Sergey Estrin:
- It is difficult to work out some clear criterion for assessing the level of graphic work. If you start from the opposite, from what you don't like, then you definitely don't like it when talented draftsmen reproduce photographs. Such graphics are striking only in that they convey images with the highest accuracy, its images look like living. For me, this is definitely not a selection criterion. It is important for me that when looking at a work I immediately have a desire to think it over. So that a whole range of associative images, allusions, even sensations and emotions appear. I like it when you start to follow the line, how the author was leading it, and I like to ponder why he did it this way and not otherwise. It's about the same with architecture - I am fascinated by ambiguous buildings, when you can enjoy different angles, different emerging images and discoveries …
1.
Pavel Bunin (1927-2008)
I love his graphics very much. It is very different. Bunin had, for example, a period when he painted in spots. As a child, I had books with his illustrations. I remember his amazing illustrations for Pushkin. I really like the way he worked with the lyrics of Omar Khayyam. Or this drawing: by the liveliness of the line, by the understatement - this is an interesting work. Bunin does not need to draw the entire figure, the entire volume, this is superfluous - the line itself, the way it goes, and conveys the meaning of the image. Somewhere it seems that the hand trembled, the line breaks - but this is not because the artist is weak, but because it is necessary to convey the meaning. And now you look at this line - intermittent, nervous, of different thickness - and it tells everything that is needed. For me this is the highest level, absolutely amazing graphics. Moreover, I am sure that Bunin painted this without any preparation, the model hardly posed for him. I deliberately try to repeat this manner of drawing the line, I draw mountains like this … In this manner - in half lines - many artists try to draw, but not all of them succeed. ***
2.
Stanislav Noakovsky (1867-1928)
I got acquainted with his work at the institute. Noakovsky, a Russian-Polish architect and graphic artist, lived at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, before the revolution he taught at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, was a member of the Imperial Academy of Arts. He was a great watercolorist, painted architectural monuments. The students adored him. A photograph has survived where he draws with chalk on a slate during a lecture, explaining architectural styles. I vividly imagine how he first shows what distinguishes, say, the Rococo style - proportions, elements, combinations, the ratio of the scales of walls and decor. And he does it all quickly, with a few strokes, but in such a way that the essence is captured. That is, at a very artistic and professional level. I can imagine how upset it was for the students when he washed one thing and started drawing another, perhaps no less brilliant …
The same is in these watercolors: the main thing is conveyed here. Noakovsky did not need to draw every detail, every relief, as if he were copying a photograph. Instead, he concentrates on the essence: it conveys space, power, rhythm, proportions, impressions from them. This is very akin to how our memory generally works - little things are erased, leaving a common image that impressed us. So is Noakovsky - he grasps the whole image. A very architectural, very correct, as it seems to me, approach to drawing. ***
3.
Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778)
To be honest, not everything in Piranesi's work touches me. Ancient monuments, views of Rome, its architectural landscapes do not make me feel strong. It is very well done, thought out, verified, but does not make you worry. And quite another thing is his fantasies on the theme of prisons, his "Dungeons" - a series of 16 sheets. Architectural follies, completely impossible in reality, in which he no longer limited himself to anything. In these sheets, he built a transcendent world, complex, fascinating, mystical, exciting. I once bought an entire book for a few reproductions of Piranesi's Dungeons. These works are very personal, emotional, and, most importantly, very modern, although they were first published in the middle of the 18th century. ***
4.
Savva Brodsky (1923-1982)
Father of Alexander Brodsky. Graduated from Moscow Architectural Institute. And in his book graphics, indeed, an architect is felt. There is a contrast, proportions, some kind of severity, of course, a sense of line and form - all this together makes a strong impression. He knows how to skillfully whip up the topic - look at these shouting heads, there are so many of them that it seems that you can already hear, physically feel their laughter. The figures of Don Quixote and Sancho in the center of this sea of heads are drawn as if they were made by a sculptor. Very good graphics. For his illustrations to Don Quixote, Savva Brodsky received a gold medal at the Moscow Book Fair, and was elected Corresponding Academician by the Spanish Royal Academy of Fine Arts.
And his sheets for Romeo and Juliet are also amazing and very architectural. This is evidenced by the very fact that this is a series - that is, the author sets the rhythm and, therefore, works as an architect. There are axes, a perspective going into infinity, and sculptural figures that set the scale of this colonnade and the nave. Very nice. Brodsky knows how to convey the point of view of a person who looks at giants. As an architect, I absolutely understand everything here, maybe that's why I like it. ***
5.
Egon Schiele (1890-1918)
The Austrian artist, a student of Klimt, after his death was actually the number one artist in Austria, but died at the age of 28 from a Spanish woman. He has many paintings and several thousand drawings. His work is very interesting. Amazing talent. Both recognizable and diverse. Perhaps, if he had lived a long life, he would have become a sculptor, because his things are very sculptural, and maybe even an architect … He sees very correctly, removes unnecessary things and adds some unusually sharp emotion. He has an incredibly wonderful line, like a bare nerve. His painting is inseparable from graphics. Even the things that are painted are absolutely graphic.
His portraits are in no way a caricature, not a caricature, where they also try to capture the main thing. He also changes the proportions a little, stretches them. Schiele has a wonderful school, he certainly knows both proportions and anatomy, but he knows how to sharpen them and convey them in such a way that each line begins to ring with a stretched nerve, you can almost hear it.
And his architectural drawings, which are much less often published than portraits, are simply magnificent in some of their simplicity. And here he also sees the main thing. It would seem that the most ordinary houses, no one would think to capture them. But a few accents - and from them you will recognize the early 1900s, the mood of modernity, although there is not a single line from modernity, from art nouveau here. ***
