History

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

home

Russian version

The Khimki Picture Gallery was founded in 1992 by Professor Sergei Nikolayevich Gorshin, Dr. of Engineering Sciences, Merited Worker in Science and Technology of the RSFSR, a prominent scientist and citizen living in Khimki. The gallery was founded on the basis of his personal collection of paintings and works of graphic art of the second half of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, which he donated to the city.

The gallery features works of Russian artists of the pre-peredvizhnik period, the Society of Travelling Art Exhibition, the Union of Russian Artists, the World of Art, Soviet realism of the 1930s and some other associations and trends.

My lifelong interest for drawing and more than fifty-year experience in collecting paintings and works of graphic an, plus the study of literature on fine arts shaped my view on the artist and the product of his work, as well as the art collector with his objectives, moral principles and methods of collecting. In this connection I would like to tell you about my experience and views on certain problems of art collection, to examine the organizational and ideological concepts of this activity, and to recall the historical experience of donating pictures to museums as an example worth emulation.

I realize that I am dealing with a rather involved problem and therefore beg you to look upon my judgments as only an approach to its solution.

I regard painting as a special form of art, what with the individuality of the process of creation, the further life of the works of art and comparatively little contact between the painter and society for whose sake he works and whose favorable response he expects. Moreover, painting is the product of a rare gift Nature has endowed on man, and it serves people who long for beauty and seek a response as eagerly as the poet or musician. The artist speaks with people without words, expounding his views on life with colors and lines. The wonder of it is that while depicting the known, the artist finds something special, something of his own. Rather than copying what he sees, he philosophizes, expressing his thoughts and feelings by the means known to him alone. No matter how familiar the forests and fields or relations between individuals and even individuals themselves may be, one cannot replace paintings concerning all that by hikes in the open or communication with people.

Another wonder is that in many instances painting, like music and literature, proves to be an indispensable element of history and, to my mind, has certain advantages in this respect. Can word describe as eloquently as the brush? Take, for instance, V.D. Polenov's "Moscow Courtyard", V.M. Maximov's "All in the Past", V.Ye. Makovsky's "Bankruptcy of the Bank", K.Ye. Makov-sky's "Kissing Ritual", V.G. Perov's "Funeral Procession", 1.Ye Repin's "Religious Procession in Kursk Gubernia", K.A. Savitsky's "Repair Work on the Railway Line" or V.V. Pukirev's "Unequal Match". It is the past shown graphically and philosophically.

A certain impetus to the artist's inspired work and sustained activity is given by realization of the fact that people lovingly 'read' his 'poems', 'novels' and 'stories' and that there exist picture galleries, buyers of pictures who adorn their apartments with them, and collectors eager to pick up and preserve all that comes from the art studio but fails to get into a picture gallery. Consequently, the artist can live not only by the process of creating pictures, but by the hope that his own opinion on the products of his efforts and that of the public may coincide somewhere. Since there are many lovers of painting, there is a guarantee of the eternity of the painter as one of man's spiritual mentors.

Such views on painting have been shaping in my consciousness for many years. It seems that the process has been determined and stimulated by some kind of intrinsic love of nature and its eternal beauty which I have not comprehended as yet. A sad strain has sounded since long ago in my vision and evaluation of painting. The point is that each work of art, no matter how much it may mean to society, is the only one and often finds itself in a closed space. The artist cannot even dream about a complete set of his works, if only in reproductions. Picture galleries, these veritable sanctuaries of art, are scattered all over the world, and each may have at the best only several pictures even of a great artist. This is felt most keenly if you compare painting with literature and music. If the works of Pushkin or Tchaikovsky had only been preserved in manuscripts in museums of bookcases of private individuals without being published, then the art of these great men would not have had that beneficial influence on society which it has exerted and continues to exert. Just try to deprive people of even the shortest of Pushkin's poems - they will notice it immediately. They value every line of his poetry. On the other hand, can we say that the art of such great painters as Repin, Surikov, Levitan, Polenov, Serov and many others is fully represented to the people? Many of their works are scattered round the world and can thus be compared to manuscripts preserved in strong boxes, while the whereabouts of others are unknown. This is especially true of the artists of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, notably those who belonged to 'left' associations and whose works museums began to treat more favorably somewhat later.

One certainly has to consider the fact that it is practically impossible to produce works of art in mass editions, and hence their inadequate contact with society. This has always impressed me. I have never shared the opinion of the majority that a replication by an artist of his famous picture, as was the case with Savrasov's "The Rooks Have Come", Levitan's "Vladimirka" and Yen-dogurov's "The Onset of Spring", is after all a replication, that is, something inferior.

There is one possibility of bringing the artist somewhat closer to the public. What I mean are wide-ranging exhibitions and one-man, including travelling, memorial museums which can give the artist a second life. Examples in point are the I.K.'Aivazovsky Gallery in Feodosia, the museums of V.M. Vasnetsov and A.M. Vasnetsov in Moscow, the V.D. Polenov museum in Abramtsevo, and the V.K. Byalynitsky-Birulya museum in Mogilev which have contributed a great deal to the understanding and appreciation of their art by society. Private collections can play a similar role if they are not closed to the public. Of major importance are monographs on particular artists, as well as art reproductions on postcards. Unfortunately there are not so many large monographs of this kind. Those that have been published are not exhaustive and most of the time deal with considerable numbers of the same works of art which have already become popularly known.

Once at a southern health resort where I was taking treatment they organized a quiz requiring the knowledge of the Tretyakov Art Gallery and prizes were to be awarded to winners. They showed picture reproductions and asked those who knew the name of the artist and the picture to raise their hands. Very few hands were raised while the answers were not correct most of the time. I also raised my hand three times but they told me to hold back. I am telling about it here because the episode left a sad feeling. There were hundreds of people in the hall, many of them giving the impression of cultured people, and they demonstrated such ignorance. What struck me particularly was the comment of some holiday-makers: 'Who thought up such a quiz? Why not ask questions about songs or sports, which would be to everybody's liking'. It was then I clearly realized that society and school were to blame for all that. In my opinion, our underestimation of pictorial an is one of the root causes of the deficiency of our national spirit in culture, philosophy, aesthetics and morals.

The collector and collecting are a special type of human being and human activity. The desire to collect could be viewed as an inborn human quality. It may become manifest in childhood, as was in my case, but usually disappears with time, surviving in rare cases. I was lucky to retain it. As the collector grows older and as his circumstances change and the ideological and moral basis of his hobby undergoes an evolution, the objects, purpose and style of collecting may also change.

If we assume that the artist paints not only for his own pleasure, but also for others, and that his efforts, while expressing his desire to create, are often aimed at producing what can give him material benefits, then alongside picture galleries, both collectors and simply lovers of an naturally appear as judges and buyers of his productions. Thus there exists an indissoluble link between the anist and the picture gallery, the anist and the collector, the anist and the lover of painting. Here we'll dwell in greater detail on the collector's role as a factor influencing the position of painting in society.

There is no need to speak about the social benefits of art collecting. Museums in effect are also collectors. On the other hand, private collectors, especially those interested in old art, have to content themselves with what is left by the actively operating museums and extract 'precious metal' from 'poor ores', although they also come across nuggets not infrequently. The collector is like an archaeologist: something remains unknown in art, something is hidden or 'buried', so he searches for it and his quests give him the chance to experience the joy of discovery.

