Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title The Genre of Still Life in Contemporary Painting of St. Petersburg Artists-Academicians
Author email
About author Gracheva, Svetlana Mikhailovna — full doctor, dean of the Faculty of the theory and history of arts, professor. I. Repin St. Petersburg State Academy Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of the Russian Academy of Arts, Universitetskaia nab., 17, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
In the section Russian Art of the 20th–21st Century DOI10.18688/aa188-4-44
Year 2018 Volume 8 Pages 456466
Type of article RAR Index UDK 7.036 Index BBK 85.103(2)64

Fine art in Russia now enters a new phase, associated with the changes in the entire socio-cultural situation, with the impact of new technologies on culture, and with the development of the art market, which, as it turned out, was not a panacea for the pressing problems of society. On the background of general changes in the field of artistic culture, when the principle of representation of author’s works changes and an artifact gains the largest value and kind of an art brand created on behalf of the artist, certain metamorphosis of fine art causes it to lose its familiar form and criteria. Such sustainable concepts as “school”, “professionalism”, “expertise” do change.

It is interesting to see in such a genre as still life, strongly connected with the objective world, the notion of an art object and an artifact, the development of modern academic art. Still life is as important both as a “school” stage in the formation of professional level of an artist and as an independent genre of fine art with its rich history and specific way of world perception and even as a style-forming factor in art.

Still life “dead”, “frozen” nature conveys an artist’s world in its subject, material, aspect, reveals the understanding of the world through material medium. In still life the interpretation of space is different than, for example, in the landscape: the objects and not the natural environment play the major role. Of course, still life can be solved as landscape and vice versa, because there is some principle, worldview in it. Modern still life and other genres often trespass the usual boundaries. Still life as a genre is becoming one of the most popular in the works of contemporary artists-academics.

In the art of St. Petersburg masters, this genre is developing in several directions. The first direction, classical one, is represented by works of such masters as A. K. Bystrov, A. N. Bliok, and V. V. Zagonek. The painting of K. V. Grachev presents it as a philosophical genre and built on the achievements of the so-called “spherical perspective”. V. A. Mylnikova created still lifes of decorative direction. Expressionistic tendencies, based on the picturesque expressionism, are manifested in painting of S. D. Kichko, Yu. V. Kaluta, D. A. Collegova. Still life, emblematic in its original meaning as a genre that rests on deep symbolic subtext, took place in painting of such artists as N. Ryzhikova, E. Bazanova, O. Shwiderskaya. All these artists produce still life paintings both as independent works of art and parts of subject compositions. The study of evolution and the specifics of the genre of still life in contemporary St. Petersburg academic art would help to gain deeper understanding of indigenous processes taking place in Russian art as a whole.

