Women's history (photos, videos, documents). Vera Mukhina - biography, photo, personal life of the sculptor V and Mukhina is the author of the sculptural work
July 1 marks the 128th anniversary of the birth of Vera Mukhina, author of “Worker and Collective Farm Woman”, stone speaker Stalin era, as her contemporaries called her.
Vera Mukhina's workshop in Prechistensky Lane
Vera Mukhina was born in Riga in 1889 into a wealthy merchant family. She lost her mother early, who died of tuberculosis. The father, fearing for his daughter’s health, moved her to a favorable climate in Feodosia. There Vera graduated from high school, and later moved to Moscow, where she studied in studios famous landscape painters Konstantin Yuon And Ilya Mashkov.
Mukhina’s decision to become a sculptor was, among other things, influenced by a tragic incident: while riding a sleigh, the girl received a serious facial injury. Plastic surgeons I literally had to “sew on” 22-year-old Vera’s nose. This incident became symbolic, revealing to Mukhina the exact application of her artistic talent.
At one time, Vera Ignatievna lived in Paris and Italy, studying the art of the Renaissance. In the USSR, Mukhina became one of the most prominent architects. Universal fame came to her after her monument "Worker and Collective Farm Woman" was exhibited at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1937.
It was with the sculpture “Worker and Collective Farm Woman”, which became a symbol "Mosfilm", as well as with a seemingly simple invention - a faceted glass - the name of Vera Mukhina is associated in the minds of the majority.
But Moscow is also decorated with other sculptures famous master, many of which were installed after her death.
Monument to Tchaikovsky
Bolshaya Nikitskaya 13/6
In the mid-50s on Bolshaya Nikitskaya, in front of the building Moscow State Conservatory, erected a monument Pyotr Tchaikovsky, on which the sculptor worked for 25 years. In 1929, at the request of Nikolai Zhegin, director of the Tchaikovsky House Museum in Klin, Mukhina made a bust of the composer. 16 years later, she received a personal order to create a monument to Tchaikovsky in Moscow.
The original version of the sculpture depicted the composer conducting while standing. But such a monument required a large space, and it was abandoned. The second sketch depicted Pyotr Ilyich sitting in a chair in front of a music stand, on which lay an open music notebook. The composition was complemented by a figurine of a shepherdess, indicating the composer’s interest in folk art. Due to some ambiguity, the shepherd was replaced with the figure of a peasant, and then he was removed.
The design of the monument was not approved for a long time, and the already seriously ill Mukhina wrote Vyacheslav Molotov: “Stage my Tchaikovsky in Moscow. I guarantee you that this work of mine is worthy of Moscow...” But the monument was erected after Mukhina’s death, in 1954.
Monument to Tchaikovsky in front of the Moscow Conservatory
Monument to Maxim Gorky
Muzeon Park ( Krymsky Val, ow. 2)
The monument was designed by a sculptor Ivan Shadr in 1939. Before his death, Shadr made a promise with Mukhina to complete his project. Vera Ignatievna kept her promise, but during her lifetime the sculpture was never installed. Monument Gorky on the square Belorussky railway station appeared in 1951. In 2005, the monument was dismantled to clear space for the construction of a transport interchange on the Belorussky Station Square. Then they put him in literally this word, in the park "Museon", where he remained in this position for two years. In 2007, Gorky was restored and put back on his feet. Currently, Moscow authorities promise to return the sculpture to its original location. The monument to Maxim Gorky by Mukhina can also be seen in the park near the building Institute of World Literature named after A.M. Gorky.
The capital’s authorities promise to return the monument to Gorky to the Belorussky railway station
Sculpture "Bread"
"Friendship Park" (Flotskaya St., 1A)
One of Mukhina’s famous works in the 30s was the sculpture "Bread", made for the exhibition “Food Industry” in 1939. Initially, at the request of the architect Alexey Shchusev, the sculptor was preparing four sketches of compositions for the Moskvoretsky Bridge, but the work was interrupted. The sculpture “Bread” was the only one for which the author returned to the sketches and brought the idea to life. Mukhina depicted the figures of two girls passing a sheaf of wheat to each other. According to art critics, the composition “sounds” the music of labor, but free and harmonious labor.
