The Work of Pablo Picasso as a Subject of Russian Thought

Abstract

The work of Pablo Picasso (1881–1973) represents the main stages in the development of the twentieth century art, during which it constantly became the subject of philosophers’ and art theorists’ attention. The article analyzes one of the first cases of philosophical reflection of the Picasso’s phenomenon. These are the reviews of Russian religious thinkers (S.N. Bulgakov, N.A. Berdyaev, P.A. Florensky), dating back to 1914 and representing a reaction to the paintings of the analytical cubism period (1909–1912). The purpose of the article is, firstly, to demonstrate the content of Russian thinkers’ arguments, which are generally comparable with the aesthetic theory that developed in relation to Picasso and the avant-garde in the twentieth century. Secondly, it is argued that Russian thinkers’ view on the work of the Spanish-French artist is a natural consequence of a worldview specific to Russian cultural tradition. It is emphasized that in the first decades of the twentieth century it received its expression not only in philosophy, but also in Russian avant-garde art. Since the avant-garde was formed on the basis of symbolism and modernism, it is proposed to compare three versions of philosophical symbolism developed in the first third of the twentieth century (neo-Kantianism, psychoanalysis, Russian philosophical symbolism). Differences in the interpretation of the symbol by Western and Russian thought make it possible to ex plain the specifics of the “Russian view” on the Picasso phenomenon. It is known that Russian avant-garde artists, who were initially committed to the Picasso method, later overcame Cubism and formed their own artistic principles, which are consistent with the principles of Russian religious and philosophical thought. This circumstance is pointed out by major art history experts, such as D.V. Sarabyanov. A conclusion is drawn about a peculiar “constructivism” of the Russian view correlating with Vl. Solovyov’s idea of positive unity. This was expressed, firstly, in the adaptation of avant-garde techniques to convey spiritual objective meanings (P. Florensky and Makovets group), secondly, in the approval of new artistic synthesis, in the light of which the “analytical” avant-garde is proposed to be understood as the antithesis (S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev).