Mikhail vrubel is a renowned егэ

Спрятать пояснение

Источник: ЕГЭ по английскому языку 2022. Досрочная волна

Mikhail Vrubel
At work, 1900s
Born	Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vrubel March 17, 1856 Omsk, Russian Empire
Died	April 14, 1910 (age 54) Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire
Nationality	Russian
Education	Member Academy of Arts (1905)
Alma mater	Imperial Academy of Arts
Known for	Painting, drawing, decorative sculpture
Notable work	The Demon Seated (1890) The Swan Princess (1900)
Movement	Symbolism
Patron(s)	Savva Mamontov

Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vrubel (Russian: Михаил Александрович Врубель; March 17, 1856 – April 14, 1910, all n.s.) was a Russian painter, draughtsman, and sculptor. A prolific and innovative master in various media such as painting, drawing, decorative sculpture, and theatrical art, Vrubel is generally characterized as one of the most important artists in Russian Symbolist tradition and a pioneering figure of Modernist art.

In a 1990 biography of Vrubel, the Soviet art historian Nina Dmitrieva [ru] considered his life and art as a three-act drama with prologue and epilogue, while the transition between acts was rapid and unexpected. The «Prologue» refers to his earlier years of studying and choosing a career path. The «first act» peaked in the 1880s when Vrubel was studying at the Imperial Academy of Arts and then moved to Kiev to study Byzantine and Christian art. The «second act» corresponded to the so-called «Moscow period» that started with The Demon Seated of 1890, followed by Vrubel’s 1896 marriage to the opera singer Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel, his longtime sitter, and ended in 1902 with The Demon Downcast and the subsequent hospitalization of the artist. The «third act» lasted from 1903 to 1906 when Vrubel was suffering from his mental illness that gradually undermined his physical and intellectual capabilities. For the last four years of his life, already being blind, Vrubel lived only physically.^[1]

In 1880–1890, Vrubel’s creative aspirations did not find support of the Imperial Academy of Arts and art critics. However, many private collectors and patrons were fascinated with his paintings, including famous maecenas (art patron) Savva Mamontov, as well as painters and critics who coalesced around the journal Mir iskusstva. Eventually, Vrubel’s works were exhibited at Mir Iskusstva’s own art exhibitions and Sergei Diaghilev retrospectives. At the beginning of the 20th century, Vrubel’s art became an organic part of the Russian Art Nouveau. On November 28, 1905, he was awarded the title of Academician of Painting for his «fame in the artistic field» – just when Vrubel almost finished his career as an artist.

Becoming a painter[edit]

Origin. Childhood and adolescence[edit]

The Vrubel family did not belong to the nobility. Great-grandfather of the artist – Anton Antonovich Vrubel (from Polish: wróbel, meaning sparrow) – was originally from Białystok and served as a judge in his local town. His son Mikhail Antonovich Vrubel [ru] (1799–1859) pursued a military career. He retired at the rank of Major General, was twice married and had three sons and four daughters.^[2] For the last ten years of his life, Mikhail Antonovich served as an ataman of the Astrakhan Cossacks. At that time, the Astrakhan governor was a famous cartographer and admiral Grigori Basargin [ru]. The governor’s daughter Anna later married the second son of Mikhail Antonovich from the first marriage, Alexander, who previously graduated from the Cadet Corps, served in the Tengin Infantry Regiment, participated in the Caucasian and Crimean Wars. In 1855, their first child Anna Aleksandrovna (1855–1928) was born. Altogether they had four children.^[3]

Mikhail Vrubel was born on March 17, 1856. At that time, the Vrubel family lived in Omsk where Alexander was serving as a desk officer of the 2nd Steppe Siberian Corps. Two other children, Alexander and Ekaterina, were also born in Omsk, however, they died before adolescence. Frequent childbirth and adverse Siberian climate significantly weakened Mikhail’s mother’s health and in 1859 she died from consumption. The future painter was only three years old when his mother died. One of the memories that Mikhail had from that period is how his sick mother lay in bed and cut out for her children «little people, horses and different fantastic figures» from paper.^[4] Being a weak child from birth, Mikhail started to walk only at the age of three.^[5]

Due to constant relocations of their father, Anna and Mikhail spent their childhood moving to the places where Alexander was assigned to serve. In 1859, he was appointed to serve in Astrakhan where he had relatives able to help him with children, but already in 1861 the family had to relocate to Kharkiv. There, little Mikhail quickly learned how to read and developed his interest in book illustrations, especially those from the journal «Zhivopisnoye Obozrenye».^[6]

In 1863, Alexander Vrubel got married for the second time to Elizaveta Vessel from Saint Petersburg, who dedicated herself to her husband’s children (her own child was born only in 1867). In 1867, the family moved to Saratov where podpolkovnik Vrubel took command of the provincial garrison. The Vessel family belonged to intelligentsia – a status class of educated people engaged in shaping the culture and politics of their society. Elizaveta’s sister Alexandra Vessel graduated from the Saint Petersburg Conservatory and largely contributed to the introducing Mikhail to the world of music. Elizaveta herself spent a lot of time on improving Mikhail’s health; later he even ironically recalled that she made him follow the «diet of raw meat and fish oil». However, there is no doubt that he owed his physical strength to the regime maintained by his stepmother.^[7] In addition, Elizaveta’s brother, professional teacher Nicolai Vessel [ru], also participated in children’s education by introducing educational games and home entertainment. Despite the generally good relationships among all the relatives, Anna and Mikhail kept a little aloof from them. Sometimes they behaved coldly to their stepmother calling her with an ironic nickname «Madrin’ka — perl materei». They also explicitly expressed their desire to start an independent life outside home thus making their father upset.^[8] By the age of 10, Mikhail expressed artistic talents through drawing, theater and music practicing; that altogether occupied in his future life no less place than painting. According to Dmitrieva, «the boy was like a boy, gifted, but rather promising a versatile amateur than an obsessed artist, whom he later became».^[9]

In addition, Alexander Vrubel hired for Mikhail a private teacher Andrei Godin from the Saratov gymnasium who taught advanced painting techniques. At that time, a copy of «The last Judgement» by Michelangelo was exhibited in Saratov. The painting impressed Mikhail so much, that, according to his sister, he reproduced it from his memory in all details.^[10]

Gymnasium[edit]

Mikhail Vrubel started his education at the Fifth St. Petersburg Gymnasium [ru] where the school directorate paid particular attention to the modernization of teaching methods, the advancement of classical studies, the literary development of high school students, dance and gymnastics lessons. His father Alexander was also in Saint Petersburg, voluntarily attending lectures at the Alexander Military Law Academy as an auditor. In addition to his studies at the gymnasium, Mikhail attended painting classes at the school of the Imperial Society for the Encouragement of the Arts. However, he was most interested in natural sciences thanks to his teacher Nicolai Peskov who was a political exile. In 1870, after living three years in Saint Petersburg, the Vrubel family moved to Odessa where Alexander was appointed as a judge in the garrison court.^[11]

In Odessa, Mikhail studied at the Richelieu Lyceum. Several letters from him to his sister Anna who was receiving teacher education in Saint Petersburg have been preserved. The first letter dated October 1872; both letters are large and easy to read, with many quotes in French and Latin. In these letters, Mikhail mentioned the paintings that he made – the portrait of his smaller brother Alexander who died in 1869 (reproduced from the photograph), and the portrait of Anna hanging in the father’s office. However, comparing to other interests that Mikhail had, painting classes did not occupy much of his time.^[12][13] Vrubel was a quick learner and was the first in his class. He had a special interest in literature, languages, history, and, on vacations, he loved to read to his sister in original Latin. The future painter devoted even his free time to favourite activities. For instance, in one of his letters, he complained to Anna that instead of reading Goethe’s Faust in original and completing 50 exercises in English textbook, he copied in oil «Sunset at Sea» by Ivan Aivazovsky.^[9] At the same time, one might say that at that time Mikhail was more interested in theatrical art rather than painting, since he barely mentioned the «Peredvizhniki» exhibition in Odessa but spent several pages describing the Saint Petersburg opera troupe.^[14]

University[edit]

After graduating with a distinction, neither Vrubel nor his parents thought of his career as an artist. It was decided to send Mikhail to Saint Petersburg where he could study at the Saint Petersburg State University and live with his uncle Nicolai Vessel, who would also cover Vrubel’s everyday expenses.^[14] Mikhail’s decision to study at the Faculty of Law was differently interpreted by Vrubel’s biographers. For example, Alexandre Benois, who studied at the same faculty, suggested that the rationale behind this decision was the family tradition and values that legal profession had among their social circles. In 1876, Vrubel had to repeat the second year due to poor grades and a desire to strengthen his knowledge on the subjects. However, even though Mikhail studied for a year more than was expected, he could not defend his thesis and graduated in the rank of «deistvitel’nyi student [ru]» which was the lowest scientific degree that one can graduate with.^[15] Despite deep engagement with philosophy and, particularly, the theory of aesthetics by Immanuel Kant, Mikhail’s s bohemian lifestyle that his uncle allowed him to maintain was partly to blame for not finishing the university. At that time, Vrubel did not spend much time on practicing painting,^[16] though he made several illustrations for literary works both classic and contemporary. According to Dmitrieva, «in general… Vrubel’s art is thoroughly «literary»: a rare work of his does not originate in a literary or theatrical source».^[17] One of the most famous compositions from that period is «The date of Anna Karenina with the son». According to Domitieva, this was his «pre-Vrubel» stage since the painting mostly reminds of journal illustrations of that time: «utterly romantic, even melodramatic, and very carefully decorated».^[18] Active participation in theatrical life (Vrubel personally knew Modest Mussorgsky who frequently visited the Vessel’s house) required considerable expenses which is why Vrubel regularly worked as a tutor and a governess. In 1875, he even travelled to Europe with one of his pupils; together, they visited France, Switzerland and Germany. In addition, Mikhail spent the summer of 1875 at the estate that belonged to a Russian lawyer Dmitrii Berr [ru] (His wife Yulia Berr was a niece of Mikhail Glinka). Then, due to the excellent knowledge of Latin, Vrubel was hired as a tutor at the Papmel family where he guided his former university classmate.^[19] According to the memoirs of A. I. Ivanov:

Vrubel lived with the Papmel family as a relative: in the winter he went to the opera with them, in the summer he moved with everyone to their cottage in Peterhof. Papmels put on quite a spread and everything about them was opposite to the way the Vrubel family lived; their house was a full bowl, even in an excessively literal sense, and during his time with Papmels, Vrubel firstly discovered his passion for wine which was never been lacking.^[20]

It was the Papmel family prone to aestheticism and bohemian lifestyle that encouraged Vrubel’s dandyism and a desire to paint. In one of his letters from 1879, Vrubel mentioned that he renewed his acquaintance with a Russian watercolourist Emilie Villiers, who in every possible way patronized Mikhail’ pictorial experiences in Odessa. Later, Vrubel began to communicate closely with students of the Imperial Academy of Arts who worked under the patronage of a famous Russian painter Pavel Chistyakov. Vrubel started attending evening academic classes where auditioning was allowed, and started to hone plastic skills.^[21] As a result, at the age of 24, Vrubel had a crucial turning point in his life – after graduating from the university and serving a short military service, Vrubel was admitted to the Imperial Academy of Arts.^[9]

The 1880s[edit]

The Academy of Arts[edit]

According to Domiteeva, Vrubel’s decision to study at the Academy of Arts came from his engagement with Kant’s theory of aesthetic ideas. His younger colleague and an admirer Stepan Yaremich [ru] suggested that Vrubel adopted Kant’s philosophy that «clarity of the division between physical and moral life» led over time to a separation of these areas in the real life. Mikhail Vrubel demonstrated «softness, pliability, shyness in little things in everyday life; while iron perseverance accompanied his general higher direction of life». However, this was only one side of the story – undoubtedly, at the age of 24, Vrubel considered himself as a genius. According to Kant’s theory of aesthetics, the «genius» category implied working in a sphere «between freedom and nature» that could only be achieved in the field of arts. For a young and gifted Vrubel that inspired his long-term life plan.^[22]

Starting from the autumn of 1880, Vrubel audited classes in the Academy and, presumably, started having private lessons at the Chistyakov’s studio. However, these lessons were documented only starting from 1882; the painter himself claimed that he studied with Chistyakov for four years. In his autobiography dated 1901, the painter characterized years spent in the Academy as «the brightest in his artistic career» thanks to Chistyakov. This does not contradict what he wrote to his sister in 1883 (when they renewed mutual correspondence that was broken off for six years):

When I started my lessons with Chistyakov, I passionately followed his main statements because they were nothing less than a formula of my living attitude towards nature, that is embedded in me.^[23]

Among Chistyakov’s students there were Ilya Repin, Vasily Surikov, Vasily Polenov, Viktor Vasnetsov, and Valentin Serov all of whom painted in different styles. All of them, including Vrubel, recognized Chistyakov as their only teacher, honouring him to the last days. Due to scepticism prevailing among the second generation of scholars, this type of relationship between the mentor and his students was not quite appreciated. Chistyakov’s method was purely academic, but very «individualistic» since Pavel inspired «sacred concepts» in working on a plastic form, but also taught conscious drawing as well as structural analysis of the form. According to Chistyakov, to construct the painting one needs to break it down to several small planes transmitted by flatnesses, and these planes would form the faces of the volume with its hollows and bulges. Vrubel’s «crystal-like» technique was thus fully mastered by his teacher.^[24]

One of the most crucial acquaintances that Vrubel met during his time in the Academy was Valentin Serov. Despite a 10-year age difference, they were connected on different levels, including the deepest one.^[25] Throughout the years spent at the Chistyakov’s studio, Vrubel’s motives drastically changed: his dandyism was replaced with asceticism, about which he proudly wrote to his sister.^[26] Starting from 1881, after transferring to a life model class, Mikhail visited both Chistyakov’s classes and morning watercolour lessons at the Repin’s studio. However, their relationship with Repin got complicated quickly due to the argument on the painting «Religious Procession in Kursk Governorate». In one of the letters to his sister, Vrubel mentioned that by «taking advantage of the [public] ignorance, Repin stole that special pleasure that distinguishes the state of mind before a work of art from the state of mind before the expanded printed sheet». This quote clearly illustrates Chistyakov’s influence on Vrubel’s philosophy since Pavel was the one who suggested that obedience of techniques to art is the fundamental spiritual property of the Russian creativity.^[27]

One of the brightest examples of Vrubel’s academic work is his sketch «Feasting Romans». Even though it formally compiled with rules of academic art, the painting violates all the main canons of academism – the composition does not have the main focus, the plot is unclear.^[28]

Judging by the correspondence between Vrubel and his sister, the painter spent almost two years on the painting. The plot was simple: a cupbearer and a young citharode wink to each other sitting nearby the sleeping patrician. The view was quite whimsical – from somewhere on the balcony or a high window. It implied a dim lighting «after sunset, without any reflections of light» for strengthening the silhouette effects. Vrubel’s intention was to make «some similarities with Lawrence Alma-Tadema». The final watercolour sketch grew with sub-stickers and caused Repin’s enthusiasm. However, Vrubel felt intuitively the limit of unsteady forms and eventually abandoned the unfinished paintings refusing to paint a historical picture.^[29]

However, Vrubel did not abandon his idea to get paid for his creative work. Thanks to the Papmel family, he received a commission from the industrialist Leopold Koenig [ru]. According to the mutual agreement, the subject and technique of the painting would be left at the discretion of the artist and the fee would be 200 rubles. Mikhail also decided to participate in the contest initiated by the Imperial Society for the Encouragement of the Arts and chose the plot of «Hamlet and Ophelia» in the style of Rafael’s realism. The self-portrait sketches of Hamlet and watercolors for the general composition which depict the Danish prince as represented by Vrubel have been preserved. However, the work on the painting was complicated with the worsening relationship between the painter and his father.^[30] Having failed with the «Hamlet» as well, Vrubel was persuaded by his friends to depict a real life model. For this role, they chose an experienced model Agafya who was put in the same chair that served as decorations for the «Hamlet», while student Vladimir Derviz [ru] brought some Florentine velvet, Venetian brocade and other things from the Renaissance period from his parents’ house. Vrubel successfully finished the painting «Sitter in the Renaissance Setting» with characteristic for Vrubel «painting embossing» . Under the impression from the «Sitter», Vrubel returned to «Hamlet». This time he painted with oil on a canvas with Serov as a model.^[31]

Despite the formal success, Vrubel was not able to graduate from the Academy. However, in 1883, his painting «Betrothal of Mary and Joseph» received the silver medal from the Academy. Following the recommendation of Chistyakov, in the autumn of 1883, professor Adrian Prakhov invited Vrubel to Kiev to work on a restoration of the 12th century St. Cyril’s Monastery. The offer was flattering and promised good earnings therefore the artist agreed to go after the end of the academic year.^[32]

Kiev[edit]

The years that Vrubel spent in Kiev turned out to be almost the most important in his career. For the first time in Vrubel’s life, the painter was able to pursue his monumental intentions and return to the fundamentals of the Russian art. In five years, Mikhail completed an enormous number of paintings. For instance, he single-handedly painted murals and icons for the St. Cyril’s church, as well as made 150 drawings for the restoration of the figure of an angel in the dome of the St. Sophia Cathedral. As Dmitrieva noted:

Such a «co-authorship» with the masters of the 12th century was unknown to any of the great artists of the 19th century. The 1880s have just only passed, the first search for national antiquity just started, which no one else besides specialists was interested in, and even those specialists were interested more from the historical point rather than artistic <…> Vrubel in Kiev was the first who bridged archaeological pioneering and restorations to a live contemporary art. At the same time, he did not think of stylization. He felt like an accomplice in the hard work of the ancient masters and tried to be worthy of them.^[33]

Prakhov’s invitation was almost coincidental, as he was looking for a qualified painter with some academic training to paint murals in the church, but at the same time not to be recognised enough so he would not require a higher salary.^[34] Judging from the correspondence with the family, Vrubel’s contract with Prakhov was for the completion of four icons in the duration of 76 days. The salary indicated was 300 rubles paid in every 24 working days.^[35]

Vrubel staged his arrival in Kiev in his signature style. Lev Kovalsky, who in 1884 was a student at the Kiev Art School appointed to pick Mikhail up in the station, later recalled:

… Against a background of primitive Kirillovsky hills, a blond, almost white, young man with a particular head and small, almost white, moustaches, stood behind my back. He was of a moderate height, very proportionate, wearing… it stroke me the most…black velvet costume with stockings, short trousers and anklets. <…> In general, he was impersonating a young Venetian from the paintings of Tintoretto or Titian; however, I found out about it only many years later when I visited Venice.^[36]

