Vladimir Yankilevsky - one of the major artists of the sixties generation of innovators. He lives in Paris, active and makes a great retrospective projects. Site AI used the artist's arrival in Moscow to take a big interview

Vladimir Yankilevsky - one of the major artists of the sixties generation of innovators. He invented a plastic tongue and bold imagery - all this and still remains a challenge even for the audience, brought up in optics abroad 2010-ies. And these ideas have been implemented even fifty years ago, in an unfree CCCP. It is amazing how much the artist ahead of his time. And how risky at that time was its own independent opinion.

This Yankilevsky then and now remains an artist "is not for everyone." His works can not recommend the "resting" - those who seek comfort only in art and decorative serenity. Work Yankylevsky require involvement from the viewer, forced to think and make sense of them inherent in the philosophy program. Almost every one of his famous triptychs - this is not just a beautiful thing, and pulsating meanings postmodern novel. Which requires a certain focus and certainly not forgiving reading diagonally.

Today Vladimir Yankilevsky - one of the key figures of postwar unofficial art of the legendary party Manege - 1962 "and" Bee - 1975 - lives in Paris, continues to work actively and make great retrospective projects. Site ARTinvestment.RU advantage of the artist's arrival in Moscow, to take a big interview.

About "Anatomy of a feeling»
What we have - do not store ...
sixties. The search path
«TAGANSKAYA exhibition and exhibition in the hotel" YouTube »
Arena - 1962
About Sretenskaya Group »
About triptych, meanings and processes

About the exhibition "Anatomy of a feeling»

ARTinvestment.RU: Recently, hundreds of readers looked at the AI Your pictures from the great exhibition "Anatomy of feeling" in London . Congratulations.

know that you're in Paris, briefly came to Moscow, but as it turned out that the exhibition was held in the British capital?

Vladimir Yankilevsky : It opened a new gallery Aktis. But for my exhibition space is quite small - one hundred and fifty meters. Therefore, for the exhibition "Anatomy of feeling" they took a huge room, fifteen hundred meters, very good, in central London - in conjunction Mall Galleries, managed the Federation of British Artists. The exhibition catalog released - a monograph, which includes about five hundred works. For the first time I was able to adequately represent each cycle of my works. The exhibition was shown a large number of large-scale works, triptychs, including from the museum collections.

• 

AI: How the British public had "Anatomy of feelings»?

VY: The big surprise for me was the fact that the exhibition in London came to see a lot of young people. There is no snobbery - looked on with genuine interest. I have not had such a young audience with such an emotional reaction. Frankly, I do not know what to expect from London. I thought that the British more closed, more squeezed. And suddenly, that reaction - 500 people on opening day. In the following days to 100-200 visitors per day. To Gallery exhibition is a lot. On the day for VIP-persons, on the eve of the opening, I was approached by the head of Sotheby's, Lord Poltimore and said: "I've never seen anything like it." True, Khrushchev at the Manege was, apparently, the same impression, but the reaction was quite the opposite.

What we have - do not store ...

AI: You say that the London exhibition "Anatomy of feelings" managed to attract many museum objects?

VY: Unfortunately, for various reasons could not get pentaptih № 1 "nuclear plant" from the Museum Ludwig in Cologne and the triptych № 1 "Classic" from the Ludwig Museum in Budapest. But managed to get a triptych № 6 "We are in the world" from the Museum of Modern Art Georges Pompidou Centre in Paris and the triptych № 12 "Requiem" from the Museum Bochum. In addition, the exhibition presents five triptychs in different years and a lot of things medium format.

AI: And what exists of your famous triptychs? About twenty?

VY: 28 large triptychs and a few small size. A pentaptihov I have only three: "Nuclear Power Plant", "Adam and Eve" and "Sodom and Gomorrah." First, as I said, at the Museum Ludwig in Cologne, and the last two are in the Norton Dodge Collection at the Museum of Zimmerly.

• 

AI: a massive thing Adam and Eve " I was not so long ago saw in his museum. Pentaptih mounted on the wall, stands on the place of honor, looks wonderful.

VY: You might be surprised to learn that "Adam and Eve" was saved by a miracle. In Dodge she stood in the barn, it was flooded by rain, went smudges on a black background. But the worst happened to the figures. Someone had the idea to undress and put clothes in plastic bags. And moth eaten all there was left trash. Material own figures also suffered. When we saw this - a heart attack. Then, my wife Rimma week restored "Adam and Eve". Rima went to the shops to look for a similar fabric to sew new clothes for women and men. In the end, all restored. The figures I cut out again, re-painted frame. And only when we have pentaptih in order, Dodge said "wow" and ordered the architect a wall under it. Now she stands there permanently. And had we not arrived then, have not seen used in a bad condition - a thing simply would have died.

AI: In the book "And the two figures ..." published in your bitter letter to the Dodge, of which it is known that many jobs for many years had been practically buried in his collection, it does not, were excluded from public circulation. What now with Dodge?