Sculpture "Fertility" in the Park "Friendship"
"Worker and Collective Farm Woman"
VDNKh (Mira Ave., 123 B)
The most famous monument to Vera Mukhina was created for the Soviet pavilion at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1937. Ideological plan sculptures and the first model belonged to the architect Boris Iofan, the author of the exhibition pavilion. A competition was announced for the creation of the sculpture, in which Mukhina’s project was recognized as the best. Shortly before this, Vera's husband, a famous doctor Alexey Zamkov, thanks to the intercession of a high party official, returned from Voronezh exile. Vera Mukhina’s family was “on notice.” And who knows, the repressions would have passed if not for the victory in the competition and triumph at the exhibition in Paris.
Work on the statue took two months; it was made at the pilot plant of the Institute of Mechanical Engineering. According to the author's idea, the worker and collective farmer were supposed to be naked, but the country's leadership rejected this option. Then Mukhina dressed Soviet heroes in overalls and sundress.
During the dismantling of the monument in Paris and its transportation to Moscow, the left hand of the collective farmer and right hand worker, and when assembling the composition in 1939, the damaged elements were replaced with a deviation from the original project.
After the Paris exhibition, the sculpture was transported back to Moscow and installed in front of the entrance to the Exhibition of Achievements National economy. Long years the sculpture stood on a low pedestal, which Mukhina bitterly called a “stump.” Only in 2009, after several years of restoration, “Worker and Collective Farm Woman” was installed at a height of 33 meters.
Vera Mukhina is a famous sculptor of the Soviet era, whose work is still remembered today. She greatly influenced Russian culture. Her most famous work is the monument “Worker and Collective Farm Woman,” and she also became famous for creating a cut glass.
Personal life
Vera Ignatievna Mukhina was born in 1889 in Riga. Her family belonged to a famous merchant family. Father, Ignatius Mukhin, was a major merchant and patron of the sciences and arts. Parents' house The outstanding artist can still be seen today.
In 1891, at the age of two, the girl lost her mother - the woman died of tuberculosis. The father begins to worry about his daughter and her health, so he transports her to Feodosia, where they live together until 1904 - that year her father dies. After this, Vera sister moves to Kursk to live with his relatives.
Already in childhood, Vera Mukhina begins to enthusiastically draw and understands that art inspires her. She enters the gymnasium and graduates with honors. Afterwards Vera moves to Moscow. The girl devotes all her time to her hobby: she becomes a student of such famous sculptors as Konstantin Fedorovich Yuon, Ivan Osipovich Dudin and Ilya Ivanovich Mashkov.
Since 1912, Vera has been actively studying painting, studying in France and Italy. She is most interested in the direction of the Renaissance. The girl goes through schools such as the Colarossi studio and the Grand Chaumiere Academy.
Vera returns home two years later, and Moscow does not welcome her at all: the First World War begins World War. The girl is not afraid of hard times, quickly masters the profession of a nurse and works in a military hospital. It was at this tragic time in Vera’s life that happy event– she meets her future husband Alexei Zamkov, a military doctor. By the way, it was he who became for Bulgakov the prototype of Professor Preobrazhensky in the story “ dog's heart" Afterwards, the family will have a son, Vsevolod, who will become a famous physicist.
In the future, until her death, Vera Ignatievna was engaged in sculpture and the discovery of young talents. On October 6, 1953, Vera Mukhina died of angina, which is most often the result of hard physical work and great emotional stress. There were many firsts and seconds in the sculptor’s life. This is short biography famous Soviet woman.
Creativity and work
At the same time, Vera Ignatievna Mukhina creates sketches of the following monuments:
- Vladimir Mikhailovich Zagorsky (revolutionary).
- Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov (political and statesman).
- Monument to Liberated Labor.
- Monument "Revolution".
In 1923, Vera Mukhina and Alexandra Alexandrovna Ekster were invited to decorate the hall for the Izvestia newspaper at the Agricultural Exhibition. Women make a splash with their work: they amaze the public with their creativity and rich imagination.
