Pavel Petrovich Chistyakov teaching methods. Pavel Petrovich Chistyakov

The outstanding artist-teacher Pavel Petrovich had a great influence on the development of drawing teaching methods Chistyakov(1832-1919). His views on the goals and objectives of art and the art school began to take shape in the 60s of the 19th century. It was a time of struggle between advanced social forces against the remnants of serfdom, a time of struggle against reactionary ideology, which imposed chains on free scientific and creative thought. Revolutionary democratic ideals of the various intelligentsia Russia was pointed out a new path in the development of science and art.

By this time, the Imperial Academy of Arts had become mired in routine, began to adhere to a dogmatic method of teaching, and fenced itself off from life with an impregnable wall. It became clear to P.P. Chistyakov that the Academy needed reform; its deadening power over artists and art was unacceptable. The twentieth anniversary of Chistyakov's activity as an adjunct professor at the Academy of Arts (1872-1892) was the main and most fruitful pedagogical period of his life. At that time he developed a new teaching methodology and tested his pedagogical system in practice. In tsarist Russia, the merits of P. P. Chistyakov were not properly appreciated. Of particular interest to us are the thoughts of P. P. Chistyakov on the methodology of teaching drawing in secondary schools. Since 1871, Chistyakov took an active part in the commission for awarding prizes for drawings by students in secondary schools, and this activity attracted his attention to the organization of drawing in secondary schools.

Chistyakov wrote: “The study of drawing, strictly speaking, should... [begin and] end with life; By nature we mean here all kinds of objects surrounding a person. He categorically rejected the copying method.

Chistyakov looked at drawing in high school as a general education subject: “Drawing as the study of a living form is one of the aspects of knowledge in general; it requires the same mental activity as the sciences recognized as necessary for elementary education." Although we do not train artists in secondary schools, says P. P. Chistyakov, the teaching of drawing must follow all the rules and laws of this art. “In the second department, where geometric bodies are drawn from life, students should first be given a simple and clear concept of the structure of the human eye, explain the rules of perspective as a science arising from this structure of the eye and the relative distance of objects. Give the concept of the picture plane, the horizon, point of view, vanishing, distance, etc.

And further: “When drawing from geometric bodies, it is required to observe the exact fulfillment of the necessary conditions of the theory of linear perspective, namely: it is required to be aware of the position of the picture plane at right angles to the axis of vision and with the point of view in the middle of this plane. The consequence of this is that it is extremely important to explain to the student the position of his picture plane relative to the object being copied on the basis that the object always remains in one position, and the places of the person drawing relative to it change differently.

Chistyakov's pedagogical views are based on scientific data. The main role in Chistyakov’s teaching system was played by the picture plane, which acted as an intermediary between nature and the painter, helping to compare the image with nature - the “test drawing system”. When learning to draw from life, you need a strict system and methodical sequence in completing educational tasks. When teaching drawing, the teacher must explain in a clear and understandable form the main principles of academic drawing and activate the student’s cognitive activity.

Of great value to us are Chistyakov’s ideas regarding the relationship between the teacher and students. Chistyakov’s student, painter M. G. Platunov wrote about Chistyakov’s thoughts on this matter: “First of all,” he said, you need to know the student, his character, his development and preparation, in order to find the right approach to him based on this. You can’t approach everything with one yardstick. There is never a need to intimidate a student, but, on the contrary, to instill in him faith in himself, so that he, without being led, understands his doubts and perplexities himself. The main aim of guidance should be to set the student on the path of learning and to lead him steadily along that path. In a teacher, students should see not only a demanding teacher, but also a friend. Giving advice to the teacher, P. P. Chistyakov especially emphasized the ability to look at nature: “Since not all young men are equally talented, not everyone looks at nature correctly when drawing, then, first of all, you need to teach them to look properly . This is almost the most extremely important thing.

For Russia late XIX - early XX centuries There was an increased interest in the methods of teaching drawing in both special and general educational institutions. In particular, heated discussions aroused the question of the advantages of “geometric” and “natural” teaching methods. School education specialists are increasingly becoming interested in issues of children's creativity, child psychology, and experimental pedagogy. The study and research of children's drawings captivates not only art teachers, but also artists, art historians, psychologists, sociologists, and historians. A great future is predicted for the scientific direction in the study of children's creativity.

Such a widespread and widespread passion for children's creativity had its positive aspects. First of all, the methods of teaching drawing began to receive scientific and theoretical justification, children began to look at the visual activities of children more seriously, and drawing at school - as an important educational subject.

At the same time, during this period, the ideas of “free education”, borrowed from foreign experts, became widespread. Along with the positive aspects, there were also many negative ones. This is, first of all, a reduction of the teacher’s role to that of a passive observer, an excessive admiration for the spontaneity and naivety of a child’s drawing. A false point of view was also embedded in the scientific substantiation of the laws of child development and his psyche. The theory of spontaneous self-development of a child, i.e. such development, which does not depend on external environmental influences, was incorrect and idealistic. The biogenetic concept led researchers to the false conclusion that the most important thing in the development of a child is to eliminate the teaching and nurturing influence of adults, and not to turn children into “premature old people.” Everything must be subordinated to the natural development of the child, hence no violence, no coercion.

These false attitudes are also reflected in teaching aids and manuals.

During his teaching career, the artist and teacher P. P. Chistyakov updated the methodology for teaching drawing, developing a system based on scientific knowledge and tested in practice. While still studying at the Academy, P. P. Chistyakov began giving lessons at the Drawing School, where he became interested in teaching methods. The difference between his system of work and other teachers was manifested in the fact that Pavel Petrovich did not just teach how to draw, he was not a simple transmitter of information, “coaching” in acquiring a certain skill - he was an organizer of the learning process, moving together with students towards mastery. In order to consider the pedagogical activity of P. P. Chistyakov as an integral system, it is necessary to determine the main components of the pedagogical system and correlate them with the teaching system of P. P. Chistyakov.

1. One of the main components of the system is the goals and objectives of teaching, as the starting point for the functioning of the pedagogical system. Chistyakov finds confirmation of this in his teaching system. One of the components of his work is goal setting. Chistyakov set the task of studying nature and sought to ensure that the student consciously mastered the process of work, understood each of its stages, determined by the final goal. Thus, one of the components of his system can be identified - goal setting.

2. We can highlight the content of educational material as a component of the teaching system, which plays an important role in the process of conducting a lesson, since it serves as the object of what students must learn. The content of the educational material is divided into two parts: current material, directly related to the topic of the lesson, and promising material, which is introduced to enhance the mental activity of students, provide an educational influence on them, or in preparation for the next lesson. Based on the goals and objectives of teaching, Chistyakov builds the logic of the content of the educational material. The content of educational material is the next component of his teaching system. In his opinion, students must first of all study perspective, plastic anatomy, the laws of formation of the internal structure of an object, the mechanics of movements, etc. Determining the content of teaching drawing, what needs to be taught and what to master in the process of professional drawing training, P. P Chistyakov attached great importance to the picture plane, which helps to compare the image with nature. Understanding a drawing as an image on a plane of real volume, P.P. Chistyakov taught to see form and led the student to a holistic perception, in contrast to the linear drawing with shading that was common in his time.