VY: Normal relations. Do not forget that Norton Dodge still the best collection of nonconformist art. Junk too much, but at least three hundred first-class works there.

When I wrote him a letter offering to buy out his work, he pretended that he had not. Then I learned that the letter he did read it. Generally, he is very likeable fellow, if I may say so about 80-year-old man. He truly was in love with these things for a long time I collected them and not very fond of them go away, because he was afraid of losing them.

AI: The case of a leaking roof barn - this is a glaring example of negligence?

VY: Yes, it is inexplicable. Sometimes I am shocked at what can happen to the thing, when it gets into the wrong hands. And physical destruction - not the only threat. For example, at Sotheby's was typical story. Among them were three things in 1962, which were exhibited at the Manege - a series of "theme and improvisation. These works were in some buyer from Germany. Sold in 1970. It was random people, not the real collectors, which was typical for that time. So, up for sale came three horizontal things that I think one of the most important in their work. The fact that they were exhibited at the Manege in 1962, it was important to know the collectors. Generally a series of "theme and improvisation" - the fundamental. Their language is the basis of many of my subsequent works. I have lost sight of for many years and, of course, was happy that they finally found. And what happened? To my amazement, in the auction catalog, three horizontal things were printed in a vertical position as one product under the fictional name "Trilogy". And any comments and information in the directory. Many other non-artists was impressive for a paragraph of comments, and to my things nothing. Fortunately, they redeemed people who have been informed. Now these works were in a good collection in Paris. I have them even a little podrestavriroval, because they kept bad.

• 

AI: With regard to fixation of works: You were their record, taking pictures?

VY: Many of these pictures. The film was disgusting, but now the computer saves. Thanks to him I was able to restore the pictures many of the lost works. Corrected the color, giving them a decent view.

general, many of the disappeared - we do not know where they are. Who, when and what was sold or given as a gift (which was often), I did not write. I think that in my directories published only one fiftieth made things. Triptychs, fortunately, been preserved, because were in museums and great collections. Because of their size they are usually random hands do not fall. But their fate is also made up not easy. Thus, in the Norton Dodge five of my important things large format, but exhibited just one. And the other he never exhibited. Pentaptih "Sodom and Gomorrah" at him, but he never showed. White triptych № 7, which you particularly liked, too, not display, ever. The same story is with the triptych № 2, who did not like the "art critic" Khrushchev. Always "not enough space».

sixties. The search path

AI: In the late fifties in the USSR showed contemporary Western art. What is impressed you?

VY: For us it was like a clash with the Martian world. In 1957 there was an exhibition at the Festival of Youth and Students in Moscow, then show Picasso and, later, in 1959, passed the American National Exhibition in Sokolniki Park, which showed an American contemporary art. This strongly acted and created a new atmosphere, but it was a little hard to digest it. The long isolation from the modern art offset impressions of the "old" art. Those of its qualities, which go beyond the time frame. For me the important sources were the Early Renaissance, archaic. And, oddly enough, the composition and spatial impression of music.

My first "independent" pictures I made in 1958, when he was a freshman. And in 1960 appeared the first things out of cycle "Landscape-forces", which has already started the transition to a "theme and improvisation. And the idea of the triptych has already begun to take shape, things have appeared in abstract images of female and male.

AI: The question that I personally think is particularly important. How do you not afraid of persecution in the Khrushchev and Brezhnev sixties seventies? You are in fact very bold scenes, even for our time. And the practice of those years was such that "sew" to anything.

VY: This is my organic, I lived in his world - even though I was not separated from the outside world: I was engaged in sports and in general a normal life. But my inner world was independent of it. Pulses, energy, psychological, influence the outside world were, but the base was genetic. I wore a lot in itself: an attempt to understand how the world works, how to find a language to express it - it was the inner life. What was happening "outside", I was not very clear. With regard to social life, I was totally naive and not prepared for it. I just never thought about it. My first real confrontation with society was "Manege" in 1962, which shook me. I was only 24 years old. I could not reconcile their ideas about what art, artist, with a social life. For me, much more important exhibitions have been impressed by what I first saw his work on large walls, I was absolutely happy - things shining. In his little room, I'm not able to completely hang a triptych and pentaptihi. They were made in parts and only kept his head completely.

• C photograph "Manezhny" pentaptiha
  «Nuclear Power Plant»

AI: The huge triptychs created by parts and docked on the memory? In what circumstances you have worked in those years?