The fresco «Descent of Holy Spirit on the Apostles» that Vrubel painted on the choir of the St. Cyril’s church bridged both features of Byzantine art and his own portrait pursuits. The fresco reflected most of the Vrubel’s characteristic features and depicted twelve Apostles that are situated in a semicircle at the box vault of the choirs. The standing figure of Mary is located in the center of the composition. The background is coloured in blue while the golden rays are coming up to the apostles from the circle featuring the Holy Spirit.^[33] The model for Mary’s figure was a paramedic M. Ershova – a frequent guest in the Prakhov’s house and the future wife of one of the painters participating in the restoration process. To Mary’s left stands the apostle that was painted from protoiereus Petr (Lebedintsev) who at that time taught at the Richelieu lyceum. To Mary’s right stands the second apostle for whom the Kiev archaeologist Viktor Goshkevich [ru] was modelling. The third from the right was the head of the Kirillovsky parish Peter Orlovsky who originally discovered the remains of old paintings and interested the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society in their reconstruction. The fourth apostle, with his hands folded in prayer, was Prakhov. Besides the «Descent», Vrubel painted «The entry into Jerusalem» and «The Angels’Lamentation».^[37] The «Descent» was painted directly on the wall, without any cardboard and even any preliminary sketches – only certain details were previously specified on small sheets of paper. Remarkably, the painting depicts Apostles in a semicircle with their limbs connecting to the Holy Spirit emblem. This painting style was of Byzantine origin and was inspired by a hammered winged altarpiece from one of the Tiflis monasteries.^[38]

The first trip to Italy[edit]

Vrubel travelled to Venice together with Samuel Gaiduk who was a young artist painting in accordance with Mikhail’s sketches. Their trip had been not without some «adventures», however. According to Prakhov, Vrubel met his friend from St. Petersburg with whom they went out partying during the transfer in Vienna. Gaiduk, who successfully reached Venice, waited two days for Vrubel to arrive. Life in Venice in winter was cheap, and painters shared a studio in the city centre on Via San Maurizio. They both were interested in churches on the abandoned island Torcello.^[39]

Dmitrieva described Vrubel’s artistic evolution as following: «Neither Titian and Paolo Veronese, nor magnificent hedonistic atmosphere of the Venetian Cinquecento attracted him. The range of his Venetian addictions is clearly defined: from medieval mosaics and stained glass of the St Mark’s Basilica and Torcello Cathedral to painters of the early Renaissance Vittore Carpaccio, Cima da Conegliano (the figures of which Vrubel found especially noble), Giovanni Bellini. <…> If the first meeting with Byzantine-Russian art in Kiev enriched Vrubel’s envisioning of plastic forms, then Venice enriched his palette and awakened his gift as a colourist.^[40]»

These features can be clearly observed in all the three icons that Vrubel painted in Venice for the St. Cyril’s Church – «Saint Kirill», «Saint Afanasii», and gloomy-coloured «Christ the Savior». Being accustomed to intensive work at the Chistyakov’s studio, Vrubel painted all four icons in a month and a half and felt a crave for activities and the lack of communication. In Venice, he accidentally met Dmitri Mendeleev who was married to one of the Chistyakov’ students. Together they discussed how to preserve paintings in the condition of high humidity as well as argued on the advantages of writing in oil on zinc boards before painting on a canvas. The zinc boards for Vrubel’ icons were delivered directly from Kiev; however, for a long time painter could not establish his own techniques and the paint could not stick to the metal. In April, Vrubel only wanted to come back to Russia.^[41]

Kiev and Odessa[edit]

After returning from Venice in 1885, Vrubel spent May and part of June in Kiev. There were rumours that immediately after he came back, he proposed to Emily Prakhova despite her being a married woman. According to one version of the story, Vrubel proclaimed his decision not to Emily but to her husband Adrian Prakhov. Even though Mikhail Vrubel was not denied access to the house, Prakhov was definitely «afraid of him» while Emily resented his immaturity.^[42] Apparently, the incident described a year later by Vrubel’s friend Konstantin Korovin belongs to this period:

It was a hot summer. We went swimming at the big lake in the garden. <…> «What are these big white strips at your chest that look like scars?» –» Yes, these are scars. I cut myself with a knife.» <…> «… But still tell me, Mikhail Alexandrovich, why did you cut yourself – it must be painful. What is this – like a surgery?» I looked closer – yes, these were large white scars, lots of them. «Will you understand – said Mikhail Alexandrovich – It means that I loved a woman, she did not love me – maybe loved me, but much interfered with her understanding of me. I suffered from the inability to explain this to her. I suffered, but when I cut myself, the suffering decreased.^[43]

At the end of June 1885, Vrubel traveled to Odessa where he renewed his acquaintance with the Russian sculptor Boris Edwards [ru] with whom he previously attended classes at the Art school. Edwards, together with Kyriak Kostandi, tried to reform the Odessa Art School and decided to elicit Vrubel’s help. He settled Vrubel in his own house and tried to persuade him to stay in Odessa forever.^[44] In summer, Serov arrived in Odessa and Vrubel for the first time told him about his plan to paint the «Demon». In letters to his family, Vrubel also mentioned a tetralogy that probably became one of his side interests. In 1886 Vrobel went to Kiev to celebrate the new year using the money that his father sent him for a trip home (at that time the family resided in Kharkiv).^[45]

In Kiev, Vrubel met frequently with associates of writer Ieronim Yasinsky. He also met Korovin for the first time. Despite the intensive work, the painter led a «bohemian» lifestyle and became a regular in the café-chantant «Shato-de-fler». This depleted his meager salary and the main source of income became the sugar manufacturer Ivan Tereshchenko who immediately gave the painter 300 rubles toward the expenses of his planned «Oriental Tale». Vrubel used to throw his money in the café-сhantant.^[46]

At the same time, Adrian Prakhov organized painting of the St Volodymyr’s Cathedral and, without regard to his personal attitudes, invited Vrubel. Despite Vrubel’s carelessness towards his works inspired by his «bohemian» lifestyle, he created no less than six versions of the «Tombstone Crying» (only four of them have been preserved). The story is not included in the Gospel and not usual for the Russian Orthodox art, but can be seen in some icons from the Italian Renaissance. Though he clearly understood their significance and originality, Prakhov rejected Vrubel’s independent paintings since they differed significantly from the works of other participating colleagues and would have unbalanced the relative integrity of the already-assembled murals.^[47] Prakhov once noted that the a new cathedral «in a very special style» would need to be built to accommodate Vrubel’ paintings.^[48]

In addition to commissioned works, Vrubel attempted to paint «Praying for the cup» just «for himself». However, he experienced a severe mental crisis while trying to finish it. He wrote to his sister:

I draw and paint Christ with all my might, but, at the same time, presumably, because I am far away from my family, all religious rituals, including Resurrection of Jesus look so alien, that I am even annoyed with it.^[49]

While painting murals in the Kiev churches, Vrubel simultaneously was drawn to the image of the Demon. According to P. Klimov, it was quite logical and even natural for Vrubel to transfer techniques acquired during the painting of sacred images to completely opposite images, and it illustrates the direction of his pursuits.^[50] His father Alexander visited him in Kiev when Mikhail had some intense mental struggles. Alexander Vrubel was terrified with Mikhail’s lifestyle: «no warm blanket, no warm coat, no cloth except the one that is on him… Painfully, bitterly to tears”.^[51] The father also saw the first version of the «Demon» that disgusted him. He even noted that this painting would be unlikely to connect with either the public or with representatives of the Academy of art. As a result, Mikhail destroyed the painting, and many other works that he created in Kiev.^[52] To earn a living, the painter started to paint the already promised «Oriental Tail», but could only finish a watercolour. He tried to give it to Emily Prakhova as a gift; and tore it up after she rejected it. But then he reconsidered and glued together the pieces of the destroyed work. The only finished painting from this period was the «Portrait of a Girl against a Persian Carpet» depicting Mani Dakhnovich, the daughter of the loan office owner. Dmitrieva defined the genre of this painting as a «portrait-fantasy». The customer, though, did not like the final version, and the work was later bought by Tereshchenko.^[53]

The painter’s mental crisis is clear in the following incident. On a visit to Prakhov, where a group of artists were participating in the painting of the cathedral, Vrubel proclaimed that his father died and so he needed urgently to travel to Kharkiv. The painters raised money for his trip. The next day, Alexander Vrubel came to Prakhov looking for his son. Confused Prakhov had to explain to him that Vrubel’s disappearance was due to his infatuation with an English singer from the café-chantant.^[54] Nevertheless, friends tried to ensure that Vrubel had regular income. He was assigned a minor work in the Vladimyr’s Cathedral – to draw ornaments and the «Seven days for an eternity» in one of the plafonds according to the sketches made by brothers Pavel and Alexander Swedomsky [ru]. In addition, Vrubel started to teach at the Kiev Art School. All his income streams were unofficial, without any signed contracts.^[55] Summarizing Mikhail’s life in the «Kiev period», Dmitrieva wrote:

He lived on the outskirts of Kiev, getting inspirations only from the ancient masters. He was about to enter the thick of the artistic life – modern life. This happened when he moved to Moscow.^[56]

The Moscow period (1890–1902)[edit]

Moving to Moscow[edit]

In 1889, Mikhail Vrubel had to urgently travel to Kazan where his father got seriously ill; later he recovered, but due to illness, still had to resign and then settle down in Kiev. In September, Mikhail went to Moscow to visit some acquaintances and, as a result, decided to stay there for the next 15 years.^[57]

Vrubel’s moving to Moscow was accidental, like many other things that happened in his life. Most likely, he travelled there because he fell in love with a circus horsewoman which he met thanks to Yasinsky’s brother who performed under the pseudonym «Alexander Zemgano». As a result, Vrubel settled at the Korovin’s studio on the Dolgorukovskaya street [ru].^[58] Vrubel, Korovin and Serov even had an idea to share a studio but, however, it did not translate into reality due to deteriorating relations with Serov. Later, Korovin introduced Vrubel to the famous patron of the arts Savva Mamontov.^[59] In December, Vrubel moved to the Mamontov’s house on the Sadovaya-Spasskaya street [ru] ( outbuilding of the town estate of Savva Mamontov). According to Domiteeva, he was invited «not without attention to his skills as a governess».^[60] However, relationship between Vrubel and the Mamontov family did not work out – patron’s wife could not stand Vrubel and openly called him «a blasphemer and a drunkard». Soon painter moved to a rental apartment.^[61]

The Demon[edit]

A return to the theme of the Demon coincided with the project initiated by the Kushnerev brothers and the editor Petr Konchalovsky [ru] who aimed to publish the two-volume book dedicated to the jubilee of Mikhail Lermontov with illustrations of «our best artistic forces». Altogether, there were 18 painters, including Ilya Repin, Ivan Shishkin, Ivan Aivazovsky, Leonid Pasternak, Apollinary Vasnetsov. Of these, Vrubel was the only one who was completely unknown to the public.^[62] It is not known who drew the publishers’ attention to Vrubel. According to different versions, Vrubel was introduced to Konchalovsky by Mamontov, Korovin and even Pasternak who was responsible for editing.^[62] The salary for the work was quite small (800 rubles for 5 big and 13 small illustrations).^[63] Due to their complexity, his paintings were hard to reproduce and Vrubel had to amend them. The main difficulty, however, was that his colleagues did not understand Vrubel’s art. In spite of this, the illustrated publication was approved by the censorship authorities on April 10, 1891. Immediately thereafter the publication was widely discussed in the press who harshly criticized illustrations for their «rudeness, ugliness, caricature, and absurdity».^[64] Even people who were well-disposed to Vrubel did not understand him. So the painter changed his views on aesthetics suggesting that the «true art» is incomprehensible to almost anyone, and «comprehensibility» was as suspicious for him as «incomprehensibility» was for others.^[65]

Vrubel made all his illustrations in black watercolour; monochromaticity made it possible to emphasize the dramatic nature of the subject and made it possible to show the range of textured pursuits explored by the artist. The Demon was an archetypal «fallen angel» who simultaneously bridged men and female figures. Tamara was differently depicted on every image, and that emphasized her unavoidable choice between earthly and heavenly.^[66] According to Dmitrieva, Vrubel’s illustrations show the painter to be at the peak of his ability as a graphic artist.^[67]

While working on the illustrations, Vrubel painted his first large painting on the same topic – «The Demon Seated». This painting is a representation of the Demon at the beginning of Lermontov’s poem and the emptiness and despair he then feels.^[68] According to Klimov, it was both the most famous of the Vrubel’s Demons and the freest from any literary associations.^[66] On May 22, 1890, in the letter to his sister, Vrubel mentioned:

… I am painting the Demon, meaning not that fundamental «Demon» that I will create later, but a «demonic» – a half-naked, winged, young sadly thoughtful figure who sits embracing her knees against the sunset and looks at a flowering clearing with which branches stretching under the flowers that stretch to her.^[69]

The multi-color picture turned out to be more ascetic than the monochrome illustrations.^[70] The colours Vrubel uses have a brittle, crystal-like quality which emphasises the livelesness, sterility and coldness of the Demon reflected in the surrounding nature.^[71] In the painting Vrubel has used his typical color palette of blues and purples, which reminds of Byzantine mosaics.^[72] One of the characteristics of Vrubel’s art is the glowing sparkling effect many of his paintings possess. This fits within the Byzantine tradition where such glowy and shiny effects of the mosaics were meant to express God’s miraculous incarnation.^[73] Vrubel’s goals may not have been to express this particular thing, but it was to give his paintings a spiritual, otherworldly sensation.
The painting’s texture and colour emphasize the melancholic character of the Demon’s nature that yearns for a living world. It is characteristic that the flowers surrounding it are cold crystals that reproduce fractures of rocks. Alienation of the Demon to the world is emphasized by «stone» clouds.^[69] The opposition between the Demon’s aliveness and strength and his inability/lack of desire to do something is represented by an emphasis on the Demon’s muscular body and his interlocked fingers. These elements contrast with the helpless sentiments that are conveyed by his slumping body and the sadness in the Demon’s face.^[74] The figure may be strong and muscular on the outside, but it is passive and introverted in its posture.^[75] The figure of the Demon is not depicted as an incarnation of the Devil, but as a human being that is torn apart by suffering.^[76] ‘The Demon’ can be seen as a manifestation of Vrubel’s long search for spiritual freedom. Despite Vrubel’s own description, the Demon does not have wings, but there is their mirage formed by the contour of large inflorescences behind his shoulder and folded hair.^[77] The painter returned to his image only in 8 years.^[66]

Abramtsevo studios[edit]

On July 20, 1890, the 22-year-old painter A. Mamontov died in the Abramtsevo Colony. As Mamontov’s friend, Mikhail Vrubel attended the funeral. He became so fond of the local landscapes that decided to stay in there. In Abramtsevo, Vrubel became fascinated with ceramics and soon after that he proudly mentioned to his sister Anna that he now heads the «factory of ceramic tiles and terracotta decorations».^[78] Savva Mamontov did not understand Vrubel’ aesthetic aspirations but recognized his talent, and was trying his best to create a suitable living environment for the painter. For the first time in his life, Vrubel ceased to depend noble families for his support and started earning good money by completing several ceramic commissions; decorating a majolica chapel on the grave of A. Mamontov; projecting the extension in the «Roman-Byzantine style» to the Mamontov’s mansion.^[79] According to Dmitrieva, «Vrubel… seemed to be irreplaceable as he could easily do any art, except writing texts. Sculpture, mosaics, stained glass, maiolica, architectural masks, architectural projects, theatrical scenery, costumes – in all of these he felt inherently comfortable. His decorative and graphic idea poured forth like a broken water main – sirins, rusalkas, sea divas, knights, elves, flowers, dragonflies, etc. were done «stylishly», with an understanding of the characteristics of the material and the surroundings. His goal was to find the «pure and stylishly beautiful,» that at the same time made its way into everyday life, and thereby to the heart of the public. Vrubel became one of the founders of the “Russian Art Nouveau» – the «new style» that added to the neo-Russian romanticism of the Mamontov’s circle, and partially grew out of it.»^[80]

Mamontov’s studio in Abramtsevo and Tenisheva’s studio in Talashkino embodied the principles of the «Arts and Crafts movement,» initially founded by William Morris and his followers. Supporters discussed a revival of Russian traditional crafts at the same time as machine fabrication contradicted the uniqueness which was the main art principle in Art Nouveau.^[81] Vrubel worked in both Abramtsevo and Talashkino. However, both of these studies differed in the aspects of art. For instance, Mamontov mostly concentrated on theatrical and architecture projects while Tenisheva focused on Russian national traditions.^[82] Abramtsevo Potter’s Factory’s ceramics played a significant role in the revival of maiolica in Russia. Vrubel was attracted to it because of maiolica’s simplicity, spontaneity, and its rough texture and whimsical spills of glaze. Ceramics allowed Vrubel to experiment freely with plastic and artistic possibilities of the material. The lack of craftsmanship with its patterns allowed to put his fantasies into life.^[83] In Abramtsevo, Vrubel’ plans were supported and brought to life by the famous ceramist Peter Vaulin.^[84]

The return trip to Italy[edit]

In 1891, the Mamontov family went to Italy. They planned travel itineraries around the interests of Abramtsevo pottery studio. Vrubel accompanied the family as a consultant which led to a conflict between him and Mamontov’s wife, Elizaveta. Thus, Mamontov and Vrubel went to Milan where Vrubel’s sister Elizaveta (Liliia) was studying.^[85] It was suggested that the painter would spend winter in Rome where he might finish the Mamontov’s order – decorations for «The Merry Wives of Windsor» and design the new curtain for the Private Opera. Savva Mamontov paid Vrubel a monthly salary; however, an attempt to settle him in the Mamontov’s house led to a scandal with Elizaveta after which Vrubel decided to stay with Svedomsky.^[86]

Vrubel did not get along with other Russian artists working in Rome and continuously accused them with the lack of artistic talent, plagiarism, and other things. He was much closer to brothers Alexander and Pavel Svedomsky with whom he regularly visited variete^{[clarification needed]} «Apollon» and café «Aran’o». He also enjoyed their studio which was rebuilt from the former greenhouse. It had glass walls and the Roman ceiling which made it very hard to stay there in winter due to cold. Svedomskys unconditionally recognized Vrubel’s creative superiority and not only settled him at their house but also shared commercial orders with him.^[87] In the end, Mamontov arranged Vrubel’s stay at the studio of half Italian Alexander Rizzoni who graduated from the Russian Academy of Arts. Vrubel highly respected him and willingly worked under the Rizzoni’s supervision. The main reason for this was that Rizzoni considered himself as not entitled to interfere in the painter’s personal style, but was picky about diligence. Vrubel subsequently wrote that «I have not heard from many people so much fair but benevolent criticism».^[88]

In winter 1892, Vrubel decided to participate in the Paris Salon where he got an idea for the painting «Snow-maiden» (not preserved). Elizaveta Mamontova later wrote:

I visited Vrubel, he painted a life-size Snow Maiden’s head in watercolour against the background of a pine tree covered with snow. Beautiful in colours, but the face had gumboil and angry eyes. How ironic, he had to come to Rome to paint the Russian winter.^[89]

Vrubel continued to work in Abramtsevo. He returned from Italy with an idea to draw landscapes from photographs which resulted in a single earning of 50 rubles.^[90] One of his most significant works after the return was the panel «Venice» that was also painted based on the photograph. The main feature of this composition is its timelessness – it is impossible to say when the action took place. The figures were chaotically arranged, «compressing» space, which is projected onto the plane. A pair for the Venice became the «Spain» which critics recognize as one of the Vrubel’s most perfectly arranged paintings.^[91]

