Integration of Aivazovsky's visual code into the Crimea's artistic space of the first half of the twentieth century

Shevchuk Veronika Gennadiyevna PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor; Department of Fine and Decorative Arts; Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University named after Fevzi Yakubov 8 Uchebny Lane, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, 295000, Russia verynya.58@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

Currently, the legacy of the Crimean school of painting of the first half of the twentieth century is attracting more and more attention and requires further research not only in art history, but also in cultural studies. The relevance of our research is due to the question of the reflection of the visual code of Aivazovsky, the great marine painter, in the art of artists of subsequent generations embodying the image of the Crimean nature. To solve this problem, we use a cultural approach combined with art historical analysis and the method of comparison. According to the semiotic theory of culture, adopted in the interpretation of Yu. M. Lotman and his followers, the cultural code is positioned with a communicative function in art and is like a text in the form of a special form of messages for subsequent reading. From this point of view, the evolutionary and dialogical character of Aivazovsky's visual code is considered in the form of a pictorial text, the elements of which are assimilated or transformed by the painters of subsequent generations. The issue of synthesizing traditions and innovations in the art of Crimean painters and masters of the Cimmerian school is also raised.

The object of the study is the heritage of Crimean painting at the end of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century; the subject of the study is the evolution of Aivazovsky's pictorial code and its integration into visual texts of Crimean painting in the context of creating an artistic image of the Crimean landscape.

The degree of elaboration of the research problem: the basis of our research is the works of J. Lotman ^[1] on ^[7], in which the author addresses the problems of the cultural text in the semiotic space and the cultural code as a way of transmitting information. No less significant are the theoretical experiments on the theory of culture by the outstanding culturologist A. Flier ^[8], which reflect his scientific views on the iconic form of cultural meanings that make up a cultural text and are noted as carriers of transmitted information. The definitions of V. Maslova ^[9] about the translation of the vertical of cultural memory embedded in the code from generation to generation and the horizontal within each generation are also important for us. The thoughts of Russian philosophers N. Berdyaev on the philosophical cognition of the macrocosm by man ^[10] and M. Bakhtin on the interaction of man and culture in the semiotic plane are relevant ^[11],[12]. I. Antonenko's theoretical research ^[13] on the role of personality in the integration of cultural processes is interesting. The works of N. Barsamov formed the basis for the analysis of the work of representatives of the Crimean and Cimmerian schools of painting. ^{[14],[15],[16]}, A. Kugusheva ^[17], as well as author's works ^{[18],[19],[20]}.

The scientific novelty is due to the cultural analysis of the problem of I. K. Aivazovsky's creative traditions reflected in the works of Crimean painters, where for the first time the elements of the visual text of the great marine painter are considered by us as a phenomenon of the Aivazovsky code, the founder of the Crimean and Cimmerian schools of painting. Therefore, our main task is to characterize Aivazovsky's visual code and trace its evolution in the form of integration into the artistic space of Crimean painters during the first half of the twentieth century.

The Cultural code as a dialogue between artistic spaces

Before starting our research on the stated problem, let us turn to the thought of N. Berdyaev that the art of philosophy "presupposes the highest tension of the spirit and the highest form of communication," and the initial problem of the philosophy of creativity is "the mystery of man" ^{[10, p. 293]}. N. Berdyaev, condemning the opinion of philosophers about anthropologism philosophy as a decrease in the "quality of philosophical knowledge", determines the position that philosophy is derived from man, and not vice versa. According to the scientist, the source of philosophical knowledge as an approach to the macrocosm through the microcosm is not the psychological premise of man, but rather the "universal, ontological, cosmic premise." The essence of man as a small cosmos plunges into its depths through intimate intuition, that is, plunges "into the mystery of the macrocosm" ^{[10, pp. 288-289]}.

In addition to the philosophical approach used in our research, the cultural method is also relevant for us, based on the formulation of the question by the Russian philosopher M. M. Bakhtin about the interaction of man and culture, which is moving into a new semiotic plane. The scientist, developing a variant of semiotic and system-structural approaches, comes to the conclusion that in semiotics, the code, as a hermeneutic study of the text, cannot be deciphered without context ^{[12, p. 344]}.

An outstanding cultural scientist, one of the founders of the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic school, Yu. M. Lotman, considering culture as a "complexly arranged text" consisting of complex interweaving of various texts, notes that the construction of "text within text" is specific due to differences "in the encoding of different parts", for example, the differences between the construction of the author's text and the reader's perception. The basis of "generating meaning", according to the scientist, is "switching from one system of semiotic awareness of the text to another", while the encoding method, moving to another position, contributes to the increased conventionality of the text ^{[7, p.71, 78]}. Modern culturologist A. Ya. Flier, highlighting the iconic form of cultural meanings, the totality of which makes up a cultural text, notes that participants in cultural communications, exchanging texts, perceive cultural texts "as carriers of transmitted information" ^{[8, pp. 222, 223]}.

As we know, the concept of code came first from the fields of mathematics, biology, communication technology, then from computer science and information theory, and now it has been applied in semiotics. The scientists noted the universal nature of the code, and they noticed the structural similarity between the code and the language. If a code is a set of signs and certain rules that allow transmitting and processing information, as well as storing it, then a cultural code is a set of symbols, values, traditions, norms, and behaviors that make it possible to define the culture and mentality of a particular group of people, nation, and society. The ways of transmitting the cultural code from generation to generation are such as language, art, religion, traditions and customs, which makes it possible to carry out dialogues between or within the cultural spaces of different countries.

Researcher V. A. Maslova notes the universal character of the cultural code as a phenomenon inherent in a cultured person. Since culture is "a set of various codes fixed in language", these codes "set the picture of the world and occupy a central place in the national cultural space", understood as a form of "the existence of culture in human consciousness" ^{[9, p. 103]}. The cultural memory embedded in the code is transmitted "vertically from generation to generation and horizontally within each generation" ^{[9, p. 104]}. For visual semiotics, it is of interest, for example, in the field of painting, how objects of the natural world (sky, clouds, sea, mountains, trees, etc.) that perform nominative functions acquire a symbolic function and are interpreted in works of art over the centuries.

According to Yu.M. Lotman, the world of reality as the content of art goes through a double encoding: from the language of our consciousness to the language of a certain type of art. The scientist highlights the communicative functions of art and its unique properties — it is the capacity, cost-effectiveness of information storage, as well as the ability to "increase its quantity" ^{[5, p. 292]}. Agreeing with Lotman's statement that in culture, code is an intermediate link between language and "intermediate texts," we note that code has an information space and can be positioned as a code text and identified as a sample. The thinker emphasizes that the text of a code is "not an abstract set of rules for constructing a text, but a syntagmatically constructed whole, an organized structure of signs" (our italics – V.G.) ^{[7, p. 72.]}.

If we are dealing with a text in an unknown language, for example, with encoded texts of innovative art that shocks the public, or classical art that loses its position, then in both cases the text is primary, and the language is a secondary abstraction. In art, including visual art, a text that allows for multiple interpretations encoding its structure is not always guaranteed to be understood by the recipient of the information. Despite the seemingly closed nature, the text, as a whole, has an open character, thus, according to Lotman, the text is given to the viewer earlier than the language, which is then "calculated" from the text. As we can see, in the cultural space, the text performs two main functions: the adequate transmission of meanings and the "generation of new meanings." In the first case, the codes of the speaker and the listener coincide with the unambiguity of the text, which is self—descriptive, that is, external, and in the second case, the essence of the text is a "thinking device" in which there is a "system of heterogeneous semiotic spaces", which indicates the heterogeneity of the internal field of the text ^{[7, p. 61, 64]}.

All these points above indicate the dialogic nature of consciousness, since the text as a "thinking device" needs an interlocutor or viewer, while the external text, upon entering the semantic field, transforms and the "semiotic situation" within this field changes. This explains the "code heterogeneity" of the "mother" text, the so-called Yu. M. Lotman ^{[7, p.67]}. In other words, the text, being transformed, creates a new message, new information and is capable of self-development. If culture is considered as a large text, then significant external texts introduced into it adapt with their messages and remain in the culture's memory, sometimes serving as incentives for its self-development, which leads to unforeseen results. An example is the cultural explosion in the visual space of the early twentieth century, when the process of transformation of texts of archaic cultures and primitive art took place during the invasion of Russian and European art.

We use these postulates described above, which follow from Lotman's theory of the textual nature of culture, for our analysis of the evolution of I. K. Aivazovsky's visual text code, reflected in the paintings of the world by artists of subsequent generations. It is also important for us to address the problem of symbolism, since art is inherently symbolic. Yu.M. Lotman in his article "Symbol in the cultural system" notes that the ability of symbols is to preserve extensive texts in a collapsed form, and when isolated "from the semiotic environment" and entering "into a new textual environment" it does not lose its semantic structure. It is the symbol that is able to "pierce" the "slice of culture vertically: from the past to the future," that is, "it is an important mechanism of cultural memory" ^{[3, pp. 213-214]}.

Lotman calls the semiotic space consisting of various texts and "languages closed in relation to each other" semiotics, outside of which the existence of semiosis as a process of formation of a sign medium or a sign system is impossible. One of the most important factors of the semiosphere and semiosis is time duration. According to the scientist, the subject side of semiosis is identical to the emerging culture, which gives rise to new meanings, and the semiosphere is identical to classical culture. The space of the semiosphere contains a complex of meanings, symbolic means, models of spiritual experience that were relevant in their time, later "disappeared from the scene of modernity, but not forgotten forever" ^{[19, p. 17]}.

