The works of Isaak Levitan were created at a time when there was a great upsurge and remarkable flourishing of Russian culture.
Levitan was one of the brilliant artists to forward this movement.
He was contemporary and friend of Anton Chekhov, who initiated, to quote Leo Tolstoy, "completely new form of writing". The
talents of both Chekhov and Levitan were formed during the same years, and they entered the stage of the artistic life of the country at the same time.
In the late 1880s such remarkable works by Korolenko as The Dream of Makar (1885),The River Seethes (1889-1891) appeared.
The 1890s, the climax of Levitan's creative activity, were also the beginning of Maxim Gorky's
career. Gorky wrote his stories Makar Chudra (1892), Chelkash and The Song of the Falcon (1895),
imbued with revolutionary romanticism in these years. At the turn of the century Gorky had already taken up new forms in his Foma Gordeyev (1899) and
The Song of the Petrel (1901) which led him to socialist realism. The literary career of Bunin also began at that time with The Pass (1892-1898),
Antonov Apples (1900), the poem Leaf-fall (1900).
A great deal has been written about the affinity between Levitan's landscapes and the descriptions of nature in Chekhov's works, about their similar
feeling towards nature and the social interpretation of nature. The autor has tried to show in his work this similarity of style and ideas. But the attempt certainly
does not exhaust the theme.
A comparative analysis of Chekhov and Levitan landscapes with all the specific features of the interpretation of nature in literature
and fine art being taken into consideration is still to be carried out. While in literary prose, including the works of Chekhov, landscape constitutes a part of the
composition,
in landscape painting nature is an independent object of representation. Even lyrical poetry where landscapes may be described on their own, where the subject
of the poem is formally nature in its different states, the real subject is human feelings and emotions. In the latter case landscape is the metaphor of human feelings,
whereas in painting it becomes their material personification. This is true
of Levitan's illustrations to poems of Alexander Pushkin.
The similarity in the interpretation of nature in Levitan's and Chekhov's works, in those ideas which
they put into their landscapes, their feeling for nature expresses their unity of style. Of course, long friendship
and contact were extremely helpful. Chekhov's influence on Levitan was primarily in the sphere of
ideas. He contributed to the artist's more profound understanding of nature and of its social interpretation,
to the expression of subtle human sentiments in landscape pieces, and to the development
of his ideas of the interrelation between nature and social life. Levitan's art in turn practically enriched
the range of Chekhov's mastery in his plastic and expressive description of nature. In reading Chekhov's
stories Levitan found clearly formulated thoughts and ideas, which he had felt intuitively and ideas
which nature had inspired in him. Chekhov helped him to realise logically, what he comprehended
sensuously. On the other hand, in Levitan's pictures Chekhov saw a plasticity and tangibility which he
tried to express in words. It was as if he had before his eyes landscapes which he was trying to describe
to his readers with his literary images. However, all that has been said so far, although comprehensive,
is schematic. In fact, the process was much more complex and the author hopes that he will not be
taken too literally. In the creative process of both Chekhov and Levitan idea cannot be separated from
form, the logical cannot be separated from the sensuous. They were both artists, though of different arts,
thus operating with images and not an artist and a thinker. So when speaking of the tendencies of their
influence upon each other, we speak only of its essence.
The very idea of the affinity and, to a large degree, the stylistic unity of the landscapes of Levitan
and Chekhov consists in the fact that in both cases we find what is generally known as "the landscape
of mood". By this is meant the artist's efforts to express human emotions by depicting nature. Being a
landscape painter, Levitan expresses this directly, while Chekhov includes landscape organically in his
stories. Usually nature appears as a comparison, or as a contrast, to the feelings of a character.
Thus the landscape of mood is nature given and understood in human terms. Even in cases when
majestic nature in its eternal life is opposed to the briefness and vanity of man's existence and seems
indifferent to him (for instance, in Levitan's A Peaceful Evening or in Chekhov's Happiness) it, in fact,
is looked upon in terms of human life and activity. Such are the hills in Chekhov's description of the
steppe, church with a shipping little window in the Levitan's painting. The majesty of nature is
alien to the vanities of man's affairs and dreams, and this alienation is a human interpretation. Human
thoughts and feelings are occupied with both whether nature is in harmony with the man's life or is
opposed to it. And its states are all variants of human emotions. Sometimes the beauty and magnificence
of nature emphasises the weakness and brevity of man's life, as if testifying to its senselessness, sometimes
is opposed to life, as the truthfulness of existence is opposed to the false social forms of the modern
world. In these are reflected either pessimistic or optimistic thoughts, imbued with belief in the happy
future. Chekhov compares bright pictures of nature with human vulgarity (My Life), or the terrible
poverty and savagery of life (Peasants). Levitan ingenuously enjoys life and the beauty of the word he
depicts (March, Golden Autumn). In picture like The Lake (1899-1900) Levitan brings a pure landscape
nearer to human sphere. The bright, grand stretches of earth and water, filled with sunlight and air, seem
to depict a joyful, rural holiday.
