Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title Two Russian Styles, Vladimir Stasov and One the Myth in a History of 19th-century Russian Art
Author email
About author Pechenkin, Ilia Evgenievich — Ph. D., associate professor, head of Department History of Russian Art. Russian State University for the Humanities: 6 Miusskaya pl., Moscow, Russian Federation, 125993. ORCID: 0000-0002-8000-7792
In the section Russian Art in the 18th–19th Centuries DOI10.18688/aa2111-07-58
Year 2021 Volume 11 Pages 718728
Type of article RAR Index UDK 72.035 + 7.067.3 Index BBK 85.113(2)

An actual look at the Russian artistic process of the 19th century is largely determined by the experience of Soviet art history, which, in turn, appealed to the authority of the critic Vladimir Stasov (1824–1906). One of the plots that allow us to assess the tendentiousness of his interpretations is related to the question of the Russian Style in the architecture of post-reform Russia. Now the subjectivist and contradictory nature of Stasov’s judgments about national and democratic art is reflected by researchers. However, as the author of this article shows, the reading of Stasov’s texts by Soviet architectural historians was also biased.

This can be clearly seen in the example of the idea developed by Evgenia I. Kirichenko about what the confrontation between two different versions of the Russian Style, reflecting the political opposition of the official nationality and the diverse intelligentsia allegedly took place in architecture in the 1870s and 1890s. Indeed, one can find an opposition between two alternatively versions of nationalized architecture that runs through Stasov’s texts. But a closer reading of them, it becomes clear that the critic distinguishes not synchronously developing official and democratic versions of the Russian Style, but two artistic eras — associated with the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II, respectively.

Stasov’s apologia for the Russian Style of Victor Hartman and Ivan Ropette, as opposed to the state-official architecture of Konstantin Thon, had a socio-political tone, but there was no connection between the ropetovshchina and the radical intelligentsia’s views. On the contrary, the pathos of his speeches consisted in great sympathy for the cause of the reforms of Alexander II, a quarter-century of whose reign was described by Stasov as a period of unprecedented liberation of Russian creative spirit. The making difference of the Russian Style according to the “party affiliation” of architects and artists is counterproductive, since this affiliation itself is very doubtful. Periodization, in the opinion of the author of the article, is a much more adequate method of systematizing the materials of the Russian Style.

Reference Pechenkin, Ilia E. Two Russian Styles, Vladimir Stasov and One the Myth in a History of 19th-century Russian Art. Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art: Collection of articles. Vol. 11. Eds A. V. Zakharova, S. V. Maltseva, E. Iu. Staniukovich-Denisova. — St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Univ. Press, 2021, pp. 718–728. ISSN 2312-2129.
Publication Article language russian
  • Anderson B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London; New York, Verso Publ., 2006. 240 p.
  • Borisova E. A. Russkaia arkhitektura vtoroi poloviny XIX veka (Russian Architecture of the Second Half of 19th Century). Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1979. 318 p. (in Russian).
  • Borisova E. A. The First Architectural Designs of V. M. Vasnetsov. Stil’ zhizni — stil’ iskusstva. Razvitie natsional’no-romanticheskogo napravleniia stilia modern v evropeiskikh khudozhestvennykh tsentrakh vtoroi poloviny XIX–nachala XX veka. Rossiia, Angliia, Germaniia, Shvetsiia, Finliandiia (Lifestyle — Art Style. The National-Romantic Trend of the Art Nouveau in European Art Centers at the 2nd Half of 19th— Beginning of 20th Century. Russia, England, Germany, Sweden, Finland). Moscow, State Tretyakov Gallery Publ., 2000, pp. 298–305 (in Russian).
  • Brumfield W. The Origins of Modernism in Russian Architecture. Berkeley, University of California Press , 1991. 400 p.
  • Gladkikh E. V. The Pogodin Hut in Moscow: New Materials on the History of Construction. Arhitekturnoe nasledstvo (Architectural Heritage), vol. 72. Saint-Petersburg, Kolo Publ., 2020, pp. 133–144 (in Russian).
  • Hobsbawm E. Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870–1914. Hobsbawm E.; Ranger T. (eds.) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 1983, pp. 263–307.
  • Ignat’eva O. V. P. M. Tret’jakov and V. V. Stasov: Dialogue on the Nature of Nationalized Art. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta (Perm University Bulletin, History series), 2017, no. 2 (37), pp. 75–84. Available at: (accessed 15 November 2020) (in Russian).
  • Il’in M. A. Russian National Architecture and the Problem of Russian Style. Arkhitektura SSSR. Sborniki Soiuza sovetskikh arkhitektorov (Architecture in USSR: Bulletins of Soviet Architects’ Union). 1945, no 9, pp. 31–33 (in Russian).
  • Kirichenko E. I. Russkaia arhitektura 1830–1910-kh godov (The Russian Architecture, 1830–1910s). Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1978. 400 p. (in Russian).
  • Kirichenko E. I. The Russian Style. London, Laurence King Publ., 1991. 288 p.
  • Kirichenko E. I. Arhitekturnye teorii XIX veka v Rossii (Architectural Theories of 19th Century in Russia). Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1986. 344 p. (in Russian).
  • Kirikov B. M. Church of the Ressurection (To the History of “Russian Style” at Saint-Petersburg). Nevskii arhiv (Neva Archives). Moscow; St. Petersburg, Atheneum; Feniks Publ., 1993, pp. 204–245 (in Russian).
  • Pechenkin I. E. Regulation and Liberty in the Architectural Politics of Alexander III. Bondarenko I. A. (ed.) Arkhitekturno-gradostroitel’nyi protsess: Reglamentatsii i svoboda (Architecture and Urban Planning in Process: Regulation and Liberty). Moscow, Lenand Publ., 2013, pp. 296–320 (in Russian).
  • Pechenkin I. E. To the Question about the Origins of Neo-Russian Style in the 2nd half of 19th-century Architecture. Arhitekturnoe nasledstvo (Architectural Heritage), vol. 60. St. Petersburg, Kolo Publ., 2014, pp. 241–251 (in Russian).
  • Pechenkin I. E. Some Notes on the Russian Style Revival in 19th-century Architecture. Artikult (Art&Cult), 2018, no 1 (29), pp. 50–59. Available at:,P.50-59)-Pechenkin.pdf (accessed 15 November 2020) (in Russian).
  • Savel’ev Ju. R. Iskusstvo istorizma i gosudarstvennyi zakaz (The Art of Historicism and the Governmental Order). Moscow, Sovpadenie Publ., 2008. 400 p. (in Russian).
  • Shabanov A. E. Peredvizhniki: mezhdu kommercheskim tovarishhestvom i khudozhestvennym dvizheniem (Peredvizhniki: Between a Commercial Partnership and An Art Movement). St. Petersburg, European University in Saint-Petersburg Publ., 2015. 336 p. (in Russian).
  • Stasov V. V. The Twenty-five Years of Russian Art. Stasov V. V. Izbrannye sochineniia (Selected Works), vol. 2. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1952, pp. 499–522 (in Russian).
  • Varlamova A. A. The Sources of Composition and Decoration of the Pogodin Izba in Moscow. Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, NP-Print Publ., 2011, pp. 222–226. Available at: (accessed 15 November 2020) (in Russian).
  • Wortman R. “The Russian Style” in Church Architecture as Imperial Symbol after 1881. Cracraft J.; Rowland D. (eds.). Architectures of Russian Identity: 1500 to the Present. Ithaca, Cornell University Press Publ., 2003, pp. 101–116.
  • Wortman R. Scenarios of Power. Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy. New York, Princeton University Press Publ., 2006. 512 p.