Since 1926, sculptor Vera Mukhina began to contribute not only to the development of art, but also to education, working as a teacher. The woman taught at the Art College and the Higher Art and Technical Institute. Vera Mukhina gave impetus creative destiny many Russian sculptors.
In 1927 it was created worldwide famous sculpture"Peasant woman" After receiving first place at the exhibition dedicated to October, the monument’s journey around the world begins: first the sculpture goes to the Trieste Museum, and after World War II it “moves” to the Vatican.
We can probably say that this was the time when the sculptor’s creativity flourished. Many people have a direct association: “Vera Mukhina – “Worker and Collective Farm Woman” - and this is not accidental. This is the most famous monument not only to Mukhina, but also in principle in Russia. The French wrote that he is greatest work world sculpture of the 20th century.
In 1945, Vera Mukhina saved the Freedom Monument in Riga from demolition - her opinion was one of the decisive experts in the commission. In the post-war years, Vera became interested in creating portraits from clay and stone. She creates a whole gallery, which includes sculptures of military men, scientists, doctors, writers, ballerinas and composers. From 1947 until the end of her life, Vera Mukhina was a member of the presidium and academician of the USSR Academy of Arts. Author: Ekaterina Lipatova
Mukhina, Vera Ignatievna- Vera Ignatievna Mukhina. MUKHINA Vera Ignatievna (1889 1953), sculptor. Early works romantically elevated, laconic, generalized in form (“Flame of the Revolution”, 1922-23), in the 30s. symbolic (symbols of the new system in the USSR) work... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary
Soviet sculptor, folk artist USSR (1943), full member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1947). She studied in Moscow (1909≈12) with K. F. Yuon and I. I. Mashkov, and also in Paris (1912≈14) with E. A. Burdelle. Since 1909 she lived... ... Big Soviet encyclopedia
- (1889 1953), Soviet sculptor. People's Artist of the USSR (1943), full member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1947). She studied in Moscow (1909-12) with K. F. Yuon and I. I. Mashkov, and also in Paris (1912-14) with E. A. Bourdelle. She taught at the Moscow Higher Art School (1926-27) and... ... Art encyclopedia
- (1889 1953) Russian sculptor, People's Artist of the USSR (1943), full member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1947). Early works are romantically elevated, laconic, generalized in form (Flame of Revolution, 1922-23), in the 30s. symbolic (symbols of the new... Big encyclopedic Dictionary
Genus. 1889, d. 1953. Sculptor. Student of K. Yuon, E. A. Bourdelle. Works: “Flame of the Revolution” (1922 23), “Peasant Woman” (1927), group “Worker and Collective Farm Woman” (1935 37), tombstone of M. A. Peshkov (1935), group... ... Big biographical encyclopedia
- (1889 1953), sculptor, People's Artist of the USSR (1943), full member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1947). Early works are romantically elevated, laconic, generalized in form (“Flame of the Revolution”, 1922 23); in the 30s created symbolic works… … encyclopedic Dictionary
- (1889, Riga 1953, Moscow), sculptor, People's Artist of the USSR (1943), full member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1947). She studied in Moscow in the studio of K.F. Yuona (1909 11). In those same years, I met the artist L.S. Popova, who not only... Moscow (encyclopedia)
Vera Muhina Vera Mukhina. Portrait by artist Mikhail Nesterov Date of birth ... Wikipedia
Vera Ignatievna Mukhina Vera Muhina Vera Mukhina. Portrait by artist Mikhail Nesterov Date of birth ... Wikipedia
Books
- Series "Life in Art". Outstanding artists and sculptors (set of 50 books), . Life in art... A beautiful romantic image, but how much do we know about what it means to live in art? We admire paintings and books, sometimes without even realizing that their authors died...
Discussing the place of ballet in culture and the connection of ballet with time, Pavel Gershenzon, in his bitter interview on OpenSpace, stated that in “Worker and Collective Farm Woman,” an iconic Soviet sculpture, both figures actually stand in the ballet pose of the first arabesque. Indeed, in classical ballet such a turn of the body is exactly what is called; sharp thought. I don’t think, however, that Mukhina herself had this in mind; however, something else is interesting: even if in in this case Mukhina didn’t even think about ballet, but generally thought about it throughout her life - and more than once.