The scientist proceeds to define the boundary of the semiotic space as a functional and structural position in which the role of the boundary mechanism is to translate external messages into the internal language of the semiosphere or vice versa. At the moment, there is a process of "semiotization" of a message coming from outside and turning it into information, that is, into the structure of a non-verbal text. Lotman's definition that the boundary of a cultural space having a territorial character "acquires spatial meaning in an elementary meaning" ^{[2, p. 14]} is important for our research on the problem of introducing the pictorial code of the image of Crimean nature by I. Aivazovsky into the integrated space of artists' paintings.

Artistic integration, synthetism in art

It should be noted that the integration space of culture includes not only various types of texts, codes, and traditional art methods, but also dialogical principles, figurative-symbolic, semantic, and other foundations.

We agree with M. V. Dutsev that "... the artistic qualities of the author's works refer to different individual systems, gravitate towards different poles of the current cultural paradigm" ^[21]. It should be noted that integration has an impact on the formation of the creative path of the masters, combining various factors, the main of which are historical, artistic and general cultural. At the same time, the creative orientation of cultural figures, gravitating towards a certain integration center of the artistic concept, retains its creative freedom and originality of the worldview. For centuries, any kind of art has been a space of artistic integration, and the creator uses artistic synthesis in his works as "a kind of complex integration method."

A significant role in the integration of cultural processes belongs to a person who has his own original creative concept in relation to "time–space". We see in the history of art examples of the integration of the author's concept of artistic personality in the cultural space of many countries. It is the problem of integrating a creative personality that is one of the important topics for our study of cultural space, in which the artistic system of each of the personalities has its own picture of the relationship between space and time based on the experience of previous masters.

We will not go into the details of the characteristics of a creative personality, but note that psychologist I. V. Antonenko divided personality integration into four main types: physical, emotional, mental and spiritual, including twelve intermediate ones, which we will not list. These foundations of human life are characterized by specific processes and exist in various proportions, "forming a pattern of personality" ^[13]. The researcher notes that every person who has a leading sphere around which the personality integrates, thus realizes his vital activity.

In the case of physical integration of a personality, the basis is a person's focus on interacting with physical material and its transformation. These people are engaged in the fields of physical work, dancing, sports, as well as, to some extent, art forms (painting, sculpture, etc.). Emotional integration of a personality is based on the manifestation of feelings and various emotional reactions. This can manifest itself in various fields of art (music, theater, cinema, fine arts), as well as in the areas of "mass manifestations of feelings" (viewers, listeners, fans, etc.). With the mental integration of personality, a special feature is the mental comprehension of people's reality, their relationships, and activities, mainly in the field of science Spiritual integration of a personality is characterized by a person's stay in spiritual spheres, his vision of the beyond, high sensitivity to the perception of the world, etc.^[13].

Thus, we can determine the type of integration of a creative personality in relation to the personalities we study, first of all, to I. K. Aivazovsky, whose pictorial code we decipher in the works of subsequent artists. Obviously, we see all the above-mentioned types of personality integration in the unity of the personality of an outstanding marine artist as a carrier of the visual code in visual culture.

I would like to draw attention to the problem of synthetism in art, when, when perceived, "a work is capable of evoking a complex of aesthetic associations." An appeal to the history of Russian art, in particular Crimean art, of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries allows us to characterize synthetism as a characteristic feature of this period. This is evidenced in the work of cultural figures by numerous examples of striving for a synthesis of the arts. Let us recall the sonnet "Correspondences" (1855) by the poet S. Baudelaire, who derived the law of "universal analogy" based on the phenomenon of synesthesia.

Back in the 1920s, the famous musicologist L. Sabaneev, speaking about the problem of aesthetic associations in artistic perception, called this phenomenon an "aura": "Music has an aura in the field of words, ... light, smells, forms and images; painting - in the field of sounds and aromas, etc." The musician emphasizes that "art is synthetic," as it is "a combination of all the arts" ^{[20, pp.174-175]}. Many artists, including the creators of the image of the Crimean landscape, were educated people who deeply knew music and poetry and turned to works of various types of art. Among them are I. Aivazovsky, A. Kuindzhi, M. Latri, K. Bogaevsky and others.

Categories: artistic image, chronotope, topos and temporality

Let's focus on some theoretical positions regarding the artistic image and space-time relations in the visual space. As we know, in a work of art embodying human existence and the world around it, space and time are transformed into a new reality and become artistic space and artistic time. At the heart of art, it is the space-time relationship that is the most important components. It is important for us to refer to the arguments of the thinker P. Florensky about the essence of artistic space as a symbolic transformation of the "prototype through the image", as a result of which the reflected reality acquires a symbolic meaning ("symbol of spiritual space"). As a result, the artistic space is an integral artistic and philosophical vision of the world. P. Florensky in his work "Reverse Perspective" sees in the cultural space "a peculiar reality, organized through and through, not indifferent anywhere, having an internal order and structure" ^{[20, p.172]}.

