K. P. Bryullov and A. S. Pushkin. Portrait by an unknown author

2024 Author: Leah Sherlock | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 05:25

Bryullov and Pushkin met in Moscow, in the autumn of 1836 they often met in St. Petersburg. Their relationship, personal and creative, did not last long, less than a year, but it was a fruitful friendship, which was cut short by the death of the poet. After the death of Pushkin, Bryullov made a sketch of his monument, thought in the future to take part in the publication of works and drew many sketches of the frontispiece, and in 1849 - a picture based on the "Fountain of Bakhchisarai".

The story of a small portrait of A. S. Pushkin

In 1880 in Moscow, at the Pushkin exhibition, the attention of visitors was attracted by one small painting - “A. S. Pushkin. The portrait, made in oil on cardboard (12.0 x 8.5 cm), was listed as the work of K. Bryullov, since the artist’s name written in red paint was visible along the character’s shoulder. This painting was also reproduced in the released album.

After 19 years, when “A. S. Pushkin”, a portrait by O. A. Kiprensky, previously kept by the poet’s son, on a small work there was already a question mark against the author’s name. There was an opinion that the signature "K. Bryullov" is a crudely made fake and does not copy the artist's autograph, but a signature under a certainlithograph from one of the master's works.

Later, on the basis of documentary data, Pushkinists, in particular N. O. Lerner, who published the article “The False Bryullov Portrait of A. S. Pushkin” in 1914, argued that Bryullov never wrote a portrait of Pushkin, although he was going to. Since then, a derogatory name has been assigned to a small work of art, and gradually they completely forgot about it. For a long time he was in a private collection, and then he was acquired by the Literary Museum in Moscow. In 1959, the “false Bryullov” portrait was transferred to the newly created Moscow Museum of A. S. Pushkin.

Small portrait - study for a painting by Kiprensky (?)

But if not Bryullov, then who wrote Pushkin? The portrait, called "false Bryullov", was long considered to be penned by an unknown artist. Many years later, an attempt was made to prove the authorship of O. Kiprensky.

Comparing documentary evidence, writing style and other details, adherents of this version came to the conclusion that this is a study of his famous painting - “A. S. Pushkin” (portrait, 1827).

There are understandable differences between the two works. An etude is a moment of life captured by an artist. Pushkin is different here - a different mood and facial expression. There are differences in the writing of individual details, but the peculiarity of the painting style and the generality of the composition prove that the author of the portrait of Pushkin (study) is O. A. Kiprensky.

Comparing historical facts supported by documentary evidence, one cansuggest that the work could have been done by the artist between May 26 and July 15, 1827.

Why didn't Bryullov paint a portrait of Pushkin?

It seems strange why the famous painter and portrait painter, who personally knew Pushkin, did not paint a portrait of his peer, a brilliant poet.

Brullov created many paintings in which he captured his contemporaries: Russian writers, artists, architects, public figures. But Pushkin is not among them. The remaining testimonies of the artist's friends and students say that he was going to paint a portrait of the poet, but did not have time to do it.

However, some researchers of the work of K. P. Bryullov believe that Pushkin was not his hero. The painter was known as a master of the life-affirming "happy portrait" and painted people in moments of inspiration or joyful excitement. The poet's drama did not fit into the concept of Bryullov's work, and therefore he "did not have time" to paint a picture. This is just one of the assumptions, for which there is no direct evidence.

Afterword

It would be unfair not to mention that the version presented here about the authorship of a small portrait of A. S. Pushkin is only one of many. For example, art critic E. Pavlova is of the opinion that the portrait was nevertheless painted by Bryullov, and cites his own, no less interesting arguments in defense of this. Research continues, and there are still many unsolved mysteries. Perhaps future generations will have better luck.