Bakushinsky, Anatoly Vasilievich

He was born on April 16 ( 28 ), 1883 in the village of Verkhny Landekh of the Gorokhovets district of Vladimir province (now in the Ivanovo region ).

In 1907 he entered Yuriev University , which he graduated in 1911 . Then he studied at the Moscow Pedagogical Institute. P. G. Shelaputin (1912-1914).

Professor at Moscow University (1924-1939), Department of Theory and History of Arts, Faculty of Social Sciences, and Department of the History of Russian Art, Ethnological Faculty . Doctor of Arts (1936).

He worked in Tsvetkovskaya (1917-1925) and Tretyakovskaya (1924-1939) galleries in Moscow; developed a training methodology for guides and principles of aesthetic education, in particular for children.

He was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery .

It should be emphasized the great interest of the scientist in folk art; this is precisely what allowed him to put forward serious artistic tasks in front of folk art in the changed conditions.

From the first years after the revolution, Bakushinsky did a great job of restoring folk crafts ( Palekh , Mstyora , Kholuy , Khokhloma and Gorodets painting, Dymkovo toy), developing here his own methods of work that have retained significance in our time.

Bakushinsky emphasized the connection between the moments of decor, ornament and structure and their harmonious interaction in folk art. He also noted that in its development it interacts with other cultural styles, and folk art subjugates all influences.

In the practice of working with crafts during the 1920s , two views fought: artistic and commercial. At the same time, A.V. Bakushinsky, who worked directly with the masters, most consistently conducted artistic views on the development of crafts. In his opinion, a specialist who takes up the artistic direction of crafts should not constrain the creative freedom of the masters, but should reveal their inner possibilities, without imposing any artistic decisions; all the more, he must refuse to evaluate the works of artisans-artists and from a narrow commercial orientation.

At present, Bakushinsky’s position seems to be the most wealthy, since in the end it came down to preserving the art of crafts precisely as a great artistic phenomenon. The revival of the art of Palekh, Mstera, Khokhloma, Gorodets, Dymka was carried out under the direct supervision of Anatoly Vasilievich, who deeply studied the history of these crafts and, subtly knowing their artistic features, directed the search for masters.

Bakushinsky’s creative contact with the Palestinians arose during the most difficult and crucial period of their transition from icon painting to lacquer miniature.

The craftsman, according to Bakushinsky, was the decisive force of the craft, but at the same time emphasized the importance of tradition for the craft and the collective nature of creativity. So, in one of his letters to the Palekh artist, Nikolai Mikhailovich Zinoviev, Anatoly Vasilyevich exclaimed: "What would the talent of Ivan Golikov mean outside the work of the collective of Palekh masters."

For practical work with folk craftsmen, the scientist was armed with vast pedagogical experience. It was A.V. Bakushinsky who gave the first theoretical justification for the formation of an artist of folk art crafts and investigated the problem of transferring professional skill and the tradition of apprenticeship. He sensitively supported the creative plan of each master, noting his findings and mistakes.

Associated with the fields of direct practical work, A.V. Bakushinsky tested his theory by experiment, while at the same time enriching the latter with the results of scientific research. In such an inseparability of practice, theory and historical study of art, the debate that arose the research thought of the scientist was honed and deepened. The results appeared rather quickly, although they were often criticized negatively by critics. Indicative in this regard is the debate that took place in the 1920s on the theme "Right-wing Trends in Art". At it, Bakushinsky boldly spoke out in defense of the new Palekh, smashing his opponents, because he knew the living matter very well.

In an atmosphere of heated debate, when heritage and its role in the new socialist culture were often misunderstood, many issues, in particular the then debated question about the development of Palekh's art, became extremely acute. Bakushinsky, speaking at a debate at the State Academy of Arts, defended young Palekh art from dogmas who denied Palekh's new path. He proved the organicness of the transition of the paleshans from icon painting to lacquer miniature and the naturalness of the stylistic dependence of this miniature on the icon, the icon painting skill of the paleshanin and its traditional continuity.