3. In the teaching process, there is a purposeful interaction between teachers and students. Any process is a sequential change from one state to another. In the pedagogical process, this is the result of pedagogical interaction between the teacher and students using various methods and means of teaching. In the process of conducting classes, P. P. Chistyakov strove to ensure that students developed and consolidated their skills in making drawings. To do this, he used various types of tasks, which gradually developed the ability to perceive and analyze nature, and correlate the acquired knowledge with his internal experience. In his work with students, P. P. Chistyakov constantly emphasized that when drawing a line, one must look, first of all, at the shape. P. P. Chistyakov attached great importance to the methodological sequence of work on the drawing. Giving explanations, he tried to ensure that students understood the essence of the methodological principle of constructing the form and the methodological sequence of drawing. In addition to the usual instructions on the methods and techniques of drawing, he gave students advice that speech, which should serve as a link between thought and action, can help develop professional thinking: “Never draw silently, but always ask a problem. How great is the word: “from here to here,” and how it holds the artist, does not allow him to draw from himself, at random.”

4. Monitoring and evaluation of the results of educational activities. With the help of control, he promptly regulated the educational activities of individual students and made adjustments to their work. One of the subjects of such control were conversations with students to determine their theoretical knowledge and viewing of drawings, which gave a comprehensive picture of the level of students’ preparedness. Operational control was also used, which made it possible to check students' compliance with laws and rules for performing drawings during the lesson.

5. Self-improvement of the teacher, his constant systematic work to improve professional knowledge, both as a teacher and as an artist. Self-improvement for P.P. Chistyakov was a matter of course. Pavel Petrovich understood that without deep knowledge of the theory of knowledge, as a process of deepening from phenomenon to essence, the productive work of a teacher, guiding students’ thinking during classes, and their mental development is impossible. P. P. Chistyakov, we see that he, as a teacher, knew well which methods of understanding the surrounding reality are reflected in the content of academic drawings, and saw ways to form dialectical thinking among students. “Strict, complete drawing,” he said, “requires that the object be drawn, firstly, as it appears in space to our eyes, and secondly, what it really is; therefore, in the first case, a rather gifted eye, and in the second, you need knowledge of the object and the laws by which it appears this way or that.” He taught to look, to think, to know, to feel, to be able.

6. The pedagogical process cannot be carried out as a whole if the teacher does not have a properly built pedagogical relationship with his students. One of the features in P. P. Chistyakov’s teaching system was precisely his relationship with students, who had as their goal the desire for mutual

cooperation. The teacher and the student, in his opinion, enter into a relationship in which the teacher’s understanding of the student’s life, art and individuality, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the student’s trust in the teacher in whose work he is studying are equally important. The student in his system was perceived as an equal participant in artistic life.

Based on the analysis of P. P. Chistyakov’s teaching activities, we can identify the main components of his work system, thanks to which a high level of quality in teaching drawing was achieved. It consisted of the interaction of the following components: goals and objectives of teaching; scientifically based content of educational material; the use of various types and forms of classes, thanks to which students’ activities were organized to master artistic literacy in drawing; various forms of control, with the help of which possible deviations from the assigned tasks were prevented when performing the drawing; the constant self-improvement of P.P. Chistyakov himself took place, which was aimed, first of all, at improving the positive impact on students. Also an integral part of the system of his work were built relationships with students, which had a humanistic orientation to Pavel Petrovich’s activities, aimed at communication with students, dialogue and respect for the individual.

P. P. Chistyakov’s teaching system to this day influences all the processes occurring during the teaching of artistic literacy in drawing in our country, but not everything has yet been studied and understood from what P. P. Chistyakov said and taught. That is why at present there is again a need to study his teaching system, which serves as an example of professional activity aimed at solving the whole variety of educational, developmental and educational tasks

19. American system of teaching fine arts at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries (Prang, Tedd, Augsburg).
Underestimating the role of art education in the aesthetic education of students, some methodologists of general education schools began to get carried away with the development of formal techniques. Thus, in 1898 in America, Liberty Tadd proposed “new ways to artistic education,” which consisted mainly in the development of manual dexterity. According to his system, students had to alternately draw on the blackboard with their right and left hands, and then perform symmetrical figures with both hands simultaneously. the need for systematic training based on the development of motor skills of the hand and eye. The subject of drawing at school begins to include a wider range of activities - clay modeling, carving, metal work.
to the American system of L. Prang. He considered the subject "Drawing" as a subject that contributes to the overall development of personality. Classes, according to his course, are devoted not only to drawing, but also exercises are given to develop observation, memory, aesthetic taste, technical dexterity, and sensitivity to the beautiful in nature and art. In contrast to the German version of the natural method in teaching drawing, in the American system, at first, more attention is paid to the perception of aesthetically significant phenomena in nature, direct (tactile) study of the shape of objects, play methods, and the involvement of various types of art (poetry, sculpture, etc.) in teaching drawing. architecture). It is proposed to perform many exercises in order to study the color and shape of objects. Color is mastered by observing bright phenomena in nature (sunrise and sunset, rainbows), and physical phenomena (obtaining the spectrum of daylight using a transparent prism), the color of fruits and leaves.
Like many others, L. Prang is confident that children's drawings “give us access to the world, partly real, partly imaginary, in which children live.”
In the first third of the twentieth century. In Western and Russian schools, the “natural” method of teaching drawing was one of the most common. This had some influence on the development of methods for teaching fine arts in out-of-school institutions in our country. In our opinion, the best was taken from both the American and German versions of this method. The American system of L. Prang echoes the requirement of the authors of this technique to directly carefully study the surrounding reality in order to create an image, identifying its aesthetic aspects, highlighting the most significant moments in it. From the German version of the natural method, apparently, the strict systematicity of the course and its methodological elaboration for extracurricular work in art studios and art circles, based on the education of active perception in students, came from.

20. Research by scientists at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries into the visual arts of children. Biogenetic concept of child development in visual arts. (C. Ricci, G. Kerschensteiner, K. Lamprecht).

When examining methods of teaching drawing in secondary schools at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, one must take into account that during this period the academic subject of drawing already included four types of activities: drawing from life where they practiced drawing and painting, decorative drawing (decorative and applied arts classes), thematic drawing and conversations about art.

The period under consideration in the history of the development of teaching methods is very complex and contradictory. On the one hand, interest in teaching problems is growing and expanding, teaching methods are receiving scientific and theoretical justification. On the other hand, the clarity and rigor of the drawing are noticeably reduced. Issues of artistic creativity and aesthetic education of the younger generation are brought to the fore.

The entire system and teaching methods of this period were aimed at developing the individuality of each student and the inviolability of his artistic personality. Many saw strict realistic drawing as shackles that limited the artist’s creative possibilities.

Art education is considered as part of artistic culture. Children's drawing is part of art. culture, and the child is the protagonist of the cultural process. Consideration of children's drawings in the historical aspect, as a phenomenon of art. culture. assumes:

1st analysis from the point of view of content and methods of art. education;

2nd place for a child and his creativity in art. culture;

3-psychological characteristics of age-related development;

4 the influence of pedagogical individuality - the interaction of the student and his mentor in art.

Corrado Ricci (1911) gave a fairly serious analysis of the products of children's visual activity, drawing attention to the fact that children chose a person as one of the central objects for depiction. Despite the complexity of the form, due to undeveloped artistic and visual capabilities, children depict it in the early stages of development in the form of schematic cephalopods, gradually further complicating its construction with various details. Children's drawings reflect the originality of their thinking, one of the characteristic features of which is storytelling, which contributes to the development of speech at the moments of visual activity. It’s true, it was pointed out that children usually draw not from life, but from an idea, and they do not have the need to compare the drawing with the object.

