The Nabis. Albert Kostenevitch

Чтение книги онлайн.

      More than half of the Nabis attended the Lycée Condorcet, undoubtedly one of the finest in Paris and perhaps the best as far as its humanities programme was concerned. It played an important role in fostering a taste for literature in its students. Curiously enough, not one of the Nabis had ever won a prize for art at the Lycée, while Vuillard and Roussel gained the first and second prizes for history. A shared interest in literature, history and aesthetics helped to form firm ties between people of very different convictions. The friendship which sprung up in their Lycée years proved stronger than the artistic and religious differences which arose later.

      Their fellowship expressed itself at times through naive and even childish features, for example, the ritual formula, modelled on those of ancient fraternities, with which they finished their letters: “En ta paume, mon verbe et ma pensée” (My words and thoughts are in your palm). On occasion these words were reduced to an abbreviation: “E.T.P.M.V.E.M.P.” Whatever the reason, it is a fact that for many years their friendship was never dimmed by resentment, envy or estrangement.

      In works on the history of art the Nabis are at times equated with other groups and movements which existed for a short period and then dissolved. This conception is fraught with inconsistencies. Can the Nabis circle be regarded as a distinct movement? Yes and no. Some common features may be traced in their work, but the kinship between them is at two removes, if not more. It is not by chance that at some recent exhibitions painters of this group have been ascribed to different movements. For example, works by Denis, Sérusier and even Vallotton were included in the widely representative exhibition of European Symbolism held in 1975–76 in Rotterdam, Brussels, Baden-Baden and Paris,[3] while neither Bonnard, Vuillard nor Roussel were featured. It is true that some traces of Symbolism may be found in the works of the last three painters, but they are so rare and so faint that these artists cannot possibly be regarded as Symbolists. However, Bonnard, Vuillard and Roussel always paid considerable attention to the painterly aspects of their work and so they had certain points of contact with the Fauves. That explains why their works are now and again shown at the same exhibitions. The exhibition of the Nabis and Fauves held in the Zurich Kunsthaus in 1983[4] may serve as an example. It is noteworthy that paintings by Denis and Sérusier were not included in this exhibition.

      26. Paul Ranson, Women in White, c. 1895.

      Wool on canvas, needlepoint tapestry, 150 × 98 cm.

      Musée d’Orsay, Paris.

      27. Paul Ranson, The Tiger, 1893.

      Colour lithograph.

      The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.

      28. Maurice Denis, Bacchanalia, 1920.

      Oil on canvas, 99.2 × 139.5 cm.

      Bridgestone Museum of Art, Tokyo.

      29. Henri-Gabriel Ibels, At the Circus, 1893.

      Colour lithograph.

      The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.

      30. Paul Sérusier, Bretons Wrestlers, 1890–1891.

      Oil on canvas, 92 × 73 cm.

      Musée d’Orsay, Paris.

      The Nabis were not simply a group of artists using similar painterly devices and the same strategy in the struggle to exhibit their works, as was the case with the Neo-Impressionists or the Fauves. They were a kind of fraternity, hence their desire to be tolerant of each other despite the many differences between them. It is difficult for such a fraternity, based not on discipline but on shared aesthetic conceptions, to survive for long. All the more surprising, then, is the fact that the group continued to exist until 1900. Personal relationships and in certain cases family ties held the group together, though the activities of the group, or at least of some of its members, soon might well have appeared naive and even anachronistic.

      In fact, the activities of the group were for most of the Nabis to some extent a kind of game, one that with time lost its attraction. Differences in temperament, in personal inclination and outlook were sooner or later bound to affect the relationship between the Nabis. True, they all worshipped Baudelaire, Mallarmé and Verlaine, they loved Gauguin, sincerely admired such disparate artists as Cézanne and Van Gogh; they delighted in old stained-glass windows, Breton crucifixes and popular prints from Epinal (images d’Epinal); they were all interested in folk legends, traditional country festivals and ancient rituals. Yet, though they shared these interests, each had his own preferences. A certain coolness was a required buffer between Sérusier, an ardent Catholic, and Roussel, a confirmed atheist. Neither was it easy for Sérusier, with his inclination to doctrinairism, to find a common language with Bonnard, who would never thrust his opinions upon others. Perhaps of no lesser importance was that whereas the former was almost devoid of a sense of humour, the latter was endowed with a very strong one.

      31. Georges Lacombe, Death and Love, 1894–1896.

      Bas-relief in walnut, 48.7 × 195.5 × 6 cm.

      Musée d’Orsay, Paris.

      32. Henri Matisse, The Dance, 1909–1910.

      Oil on canvas, 260 × 391 cm.

      The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.

      While admiring Gauguin and medieval art, Degas and Japanese woodcut prints, each member of the Nabis group saw them in a different way. Here, preference was dictated by personal conviction and taste. These differences from the very beginning divided the group into two parties: Sérusier, Denis and Verkade wished to follow Gauguin and drew on the art of the Middle Ages, whereas Bonnard, Vuillard and Vallotton felt an affinity with Degas and Japanese artists. Thus the nicknames given to Bonnard and Denis, names which they readily accepted, reflected their aesthetic inclinations. The names in each case defined the source of their art and, ultimately, that of the two Nabis parties, one of which gravitated towards a vivid, dynamic representation of life, the other towards a more religious, stylized and symbolic representation. Both wings agreed that art should not aim to copy nature. They saw it above all as “a means of expression”[5] and recognized that there was “a close connection between form and emotion”.[6] The theory of equivalences was the foundation of Nabis aesthetics. This may well provide the explanation for the respect which each member of the fraternity felt for the work of the others.

      33. Paul Ranson, Lustral or СКАЧАТЬ