The concept of chronotope is also important for us as a combination of space and time, and, according to M. Bakhtin, as a formal and meaningful category of creativity, where "spatial and temporal signs merge into a meaningful and concrete whole" ^{[11, pp. 204-407]}. The chronotope as a dynamic integrity is an essential element in any artist's concept for creating an artistic image.

It is worth highlighting the concepts of "topos" and "temporality", defined by the terms "here" and "now", which appeals to the concept of "presence". The Crimean philosopher F. Lazarev notes that presence "always has its own topology and its own temporality." A topos, according to the scientist, is not just a place or locality, or "some ... localized space of physical or socio-cultural space, but a self-enclosed whole, a qualitative integrity with its own internal logic of the subject's stay in a given place..." ^{[22, p. 88]}. These definitions are relevant for identifying the local space of the surrounding reality, inspiring the artist and reproduced in his works. An example of this is the landscape images in the works of I. Aivazovsky, his followers and representatives of the Cimmerian school of painting, who turned to the poetics of the sea, land and sky of the southeastern Crimea.

The evolution of Aivazovsky's visual code in the works of artists

We will apply all the above provisions and concepts in the study of the evolution of the features of the visual code of I. K. Aivazovsky's work, reflected in the works of artists of subsequent generations, including representatives of the Cimmerian school of painting. Let us designate two groups of artists to define the Aivazovsky code in their paintings: the first is Fessler, Lagorio, Magdesyan, Hansen, Latri (early period), Arceulov; the second is Latri, Bogaevsky, Voloshin, Mamchich. By analyzing the comparison, we will try to briefly describe the general and distinctive features of the iconography of the artistic image of the Crimean nature in the spatial and visual texts of the studied painters.

To do this, we will conditionally divide the pictorial language of recreating the Crimean landscape into two types and designate its authors: the first is the pictorial method in the romantic spirit, developed by Ivan Aivazovsky, and continued by his students — Adolf Feesler, Lev Lagorio, Emanuel Magdesyan and grandchildren Mikhail Latri, Alexei Hansen, Konstantin Arceulov; the second is a method in which Aivazovsky's visual code undergoes significant changes during integration, but retains some features in the innovative works of representatives of the Cimmerian school: Konstantin Bogaevsky, Maximilian Voloshin, Sergei Mamchich and others. As A. Y. Kugusheva rightly notes, "the foundation of the Cimmerian school is traditionally associated with the work of the great Russian marine painter I. K. Aivazovsky" ^{[17, p. 82]}. Another researcher, A. S. Sirenko, presents the plastic language of the representatives of the "Cimmerian School of Painting" as "compositionally thought–out landscapes painted mainly from memory in the workshops of artists" who strive to "convey the specific flavor of the sagebrush hills of the Eastern coast of Crimea" (pp.11-12 Sirenko A. S. Mythopoetic and artistic-stylistic features of the "Cimmerian School of Painting" in the context of the development of Russian art in the first half of the twentieth century: abstract dissert. He is a scientist for the job. degrees of the cand. art history. 2020. 22 p.).

In order to identify the features of the pictorial code of I. Aivazovsky's work, we first briefly describe the formation of his artistic style. In one of our articles, we described how a young marine artist was shocked by K. Bryullov's painting "The Last Day of Pompeii", which was brought to St. Petersburg from Italy. The artist was struck by the features of this work — the epicness of what is happening, the high point of view, that is, the inclusiveness of space, "the effect of lighting, the decorative sound of colors – all this is based on contrast as the organizing principle of the composition of visual space" ^{[20, p.175]}.

Theatrical productions also influenced I. Aivazovsky's creative principles, as evidenced by art critic and artist N. Barsamov. Here is a quote from the marine artist himself, who recalls visiting the play "The Tempest" in 1837, where its spectacular side is described: "The theater represented a ship at sea, night, a dull rumble, rain, crackling, whistling, thunder, lightning breaks the mast; the ship, spewing flames, plunges into the waves" ^{[20, p.176]}. The marine artist reflected a similar plot with tragic situations and complex lighting, "magical and romantic spectacles" characteristic of the performances in his painting "A Gloomy Night with a Ship on Fire at Sea." Following K. Bryullov, he retained in his artistic memory the above-described aesthetic principles of the theater.