Among the merits that I find in an collectors is their comprehensive knowledge of art and those artists whom the elite art experts failed to put on the list of celebrities at some time or another. Although such artists were peredvizhniks or belonged to the Union of Russian Artists, they were nevertheless considered 'mediocre' or neglected altogether, little attention was given to their an, nor any monographs were written about them. Meanwhile, having received practical education over long years by thoroughly and purposefully studying thousands of pictures and the materials of earlier exhibitions, many collectors, often attracted by the painting itself rather than the name of the anist, bought splendid works of an at antiquarian shops, put them in order and thus gave them a second lease on life. Later the museums could not possibly ignore this fact.

An collectors belonged to different professions and occupied different social position, yet all of them could afford to spend some money from their budget on pictures. Among them were scientists, actors, writers, doctors, teachers and simply well-off people, but all of them intellectuals as a rule with a definite cultural background. The latter circumstance is essential to the quality of the collector and his manner of collecting, and it is to be desired that things do not change for the worse in this respect.

A scientist myself, I have noticed above all that many representatives of Russian science were inclined to collect works of an. Thus, D.I. Mendeleyev, I.P. Pavlov and other scientists had collections of paintings. A number of contemporary scientists have fairly large collections.

Speaking about collectors who were very busy with their professional pursuits, it should be noted that such people needed some change, some active recreation, which usually helped them do their main work better. The point is that this 'second interest' contributes to the individual's harmonious development, giving him the chance to serve his country not only in his professional field. I think that long-livers occur among collectors as frequently as among anisis. If in the case of anists it is explained by the fact that they move a lot and spend much time outdoors, in the case of collectors this can be attributed to their enthusiasm and favourable emotions facilitating their toils.

An collectors cenainly differ from one another. Some acquire quite a few pictures, doing it, however, sporadically as their attention is concentrated on their main occupation. They do not search for something particular, nor do they exchange pictures as a rule and, consequently, although possessing large collections, remain little known even amidst their colleagues and expens. Their collections are composed with great taste and competence, although containing no masterpieces. Others devote much more time to collecting, carrying on intensive quests, going to other cities and exchanging pictures on an adequate value basis. Such collectors also love painting and have a good knowledge of it. They have stable collections, many of them widely known, including to museum workers. There is yet another, quite special type of collectors who prefer to buy pictures with the purpose of immediately exchanging or selling them profitably. Their collections are not large, nor are they stable. But one should not apply their yardsticks to all collectors.

Sadly enough, collectors are often looked upon not only as guardians of treasures but as queer people and at times even as businessmen. It is true, old pictures are purchased not only by collectors, but also by those who wish to adorn their apanments with them, invest their capital or even make profit on them. The collector's social image is therefore determined most of all by the purpose of collecting.

As practice shows, what to collect is the question of questions for any type of collector, especially the collector of paintings. Some buy Western paintings, others prefer Russian, still others concentrate on Ukrainian works, preferring Peredvizhniks within that range, or else the Union of Russian Anists, the World of An, early and late avanigarde, works of the 1930s, etc. Other preferences are also observable - the collector buys only landscapes or portraits or only what appeals to him. Among collectors one finds those who appreciate genuine mastership and those attracted just by the beauty of the picture plus the richness of the frame. Many collectors change their preferences. Starting with peredvizhniks, for instance, they later 'dissolve' their collection to switch over to the World of Art or even avanigarde. Taking stock of my experience, I should say that fortunately I was less subject to such fluctuations than others. Acting all on my own, as there were simply no advisers at hand, I attempted to evaluate outright the level of mastership. That was why there were artists of different trends among my first acquisitions, including A. Sokolov, K. Makov-sky and S. Zhukovsky.

Speaking about collecting and its purposes one cannot overlook certain specific and involved problems. The collector selects and preserves considerable numbers of paintings. When he embarks upon this path, however, he does not give much thought to fact that nature has allotted to him a limited space of time for this and that an hour will come when he has to decide what to do with the collection - whether to sell it or leave to his children if they are able to continue his cause, or to give out to museums. He is ordinarily faced with this problem on the decline of his days and is not always prepared to deal with it.

If a collector with a highly developed sense of public awareness and civic duty decides to turn something over to a museum, he may be encountered by certain difficulties. The point is that works of art usually cost much and forming the collection requires considerable energy and time inputs with the limitation of such inputs into other objectives. The members of the collector's family may wish to continue collecting or else to sell the collection after getting it by the right of inheritance. The very thought of parting with the collection may throw him into a state of depression, preventing from making the final decision. Those who overcome these difficulties together with their near and dear ones without unnecessary complications deserve to be specially respected by society.

What objects of fine arts should be preserved at the museums and in private collections? This question is so intricate that after pondering over it for decades I cannot say I have fully clarified it for myself. Hence the uncertainty as to what picture galleries should acquire and what they could leave to collectors and lovers of art or simply in the artists' possession.

It will be probably a little bit too bold of me to give a definition of a picture gallery and characterize a private collection. After visiting practically all the galleries in our country and many galleries abroad, I would like to say that they are not only great depositories and art education centres, but also temples instilling or enhancing in an individual an exalted attitude to this form of art and to life in general. Had there been no galleries, painting would have hardly gained its present-day significance and the illustrious names, of which there are so many in painting, would have hardly come into such prominence. Galleries emerged because people needed them.

Apart from state-owned galleries, any country certainly has private ones open to visitors. At the same time there are great numbers of private collections which are nothing but niches for holding and individually admiring works of an collected according to plan or spontaneously. I wish there would be more picture galleries, but nothing doing. Moreover, too strong as yet is the human ambition to have a great thing in one's own possession and there is hardly any prospect of lessening it appreciably. Private collections are therefore as everlasting as picture galleries. Even if the state increased allocations tenfold and accordingly the number of picture galleries, a certain percentage of private collections would continue to exist, which is explained by two great factors -man's love of painting and different attitudes to this form of art in different periods. It is not to be understood, however, that private collections closed to the wide public could make up somehow for the educational activity of picture galleries.

Picture galleries and private collections thus operate in unity primarily as depositories of paintings, and to a certain extent as propagators of aesthetic education, considering some openness of private collections and especially the display of works from private collections at exhibitions or their reproduction in the context of monographs or in separate issues.

As regards the evaluation of the artistic merits of paintings, compliance with conservation requirements, identification and the degree of openness to the public at large, one should admit that primacy doubtlessly belongs to picture galleries. They employ art experts, guides and wardens. Many of them also have identification experts and the equipment required for identifying works of art. Works of art are exhibited and stored in instrument-controlled conditions. A very important fact is that most galleries are guarded reliably.

Picture galleries have some other specific qualities one cannot pass by in silence. They collect works by outstanding painters and are prepared to accept even their unfinished pieces, versions, sketches, etc, but they may overlook works by artists not included by art experts in the list of the best. Moreover, in many cases museums formed their collections under the influence of somebody's taste or directives, and it was so until recently at least. Many galleries lose much of their charm due to the low standards of the buildings accommodating them. In some cities, buildings which are architectural monuments themselves are taken up by offices while the galleries occupy unsuitable and architecturally insignificant buildings which do not guarantee safe storage.

Among other demerits of picture galleries is that most of them, although unable to exhibit all their stocks, nevertheless keep buying works of art. The advantage of this practice, as they see it, is that their recent acquisitions are superior to their own stocks. But, then, such galleries should be enlarged, and it would be well to turn over paintings which are not going to be exhibited to other museums and galleries where they would be the honour of the place. Instead, they have established and legitimized a system of reserve stocks which often contain more works than are no display. Enlarged galleries should certainly have reserve stocks for periodical renovations of the permanent exhibition or for arranging exhibitions on jubilee dates of famous painters. On the other hand, if some part of the reserve stocks lies idle for several decades and there are no prospects whatsoever for them to see light, such a situation breeds what one understands as monopoly with attendant closeness.

