Exhibition Theme

“Good artists borrow. Great artists steal.” ~ Pablo Picasso

This exhibition examines the ways in which Russian artists have turned to previously created art as a source of inspiration and meaning for new works of art, conveying a contemporary and relevant sociopolitical message. The following groups of pieces were chosen for their interdependence and reliance upon established visual culture to express messages significant to the realm of Russian politics.

Simon Ushakov's "Virgin With Child" (Mid 16th Century) and Viktor Deni's "Village Virgin" (1919)

Russian religious icon art like Simon Ushakov’s “Virgin with Child” (mid sixteenth century), possessed great significance in Russian society. According to Tamara Machmut-Jhashi PhD, an assistant art history professor at Oakland University, “The term “icon” is used to convey the idea of representation, to denote an image that is usually widely recognized, or even revered… For Orthodox Christians, icons are painted images that have played a significant role in the theological and liturgical life of the Church...they are equal to the authority of the Gospels,”1. These images were recognized as having the power to ward off enemies, protect, and heal 1. While initially Ushakov’s work “Virgin with Child,” was questioned because of its nontraditional use of Western artistic styles, it was eventually lauded as an influential icon painting 1. This image not only impacted Russian religious life, but also served as inspiration for Bolshevik propaganda, with unique political implications.

In his image “Village Virgin” (1919), Viktor Deni replaced the figures in Ushakov’s “Virgin with Child” with influential leaders of the Bolshevik revolution. By replacing meaningful religious figures with the heads of Bolshevik leaders, Deni suggested that the Bolshevik leaders were powerful or even god-like. Icons were only made of holy individuals worthy of worship. According to Machmut-Jhashi, “For the Orthodox Believer, it is not the actual icon that is worshiped; rather, it is the person on whom that image is modeled who is venerated. The icon comes to function as a window, or screen, to the holy person depicted, to lead the believer into communion with the ‘divinely illumined’ personage represented,”1. These images therefore venerated the Bolshevik leaders and the beliefs they fostered. By relying on an image of religious power, Deni was able to create propaganda illustrating the political might of Bolshevism and the emerging government. Additionally, Deni’s “Village Virgin” also succeeded in deriding religion, which the Bolsheviks viewed as the opiate of the masses. The inclusion of political figures in a realm of art that should have been reserved for only holy subjects, detracted from the meaning of icons and traditional religious practices. The “Village Virgin” was the beginning to a, “deconstruction of faith,”2. Deni’s work also illustrates, “the dichotomy between the progressiveness of Bolshevik workers in contrast to the “backwardness” of traditional Russia,” 2. This contrast serves to mock and belittle Old Russian and the original Tsarist regime.

1. Machmut-Jhashi, Tamara. 2003. Between matter and spirit: russian icon painting. Meadow Brook Art Gallery: Oakland University
2. Rosenthal, Rachel. 2005. Visual fiction: the development of the secular icon in Stalinist poster art. Stanford’s Student Journal of Russian.1: 1-13.

"Portrait of Arseny Tropinin" by Vasily Tropinin (1818), "Peasant Boy" by Grigor Soroka (1840), and "Fisher Girl" by Ilya Repin (1874)

“The Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV” Repin and “Gold-Diggers Writing a Letter to the Creator of the Great Constitution” Yakolev

"Bargehaulers on the Volga" by Ilya Repin (1870-1873) and "Give to Heavy Industry" by Yuri Pimenov (1926)

Ilya Repin’s “Bargehaulers on the Volga” (1870-1873), seen above, served as a model painting that inspired later works. Repin was considered Russia’s most loved artist or as Elizabeth Valkenier, a professor of art history and archaeology at Columbia University, referred to him, “a hallowed symbol of national art,”1. Along with his realist band of artists, Repin helped establish an official Russian art at a time when Russians were searching for a distinct artistic identity. Despite his claim that he painted exactly what he saw, Repin’s piece “Bargehaulers on the Volga” proved to be a controversial painting that catapulted the artist into a national conversation concerning the fate of Russia. According to Valkenier, “hardly anybody commented on its interesting diagonal composition, or its attempt to render the effects of light,”1. Instead, viewers tended to focus on the political interpretations of the prodigy’s painting. Overall, “Bargehaulers on the Volga” conveys hopelessness, desperation, and the extent of human misery experienced by members of the lower class. The most prominent figure in this image is the youthful individual in the center of the painting. This younger man is wearing a cross around his neck, appears to be displaying a Christian stigmata, and is lifting the belt off of his body. He is a Christ-like, youthful presence rising up in rebellion as the savior of the piece, and represents the hope for an improved future. Due to its contentious subject matter “Bargehaulers on the Volga” was a renowned, popularly discussed work of art.

