Collection Grigoryants in Tsaritsyno

[Сергей Григорьянц]

Unfortunately, today only seen comments to the show on your site and I'm very sorry that I could not even comment on some of the reviews before. Almost all of them are explained by two main reasons. The first of these - the elementary illiteracy authors, the second - a complete ignorance of the vaults of museums and numerous private collections in Russia over the past 50 years. There are, however, a third, random - a direct lie. This, for example, refers to the person who wrote that was in my house and none of these things not seen. A collection of our family, a big, maybe he was in the other room and did not see everything, but it did not seem likely. For the first two explanations sharply critical, but rather the abusive reviews, most of them are not specific, but some things are mentioned and I can not quite say about them.

"The Annunciation" by Fra Angelico world-known thing, which was on exhibition Beato Angelico in the New York Metropolitan Museum seven years ago, reproduced in the exhibition catalog, famous throughout Europe, but many in Russia. Italian art at a conference in Florence suggested that the monks with candles Fra Angelico at the National Gallery in London (the same size) are fragments of the same side, cut, apparently, back in the beginning of XVI century altarpiece. Two close to my angel in the worst condition, on permanent display in the Louvre. And the Hermitage Museum and the Museum of Fine Arts asked me to give the "Annunciation" for a short-lived show. Metropolitan Museum proposed to strengthen the tree is quite shabby on this "Annunciation", if I agree to give a picture of them on the show for a year. But disagreed Ministry of Culture of Russia, which demanded the return things back to the same period ended Lloyd's insurance.

"Khlyst banners" Borovykovs'kogo long been known in the art world, a major monograph on BOROVIKOVSKY the only specialist in this area Alexeeva included in the catalog of the artist and the work of indisputable indicated that they belong to our family. This signature is quite recent work of the artist is really different, but not for the worse, from his Orthodox icons. In his correspondence, he complains that Tatarinov - khlysty community leader in the Mikhailovsky Palace, forcing it to all members of the community to write, it seems like the image. However, apart from my other are not known, the only pretty close analogue, as mentioned Alexeyev, is in the museum at the Trinity Theological Seminary Sergius Lavra - the phenomenon of Christ Borovikovsky, apparently, in rooms Tatarinov.

Aroused widespread indignation portrait Kachalova work of Malevich in fact well known to all professionals as the Library of them. Lenin has a copy of the booklet issued by the Art Theatre then, with a very close version of my portrait, but my signature is somewhat larger and located differently. All reproductions of this booklet reproduced in the catalog and cuts Kazimir Malevich. And because it's registered, it is a documented work for the theater, it is not one but ignoramuses, there is no doubt.

Black and white in the gray, not brown tones, as before, Roerich's work is indeed very rare, apparently, it's a short period in his work - 1905-1906 year. However, in a museum in Nizhny Novgorod is, donated to the museum by the artist himself, meter painting is of such a nature and is dated 1905. My great-grandfather Alexander Akimovich Sanin was a friend of Roerich in Theater Museum. Bakhrushina kept their correspondence over forty years, becoming the first performances of Diaghilev in Paris in 1908-1909, with the decorations Roerich. It was just "Prince Igor" and "Havanschina" - before Diaghilev's ballets moved.

Causing such a surprise greyhound Sverchkova actually, according to the English department staff of the Hermitage, is a copy of the famous painting by Stubbs, long considered the original Stubbs before the revolution was in the collection of the Marble Palace in St. Petersburg, then in the collection of Abram Markovich Schuster (the father of Solomon Abramovich) and from the 68-year fell to me. Unfortunately, the staff of the Hermitage doubt that this is the original Stubbs. In the lower right corner of the painting was signed Sverchkova that was applied over the paint and was considered late, made an intermediate between the owner of the Marble Palace, where she was in the catalog and Abram Schuster for the convenience of the sale because the crickets in the 30s was in Russia significantly more famous George Stubbs. Crickets really began with copies of the English animal painters and the current assumption of the Hermitage staff looks to me sad, but pretty convincing.

I can keep comments but, frankly, I do not see a big need. At the exhibition, and in my collection were things at the level of the best museums in Russia and the world, and much weaker, since there is only a very small number of artists completely smooth and great in each of his works. Usually each of the artists is the worst thing and the best, early and late, sometimes random. The general public, tend to show the best that there is in the museums and the most characteristic of each artist. But other than that in all the vaults of museums and private collections in all things there is always a less typical of the artist, now seemingly less important, but, in reality, they only give an idea of ​​the fullness of life and every culture.

Finally, I want to say some purely factual circumstances of the device show that seems to be particularly interesting savages, writing on the website and have little understanding of the painting. The exhibition took place at the initiative of the Tsaritsyno Museum and the Dutch Department of Culture, as there was only one room for the Dutch, the Netherlands and in Russia it is not only the largest Dutch experts have discovered, but was released on the Dutch separate catalog devoted only to this audience - it was not on sale. A large catalog of freely sold until it was, but it was not large circulation. All things were, of course, covered the museum, otherwise I would not have given up on the show. No financial considerations with the exhibition I was not connected and none of the things that did not sell. In January 2013 the staff of the Moscow Department of Culture I was asked to create a "public-private" museum collection Grigoryants from which I refused.