Images of Primitive Art in the Work of Mikhail Larionov

Images and themes from primitive art emerge in various forms across different eras of culture. Throughout time, humans have strived to express the most vital aspects of their existence through creativity; this is why people consistently return to eternal themes (for example, life and death, good and evil). Over the millennia separating modern humanity from its ancient ancestors, art has undergone a complex evolutionary path—a linear development of the tools best suited for expressing reality. However, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, world artistic culture experiences a crisis: traditional art, which is intrinsically linked to aesthetics and perceptions of beauty, proves incapable of conveying the complex, chaotic reality that surrounded people during that revolutionary era. When the world «goes mad» and the foundations of accustomed life rapidly disintegrate, humans revert to primitive forms, because these are the forms capable of expressing the immutable values that no catastrophe can destroy. A prime example of interpreting the motifs of primitive art in 20th-century culture—specifically in avant-garde painting—is the work of Mikhail Larionov.

To confirm the hypothesis, we will examine the period in the artist’s work most characteristic of the chosen theme—1910–1930—and review the pieces from this stage in chronological order.

We begin our investigation in the early 1910s, as this is when Larionov departs from imitating fashionable European trends and develops his own style. Before this period, the artist draws inspiration from the creative experiments of his Western colleagues, interpreting Fauvism and Impressionism in his work in his own unique way. For instance, the vibrant colors, angular poses, and southern facial features in «Rural Bathers» from 1909 reflect the influence of Henri Matisse («Blue Nude, ” 1907) and Paul Gauguin („The Soul is Not Sleeping, ” 1892).

However, it is the imitation of Matisse and Gauguin that gives rise to Neo-primitivism—the first artistic movement of the Russian avant-garde that drew upon the traditions of folk and archaic art. In his brochure, «Neo-primitivism. Its Theory. Its Possibilities. Its Achievements» (1913), Alexander Shevchenko names lubok, primitivism, and the icon as the «starting point» of Neo-primitivism, because they encapsulate «the sharpest, most immediate perception of life.» The emergence of this movement is primarily associated with the «Jack of Diamonds» exhibition, organized in December 1910, and the names N. Goncharova, I. Mashkov, and M. Larionov.

Considering the main sources of inspiration for the Neo-primitivists, we return to Larionov’s «Village Bathing Women.» Upon closer inspection, a different, less obvious reminiscence becomes apparent: the traits of Fauvism and Post-Impressionism, embodied in the work’s palette and technique, recede into the background, overshadowed by the influence that «Stone Women» exerted on the artist.

«Stone women”—ancient anthropomorphic stone sculptures [4]—erected in the steppes of southern Europe and Siberia from 4000 BCE through the 13th century CE. Most specialists attribute their purpose to cosmogonic or, later, funerary cults; however, the exact function of the menhirs, as well as the degree of their anthropomorphism and the detail of their depiction, varies depending on the ethnic group of the sculptor, the era, and the site of the structure. The Russian generic name for these female figures originated during the settlement of the South Russian steppes because of their massiveness and silhouette, which resembled a maternal female figure [4].

Research into the „stone women“ in Russia began in the 18th century, but it was only at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries that these ancient sculptures captured the interest of the general public, which, of course, is reflected in the culture. Menhirs become frequent subjects in literary and painting works: in the texts of Khlebnikov, Danilevsky, and Balmont, the „babas“ transform into an important national symbol, while Goncharova, Malevich, and Larionov saw in the menhirs „the visual prototype of the Russian peasant woman“ [6]; the rough, angular forms of the sculptures inspire artists.

However, the «cubist» style of execution in «Peasant Bathing Women» is not the only element connecting Larionov’s heroines and the «stone women.» Both the women and the others possess disproportionate bodies, broad, muscular shoulders, and a similar breast shape. There are also certain parallels in their facial features: the sharp shape of the eyes and the large nose.

The voices of the «stone women» will sound up on the paintings of a more mature Larionov many times over. The barely visible presence of the ancient idols is palpable even in the unfinished series «Venus,» which was shown at the «Mishen» exhibition.

