دانلود کتاب Russian National Myth in Transition

فهرست مطالب :

2_OK_Contents_Acta_Slavica_VI
3_Introduction_from_the_editor_10.01.15
4_Voitekhovich_Roman_10.01.15
5_Pogosjan_Jelena_12.01.15
6_Ospovat Kirill_13.01.15
7_Bodrova_Alina_14.01.15
8_Bulkina_Inna_14.01.15
9_Guzairov_Timur_11.01.15
Назарова: Назарова Е. Л. “Финляндская Газета”. О русификации Прибалтики и Финляндии (1900–1904) // Балтия в контексте Cеверного пространства. От Средневековья до 40-х годов ХХ века. М., 2009.
10_Vdovin_Alexey_11.01.15
11_Stepanischeva_Tatiana_16.01.15
12_Kisseljova_Ljubov_10.11.15
13_Hellman_Ben_16.01.15
13_1_Hellman_Ben_1_15.01.15
13_2_Hellman_Ben_Vaheleht_15_01_15 - копия
13_3_Hellman_Ben_2_15.01.15
14_Pild_Lea_11.01.15
15_Kucherskaya_Maya_15.01.15
Лесков 1998: Лесков Н. С. <Настоящие бедствия столицы> // Лесков Н. С. Полн. собр. соч. М.: Терра, 1998. Т. 2.
Литературное движение 1986: Литературное движение советской эпохи: материалы и документы. Хрестоматия / Сост. П. И. Плукш. М., 1986.
16_Borovikova_Maria_15.01.15
17_Huttunen_Tomi_10.01.15
Gostinitsa was severely criticized for its belated aestheticism; the pages being designed and decorated in the spirit of decadent Symbolism of the fin-de-siècle, à la Aubrey Beardsley. Mariengof and his colleagues also tried to anticipate criticism by...
In the journal you can sense, for example, the emphasized ultra-national characteristics of Imaginism. But we were never nationalists. On the contrary, we were always against the way the Futurists tried to promote both their own vulgar internationa...
The first and the second issue (from 1922 and 1923) had a subtitle “Russian Journal” (Russkii zhurnal). The first issue had an editorial titled “Non-editorial” (Ne peredovitsa) with the following declaration of Imaginist Russianness:
We Russians are restless people. Is it even possible for Russians to be peaceful? Our fatherland is enormous, we have many relatives. Each of us (even though we hide this in the need to be fashionable) loves the black body of the land and the grey eye...
This has been the main reason for us to be travellers ever since. Naturally, we do not mean this literally. But even if we did talk literally, it would not be false. Nomads were our ancestors [Мариенгоф 2013: 668].
One of the significant contexts of the new Imaginist journal in 1922 was the feeling of timelessness: a sense of frustration that many writers experienced as the end of the Revolution as well as the end of the multiple privileges that this poetic grou...
On the other hand, judging from the public activity of the Imaginists during the years 1922–1924 this would appear to be a time of new notions and new key words, such as ”the academy” (akademiya), “the big theme” (bol’shaya tema), ”the canon” (kanon)...
“The academy”
One of the most peculiar new concepts in the Imaginists’ new vocabulary was “the academy”, which suddenly seemed to appear everywhere in editor Mariengof’s texts:
We understand the principle of the academy as complete control not over the separate elements of the material, but the form as a totality.
Only academic virtuosity opens the way for the moment of discovery in art. Innovative art is always academic. Because we understand innovation not as a standard stunt, but the way art is moving ahead [Мариенгоф 1922].
Mariengof further emphasizes how contemporary art is supposed to include the earlier phases, i. e. to annex the cultural tradition. This is obviously something else than “A slap in the face of public taste” or “throw Pushkin overboard from the Ship of...
In a document from his personal archive Mariengof develops theses related to the notion of “the academy” by listing them in a catalogue. His basic idea is that both Imaginism and contemporary Russia need a new worldview. Art should be understood throu...
12. Cultural tradition.
13. The desolate do not know ancestors /Pushkin/, .
14. We do not destruct, we consummate.
15. We create an academy — an executive committee of muses.
16. Down with subjectivism — mahnovshchina — long live the ACADEMY.
17. DOWN WITH ACADEMISM. <…>
19. Have to create canons. <…>
22. Contemporary, but not the present. It is time to create a revolutionary academy [Мариенгоф 1922: 1].
Mariengof also declares that “academy is not aestheticism of the ‘top 10,000’, but a national ideology” [Ibid.: 2]. One relevant context for the notion of “the academy” in the Imaginist jargon in 1922 is, apart from the earlier Cosmist Alexander Chizh...