In comparing picture galleries and private collections, one should also touch upon the specifics, advantages and disadvantages of the latter.

As regards the advantages of private collections, one should say above all that they are devoid of a unified approach and a directive at times. When buying a picture for his co'llection the collector is guided by his own preferences. Some collect classics, others prefer artists whose works are not displayed in museums in the hope of prospective re-evaluations of their art. Taken together, private collections feature all tastes and views, all aesthetic criteria current in society, thus making possible an objective appraisal of the path travelled by art. It is precisely private collections that can preserve for the future the works of artists once considered 'second-rate', 'third-rate' or even 'nothing' but then becoming 'first-rate' or even 'top-class'. Examples in point are N. Goncharova, R. Falk and R. Filonov. It is from private collections that picture galleries may receive treasures which have become so as a result of society's revision of its attitude to the content and form of paintings.

At the same time, private collections have certain disadvantages. More often than not, they present a conglomeration of pictures lacking a system. A beginner buys for some time what he likes and what he finds inexpensive. He may acquire something with a view of exchanging it, but then takes a liking to the picture and it 'gets stuck' to his walls. Naturally, if in the final count private collections prove to be composed according to a certain principle (which is true of the majority of them), representing, for instance, Western painting, peredvizhniks, the Union of Artists, the World of Art, avant-garde or the 1930s, or tracing the development of Russian painting at a certain period, this is a valuable feature turning such collections into private galleries.

One cannot but admit that collectors generally do a great deal, rescuing objects of art from the depths, as it were, where they are probably threatened with peril. But it should be taken into account that collectors are not the best guardians. They may overdry, soil or disturb the oil layer, or at times expose works of art to the destructive action of mould or borers in conditions of an irregularly heated summer cottage, or else sell pictures constituting the nation's treasure to someone abroad, etc. Conflagrations and robbery are certainly the gravest hazards.

The main disadvantage of private collections, however, is that they are closed to the wide public and seem to bury the artist's work. Individual pieces that are shown at exhibitions or featured in monographs do not change the situation. True, considerable numbers of works of great value that are preserved at state galleries are not shown to the public either, being kept in reserve stocks instead. But the situation there can be improved. It is much more difficult to make works preserved in private collections known to the public. While calling for more exhibitions and monographic publications, this meets with considerable resistance on the pan of owners of private collections. There are not so many examples of owners turning over individual works of art or whole collections to state galleries. All this breeds a mixed feeling in society about the amassing of treasures of art by private individuals.

Now some more questions concerning the evaluation of the country's stocks of paintings, storage conditions and efforts to bring them within the reach of the public at large. 'A picture gallery for each city' has long been my call. How can it be achieved? As a matter of fact, we do not know the situation countrywide. An inventory of architectural monuments has been carried out. But no country has ever made an inventory of works of art - it is hardly practicable. What is particularly annoying is that their owners do not want people to have even the slightest idea about monuments of an in their possession. Such is world practice. But can it serve as an example to us? The question of the great heritage, panicularly the country's national heritage, should be approached differently in different countries. It is hardly fair that galleries in some provincial towns are small and possess no significant works, whereas some private collections in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev and other cities are rather impressive as regards the range and quality of works preserved and contain masterpieces essential to an criticism and enlightenment.

The idea 'a picture gallery for each city' could be materialized in several ways. The more realistic one is cenainly the transfer of 'ossified' stocks from large monopolist galleries to newly organized picture galleries. Another way, also realistic but less appealing as it involves cenain expenses, is for the new galleries to buy works of an in antiquarian shops, at auctions, from private collections and also from the studios of the best contemporary anists or from their one-man exhibitions. Unfonunately, in the present situation, when buying pictures, galleries have no advantages over private collectors among whom there are many rich people. It would be well legally to establish a privilege of some kind.

Panicularly intricate is the problem of purchasing works of an from collectors. A favourable basis, one would say a foundation, for this may be a drive amidst private collectors to sell works of an to picture galleries rather than to private individuals, at auctions or abroad. The wonhiness and moral value of this drive is that works of an will not only become widely visible. They will remain to be the country's national assets. Collectors may suffer minimal losses if any, depending on the position and material circumstances of buyers. To promote the process of stocking galleries with pictures acquired from collectors, it would be well to arrange exhibitions from time to time, with catalogues and annotations and the subsequent storage of unsold pictures in special depositories ensuring the safety of the propeny. Philanthropic organizations could act as mediators between collectors and galleries.

Yet another way of organizing new galleries or improving the situation in functioning ones is probably the most tricky. It envisages the donation and bequeathing of private collections or pans of them to poor galleries or to cities with a view to opening new galleries. The issue has not yet been properly settled in either moral or legal terms. Nor has it been given sufficient coverage, although history knows cases of denation, an act prompted by exalted feelings, and we know of such cases taking place today. Although donators have already stocked many galleries, which will be mentioned below, the scale of donation lags behind the requirements of society.

Despite the difficulties and complications mentioned above, I regard this method of developing the network of picture galleries as the most fundamental. As regards the donation of pictures to galleries by collectors, I have cenain concepts that have formed over the years. Above all, they take into consideration the fact that works needed by picture galleries and for educational purposes but preserved in private collections are personal propeny. Consequently, all negotiations

with their owners should be most tactful, rulling out any forms of pressure. The important thing is to give people no grounds for thinking that the championship of donation may spell a social reproach to those who so far refrain from giving gifts. One should count above all on the possible growth of collectors' awareness of their mission to serve art and on the resulting increase in the number of collectors who are better prepared to donate works of art.

A real collector who at times considers himself not only an admirer but also a rescuer of works of art, certainly understands that what is available at antiquarian shops is not sufficient for stocking new galleries. Nor are the surpluses of large galleries sufficient for opening picture galleries in all cities. And so one should serve art with one's own contribution.

The attitude of the galleries and society at large to donators may prove decisive, in particular, the perpetuation of their names in the galleries, and the publication of catalogue and reproductions of the pictures donated. The donation of personal possessions to society should be appreciated as a remarkable deed. In many cases the said factors may step up the development of the processes associated with donation.

Thus attaching major significance to donation, I am inclined to view collectors and galleries as a highly efficient system. Indeed, private collections now constitute a major source of stocking picture galleries. I hope the process will go apace. The socially valuable stocks of paintings belonging to private collectors equal not less than half of the gallery stocks. There are tens of thousands of collectors. Thanks to their enthusiasm and energy they have acquired a multitude of valuable works of art over the past hundred years alone, including great masterpieces, thus withdrawing them from the paths of galleries and museums and from the public scene altogether and consequently putting them out of reach of the wide sections of the population.

There are other aspects concerning donation, including those of psychological and legal nature. The right of donation is a legitimate right of both art collectors and their heirs. Regrettably, it has not yet been given detailed social and legal interpretation. Meanwhile it has its own specifics. Here are some examples.

A collector acquired pictures together with his future heirs, say, his wife and children. All of them contributed to the common cause, albeit to a differing extent. After the collector's death, it is up to the family to decide whether to turn over the collection or some part of it to the museum. Everything here depends on its good will. Another collector at times put his family in a difficult situation. Such a family, although treating his hobby with understanding, may object to donating the pictures to the museum as it hopes to sell some of them in the future and thus make up for its losses somehow. In this situation an agreement on donation has to be achieved on a reasonable basis to meet the interests of both sides. And, finally, it happens sometimes that the family disapproves of the collector's hobby. So he spends only some part of the family means on pictures, on condition that the other members of the family are also entitled to the satisfaction of their needs. Well, buses and garments wear out with time and health resort holidays are forgotten, while the collected pictures gain in price. Once absolutely indifferent to them, the members of the family begin to show interest, and the collector wishing to donate if only some of them to the museum is confronted with obstacles. I believe, that in this case the collector has both legal and moral rights to present his collection to the museum.

Of course, the donation of any treasures should not turn into a tragedy for the family. Sincerity and general accord is what is needed most of all.

A question thus arises: when should socially valuable pictures be turned over to museums? Understandably, the collector must not deprive himself of the results of his efforts too early. He lives not only by searches for and preservation of pictures, but also by the contemplation of them. Perhaps this prolongs his life. Surrounded by what he has collected, he feels happy and spiritually satisfied. A worthy idea to turn his collection, personal property that it is, into a public asset, is gradually ripening in his mind. It is very important that nothing interferes with his intention. The collector himself decides when to act.

Of course, the owner can simply bequeath his collection. In my view, this is only justifiable under some unexpected or other special circumstances. It would be better to donate the collection while still alive and kicking, and personally participate in arranging the gallery or at least witnessing his gift at the service of society.

As regards the donation or bequeathing of works of an, it is not clear what galleries are supposed to accept as a gift. It is essential to consider primarily the artistic value of the objects to be donated and the orientation of the gallery. One should also take into account the level of the gallery to be improved or newly arranged, and also the fact that picture galleries may constitute part of a museum which usually has a wider orientation. In many cases works to be donated do not meet the standards of a particular gallery or museum.

The question of authenticity is also rather involved when it comes to donating, bequeathing or selling works of art. The attribution of paintings and works of graphic art is exceptionally difficult. This is discussed in literature, and I also know about this from my own experience - visits to exhibitions, antiquarian shops and private collectors. It is difficult to establish the authorship as many artists did not sign their pictures and there were replications and versions by the authors, as well as competently made copies. Other problems arise due to lack of expertise, not only on the part of collectors, but also art critics and museum personnel, especially in the case of artists not included in the museum elite. The attempts made by museums to replace the knowledge of the painter's manner by physical or chemical tests of the paint layer or evaluation of cardboard, paper, subframes and other materials (although these methods are very important) does not yield reliable results most of the time.

It is highly gratifying that participation in attributing pintures in antiquarian shops and at auctions has given workers of Moscow museums the opportunity to acquaint themselves with paintings of which they were not aware before. Hence fewer mistakes. What has been achieved is not sufficient, especially in view of the fact that many uncontrolled shops selling objects of art have appeared of late. Since imperfections in picture attributing cause a considerable damage to society, additional wide-ranging measures are needed to improve the sutuation.

The donator in turn is entitled to present his requirements to the gallery or museum. Thus, it would be natural and proper for him to wish his gift to be exhibited rather than left in the storeroom or turned over to another museum. Cases are known, however, when donators wanted too much, notably concerning systematization. For instance, they demanded that the gift be exhibited in one separate room, although it contained Russian and Western paintings, weapons or garments of different periods or numismatic objects. The donator or his heirs should not therefore take offence if their gift or part of it are not accepted.

After considering several ways of improving the situation in the field of picture galleries, one cannot help mentioning yet another, albeit less thought-over, but, to my mind, quite realistic possibility. I mean the establishment of private galleries. Naturally enough, this could be done by an owner of a large collection such as I.S. Zilbershtein or A.Ya. Abramian used to be, but it could be done easier by an association of several collectors. There are certain problems here as well, yet they are of a quite different kind. It is necessary to build or buy a building, carry out the required reconstruction in the latter case, and establish the procedure of guarding and exhibiting the works of art. I visualize such possibilities today but not quite prepared to discuss them at length. What I would like to say, however, is that the possibility of founding private galleries will only turn into reality if the municipal authorities make, if only in the beginning, appreciable concessions by minimizing the cost of privatization of the buildings selected for the galleries.

DONATION OF PICTURES TO MUSEUMS AS A HISTORICAL PHENOMENON.
P.M. TRETYAKOV AND CONTEMPORARIES

Collecting paintings and presenting the best of them to society has always been the ambition of many of its progressive members. Donators were made in the past and are made today. Among donators one find not only well-off people or those who have no one to bequeath their collections to, or who seek to gain popularity in this way. Among donators one also finds people who sincerely love an and are inspired by the idea of service to society.

Back in the past, Count I.I Shuvalov, head of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, donated to it

his collection of pictures, thus laying the foundation of the Academy's Art Museum. Princess M. Tenisheva presented to the Russian Museum a considerable number of drawings and water colours by Russian artists. P.M. Tretyakov was a merchant. V.P. Sukachev was Mayor of the city of Irkutsk. Both turned over their picture collections to state museums. P.M. Tretyakov wrote in his will: 'For me, a sincere and passionate lover of painting, there can be no greater desire than to lay foundations of a public depository of fine arts to be accessible to all...'

The greater pan of the provincial art museums opened in the second half of the 19th century arose on the basis of donations made by private individuals. A.V. Vysheslavtsev, a historian and connoisseur of art, presented his collection to the Tambov Museum in 1893. The city museum in Kazan was opened in 1895 on the initiative of local patrons of art. The museum building was erected with the money donated by citizens. The picture collection ofA.F. Likhachev, an archaeologist and numismatist from Kazan, was turned over to the city by his brother. Picture collector N.D. Seliverstov who lived in Penza financed the construction of the school of painting and the museum for the city in 1898 and donated to the museum his collection of more than 200 works of art. The above-mentioned donators were well-off people after all, whereas F.A. Kovalenko was a man of modest means who spent his savings on buying pictures in St. Petersburg and Moscow. In 1904, he donated his collection to the Yekaterinodar Picture Gallery. He believed that to act that way was 'to serve society in promoting art.'

The Samara Art Museum markedly expanded in 1911 through donations by private individuals. Collector A. Morozov presented his collection to the picture gallery in Yekaterinoslav. Artists responded to that act with their own donations to the gallery. Pictures were collected over a period of ten years and the gallery was opened in 1914.

Doctor N.V. Vasiliev, an inhabitant of Kaluga, bought a considerable number of pictures and a suitable house with his personal savings and presented all that to the city in 1917 before the February revolution. It was also in pre-revolutionary years that building engineer M. Braikevich of Odessa presented a considerable number of pictures by World of Art artists to Odessa University. In 1918, collector P.M. Dogadin from Astrakhan presented his collection of pictures to the city.

One can definitely say today that as organizers of picture galleries in the 1890s, P.M. Tretyakov and other donators set worthy examples that stimulated the appearance of similar galleries in other cities. I.N. Kramskoy described the emergence of provincial art museums as a 'historical movement'.

Artists played a conspicuous role in organizing provincial picture galleries. Thus, I.K. Aivazov-sky built a gallery in Feodosia and stocked it with his best works. The regional art museum in Ryazan arose in 1913 thanks to Academician I.P. Pozhalostin who donated to it his collection of pictures and engravings.

