And, bowing his head to the ground, A friend says to me: "Sharpen your sword, So that it is not for nothing to fight the Tatar, Lie dead for a holy cause!"
A. Blok. On the Kulikovo field
Art and history. After the publication of the material dedicated to P. Korin's triptych, VO readers expressed their wishes to continue the cycle, and suggested specific topics for new articles. Among them - "Donskoy cycle" by I. Glazunov. But I looked at the paintings of this cycle, and I thought that it would probably be more interesting to arrange a kind of vernissage of paintings dedicated to the theme of the Battle of Kulikovo, that is, consider not one or two, but many paintings and compare what is what and what their authors are more all inclined. Here, however, the question of selection arose, since there are a lot of paintings. But, in my opinion, the principle of the image is important. Someone copied Roerich's style, someone Vasnetsov's, someone hit the epic, and someone - in realism. In any case, we will not be interested in the idea behind these paintings, but in the image of weapons and armor. After all, before us is still a battle genre, and not something else … So, let's start with the 19th century.
Here is a picture of O. A. Kiprensky. "Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo field". What can I say? It was such a time! Everything is written masterfully, but I just want to laugh a little at what is happening on the canvas. Prince: “Oh my God, you my God, how I got it! My torment is unbearable! " A woman at his feet (by the way, where is the woman from there?): "Lord, save and save!" A man in a torn shirt: "This is a prince, an ulcerated noble!" A warrior in a green cloak: "Is it really a prince, I can’t make out my eyes, I can’t make it out …" A warrior in a helmet: “The prince is bad! Water for him, water!"
However, he painted all this on … assignment. Everything was agreed! It was the Academy of Arts that, as an examination test, offered its graduates to paint a picture on the theme "Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo field." Moreover, it was clearly stipulated how exactly the prince should be portrayed:
"Imagine the Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, when, after the victory over Mamai, the remaining Russian Princes and other soldiers find him in the grove at their last almost gasping, blood still flowed from his wounds: but the joyful news of the complete defeat of the Tatars revives the dying Grand Duke."
And here is what was said in the Academy's response to this picture:
“The head of the Grand Duke is full of expression. And the joy of the victory won, he is animated, with gratitude to the Almighty, vividly depicted in his languid gaze, directed to heaven. This work is the first experience of the labors of this young artist, who gives a lot of hope for himself."
And as a result, on September 1, 1805, Kiprensky was awarded the Big Gold Medal for this painting.
Well, the lack of national flavor did not at all embarrass either the author or the examiners, and, accordingly, therefore, the wrong armor, the wrong weapon, but the picture of the master. And it certainly corresponds to the era and the then vision of historical realities.
Subsequently, a number of artists followed his example and received appropriate recognition, but as time went on, people began to pay attention to history. It got to the point that Valentin Serov, for example, who was ordered to "Battle …", did not write it and even returned the money issued for it. And all because he did not agree with the customers in his views.
Personally, I would only change on it the drawing on the shield of the Tatar warrior. Here it is shown painted, but in reality they were made from rods wrapped in threads, connecting one ring to another. The result was a very beautiful pattern, which was additionally decorated with badges and tassels. But, in principle, this is not even a remark. It was just that at that time there were no reconstructions of the Tatar shields. And so is dynamism, and expression, and epic - everything is present, not an inch yielding to historical authenticity. Actually, with this canvas, Avilov raised the bar so high that anyone who undertakes to write on the same topic can only be advised one thing: to look at this canvas for a long, long time and at the same time think if I can at least come close to this. And if the inner voice makes you doubt your abilities - do not take it!
By 1980, for the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo, Yu. M. Raksha wrote the triptych "Kulikovo Field". We are especially interested in the middle part. And it seems that "everything is so" on it. But why did the author draw a warrior on the left, and with a shield on his right hand, an archery reed, which he holds in his left hand? Even if he is left-handed, it is impossible to cut the enemy with a cane with one hand, and with two, with a shield, it is inconvenient. And these little things spoil the whole impression of the picture.
What did you like? How the author wrote out the helmets. Finally, they are as they should be. It is not clear why the elbow pads are, what he depicted on the left and right - the overlap on the wrist. And what is interesting - where did the author get this? Are there such elbow pads in the fonts of the Armory Board or the State Historical Museum? Moreover, if something like that exists, it cannot in any way relate to the era of Alexander Nevsky. There was no such thing then neither with us, nor among the Western knights. However, we have already spoken about Nevsky … Two more details are striking here: the octagonal breast plates of both princes. It can be seen that the artist really liked them. But that was not the case then! Dmitri was at least 200 years away from the mirrored armor. And since it was not, then why draw it? Moreover, it is funny to read the descriptions of all these paintings, made by art critics. There were also "multidirectional views", and confidence, through the postures, and the people in the background, supporting their leader. But why do you, dear ones, do not see other elementary things that the artist painted “as he sees”, although he should have tried to paint “as it was”. So, we still have a dime a dozen of historical fantasies.
For example, I am preparing this material, browsing the Web, and there: "Three thousand six hundred heavily armed Genoese infantrymen represented a formidable force." Where did the 3600 Genoese infantrymen and another 400 crossbowmen come from on the Kulikovo field, when we do not even know exactly the number of troops on the battlefield? Mamai hired? Where? In a Cafe, in Sudak? There weren't so many soldiers in all of Genoa. The magistrates - and records of this have been preserved, recruited dozens of soldiers, and they were glad of them. But the main thing is not even this, but where is the source, where did the author get these numbers from: 3600 spearmen and 400 crossbowmen? I remember that in the publications of 1980 the number of 1000 Genoese was called - and even then it was questioned. And then … multiplied by budding?
It should be noted that in recent years, artists have become more demanding of themselves in relation to the depiction of historical realities.
Moreover, such a mace is quite possible for him. And the plate armor is shown very realistically. Even the plate leggings on the legs … Well, it could be like that. But he has some fantastic shield! Where did he see this? Where, in which museum I saw such covers, I do not know. But … shields were never just planks! This is not the door to your dacha sanctuary! They were pasted over with linen or leather, or both leather and linen, primed and painted, about which there are even reports of chroniclers who wrote about Russian scarlet shields. A sprouting cross has drawn on it at least - a well-known symbol depicted on our shields.
Again, this is … why not ?! Everything is written out very carefully, something, well, not quite, but bearable, within the statistical error between typical and unique. That is, or, at least, we had such painters for pictures, which it is quite possible to look at without feeling a sense of shame! That is, quite a bit more, both the history and the epic on the canvases of our masters will be able to get along without interfering with each other.
