Artist Evgeniy Lansere family. Brief biography of Lancere

Russian artist.
Honored Artist of the Georgian SSR (1933).
People's Artist of the RSFSR (1945).

Born in Pavlovsk on September 4 (August 23), 1875 in the family of sculptor E.A. Lansere.
He studied at the drawing school of the Society for the Encouragement of the Arts in St. Petersburg (1892–1895), as well as at the Colarossi and Julian academies in Paris (1895–1898).
He spent 1896-1900 in Paris, where he worked at the private Academies of Julien and Colarossi.
Before the revolution he lived in St. Petersburg. He was a member of the World of Art association. He became famous primarily for his book and illustrative works (the cycles The Tsar's Hunt in Rus', 1902; Tsarskoe Selo during the reign of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, 1910), which are characterized by an exquisite, major-key historical stylization; the same features are characteristic of his scenography (performances of the St. Petersburg Ancient Theater). His best book cycle is illustrations for Hadji Murad L.N. Tolstoy (1912–1915).
In 1905–1908, Lanceray created satirical-revolutionary graphics for the magazines “Zhupel”, “Spectator” and “Hell Mail” (Lanceret even published the latter himself).
In 1912 he received the title of academician of painting, and in 1915 - full member of the Academy of Arts.
From 1912 to 1915 E.E. Lanceray was the head of the artistic department of the Porcelain Factory and the Lapidary Factory.
He did not accept the revolution of 1917 and in 1918–1919 he collaborated as an artist in OSVAG (Information and Propaganda Bureau, Information Bureau of the Army of A.I. Denikin).
From 1918 to 1934 he lived in the Caucasus. He was a professor at the Tbilisi Academy of Arts. In 1922, he went on a call from the plenipotentiary representative of the RSFSR to Angra, and in 1927, on a business trip of the People's Commissariat of Education of Georgia, to Paris.

In 1933, he painted the ceiling of the Kazansky railway station restaurant in Moscow. In 1934, he received living space from the Moscow City Council and moved to Moscow. Since 1934 - professor at the Academy of Architecture.
Official encouragement of neoclassical principles contributed to his success. Lanceray continued and updated some of his previous ideas, completing work on illustrations for the Cossacks L.N. Tolstoy (1937), as well as on the paintings of the Kazan railway station in Moscow (1933–1934, 1945–1946), commissioned from him even before the October revolution; these paintings (along with the ceiling of the Moscow Hotel, 1937, and other monumental works by Lanceray) belong to the most significant examples of architectural and pictorial decoration of those years.

I was born on December 13, 1953 in Moscow, in the family of sculptor and artist Evgeniy Evgenievich Lansere and Svetlana Dmitrievna Yakunina-Lancere. In our family, there is a tradition of naming our son Evgeniy, so it can be a little difficult to figure out who we are talking about – the son or the father? Therefore, when talking about someone from Lansere, it is customary to indicate: Lansere I is Evgeniy Aleksandrovich Lansere, famous for his sculptural compositions with horses; Lansere II or Lansere-son - Evgeny Evgenievich Lansere, artist and architect. He is known for his illustrations to Tolstoy’s story “Hadji Murat” and the monumental painting of the Kazan railway station. His work was continued by my father, Lanceray III. At the moment, I, Lansere IV, have also inherited and support the creative path of our family.
My father did not force me to follow his profession or calling; he believed that I myself should choose which path to follow and develop. He took me with him to sketches, the creative workshop was right in our house, but he didn’t teach me anything specific. Therefore, I made the decision to take up painting on my own.
In 1966, I immediately entered the second grade of art school No. 3, and after completing 3 years of study, I continued to study in the art studio of the House of Architects. From 1972 to 1978 he was a student at the Lenin Pedagogical University at the Faculty of Art and Graphics. Among my teachers were Efanov and Stroganov. I started out as a painter, working at the painting factory of the Union of Artists, and for a long time I taught a private school. I started to earn decent money as an artist, but at one point everything changed...
In 1987, there was a flood in our house and hot water gushing from the ceiling flooded my works and many unique paintings that were stored on the walls of our “home museum.” The paintings that survived the revolution, family heirlooms, were restored, but all my works were lost. I was so shocked by this event that I stopped painting.
But still, I decided to try my hand at sculpture and design. In 1991, I had a very productive trip to the USA, where I made 20 sculptural portraits to order.
Afterwards, continuing to work with sculpture, he began to engage in design and decoration work - forging, stained glass, fireplaces, etc. I started working with Mark Fedorov. More and more private orders and private projects began to appear, and more and more opportunities for creativity appeared. At that time, the needs of customers were limited to the desire to make it brighter and larger than the neighbor’s. Today, original works are increasingly valued; what I also value is individuality and attention to detail.
I work with almost any material - metal, glass, ceramics; I do forging, casting, stained glass. Today I accept orders and carry them out with a team of artists.
Among the major works that I had the opportunity to do was the Benois Museum in Peterhof, the design of the Author's Television (ATV) building on Polyanka in Moscow (1995), the design of the buildings of AFK Sistema on Prechistenka and Spiridonovka, the reception house of AFK Sistema in Serebryany Bor.
One of my sculptures is displayed in the courtyard of the Luxembourg Embassy in Moscow.
I am also a member of the Moscow Union of Artists in the “sculpture” section and a member of the Board of Trustees of the State Tretyakov Gallery.

The three-volume edition of the diaries of the artist Evgeny Evgenievich Lanceray, published in 2009, is an extremely valuable and rare source of information about Soviet life and culture of the 20s and 30s. The history of the USSR is almost completely devoid of such sources as letters, diaries and memoirs (common under normal conditions).

Diaries and memoirs (real ones, without regard to censorship) were written and published in abundance by emigrants in the 20s and 30s. But their personal experience was limited, as a rule, to the pre-revolutionary era and, at best, to the first half of the 20s.

In the 30s and 40s, honest diaries in the USSR were kept by either absolutely loyal to the regime, or very brave, or very frivolous people. To date, very few of them have been published. In terms of the level of honesty, riskiness, length of time span and level of understanding of what is happening, next to Lansere's diaries can only be placed next to Chukovsky's diaries, published in the 90s.

Yevgeny Lanceray was by no means loyal to the Soviet regime. The striking frankness of his diaries is most likely explained by frivolity, a deceptive sense of personal security - despite the arrests of many acquaintances and his brother, the architect Nikolai Lanceray, who died in custody in 1942.

Lanceray's diaries consist of many layers of information, highlighting various aspects of Soviet life. In particular, they dispel the still Soviet, but firmly established myth about the loyalty of the Soviet cultural elite to the regime and ideology.

© ozon.ru

Since 1934, Lanceray belongs to the highest stratum of the Soviet artistic hierarchy. In the 20s he was a professor at the Tiflis Academy of Arts.

In 1932, a state reform of architecture was carried out in the USSR. Modern architecture in the country is banned, and Stalinist architecture emerges. Along with it, there is a demand for monumental paintings of public buildings. Lanceray, who has extensive experience in such work since pre-revolutionary times, is invited to Moscow. At the height of the housing catastrophe in the country, he receives a luxurious apartment in Milyutinsky Lane, 20 (not far from the so-called “Yagoda House,” 9, where the top of the NKVD lived), and expensive orders. In the early 1940s, Evgeny Lansere was a professor, academician of painting, laureate of the Stalin Prize (II degree, 1943), People's Artist of the RSFSR (1945), and order bearer. He receives huge fees and lives a luxurious life according to the standards of that time.

But all this formal well-being is superimposed on the feeling of constant tragedy - both personal and social. Lanceray is disgusted with the Soviet regime, with government orders and customers. He clearly understands the unnaturalness of what he and his colleagues are doing.

“Collective farms are unprofitable and hated. Here the vast majority are parasites, unnecessary, but also hungry, slaves... An idiotic regime, very convenient only for an insignificant handful and fed by hepeushniks, and, in part, for our brother “entertainer”... Therefore, we are willing to try...”

But Lanceray's disgust with the regime has erupted many times before:

February 7, 1930: “Rumors of bloody pacifications, mass exiles; Yesterday morning I saw a party of 15-20 “prisoners of war kulaks”, surrounded. by a large security guard convoy, ripped off.”

November 23, 1930: “In the evening guests<…>they talked about the Bolsheviks’ conviction that production was increasing, that it was only the philistine who thought about the shortage of goods, that the collective farmers would be forced to work by hunger; that the whole system is very cynical and amazingly strong.”

February 20, 1932: “Incredible depletion. Of course, this is a system to bring everyone and everything into poverty: it is convenient to manage the poor and hungry.”

March 22, 1932: “Postcard from Tata about Kolya’s sentence. 10 years of work. Bastards. I am becoming more and more deeply aware that we are enslaved by the scum of the people, the boors; rudeness, arrogance, misunderstanding and dishonesty in everything, completely unimaginable under other regimes” (then 17 pages are missing).

May 22, 1934: “D.P.< Гордеева>sentenced to 5 years in a camp. Ananov, who had almost served his sentence, was again sentenced to 3.5 years. How accustomed we are to looking at this not as an act of justice, logic, but as a case of infection with typhus, etc. "

June 23, 1938: “...Everything is so disgusting, everything is poisoned by hackwork, stereotypes, falsehood... It is characteristic that correspondence has completely stopped, no one writes anything and there is no desire to communicate.”

July 2, 1942 (after the news of the death of his brother, Nikolai Lansere, in the camp): “A sweet and wonderful man, innocently tortured a thousand times by the damned regime, the damned “instructions” and “directives” of the bastard gang.”

September 18, 1942: “The amorphousness is monstrous. Unheard of terror, destruction of the intelligentsia, immorality, poverty of the masses are the result of the regime.”

Sometimes in the notes of Lanseray, who usually assessed the successes of the regime with deadly soberness, there is a strange naivety. Here, for example, is an entry dated August 14, 1943:

“From the words of Ivan [an] Ivanovich, the production of field crops was reduced, not only livestock, but also the yield decreased. Is the entire agricultural exhibition a bluff? Can't be; but cheating probably still exists; because everything is compared with 1913, without taking into account the progress that would have been under any other regime...”

“It seems to me that for the most part the people of my time and my circle, in the most difficult trials that befell their lives, turned out to be very honest, courageous, and persistent. The majority of “democracy”, the plebs, as in all times, are rubbish and bastards. I treat every person trustingly and favorably, but I hate our cult of this plebs and that bastard (newspaper and writer scum) that makes noise and swarms in life. However, I can’t name anyone close to me. I want to remember who, and what comes to mind is the writer Leonov, whom I almost don’t know... and most of the painters from MOSSKh. For some reason they seem to me (and this, of course, is the case) as purely vile and corrupt - all sorts of Bogorodskys, Shurpins, Shmarinovs (even if they are quite talented), Manizers, Iogansons, etc.”