But C. Ricci made the main conclusion from his observations in connection with the similarity of the products of children's creativity with the art of prehistoric and primitive eras, which served as the basis for the use of biogenetic theory to explain the development of children's visual creativity.

The works of the German scientist became widely known at the beginning of the 20th century. Georg Kerschensteiner- famous German teacher. Kershensteiner paid his main attention to studying the process of a child’s free expression of his “I” and to analyzing the creative activity of children, which, in his opinion, acquires an emotional overtones when it is not constrained by any boundaries. Kershensteiner is an opponent of the geometric method, because he believes that this method prevents the developing personality from revealing the creative possibilities inherent in it.

Georg Kerschensteiner’s book “The Development of the Artistic Creativity of the Child,” published in Russia in 1914, became the first fundamental study of the drawings of school-age children from 6 to 13. Particular attention is paid to artistic expression, manifested in free and decorative drawing at different ages of children. The purpose of the study was to study the development of drawing ability in addition to systematic external influences. German scientists have established: differentiation of the sexes in the sense of artistic talent; different attitudes between city and rural children; connection of intellectual development with the ability of graphic representation.

Kershensteiner bases his theory on biogenetic understanding of the process of development of a child’s visual activity. According to the provisions of the biogenetic theory, children's visual creativity, as it develops, follows the path of human development; the only difference is that the development of human culture is associated with certain historical, socio-economic conditions, while children's drawings are not associated with them.

Periodization of the development of children's drawing according to Lamprecht (1909):

Stage 1– drawing of a child under 7 years old. “A child draws not what he sees, but what he knows about the subject”; he ignores proportions, notes only the most striking features of the contour of the form. This is the flat drawing stage.

Stage 2– an initial sense of shape and lines. The influence of the “flat” pattern continues to affect this stage of development.

Stage 3– “the stage of silhouette drawing, that is, drawing objects in compliance with proportions and harmony of forms, but in a flat form, without using perspective.”

Stage 4– perspective drawing. By the age of 10, only 50% of boys use perspective, while in girls this percentage is noticed only by the age of 13.

Kershensteiner argued that the development of a drawing must go through all 4 stages. Regardless of age, he must outlive each previous stage. Denial of the teaching principle led to the absence of image construction. He was against the geometric method. The theory of free education.

21. Teaching drawing in general educational institutions of Russia from the end of the 19th century to the revolution of 1917. The main provisions of the program “Drawing at the initial stage of education in connection with modeling and drawing,” created in 1912 in Petrograd.

During this period, Russia was characterized by increased interest in teaching methods. The question arose about the advantages of the natural and geometric methods. All objects of the surrounding reality are considered from a geometric point of view: the basis of the shape of each object is a geometric figure or body. Representatives of the natural method said that the child should depict the shape of the object as he sees it. Even if he depicts the shape of an object incorrectly, the teacher should not impose his vision on him; the student himself will gradually come to a correct understanding of the form. The main principle of the school was the development of creative abilities and amateur performances. The student is required not only to have technical skill or knowledge, but also to have powers of observation, imagination, memory, and drawing becomes an indispensable companion to other academic subjects. The current programs did not meet the requirements and do not develop abilities; they need to be revised. The circle of drawing should include not only drawing from life and drawing, modeling, illustration, dpi, and information on art. The unpopularity of the geometric method was facilitated by the fact that it was transferred to copying. New ideas arose, but they were opposed by the developing formalism that rejected the academy of arts, influencing school teachers. The method of free education began to be promoted. In 1912, the program “drawing at the initial stage of education in connection with modeling and drawing” (Beyer, Voskresensky) was published, which included drawing from life, illustrating, drawing, and viewing paintings. Paying tribute to new trends, the authors, however, require the leader to actively intervene in the child’s activities. In an explanatory note they write: “The drawing course in primary school, however, should not be limited to naive children’s drawing - the latter is only the starting point; in order for drawing, in addition to its general educational value, to have practical application, its ultimate goal at this stage of education should be competent depiction of simple objects of three dimensions." In general, the main stages of working on the drawing were correctly named. But, unfortunately, the manual does not say anything about educational tasks in each class, about specific knowledge, skills and abilities for each age. Therefore, it is impossible to judge the availability and feasibility of the proposed tasks. While recommending caution in guiding children's visual creativity, these authors based their methodology on active intervention in the child's activities.

22. Art education in higher educational institutions in the initial period of the existence of Soviet power (content of teaching methods).

Restructuring the content, forms and methods of teaching drawing. Development of a new methodology for teaching drawing: collective teaching method, laboratory-team method, “project” method.

The method of collective teaching was proposed by A.E. Karev in 1922 “in order to eliminate the individual method.” According to this method, the personal responsibility of individual professors was eliminated. The class had to be led not by one teacher, but by a team of teachers. The leaders collectively staged models for training productions, and then each teacher gave their advice. The student himself chose the advice that seemed most acceptable to him. All this led to disorder and anarchy, since the advice of the leaders was often contradictory. None of the teachers felt responsible for their work.

This teaching method ignored the basic didactic principles. Even Jan Amos Komensky pointed out that “the variety of teaching methods only complicates youth and complicates learning.” Teaching simultaneously by several teachers in one class actually amounted to a violation of any methodology. Students sought to choose as their leaders the teacher they trusted more, and leaders preferred to work with those students who were closer to them in spirit and temperament. No matter how much teachers strived to adhere to a single system, a single teaching method, they always had differences not only in aesthetic views on art, but also in formulations and terminology. D. N. Kardovsky wrote: “If we allow several teachers of the same subject within the same system for the same students, we must assume between the latter such an agreement in the principles of leadership, which is difficult to find in practice. In practice, it turns out that students change one teacher for another, haphazardly obey one or another requirement rather than the system, and teachers do not have the opportunity to systematically manage the students they know.”

According to the laboratory-team method, students completed each task in small groups (teams). The students carried out the educational work independently - they staged the performances themselves, indicated the goals and objectives of the educational work, that is, they taught themselves. With this method, the teacher was removed from leadership and was a passive observer. He had to wait for some brigade to come to him for advice.

The project method, which has become the most widespread, is an anti-scientific teaching method. It consisted in the fact that students were limited only to the practical implementation of special tasks (projects). Theoretical knowledge was given unsystematically, to the extent necessary only for the implementation of this project.

The project method was put forward in the 20s of the 20th century by teachers who shared the views of the American idealist philosopher and teacher J. Dewey, one of the most prominent representatives of pragmatism in pedagogy. Attempts to impose the project method on the Soviet school were decisively condemned in 1931.

Training using the project method in art schools was reduced to the fact that students were mainly engaged in experimental work. The study of nature was excluded from the curriculum. Students had to acquire skills not at the institute, but at work. To do this, they were sent to factories and factories, where they made sketches and sketches. Classes at the institute were stopped at this time. Then the students within the walls of the institute began to create a painting project. However, without proper professional training in the field of drawing and painting, students could not successfully solve the tasks assigned to them. It should be noted that a certain part of the futurists and followers of formalist art later changed their views and joined the ranks of convinced fighters for building socialism. However, in the first years of Soviet power, they actively opposed the development of Soviet culture and art.

Valentin Serov. Portrait of Chistyakov

(July 5, 1832 - November 11, 1919) - Russian artist and teacher, master of historical, genre and portrait painting.