One of Russia's first provincial museums based on artist's gifts was opened in Saratov. His founder was artist A.P. Bogolyubov, A.N. Radishchev's grandson, who financed the construction of the museum building and donated to the museum his collection of pictures he had been gleaning for twenty-five years. Somewhat later he presented over 200 works to the Penza Museum. The An and History Museum in Nizhni Novgorod was founded in 1896 on the initiative of anists I.A. Koshelev and O.A. Karelin and thanks to the donations made by local picture collectors. After the 26th Travelling Exhibition in Penza, anists I.I. Shishkin, V.D. Polenov and K.A. Savitsky presented pictures to the local museum. Fulfilling the will of her husband, N.A. Yaroshenko's widow bequeathed to the city of Poltava over 100 pictures painted by him and by other anists. Many works of an were donated to the Novocherkassk Regional Museum of the Don Cossacks by N.N. Dubovskoy and I.I. Krylov. The latter donated several hundred of them. Anist Ya.Ya. Kalini-chenko presented his pictures to the Ryazan Museum. Anists K.Ya. Kryzhitsky, K.F. Yuon and V.N. Baksheyev presented their pictures to the Samara Public Museum (now the Samara An Museum).

In Soviet years, anists, collectors and their heirs have continued to donate pictures. In 1927, V.D. Polenov's family turned over his an collection to the Polevov House Museum. In 1936, I.I. Brodsky presented 300 works by different anists to the Dnepropetrovsk An Museum. Later his family donate to the state a large fine an collection acquired by the anist. Today it is exhibited in the I.I. Brodsky Apartment Museum in St. Petersburg, In the 1930s, Ya.E. Kustodieva turned over some of her husband's pictures to the village of Ostrovskoy for organizing a B.M. Kustodiev museum there.

V.V. Meshkov presented to the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg his favourite picture, 'Meditation', which he had preserved all his life. Art critics P.E. Kornilov and N.N. Nagorskaya presented pictures to the newly founded regional picture gallery in Novosibirsk, while S.L. Rylova donated her husband's works to that gallery. In 1975, I.M. Voronov turned over a large collection of pictures to the Russian Museum. In the late 1970s, E.A. Byalynitskaya-Birulya gave the State An Museum of Byelorussia several hundred pictures and sketches done by her husband and also A.V, Moravov's pictures. They formed the basis for the V.K. Byalynitsky-Birulya Art Museum in Mogilev.

In the early 1980s, Academician A.Ya. Abramian donated his picture collection to the city of Yerevan. In 1985, Prof. I.S. Zilbershtein turned over his large collection of paintings to the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts. This collection will form the basis of the museum of private collections. The same year, Academician L.F. llyichev turned over 80 Russian paintings and works of graphic art to the city of Krasnodar. In 1986, the Russian Museum received as a gift Prof. B.N. Okunev's large collection which he had bequeathed to it earlier. The same year collector B.B. Sveshnikov in Kiev presented 24 works by S.I. Vasilkovsky to the State Museum of Ukrainian Fine Arts in the Ukraine. In 1989, G.P. Belyakov presented to the V.M. Vasnetsov House Museum six works by V.M. and A.M. Vasnetsovs. During his long life that collector turned over several hundred pictures and sketches to different museums.

For a long time the Tretyakov Gallery received particularly significant donations of pictures. In 1956, Prof. I.N. Vvedensky presented to it a great number of drawings by M.A. Vrubel in connection with one hundredth birth anniversary of the artists. In 1965-1968, the Gallery received pictures from P.D. Korin, I.L. Andronnikov, G.N. Isupova, T.V. Geltser, V.E. Ulyanova, A.L. Bakst (the artist's son), restorer I.K. Kraitor and other donators. In the early 1980s the Gallery received pictures from the collections of Prof. N.S. Arzhannikov, A.S. Pavlenko, Prof. N.A. Lifshits and others. In 1991, G.P. Belyakov presented to the Gallery V.D. Polenov's 'Early Snow', one of the most valuable pictures in his collection. Still earlier, in 1963, he presented to the Gallery I.P. Pokhitonov's 'P.I. Shchukin Promenading'. It is known that K.S. Petrov-Vodkin's 'Watering the Red Horse' was presented to the Gallery by K.K. Basevich. Pictures also come from abroad.

It can thus be stated that at all times people presented paintings to galleries and continue to do so. All of them certainly had heirs. It was not without emotion that P.M. Tretyakov was writing his will. After the Moscow Duma adopted the decision on accepting his gift to the city of Moscow, he immediately went abroad and wrote a letter to his wife in which he said: 'I have not yet come to myself.' Vera Nikolayevna answered him: 'It seems our children regret this early sacrifice, but I am not sorry: one could expect only one finale in the history of your collection.'

The picture galleries organized or strengthened on the basis of collectors' donations would have appeared anyway, although much later. Meanwhile the fact of donation of pictures to museums is dear to us as a social phenomenon embodying the great idea - 'all to the people, all to society'. What is extremely important to us is the pace of the development of the process of donation. Collectors are to be found in each city and it is not to be ruled out that a certain pan of them are already morally prepared to make a donation. What is needed is a favourable treatment of their intentions and cooperation on the part of the local authorities, notably accommodation of picture galleries in suitable buildings allotted for the purpose.

My attitude to painting is a produce of evolution. My views and feelings have developed over decades.

Painting both attracted and captured me from childhood. There was something enchanting, wi-zardly, devine about it. I remember scrutinizing for hours the figure of the man and the surrounding scene in the colour reproduction of Kramskoy's "Christ in the Wilderness" which had just appeared in the "Probuzhdeniye" ("Awakening") magazine. Looking at the picture I began to see the essence and significance of Christ in much bolder relief than what I could draw from icons and gospel stories. The reproduction of Levitan's "Eternal Peace" put me in a similarly unaccountable and even anxious mood. I remember my mother saying: 'You'd better do your lessons rather than looking at pictures.'

Now I see that my mother was not actually angry. For some reason she was not worried by my attention to all that was painted. She herself cut out the reproductions of those pictures by Kram-skoy and Levitan from the 'hallowed' magazine and we pasted them to the wall together. Today, on the passage of time, I can well say that it was my mother who gave her first blessing to my love for painting.

My growing interest for paintings developed into a desire to paint something myself. I even entered a drawing school. After making a great number of copies from gypsum models and several sketches from nature, I became convinced that the eyes and aesthetic feelings demand more than the hands can do. What was left to me was to collect paintings or at least their reproductions. Here 1 was confronted with the problem of money. It was at the age of 37 that I bought quite by chance a still life at a sale-exhibition of pictures from the An Foundation of the USSR. That took place in Novosibirsk in 1946 under the influence of artist A.I. Brait who was painting my portrait then, and amateur artist O.K. Antonov, the famous aircraft designer. I think it was an awakening of my old passion for painting which had remained dormant for a whole decade, dulled as it was by daily cares, wartime worries and scientific interests. A.M. Sokolov's picture "Flowers against a Background of Mountains" which I bought with such trepidation at the exhibition thus became 'the first brick' in the foundation of my collection.

Then things got going as a matter of course. At the Novosibirsk shops I bought I.I. Bilibin's "Morning in the Ust-Narva Bay" and a large sketch to K.E. Makovsky's "Kissing Ritual."

Somewhat later, when in Moscow, I bought M.Kh. Aladzhalov's "On the Volga" at the shop in Neglinnaya Street which had long remained unsold, and S.Yu. Zhukovsky's "Forest Lake" at the antiquarian shop in Stoleshnikov Lane. The latter was beyond my means but I still bought it somehow. It was then that I realized that picture collecting would win some ground from science.

In the 1950s, second-hand shops in Arbat and Sretenka were crammed with pictures by well-known artists, all the way from I.I. Aivazovsky to V.E. Borisov-Musatov. Now it was more interesting to visit shops than museums, as everything there was in motion. Yet shortage of money kept me from buying pictures, although they did not cost much, while preoccupation with research work prevented more extensive quests. At the shops one could buy at a reasonable price paintings by rather 'left' artists, but I was to form a favourable opinion on them much later.