Lanceray was born in 1875. The people of his time and circle were his educated peers, who in the 1920s were about forty years old, alien to Bolshevism and possessing a strong immunity to Soviet ideology and Soviet morals. Paradoxically, it was from this social group (that part of it that remained in Russia) that the Stalinist artistic elite turned out to be formed. In the ideological jargon of the late 20s, these people were called “fellow travelers.” It is unlikely that Lanceray is right in asserting that most of them remained “honest and steadfast” (in the Stalinist system, honest and steadfast ones had little chance of survival), but most of them undoubtedly treated the regime with disgust. Of those who took Soviet propaganda seriously, Lanceray writes with contempt:

“What a monstrous life, thoroughly saturated with malice, meanness, and lies. And there are also idiots, like Moore, who imagine greatness, a great era! The majority, of course, are just bastards" (June 1, 1939).

“In the correspondence from the front, everything is so emasculated, mediocre and rude<…>I hate the writing brethren; but we, artists, are no better. I don’t go to the Central House of Arts and I’m glad that I don’t see my brethren - the Manizers, Yakovlevs, Rabinoviches, Ryazhskys and their name is legion” (September 7, 1944).

Lanceray scrupulously records all his income in his diary - fees, payments for consultations, salaries from various departments. Most often they are accompanied by a story about the circumstances of receiving orders. This is a special, extremely interesting layer of information. The mechanism of creation, financing and censorship of Stalinist art is revealed extremely clearly in the diaries. It deserves a separate study.

Lansere's monthly income in the 30s and 40s was several thousand rubles a month. Lanceray was clearly aware that his income (and, accordingly, his standard of living) was unnaturally high in relation to the usual salary in the USSR.

Here is an entry from April 8, 1939: “I calculated that since January 1, 8684 have been received, which gives 2895 per month.”

Eight months later, on December 11, 1939: “Igor Arts[ybushev] received 3 years - we all took it as good luck, happiness, Milya became cheerful and cheerful. She works at a soap factory, when the norm is developed, something around 1000-1500 packages per day, she receives 160-170 rubles per month!.. Overtime is paid in... 36 kopecks! At the same time, the pay rate also includes night shifts (from 12 at night to 8 in the morning every six days). In addition, she has 1-2 English lessons for 14 rubles per 2 hours.”

Lanceray received approximately this amount for participating in one or two meetings in one department or another.

Lanceray's artistic views are more than conservative. Even Surikov is a rebel for him: “I am cold towards Surikov because essentially I am a well-intentioned academician, an enemy of all rebellion and innovation for the sake of innovation; What attracts me most is “purity, precision of form”” (March 25, 1946). Here we mean the accuracy of correspondence to reality, objective similarity.

“The world of art” for Lansere is the extreme limit in moving away from the academic school. He perceives sketches from life quite traditionally, only as preparatory material for a painting that is painted in the studio. In this sense, the episode of discussion with the painter Mikhail Sharonov is typical:

“...Sharonov dined with us. He said that preparatory sketches for a painting should not be finished very well, so as not to exhaust oneself, but Ivanov brought his sketches to the “devil”, and already in the painting it turned out worse. I disputed; I think that without detailed sketches it won’t work” (December 1, 1939).

Picasso and Cezanne are alien to Lancer. Chagall and Dufy are charlatans for him. Apparently, even in the “World of Art” circle close to him, Lansere had few like-minded people. On November 12, 1944, he writes: “I am leafing through Benoit’s History of Painting; It’s a shame that he “considers” the Cubists, Cezanne, Gauguin<…>My gods Menzel, Pre-Raphaelites (well, “old men”)<…>And what is Gauguin, besides successful variegation?

In an entry on December 20, 1934, Lanceray formulates his tastes even more precisely: “You need to think about monumental<живописи>. You need to find out a lot for yourself - after all, the entire XIX is not monumental, despite all the impressiveness of Surikov. Vrubel is amazing in his wealth. But I feel closer to Semiradsky, although I am, of course, aware of his boredom, but I envy his skill.”

“Jack of Diamonds” is also alien to Lanceray, which does not prevent us from maintaining friendly relations with former Jack of Diamonds (Konchalovsky, Kuprin...), who, like Lanceray himself, became Stalinist academics.

Lancer writes about Petrov-Vodkin with hostility, although he pays tribute to his still lifes, and among the subject paintings he considers “Anxiety” to be the best (entry dated February 15, 1939). Lancer sees “nothing remarkable” in Van Gogh (entry dated March 28, 1942).

Matisse is also unpleasant to him: “In a conversation with A.V.<Куприным>It occurred to me, speaking about Matisse, that after the fragmentation of color by the Impressionists, he turned to one solid color - the poster. But there is no form? Kuprin: what does he know how to draw, but he doesn’t express it in anything?” (entry dated April 28, 1942).

From the quote it is clear that “the ability to draw” for Lansere does not mean mastery of drawing in principle, that is, the ability to express plastic sensations with graphics, but the ability to draw is similar to three-dimensional modeling of a form. The approach is quite student-like.

However, judging by the entry dated September 5, 1926, in the 1920s Lanseray had more sympathy for Cézanne and Gauguin than at the end of his life, but even then he resolutely rejected Picasso. Lansere is also irritated by the popularity of the often mentioned Pirosmanishvili.

Apparently, this internal rejection of non-academic painting allowed Lansere to fit into Stalinist artistic culture without effort or stylistic change.

But the solid artistic principles of Evgeniy Lanceray are superimposed, on the one hand, by constant dissatisfaction with himself and a sober understanding that his uncle Alexander Benois and sister Zinaida Serebryakova are artists of a much higher caliber than Lanceray himself; on the other hand, there is a chronic aversion to government orders with their official plots.

Throughout all the recordings, a constant refrain runs through complaints about the inability to achieve what one wants, about constant failures... Although officially these “failures” pass as orders for “hurray.” Complacency (constantly noted, for example, in Konchalovsky) for Lanceray is one of the most unpleasant character traits.

“Starting, especially last summer, I feel my old age and the approach of decrepitude. Boring. But, in addition, the psyche of this time is depressingly affected by deep disappointment in one’s abilities; the failure of the “Revolution” sketches, no matter how much I console myself that I “found” and so on... It’s impossible to put it off, but meanwhile I’ve become dull...

And that’s why it’s especially bitter and enviable - the feeling of lightness, luck, talent in Korin’s wonderful sketches (MOSSKh) and in the laughing head of Zika’s self-portrait...”

Lansere's notes clearly show a psychological phenomenon characteristic of censored artistic consciousness. When people are deprived of the opportunity to independently choose (and therefore evaluate) themes, plots, pictorial and compositional techniques for their works, the only obvious criterion of artistic quality remains bare technical skill - within the narrow limits of what is permitted by artistic control (art councils, art foundations, etc.). ).

All other aspects that are key to normal creativity remain outside the brackets and are not discussed. Under such conditions, something like artistic schizophrenia develops.

Lanceray despises the official themes and subjects of his own paintings, but at the same time he experiences a constant fear of doing his work poorly (from his own point of view, and not from the point of view of the art foundations and the government). Hence the endless discussions about the shortcomings and advantages of painting, drawing, composition of commissioned works, the very names of which he pronounces (writes) with obvious difficulty: “Revolution”, “Stalin in Batumi”, etc.

Here is the entry from April 14, 1941: “We have the Nesterovs. They complimented my “Revolution” with the words, cat. I was very pleased with: “jumble”, “confusion”, “impulse”, “Lenin’s pose is very good”, “tragedy”. Etc. A number of very practical tips on “Red Square”; the main thing: “it is not clear that Stalin is standing on a hill, and not in the distance, and then he is large, and the foreground is small” ... "

The absurdity of the situation is aggravated by the fact that the author of the compliments is the brilliant painter Mikhail Nesterov, no less an opponent of the Bolsheviks than Lanceray himself. Under normal circumstances, such a conversation and such assessments would be impossible.

Or, no less absurd from the point of view of an external observer, an entry dated June 12, 1933 about Igor Grabar’s painting “V.I. Lenin at the direct wire": "Painting of Igor (Lenin<“У прямого провода”>) is ready, has been writing it since 1927; it has a lot of advantages, but perhaps the main thing is not, i.e. significance in the faces of Lenin and the telegraph operator.”

Lanceray cannot help but be aware of his humiliating position in comparison with his uncle and sister (Alexandre Benois and Zinaida Serebryakova), who live in exile and are free in their creativity. In the diaries there does not seem to be a single mention of their reviews of the works of Lanceray during the Stalin era. Mentions that he himself lives in an atmosphere of falsehood, bad taste and hackwork are constantly found in the diaries.

In the 1940s, Lanceray, on the one hand, was glad to receive large orders, for example, for sketches of murals for the Palace of the Soviets, but on the other hand, he delayed the work out of disgust for it, since nothing ideologically neutral could be invented there.

Here is an entry from August 12, 1938 (about sketches for the Soviet pavilion at an exhibition in New York in 1939): “Plot-wise, this is terribly boring for me.<…>...This enthusiasm - smiling faces, outstretched hands - makes me sick! Meanwhile, this is all that remains to be done - in the Palace of Soviets.”

Entry dated June 26, 1943: “I have sketches for Dv. hanging on my wall here. Sov. And I’m sick of the “jubilant proletarians of all countries.”

Lanceray in no way transfers differences in artistic views to human relationships and assessments. In this sense, Lanceray's diaries are an invaluable and unique source of completely objective information about the personalities who made up the Stalinist artistic elite and are known to us mainly from apologetic Soviet publications - in rare cases supplemented by random rumors. Lanceray gives psychological assessments to a huge number of famous people - artists, art critics, architects. Here are some striking examples.

The diaries often mention Igor Grabar, a good acquaintance of Lanseray from his youth. In general, his image in Lansere’s records confirms the nickname of Grabar of those years - “Eel Obmanuilovich Grabar.”

The “smug” story of Grabar, recorded by Lanseray, about how he painted the painting “Lenin and Stalin Receive the Peasants” is interesting. Grabar hired film actors as models, after a week of directing, he placed them in Lenin’s office, reproduced in the Lenin Museum, and painted from life - first a large sketch, and then the whole picture. It cost him up to 3 thousand rubles. Lanceray describes this painting-making technique with slight disgust.

