Institutional biography of the Soviet painter: experience of comparative study

The biographical method of research, which has a long history and is widely used by representatives of various humanities, seemed to have been developed in detail for a long time, its place was determined once and for all. However, in the last decades of the XX – beginning of the XXI century, this method has "found a new breath". There were even definitions of "biographical boom", "biographical turn" ^{[12, p. 6]}. The biography of a person, which, despite its popularity, played a marginal role in humanitarian research, gained authority in the scientific community, "the space of application of the biographical method has significantly expanded and changed its configuration" ^{[14, p. 7]}. Modern scientists are interested not only in outstanding personalities, but also in the so-called "man of the second plan", prosopography is rapidly developing, that is, the method of creating collective biographies, genre boundaries and interdisciplinary connections have been expanded in studies devoted to the analysis of the relationship between personality and the context (social, cultural, etc.) in which it exists. 

Biography, perceived as a unique picture of the interaction of personality and society, is a subject of interest not only for sociologists, historians, philosophers and cultural scientists. When it comes to representatives of a certain profession, the biographical method becomes important for researchers of "narrower specializations": for example, art historians, literary critics, or even archivists, museologists, etc. A person's occupation, profession, and career form a special type of biography – an institutional biography.

According to I.A. Razumova's remark, "A biography in an institutional biography has the form of a track record, which can, nevertheless, acquire one or another literary form – depending on the purpose of the text and the author's capabilities" ^{[12, p.8]}.

Few researchers from among those who deal with this type of biographies quite reasonably point out that "it is impossible to build an institutional biography without comparing it with others – since it always involves comparing achievements, places in the existing hierarchy" ^{[12, p. 6]}. From this provision, it is concluded that "it is possible to assess the success of a career only using elements of prosopography, comparing the movement in the service of the main object of research with the fate of his comrades" ^[5]. However, the authors of these statements immediately stipulate: "service records (namely, in this form, data on people's lives often appear in prosopography. – I.R.) do not report anything about the properties of the human personality, which often had the most direct impact on career growth" ^[5].

It seems to us that an institutional biography based on the use of the comparative method does not necessarily have to be built using "large numbers", that is, referring to collectives, groups, communities of people. In some cases, a comparison of the life and career of two personalities turns out to be quite representative and allows you to get away from the "track records". Of course, high demands are placed on the correctness of the selection of objects for such a comparison. These should be people belonging to the same epoch, the same space, existing in the same coordinate system, having a common profession, comparable (which does not mean "identical" at all) a system of value attitudes. Such comparisons are rarely used in domestic studies. We can name only a few successful examples dedicated to the figures of Russian culture of the XX century. In particular, L. Roshal's monograph "Woe to the Mind or Eisenstein and Meyerhold. A double portrait against the background of the epoch" ^[15], dedicated to outstanding Russian directors, or an article by A.Y. Kotylev "Titans of the Transitional Era: comparative cultural analysis of autobiographies" ^[6], dedicated to two Russian philosophers: K. F. Zhakov and P. A. Sorokin. However, this article is not an experience of comparing institutional biographies of scientists, it compares two autobiographical texts, that is, the problem of self-identification, self-presentation of outstanding personalities is emphasized.

It would seem that when it comes to people of science or art, determining the level of their professional achievements, calculating who has achieved more in creativity, is problematic. Assessments and classifications in this area are sinful subjectivity. However, when it comes to institutional biography, the question is formulated differently: "which of them is more successful in life and career?". And also: "who is more successful in the eyes of contemporaries and how did the estimates change over time, at different stages of the life and work of the heroes?". There are a number of objective indicators to answer this question. The activity of the creator, when viewed in such a light, appears as a reflection of the hierarchies and values that existed in society.  Moreover, career achievements, officially broadcast assessments, as well as unofficial characteristics combined together, allow us to avoid the danger that we mentioned above – ignoring the properties of the human personality that had a direct impact on career growth.

This approach seems relevant and promising when it comes to the art of the totalitarian era, with its formed institutional sphere, drawn hierarchies, the exact distribution of creators on the steps of the career ladder. The artist in the USSR built his career as a track record. Any mention of him could not do without indicating the title, position, awards, awards. It wasn't just a formality. It was assumed that the perception of a person and her creative achievements should occur exclusively through the prism of these coordinates, that they perfectly adequately reflect her talent, abilities, level and quality of what she has done throughout her life. Awards and titles were supposed to give the Soviet audience an accurate reference point for evaluating the master's work.