Finding myself in a second-hand shop I wondered why precious pictures on sale had not found their way to museums and why museum exhibitions feature such a narrow range of artists. I was also disappointed to see ithat monographs on art also covered a narrow range of artists and the collectors' attention was also riveted on that range. Meanwhile many artists, for instance, participants in travelling exhibitions and other masters of the period, remained obscure. All that stimulated my interest for those talented, albeit not great, painters capable of producing remarkable works, although it was not easy to evaluate the artistic merits of their paintings.

It took me many years to solve the problem of the choice from a considerable number of pictures on sale, each attractive in its own way, and to develop a systemic approach to the formation of the collection. Methodologically, in the final count this solution evidently bore the imprint of my profession. As a scientist, I could not rely solely on emotions, impressions or even the popularity of a particular artist. I was eager to get a more thorough knowledge of the objects of my interest. So I bought literature on painting, in particular, exhibition catalogues and picture cards issued in Russia and abroad.

The study of painting took time, thus holding up the acquisition of pictures, but then, it reduced mistakes and brought out the dynamics of views on painting that evolved anyhow. Moreover, thousands of picture cards and illustrations arranged into a card index, as well as exhibition catalogues allowed me to make several discoveries and acquire a number of valuable authentic works of art which, what with the incompetence of antiquity experts at the shops or extreme soiling, were sold unattributed or the authorship was doubted. I thus acquired V.K. Byalynit-sky-Birulya's "Cloudy Day" reproduced by the Grandberg Firm of Sweden in the form of picture card No. 586, and V.N. Kuchumov's "Trubetskoy's Parlour" whose interior analogues were reproduced in LOSSKHIZO picture cards in 1933. Many other pictures reproduced in picture cards were on sale. The very fact of the reproduction indicated the artist's attitude to his work, yet the experts at the shops were not aware of that, and the price was therefore lower than their worth.

What was especially important was that extensive familiarization with the an of particular painters on the basis of my index card gave me a comprehensive idea about the artist's manner and evolution. Thus, considering only the manner of painting, I bought several large magnificent sketches - "The Summer River", "In March" and "The Forester's Cottage" by Byalynitsky-Birulya, and also the first version of K.A. Korovin's well-known "Barn", and I was not mistaken as their authorship was later confirmed by competent experts.

The study of my picture card index and acquaintance with the catalogues of provincial museums and individual exhibitions led me to the re-appraisal or even discovery of many artists. As a result I was able to pick out from the stocks on sale some works deserving attention. Thus, I bought some pictures and sketches by A.A. Borisov, M.V. Boskin, F.K. Burhardt, I.A. Velts, K.A. Veshilov, S.M. Guzikov, A.A. Yegorov, K.Ya. Kryzhitsky, I.S. Kulikov, D.E. Marten, P.A. Radimov, E.I. Stolitsa, F.V. Sychkov, I.I. Trush, N.M. Fokin and other authors, while museums were not inclined to buy them regardless of the quality of the works. Some of those pictures attracted me as such, others with their manner of depicting the natural scene, still others with their treatment of the subject and, finally, the portrayal of the outgoing mode of life. Perhaps some of them would not have contributed much to the artistic value of museum collections, yet each carried its own idea, gave its own reflection of history and revealed the individuality of masters of the past.

My attention to Peredvizhniks' an was determined primarily by my upbringing. Familiar to me from childhood, those artists always appealed to me with their idea of travelling exhibitions. Acquaintance with V.V. Stasov's publicist writings and interest for the personality of P.M. Tretyakov contributed much to the development of my attitude to the an of those masters, largely stimulating the acquisition of pictures and sketches by V.N. Baksheyev, A.M. Vasnetsov, E.E. Volkov, K.I. Gorbatov, I.I. Yendogurov, V.!. Zarubin, P.I. Kelin, I.I. Levitan, K.E. Makovsky and A.V. Makov-sky, S.V. Malyutin, I.S. Ostroukhov, V.D. Polenov, K.A. Savitsky, A.K. Savrasov, V.I. Sokolov, V.G. Tikhov and I.I. Shishkin. They are all in the Khimki Picture Gallery today.

While continuing my searches for Peredvizhnik works, I discovered something that was quite unexpected for me at the time, something associated in the main with the heterogenity of Peredvizhnik an, notably of the latter period. Among other works I bought V.N. Baksheyev's and V.I. Zarubin's pictures which, while sharply differing from each other, fell out of the general trend followed by the Peredvizhnik stars. At the same time, outstanding works by such anists as M.N. Belyaevsky, M.V. Boskin, K.A. Veshchilov, K.Ya. Kryzhitsky, I.S. Kulikov, V.N. Kuchumov, P.A. Levchenko, A.G. Makovskaya, D.E. Manen, V.V. and V.N. Meshkovs, V.V. Perepletchikov and F.V. Sychkov were eminently Peredvizhnik-like. Their authors did not belong to the Peredvizhnik Society, although panicipated in its exhibitions. I became interested in the picture of participants in travelling (Peredvizhnik) exhibitions and consequently bought some of them. You can now see them in the gallery which I have founded.

The acquisition of works by those anists made me happy, although it somewhat detracted my attention from other trends which began to take shape at the turn of the century. That, however, did not interfere much with my collecting pursuits. I gave much attention to painters belonging to the Union of Russian Anists, many of them formerly active members of the Peredvizhnik Society. I thus bought pictures by M.H. Aladzhalov, G.M. Bobrovsky, V.P. Bychkov, S.A. Vinogradov, E.V. Goldinger, S.Yu. Zhukovsky, A.V. Isupov, N.A. Klodt, K.A. Korovin, N.P. Krymov, P.I. Petrovi-chev, A.A. Rylov, A.S, Stepanov, L.V. Turzhansky, K.F. Yuon, M.N. Yakovlev and some other members of that major an association, which eventually become my favourite. Works by the said artists are also included in the stocks of the Khimki Picture Gallery.

My passion for Peredvizhnik and Union of Russian An paintings has not died away, although the peak of my attention to each of the said trends is in the past. At cenain periods I experienced a desire to break that circle and I bought pre-Peredvizhnik works, those by I.K. Aivazovsky, L.F. La-gorio, R.D. Orlovsky, N.E. Rachkov, R.G. Sudkovsky and other artists.

In the later period of my art collecting activity I felt a desire to have in my collection works by artists belonging to the World of Art and other comparatively 'left' trends. So I bought works by K.F. Bogayevsky, D.D. Burlyuk, M.A. Voloshin, A.F. Gaush, N.S. Zaitsev, P.V, Kuznetsov, B.M. Kus-todiev, E.E. Lansere, A.A. Manevich, N.V. Meshcherin, F.-E.E, Ruschitz, M.S. Sarian, Z.G. Serebry-akova, R.R. Falk and other artists of the beginning of this century. Those works belonged to the period of the emergence and development of stylistic and ideological reformism, extremely wide-ranging in forms and objectives, which fell to the 1910s-1920s. Today I cannot even imagine our picture gallery without those paintings.

My interest for Soviet realism, which had taken shape by the 1930s, did not arise on the spur of the moment. That trend was ascening itself in stiff competition with the 'left' trends in art. It owed its survival to the fact that Peredvizhnik and Union of Russian Art old-timers, such as V.K. Byalynitsky-Birulya, V.N. Baksheyev, V.V. Meshkov, P.I. Petrovichev and L.V. Turzhansky, mature and authoritative masters that they were, largely adhered to the old traditions, thus giving support to realism already in Soviet time. Of all the trends of the 1930s-1940s, I was attracted to the new generation of realistic artists because they were closer to the Peredvizhniks or the Union of Russian Art which constituted the basis of my collection. Today I am happy that I managed to acquire works produced by the best representatives of new realism - V.N. Aralov, S.V. Gerasimov, R.V. Gershanik, S.M. Guzikov, E.A. Katsman, P.I. Kotov, V.V. Krainev, P.N. Krylov, V.P. Kurmanay-evsky, V.S. Pshenichnikov, N.B. Terpsikhorov, G.M. Shegal and other artists.