With unfailing sympathy (although sometimes with irony) Lansere writes about another old acquaintance and friend - Alexei Shchusev. For Lansere, Shchusev is artistically a like-minded person. This is a little strange, given the active role of Shchusev in Soviet architecture of the constructivist era. However, in the 20s Lansere was in Tiflis and could simply not have noticed the rise and fall of modern architecture in the USSR, which, in principle, apparently was of no interest to him. So for Lanceray, who arrived in Moscow in 1934, Stalin’s Shchusev could be a natural continuation of the Shchusev he knew well from the Art Nouveau era. Moreover, as before the First World War, Shchusev was also Lansere’s main customer: Lansere did many of his largest works for buildings built by Shchusev - the Kazansky railway station in Moscow, the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Institute in Tbilisi, the hotel " Moscow" etc. During the war, Lanceray painted a series of watercolors for Shchusev’s project for the reconstruction of the city of Istra, which was published in 1946 as a separate book.

In the 30s, Shchusev’s position as the author of the Lenin Mausoleum and several key exemplary projects for the era in the architectural hierarchy was exceptionally high. But in 1937 a glitch occurs. On August 30, 1937, a letter from architects Savelyev and Stapran, forced co-authors of Shchusev at the Moscow Hotel, appears in Pravda, in which Shchusev is accused of all mortal sins, including political ones. A campaign to harass Shchusev begins in Architectural Gazette, Pravda and the Union of Architects, in which many of his colleagues participate voluntarily or out of duty. Shchusev is forced to leave the leadership of the 2nd workshop of the Mossovet; from the outside, the situation looks as if he is about to be arrested. But suddenly, a few months later, Shchusev turns out to be the chief architect of the Akademproekt Institute and, in addition, receives an order to design the NKVD building on Lubyanka Square in Moscow. Apparently, for some reason, the order to start persecuting him was given by one of the members of the Politburo (Molotov, Kaganovich?), but the future head of the NKVD Beria, Shchusev’s old customer for the building of the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Institute in Tbilisi, took him under protection and transferred to his department (Akademproekt was primarily involved in the design of secret research institutes). At that time, Beria was the first secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Georgia, but he held a high position in the OGPU-NKVD from the early 20s. Subsequently, this episode did not prevent Shchusev, the only one of all Soviet architects, from becoming a laureate of four Stalin Prizes.

The persecution of Shchusev in Lanceray's diaries is devoted to many emotional entries, interesting for the harsh characteristics of its participants.

August 30, 1937: “We all and I were extremely outraged by the dirty speech of Stapran and Savelyev against Shchusev. Good newspaper!

September 7, 1937: “The story with Sh[usev] continues to outrage - letters from Chechulin, Kryukov, Rukhlyadev. A collection of petty bastards is being selected.”

September 11, 1937: “I consider Alabyan to be a big bastard; seasoned careerist. To the petty bastard: Chernov, Birkenberg, some kind of mediocrity Frenchman... I spoke with Golts, whose name also appears among the petty trash, like Bumazhny and others (I don’t remember); He says that he is forced, that what he said in defense is not published. All this dirt causes a deep feeling of disgust for any communication. Sitting at the Academy, I felt like I was among traitors. Stay away from any participation in their lives.”

September 12: “In the next issue of the vile “Architectural Newspaper” I find the name of Professor Golosov, who spoke out against Shchusev among a pack of small, unknown names.”

September 23: “Like all this time, I keep thinking about the Shchusev case. Minutes of anger and irritation. The thirst to speak and spit out the contempt of all this bastard. To hell, I will no longer be acquainted with Sardarian or Golts, not to mention all this rubbish like Kryukov, Chechulin, Kolli; Shchuko and Zholtovsky are pitiful; We remember Fomin and Tamanov - they were people of honor, noble! I note Chernyshev and Rylsky, who spoke a little for Shchusev and the chief engineer of the Shchusev workshop (No. 2)... My Zhenya, well done! the only one who raised his hand against the resolution at the meeting of the 2nd workshop. Yura defends Alabyan, maybe he’s right..."

Shchusev did not keep diaries or write memoirs (in any case, he never heard anything about them). Yes, and it would be strange, given the secret nature of most of its large objects. But his real mood is evidenced by an entry in Lansere’s diary on February 20, 1943: “A.B. he said that he no longer had ambition - that our regime had exterminated him. But Nesterov had it - he hated Grabar; from Zholtovsky that someone is undermining him..."

We are talking here about professional ambition, about the natural desire for an artist to achieve success in creativity. But if creativity is censored and controlled not by the author, but by censorship departments, then the desire for success (not career, but according to the Hamburg account, which is different for each artist) loses its meaning. Undoubtedly, Shchusev’s phrase also answered Lanceray’s thoughts, and therefore appeared in the diary. And it is emphasized that the ambition of Nesterov and Zholtovsky is of a completely different nature.

Shchusev’s words about the loss of ambition under the Soviet regime are well illustrated by his own phrase from his autobiography written in 1938. Shchusev describes the activities of the architectural group led by Zholtovsky in 1918 under the Moscow Council, where he himself was the “chief master.” The group was engaged in projects for the reconstruction and landscaping of Moscow: “All this was done handicraft, without instructions that only the leaders and leaders of the revolution could give. We, the architects, did this, as we understood.”

The principle of the impossibility of independent architectural creativity, freed from the leadership of the party elite, was a key principle of Stalinist architectural culture. Shchusev formulated it with a naive frankness that was unexpected even for that time. It was, of course, incompatible with personal creative ambition.

The atmosphere of the late 30s is evidenced by another mention of Shchusev in an entry dated March 19, 1939: “Spy mania: Shchusev: “M.N.’s wife.” Yakovleva is definitely a spy.” Shchusev does not accept Bilibin - his wife is under suspicion. He’s scaring Konchalovsky with a radio.”

The entry dated July 20 talks about his arrested brother, Nikolai Lancer, and in this regard human assessments of acquaintances of “his circle” are given: “Terrible days; heavy, depressing mood. In the morning there was a telegram - Kolya was sent to Kotlas on the 18th, without a meeting, without transfer<…>. Yesterday I visited V.A. Vesnin, his attitude is truly human, honest and cordial. I consider him better than Shchusev and Zholtovsky, and even more so Shchuka; I don’t know Fomin; Tamanov was such a real person.”

The diaries mention several meetings with Nikolai Milyutin, which are of particular interest to me (in a sense, Milyutin’s biographer).

The first meeting is noted in the entry dated April 6, 1939: “On April 4, a “official” conversation with Nikolai Aleksandrovich Milyutin. In construction D.S. about the theme - gray and very alien to artistic culture.”

Milyutin at this time served in the Construction Administration of the Palace of the Soviets, where he would later head (or already headed) an art workshop. Lanceray clearly knows nothing about Milyutin’s past - about his book “Sotsgorod” (1930), about his fierce defense of modern architecture as editor-in-chief of the magazine “Soviet Architecture” in 1932–34, when few people risked doing so. However, it is unlikely that such activity could interest Lansere. But in 1939, Lanceray perceives him as a “typical Soviet employee,” gray and dutiful.

The entry dated February 20, 1941 records a funny conversation with Milyutin. At this time, Lanceray is waiting for approval of his sketch for the painting of the ceiling of the Bolshoi Theater, and Milyutin persuades him to start working on the paintings for the Palace of the Soviets:

“Yesterday I had a conversation with Milyutin: “You are marking time (in the Palace of the Soviets), it’s time to decide something. You had a blast!” The conversation began with the fact that if I receive the lampshade, I will temporarily refuse altogether, and to this M[iliutin]: “How can you waste your money like that! After all, the Bolshoi Theater is perhaps for 100 years, and the Palace of the Soviets is for 1000 years. And the library will disappear, and the Bolshoi Theater, and the Palace of the Soviets will remain standing!” I would like to say - both here and there plots can attract plots, but the plots of the Palace of the Soviets are dead boredom and falsehood, how can one be inspired by them... scholasticism, perhaps, over the distance of time and will become so abstract,<как>any."

It seems that Lanceray still recognized Milyutin as a person of “his circle.”

And here is the last mention of Milyutin in an interesting conversation with Grabar about the paintings of the Palace of Soviets in an entry dated June 16, 1941:

“Once Grabar called (I don’t like him, but I always want to record his conversation):<…>...he, Grabar, is terribly asked to lead the painting of the Palace of the Soviets. He visited the church several times: “The devil knows what they are doing there, everything is no good, because you will have to answer for it.” But he doesn't want it. N.A. Milyutin is a very nice and cultured person, but this is not possible. Only you have the right to be there (“but I still haven’t done anything”). If only you could lead! - Thank you, but you have absolutely no ambition. Grabar: “The trouble is that the authors (Iofan and Gelfreich) have let go of the leadership and don’t know what to do…”

The diary contains several entries that illustrate in an extremely interesting and new way the nature of Stalin’s war propaganda.

Pasted in is a newspaper clipping: “Regime Fascista of December 31, commenting on Roosevelt’s speech, reports that “for some time now the United States can be considered a decisive and active enemy of Germany and Italy.”

Pointing out that “this war is only a concentration on one front of all the forces of the world plutocracy,” the newspaper declares that “the proletarian peoples must create a united front to destroy the common enemy.”

“We cannot pass over in silence our deep indignation at the ambiguous and vague spirit of Roosevelt's entire sermon. The champion of democratic justice wants to exclude from civilization the totalitarian powers in the name of humanity and international law, which served and serve to cover up the crimes and privileges of plutocratic imperialism.”

Lanceray’s comment: “It’s curious: from Germany and Italy there are only purely official reports, nothing about the situation in these countries. And then suddenly about “proletarian” states... does that mean we are with them, with Hitler? - both soul and body. (The body is a long time ago).”

Noteworthy is the entry dated May 20, 1941: “Yesterday, the 19th, at a discussion of the lighting of the exhibition hall of the New York Pavilion in the Park of Culture - N.E. Grabar whispers to me: “The issue of war is a matter of several days. The British and Germans will make peace and rush at us”... It’s hard to imagine, Hitler will demand that we, say, let him into India? Anyway. It’s as if they are setting up (namely, not building) shelters everywhere (from gas? from bombs?).”

Grabar was undoubtedly more informed than Lanseray about various rumors circulating in government circles. Most likely, his version of the development of events reflected one of the propaganda versions being prepared for a future war. The soon-to-be-prepared attack on Germany would inevitably lead, in the event of its rapid defeat, to the next phase of the war - a clash with England and its allies. Therefore, the thesis about the preparation of a joint war by England and Germany against the USSR could well have been launched into unofficial circulation in advance. And, naturally, it was forgotten immediately after June 22. In Soviet military propaganda of the 1930s, England, in principle, played a much more important role as an “enemy” than Germany.