During his apprenticeship, the formation of I. Aivazovsky's creative path was influenced by his teachers, the artist M. Vorobyov and the French master of painting F. Tanner. In M. Vorobyov's paintings depicting moonlit nights and storms ("The Storm breaking the Oak"), the germs of the romantic trend in painting appear. F. Tanner, a representative of the romantic trend, according to N. Barsamov, excelled in the technique of "depicting sea waves, foam, clouds and earth, which helped him easily fulfill numerous orders."" ^{[14, p.12]}. F. Tanner often instructed I. Aivazovsky to carry out preparatory drawings from nature and prepare paints, which benefited the student, who later successfully applied the teacher's writing technique.

Also, the formation of I. Aivazovsky's worldview was facilitated by numerous copies of the works of old masters and contemporaries, such as S. Shchedrin, K. Bryullov, F. Bruni, as well as masters of Dutch marine painting (Dubels, Schotel), the main feature of which is the inclusiveness of space, a high point of view on nature, subsequently applied by K. Bogaevsky and M. Voloshin. Sources indicate that at a time when airplanes had not yet been invented, the marine scientist was able to construct a panoramic viewpoint from his imagination, as if from a bird's eye view of the Kerch and Taman peninsulas.

The next step in the marinist's creative path was his trip abroad during the heyday of Russian landscape painting. After returning to Crimea in 1838, K. Aivazovsky painted six canvases depicting the Black Sea and Crimean cities with views of Kerch, Feodosia, Yalta, Gurzuf. Among them, the painting "Gurzuf", according to N. Barsamov, is a poetic embodiment of the moonlit night at Ayu-Dagh, unlike other works that accurately reproduce landscapes. The art critic noted that the main feature of the artist's talent had begun to emerge – the ability to rise above the usual depiction of nature and "think in poetic images" ^{[20, p.17]}.

Having become an original master, I. Aivazovsky managed to formalize his artistic space in a peculiar way, the stylistic features of which influenced the work of many artists abroad. Some of them imitated the marine painter's painting in the spirit of "a la Aivazovsky". In Europe, thanks to the acquaintance with the works of I. Aivazovsky, marine painting was developed. There is a well-known fact of French admiration and surprise in the paintings of the great marine painter, the image of sunrise and sunset is so realistic that there were even doubts whether there was a trick, candle or lamp. In connection with this fact, let us recall the admiration of the public for A. Kuindzhi's painting "Moonlit Night over the Dnieper", the lighting in which aroused suspicion of "conjuring". It is the features of I. Aivazovsky's visual code of art, such as lighting effects, tonal contrasts, and scale, that will be present in A. Kuindzhi's paintings, which are distinguished by their color decorativeness.

The next feature of I. Aivazovsky's pictorial code is the work on reproducing an artistic image from imagination. This method, as the most important one, can be traced in the art of representatives of the Cimmerian school of painting. The marine artist did not paint landscapes from nature, and when the plot formed in his head like a poet's verse, then, according to the artist, he sketched on paper and began to work with a brush. He believed that an artist should be able to reproduce the movements of natural elements from memory: "lightning, a gust of wind, a splash of a wave," which cannot be painted from nature. "A painter who only copies nature becomes her slave, bound hand and foot. A person who is not gifted with memory ... can be an excellent copier, a living photographic device, but never a true artist" — this saying is the main postulate of I. Aivazovsky as a great improviser, whose art remains unsurpassed ^{[20, p. 177]}.

Let's pay attention to another feature in the marinist's work — this is the depiction of acting figures of small people, reproduced by the artist as a contrast of magnitudes to recreate the monumental grandeur of natural elements and ships (the vastness of the sea, the vastness of mountains, large trees, etc.). In these canvases, the connection between the emotions of the human mental world and the state of the natural elements is expressed. Motifs depicting storms and shipwrecks with groups of people are represented as symbols contrasting "human energy and will to the forces of nature" and as symbols of "man's struggle with the elements and faith in ultimate victory" ^{[15, p.68]}. Few of the followers of I. Aivazovsky, studied by us, used the image of figures in the landscape as symbolic and psychological accents. I. Aivazovsky's work not only absorbed the traditions of the old masters of painting, but also acquired individual features of innovation.

In the works of A. Fessler, L. Lagorio, E. Magdesyan, A. Hansen and M. Latri (of the early period), a similar method of depicting natural forms was noted with the method of their teacher I. Aivazovsky. All of them paid attention to the depiction of various states of the sea element. N. Barsamov noted the connection of the art of A. Kuindzhi and K. Bogaevsky with the great marine artist through "fascination with the beauty of natural phenomena, which was imbued with the art of their teacher" ^{[16, p. 81]}

For A. Fessler (1826-1885), a graduate of the Moscow College of Painting and Sculpture, I. Aivazovsky remains his teacher forever. A. Fessler, being a copyist of the works of the famous marine painter, never reached creative heights. In his works, marked by the influence of the teacher in the choice of the plot and artistic solution, Adolf Fessler loved to depict a calm sea, admiring the lyrical state of the seascape. His coloring is characterized by restraint, and his brushstroke technique is characterized by softness, devoid of the expression and dynamics present in his teacher's canvases.