We have a unique material for comparative analysis. We are talking about the fate of two outstanding Soviet artists, who were very often confused by contemporaries and also often confused by the audience of the XXI century. They have the same surnames: Gerasimov Alexander Mikhailovich (1881-1863) and Gerasimov Sergey Vasilyevich (1885-1964). But, of course, it is not only the surname that unites them. The destinies of the two artists are surprisingly intertwined in time and space.

They were born four years apart, died one year apart, that is, they were people of the same generation, the same age. They survived all the terrible cataclysms of the XX century: wars, revolutions, the era of terror, the change of rulers. Both became famous Soviet artists, and at the same time high-ranking officials from art. Their works are kept in the collections of the State Art Museum, the Russian Museum and many provincial galleries. Everyone in their homeland has a house-museum in which dedicated employees store, study and promote their creativity. The chronological boundaries between the stages of their biography coincide "verbatim", since they were drawn not by individual life trajectories, but by history itself.

Future artists were born in the province, in small towns: Alexander – in the city of Kozlov (now Michurinsk, Tambov province), Sergey – in Mozhaisk, near Moscow.

They have a close social background. Alexander Gerasimov in some of his documents indicated that he came from peasants. But this is not entirely accurate. Contemporaries noted that the artist's father, indeed, was a peasant, but later became a prosol, that is, a cattle trader, he had a small trading business. It is known that he also taught his son a trade craft. I must say, many memoirists saw the merchant principle in Alexander Gerasimov: both in appearance and in the manner of communication. So philologist and local historian Yu . Fedosyuk, who personally knew A. Gerasimov, wrote: "Having learned that his father was a rich prasol from the city of Kozlov, I immediately easily imagined my son as a wealthy, calculating merchant" ^{[17, 104]}.

Sergei's father was engaged in the leather business. The family's wealth has always remained very modest. His father did not teach his son his craft, counting on his more successful and prosperous fate.

The future artists received their primary education in local schools and both showed an early interest in fine art. Alexander Gerasimov recalled the professional drawing teacher S. Krivolutsky, who noticed his abilities and blessed him for professional training, and Sergey repeatedly spoke about the special atmosphere in the family, about the pictures from the "Field" that were kept at home, about encouraging his artistic hobbies by his father. As a result, both of them had a strong desire to become an artist quite early, which means to get the necessary education.

Both went to Moscow and entered educational institutions at the first attempt. The training of the profession turned out to be lengthy. Alexander Gerasimov immediately entered the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, where he first became an artist, and then an architect. As a result, he spent 12 long years in the walls of the School: from 1903 to 1915.

Sergey Gerasimov also received two art educations: first at the Stroganov School, where he studied as a decorator, and then, from 1907 to 1911, at the same School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture – as an artist. Consequently, they studied at this famous and prestigious educational institution for some time (from 1907 to 1911) in parallel.

They have a common, absolutely brilliant list of teachers, including A.E. Arkhipov, K.A. Korovin, V.A. Serov and others. The Gerasimovs were proud of their teachers, listed their names in autobiographical texts. It can be argued that the ideas of young artists about art, about creativity at this stage of life, at least, could not be diametrically opposed. They were not drawn to radical experiments, did not break with figurativeness in painting. The cult of nature, which their teachers professed, they preserved in the era of stormy avant-garde searches.

They were also united by indifference to the ideological battles of the era, a demonstration of their apolitical nature. The leading genres in their early work were portrait and landscape. We will not find at this stage any household or historical painting, much less painting "on current topics". If we recall the statements of Russian scientists that the genre is a reflection of the author's worldview, "represents a model of the world" ^{[7, p. 208]}, then it can be argued that the model reflected in the early works of the Gerasimovs was harmonious, distanced from social and everyday problems.

It is equally important to mention that both artists, while still students, participated in the artistic life of Moscow, exhibited their works at exhibitions. They were noticed by critics, they were perceived as undeniably talented and promising authors.

Thus, the entire first period of the biography of the heroes turned out to be extremely similar. Alexander and Sergey Gerasimov walked close roads of life. During the training period, when events in the lives of people of the same profession, the same time and the same space are predetermined by a set of mandatory institutions, their biographies inevitably have a lot in common.