In the entry dated June 5, 1941, we are again talking about preparations for war: “Evidence of an imminent war was accumulating (some speakers: “it’s time for us to go on the offensive without waiting”), bomb shelters, mobilization, etc.<…>- after TASS denied that we have the best relations with the Germans, we calmed down; We are going to finish building the dacha..."

This means that there were speakers (apparently for a special, limited audience) who openly hinted that an attack on Germany was not excluded. In any case, the Soviet cultural elite of Lanceray’s level was informed on this matter.

Judging by the records, in the 30s and 40s Lanceray communicated with fellow architects even more than with fellow artists. Therefore, in his diaries there are a huge number of references to various architectural events. It makes sense to cite those that illuminate the known history of Soviet architecture in an unexpected way.

In February 1932, after the announcement of the results of the All-Union competition for the Palace of the Soviets, in which Zholtovsky was declared the main winner, a sharp architectural turn occurred in the USSR. The government took control of architecture, and all architects of the USSR were henceforth ordered to “revive the classical heritage.” Modern architecture, which had previously been the de facto state style, was prohibited. From March to July 1932, the third, closed round of the competition for the Palace of Soviets took place, in which 12 groups of authors participated, including Ivan Zholtovsky, Alexey Shchusev, Boris Iofan, the Vesnin brothers, Mikhail Ginzburg, Ilya Golosov, Vladimir Shchuko and Vladimir Gelfreich, Nikolai Ladovsky.

The meaning of the third and then fourth rounds of the competition was primarily educational. A group of architects, who by that time occupied the first places in the state hierarchy, were tested for loyalty, obedience, readiness and ability to adapt to new conditions. According to the results of the third round of the competition, some of the participants strengthened their positions, while others who allowed themselves to be intransigent suffered.

Lanceray, judging by his diary, practically did not communicate with constructivist architects; he did not even know how to pronounce Ladovsky’s last name. His social circle is those who, thanks to the competition for the Palace of Soviets, became queens. Lansere records in entries dated August 31 and September 28 the winners' stories about what happened behind the scenes of the competition.

“I recently read in the newspaper that the architecture school in Dessau was closed for Bolshevism.

Iv[an] V[ladimirovich] Zholtovsky, extremely affectionate. Soon Bonch-Tomashevsky, a former artist (at Carmon's), now a technician in various specialties, arrived. Interesting stories by I.Vl. (not caricatured?) about the turn to classicism.

Kaganovich: “I am a proletarian, a shoemaker, I lived in Vienna, I love art; art should be joyful and beautiful.” Molotov is a lover of beautiful things, Italy, a collector. Very well read.

About the removal of Ginzburg, Lakhovsky (?) from the professorship, their work is a mockery of the Soviet government. An anecdote about the house built by Ginzburg. “That they got off cheap.” The Vesnin brothers were allowed to participate for the last time. Zholtovsky and Iofan, a communist architect, are invited to the meetings. About the role of Shchusev; about the role of Lunacharsky - how he was ordered to give feedback on Zholtovsky’s project: he stayed for 2 hours, approved; then he convened a cell that was against it; wrote theses against Zholtovsky; They told me to “get sick.” Al[exei] Tolstoy was ordered to write an article (under “our dictation”) for classicism (Shchusev: “what a bastard, and yesterday he scolded me about the classics”); Zholtovsky: “I knew there would be a turnaround.” A lot about the “golden ratio”. He called me to be there in the evening.<…>In the evening - Grabar, Bonch-Tomashevsky<…>Another genius, according to Zholtovsky, is Fr. Pavel Florensky. We sat until one o'clock. Zholtovsky showed his designs for the palace (not quite, but the tower and end façade are good)..."

Information that Ginzburg, Ladovsky and Vesnin suffered because of their projects at the competition never appeared in the scientific literature, although the historical situation obviously did not allow other options. The fact that the famous article by Alexei Tolstoy was custom-made, written “under our dictation” and contradicting his own views is clearly seen from the article itself. Lanceray's recording is an important documentary confirmation of this fact.

The emigrant Roman Gul, who was then living in Paris in Paris, wrote approximately the same thing in his memoirs, to whom, apparently, some stories from Moscow reached him: “On the list of writers presented to Stalin who were supposed to speak out about the style of new creations on the site of the bombed Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Stalin I crossed out everyone and wrote “Tolstoy.” And Tolstoy burst into a fat feuilleton in Izvestia.”

Entry dated September 28, 1932 (at that time work was underway on the projects of the fourth, closed round of the competition):

“...After Vakhtangovsky I had lunch at Shchusev’s; I found Zholtovsky there, they should together present one project for the Palace of Soviets. I spoke with Sardaryan and Lezhava, but with one ear I heard Z[holtovsky] majestically and condescendingly explaining the golden ratio to Sh[usev]; and the next day Sh[usev] condescendingly explained to me that Zholtovsky was confused in his project, in his plan, and Zholtovsky was very glad that they were being paired, while Sh[usev] himself condescendingly agreed “so be it” help. A good motive for vaudeville (however, a very special one) from the life of our immortals - immortels.<…>Sh[usev] told his version of the reason for the “fall” of Ginzburg and Co. - because of him, Sh[usev], a letter complaining about some disgraceful speech of these fellows by Sh[usev]. That vandalism in Moscow mainly comes not from the government, the communists, but from “our brother the architect,” from young people, they want to erase everything old; but while Zholtovsky keeps aloof and is silent, Sh[usev] stands out and fights...”

A strong contrast to the records about the participants in Stalin’s architectural and artistic games are the travel records wedged between them from September 1 and 3, 1932:

“...Everyone is running. Rylsk has been withdrawn from supplies - there is no bread ration! They are stealing bread from the peasants...<…>The situation is equally terrible in Lebedino; all the bread, not even milked, has already been taken away. Bread is baked from potatoes and pumpkin. Tanya talks about the terrible poverty in the village back in the spring. In the spring there was a terrible death of horses - due to hunger. A terrible famine is expected. Her family stocked up on potatoes until January. And what will happen next? There is no firewood. There is only a pig and a dog in the yard. Both here and there - desperately poor cultivation of the land. We saw from the window - terrible litter and skinny beet fields; winter crops are sown on weedy ground (seeders, therefore a collective or state farm). In one village there were 5,000, now there are 3,500. 1.5 thousand people left.”

Mentions of the competition for the Palace of Soviets occur later.

November 13, 1932: “With Olya at A.V. Shchuseva; There is no need to worry about either a pension or the title of “Honored Worker”; only the “national” pension provides benefits; a “personal” pension is useful. The project he is making for the Palace of Soviets - together with Zholtovsky - is already a pure classic; didn't really inspire me. He convinced me to take advantage of the moment of favor with the old specialists - to take an order for 2 large panels by May 1934! (in the Sumbeki tower)."

May 17, 1933 (a week earlier, on May 10, it was announced that Iofan’s project was being taken as the basis for the Palace of Soviets project): “...At Shchusev’s. His story is about the failure of the projects of the Palace of Soviets by him, Zholtovsky, Shchuko, and given mediocrity to Iofan. Shchusev humorously talked about Zholtovsky’s “high priesthood”: nightly, from 12 o’clock, reception of visitors who, in turn, wait in the reception room and are received by him in turn; confesses and teaches them, showing drawings and ideas, almost until 5 in the morning... Our (my) conversation about the risk of a new course in the government on “grace” leading to a “renaissance”, an example is Severov’s project - the Stalin Institute.”

November 19, 1932: “...At Shchusev’s<…>There was talk of an intention to destroy the Sukharev Tower! What kind of bastard vandals, all tram engineers and “urban planners”, probably!”

Here Lanceray is mistaken (or, more likely, he believes Shchusev). Stalin made the decision to destroy the Sukharev Tower personally in mid-September 1932, which is obvious from his correspondence with Kaganovich. But it was played out in such a way that the architects and artists who fought for its preservation (Fomin, Shchusev, Grabar) hoped for success and for some time continued to make conservation projects that were doomed to failure in advance.

Lanceray does not retain illusions about this for long. On May 10, 1934, he writes: “...They broke Sukharev’s tower. It’s disgusting to work for these people - they are so alien, and so disgusting is the pack of intriguers that sticks around the ignoramuses...”

June 30, 1933 (we are talking about the competition for the design of the building of the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Institute in Tiflis, which was ultimately built by Shchusev):

“The highlight of the day for our company is the competition for the house of the Stalin Institute: Shchusev, Fomin, Kalashnikov, Severov, Kokorin (the project of his government palace was accepted, but we scold everyone) and... I[osif] A[dolfovich]<Шарлемань>Yesterday he explained to me the general intrigue of the jury members: they all failed; Severov - for his monopoly, so to speak (Chubinov defended him furiously), Shchusev - was careless and one should expect more from such a master. According to the harsh words of G.K.Ch[ubinov], his project should be spit on, since he (Sh[usev]) sent here a cynically careless thing! I don't think that's true; but what is true was done dryly, incompetently, by an assistant. Fomin is not serious, Kalashnikov is a bathhouse; Kokorin is “colonial style”, “Baalbek”, and he needs to be failed just to show that his Government Palace is worthless.”

“Shchusev visited me in the evening: I’ll write down hastily, randomly: a contemptuous attitude towards Severov (and his projects), towards Fomin and Rudnev - “talented people, but they have sunk, they please the bad taste of the customer.”

Ironic<отношение>to Zholtovsky. Defended the project of Kokorin, the Government Palace.<…>He defended constructivism in architecture, that this style would be valid for many categories of buildings. Compares constructivism with a human skeleton, but a living person is still dressed with muscles and skin; reinforced concrete is the skeleton inside the building, the walls are thin.

It is proposed to establish categories for architects, so that responsible buildings can be entrusted only to truly experienced and proven ones, and design can be entrusted to everyone. Ranks and ranks again! And rightly so!”

November 11, 1933: "<…>Both Zholtovsky and Sh[usev] believe that the architectural “front” will be of most interest to the government in the coming years. Z[holtovsky] gives architecture lessons to Kaganovich, “secret professor,” Sh[usev] called him. "

June 13, 1934: “I went to see Kepinov, he was leaving, calling for dinner. To the “palace”, as Shchuko and Gelfreich call themselves and Arch Iofan. workshops in a house with columns near the Stone Bridge."

June 17, 1934 (about the theater in Rostov-on-Don by Shchuko and Gelfreich): “The theater is very deliberate, unjustified, but very talented. And, of course, even though “constructivism” and “functionalism” are all inventions for a purely external effect, and this is what won the competition at one time (?). The old ones are much more rational. Yes, I’m not reproaching; this functionalism and rationalism in ceremonial buildings is nonsense. But that the internal is subordinated to the external seems to be more clearly visible, and, in essence, in the unfortunate, random form of the foyer.”