Such an attitude to nature (i.e. bringing nature as near to human life as possible in the landscape)
was formed through the tradition which Levitan followed in his works of nature being perceived as a
part of people's life. In The Lake we see completed forms of what was apparent in such paintings as
After the Rain, Plyos, Those Evening Bells, etc. The artist spontaneously saw the reflection of human life
in nature, in his pictures nature always appears to be modified by man; thus he could paint landscapes
without the nature proper, as we see in his Huts or The Last Rays of the Sun. There is again evidence
here of a difference of world outlook between Levitan and Chekhov, caused by the difference in genres.
If Chekhov naturally inserts pictures of nature into his stories, that is he connects the life of nature with
human life, Levitan, on the contrary, more often depicts man's world in his landscape through
architecture, river vessels and the like; very occasionally, and this is unusual for him, he depicts human
figures. Human figures are not needed because the artist aims not to enliven the landscape with genre
motifs but to express the idea of humanised nature.
The similarity of style in the landscapes of Levitan and Chekhov consists in their use of immediate
visual and sensual effect instead of detailed description or depiction. It has already been mentioned in
this connection that the distinction between Levitan and Savrasov or Polenov is much the same as the
distinction between Chekhov and Turgenev. Chekhov himself emphasised the necessity of substituting
description by illustration of the characteristic feature of nature so that "one closes one's eyes and
sees the picture"1.
The autor has dealt at length with the artistic affinity between Levitan and Chekhov which is
extensive in comparison to his affinities with other contemporary writers. We would like to sum up
some of what was said about the creative life of Levitan. But this affinity with the ideas of Chekhov which
Levitan maintained until his last days(in this respect the simultaneous interest in the village which was
shown by both the writer and the artist in the late 1890s is of great importance) contained certain
difference in subject matter. Thus, the poetry of the park or estate landscape, which is significant in
Chekhov's works, was alien to Levitan. He only once paid tribute to this kind of landscape in his
pastel Autumn. The Estate (1894); similarity is more evident here in the supject than in the idea of the painting.
While preserving the ideological affinity it seems that Chekhov began to look critically upon
Levitan's late quests. And this is quite natural, for the artist's quests went beyond the boundaries of the
Chekhovian type of the landscape and to a certain degree came near to that of Bunin or Maxim Gorky2.
In Bunin's landscape there is quite another view of nature, a different plastic vision, that is not
Chekhovian. The latter used to say that Bunin wrote "more sharply" than he himself did. There is no
room here to compare their two ways of viewing landscape. In short we can say that Bunin's is more
material and tangible, while Chekhov preferred to describe nature in its slight transitions. Bunin made
his studies of nature more definite, as definite and stressed is the mood he was depicting. This difference
allows for certain difference in style, in the words and colours which Bunin uses in his descriptions.
Certain parallels with the late works of Levitan, with their materialism in the manner of execution and
elevated emotional expressiveness can be traced here. These parallels are particularly marked in those
place where Levitan approaches Serov. This opened a new period in Levitan's career, which was interrupted
by his death. Bunin's perception of nature seems nearer to Serov's landscape, but even more
resembles the early works by Rylov3, as indeed does the landscape of Gorky. A certain similarity between
the late pictures of Levitan and the landscapes of Maxim Gorky has already been examined in literature.
Unfortunately, this is only seen in the subject matter and general elevated descriptions of the Volga in
the Levitan's Fresh Wind (1895) and Gorky's novel Foma Gordeyev (1899). In fact Gorky's materialism
and dynamic elevation of the landscape with its wide-ranging colourfulness, at times seeming decorative,
finds an analogy in the Levitan's The Lake.