In September 1921 Lunacharsky [Луначарский 1921: 6] called the Imaginists “charlatans who want to offend the public” and defined them as a dishonest group that should not be supported by the government. The Imaginists were offended by Lunacharsky’s ...
In the same issue of Pechat’ i revolyutsiya Lunacharsky replied by saying that he has all the right to make statements about poets or poetic groups and that he is not willing to participate in any of the Imaginists’ public discussions, since “he knows...
The first President of the Russian Academy of Art Sciences was the critic and literary historian Petr Kogan, one of the main enemies of the Imaginists: “Their tragedy is that there is no talent among them to convince us that their theories definitely ...
In the above-mentioned trial Mariengof gave a speech against Kogan, and it is obvious that the notion of “the academy” is originally Mariengof’s invention, an unsuccessful attempt to once again coincide with the Bolshevik Lunacharsky’s cultural poli...
“Big Theme”
History shows us that the Marxist utilitarian tendency of the Left Front of the Arts that was so much criticised on the pages of Gostinitsa, became increasingly necessary for the Bolsheviks — these ex-Futurists were treated as the proper representativ...
8. No to analyticism or facture research, but theme as the ground for monumental art.
9. Aestheticism, as a product of cabinet philosophy / subjectivism / against.
10. Monumental art as sobornost’ [Мариенгоф 1922: 1].
In 1922 Imaginism was no longer a formal school of poetry, but a “nationalistic worldview, which emerges from the deep Slavonic understanding of the dead and live nature of the motherland” [Мариенгоф 2013: 645]. This nationalistic worldview appears to...
In 1921 Esenin and Mariengof lived together in Moscow and wrote a joint declaration that was left unpublished and thus relatively unknown for the history of literature: “Once again we suggest the meaning of the form, which in itself is the beautiful c...
In the first Gostinitsa the pathos surrounding the unpublished manifesto was continued, as Mariengof wrote that “what is beautiful in the culture is always national in its essence” and defined Russianness in art through Russian architecture: “Saint Ba...
In 1922 Mariengof was the editor-in-chief of the journal Gostinitsa, so it was definitely his enterprise. The manifestos and editorials of the journal were written by him, although this was not explicitly stated in the issues themselves. The ideology ...
Богомолов 2005: Богомолов Н. А. “Дыр бул щыл” в контексте эпохи // Новое литературное обозрение. 2005. № 72: 2. С. 172–192.
Бродский et al. 1929: Бродский Н. Л., Аймермахер К. (ред.) Литературные манифесты от символизма к Октябрю. М., 1929.
Есенин 1995–2002: Есенин С. А. Полное собрание сочинений: В 7 т. М., 1995–2002.
Есенин, Мариенгоф 2013: Есенин С., Мариенгоф А. Манифест // Мариенгоф А. Б. Собр. соч.: В 3 т. М., 2013. Т. 1. С. 667–668.
Есенин, Мариенгоф, Шершеневич 1921: Есенин С., Мариенгоф А., Шершеневич В. Письмо в редакцию // Печать и революция. 1921. № 2. С. 248–249.
Коган 1921: Коган П. Русская литература в годы Октябрьской революции // Красная Новь. 1921. № 3. С. 233–243 (www.ruthenia.ru/sovlit/j/107.html).
Луначарский 1921b: Луначарский А. В. Ответ А. В. Луначарского // Печать и революция. 1921. № 2. С. 249.
Луначарский 1921а: Луначарский А. В. Свобода книги и революция // Печать и революция. 1921. № 1.
Мариенгоф 1922: Мариенгоф А. Б. “Современная Россия не направленство, а мировоззрение…” // РО ИМЛИ. Ф. 299. Оп. 1. № 4.
Мариенгоф 2013: Мариенгоф А. Б. Собрание сочинений: В 3 т. М., 2013. Т. 1.
Харджиев: Харджиев Н. Статьи об авангарде: В 2 т. М., 1997. T. 1.
Шершеневич 1990: Шершеневич В. Великолепный очевидец // Воспоминания Мариенгофа, Шершеневича и Грузинова. М., 1990.
