Collection of Nicholas Khardzhiev

[Ухтомский]

Originally Posted by Tjutchev

I counted at least sixteen works executed in oils and published as a picture (if you take a picture of the work written oil) from the collection Khardzhiev. Perhaps, the article refers to the work Suprematist? Then let them really eight pieces (those where publishing at least).

Tjutchev, in which the publication was published a work of art Khardzhiev?

[Тютчев]

Originally Posted by Ukhtomsky

Tjutchev, in which the publication was published a work of art Khardzhiev?

    PALACE EDITIONS, 2002, State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. Stedelijk Museum /Foundation International Cultural Center Khardzhiev-Chaga, Amsterdam

[Ухтомский]

Originally Posted by fross

When the collection survive its creator and remain intact, become public and preserve the name of the creator. I think a good example of collection Batliner (will be part of the famous museum), even better, Thyssen-Bornemisza (own museum).

With Khardzhiev happened somehow strange. It is unlikely that he would like what happened in the end. In 90 years of breaking off and go nowhere, to sell part of what is the meaning of life and die in an empty, cold, uninhabited house ...

[Тютчев]

Another strange paragraph:

<<With all the fantastic ingenuity and virtuosity of the work of the great Russian avant-garde Filonova auction value of his works is not close to the paintings of Malevich. According to one art critic for The Washington Post, here affected by the fact that Filonov was a little more understandable to the Soviet arts bureaucracy, making it more likely to buy in domestic museums, and, consequently, fewer were exported to the West. Kazimir Malevich in the Soviet Union feared less, why he had not died in storerooms, and became available for the world. Almost half a century hung Suprematist works by Kazimir Malevich in the walls of the famous Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York and the Museum "Stedeliyk in Amsterdam before they reached the current price exorbitant figures.>>

Is not it somehow strange to read about the work Filonova that they are "fantastically inventive" and "masterly". I would certainly not able to use these epithets, referring to the work of one of the most enigmatic of representatives of Russian art. So we can speak of salon painters, but of Filonova as a language does not rotate!
      Art critic for The Washington Post, "reflects on Filonova!? This is something! American journalist, apparently, could not find any other explanation of the fact that these works Filonova virtually no market? He did not know that Paul Filonov rarely sold (for peanuts) their work, despite the need. And even if we knew it might not have believed it and could not understand how not understand his fellow countryman, Baskervil gallerist, who believed Filonova "the greatest artist in the world" and urged him to sell that be a lot of money. Filonov not agree even on foreign exhibitions, believing that his work must first see at home.
       The reason, of course, not only in these "oddities" Pavel Filonov, but also in the specifics of his creative method. The fact is that many of his works, he finished over two decades, believing that something else is not completed yet.
        Filonov not sell their works abroad, but at home his work was not appreciated. A well-known fact that his pictures almost did not include in the exhibition until 1988-year.
       Almost all of Filonov, in the end, proved in the funds G.R.M. due to the fact that they gave there EN Glebova - sister of the artist. So favor Soviet officials no more than an invention of the American journalist and the result of ignorance of Russia's hack writers.
      P.S. By the way, I can not for the sake of justice once again not to say that the American gallerists Filonova discerned during his lifetime.

[Ухтомский]

Vladimir Nadein
Desecration of monuments

Nicholas Khardzhiev - pride and glory of Russian culture. Who and why it seeks to present a greedy scoundrel

... And if anyone in koi ever touch a shovel in disgust this sintered product secondary, and then appear before the descendants of the righteous, not a hero, whom we all owe, but very, very bad man. Predator and ignorant. Psychopath with a thieving proclivities. Ham, a coward and insufferable braggart. Slacker. Moaner and rogue. Army deserter, or, at best, a clever malingerer.

And, stroking his conscience on the wool, will repeat the fastidious historians almost gnomic curse that sent the famous widow, Nadezhda Mandelstam slightly less famous victim was the poet, his once-fearless savior: "Nikolai Khardzhiev (SOB), a eunuch and loot."

This image is advantageous to almost all who were involved in the last years of his life. But to allow such a development history can not. And not just because the curse of their Nadezhda Mandelstam sent in some years, when he had to hurry with the manuscripts to please the keen interest that erupted to her husband, the publishers of the West.

The author tries to justify the statement of Nadezhda Mandelstam Khardzhiev keen interest, broke out to her husband, the publishers of the West, though for a decent man is hardly an excuse. But why it was necessary to bring this statement and a series of insults, if the author is positioning itself as the defender of light behalf Khardzhiev?

Here's another article about Khardzhiev from the magazine "Power", by which explicitly represents Khardzhiev dishonorable man, citing the same old saying Nadezhda Mandelstam.

  http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=167340
  Excerpt from the article:

  But Nicholas Khardzhiev did not need too much hype around the collection. Nadezhda Mandelstam once wrote a very tough: "Khardzhiev (SOB), a eunuch and loot. Unlike Kostaki, Nikolai Ivanovich never bought paintings and manuscripts. He took the documents to make copies - and delayed them by themselves; left pictures "for storage" and under no circumstances are not returned to the owners. Khardzhiev jealously believed that he has more right to the proximity to the primary sources than inattentive heirs and relatives of the great avant-garde.


