想象俄罗斯:构建俄罗斯帝国民族风格中的弗拉基米尔-斯塔索夫

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 N/A HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Ilia Pechenkin
{"title":"想象俄罗斯:构建俄罗斯帝国民族风格中的弗拉基米尔-斯塔索夫","authors":"Ilia Pechenkin","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.4.847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the phenomenon of the “Russian Revival Style” in the architecture of the late Russian Empire, which opens vast opportunities for interpretation. Since the late twentieth century, the most widespread approach to this phenomenon has been a romanticised point of view, where the Russian style is described as a realisation of the people’s objective need for national selfidentification. A significant role in the formation of this perspective was played by the journalism of the post-reform decades of the nineteenth century, by Vladimir Stasov in particular, whose views were regarded as canonical in the Soviet era as those of an expert and interpreter of the Russian artistic process of the 1860s–1880s. The experience of Soviet art studies shows that in case of a biased reading, Stasov’s texts could provide a more radical version of the origin of the Russian Revival Style interpreted as an expression of the sympathies and aspirations of the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia. This study identifies the contradiction between Stasov’s “democratic” rhetoric and the realities of class society. This inner conflict allows Stasov’s judgments to be attributed to the realm of cultural imagination and not to the description of an ongoing process, to the category of presumptions, not statements. Analysing the interpretation of the Russian Revival Style given by Stasov as one of the manifestations of progress, of which he was an unconditional and ardent supporter, the author of the article proposes to consider this phenomenon in the context of the purposeful construction of the imperial nation, carried out by the Russian autocracy throughout the nineteenth century. The title and arguments of his review essay Twenty-Five Years of Russian Art (1883), which summarises the artistic results of the quarter-century reign of Emperor Alexander II (1856–1881), testifies to the quite state-centred character of Stasov’s optics. The practice of the authorities in building a national identity through architecture met the needs of various social groups – from representatives of the aristocracy who sympathised with modernisation to industrialists interested in selling their goods on the foreign market. The opposition-minded intellectual, who clearly understood the socio-political background of the Russian Revival Style, was the last in the line of sympathisers with this enterprise. Sceptical of pre-reform institutions and the slanted tastes of high society, the nobleman Stasov was at the same time not one of the “Carbonari of art” and his apologia of the “Russian” was entirely in line with official imperial nationalism.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imagining Russian: Vladimir Stasov in the Construction of the National Style of the Russian Empire\",\"authors\":\"Ilia Pechenkin\",\"doi\":\"10.15826/qr.2023.4.847\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the phenomenon of the “Russian Revival Style” in the architecture of the late Russian Empire, which opens vast opportunities for interpretation. Since the late twentieth century, the most widespread approach to this phenomenon has been a romanticised point of view, where the Russian style is described as a realisation of the people’s objective need for national selfidentification. A significant role in the formation of this perspective was played by the journalism of the post-reform decades of the nineteenth century, by Vladimir Stasov in particular, whose views were regarded as canonical in the Soviet era as those of an expert and interpreter of the Russian artistic process of the 1860s–1880s. The experience of Soviet art studies shows that in case of a biased reading, Stasov’s texts could provide a more radical version of the origin of the Russian Revival Style interpreted as an expression of the sympathies and aspirations of the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia. This study identifies the contradiction between Stasov’s “democratic” rhetoric and the realities of class society. This inner conflict allows Stasov’s judgments to be attributed to the realm of cultural imagination and not to the description of an ongoing process, to the category of presumptions, not statements. Analysing the interpretation of the Russian Revival Style given by Stasov as one of the manifestations of progress, of which he was an unconditional and ardent supporter, the author of the article proposes to consider this phenomenon in the context of the purposeful construction of the imperial nation, carried out by the Russian autocracy throughout the nineteenth century. The title and arguments of his review essay Twenty-Five Years of Russian Art (1883), which summarises the artistic results of the quarter-century reign of Emperor Alexander II (1856–1881), testifies to the quite state-centred character of Stasov’s optics. The practice of the authorities in building a national