N. Barsamov calls the painting "Theodosia" (1886) as one of the most successful independent works by A. Fessler, which noted the overcoming of the author's timidity. The artist chose the place that I. Aivazovsky depicted in the painting "Feodosia. Sunrise" (1852). When comparing the Feodosian subject of both artists, similarities were noticed, especially in the image of a cloud rising over the sea and a mountain. The work of A. Fessler, like his "Yalta", is distinguished by a bright and lyric-poetic scale. It is known that the artist tried to depict the stormy state of the sea, but the execution in this spirit was unsuccessful, his artistic perception remained limited. However, the most successful is his realistic painting "Simeiz" (1884), depicting the waves of the sea during a thunderstorm and characterized by the absence of a mawkish manner. A. Fessler in his work, unlike I. Aivazovsky, did not resort to exceptional effects and chose simple motifs.

L. F. Lagorio (1827-1905), one of the most talented students of I. K. Aivazovsky's studio, who graduated from the Imperial Academy of Arts, forever abandoned his love for the marine theme. When Lev Lagorio came to Crimea, he often worked in a workshop in Sudak, built by his wife's brother Kazimir Hertyk. The artist was excited by the motives of harmony and beauty, the greatness of nature. He adopted from Aivazovsky the method of depicting storms and miniature human figures to give the impression of scale in the midst of majestic nature, as, for example, in the work "Storm at Sea" (1901). When comparing this work with K. Aivazovsky's painting "Rainbow" (1873), one can notice similar motifs depicting a storm, a shipwreck and a boat with people escaping. The painting technique also brings these works closer together, but Aivazovsky, unlike Lagorio, displays the glow of the sky from an invisible light source (the sun) on the right, while Lagorio's sky light is evenly scattered throughout the canvas. L. Lagorio's painting "Seascape" (1900) indicates a departure from the influence of Aivazovsky's work. The work is distinguished by the freedom of brushstroke and the sonority of color relations. Waves with foam are unusually painted, even stylized. This is reflected in the influence of Impressionism due to the artist's stay in Europe.

E. Ya. Magdesyan (1857-1908), a Crimean artist of Armenian origin and a distant relative of I. Aivazovsky, who was his great-uncle, is one of the best followers of the outstanding marine painter. Unfortunately, E. Magdesyan is not as well known as A. Fesler or L. Lagorio, many of his works were lost, lost or robbed during the Great Patriotic War. Some of the works are kept in the Simferopol and Sevastopol Art Museums, the I. K. Aivazovsky Feodosia Art Gallery, and the State Art Gallery of Armenia (Yerevan). The Museum of Local Lore in Armyansk preserves the memory of the artist.

The artist himself, originally from the Crimean town of Armenian Bazaar (now Armyansk, Crimea), thanks to the patronage and help of I. Aivazovsky, was educated at the Imperial Academy of Arts and established himself as an artist. After working for several years in his uncle's workshop, Emmanuel Magdesyan moved to Simferopol, where he opened an art gallery, the first public art museum in the county town, which displayed not only his works, but also the works presented to him by his famous colleagues. The authorship of E. Magdesyan's painting "Surf", distinguished by its impeccable technique, was even attributed by the public to I. Aivazovsky, so much was the artist influenced by the Feodosian master. Despite the similar motifs in his and his teacher's works, E. Magdesyan tried to create his own style. Unlike the renowned marine painter, a master of epic canvases created by imagination, E. Magdesyan painted the changing states of the seascape from nature in his own way, creating his own simple artistic handwriting devoid of effects. An example of this is the works "Stormy Sea", "Ayudag at night off the coast of Gurzuf" (1907), as well as "At the foot of the Pushkin Cliff. Gurzuf" (1900, Simferopol Art Museum). The State Art Gallery of Armenia, where the artist's works are kept, including "Before the Storm" (1907), notes that the paintings in them "are devoid of that romantic elation that is characteristic of Aivazovsky's work" ^{[23, p. 28]}. Unusual for the artist's style is the painting "Sea and Rocks" (1898, Sevastopol Art Museum), so vividly and freshly painted waves with foam crashing against the rocks. The last work, "Morning" (1908), which reflects the sunrise over the sea, ended the day of E. Magdesyan, who is currently sitting at an easel in the Simferopol workshop. Unfortunately, his grave has been lost.

