One Answer

  1. I must say right away that the following text is an artist's answer, not an art critic's. We are, of course, fed and / and both in the Art School, and in colleges, and in institutes, but there are also eyes, and an understanding of how the artist thinks. Although, of course, this is subjective. Nevertheless, there are historical facts, but in this particular case, there are more questions than answers about Berlin and Picasso. Personally, the big question for me is whether Tatlin and Pablo worked together in the usual sense of the word “work”. I have met people who confirm that they worked, and there are also my supporters. I can reproduce, for example, a story in which the masters had one meeting in the workshop of Pablo and their conversation about creativity took place. There is no reliable information about the meeting from the artists and the translator. Tatlin, on the other hand, told rather fictional stories and parables about this meeting. At the same time, many people note that Vladimir Evgrafovich offered his services to Picasso as an assistant “around the house” in order to stay in the studio and observe the creative process, but was politely refused. There is also another story in which Vladimir Tatlin, dressed in a colorful oriental robe with a bandura, specially attracted the attention of Picasso on the street and was invited to the house as a housekeeper. For a while, Tatlin took care of the house, until by chance, Pablo Picasso noticed Tatlin secretly copying his work, trying to understand the creative credo of the maestro. Then the owner cursed the colorful guest out of the house. What is true here is difficult to answer. Anyway, this is not a joint work that happens with friends of artists.

    It is even more difficult to say whether Picasso learned anything from Russian avant-gardists. Unlikely. So it wasn't even a mutual mental effort. Vladimir Tatlin himself called P. Picasso his teacher. Creativity of the French innovator in Russia was known, followed, tried to understand and develop in the direction of cubism. It is known that even before 1914, Tatlin, like many, achieved success in destroying the form. However, based on the visual impression and articles of art critics, we can once again note that its formation is more like a Russian icon than a “French school”. I think that Picasso was interesting to his colleagues in the spirit of experimentation. He showed an example of constantly finding new things (we know that he did not search, but found them). But the language of icon painting is a certain aesthetically affecting code that makes art based on its unraveling always stronger, more soulful, and soulful, and the national component in art is very serious. They have both an external design and an internal organization. I think even looking at the icon could have led to constructivism, without Picasso. However, history has decreed that Tatlin came to constructivism through Picasso.

    Usually they write that the trip divided Tatlin's life into “before” and “after”. I understand this statement. Looking at experiments with materials, and disassembled objects, parts of which were hung on threads in a still life, you could see a set of interesting reliefs and textures in them.

    Tatlin himself noted that he returned from a trip with “picturesque reliefs” in his head. He starts experimenting with materials, goes into volume, but logically these experiments lead to constructivism.

    He rethought the destruction of his master's form. Tatlin felt that the form of Picasso is “not transparent”, its internal design is not clear. It was more interesting for Tatlin to show how the surface and internal structure are connected. Therefore, if you directly answer the question about the influence of Picasso, the master gave a fulcrum and set an example of experimentation in order for Tatlin to develop his constructivism.”… Pulse received (or rather, taken) It was independently developed by Tatlin from Picasso and resulted in a completely original and fundamental concept of shaping — one of the main ones in modern Tatlin and” post-Tatlin ” art. It is even much broader than its direct and variously mediated result — constructivism. ” The reference and most of the thoughts are taken from an excellent scientific article by the Soviet and Russian historian of art and architecture, art critic, researcher of the Russian avant-garde, specialist in Vladimir Tatlin A. A. Strigalev. The article is called “Tatlin and Picasso”. It can be found here:

    Pablo Picasso himself survived Vladimir Tatlin. The problem of the relationship between two geniuses was stated in literature after Tatlin's death and during Picasso's lifetime, but Picasso did not officially state anything about this.

Leave a Reply