The retrospective exhibition of the artist’s works held at the Russian Museum gives reason to believe so. Let's walk through it.
Here, for example, is “Seated Woman,” a small plaster sculpture from 1914, one of Mukhina’s first independent works as a sculptor. A small woman with a strong, youthful body, realistically sculpted, sits on the floor, bent over and bowing her smoothly combed head low. This is hardly a dancer: the body is not trained, the legs are bent at the knees, the back is also not very flexible, but the arms! They are extended forward - so that both hands gently and plastically lie on the foot, also extended forward, and it is this gesture that determines the imagery of the sculpture. The association is immediate and unambiguous: of course, Fokine’s “The Dying Swan”, the final pose. It is significant that in 1947, while experimenting at the Art Glass Factory, Mukhina returned to this very early work of hers and repeated it in a new material - frosted glass: the figure becomes soft and airy, and what was shaded in dull and dense plaster, - association with ballet - is definitively determined.
In another case, it is known that a dancer posed for Mukhina. In 1925, Mukhina made a sculpture from it, which she named after the model: “Julia” (a year later the sculpture was transferred to wood). However, nothing here suggests that the model was a ballerina - this is how the shapes of her body are rethought, which served as Mukhina’s only starting point. “Julia” combines two trends. The first is a cubist interpretation of form, which lies in line with the artist’s quests of the 1910s and early 1920s: back in 1912, while studying in Paris with Bourdelle, Mukhina and her friends attended the La Palette Cubist Academy; These friends were avant-garde artists Lyubov Popova and Nadezhda Udaltsova, who were already on the threshold of their fame. “Julia” is the fruit of Mukhina’s cubist reflections in sculpture (there was more cubism in her drawings). Beyond the borders real forms she does not go out of the body, but interprets them like a cubist: not so much the anatomy as the geometry of the anatomy has been worked out. The shoulder blade is a triangle, the buttocks are two hemispheres, the knee is a small cube protruding at an angle, the stretched tendon behind the knee is a beam; geometry lives its own life here.
And the second trend is the one that two years later will be embodied in the famous “Peasant Woman”: heaviness, weight, power of human flesh. Mukhina pours this weight, this “cast iron” into all the members of her model, changing them beyond recognition: nothing in the sculpture reminds of the dancer’s silhouette; just architectonics human body, which interested Mukhina, was probably best seen on the muscular ballerina figure.
Mukhina also has her own theatrical works.
In 1916, Alexandra Exter, also a close friend and also an avant-garde artist, one of those three whom Benedict Lifshitz called “the Amazons of the avant-garde,” brought her to Chamber theater to Tairov. “Famira the Kifared” was staged, Ekster made the scenery and costumes, Mukhina was invited to perform the sculptural part of the set design, namely the stucco portal of the “cube-baroque style” (A. Efros). At the same time, she was commissioned to make a sketch of the missing Pierrette costume for Alisa Koonen in the pantomime “Pierrette’s Veil” restored by Tairov: set design by A. Arapov from a previous production three years ago for the most part preserved, but not all of it. A. Efros wrote then about the “adjustment of strength and courage” that the costumes of the “young Cubist” bring to the performance. Indeed, the cubistically designed teeth of the wide skirt, which looks like a giant puffed collar, look powerful and, by the way, quite sculptural. And Pierrette herself looks dancing in the sketch: Pierrette the ballerina with ballet “turnout” legs, in a dynamic and unbalanced pose and, perhaps, even standing on her toes.