VY: I got my first workshop in Ulanski lane in 1967 or 1968 year. By the time I had already done seven triptychs and pentaptih "nuclear plant". And all I did in the 15-meter room in which we live. There also was a daughter's crib, our bed, a table. Now I can not imagine how I was working. I had no other conditions. I took them for granted. I had no choice. Now look at the photos of that time and I think what's been crazy. When I did "nuclear power plant, only one part mad at the wall. Other parts had to be kept in mind to represent the whole. And there's a very accurate color balance. I finished it in two weeks. He prepared for a long time, but it does not have an accurate sketches. I remember when I tuned in internally, I phoned all the friends said that I would not be in Moscow and two weeks does not leave the house until they finished the "nuclear plant" in full of nervous exhaustion.

AI: But wholly assembled could see her only in the Manege?

VY: No, The first time I saw shortly before the "Manage" on TAGANSKAYA exhibition at the Great Communist Street.

«TAGANSKAYA exhibition and exhibition in the hotel "YouTube»

AI: Tell me about TAGANSKAYA exhibition and "Arena". Of all the published forms some information porridge: a lot of conflicting memories and evidence. Things are harder to understand.

VY: The story began with the exhibition studio Belutin Elia in the House of Folk Arts at Large of the Communist (street, which now bears the name of Alexander Solzhenitsyn is Taganka - in the historic district of Moscow near the subway station TAGANSKAYA. - AI .) in November 1962 (exhibition opens on Nov. 26, 1962. - AI .). Aelius Belyutin SV organized an exhibition of his studio. But since there were some students, he called and asked me to introduce him to Ernst Unknown , to enhance exposure and attracts more attention. I brought Belutin the studio to the Unknown on Sretenka, introduced them and asked the two of us Belyutin SV participate in this exhibition. And we have proposed to connect to it more Hulot Sooster and George of zero-Sobolev . Of zero-Sobolev was the chief artist Goslit. It was a very high position. Then he was the chief designer of the publishing house "Knowledge". His apartment in the Kirov was a kind of club. Almost every evening there is going to young artists, musicians, poets, for whom he was like a guru. Very well read, educated, he had a book on contemporary art - while in Moscow rarity. I remember that he was the first time I saw Max Ernst, Paul Klee, Magritte. Kafka in German, he read. And he shared that knowledge. He had a plate of jazz musicians and contemporary music.

Belyutin SV taught at the Polygraphic Institute, where I studied, only the first year. Then he was forced to resign from the Institute for fear that his popularity and his method of teaching modern art draw unnecessary attention to the institution. Then he organized his own studio, but I've never been to the Studio, which is often mistakenly written.

digress. So Belyutin SV agreed with the proposed candidates, and such a way except for the Studio TAGANSKAYA tickets were unknown, Sobolev, and I Sooster.

• 

AI: I read that was still Boris Zhutovsky .

VY: Zhutovsky was just studiets, studied Studio Belutin, traveled with him on the steamer. But independent artists were, as I said, four - Belyutin SV us specially invited to enhance the exhibition.

As a result, the "Taganka" I put "nuclear plant". Unknown brought about ten small sculptures, which are placed in the middle of the hall. The room was square meters, maybe twelve, twelve, very high. The work hung in the Studio from top to bottom, Tapestry hanging. Sooster gave the wall - there were ten works, but its important things - for example, juniper (although the eggs did not yet exist, they came later).

AI: Excuse interrupt. Plots of work of the Studio was the character?

VY: Studio things were different. He had a very mixed public. Retoucher, fashion designers, designers, artists books - it was largely a studio training. I think that Belyutin SV at the moment is no longer taught the art and techniques that were applicable in book illustration and design.

AI: In what the atmosphere was held TAGANSKAYA Exhibition?

VY: In the street there was a line. Work came to watch all the intellectuals of Moscow. Entrance was free. On the street there were police who punctured tires and did a "hole" in the driver's license journalists. I think the authorities did not know how to behave.

Mikhail Romm come. Talk to me about the "nuclear plant". He had probably made a film "Nine Days in One Year" (which caused a major stir in 1962 drama about the fate of nuclear physicists, the roles: A. Batalov, I. Smoktunovsky, T. Lavrov. - AI .). And its "nuclear plant" are interested not so much as a painting, but as a problem.

The Associated Press with the Russian cameraman and correspondent with the U.S. has made a film about the exhibition, which is the next day was shown in Washington as a sensation. The correspondents seem to be appealed to the Soviet ambassador in Washington to comment on changes in the cultural policy of the USSR. He knew nothing, and began to call to Moscow. In Moscow, too, knew nothing. Began "nix».

• Invitation to the Tagansky exhibition»
  1962

AI: That is a sudden political leadership also wanted to understand that under his nose happens ...

VY: The situation was not entirely clear, as soon as "Taganka" Hutch Komsomol (then he was a liberal policy was even organized club creative university, whose base was in the hotel "Youth") has invited the four of us - Unknown, Sobolev, Sooster and me - to make an exhibition in a big hall of the hotel "Youth". I hung up not only "nuclear power plant, and a lot of things. Were printed invitations. It was November 29, and suddenly, when he was an hour before the opening of the exhibition, was the commission in black suits and start strange conversations. In the spirit of that show discussion, and come visit - you are saying that the show is canceled for technical reasons, but we will find a room and you want to invite someone, make a discussion ... We said: 'Go to login and Writ themselves. Guests have come with the tickets. The exhibition has not opened. The next morning came a new commission: "We found a room, the exhibition will be". Adjusted the poles a couple of trucks with workers, all loaded, without saying where, and brought ... in the Arena.