In 1933, architectural workshops of the Moscow City Council were created. This was one of the steps towards creating a Stalinist system of architectural design, completely controlled from one censorship center. In accordance with the hierarchy of that time, workshop No. 1 was headed by Ivan Zholtovsky, workshop No. 2 by Alexey Shchusev, workshop No. 3 by Ivan Fomin, etc.

Judging by Lanceray’s entry dated August 6, 1934, there was, but was never realized, the idea of ​​creating a “synthetic workshop, that is, not just architectural, but carrying out the so-called. “synthesis of arts” - decorating architectural projects with painting and sculpture. Lansere was intended to be her leader:

“...Mitr[ofan] Sergeevich] Rukavishnikov came with an offer to join (and also as a leader!) in a “synthetic workshop” started by a certain commission. He visited again the next evening, and yesterday I visited him. Therefore, I will write down all my impressions at once. Architects (students of Zholtovsky) Kozhin and Golts; Rukavishnikov once spoke with comrade Perchik in the Moscow City Council about a studio for himself and improvised the idea of ​​a “synthetic” workshop in addition to the existing 12 architectural ones, where, they say, they are often “not connected”, do not know what to do in terms of sculpture and painting. Perchik said: “It’s an interesting idea, we need to think about it, imagine your thoughts!” Together with Golts, Kozhin and Mashkovtsev, Rukavishnikov compiled a list: I, an academician and, most importantly, a new person in Moscow (everyone else’s “legs are mixed up with each other,” in R[ukavishnikov’s] figurative expression), close to architecture, authority and experience ... Architects - Kozhin, Golts, Voloshinov (in Leningrad), Kolli, Chernyshevsky (“now the chief architect of Moscow”).

Art historians: Mashkovtsev, Gabrichevsky;

Painters: me, Bogaevsky, Saryan, Kuprin...

Sculptors: Domogatsky, Lishev (Leningrad)…

I’m not talking about the selection, not to mention the presence of art critics, which is completely harmful to the business, but the very position of this workshop among other architectural ones is incomprehensible to me. “Well, it will be an experience,” insists R[ukavishnikov]. Will we choose particularly artistic commissions? Will we receive orders for artistic design from other workshops? I am convinced that all this is terribly unrealistic.

Now the unspoken lining (said Yura): Kozhin and Golts want to get an independent architectural studio (they were once offered, but for some reason they refused). They have a strained relationship with Zholtovsky; they have been working for a long time, but still do not have a single clear authorship (I learn everything from R[ukavishnikov]). R[ukavishnikov] himself does not have a workshop, has no orders, and Mashkovtsev, of course, is not averse to getting the minimum and being promoted to management. They also outlined the premises - formerly. Shekhtel’s mansion, which has 3 workshops.”

In 1935, a book by A.V. Bunin and M.G. Kruglova “Architecture of urban ensembles of the Renaissance”, designed by I.F. Rerberg (binding, title, endpaper) and E.E. Lancere (intros, endings, initials and title page). Lanceray mentions this book in two entries.

August 12, 1934: “How unbearably boring (and all genres are good, except boring, it was said!) to read modernity - I’m reading the manuscript (typewriter) “Architecture of urban ensembles (Renaissance)” by Bunin. The topic is interesting, but everything is not derived from the data, but on the contrary, examples are selected to fit the canonized provisions, and such a tedious repetition of the same things, the bourgeoisie oppresses, the bourgeoisie takes over, the bourgeoisie degenerates... and this is on the topic of the art of the Renaissance!

August 15, 1935: “I read Bunin and am indignant at the triviality of his discoveries, at the scientific appearance of the simplest reasoning. But maybe think about it and justify it, and then there would be something ... "

September 6, 1935: “Shchusev<говорил>about technology in everyday life abroad, about sympathy for the USSR on the part of employees in France and Belgium, about the attraction to socialism.”

July 12, 1936 (talking about sketches of Lansere’s murals for the Moscow Hotel): “Yesterday the 11th<июля>I had Bulganin, Milbart (?), Shchusev, Savelyev and Stopran... Bulganin, after quite a long time of waffling: “Yes, I don’t understand, but will this be realistic? More flowers, youth and beauty. The letters USSR are not needed in fireworks; There is no need for red flags on architecture.” In a word, our (and Shchusev’s) concerns about the “Soviet” are gone.<…>The poster for the park of culture and recreation (carnival in the park) currently hanging is also symptomatic - “Merry Parnassus”, listing the gods and muses of Parnassus as the jury for the awards. I’m kidding - we need to draw Andryushka, and let Natasha fatten him up well, Amurov will be allowed soon.”

August 8, 1936 (talking about the competition for a statue for the Soviet pavilion at the Paris Exhibition of 1937): “Yesterday at the Paris Committee - inspection of sketches of the upper external statue. Shadr is the most virtuoso both in invention and especially in execution, but not at all what is needed; too “dynamic”: the woman is a speed skater, and the man is a frantic idiot. Mukhina is both talented and fresh, fun and good; At first glance, Andreev is mediocre, but, looking closely, there is something, and it is “Soviet” and in a good, sympathetic sense. Manizer is mediocre and boring; there is neither the charm of invention nor the understanding of form that is so acute a la Rodin at Shadr. Finally, Korolev is the worst. Philistine in pose, clumsy in movement and stupid in “idea” - they say, “diagonal”, and below any criticism in the sense of form as a sculptor ... "

On November 2, 1934, an entry was made illustrating the nature of the censorship management of the “synthesis of arts”: “I was at the Academy; a characteristic instruction from above (this was conveyed to me by Chechulin, a communist) - that the workers’ trousers should be “with a pleat,” and that the workers should all be beautiful, rosy-cheeked. If it doesn’t work out with workers, make musicians, artists, but certainly beautiful ones.”

In the same entry there are very interesting references to intra-professional gossip about Shchusev’s Moscow Hotel, its author and other high-ranking architects:

“Shchusev does not want to go to the Academy of Architecture because Kryukov somewhere scolds (in conversations) his hotel: “He (Kryukov) will set Z[oltovsky] and me against each other.” And a little capriciously: “Rylsky calls me, then the secretary, I won’t go to such invitations”... When I was talking about this at the table, Zhenya noticed: that’s why he’s offended, because he feels that this hotel is weak. (And this is almost everyone's opinion: Kolenda.)

And Sh[usev] said: “Why are they scolding us, poisoning us, good masters, capable, there is little good, they need to be protected.” And that's true. Of course, Sh[usev] himself obviously feels that the balusters on the balconies and the galleries upstairs (and the vases on it) are weak, made, of course, by assistants, but he knows that after all these are details, and most importantly what is difficult is the general, the general appearance and style, and here he feels his strength, but the laymen do not notice it, and his colleagues are silent...

I also remember what V.K. told me. Kolenda’s assessment of one (I don’t know who) “smart” architect: “Zholtovsky knows a lot, is cultured, but has little talent, Sh[usev] knows less, is less cultured (in a special sense), but more talented; Fomin is old, and Shchuko has little talent!” This last is unexpected, Tamanov has the opposite opinion, and I won’t say that Shchuko would be more talented than Shchusev, but he certainly cannot be called mediocre...”

Lanseray mentions with disgust several times the official Stalinist directive on the “synthesis of the arts,” which he had to implement in his career.

December 20, 1934: “...I was pinched with longing for the dark southern night, for the sun and summer, for a simple and honest life - without “syntheses”, “heroics”, etc., etc.”

June 19, 1935: “...Meeting on the Perekop panorama<…>talked about the notorious synthesis of sculpture with architecture..."

July 8, 1935: “...Visited Zholtovsky: reorganization of architecture. mast.; expansion of the city towards Vorobyovy<гор>, 200 million for 20 years of construction.”

August 2, 1935: “In the evening I was called and taken by car to the Moscow Soviet to Dmitry Vasilyevich Usov regarding the designs of a star instead of an eagle on the Kremlin towers. "

“...On the evening of the 8th I was at Zholtovsky’s; As always, it would be interesting to write down in more detail.

In Arplan; A brilliant chaos occurs in architecture. The work is terribly difficult; everyone is on edge; argued with K[aganovich] from 1 to 3 am. He rejects everything, almost doesn’t look. He is looking for a “Soviet” style, while other members of the government want a classic one; to baroque persecution.

Zholtovsky: “We are forced to build with materials that are more primitive, worse than the pharaohs, and you want to create a “modern” style.”

K[aganovich]: “Why are you all criticizing us? You refuse to take on tasks because you are afraid that they might hand the job over to someone else later. Yes?"

The last phrase was not said exactly like that - this is the general meaning, as I understood it. Zholtovsky refused to go abroad with Fau, but they told him: “Go, we trust you so much.”

January 19, 1938: “Andre[y] Frolov said that Meyerhold (whose persecution I also do not approve of, although I am an ardent opponent of him) is being given the Red Army Theater under construction. But it would seem to me that the existence of Meyerhold with his formalism and trickery in the general economy is still useful. Of course, the question is about the size of the “subsidies” of people’s money. But Shumyatsky’s fall (in cinema), they say, was warmly welcomed by the majority of filmmakers.”

June 16, 1938: “On the 16th afternoon, meeting and conversation with V.A. Vesnin, Shchusev and Zholtovsky did not come to him for the meeting of future academicians. Sh[usev]: I don’t want to see these “pig faces”,<…>And Zholtovsky is offended that everything at the Academy is done apart from him...”

October 1938: “Today Golts and especially Burov scolded the Palace of Soviets and, in particular, the interiors; and I defended the interiors, but I consider the task of combining Lenin’s boot with the tower impossible.”

April 3, 1939: “I had lunch with young Yuri Vladimirovich Shchuko<…>I learned for the first time that V[ladimir] Alekseevich’s second son, an artist, had been exiled for about a year. This contributed a lot, of course, to the death of Vladimir [Alekseevich].”

May 19, 1939: “Complaints from residents about the shortage and high cost of potatoes. The architects are panicking: everyone is being put on a salary, without piece work, etc. for 400, maximum 1000. Probably the same for other specialties... I looked back - the first pages [of the notebook. - D.Kh.], June 1938 - it’s even amazing how everything is the same - the lack of food, and the high cost, and the boredom of communication.”