This last comparison makes us see that Levitan must have enjoyed Rachmaninov's music, especially
his Second Concerto with its wide flooding crescendos and festiveness. True, the Concerto was
composed in 1901, after the death of Levitan and here the stylistic unity of their creations, not the influence
of Rachmaninov upon the artist, is being stressed. Moreover, that which was achieved in the Second
Concerto had appeared in such works as the Elegiac Trio, opera Aleko(1892) or the First Symphony (1895),
composed in the Levitan lifetime. The artist, a great lover of music, must have heard the works at concerts.
Levitan was usually compared with Chaikovsky. But Chaikovsky was twenty years older than
Levitan and belonged to the earlier generation. The works not of Chaikovsky but of Kalinnikov and
even more so of Rachmaninov with his wide melodies, influenced by the great composer's lyricism and
national colouring, should be compared to Levitan's paintings. Rachmaninov, in particular, was
wellknown in the 1890s and like Levitan was an admirer of the newly established Art Theatre. He knew
Chekhov and it was possibly at the Chekhovs' that he met Levitan.
The young Levitan painted scenery for the Mamontov Private Opera, although later he did not show
any interest in theatre decoration, but he was in touch with the theatre world. He knew artists from the
Maly Theatre, such as Lemishev and Yermolova, whom he presented with his study Sprind in Italy (1890).
The artist was fascinated by the performances of the young Art Theatre and through Chekhov's sister,
Mariya Pavlova Chekhova, got to know the company. He also met other representatives of the Russian
artist world in the Moscow Artistic Circle. He was acquainted with singers. He knew Donskoy then
at the height of his fame and Levitan visited him in his estate in 1894, he knew Chaliapin, who had
recently become popular and appeared in the late 1890s in most of his main roles. Chaliapin wrote
in his memoirs that although Levitan did not have any direct relation to his theatre work, he influenced
him greatly in formulating his idea of art. "The more I saw and spoke to the remarkably sincere,
warmhearted, thoughtfully kind Levitan, and the longer I looked at his hightly poetical landscapes, the sooner
I came to understand and appreciate that great feeling and poetry in art which Mamontov had tried to
explain to me ... I understood that in true art one does not copy and color objects thoroughly with
greater effect in mind. I understood that spirit and emotions are the essence of art, one Word which
is destined tu burn people's hearts. This Word can appear in colour, line, gestures - as in speech. I drew
conclusions from these new impressions for my own practice in the opera" 4.
The great artist finds in all achievements of contemporary art a unity, common feature which he can
develop in his works. If Chaliapin took much from Levitan's genius, the latter did not merely enjoy his
singing. Chaliapin's vivacious singing, characterised by a combination of profound psychological insight
with pathetics and an all-embracing melodiousness, assisted Levitan in his late creative guests.The similarity
between the last works of Levitan and the young Rachmaninov comes to mind. Specialists also
point to Chaliapin's influence on
Rachmaninov 5.
All the defferent contacts and interactions with artists of defferent genres enriched Levitan's general
artistic outlook, influenced his ideas about art and its aesthetic and social character. From memoirs
we see that the artist was a great lover and connoisseur of Russian literature, both ancient and new.
He illustrated Pushkin's poems and put similar tasks to his pupils, developing in them a feeling for
literature and an understanding of the links between the two genres of art.
Of course, the cultural interests of Levitan were not confined to literature and fine art. He knew the
physicist Lebedev who showed him his slides. In the physical laboratory of Moscow University Levitan
met Timiryazev. Timiryazev visited the artist in his studio and admired his works. He also showed
Levitan his own landscape photographs. It is known that the great physiologist was interested not only
in a scientific but also in an artistic perception of nature and its reflection in poetry and painting. A
great lover of the Russian countryside, Timiryazev was occupied with landscape photography and
considered it a means of showing people the vivid and bright image of nature. He wrote a special article
on this question and sent it to Levitan, who approved his ideas. The artist wrote to him thanking for the
article: "There are extremely profound thoughts in your article about the future development of
photography. Your statement that photos enhance aesthetic enjoyment is absolutely true and there is no doubt
that there is a great future for photography" 6.
Levitan followed the achievements of comtemporary science. He was interested in photography,
which he saw as a new means of seeing and reflecting nature and not as an initator or rival to painting.
In this he was continuing the progressive traditions of the Russian realistic painters and democrats
of the second half of the nineteenth century. Kramskoy, the leader of the Peredvizhniki movement,
treated photography and its possibilities with great respect. One of his best friends, Levitsy, was a
photographer.