Some art historians accused Bakushinsky (mainly for his work in Palekh) of allegedly “surrendering” to the artistic values ​​of the past, while it was precisely his deep understanding of modernity that allowed the scientist to vigilantly see the organicness of Palekh art, the readiness of its new stage by the history that preserved the life of the craft.

In the works of the oldest Palestinian women - I. Golikov , I. Markichev ^[1] , I. Bakanov ^[2] , A. Kotukhin, A. Dydykin, I. Vakurov and many others - Bakushinsky, a delicate and sensitive art connoisseur, noted the true life of art .

In the Khokhloma industry, where until the 1920s - 1930s the pseudo-Russian style of the pre-revolutionary years dominated, the style of dry graphic ornamentation of a coloring character, the scientific creative intuition of the scientist helped to feel the true living breath of traditions in free handwritten grass writing. And Khokhloma was reborn, returning to its folk roots.

Bakushinsky always skillfully supported the creative initiative of the national master. Awakening her after the October Revolution broke the view at the end of the last century on the craftsman as a handicraftsman, artisan working on the model of professional artists. Letting the master feel the freedom of creativity is the task set by Bakushinsky. This was extremely important at a time when alien art forms, often imposed from outside, took root in many crafts. A wide range of research ideas allowed Bakushinsky to seriously pose the problem of children's creativity and primitive art, reflecting commonality in the mechanism of perception of the world. Bakushinsky in his articles gives an interesting concept of primitive in a small form of sculpture, based on the characteristics of primitive consciousness. As an example of a symbolic primitive feeling of life, he considers a folk toy, studying its origin.

The 30s were characterized by the study of then existing folk art crafts, the desire to restore them and identify the most valuable that could contribute to their development. In the early 30s, Bakushinsky was trying to help restore Gorodets and Gorodets painting. He goes to Gorodets. He meets some masters, such as I. A. Mazin, F. S. Krasnoyarov and I. I. Sundukov. All of them still write portrait scenes, they find it difficult to sell them. But more work on painting small products. At the request of A.V. Bakushinsky, the masters perform a number of interesting paintings. Among the masters, the most attention was attracted by I. A. Mazin. He made boards with different scenes, as Bakushinsky himself wrote about his painting:

“Mazin was the first in his art to turn to the image of Soviet reality, the collective farm village, its way of life. He contrasted its past with the present, and often this comparison is sharp. He vigilantly observes everything new in rural life, characteristic of modern culture. ”

A work of folk art, like works of professional art, was considered by Bakushinsky as a “center of creative forces”, as a “shaped clot of creative energy that is introduced into the life of an artist and then acts individually and socially.” It is indicative of the scientific intuition of the scientist that, despite all the sentences that were heard then, to folk art, allegedly going to its end, Bakushinsky stated:

“In a socialist society, folk art not only does not complete its circle, but, on the contrary, must gain new strengths and sources for its development.”

• Bakushinsky A.V. Artistic creation and upbringing. - M .: New Moscow, 1925 .-- 240 p.
• Bakushinsky A.V., Maslennikov N.N. Russian art varnishes. - M .: All-artist, 1933 .-- 31 p.
• Bakushinsky A.V., Vasilenko V.M. Art of Mstera. - M.-L .: KOIZ, 1934 .-- 102 p.
• Bakushinsky A.V. Art of Palekh. - M.-L .: Academia, 1934 .-- 268 p.
• Bakushinsky A.V.N. A. Andreev. 1873-1932. - M .: Art, 1939. - 91 p.

• Nationality of art

• Zolotareva L. R., Zolotareva Ya. A. Artistic and pedagogical ideas of A. V. Bakushinsky // Bulletin of the Karaganda state. un-that. Ser. Pedagogy. - 2010. - No. 1 . - S. 33-40 .

• Bakushinsky Anatoly Vasilievich / Galushkina A.S. // Great Soviet Encyclopedia : [30 vol.] / Ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov . - 3rd ed. - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969-1978.
• Bakushinsky Anatoly Vasilievich (neopr.) . Chronicle of Moscow University . Date of treatment December 14, 2017.