In reviewing the periods of my collecting pursuits and explaining in one way or another my attitude to particular formations and associations of Russian and Soviet painting art, and especially in referring artists to those trends and associations, I do not make any attempts to give a specialist classification of the stages in the development of painting. I should note, however, that throughout the entire fifty-year period of my collecting pursuits I tried at least to keep in mind the fact that the content and style of painting could not remain unchanged, and therefore made a point of amassing a collection tracing the development of painting art over the past centuries. It is only in the gallery that I shall be able to see how much I have managed to do towards this end. The apartment did not provide adequate conditions for this.

Since by the 1950s, the idea of turning my personal collection into public property had ultimately shaped, I naturally felt a desire to popularize artists whom I considered talented but who remained obscure for some reason, although their works shown at exhibitions at different times attracted the public's attention. Among such works I would mention O.D. Stolyarov's "Almond Blossom", M.M, Gokhshtein's "Autumn in Karelia", S.N. Saltanov's "Sunny Day in the Forest", A.N.Shishlov's "Spring", Ya.P.Turlygin's "Forest", S.A. Luchishkin's "Still Life with Lemons", and I.P. Fyodorov-Kerchensky's "Calm Sea". What among other things attracted me to S.A. Luchishkin's art was that he was one of the organizers of the Stankovist Society in the 1920s, although later steadily moved towards realism ultimately to become its typical representative. I also had some special motifs for bying I.P. Fyodorov-Kerchensky's picture. I knew about that artist from catalogues and picture cards but did not happen for several decades to come across his works in either antiquarian shops or private collections. Once visiting artist V.S. Pshenichnikov's granddaughter, I saw his "Calm Sea" at her place and finally bought it. One can say that its appearance in the Khimki Picture Gallery is indeed a second birth for the artist since the whereabouts of his other significant works are unknown. The acquisition of A.N. Shishov's 'Spring' was quite a special case. I had no idea whatsoever about that artist. The picture was soiled but something suggested that the quality of the painting and particularly its lyricism, something I always appreciate particularly, were on the level of Levitan's paintings and the best landscapes by Byalynitsky-Birulya, Stepanov and other masters.

I should admit that while devoting for decades so much attention to painting art and trying to form a systematized collection, I favoured works by some artists particularly. Thus, my specific vision of the artist's individual manner and his attitude to nature, which is somewhat akin to my own attitude, prompted me to acquire a considerable number of V.K. Byalynitsky-Birulya's pictures. In particular, this artist appeals to me with the stability of his style, the distinctive lyricism of his depictions of the natural scene and the seaming ease with which he conveys his visual impressions. All his pictures are like large sketches. His wife told me that he had practically never corrected or repainted individual details of his pictures. Seeking to achieve colour combinations that would satisfy him, he preferred to start anew. Versions of pictures, which were so numerous, were made by him only to order.

Similar reasons stood behind my collecting so many works by A.S. Stepanov. I particularly liked his small sketches some of which are done with such affection and care that they could be described as minipictures. The collection also contains his two big pictures - "A Thaw" and "Still Life", painted at the peak of his artistic career.

I also had some other ideas about picture collecting. Pictures whose whereabouts were unknown, although they were mentioned in special literature, interested me particularly. I believed that first of all they should be searched out. So I found and bought A.K. Savrasov's picture "Limetrees by the River", V.N. Baksheyev's sketch "Before the Masters' Arrival", and also A.S. Stepanov's two pictures I mentioned above.

Among other features attracting my attention as a collector was a theme or painting technique nontypical of a particular artist. What I appreciated in such cases was the widening of the artist's thematic and stylistic range. It was therefore without much hesitation that I bought I.K. Aivazov-sky's "Sheep in the Pasture". For the same reason I bought "Forest Landscape" and"'Still Life" by L.N. Turzhansky who concentrated on rural scenes with horses and chickens. S.V. Malyutin was considered a portrait painter but I was attracted by his "Lilac" still life, S.S. Yegornov was known as a genre scene painter, but I rested my choice on his magnificent landscape "The Sea Shore. Alushta". My attention was also attracted by V.N. Baksheyev's nontypical picture "Meeting Sunrise after the Graduation Ball", and S.Yu. Zhukovsky's "Autumn" drawn with pastels, which was not typical of that artist. I bought N.V. Meshcherin's "Moonlit Night" as a successful attempt at pointillism. Later I presented the above-mentioned works by I.K. Aivazovsky, V.N. Baksheyev and N.V. Meshcherin to the Tretyakov An Gallery.

As to the subject matter of the paintings collected, by preferences formed not without the influence of my 'silvan' profession and love of nature. The depiction of ordinary places of human habitation - forests, fields and rivers, rather than human passions, interested me primarily. Of more than three hundred works collected by me, slightly over two dozens are portraits and still lives,

When the number of pictures sold at the shops decreased and their quality deteriorated, I was tempted to buy something from private owners. But nothing came of it. It took more time, the heire charged more than the shops and at times the moral atmosphere was oppressive. On top of that, unlike some collectors, I never sought to buy works of art from incompetent owners at a price lower than what they charged at the shop.

You may wonder how I managed to gather such an extensive collection of valuable pictures, albeit over a long fifty-year period. To begin with, I experienced a great desire to collect pictures and I knew something about the art of painting. A significant factor was that prices for pictures were not high until the 1960s and even the 1970s. Moreover, I had a rather high salary plus bonuses for research work and royalties for published monographs. And, finally, there was no grandness in our daily life so that we could afford to buy works of art and at the same time meet our household requirements.

It will be noted that my collecting hobby, especially when it came to selecting and attributing works of an, developed not only through my self-education, but also under the influence of prominent collectors, such as V.Y. Andreyev, G.P. Belyakov, N.N. Blokhin, N.V. Bolshakov, F.E. Vishnevsky, N.A. Gadman, A.B. Dantsiger, Y.A. Ignatiev, H.D. Kagan, A.N. Kansev, N.N. Kislitsin, P.N. Krylov, K.S. and V.V. Lebedinsky, V.N. Moskvinov, B.M. Odintsov, I.I. Prozorov, I.I. Sarafanov, B.B. Sveschnikov, A.I. Slutsky, N.V. Stanchinsky, Y.S. Torsuev, F.P. Toskin and I.I. Shagin to whom I express my gratitude for their helpful advice. We maintained friendly, albeit competitive, relations. In the final count such relations proved beneficial to all of us.

Speaking about my aims of collecting, I should say that they underwent certain evolution. Ten or fifteen years, or nearly one-third of the entire collecting period, had passed from the moment when I first felt a desire to collect something for myself before I grew convinced that the collection of socially valuable objects was only justified if the collector was aware of his social duty. Today I am happy to have realized the fact that collecting objects of public interest and keeping them all to oneself is immoral. Back in the 1940s-1950s, when I was only beginning to collect object of art, it seemed strange to me that excellent paintings were sold in second-hand shops together with ta-bleware and antiquities of no value. It worried me somewhat when an unknown buyer of Polenov's, Levitan's or Shishkin's picture carried it away from the shop like an ordinary merchandise, wrapped up in brown paper. I still remember some of those pictures but have not seen them anywhere ever since. My acquisitions were less ambitious, but also wrapped up in brown paper, and other visitors probably also experienced some feelings at the sight of that. When carrying the acquired picture home, I said to myself: 'Just to think, it was shown at a Peredvizhnik exhibition'.