Arena, December 1, 1962

AI: It turns out that you have brought in Arena blind, we can say lured into a trap?

VY: Yes. We were brought into the Arena, and there have been Belutin studio. So when they write that belyutinskaya studio "with us" - nothing of the sort: the belyutinskoy studio had a separate room. In the next room, we were exposed to Sooster and Sobolev. My work, including "nuclear power plant, triptych № 2 and work from the series" The theme and improvisation "(which, at Sotheby's turned over) had three walls. In Sooster had a wall. And another little corner with a few watercolors was in the same room with Sobolev. From an unknown, too, was a separate room. We were brought at the end of the day, it was on 30 November, unloaded, we were hung up to five in the morning. Did it all ourselves, because the hard workers of MANEZHA once drunk, and we will remove them. Furtseva came at night, was gloomy, worried, no one greeted (with the minister of culture, apparently, was a poor governess). Then the KGB men handed out questionnaires to us, we chose ten people who will attend the next day. And only then told that tomorrow at nine in the morning will come the government must take a passport. At five in the morning, we went home to nine already meet again.

AI: What was the next morning, when Khrushchev arrived?

VY: Then we learned that this whole history of academics prepared to deal with the left MOSH. Approaching re-election to the academy, and at this time "left MOSH", "severe style", very active behaved. A Stalinist academics are afraid of losing power and money. First, the delegation went on the first floor. Already they began shouting and "criticism". But even on the first floor Khrushchev whispered that there's flowers, but on the second floor exhibited "a union member" who did spy saboteurs and agents of the bourgeoisie.

AI: Why you were both members of the union? You do not have to MOSH?

VY: among us was a member of the Moscow Union of Artists - Unknown, but his works were exhibited and below. And in the studio Belutin was one member of the Moscow Union of Artists, a happy book artist. Before going there, Belyutin SV collected the Studio, and they decided to put "continuous" things (portraits of workers, industrial landscapes and all that) to show their loyalty and not to irritate the authorities.

We, Sooster, Sobolev, Unknown, and I no one played up and put their most important and radical things. However, we have not been any industrial landscapes and portraits of workers.

AI: Well, you, as I understood, and gave no opportunity to prepare. They took some blind.

VY: I do not think that we really interested in them strongly. Academicians had to incite the government to "left MOSH. And we used as "bait". To do this, Khrushchev lied, saying that we are members of the Moscow Union of Artists and sit off the state.

Khrushchev, when he got up to us to the second floor, was already furious. Belyutin SV suggested - when will the government become before the stairs and applaud. At that Khrushchev retorted: "Stop clapping. Go on, show your scribble. Khrushchev with the whole company went first to the studio room Belutin. It immediately began to cry. Even the portraits of the manufacturers were also not such as should the government - someone was a blue nose or ears curves ...

• 

AI: The following were you?

VY: Yes, we had a second room. Works of zero-Yuri Sobolev Khrushchev had not noticed, they were hung in a corner, on the wall Sooster - drew attention. Pushed the commandant, he said something to the Estonian accent. Khrushchev on his guard: a foreigner? Then he whispered that it was liberated from the camp. And he immediately lost interest somehow. He turned to me: "What's your name?". Apparently not much. "What's that?", Pointing to the triptych. I explained that this triptych № 2 - "Two of the beginning". In response: "No, it's scribble." And I have used in this triptych, two inserts - reproductions of portraits of Piero della Francesca - a reminiscence of male and female. And he did not understand, I draw or I'm not. It seems that if I drew, that's fine. A few times asking questions, what it is. I repeated, and he answered: "No, this scribble." It so fixated. Then came the "nuclear power plant, the entire crowd, academicians, suites - and one of them saw a black spot. He jabbed his finger: "Ooo - hole!" Obviously, I read that modern art - it is nothing but perverts that pierce the picture. And so every next passed, dispersing in the "interpretive" grin, poking and said "Ooo, look - hole!" That's so we had "intellectual" criticism.

AI: Why are so contradictory evidence about the "Manege" Exhibition? Markedly different versions of Nina Molev (wife Elia Belutin), Boris Zhutovsky. Reconstruction and the version of events in the book George Gerchuka Hemorrhage in MOSH "places too bad seam. Why such a disparity in his memoirs?

