Home
Rostov Enamels
History: 1760-1917
Before the late 18th century, Moscow and St. Petersburg enamellers
could hardly have imagined Rostov as a major competitor. Yet,
Rostov enamels would
be known throughout Russia
by century’s end. Unlike their urban counterparts, Rostov enamels
reveal a distinctly provincial flavor. Typically religious in nature, they
reflect a mix of
traditional icon
painting, baroque styling, and folk art. Not surprisingly, the
Rostov
style reveals a heavy reliance upon local talent.
Like most artistic training at the time,
provincial enameling was given impetus by Church authorities. Craftsmen were
regularly commissioned by local clergy to produce painted enamels for religious
items (i.e. icon oklads, chalices). In Rostov, craftsmen from the Spaso-Yakovlevksy Monastery gave enamel medallions to
wealthy donors and visitors, furthering their craft’s reputation. At about the
same time (1760), Rostov
craftsmen were trained in painted enameling by the local bishopric’s workshop.
In operation for nearly two decades, the workshop established Rostov with an
assemblage of talented enamellers. After its closure, several enamellers began
their own business, providing Rostov with a largely hereditary
trade for the next century.
As a hereditary trade, Rostov
enamellers retained particular expertise in producing unique objects d’art,
benefiting from several generations of accumulated skills. Accordingly, demand for Rostov enamels
continued to grow greatly through the mid-1800s. Rostov’s flourishing
trade attracted many talented artists, helping Rostov retain over
a hundred enamel masters by mid-century.
By the 1870s however, competitive pressures allowed enamel dealers to virtually
determine pay and production. Entirely dependent on these middlemen, enamellers
were forced to cut their marginal profit and increase output. In the 1880s,
burgeoning demand and workshop modernization combined to generate further
pressures upon production. Ultimately, Rostov enamellers would come to
disregard artistic quality, eventually using simplified techniques to make
several-hundred miniature icons a day. Perhaps inevitably, these hastily-made
icon medallions would come to compete against transfer prints displayed on
stamped tin medallions.
In contrast, the Faberge, Ovchinnikov, and Khlebnikov firms
garnered international acclaim for their highly stylized enamel artwork duringn this time. Success for these high-end craftsmen
appeared inversely proportional to the struggling artists attempting to create
small, copper-backed enamel plaques. Though exceptionally exquisite, their
objects d art would come an end after the Soviets came
to power. In contrast, acclaimed artist Sergei Chekhonin’s efforts to revive traditional portraiture and
cityscape enamels in Rostov (1913-1917) met with some
success. Indeed, Chekhonin’s profile in Russia’s
handicraft industry would rise even higher after the Soviet Revolution.
Like any hereditary trade, Rostov
enamels were able to evolve without sacrificing their essential character.
Stylistic inclinations were retained while allowing room for future stylistic
modifications. The latter would help Rostov
enamels reflect societal changes, especially as tastes became more secular.
However, the early 20th
century came to reveal a dramatically changing industry. Enamellers were encouraged
to help produce utilitarian objects (combs, mirrors, etc.), an industry Soviet
authorities found especially malleable to factory production management. As if
the late 19th century were repeating itself, enameling artists found
little patience/understanding for their craft’s inherent production
limitations.
Like any hereditary trade, Rostov
enamels were able to evolve without sacrificing their essential character.
Stylistic inclinations were retained while allowing room for future stylistic
modifications. The latter would help Rostov enamels reflect societal
changes, especially as tastes became more secular.
However, the early 20th
century came to reveal a dramatically changing industry. Enamellers were
encouraged to help produce utilitarian objects (combs, mirrors, etc.), an
industry Soviet authorities found especially malleable to factory production
management. As if the late 19th century were repeating itself,
enameling artists found little patience/understanding for their craft’s
inherent production limitations.
History: 1917-present
After the Soviet Revolution, Rostov
enamellers organized a cooperative artel and opened a
training school. However, undue emphasis on workshop production continued to
restrain the craft. Largely consigned to producing cheap-looking floral
enamels, enameling was no longer attracting highly talented artists. As the new era unfolded, Rostov enamellers
began depicting Soviet symbols and socialist realist scenes. Compounding these
unfortunate developments, outside authorities induced enamellers to employ
inappropriate easel painting techniques. Though traditional enameling had not
disappeared, the craft would
take decades to reclaim its traditional
artistic brilliance.
Likewise, the early post-World War II
years were unkind to the craft. Until the 1960s, Soviet authorities believed
the applied arts should be subject to industrial production goals, where
product completion took precedence over product character/form. Ultimately,
this derivative mentality instigated an artistic backlash. Seeking a remedy,
many Soviet artists began looking to their artistic heritage for inspiration.
In tandem, interest in reviving traditional Rostov enameling
began to emerge in the early 1960s. Artist Alexander Alexeyev
attempted to revive traditional Rostov enameling techniques and
design. His historical research became the basis for producing new enamel
designs loyal to Rostov's heritage. As artistic quality improved, the craft
attracted new talent and demand. By the late 60s the craft’s creative energy
had begun to rebound. Throughout the 1970s and ‘80s, Rostov enamellers
witnessed a revival in portraiture and design ideas. Within the last two
decades, Rostov
enamelers have consolidated their ideas and knowledge
at international biennial seminars
Design: 1760-1917
From the outset, Rostov craftsmen was highly influenced by traditional icon
painting. Indeed, icon painters alone were trained to produce Rostov enamels
during the 18th century. Gradually, Rostov artisans settled upon using
a Russian/Ukrainian baroque style to depict their enamels. Unlike Moscow or St. Petersburg
enamels, Rostov's religious enamels were well suited to the baroque style,
complimenting an otherwise elementary, sparse, and conventional imagery.