The differences were clearly manifested only at the household and behavioral level. Alexander was a dandy from his youth, loved to dress beautifully and even smartly, as his early photographs clearly indicate. He is smiling, talkative, easily converged with people, showed confidence and friendliness. He loved being the center of everyone's attention. Sergey, on the contrary, is modest not only in clothes, but also in behavior. He is not very talkative, reserved. Against the background of his namesake-sanguine, he appears rather a phlegmatic, self-absorbed personality.

After graduation, both received the title of artist of the first degree. However, the period of entering the profession was interrupted by the First World War. Both Alexander and Sergey were mobilized and spent several years near the front (they did not participate in hostilities) – until 1918. They turned out to be completely torn out of the professional context, there was a forced pause in the creative biography of each. The authors practically did not mention the war in their memoirs. But naturally, after three or four years of frontline and frontline life, returning to the world, to the profession, which also took place in conditions radically changed by the revolution, was not easy.

From that moment on, their life vectors, which had previously run parallel, began to diverge. Alexander returned to his homeland, to Kozlov (he would come to the capital again only in 1925), Sergei stayed in Moscow. It is necessary to take into account the fact that, unlike Kozlov, Mozhaysk is located not far from Moscow and Sergey Gerasimov could often visit relatives, live for a long time outside the hungry capital city, without breaking with his professional environment. In this case, the space of biography predetermined the way of behavior.

In the first half of the 1920s, both artists crossed the forty-year milestone, but for them everything was just beginning: personal life, professional career, conquering administrative peaks.

They were very quickly drawn into new conditions of life and creativity, without demonstrating rejection or attempts to distance themselves from Soviet reality. Both participated in the design of cities for revolutionary holidays (Sergey – in Moscow, Alexander – in Kozlov). It would be wrong to characterize this activity as a demonstration of political views and ideological attitudes. It is rather a way of earning money, an opportunity to survive in difficult years. Many artists, who were very critical of the Soviet government, undertook the design of cities for revolutionary holidays (for example, Yu. Annenkov, B. Kustodiev, etc.).

Both began to look for allies, creative like-minded people. As you know, the 1920s were the time of the existence and struggle of many artistic associations. The choice of our heroes is indicative. Probably for the first time they openly demonstrated previously hidden differences in life attitudes. It is important that such demonstrations were possible only during the first post-revolutionary decade, later they will find themselves in the same "institutional boat" when there could no longer be any steps to the right and steps to the left.

Sergey was a member of Makovets (1922-1927), and then became a member of the Society of Moscow Artists (1927-1930). He did not break with any of these associations, but lived their entire life. (Makovets merged with the Society of Moscow Artists in 1927, and it, in turn, ceased to exist in 1930-1931). So the dates in the biography of S.V. Gerasimov are, in fact, the stages of life not only of individual associations, but also of Soviet art as a whole. It is obvious that the creative unions that attracted the masters were focused primarily on the pictorial problems, on the search for a pictorial form. In this regard, throughout the 1920s, Gerasimov was in the camp of the opponents of the AHR with its primitive demands for class art, attitudes to "naturalistic everyday life, superficial and static protocol" ^{[4, p. 224]}. However, it is important to note the slow and steady evolution of the activities of these associations in general and S. Gerasimov in particular. Describing the creativity of the members of the Makovets association, V.S. Manin points out: "It was slowly turning to a new social reality, fully aware of its threatening features" ^{[9, p. 191]}. These words completely refer to S. Gerasimov, who was one of the leading artists of the association. Step by step, the work of the master "took possession of a new reality, a new understanding of the historical events that took place, and of modern life" ^{[9, p. 191]}. His entry into the AHR in 1930 was an inevitable step on the path that all Soviet art followed, which was under the pressure of "time, imperious attitudes that required an understandable ... artistic language" ^{[9, p. 216]}. It was a kind of "forced movement".

The story of Alexander Gerasimov's entry into a new reality was quite different. In 1925, he decided to return from provincial Kozlov to Moscow. And immediately upon his return, he joined the AHR. It was a choice of conjuncture, proximity to power, receiving orders, participating in exhibitions, prosperity. Obviously, the system of priorities of each of them matured earlier. But for the first time it found expression in this decision. From now on, the accepted and publicized system of values, the nature of the life strategies formulated for themselves will determine the differences in the biographies of artists, in the ways of interaction with Soviet cultural institutions. At some points, their life trajectories will converge, go parallel paths, but in general, they will diverge further and further. The gradual "surrender of positions" in the case of Sergei Gerasimov and the voluntary, willing acceptance of the "changed rules of the game" – his namesake.

In the 1920s, S. Gerasimov experimented with forms, with styles, moving from impressionism to Cezanism. His main genres were still portrait and landscape. Alexander Gerasimov also continued to paint landscapes. On his canvases, an open color, a broad brushstroke triumphed, that is, he did not forget about the impressionistic manner of writing. However, by the end of the 1920s, thematic and genre differences in the work of artists had already been identified. Alexander Gerasimov in 1930 painted a canvas that became a textbook, reproduced millions of times in photographs and copies – "Lenin on the podium." From that time until the end of the Stalin era, he was among the main creators of Leniniana and Staliniana. His social circle has changed: K.E. Voroshilov has become not only his kind of patron, but also a personal friend. The People's Commissar introduced the artist to Stalin, and then the artist was awarded a special privilege: the leader received him, I. Brodsky and E. Katsman at his dacha. About which, of course, A.Gerasimov left a picturesque testimony in the form of a canvas of a household genre measuring one and a half meters.

S. Gerasimov also created several thematic canvases – without works of this genre, the artist could not claim a high position and recognition in Soviet society. But Stalin is not on them. Lenin appeared extremely rarely. And this is an important sign that informs about the boundaries of what is permissible, possible, which each of them has outlined for himself personally. It is difficult to imagine Sergei Gerasimov sitting at the same tea table with Stalin: he has never been allowed to such peaks.

By the turn of the 1920s-1930s, the most important "engine" of career growth and the source of material prosperity of the Soviet artist became the subject and genre of the works he created. Every person who picked up a brush understood this. But at the same time, not everyone eventually turned to the plots that ensured prosperity. Landscape painters continued to exist in the country, still life was not deleted from Soviet painting, in addition to ceremonial images, subtle and complex psychological portraits were created. Alexander Gerasimov heeded the demands of the era with maximum efficiency. Sergey Gerasimov, as before, was among those who conceded to them, fulfilled them, but did not immerse himself in this activity entirely. One can object: Alexander Gerasimov did not only paint portraits of leaders and party congresses. His still lifes, landscapes, even works in the nude genre are significant (and the best!) part of the artist's creative heritage. However, if we use a simple "quantitative" calculation (the number of canvases, their sizes, the number of hours spent on their creation), it becomes obvious how important (if not to say: the most important) part was occupied in his work by official painting.

Based on those life strategies that were formed back in the 1920s and gained final expression and completeness in the next period, it would seem that it is possible to predict that the differences in the career achievements of the two masters will be obvious: A. Gerasimov will receive honors, positions, awards of the highest standard, and S. Gerasimov's recognition will not be so unambiguous. However, as the history of Russian art shows, there was and could not be any predictability in the lives of people of the Stalin era. Many talented people who faithfully serve the authorities, who turned their art into an instrument of ideological propaganda, not only did not reach the career peaks, but were repressed. So not only in the life of Sergei Gerasimov, whom the epoch "dragged on the rope", but also in the life of Alexander Gerasimov, who was in a hurry to meet all the changes, there was no determinism.

And yet their destinies have become exemplary examples of how the system of life values, interacting with the epoch, forms biographical archetypes.

It would seem that during the 1930s and 1950s the biographies of artists had to get as close as possible: a common socio-political context, a single institutional system of Soviet culture, common "rules of the game", rigidly defined development trajectories and norms of behavior did not imply serious differences. The Gerasimovs inevitably joined the Union of Artists in 1932, actively participated in Soviet exhibitions dedicated to various anniversaries and events, and received state orders. "At the level of ideology, the "shaping" of the Soviet artist was carried out through many institutions (from traditional art criticism and specially created political and educational organizations in the 1920s to government regulations), whose activities contributed to the gradual crystallization of the criteria of "correctness", according to which creative processes were directed in the right direction" ^{[2, p. 58]}. The set of institutions was common to the Gerasimovs, but the career heights and achievements turned out to be different.