18_Polivanov_Konstantin_10.01.15
19_Leibov_Roman_12.01.2015
20_Nemzer_Andrei_11.01.2015
21_Name_index_16.01.15
22_Summaries_eesti_10.01.15
23_About the Contributors_10.01.15
24_Acta Slavica_izdanija_10.01.15
varvilised_pildid170_171.pdf
2_OK_Contents_Acta_Slavica_VI
3_Introduction_from_the_editor_10.01.15
4_Voitekhovich_Roman_10.01.15
5_Pogosjan_Jelena_12.01.15
6_Ospovat Kirill_13.01.15
7_Bodrova_Alina_14.01.15
8_Bulkina_Inna_14.01.15
9_Guzairov_Timur_11.01.15
Назарова: Назарова Е. Л. “Финляндская Газета”. О русификации Прибалтики и Финляндии (1900–1904) // Балтия в контексте Cеверного пространства. От Средневековья до 40-х годов ХХ века. М., 2009.
10_Vdovin_Alexey_11.01.15
11_Stepanischeva_Tatiana_16.01.15
12_Kisseljova_Ljubov_10.11.15
13_Hellman_Ben_16.01.15
13_1_Hellman_Ben_1_15.01.15
13_2_Hellman_Ben_Vaheleht_15_01_15 - копия
13_3_Hellman_Ben_2_15.01.15
14_Pild_Lea_11.01.15
15_Kucherskaya_Maya_15.01.15
Лесков 1998: Лесков Н. С. <Настоящие бедствия столицы> // Лесков Н. С. Полн. собр. соч. М.: Терра, 1998. Т. 2.
Литературное движение 1986: Литературное движение советской эпохи: материалы и документы. Хрестоматия / Сост. П. И. Плукш. М., 1986.
16_Borovikova_Maria_15.01.15
17_Huttunen_Tomi_10.01.15
Gostinitsa was severely criticized for its belated aestheticism; the pages being designed and decorated in the spirit of decadent Symbolism of the fin-de-siècle, à la Aubrey Beardsley. Mariengof and his colleagues also tried to anticipate criticism by...
In the journal you can sense, for example, the emphasized ultra-national characteristics of Imaginism. But we were never nationalists. On the contrary, we were always against the way the Futurists tried to promote both their own vulgar internationa...
The first and the second issue (from 1922 and 1923) had a subtitle “Russian Journal” (Russkii zhurnal). The first issue had an editorial titled “Non-editorial” (Ne peredovitsa) with the following declaration of Imaginist Russianness:
We Russians are restless people. Is it even possible for Russians to be peaceful? Our fatherland is enormous, we have many relatives. Each of us (even though we hide this in the need to be fashionable) loves the black body of the land and the grey eye...
This has been the main reason for us to be travellers ever since. Naturally, we do not mean this literally. But even if we did talk literally, it would not be false. Nomads were our ancestors [Мариенгоф 2013: 668].
One of the significant contexts of the new Imaginist journal in 1922 was the feeling of timelessness: a sense of frustration that many writers experienced as the end of the Revolution as well as the end of the multiple privileges that this poetic grou...
On the other hand, judging from the public activity of the Imaginists during the years 1922–1924 this would appear to be a time of new notions and new key words, such as ”the academy” (akademiya), “the big theme” (bol’shaya tema), ”the canon” (kanon)...
“The academy”
One of the most peculiar new concepts in the Imaginists’ new vocabulary was “the academy”, which suddenly seemed to appear everywhere in editor Mariengof’s texts:
We understand the principle of the academy as complete control not over the separate elements of the material, but the form as a totality.
Only academic virtuosity opens the way for the moment of discovery in art. Innovative art is always academic. Because we understand innovation not as a standard stunt, but the way art is moving ahead [Мариенгоф 1922].
Mariengof further emphasizes how contemporary art is supposed to include the earlier phases, i. e. to annex the cultural tradition. This is obviously something else than “A slap in the face of public taste” or “throw Pushkin overboard from the Ship of...
In a document from his personal archive Mariengof develops theses related to the notion of “the academy” by listing them in a catalogue. His basic idea is that both Imaginism and contemporary Russia need a new worldview. Art should be understood throu...
12. Cultural tradition.
13. The desolate do not know ancestors /Pushkin/, .
14. We do not destruct, we consummate.
15. We create an academy — an executive committee of muses.
16. Down with subjectivism — mahnovshchina — long live the ACADEMY.
17. DOWN WITH ACADEMISM. <…>
19. Have to create canons. <…>
22. Contemporary, but not the present. It is time to create a revolutionary academy [Мариенгоф 1922: 1].
Mariengof also declares that “academy is not aestheticism of the ‘top 10,000’, but a national ideology” [Ibid.: 2]. One relevant context for the notion of “the academy” in the Imaginist jargon in 1922 is, apart from the earlier Cosmist Alexander Chizh...