June 14, 1939: “In the construction of the Palace of the Soviets,” V.M.’s confidential conversations with me. Iofana.” Cunning beast. But the generalities are quite correct. Touching up the view of the Great Hall. He does not approve of Efanov’s panels for New York: “illustration”, you need to look for “style”, “link with architecture”. “I drew Mukhina’s entire composition, my idea (and this is true), but you need to be able to delicately offer this idea-sketch, not to scare away.”

The recording talks about the project of the NKVD building on Lubyanka Square in Moscow. It follows from it that Lanceray made project prospects for Shchusev. Until now, no design materials for this building have been published, only photographs of the well-known main facade. The importance of the record also lies in the fact that it clearly follows from it: the design of the building on Lubyanka was done at Akademproekt (there has never been any mention of this in the scientific literature). The next conclusion is that Akademproekt, created in 1937 “under Shchusev,” was from the very beginning a secret organization, most likely departmentally subordinate to the NKVD, and not an ordinary civilian design office. Perhaps the secret workshop that Shchusev had led since the mid-20s and where he designed hotels and sanatoriums of the OGPU, Lenin’s mausoleum and other government facilities was transformed into Akademproekt.

“Interesting, superbly played and superbly directed by K.F. Yuon performance - “Guilty Without Guilt”<…>Vera Ignatievna<Мухина>sat next to me and complained that she could not “get into” work on the Palace; that for her the figure of the top statue is insoluble (which I have been saying for a long time) in principle, that for her in front, at the foot, there would be a magnificent place... that Merkurov once told her: “I can’t do more,” that Iofan also denied from this idea that this is not his... Well, but no one dares to say this.

Fried from the Museum of Revolution just visited me. He said that so many artists are terribly poor. There is a real famine in Kaluga.”

June 23, 1940: “Universal admiration for Hitler. Occupation of Bessarabia. A general extension of working hours, without an increase in salary. In design workshops, this will not increase results.”

July 13, 1940: “I’m at 1<час>to S.E. Chernyshev about Kolya; he treated him very cordially and well, but Lancera... He has Kozhin - he puts together the building of Zaryadye, ordered “in the most modern style”, makes it to suit America. Langman (Okhotny). What a pity that the view of the Kremlin will be spoiled this way.”

October 29, 1940: “With Dmitry Boleslavovich Savitsky we went to 57 kilometer [meter] North. railway to V.I. Mukhina for examination, acceptance of the sketch. Sketch of 1/2 meter (it will be 30 meters) of a colossal statue on the gateway, near Rybinsk.<…>The statue is very, very good; especially the woman - “Motherland”; “Fighter” is good; but one might also think: is something else possible or is this the only thing.<…>Yesterday in “Evening”, and this morning in the newspapers - Italy’s declaration of war on Greece. All this was perceived as bringing the war even closer to us. And on the way back, Comrade Perlin said: “I really want to erect this statue, but I’m so afraid whether it will come true - after all, it’s 2,000,000; and a dozen airplanes are more needed... And how many innovations have occurred during this time: payment for higher studies; trade schools; forced transfer of engineers, not to mention the 8-hour<рабочем>day, about securing “forever” in the services ... "

March 21, 1941 (about Stalin’s prizes): “Very cold days, according to the time of year. Talk about bonuses. According to our section, Nesterov and Shchusev are not disputed; general indignation over ballet... Yesterday at the ceremonial meeting of the Academy of Architecture G.I. Kotov, L.A. Ilyin, Nikolsky (Leningrad), Dmitriev, Rudnev, Severov, who dined with us; Of course, Shchusev is in a very pleased mood. Characteristic is the absence of not only Zholtovsky, but also almost all of his chicks: Golts, Kozhin, Burov, etc.”

“Yesterday at the Academy of Architecture A.B. Shchusev told me that in connection with his letters in defense of the destroyed monuments (Marfo-Mariinskaya Church on Ordynka) and the Burial on Pushkinskaya (near the House of Unions) a<снова>commission or Committee for the Protection of Monuments with Grabar at the head, and he leaves the institute...

This entire town in Vsekhsvyatskoe (formerly “Vsekokhudozhnik”) - the institute, the art and industrial school, the sculpture plant (built by Golts) - is transferred to the military department.”

January 31, 1942: “Iofan received 3,000,000 for the processing of projects: “so, something that can be built in our lifetime; Well, and the theme is “Victory!”

March 1942: “At the publishing house, at the organizing committee, Shkvarikov read the program of the future military exhibition and album - a shameful attitude towards art and artists, but everyone got used to it, they listened to [like] mass.”

February 10, 1943: “We had S.N. Troinitsky<…>. I talked a lot, but I’ll just note that A.N. Tolstoy is finishing up adding 3-4 rooms to Merzhanov in a classic style. Looking for furniture, etc.; we found a good fireplace, but, they say, “expensive” - 20,000 (!) - what nonsense for them, when we bought a cow for 75,000, and even this did not affect our life. Tolstoy: “...I don’t have time to receive it, but they sent me half a carload of wine.” Of course, this is “so,” but still Sergei Nikolaevich states that their table is phenomenal... Sergei Nikolaevich is doing research for him for Volume III of “Peter.”

March 14, 1943: "<Обсуждали>rumors about probing the world through the Swedes: “half of Ukraine and Crimea, that they are again gathering a fist in the Caucasus.” On limiting the number of Jews in Moscow..."

“We talked about Zholtovsky; Yura conveyed his requirement for composition to have a single main axis, pointing out that nature always provides only one - for example, in the structure of animals. This is witty. For me, the definition of the central architectural structure of a city is less convincing - it is a building with axes intersecting inside, in the center. Parthenon in Athens (all other buildings on the Acropolis are asymmetrical, and the Temple of Theseus is dead). The exchange, by the way, Zholtovsky only recognizes Tomon, Zakharov is talented, but ignorant. Colosseum, St. Basil's. Blessed are the believers. This is without irony...

Everyone believes that the huge amount of food that the United States delivers to us is clear evidence of the desperate state of our economy, and therefore the system. Alas, almost $2 billion is all on credit. What demands did Davis, Roosevelt's commissioner, come here with? It is characteristic that in all statements about the cover-up of the Comintern there is not a word about communism. Stalin's recognition in his response to American journalists of the priority of the nation over class; the basic position of Marxism.”

June 26, 1943: “...Conversation with B.N. Iofan about the work to restore the Vakhtangov Theater. I thought: wouldn’t it be possible to introduce some “new” topic?! Here I now have sketches for the Palace of Soviets hanging on the wall, and I’m sick of the “jubilant proletarians of all countries.” I thought that Iofan was inviting me to the restoration of the Palace of the Councils; until then I had not responded to his invitations...”

July 19, 1943: “On the evening of the 7th, the Kolobovs came to congratulate me on the order, as well as on the laureate, I didn’t know, although I suspected something... The Society of Architects is considering projects for the monument of Stalingrad and Sevastopol, they say , very bad; Olenin spoke very sharply; they say, again, that they want to expel him from the Union for this; everyone has such a deep root of rudeness. General indications of the flourishing of Russian chauvinism in art, in painting, this is understood as recognition only of the Wanderers (Alexander Gerasimov) ... "

September 2, 1943: “S.F. I told him one detail that I want to write down: according to him, Tatlin is the Vesnins’ creature, which gives him, Tatlin, so to speak, the right to complain that the Vesnins are building, but they don’t let him paint. I once called Yakulov a “charlatan in art,” but I wanted to give this a gentle, artistic touch; to me he seemed sincerely “burning” and not very cunning. But if this is a charlatan, it is not in art, but in life, a swindler and a swindler, albeit once gifted (his sketches for some play at the exhibition “World and [art]”). By what real “right” does he have dinners at the Central House of Arts, especially in the first category? I agree with A.M.’s indignation on this. Gerasimova. However, I’m also talking about Tatlin at random, because... I know almost nothing about him and haven’t said two words to him...”

“Then I visited Alexey Viktorovich<Щусева>- here is a happy (and also good) person - his social qualities come (besides, of course, intelligence, talent, and memory) from this naive, even sweet complacency: he can with full faith tell and share thoughts that they come to him without doubting their value... His election as an academician of the Academy of Sciences, because the Academy of Sciences needs the advice of an architect in the upcoming planning of the restoration of Russia after the Nazi pogrom, and not at all the “philosophy” of architecture, which [I yell] Zholtovsky would have been good, but he didn’t get in, although this whole idea, they say, came from him. In any case, Zholtovsky was interested in her (Yura had long talked about his, Zholtovsky’s, plans in this regard). Mukhina “got scared,” according to A.B., and refused.<…>

All these days I have been having lunch at the Central House of Arts, today with Bela Uitz, who incessantly talked to me about the composition of monumental painting, about the need to “contact” the Committee for Architectural Affairs, which was just born with Mordvinov in chapter. B. Witz is a fanatic, he is almost impossible to understand; but it’s still “burning”, and yet the rest of the company there is so boring. What hangs<у>Gerasimov and Meshkov - such vulgarity! For the sake of memory, I will list: A. Gerasimov, Manizer, Rabinovich, V. Yakovlev, B. Yakovlev, Kolli, Rudnev, Gelfreich, an artist from the organizing committee with an order, Moor, Efanov; actress of the movie “Tanyusha”, Prokofiev with a lady, Ryazhsky, Arkin...”

December 24, 1944: “I read Nekrasov. Old Russian architecture - some kind of gobbledygook for Marxism - did not help the poor fellow...”

January 5, 1944: “Yesterday in the limit<магазине>in line S.E. Chernyshev, the architect, slandered Zholtovsky because Zholtovsky (<по словам>Yury) scolds Chernyshev.”

“Yesterday at Shchusev’s:<существует>project to erect a colossal (of course!) figure of Lenin over his mausoleum. He is horrified and thinks that this is Merkurov’s machinations.

Very indignant at Grabar; considers Grabar, Zholtovsky and Nesterov to be terrible ambitious people - “stay away from them!” He wants to submit his project of the Tashkent Theater for the Stalin Prize.

<…>I’ll say again: Sh[usev], happy in that he is invariably satisfied with his activities (both artistic-architectural and social), but lives among a silent wife and with a daughter who has fallen into insanity, a housekeeper and a scoundrel. his son’s wife in a narrow corridor!.. Going up to him, he exchanged a few words with V.I. Kachalov, who went out into the street to walk two dachshunds.”

March 22, 1944: “... Molotov’s statement about Romania: “we will not conquer, we will not strive to change the existing system” ...”

“Last night finally Chechulin. He is intoxicated with his power - “the main architect of Moscow.” In a 1.5-hour conversation he unfolded the broadest construction plans: New Arbat, Kyiv - Khreshchatyk; loggia with a giant painting by V.N. Yakovleva; organization of art workshops of the Moscow City Council; celebrating the 800th anniversary of Moscow in 2 years... I seem to be really pleased with my sketches...