The progressive and democratic ideas of Levitan on this question stand out more clealy when
compared with the denial of photography as an enemy to painting by the reactionary Greengmut. In his
booklet 7 Greengmut compares and unites Impressionism in painting and photography on the basis of
the depiction of the everyday life. The two phenomena, in his opinion, make depiction an end in itself
and thus "merely copy nature". Such copying is harmful "prosaic realism", far from the true spirit
and aims of art, which together with science and religion, reveals "an unseen part in the visible world"
which is its subject. Greengmut is prepared to accept the invention of colour photography, because it
will free the art from naturalistic painters who are imitating nature. According to Greengmut, colour
photography is quite accessible to the masses and soon will take the place of realistic painting, which is
pure naturalism, and the painters will return to depicting the invisible in the visible word.
Seemingly supporting the struggle against superficial naturalism in defence of the realistic method
of finding the essence of the objects, Greengmut goes against realism. Attacks on the tendentious quality
of the nineteenth-century realism and neoplatonism in the aesthetic conceptions of the autor clearly
indicate his reactionary and anti-social position.
So, Livitan looked upon photography as means of "enriched aestetic delight". In photography he
saw, like Timiryazev, a way of giving the wide masses of the people, unable to paint nature, an opportunity
of fixing its beauty in some other way and developing their artistic vision of the world. For Greengmut
photography was an enemy of "sacred and spiritual" art for the select few.
Levitan realised the strength of his art and did not keep away from the achievements of science and
engineering. His high spiritual culture and wide interests indensified his deep and subtle feeling for nature
and made his images more profound. This was not merely a dim, lyrical perception of nature, but the
socially realised poetry of the landscape. Levitan raised the emotional nature of the landscape to a high
philosophical level and expressed it in spontaneous, plastic form.
When characterising Levitan's painting, it should be mentioned that he began his artistic career at
the time when the Peredvizhniki realism was flourishing. He was a pupil of Savrasov and considered
himself a follower of the artist. In the years when Levitan was forming as an artist (the early 1880s)
such masterpiaces of Russian art as Kramskoy's Disconsolate Grief (1884), Repin's Religious Procession
in the Kursk Province (1880-1883) and Surikov's Boyaryna Morozova (1881-1887) were painted.
Levitan belonged to the younger generation of the Peredvizhniki , the "Young Peredvizhniki". He
was a contemporary of Mikhail Nesterov, Konstantin and Sergey Korovin, Alexei Stepanov, Vassily
Baksheyev, Abram Arkhipov, with some of which he stidied at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture
and Architecture. He was friendly with other artists such as Ostroukhov and Serov.
The works of Levitan, together with those of Nesterov and Serov opened up a new period in realism,
if compared to the style Levitan had come from. However he never split with the Peredvizhniki, even
when he began to show his works at the Mir Iskusstva art exhibitions. This fact justified Sergei Glagol
in considering Levitian as an artist of the transitional period 8. The transitional role of Levitan in the
development of Russian painting consisted consisted for Glagol in the part he played as an intermediate link
between the Peredvizhniki and the Mir Iskusstva groups 9. Thus he viewed an unrealised intention of
Levitan and Nesterov to form a new group of artists. Howerver this should be interpreted in another
way - as a failure to identify the new art with Mir Iskusstva group. Certainly, this latter group at first
tried to attract all that was new and fresh.
To a certain extent the dreams of Levitan and Nesterov were realised in the Union of Russian Artists.
But only to a certain extent. Nesterov purposely did not join the Union. Levitan would hardly have
become a member. In general the development of Russian painting at the end of the centry cannot be
presented as a change from the one, Peredvizhniki, trend to another in the Mir Iskusstva group. The
process was much more complex. In the 1860s-1880s the progressive art as a whole was opposed to all
academic art, which found its practical expression in the formation of the Association of the Itinerant
Art Exhibitions (Peredvizhniki). The Association was, in fact, the only large group of artists and
consequently the organization coincided with the development of art. Late on different art groups began
to appear and the numder increasing by the beginning of the twentieth century. The Peredvizhniki were
still active, the Mir Iskusstva group was formed, then the art exhibitions of "Thirty Six Artists" grew into
the Union of Russian Artists. At one time the Union also included former members of the Mir Iskusstva
group, which later divorced again. This is why research should deal with the development of the new
art as such, and the artists, which appeared in the late 1880s, cannot only be considered as a transition.
