Vol. 7 No. 4 (2020)
Space and Culture, India

Perspective

A Concept of Nature in the Modern Animalistic Art of Russia: An Environmental Aspect of the Genre

Published 2020-03-29

  • Irina Portnova

Irina Portnova
Moscow

Abstract

The study deals with the concept of nature in modern local wildlife art from the perspective of environmental thinking. It is significant in both cultural and artistic aspects. Modern wildlife art has become a vehicle for pressing issues in nature studies and has demonstrated a variety of artistic solutions, creative manners, and approaches, from traditional realistic variants to stylistic interpretations in the spirit of previous epochs. The study reports that the passage of time has caused changes in the historically established genre structure; its boundaries have become vague and the very structure of an artistic image has become polysemic. Nowadays, local art criticism does not cover this issue adequately.

Meanwhile, modern wildlife art represents a bright example of the thematic and stylistic variety of artistic techniques and has a fresh look at the world of animals in its entirety, which refers to a new perception of nature, human attitude to it and supplements the picture of the development of the entire local arts. Against this background, the study of current wildlife issues is quite relevant. The historical and artistic methods allow us to evaluate the originality of animalism, its different sides, in particular genre, species and stylistic diversity, as a characteristic and an iconic phenomenon of modern art, reflecting the concept of “nature" in its ecological perspective. The significance of wildlife art is stressed in moral respect. It is wildlife art, which is closest to nature that organically reflects the picture of the modern world with its current environmental issues and dire ecological situation. The wildlife art of the end of the 19th Century to the beginning of the 21st Century is characterised by the exploration of new vital issues of its time. Therefore, the material given in the article is important for art criticism since it enriches it with a unique perspective of study and in a wider cultural meaning, and, thus, forms a modern philosophical picture of human-nature-animals interrelations.

Keywords

Animals; Ecology; Moral Aspect; Image; School; Realism; Trend; Style; Artistic Worldview

Pdf

References

  1. Aftandilian, D. (2007). What are the Animals to Us?: Approaches from Science, Religion, Folklore, Literature, and Art, pp.343.
  2. Amberlyn J. C (2012). The Artist's Guide to Drawing Realistic Animals How to Draw Cats, Dogs, and Other Favorite Pets. Watson-Guptill Publications, pp. 192.
  3. Andreeva L.М. (1987). Кozhin. Sovetskoe Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo 9. Мoscow, pp. 223-237.
  4. Baker S. (2000). The Postmodern Animal. Reaktion Books, pp.207.
  5. Bubnova E.A. (1978). Pavel Mikhailovich Kozhin. 1909-1975. Sovestkaya Skulptura 76. Moscow. Sov. Khudozhnik, pp.189-192.
  6. Craig Patch D, Eaton-Krauss M, Susan J. Allen (2011). Dawn of Egyptian Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, pp. 275.
  7. Granovskaya N. (1976). Marina Ostrovskaya. Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR. 1, pp. 31.
  8. Gordon Lindsay Campbell. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life, pp. 633.
  9. Gorlov’s letters to. Vatagin V.A. (1960-1968). Russian State Archive of Literature and Art F.3022, op.1, ed. khr. 107.
  10. Enstein M.N. (1986). Mir Zhivitnyh i Samopoznanir Cheloveka .World of Animals and Human Self-Cognition (Following the Russian XIX-XX Centuries Poetry).
  11. Kelman L. (1973). Andrey Marz, Animalist Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo 7, pp. 35-37.
  12. Kramarenko L.G. (1965). Gorlovskie Zveri Khudozhniki Veschei, pp.77-94.
  13. Laidman H. (2012). Drawing Animals, Courier Corporation, pp.160.
  14. Lindstrand D. (2006). The Artist's Guide. North Light Books, p. 143
  15. Makarov K. (1976). Bolshaya Ptitsa Alekseya Sotnikova (k 70-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya skukptora) Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1. pp.43-45.
  16. Murina E. A. (1984). Sotnikov. Vesna Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1. pp. 21.
  17. Morphy H. (2014). Animals Into Art. pp. 508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315746357
  18. PerfilievV.(1979). Aleksei Georgievich Sotbikov. Sovetskaya Skulptura. 77. pp. 295-300.
  19. Slonim I. (1972). Chem Khorosh Frikh-Khar (k 80-letity khudozhnika). Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 9. pp. 18-20.
  20. Svetlov I.E. (1972). Vdokhnovlyayuschaya Sila Prirody. Iz Masterskoy Skulptora Belashova Iskusstvo 10. pp. 24-29.
  21. Tikhanova V.A. (1979). Russian Animalists. Sovetskaya Grafika. pp. 373-376.
  22. Tikhanova V.A (1990). Animalistika. Granitsy Zhanra Ocherki o Sovetskih Skulptorah-Animalistah Sovetskiy Khudozhnik, pp.240 .
  23. Тikhanova V.А. (1968). Skulptor-Animalist D.V. Gorlov Iskusstvo. 3, pp.34-37.
  24. Vatagin V.A. (1980). Vospominaniya. Zapiski Animalista. Articles, pp.7.
  25. Veselitskaya-Ignatus (1986). N. Svetlana Aseryantz. Sovestkaya Skulptura 10, pp. 74-83.
  26. Vorobyev’s letter to V.A. Vatagin (1959-1960). Russian State Archive of Literature and Art. F.3022, op.1, ed. khr. 103.
  27. Yablonskaya M.N.(1979). Skulptor Lazar Gadaev Sovestkaya Skulptura 77, pp. 142-148

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.