Type monument to Peter I on the Senate Square in St. Petersburg Vasily Ivanovich Surikov (1848-1916)

Description of Vasily Surikov’s painting The Monument to Peter the Great on Senate Square in St. Petersburg

The first completed work by the artist Vasily Surikov was a winter landscape "View of the Monument to Peter I on the Senate Square in St. Petersburg," a curious fact that the artist wrote two such paintings, which misleads many viewers.

The reasons for creating a second similar work, there may be several: first, the artist was not very satisfied, even in a letter to his relatives, he admits that the picture came out not bad, but you can and much better to write.

Secondly, the exhibition in 1970, Surikov saw a picture of AI Kuindzhi, "View of St. Isaac’s Cathedral in the moonlight", this painting is similar to the work of Surikov, but with the difference that in the picture more attractive play of colors, the second version of Surikov paintings thanks to a more vivid color scheme, even more similar to the work of Kuindzhi.

Vladimir Kemenov, who researched Surikov’s work, compared both versions of the painting and noticed that the landscape itself remained the same, changing only small details (the density of shadows, the flatness of the cart tracks, the accentuation of cold), which an art critic or an experienced artist would notice.

Another interesting version is that the painting is incredibly similar to Vorobyov’s work "St. Isaac’s Cathedral, a Monument to Peter I", which was painted 26 years earlier. Surikov only changed the time of year and foreshortening in his painting. Whether Surikov saw his colleague’s painting or it was just an incredible coincidence, no one can say, about the painting by Vorobyov only know the year when it was shown in Russia, it happened in 1908, and the artist himself died 15 years before painting a similar painting to his.

Be that as it may, "View of the Monument to Peter I on Senate Square in St. Petersburg", will forever remain the work of authorship Surikov, despite all the speculation and speculation of historians and art historians, because there is no direct evidence of plagiarism.