Alexander Gerasimov occupied the highest positions on the hierarchical ladder available to a Soviet artist: Chairman of the Board of the Moscow Branch of the Union of Artists (1938-1940), chairman of the Organizing Committee of the Union of Soviet Artists (1939-1954). When the USSR Academy of Arts was established in 1947, he became its first president. In 1943 he received the title of "People's Artist of the USSR". The peak of his career falls on the Stalin era. We can say otherwise: his career completely fits into the Stalin era and does not go beyond it. During this period, his fame and even fame had a nationwide character. Laudatory articles, albums and monographs were dedicated to him, Stalin prizes were awarded to him (as many as 4!), his personal exhibitions were held in the capital, and his canvases occupied the most important places at all-Russian exhibitions. If during the Akhrov period some of the artist's works were criticized in the press, then in the 1930s and 1950s it became mandatory, "correct", to praise A. Gerasimov. 

The "system of vectors" in the biography of Sergei Gerasimov developed quite differently.  In the Stalin era, he was also called an outstanding Soviet artist, but they were in no hurry to award him: he was not awarded a single Stalin prize, the Lenin master received posthumously – in 1966, the title of People's Artist – only in 1958. The monographs dedicated to him look very strange. Art historians have written about the virtuoso painting of S.V. Gerasimov: "Among the painters of our days, he is one of the most subtle colorists who has achieved elegant and high technique in finding new and, moreover, truthful color combinations" ^{[20, p. 5]}. However, all the words of praise were certainly combined with rather harsh criticism: "S. Gerasimov's work still carries many shortcomings associated with a passion for Western formalism. However, the main feature of his art is a sincere desire for a truthful reflection of Soviet reality, which allows him to overcome his shortcomings and join the ranks of advanced artists creating the art of socialist realism." ^{[13, p. 4]}. He was constantly suspected of formalism, he was persistently pointed out the ways of "correction".

S. Gerasimov also held quite high posts and positions: in 1938-1941 - Chairman of the Moscow Union of Artists; in 1943-1948 — Director of the Moscow State Art Institute named after V. I. Surikov; in 1950-1964 – director of the Moscow Higher Art and Industrial School (now the Stroganov Moscow Art and Industrial Academy). However, most of his administrative career during the Stalinist period was realized in the pedagogical field. He was elected to the post of secretary of the Board of the Union of Artists of the USSR only after Stalin's death, in the era of the "thaw".

The artistic strategies of the two authors showed distinct differences, which at first glance are not very noticeable. As Gribonosova-Grebneva writes, "In the traditional history of Soviet art, the name of ... Sergei Vasilyevich Gerasimov was associated with reference thematic paintings: "Collective Farm Holiday" (1937), "Mother of a Partisan" (1943), "For the Power of the Soviets" (1957), etc. All of them carry the characteristic features of a socialist realist masterpiece: a large-sized image format, an actual historical and political meaning, programmatic and heroic or, conversely, idyllic content that convincingly conveys socially significant and at the same time epically understood figurative realities, and the undoubted skill of the painter, whose talent is also visible in these deliberately representative canvases" ^{[3, p. 54]}.  But at the same time, all these years, other works were created, the work on which E. Gribonosova-Grebneva calls the "strategy" of aesthetic "immigration".., implying a life-giving and intimate "alternative" to the Soviet officialdom" ^{[3, p. 53]}. In his landscapes, S.V. Gerasimov continued to purposefully achieve artistic complexity, technical perfection, and depth of seemingly inconspicuous content. Students of his workshop at the Surikov School recalled: "He was irreconcilable to excessive variegation in painting or to flirtatious pastiche. In such cases, he would say in an irritated voice: "Oh, how much painting, but you should have less painting"; or "no marmalades!", "less Turkish delight""" ^{[1, p. 16]}.

For A.M. Gerasimov, artistic gloss, external showiness and the "right" theme become important.

The differences in the lifestyle and behavioral models of the two masters of Soviet art were formed in approximately the same way. Alexander, in addition to an apartment in Moscow and an estate in the Tambov region, purchased a house in the village of Sokol. He has two drivers, his own nurse and a staff of staff in the house. Most of the interiors in his houses are furnished with expensive furniture (a special preference is modern), demonstrating quite bourgeois tastes and incomes of their owner. His trademark in clothes is a butterfly over a snow–white shirt front and a high-quality dark suit. He finally mastered the lordly style of behavior. So, Yu.A. Fedosyuk recalled: "Alexander Mikhailovich was a very bright, colorful personality. Short, round-faced, with a paunch, small arms and legs, he somewhat resembled a walrus.... He seems to have been accustomed to rule from a young age. In the restaurant, he enjoyed giving instructions: "You in the ears of this and that report", "And there is no celery?", "The cutlets are not so good today, is there anything else?" In a word, a gentleman" ^{[17, p. 100]}.

