Interview with Art Historian Natalie P.

By Stephen Wilson, one of our reporters abroad

StreetSense was fortunate enough to interview Natalie. P., a 20-year-old student of Art History at Moscow State University.  The interview took place in a cafe around the city center of Moscow after we had walked from theater square to about three theaters: the Bolshoi, the Mali, and the Moscow Art Theater.  

Natalie, who has long dark raven hair and very sharp, prominent and expressive eyes would quickly scan all the parts of some 19th century buildings and practically explain every decorative facet on a wall which would escape the attention of most people rushing by.  For instance, she drew my attention to one pale red sculpture of a woman's head on a wall whose long hair shot up above her head and explained it was part of the Nouveau art trend of the late 19th century linked to a romantic cult of women which perceived them as 'paragons of virtue.’ 

As we strolled along Kuznetsky Most Street, it became evident that this was not only a place of exotic, expensive, and trendy restaurants but also miraculously preserved buildings which mirrored the Russian Renaissance from the late 19th to the early 20th centuries.  And they were not just gems of architecture and art.  

There were many stories and legends connected with those buildings.  There was the ghosts of a late 18th century heartbroken ballet dancer who had committed suicide but was still seen by staff in the Bolshoi theater, the ghost of the French Fashion designer who had died in an accident on the street we walked down and the reported ghostly horse and carriage which silently glides down the street at dawn carrying gamblers to a debtor's prison.  

But that is not all. The theaters carry on the living legacy of Savva Mamontov, Alexander Ostrovsky, Anton Chekhov and Constantine Stanislavsky who founded his Moscow Art Theater near here.  Natalie is passionate about her subject. She certainly succeeds in positively infecting you with her enthusiasm.

.

Here is the interview:

StreetSense

Why did you choose to take up the profession of art historian?  I mean it is a very daunting and difficult subject where you have to be aware of the lives, works and overall context of each artist.  I, for one, could never remember all the names of so many artists never mind the roots.  The exam seems an ordeal, to say the least !

Natalie

I chose the history of art because I was fascinated by it while I was taught it at school.  Since my childhood I have been visiting the Tretyakov Gallery.  I visited every exhibition when I was at school because I liked art and my art teacher inspired me.  He is a great teacher!  His lectures are interesting and when we had a school conference on art I understood that it was fascinating.  When I understood that you could enter university and study it as a future profession it blew my mind.  I originally thought it could only be a hobby or interest.  I thought that art historians were not 'real people' but magicians.  When I started to prepare for exams I sometimes had my doubts about this profession.  But I could not see any other subject which so fascinated me as studying history.

StreetSense.

What do you think of Henry Ford's famous phrase 'History is bunk' {i.e, nonsense} and that people don't learn anything useful from history because they keep on repeating the same mistakes?

Natalie

I strongly disagree!  It's absolute rubbish!  We learn something from history.  When we study the history of architecture we understand the past mistakes which architects have made.  Art is always about improving things in yourself and other things.  It is about thinking globally.  If you are part of things you should think in a global way. For me it is the greatest thing in the World.

StreetSense

Why are the museums not free to the public in Moscow?  In Glasgow, all the museums are open and free to the public to visit!  After all, art is not the private property of a few people but belongs to everyone and the artists wanted their works to be seen by everyone.

Natalie

It is a good question.  If you charge too much for entry then people will think art is a luxury and for an elite.  In Saint Petersburg you have to pay around 500 rubles to visit the Hermitage Museum. Then in some museums you can pay 1000 rubles without an excursion.  Art is for everyone and the idea they can charge 500 rubles is too high.  It encourages a snobbish image of the art that sees it as only for the privileged.  But the Pushkin Museum does provide free art courses for children as well as free lectures.

The new head director of the Pushkin Museum Elizabeth L. has improved things and now the direction is very good.  She is a very progressive thinker and thinks the first thing to do is to provide more special benefits for people.  They have changed the Pushkin Museum.

But I don't think museums should be free of charge.  The work behind those museums is huge. People who visit this museum don't always see this.  The staff at the museum are working very hard to make an exhibition logically coherent and based on particular themes.  Restoration of works is hard work and they try to make good restorations.  It is very expensive.  You must find specific paints and materials.  It is a complex job and not everyone can do this.

StreetSense.

What was your impression of the exhibition of Edward Munch's works by the Tretyakov Gallery in 2019?  I recall you told me that seeing his works scared you.

Natalie P.

Yes I was shocked!  I had never seen his pictures so close up.  Now I look on seeing his works like a privilege.  This kind of exhibition was very rare.  His works had never been shown to people in Moscow in such a way.  Visiting this museum was the chance of a life time.  There are very many exhibitions of foreign artists in Moscow but Munch stands out from the crowd.  It was great!  I think it took great courage for the Tretyakov Gallery to show Munch's works because he is a very strange artist.

Of course his works like 'The Scream' have been interpreted in different ways and it has been very commercialized….

‘The Scream’ by Edvard Munch

.

But the exhibition was also about the personality of Munch.  I recall reading so many posts in the internet where people were very impressed by this exhibition.  My art teacher told me it was a very big exhibition where she saw very rare and early works by him she had not previously seen.