identity through architecture met the needs of various social groups – from representatives of the aristocracy who sympathised with modernisation to industrialists interested in selling their goods on the foreign market. The opposition-minded intellectual, who clearly understood the socio-political background of the Russian Revival Style, was the last in the line of sympathisers with this enterprise. Sceptical of pre-reform institutions and the slanted tastes of high society, the nobleman Stasov was at the same time not one of the “Carbonari of art” and his apologia of the “Russian” was entirely in line with official imperial nationalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quaestio Rossica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quaestio Rossica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.4.847\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestio Rossica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.4.847","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了俄罗斯帝国晚期建筑中的 "俄罗斯复兴风格 "现象,这为我们提供了大量解读的机会。自二十世纪末以来,对这一现象最普遍的看法是浪漫主义观点,即俄罗斯风格被描述为人民对民族自我认同的客观需求的实现。这种观点的形成在 19 世纪改革后几十年的新闻报道中发挥了重要作用,尤其是弗拉基米尔-斯塔索夫,他的观点在苏联时代被视为 1860-1880 年代俄罗斯艺术进程专家和解释者的经典观点。苏联艺术研究的经验表明,如果解读有失偏颇,斯塔索夫的文本可能会对俄罗斯复兴风格的起源提供一个更为激进的版本,将其解释为具有革命意识的知识分子的同情和愿望的表达。本研究指出了斯塔索夫的 "民主 "言论与阶级社会现实之间的矛盾。这种内在矛盾使得斯塔索夫的判断被归结为文化想象的范畴,而不是对正在进行的过程的描述,被归结为假定的范畴,而不是陈述的范畴。文章作者分析了斯塔索夫将俄罗斯复兴风格解释为进步的一种表现形式--他是进步的无条件狂热支持者--的观点,并建议将这一现象放在整个十九世纪俄罗斯专制制度有目的地建设帝国国家的背景下进行思考。他的评论文章《俄罗斯艺术二十五年》(1883 年)总结了亚历山大二世在位四分之一世纪(1856-1881 年)的艺术成果,文章的标题和论点证明了斯塔索夫的视角是以国家为中心的。从同情现代化的贵族代表到对在国外市场上销售商品感兴趣的工业家,当局通过建筑建立国家认同的做法满足了不同社会群体的需求。具有反对思想的知识分子清楚地了解俄罗斯复兴风格的社会政治背景,是这一事业的最后一批支持者。贵族斯塔索夫对改革前的体制和上流社会的偏颇品味持怀疑态度,但他同时也不属于 "艺术的碳纳里",他为 "俄罗斯 "所做的辩护完全符合官方的帝国民族主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Imagining Russian: Vladimir Stasov in the Construction of the National Style of the Russian Empire
This article examines the phenomenon of the “Russian Revival Style” in the architecture of the late Russian Empire, which opens vast opportunities for interpretation. Since the late twentieth century, the most widespread approach to this phenomenon has been a romanticised point of view, where the Russian style is described as a realisation of the people’s objective need for national selfidentification. A significant role in the formation of this perspective was played by the journalism of the post-reform decades of the nineteenth century, by Vladimir Stasov in particular, whose views were regarded as canonical in the Soviet era as those of an expert and interpreter of the Russian artistic process of the 1860s–1880s. The experience of Soviet art studies shows that in case of a biased reading, Stasov’s texts could provide a more radical version of the origin of the Russian Revival Style interpreted as an expression of the sympathies and aspirations of the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia. This study identifies the contradiction between Stasov’s “democratic” rhetoric and the realities of class society. This inner conflict allows Stasov’s judgments to be attributed to the realm of cultural imagination and not to the description of an ongoing process, to the category of presumptions, not statements. Analysing the interpretation of the Russian Revival Style given by Stasov as one of the manifestations of progress, of which he was an unconditional and ardent supporter, the author of the article proposes to consider this phenomenon in the context of the purposeful construction of the imperial nation, carried out by the Russian autocracy throughout the nineteenth century. The title and arguments of his review essay Twenty-Five Years of Russian Art (1883), which summarises the artistic results of the quarter-century reign of Emperor Alexander II (1856–1881), testifies to the quite state-centred character of Stasov’s optics. The practice of the authorities in building a national identity through architecture met the needs of various social groups – from representatives of the aristocracy who sympathised with modernisation to industrialists interested in selling their goods on the foreign market. The opposition-minded intellectual, who clearly understood the socio-political background of the Russian Revival Style, was the last in the line of sympathisers with this enterprise. Sceptical of pre-reform institutions and the slanted tastes of high society, the nobleman Stasov was at the same time not one of the “Carbonari of art” and his apologia of the “Russian” was entirely in line with official imperial nationalism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quaestio Rossica
Quaestio Rossica HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Quaestio Rossica is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on the study of Russia’s history, philology, and culture. The Journal aims to introduce new research approaches in the sphere of the Humanities and previously unknown sources, actualising traditional methods and creating new research concepts in the sphere of Russian studies. Except for academic articles, the Journal publishes reviews, historical surveys, discussions, and accounts of the past of the Humanities as a field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信