After this, Mukhina became seriously ill with the theater: over the course of a year, sketches were made for several more performances, including “The Dinner of Jokes” by Sam Benelli and “The Rose and the Cross” by Blok (this is her area of interest in those years: in the field of form - cubism, in the field of worldview - neo-romanticism and the latest appeal to images of the Middle Ages). The costumes are completely in the spirit of Exter: the figures are dynamically inscribed in the sheet, geometric and planar - the sculptor is almost not felt here, but the painting is; “The Knight in the Golden Cloak” is especially good, designed in such a way that the figure literally turns into a Suprematist composition that complements it in the sheet (or is it a separately drawn Suprematist shield?). And the golden cloak itself is a rigid cubist development of forms and a subtle coloristic development of color - yellow. But these plans were not realized: the scenography of “The Dinner of Jokes” was done by N. Foregger, and Blok transferred the play “Rose and Cross” to Art Theater; however, it seems that Mukhina composed her sketches “for herself” - regardless of the actual plans of the theater, simply according to the inspiration that captured her.
There was another theatrical fantasy, drawn in detail by Mukhina in 1916-1917 (both scenery and costumes), and it was a ballet: “Nal and Damayanti” (a plot from the Mahabharata, known to Russian readers as the “Indian story” by V.A. Zhukovsky, translation - from German, of course, and not from Sanskrit). The sculptor's biographer tells how Mukhina got carried away and how she even came up with dances herself: three gods - Damayanti's grooms - were supposed to appear tied with one scarf and dance like one multi-armed creature (the Indian sculpture in Paris made a strong impression on Mukhina), and then everyone received their your own dance and your own plasticity.
Three unrealized productions in a year, work without any pragmatism - this already looks like passion!
But theater artist Mukhina did not, and a quarter of a century later she returned to the theatrical - ballet theme in a different way: in 1941 she made portraits of the great ballerinas Galina Ulanova and Marina Semenova.
Created almost simultaneously and depicting the two main dancers of Soviet ballet, who were perceived as two facets, two poles of this art, these portraits, however, are in no way paired, they are so different both in approach and in artistic method.
Bronze Ulanova - only the head, even without shoulders, and a chiseled neck; meanwhile, the feeling of flight, of lifting off the ground is still conveyed here. The ballerina's face is directed forward and upward; it is illuminated by inner emotion, but far from everyday: Ulanova is overwhelmed by a sublime, completely unearthly impulse. She seems to be answering some call; it would be the face of creative ecstasy if she were not so detached. Her eyes are slightly slanted, and although the corneas are slightly outlined, there is almost no gaze. Previously, Mukhina had such portraits without a look - quite realistic, with a concrete resemblance, but with eyes turned inward, like Modigliani; and here, at the height of socialist realism, the same Modigliani mystery of the eyes suddenly appears again, and also a barely readable half-hint of archaic faces, also familiar to us from more early works Mukhina.
However, the feeling of flight is achieved not only by facial expression, but also by purely sculptural, formal (from the word “form”, not “formality”, of course!) methods. The sculpture is fixed only on one side, on the right, and on the left, the bottom of the neck does not reach the stand; it is cut off, like a wing spread in the air. The sculpture seems to soar - without any visible effort - into the air, torn away from the base on which it should stand; this is how pointe shoes touch the stage in dance. Without depicting the body, Mukhina creates a visible image of dance. And in the portrait, which captures only the ballerina’s head, the image of the Ulan arabesque is hidden.
A completely different portrait of Marina Semenova.
On the one hand, he easily fits into a number of Soviet official portraits, not only sculptural, but also painting - the aesthetic vector seems to be the same. And yet, if you look more closely, it does not completely fit into the framework of socialist realism.
It is slightly larger than a classic waist belt - to the bottom of the pack; the non-standard “format” is dictated by the ballerina’s costume. However, despite the stage costume, there is no image of dance here; the task is different: this is a portrait of Semyonova the woman. The portrait is psychological: before us is an extraordinary woman - brilliant, bright, knowing her worth, full of inner dignity and strength; perhaps a little mockingly. Her sophistication is visible, and even more so her intelligence; the face is filled with peace and at the same time betrays the passion of nature. The same combination of peace and passion is expressed by the body: calmly folded soft hands - and full of life, a “breathing” back, unusually sensual - there are not eyes here, not an open face, but precisely this back side round sculpture, it is this erotic back that reveals the mystery of the model.