Decorative works[edit]

Vrubel spent the winter of 1892–1893 in Abramtsevo. Due to regular commissioned works made for Mamontov, Vrubel’s reputation in Moscow grew greatly. For instance, the painter received the order to decorate the Dunker family mansion on the Povarskaya Street. Also, together with the most famous architect of Moscow Art Nouveau Fyodor Schechtel, Vrubel decorated the Zinaida Morozova’s mansion on Spiridonovka street and A. Morozov’s house in Podsosenskiy lane.^[92]

Vrubel’ decorative works illustrate how universal his talents were. The painter combined painting with architecture, sculpture and applied art. Karpova recognized his leading role in creating ensembles of Moscow Modern. Vrubel’s sculpture attracted the attention of his contemporaries. For instance, at the end of his life, Aleksandr Matveyev mentioned that «without Vrubel there would be no Sergey Konenkov…».^[93]

The gothic composition «Robert and the Nuns» is usually considered as the most important Vrubel’s sculpture; it decorates the staircase of the Morozov mansion.^[93] Literature on architecture emphasizes the exclusive role that Vrubel played in forming artistic appearances of the Moscow Art Nouveau. The artist created several compositions (small sculptural plastics from maiolica and tiles) which decorated important buildings in modern and pseudo-Russian style (Moscow Yaroslavsky railway station, Osobnyak M. F. Yakunchikovoy [ru], Dom Vasnetsova [ru]). The Mamontov’s mansion on Sadovaya-Spasskaya street was built exactly according to Vrubel’s architectural ideas; he also headed several other projects, such as the church in Talashkino and exhibition pavilion in Paris.^[94][95]

Until November 1893, Vrubel worked on «The judgement of Paris» that was supposed to decorate the Dunker’s mansion. Yaremich later defined this work as a «high holiday of art».^[96] However, customers rejected both «Paris» and the hastily painted «Venice». A well-known collector Konstantin Artsybushev [ru] later bought both works. He also set up a studio in his house on Zemlyanoy Val street where Vrubel stayed for the first half of the 1890s. At that time, Anna Vrubel relocated to Moscow from Orenburg and was able to see her brother more often.^[97]

In 1894, Vrubel plunged into severe depression, and Mamontov sent him to Italy to look after his son Sergei, a retired hussar officer who was supposed to undergo treatment in Europe (he suffered from hereditary kidney disease and underwent a surgery). Thus, the Vrubel’s candidature seemed very suitable – Mikhail could not stand gambling and even left the casino in Monte Carlo, saying «what a bore!».^[98] In April, after coming back to Odessa, Vrubel again found himself in a situation of chronic poverty and family quarrels. Then he once again came back to maiolic art while creating the Demon’s head. Artsybushev bought this work, and with the money received, Vrubel returned to Moscow.^[99]

Approximately at the same time, Vrubel painted «The Fortune Teller» in one day, following the strong internal desire. The composition is similar to the portrait of Mani Dakhnovich – the model also sits in the same pose against the carpet. Black haired woman of Eastern type does not pay attention to cards and her face remains impenetrable. In terms of colours, the focus is on a pink scarf on the girl’s shoulders. According to Dmitrieva, even though traditionally pink is associated with serenity, the scarf looks «ominous».^[91] Presumably, the model for «The Fortune Teller» was one of the artist’s lovers of Siberian origin. Even in this painting, Vrubel was inspired by the opera Carmen from which he borrowed an unfortunate divination outcome – ace of spades. The painting was painted over the destroyed portrait of the Mamontov’s brother Nicolai.^[100]

Vrubel continued to follow his bohemian lifestyle. According to Korovin’s memoirs, after getting a large salary for watercolour panels, he spent them as follows:

He organized the dinner in the hotel «Paris» where he also lived. He invited everyone who stayed there. When I joined after the theatre, I saw tables covered with bottles of wine, champagne, a lot of people, among guests – gypsies, guitarists, an orchestra, some military men, actors, and Misha Vrubel treated everyone like a maître d’hôtel pouring champagne from the bottle that was wrapped in a napkin. «How happy I am,» he told me. «I feel like a rich man.» See how well everyone feels and how happy they are.
Five thousand rubles gone, and it still was not enough to cover the expenses. Thus, Vrubel worked hard for the next two months to cover the debt.^[101]

Exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod, 1896[edit]

In 1895, Vrubel attempted to gain authority among Russian art circles. In February, he sent the «Portrait of N. M. Kazakov» to the 23rd exhibition of Peredvizhniki movement – however, the painting was rejected for exposure. In the same season, he managed to participate in the third exhibition of the Moscow Association of artists [ru] with his sculpture «The Head of Giant» thematically dedicated to the poem Ruslan and Ludmila. The newspaper «Russkiye Vedomosti» critically engaged with the painting and benevolently listed all the exhibitors except for Vrubel who was separately mentioned as an example of how to deprive the plot of its artistic and poetic beauty.^[102]

Later Vrubel participated in the All-Russia Exhibition 1896 dedicated to the Coronation of Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna. Savva Mamontov was a curator of the exposition dedicated to the Russian North. It was him who noticed that the neighbouring section of arts lacks the paintings that would cover two large empty walls. Mamontov discussed with the Minister of Finance his idea to cover these walls with large panels with total area 20 × 5 m and ordered these panels from Vrubel.^[103] At that time, the painter was busy decorating the Morozov’s mansion in Moscow. However, he agreed to take the offer even though the order was quite big – the total area of paintings was 100 square meters, and it needed to be finished in three months.^[104] He planned to decorate the first wall with the painting «Mikula Selyaninovich» that metaphorically depicted the Russian land. For the second wall, Vrubel chose «The Princess of the Dream» inspired by a work of the same name made by the French poet Edmond Rostand. The second painting symbolically represented the painter’s dream of beauty.^[105]

It was impossible to complete the order in such short notice. That is why Vrubel instructed painter T. Safonov from Nizhny Novgorod to start working on «Mikula». Safonov was supposed to paint according to Vrubel’s sketches. The decorative frieze was finished by A. Karelin – son of a Russian photographer Andrei Karelin.^[106]

On March 5, 1896, academician Albert Nikolayevitch Benois reported to the Academy of Arts that the work that was being carried out in the art pavilion is incompatible with its thematic goals. Thus, Benois demanded from Vrubel sketches of the alleged panels. After arriving in Nizhny Novgorod on April 25, Benois sent a telegram:

Vrubel’s panels are terrifying; we need to take them off, waiting for the juri.^[107]

On May 3, the committee of the Academy arrived in Petersburg. The committee included Vladimir Aleksandrovich Beklemishev, Konstantin Savitsky, Pavel Brullov, and others. They concluded that it is impossible to exhibit Vrubel’s works. Mamontov told Vrubel to continue working and went to Saint Petersburg to persuade the members of the committee. At the same time, while trying to put the plot of «Mikula Selyaninovich» on a canvas, Vrubel realized that he previously was not able to proportionate the figures properly. Thus he started to paint the new version right on the stage of the pavilion. Mamontov attempted to protect the painter and called for the convening of the new committee. However, his claims were rejected, and on May 22 Vrubel had to leave the exhibition hall while all of his works had been already taken.^[108]

Vrubel lost nothing financially since Mamontov bought both paintings for 5 000 rubles each. He also agreed with Vasily Polenov and Konstantin Korovin for them finishing the half-ready «Mikula». Canvases were rolled up and brought back to Moscow where Polenov and Korovin started working on them while Vrubel was finishing «The Princess of the Dream» in a shed of the Abramtsevo Pottery factory. Both canvases arrived in Nizhny Novgorod right before the emperor’s visit scheduled on July 15–17. Besides two giant panels, Vrubel’s exposition included «The head of Demon», «The head of Giant», «The Judgement of Paris» and «Portrait of a Businessman K. Artsybushev».^[109] Subsequently, during the construction of the Hotel Metropol, one of the fountains facing Neglinnaya Street was decorated with maiolica panel that reproduced «The Princess of the dream». The panel was made at the Abramtsevo’s studio upon Mamontov’s order.^[110]

At that time, Mikhail Vrubel travelled to Europe to deal with marital affairs while Mamontov remained in charge of all his affairs in Moscow.^[109] He built a special pavilion named the «Exhibition of decorative panels made by Vrubel and rejected by the Academy of Arts».^[105] That is how big debates in newspapers had started. Nikolai Garin-Mikhailovsky was the first who published the article «Painter and the jury» in which he carefully analyzed Vrubel’s art without any invectives. On the contrary, Maxim Gorky was against Vrubel. He made fun of «Mikula» by comparing it with a fictional character Chernomor. «The Princess of the Dream» resent him with its «antics, ugliness of otherwise beautiful plot». In five articles, Gorky exposed Vrubel’s «poverty of spirit and poverty of imagination».^[111]

Later Korovin mentioned in his memoir the anecdote that illustrates how officials reacted to the scandal:

When Vrubel became ill and was hospitalized, the Sergei Diaghilev ‘s exhibition opened in the Academy of Arts. The emperor also was at the opening ceremony. Once he saw the Vrubel’s «The Lilacs», he said:

– How beautiful it is. I like it.
Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich of Russia who was standing nearby, heatedly debated:
– What is this? This is a decadence…»
– No, I like it, – replied the emperor – Who is the author?
– Vrubel – was the reply.
…Turning to the retinue and noticing the vice-president of the Academy of Arts Count Ivan Ivanovich Tolstoy, the emperor said:

– Count Ivan Ivanovich, is this the one who was executed in Nizhny?…^[112]

Wedding. Further work (1896–1902)[edit]

At the beginning of 1896, Vrubel travelled from Moscow to Saint Petersburg to pay a visit to Savva Mamontov. Around the same time, the Russian premiere of the fairy-tail opera «Hansel and Gretel» was about to take place. Savva Mamontov got carried away by this staging and even personally translated the libretto as well as sponsored the combination company of the Panaevski theatre  [ru]. Among the expected performers was prima Tatiana Lubatovich [ru]. Originally, Konstantin Korovin was responsible for the decorations and costumes but because of illness had to renounce the order in favour of Mikhail Vrubel who had never even attended an opera before. On one of the rehearsals, the painter saw Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel who played the role of Gretel’s little sister.^[113] This is how Nadezhda Zabela later recalled her first meeting with Mikhail:

On the break (I remember that I stood behind the curtain), I was shocked that some man ran to me and, kissing my arm, exclaimed: “What an amazing voice!”. Standing nearby Tatiana Lubatovich harried to introduce him to me: “This is our painter Mikhail Vrubel”, and, aside she told me: A very noble person but a bit expansive.^[114]

Vrubel proposed to Nadezhda shortly after the first meeting. In one of his letters to Anna Vrubel, he mentioned that he would kill himself immediately if Nadezhda rejected his proposal.^[114] The meeting with the Zabela family did not go very well since her parents were confused with the age difference (he was 40 years old, and she was 28 years old). Even Nadezhda herself was familiar with the fact that «Vrubel drinks, is very erratic about money, wastes money, have an irregular and unstable income».^[115] Nevertheless, on July 28 they engaged in the Cathedral of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Geneva, Switzerland. The couple spent their honeymoon in a guesthouse in Lucerne. Then Vrubel continued his work on the panel for the Morozov’s gothic cabinet. At the point of their engagement, Vrubel was utterly broke and even had to go from the station to Nadezhda’s house by walk.^[116]

For the fall of 1896, Nadezhda Zabela Vrubel had a short contract with the Kharkiv opera. However, Vrubel did not many commissions in the city and had to live on his wife’s money. This prompted him to turn to theatrical painting and costume designs. According to the memoirs of his acquaintances, Vrubel started designing costumes for Nadezhda, redoing costumes for Tatiana Larina.^[117] As was noted by Dmitrieva, Vrubel owes the fruitfulness of the Moscow period to Nadezhda and her admiration with Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.^[118] They personally met each other in 1898 when Nadezhda was invited to the Moscow private opera.^[119] Zabela remembered that Vrubel listens to the opera «Sadko» in which she sang the role of Princess of Volkhov no less than 90 times. When she asked him if he was tired of it, he replied: “I can endlessly listen to the orchestra, especially the sea part. Every time I find in it a new wonder, see some fantastic tones.^[120]

During his stay in St. Petersburg in January 1898, Ilya Repin advised Vrubel not to destroy the panel Morning that was rejected by the commissioner but instead try to expose it at any other exhibition. As a result, the panel was exhibited at the display of Russian and Finnish painters organized by Sergei Diaghilev in the museum of Saint Petersburg Art and Industry Academy.^[121]

In 1898, during the summer stay in Ukraine, Vrubel experienced several symptoms of his future disease. His migraines got so strong that the painter had to take phenacetin in large quantities (according to his sister in law – up to 25 grains and more). Mikhail started to experience intense anxiety, especially if somebody did not agree with his opinion on a piece of art.^[122]

In the last years of the XIX century, Vrubel referred to fairy-mythology plots, particularly Bogatyr, Pan, Tsarevna-Lebed.

In the painting ‘Pan’ of 1899, Vrubel has used a mythological figure to show the organic unity of man and nature. The figure does not resemble the erotic image of eternal youth that is known in the West: It resembles a figure from Russian folklore knows as the ‘leshiy’, which is the Russian spirit of the forest.^[123] The creature has a bushy beard, a strong, bulky figure and is known to be mischievous. This figure is said to be as tall as the trees and in the stories he is known to trick travellers, but only as a game because he is good-natured.^[124] The cheeky-ness of the creature sparks through in his eyes. The creature is placed within a twilight, which hints to the awakening of mysterious forces in nature, which are maintained by rich vegetation and its manifestation: Pan. Pan serves as a symbol for nature; the abundance and vividness of nature. This symbol is also visualized in the depiction of the body of the figure: His body appears to be growing out of a stump and the curls in his hair and his curled fingers look like the knots and gnarls of an oak tree.^[125] The lightning Vrubel chose to incorporate and which shines lightly on the figure creates a mysterious atmosphere. The painted pale moon enhances this feeling.^[126]
The eyes of the figure tell a story, they reveal the “psychic life of the figures”.^[127] They seem to look directly at the viewer, as if the creator has prophetic awareness: Senses that mortals do not have, they are out of this world. The blue eyes of the creature mirror the water in the swamp behind him.

The painter was able to finish Pan in one day while being in Tenisheva’s mansion in Talashkino. The plot was drawn in a canvas on which he previously started to paint the portrait of his wife. The painting was inspired by the literature novella "Saint Satyr" by Anatole France.[128] With great difficulty, he was able to expose his paintings at the Diaghilev's exhibition. It was already after his paintings were shown at the Moscow Association of Artists’ exhibition, where they did not receive the attention.[129]

In 1898 Vrubel painted ‘the Knight’ or ‘the Bogatyr’. In this painting Vrubel portrays a bogatyr from old Russian folklore, which differs from the pre-Raphaelite Western knights that are predominantly elegant and overrefined.^[130] This figure is weighty and strong with a beard and rough hands who is ready to plough the fields as well as fight. This painting is most likely inspired by the famous Russian epic figure ‘Ilya of Murom’, who is said to have defeated supernatural monsters and whose horse couple jump higher than the tallest of trees and only a little lower than the clouds in the sky.^[131] In the bylina in which the story of Ilya of Murom is described it reads: “While resting on the earth, Ilia’s power grew three times.”^[132] Vrubel has referred to Byliny, which are ancient Slavic tales about various famous heroes, in other interior decoration works that he made when he was staying at Abramtsevo.^[133] In Russia, Ilya Muromet is associated with incredible physical strength and spiritual power and integrity, with as its main goal in life the protection of the Russian homeland and its people.^[134]
The patterns visible in the bogatyr’s kaftan, chain mail and boots resemble that of war saints in old Russian icons.^[135] The landscape of the painting has ornamental qualities which remind of Bakst productions such as ‘The Afternoon with the Faun’.^[136]
The figure of the Bogatyr is also represented in the Romantic painter Vasnetov’s ‘Bogatyrs’. This painting however lacks the spiritual and fantastical qualities that Vrubel’s painting possesses. Vrubel wanted not only to express the power for the Russian land, like Vasnetov, but also ‘the enchanting atmosphere of silent metamorphosis: the archaic “belonging to the land” in the image of the Bogatyr’.^[137] The figure of the bogatyr in Vrubel’s painting can be interpreted as a representation of nature turned human, at least it feels an intimate part of it.^[138] The bogatyr is native in his surroundings. Vrubel tried to make the figure of the bogatyr and the background a whole. For Vrubel, the unification of the background and the symbols was typical.^[139] The bogatyr is part of the abundant power and spiritual quality of nature; the nature that is often poetized in folklore.^[140]

There is a conventional view that the painting the «Swan Princess» («Tsarevna-Lebed») was inspired by the opera staging. However, the canvas was finished in spring while rehearsals for The Tale of Tsar Saltan took place in fall with the premiere on December 21, 1900.^[141] The merit of this painting was widely debated since not all of the critics recognized it as a masterpiece.^[142] Dmitrieva characterized this work as follows: «Something is alarming about this painting – it was not without a reason that it was the favourite painting of Alexander Blok. In the gathering twilight with a crimson strip of sunset, the princess floats into darkness and only for the last time turned to make her strange warning gesture. This bird with the face of a virgin is unlikely to become Guidon’s obedient wife, and her sad farewell gaze does not promise. She does not look like Nadezhda Zabela – it is a completely different person, even though Zabela also played this role in «The Tale of Tsar Saltan».^[143] Nicolai Prakhov [ru] found in the face of Tsarevna-Lebed resemblance to his sister Elena Prakhova [ru]. However, the painting most likely originated in a collection image of Vrubel’s first love Emily Prakhova, Nadezhda Vrubel and, presumably, of some else.^[144]

In the middle of summer 1900, Mikhail Vrubel found out that he was awarded the gold medal at the Exposition Universelle for the fireplace «Volga Svyatoslavich and Mikula Selyaninovich». Besides Vrubel, gold medals were given to Korovin and Filipp Malyavin, while Serov won the Grand Prix. At the exhibition, Vrubel’ works (mostly applied ceramics and maiolica art) were exhibited at The Palace of Furniture and Decoration.^[145] Later, the artist reproduced the fireplace «Volga Svyatoslavich and Mikula Selyaninovich» four times; however, only one of them in the House of Bazhanov was put to its intended use. In those same years, Vrubel worked as an invited artist in the Dulyovo porcelain factory. His most famous porcelain painting was the dish «Sadko».^[146]

The Demon Downcast[edit]

Ten years later, Vrubel returned to the theme of Demon which is evident from his correspondence with Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov at the end of 1898. Starting from the next year, the painter was torn between the paintings «Flying Demon [ru]» and «The Demon Downcast». As a result, he chose the first variant, but the painting remained unfinished. The painting and several illustrations were inspired by intertwined plots of Lermontov’s Demon and Pushkin’s «The Prophet».^[147]

In the painting we see the Demon thrown in the mountains, surrounded by a swirling chaos of colours. The Demon’s body is broken, but his eyes still stare brightly at us, as if undefeated.^[148] The elongated body of the Demon almost looks deformed, as the body is depicted in unusual, unnatural proportions. This gives the impression that the body is suffering and affected by the power of nature surrounding him.^[149] The painting reminds of despair: The chaos surrounding the Demon, the Demon’s ‘ashen’ face and the faded hues.^[150] This painting seems a representation of Vrubel’s inner world and his forthcoming insanity.^[151]

In ‘Demon Cast Down’, it seems Vrubel refers to religious figures. The Demon wears something that can be interpreted as a crown of thorns, which could refer to Christ’s passion and the suffering he endured.^[152] Here Vrubel is mixing the figure of the Demon, which is often associated with evil, with Crhist, which is peculiar. The metallic powder Vrubel used resembles the Byzantine mosaics that had inspired him.^[153] Moreover, Vrubel’s intention was to exhibit his Demon cast Down under the title ‘Icone’,^[154] hereby directly referring to Byzantine religious art and thus it should be read accordingly: As its main purpose to bring the viewer to a higher spiritual world.