VY: As always in history and life, participants and witnesses are beginning to create a mythology, in which they would occupy a worthy place. Unpleasant forgotten, but something is added that the time could say, but said nothing. Nina Moleva, author of several articles on developments in the Manege, was not there and did not see with my own eyes, how the "dressing down" of artists delegation Khrushchev. She probably came to the Arena, when we brought things and yet they are not hung. In one of its texts on the theme "the whole truth about Manege" is written that Yankilevsky made a big mistake, according to spread modern Western fashion stuff on the floor, that is not like Khrushchev. It's there simply was not, and all of its description - a blatant lie and falsification in order to make the main character Belutin, and all other humiliating, especially the Unknown.

AI: And the end has already held a stern talking Khrushchev by Ernst Unknown?

VY: Yes, no one knew about "Manege" too much has been written speculation. But only man who truly behaved with courage and dignity, was just Neizvestny. I very well remember it. At the "parsing" of his work unknown joined with Khrushchev in controversy. The dynamics of the conversation was this: first, said Khrushchev, and Ernst interjected an occasional remark. Then gradually the situation has leveled off, a dialogue, which then took a monologue Ernst, and Khrushchev listened and putting in little comments. Leaving, Khrushchev told the Unknown: "In you lives an angel and the devil." And he went on, that we like an angel and the devil we'll see. He said goodbye to his hand, very friendly. Then the entire delegation reached for the door.

• 

AI: What ended the meeting with senior audiences?

B. J.: The four of us went to a restaurant "Budapest", drink a little, remove the excitation. And the unknown has started something clever to explain about the relationship of what happened, with the policy in its relations with China and Cuba. I do not understand. And then China? And then Cuba? I just saw that my clothes were hanging there, I made them selflessly, I'm one of them did not pay, it's my job. Why did Khrushchev in me poking his finger? Why is he yelling? I understand it could not. Organically could not understand. This was my first encounter with society.

AI: This was followed because, as expected, and political draw conclusions?

VY: Yes, it was soon meeting of the Ideological Commission of the CPSU Central Committee, which discussed the situation with a creative young people and in general to the art. Yevtushenko had been invited there, Aksenov, Akhmadullina, composers and artists - participants of the exhibition. And they serve those who wanted to somehow justify. But most of all I was struck by an address Pavel Nikonov , who said that you are not on the raised arm. Say, here we are, representatives of the "severe style" - good, travel around the geologists, the hard worker, trying to describe our real life. And those (pointing his finger at us) - dudes. Here's who to hit, not us.

general in the Manege had two major episodes, in which no one paid attention. All remember how he spoke the word "pederasy, cursing and all this" soap opera ". But none remember (anyway, I have never seen this in any of the memories) are two key phrases: "As for art, I - a Stalinist," and then: "All foreigners - our enemies." I believe that this was the key phrases.

AI: You talk about drama of the first experiment collision with society. But before "Taganka" and "Manege" as spectators on the street met your work?

VY: «Spectators on the street "- this, of course, ridiculous. They were friends, a narrow circle of friends. Outside spectator was not. In the workshop were only acquaintances. They came to young scientists. Here they were interested, they had relative freedom of opinion. It is in their scientific institutes have been my first exhibition - Institute for Physical Problems, Institute of Biophysics.

AI: They were probably the first customers?

VY: No, they did not buy. And in general there was almost no collectors, who bought for money. There were collectors, friends, and as Talochkin Nutovich, who often simply gave. And my things - big, in Moscow apartments do not fit.

C Kostaki were very good relations. He bought my stuff. Now they have his daughter Lily in Athens. It is, incidentally, gave them to me at the exhibition in the Tretyakov Gallery.

And now the main buyers - Russian collectors, western very little. Fortunately, wealthy people were not afraid to buy big things. And in recent years, several large works I bought it in Moscow.

About Sretenskaya Group »

AI: Let the reader recall who entered the famous "Sretenskii group»?

VY: The Group called on a territorial basis. But in the present understanding of the group ever existed. Just as, in my opinion, "Lianozovo. Rather, it was Lianozovo attraction. Because there were a place where people flocked to the general cultural interests.

on Sretenka worked Unknown, in the house "Russia» - Kabakov and Sooster. In contrast, in Ulanski Lane, was my studio. Earlier in the Kirov was a workshop Anatoly Brusilovsky . Closer to clean the ponds was a workshop and Vasilyev . And then, on Maroseika worked Brewers . This geographically. And ideologically you can still add people.

• 

AI: Sometimes publications on the informal 1960 can be found on the competition and even conflict between Sretenskaya group "and" lianozovtsami, whose leader was Oscar Rabin . Was this competition? And anyway, what was the unifying factor in the group Sretensky Boulevard.

VY: Dispute was not. They were two of the world that do not overlap. It all depends on the point of view: you can look forward, you can back or sideways. There was divergence of views. Those who were closer to the group Sretensky Boulevard - looking forward, they were interested in the problems of contemporary art, was an attempt to find language to describe the modern world. Everyone made it their own way. When we met, we talked about one topic and one language. Oscar Rabin - a wonderful artist, mature, a self-made. But me he is completely at the time was not interested in the aesthetic, or ideologically. It was interesting to talk with Kabakov, Sooster, Sobolev ...

