Ibragimov Igor N. — research associate of the “Pavlovsk Palace and Estate Museum”
E-mail: palace@pavlovskmuseum.ru

The presented text examines the problem of the existence and definition of the Leningrad art school in the period of the 1920s – 1940s. The main attention is paid to the debatable issue of the legitimacy of applying the term “Leningrad school” to the early Soviet period, which is argued by institutional instability and the simultaneous coexistence of various artistic trends — the academic tradition, avant-garde and the emerging aesthetics of socialist realism. A. I. Strukova’s thesis on the formation of the Leningrad landscape school in the 1930s is adopted as a methodological basis. The author expands this concept, putting forward the idea of the existence in the same period of an independent interior genre that continued pre-revolutionary traditions. It is proved that, despite the similarity of artistic methods (construction of perspective, rendering of light and colour), interior and landscape are different genres. The interior genre is characterized by a focus on a closed space, objectivity and intimacy, while the landscape is addressed to an open, monumental and socially significant space. The text also examines the cultural context of the era, noting the dualism of Soviet art of the 1930s, where regional traditions were preserved along with official art. In conclusion, it is stated that the sustainable development of interior painting, its genre and aesthetic independence confirm the legitimacy of identifying the Leningrad art school as a unique phenomenon in Russian art of the first half of the 20th century.

Interior genre, interior in painting, landscape, landscape school, Leningrad school of painting, palace interior, problem of terminology, regional school.