On September 1, 1901, Nadezhda gave birth to a son named Savva. The baby boy was born strong with well-developed muscles but had an orofacial cleft. Nadezhda’s sister, Ekaterina Ge, suggested that Mikhail had «a particular taste hence he could find beauty in a certain irregularity. And this child, despite his lip, was so cute with his big blue eyes that his lip shocked people only in the first moment and then everyone would forget about it».^[155]
While working on «Demon», the painter created the large watercolour portrait of a six-month child sitting in a baby carriage. As Nikolai Tarabukin later recalled:

The scared and mournful face of this tiny creature flashed like a meteor in this world and was full of unusual expressiveness and some childish wisdom. His eyes, as if prophetically, captured the whole tragic fate of his fragility.^[155]

The birth of Savva led to a dramatic change in the routine of the family. Nadezhda Vruble decided to take a break in her career and refused to hire a nanny. Hence, Mikhail Vrubel had to support his family. Starting from September–October 1901, Vrubel had experienced first depression symptoms due to drastically increased number of working hours. Starting from November, he stopped working on «The Demon Downcast». Vrubel’s biographer later wrote:

For the whole winter Vrubel worked very intensively. Despite usual 3–4 hours, he worked up to 14 hours, and sometimes even more, with a flash of artificial lightning, never leaving the room and barely coming off the painting. Once a day he put up a coat, opened window leaf and inhaled some cold air – and called it his «promenade». Fully engaged in work, he became intolerant to any disturbance, did not want to see any guests and barely talked to the family. The Demon was many times almost finished, but Vrubel re-painted it over and over again.^[156]

As Dmitrieva noted: «This is not his best painting. It is unusually spectacular, and was, even more, striking upon its creation when the pink crown sparkled, the peacock feathers flickered and shimmered (after a few years, the dazzling colours began to darken, dry up and now almost blackened). This exaggerated decorative effect itself deprives the painting of actual depth. To amaze and shock, the artist, who had already lost his emotional balance, betrayed his “cult of a deep nature” – and The Demon Dawncast, from the purely formal side, more than any other paintings by Vrubel, was painted in the modern style».^[157]

Vrubel’s mental health continued to worsen. He started suffering from insomnia, from day to day, his anxiety increased, and the painter became unusually self-confident and verbose. On February 2, 1902, unsuccessful exposition of «The Demon Downcast» in Moscow (the painter hoped that the painting would be bought for the Tretyakov Gallery) coincided with a suicide of Alexander Rizzoni following incorrect criticism in the «Mir isskusstva».^[158]

Then the painting was brought to Saint Petersburg where Vrubel continued to constantly re-paint it. However, according to his friends, he only damaged it. Due to the painter’s anxiety, his friends brought him to a famous psychiatrist Vladimir Bekhterev who diagnosed Vrubel with an incurable, progressive paralysis or tertiary syphilis. Mikhail Vrubel travelled to Moscow without knowing the diagnosis where his condition only worsened.^[159] His painting was bought for 3 000 rubles by the famous collector Vladimir von Meck [ru]. Judging by the correspondence between Nadezhda Zabela and Rimsky-Korsakov, Vrubel got crazy, drank a lot, wasted money and quickly broke off for any reason. His wife and son tried to escape him and ran to relatives in Ryazan, but he followed them. At the beginning of April, Vrubel was hospitalized to a private hospital run by Savvy Magilevich.^[160]

Disease. Dying (1903–1910)[edit]

The first crisis[edit]

Vrubel’s madness attracted the attention of the press; however, the reviews were mostly negative. For example, the newspaper Russian leaflet published the article «Mental Decadents» that led to the official statement of denying. Soon, the established painters started to publish articles where they claimed that The Demon Downcast has something that needs to be in every true artistic composition.^[161] Alexandre Benois also changed his opinion on Vrubel’ paintings; he even added an emotional passage about the true poetic natureof Vrubel’s paintings to his book «History of Russian XIX century Art».^[162] Then, Benois and Diaghilev decided to prove Vrubel’s sanity to the public, and in 1902 organized the exhibition of 36 works, including all three of his «Demons». This exhibition was a tipping point in defining public attitudes to Vrubel’s art; however, not many believed in his potential recovery. Authors of the articles in «Mir Isskustva» even wrote about Vrubel in the past tense as if they had already summed up his artistic career.^[163]

From April to August 1902, Vrubel’s mental health was indeed so bad that even his sister and wife were not allowed to visit him. He was wild and needed constant supervision. In the moments when the disease receded, he was able to speak coherently and attempted to paint. However, all his drawings from this period presented «primitive pornography». Additionally, his grandiose delusions also strengthened. One of the main symptoms of his disease was a constant desire to tore the cloth and underwear apart. In September 1902, Vrubel’s condition had improved somewhat, and he even stopped bugging and drawing pornography became polite. Thus, it was decided to transfer him to the Serbsky Center at the Moscow University run by Vladimir Serbsky.^[164] In the clinic, Vrubel’s health generally improved even though his family was still prohibited from visiting. The painter started writing to his wife, mostly in a self-deprecating tone. Serbsky confirmed the diagnosis «progressive paralysis due to syphilitic infection» of Vladimir Bekhterev and even found out that the contamination took place in 1892. After Vrubel was prescribed with mercury drugs and sedatives, his behaviour became more predictable. Mikhail started to receive guests, including Vladimir von Meck and Pyotr Konchalovsky. However, the painter avoided conversations about art and was constantly gloomy. The only expected outcome was physical and mental degradation.^[165]

Death of son. The second crisis[edit]

In February 1903, Vrubel was discharged from the clinic. He was lethargic and absent-minded, all attempts to paint led to nothing. Doctors advised to send him to Crimea, however, by April, his apathy transformed into a heavy depression and the painter had to return to Moscow. Vladimir von Meck suggested the Vrubel family spend the summer in his mansion in the Kiev Governorate. That somehow cheered Vrubel up and Nadezhda was happy as well. Right before the departure, a two-years-old Savva Vrubel got sick. In Kiev, his disease got stronger, and on May 3, the child died. Vrubel moved from apathy to grief, starting actively plan the funeral. He tried to look peppy and support his wife, who did not say a word.^[166] Savva was buried in the Baikove Cemetery. After losing their only child, the spouses went to von Meck since they did not know what to do next and how to behave. In the mansion, Vrubel’s mental health significantly worsened, and in a week he said categorically: «please, put me somewhere; otherwise, I will do you trouble». However, he was very afraid of the clinic at the Saint Cyril’s Monastery.^[166]

Following the advice of close to them doctor Tilling, it was decided to bring the painter to Riga where he was assigned to the country institution. Vrubel was in a heavy depression and wanted to commit suicide for which he refused to take any food. Symptoms were quite different from the previous crisis – instead of grandiose illusions Vrubel experienced delusions of self-abasement and hallucinations. However, the local doctor did not confirm the diagnosis of Bekhterev and Serbsky, claiming that Vrubel is an artist in melancholy and he needs to work. Thus, Vrubel returned to his old work the «Easter jungle» which was re-painted to «Azrail».^[167] Nadezhda Vrubel wrote to Anna Vrubel that Mikhail is sleep-deprived and he is again not satisfied with the face which he redrew continuously. Work did not improve his mental health. In addition, the painter became so weak that he could only move in a wheelchair while the flu that he had led to a rheumatism. His family and friends thought that he would not survive the following spring. However, the painter survived and in the summer, following the Serbsky’s advise, on July 9, 1904, Vrubel was put in the sanitary clinic of Fedor Usoltsev [ru] in Petrovsky park.^[168]

Treatment in Usoltsev’s clinic. Rehabilitation[edit]

Doctor Usoltsev diagnosed Vrubel with a Tabes dorsalis which is a form of tertiary syphilis when treponema pallidum affects only the spinal cord, not the brain. At the same time, Vrubel’s hallucinations were caused by a bipolar disorder common among artists.^[169] Due to progressive methods applied in the Usoltsev’s clinic and frequent visits of Nadezhda and Anna Vrubel (they rented a house nearby and visited Mikhail daily), Vrubel almost fully rehabilitated. Sometimes he was even released to spend several hours alone with his wife. The idea behind rehabilitation in the Usoltsev’s clinic was that patients would feel themselves like at home – that is why the clinic was in the private house of doctor Usoltsev where he and his family lived together with the patients. The doctor constantly invited artists and singers for organized house concerts. Patients attended evening events together with medical staff.^[166] Usoltsev valued Vrubel’s art and in every possible way, encouraged his creative pursuits. In that period, a famous psychiatrist and one of the first researchers of mentally ill Pavel Karpov [ru] actively communicated with the painter.^[170] The therapy significantly improved the painter’s health. On one of the drawings made in the clinic, Vrubel wrote: «To my dear and esteemed Fedor Arsenievich from the resurrected Vrubel».^[163]

One of the most significant parts of preserved Vrubel’s legacy is pencil drawings. At that time, the painter primarily drew portraits of doctors, orderlies, patients, acquaintances, players in cards and chess, landscape sketches. He also sketched the corners of his room and some simple objects, such as chairs, a dress threw on a chair, a crumpled bed (seria «Insomnia»), candlestick, carafe, a rose in a glass. Perhaps, with coming back to art, he felt the need to «study figure drawing hard and humbly». Instead of stylization, the painter applied a «naive transfer of the most detailed life impressions».^[163] Among other, Vrubel painted doctor Usoltsev, his wife and a student brother. The unfinished portrait of doctor Usoltsev against a gilded icon has been preserved. The painter was able to reflect on the patterned texture of the background and highlights on the image with only one black pencil without any colours, and he «saved» the face in these small details.^[171]

In summer 1904, Nadezhda Zabela got an offer from the Mariinsky Theatre. Since Vrubel could not imagine his life without her and doctor Usoltsev did not insist on his staying in the clinic; spouses moved to Saint Petersburg. Soon after that, Nadezhda realized that her voice lost its previous tonality due to experienced events. Thus, she could not anymore perform in the opera and eventually found herself in a chamber music. In that period, Vrubel painted a large number of her portraits depicting Nadezhda in different scenes. One of these paintings is a two-meter canvas «After a concert» that depicted Zabela in a dress created according to a Vrubel’s design.^[172]

Public and critics’ opinion of Vrubel’s art changed significantly. A double issue of the journal «Mir Isskustva» (issue 10–11, 1903) was fully dedicated to Vrubel and his legacy. The issue published reproductions of his paintings and many critics publicly renounced their previously published negative reviews. One of the reasons for such a drastic change was recognition of impressionism and symbolism among European artistic circles. Thus, a particular symbolism, emotionality and figurativism of Vrubel’ paintings came into fashion.^[173]

On the exhibition of the Union of Russian Artists [ru] that took place in 1905, the Vrubel’s painting «The Pearl Shell» was put on display. As with the illustrations for Lermontov’ works, Vrubel created a lot of graphic sketches trying to catch and solve the problem of a «black-white colourness». However, the final version had the figures of sea princess on it, about which Vrubel later told to Prakhov:

After all, I did not intend to paint any «sea princesses» in my «Pearl». I wanted to convey the drawing with all reality from which the game of pearl is constructed, and only after when I did several drawings with pencil and charcoal, I saw these princesses when I started to paint with colours».^[174]

At the same time, Dmitrieva did not appreciate this approach: «figures that he unexpectedly for himself put in a pearl shell, hardly worthy of such a magical grotto. These cutesy figures are too reminiscent of their many long-haired sisters from a typical Art Nouveau decor; the artist himself vaguely felt it – he was not satisfied with his naiads». Later Vrubel kept seeing in their figures something obscene that appeared in the painting against his own will.^[174]

In February 1905, Vrubel again started having the symptoms of psychosis. Nadezhda summoned Usoltsev from Moscow to look after his patient. Mikhail Vrubel understood everything and did not resist. Before departure to Moscow on March 6, he started saying goodbye to his friends and relatives, came to see Pavel Chistyakov in the Academy of Arts and visited the Panaevsky Theatre where he saw his wife for the first time.^[175]

Last artistic activity[edit]

Vera Usoltseva, the wife of doctor Usoltsev, described Vrubel’s condition to Nadezhda Vrubel as follows:

Mikhail’s condition did not change. His sleep seemed to be a bit longer. He usually sleeps through the night for five hours, and a rare day so that he does not sleep at least three hours. He eats well and in due time. But, unfortunately, he tore his new summer coat and trousers apart. He pretended to be calm, went to bed, covered himself with a blanket, and started to tugging the cloth underneath and tearing it into strips before the servant had noticed … His physical strength is high, which is rare for an intelligent person… You asked, should you write to him or not. No, you should not. He does not pay attention to letters and does not write them himself. He is often in the hands of delusion…. the love to you is a red thread which is visible in all of his conversations… So, he explained to me that the coat and trousers would be of use to you if one puts multi-coloured pieces of matter into the holes….^[176]

Only after half of the year Vrubel started more or less adequately show responsiveness to the physical environment. However, his letters to Zabela are full of self-abasement and repentance. Despite the «voices» that tormented him, he returned to the theme of the Prophet, began to write the «Six-winged Seraph», and addressed the topic of vision of the Prophet Ezekiel. However, the painting remained unfinished since in the beginning of 1906, his vision started to drastically decrease proving the diagnosis of progressive paralysis. In addition, the painter was diagnosed with an optic neuropathy.^[177] Mikhail was kept in the clinic almost exclusively at the expense of his wife, which was not an easy task because a month of stay in the Usoltsev’s clinic cost 100–150 rubles. On the contrary, the university clinic run by Serbsky cost only 9 rubles. The theatre administration understood the difficulty of Nadezhda’s position. It kept her in the troupe on a salary of 3600 rubles per year that was sufficient enough to cover the expenses.^[178]

The increasing recognition of Vrubel’s art continued. On November 28, 1905, he was awarded the title Academician of painting «for fame in the artistic field».^[179] After that, the editor of «Zolotoe runo [ru]» Nicolai Ryabushinsky visited Vrubel in the clinic with the offer to paint Valery Bryusov. The idea was to publish a series of portraits of famous contemporary writers. These portraits were supposed to be painted by the most acknowledged painters in the field. For instance, Serov was offered to paint Konstantin Balmont. Ryabushinsky paid 300 rubles for the portrait in advance and in addition, bought the self-portrait «Head of Prophet» for 100 rubles.^[180] Bryusov later described the work on the portrait as follows:

The door opened, and Vrubel came in. He entered with a wrong, heavy gait as if he was dragging his feet. To tell the truth, I was shocked when I saw Vrubel. It was a frail and sick person in a dirty, crumpled shirt. He had a reddish face and bird of prey eyes; protruding hair instead of a beard. First impression: crazy! <…> In real life, all small Vrubel’s movement reflected his disorder. However, when his hand took a pencil or a lump of coal, it became very steady and confident. Lines that he drew were infallible.

His artistic strength survived everything else in him. The human died, was destroyed, but the master continued to live.

During the first session, the first draft was already finished. I am really sorry that nobody thought of taking a picture of this dark drawing. It was almost even more remarkable in terms of performance, facial expression, and similarity than the later portrait painted with coloured pencils.^[181]

Then Ryabushinsky commissioned Serov to paint the portrait of Vrubel. They organized the work, so Vrubel was able to paint Bruysov in the mornings, while Serov painted Vrubel in the afternoons.^[182] Even though Nadezhda Zabela was concerned if Vrubel could handle such stress, Usoltsev categorically said that «as an artist, he was healthy and deeply healthy.» The first issue of the «Zolotoe runo» was published on February 1, 1906, with the Bryusov’s poem «To M. A. Vrubel» opening the issue. Twelve days later, Vrubel complained to his wife that he could not read or paint. In few days, he became completely blind.^[183]

Fading away[edit]

At the beginning of February 1906, Anna Vrubel visited her brother Mikhail. Later she became his nurse and also a guide. After consulting with Usoltsev, it was decided to bring Vrubel back to Saint Petersburg since he did need any medical treatment only support from relatives and loved ones. Anna and Nadezhda settled in one apartment while Mikhail Vrubel was put in the excellent clinic run by doctor Konasevich where the painter celebrated his 50 years anniversary. However, the clinic was far away from home and had strict orders regarding the regime. Hence it was decided to transfer Vrubel to a hospital of Adolf Bari that was located on the 4–5 line of Vasilyevsky Island nearby the Academy of Arts and had a completely free regime.^[184] Serov addressed the Academy of Arts with a request to pay Vrubel a monthly allowance that would cover some hospital expenses. The request was approved, and Vrubel started receiving 75 rubles in summer and 100 rubles in winter months.^[185]

After Vrubel lost his sight, his violent seizures occurred much rarer. Nadezhda visited him regularly and sometimes even organized home concerts. Anna Vrubel visited brother daily, walked with him and read to him. Especially often they re-read Ivan Turgenev ‘s prose poetry and Anton Chekhov ‘s novella The Steppe on the grounds of which Vrubel once created a painting. Ekaterina Ge later recalled:

… Mikhail Alexandrovich was very much engaged into reading and could not stand only sad endings, and always composed a new one instead, a more happy one … sometimes he was so got into himself that could listen to neither reading nor songs and was telling something like fairytales of his emerald eyes, life in the ancient world and how he made all the famous Renaissance works.^[184]

In his last years of life, Vrubel was almost constantly hallucinating and often retold his envisionings to others. Some days he experienced enlightening and then complained about the misfortune that befell him. Besides, he followed the ascetic practices that promised to bring back his lost sight – refused to eat, stood the whole night before the bed. Vrubel could not even recognize his old friends, for example, Polenov.^[186] Later Anna Vrubel recalled that in the last year her brother was saying that he is tired of living. In severe February 1910, he deliberately stood idle near with an open window and provoked pneumonia, which turned into a transient tuberculosis. At the same time, he retained his inherent aesthetics until the very last minute. Ekaterina Ge remembered that he «took quinine almost with pleasure, and when he saw a sodium salicylate, he said: «This is so ugly». Even before that, the doctor Usoltsev wrote that «It was different with him than with any other patients that usually lose the most thin or aesthetic sense first because for them they come the last; Vrubel’s aesthetic sense died last because it was the first for him».^[187]

On the eve of his death on 1 (14) April 1910, Vrubel put himself in order, washed with cologne, and at night said to the nurse who was caring of him: “Nikolay, it’s enough for me to lie here – we will go to the Academy.” Indeed, the next day the coffin with Vrubel was put in the Academy of Arts. The death record states that Vrubel «died from progressive paralysis».^[188]

Ekaterina Ge took care of the funeral and ordered to make the death mask.^[187] On April 3, the funeral took place in the Novodevichy Cemetery in Saint Petersburg.^[189][190] Alexander Block made a speech, calling the painter the «messenger of other worlds» that «left us his Demons as spellcasters against violet evil, against the night. I can only tremble before the things that Vrubel and others like him reveal to humanity once a century. We do not see the worlds that they see».^[191]

Personality[edit]

Everyone who knew Vrubel noted the specificities of his personality; however, his inherent character traits were so peculiar that were later rethought through the prism of his mental illness. According to Dmitrieva, the best portrait of Vrubel was made by his friend and colleague Konstantin Korovin who accurately captured even the smallest character features of the painter.^[192] This is how Korovin remembered Vrubel:

He appreciated Dmitry Levitzky, Vladimir Borovikovsky, Vasily Tropinin, Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov, Karl Bryullov, and all elder academicians… Once my friend Pavel Tuchkov asked him about serfdom in Russia.

