The New Society of Painters

1921-1924, Moscow

Members: S. Y. Adlivankin, A. M. Gluskin, A. M. Nuremberg, M. S. Perucki, N. N. Popov, G. G. Ryazhskaya.

Exhibitions: 1922 (Moscow).

the Society was founded at the end of 1921 graduates from the Odessa art school and VKhUTEMAS — S. Y. by Adlivankin, A. M. by Glycinin, A. M. Nuremberg, M. S. Perucki, N. N. Popov and G. G. Ryazhskaya. The members of the Society, in the past students V. E. Tatlin, Malevich and A. M. Rodchenko and proclaimed the rejection of all forms of abstract art and a return to the scene of depiction.

In October of the same year was published the Manifesto of the society "Our journey": "We, former left-wing art, was the first who felt all the hollowness further analytical-схоластических walks, more and more distant from life and from art... We want to create real works of art, organizing and systematizing human feelings and their obbsessive. That's why we are not on the road with “constructivism”. To be a craftsman, to deal with utopias, to do a meaningful mine scientists-изобретателей, but actually to do black and white magic —, we believe a speculative art, left hack. That is why we have not embarked on a "production" way of the speculative art... We believed that no art is impossible without a priori attitude toward the world, i.e., without synthesis, and therefore abandoned the experiments and discipleship and boldly went up to the resolution of the picture as the most organic and synthetic forms of painting."

November — December, 1922, at the Central house of education workers (CDRP) in Leontief lane hosted the only exhibition of the Society, which exhibited 72 works of all its members. Many works were satirical, grotesque in nature, was made using techniques of Russian lubok, the primitive, in particular paintings tavern trays, fair and carnival signage, the provincial scenic and photographic portrait. The Central works were paintings S. Y. Adlivankin the "Tram "B" (now — RM), "Portrait of my parents", "Before leaving for the front", "May 1", a series of self-portraits (all — 1922), A. M. Gluskin "the Commissariat in the Barber shop" (1922), M. S. Perucho "a Legitimate wife and legitimate son Peter" (1922), G. G. Ryazhskaya "Portrait of predpostavka with his wife" (1922). In addition, A. M. Nuremberg introduced a series of Tashkent landscapes; A. M. Gluskin and M. S. Perucki also exhibited landscapes G. G. Ryazhskaya — portraits.

the Opening of the exhibition was preceded by the conflict of artists with the leadership CDC who found the paintings S. Y. Adlivankin "counter-revolutionary content" and "satire on the revolution." In response to the requirement to remove a number of paintings by artists, referring to the incompetence of the leadership of the House has demanded the convening of an authoritative Commission. The Commission was established and supported the creators of the exhibition, noting that the painting, which caused objections, are a satire on philistinism. However, the findings of the Commission is not convinced the leadership CDC, and members of the group were forced to turn to the people's Commissar of education Lunacharsky, who was sent with a catalogue and invitation to the exhibition. Visiting her and talking with artists, V. Lunacharskyleft the following review: "Welcome the KNIFE: 1. For his manifest; 2. Because the first step made in the direction of this faithful manifest; 3. For the overall freshness and talent exhibition; 4. For the full live and real poetry, rich in humor of T. Adlivankin".

a significant event, much discussion of art criticism, began the debate "the First blow of the Knife", dedicated to the closing of the exhibition and on 6 December 1922. A report on criticized all existing art associations, made S. Y. Adlivankin; participated in the debate D. P. Shterenberg, Em. Beskin A. M. Nuremberg and others.

J. Tugendhold wrote in the article "Running in place" (Russkoe Iskusstvo, 1923, No. 1, pp. 88-90): "it (the KNIFE. — AI.) it is not right when he sees in constructivism only “anarchic destructive tendencies” and denies them “all sorts of constructive, creative force.” It means to take a step forward... and two steps back... After all, they themselves ideologues “Knife” claim on their share to the picture, “as the most organic and the synthetic form of painting”. And constructivism just taught artists what was lacking razvenchena and recognizing only the “guts” Russian art — sense of order, architectural quality of the composition... But what are the positive aspirations of our artists? — They did not want to go (so! — AI.) at the beaten track — on the road of return to the old art. “Find a new form of painting that corresponds to the tempo of modernity, the modern psyche”. And at the same time — “proceed from the senses”, “content” and thereby freed from the power of shape, imperceptibly involving in the region of a narrow professionalism... But referring to the exhibits of our artists, we will see that — alas — is easier to write programs and to claim their share on paper than to implement it on canvas. The works of artists from the “Knife” in General marked by two features. In-первых — undoubted influence of the old masters, the power of Museum memories. In an effort to revive the easel painting, the “painting”, they contemplate nature through the prism of the old masters of landscape — Italians, Dutch, Barbizon school. These are the Tashkent landscapes Nuremberg, Gluskin, , Perucho... the Second feature that put the seal on the painting “the Knife” — satirical trend a little grotesque... these Are especially the works S. Adlivankin... Perucho... Ryazhskaya... In the works “the Knife”, we are faced with the same, almost bordering on literary the narrative structure and the depiction of... Our artists are reviving domestic painting... But this new life they see in it only some funny, rude, ugly, heavy face; they portray him is not in tune with the “pace of modernity”, and in the spirit of the splint or tray. One of the images Perucho named "a Place that was not touched by the revolution" — is the name as it symbolizes the whole exhibition...". The exhibition and debate responded to a variety of periodicals: magazines "Crocodile" (1922, December 24, № 18), "Echo" (1923, No. 7), of the newspaper "Izvestia" (1922, 22 Nov), "Pravda" (1922, November 30), "Evening news" (1922, December 11), and others.

In 1924, the Society collapsed. N. N. Popov, M. S. Perucki, A. M. Gluskin he joined the society "Genesis"; G. G.Ryazhskaya, A. M. Nuremberg — in AHRR, S. Y. Adlivankin collaborated in "LEF".