Once upon a time I was touched by one. We've all been in Salieri's shoes.

Many artists loved to depict Russian nature, because it is impossible to ignore its beauty. Rylov could not pass by either, who in many of his works managed to convey the unsurpassed beauty of our region, the brightness and variety of colors that nature creates. You look at paintings like Rylov’s field ash and you understand, but indeed our nature, Russian nature, is the most beautiful. And now I am painting from Rylov’s painting Field Rowan, and my soul is warm, pleasant and some kind of pride from the fact that I was also born and raised among the riot and splendor of the colors of my native nature.

Painting by Rylov Field rowan description

Rylov's painting Field Rowan was painted in 1922. This is one of famous works artist, which conveys to us the author’s admiration for his native lands and the nature of our country. With special trepidation, the author depicts every detail and comes to the fore yellow flowers tansy, which is popularly called field rowan for its resemblance to the beautiful rowan. We see in front of us a beautiful bush, which seems to be collected in a bouquet. The yellowness of the flowers is set off by green leaves and white splashes of daisies. But at the same time, tansy and daisy flowers are everywhere. They decorate the green, lush grass with their brightness.

Next, in Rylov’s painting Field Rowan for 5th grade, a river is visible. Its deep Blue colour immediately attracts our attention. The river hid behind a riot of grass, trees and bushes. Here the birches are leaning towards the river, and somewhere in the distance you can see a willow. You look and understand that Rylov’s work uses a lot of Russian symbols, here you have a birch tree, a river, grass, willow, and wildflowers.

And this sky, it is magnificent in its blueness, with these shaggy white wisps, these fluffy clouds, on which you just want to bask. They float along, appearing in the river, and they transport me to the time when summer holidays In the village, with my grandmother and the boys, we lay on the grass in the middle of a field and tried to see the familiar images of animals in the same clouds.

In the description of Rylov’s painting Field Rowan, I would like to note its brightness. Probably the author painted the picture in good weather, because although the sun is not visible, the sun’s warmth comes from the picture, and the whole thing is simply filled with sunlight.

http://www.proza.ru/2013/06/18/1580

Daniil Granin

Sacred Gift

Over the years, I am increasingly drawn to Pushkin's poems, to Pushkin's prose. And to Pushkin as a person. The more you delve into the details of his life, the more joyful you become from the amazing mental health, the integrity of his nature.

This, obviously, is why I was so touched by a long-ago conversation, a random summer conversation on the seashore.

We walked with N., one of our best physicists, and talked about the history of the creation of the atomic bomb, about the tragedy of Einstein, who pushed the creation of the bomb and was powerless to prevent Hiroshima.

Villainy is always somehow connected with a genius, - said N., - it follows him, like Salieri after Mozart.

“Like a black man,” someone corrected.

No, a black man is not a villainy, - said N. - This is something else - fate, fate; Mozart, after all, fulfills the order of a black man, he writes a requiem, he is not afraid... And I’m talking about villainy.

He knew "Mozart and Salieri" by heart. He read to us last scene, and it turned out how we all understand it differently.

So, are genius and villainy compatible or incompatible? Did Pushkin give the final answer? And how did he count?

There were philologists and historians among us, but still we listened not to them, but to N. Despite all his self-confidence and categoricalness. Skinny and fast, he walked ahead, waving his arms. Colored beach pebbles flew from under his soles. We followed him and respectfully selected his phrases. A feeling of unusualness came from him. It's hard to even explain what's going on here. Perhaps it is that he is the only one who had the right to judge geniuses.

Young physicists in frayed jeans longed for self-affirmation. They demanded to define what a genius is.

In natural sciences, - said N., - this is a person who knows how to see the world a little differently. Same Einstein. He simply looked at things that had been known for a long time differently.

Very simple. Seductively simple. But N. knew Einstein. And he also knew how physics was done. His words were remembered. Rereading Mozart and Salieri, I remembered that chance conversation. Mozart and Pushkin united with Einstein, Oppenheimer, Landau, Kapitsa. Hiroshima connected with Salieri. Mozart's Requiem sounded over the ovens of Auschwitz.

But Fermi, the great Fermi,” said N., “he, in essence, did not oppose the destruction of Hiroshima.

Fermi is a living person, said one of the physicists, and Salieri is an idea.

They objected to him. I no longer remember exactly the phrases and I don’t want to compose a dialogue; they were arguing about who Salieri was for Pushkin. Does the enemy, the villain whom he hates, expose, as he did, for example, with Bulgarin, or is this the embodiment of a different attitude towards art? Is it even possible to connect art and science in this sense? But what if for Pushkin Mozart and Salieri are Pushkin and Pushkin, that is, the struggle of two principles and so on and so forth?..