AI: Who are you closest to communicate then?

VY: At that time I talked almost every day with Ilya Kabakov, our workshops were across the road, so he at me, I had drank tea and talked. We saw each other's work, who does what.

AI: In general, today is really hard to imagine without recognition of the artist's involvement in a large exhibition process and without the support of the major forces in art -world.

VY: In parallel with this I remember another story. In 2000 in London, did a great show for which you have prepared a copy of the art pavilion at the Paris Exhibition of 1900, which were exhibited the most famous and successful artists of that time - collected if not the same thing, the same names. And it turned out that 99 percent of the then famous painters today, hardly anyone knows they are gone. But in London, and made the second pavilion, with the artists, who lived at the same time, but were neither famous nor successful. And in this second pavilion were Picasso and Cezanne, and Van Gogh. You know, by the way, when the first painting by Picasso fell in the French museum? In 1937. A - in 1936. They were already world-famous artists, but for the French bureaucracy, from the art they were "different", that is strange.

On the triptych, meanings and processes

AI: interpretation of the classical triptych always remains within the same logic? That is, the left side - the female principle (static, image FAS), the right part - the male principle (speaker profile), and in the middle - the universe?

In Ya.: Simplistically speaking, yes. But the male and female - is not necessarily a woman and a man. In the triptych № 2 - is an artist and scientist. In "Nuclear Power" - a "Creature" and "genius". In pentaptihe № 3 "Sodom and Gomorrah" - is opposed to the ideal of female and male to female and male images, mutated in the social freaks. Pentaptih also based on the concept of a triptych, but adds two parts, left and right. In "Nuclear Power Plant is the first part of the" Landscape "- is as input, and" Premonition "- the cosmic landscape as a way out. The first and fifth parts are added as a complication of meaning, as levels of another time, as background for what is happening inside pentaptiha. In pentaptihe № 2 "Adam and Eve" lateral parts - is the original images of female and male, dating back to the biblical Adam and Eve. It is the eternal backdrop to the men and women in the doorway of communal apartments. The first noticed these things Eugene L. Schiffers, a theologian, a great thinker, which is very accurately understand and articulate these ideas in their texts.

• 

AI: What inspires you today serves as a source of inspiration?

VY: I was always fascinated art, which was transparent at the time. In it I found an important impetus - in archaic Egypt, Greece. Of course, was interested in Africa, African masks. All this could calmly look at the library of foreign literature.

Now, rather, the process of establishing order in that I had accumulated, feel and understand as a result of life experience. All shake down into a single system. And new things want to do sufficiently simple and at the same time sufficiently capacious. Of course, all the time reading, listening, watching. But mostly works formed cultural array of art from antiquity and the early Renaissance, from Uccello, Piero della Francesca and Giotto and the works before the XX century, I think, too transparent at the time, artists - Picasso, Max Ernst, Magritte, Francis Bacon , Boise, Kinholtsa, writers - Kafka, Joyce, Camus, Updike, Ayn Rand, composers - Shostakovich, Rabinovitch-Barakovsky, Philip Glass. And, of course, many, many other unexpected experiences that can go from the sources would seem to have no direct relationship to art and amaze me the exigencies of its formation, that is, a new vision of life.

AI: Can you say that today in the new works you develop ideas of the sixties?

VY: you can tell . The fact that in 1960 laid the foundation of my language, developed in cycles, "Landscape of forces", "Theme and improvisation" and "space experiences". This language formed the basis for the description of conflict and harmony of human relations in the modern world, as I understand it. Of course, over the years, this understanding was complicated, and, accordingly, to add new expressive possibilities. All of them potentially were laid in those things that I did in 1960, but in a more universal form. Things that I'm doing now - is an attempt to combine all levels of human existence, the level of Eternity to the level of acute relevance, and find their relationship.

AI: If you retrospectively view your work, it seems that after 1962, ie after the "Manege", changed optics of your work - the imagery and its implementation have become more specific. "Manege" gave a boost?

