colossal relief “Copper Serpent”, placed above the passage of the colonnade of the Kazan Cathedral (Pudozh stone, 1806-1807).

Along with the leading masters of Russian sculpture of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Prokofiev participated in the creation of works for the Peterhof fountain ensemble (statues of Alcides, Volkhov, a group of tritons). He also turned to portrait sculpture; in particular, he owns two not devoid of merits terracotta busts of A.F. and A.E. Labzin (Russian Museum). Executed at the very beginning of the 1800s, both of them are still closer in their traditions to the works of Shubin than to the portraits of Russian classicism of the first third of the 19th century.