Biography of Pavel Chistyakov

“This is our common and only teacher,” said I. E. Repin about Pavel Petrovich Chistyakov.

And there is no exaggeration in his words, although this short but powerful word “our” has included (directly or indirectly) almost three generations of Russian artists. Among them are many stars of the first magnitude who make up the glory of Russian art - Repin and Surikov, V. Vasnetsov and Polenov, Serov and Vrubel. Chistyakov's pedagogical system is as authoritative in the artistic world as Stanislavsky's system is in the artistic one.

Ilya Repin. Portrait of Chistyakov

It remains largely a mystery how, without having his own workshop, much less his own school, where he could, without fear of academic retrogrades, freely and purposefully implement the pedagogical principles he developed (like his famous European colleagues - A. Ashbe or Sh. Holloshi), Chistyakov achieved such brilliant results.

First of all, this probably became possible due to the fact that from the very beginning of his artistic activity there was no life for him outside of an inquisitive, passionate and independent knowledge of the essence of his subject, outside the desire to pass on knowledge and experience to beginning artists. “Reason and knowledge were always ahead of practice in me,” said Chistyakov, “what to do, I was born and live for others.”

While studying professional skills at the Academy of Arts, he got to the essence of each task, each exercise with his own understanding, trusting his teachers less and less. Chistyakov was not satisfied with the system of academic drawing, alien to the living dynamics and objective laws of nature and only obediently following the external appearance of forms. He was not satisfied with the academic principles of working with color, which did not go beyond conventional coloring and served mainly as a light-and-shadow, tonal elaboration of forms. He was not satisfied with template compositional schemes that could not accommodate new content. And most importantly, in the system of academic teaching, he discovered a terrible gap between professional education and artistic education, without which Chistyakov could not imagine teaching. Even then, the foundations of his future system were laid, and then he began teaching.

In 1861, he painted the painting “At the wedding of Grand Duke Vasily the Dark, Grand Duchess Sofya Vitovtovna takes away a belt with precious stones from Prince Vasily Kosoy,” receives the first gold medal and goes abroad. In Italy, he works a lot and fruitfully in various genres - landscape, portrait, in the genre of so-called “costume” studies, historical painting. The most significant are his “Roman Beggar” (1867) and “Italian Mason” (1870) for their expressive national-typological development, precise drawing, and bold painting. But the fruitfulness of his activity during this period can be measured not so much by the number of works. In all his works (and this is the main thing), Chistyakov always sets new tasks, checks and accumulates his observations on drawing, color, form, and looks for the most truthful and expressive solution in terms of figurative and plastic characteristics. Only the large pensioner painting “The Last Minutes of Messalina, Wife of Emperor Claudius” was never completed for him. The complex psychological plot chosen by the artist could not be realized in the principles of academic painting, and at that time he did not have his own developed method.

In 1870, Chistyakov returned to his homeland. He had forty years of work ahead of him at the Academy - as an adjunct professor of the gypsum head class, head of the Mosaic Department (since 1894), professor of the Repin workshop (1908-1910) and, finally, retirement, but even in his declining years theoretical and practical activities continued artist. “My goal is to move, to direct Russian art along a more spacious and broader path,” this is how Chistyakov defined the program of his life. He followed it with amazing persistence and rare enthusiasm.

This goal was served by Chistyakov’s teaching system, which covered the most diverse and at the same time inseparable aspects of the artistic process: the relationship between nature and art, the artist and reality, the psychology of creativity and perception, etc. Chistyakov’s method educated not just a master artist, but an artist-master. a creator, a citizen, actively participating in modern life, responding with his works to its needs. According to Chistyakov, an artist must always worry about what is happening and deeply express this excitement through plastic means. And therefore, “a good school is needed, first of all,” so that current thought cannot be conveyed by “rough, unlearned hands.”

A rationalist theorist and democrat, Chistyakov recognized the functions of art, primarily cognitive and educational, and attached decisive importance to drawing in his system. He encouraged his students to penetrate into the very essence of visible forms, to recreate their convincing constructive model on the conventional space of a sheet. Understanding the laws of nature and its characteristic features was already a creative act; it is not for nothing that the student works of the Chistyakovites now look like works of art.

The advantage of Chistyakov’s teaching system was integrity, unity at the methodological level of all its elements, logical progression from one stage to another: from drawing, to chiaroscuro, then to color, to composition (composition).

He attached great importance to color: “Drawing is a matter of understanding..., painting, color is a matter of feelings and the ability to look simply and copy.” By “copying” Chistyakov understood the ability to truthfully “copy the handwriting” of life, its living dynamics. “Color is art,” he said, seeing color as the most important means of figurative expressiveness and revealing the content of a work.

In composing the painting, Chistyakov considered the result of the artist’s training, when he was already able to comprehend the phenomena of the surrounding life, summarize his impressions and knowledge in convincing images and create a picture that would express the author’s ideological concept and “ideas that excite society.” And here, every time, solving this or that topic, the artist must update, vary his artistic means, and find an adequate plastic language. “According to the plot and the technique” was Chistyakov’s favorite expression. The harmonious dialectic of the general and the particular, the natural-typical and the individual, tradition and search, knowledge and action, reason and feeling permeated Chistyakov’s entire system.

Thanks to this property, not one of his students was like the other. The teacher carefully preserved the grains of originality in them and not only preserved them, but, like a wise gardener, multiplied and ennobled them - this is the great vitality of Chistyakov’s pedagogy, his special merit to Russian art.

“You are asking me what colors to paint with... Lay out on your palette all the colors that you have, and, looking at nature, begin to think, and even try on the palette, combining those colors that nature tells you.. .... When you find a suitable composition of paints, write on them. There will be three or four of them... And when you create a color that, in your opinion, is accurate, do not put it on the canvas, but trust again with nature and add what you see is missing to him. Then put it on the canvas. This additional color will be the real one. Don’t use your mind, but rather practice and consideration. Look at nature and have a last look.

This is what it’s all about - all the technology! If you take it with your mind, the bird will fly away and you will miss...."

From the book "Chistyakov and his disciples"

Valentin Serov. Portrait of Chistyakov

Chistyakov was born in the village of Prudy, Vesyegonsky district, in the old days these were the lands of Bezhetsky Verkh. He received his first drawing lessons at the Bezhetsk district school. Pavel showed such success in his studies that the city authorities, namely the authorities, which is remarkable and which suggests that these same authorities were interested in the successes of talented students, so, the city authorities decided, after Chistyakov graduated from college, to send him to the Tver gymnasium at public expense. To which the young talent objected that if he was not sent to study further at the Academy of Arts, he would die.
In 1849, the young man became a volunteer student at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts.

Pavel Petrovich always remembered Bezhetsk with warmth. He painted several icons for refugee churches. In Bezhetsk, he mysteriously saw his future wife. He himself wrote about it this way: “Back in Bezhetsk, when I was 14 years old, the boys and I were telling fortunes at Christmas time. I look through the crack, into the Church of St. John the Evangelist, and see: a girl standing and looking from under her brows: I remember that face. And when I, already 23 years old, entered their house, I shuddered. I remembered the dream - she! He stands and looks from under his brows.” (Chistyakov talks about his future wife Vera Egorovna Meyer.)

The artist’s parents were people of “simple rank” - serfs of Major General A.P. Tyutcheva. Father, Pyotr Nikitich, managed Tyutchev's estate. The landowner treated his manager’s family well and, at the birth of his children, gave them their freedom. Pavel became free on the third day after birth.