VY: «Manege" really became in some sense a watershed, but not in terms of fear and expectation effects. К тому времени у меня накапливались жизненный опыт и переживания, для выражения которых мне уже не хватало средств, которыми я владел. Речь идет о традиционной плоской живописи, когда живопись находится на поверхности холста. И мне не хватало этих средств для выражения острого чувства актуальности, которое я в себе носил. «Манеж» впервые показал мне существование того, чего раньше я не замечал. Он как бы распахнул дверь из моей комнаты, где я работал, во внешний мир и расширил мое представление о жизни. Моя внутренняя жизнь соединилась с внешней. Я был наполнен универсальными идеями, но актуальности мне не хватало. И я вдруг почувствовал, как это надо делать. Я назвал тот период актуальной живописью. Не в смысле актуальных сюжетов, а потому что я попытался содержание вещи вынести из картины на зрителя. С тем чтобы зритель становился не индифферентным наблюдателем, который смотрит на картину как в окно, а соучастником события. Появились рельефы. С одной стороны, я делал рельеф, объем, выходящий из картины, с другой стороны — живописью я уничтожал этот объем, что создавало визуальную вибрацию картины и ощущение присутствия ее здесь, перед тобой, и зритель становился как бы участником события. Цветом я убивал однозначность предмета, и он начинал вибрировать. Так живопись становилась пульсирующей, и это создавало сильный эмоциональный эффект. Я в это время сделал несколько очень важных вещей — натюрвив «Полночь», два портрета, мужской и женский, которые теперь находятся в Пражской национальной галерее. А потом, в 1963-м, сделал триптих № 3 «Исход». Кстати, дыры появились еще в манежном триптихе № 2, но это еще 1962 год.

• 

Потом это превратилось в многослойность триптихов, в которых выражена одновременность разных состояний. Люди в пальто, в пиджаках — то, что кажется живым и правдоподобным, — в моей системе оказывается самым мертвым. Потому что они однозначны. А живопись за ними оказывалась — живым. Таким образом происходило столкновение живого и мертвого, актуальности и вечности.

AI: Помимо живописи, графики, скульптуры, какие техники Вас привлекают?

В. Я.: По моим эскизам в Германии сделано 12 тарелок из фарфора. Скоро будут готовы большие вазы в форме женского торса.

AI: С кем из художников Вы общаетесь в Париже?

В. Я.: Проблема одиночества с возрастом обостряется, и довольно трудно общаться. Если общаешься с кем-то, то это проверено временем, это для тебя важно. С Олегом Целковым мы в Москве мало общались, он жил своей жизнью, а я своей. Разговоров было мало. А в Париже мы стали значительно ближе. Мне он интересен; кажется, я ему тоже, и нам есть о чем говорить. Я гораздо чаще, чем в Москве, общаюсь с Оскаром Рабиным. Хотя в Москве он ни разу не был в моей мастерской: ему тоже, видимо, было не интересно. А сейчас он был в Москве на моей выставке у Семенихина и, по-моему, первый раз видел мои работы. Сказал, что был совершенно потрясен, что было для меня большой неожиданностью. В свое время я отказался участвовать в «бульдозерной выставке». Потом Рабин написал в своей книге, что я был прав. Тащить туда свои триптихи? Я ему сказал тогда, что если хочешь бороться с советской властью, то надо брать винтовку, а не картины. На самом деле роль «бульдозерной выставки» трудно переоценить — это был поворотный пункт в истории нонконформистского искусства. С этого момента нонконформизм закончился, начались легальные выставки.

AI: Может, в основе московской отстраненности была творческая конкуренция, какой-то элемент ревности?

В. Я.: Разумеется, все люди с детства несут в себе то, что им дала природа, и все, что они развили в себе. Это и характер, и психология, и различные комплексы, и культура, и интеллект. И все это проявляется в отношениях между художниками, погруженными в творчество, в котором отражается их душа. Это крайне болезненная зона, чувствительная к критике, к способности к самооценке. Здесь истоки ревности, зависти, мегаломании и многого другого, что невидимо пронизывает всю художественную среду. И конечно, это не специфика московской отстраненности, это происходит везде.

AI: А правда ли, что Дина Верни вывезла из СССР одну вашу вещь под видом шкафа?

В. Я.: Правда. Точнее, не она вывозила, а она организовала экспедицию, вывозил писатель и журналист Поль Торез, сын Мориса Тореза. Он приехал на фургончике со своим сыном как турист. В фургоне стоял фанерный дешевый шкафчик, который он задекларировал. И когда он уезжал, на таможне проверили — там тоже стоял шкафчик. А то, что это не шкаф, а моя работа «Дверь», они не догадались.

