UNDERSTANDING ART
Ilya Repin: Repurposing & Recontextualizing Culture and History
An Understanding of Ilya Repin’s art piece Ivan the Terrible
“Tell all the truth but tell it slant — “ this line from the poet Emily Dickinson describes briefly the approach used in the works of the Russian-Ukrainian painter Ilya Efimovitch Repin.
Repin, who was born during Tsar Nicholas I’s autocracy, possessed both patriotic and revolutionary ideals while avoiding communism. Along with his comrades and other Russian artists, they have adapted the new avenue for collective understanding — realism. Realism rose in the mid-nineteenth century as a response to the more self-centered and hallucinatory approach to life of the romantics. For them, life should be told in its most honest and pure form. This movement aims to present life honestly, or the truth in living. Though committed to portraying less of the excess and unnecessary, it is not the intention of the realists to serve the truth explicitly, as any art should refrain from doing so. The realists believe that the truth resides behind and beyond the capitalist system. Mindful of its capabilities, the realists express their aggression towards the system through art and literature. Realists like Repin decided to tell the truth in this way: by emphasizing the often overlooked or ignored. By stripping off the glamour, all that is left is the truth, which is often overlooked.
This is the anomalous and often regarded by some Russians as disturbing painting of Ivan the Terrible and the Tsarevich, his son, Ivan Ivanovich. The painting depicts an old legend that the ruler once had an argument with his son about his wife, whom the Tsar rebuked for dressing improperly, causing the lady to have a miscarriage, which led to the incident of him giving a fatal blow to the Tsarevich. This is how Repin introduces a truth. A family devoid of glitz is unsettling. In this image, wealth and power vanish. This is the ruling family at rock bottom: a sudden death; the loss of the only heir — a descendant — on the verge of causing a national uprising.
Early critics were quick to point out that the painting is excessive, referring to the approach of the portrayal of this event and deeming it to be inappropriately representing Russian history. Many Russian nationalists have been calling it out for misrepresentation and inaccuracy, leading to a boycott of the painting at most Russian exhibitions and the 1913 incident of a deranged painter slashing it with a knife, causing expensive damage repairs, which is the peak of its controversy. The negativity that surrounds the painting has a deep connection with the subtle denial of the nationalists of the brutal history of the first Tsar. He is known for his cruelty, which led to the mass murder of the citizens of Novgorod.
“As witnesses testify, Tsar Ivan gave the oprichniki written orders to massacre those who had fallen into disgrace, including the method of execution to be used and so forth. In turn, the oprichniki prepared reports to the tsar indicating that they had carried out his orders and the circumstances and place of an execution.” (R. G. Skrynnikov, 1985)
Accounts of children tied to their mothers and left to drown when thrown at the river because of a rumor of an uprising against him also contributed to the image of the Tsar in Russian history.
With all of this in mind, a viewer who is well-versed in the subject will be upset by the gruesomeness of the blood that the Tsaverich had shed. What misleads the viewer is its failure to search for the real focal point of the painting: the teardrop shed by the Tsaverich.
