The ornament of the 1870s. In Search of original Russian Art (Victor Butovsky, Vladimir Stasov and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc)

Before being denounced as a “crime,” ornamentation held a prominent place within debates that focused more on national identity than aesthetics. The present article revisits the controversy that took place around ornamentation as an expression of the national in the 1870s between the director of the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Dany Savelli
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Russian Academy of Sciences. A.M. Gorky Institute of World Literature 2024-03-01
Series:Литературный факт
Subjects:
Online Access:https://litfact.ru/images/2024-31/09_Savelli_187-216.pdf
_version_ 1827308634314375168
author Dany Savelli
author_facet Dany Savelli
author_sort Dany Savelli
collection DOAJ
description Before being denounced as a “crime,” ornamentation held a prominent place within debates that focused more on national identity than aesthetics. The present article revisits the controversy that took place around ornamentation as an expression of the national in the 1870s between the director of the Stroganov School, Victor Butovsky, and the art critic Vladimir Stasov. Shocked by the latter’s thesis, suggesting that Russian peasant embroideries had Asian origins, Butovsky attempted to counter by suddenly attributing considerable importance to Byzantine influence on Russian art, which he had previously denied. Moreover, he invited Eugène Viollet-Le-Duc to join this debate by commissioning a work from him. However, in “L’Art russe” (“Russian Art”), published in Paris in 1877 and translated into Russian in 1879, the famous French architect, in turn, defends the thesis of the Asian origin of Russian ornamentation. But if Butovski still raves about the book, it is because Viollet-Le-Duc asserts that the Russians drew their artistic originality from the most prestigious of the East, India; doing so, he endows the Russians with an Aryan genealogy that allows them to join the great European family. On his part, Stasov, concerned with a scientific approach that has led him to rethink Russia’s relationship with Asia completely, gives a mixed reception to the work, as he perfectly perceives its weaknesses.
first_indexed 2024-04-24T19:14:35Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d7c1109b568f49c2af51017243aebe81
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2541-8297
2542-2421
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-24T19:14:35Z
publishDate 2024-03-01
publisher Russian Academy of Sciences. A.M. Gorky Institute of World Literature
record_format Article
series Литературный факт
spelling doaj.art-d7c1109b568f49c2af51017243aebe812024-03-26T08:35:02ZengRussian Academy of Sciences. A.M. Gorky Institute of World LiteratureЛитературный факт2541-82972542-24212024-03-011 (31)18721610.22455/2541-8297-2024-31-187-216The ornament of the 1870s. In Search of original Russian Art (Victor Butovsky, Vladimir Stasov and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc)Dany Savelli0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9635-496XUniversité Toulouse Jean JaurèsBefore being denounced as a “crime,” ornamentation held a prominent place within debates that focused more on national identity than aesthetics. The present article revisits the controversy that took place around ornamentation as an expression of the national in the 1870s between the director of the Stroganov School, Victor Butovsky, and the art critic Vladimir Stasov. Shocked by the latter’s thesis, suggesting that Russian peasant embroideries had Asian origins, Butovsky attempted to counter by suddenly attributing considerable importance to Byzantine influence on Russian art, which he had previously denied. Moreover, he invited Eugène Viollet-Le-Duc to join this debate by commissioning a work from him. However, in “L’Art russe” (“Russian Art”), published in Paris in 1877 and translated into Russian in 1879, the famous French architect, in turn, defends the thesis of the Asian origin of Russian ornamentation. But if Butovski still raves about the book, it is because Viollet-Le-Duc asserts that the Russians drew their artistic originality from the most prestigious of the East, India; doing so, he endows the Russians with an Aryan genealogy that allows them to join the great European family. On his part, Stasov, concerned with a scientific approach that has led him to rethink Russia’s relationship with Asia completely, gives a mixed reception to the work, as he perfectly perceives its weaknesses.https://litfact.ru/images/2024-31/09_Savelli_187-216.pdfornamentrussian artnational identitymongol invasionvictor bukovskyvladimir stasoveugène viollet-le-duc
spellingShingle Dany Savelli
The ornament of the 1870s. In Search of original Russian Art (Victor Butovsky, Vladimir Stasov and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc)
Литературный факт
ornament
russian art
national identity
mongol invasion
victor bukovsky
vladimir stasov
eugène viollet-le-duc
title The ornament of the 1870s. In Search of original Russian Art (Victor Butovsky, Vladimir Stasov and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc)
title_full The ornament of the 1870s. In Search of original Russian Art (Victor Butovsky, Vladimir Stasov and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc)
title_fullStr The ornament of the 1870s. In Search of original Russian Art (Victor Butovsky, Vladimir Stasov and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc)
title_full_unstemmed The ornament of the 1870s. In Search of original Russian Art (Victor Butovsky, Vladimir Stasov and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc)
title_short The ornament of the 1870s. In Search of original Russian Art (Victor Butovsky, Vladimir Stasov and Eugene Viollet-le-Duc)
title_sort ornament of the 1870s in search of original russian art victor butovsky vladimir stasov and eugene viollet le duc
topic ornament
russian art
national identity
mongol invasion
victor bukovsky
vladimir stasov
eugène viollet-le-duc
url https://litfact.ru/images/2024-31/09_Savelli_187-216.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT danysavelli theornamentofthe1870sinsearchoforiginalrussianartvictorbutovskyvladimirstasovandeugeneviolletleduc
AT danysavelli ornamentofthe1870sinsearchoforiginalrussianartvictorbutovskyvladimirstasovandeugeneviolletleduc