In September 1921 Lunacharsky [Луначарский 1921: 6] called the Imaginists “charlatans who want to offend the public” and defined them as a dishonest group that should not be supported by the government. The Imaginists were offended by Lunacharsky’s ...
In the same issue of Pechat’ i revolyutsiya Lunacharsky replied by saying that he has all the right to make statements about poets or poetic groups and that he is not willing to participate in any of the Imaginists’ public discussions, since “he knows...
The first President of the Russian Academy of Art Sciences was the critic and literary historian Petr Kogan, one of the main enemies of the Imaginists: “Their tragedy is that there is no talent among them to convince us that their theories definitely ...
In the above-mentioned trial Mariengof gave a speech against Kogan, and it is obvious that the notion of “the academy” is originally Mariengof’s invention, an unsuccessful attempt to once again coincide with the Bolshevik Lunacharsky’s cultural poli...
“Big Theme”
History shows us that the Marxist utilitarian tendency of the Left Front of the Arts that was so much criticised on the pages of Gostinitsa, became increasingly necessary for the Bolsheviks — these ex-Futurists were treated as the proper representativ...
8. No to analyticism or facture research, but theme as the ground for monumental art.
9. Aestheticism, as a product of cabinet philosophy / subjectivism / against.
10. Monumental art as sobornost’ [Мариенгоф 1922: 1].
In 1922 Imaginism was no longer a formal school of poetry, but a “nationalistic worldview, which emerges from the deep Slavonic understanding of the dead and live nature of the motherland” [Мариенгоф 2013: 645]. This nationalistic worldview appears to...
In 1921 Esenin and Mariengof lived together in Moscow and wrote a joint declaration that was left unpublished and thus relatively unknown for the history of literature: “Once again we suggest the meaning of the form, which in itself is the beautiful c...
In the first Gostinitsa the pathos surrounding the unpublished manifesto was continued, as Mariengof wrote that “what is beautiful in the culture is always national in its essence” and defined Russianness in art through Russian architecture: “Saint Ba...
In 1922 Mariengof was the editor-in-chief of the journal Gostinitsa, so it was definitely his enterprise. The manifestos and editorials of the journal were written by him, although this was not explicitly stated in the issues themselves. The ideology ...
Богомолов 2005: Богомолов Н. А. “Дыр бул щыл” в контексте эпохи // Новое литературное обозрение. 2005. № 72: 2. С. 172–192.
Бродский et al. 1929: Бродский Н. Л., Аймермахер К. (ред.) Литературные манифесты от символизма к Октябрю. М., 1929.
Есенин 1995–2002: Есенин С. А. Полное собрание сочинений: В 7 т. М., 1995–2002.
Есенин, Мариенгоф 2013: Есенин С., Мариенгоф А. Манифест // Мариенгоф А. Б. Собр. соч.: В 3 т. М., 2013. Т. 1. С. 667–668.
Есенин, Мариенгоф, Шершеневич 1921: Есенин С., Мариенгоф А., Шершеневич В. Письмо в редакцию // Печать и революция. 1921. № 2. С. 248–249.
Коган 1921: Коган П. Русская литература в годы Октябрьской революции // Красная Новь. 1921. № 3. С. 233–243 (www.ruthenia.ru/sovlit/j/107.html).
Луначарский 1921b: Луначарский А. В. Ответ А. В. Луначарского // Печать и революция. 1921. № 2. С. 249.
Луначарский 1921а: Луначарский А. В. Свобода книги и революция // Печать и революция. 1921. № 1.
Мариенгоф 1922: Мариенгоф А. Б. “Современная Россия не направленство, а мировоззрение…” // РО ИМЛИ. Ф. 299. Оп. 1. № 4.
Мариенгоф 2013: Мариенгоф А. Б. Собрание сочинений: В 3 т. М., 2013. Т. 1.
Харджиев: Харджиев Н. Статьи об авангарде: В 2 т. М., 1997. T. 1.
Шершеневич 1990: Шершеневич В. Великолепный очевидец // Воспоминания Мариенгофа, Шершеневича и Грузинова. М., 1990.
18_Polivanov_Konstantin_10.01.15
19_Leibov_Roman_12.01.2015
20_Nemzer_Andrei_11.01.2015
21_Name_index_16.01.15
22_Summaries_eesti_10.01.15
23_About the Contributors_10.01.15
24_Acta Slavica_izdanija_10.01.15