Indeed, A. Gerasimov belonged to a special type of Soviet master (so well known, for example, by the personality of Alexei Tolstoy), to that group of the Soviet creative elite, which not only had material wealth, but also actively revived the style and manner of behavior that, it would seem, could not exist in Soviet society. I must say, many character traits are related to Alexey Tolstoy Gerasimov: both the taste for life, and the ability to arrange your life beautifully, and the talent to easily become the soul of any company, and the ability to make useful connections.

Yu.A. Fedosyuk described the lifestyle of Sergei Vasilyevich Gerasimov as completely different: "He kept modestly, outwardly resembled a village teacher or a collective farm accountant, dressed simply but comfortably, always wore white burkas in winter: apparently, his feet were cold. It was felt that a person knows his own worth, but does not like to come to the fore" ^{[17, p. 100]}. Students of the Surikov School noted the laconicity of their teacher, the utmost restraint in praise: "His famous "nothing" was pronounced only if he was satisfied with what he had written, and if someone was very successful, then this word was repeated twice, and at the same time the intonation only increased" ^{[1, p. 14]}. He never aspired to external brightness, to self-demonstration, to luxury. His wooden house in Mozhaisk, where the memorial museum is located today, impresses with its asceticism: wooden walls, simple wooden furniture. No Art Nouveau, plenty of mirrors and leather furniture.

The differences in the environment surrounding the two Soviet masters were reflected in the canvases. The characters of Alexander Gerasimov's portraits (whether they are famous Soviet artists, ballerinas, members of the government or military leaders) often appear against the background of expensive furniture, mirrors, palm trees. He loved to paint women in evening dresses, hats, furs. His heroes are the Soviet elite. It seems that Sergey Gerasimov moved in a completely different environment. His characters sit on modest Viennese chairs, dressed in modest, inexpensive clothes. Among them, "great ones" are rarely found, he was interested in "simple" Soviet people. The artist did not paint the ceremonial images of his heroes and the luxurious space occupied by them.

What really united the two masters was their efficiency. Both worked hard and hard. However, if you measure what is done in square meters of the used canvas, then Alexander Gerasimov will not find equals. His monumental ceremonial portraits, images of party congresses and meetings filled the walls of museums, exhibition halls and pavilions. Sergey Gerasimov did not paint monumental canvases often. But numerous chamber watercolors, sketches, sketches, many of which were never exhibited during the artist's lifetime, testify to the difficult work of the master, who maintained the highest level of unclaimed professional skill.

As we said, in the public space, in the specialized and mass press of the Stalin era, there was a single genre of interpretation of A.Gerasimov's work – glorification. This does not mean that there were no critical remarks in the professional environment. Criticism went in two directions: in relation to creativity and in relation to the administrative and ideological activity of the artist. Moreover, if the statements on the second topic during the years of A. Gerasimov's stay in favor remained purely behind the scenes, then everything was more complicated with the assessment of his work. Harsh, negative assessments of individual works and the creative manner of the artist as a whole were also heard from professional stands. So, at the 1949 conference held in Leningrad, the speakers publicly stated: A. Gerasimov "objectively prepared the current falsely heroic, falsely sublime style" ^{[18, p. 11]}; his creative manner is "the style of light efforts, the least path of resistance, external brilliance, ostentatious external romanticism" ^{[18, p. 9]}.

In memoirs and diaries, the main topic of harsh criticism remained the activities of A. Gerasimov in his administrative posts. For example, the artist A. Nyrenberg wrote in his diary in 1940: "The elections in the MOSSKH are over. Most artists have a semi-indifferent attitude to elections... They say: there were and will be businessmen. There is especially a lot of irritation against Alexander Gerasimov and his company – the remnant of a long-rotted AHR. This "merchant Epishkin" (as the critic Khvoynik called him) smoothly played the role of the most cunning chairman of the MOSSKH" ^[10]. The list of "crimes" of A. Gerasimov, of which his comrades in the workshop accused him, was long: unfair elections, the closure of the State Museum of Fine Arts (1949), the persecution of talented artists, the struggle against formalism and formalists in Soviet art. The rigidity and categoricality of the assessments persisted for many years. So, the sculptor V.S. Lemport, who met with the much older A. Gerasimov in the 1950s, called him "Malyuta Skuratov": "On the conscience of the president of the Academy of Arts Alexander Gerasimov there are so many ruined destinies and even lives that it's scary to think. Yes, all these: Filonov, Tyrsa, Lapshin and many others who died in 41-42 at the age of about sixty years when the war began. They had no money, no food, and they were not provided with rations, nor with the purchase of their works, and they died of elementary hunger" ^{[8, p. 284]}. Of course, it is not entirely fair to lay the blame on one person, even a very high-ranking and infinitely devoted to power. But these statements are important as evidence of the feelings that "Stalin's Velasquez" evoked in many of his contemporaries. Flattery and praise in his life went hand in hand with curses and condemnations.