But besides the mystery of the model, there is a certain secret of the portrait itself, the work itself. It lies in the very special nature of authenticity, which turns out to be significant from another, unexpected side.
While studying the history of ballet, the author of these lines has more than once encountered the problem of using works of art as a source. The fact is that, for all their clarity, in images there is always a certain gap between how what was depicted was perceived by contemporaries and how it could actually look (or, more precisely, how it would be perceived by us). First of all, this concerns, of course, what is done by artists; but photographs are sometimes confusing, not making it clear where is reality and where is the imprint of the era.
This has a direct bearing on Semenova - her photographs, as well as other ballet photographs of that time, carry a certain inconsistency: the dancers look too heavy in them, almost fat, and Marina Semenova is perhaps the fattest of all. And everything you read about this brilliant ballerina (or hear from those who saw her on stage) comes into treacherous contradiction with her photographs, in which we see a plump, monumental matron in a ballet costume. By the way, she looks plump and plump in Fonvizin’s airy watercolor portrait.
The secret of Mukhina's portrait is that it returns reality to us. Semyonova appears before us as if alive, and the more you look, the more this feeling intensifies. Here, of course, we can talk about naturalism - however, this naturalism is of a different nature than, say, in portraits of the 18th or 19th centuries, which carefully imitate the matteness of the skin, the shine of satin, and the foam of lace. Semenova was sculpted by Mukhina with that degree of absolutely tangible, non-idealized concreteness that, say, terracotta sculptural portraits of the Renaissance possessed. And just like there, you suddenly have the opportunity to see next to you a completely real, tangible person - not only through an image, but also completely directly.
Sculpted in life-size, the portrait suddenly shows us for certain what Semyonova was like; standing next to him, walking around him, we almost touch the real Semyonova, we see her real body in its real ratio of slenderness and density, airy and carnal. The result is an effect close to what would happen if we, knowing the ballerina only from the stage, suddenly saw her live, very close: that’s what she’s like! About Mukhina’s sculpture, doubts leave us: in fact, there was no monumentality, there was stature, there was female beauty - what a thin figure, what delicate lines! And, by the way, we also see what the ballet costume was like, how it fit the chest, how it opened the back and how it was made - that too.
The heavy gypsum tutu, while partly conveying the texture of tarlatan, does not create a feeling of airiness; meanwhile, the impression exactly corresponds to what we see in ballet photographs of the era: mid-century Soviet starched tutus are not so much airy as sculptural. Designer, as we would say now, or constructive, as they would say in the 20s, the idea of whipped lace is embodied in them with all certainty; however, in the thirties and fifties they didn’t say anything like that, they just sewed it that way and starched it that way.
Semyonova’s portrait does not include her dancing; however, Semyonova herself exists; and such that it costs us nothing to imagine her dancing. That is, Mukhina’s portrait still says something about dance. And as a visual source on the history of ballet, it works quite well.
And in conclusion, one more, completely unexpected plot: a ballet motif where we least expected to find it.
In 1940, Mukhina took part in a competition to design a monument to Dzerzhinsky. Mukhina’s biographer O.I. Voronova, describing the plan, speaks of a huge sword clutched in the hand of “Iron Felix,” which rested not even on the pedestal, but on the ground and became the main element of the monument, drawing all attention to itself. But in the sculpture-sketch there is no sword, although perhaps it was meant that it would be inserted into the hand. But something else is clearly visible. Dzerzhinsky stands firmly and rigidly, as if digging into the pedestal, slightly spaced long legs in high boots. His face is also hard; the eyes are narrowed into slits, the mouth between the mustache and narrow beard seems to be slightly toothed. The lean body is flexible and slender, almost ballet-like; the body is deployed to the effacee; the right hand is slightly pulled back, and the left hand, with a tightly clenched fist, is slightly thrown forward. Perhaps she was supposed to be clutching the sword (but why the left one?) - it looks like she is leaning forcefully on something with this hand.