For some reason, I remembered I. Grabar’s story about how he and Serov once met Menzel at an exhibition in Munich - Menzel stopped especially carefully, for a long time, to look (through binoculars, if high up) at bad paintings; Serov and Grabar wondered what was the matter... Pension - 400.

And now this thought occupies me, walking along the streets: what a mass of human creative work, dreams, grief and satisfaction lies on the facades of houses - countless caryatids, masks, cartouches, etc. And on the other hand, how calm the facades of good buildings are (both here and in the classics in general); how everything in them seems simple and natural, as if born of itself..."

May 28, 1944: “Nik[olai] Pav[ovich]<Северов>as if I was late with my arrival in Moscow - all the best places were dismantled - in the sense of restoration: Crimea - Ginzburg, Novorossiysk - Iofan, Stalingrad - Alabyan, Rostov - I don’t remember, etc.”

July 8, 1944: “The project of the Zholtovsky superstructure of the Mossovet was not approved after 19 options; They gave it to Chechulin.”

“I note the mood of the youth - Zhenin (and himself) Comrade Zverev says: “All my life I’ve been everywhere and heard people repeating about the war even before the war - it’s unbearable, I don’t want to think! And there is great hopelessness in the future - it will be even worse, the previous five-year plans will seem like paradise, with what will happen after the war”... But I am still confident in the future evolution, and faster than pessimists think. In the meantime, of course, the spirit is stinking and sycophantic in particular.

Yesterday there were five fireworks - Lviv, today Przemysl... The new Polish government, concocted by us, is not recognized by the allies. Hitler suppressed the plot..."

October 22, 1944: “Rumors about the persecution of Jews, but then Yura reported that Kaganovich was surrounded only by “his own” ...”

November 10, 1944: “...Today I received 3000 for the sketch of Lenin’s sarcophagus (even before the war) - I was in the Kremlin for money.”

May 5, 1945: “On April 30, Zhenya finally received Alabyanov’s money, a luxurious fee for the painted project of Stalingrad - 9755 (done in January, February).”

“The vile and incompetent Information Bureau. The greatest events, but we know nothing. And how they “celebrated” victory and peace - sparingly, boringly, sadly. Literally no one, except the fool Stroganskaya from AA, expects anything good. Yesterday I took my sketches to show Alexey Viktorovich - a lot of advice; in my opinion, very incorrect. And then: his injury is already<человека>, “giving instructions.” And it’s difficult, I just don’t want to object and challenge. Only the third day<он>flew in from Bulgaria and Romania, “he had already campaigned for the USSR so much that they all there came into terrible adoration and admiration for us.” And all the people are cultured, some studied in Paris, some studied in Germany; well dressed (“and I was so shabby, I was ashamed of my stained coat”). The Romanians especially have a lot of rich people, and the peasants are poor. The shops and restaurants are gorgeous. “And we have such a lack of order and discipline”... The driver didn’t come out to meet him, the car was broken down, the driver was drunk: “I was doing important government [state] assignments, but they don’t know how to arrange things and protect him from overwork.”... And he really looks tired , will he live long?

“Comrade Kusakov reported the terrible news that Golts had been hit by a car and was very seriously injured. Even if he survives, he will be completely crippled.<…>My inner attitude towards Golts changed when I learned about one of his actions.

And the legs on the small sketch of “Victory” still don’t come out!..”

Notes

1. Entry dated June 6, 1934: “The big mystery is - to whom does he owe such a luxurious gift as this apartment? Kryukov, Zholtovsky, Fomin? Shchusev and Shchuko, of course, are innocent... Malinovskaya-Enukidze? Bubnov? Government “wisdom” or chance?”

2. Artsybushev Igor Sergeevich, cousin of Olga Konstantinovna Lansere, wife of Evgeniy Evgenievich Lansere.

3. Entry dated October 5, 1939: “For two meetings in the Arts Committee - 194.” Entry dated December 27, 1939: “Translation of mail. from the Palace of Soviets for participation in some meetings - 285.”

4. In an entry dated April 14, 1945, Lanceray explains Picasso’s popularity with his communist sympathies: “Today at the Moscow Union of Artists I looked at the English again - crumbs of good and how much is a sign of barbarism, Picasso’s legacy. And it is very significant that “progressive”, “left” circles support this art abroad. The people themselves are of course healthier and also truly disagree (if they know) with communism. And the “ideology” of a bunch of restless dreamers is deftly and shamelessly stirring things up there, while they sit here... Thank you for a lot, but I am irreconcilable with the very core of the idea and practice (the NKVD), of course!”

5. Entry in October 1938: “Viewed at the Academy of Architecture Studio and other magazines - painting is all rubbish.<…>Chewing gum - cubism, Cezanne, Gauguin, Utrillo.”

6. Entry dated April 22, 1941: “I am interested in the question that I posed to Brunov (Nik. Iv.) at the meeting. Academy of Architecture: Picasso et C-nie Should I receive the title of Doctor of Painting?.. Brunov and even Vesnin were amazed at my doubts.<…>M.b. in 10–20 years and we can objectively give credit to some side of these charlatans, here is Shegal (Chagall. - D.H.), and a million other Dufies etc.».

7. “My favorites are Monet, Sisley, Degas, Renoir, Marche, 2 Matisse, Puvis, Lobre, Quarry, some Cezannes, Gauguins, Vuillard, M. Denis, and I reject Picasso, Derain, Rousseau. I really didn’t like Rodin, the large panels of Matisse, M. Denis” (September 5, 1926).

8. Entry dated November 20, 1932: “For the Konchalovskys, complacency and a sense of their happiness (namely, their constant luck) rather than their greatness, spill over the edge...”

9. Z.E. Serebryakova. Self-portrait in a scarf. 1911. Watercolor, tempera. Pushkin Museum im. A.C. Pushkin, Museum of Personal Collections, Moscow. - Note edit.

10. Entry dated July 8, 1938: “...How everyone doesn’t like him: Nesterov, Yuon, and all the artists. I wonder who is his friend, who is he close to? All I know is that every time I meet him, I have a heavy feeling of insult.”

11. Heard from my father, Sergei Khmelnitsky, in the 70s.

12. Entries from July 4 and October 1938.

13. At a meeting of architects A.B. Shchusev opposed the conviction of I.E. Yakir (he was accused of participating in the “Military-Fascist Conspiracy in the Red Army” and was shot in 1937). For this, fellow architects subjected Shchusev to severe criticism in the Architectural Gazette. - Note ed. diaries.

14. Shchusev P.V. Pages from the life of Academician Shchusev. M., 2011. P. 336.

15. Entry dated April 8, 1939.

16. Apparently, Ladovsky.

17. Apparently, this refers to the Narkomfin house on Novinsky Boulevard in Moscow.

18. Tolstoy A. Searches for monumentality // Izvestia. 1932. February 27. The article was published the day before the announcement of the results of the All-Union competition for the design of the Palace of Soviets (February 28).

19. See: Khmelnitsky D. Architecture of Stalin. Psychology and style. M., 2007. pp. 91–92.

20. Gul R. I took Russia away. T. 3: Russia in Germany. M., 2001. P. 375.

21. This is what Lanceret called the tower of the Kazan station, in association with a medieval building in Kazan. - Note ed. diaries.

22. Stalin and Kaganovich. Correspondence 1931–1936 M., 2001. P. 359.

23. Rukavishnikov Mitrofan Sergeevich, sculptor.

24. L.M. Perchik, manager department of city planning in the Moscow City Council.

25. Voloshinov Andrey Georgievich, grandson of E.E. Lansere.

26. D.V. Usov, deputy head of a department in the GUGB NKVD of the USSR, executed in 1939.

27. Nikolai Lansere, architect, brother of Evgeniy Lansere.

28. On January 8, the Pravda newspaper published the Decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the closure of the Theater. Sun. Meyerhold (GosTIMA). In June 1939, Meyerhold was arrested, and in February 1940, he was shot. - Note ed. diaries.

29. Nikolai Lansere was in custody at that time.

30. The monument for the sluice of the Rybinsk Reservoir was not implemented by V.I. Mukhina. The allegorical female figure, personifying the Motherland, was supposed to hold a model of the plant in one hand and support a sheaf with the other. This decision was rejected, and instead a figure of a Red Army soldier with a sword appeared. The outbreak of war interrupted work on the project. - Note ed. diaries.

31. The Stalin Prize was received by Asaf Mikhailovich Messerer and Galina Sergeevna Ulanova.

32. Nekrasov A. Essays on the history of ancient Russian architecture of the 11th–17th centuries. M., 1936.

33. “Alexey Ivanovich Nekrasov was arrested in April 1938 under Article 58 and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He served his sentence in the camps of Vorkuta. In the 1940s, under camp conditions, he gave a course of lectures on architecture for builders and worked on the books “Theory of Architecture” and “Moscow Architecture”. In 1948 he was released from prison. In 1948–1949 he lived in Aleksandrov, where he studied the monuments of the city and its surroundings. In February 1949, he was re-arrested and deported to the Novosibirsk region. September 25, 1950 A.I. Nekrasov died in the village of Vengerovo, where he was buried.”

Evgeny Evgenievich Lansere was born on September 4, 1875 in Pavlovsk into a family that made an invaluable contribution to the development of Russian art.
The father of the future artist was the famous sculptor Evgeny Aleksandrovich Lanceray. His maternal grandfather, N. Benois, was an academician of architecture. The architect was his uncle, L. Benois, another uncle, the youngest of his mother's brothers, A. Benois, a famous artist and art critic, had a great influence on the formation of Lanseray's artistic tastes.
Evgeniy spent his childhood in Ukraine, on his father’s small estate Neskuchnoye, where his younger sister, later a famous artist, Zinaida Serebryakova, was born.
After the death of E. A. Lanceray, the mother and her children moved to St. Petersburg, to their father’s house - known in artistic circles as the “Benois House at Nikola Morsky”.
Evgeny Evgenievich Lansere’s artistic abilities manifested themselves early, so there was no doubt about his choice of profession.
In 1892, leaving the gymnasium, he entered the school of the Society for the Encouragement of the Arts; in those same years he became a regular member of the circle from which the “World of Art” subsequently emerged. Under the influence of A. Benois and his friends, Lanseray refused to enter the Academy of Arts and went to study in Paris.

Petersburg. Near the old Nikolsky market. 1901

The early period of Lanceray’s work, due to family and friendly ties, is closely connected with the “World of Art”. However, experiencing a certain influence of Benoit and Somov,Lancerayremained unaffected by the nostalgic retrospectivism characteristic of World of Art artists.
First of all, Lanceray became famous as a book graphic artist.