They were one stage in the whole process and their work is organically connected to the art of the
beginning of the century, as is the work of the artists who decade later formed the Mir Iskusstva group.
There were also other trends, but they have been studied little and not attributed to any art groups.
For instance, Nesterov came from a Moscow circle of students from the Moscow School of Painting,
Sculture and Architecture, which formed the nucleus of the "Young Peredvizhniki"; Vrubel graduated
from the Academy of Arts, and Rylov. All the tree cannot be connected either to the Peredvizhniki
association or to the Union or the Mir Iskusstva.
Maybe Levitan should be looked upon as one of the transitional masters not from the fact that he
did not belond to any group or trend, but from the transitional character of his art. In fact, no matter
how many new features there were in his art, it did not seem to go beyong the limits of realism of the
second half of the nineteenth century. (Not the same as with Serov.)
This last point would have been quite correct if Levitan had remained with what he had achieved by
1895, in such pictures as March. This is a real work of art, which seems to draw much from the
Peredvizhniki landscape and to foreshadow a new kind of landscape. It concludes the Savrasov tradition and begins
that which will be further developed by Grabar and Yuon. In this respect Levitan is an artist of the
transitional period. But his later works, The Lake in particular, are directed into the future, to the new
landscape painting of the twentieth century.
Even in his lifetime Levitan was reproached with the criticism that he had created an ill turn with
attractiveness of his talent, giving rise to a large number of imitations. "All modern landscape painting
in Moscow consists of little Levitans " 10.
As a teacher and through his works particularly Levitan did indeed greatly influence some landscape
painters, who later, together with the painters of his generation, made the nucleus of the Union of
Russian Artists. They are - Byalynitsky-Birulya, Zhukovsky, Petrovichev, Turzhansky and others. But
it was Byalynitsky, practically the closest pupil of Levitan, or to be more correct, the follower of one of
the artist's lyrical themes, who thought himself more the pupil of Stepanov. As to Stepanov himself,
he was greatly influenced by Serov and followed the artist's "animal genre", which Serov had left by
the time. Serov's influence is particularly evident in the works of Petrovichev and Turzhansky. In them
Levitan and Serov tradition seem to unite and closely interconnect. Or, to be more precise, the artists
were not the successors of Levitan or Serov personally, but followed the tradition of landscape painting
in the late 1890s. In his The Lake Levitan began to go beyond those traditions, and to seemingly more in
another direction. Such landscape painters of the early twentieth century as Grabar and Yuon can
only to some extent be considered the followers of the Levitan tradition. Both had other sources.
Levitan's influence upon them reflects more in the general understanding and perception of Russian
scenery in connection with Russian reality, not in the concrete manner of painting.
This leads us to the conclusion that it is not so interesting whether Levitan was a transitional or
nontransitional artist, or which of the landscape painters came from his school. Perhaps, he did not
have his own school of painting, as also all great masters from Rafael and Rembrandt to Repin and
Suricov had no talented successors, but as was the case with them Levitan made a great all-embracing
influence on the landscape paintind of his country, which cannot be marked by the narrow borders and
determined by concrete characteristics. His impact was so great that we may say without exageration
that after Levitan Russian landscape painting entered quite a new stage and acquired quite a new
character. This was the impact of the profound poetical feeling which formed Levitan's perception of
nature. He was not the first to reveal the beauty and poetry of the modest and plain scenery of Russia.
This revelation had been achieved by Savrasov and even his predecessors. But Levitan, though moving
in the same direction of painting a lyrical landscape of a highly emotional character, gave it a new
quality and raised it to a higher level. Levitan was a true poet of nature and this is the main generally
accepted definition of him. His poetical perception or we may say feeling for nature was extremely rich
in its diverse emotional nuances and themes. Its artistic image was sensitive and visually spontaneous
in a new way. It was profound, not only when the artist was dealing with great ideas or painting complex
thematic compositions, but even in an ordinary landscape. This is just what is meant when it is said that
Levitan possessed an ability to find "motifs" in nature. Thanks to Levitan Russian landscape painting
grew into an art of delicate, profound and rich ideas. Levitan taught his contemporaries to perceive
nature poetically, to put into it the hope, the soul and faith of individual, which had not been
before him. This is the essence of what is now called the Levitan landscape, and not ibligatory the
instant view, fresh in its etudeness, or a lyrical interpretation of copses, small paths, the sunrise and sunset,
ramshackle houses and the Volga landscape with little towns.