His namesake in the texts of his contemporaries looks like a more attractive person. It is significant that the administrative activities of Sergei Gerasimov were almost not discussed by others. The subject of interest was his creativity and pedagogical work. An example of the most critical statement is found in the above-mentioned book by A. Nyrenberg. The author recorded how the famous artist "answered his question about Gerasimov, addressed to P. Konchalovsky, briefly: "Good. The artist is talented," however, he made an addition to his assessment: "He often falls under the influence of others." But even this seemingly harshly negative remark for each master was strongly mixed by Konchalovsky's further explanations: "... there is an influence that has a teaching significance, and there is an influence that leads to eclecticism, to epigonism. — And what, in your opinion, is the influence in the work of Sergei Gerasimov observed? After thinking about it, Konchalovsky firmly replied: "Teacher's." ^[10].

An extremely revealing fragment testifying to the difference in the relations of contemporaries to the two Gerasimovs is found in the published oral conversation of V.D. Duvakin with the artist V.V. Favorskaya, who knew S. Gerasimov intimately. In response to the scientist's phrase: "In general, the public knew that one of the Gerasimovs was the president, and the other was a good one," V. V. Favorskaya exclaimed: "Our Sergey Vasilyevich was good, good, good"^[11].

Attention is drawn to the fact how much stricter critics and art critics in the post-Soviet era have become towards S.V. Gerasimov. For modern researchers, he is a complex figure, "sitting on two chairs": the creator of classic socialist-realist canvases, caressed by the Soviet government, an engaged artist and at the same time a man who managed to maintain the "image of a liberal" all the years. For contemporaries, Sergei Gerasimov could be a person with a complex character ("secretive", "proud"), but definitely "good". It didn't occur to me to talk about the dark and bright side of his life and career. In the conditions of totalitarianism, the border between black and white was drawn differently. It divided the personality of Alexander Gerasimov into two unequal parts (note that he was also never exclusively a "negative hero", there were a large number of people around him who sincerely loved him, admired him, and were grateful to him for his help in various life circumstances). However, Sergey Gerasimov was "on the bright side" of the spectrum. Of course, conformity – vital, artistic – was a condition of survival for any Soviet artist who wanted to stay in the profession. The difference was in the willingness to compromise, in the number of steps taken along this path, in the nature of the decisions made and the actions performed. Contemporaries clearly understood this difference. The powers that be understood this no worse when they raised one Gerasimov to the top of the career ladder and held the movement of another along it.

The career of a man of the Stalin era completely depended on those who were at the top of the political Olympus. Their support had to be treasured, and the unflattering opinion of comrades in the workshop could be ignored: it did not affect the position, wealth and even self-esteem of a person. Career and reputation (not ostentatious, but real) did not touch each other. As a result, the closer a person got to power, the less important the opinion of colleagues became for him. Alexander Gerasimov successfully ignored him. For Sergey, the opinion of others was more important. This remained the case throughout the Stalin era. 

The changes in the Gerasimovs' life began in 1953. No, Stalin's death did not change the situation in which the artist's career growth was predetermined by the sympathies of state leaders. She remained the same. And cultural institutions have remained the same. So the changes in the biography took place practically (with the exception of individual transformations) within the previous framework. But the change of the ruler caused not only a change in the political context, the socio-cultural environment or the general atmosphere in the country. In relation to the elite (and the Gerasimovs undoubtedly belonged to the creative elite) she became a frontier in her career and personal life. The new era has changed their position on the hierarchical ladder in a mirror way.