In those years I could not afford to buy expensive pictures, and so I often contented myself with pictures without frames, soiled or damaged, among them, paintings by artists not rated as great but still of high artistic value. I searched out the best restorers and was happy to see the painting brought back to life. A thought began to visit me at such moments that the picture was now museum-worth.

Sometimes I specially bought pictures which I thought museums would like to have, yet museums would not have them. Examples in point are landscapes carrying some historical associations, such as "Trigorskoye. A Birch Tree by the River Sorot" and "Gorki Leninskiye. V.I. Lenin's Favourite Walk" by V.K. Byalynitsky-Birulya. I was sorry that I failed to acquire "L.N. Tolstoy's Grave" by the same artist which was on sale at the time. No one knows its whereabouts today. I also bought pictures of the 'left' trend which were not only rejected by museums but also shunned by many collectors, although the prices were rather low. I acquired several pictures by artists of that trend, among them, R.R. Falk, A.A. Manevich, M.S. Sarian, early Luchishkin, N.Ye. Kuznetsov, M.V. Leblan and others. In doing that I was guided by the idea of forming a collection that would trace the development of realistic painting. Today I am gratified that I ranked those artists among realists while some art critics and most of the collectors thought otherwise. That was specially true of P.P. Falk.

I believed that visits to picture galleries and exhibitions, the study of monographs and catalogues of the past exhibitions, and the scrutiny of picture cards gave me sufficient knowledge about the possible range of pictures by a particular artist of interest. Nevertheless, finding myself in an antiquarian shop I grew excited when I saw among the pictures on sale some painting by a well-known artist which I had never seen before. It was exactly in such situations that I acquired obviously museum-worth works such as V,D. Orlovsky's "The Pond. Summer. Evening", Ye.Ye. Volkov's "In the Birch Wood", N.V. Dosekin's "In the Sea", V.V. Perepletchikov's "Road in the Forest", S.Yu. Zhukovsky's "Spring in the Forest", N.V. Meshcherin's "Birch Trees" and "After the Rain" and M.Kh. Aladzhalov's "Spring in the Countryside". Three of them are now on display in the Khimki Picture Gallery.

My professional qualities of a researcher were evidently decisive in my fairly rapid orientation towards system-based collecting, thus preventing excessive variegation of themes and eventuating before long in an attempt to collect works of Russian realistic paintings of a definite period. My professional qualities also told on the methods of handling the pictures acquired, including immediate restoration and the provision of frames if the picture was acquired unframed, or even their replacement considering the period when the picture was painted or the artist's idea about the frame I already began to give my pictures museum treatment, glazing them and placing in packets. I began to do that rather early, so that in 1986 the collection was fit for gallery exhibition.

As I have said earlier, some of my views on the aims and composition of a collection of paintings, notably my idea about the donation of pictures to museums, began to take shape in the 1950s when I had already acquired a considerable number of pictures, extended contacts with other collectors and studied certain historical aspects concerning the appearance of galleries. As my collecting hobby progressed, my conviction grew. Yet the final decision only took shape towards the early '60s. That I was arriving at this decision rather slowly was due to my uncertainty about the collection being sufficient for founding a picture gallery. Because of that uncertainty I refrained from giving publicity to my collection and its purpose. But, nevertheless, people got to know about it somehow. So during myjubiles celebrations, answering the questions about the future of my collection put by some of my collegues also interested in painting, I already said that I was thinking about founding a city gallery on its basis.

In 1986, when the collection already consisted of 250 works, and our apartment could not hold them all, the management of the Tretyakov Art Gallery made a review of it. They proposed showing it in the Gallery exhibition rooms. I was moved by that very much and declared my decision to donate fifty to sixty pictures to the Tretyakov Art Gallery. I believed that would not detract much from the value of the Khimki Gallery, considering the high appraisal of my collection given by Tretyakov Art Gallery experts. Moreover, I could buy some works of high value.

The exhibition of the collection in the Tretyakov Art Gallery halls on the Krymskaya Embankment, which took place in 1989, turned into a major event for the Moscow public. It was widely covered in the press and TV programmes. In my speech to the public gathered at the exhibition I officially announced my decision to present via the Russian International Cultural Foundation (the Cultural Foundation of the USSR at the time) 120 best paintings from my collection to the city of Khimki with an eye to founding there a picture gallery.

The Director of the Tretyakov Art Gallery, Academician of Painting Yu.K. Korolev, who presided over the gathering, highly appraised this act and proposed calling a conference of representatives of the city of Khimki to settle organizational questions. Before long the conference was held and it was decided to show the entire gift to the people of Khimki in the exhibition hall of the Combined An Studios. The exhibition took place accordingly in March-April 1990, with over five thousand people visiting it. It was indeed a major event for the city. I had meetings with citizens. The public was excited. Letters were sent to the local authorities, the press and the USSR Ministry of Culture. Their authors were eager to know when and where the gallery would open.

In my statement to the Russian International Cultural Foundation and the Khimki City Soviet I set only two conditions: the publication of a complete colour catalogue and the accommodation of the gallery in the house, now an architectural monument, built to the design of Academician F.O. Shekhtel. The city people were afraid that it would take long for the hospital occupying the Shekhtel House to be moved into another building. Their fears were justified. Considering such a delay, the City Soviet requested me to accommodate the gallery temporarily in the building of the CPSU City Committee. I complied with their request and the sponsor, the Association of Innovation Agencies of the city of Khimki, so-called AINA, undertook to carry out intricate restoration work in the exhibition hall and several ancillary premises so that they meet gallery standards.

Considering the population's mood, the City Soviet's solicitous attitude and the high quality of the reconstruction work carried out by the Association, as well as the unfolding efforts to publish the catalogue and restore the Shekhtel House, I decided to buy some more paintings to bring the size of the gift to 190 works without lowering its artistic level. In this way I was able to fill in some gaps in the gallery composition, making it possible to feature the development of Russian painting art more comprehensively.

At the same time I entertained the hope to turn the newly emerged gallery into the city's cultural centre carrying out educational work in the field of fine arts. My idea was supported by the city authorities. An original exhibition layout was proposed accordingly, with special podium tables fixed to the walls underneath the pictures displayed. Placed on the podiums are the artist's portrait, biographical spotlights and a set of reproductions of his other works with the indication of their whereabouts and the place of their exhibition. In this way the gallery hall is fitted out, with artists, portraits and reproductions of their little-known pictures or pictures whose whereabouts are unknown, plus other information concerning Russian painting art. Such innovation allows the visitor to obtain detailed information about the pictures without the guide's assistance, and also to judge for oneself what place a particular picture shown in the gallery occupies in the painter's art.

It has been agreed with the city authorities that the Gallery will be moved into the Shekhtel House not later than 1993.

Some collectors met my action with coldness. It is gratifying, however, that there are still some who intend to follow my example. My wife and daughter treated all this with understanding. It did not come as a bolt from the blue to them. They heard me speak about that for years and knew my views and judgements. Of course, they were probably sad when the time had come to part with the habitual, but they did not discuss that. What somewhat comforted them was that there still remained on the walls of our apartment some pictures and sketches, most of them recently presented to by artists, their heirs or collectors whom I know. Our life has not changed but a feeling of happiness has come after the fulfilment of the long-lasting duty. In 1992 the Gallery was opened.