We know this gesture. It is in the dictionary of classical ballet pantomime. He appears in the roles of the sorceress Madge from La Sylphide, the Great Brahmin from La Bayadère and other ballet villains. This is exactly how, as if forcefully pressing something with their fist from top to bottom, they mimic the words of a secret verdict, a secret criminal plan: “I will destroy him (them).” And this gesture ends exactly like this, exactly like this: with the proud and tough pose of Mukhinsky Dzerzhinsky.
Vera Ignatievna Mukhina went and went to ballets.
The works of sculptor Vera Ignatievna Mukhina are considered the embodiment of Soviet officialdom. She died at the age of 64 in 1953 - the same year as Stalin. An era has passed, and so has its singer.
It is difficult to imagine a person of art who would grasp the general line communist party better than the famous sculptor Vera Mukhina. But not everything is so primitive: her talent just couldn’t have come at a better time. Yes, she is not one of those unfortunate creators who were ahead of their era and who were appreciated only by their descendants. The leaders of the Soviet state liked her talent. But the fate of Vera Ignatyevna is rather the story of a miraculously surviving survivor. Almost a fairy tale about a happy rescue from Stalin's clutches. The horror of that time only slightly touched the wing of her family. But in the biography of the sculptor there was whole line such points, for each of which she could pay with her head. And for less they lost their lives! But Mukhina, as they say, got carried away. Vera Ignatievna had a hard time surviving his death. But even after being widowed, she continued to glorify “the fairest society in the world” in her creations. Was this consistent with her true beliefs? She didn't talk about them. Her speeches are endless conversations about citizenship and Soviet patriotism. For the sculptor, the main thing was creativity, and in creativity - monumentalism. Soviet authority gave her complete freedom in this area.
Merchant's daughter
Vera Ignatievna's social background, by Stalin's standards, left much to be desired. Her father, an extremely wealthy merchant, traded in bread and hemp. Ignatius Mukhin, however, could hardly be compared with the world-eating merchants from Ostrovsky’s works. He was a completely enlightened man, whose tastes and preferences gravitated more towards the nobility than towards his own class. His wife died early from consumption. Youngest daughter Vera was not yet two years old at that time. The father adored his girls - her and elder Maria- and indulged all their whims. Somehow, however, he dared to say: they say, Masha is a lover of balls and entertainment, and Verochka has a strong character, and you can leave the matter to her. But what does it matter... Since childhood, my daughter has not let go of a pencil - her father began to encourage her to take up drawing...
Soon after Vera graduated from high school, the girls became orphans. There was no problem with the care of orphans: from native Riga They moved to Moscow, to live with very wealthy uncles - their father's brothers. Verino's passion for art was not to his liking. She studied in the workshop of Konstantin Yuon and dreamed of continuing her education in Paris. But the relatives did not allow it.
As they say, there was no happiness, but misfortune helped: one day Vera fell from a sled and severely injured her face, breaking her nose.
The uncles decided to send the unfortunate niece to Paris for treatment with plastic surgery in Russia things were not the same in the best possible way. And then let the unfortunate orphan do whatever he wants.
In the capital, Mukhina steadfastly underwent several plastic surgeries - her face was restored. It was there that the main turn in her life took place: she chose sculpture. Mukhina’s monumental nature was disgusted by the small touches and selection of shades of color that are required from a draftsman and painter. She was attracted by large forms, images of movement and impulses. Soon Vera became a student in the studio of Bourdelle, a student of the great sculptor Rodin. He, I must say, was not particularly delighted with her...
Two unreliable
A visit to Russia to visit her relatives ended with Vera remaining in her homeland forever: the 1914 war began. Mukhina decisively abandoned sculpture and entered nursing courses. She spent the next four years in hospitals, helping the sick and wounded. In 1914, she met Dr. Alexei Zamkov. It was a gift of fate that one could only dream of. A handsome, intelligent, talented doctor from God became the husband of Vera Ignatievna.
Both were the kind of people who would soon be described as “walking on the edge.” Zamkov took part in the Petrograd rebellion of 1917, and was also very interested in various unconventional methods treatment. Mukhina came from a merchant background; her sister married a foreigner and went to live in Europe. It was difficult to imagine a more unreliable couple, from the point of view of the Soviet regime.