– Yes, the misunderstandings took place everywhere, including the West. What, droit du seigneur is better? And before that – the Inquisition? This, it seems, was not really present in Russia. But it is a pity that people left their beauty creators without understanding. After all, we don’t know about Pushkin, and if they read him, it’s such a small amount of people. It’s a pity…

Once somebody told in front of Vrubel that drunkenness is widespread in Russia.

– Not true – answered Vrubel – people drink abroad much more. But they do not pay attention to it, and the police take drunk ones right away.

Once summer, Vrubel, who lived with me at the studio on Dolgorukovskaya Street, was running out of money. Hence he borrowed 25 rubles from me and left. He came back soon, took a large basin and a bucket of water, and poured some cologne from a beautiful bottle from François Coty into the water. He undressed and stood in a basin, pouring himself out of a bucket. Then he lighted the iron stove and put four eggs inside, and later ate them with a loaf of baked bread. He paid 20 rubles for a bottle of perfume …

– Ah, great, – I told him – What are you doing, Misha…

He did not understand. As if it was essential. Once he sold a wonderful drawing of Don Juan from «The Stoned Guest» for three rubles. Just to somebody. And bought for himself white kid gloves. After putting them on once, he threw it with words: «How vulgar».^[193]

Legacy. Commemoration[edit]

Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel died on June 20, 1913, at the age of 45, right after the concert where she participated. She was buried near with her husband. Russian sculptor Leonid Sherwood decided to construct the tombstone on their graves, but by 1913 he was able only to set up the black granite pedestal. After the Russian Revolution, the Novodevichy Cemetery was severely damaged and many graves were destroyed. In the 1930s, a necropolis museum was organized in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Then they started to move the graves of famous artists from the Novodevichy Cemetery to a new museum, but the transfer remained unfinished due to lack of finance and later beginning of the war. An alleged transfer of the Vrubel’s ash did not take place as well.^[194] In 2015, the public initiated establishment of the new tombstone on the Vrubel’s grave, but local authorities refused the installation.^[195][196]

Vrubel’s works are exhibited in The State Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, Russian Museum in Saint Petersburg, Vrubel Museum of Fine Arts in Omsk, Kyiv Art Gallery, Odessa Art Museum, Belarusian National Arts Museum, and other places.^[197] Many commemorative sights and objects are named after Vrubel in Omsk, Kyiv, Voronezh, Moscow, Saratov, Odessa.

Many researchers and critics have differently evaluated the impact that Vrubel had on Russian and Global art. According to Dmitrieva, his role was «exclusive and separated».^[198] She did not consider Vrubel as a typical representative of Art Nouveau, mainly because he «coincided with Art Nouveau in his far from best features».^[198] According to Dmitrieva, Art Nouveau was not organic enough for Vrubel, much less than it was for Léon Bakst or Valentin Serov since Vrubel followed the «cult of a deep nature» that was not «modern» in its nature.^[199]

According to Vladimir Lenyashin [ru], Mikhail Vrubel was able to implement symbolism as a harmonious aesthetic and philosophical system in the visual arts. At the same time, as a creator, he was supposed to be alone making the evolution from «hermit, alchemist, alien from another esoteric space» to the prophet.^[200] P. Klimov, who deliberately considered Vrubel’s art in the context of Russian Art Nouveau, recognized him as a representative of the revolutionary thread of the Russian modern. Klimov also noted that Vrubel’s position and significance in that cultural environment were only comparable to the place of Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov in neoclassicism. This was due to a combination of natural Vrubel’s gift and his later familiarization with Russian artistic world in general.^[201]

Klimov suggested that Vrubel started to express specific features of Art Nouveau already in the paintings from the «Kiev period», such as stylization as the main principle of form interpretation, aspiration for synthesis, emphasis on the role of the silhouette, cold colouring, symbolism of mood.^[202]

Rapid evolution in the Vrubel’s style could be explained with his detachment from any mainstream artistic movements of that time, such as neoclassicism or Peredvizhniki. Hence, he did not try to overcome the doctrines. Vrubel perceived academism as a starting point for his own movement forward, as a combination of essential professional skills.^[202] In terms of personality and artistic thinking, Mikhail was a pronounced individualist; he was alien to the ideas of social justice, collegiality or Orthodox unity that inspired other artists of his generation. Moreover, the loneliness of Vrubel can be purely explained by his social environment since being a bourgeois art form Art Nouveau in the 1880s had not yet had its followers in Russia. Vrubel had to wait for his admirers, customers and patrons to appear only in the mid-1890s.^[203]

In the cinema[edit]

• 1953 — Rimsky-Korsakov

References[edit]

Sources[edit]

External links[edit]

• Vrubel’s Demon publication
• Vrubel’s Demon descriptions
• Vrubel and Ceramics
• Vrubel and Decorative Panels
• Canvases and biography by Mikhail Alexandrovich Vrubel
• Works by Vrubel at the Russian Art Gallery
• Vrubel’s short biography
• Online Vrubel museum
• Mikhail Vrubel Gallery
• Mikhail Vrubel

On Google Art Project

• Demon (sitting)
• Princess Reverie

The Almighty gave us Pushkin to reveal what a poet is.
We could say the same about Vrubel — he is the embodiment of an artist.
Nikolai Ge[1]

Mikhail Vrubel (1856-1910) holds a unique place in the history of Russian art. On the one hand, he belonged to the legendary cohort of Russian Art Nouveau artists. According to his contemporaries, it was in his oeuvre that “we find the saddest and most beautiful artistic expression of the time”[2] In a newspaper article on the occasion of Vrubel’s funeral, the celebrated Russian artist and art historian Alexandre Benois predicted: “Future generations, should true enlightenment shine upon the Russian public, will look back at the last decades of the 19th century as ‘the era of Vrubel’.”[3] Nevertheless, there is clearly a great gap between Vrubel and his artistic milieu: he seems to be much more in touch with the future than with the world around him. “Here is what I do know: I can only stand in awe of the mysteries that Vrubel and others like him begin to reveal to mankind once in 100 years. We are unable to see the worlds that were open to them, and so all we can do is utter this feeble, indifferent word: ‘genius’.[4]

Mikhail VRUBEL. Self-portrait. 1904-1905
Charcoal, sanguine on paper. 35.5 × 29.5 cm. © Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

The structure of the modern exhibition

Our current digital reality makes Stepan Yaremich’s plea to “see his [Vrubel’s] original works in order to form an accurate opinion”[5] ever more urgent. The mission of the modern museum is to offer something that cannot be achieved by any other means: an authentic experience, a unique opportunity to interact with the original artwork, the source of the information, and the very substance of art.

The focal point of this exhibition is Vrubel’s creative process, his singular mind at work and the framework he created for his artistic method. We cannot rely on traditional reference points when we experience Vrubel’s art. In the words of Benois, conventional value judgements are rendered useless: “Those with a more refined taste in art may find a lot to disapprove of; there was occasional ugliness in his paintings, even banality. But he was not an angel, he was a demon — a supreme but complicated being, someone who had fallen in love with the human soul and human life, and ended up tainted by it. That’s why even Vrubel’s most disappointing and objectionable creations bear the mark of genius, and through his crooked, diabolical smile, his wide, terrified eyes and his sugary bliss shine certain sublime features — those of great beauty, which is not of this world, but in love with it.”[6]

The renowned art scholar Mikhail Alpatov advised against the traditional chronological approach to studying Vrubel’s oeuvre: “An attempt to divide the artist’s 30-year-long professional journey into clearly defined periods would feel forced. If we were to divide his works into several groups, they would not be chronological — they would, in fact, reflect the many dimensions of this deep, complex and contradictory human being.”[7]

This exhibition is organised unconventionally, neither according to artforms nor chronological periods. Its structure reflects the creative path of Vrubel, whose artistic method was a marvellous evolving organism permeated by a network of intertwined motifs. Not a single formal motif or image appears out of nowhere or vanishes without trace; none of them exists without interacting with others. As a rule, in Vrubel’s oeuvre, a formal impulse does not just serve its purpose in one work of art — form is open-ended and fluid, it lives on and manifests itself in new images. Vrubel created a world in which nothing seems to be accidental, everything is predetermined and connected through various parallels. These mysterious connections and creative impulses are just as important as Vrubel’s actual works — they constitute the non-material part of his heritage. At the core of this exhibition’s dramatic narrative lies the idea of the total metaphor. The renowned art historian Mikhail Allenov gave this brilliant definition of the most important principle of Vrubel’s thinking and provided new generations of scholars and art lovers with a valuable clue: “The poetics of metamorphoses, or the variation principle, shape the core premise for Vrubel’s imagery, from a small sketch to his entire oeuvre. Almost every motif, once it appears in Vrubel’s art, will sooner or later definitely return in a new version.”[8]

Today’s scholars expand on Allenov’s definition by using the concept of design thinking (more relatable for the digital generation), which allowed Vrubel to “continue exploring a creative idea for as long as he wanted, sometimes even throughout his creative life; consequently, every work that expresses or realises some aspect of this idea, no matter when it was created, what the terms of the commission were, what media was used, and so on, becomes a building block in a continuous artistic endeavour, in which a creative idea gradually evolves into its perfect expression.”[9] Exploring the transformations of formal formulae paves the way for understanding Vrubel’s artistic method, as well as the living and “thinking” substance of his canvases.

This exhibition is designed to structure the perception of the very form of Vrubel’s works, define the recurring motifs of his oeuvre and to visualise his creative impulses.

The route through the exhibition is laid out like a quest. This organises visitors’ impressions and visualises the finest semantic threads and impulses that connect Vrubel’s works, life and the transformations of his imagery. The visitors are confronted with seemingly paradoxical, but — in Vrubel’s frame of references – perfectly organic similarities. Thus, the modelling of Savva Mamontov’s features in his 1897 portrait (Tretyakov Gallery) is reminiscent of the animal grace of the “Lion’s Head”, the high reliefs adorning the gates of the patron’s manor house in Moscow and his ceramics factory “in Butyrki”. We can see both Vrubel’s and his wife’s features in the faces of Pushkin’s Prophet and Seraph in his paintings, and his angels and demons are “of one blood”.

The exhibition’s spacing helps its visitors experience the magical life of Vrubel’s motifs — we can see how his painting “Parting of the Sea King and Princess Volkhova” (1898, Tretyakov Gallery) coils and turns into the decorative ceramic platter “Sadko” (designed in 1899, Russian Museum). In turn, a few years later, the platter would morph into “The Pearl” (1904, Tretyakov Gallery), and the fairytale sea creatures hiding in the platter’s sinuous ornamental patterns would become three-dimensional majolica sculptures. We can feel how the swift movement of the rider in Vrubel’s illustration for Mikhail Lermontov’s poem “The Demon” (1890-1891, Tretyakov Gallery) anticipates “The Flight of Faust and Mephistopheles” (1896, Tretyakov Gallery), and another illustration (1890-1891) materialises in a plaster sculpture, “Demon’s Head” (1894, Russian Museum). Finally, “Demon Flying” (1899, Russian Museum) is turned upside down to become “Demon Downcast” (1902, Tretyakov Gallery).

Vrubel wanted to be understood. Just like Hansel and Gretel, who scattered breadcrumbs in Engelbert Humperdinck’s opera (a life-changing work of art for Vrubel), the artist used these motifs as clues for future generations of art lovers to help them find their way in the ever-changing world of his art, a world that was always balancing somewhere between reality and fantasy.

The First Circle: 19th Century

This exhibition’s semantic and compositional focus, its high point, is definitely the three paintings of the Demon, displayed in the same hall: “Demon Seated” (1890, Tretyakov Gallery), “Demon Flying” (1899, Russian Museum), and “Demon Downcast” (1902, Tretyakov Gallery.) The chance to see all three of these canvases in the same space comes maybe once in 100 years, and to be able to feel the subtle and complex connections between them is truly awe-inspiring. Already during his lifetime, Vrubel’s contemporaries looked at his “three demons” as something like a musical suite, a single work of art that took his whole life to create. This interpretation was introduced by the first students of Vrubel’s oeuvre, Alexandre Benois and Alexander Blok, as well as the artist’s biographers Stepan Yaremich and Aleksander Ivanov. Over the course of the 20th century, art scholars Sergei Durylin, Nikolai Tarabukin, and Pyotr Suzdalev formulated a broader version of this approach[10] that included all of Vrubel’s creations dedicated to “the Demon motif”: in addition to the three major paintings, there were some works that Vrubel created in Kyiv that could be considered an “overture” to this theme. Even though these works did not survive, written descriptions of them play an important role in shaping the perception of Vrubel’s later work on the subject. There are also other pieces, “intermezzi” of sorts, created between Vrubel’s bouts of extreme excitement for his Demon: a series of illustrations (1890-1891) for Mikhail Lermontov’s poem “The Demon”, a sculptural portrait (1894, Russian Museum), and graphic sketches, unfinished versions of compositions created in the time between “Demon Flying” and “Demon Downcast”. And finally, there is the “coda”, Vrubel’s last masterpiece, painted when his health was restored after illness, which brings it all to a conclusion: his Demon reborn as the “Six-Winged Seraph” (1904, Russian Museum).

It is remarkable that, although Vrubel’s three paintings of the Demon reveal different manifestations of the image and different ways of seeing it, they are simultaneously inextricably connected and in conflict with one another. The attracting and repelling forces that exist between them are almost equally strong and clearly perceptible. The orderly, familiar and entirely logical (in biographies and scholarly research) concept of the Demon’s step-by-step evolution is challenged by sensory evidence — the paintings we see do not fit into one cohesive sequence, it feels more like they contradict one other. Each painting stands apart due to its distinct plasticity, so a direct comparison creates an almost physical sensation of a very tense and dramatic dialogue. Also, every one of the three images is the result of the artist’s search for new form; it absorbs and transforms painterly impulses from a series of related works of art, not necessarily of the exact same period of time. Furthermore, each of these three paintings rises to a new level of understanding of the subject matter, which paves the way to more exploration.

The exhibition’s main space is designed to balance out the centripetal and centrifugal forces that originate between the Demon’s three incarnations. The show’s setup is intended for intense contemplation of each painting. Punctuated with caesurae, it lets the visitor feel the presence of all three paintings while only being able to see two of them at any one time. Through portals and apertures, the main hall opens up into several spaces, which are dedicated to related subjects. The first show cases Vrubel’s early drawings, including those executed during the time when he worked in Kyiv — already, they set the stage for Vrubel’s first painting of the Demon in Moscow, and a new chapter in his life.

Back then, Vrubel was still working on putting his idea of the Demon on canvas — the image, sensed as a premonition, seemed to be within his reach, and its subtle presence was often felt in his work. One example is his sketch of a woman’s head (Emilia Prakhova, the wife of the renowned art historian Adrian Prakhov, was the model) for the icon of the Virgin Mary on the iconostasis of the Church of St. Cyril in Kyiv. In the words of the art critic Aleksander Ivanov, “we can already feel in her deep and mysterious gaze Vrubel’s characteristic chilling intensity; it is especially strong in his charcoal sketch of her head with pale, round eyes, staring ahead with a flicker of private horror in them.”[11]

The second “spatial gap” takes the visitor from the hall with the “three Demons” to the space showcasing Vrubel’s illustrations to Mikhail Lermontov’s poem “The Demon”, as well as his preliminary drawings for various versions of the Demon image. The artist’s strange illustrations to Lermontov’s works, deemed “poorly timed” and unappreciated by his contemporaries, are currently viewed as definitive — thanks to Vrubel, in our collective mind, many of Lermontov’s characters will always look the way he painted them. At the same time, they belong the fantastic world of Vrubel’s art. They also constitute an important stage in his work on this theme, serving as links in the chain of the transformations Vrubel’s Demon undergoes, and recording the artist’s thought process on the path from his “Demon Seated” to “Demon Flying” and, finally, “Demon Downcast”. As he worked on illustrations to Lermontov’s poem, Vrubel followed his Demon on the journey of Lermontov’s character, but then took him even further, beyond the poem’s narrative. Indeed, we may see “Demon Flying” as Vrubel’s final take on Lermontov’s vision, but his “Demon Downcast” is already liberated from the confines of its literary source. The poet and critic Maximilian Voloshin wrote: “Vrubel has a deep, inherent spiritual connection to Lermontov. His illustrations to Lermontov’s works do not echo the poet’s ideas, but expand on them. Vrubel continued on the path that vanished under Lermontov’s feet. But he was not able to finish the journey, either. His affinity to Lermontov shows in the expression he seeks in his Demon’s eyes, and in the mournful, parched lips.”[12]

The large drawing “Demon’s Head” (1890, Tretyakov Gallery) and the plaster bust “Demon” (1894, Russian Museum), visible from the main hall, reveal in striking detail how Vrubel prepared and rethought the painting “Demon Seated” (1890, Tretyakov Gallery). “Demon’s Head” (1890, Tretyakov Gallery) is executed on the back of Vrubel’s sketch “Resurrection”; its formal expression is still inextricably linked to the conventions of monumental mural painting. The unusually large sheet is shaded to make its surface resemble a plaster wall with an image emerging on it. One can easily imagine that the artist did not create this ethereal image, but “saw” it. All the incredibly hard work that came before Vrubel created this piece was long over, done over the five years from the day when Demon first “revealed” himself to the artist. Vrubel spent those years trying many different ways to bring his vision to life, make it real — he went as far as executing a three-dimensional “model” so that he could direct the light at the face from an angle that was perfect for the painting, and use it as his “ideal sitter”.[13] Back in Moscow, Vrubel went back to working on his Demon and meticulously explored the image and its plasticity in a whole series of monochrome illustrations to Lermontov’s poem. In his quest for a visual counterpart to Lermontov’s verse, the artist made his Demon “real” through facial expressions, poses, and movement. Having achieved this new pinnacle in his awareness of the subject, Vrubel felt the need to test himself, so he created a three-dimensional sculpture. As his primary source, he took his illustration that did not make it into the anniversary edition of Lermontov’s poem, a shoulder-length “portrait” of the Demon. With that as his starting point, he created a polychrome sculpture by using watercolour, which helped him achieve the subtle effects so characteristic of this technique. This was the first time that Vrubel used his famous range of purple hues, which grew deeper in the shadows. They were to become central to the image of the Demon.

Vrubel’s preparatory drawings for his Demon series were not merely sketches in the conventional sense — they served an amazing range of innovative objectives. All the drawings included in this show are true treasures. Two of them, executed in preparation for “Demon Downcast”, stand out: a photograph, coloured by Vrubel, of the painting’s original version (over time, Vrubel made so many changes to the original that it literally disappeared under layers of paint) and a pencil sketch the artist “pleated” in the middle as he experimented with the most expressive plastic representation of the Demon’s body, supernaturally beautiful but nonetheless retaining its humanoid form.

Mikhail VRUBEL. Demon Downcast. Sketch of the initial variant of the painting.
Watercolour, whitewash, lead pencil, iron gall ink, pen on cardboard. 27.6 × 63.9 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

However, the most striking example of Vrubel’s method of developing motifs, the most important and unexpected link in the chain of transformations that the Demon’s image undergoes, is a large monochrome watercolour sketch from the Tretyakov Gallery collection. It helps us understand the mysterious origins of the “Demon Downcast”, whose figure is almost an exact copy of the one in “Demon Flying”, but rotated by 180°. This seems to suggest that this enormous unfinished canvas is actually the first version of “Demon Downcast”, as described by Vrubel’s biographer Aleksander Ivanov: “besides numerous watercolour sketches, two huge canvases have survived, almost finished, but abandoned by the artist — he did not think that the figures in either of them were expressive enough. In one of them, the Demon’s profile is perfectly masculine; his naked hips are belted with a chain of golden plates; the same kind of plates adorn the chest, and the outstretched wings resemble those of an eagle, or even a swan. In the other, there seems to be something feminine in him; nothing adorns his body, but his wings are alive with gleaming, colourful peacock feathers.”[14] UV light analysis shows the changes that the artist made to the painting over time — namely, in the position of the Demon’s head. The face that we see today was executed with different paints than those used for the rest of the composition; it also fits the body rather loosely, without much consideration for the human anatomy. The area of the canvas where the face was originally painted is covered with a thick layer of paint (also different in composition) and appears extraneous. Its outline resembles the shape of the Demon’s head, and the original version of the figure must have been even closer to the figure in “Demon Flying”.

Mikhail VRUBEL. Demon Downcast. 1902
Oil on canvas. 139 × 387 cm. © Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

The third portal leads visitors from “Demon Downcast” to Vrubel’s two definitive paintings of lilacs in bloom, executed in 1900 and 1901. It was in working on his “Lilacs” that the artist attained his signature magical colour described as “the purple blue of the world’s night.” In his review of the fifth “Mir Iskusstva” (“World of Art”) Exhibition in St. Petersburg in 1903, the philosopher and critic Vasily Rozanov captured the fine harmonies connecting the “Demons” and the 1901 “Lilac”. His succinct comments about Vrubel’s works left no doubt as to the commonality between the two works: “The Demon motif is obviously of great importance to him. Both at last year’s exhibition and this one, he showed a Demon, and both interpretations were original and new. The very attempt to leave behind the tired cliches is significant: a man in black, with wings like those of a large bat, ‘mesmerising’ if we look at him favourably, or with red eyes and a red tongue if we mock or fear him. Mr. Vrubel gives us the demon and the demonic as a manifestation of humanity in nature, or human-likeness. His Demon is not ‘flying above the world’, he ‘emerges from the world’. It would be impossible to deny that there is sense in this effort… At the current exhibition, we see him [the Demon] peeking through lilac blossoms — one almost wants to say he ‘flows out of lilac’ — and his human face crowns the mineral mass, appearing itself as if some kind of living crystal. All of this is very clever and well thought through.”[15]

The artist spent two summers captivated by lilacs in bloom, and created two versions of “Lilac” (in 1900 and 1901, both at the Tretyakov Gallery). These two compositions occupy equally important places among Vrubel’s masterpieces. Simultaneously and just as relentlessly, the image of the Swan Princess haunted the artist. He painted two entirely self-sufficient paintings, in 1900 and 1901, which were, nonetheless, seen as matching pieces even by Vrubel’s contemporaries. Aleksander Ivanov wrote about the “Swan Princess” of 1901 that “the body of a beautiful, large bird hiding in club-rushes looks like the same crystal druse as the Swan Princess’s feathers, but the approaching night has already snuffed out the pink glow of these opaque white crystals.”[16] Also, in both “pairs” of paintings the artist’s focus remains on the visual metamorphoses of Nadezhda Zabela, his wife and muse.

Both Lilac paintings, as important links in the chain of transformations that Zabela-Vrubel’s image undergoes in Vrubel’s art, also serve as an introduction to the next theme of this exhibition, which can be described — with a touch of voluntarism — as “bringing spirit into matter”. Here, the first (chronologically) and most important of Vrubel’s works is his decorative panel “Morning” (1897, Russian Museum). The panel was commissioned by Savva Morozov and his wife, Zinaida, for the small drawing room in their Moscow mansion on Ulitsa Spiridonovka, but the Morozovs disliked and rejected it. Ilya Repin’s interference prevented Vrubel from destroying this work, something the artist had done before with his first, in his view unsatisfactory, version of the decorative panel “Midday”. Instead, Vrubel showed “Morning” at the first “Mir Iskusstva” (“World of Art”) exhibition and on the very first day, the work was bought by Princess Maria Tenisheva. In spite of this — or perhaps as a result — the panel baffled the public and scandalised the press so much more than the infamous panel Vrubel showed at the trade fair in Nizhny Novgorod. Critics of all persuasions were especially outraged by the unprecedented interaction between allegorical female figures and landscape. Stasov wrote in frustration: “What are these women? Why are they here? Why are they so awful? What do they signify? And finally, why were they even painted here? Isn’t the whole point that one should not be able to see them? Who can work out and explain this incredible nonsense to us?”[17]

Armed with the knowledge of 20th century art history, a contemporary scholar takes the opposite view and marvels at Vrubel’s ability to seamlessly “put imaginary creatures into real-life surroundings and make the viewer see it as their natural habitat, and not as background landscape.”[18] Our scholar gives an astute definition of Vrubel’s method by using a poetic metaphor from a later time, which, in Vrubel’s case, is right on point and no anachronism: “The painterly and compositional story behind all Vrubel’s works is an attempt, in the words of Boris Pasternak, to reveal ‘how an image enters another image, and how an object cuts into another object’: the metaphorical fusion of images attains its plastic equivalent.”[19]

It does feel like these female figures, personifying earth and water as they awaken at dawn, “a beam of sunlight” and “fading fog”,[20] are placed as coordinate markers on all sides of the panel in order to organise, direct and restrain the incredible frenzy of ever-changing, living pictorial essence of this composition. At the same time, the female figures are its natural continuation and its inescapable creation. Vrubel often used this technique of “bringing spirit” into his painterly subject matter: in “Thirty-Three Bogatyrs” (1901, Russian Museum) the small figures of the bogatyrs, “flashing like fire”, crest seamlessly over the foamy waves, and in “The Pearl” (1904, Tretyakov Gallery), the figures of swimming sea princesses materialise in the abstract, iridescent nacre, almost against the artist’s will. And “the spirits of lilac”, emerging from the shimmering, fluid, lush mass of flowers, seem to be its natural and inevitable product, the result of the form’s evolution.

Those of Vrubel’s works that are based on motifs from theatre productions of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov’s fairy-tale operas provide a different example of making fantasies “fully human”, as well as balancing on the edge of the imaginary and real worlds. Vrubel’s portraits of his wife, Nadezhda Zabela, as Princess Volk- hova (1898, Tretyakov Gallery and Russian Museum) opened the door to a special genre that he explored at the intersection of his main artistic pursuits, in between the two worlds he inhabited — real life and the theatre, the real and the fantastic.

As he worked on designing stage costumes for his wife, Vrubel mastered the magic of theatrical transformations and it became a familiar part of his daily life and work. The fantastic images the artist and the opera singer created together were so expressive and powerful that, for the public, Zabela and her roles blended into one being. Zabela’s accompanist Boris Yanovsky pointed out that the singer was well aware of the unusual, “heavenly” nature of her beauty, and used it to her advantage: “I do find that there is something about my head and the way I move that works especially well for portraying other-worldly creatures.”21 Rimsky-Korsakov also made a remarkable statement in one of his letters to the Vrubels: “Of course, you [Zabela] ‘wrote’ the part of the Sea Princess by playing and singing her on stage, and it will always be you that I see when I imagine her.”[22]

The work that Vrubel did for some of Mamontov’s private opera productions grew beyond original commissions and became complex projects that enveloped all of the media and techniques that the artist employed, such as painting, drawing and applied arts (which Vrubel himself saw as a whole). Alexandre Benois aptly described this peculiarity of Vrubel’s thinking: “Vrubel was equally masterful in painting, sculpture, and in the sphere we in our country define by the unfortunate and silly term of ‘art industry’”.23 In the process of artistic evolution, the arts and techniques each enrich the plasticity of the other, creating new techniques and forms when intersecting.[24] In May 1898, while discussing his experiments in ceramic art, Vrubel admitted to Rimsky-Korsakov that work in majolica “is an artform that allows me to develop my pictorial language, which, as you know and as I feel, lacks clarity.”[25] Aleksander Ivanov writes about the unity of Vrubel’s sculptural and pictorial forms: “A vigilant researcher and an inspired poet of forms in painting, he could not help but be a natural-born sculptor too. In painting, he contemplates the forms in one motionless perspective, in sculpture he admires them seemingly from all angles, feeling the familiar bends and breaks with his hand”.[26] Conversely, when depicting the figure of the Sea Princess in one of his late watercolours (1904, Russian Museum), he reproduces his three-dimensional “figurine” of 1899 from two lines of sight, trying to capture the most advantageous angles.

In accordance with the tradition developed early in Vrubel’s lifetime, the highlight of the artist’s theatrical portrait line was a painting quite different from the rest typologically. The famous “Swan Princess” has a rather complicated relationship both with the portrait genre (in the depicted creature, many fancied the features of Zabela or Emilia Prakhova, and the sketches presented at the exhibition support both these versions), and with the staging of Rimsky-Korsakov’s opera “The Tale of Tsar Saltan”. Vrubel imagined and depicted the Swan Princess in his famous canvas long before he got a holistic impression of the opera. Zabela received her copy of the score on August 10, 1900, and the painting “The Swan Princess” was completed and sold to Mikhail Morozov by April 19 of the following year.27 “I wonder what Swan Mikhail Aleksandrovich, to whom I send my regards, will create…” wrote Rimsky-Kor- sakov to Nadezhda Zabela on April 8, intrigued by news of Vrubel working on the painting.28 The image of a woman-bird created by Vrubel («the wonder of wonders») made a very strong impression on the composer. Later, in a letter to Zabela dated February 14, 1901, he calls Vrubel’s Princess “an apocalyptic bird”.29 Aleksander Ivanov also noticed in the work the unsettling reflections of ancient myths: “The Princess is floating along the banks, where the pines on the heights glow in the deepening twilight, like heaps of golden treasures; the gleams of dawn and blue sea shadows reflecting in the translucent crystals of her feathers and wings <…> From under the ‘kika’ (headdress), adorned with precious stones and pearls, the eyes — two transparent dark gems — gaze wide open, full of prophetic warning and lurking fright. Is she not the very Maiden Wrong herself who, according to the ancient ‘Song of Igor’s Campaign’ ‘clapped her swan wings on the blue sea’ on the eve of a great disaster?”[30]

Creating theatrical costume portraits depicting Nadezhda Zabela in various roles, or endowing his opera-inspired majolica “figurines” with portrait features, Vrubel creates a unique line of mythological, folklore creatures with their own special fairy-tale anatomy. “Bearing the guise of humans, they belong to something other, something superhuman — a trait that puts Vrubel in step with the art of antiquity.”[31]

In his review of the 1903 St. Petersburg exhibition “Mir iskusstva” (“World of Art”), Vasily Rozanov gave a very subtle definition to this area of Vrubel’s interest, of this specific facet of his talent, and a metaphorical prediction of the “shell” series that had not yet been created at the time: “He delves into nature and in the fantasy, perhaps explaining one through the other, just like a scientist explaining one order of phenomena through another. He works a lot; his soul is undoubtedly agitated and excited. Perhaps this heave might roll some pearls out on the shores.”[32]

The artist dedicated his whole life to acquiring persuasive power in fictional images, the prevalence over the form. “What makes art so great», Vrubel said, “is that it obeys neither nature nor logic. The figure may be wrong in your eyes, but it is beautiful and I like it. That is enough.”[33] The two most mysterious of Vrubel’s masterpieces, where the depicted fantastic creatures do not require any impulsive justifications, are the paintings “Pan” and “At Nightfall” (1899, 1900; Tretyakov Gallery). It is no coincidence that poets were acutely sensitive to the originality of “Pan”. Perhaps the most heartfelt lines about “Pan” belong to one of the leading figures of French Symbolism, Emile Verhaeren: “my eyesight and my mind admire Vrubel’s ‘Pan’, a wonderful creation by a poet and artist. The painting embodies fully the wild and mighty nature of Sylvanus. This is not a prong-legged man but a true emanation of the waters, forests and fields. To create such a strong, unforgettable figure, one must think and feel the way the wondrous masters of the ancient Greece Renaissance thought and felt. One must have a mind capable of guiding both a skilful hand and an excellent vision.”[34] Velimir Khlebnikov dedicated two poems to Vrubel’s painting, “Pen Pan” (1908) and “A goblin grabbles in the greeny forest…” (1912?). The second poem is almost a verbal equivalent of “Pan”.

“A goblin grabbles in the greeny forest —
Wood-willy, slurping his mouth-organ
— where a clump of aspens quivers
and benevolent spruces cascade.
A smear of pungent forest honey
licky on the tongue-tip of daylight;
Oh! His grasping arms were icy:
I was completely taken in.
I couldn’t stand his eyes’ unblinking
point-blank confrontation
—his look, full of pleading promises,
the icicle anguish in his eyes.
Lawn-rake fingers crabbing at me
from a shaky clump of catkins;
he had dark blue sighters
and a body all mush-flesh and flow.
I had missed a turn or two,
tearing along
in a juventy frenzy.
Slying, the wood-wart winked and jostled me:
“Which way where? And why?” [35]”

In his monograph “Vrubel”, the prominent Russian art historian and writer Ivan Yevdokimov gives a thorough explanation of why the painting “At Nightfall” is exceptionally significant: “It would be hard to find anything even remotely resembling Vrubel’s ‘At Nightfall’ in Russian art. There hasn’t been another Russian artist who could convey the mysterious twilight of nature, intricacy and elusiveness of the fading sunlight burning on the bright thistle tops, on the bronze horses anxiously listening for every rustle of the approaching night, on the vague faraway leaden sky with Vrubel’s ominous, penetrating truthfulness. The eerie poetry, the meaningfulness of Nature’s lively thought and mysteries, the attempt to comprehend them were emphasised by Vrubel in a very natural, almost inevitable manner. In the thickets of thistles, he places Nature’s firstborn: a strong, ‘metal’, ‘forged’ figure of a faun guarding the horses. The sky, the thistles, the evening steppe, the huge horses and the faun all merge into solemn silence of the ancient, vast, sleepy land that birthed them.”[36] The most prominent part of the exhibition are the decorative panels made by Vrubel for Moscow mansions. All the panels from museums will be exhibited together for the first time. Although the exhibition plan does not imitate the way panels were arranged in the mansions, the spatial proportions are fairly similar to the original parameters of the premises that the panels were meant for. The prominent centre of the exposition is the “Flowers” ceiling triptych (1894, Omsk Vrubel Museum of Fine Arts), created by Vrubel for the Dunkers mansion on Povarskaya Street in Moscow. Placing them horizontally, on a special pedestal, will allow the viewer the rare opportunity to enjoy the triptych up close and appreciate the powerful relief masonry of the paint layers, the rich texture, the vital rhythms of the painting, and fully perceive the “Flowers” as a work of perspective painting and appreciate the quality of composition. The triptych will be also projected onto the mirrored ceiling — at the very angle it was designed for. The sophisticated composition in which Vrubel sharpens and exaggerates the Renaissance and Baroque design techniques fades when the triptych is exposed vertically on the walls — which even leads to accusations of “ineptitude” in spatial construction. The panels are also related to the artist’s previous life, his further development of leitmotif lines. “Flowers” for the Dunkers’ mansion summarise the whole past experience of Kyiv flower studies, as if all those pencil and watercolour masterpieces were essential in helping Vrubel to master this most perfect of natural forms and become a virtuoso, and later be embodied in the floral spectacle of the triptych. The “Bogatyr” (“Knight”) panel, originally located in the house of Maria Malich on Sadovaya-Samotechnaya, is the result of Vrubel’s developing the plasticity of the horseman-Bogatyr Volga Svyatoslavich. The horseman originated in the panel “Mikula Selyaninovich and Volga” for the Nizhny Novgorod exhibition. It was later embodied with incredible decorative flair in a new material and form material — as the famous majolica fireplace of the same name. The panels for Aleksei and Sergei Morozov’s mansion in Vvedensky Lane were all part of the “game of motives”. For instance, the horses of the flying riders in “The Flight of Faust and Mephisto- pheles” (1896, Tretyakov Gallery) have two origins. One is Arnold Boklin’s painting “War” (1896, New Masters Gallery in the Albertinum, Dresden State Art Collections), and the other was a pencil drawing and watercolour “Horse Racing Faster than a Doe” (both 1890-1891, Tretyakov Gallery) from Vrubel’s series of illustrations for Mikhail Lermontov’s poem “The Demon”. The unfinished panel “Thirty-Three Bogatyrs” (1901, Russian Museum), and especially Vrubel’s sketches of it (1899, Vladimir K. Arseniev Museum of the Far East; 1901, National Pushkin Museum) illustrate how the composition of the panel evolves and is reborn with a cardinal change of theme (originally, Vrubel was working on “Playing Naiads and Tritons”)[37], and yet certain rudiments make their way even into the last version of the painting of 1901. It is for a reason that the panel “Marguerite” (1896, Tretyakov Gallery), part of the triptych decor for the Gothic study, is exhibited on the intersection of the the atrical, portrait and monumental sections. “Marguerite” is a vivid example of a theatrical portrait; it depicts Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel in her role as Marguerite from Charles Gounod’s opera “Faust”, the part she performed at the Panaevsky Theatre in St. Petersburg at the beginning of 1896. However, there is a white wedding dress: Vrubel depicts Nadezhda as his bride — the wedding took place shortly after the painting was completed, on July 28, 1896. Again, Vrubel’s real life and artistic fate are inextricable. The panel “Venice” for the Dunkers’ house could easily have become an exhibit for a portraits of Moscow patrons of art section. Both works illustrate Vrubel’s unique ways of thinking, which Vsevolod Mamontov described as follows: “He would involuntarily, without intention to, depict in his works the faces and images of people dear to him.”38 This conscious and subconscious, indiscriminate devotion to portraits in Vrubel’s heritage (when the depicted characters travel from one painting to another), along with his system of plastic leitmotifs, inspire a feeling of special unity within his artistic system and credibility of the world he created.

Along with the portraits of Moscow art patrons and Vrubel’s friends, who all supported his work, the panel creates an image of the artist’s happy earthly years. They conclude the First Stage of the exhibition, which represents the first part of the artist’s life — the period that was also called “Vrubel’s Moscow decade”, described by Vsevolod Dmitriyev: “Vrubel passes his mature period — the time when the human spirit is most subordinate to reason — in attempts to reconcile his searches with the Zeitgeist of his time… in an intense and unsuccessful battle with the instinctive demands of the soul, in attempts to reduce these demands to the level of contemporary art norms… Vrubel tries to be a peaceful decorator of life, tries to replace beauty with pleasantness, style with stylisation, his boundless spirituality with intimate soulfulness…”[39]

The Second Stage: 20th Century

The downstairs level of the exposition is the entrance to the next circle of the artist’s life. Another inner state, another century. The tragic epigraph, the “Portrait of the Artist’s Son” (1902, Russian Museum) emphasises the contrast of the transition. The portrait marks a milestone in Vrubel’s creative path as much as “Demon Downcast”. Division of the exhibition into several stops corresponds to the inexorable logic of Vrubel’s legend-like life. The year 1902 divided Vrubel’s life and career into two equally significant periods. Despite his creative radicalism, all the works created before 1902 fit into the framework of their time and embody exploration in the field of artistic form quite common for the turn of the century. What Vrubel created after 1902 belongs to an entirely new age. “Surrounded by the mystery of his madness, he seemed to have distanced himself from the living, moved beyond a certain inaccessible and unattainable territory. That’s when the legend of Vrubel began to stir among us. He had since then returned to life twice, he was working again, and the farewell blossoming of his genius was truly wonderful. But the border separating him from the living remained; he was to us mysterious, an alien from another world.”[40] Even within the succession of psychiatric hospitals in 19021904, Vrubel tried to continue working. Perhaps it was his immersion in the familiar process that would occasionally “bring him to life”. Returning after a long break to painting from nature, Vrubel seemed to have entered the second stage of his life, in which he tried to find new forms of artistic expression and rebuild his relationship with reality. The once again renewed perspective of the real world was revealed to him. A mature and experienced master, he once more humbly devoted himself to the study of nature and would joyfully share with his fellow artists, “Only now am I beginning to see!”[41] But for Vrubel, the usual outlines, dimensions and landmarks of the world around him had changed. It would all fit inside the artist’s hospital room or become limited to the confines of his St. Petersburg apartment. The colours of his world also completely changed: Vrubel hardly worked in oil. Having accepted the external restrictions imposed by life itself, he consciously limited himself in terms of artistic means, realising this was the path of true perfection. Focusing entirely on mastering the art of drawing, Vrubel comes to the conclusion that “paints are not at all essential for conveying the colour of an object; it is a matter of accuracy in drawing those smallest areas from which a solid form is created in our imagination”[42] Nikolai Prakhov recorded the artist’s claim: “I believe that future artists will completely abandon paints. They will only draw with Italian pencil and charcoal, and the public will eventually learn to see colours in such drawings as I see them now.”[43]

The Second Circle of the exhibition leads the viewer to an understanding of how the restrictions practised by Vrubel became a source of incredible artistic discoveries, a foundation for his final triumph. It was as if all the artist’s self-imposed trials — the “clean drawing”, refraining from colour — only contributed to the accumulation of “colour energy”, and were meant to deliver the iridescent and picturesque “Six-Winged Seraph” (1904, Russian Museum), enchanting in its colourful saturation. “An ingenious splash, emission, flight of spiritual expression, where everything shines and sparkles, ‘like one huge diamond of life’; where the barely incarnated forms emerging from a stream of precious smoky purple crystals and flakes, immediately dematerialise, crumble, dissolve in surface and space, making the canvas literally vibrate, roaring with tension.”[44]

Most of the works created by Vrubel after 1902 can be classified as sketches from nature, yet they are a world away from the traditional objectives of this genre. The forms depicted in the portraits of patients (1902-1903, collection of Dr. Vladimir Pomortsov) are chimeric, yet artistically convincing. Vrubel sought not to simply capture an appearance, but convey the psyche, the energy of the model. These are portraits and states, reflecting confusion in Vrubel’s own soul that is seemingly present in each of the works. In these paintings, Vrubel is free from the demands of his time, and speaks the language of the future, expanding the artistic horizons typical of his era. These works do make a tremendous impression: the weakening of the mind’s control led to tyranny of the spirit, which gained unprecedented freedom. Ivan Ge wrote: “Strangely, once Vrubel went crazy, more people than ever believed he was a genius. Those who would not acknowledge him before are now admiring him.”[45] Indeed, the portraits from the Pomortsov collection make us perceive Vrubel’s madness not so much as a disease, but as artistic dissent, a manifestation of pure, creative power free of reason. “In fact, a stern and sharp viewer will notice that, starting from 1902, the lines in Vrubel’s drawings become unsteady, less flexible and clear, sometimes turning into a childish babble; indeed, perhaps, in all the works created by the master after the first fit of insanity, there is no longer the famous firm restraint, the thoroughly thought-out style that make Vrubel’s previous works so austere, clear and sound. Yet, we believe the artist has never before achieved such power of expressiveness and passion, hidden in all the confused and distraught… laconic strokes.”[46]

The portraits from the Vvedensky collection seem different at first glance, as if steadfast and impassive as a document. Several of them were shown at the Moscow Union of Artists exhibition in December 1904: “Not a trace of the illness noticeable in them”, wrote Ivan Ge.47 But this is a deception, a masterful trick. The very anatomy of the figures, the awkward broken poses of patients, their frozen aloof faces reflect the unusualness, the otherness of Vrubel’s models. When viewing this series of portraits, one acutely feels that Vrubel believed himself to be one of those depicted: it’s in the “screaming” expression of the drawing, in the nervous impulsive shading that dispassionately captures the turmoil in the artist’s soul like a seismograph.

The hospital drawings are generally dated depending on which of the two collections they belong to: Pomortsov’s (1902-1903) or Vvedensky’s (1903-1904). However, some works do intersect, and we cannot rule out that many drawings in both collections were created at the same time. Moving through the gallery of “hospital portraits” on the mezzanine floor, where light and dark periods interchange just as in Vrubel’s life, the viewer can almost physically feel the intense pattern of the artist’s life. The next section of the exhibition presents late sketches of hospital wards, furniture, various objects, fabrics and flowers. The series of drawings made at night, during times of insomnia, particularly stands out. It is as if Vrubel created a new level of animating the matter by making portraits of things: “Everything he touched began to glow with the unique light of life.”[48] It would seem that, through drawing the folds of the bedsheets and blankets, an abandoned robe or chair cover, Vrubel is identifying himself, psychologically, with the people who touched the objects and “is looking at them ‘as if he were a soul peering down at its abandoned shell’ <…> The bewitching one-string sound, the monotony of strokes that obey the inner voice of a ‘hearing’ hand, the endless ‘tonal embroidery’ (the development of textures for the ‘Bed’, ‘Marcella Bedspread’, ‘Decanter’ and ‘Throw on a Chair’), the meditative ‘boring whisper’, the divine inarticulate pencil touches — this is where the superrational ‘trembling of the sleeping night’ arises, in which Alexander Pushkin sought the meaning of life and Vrubel reaches his heaven. The sleep of reason produced a miracle.”[49]

Mikhail VRUBEL. The Pearl. 1904.
Pastel, gouache, charcoal, paper crafting on cardboard. 35 × 43.7 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

The logical culmination of this sketch series, the “matter coming to life”, is a series of shells (late 1904 to early 1905). Vrubel was inspired by a gift, a large nacre serving as an ashtray, that, miraculously, has been preserved to this day.[50] The technique in which the “Pearl” (1904, Tretyakov Gallery), the first and major work of this graphic series, was executed, is truly unique. While imitating nature enveloping the shell with nacre layers, Vrubel lined his paper and pasted onto the shell pieces of various forms, creating a three-dimensional relief. Artist Mstislav Dobuzhinsky happened to witness Vrubel’s work and recorded the most valuable memories of the creative process: “The windows of his apartment overlooked a dark, narrow alley near the conservatoire, and I wondered how he managed to create that wonderful colour in works like ‘Shells’. I caught him once working on one of them. A small desk near the window, lit with the feeble St. Petersburg light, was littered with pieces of pastel, watercolour tubes and cigarette butts — he smoked incessantly. He worked from a corner of the table, mixing both pastels and watercolours painstakingly, like a jeweller, and pasting pieces of paper to achieve the desired effect of bright paint.”[51]

“There, in the ‘secret scrolls’ of shimmering forms, in the ‘semi-intelligible revelation’, he was creating self-sufficient, independently developing matter. And, in the words of Nicholas Roerich, this ‘most intimate song of the tones… [was] a wonderful tale of colours and lines that goes beyond matters of ‘what’ and ‘how’.”[52] Vrubel approaches the limits of representational art; perhaps it is the absence of any outside impressions (the artist almost never left his apartment) that allowed Vrubel to experience the entire world in all its cosmic scale inside one shell, to embody the process of the birth of life, the birth of a form — from the fragment to the whole, from the empty sheet to the pearl, the masterpiece. It is no coincidence that, in his only ceremonial self-portrait (1904, Russian Museum), executed in classical iconography, instead of a traditional artist’s attribute — a palette — Vrubel is holding a shell, which, for him, was the symbol of the energy of creation. In the portrait, the shell, the mother of pearl, symbolises the omnipotence of the artist, a creator of man-made masterpieces. In the series of sketches from nature, for which the shell served as a model, Vrubel daringly challenges Nature, abandoning colour when depicting the colouristic splendour of mother-of-pearl.

The final part of the exhibition is imbued with the theme that occupied Vrubel’s mind, particularly in his last years: the theme of divine revelation, the artist’s mission. In 1896, searching for an artistic theme while working on a panel for the Nizhny Novgorod exhibition, Vrubel turned to the images of Alexander Pushkin’s poem “The Prophet” for the first time. He was later commissioned to illustrate “The Prophet” for the 1899 anniversary edition of Pushkin’s poems. This work would become an inspiration for Vrubel to create a large pictorial panel, which he later cut into two parts. Each now exists on its own in two different museum collections. The upper part is the painting “The Prophet” (1898) that belongs to the Tretyakov Gallery. In the lower part of the panel, covering Seraph’s sparkling plumage, Vrubel began to paint a portrait of his wife sitting in a rocking chair by the fireplace (1904-1905, the unfinished portrait “Lady in Violet Dress” now kept in the Russian Museum). The two separated parts of the panel are reunited in the Tretyakov Gallery exhibition. Perhaps it was this portrait of Nadezhda Zabela “against the background of Seraphim’s wings” that made Vrubel return both to the theme of Pushkin’s “Prophet” and to the active work on the composition of his early-1898 painting. Vrubel shows a very personal interpretation of the Prophet, who acquired features of a self-portrait, and Seraph, who, from then on, became Nadezhda’s new role.

“The Six-Winged Seraph” (1904, Russian Museum) — the closing work of the exhibition, and the significant ending of Vrubel’s artistic life — brings together many lines and leitmotifs of the artist’s oeuvre. In the face of the formidable Seraph, one can recognise Nadezhda’s features. Such a sublime interpretation of the artist’s wife and muse is a culmination of a long chain of transformations in her portraits by Vrubel, created throughout their life together. In terms of composition, the “Six-Winged Seraph” is a sort of paraphrase of the Byzantine mosaic Archangels on the dome of St. Sophia’s Cathedral in Kyiv. Vrubel painted the three oil figures of Archangels (now lost) in the image of the only one that survived. The technique in which the “Six-Winged Seraph” was executed also stems from Vrubel’s Kyiv experience: the artist had used paint to create the effect of iridescent smalt. In his last painting, Vrubel no longer imitates mosaics, but masterfully reinterprets it. The image of the avenging angel with a sword and censer (contemporaries called the painting “Azrael” and “The Angel of Death”) is simultaneously angelic and demonic. “In it, we recognise the six-winged Seraph, who once appeared before us in the painting “The Prophet”. His image has changed, but the same sword and censer with a flaming coal are in his hands, and the same wise snake with a burning sting wraps around his hand. A golden crown that adorned the last Demon shines on his forehead and his features are similar to the “Demon Downcast”.[53]

In the eyes of Vrubel’s contemporaries, this work by Vrubel was not only a variation of the “Demon Downcast”, but also a symbol of the artist’s revival. Completing his artistic journey with the perfect rhyming of its begi nning and end, and closing the circle of his life, Vrubel turned it into “a perfect form of artistic being”.[54]

1. N. Ge, “Vrubel” in World of Art [Mir iskusstva], nos. 10-11 (1903), p. 183.
2. Quoted from: A. Benois, “Letters on Art. 1908-1917” [“Khudozhest- vennyye pis’ma. 1908-1917”] in Rech newspaper, vol. 1 (1908-1910; Saint Petersburg, 2006), p. 410.
3. Ibid.
4. A. Blok, “In Memory of Vrubel” [“Pamyati Vrubelya”], 1st edition in A. Blok: Collected Works, 8 vols., vol. 5 (Leningrad, 1960-1963), p. 689.
5. S. Yaremich, “Vrubel” in World of Art [Mir iskusstva], nos. 10-11 (1903), p. 189.
6. A. Benois, “Vrubel” in Letters on Art. 1908-1917 [Khudozhestven- nyye pis’ma. 1908-1917], vol. 1, (St. Petersburg, 2006), p. 411.
7. M. Alpatov, “Once again on Vrubel” [“Snova o Vrubele”] in Sketches of the Russian Art History [Etyudypo istorii russkogo iskusstva], vol. 2 (Moscow, 1967), p. 161.
8. M. Allenov, Vrubel (Moscow, 2000), p. 29.
9. A. Merezhnikov, “M. Vrubel’s Creative Method: Composition and Artistic Metaphor” (PhD Thesis History of Art) [“Tvorcheskiy metod M. Vrubelya: problem kom- pozitsii I izobrazitel’noy metafory: dis. kand. iskusstvovedeniya”] (St. Petersburg, 2018), p. 232.
10. S. Durylin, “Vrubel and Lermontov” in Mikhail Lermontov, articles and materials in 2 books, prepared to print by I. Sergiyevsky and B. Eichenbaum. Book2 (Moscow, 1948), pp. 541-622. (Literaturnoye Nasledstvo, USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House); vol. 45/46). N. Tarabukin, Mikhail Vrubel (Moscow, 1974). P. Suzdalev, Vrubel. Personality. World View. Method [Vrubel. Lichnost’. Mirovozzreniye. Metod] (Moscow, 1984).
11. A. Ivanov, Vrubel, 2nd ed. (Petrograd, 1916), p. 12.
12. M. Voloshin, “Exhibition of Children Drawings: Viktor Borisov-Musatov. Vrubel” [“Vystavka detskikh risunkov. V.E. Bor- isov-Musatov. Vrubel”] in Rus, no. 76 (1908, March 1), p. 2.
13. Vrubel: Correspondence; Memories of the Artist [Vrubel. Perepiska. Vospominaniya o khudozhnike], 2nd ed. (Leningrad, 1976), p. 51.
14. A. Ivanov, Vrubel, 2nd ed. (Petrograd, 1916), pp. 47-48.
15. V. Rozanov, “At the Exhibition of the ‘World of Art” Magazine” [“Na vystavke zhurnala ‘Mir iskusstva’”] in World of Art [Mir iskusstva], no. 6 (1903), pp. 54-55.
16. A. Ivanov, Vrubel, 2nd ed. (Petrograd, 1916), p. 38.
17. V. Stasov, “Exhibitions” [“Vy- stavki”] in News and Stock Exchange Paper [Novosti i birzhevaya gazeta] (January 27, 1898).
18. Quoted from: A. Benois, «Artistic Letters. 1908-1917» [«Khudozhest- venniye pisma. 1908-1917»] in Rech newspaper. Vol. 1. 1908-1910 (St. Petersburg, 2006). P. 102
19. Quoted from: A. Benois, «Vrubel» in Rech. No. 91. April 3, 1910. — See: A. Benois, «Artistic Letters. 19081917» [«Khudozhestvenniye pisma. 1908-1917»] in Rech newspaper. Vol. 1. 1908-1910 (St. Petersburg, 2006). P. 410
20. Vrubel (1976), p. 268.
21. L. Barsova, Vrubel: No Comments (Saint Petersburg, 2012), p. 65.
22. Ibid., p. 94.
23. A. Benois, Vrubel. World of Art [Vrubel. Mir iskusstva], nos. 10-11 (1903), p. 177.
24. More on this: I. Shumanova, “The Fullest Form of Artistic Being” [“Polneishaya forma khudozhest- vennogo bytiya”] in Mikhail Vrubel (Moscow, 2021), pp. 37, 40, 52.
25. L. Barsova. Quoted work, p. 76.
26. A. Ivanov, Vrubel, 2nd ed. (Petrograd, 1916), p. 25.
27. L. Barsova, Vrubel: No Comments (Saint Petersburg, 2012), pp. 156, 164.
28. Ibid., p. 161.
29. Ibid., p. 190.
30. A. Ivanov, Vrubel, 2nd ed. (Petrograd, 1916), p. 38.
31. A. Ivanov, Vrubel, 2nd ed. (Petrograd, 1916), p. 7.
32. V. Rozanov, “At the Exhibition of the ‘World of Art’ Magazine” [“Na vystavke zhurnala ‘Mir iskusstva’”] in World of Art [Mir iskusstva], no. 6 (1903), p. 55.
33. A. Ivanov. Quoted work, p. 6.
34. E. Verhaeren, “Moscow Memories” [“Moskovskiye vospominaniya”] in Russkiye Vedomosti, no. 5 (January 8, 1914).
35. Velimir Khlebnikov’s “A goblin grabbles in the greeny forest…” translated from Russian by Paul Schmidt https://ruverses.com/velimir-khlebnikov/a-goblin-grabbles-in-the-greeny-forest
36. I. Yevdokimov, M. Vrubel (Moscow, 1925), p. 54.
37. Watercolour sketches-variations (1896-1899), Tretyakov Gallery, Vasnetsov Brothers Art Museum, private collections; painting 1899, Ivanovo Art Museum.
38. V. Mamontov, Memories of Russian Artists: Abramtsevo Artistic Circle [Vospominaniya o russlikh khudozhnikakh: Abramtsevskiy khudozhestvennyy kruzhok], 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1951), p. 77.
39. V. Dmitriyev, “Vrubel’s Legacy” [“Zavety Vrubelya”] in Apollon, no. 5 (1913), p. 16.
40. A. Ivanov, Vrubel, 2nd ed. (Petrograd, 1916), pp. 1-2.
41. Ibid., p. 55.
42. N. Prakhov, “Mikhail Vrubel” [“Mikhail Aleksandrovich Vrubel”] in Vrubel (1976), p. 222.
43. Ibid.
44. V. Lenyashin, “Vrubel: Ineffable Thought; On the Matter of the Plastic Foundations of Poetic Symbolism” [“Vrubel — mysl’ neizrechyonnaya: (k voprosu o plasticheskikh osnovaniyakh poeticheskogo simvolizma)”] in Saint Petersburg Art History Notebooks [Peterburgskiye iskusstvovedcheskiye tetradi], periodical collection of works on the history of art, issue 16 (St. Petersburg, 2009), p. 119.
45. Vrubel (1976), p. 278.
46. N. Punin, “On the Drawings of M. Vrubel” [“K risunkam M.A. Vrubelya”] in Apollon, no. 5 (1913, May), p. 12.
47. Vrubel (1976), p. 281.
48. N. Punin, “On the Drawings of M. Vrubel” [“K risunkam M.A. Vrubelya”] in Apollon, no. 5 (1913, May), p. 10.
49. V. Lenyashin. “Vrubel: Ineffable Thought; On the Matter of the Plastic Foundations of Poetic Symbolism” [“Vrubel — mysl’ neizrechyonnaya: (k voprosu o plasticheskikh osnovaniyakh poeticheskogo simvolizma)”] in Saint Petersburg Art History Notebooks [Peterburgskiye iskusstvovedches- kiye tetradi], periodical collection of works on the history of art, issue 16 (St. Petersburg, 2009), pp. 121-122.
50. Manuscript Department of the Russian Museum, folio 34, inventory 1, item 370.
51. M. Dobuzhinsky, Memories [Vospominaniya] (Moscow, 1987), p. 214.
52. N. Roerich, “Vrubel: The Artist’s Notebooks” [“Vrubel. Zapisnyye listki khudozhnika”] in Vesy, no. 2 (1905, February), p. 29.
53. A. Ivanov, Vrubel, 2nd ed. (Petrograd, 1916), pp. 51-52.
54. A. Benois, “Vrubel: Obituary” [“Vrubel: [nekrolog]”] in Rech, April 3 (16). Quoted from: A. Benois, Letters on Art. 1908-1917 [Khudozhestvennyye pis’ma. 1908-1917} in Rech, vol. 1 (1908-1910; St. Petersburg, 2006), p. 410.