Everything for a person begins in childhood. Chistyakov was drawn to drawing as a child. “My father... sometimes made bills with coal on the white, unpainted floor. These are the numbers I remembered and copied (on a brick stove) also with coal. I didn’t like units and sticks, but everything was more like 2, 0, 3, 6, 9, etc., everything was round. Everything interested me, I wanted to solve everything. Why a bird flies, but a goose feather only goes with the wind, I already knew when I was eight years old. I noticed everything in nature... At the age of twelve I already felt... something about perspective in nature and even drew a wooden bell tower facing the viewer at an angle...”

Chistyakov always called the Bezhet art teacher Ivan Alekseevich Pylaev his first teacher.

Chistyakov graduated from the Bezhetsk School with honors - “he was recorded on a golden plaque.”

Years will pass, and the great Russian artists Repin, V. Vasnetsov, Polenov, Surikov, Serov, Vrubel and other wonderful masters will thank Pavel Petrovich Chistyakov as their main and outstanding mentor. Viktor Vasnetsov will write in a letter to his teacher: “I would like to be called your son in spirit.” Surikov will repeat Chistyakov’s favorite saying all his life: “It will be as simple as you write a hundred times.” Repin spoke more than once about Pavel Petrovich: “He is our common and only teacher.”

But before earning all these fair words from grateful students, I had to go a long way.

In the first special class at the Academy of Arts, he draws “heads from the originals in pencil.” This is how he remembers his classes. In the second, he draws “naked figures.” Then he moves on to the plaster heads class. Classes were held in the mornings and evenings. In his free hours, he worked part-time teaching lessons and doing odd jobs. He lived with distant relatives somewhere near the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. It's far from the Academy. According to his calculations, he sometimes walked up to thirty miles a day. Twice a day to and from classes and even lessons. He ate, as he recalled, sparingly: cucumbers, bread and tea.
Initial training, according to the rules of all academies of that time, consisted of drawing from plaster casts and copying from famous engravings. Copies served as a means for developing the taste of students; they had to be studied in parallel with the higher natural class. This was taken very seriously. The most distinguished young artists again began their foreign practice with copying.

One of the researchers of Chistyakov’s life and work writes: “Chistyakov went through this entire school of drawing from plaster and life drawing and knew it brilliantly. But he worked much more independently. In a number of academic sciences, he simply got away with minimal diligence, because he studied them himself. Routine repetition and routine training, unreflected and - as he liked to put it - “not trusted” were intolerable for him. “I listened to Perspective only four times from M.I. Vorobyov,” he recalled, “he made three rough drawings, and learned the rest within six miles,” that is, during his long and lonely daily travels. He learned by teaching others. Thus, he discovered in his youth, when he taught the “Smirnov gentlemen” to draw a rooster from life, his principle of drawing “from the ground, from the feet.”

"Three men." 1858

By the end of his stay at the Academy of Arts, Chistyakov was not only a brilliant student, but also already a well-known teacher in St. Petersburg. Numerous private lessons created his reputation as an excellent teacher in the capital. But the main and most serious pedagogical achievement of the young Chistyakov was his work at the Drawing School of the Society for the Encouragement of the Arts. Already here he stood out as a very capable and original teacher. Talented young artists listen to his opinions and advice.

In April 1858, Chistyakov, as a volunteer student, was awarded a silver medal of the first dignity for a sketch from life and he was allowed to begin composing a historical painting to receive the necessary second medal. He dreams of becoming a historical painter. Back then it was a very honorable title. To become a historical painter, one had to receive a second medal (gold) and work according to the strict rules of academic canons.

Chistyakov is going for an internship in Europe. He visits Germany, France, then goes to Italy. After our Central Russian and northern nature, he suddenly sees the luxury of Italian nature and is simply shocked by it. “What kind of Italy, what kind of nights - just paradise! Imagine our August, the moon... imagine our summer, our sky, only all the colors are brighter and at the same time somewhat hazy, through the flora, as if it seems that you can see everything - this is this half-asleep, fading tenderness and there is the exceptional character of Italy.”

Experts believe that Chistyakov’s best works created during the Italian period are the sketch “Chuchara’s Head”, now in the Russian Museum, and the painting “Giovannina”, now in the Museum of the Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg. In this painting, the artist, with bold, lively strokes, conveys the bright beauty of the young Italian woman: huge dark eyes, a delicate oval face, dark skin is beautiful in contrast with the white veil on her head.
In 1864, the artist decided to paint a large painting on the theme of ancient Roman history, “The Last Minutes of Messalina, the wife of the Roman Emperor Claudius.” He made a lot of etudes and sketches for this painting, and got acquainted with historical materials. He worked on this painting almost all his life, but never completed it. In one of his letters to his student in 1887, Chistyakov admitted: “And I keep getting my Messalina dirty, I started looking for colors, and at the same time I’m thinking about straightening my bent leg (I mean Messalina’s leg). It works out better this way. Well, in a word, routine oppresses and takes over. No, art is still beauty. But something beautiful shouldn’t be angular or extreme.”
Now the unfinished “Messalina” is also kept in the storerooms of the Russian Museum.

In Italy, Chistyakov works a lot on depicting various human types. He creates the painting “The Roman Beggar”. Now it is in the Tretyakov Gallery. For this and three other works, returning to St. Petersburg in 1870, the artist received the title of academician.
From this moment until the end of his days, Chistyakov’s life will be almost completely devoted to the Academy of Arts. He becomes a teacher and begins to live with the routine of this educational institution, its exhibitions and concerns.

By this time, as experts write, “not only outside the academy, but also within its walls there were more and more people who understood that the established system of training artists that had once brought brilliant results had become dilapidated. The art of drawing, the main thing that was undoubtedly recognized as her merit, was degenerating before our eyes, and this decline had long been noticed by outside viewers.”

The passionate temperament of the individual, artist and teacher did not allow Chistyakov to put up with this state of affairs. In one of his memos, he writes: “Say a wonderful witticism, and everyone is delighted; repeat it for forty years every day to everyone, you will become dull yourself and bore everyone like God knows what... Everything that is monotonous and endlessly repeated, no matter how good it may be at the beginning, in the end becomes dull, invalid, routine, simply boring and dies. You need to live, move, even in one place, and move.”

Chistyakov believed that “to teach well means to teach by loving, and by loving it is not boring to do anything.” Within the walls of the academy, he gradually formed his own school of “Chistyakovites.”

"The head of a girl in a bandage" 1874

Here is A.I.’s impression. Mendeleeva from meeting Chistyakov: “Being carried away by the drawing, I saw no one and nothing except the brightly lit plaster figure standing in front of me and my drawing. Someone's cough made me look around. I saw a new professor for me: thin, with a sparse beard, long mustache, large forehead, aquiline nose and bright sparkling eyes. He stood at some distance from me, but looked at my drawing from a distance, hiding a thin smile under his long mustache. Due to my inexperience, I made strange proportions of Germanicus’s body. Pavel Petrovich bit his lips, holding back his laughter, then suddenly quickly came up to me, easily stepped over the back of the bench, sat down next to me, took the eraser and pencil from my hands and seriously began to correct mistakes. Then I heard words that remained in my memory for the rest of my life: “When you draw an eye, look at the ear!” It took me a while to understand the wisdom of this. A beautifully drawn part of a face or figure will express nothing if it is placed out of place and not in harmony with the rest of the parts. But no most detailed explanation would have made such an impression and would not have been remembered as much as the mysterious one: “When you draw an eye, look at the ear.”