Like most artistic training at the
time, provincial enameling was given impetus by Church authorities. Craftsmen
were regularly commissioned by local clergy to produce painted enamels for
religious items (i.e. icon oklads,
chalices). In Rostov, craftsmen
from the Spaso-Yakovlevksy Monastery gave enamel
medallions to wealthy donors and visitors, furthering their craft’s reputation.
At about the same time (1760), Rostov craftsmen were trained in
painted enameling by the local bishopric’s workshop. In operation for nearly
two decades, the workshop established Rostov with an assemblage of
talented enamellers. After its closure, several enamellers began their own
business, providing Rostov with a largely hereditary
trade for the next century.
By the mid-19th century,
changing tastes forced Rostov enamellers to move toward
the classicist style. In contrast with the more extravagant baroque, classicism
emphasizes restraint while retaining grandeur and elegance. Enamels influenced
by classicism display more precise, proportional, and balanced compositions.
The style dominated European art during first half of the century, eventually
influencing Russian enameling via St.
Petersburg. Yet Rostov enamels continued to retain
a simple, provincial style, having never fully abandoned local folk culture.
As the 19th century progressed, Rostov enamels gradually became
more secular and diverse. By mid-century, floral designs and Rostov cityscapes
had become especially popular. As the century came to a close, the demand for
floral art enamels began to crowd out other genres. However, few lamented Rostov’s growing susceptibility to secular art,
a trend frequently perceived as following in the path of a more sophisticated
and enlightened European culture.
Compounding these developments, Rostov
enamellers began employing simplistic composition and non-precious metals in
order to accommodate mass production and demand. Eventually, production
concerns would relegate artistic merit as little more than an afterthought.
Design: 1917-present
After the Soviet Revolution, Rostov
enamellers considered artistic creativity a distant concern. Their success with
traditional floral miniatures gradually mitigated any further design efforts.
By the 1920s, decorative floral enameling became ubiquitous on caskets, mirror
frames, brooches, powder boxes, and other consumer products. With Soviet
direction, floral designs had imperceptibly replaced what remained of religious
art enamels.
Lack of creative interest eventually
reduced attention to detail, leaving Rostov miniatures
to rely upon contrasting colors for visual appeal. For more simplistic designs,
conventional imagery became little more than a fleeting representation of
bright colors. Attention to simple execution rather than design creativity
inevitably produced doubts about artistic self-identity. Eventually, these
doubts and a desire for traditional enameling created an artistic backlash of
sorts.
Artist
Alexander Alexeyev’s historical research provided further
impetus by emphasizing artistic creativity loyal to Rostov’s legacy. As a result, several Rostov enamellers
began studying icons and past enamel miniatures for inspiration. Their finished
works reinforced Rostov
enamelling’s commitment to local style and tradition.
The
desire to rediscover traditional enameling techniques foreshadowed the move
toward new genres as well. Though floral paintings continued to predominate,
landscape, portraiture, and historical/folklore themes became more common. By the
late 60s, decorative floral enamels would find renewed popularity in such items
as jewelry and pocket mirrors. As the 70’s progressed, enamel jewelers helped
popularize filigree, cloisonné, and open-work framing.
By the 1980s, Rostov had
attracted a variety of highly educated artists who also sought to advance the
craft. Often well versed in established painting styles (i.e. Fedoskino, Kholui, Palekh) yet continue to
achieve their goals without compromising Rostov tradition. Today,
classicist-style enamels have become popular once again.
Production Process
To produce brush-painted miniatures,
enamellers cover silver or copper plate with white enamel (on both sides to
ensure stability when fired). On one side, the composition’s outline is painted
with primary colors (the underpainting). The object
is then fired, making the enamel shiny and glossy. The composition’s details
and the interior outline are painted last.
For the paints to sink into a
softened enamel base the object is fired four to seven times (each color has a
different melting temperature). Afterwards, hatching may be applied. Finally,
before the last firing, transparent enamel is applied to protect the artwork.
The resulting enamel is judged on color, transparency, and shine.
The following metal oxides ground to
create specific colors:
Tin- white
Iron- deep blue
Silver- yellow
Copper- turquoise
Gold- red
Magnesium- violet
Iridium- grey & black
Artists
Alexander Tikhov
Alexander Khaunov
Nikolai Kulandin
Ivan Soldatova
Lydia Matakova (jeweler)
Sergei Chekhonin
Alexei Vsesvyatsky
Alexander Moshchansky
Zavialov
Yakov Shaposhnikov
Tatyana & Boris Mikhailenko
Vladimir Grudinin
Alexander Khaunov
Bibliography
Borisova, V. Rostov Enamels: Masterpieces of Russian Folk Art.
Moscow. Interbook. 1995
Gilodo, A.A. Russian Enamel: mid 19th century
-20th century. Moscow.
Beresta.
1996.
Gnutova, S.V.Russian
Enamels of the 17th-to the early 20th century. Moscow. Panorama.
1994.
Hilton, Alison Russian
Folk Art .
Indiana University Press. 1996.
Odom, Anne. Russian
Enamels: Kievan Rus to
Faberge. Walters
Art Gallery.
London. 1996.