Case of Fyodor Rokotov: A Dialogue between Experts and Art Historians
| Autor: | Maria Igorevna Stikhina |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | ruština |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Известия Уральского федерального университета. Серия 2: Гуманитарные науки, Vol 23, Iss 3, Pp 322-341 (2021) |
| Druh dokumentu: | article |
| ISSN: | 2227-2283 2587-6929 |
| DOI: | 10.15826/izv2.2021.23.3.062 |
| Popis: | This article deals with the relevant issue of interaction between an art historian and an expert in the context of stylistic and technological studies of the work of eighteenth-century artist Fyodor Stepanovich Rokotov. The reason for turning to the issue is a new attribution of two ceremonial portraits of Catherine the Great (1763, State Tretyakov Gallery, Pavlovsk State Museum) proposed by specialists of the Tretyakov Gallery — I. E. Lomize, a technologist expert, and N. G. Presnova, an art historian, in 2016. As a result of an in-depth comprehensive study, the portraits which were previously considered undisputed works created by Rokotov were attributed to the artist’s studio. The results of the research were unexpected, sensational, and broke stereotypes in the perception of the artist’s creative path. In this regard, there was a need to re-evaluate and reconsider the established traditional ideas about the artist and his works. Based on disparate material, i.e. published archival data, art research, and catalogues of monographic exhibitions (1923, 1925, 1960, 2016, 2020), the author analyses the main stages and approaches in the study of portraits of Catherine the Great. Taking into account the latest data of the comprehensive study, the author identifies issues of scholarly interest. Attention is focused on the study of the relationship between the artist and his studio, distinguishing originals from copies, considering different versions of the commissioners of the ceremonial portraits. Also, the author reveals the significance and role of an art critic and an expert in the study of works of art. The article concludes that there is a need to continue the productive dialogue between critics and experts and comprehensively study the artist’s oeuvre to shape a more objective history of the Russian painting of the second half of the eighteenth century. |
| Databáze: | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|