This random heated argument left a feeling of surprise. It was unexpected how many complex problems were raised by Pushkin’s little tragedy. And how much can be understood from it about Pushkin’s moral requirements, about his attitude to art...

The villainy was always obvious and indisputable to me. The villain was a German motorcyclist. In shiny black leather and a black helmet, he raced on a black motorcycle along a sunny country road. We were lying in a ditch. Before us were warm yellowing fields, blue sky, in the distance, the low banks of our Luga, a quiet village, and from there a thundering black motorcycle was rushing. The rifle was shaking in my hands... Of course, I was not thinking about Pushkin or Salieri. This came much later, then, in the war, it was necessary to shoot...

I was especially interested in the end, the last words of Salieri:

You'll fall asleep

For a long time, Mozart! but is he right?

And I'm not a genius? Genius and villainy

Two things are incompatible. Not true:

And Bonarotti? or is it a fairy tale

Dumb, senseless crowd - and was not

The creator of the Vatican is a murderer?

The question sounded unanswered. He was annoying, like a conversation interrupted at the most important point.

Continuation of an interesting essay-

Http://www.proza.ru/2013/06/18/1580

Who can be called a genius? Can a genius be evil? Russian writer D.A. asks these questions in his text. Granin.

Granin discusses this, comparing Pushkin's Mozart and Salieri. Salieri believed that one can become a genius, that this can be “achieved through labor, through the power of one’s mind.” But then every hardworking and talented person Can you call it genius? Not at all. Genius lies not in constant work, not in obsession, as was the case with Salieri, but in insight, in the “creative wingedness of the soul,” as was the case with Mozart.

But this is not the only thing that distinguishes brilliant people. Another “means of distinguishing true from imaginary genius is moral test" A genius is incapable of villainy. And the moral test is the test of genius.

Granin believes that true genius is divine gift. A true genius creates by inspiration, as a result of a mysterious insight, “which freely pours out in absolute perfection,” and not in order to stand on the same level next to other great creators.

I fully support the writer's position. A genius creates because he cannot help but create. The desire to achieve recognition through one’s creations is a selfish thirst for fame and glory. When the creator’s desire leaves the desire to create for the sake of chanting goodness, he ceases to be a genius.

Pushkin himself asked questions about the moral component of creativity. You can recall his verse “I erected a monument to myself, not made by hands...” Why would rumors about Pushkin “spread throughout Great Rus'”? Because with his works he awakened good feelings, “he called for mercy for the fallen.” This is the genius of Pushkin - the endless desire to create in the name of good and for good.

We can turn to numerous stories and stories by Arthur Conan Doyle and the main character of these works - the London detective Sherlock Holmes.

Does he solve crimes for the sake of world recognition, or in order to show his exclusivity in the crowd of those who do not see obvious things right under their noses? Holmes works as a detective to achieve justice, not for gratitude.

To summarize, I can say that true genius is a natural ability, a divine gift. It cannot be developed like an ordinary talent; it either exists or it doesn’t. Also, a true genius is distinguished by a good spirit - he cannot create with evil thoughts and from evil motives.

Effective preparation for the Unified State Exam (all subjects) - start preparing

Updated: 2017-02-23

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

What meaning do people attach to the concept of the word talent or genius? Is it really just something that is given from above, or is it still possible to become talented through your own efforts? Does this concept include a moral component? This topic, called “genius and villainy” by A. Pushkin, is considered by D. Granin in his work. The author heard an argument on the beach, the reason for which was the personality of Mozart and Salieri. These images are present in Pushkin’s “Little Tragedy”. Does the poet really condemn Salieri? But if this is so, then what is the reason for his attitude towards the character?

Granin himself strives to understand first the issue of villainy (remembering war time), and then touch on the topic of geniuses. As an example, he cites the personalities of scientists involved in making great discoveries. He is puzzled by the question of whether, given these events, morality matters, or whether genius is still outside the moral framework.

However, only a decent creator with bright goals, for whom the concepts of morality are of great importance, is capable of turning into a genius. Salieri learned to compose excellent musical works, having collected all our mental strength. Although he did not have the strength within himself to destroy envy and cruelty. Consequently, Mozart has the right to be called a genius, but in Salieri such a right is absent: “poison divided them... the means to separate genius from the imaginary is... a moral test.”

A person obsessed with bad thoughts cannot become a creative genius. The composer's soul tends to be reflected in his works. If he has an evil, black soul, then the work created by his hand will turn into something unkind, joyless and inharmonious.

M.A. Bulgakov created the novel “The Master and Margarita”, in which MASSOLIT critics condemned the Master for the novel he wrote. They were jealous and cowardly before his talent. A true genius does not know cowardice and envy. He rises too high above these base feelings.

(1 ratings, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Once upon a time I was touched by one. We've all been in Salieri's shoes.

Painting by Rylov Field rowan description

Other works on this topic: