Nude nature in Soviet painting. Why you need to draw from nature, and not from photographs Nude images in painting

Contrary to some stereotypes, Soviet art has never been distinguished by special puritanism, even against the background of most Western countries. One girl was not too lazy to collect typical samples of the Soviet nude in painting and graphics of the period from 1918 to 1969 in her magazine. Approximately such selections can be made on Soviet photography, cinema, sculpture, monumental art.

Original taken from catrina_burana in Nude nature in the Soviet fine arts. Part III. 1950-1969

In the 1950s and 60s, socialist realism remained the main trend in Soviet art. And, just like in the 30s and 40s, the depiction of nudity had to comply with its canons. The set of situations where such a nature could shine was limited: a river or sea bank, a bathhouse, a shower, a bath, and, of course, an artist's workshop. But back in the 40s, a certain variety of subjects began to appear in the nude theme, even more noticeable in the painting and graphics of the 50s and especially the 1960s. Here, for example, the theme is "morning". Apparently, it was believed that a Soviet girl or woman could do well, waking up in the morning, to show off topless, or even in what her mother gave birth.

1950. N. Sergeeva. Good morning

1950. A Zavyalov. Models against the background of draperies

1950. In Arakcheev. Seated woman.

1950. Vl Lebedev. nude model

1950s in Dmitrievsky. Nude

1953. Vsevolod Solodov. Model

And now - water procedures! Beach, sauna, swimmers, bathers.
1950. N Eremenko. On the sand

1950s B Sholokhov. Bath

1950s T Eremina. Swimmers
strange picture Or rather, its name. Well, on the right, for sure, swimmer. There are doubts about who is in the middle: it still seems to me that this is a swimmer. Well, and on the left in thongs and with a bare bottom - well, definitely not a swimmer ...

And here is Alexander Deineka, with his daring models, where would we be without them!
1951. A. Deineka. Sketch for the painting "Bather"

1952. A. Deineka. bathers

1951. A. Deineka. Model

1952. A. Deineka. Model

1953. Deineka. reclining model

1953. Deineka. Lying with a ball
The last two, especially the one without the ball - not so impressive relief. And the little man is nothing, only a little short-legged.
1955. Deineka. Nude sitter
Several paintings by artist Andrei Goncharov.
1952. Andrey Goncharov. Nude on a lilac background

1952. Andrey Goncharov. Seated Nude

1954. A. Goncharov. Reclining nude with tulips

1955. A. Goncharov Nude lying on red

1956. A. Goncharov Nude on a striped

1958. A. Goncharov. nude model
And now, there is already a variety of plots. Pimenov's plot, although connected with bathing, is not quite standard, while Glazunov's plot is full of eroticism.
1955. Yuri Pimenov. Winter day

1956. Ilya Glazunov. Morning
A few more studio models from 1957-58. The first and third - to the envy of Deineka!
1957. A. Olkhovich. Nude

1957. Michael of God. Nude

1958. A. Samokhvalov. Nude

1958. R. Podobedov. seated model
Here A. Sukhorukih brings even more variety to the nude scenes. Both "Midday Sun" and "Morning" are filled with romance...
1958. A. Sukhorukikh. midday sun

1960. A. Sukhorukikh. Morning
The bathing scene is also not quite typical. In the center of the composition - a woman or a girl - you can't see it behind the sheet - for some reason, this very sheet blocks the girl, who is stretching out her hand, apparently for clothes. Like, I'll block you while you get dressed. But here's the mystery: from whom? From the shore, you can see everything, the artist spied on it! And from the side of the lake - obviously there is no one, and others are not very shy, the one on the right is sitting in a complete negligee ... Mysterious picture.
1958. Chernyshev. Bathing on the lake
Morning again. Well, yes, it’s impossible to call such a picture a “lying model”, it’s too painful in a frivolous pose, and so - well, the lady woke up, well, stretched - what’s wrong?
1959. L. Astafiev. Morning

Another nautical theme. Not at all Deinekin forms are coming into fashion ...
Two drawings by the artist Grigory Gordon. A reading girl is also a popular plot in those years. Well, you can read in this form, if it's hot, for example.
1960. G. Gordon. girl with a book

1959. G. Gordon. sitting girl
Three more water-themed paintings.
1960. Vladimir Stozharov. Bath. Washing woman

1960s Fedor Samusev. After the bath
Several studio nudes. Urusevsky and Reznikova's models are already quite thin ...
1960. Gennady Troshkin. Nude

1960. R. Podobedov. young model

1960. S.P. Urusevsky. nude model

1961. Evgenia Reznikova. Model Lisa
The heroes of V. Kholuyev's paintings are easily recognizable. There is something puppet about them. The set of subjects is standard: naked in the studio, sea, morning.
1960s V. Kholuev. Reclining Nude

1960s V. Kholuev. Nude

1960s V. Kholuev. born of the sea

1960s V. Kholuev. Morning

1962. V. Kholuev. Nude
"Spring Morning" by A. Sukhorukikh, although it combines two typical plots - morning and bathing, but here the nakedness of the heroine is secondary; this "nude" is not for the sake of "nude", but quite a genre picture.
1962. A. Sukhorukikh. spring morning
Then we look: and studios, and beaches, and another girl with a book ... The 60s bore an echo of liberty, the removal of many prohibitions, and the further, the more freedom is felt both in plots and in performance. In addition, it is easy to see that impressive forms are almost never found.
1962. Vladimir Lapovok. In a workshop

1962. M. Samsonov. Nude

1963. S. Solovyov. naked girl

1964. A. Samokhvalov. On the beach

1964. V. Scriabin. Nude

1965. A. Sukhorukih. girl with a book

1966. A. Sukhorukih. In the artist's studio

1965. N. Ovchinnikov. Evening melody

1966. Antonov. Bathhouse in the village of Titovo. sisters

1966. Teterin. Nude

1967. Kaparushkin. Siberian

1967. A. Sukhanov. In a workshop
Well, this is quite a frivolous story. Straight BDSM. Guy caught peeping...
1967. A. Tarasenko. Punishment
Not swimming, mind you, but just relaxing. A girl in a hat was walking in the mountains, she was tired. undressed and sat down on a pebble ...
1967. V. Chaus. Rest

1968. Vladimir Lapovok. sleeping

1968. May Miturich. Nude
And this picture - in general, on the verge. Either schoolchildren or students just like that came to the bank, where, judging by the presence of bridges, not only they go, they completely undressed, took out paints with easels - and, well, draw each other!
1969. M. Tolokonnikova. On sketches

1969. Y. Raksha. August

1969. Y. Raksha. Dream
Not the most bad time, it seems to me, these were the very 1960s ...

Teaching students classical art, educators have long encouraged artists to work from nature. Well, in our Western world; they don't know how it is in Asian, but I think it's the same.
Students learn to draw, paint and sculpt by observing the objects, models and scenes they see "live". However, working from nature is not a matter of course.

Today, many artists use photographs. Here we are on slippery ground. If you rely solely on photographs, you can spend your time recreating the worldview of the camera, and not on your own human, individual, original - in a word, on what is one of the pillars of art.

1. People don't see the world the way cameras do.

In a millisecond, the camera can capture absolute detail, but there is not enough depth in the picture.
For example, in the image below, from flowers to foreground up to the tiles in the background, all elements of the scene are in focus at the same time.

It can only be said that some objects are behind others. Trees and shrubs do not appear to be three-dimensional; they look like flat figures with a pattern of leaves. If you are indoors right now - go to the window and look, if you are reading from a screen in the park - do the same. Look at the tree. You see a voluminous round trunk, branches spread over a large space, they even emphasize the depth of the sky.
This means that we are superior to the camera in the depth of perception - it is three-dimensional for us and two-dimensional for the camera.

2 And this is where one of our abilities comes into play. Or rather, its absence: we are unable to focus on more than one thing at a time, so in order to see each element, you need to move your eyes.

Edgar Degas's Cafe-concert at Les Ambassadeurs (1876–1877). See how he manipulates the degree of attention in the naturalness of the pose.

His interest is focused on the face and right hand of the singer, all other figures are painted with soft edges and reduced contrast.

So it turns out that we read the first plan clearly and sharply, everything else is soft and slightly blurry, although we never realize this. When the master paints from nature, he does not highlight the contours of the background with hard lines.

That's what it looks like from a photograph. People added to the background.

Michele Del Campo. Works both from photographs and from life (much less frequently😊 ). Received numerous art prizes, including the 2006 BMW Prize presented by Queen Sofia of Spain.

Michele Del Campo

3. We can study a scene with shadows and bright lights and see everything in the right light thanks to the movement of our eyes. And this is very, very significant.
Cameras, in contrast, choose one exposure that works well enough for the entire scene. As a result, something is inevitably distorted, becoming too dark or too light. Artists working with photographs often copy this defect, marking their work as photographic, alas. This is immediately visible.

Megan Boodie is an American artist. Works mainly from photographs with digital manipulations. 2009

In photography, typical lens distortion is the result of the camera's fixed point of view and proximity to the subject.
Standing in the same place, in real life, we see differently. Our constantly moving eyes encounter large objects and figures piece by piece, not as a whole.

4. We scan the figure, focusing and refocusing several times, and as each new area is focused, the previous one returns to blurry peripheral vision.
Our brain ties together these multiple views into a single, intelligent whole.

For us, when looking at a live horse, there will not be a huge front half and a tiny backside, and the artist does not write like that. It will display like this:

What is naturalism? (Characteristics)

What is the difference between naturalism and atmosphere?

Another important difference is the difference between naturalism and atmospherics. Landscape painting can be extremely atmospheric without being naturalistic. This is usually because the artist has focused on conveying the mood rather than the visual details. good examples: Nocturne in Blue and Silver – Chelsea(1871, Tate Collection, London) by Whistler and impression, sunrise(1873, Musee Marmottan, Paris) by Claude Monet. None of these paintings have sufficient detail to be naturalistic. Compare with pictures: Artist's workshop(1870, Musée d'Orsay) by Frédéric Bazille; Max Schmidt in one skull(1871, Metropolitan Museum of Art) by Thomas Eakins; Music Lesson (1877, Art Gallery Guildhall, London) Frederic Leighton; Tepidarium (1881, Lever Art Gallery, UK) by Laurence Alma-Tadema; Sick Girl (1881, National Gallery, Oslo) by Christian Krogh: these are all excellent examples of naturalism, completely devoid of any atmosphere.

For a description of French Impressionism, see Characteristics of Impressionist Painting 1870–1910.

What is the difference between naturalism and idealism?

In painting, idealism is the concept most applicable to figure painting and refers to the tradition of creating a "perfect" figure - with an attractive face, perfect hair, good body shape and no external defects. Rarely, if ever, to draw or paint from life, this type of idealized depiction would be suitable for altarpieces and other forms of large-scale religious art, which accounted for most of the commissions received by workshops and studios in old Europe. Essentially an "artificial" style of painting, it bore no resemblance to the naturalism of, say, Caravaggio, who typically used ordinary street people as models for his particular biblical art. Idealism remained the style taught in the major fine art academies until at least the 19th century, when it was finally replaced by a more naturalistic style based on real models and outdoor plein air painting.

Two types of naturalism: landscape and figurative

As can be seen from the examples above, it is not only rural outdoor scenes that exemplify naturalism: portraits and genre drawings of people can also be excellent examples.

However, the term naturalism comes from the word "nature", and thus the most common genre for naturalism is landscape painting - a genre exemplified by the work of John Constable, which the Anglo-Swiss painter Henry Fuseli considered so realistic that whenever he saw her, he felt that he was being called for a walk by his coat and umbrella.

However, not all landscape paintings are naturalistic, especially where the artist's subjectivity intrudes. For example, ghostly religious artist John Martin created his ghostly apocalyptic landscapes to illustrate the power of God. Romantic German painter Caspar David Friedrich imbued his pictorial views with symbolism and emotional romanticism. Many of Turner's landscapes are little more than expressionistic experiments in the depiction of light, while Cezanne painted dozens of views of Montaigne Sainte-Victoire, sacrificing natural precision for his favorites. geometric shapes and fine balance. None of these artists belong to the naturalist school because they care less about representing nature and more about self-expression.

Naturalism in drawing

Since classical antiquity, art history has seen several major advances in realistic drawing and oil painting. Giotto, one of the early pioneers of naturalism, created a set of revolutionary volumetric figures for frescoes in the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua. See, for example, The Betrayal of Christ (The Kiss of Judas) (1305) and Lamentation of Christ (1305). Leonardo da Vinci mastered the art of sfumato in order to create strikingly realistic faces in works such as the Mona Lisa (1506, Louvre, Paris). Michelangelo used his unique talent as a sculptor to create a mass of sculpted figures in his Sistine Chapel frescoes (1508-12; and 1536-41). Caravaggio stunned Rome with his naturalistic painting, using images modeled on people recruited straight from the street. His real figures were ideal for the Catholic art of the counter-reformation of the Baroque era. In the golden age of Dutch realist genre painting, artists such as Jan Vermeer (domestic genre painting, interior and exterior), Pieter de Hooch (courtyards), Samuel van Hoogstraten (domestic interiors) and Emanuel de Witte (architectural church interiors), led the style precise naturalism, which included figurative, everyday and social objects. More recently, in the 19th century, Russian artists created numerous masterpieces of pictorial naturalism in almost all genres. Examples of these works: "Major's Marriage" (1848, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow) Pavel Fedotov; Railway repair(1874, Tretyakov) Konstantin Savitsky; "Portrait of Princess Sofya Alekseevna in the Novodevichy Convent" (1879, Tretyakov) and "Answer of the Zaporizhian Cossacks to Sultan Mahmud IV" (1891, Russian Museum, St. Petersburg) by Ilya Repin; Laughter (“Hail, King of the Jews!”)(1882, Russian Museum) by Ivan Kramskoy; Christ and the sinner(1887, Russian Museum) Vasily Polenov.

History and development of naturalism (c. 500 BC - 1800)

Two charming examples of naturalism were created by the German artist Dürer: The Young Hare (1502) and The Large Piece of Sod (1503), both in the Albertina, Vienna.

Russian Wanderers (Wanderers) (c.1863-90)
Founded in 1863 by a group of young artists from the Imperial Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg, the Wanderers traveled around Russia painting landscapes and genre paintings. Leading members included Ivan Kramskoy (1837–1887), Nikolai Ge (1831–1894),

Let's continue a new section, which I called "Retrospective". This section was opened by one of the recent publications,. It was apocryphal biblical story, and today we will consider the canonical plot.

40. Retrospective: Lot and his daughters

Many are familiar bible story about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah and about the saved family of the righteous Lot, but still it is necessary to specify some details so that the plot we are considering becomes completely clear.

Lot was the beloved nephew of the forefather Abraham, who is considered the ancestor of all Jews (and not only), as well as the spiritual ancestor of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in each of which he is especially revered. Abraham had direct contacts with God, and one day God warned him about his intention to punish the city of Sodom, where Lot lived with his family, as well as the neighboring cities of the Sodom pentagon, as the inhabitants of this region were mired in extreme depravity. At the same time, if there were at least 50 righteous people there, then the Lord would have spared these cities. Abraham began to bargain, consistently reducing this figure to 10, and, apparently, calmed down on this, hoping that ten righteous people in five cities would somehow be found.

God sent two angels to Sodom with an inspection, and they, having taken the form of beautiful young men, appeared at Lot's house and explained to him the purpose of their visit. Meanwhile, almost the entire male population of Sodom had gathered at Lot's house. Lot went out to the crowd - they say, what do you need, why did you come? They replied that, they say, we saw how two handsome boys came to you - so, give them to us, and we will know them, otherwise you will be unhappy. Lot answered - I can’t, they are my guests - but you know what? - I have two daughters, girls - come on, I will give them to you, and you will leave here. But the public did not accept Lot's proposal, demanding that the young men be extradited.

Now there is a clear tendency, especially in foreign-language sources, to replace the concept of "sodomy sin" with something different from the generally accepted one. For example, in French the word "sodomy" (in recent decades) has come to mean copulation with domestic animals. And some interpreters write so directly: the sin of the Sodomites was that they had a bad attitude towards philanthropists (some girl was directly burned for her kindness), they polluted environment and, in general, probably offended members of minorities. For this, the Lord punished them. But we don't buy into these newfangled interpretations, do we? There is only one source: the book of Genesis. And there it is said that the angels appeared in the form of young men, and not, God forgive me, rams or donkeys. And nothing is said about the allegedly burned volunteer girl. So we will stick to the traditional version, which fully explains for what specific sins these cities were destroyed.

The events near Lot's house convinced the angels that the investigation and search for ten righteous people was superfluous, and everything is clear. As a preventive measure, they blinded everyone who had gathered near the house, and told Lot, they say, get ready, take your family, who do you have there? wife, daughters? do the daughters have suitors? - take the grooms, and get out of here, because we'll burn it all now. Lot, taking advantage of the fact that the adversaries who besieged his house were blind, quickly ran to the grooms of his daughters, but they did not believe him - they say that you, dad, have such fantasies, I suppose they went over the wine ... Well, as they say , would be an honor offered.

For some reason, it is generally accepted that only the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by heavenly fire. This is not entirely true. Together with them, the cities of Sevoim and Adma burned down. And only one city of the Sodom pentagon was not affected - Sigor, or Zoar. Not because there were still a dozen righteous people, but at the personal request of Lot, since it was there that he was going to flee with his family. Perhaps, indeed, morals in Sigor were not so spoiled - who can say for sure now.

The episode of the flight of Lot's family from Sodom is probably known to almost everyone - the angels told them not to look back at the burning cities, but Lot's wife turned around and turned into a pillar of salt. This moment is very important, because if this unfortunate incident had not happened, then we would not have a topic for today's conversation.

This dramatic moment is depicted in the picture that precedes the main selection. Raphael Santi (Raphael, Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, 1483 - 1520, Italy)
Lot's flight from Sodom. Fresco of the loggia of Raphael in the Pope's Palace in the Vatican.

Here is another, later, engraving on the same subject.

Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794 - 1872, Germany)


As you can see, the girls are dragging a whole bale of goods, with jugs and other utensils, and they probably put family savings in a bag - gold there, I don’t know, or silver - Lot was by no means a poor man. This is important for understanding subsequent events, where even pitchers will play a role.

Arriving with his daughters in Sigor, Lot realized that it was impossible to stay in the town. Really life threatening. It is understandable - panic reigned in the city, because it was perfectly visible there how the neighboring cities were burning, and the Fire of the Lord is not a domestic fire for you! And the mores of the inhabitants of Sigor were hardly very different from those of Sodom and Gomorrah, so the chance of being killed and robbed in the confusion created by the surviving family was very real. Therefore, Lot made a decision: let's retire to the nearby mountains for the time being, there are convenient caves there, and then we will see. And so they did: they found a cave more decently and on hastily set up their home there. The presence of the surviving Sigor nearby, apparently, rescued Lot and his daughters: somewhere they had to buy their own food, and they had a lot of money.

Some interpreters interpret the subsequent events something like this: Lot's daughters, they say, sincerely believed that there was no one else in the world but them, everything burned down, and everyone burned down, and therefore they are responsible for the continuation of the human race. Well, of course it's not. Sigor survived, they lived, apparently, very close, and, I repeat, they probably stocked up on provisions there. The people stayed there, and there were men - but you and I already know what the preferences of these men were. It is unlikely that Segor in this respect differed from Sodom - after all, the angels did not burn him only at the request of Lot.

So it turns out that the girls were worried about the continuation of not a human, but a kind. And they can be understood: their grooms were burned in the fire of Sodom, which continued to blaze in the sky, and in the only accessible city, the chance to find a groom is zero. “Our dad is still quite strong,” the girls apparently reasoned, “and he is certainly able to continue our family ... and who can contribute to this noble undertaking, if not us?” Moreover, one must understand that in those days the concept of "incest" did not really exist. Abraham, for example, married his half-sister, and Lot's sister, Milka, married her uncle - and nothing.

The girls' plan was this: to drink daddy with wine to insensibility - fortunately, they took the jugs with them, and you can buy wine in the city - of course, you yourself, too, for courage, drink, and lie down with him for the night, first the eldest, and then repeat all this With younger sister. Well, in fact, they implemented their plan quite successfully for themselves, both became pregnant, and at the right time each gave birth to a son. One was named Moab, the other Ammon. From them came the Moabites and the Ammonites. and, by the way, the capital of Jordan is called Amman for a reason (and all these events took place just somewhere nearby) ... but this is still a completely different story.

Starting from the late Renaissance, and even from the High Renaissance, when the “taboo” on the image of a naked body somehow disappeared by itself, artists happily seized on the plot of Lot and Daughters. Perhaps, no less paintings have been written on this topic than about Susanna and the elders, although in the case of Susanna it was a hymn to piety, and in the case of the daughters of Lot ... this story, of course, with all its rational interpretations, still looks a bit, say yes, ambiguous. However, it is not for us to judge.

The paintings will be sorted, as always, by the years of birth of the artists who painted them. So, let's start watching.
Giacomo Palma the Elder, aka Palma il Vecchio (Palma il Vecchio, aka Jacopo Negretti, 1480 - 1528, Venice)

Albrecht Altdorfer (Albrecht Altdorfer, circa 1480 - 1538, Germany)


Here Papa-Lot looks, unlike the previous picture, quite sane and aware of his actions...

Fragment of the painting


Oh, damn it, well, we made porridge ...

Bonifacio Veronese (Bonifacio Veronese, 1487 - 1553, Verona - Venice)


Slightly strange version. Why do we need two cupids, I can still understand, but why is one of them wearing a mask?
And yes, it seems that the second daughter is sitting with a tablet and posting what is happening on Instagram ...

Lucas van Leyden, aka Luke of Leyden, aka Lucas Huygens (Lucas van Leyden, 1494 - 1533, the Netherlands)


And here it is not clear what kind of people on the hill are?

Georg Pencz (Georg Pencz, 1500 - 1550, Germany)


Well, yes, that's exactly what the ideals of beauty were then...

Jan Massys (Jan Massys, Matsys or Metsys, c. 1509 - 1575, Flanders - the Netherlands)


And here the girls look quite modern, especially the one on the left.

Andrea Meldolla, aka Schiavone (Andrea Meldolla, 1510 - 1563, Italy)

Frans Floris (Frans Floris, rather Frans "Floris" de Vriendt, 1520 - 1570, the Netherlands)


Here it is not so much Lot who looks drunk as the second sister. Bored, you see, and did not calculate, went over.
And here we see the figure of Lot's wife in the form of a pillar of salt, although in theory she should not be there. But it's a symbol...

Another version by Frans Floris


And here father Lot is not at all old yet, he looks good. Although obviously podshofe.

And once again Frans Floris!


Interestingly, it is Floris who is depicted as an unsympathetic terrifying person, but Lot's daughters are quite nothing to themselves.

Unknown artist of the 16th century, follower of Frans Floris

I like this picture, the images of the characters are well conveyed. Girls participate in the "party" without much enthusiasm,
but without disgust, they know what they are doing and why. The father, apparently, also understands everything perfectly.

Jacques de Backer (Jacob de Backer, 1555 - 1590, Flanders - the Netherlands)


Again we see a pillar of salt, which is actually near Sodom. We will love him again and again.

Agostino Carracci (Agostino Carracci, 1557 - 1602, Italy)

Hendrick Goltzius (1558 - 1617, Netherlands)


The whole legend flies away... But how good is Goltzius!
And the fox is here. Directly Lars our von Trier breathed ...
And the legend flies because this company, which is depicted, they all understand everything perfectly, while they are positive, ironic, and don’t give a damn, like, play the fool, dear descendants with your interpretations. We do everything right and without any of your reflections.

Adam van Noort (1562 - 1641, Flanders)

Orazio Gentileschi (1563 - 1639, Italy)

Two paintings by Gentileschi depict the moment, apparently, the completion of the "banquet".
I believe that the daughters of Lot show one another the glow from burning cities - they say, that's all
the rest will burn too! And Sigor will burn! So - we did everything right, sister!

Joseph Heintz the Elder (Joseph Heintz der Altere, 1564 - 1609, Switzerland)

Abraham Bloemaert (1564 - 1651, Netherlands)


Old Lot, of course, was not so drunk and understood everything.

Lazarus van der Borcht (1565 - 1611, Flanders)

Do not forget: at every time there was an ideal of female beauty

Joachim Uttewael (Joachim Wtewael or Uytewael, 1566 - 1638, the Netherlands)


Well, Utteval is always good, regardless of the plot.

Jan Bruegel the Elder (1568 - 1625, the Netherlands)
Lot with his daughters against the backdrop of Sodom and Gomorrah

Jan Muller (1571 - 1628, Jan Harmensz Muller, Netherlands)

Peter Paul Rubens (1577 - 1640, Flanders - the Netherlands)


Rubensovsky Lot is completely insane.

Giovanni Battista Caracciolo, aka Battistello (Battistello Caracciolo, 1578 - 1635, Italy)


Some interesting compositional idea with knees ...

Filippo Vitale (1585 - 1650, Italy)

Massimo Stanzione (1585 - 1656, Italy)

In the first picture of Stanzione - the beginning of the process of drinking Lot, and in the second - the party is already in full swing.
The girls are quite slender and look, one might say, in a modern way. However, Susanna looked similar to him.

Simon Vuet (1590 - 1649, France)

Unknown artist of the 17th century, follower of Simon Vouet

Guercino, aka Giovanni Francesco Barbieri (1591 - 1666, Italy)

There is another version by the same artist:

Artemisia Gentileschi (1593 - 1653, Italy)

Cornelis van Poelenburch (1594 - 1667, Netherlands)

The pillar of salt in both paintings by Pulenburg is, apparently, the image of the mother as a reproach to the girls. That's what they panicked in the second picture ...

Hendrick Bloemaert (1601 or 1602 - 1672, the Netherlands)

Francesco Furini (Francesco Furini, 1603 - 1646, Italy)

Andrea Vaccaro (Andrea Vaccaro, 1604 - 1670, Italy)

Girolamo Forabosco (1605 - 1679, Italy)

Pietro Liberi, aka Libertino (Pietro Liberi, 1605 - 1687, Italy)

Pietro Ricci (Pietro Ricci, 1606 - 1675, Italy)

Hendrick van Somer (1607 - 1655, Netherlands)

Lubin Bozen (Lubin Baugin, 1610 or 1612 - 1663, France)

Jacob van Loo (1614 - 1670, the Netherlands)

Unknown artist of the 17th century, Netherlands


Is the one on the right in good health?

Bernardo Cavallino (Bernardo Cavallino, 1616 - 1656, Italy)


These - they are somehow not quite so modern - rather Soviet.

Gerard Terborch (1617 - 1681, Netherlands)


Both the daughter and the father somehow look quite caricatured ...

Flaminio Torre (Flaminio Torre, 1620 - 1661, Italy)

Giovanni Battista Langetti (1625 - 1676, Italy)

Federico Servelli (Federico Cervelli 1625 - earlier 1700, Italy)

Jan Stan (Jan Havickszoon Steen, c. 1626 - 1679, the Netherlands)

Lot here is good! And the daughters are good too.

Pietro Negri (Pietro Negri, 1628 - 1679, Italy)


The second daughter for some reason remained behind the scenes

Luca Giordano (1634 - 1705, Italy) - two pictures

Gregorio de Ferrari (1647 - 1726, Italy)

Marcantonio Franceschini (1648 - 1729, Italy)

and another version of it:

Antonio Bellucci (Antonio Bellucci, 1654 - 1726, Italy)

Johann Michael Rottmayr (1654 - 1730, Austria)

Adrian van der Werff (Adriaen van der Werff, 1659 - 1722, the Netherlands)

Paolo de Matteis (Paolo De Matteis, 1662 - 1728, Italy)

Willem van Mieris (1662 - 1747, the Netherlands)

Frantisek Karel Remb (Francisek Karel Remb, 1675 - 1718, Slovenia)

Jean-Francois de Troy (1679 - 1752, France)

All three of them seem to be doing really well!

Jacopo Amigoni (1682 - 1752, Italy)

Frans van Mieris the Younger (Frans van Mieris II, 1689 - 1763, the Netherlands)

Unknown artist, late XVII- early 18th century, Russia


In the domestic version, Lot is completely decrepit, how did he cope with the task ...

Unknown artist of the 18th century

Jean-Baptiste Greuze (1725 - 1805, France)


So Grez has no-mom-no-pull. How did they conceive children, huh?

Louis-Jean-Francois Lagrenee (1725 - 1805, France)

Peter Jozef Verhaghen (1728 - 1811, Flanders - the Netherlands)

And the second version of Verhagen. The characters are quite recognizable.

Johann Gotthard von Müller (1747 - 1830, Germany)


Here, it seems, no one is complex, and everyone is happy.

William Blake (1757 - 1827, Great Britain)

Giuseppe Bernardino Bison (1762 - 1844, Italy)

Samuel Woodford (1763 - 1817, Great Britain)

Francesco Hayez (1791 - 1882, Italy)

Gustave Courbet (1819 - 1877, France)

Josef Worlicek (1824 - 1897, Czech Republic)

Domenico Morelli (1826 - 1901, Italy)

And on this the era of academicism in attempts to portray Lot and his daughters ended. But these attempts themselves - quite continued!

Konstantin Pavlovich Kuznetsov (1863 - 1936, Russia - France)

Mark Zakharovich Chagall (1887 - 1985, Russia - France)

Isaac Hirsche Grunewald (1889 - 1946, Sweden)

Otto Dix (1891 - 1969, Germany)

Renato Guttuso (1912 - 1987, Italy)

Ted Seth Jacobs (1927, USA)


Jacobs, like Guttuso, actually looks quite realistic.

David Becker (1940, Ukraine)

Tatyana Grigorievna Nazarenko (1944, Russia)
Lot and daughters - diptych

Stefano Puleo (1950, Italy)
Daughters of Lot

And at the end of today's anthology, I propose to return to the beginning of the story with Lot and his daughters: to the incident with the siege of Lot's house in Sodom. German artist Michael Hutter (1963) wrote the epic painting "Lot offers his daughters to the inhabitants of Sodom." We look.

Large - a fragment where Lot, in fact, offers them.

Here, we'll end here.

Nude nature throughout the existence of fine arts has occupied a special place in it. This happens for several reasons, which we will indicate in the article below. It is immediately worth emphasizing that paintings by famous Soviet artists are presented and described here. Some of the names of the artists may be familiar to you, while others may be a real discovery for you, and you will want to get to know their work better.

Yuri Raksha - Dream

Nude painting, like sculpture, has existed at all times and in almost all countries. This is due to the fact that this type of image is practically fundamental. Any artist knows perfectly well that the image nudity is the basis of the fundamentals in the study of the human structure. Before learning how to correctly portray a person in clothes, in any form, pose and setting, you need to learn how to draw him completely naked. Behind this process, the novice artist learns to depict the correct proportions of the human body, as well as its various parts and nuances.

Zinaida Serebryakova - Bather

Contrary to the judgments of those for whom painting is only beautiful pictures, the nude is not at all created in order to arouse the lower desires of man. Such painting represents or even sings of the beauty of the human body, its perfection, the extraordinary creation of nature or higher powers. Often, artists portray their characters precisely naked in order to show their naturalness and naturalness, their belonging to nature or even the divine world. A completely different effect, less significant, will be observed if the same characters are dressed in beautiful clothes, since objects that are created by human hands tear the character away from naturalness.

Alexander Deineka - Bathers

Nude nature was also inherent in artists Soviet period. In the days of the USSR, artists also created paintings with naked women, and this was never considered vulgar, because in a professional, serious and high art this is hardly acceptable. Creating a picture, the artist is given more pure and deep ideas than just to amuse the viewer's desire to see something forbidden. Here you can see a series of works by Soviet artists to appreciate the talent and professionalism of painters of the recent past.

Alexander Gerasimov - Soviet public bath A. Zavyalov - Models on the background of draperies
A. Olkhovich - Nude Alexander Samokhvalov - Nude

Alexander Deineka - Model V. Arakcheev - Seated woman Vladimir Stozharov - Bath. Washing woman Michael of God - Nude Ilya Mashkov - Nude