As a result, this negative depiction of the state of Russia served as a model for Yuri Pimenov’s piece “Give to Heavy Industry” (1926), seen to the right. “Give to Heavy Industry” uses the image of “Bargehaulers on the Volga” in a modern factory setting. Instead of pulling a barge forward, the factory workers are consumed by a fire as they pull machinery. According to Karen A. McCauley, a professor at UCLA , “Give to Heavy Industry,” “depicts the struggle of industrialization using the device of montage to create a style and thematics distinctly reminiscent of constructivist and productionist art,”2. Pimenov relied on a modernist visual language and Repin’s well-known artistic masterpiece to enter a new, socially relevant conversation concerning the state of Russia in the 1900’s. In “Give to Heavy Industry” the individuals are expressionless and uniform in appearance. There is no Christ-like figure representing hope for a brighter future; as a result, Pimenov’s work conveys a sense of anguish and despondency. “Give to Heavy Industry” is modern, dark, and representative of Marxist estrangement and a sort of Stalinist Hell. This dissatisfaction with the state of Russian society is effectively expressed to viewers by applying Repin’s late 1800’s painting “Bargehauler’s on the Volga”, associated with human misery, to a new social context.


1. Valkenier, Elizabeth. 1978. Politics in Russian Art: The Case of Repin. Russian Review. 37 January
2. McCauley, Karen A. 1998. Production literature and the industrial imagination. The Slavic and East European Journal. 42 (3): 444-466.

“They Did Not Expect Him” by Ilya Repin (1884) and “Low Marks Again” by Fedor Reshetnikov (1953)

Ilya Repin’s work “They Did Not Expect Him” (1884), seen above, is recognized as an exemplar of Russian art. Because of his status as a renowned Russian artist educated at the Academy, Repin was able to depict a politically contentious scene without offering a definitive interpretation. David F. Jackson writes, “It should be understood then that Repin’s ambivalent painting is never likely to give itself up to a simple explanation of any unitary meaning…Ironically then for this icon of the realist school and its once derided methodology of objective classification, the work’s interdisciplinary appeal and diversity of interpretive possibilities can now be regarded as its abiding appeal. Within postmodernist discourses the painting’s inherent ambiguity, its refusal to conform to the status of a sociological painted sermon but instead to offer a series of potential appraisals can rightly be praised,”1. The painting was created after the coronation of Alexander III and around the time many exiles were granted amnesty and permitted to return from Siberia 2. As a result, “They Did Not Expect Him,” depicts the return of an exile. As described earlier, the actual meaning of this painting is unclear. Elizabeth Valkenier, a professor of art history and archaeology at Columbia University, writes, “While Stasov claimed that the exile was a positive figure, someone ready to carry on, the conservatives were equally convinced that Repin ‘despite himself’ had painted a broken and repentant individual,”3. There is no way to develop a single narrative for this painting. Based on the lighting and layout of the painting, Valkenier attempts to offer a semblance of meaning by suggesting that the exile is symbolic of radical socialist politics in Russia and that he is a metaphor or allegorized image of Jesus 2;3. No matter the meaning, “They Did Not Expect Him,” was recognized as an exquisite example of critical realism and served as inspiration for later works.

For example, Fedor Reshetnikov’s “Low Marks Again” (1953), seen to the right, is similar in style and composition to “They Did Not Expect Him.” Much like the returning exile, a young boy returns home to share his misfortunes. The 1950’s in Russia were a part of the period known as “The Thaw,” which began in the aftermath of Stalin’s death. Socialist realist paintings that depicted the harsh realities of Russian life began to emerge. Instead of conveying a definitive political message, the style of “Low Marks Again” helps to illustrate the political history of the period. The ambiguities of “Low Marks Again,” and “They Did Not Expect Him” helped to provide more complete pictures of the entire spectrum of Russian political views in the 1950’s and 1880’s respectively. The two images parallel one another in style and composition and ultimately help illustrate the political histories of their corresponding time periods.

1. Jackson, David F. 1998. Inhoudsopgave. Pg. 371.
2. Valkenier, Elizabeth. 1993. The writer as artist’s model: Repin’s portrait of Garshin. Metropolitan Museum Journal. 28:207-216.
3. Valkenier, Elizabeth. 1978. Politics in Russian Art: The Case of Repin. Russian Review. 37 January.

“The Knife Grinder” by Kasimir Malevich (1913), “Head of a Man” Pablo Picasso (1907), and “Speed of a Motorcycle” by Giacomo Balla (1913)