• Эскиз тарелки (не реализована)
  В портфолио художника есть сейчас 12 тарелок

С этой вещью у Дины Верни, как и с моими вещами у Доджа, — тоже трагедия. «Дверь» я сделал в 1972 году. В это время в Москве похожих вещей не делали. Это концептуальная вещь. Вначале она закрыта. Никто не знает, что за ней. Когда ее открываешь, ты видишь фигуру человека, стоящего спиной к тебе. Но его вместе со стеной, к которой он прижат, тоже можно открыть, как вторую дверь, и открывается его силуэт, вырезанный в стене, за которой сияющий горизонт. Персонаж зажат как бы в экзистенциальном ящике между реальностью двери, с почтовыми ящиками, звонками, и мечтой за линией горизонта. Это пространство его жизни. Дина Верни, думаю, ее вывезла потому, что ей очень понравилась дверь со звонками как советская экзотика. Видимо, это совпадало с ее представлением о советской жизни, о коммунальных квартирах. Увезла она ее в 1974 году и поставила в разобранном виде в подвал, потому что у нее в то время была только маленькая галерея, а самого музея (будущего Музея Майоля — Фонда Дины Верни) еще не было. Музей открылся в 1995 году. Через 21 год. На 21 год вещь выпала из обращения, никто ее не видел. Ее и в Москве-то видели 10-15 человек. И наконец, когда открылся музей, она ее выставила. Я ждал этого дня 21 год, а когда увидел в музее, то «Дверь» стояла закрытая. Попытался ее открыть, ко мне бросился охранник: дескать, я не имею права трогать экспонат. Я вообще человек психологически устойчивый и контролирую свои эмоции, но что со мной было — догадаться не сложно. И Дина разрешила ее открыть. Но открыла как книгу, так, что одновременно понемножку были видны все три фазы. И название работы было «Шкаф». Говорю: «Дина, это не шкаф, это — “Дверь”». В ответ: «Quelle difference! Какая разница!» Говорю: «Дверь должна открываться последовательно». В ответ снова: «Quelle differencе!..» Это одна из самых больших травм, связанных с судьбой моих вещей.

AI: А не приходила мысль сделать повтор?

В. Я.: Повтора не было, но идея «Двери», идея одновременности пространств проходит у меня через многие вещи. Я сделал «Автопортрет (Памяти отца)», который в Русском музее находится. Помните, там человек в метро? По бокам два силуэта: жизнь и смерть. Белый и черный. Это почти та же дверь, но она открыта. Отголоски «Двери» есть также в пентаптихе «Адам и Ева». Вообще же, я сделал цикл «Дверей», но открывающихся по-другому, — например, «Одиночество» (2005), «Меланхолия» (2005).

AI: Тут ведь еще вопрос творческого приоритета? Его же надо фиксировать. За 21 год, пока вещь не демонстрировалась, важная идея могла «уплыть».

В. Я.: Получилось так, что ее видел достаточно узкий круг друзей. Видели Кабаков, Штейнберг, Шнитке. Я ее открывал, показывал последовательность фаз, как все происходит. Кабаков в 1985 году сделал в чем-то похожую вещь — инсталляцию «Человек, улетевший в космос» — с дыркой в потолке. Фактически это та же концепция: персонаж, зажатый в актуальном пространстве, и выход через дыру в потолке, у меня — в стене. Но у него есть литературный комментарий, который объясняет, что произошло. А такого концептуального решения, как в моей «Двери», я не встречал никогда. Я стараюсь в публикациях показывать все последовательные фазы ее раскрытия, хотя бы на фотографиях.

• Интерьер московской студии художника
  Справа — незаконченная работа

AI: Бросается в глаза большая разница между Вашей живописью и графикой. Я бы сказал, что живопись более философская, а графика просто мятежная.

В. Я.: На самом деле это внешнее и поверхностное различие. Представьте себе, что Вы описываете человека, описываете его переживания, его внутреннюю жизнь, но также и его физиологию, и одежду, и погружение в социум. Это пытаюсь сделать я, и этим объясняется кажущийся разрыв между живописью и графикой. Но на самом деле в пластической основе того и другого лежат одни и те же принципы — пространство переживаний, о которых я уже говорил. И то и другое проходит через мое переживание и заряжено одной и той же энергией — анатомией чувств. Поэтому моя последняя выставка в Лондоне получила название «Анатомия чувств».

AI: Как Вы оцениваете процессы, происходящие в современном искусстве?

В. Я.: По определению, художники предчувствуют и делают видимым то, что еще не видно другим. В этом их функция — делать невидимое видимым. Не всеми это воспринимается — вызывает раздражение, неприязнь. Поэтому у художников часто трудная судьба.

Сейчас одна из самых больших проблем, с которой сталкивается современный художник и чего не было в 1960-е в Советском Союзе, — это существование открытой информационной среды. Раньше художник был оторван от мирового искусства, варился в своей кастрюле. А сейчас самая большая проблема, от которой сложно уклониться молодому художнику, — это зависимость от мейнстрима современного искусства, которому трудно сопротивляться и который стилистически довольно точно определен — 10–15 стилей, идей, концепций, которые размножены в бесчисленном количестве произведений и заполняют выставочные площадки и журналы по искусству всего мира. И художнику, который попадает в эту среду, психологически очень трудно сопротивляться этому влиянию, быть независимым и свободным и нащупать свой путь. Он попадает в магнитное поле мейнстрима.

Аристотель в своем трактате «О душе» говорил: «Ничего нет в уме, чего бы не было в чувствах». Это имеет прямое отношение к искусству. Сейчас слишком много произведений, которые можно комментировать и объяснять, но которые не содержат никаких чувств, магии переживания. То есть не излучают.

Редакция ARTinvestment.RU