Proximity to Stalin, which for many years was the most important resource of A.M. Gerasimov, almost overnight became his "curse". The artist was perceived as one of the visible symbols of a bygone era, a break with the era, required a break with its symbol. Alexander Gerasimov was removed from all posts at the Academy of Arts, in the Art Fund, in the Union of Artists. His numerous canvases dedicated to Stalin were put away in the storerooms. Of course, he remained a People's Artist, a member of the Union of Artists of the USSR, participated in exhibitions, traveled abroad. His financial situation has not deteriorated much. But the loss of special closeness to the leader of the country and his own power was perceived by him as a collapse, an unfair disgrace, undeserved oblivion. According to A. Shulgin's description, "he was sitting in the workshop, aged, yellowed, suddenly looking like an old Tatar. He sat confused, lonely, abandoned by yesterday's admirers and acolytes" ^[19].

Criticism, which in previous years was drowned out by a chorus of raptures, sounded in full force. At the reporting and election meetings, colleagues no longer voted for the former president, chairman, head.

The figure who began to embody another, anti-Gerasimov principle in the style of leadership, became… Sergey Gerasimov. Contemporaries perceived as an important symbol the fact that he replaced his namesake as secretary of the Board of the Union of Artists of the USSR. The time has come for full recognition of the master, receiving what was not received in previous years: personal exhibitions, state awards, the title of People's Artist, academician, high positions. It was perceived as a restoration of justice, as a renewal. As a result, the era of the "thaw", which became a sad ending for one Gerasimov, turned into a joyful side for another.

If in the Stalin era their careers differed mainly in the degree of recognition and remuneration, now one was officially rejected, and the other was exalted. Here the question was not about the amount received, but about the general assessment, the general attitude.

According to the Russian linguist G. Silnitsky, the "core" component of biographies are vectors that manifest themselves in external actions and life events. According to the core vector of biography , it can be divided into three phases:

1) preparatory phase – covers the initial period of life and lays the foundation of personality (heredity, family, school, etc.);

2) passion phase – represents the defining stage of a person's biography. A person finds "his" business, which should solve her life task. The resolution of this main case is the peak of a person's biography;

3) the reduced phase is characterized by a decline in the creative activity of the subject, which occurs for various reasons (business has ended, loss of strength, etc.) ^{[16, p. 31]}.

As we can see, the degree of differences in the career of the two Gerasimovs increased from one phase to another, until it finally separated them at the final stage of life. The reason was not a change of career strategies, not a violation of the "established rules of the game" - both artists were true to themselves during their long creative life. The degree of talent or diligence of Soviet masters was not decisive either – they were not questioned by the majority of the audience and the authorities. The reasons were external. And one of them is the pendulum–like nature of Russian history, when the new era that has come crosses out what was most appreciated during the previous one. The absolute adequacy of A.M. Gerasimov's life strategies to the Stalin era, his role as the "first and best" proved to be an obstacle to his career prosperity in the era of the thaw. He achieved that throughout the 1930s and 1950s he was perceived not just as an artist, but as a statesman who solved the most important state tasks. But in this capacity, he was categorically not needed by the new era.

On the contrary, the fact that S.V. Gerasimov was not among the unconditionally perceived (but at the same time remained recognized and "called") helped him to become in demand in thaw times. A different degree of conformity, a certain distance from the Stalinist power (a distance not always set by the artist, but also coming from the power itself), became his important baggage.

Of course, such transformations could not be predicted and predicted in advance. In the Stalin era, it seemed to many that the established order of things was unshakable and it was necessary to live in the proposed circumstances. It is also important that young authors rarely act as "masters", "founders", "exponents of the epoch", which means that few of them cross historical boundaries, being at the zenith of their careers and creativity. More often we have to talk about how the new era has changed the attitude towards the already deceased artist. And then we are not talking about the transformations of institutional biography, but only about the transformation in the assessments of contemporaries. But in the case of the Gerasimovs, we are dealing with centenarians (they both lived for about 80 years), so the change of epochs marked a milestone in their biography, their career, demand, as well as in their image in the eyes of ordinary viewers, critics, artists, changing in one case "plus" to "minus", and in the second – "plus with a question" to an unconditional "plus".

The post-Soviet era spread their images even further, leaving Sergei Vasilyevich Gerasimov among the talented and decent, though doomed to conformism, and branding a bright but engaged artist who played the role of one of the "villains" of Soviet art, Alexander Mikhailovich Gerasimov.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.