Chistyakov was not satisfied with the class duties required by his service. Unlike most professors, if he saw a spark of talent in a person, if he saw a person’s true dedication to his work, then he would work with him in his workshop.
He was actually a rather stern and picky teacher. He especially harshly ridiculed complacency, which he considered the artist’s main obstacle to creative growth.

It is believed that Chistyakov had an unerring sense of the scale and nature of a student’s abilities. It was as if he foresaw what would come of this or that artist if he took his work seriously. And he made me take this seriously. That’s why he had a saying when he forced his students to redo their work again and again: “It will be as simple as writing it a hundred times.”

In general, Chistyakov loved sayings, parables, and folk speech. His advice to young people was not boring, but imaginative. He himself spoke about this: “I know there are people who say: P.P. Everything is covered with jokes. Of course, for them it’s a joke, but for young people, for business it’s not a joke. A teacher, especially of such a complex art as painting, must know his business, love the young future and convey his knowledge skillfully, briefly and clearly... The truth is in three lines, skillfully launched... immediately moves the masses forward, because they believe it and they will believe in reality.”

Some of Chistyakov’s words came into general use in the academy and not only in it. For example, the word “suitcase”, which began to be used among artists to denote something so crackling, came from Pavel Petrovich after such an incident. In one gallery, Delaroche's famous painting "Cromwell at the Tomb of Charles V" was exhibited. They asked Chistyakov’s opinion about her. He said in silence: “It’s a suitcase!” Everyone immediately saw that the brown shiny coffin with the remains of the king, and all the paintings of this fashionable French artist, with their external empty elegance and color, were surprisingly reminiscent of leather suitcases.
He called the student’s dark, rough sketch a “screen.”

Chistyakov valued talent above all, but said about working on a painting: “You have to start with talent and finish with talent, and in the middle you work stupidly,” that is, talent is talent, but perseverance and patience are very necessary for the artist.

"The Hawthorn Annushka." 70s

His requirement for a complete master artist was coined in the following formula:
According to V. Vasnetsov, Chistyakov “was an intermediary between the student and the natural world.” And Pavel Petrovich himself seemed to answer this: “All my life I have been reading the great book of nature, but to draw everything only from myself... without turning to real nature means to stop or fall.” But at the same time, the teacher constantly warned his students against petty copying, against the “photographer’s path.” Surikov remembered Chistyakov’s advice for the rest of his life:

“You have to get as close to nature as possible, but never do it exactly: just like it’s exactly the same, it’s not like it again. Much further than it was before, when it seemed very close, you were about to grab it.”

This is the main commandment of realism: to always be able to maintain a figurative, poetic attitude towards what is depicted, not to dry it out, not to go overboard with details. The main commandment of Chistyakov’s method. A student, and then a great artist, Valentin Serov conveyed this thought of Chistyakov in such a way that, they say, the artist even needs to “no, no, and make a mistake” so that it does not turn out to be carrion.

Chistyakov was a man of the most versatile knowledge. He was interested in news from optics, physics, and physiology. His son recalls: “Pavel Petrovich, in addition to painting, was interested in very many things: music, singing, literature, philosophy, religion, science and even sports - all this not only interested him, but sometimes fascinated him... Having become interested in something, he he certainly delved into the very essence of the issue, tried to study it, discover the laws of the phenomenon that interested him, and if he succeeded, he immediately sought to teach others what he himself had studied.”
Chistyakov generally believed that art is not so far from science, that a great master artist should be close to the knowledge that “science in its highest manifestation turns into art.”

Pavel Petrovich devotes himself more and more to teaching work. But still, he does not completely forget about his artistic talent. He writes constantly, but successes are rare. The painting “Boyarin” was such a success; it is now in the Tretyakov Gallery.
The writer Garshin noticed this work and wrote about it: “The face, riddled with wrinkles, seems to have fallen asleep... died, only life remained and concentrated in the eyes... “Boyarin” was written excellently, Rembrandt’s lighting was successfully chosen for the type depicted by the artist.”
The color scheme of “Boyar” is built on shades of brown - ocher, greenish-brown, reddish, conveying the texture of a velvet caftan and hat, trimmed with sable. Chistyakov here turned to the painting style of the old masters, but the painting is not a stylization. It also has its own psychological image, spirit, and national character. This work is close to the work of the Itinerants.

In 1872, Chistyakov received the position of adjunct professor of the plaster head and life sketch classes at the Academy of Arts. The artist worked in this position for 20 years. In 1890, he was appointed head of the mosaic department, thus removing him from his previous position. It must be said that Chistyakov also had envious people, and his character was not easy, so he had difficulties at the academy. But he still, no matter where he was sent, studied with students at home.

Experts believe that “the only real proof of the value of a particular pedagogical system is the practical results of teaching.” By the end of Chistyakov’s teaching career, the number of his students was enormous. Not to mention the academic classes, where several hundred students passed through his hands, most Russian artists of the second half of the 19th century who came into contact with the Academy of Arts, to one degree or another, used his advice and instructions. And many went through his systematic school. Among them are E. Polenova, I. Ostroukhov, G. Semiradsky, V. Borisov-Musatov, D. Kardovsky, D. Shcherbinovsky, V. Savinsky, F. Bruni, V. Mate, R. Bach and many others. But the best evidence of Chistyakov’s role in the history of Russian art is the galaxy of outstanding masters - Surikov, Repin, Polenov, Viktor Vasnetsov, Vrubel, Serov.

In 1875, in one of his letters to Polenov in Paris, Pavel Petrovich made the following prophecy: “There is someone here who is a student of Surikov, a rather rare specimen, writing for the first gold. In time he will give it to his neighbors. I'm happy for him. You, Repin and he are the Russian troika...” At that time, Surikov was just getting his feet wet; he was still far from “Streltsy” and “Menshikov.” But the keen eye of the teacher not only singled him out from the motley pack of students, but also boldly and confidently placed the brilliant student of the academy on a par with the greatest masters of Russian art. Surikov began working with Chistyakov in the sketch class, therefore, he did not take the drawing course under the guidance of Chistyakov. It was enough for the teacher to look at Surikov’s sketches to immediately be convinced of his enormous artistic talent. The Surikov archive allows us to establish that “the path of a true colorist” was largely suggested to the artist by Chistyakov. Surikov captivated Chistyakov with his talent, originality, and scope. After the Academy Council denied the best student the first gold medal, Chistyakov indignantly informs Polenov: “Our antediluvian idiots failed the best student in the entire Surikov Academy for not having time to write calluses in the picture. I can’t talk, my dear, about these people - my head will hurt now, and I can smell carrion all around. It’s so hard to be between them.” Having left for Moscow, Surikov did not break his live connection with his teacher and took an active part in Pavel Petrovich’s personal works. Their correspondence is not extensive, but very interesting. In 1884, Surikov traveled abroad for the first time. His letters from there to Chistyakov are better than Alexander Ivanov’s “Travel Notes” from what has been written in Russian literature about the art of the Italian Renaissance.

“After completing the course at the Academy, Polenov and Repin took drawing lessons from me in Levitsky’s apartment, that is, they learned to draw a plaster ear and the head of Apollo. Therefore, I’m not a bad teacher if students with gold medals take drawing lessons from the ear and from the head, and I also need to say something new about the alphabet to people who are already so developed in everything.”

Chistyakov maintained warm and friendly relations with Polenov forever. Polenov deeply loved Pavel Petrovich, and not only valued him as a teacher. And he passed on this love, repeatedly confirmed, to his own students. Through Polenov, Chistyakov’s pedagogical fame spread even wider throughout Russia, for his teaching was carried out not only within the walls of the Academy of Arts, but also at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where Polenov taught. The teacher from the first days determined his character. “You are a colorist,” he told Polenov. Taking into account this characteristic of the student from the very beginning, he encouraged and developed it in every possible way.

“Portrait of M. A. Grigorieva.” 1862.

Repin worked little with Chistyakov, but even though he was already a famous artist, he came to take lessons from Chistyakov and did not consider it humiliating to work in a circle with Chistyakov’s young students and listen to Pavel Petrovich’s advice. It was Repin who gave Serov, his favorite student, to Chistyakov for improvement.

Vrubel ended up in Chistyakov’s personal workshop in 1882. Before this, he was disillusioned with teaching; he believed that he was being taught dry cliches and schematization of living nature. Studying with Chistyakov turned out to be, as he himself later said, a formula for a living attitude towards nature. Vrubel owes his brilliant knowledge of watercolor to Chistyakov.

Pavel Petrovich taught his new students, first of all, the vision of the world. Simplifying, he said: “Since not all young men are equally talented, not all look at nature correctly when drawing, then, first of all, we need to teach them to look properly. This is almost the bare essentials."
He also tried to help the artist see the world more deeply and more interestingly. He very much supported the poetic interpretation of Russian history by Viktor Vasnetsov, telling him: “You are Russian in spirit, in meaning, dear to me! Thank you sincerely...” It was Chistyakov who advised V. Vasnetsov to give consent to the painting of the Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv. Chistyakov convinced the doubting artist that he would do well. And everything turned out brilliant.

In one of the biographical essays about Serov, it is written that it was decided to send him “to the Academy of Arts, to the best teacher of artists in Russia, Pavel Petrovich Chistyakov...”

“It’s so natural that it’s even disgusting,” Chistyakov grumbled, stopping near the student’s easel in his academic workshop. “Simplicity is not easy,” he added. “Simplicity is height!” And he walked on.

The students listened and nodded. A harsh school... But what artists came out of Pavel Petrovich’s workshop! Surikov, Vrubel, Polenov... Valentin Serov also joined this row.

Pushkin’s words were close to Pavel Petrovich: “It is not only possible, but also necessary to be proud of the glory of your ancestors; not to respect it is shameful cowardice.”

Somehow, miraculously, the two-story wooden house in which Chistyakov lived near St. Petersburg has survived to this day. Now this is the city of Pushkin, in the house of Chistyakov there is a museum of an artist and teacher.

Based on materials from the book by Gennady Ivanov - “Famous and Famous Bezhechans”

From memories of Pavel Petrovich Chistyakov

"...His influence on artists was enormous. There was no phenomenon to which he would not respond, harshly, sarcastically, comically wrinkling his face. He spoke in some terms he himself invented: “wavy, suitcasey” - and everyone understood him.
...Sometimes he advised:
- Go to the Hermitage. Look at Rembrandt, Velazquez, Hals. "Not harmful".

Peter Gnedich. "The Book of Life. Memoirs" 1855-1918. Fragment about P.P. Chistyakov

Chistyakov's best students are brilliant Russian artists Vasily Surikov, Ilya Repin, Vasily Polenov, Viktor Vasnetsov, Mikhail Vrubel, Viktor Borisov-Musatov, Valentin Serov.

Pavel Chistyakov: “It’s nonsense that teaching is boring. To teach well means to teach with love, and with love it’s not boring to do anything.” and in a letter to P.M. Tretyakov: “It seems that I was born with the ability and love for teaching.”

Viktor Vasnetsov to Chistyakov: “I would like to be called your son in spirit.”

Repin about Pavel Petrovich: “He is our common and only teacher.”
“Pavel Petrovich was a great sage and, as an artist, he was filled with such grace and tact in his manner. How he tied to himself and made everyone who was lucky enough to communicate with him closer.”

Surikov often repeated Chistyakov’s favorite saying:

“It will be as simple as you write a hundred times.”

Pavel Petrovich saw the talent of Vasily Surikov early and predicted a great future for him.
In 1875 he wrote to Polenov: “There is a certain student of Surikov here, a rather rare specimen, writing on the first gold. In time he will give it to his neighbors. I'm happy for him. You, Repin and he are the Russian troika...” Vasily Surikov was then 27 and his most important paintings were still several years away.
Chistyakov about Surikov - in another letter: “Our antediluvian idiots failed the best student of the Surikov Academy because he did not have time to write calluses in his painting. I can’t talk, my dear, about these people, my head will hurt now, and I can smell carrion all around. How hard it is to be between them...”(Chistyakov - Polenov, December, 1875).

« Pavel Petrovich, in addition to painting, was interested in a lot of things: music, singing, literature, philosophy, religion, science and even sports - all this not only interested him, but sometimes fascinated him... When he became interested in something, he certainly delved into the very essence question, tried to study it, discover the laws of the phenomenon that interested him, and if he succeeded, he immediately sought to teach others what he himself had studied.”

From the memories of Chistyakov’s son

Pavel Petrovich Chistyakov about art:

“Technique is the language of the artist; develop it tirelessly, to the point of virtuosity. Without it, you will never be able to tell people your dreams, your experiences, the beauty you saw.”

“As much as someone has knowledge and strength, so much energy and diligence is needed in the matter - nothing will come of it half-heartedly.”

“You don’t need to try to write everything exactly, but always approximately so that the impression is the same as in nature.”

“Study hard and do the best you can.”

“If you imagine that in some part of art you are so strong that it’s no longer worth thinking about, then know that this is a mistake... and try to trust yourself, that is, lean on this part of the art.”

“Write with all your heart and with all your love, the rest will come on its own.”

“Feeling, knowing and being able to do so is a complete art.”

Chistyakov P. P. Letters. Notebooks. Memories. Fragment.

Description of work

V.M. Vasnetsov, M.A. Vrubel, M.V. Nesterov, V.D. Polenov, I.E. Repin, V.I. Surikov and many other wonderful Russian artists not only recognized him as their teacher, but also admired his system of drawing, his ability to discern the individuality of each beginning artist and help him make the best use of his demonstrated originality.

Files: 1 file

“The pedagogical system of P.P. Chistyakov”

Methods of teaching composition

P.P. Chistyakov

In the history of world fine art, the teaching activity of Pavel Petrovich Chistyakov is, perhaps, unique in its fruitfulness.

Reason, knowledge is always in me
were ahead of practice, what to do,
I was born and live for others.
P.P. Chistyakov

It is clear that Chistyakov’s own work as an artist remained in the background, although P.P. began. Chistyakov is extremely promising. After receiving his freedom (and the future “universal teacher

Russian artists" was born

in a serf family) young

Pavel Chistyakov, who showed in

childhood, a great passion for drawing,

entered (1849) the Academy

arts where he studied

historical painting under

leadership of P.V. Basina.

BASIN Petr Vasilievich

“Attic of the Academy of Arts building” 1831

"Earthquake at Rocca di Papa, near Rome." 1830

"Woman with Raised Hand" 1843

“Portrait of O. V. Basina, the artist’s wife.” Between 1837-38

"Susanna, caught by the elders in the bath." 1822

At the Academy, he first received a small gold medal for the quite mature painting “Patriarch Hermogenes refuses the Poles to sign the letter” (1860).

P. Chistyakov’s diploma work (1861) “Grand Duchess Sofya Vitovtovna at the wedding of Grand Duke Vasily the Dark in 1433 tears off the belt from Prince Vasily Kosoy that once belonged to Dmitry Donskoy,” not only brought him a large gold medal and the right to a pensioner’s trip abroad, but also for the overall composition and dynamism of the individual characters in the picture - recognition from critics and experts.

Pavel Chistyakov
Patriarch Hermogenes refuses the Poles to sign the letter
1860

Pavel Chistyakov
Grand Duchess Sofya Vitovtovna at the wedding of the Grand Duke
Vasily the Dark in 1433 tears off the belt from Prince Vasily Kosoy,
once owned by Dmitry Donskoy 1861

Upon returning from Rome (1870), academician and associate professor of the Academy of Arts P.P. Chistyakov completely devotes himself to teaching, occasionally delighting admirers with his paintings: Boyarin (1876), Portrait of a Mother (1880), Old Man Reading (1880).

My goal is to move

guide Russian art

for a more spacious and

wide path.

P.P. Chistyakov

The teacher of many Russian artists, P. P. Chistyakov, created a harmonious system of teaching drawing, painting and composition. The creative attitude of the painter to nature determined the nature of the work on the work. By figurative solution, Chistyakov does not mean a summation of the characteristic features of reality, but the identification in the picture of the artist’s attitude to the surrounding life, which determines the development of a general structure of composition and artistic images. In constructing the composition, Chistyakov pays the main attention to identifying the internal content, “internal subtext” in each plot.

Composition classes according to Chistyakov’s system included two main sections.

The first pursued the goal of developing an understanding of the picture plane as a certain whole, in which the placement of objects creates one or another “tension.” If this “tension” was not balanced in the picture plane itself, then the closedness of the image necessary for a truthful representation of nature was violated and a feeling of artificiality arose.

The well-known Chistyakov exercises on various placement of points in frames, staging still lifes and objects in the interior, determining the visual center among many things involved a search for the best compositional structure and achieving the integrity of a drawing, sketch, or sketch. The main objective of these exercises was to familiarize with the design features of the organization of the picture plane. The young artist needed to understand how spatial plans are constructed and the space in the picture plane is filled, and by what means the most rigorous holistic solution is achieved

The second section in Chistyakov’s training system is work on compositions with clearly defined genre content. They were more like sketches from life, in which the artist could add something and omit something. The plot composition here was used primarily for the correct construction of the action, the search for the appropriate type, etc. These tasks can be called composition in the literal sense of the word. There was a moment in them, if not composition, then at least drawing up a plot - the young artist learned to look for the necessary attributes, build a scene, interpret the plot as the actions of people, the development of their actions, etc.

Pedagogical system P.P. Chistyakova included questions of the artist’s attitude to reality, the psychology of creativity, the perception of art, the impact of works of art on the viewer and ways to intensify this impact, as well as an analysis of 1 1 visual media. The fundamental foundation of the pedagogical system of P.P. Chistyakov put forward the “law of integrity”. He attributed the “law of balance” to another fundamental concept of composition. He formulated the concept of contrast as “artistic impact” and even “aggressiveness” of a visual medium in art, since this forces the viewer to actively react to the work. By teaching students to coordinate in their work the values of weight, volume of objects, color, and their position in space, he actually laid the foundations for the expression in the picture of the visual “movement” of objects, the dynamic balance of composition, and the psychology of artistic creativity. P.P. Chistyakov taught young artists to look at nature with a parallel gaze of both eyes, as if into the distance, “through objects” and thereby formulated one of the most important principles of the psychology of artistic perception.

By the end of Chistyakov’s teaching career, the number of his students was enormous. Not to mention the academic classes, where several hundred students passed through his hands, most Russian artists of the second half of the 19th century who came into contact with the Academy of Arts, to one degree or another, used his advice and instructions. And many went through his systematic school. Among them are E. Polenova, I. Ostroukhov, G. Semiradsky, V. Borisov-Musatov, D. Kardovsky, D. Shcherbinovsky, V. Savinsky, F. Bruni, V. Mate, R. Bach and many others. But the best evidence of Chistyakov’s role in the history of Russian art is the galaxy of outstanding masters - Surikov, Repin, Polenov, Viktor Vasnetsov, Vrubel, Serov.

Complete the topic about “Pedagogical system of P.P. Chistyakov." Methods of teaching composition" with the following statements by P.P. Chistyakova:

The ability to grow into a planned plot, to live by it, to think only about it everywhere and everywhere and gradually, step by step, to achieve its implementation, legally and on the right data, is the ability

create - create - creativity.

Give each person acting in the picture a role - even words, and then it, that is, the picture, will be completely historical - classical, at least in composition.

Do only what helps express the meaning of the plot and what goes well with it. Think carefully. If you take up this task, create it, write it; no - quit.

The artist must, looking at his surroundings, think about it. He makes conclusions, conclusions and constructions.

P.P. CHISTYAKOV ABOUT COMPOSITION

The picture needs a plan, first think about how and where people came from and why. How did they end up in these places? Try to position them more freely so they can move. But if, according to the meaning, for strength you need to move the figures, then you can deceive for the purpose.

...the laws on which all arts stand have always been, are and will be the same, because they lie in the very essence of nature.

Give each person acting in the picture a role - even words, and then it, that is, the picture, will be completely historical - classical, at least in composition.

Do only what helps express the meaning of the plot and what goes well with it. Think carefully. If you take up this task, create it, write it; no - quit.

The artist must, looking at his surroundings, think about it. He makes conclusions, conclusions and constructions.

You need to write and draw a picture not as if you were painting on a canvas, but as if the canvas were only a frame or glass through which the scene is visible.

Never start painting without drawing everything perfectly, and don’t start painting without thoroughly composing the plot and deciding how you will paint.

There is color in a composition when you look at one figure and see that it responds to others, that is, when everyone sings together. A set of figures and each one is the opposite.

What a plot, so is the painting. He who sees the goal sees the matter.

You should compose energetically, but for a long time, and always, and everywhere.

It is always necessary to induce self-confidence in a student, each student must be approached in accordance with his inclinations and characteristics, and, depending on knowledge, advice must be given, what may be beneficial to one, to the detriment of another, one may digest, and another may choke, and therefore There is no need to overload the student with rules. All instructions must be given on time and in moderation: the truth, shouting out of place, is a fool. Art is not a craft, not an empty phrase, but a song sung with all one’s might and with all one’s heart.
....Be modest, demanding of yourself, don’t do anything crazy, be conscious and accountable for everything you do and why you do it, test yourself on the best works of art, which you must understand and understand why they are good .

Giovannina sitting on the windowsill

“Behold, Man” P.P. Chistyakov, 1871

The last moments of Messalina, wife of the Roman Emperor Claudius

Any teacher would dream of such words of gratitude from his students: “I would like to be called your son in spirit” (Vasnetsov), “After you, your eyes open, and you begin to be strict with yourself again, and next to this, there is more courage” (Polenov ), “You are our common and only teacher” (Repin). Stasov called Chistyakov “the universal teacher of Russian artists.”

“The only (in Russia) true teacher of the unshakable laws of form” V. A. Serov respectfully called P. P. Chistyakov.