Revision of Classicism and Academism in the Works of T. Novikov and the Masters of the New Academy of Fine Arts
Keywords:
Russian contemporary art, neoclassicism, academism, Timur Novikov, New Academy of Fine Arts, aesthetics, tradition, evolution of academic artAbstract
The subject of the article is the revision of the traditional understanding of classical heritage and aesthetic approach of academicism in the work of the participants of the New Academy of Fine Arts, which is often unreasonably perceived in the context of neoclassicism. Visually, the works of the founder of the Academy, T. Novikov, in contrast to the works of certain members of the Academy, in particular, G. Guryanov or Y. Strausova’s works, have no connection to classical art, although he used key symbols and images of Ancient Greece and Rome: the images of Olympic gods and mythological heroes, famous ancient works of art, etc., presenting them in an unexpected context. Timur Novikov’s Russian neoclassicism does not create an ideal pseudo-classical world, it is rather ironic and simulates neoclassical intentions. Timur Novikov’s academic innovations have become significant today in the spirit of the conservative and imperial paradigm, but the reception and interpretation of academicism in individual artistic concepts of the masters of the New Academy of Fine Arts is too diverse and controversial to claim a single interpretation in the context of the consistent evolution of academicism. Considering that contemporary art is difficult to evaluate using the criteria of classical aesthetics, the revision of the traditional aesthetic and formal tools of academicism and classicism by the masters of the New Academy is an illustrative example of conservative trends in art, realized through original artistic means.
References
Adorno T. Ästhetische Theorie. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Publ., 1970.
Anderson J. Speculations on the Carracci Academy in Bologna. Oxford Art Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, 1979, pp. 15–20.
Andreeva E.; Ippolitov A.; Khlobystin A. Prostranstvo Timura. Katalog vystavki (Tmimur’s Space. Exhibition Catalog). St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum Publ., 2008. (in Russian).
Badiou А. Handbook of Inaesthetics. Stanford, Stanford University Press Publ., 2005.
Biryukova M.; Dolák J. Qualities of Diegesis in Conceptual Curatorial Projects. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts, no. 12(3), 2020, pp. 116–128. DOI 10.34632/jsta.2020.9451.
Danto A. After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press Publ., 1997.
Deleuze G. The Logic of Sense. Lester M. (transl.). New York, Continuum Publ., 2012.
Engström M. Apollo against Black Square: Conservative Futurism in Contemporary Russia. Berghaus G. (ed.). International Yearbook of Futurism Studies. Berlin, De Gruyter Publ., 2016, pp. 328–353. DOI 10.1515/FUTUR-2016-0016.
Ershov G. Less impressionism! Interview with T. P. Novikov. Novyi mir iskusstva, no. 4, 2008, pp. 10–23 (in Russian).
Goldie P.; and Schellekens Е. Who’s Afraid of Conceptual Art? London, New York: Routledge Publ., 2010.
Katz J. Robert Mapplethorpe’s Queer Classicism. Martineau P.; Salvesen B. (eds). Robert Mapplethorpe: The Photographs. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum Publ., 2016, pp. 297–299. DOI 10.17742/IMAGE.CR.10.1.10.
Kosuth J. Art After Philosophy and After. Collected Writings 1966–1990. Cambridge, MIT Press Publ., 1993.
Kovtun E. (ed.). Pavel Filonov. Dnevniki (Dairies). St. Petersburg, Azbuka Publ., 2001. (in Russian).
McWilliam N. Limited Revisions: Academic Art History Confronts Academic Art. Oxford Art Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, 1989, pp. 71–86.
Messing S. Polemic as History: The Case of Neoclassicism. The Journal of Musicology, vol. 9, no. 4, 1991, pp. 481–497. DOI 10.2307/763872.
Novikov T. Novyi russkii klassicizm. 1996. URL: www.timurnovikov.ru. (accessed 06 June 2025). (in Russian).
Pevsner N. Academies of Art, Past and Present. New York, Da Capo Press Publ., 1973.
Richardson J. A. Academicism and Imagination. Arts Education Policy Review, vol. 104, no. 6, 2003, pp. 21–23. DOI 10.1080/10632910309600976.
Richmond S. Art’s Educational Value. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 43, no. 1, 2008, pp. 92–105.
Sánchez C. V. Bill Viola’s’ Nantes Triptych’: Unearthing the sources of its condensed temporality. Aniki: Revista Portuguesa da Imagem em Movimento, vol. 2, no. 1, 2015, pp. 35–48. DOI 10.14591/aniki.v2n1.105.
Stodolsky I. Cultural Geopolitics in the New Russian Cultural Intelligentsia. A Case Study of Timur Novikov, Artist and Cultural Ideologue, 1958–2002. Dressler W. (ed.). Eurasie: Espace mythique ou realite en construction? Brussels, Bruylant Publ., 2009, pp. 297–320. DOI 10.1007/s11212-011-9140-4.
Szeemann H. Museum der Obsessionen von/ueber/zu/mit Harald Szeemann. Berlin, Merve Publ., 1981.
Tchinaev V. Metamorphoses of the Beautiful in the Past and Present of the Art Discourse. Filosofskii zhurnal (Philosophy Journal), vol. 2, no. 13, 2014, pp. 88–120 (in Russian).
Varlamov D. The Essence of Art Academisation as an Evolutionary Process. Vestnik Saratovskoi Conservatorii, no. 1, 2018, pp. 16–19 (in Russian).
