“Construction and Decorative Art” Magazine: A Forgotten Word in the Russian Artistic Criticism of the Early 20th Century

Abstract

The article is devoted to the history of the Moscow magazine “Construction and Decorative Art”, which played a significant role in Russian art criticism in 1903, despite its short (within six months) existence. This topic needs to be addressed due to the small number of comprehensive studies in the field of Russian art criticism of the early 20th century. On the basis of archival materials of censorship, the article reconstructs the creation circumstances of two homogeneous magazines (“Architecture and Decorative Art”, renamed “Free Art”, and “Construction and Decorative Art”) and their actual transformation into one press organ. There is examined the rapprochement of the architects Vasily Borin and Leonid Betelev with the scandalous journalist Alexey Filippov, their struggle for the permission to publish a new Moscow magazine about art in 1900—1902, the patronizing attitude of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs and the Moscow Governor-General to the new initiative of Filippov. The author introduces into scientific circulation important recorded sources related to the transfer of the rights to publish the magazine to Vasily Borin, and his attempt to pass off the former magazine of Filippov and Betelev as his own (hitherto non-existent) magazine “Free Art”. The article analyzes three issues of the illustrated magazine “Construction and Decorative Art” published in 1903. Basing on the data on the magazine’s format and prices, the author concludes that the publication turned out to be expensive and, therefore, unprofitable. The article pays particular attention to the views of Borin and Filippov on the development of contemporary art, Art Nouveau, and the activities of the artists of the group “Mir Iskusstva” (“World of Art”). In the context of a meaningful analysis of the magazine’s articles, there is discussed the honoring of the architect Nikolai Nikitin in connection with his anniversary. The author poses the question of how the issues of “Free Art” at the end of 1903 should be assessed. There are analyzed the causes for the mysterious closure of both the magazines in 1904—1905, which was not formalized in accordance with the law.