Munch scares me.  He would scare anyone.  His paintings are all about his own scream about the pain he felt.  It was hard to see those pictures.  I felt this grief of his.  It was so close to me.  It can really terrify you.  But good art can evoke such strong emotions on spectators and can make them happy or feel very sad.  Munch's pictures were very vivid.  I recall how my art teacher told me how some people were strongly affected by looking at those pictures and could make them depressed.

StreetSense.

I recall hearing from a friend in Scotland telling me she herself had heard 'The Scream' which came from people and through all of nature which Munch had heard. It is a very real thing for people who experience mental health problems.

Natalie

‘The Scream’ is very powerful art filled by grief, anxiety and agony.  But as time went on Munch began to feel better.  He had strong feelings about women which were often negative.  For example, in his picture 'Jealousy' you get the impression he views women as dark mystical creatures who will eat your heart out.  I think he had this experience with women which was very negative.

StreetSense

Do you have any favorite artists?

Natalie

I like Ivan Aivazovsky {1817-1900}.  He was the first artist I fell in love with and now I try to think objectively of why I like him.  I think his pictures convey cinematic scenic landscapes that look so natural you lose this current feeling of reality and you think you are in the picture.  You can be in the boat in a storm which you view. It is close to the cinema...

‘The Rainbow’ by Ivan Aivazovsky

.

This art could be understood as something which could be taken into the cinema.  Now many viewers see his art as 'just being beautiful'.  But it is not only about being beautiful but being in the scene itself.  When I was at school I also liked Alexander Ivanov.  He is a real genius with an understanding of history.

StreetSense.

Being married to an artist and meeting many I am struck by how they can intensely argue about their works.  Some Abstract artists despise the Realist School and vice versa. If you look at the history of the Avant-Garde in Russia practically all the artists were arguing and fighting with each other.  You could scarcely call it a 'movement' at all.

Natalie

I think people now understand the Avant Garde and Abstract art more.  They understand Avant Garde more than 16-17th century art.  Nowadays it is very fashionable for people to understand Abstract art. I n my view we should be able to understand their art is about historical events that mirrored changes.  It was inevitable the artists wanted to change something and they wanted to make their own world.  The present art had reached an impasse and it had broken down.  People were convinced art can't be like it was before and needed changes.  The old art of the academies couldn't reflect those new changes.

StreetSense

Why did Malevich {the founder of Suprematism, 1878-1935} paint peasants without faces?  There is the view he simply expressed the idea that the peasants were denied a voice and were not seen as human by the powers that be.

Natalie

This was a form in itself.  There should not be individuality in those pictures.  Malevich wanted to create new forms of art that had never been painted before.  Malevich tried to create his own religion and his own geometry.  He rejected all the old art that came before for clear shapes and forms.  I just think it was part of a rebellion against the old academy.  In real life he was a very polite, patient and intelligent person although he was a rebel.

StreetSense

What do you think of the old cliché that if you want to become an artist- prepare for a life of poverty?

Natalie

There is some truth in this but there are commercial artists.  You should understand that art is not far from commerce.  Some artists have painted pictures according to the orders of their clients.  They respond to what art the client wants.  For example, Ivan Aivazovsky {1817- 1900} painted seascapes and if a client asked could you make it stylish he would paint it in that way.  So I think commercialization is part of art.  For example, Paul Gauguin was from a quite well off background before he went to Tahiti.  Artists are also highly competitive.  All the artists have wanted to be the best and you see this in the Renaissance from the 16th century.  It has always been like this.  Artists work in a highly competitive atmosphere.

StreetSense

What do you think of the great patron of Art Savva Mamontov's statement that “The people should be trained to see beauty in the railways and in streets?”

Natalie.

When I think of the railways I think of what the Impressionists tried to show.  Just look at Turner's pictures of railway scenes.  Turner tried to see the beauty in rain, stream, humidity, and in speed.  He attempted to see beauty in factories and machines.  They saw the development of new machines as a beautiful event in all it's unfolding development.  Some artists thought it was better not to compete with machines but to connect art with them.  Combining art with machines can make work much better.  Mamontov wanted to understand this in relation to the railways.

StreetSense.

Does the suffering an artist experiences make better art?

Natalie

Well, I recall that people criticized the artist Mikhail Nesterov {1862-1942} because his paintings were melancholic…

‘The Girls on the Beach’ by Mikhail Nesterov

.

and it reflected his own sadness.  There was one Russian philosopher who wrote that he was romanticizing suffering.  I think it is very dangerous.  It is dangerous to think that you are a better artist if you suffer.  But people can romanticize everything especially artists.

StreetSense.

There is a story that the then Prince Charles tried to swap one of his watercolors for a painting by the English Artist Lucian Freud.  Freud rejected the offer on the grounds he did not want 'rubbish.'  What do you think of this?

Natalie

Art is very subjective!  They should not be like this artist Freud.  There is no need to criticize others.

StreetSense

But is there not an acceptable criteria where you can distinguish good art from bad art?

Natalie

If the artist expresses part of his individuality it is good art.  If it has no style or character it is bad art.  If the artist has put some thought in itself into his work it is good art.  My teachers' have their own criteria about what is good art.  But I often disagree with them especially when they say this building is an example of bad architecture for their own reasons.  I often think a lot of criticism can be snobbish.

There is a lot of rubbish in art which I can't call art. I'm not into contemporary art.