In «Cossack Venus, ” the artist’s individual style, rooted in the principles of Neo-Primitivism, is already discernible. Venus Larionova bears no resemblance to the heroines of the Renaissance; the classical ideal serves as a guide only in the composition’s structure. Yet, this rejection of classical tradition leads Larionova toward ancient traditions—to those very „primitives“ that were perceived both as a quality of „early historical art“ and as a „mark of folk creativity“ [5].

Although primitive art was still largely understudied during Larionova’s active creative period, several significant archaeological discoveries made in the early 20th century captivated the Western imagination. Because these studies were conducted by European scholars, it cannot be stated with certainty whether Larionova was familiar with them. Nevertheless, the Neo-Primitivist „Venuses“ contain references to Paleolithic Venuses—whether intentional or not, but certainly visually apparent.

The forms of the «Katsap Venus,» in general, adhere to the canon observed in the vast majority of female figurines from the Paleolithic era. For example, Larionov’s heroine can be compared to the famous Venus of Willendorf (the statue is approximately 29,000 years old), which was discovered in 1908 by the archaeologist Josef Sombati. The creator of the Venus of Willendorf managed to emphasize the most vital sexual organs—symbols of fertility (and thus life and prosperity)—without disrupting the body’s proportions. The limestone statue is distinguished by its rounded forms: the large breasts, stomach, hips, even the navel and skin folds on the back and knees are highlighted. At the same time, the Venus is devoid of a face, as a secondary body element that is not directly related to the primary function of a woman—procreation. The body of the «Katsap Venus» is more elongated, yet it also possesses lush forms. The artist, much like his predecessor, emphasizes the heroine’s breasts, voluminous hips, and stomach, detailing the folds of the bare skin. The natural, rounded forms of the Katsap beauty combine with hyper-stylized feet and palms, and rugged hands—traits more characteristic of working peasants than of Paleolithic Venuses.

Another important archaeological discovery of the early 20th century was the Venus of Lesnes (around 20,000 years old), discovered in 1911 by J. Lalanne in southwestern France. Again, we lack sufficient evidence to definitively claim whether the ancient bas-relief could have been a direct source of inspiration for Larionov, but this iconic image shares certain similarities with the Venuses of the Russian avant-garde.

The large figure of the «Jewish Venus» echoes the forms of its «Cossack» «sister»: large hips, breasts, and even more detailed folds on the abdomen, legs, and neck—all these features relate the heroine to both the Villaendorff and the Laussel Venuses.

Depicting the «Slav» and «Jewish» Venuses modestly covering their genitals (following the ancient tradition of the «Venus Pudica»), Larionov, while rejecting the classical ideal of beauty, nevertheless maintains fidelity to the compositional canon. The «Soldier» Venus, however, stands apart—her pose lacks pretentious modesty: the artist, continuing to develop the theme of simple, «folk» beauty, lowers his heroine further than before.

Conducting a comparative analysis of Larionov’s female figures with Paleolithic Venus statues inevitably highlights their resemblances to the Kostenko Venus. This statuette was discovered much later (in the 1970s), and although Larionov could not physically use it as a reference, the voluminous form of the ancient sculpture aligns with the artist’s «ideal.» Unlike her contemporaries discussed above, the Kostenko Venus possesses a more elongated body and a long neck, which brings her image closer to the figure of the «Soldier Venus.» Furthermore, both artists emphasize protruding stomachs and large hips, yet this does not deprive the female figures of smooth, sinuous lines.

In the same year, 1912, Larionov painted «Venus and Michael, ” a work that is, on one hand, a continuation of the Venus theme, and on the other, a completely new artistic statement.

First and foremost, it is worth noting the different, „infantile“ level of stylistic „primitivism“ in the painting. The simplicity of the forms, the roughness of the lines, and the chaotic composition reduce Larionov’s style almost to abstraction. However, it would be a mistake to characterize these changes as linear—Larionov would later return to his previous methods, just as he would delve deeper into more explicit non-objectivity. This multifaceted dynamism is connected to another crucial principle of Neo-Primitivism: the complete freedom of methods for expressing artistic intent—the freedom to choose models for imitation (from folk art to primitives)—and the disregard for style as such. Neo-primitivists called for the removal of all „limits“ and „barriers“ between professional and naive art, „low“ and „high.“