Alexandra Selivanova Artist, Curator, at the Museum of M. Bulgakov
Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita is was written already more than half a century ago, yet this immortal novel do not give rest to has continued to inspire the artists. Its evocative imagery is individualistic and mysterious, recognizable familiar and metaphysical, the heroes of Bulgakov’s novel persistently aroused the visualization: - on stage, screen and paper. Numerous films and adaptations of The Master and Margarita have provend that it is practically impossible, and indeed a challenging risk to interpret the author’s imagery it. Because Especially as it is very easy to fall in the «land oto thef «land of traps»”, placed construed by Bulgakov — - one awkward movement wrong move- and the complex, multilayered characters and images are reduced to parody, becoming no more than , cheap cartoons. Unfortunately, there are many examples of such a failingfailed attempts: illustrative filmic or theatrical interpretations which are virtually powerless. Many of the attempts to visualize his novel are two-dimensional, giving the characters the impression of being merely «glued-in» figures. Bulgakov’s text is consistently richer, more complex and infinitely more beguiling.
The novel requires, if not a matchingan equal level of artistic response, then, in any case, an artist who has sufficient power and independence of the author — someone r, who can detach herself from thea literal translation of Bulgakov’s letters and words. To express the stratagem of the ideas, meanings and the multidimensional characters , created by Bulgakov, the artist should be able to ... free himself from the text. Plunge To be able to plunge into it, but do notnot dissolve in it, he must remain himhimselfself. The artist requires a sensibility to connect his own carried within, complex experience to meddle it with Bulgakov’s experience in order to see himself himself and hisis world in light of Bulgakov’s world and images. And vice versa. Then he could can convey this nuanced world on canvas, board, stage, film. Only then, could happen the can a dialogue take place between the verbal and the visual, the real contact and, the electrical surge. Then, Only then will the audience will feel and seesee and feel - that the artist has caught the image, the same sensation, ofand the most elusive Bulgakov’s most elusive environment.
To be sure, We can already tell, wwithout any reservationshesitation we can tell, that this dialogue between Tjaarke Maas and Bulgakov indeed had happnedhas taken place. Tjaarke read The Master and Margarita in 1997, published by Penguin Twentieth Century Classics. The book was given to her as a gift from Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, the translators of the novel into English.
IncomprehensibHow is thatle how Tjaarke Maas, of Dutch origin, who and as someone who has lived in Australia, the United States, France and Italy, was able to feel the novel so deeply, to penetrate into the world of images of Russian writer?? One of the keys answers to this enigma is , her immersion into the Orthodoxy, not only by studying it, but also by «writing» with her own hands the icons according to the Russian -Byzantine tradition, . Another key is her acquaintance with the works of Russian philosophers and theologians of the 20th century (Sergei Bulgakov, Nikolai Berdyaev, Paul Florensky, Vladimir Solovyov, Vasily Rozanov), works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, Nikolai Gogol, Anna Akhmatova, Aleksandr Blok, Viacheslav Ivanov .... This accountancy, andTjaarke’s the personal spiritual experience grew out of her interest in iconography and Russian philosophy, theology and literature and subsequently became for the artistpaved a the fertile ground for her understanding as well of as her own creative interpretation of theological level of novel ofof the theological elements of Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel.
Another vital key - it is the passion ofclue is Tjaarke’s passion for mythology and history of different cultures and civilizations , theand their symbology; therefore, . It was the mmetaphysical and fantastic formation of The Master and Margarita which provoked prompted the creation of a number of her early works: «Born to be bird», «Meeting», «Scorpion», «Alga Marina » and even a gallery of Cats; :« Cat Begemot », « Cat with the bird feather», «Cat Arbus », «Vasia » and « The King of Cats » from the «Goldfaced»
« goldfaced » series.
Tjaarke’s mMore recent work which is built from the more immediate realities that surrounded her,, thoug does not, at first glance, seem to be directlyh not so clearly linked to the works of Bulgakov, at first glance, because they are build on the more immediate realities that surrounded the artist. , However, upon closer consideration, these later still lives and portraits surprisingly absorbedsubtly embody the images of novel The Master and Margarita, as well as the general atmosphere of Bulgakov's texts.