Researchers comparing the works of I. K. Aivazovsky and E. Ya. They note that they are "brought together primarily by the power of vital truth, embedded in the figurative language of their works, the nature of the depiction of the sea element, and painting skills that affirm realistic traditions in art" ^{[24, p. 125]}. The talented artist, called the largest marine painter in Armenia, has been creating Crimean works for many years, appreciated by experts for their subtlety and realism. Simferopol art critic S. Pushkarev noted that the work of E. Magdesyan, the creator of the art gallery and distributor of I. Aivazovsky's experience, was a notable phenomenon in Crimean art at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

A. V. Hansen (1876-1937), grandson of I. K. Aivazovsky, was a Russian and Yugoslav marine painter, who received his art education at the Odessa Art School, the Berlin Academy of Fine Arts and the Dresden Academy of Fine Arts. In 1920, he emigrated abroad, and spent his last years living in Dubrovnik (Yugoslavia). The artist's legacy includes more than 3,000 works, and his exhibition activities were diverse and very active in Russia and abroad. He had a large collection of famous Russian and European artists, and a gallery in Odessa. Before emigrating, he lived in St. Petersburg and in the Roman-Eli estate near the Old Crimea.

Like his famous grandfather, A. Hansen painted the sea in various states, naval battles, being well versed in the color subtleties of the sea element. Critics noted that the artist was not content with depicting light external effects, his numerous sketches reflected the artist's inquisitive study of natural phenomena. The monumental landscape "The Sea" (120x150 m.) by A. Hansen, located in the Feodosiya Art Gallery, is distinguished by its lyrical mood, refined flavor and complex play of light on high waves of olive-brown color. In the painting "Moonrise" (1915), the closeness of the image, lyrical charm and mastery of technique are noted. A. Hansen's work is multifaceted and diverse, all the numerous works are characterized by a wealth of different nuances, they are recognizable and differ from I. Aivazovsky's creative style, despite the similarity of the plots of both marinists.

Another grandson of the famous marine painter and the first teacher, the painter and ceramist M. P. Latri (1875-1942), spent his childhood in Feodosia, emigrated from 1920, lived and worked in Greece and Paris. He set up a painting and ceramics workshop in the Baran-Eli estate near Feodosia. Being a student of A. Kuindzhi, like K. Bogaevsky, M. Latri wrote broadly, generically, pastichly ("Bakhchisarai") in his early works. A remarkable colorist, he distinguished himself by using a new method of work, like K. Korovin, an impressionistic "sketchy" manner, omitting details. Unlike I. Aivazovsky, who painted from memory, his grandson depicted the Crimean landscape from nature in his early works. M. Latri, according to N. Barsamov, managed to give poetic notes to uncomplicated Crimean landscapes, such as: "Moonlit Night at sea", "Moonrise" (1890s). We see the same similar motif in the work of his brother A. Hansen "Moonrise", described from above.

In the 1900s, the style in M. Latri's works changed, there was a departure from the exact reproduction of nature, the desire to generalize the form through a plastic stain and a clear contour. Such features are noted in paintings painted with oil paints and tempera: "Old House" (1902), "Quiet Autumn" (1912), "Cloudy Sky", "House by the Bay", "Otuzy", stored in the Feodosiya Art Gallery. The latter canvas attracts attention by the conventionality and stylization of the writing and the restraint of color, which suggests similarities with the early works of K. Bogaevsky, distinguished by the decorative and plasticity of the landscape image. In Paris, M. Latri organized a decorative and artistic workshop, where he created various products, ceramics, and murals. In his works, Russian symbolism echoed with decorative elements of Art Deco. The Feodosiya Art Gallery houses 702 works by M. Latri of various types of art.

A special Crimean landscape unfolds on the canvases of representatives of the Cimmerian school of painting — K. F. Bogaevsky (1872-1943), a student of A. Fessler and A. Kuindzhi, and the artist-poet M. A. Voloshin (1887-1932). Their work is distinguished by the ability to mythologize and recreate the Crimean landscape through imagination. It is this latter quality that brings artists closer to the method of I. Aivazovsky. Unlike his circle, both artists focused on the image of ancient Cimmeria, harsh and uninhabited, depicting its land pocked with hills, fortresses and temples. K. Bogaevsky and M. Voloshin were always concerned about the theme of Space, in their works there were symbolic images of natural forms: earth, sea, sun, moon, stars and clouds.

Critics note the kinship of the works of I. Aivazovsky and K. Bogaevsky in the heroics of picturesque images, pathos and the struggle of the elements, only Bogaevsky's earth's crust rises like "Aivaz waves". N. Barsamov, who saw "Tavroskythia" (1937) in the workshop of K. Bogaevsky, noted that canvas as one of the most striking works of the master, distinguished by its monumental character and sublime rhythmic structure. M. Voloshin's watercolors, which embodied the synthetic image of Koktebel and the philosophical depth of his space, despite their small format, can be compared with Aivazovsky's large canvases: both artists are "inventive in varying the same subject", they both were given "Mozartian lightness" in painting ^{[20, p. 181]}. Voloshin spent a lot of time at Aivazovsky's house, where he could admire the image of the moonlit nights of the marine artist, and later created a symbolic and poetic image of the Moon, the "pearl" ("The Moon rises over the bay" 1926).