An interpretation by Pierre Baudry made the assertion that there is no violence depicted in the painting. Repin has opted to present the aftermath instead of the act of violence during the incident. By doing so, what is left is a pure, sublime moment. The Tsar is unable to absorb the incident while questioning the reality of the event and his act, which can be experienced through his wide, blank stare into the abyss; consequently, the constricting of the pupil of his eyes gives us the feeling of regret. Despite his injury, the son, despite sharing the same blank stare, exudes security and certainty. Ivan Kramskoy, a Russian painter and art critic who is also a friend and a teacher of Repin, perfectly describes this moment in his own words:
“And the son cannot any longer control the pupil of his eye; he breathes heavily, feeling the grief of his father, his horror, his shriek, and he, like a baby, wishes to smile at him as if to say: ‘It’s nothing, father, do not be afraid…” (Kramskoy, as cited in Baudry, 2009)
Baudry believes that the painting portrays the irony of love. To him, summoning the teardrop was not an act centered on oneself, but rather on someone else. The teardrop is an act of forgiveness. This is what the Russian nationalist fails to discover: that the painting is not simply a memoriam of a controversial historical event that is made to hurt a reputation. It is merely a tool for reaching and tapping into a consciousness that they have forbidden to discern. Repin gives the subject a distinct purpose far from the domain of superficiality that is juxtaposed to a seemingly innocent image by re-contextualizing a part of history and/or culture. This process forces one to generate a different meaning for the subject, and upon figuring this out, an unsuspecting audience is now arrested and sown with consciousness. A consciousness that speaks to him but is never fully realized until he is taunted by his own thought, which questions his values. This is how Repin’s irony works. In the most subtle way, Repin has reached and awakened a collective thought while simultaneously injecting his patriotic ideals through this process. For him, one could not offer himself to the country less of its culture and history. In a letter, Repin expressed his displeasure with Leo Tolstoy’s rejection of culture and offered insight into its importance in how a society functions and will move forward:
“Culture is the foundation, the basis of good, and without it humanity would become contemptible and powerless, materially and morally” (Repin letter to V.G. Cherkov August 29, 1887, as cited in Baudry 2009)
In the painting Ivan the Terrible, forgiveness represents change. For Repin, in order for Russia to truly progress as a nation, it is necessary to accept responsibility by embracing the past and leaving nothing behind. The painting, completed in 1885, was inspired by the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, plotted by the far-left group People’s Will (Narodnaya Volya), which used peasants to spark terrorism disguised as a revolution. The prominent activities of this group, as well as the terror it has inflicted on civilians, may have compelled Repin to weaponize it against their extremist advocacy. It is true that Russia’s historical tragedy is displeasing to commemorate. But by recognizing the events that took place, one can take a step towards a more civilized and progressive culture. Repin believes that by forgiving the fatherland (not to be misunderstood as forgiving the perpetrator of the murders), Russia will find itself in a better place, without all the insecurities from its past that lurk and linger behind its shoulder, waiting to consume and devour.
For the past few weeks, a trend of as-old-as-time issues like racism, police brutality, and rape culture has resurfaced on the internet. The events that took place awakened the need for an end to these injustices and immoralities. Bear in mind that these have been addressed many times already. The common denominator points to its systemic structure. Yet, the issues die out then and there. This clearly demonstrates the importance of considering cultural and historical accountability. The search for solutions to these problems has always been a juvenile approach that has led to victim-blaming and deviated from reality. The conversation is still going as of the writing of this text. But one needs to realize that a mere conversation will not cease the problem from existing. Repin has put it briefly:
“To descend to this darkness for a minute and say, I am with them — is hypocrisy. To submerge with them forever — is a senseless sacrifice. To raise them, to raise them to one’s own level, to give life — this is a heroic deed!” (Repin letter to V.G. Cherkov August 29, 1887, as cited in Baudry 2009)
When the idea of empowerment in paving the way for the abolition of inequality scares the system, that is enough to justify the call for injustice. As Repin put it, it is not enough to sympathize with someone’s struggle. Likely, it is impossible for someone to sympathize with someone’s struggle when you are a part of the system that inflicts the struggle on them. De oppresso liber is not the same as abolishing oppression. One has to recognize the system that caters to injustices and inequalities. Change will be radical only for those who refuse to accept the idea of dismantling a system they benefit from. Repin understands this kind of refusal. Perhaps this is the reason why he chose the approach he used in his artwork: to be able to present truth effectively, one must present it slant.
Act upon change today. Support and/or donate to these petitions:
References
(2009) Ilya Repin and The Ironic Range of The Noosphere by Pierre Baudry
(1985) The Synodicon of Those Who Fell into Disgrace under Tsar Ivan the Terrible, Soviet Studies in History, 24:1–2, 45–61, DOI: 10.2753/RSH1061–198324010245