Illustrations

Mikhail VRUBEL. Self-portrait with a Shell. Late 1904 — early 1905
Watercolour, charcoal, gouache, sanguine on paper. 58.2 × 53 cm
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Cupola of the Saint-Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv
Photograph: Mikhail Konovalenko

Mikhail VRUBEL. Six-Winged Seraph. 1904
Oil on canvas. 131 × 155 cm. Russian Museum

Mikhail VRUBEL. Marguerite. 1896.
The middle part of the “Faust” triptych from a cycle of decorative panels for the Gothic study in the house of Aleksei Morozov. Oil on canvas. 435 × 104 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Angel. 1889.
Sketch. Composition detail of «Resurrection». Italian pencil, gouache on cardboard. 26.1 × 31 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. A Tree by the Fence. 1904
Graphite pencil on paper. 24 × 30 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Campanulas.
Lead pencil, watercolour, gouache on paper mounted on cardboard. 43 × 35.6 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Dress.
Compressed charcoal, lead pencil on paper. 17.5 × 25 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Demon’s Head. 1890.
Compressed charcoal, sanguine on paper. 41 × 68 cm. Reverse side: Resurrection.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Angel with Incense Burner and Candle. 1887
Watercolour, lead pencil, varnish on paper mounted on cardboard. 69 × 26 cm.
© Kyiv Art Gallery National Museum, Ukraine

Mikhail VRUBEL. Demon Seated. 1890
Oil on canvas. 116.5 × 213.8 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Demon’s Head.
Watercolour, compressed charcoal, lead pencil on paper. 23 × 35.6 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. The Demon. 1894. Head.
Coloured plaster. 50 × 58 × 22 cm.
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. Demon Flying. 1899.
Unfinished painting. Oil on canvas. 138.5 × 430.5 cm
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. Demon Flying. 1899.
Unfinished painting. Oil on canvas. 138.5 × 430.5 cm
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. Inversion

Mikhail VRUBEL. Demon Downcast.
Sketch of the initial variant of the painting. Watercolour, whitewash, lead pencil, iron gall ink, pen on cardboard. 27.6 × 63.9 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Reclining Female Nude (from her back). 1902
Watercolour, whitewash, bronze paint, lead pencil on paper mounted on cardboard. 22.2 × 36 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Thirty-Three Bogatyrs. 1901
Central part of the unfulfilled triptych based on “The Tale of Tsar Saltan” by Alexander Pushkin for the dining-room of Aleksei Morozov’s house in Moscow. Unfinished. Oil on canvas. 180.5 × 230 cm.
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. “The mermaid floated on the blue river, illuminated by the full moon…”
Illustrations for Lermontov’s poem “Mermaid” in M. Lermontov, Writings. Artist’s book (Moscow: Typolithography of I.N. Kushnaryov and Co. Society, 1891)

Mikhail VRUBEL. The Sea King. 1898-1899.
The copy created after 1899. Majolica, reduction firing. Height 34 cm
© Abramtsevo Museum-Reserve

Mikhail VRUBEL. Sadko Playing Gusli. 1898-1899
Half-length figure. Majolica. 51.5 × 49 × 30 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Sea Princess. Portrait of Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel as Princess Volkhova. 1904
Watercolour, lead pencil on cardboard. 33.5 × 27.7 cm
A. Kasteyev State Museum of Arts, Almaty

Mikhail VRUBEL. Pan. 1899.
Oil on canvas. 124 × 106.3 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow. Detail

Mikhail VRUBEL. At Nightfall. 1900.
Oil on canvas. 131 × 182.5 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow. Detail

Mikhail VRUBEL. Horseman Galloping. 1890.
A sketch for an illustration to Mikhail Lermontov’s poem “The Demon”. Lead pencil on paper. 15 × 24 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. The Flight of Faust and Mephistopheles.
Sketch for the similarly named panel for Aleksei Morozov’s house. 1896. Watercolour, ink, brush, pen on paper. 10.8 × 12.5 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Volga and Mikula Selyaninovich. 1899
Sketch of majolica fireplace. Watercolour, lead pencil on paper. 22 × 25 cm (drawing cut on the image edge).
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Mikula Selyaninovich
Watercolour, whitewash, lead pencil on gray cardboard. 12.1 × 41.3 cm (image delineated; measuring grid applied).
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Mikula Selyaninovich
Watercolour, whitewash, lead pencil on gray cardboard. 12.1 × 41.3 cm (image delineated; measuring grid applied).
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow. Detail

Mikhail VRUBEL. Bogatyr. 1898.
Oil on canvas. 321.5 × 222 cm (rectangle with the top side cut in the form of a triangle)
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. Sadko on the Bank of Lake Ilmen. 1899
Design copy of a majolica dish. Watercolour, gouache, silver and bronze paints, charcoal, lead pencil on paper. 51.8 × 65.9 cm
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. Parting of the Sea King and Princess Volkhova. 1898.
Gouache, bronze paint, pastel, varnish on paper mounted on cardboard. 60 × 152 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. The Sea King. 1898
High relief, majolica. 52.3 × 40 × 14 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Seraph. 1904-1905
Watercolour, charcoal, lead pencil on paper. 45 × 35.8 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Portrait of Savva Vrubel, the Artist’s Son. 1902
Watercolour, whitewash, lead pencil on paper. 53 × 69.7 cm
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. Volkhova. 1898.
Half-length figure. Majolica. 42 × 20,4 × 19 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Decorative dish “Sadko”
Based on 1899 design. Abramtsevo ceramics workshop (?). Majolica, relief, coloured glaze. 88 × 75 cm (oval)
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. Fantasy
Lead pencil on paper. 35.7 × 25 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Armchair by the Table. 1904
Lead pencil on paper mounted on cardboard. 18.8 × 16 cm
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. Rose. 1904
Watercolour, lead pencil on paper. 30 × 18.2 cm
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Lady in Violet Dress. Portrait of Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel. 1904–1905.
Unfinished. Oil on canvas. 160 × 130 cm.
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. Portrait of Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel against a Backgound of Birches. 1904.
Watercolour, pastel, gouache, charcoal, lead pencil, chalk on paper. 67.6 × 32.3 cm
© Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. The Prophet. 1899.
Illustration for the poem of the same name by Alexander Pushkin. Black watercolour, brush, lead pencil on paper. 38.2 × 18.5 cm (top – semicircle)
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. The Prophet. 1898
Oil on canvas. 145 × 131 cm (top – semicircle)
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Prophet and Seraph. 1905
Illustration to the poem by Alexander Pushkin “The Prophet”. Watercolour, ink, whitewash, lead pencil on paper. 34.5 × 50 cm
© National Pushkin Museum, St. Petersburg

Mikhail VRUBEL. Portrait of Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel as a Seraph. 1904
Charcoal on paper mounted on cardboard. 36 × 27 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Mikhail VRUBEL. Prophet’s Head. 1904–1905
Charcoal, lead pencil, whitewash, watercolour on paper mounted on cardboard. 43.2 × 33.5 cm.
© Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

As befitted a child born into the nobility, Mikhail Vrubel was trained in various arts from an early age. Painting was not the only subject, no less time and effort were devoted to music. He was also immensely fond of literature, and his works are saturated with images inspired by folklore and mythology, Shakespeare and the romantic poets Goethe, Pushkin and Lermontov. As a young man, Vrubel loved opera, and would later make many sketches for various productions.

His artistic talent was first noticed when he created a heartfelt reproduction of Michelangelo’s fresco The Last Judgment, having seen a copy of it at an exhibition. His father hired a drawing teacher for him, but nothing came of it.

Vrubel went on to graduate from the law faculty of St. Petersburg University, work as a tutor and lead a bohemian, rather dissolute lifestyle — it was only at the age of 24 that he decided to enter the Imperial Academy of Arts and devote himself professionally to art. His first paycheck and recognition came from his major restoration of the murals of St. Cyril’s Church in Kiev.

Vrubel was a man of impulse, full of drive and passion, like his oeuvre. He alternated between working obsessively and falling into depression and drink. Society at large did not appreciate his work, describing it as decadent and even ugly. Physical disability was added to mental anguish at the age of 50, when he became confined to a wheelchair. Time and again, after long stays in the hospital and some brief glimmers of improvement, he slipped back, solidifying his reputation as a madman. Vrubel died in 1910. At his funeral, the great poet Alexander Blok, an admirer, delivered a eulogy, calling him «a messenger of other worlds.» Let’s plunge into these other worlds inhabited by Vrubel.

1. The Demon Seated, 1890

Vrubel nurtured the idea and image of his Demon for several years, and it is one of the first works to showcase his “crystal” style. The broad strokes made with a special spatula create the impression less of a painting than of a mosaic panel — a technique influenced by the mosaics of the Kiev cathedrals where he worked. The picture was inspired by Mikhail Lermontov’s romantic poem The Demon, which tells of a fallen angel wandering the Earth, finding no peace anywhere. Vrubel had his own understanding of the central figure, who represents not evil, but rather suffering, and is at the same time majestic. In addition, Vrubel painted a series of watercolor illustrations for the same poem.

2. The Judgment of Paris, 1893

In 1889, Vrubel moved to Moscow, where he made the life-altering acquaintance of the major industrialist, philanthropist and art lover Savva Mamontov. The modernist, innovative Vrubel was not yet accepted in society, but Mamontov had a nose for artistic flair and commissioned the artist to decorate his Moscow mansion. Soon Vrubel was in demand with other art lovers. For instance, for the Dunker family home in Moscow, he created the incredible The Judgment of Paris triptych, which other clients had inexplicably turned down.

3. The Princess of Dreams, 1896

This huge canvas was commissioned again by Savva Mamontov for the pavilion at the 1896 All-Russian Art and Industrial Exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod. However, the Imperial Academy of Arts did not allow the picture to appear at the exhibition (read more about this mini-scandal here).

Instead, Mamontov ordered a mosaic copy of the painting to decorate the facade of the Metropol Hotel, the construction of which he funded in the early 20th century, opposite the Bolshoi Theater. The actual painting itself was kept for many years in the storage rooms of the Bolshoi Theater, before finally being moved to the Tretyakov Gallery in 2007. The building had to be specially reconstructed to house it, and a whole room dedicated to Vrubel appeared as a result.

4. Portrait of Savva Mamontov, 1897

Vrubel painted few portraits of real people, but one of them was of his benefactor, Savva Mamontov. The dark, crooked image reflects the real-life drama in which the industrialist found himself. A prominent philanthropist, he was unjustly accused of embezzlement; soon after this portrait he was arrested and tried, but ultimately acquitted. But that did not avert financial ruin, forcing him to sell his property, including many works by leading artists.

5. Volga Svyatoslavich and Mikula Selyaninovich (Fireplace), 1899

The Abramtsevo estate of Savva Mamontov was home to an entire artistic circle. Vrubel often stayed there and even set up a ceramic workshop, where he and his assistants turned his numerous sketches into stove tiles, majolica panels, sculptures and other decorative elements, predominantly with fairy-tale and mythological motifs. This folklore-themed work won a gold medal at the 1900 Paris Exhibition. A copy of it was made for Bazhanov House in Moscow, which was fully fashioned in the Art Nouveau style.

6. Pan, 1899

The “Russian style” was very much in vogue at the turn of the 20th century, and Vrubel was among those seeking to revive national folklore, in both ceramics and painting. Although this picture was painted under the influence of the story Saint Satyr by the aptly named French writer Anatole France, Vrubel transposes the ancient Greek mythical character to Russian soil. His Pan is more like a sprite, an otherworldly forest spirit lurking against the backdrop of a typically Russian landscape.

7. Sadko Dish, 1899-1900

Vrubel designed the set for a production of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov’s opera Sadko for Savva Mamontov’s private theater. This fairy-tale from Russian folklore inspired the artist to create a whole series of majolica sculptures of the opera characters: Sadko, the Sea Tsar, the Princess. This sumptuous dish portrays them and other inhabitants of the underwater world.

8. The Swan Princess, 1900

Like Pan, the Swan Princess is another fairy-tale creature that seems to exist between worlds. She is at once a beautiful girl and a bird, and the artist tries to capture the moment of this metamorphosis. The character was played by Vrubel’s wife, singer Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel, in another Rimsky-Korsakov opera, The Tale of Tsar Saltan, based on Pushkin’s poem. However, many divine in this incredible image the likeness of a married woman whom Vrubel loved unrequitedly before marriage.

9. The Demon Downcast, 1902

After his seated demon, Vrubel painted The Demon Flying, who soars imperiously over the world, and then ended the cycle with this third demon, tragically slain. This fractured figure lies against the backdrop of the Caucasus Mountains. The creation of this picture led Vrubel to another breakdown and hospitalization. Despite having produced many sketches in advance, he made endless alterations to the finished canvas. Vrubel’s wife recalled how she observed the changes in the Demon with horror — on some days its face was fearful, on others it expressed “a deep melancholy and newfound beauty.”

10. Six-Winged Seraphim, 1904

After Lermontov’s Demon, which had tormented him so much, Vrubel again turned to a complex creature: this time the hero of Alexander Pushkin’s poem The Prophet, the awe-inspiring angel Seraphim, the fire-like emissary of God. Clasping a sword, Pushkin writes, he cleaves the benumbed narrator’s chest, plucks out his quivering heart and thrusts a fiery coal into the gaping wound, transforming him into a prophet who will “sear human hearts with the Word.” The artist painted the picture now in very poor health, racked by hallucinations. As with his Demon, he was perpetually dissatisfied with the facial features and repeatedly redrew them.

11. Pearl Oyster, 1904

Initially, Vrubel was beguiled by the iridescence of mother-of-pearl, and it was this he tried to portray through color experimentation. The two sea princesses appeared in the picture almost by accident, when Vrubel supposedly “spotted” them in one of his sketches. They complement the picture by turning the oyster shell into a magical grotto.

12. After the Concert, 1905

Vrubel painted many portraits of his wife, the famous singer Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel. This is one of the artist’s last paintings, which sadly remained unfinished. It depicts his weary wife reclining on an armchair near the fireplace.

The exhibition of works by Mikhail Vrubel runs at the Tretyakov Galleryin Moscow until March 8, 2022. 

If using any of Russia Beyond’s content, partly or in full, always provide an active hyperlink to the original material.

Get the week’s best stories straight to your inbox

Vrubel Mikhail Alexandrovich a brief biography of the Russian artist of the Silver Age is set out in this article.

Vrubel Mikhail short biography

The future artist was born on March 5, 1856 in the town of Omsk in the family of the headquarters captain. From a young age, the boy inevitably grew a love of art and beauty. But he decided to connect his life, at the insistence of his parents, with jurisprudence, having entered the autumn of 1874 at St. Petersburg University. He graduated after 6 years, but he did not want to engage in boring business. Therefore, in 1880, Mikhail entered the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, studying with a teacher Pavel Chistyakov. By the way, his teacher taught Repin, Surikov, Vasnetsov and Serov.

The life of a young artist was not spoiled often. He managed to survive for 3 rubles a month, eating only water and bread. But he never borrowed, pride did not allow. Vrubel’s art style was new and unexpected. Mikhail was not attracted by the classic; he introduced the features of modernism into painting.

In 1884-1989, he lived in Kiev. He worked on murals and icons in the Cyril Church, created sketches for paintings in the Vladimir Cathedral, which were not implemented. In 1889 he moved to Moscow.

The first exhibition of the artist was held in 1896. After its completion, Vrubel found his happiness in the person of the opera singer Nadezhda Zabela, who became his muse and wife. In the marriage, the son of Savva was born, but he did not live long and soon died. This event shook the psyche of Vrubel, putting mental illness.

The famous painting “The Demon Sitting” was painted in 1890, causing conflicting feelings among art lovers. In addition to painting, Mikhail Vrubel was seriously interested in ceramics, sculpture, and the decoration of productions in theaters.

The continuation of the first «Demon» was the painting «Demon Downed». But the artist progressed mental illness, which prevented the painting from being finished. Also in 1905, Vrubel’s vision began to drop sharply, and after six months he completely went blind. His last work was a portrait of Valery Bryusov — the master of Russian symbolism. The last years of the artist passed in complete darkness, from which he died in 1910 .

The main works are “Venice”, “Spain”, “Fortune Teller”, the panels “Mikula Selyaninovich” and “Princess Dreams”, the paintings “The Sea Princess”, Pan, “Thirty-Three Heroes”, “The Princess Swan”, “Demon” defeated ”,“ Portrait of a son ”.