It is wrong to consider the art of Levitan as intimate art. He was a master of the picture as a whole
and the range of emotions contained in his paintings cannot be reduced to melancholy lyricism. Levitan
did depict intimate moments highly poetically, and he depicted not only what had become traditional
by his time, but that which was new and full of life. He saw the Volga River boiling with energetic active
life. He summed up his view of the Volga in his Fresh Wind, which at that time initiated what is called
now an industrial landscape. When he was young Levitan attempted to depict the railway in term of
landscape painting, and turned to the theme in his last years.
But it is not supject that matters here, for Levitan was essentially modern in all his themes. He did
not depict abstract nature, but the contemporary landscape of his native country and filled it with the
ideas, reflecting the burning problems of the time.
It is time to reject the notion that Levitan merely painted quiet lyrical landscapes, deserted corners,
back-waters and copses. The painter neither knew a contradiction between the so-called "lyrical" and
thematic kinds of the landscape, nor did he oppose intimate images to monumental ones.
The scenery of our country has surely changed since the time of Levitan, hence man's perception of
it is changed. "And all this taken together contributes to the appearance of new artistic conceptions,
draws new artistic endeavours and solutions," 11 which does not mean the interruption of the Levitan
tradition, but the direct following it, for Levitan himself was always modern in his conceptions and in
their realisation, and in those ideas and emotions which he put into his paintings. Just as our perception
of nature does not deny, but rather develop the valuable features of the old one, the best of our landscape
paintings follow the general trend of Levitan's pictures. The Levitan tradition must not be looked upon
formally as the sum of certain motifs or artistic devices. His true behests concern the profundity of
his picture of nature, in which the artist should portray the emotional world of his contemporaries.
His true inheritance is the continuous search for the new.
Levitan did not only influence the ideas of nature and landscape painting of his own time. His philosophy
has not lost its significance in our days, it lives changed and developed. His highly poetical
idea of nature survives, the close relation between Russian scenery and Russian culture remains. Was it
not the Levitan tradition, the depiction of early Russian architecture in close connection with a nature
background, which Grabar was the first to give in his Histiry of Russian Art 12, and which we now adhere?
We owe to Levitan the very understandinding of how deeply early Russian stonemasons felt nature
and designed their monastery and town consembles to suit the surrounding scenery. It was he who
poetically and artistically expressed the unity of Russian life, past and present, with the Russian landscape.
In this field he enriched and developed what had been begun by Savrasov in his Pechersky Monastery
and Rooks have Come ...
Muratov wrote in 1910: "Everything in which can be seen the omen of the new epoch of the
landscape has appeared in these ten years without the Levitan landscape." But as contrasts to the tendencies
to "the classical landscape", and the heriically interpreted nature Muratov could only take as examples
stylised works by Bogayevsky and early pictures by Krymov 13. In contrast to those stylised landscape
searches for a "grand style", we in turn can suggest such painting as Rylov's Leaves Are Rustling ...
Practically Rylov followed the Kuindzhi tradition of painting. But on those grounds alone Rylov could
neither have achieved a realistic effect, nor social content of the picture, reflecting the sentiments of the
pre-revolutionary years 14. Neither would he have attained spontaneity in a purely poetical and lyrical,
not symbolic or illustrative interpretation of nature, which makes the landscape an outatanding
piece of art. In his attitude Rulov assimilated and developed the Levitan tradition, and the painter's
spontaneously sensuous and lyrical expressing of social ideas. Rylov's Leaves Are Rustling ... with its
broad ranges comes from The Lake by Levitan. Procceding from what he had begun in Leaves Are Rustling ...
Rulov paintes his In the Blue Expanse (1918), a landmark in the history of Soviet art. This
is why it is impossible not to see the living inportance of Levitan tradition for Soviet landscape
painting.
Levitanis not for us "a knight of rueful countenance" (the definition was widespread in prerevolutionary critical literature)
but a bold searcher 15 and creator. In his works the thoughts and sentiments
of his epoch were expressed through the personal feelings of the individual. His creative endeavours
were of great fundamental importance. The art of Levitan is characterised by its deep social character.
It was an objective art for the people in the wide sense of the word, of the kind in which the objective
art for the people couls appear in Levitan's epoch.
The Levitan tradition consists of an understanding of realism as always lively, developing and
searching, in which the epoch is reflected with its content and artistic form.