However, when Vera Ignatievna was asked why she fell in love with her husband, she answered: she was impressed by his “monumentality.” This word will become the key word in her creative biography. The monumentality that she saw in many things around her would save the lives of her and her husband.
Others - not his wife - noted Zamkov's extraordinary medical talent, his amazing medical intuition, and his intelligence. Alexey Andreevich became one of the prototypes of Philip Philipovich Preobrazhensky, the hero of Bulgakov’s story “The Heart of a Dog.”
Time passed. In 1920, the only son of Mukhina and Zamkov, Vsevolod, was born...
Vera Ignatievna left nursing and returned to sculpture. She passionately responded to the call of the Soviet authorities to replace monuments to the tsars and their henchmen with monuments to the heroes of the new era.
The sculptor has won competitions more than once: her chisel, for example, belongs to the monumental figures of Sverdlov and Gorky. Mukhina’s loyalty to the ideals of communism is evidenced by the very list of her most significant works: “Hymn to the International”, “Flame of the Revolution”, “Bread”, “Fertility”, “Peasant Woman”, “Worker and Collective Farm Woman”.
Meanwhile, Stalinism was growing, and the clouds began to thicken over the family.
Envious people, masquerading as patriots of the Soviet state, accused Zamkov of “witchcraft” and charlatanism. The family tried to flee abroad, but in Kharkov they were taken off the train. They got off extremely lightly: exile to Voronezh for three years. A couple of years later, Maxim Gorky rescued them from there...
In Moscow, Zamkov was allowed to return to work, and Vera Ignatyevna literally became a locomotive for the family. The terrible year 1937 became a triumphant year for her. After him she became inviolable.
Stalin's favorite sculptor
Sculpture by Mukhina “Worker and Collective Farm Woman” for a long time stood at VDNKh. Non-capital residents know it more as the emblem of the Mosfilm film studio. Vera Mukhina sculpted it in 1937 as a gigantic monument that was to crown the Soviet pavilion at the World Exhibition in Paris.
The installation of the multi-ton statue proceeded, like many things in Stalin's time, in emergency mode. It was difficult to cook the steel “Worker and Collective Farm Woman”. But a special problem arose with the collective farmer’s fluttering scarf. Vera Ignatievna explained: the scarf is an important supporting part of the sculpture. In addition, it gives it dynamism. Opponents argued: collective farmers do not wear scarves, this is too frivolous and inappropriate detail for such a “canvas”. Mukhina did not want to deprive the Soviet peasant woman of such decoration!
The matter ended with the director of the plant where the statue was cast writing a denunciation against Mukhina. He accused her of the fact that the outline of the scarf follows Trotsky’s profile. Klyauznik hoped that the NKVD would remember her merchant origins, her sister abroad, and her dubious husband.
On one of the working nights, Stalin himself arrived at the plant. He examined the scarf and did not see in it any signs of the main enemy of the people. The sculptor was saved...
Parisian newspapers generally gave low marks soviet art presented at the exhibition. The French were impressed only by Mukhina’s work, superior to which was only the fascist eagle with a swastika that crowned the German pavilion.
The director of the Soviet pavilion was shot upon arrival at home. But Stalin did not touch Mukhina. He considered her art extremely realistic, thoroughly Soviet, and also important for Soviet people. If the poorly educated leader knew how much the Cubists and French sculptor Aristide Maillol...
Today they would say that Stalin was a “fan” of Mukhina: from 1941 to 1952 she received five (!) Stalin Prizes. The head of state, however, was not a fan of her husband. Zamkov was persecuted all the time, his merits were not recognized. He would have been arrested long ago if it weren't for successful wife. In 1942, Alexey Andreevich, unable to bear such a life, died.
Vera Ignatievna had a hard time surviving his death. But even after being widowed, she continued to glorify “the most just society in the world” in her creations. Was this consistent with her true beliefs? She didn't talk about them. Her speeches are endless conversations about citizenship and Soviet patriotism. For the sculptor, the main thing was creativity, and in creativity - monumentalism. The Soviet government gave her complete freedom in this area.
