DOI issue:
Nr. 4
DOI article:Artykuły
DOI article:Konstantynów, Dariusz: "Dirce chrze¬ścijańska" Henryka Siemiradzkiego w Petersburgu i Moskwie (1898)
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.71008#0635
DiRCE CHRZEŚCIJAŃSKA HeNRYKA Siemiradzkiego W PETERSBURGU I MOSKWIE (1898)
621
'Christian Dirce'by Henryk Siemiradzki in St Petersburg
and Moscow (1898)
The reception of Henryk Siemiradzki's painting
Christian Dirce (1897, Warsaw, National Museum)
in St Petersburg and Moscow is discussed; the
canvas was presented at the 6th Exhibition of the
Association of St Petersburg Artists (St Petersburg,
15 February - 31 March; Moscow, 6-24 April 1898)
as well as at the First Folk Art Works Exhibition (St
Petersburg, 3-10 September 1898). Dirce was the
major exhibit at both events; some opinions were
even voiced that it outshone the rest of the display.
The presentation of the painting that was the latest
work of Henryk Siemiardzki, who continued to be
highly esteemed in Russia, evoked a vivid reaction
among the public, as well as art critics. Judging the
enthusiastic reception of the beholders, the
abundance of comments, and dynamic as well as
heated debates on Siemieradzki's canvas by both
experts and painting lovers, it was claimed by some
that no art piece had inspired as much interest nor
had been the subject of such passionate discussions
and arguments for at least a decade. When speaking
of Dirce, most commentators obviously focused on
the painting's content. What mattered most for the
work's reception was the fact that it suited the
literary predilections of the public who often viewed
painting through literature (Henryk Sienkiewicz's
novel Quo Vadis recently translated into Russian was
at the time extremely popular). Among the voices
evaluating the painting it was the critical ones that
could be best heard (e.g. Pyotr Gnedych, Vladimir
Stasov, Nikolay Mikhaylovsky); these claimed that
Dirce showed "no real life", "featured lifeless
figures", did not psychologically do justice to the
participants of the painted tragedy, while treating the
subject superficially, and lacking any more profound
reflection, any "idea". Basically, the only critic to
unwaveringly defend the painting was Aleksandr
Amphitieatrov who presented his views in polemics
with Gnedych. When analyzing the formal aspects
of the painting, critics called it anachronistic
(Siemiradzki was criticized for having remained
indifferent to the achievements of plein-air and
Impressionistic painting) and pointed to numerous
technical defaults (e.g. blurring the limits between
the foreground and the background or errors in
figures' anatomy). While in St Petersburg and
Moscow, Dirce found as many admirers as it did
critics. Some, even noticing certain flaws of the
painting, convincingly claimed that the artist "had
once again demonstrated his unusual artistic
temperament and painterly talent" and that his latest
work eclipsed his earlier paintings, even the most
outstanding ones, like Nero's Torches or Phryne.
They regarded Dirce to be "an event in the history of
our painting", a "powerful work" impressing
beyond words, mesmerizing the beholders and
transferring them "to the ancient Rome era". They
did not only rank it among "the best Siemiradzki's
works", but also among the most outstanding
paintings that had been seen at Russian exhibitions
in the recent years. The story of Dirce in St
Petersburg and Moscow clearly shows that despite
extended and radical criticism, Henryk Siemiradzki
continued to be one of the major figures in Russian
artistic life at the onset of the 20th century. Although
the kind of painting he practiced had passed the
moments of its greatest glory and was being attacked
by both the followers of orthodox realism and fans
of its more modern version, as well as "decadents",
Siemiradzki's work succeeded in focusing much
attention. Crowds flowed in to see it at all the three
exhibitions presenting Dirce, while critics analyzed
it extensively, wrangling over the painting itself and
Siemiradzki's art in general. However, the success
of Dirce was merely a faint echo of what
Siemieradzki had enjoyed in 1877 when he showed
his Nero 's Torches or in 1889 when he presented his
Phryne.
Translated by Magdalena Iwińska
621
'Christian Dirce'by Henryk Siemiradzki in St Petersburg
and Moscow (1898)
The reception of Henryk Siemiradzki's painting
Christian Dirce (1897, Warsaw, National Museum)
in St Petersburg and Moscow is discussed; the
canvas was presented at the 6th Exhibition of the
Association of St Petersburg Artists (St Petersburg,
15 February - 31 March; Moscow, 6-24 April 1898)
as well as at the First Folk Art Works Exhibition (St
Petersburg, 3-10 September 1898). Dirce was the
major exhibit at both events; some opinions were
even voiced that it outshone the rest of the display.
The presentation of the painting that was the latest
work of Henryk Siemiardzki, who continued to be
highly esteemed in Russia, evoked a vivid reaction
among the public, as well as art critics. Judging the
enthusiastic reception of the beholders, the
abundance of comments, and dynamic as well as
heated debates on Siemieradzki's canvas by both
experts and painting lovers, it was claimed by some
that no art piece had inspired as much interest nor
had been the subject of such passionate discussions
and arguments for at least a decade. When speaking
of Dirce, most commentators obviously focused on
the painting's content. What mattered most for the
work's reception was the fact that it suited the
literary predilections of the public who often viewed
painting through literature (Henryk Sienkiewicz's
novel Quo Vadis recently translated into Russian was
at the time extremely popular). Among the voices
evaluating the painting it was the critical ones that
could be best heard (e.g. Pyotr Gnedych, Vladimir
Stasov, Nikolay Mikhaylovsky); these claimed that
Dirce showed "no real life", "featured lifeless
figures", did not psychologically do justice to the
participants of the painted tragedy, while treating the
subject superficially, and lacking any more profound
reflection, any "idea". Basically, the only critic to
unwaveringly defend the painting was Aleksandr
Amphitieatrov who presented his views in polemics
with Gnedych. When analyzing the formal aspects
of the painting, critics called it anachronistic
(Siemiradzki was criticized for having remained
indifferent to the achievements of plein-air and
Impressionistic painting) and pointed to numerous
technical defaults (e.g. blurring the limits between
the foreground and the background or errors in
figures' anatomy). While in St Petersburg and
Moscow, Dirce found as many admirers as it did
critics. Some, even noticing certain flaws of the
painting, convincingly claimed that the artist "had
once again demonstrated his unusual artistic
temperament and painterly talent" and that his latest
work eclipsed his earlier paintings, even the most
outstanding ones, like Nero's Torches or Phryne.
They regarded Dirce to be "an event in the history of
our painting", a "powerful work" impressing
beyond words, mesmerizing the beholders and
transferring them "to the ancient Rome era". They
did not only rank it among "the best Siemiradzki's
works", but also among the most outstanding
paintings that had been seen at Russian exhibitions
in the recent years. The story of Dirce in St
Petersburg and Moscow clearly shows that despite
extended and radical criticism, Henryk Siemiradzki
continued to be one of the major figures in Russian
artistic life at the onset of the 20th century. Although
the kind of painting he practiced had passed the
moments of its greatest glory and was being attacked
by both the followers of orthodox realism and fans
of its more modern version, as well as "decadents",
Siemiradzki's work succeeded in focusing much
attention. Crowds flowed in to see it at all the three
exhibitions presenting Dirce, while critics analyzed
it extensively, wrangling over the painting itself and
Siemiradzki's art in general. However, the success
of Dirce was merely a faint echo of what
Siemieradzki had enjoyed in 1877 when he showed
his Nero 's Torches or in 1889 when he presented his
Phryne.
Translated by Magdalena Iwińska