Following remarks N. M. I came to publish the magazine "The Friendship", in which the printed portion of the book Lydia Chukovskaya (daughter of Kornei Chukovsky and Mary Borisovny Goldfeld) "House of the poet." This work - the objection to the "Second Book" N. M., published in Paris in 1972.

  http://magazines.russ.ru/druzhba/2001/9/chuk.html
Excerpt from publication:

What has been done Nadezhda in the pages of the second book from one of his closest friends - his and Anna Akhmatova, one of my friends and connoisseurs M., Nikolai Ivanovich Khardzhiev, this does not want to write, and cry out. By Khardzhiev these pages have nothing to do. There exists and operates under his name for some other person as another person exists and operates in the pages of the second book under the name Petrova, but the most self-portrait of Nadezhda without pages of Khardzhiev would be incomplete and not sufficiently bright. To complete her self-portrait pages on NI Khardzhiev, a true treasure.

Читать дальше... 

"He used my powerless position - complains about poor Nadezhda - I was something of an exile, and the exiles always rob ... Khardzhiev besides a sick man, with great physical and mental defects, but I believed that love to M. and friendship with me ... will restrain him, but this did not happen ... "(444) [402].
A Khardzhiev, assuming the request of Nadezhda, to work on manuscripts Mandelstam, believed that it will contain - well, even though their total devotion to the deceased poet. But confidence was not justified. Nadezhda Khardzhiev slandered, and it is not kept with no love for M. Nikolai Ivanovich, nor his friendship with Anna Akhmatova, nor, more importantly, her own memory of what a support for her was Khardzhiev its godforsaken days.
Shortly after the death of Nadezhda Mandelstam settled in Kalinin. Sometimes it came from there to Moscow. From Kalinin in 1940, Nadezhda wrote Nikolai Ivanovich:
"In my new and very incompetent like life, I often think of you and we miss you.
From Tashkent - from the evacuation - in April 1943:
"It is for you to miss, because I am your friend.
Is not it strange that Nadezhda continued to consider themselves different Khardzhiev during the war, it is already after it, if we accept as truth narrated it in "Second Book", "obedience to the instinct of the Stalin era, from her retreat? Where is she was lying: the letters of Stalin's time or in the present book?
From Tashkent, August 29, 1943:
"I love you as always."
Stalin died. M. posthumously rehabilitated. Tom M. 's favorite poems included in the plan to publish a large series of Library of the poet. Nadezhda took the manuscript with friends, where they were stored in the most difficult years, and transmits them Khardzhiev to work together.
"Niko, Niko, what would it be?" - Enthusiastically exclaims Nadezhda in a letter dated April 7, 1957.
And that's what happened. M. 's book, prepared for printing
NI Khardzhiev, out of print within 15 (fifteen) years to go but could not. "The second book" N. Mandelstam, where she had the foresight to defy Khardzhiev and his work - in samizdat and abroad have already left. In the book, N. M., in my opinion, severely lacking a single letter - a letter Nadezhda to Nikolai Ivanovich.
Quote other people's letters - an unpleasant task. I realize this, but felt compelled to resort to the instruments to scrape the mud of slander defenseless man. Here is a letter from Nadezhda to Khardzhiev one passage.
May 28, 1967 Nadezhda Mandelstam, recalling the long-standing terrible day when the parcel, sent her to the camp, returned with a note: "returns the death of the recipient," wrote Nikolai Ivanovich Khardzhiev:
"In all Moscow, and maybe the world was only one place where I was allowed. It was your wooden room, your den, your comfort gloomy ... I lay half-dead on your springy bed, and you stood side by side - a thick, black, good and said: - Nadia, eat a sausage ... Do you want me to forget it a sausage? This sausage, and nothing else, gave me the opportunity to live and do their job. This sausage was for me the supreme human value, the last man honored in this world. Is this what our past? Our common past? .. Man symbolic animal, and sausage for me, a symbol of that for which we lived. "
"Our common past" (love for M.. - L.Ch.); "you stood side by side - a thick, black, good ..."," ... in all Moscow was only one place where I was allowed to go "... "The last man's honor in this world."
"He used my powerless position ... and the exiles always steal "(444) [402];" crook ... Khardzhiev "(541) [490] in the papers of M." pohozyaynichali bodies, spouses Rudakov and Khardzhiev "(604) [545].
Nadezhda Letter to Nikolai Ivanovich needs no comment. It is itself in relation to the "second book" the brightest feature of the self-portrait, created by N. Mandelstam. The letter's author and the author of the book, in my opinion, has not the slightest idea what the word: honor ...

[fross]

Originally Posted by Ukhtomsky

The author tries to justify the statement of Nadezhda Mandelstam Khardzhiev keen interest, broke out to her husband, the publishers of the West, though for a decent man is hardly an excuse. But why it was necessary to bring this statement and a series of insults, if the author is positioning itself as the defender of light behalf Khardzhiev?

I think that statement is led by just for the fact that it had not been able to use it as a weapon against the memory of Khardzhiev. Like so much else that gives an idea of a living man, with a difficult character, his life has devoted one goal. In this paper different facts turn the side, which helps reflect the views of the author, but shrouded in silence, and he certainly was very emotional and sometimes not quite sure, but at least tries to keep the memory of the good of man, the result of work of which we will never see.

From what we write, the offspring will retain most options. I would I choose for him this page. - Jules Renard

[Vladimir]

Let there also lie down: https://artinvestment.ru/news/exhibi...a_archive.html