Reference Gracheva, Svetlana M. The Genre of Still Life in Contemporary Painting of St. Petersburg Artists-Academicians. Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art: Collection of articles. Vol. 8. Ed. S. V. Mal’tseva, E. Iu. Staniukovich-Denisova, A. V. Zakharova. — St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Univ. Press, 2018, pp. 456–466. ISSN 2312-2129.
Publication Article language russian
  • Bolotina I. S. Problemy russkogo i sovetskogo natiurmorta (Problems of the Russian and Soviet Still Life). Moscow, Sovetskii Khudozhnik Publ., 1989. 192 p. (in Russian).
  • Dmitrenko A. F.; Bahtiyarov R. A. Peterburgskaia (leningradskaia) khudozhestvennaia shkola i sovremennoe iskusstvo (St. Petersburg (Leningrad) School of Art and Contemporary Art). Saint Petersburg, Artist Publ., 2017, no. 1, pp. 74-90 (in Russian).
  • Gracheva S. M. Faces of Modern Academic Realism. Nauchnye trudy instituta imeni I. E. Repina (Research papers оf the Repin Institute), 2016, vol. 38, pp. 108-127 (in Russian).
  • Gracheva S. M. Nina Ryzhikova’s Pearl World of Dreams. Nina Ryzhikova. Album. Saint Petersburg, Artindex Publ., 2013, pp. 8-15 (in Russian).
  • Gracheva S. M. Renaissance Motifs in Pictorial Art of Contemporary St. Petersburg Academists. Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art, vol. 6. A. V. Zakharova; S. V. Mal’tseva; E. Yu. Stanyukovich-Denisova (eds.). Saint Petersburg, NP-Print Publ., 2016, pp. 706-714. Available at: 77 (accessed 2 February 2017) (in Russian).
  • Gracheva S. M. Is the Modern Academic Art Contemporary? Voprosy iskusstvovedeniia XX nachala XXI v. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii v KAzNAI im. Zhurgenova (g. Almaty) (Problems of Art Criticism of the Late 20th and Early 21st Centuries. Materials of the International Scientific Conference). Almaty, Kazakh National Academy of Arts Publ., 2016, pp. 241-248 (in Russian).
  • Iakovleva N. A. Zhanry russkoi zhivopisi. Osnovy teorii i metodiki sistemno-istoricheskogo analiza (Genres of Russian Painting. Fundamentals of the Theory and Methodology of Systemic-Historical Analysis). Leningrad, Herzen State University Publ., 1986. 83 p. (in Russian).
  • Krivtsun O. A. Psihologiia iskusstva (The Psychology of Art). Moscow, Iurait Publ., 2015. 265 p. (in Russian).
  • Kuteinikova N. S.; Sazonova K. K. Leningradskaia zhivopisnaia shkola. Sotsrealizm (The Leningrad School of Painting. Socialist Realism). Saint Petersburg, Kolomenskaia versta Publ., 2008, pp. 3-5 (in Russian).
  • Leniashin V.; Kaljuta Ju. Petersburg, Palace Editions Publ., 2012. 296 p. (in Russian).
  • Leniashin V. A. Edinitsa hraneniia. Russkaia zhivopis’ — opyt muzeinogo istolkovaniia (The Unit of Storage. Russian Paintings — the Experience of Museum Interpretation). Saint Petersburg, Zolotoi vek Publ., 2014. 439 p. (in Russian).
  • Leniashin V. A. The Genre System as a Problem of Art History. Khudozhnik, 1977, no. 10, pp. 33-38 (in Russian).
  • Manin V. S. Art Genres in the Light of Their Essence. Sovetskoe iskusstvoznanie — 20, 1986, pp. 196-227 (in Russian).
  • Mochalov L. V. O sistematike tipovprostranstvennogopostroeniia kartiny Kriterii i suzhdeniia v iskusstvoznanii (The Classification of the Types of Spatial Construction of the Painting. The Criteria and Judgment in Art History). Moscow, Sovetskii khudozhnik Publ., 1986, pp. 276-293 (in Russian).
  • Punin N. N. Noveishie techeniia v russkom iskusstve. T. 1: Traditsii noveishego russkogo iskusstva (The Latest Trends in Russian Art. Vol. 1: Traditions of Contemporary Russian Art). Leningrad, State Russian Museum Publ., 1927, p. 14 (in Russian).
  • Punin N. N. Noveishie techeniia v russkom iskusstve. T. 2. Predmet i kul’tura (TheLatest Trends in Russian Art. Vol. 2: An Object and Culture). Leningrad, State Russian Museum Publ., 1927. 16 p. (in Russian).
  • Salienko A. P. The Still life of I. Mashkov “Hi, XVII Congress of the Communist Party” 1934. Genii mesta v russkom iskusstveXX veka (The Genius loci in Russian Art of the20th Century). Volgograd, Panorama Publ., 2016, pp. 343-357 (in Russian).
  • Tarabukin N. The Problem of a Landscape. Pechat’ i revoliutsiia (Printing and Revolution), 1927, no. 3, pp. 63-64 (in Russian).
  • Vipper B. Problema i razvitie natiurmorta (The Problem and the Evolution of Still Life). Kazan? Molodye sily Publ., 1922. 168 p. (in Russian)