Message

With all due respect, is Yuri Dashevsky being serious? He affirms, for some reason, that the sculptors intended to portray my father with an adult's head and a child's body, and that they would have been more successful had the statue resembled the dreadful dwarf that represents poor Albert Einstein in Washington. I know the Rukavishnikovs and discussed the project with them. Their intention was indeed to depict a synthesis of nuances of the whole Nabokov at various moments, but infancy was not one of them. As I have said, the waistcoat and knickerbockers were not a typical costume of Father's, although I see a certain logic for the latter:an informal, somewhat sporting air, where Nabokov's typical shorts might have been less appropriate for immortalization, and ordinary trousers too bland. That was the sculptors' reasoning too. I found the overall resemblance good, and saw no point in experimenting late in the game. Moreover, what substantiation does Mr. Dashevsky have for claiming that Nabokov's likeness is "absolutely taken from not even a photo [sic], but from some sketch from a photo"? And as for photos, what alternative does one have for the daunting task of reproducing in three dimensions a human subject one has never met? It is bad enough when one has: I collaborated with an excellent sculptor on a head of my father that was somewhat less successful than the Rukavishnikovs' work. I am not a defender of Soviet or post-Soviet art, but I fail to see any connection between "that whole East-West deal" and "an off-balanced [sic] chair." Works of art tend to have imperfections, but, until a better statue comes along, I'll take this one. I am touched by Mr. Dashevsky's final remark. But on what "pole" is he sitting?