The author focuses on the art of the Wanderers (Peredvizhniki) and the history of the Society for Traveling Art Exhibitions (TPKhV), which need nowadays certain reconsideration. The Wanderers movement is the main phenomenon of the 19th-century Russian culture, associated with the development of realistic traditions in the spirit of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky’s writings. The best works of the Wanderers made up the national art school and contributed to the formation of national identity. During the first three decades of the society its artists were trendsetters of style and fashion and the popularity of their exhibitions grew steadily in the capitals and provinces. These exhibitions changed the Russian art life and significantly influenced the development of the art market. They forced society to reconsider the attitude towards contemporary art and collecting. They raised the status of artists, but their dreams to not only educate the public, but also to earn money (as stated in the TPKhV Charter) through exhibitions never came true. The heyday of Wanderers movement was naturally replaced by a period of decline, while its oldest members displayed their conservatism. Nevertheless, the Wanderers stand at the origins of the fundamental processes that determined the path of the further development of Russian art, i. e. impressionism, symbolism, modernism. For a long time, the Wanderers movement was one of the principal subjects of study of Soviet art history. In the last third of the 20th century, many critics and specialists were immersed in the study of the art of the subsequent decades, i. e. the Silver Age and avant-garde, while the Wanderers’ art was neglected as part of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics. The contemporary art inclining towards the concept and posing questions of being reveals the most unexpected analogies within the Wanderers’ art, despite the gap between the classical and ultramodern views. The popularity of the Wanderers’ paintings was also exploited in the 20thcentury mass culture. This interest is explained by the fact that more than one generation of our compatriots was brought up on them and many of them are part of the cultural code of the Russian nation.

The analysis of acquisition policy of Pavel Mikhailovich Tretyakov (1832–1898), one of the leading Moscow collectors of the 19th century, who considerably influenced collecting in Russia, breaks his stereotype image in the art history literature and memoirs. Tretyakov has been regarded more as law-abiding and conservative in his views rather than independent. In addition, most Soviet art historians believed that the Moscow merchant and collector had outstanding advisers, artists of democratic views, without whom he purchased no work. The cases of acquisition of several works, the main masterpieces of the Tretyakov Gallery, are indicative in some ways. They reveal the difficult artistic atmosphere, in which the collector found himself, his difficult thoughts and, finally, the independence of his decision; sometimes new interpretations of the art works are required. Tretyakov faced difficult choices, being always conscious of the ambiguity of some works and troubles which could be brought by their acquisition for him and later for the gallery. Pavel Mikhailovich’s choice of paintings by his contemporaries highlights several aspects of his image as a collector: whether the works in question were purchased before, during or after the exhibition; whether the opinions of critics, connoisseurs and correspondents were voiced at the time of or after purchase; whether it was a unilateral choice, without regard for the opinion of the majority; how his purchase was regarded by his close friends and associates; how Tretyakov dealt with accusations of incorrect selection for his gallery of Russian paintings; and other aspects. While examining acquisitions of Russian art works by Tretyakov, who often ignored advice of his correspondents and associates and opinions of critics, the author accentuates Tretyakov’s profile as a collector.

The study of the nature of Russian painting in the second half of the 19th century has long artifi cially detached it from its Orthodox Christian foundation, and religiosity has been presented as a kind of negative metaphor rather than as a scientifi c problem requiring careful analysis. Despite increasing secularization, in the age of skepticism, Darwinism, and positivism the Christian worldview was not forced out of human consciousness in the second half of the 19th century, but was elevated to a new qualitative level. This is evidenced not only by many Russian writers, but also by such painters as Perov, Ge, Kramskoi, Repin, Surikov, Yaroshenko, and other masters, who were fascinated by the development of new ideas and new forms of expression. Today it is clear that in a number of paintings of that time Christianity serves as the cementing foundation, or the basis of life order. Christ appears as a real, historical fi gure who gave the organization of spiritual life on Earth. These issues arise in the works of outstanding masters of this time, correspondence and reviews. They are of paramount importance to the artistic culture of the second half of the nineteenth century. The deeply ambiguous nature of Kramskoi’s “Christ in the Desert” (1872) allows for a highly controversial interpretation, which can be very schematically expressed as from Christ or to Christ. The painter’s own interpretation has attracted art critics for decades. His thoughts on Christianity and attempts to reconsider traditional approaches, the birth of a new view, hesitation and doubt, alternation of the historical and religious-mystical are contained in his vast correspondence. The opinions of writers, artists, collectors and critics testify to important spiritual processes that were taking place in the minds and hearts of Kramskoi’s contemporaries. Studies by art historians help to penetrate deeper into the development of the artistic consciousness of the era.

In the art history literature dealing with collectors Mikhail (1870– 1903) and Ivan (1871–1921) Morozov, researchers are primarily interested in the artistic stratum connected with European, mainly French, art. The issues of collecting Russian painting, the choice of certain Russian artists, refl ecting the tastes of collectors, the change of artistic preferences in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, almost never attracted the attention of scholars. This article attempts at determining the approach developed by brothers M.A. and I.A. Morozov in collecting Russian art. In this context, it seems logical to analyze some features of their collections: what names and works the Moscow collectors chose, whether it was conscious and deliberate or spontaneous (as the literature characterized the formation of the Russian part of the Morozovs’ collection). Unfortunately, researchers have not always found arguments in favor of the collectors’ choice of certain Russian masters. At the same time, experts convincingly prove that with regard to works by iconic figures of European art, the choice and purchases were carefully thought out, right down to “booking” in advance a place in the hall for a particular masterpiece. Another question is far from idle: can we talk about the common ground for the Morozovs’ aesthetic views and, accordingly, about a certain continuity in their collections? The analysis of their Russian part allows us to conclude that the collections broadly and voluminously represent the panorama of the main Russian art currents from early Plein Air to Impressionism, from the first World of Art works to Symbolism, from imitations of Cézanne and Gauguin to independent avant-garde experiments of Russian painting in the 1910s. One of the characteristic features of the collection of the younger brother, Ivan Morozov, was fi gurative (object) art, as he was not attracted to objectless painting.