Aivazovsky's pictorial code, which includes the special organization of the sky and sea, the symbolism of natural forms, monumentality, decorativeness, the embodiment of epic and poetic Crimean nature, is integrated into the work of K. Bogaevsky ("Ships" 1912; "Feodosia" 1926; "Tauroskythia" 1937; "The Southern Coast of Crimea. Kimmeria" 1937) and M. Voloshin ("Surroundings of Koktebel" 1923; "Evening Cloud" 1925), as well as A. Kuindzhi ("Ai-Petri" and "The Sea. Crimea", both 1890s). Like Aivazovsky, these artists loved to depict clouds and clouds, they were attracted by the infinity of wide sea and mountain expanses in an effort to create a synthetic image of the Black Sea and sky. Kimmeria defined the aesthetic existence of K. Bogaevsky and M. Voloshin, being the "topos" of their peculiar creativity, united in their love of the Crimean nature. For more information about the artists' work, see our monograph "Intertextuality as a phenomenon of the life-creation of K. Bogaevsky and M. Voloshin" (2024) ^[18].

The name of K. Bogaevsky's follower, S. Mamchich (1924-1974), an original painter, also appears in the School of Cimmerian Landscape. His works (without taking into account realistic sketches from nature) They differ in their peculiar interpretation of the image of the Crimean nature, expressed in decorative style, stylization, and lack of detail. Such features are present in paintings from the Simferopol Art Museum: "Rybachya Gavan" (1964), "Old Town" (1968), "Hometown of Feodosia. At the old Quarantine" (1974) and others. It is the decorative nature and plasticity that brings S. Mamchich's works closer to the early work of K. Bogaevsky ("Ancient Fortress" 1902; "Night by the Sea" 1903), as well as to the works of M. Latri ("Otuzy").

As we can see, in the work of S. Mamchich, the visual code of I. Aivazovsky undergoes significant changes, the natural forms of the Crimean landscape are transformed, acquiring conventional features, decorative color, and exaggerated plastics. But the only thing that brings together the work of S. Mamchich and I. Aivazovsky is the work of imagination. We agree with A. Y. Kugusheva that the artistic space of S. G. Mamchich, which is based on "intertextuality and dialogue of cultures", "is of particular interest in the context of the traditions of the Cimmerian school and the specifics of the development of Crimean artistic culture in the second half of the twentieth century" (p. 5 Kugusheva A. Y. The uniqueness of the artistic space of S. G. Mamchich in the context of the Cimmerian school of painting : abstract dissert. He is a scientist for the job. degrees of the cand. cultural studies. 2019. 24 p.).

Conclusion. As a result, we come to the conclusion that the features of I. Aivazovsky's visual code, such as romance, the epic nature of what is happening, the inclusiveness and scale of space, the effect of lighting, the decorative sound of colors, as well as the work of imagination, are the main ones in the integrated field of creativity of subsequent generations of artists. In Russian painting, starting from I. Aivazovsky, the objects of the Crimean landscape (sea, sky, earth, sun, moon) They have not only a symbolic function, but are also interpreted throughout the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries. It is cultural memory as a text embedded in the visual code of I. Aivazovsky that is transformed by the introduction of new visual texts by artists from one generation to the next. As a result of these changes, a new, enriched visual text of the Aivazovsky code is being created, which explains the evolutionary nature of Crimean painting throughout the twentieth century.

If the circle of artists (Fessler, Lagorio, Magdesyan, early Latri, Hansen), whose lifelong teacher was I. Aivazovsky, used his traditional techniques in an attempt to preserve their individual face, then another circle, consisting of representatives of the Cimmerian school: M. Latri, K. Bogaevsky, M. Voloshin, S. Mamchich, is distinguished by the transformation of the visual code. an outstanding marine artist through the decorative, stylization, plasticity of the artistic image of the Crimean nature. Without losing the semantic structure of I. Aivazovsky's code, the works of these artists, born in reality, are perceived allegorically and metaphorically through the prism of individual perception. All of the above-mentioned personalities are united by a poetic love for the southeastern Crimea, admiration for its sea and mountain landscapes, time and space of which are represented by us as topos and temporality.

So, the integration of I. Aivazovsky's visual code as a cultural code text, that is, a carrier of transmitted information, makes it possible to communicate between the cultural spaces of artists of different generations who celebrate the beauty of the Crimean landscape.