Illustrations for Balobanova’s book “Legends of the Ancient Castles of Brittany” were the first major work of E. Lanseray; the choice was not accidental - shortly before this he had visited Brittany. In the illustrations, screensavers and vignettes, the general artistic principles of the “World of Art” and European Art Nouveau are revealed, and, at the same time, the artist’s individual style is anticipated. In 1898, Lanceray’s illustrations for the book by E. V. Balobanova were exhibited atarranged by Diaghilevexhibition of Russian and Finnish artistscove

Illustration by E. Lanseray for “Le Morte d’Arthur” by Malory (1893-1894)

Lanceray did not participate in the preparation of the first issues of the World of Art magazinebecause I was abroad,but from the second half of 1899 he was among the permanent employees. The artist’s long-term “vignette activity” began on the pages of “World of Art,” which spread to many other publications.
Design of dozens of publications - books, almanacs, magazines; bookplates, postage and publishing stamps, art postcards - these are the areas in which he took partLanceray.

“The road to Tsarskoe Selo in the time of Anna Ioannovna, 1904

He believed that it was the decorative designbook graphics, and not the illustration, determines the artistic image of the book. Intros and endings seemed to him a more responsible and complex task than illustrating an episode in the text. The stylistic and decorative-graphic unity of the book as an integral work of art became for Lanceray the practical principle of the designer’s work. Lanceray was the first among Russian artists to create a page-by-page layout of a book’s design, creating a harmonious harmony of graphic elements. This innovation subsequently became part of the practice of all masters of book graphics.

"Empress Elizaveta Petrovna in Tsarskoe Selo" 1905.

An important stage on the way to this high achievement of the artist was the long-term (from 1904 to 1912) work on the design of A. Benois’ book “Tsarskoe Selo in the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna.” For “Tsarskoe Selo” (the book was designed by a number of artists), Lanceray created several splash illustrations with a developed plot beginning.
"Hadji Murat"Tolstoy with illustrations by Lansere - the best pre-revolutionary publication by the artist. The 1916 edition contained extensive deletions - the tsarist censorship did not allow Tolstoy's text containing a revealing characterization of Nicholas I; The portrait of the king, interpreted satirically by Lanceray, was not published either. The full publication was published only in 1918.
However, easel graphics and painting were no less important in the artist’s work. Lanceray works a lot from life - his interests include portrait sketches, landscapes, and numerous travel sketches.
In 1902, the artist toured the Far East, visiting Manchuria and Japan. After the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, in February 1904, Lanceray received an order for artistic postcards with views of Port Arthur and Manchuria.
Revolutionary events of 1905-1906. form a noticeable milestone not only in the development of Lanceray’s creativity, but also in the process of formation of his personality. A number of outstanding works in the field of satirical magazine graphics date back to this period, in which the artist appears as an independent and mature master with his own, fully developed attitude to art and life.
At that time, the artist participated in the publication of the satirical magazine “The Spectator” (1905), and collaborated in “The Bug,” published with the participation of M. Gorky. After its ban, Lanceray took over the publication of the successor to “Bugbear” - the magazine “Hell Mail”, for which he produced his best satirical drawings.
Lanseray first came into contact with work in the theater at the very beginning of the 1900s, paying tribute to the passion for theatrical painting that was characteristic of almost all representatives of the older generation of the “World of Art”.

Study with a carriage and a cannon, 1910s

The set design for the last act of the ballet “Sylvia” (1901) and the panel for “The Sanctuary of Patrick” (1911) staged at the Ancient Theater testify to Lanceray’s great skill in the field of architectural landscape.
The artist achieved his first achievements in the field of theatrical painting in 1907 - in the design of Evreinov’s play “Fair for the Indictment of St. Denis” (aka “Street Theater”), together with Benois for the “Ancient Theater” in St. Petersburg.
Lanceray's work in the theater was interrupted after 1911 for a relatively long period. The reason for this was intensive work in the field of book illustration and monumental painting, as well as historical events that changed the fate of Russia and the very range of the artist’s activities.

Lanceray is also involved in applied arts: having taken the post of head of the artistic department of cutting factories, porcelain and glass factories under the “Cabinet of His Majesty” in 1912, he not only controls the quality of products, but also himself offers several sketches and designs of artistic products.
Lanceray's versatile artistic activity received recognition; in 1912 he was awarded the title of academician, and in 1916 he was elected a full member of the Academy of Arts.

Still life. Sink and apples. 1917

Lanceray spends the last pre-revolutionary year in the village: painting landscapes, considering the possibility of illustrating Tolstoy’s “Cossacks”. The artist greets the news of the overthrow of the autocracy with enthusiasm. However, it is not possible to come to Petrograd; material and everyday difficulties force the artist and his family to seek refuge with friends in the Caucasus. The artist lived for three years in Dagestan, where he taught drawing at a gymnasium. In 1920 he moved to Tbilisi, where he worked as a draftsman at the Museum of Ethnography and went on ethnographic expeditions with the Caucasian Archaeological Institute. From 1922 to 1934 Lanceray - professor

With the move to Moscow (1933), a new stage of his activity began, partly connected with the theater (“Woe from Wit” at the Maly Theater, 1938), but most of all with monumental painting (plafonds of the Kazansky railway station restaurant, the Moscow hotel, the hall of the Bolshoi Theater , panel for the Komsomolskaya metro station).

"Eroshka at Olenin's" Illustration for the story Tolstoy Wow " Cossacks", 1936

The war prevented the implementation of everything planned. ReturnThe master was able to work on the painting of the lobby of the Kazan station only in the spring of 1945. But he was never able to complete it.

Evgeniy Evgenievich Lanceray died on September 13, 1946. His life seemed to be successful and comfortable. The repressions did not affect him, he was awarded all sorts of honorary titles and government awards, but was forever separated from his closest and dearly beloved friends, as well as from his beloved sister Zinaida Evgenievna Serebryakova, whose work the Soviet public first became acquainted with only many years after the death of E.E. . Lansere.

Anna Petrovna Ostroumova-Lebedeva wrote in her memoirsabout E. E. Lancer: “He was an excellent graphic artist who deeply understood the laws of book design, and achieved great perfection in this. He painted historical paintings. He created scenery sketches for many theatrical plays and performed a number of works of a monumental nature. All of Evgeny Evgenievich’s work bears the features of great joyful inspiration, characterized by its cheerful realism, brilliant skill and enormous culture.”

Evgeniy Lansere. Volga near the walls of the Kremlin. 1937.

Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich- I (1875 1946), graphic artist and painter, People's Artist of the RSFSR (1945). Son of E. A. Lanceray. Brother of Z. E. Serebryakova. Member of the World of Art. Book graphics (“Hadji Murat” by L. N. Tolstoy, 1912 41), historical compositions (series “Trophies of Russian Weapons” ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich- (1875 1946), sov. artist. In 1914 for the 4th volume of the Collection. op. L. ed. V. Kallash illustrated the fairy tale “Ashik Kerib” (gouache; Tretyakov Gallery): “Ashik Kerib and St. Georgy" and "Magul Megeri at the wedding". The illustrations are marked by rhythm and plasticity of gesture and... ... Lermontov Encyclopedia

Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich- Lansere, Evgeny Evgenievich painter (born in 1875), son of the sculptor Evgeny Alexandrovich Lansere. He studied at the school of the Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, then in Paris at the private academies of Colarossi and Julian, where he worked under the guidance of Benjamin... Biographical Dictionary

Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich- (1875 1946), Soviet graphic artist and painter. People's Artist of the RSFSR (1945). Son of E. A. Lanceray. He studied at the Drawing School of the College of Arts (1892-95) and at private academies in Paris (1895-98). He taught (1922 38) at the Tbilisi Academy of Arts, MARGI, Leningrad Academy of Arts... Art encyclopedia

Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich- (18751946), graphic artist and painter, People's Artist of the RSFSR (1945). Born in Pavlovsk. In 1892–1917 he lived in St. Petersburg. He studied at the Drawing School of the College of Artists (189295) and at private art schools in Paris (189598). Academician of the Academy of Arts (1912), taught there... Encyclopedic reference book "St. Petersburg"

Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich- (1875, Pavlovsk 1946, Moscow), graphic artist and painter, People's Artist of the RSFSR (1945). Together with his sister Zinaida (married Serebryakova), he received his initial art education in the house of his father, sculptor E.A. Lansere.... ... Moscow (encyclopedia)

LANCERE Evgeniy Evgenievich- (August 23, 1875 September 13, 1946), Russian artist, academician of the Academy of Arts (1912), People's Artist of the RSFSR (1945), laureate of the Stalin Prize (1943). The nephew of the artist A. N. Benois, Eugene Lanceray in 1892-1896 studied at... ... Encyclopedia of Cinema

Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich- , Soviet graphic artist and painter, People's Artist of the RSFSR (1945). Son of E. A. Lanceray. He studied at the Drawing School of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts in St. Petersburg (1892-95), in... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

LANCERE Evgeniy Evgenievich- (1907 88) Russian painter and graphic artist. Son of E. E. Lanceray. Paintings of the Kazansky (together with his father) Yaroslavsky and Kursky railway stations in Moscow (1940-50s), book graphics (series of albums Monuments of Russian Architecture, etc.), portraits, landscapes... ...

LANCERE Evgeniy Evgenievich- (1875 1946) Russian graphic artist and painter, People's Artist of Russia (1945). Son of E. A. Lanceray. Brother of Z. E. Serebryakova. Member of the World of Art. Book graphics (Cossacks by L.N. Tolstoy, 1917 37), historical compositions (series Trophies of Russian weapons... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich- (1875 1946), graphic artist and painter, People's Artist of the RSFSR (1945). Born in Pavlovsk. From 1892 to 1917 he lived in St. Petersburg. He studied at the Drawing School of the College of Artists (1892-95) and at private art schools in Paris (1895-98). Academician of the Academy of Arts (1912), taught there (1934 38) ... St. Petersburg (encyclopedia)

Books

• Diaries. Set of 3 books. Book 1. Education of feelings, Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich. The publication represents the first publication of the diaries of the famous Russian and Soviet artist Evgeny Evgenievich Lanceray. The publication is addressed to a wide range of readers interested in... Buy for 3855 RUR
• Diaries. Set of 3 books. Book 2. Travels. Caucasus. Weekdays and holidays, Lansere Evgeniy Evgenievich. The publication represents the first publication of the diaries of the famous Russian and Soviet artist Evgeny Evgenievich Lanceray. The second book includes vivid impressions of the trip to Angora...