The appearance of Tjaarke Maas’ paintings in the walls of the same «Naughty Apartment», in whichwhere from 1921 to 1924 lived Mikhail Bulgakov lived (1921 – 1924), and where, in the end, he had placed the main characters of his most well-known novel, is not accidental. This eExhibition is - the outcome of the long dialogue of the artistbetween Tjaarke, The Master and Margarita, and Mikhail Bulgakov. Unfortunately, the wood-boards of Tjaarke reached the apartment number 50 like a letter, launched by the sea in a bottle, without the participation presence of its author.
* * *
The eExhibition of Tjaarke Maas’ drawings and paintings at the Museum of M. Bulgakov reflects the artist's her desire to create a large series of works. In fact, you will find two distinct exhibitions —- each linked to a specific cycle of subjects, or allocated to a certain genre. Both exhibitions have, in my opinion, is building his a unique relationship with Bulgakov’s writings, and with the physical space of his apartment.
Tjaarke Maas’ sStill life paintings are, associates reminiscent of with the environment of the communal apartment of Bulgakov's satirical articles, presented at in the «Kitchen». Particularly impressive is a series of fish —- the specific, detailed surface, slippery, iridescent scales, gills, eyes that, dissolve in the dark multilayered background, in the same manner as a classical Dutch still life, which . Yet suddenly these fish paintings seem to transform before our eyes as they oscillate from a Dutch style still life to an incarnation of a portrait filled with elusive meaning. What is it - the These fish could be viewed, as the most ancient Christian symbol, descended from the frescos of the catacombs, or as an important integral part of traditional maritime Dutch culture.? An appetizing herring seen through the eyes of Sharikov…or is it a dead, unknowable ancient creature, which stares at you from the canvas without blinking? The kKitchen for Bulgakov - is the heart of the communal apartment: an ugly thickening space, filled with different smells, voices, people, and objects. It’s aAs thoughif the a glance across the kitchen has suddenly been transfixed in time,suddenly stopped glance which concentratesconcentrating on in one point of space. Tjaarke’s , still livfes of Tjaarke clasp the fragments from the chaos of everyday life. Each painting is a , naked, acute experience of reality, a deep meditative dive into the essence of objects, as in Morandi’s still life;not dissimiliar to Morandi’s still life — both Maas and Morandi share approachean artistic sensitivity which iss very close d to Bulgakov’s artistic imagination.
The «Goldfaced» series in the Hall is also ambiguous and open to several points of view. On the one hand - the gold faces are a series ofis multi-layered, choppy and ancient-like icons, on the other they are- portraits of the artists’ friends and loved ones of the artists.. These painted wood bBoards are remindedresemble of the Fayum mummy portraits or Russian “Parsuna”; from them are portraiture. It seems as though we are watching, deep, strange, eternal faces. Layer A layer of a gold leaf gives them a special glow and solemnity. The «Goldfaced» seriesU encapsulates a strikingnusual union between the real, material, the spiritual and the transcendental the main characteristic.
of Tjaarke’s art, appears here particularly evedent.
If you wish, yYou might might recognize in one of the portraits Voland, the Master and Margarita, Nizu and Levi, or you might not recognize themmight not — - in fact, it is does not matter — - the names here are already irrelevant.
* " Listen to the stillness,' Margarita said to the master, and the sand rustled under her bare feet, 'listen and enjoy what you were not given in life —- peace.*
Look, there ahead is your eternal home, which you have been given as a reward. I can already see the Venetian window and the twisting vine, it climbs right up to the roof. Here is your home, your eternal home. I know that in the evenings you will be visited by those you love, those who interest you and who will never trouble you. They will play for you, they will sing for you, you will see what light is in the room when the candles are burning.”
* translation by, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky
* Parsuna - in the Eastern Slavonic culture - a portrait painting of 16-17 centuries, combining the techniques of icon painting with a realistic image interpretation. Usually parsuna performed in the technique of egg tempera
Tjaarke Maas "Begemot" mixed media on canvas
