This is one of those situations I’ve alluded to previously on here, that being, due to all the concentrated looking I’m doing because of the weekly posting, I make a connection between works that I’ve never noticed up until now. It is super gratifying I must say and I hope you can appreciate it for what it is...living art history and a discovery process that is ongoing in front of you.

This week’s revelation also concerns to an extant Love and Emotion which are two things not generally discussed when it comes to Natalia Gontcharova. At least not by me. She is the ultimate in distancing herself from her work. Her own emotions are not part of her practice. She may show us subjects that have an emotional component- it is sad to see displaced peasants and failing faith in the mid 20th c.- but these are not her emotions. What we see is the true story, the sad facts. She does not dramatize or need to overlay anything extra in order to make a point. Her narratives are clearly rendered.

So here is a tiny portrait of her lifelong love and partner Mikhail Larionov. It is water color on white wove paper and measures 15cm x 13cm. What popped into my mind was how similar it is to Natalia’s sad self portrait I posted last week (9/5). Take a look. It’s similar in many respects not only for it’s sorrowful emotional depiction of the subject but also for stylistic and technical reasons. As I have pointed out. Goncharova does not rely on a particular style as a painter but changes styles to fit the narrative she is showing. Her technique is entirely flexible. Paint goes on the support according to the demands of the subject and not in some repetitious, habitual fashion the way the average Individualist paints. So it was interesting to realize that these two portraits are rendered in very similar styles. She is repeating a style because the message is the same. We are worn out, laid bare, drained of life force.

As I reflect, I guess what we are actually seeing with these sad portraits is the truth right? It is only her emotions on view because she and Larionov are the subjects. She remains unwavering in her pursuit of what is real and it just so happens that they’ve grown weary and haggard so that’s what we see. Please take a look at the visual aid. I must say I do find writing about art to be exactly the opposite of what it was created for. If we can’t ‘get’ what the work says without someone explaining it what’s the point? But I’ll probably keep doing it..;-)