Golden Boy (Anikushin)

Golden Boy
Artist	Mikhail Anikushin
Type	Sculpture
Medium	Plaster
Dimensions	98.5 cm (38.8 in)
Location	The State Museum of City Sculpture, Saint Petersburg

Golden Boy (Russian: Золотой мальчик) is a sculpture by Mikhail Anikushin, People's Artist of the USSR and winner of the Lenin Prize and I. E. Repin State Prizes of the RSFSR. It was designed as part of the Memorial to the Heroic Defenders of Leningrad during the blockade , which was opened in Leningrad in 1975 by architects Valentin Kamensky and Sergei Speransky. The sculptor's grandson, Adrian Anikushin, modeled for this sculpture.

Among art historians, there is no consensus on whether the sculpture was the central part of the original or final version of the memorial. According to the memoirs of some of Anikushin's contemporaries, it did not take its intended place in the sculptural and architectural composition on Victory Square in accordance with the verbal decision of Grigory Romanov, First Secretary of the Leningrad Regional Committee.

Both existing versions of Golden Boy, executed in bronze covered with gold leaf, have been lost. The Mikhail Anikushin Workshop, a branch of the State Museum of City Sculpture, displays a plaster model of the sculpture.

Sculpture

The sculpture belongs to the collection of the State Museum of City Sculpture in St. Petersburg and the permanent exposition of the Mikhail Anikushin Workshop, a branch of the museum. It is exhibited in the hall dedicated to the master's creation of the monument To the Heroic Defenders of Leningrad. The height of the sculpture is 98.5 cm, and the width is 30 cm. The inventory number is NVF-98. In the short summary of the exhibition, the sculpture is called Golden Boy. 1975. Unrealized central figure of the monument. Large-scale model for casting.

The sculpture is a plaster model of a bronze and gilded sculpture that has not survived. On the backs of both hands, elements of a metal frame are visible beneath the surface of the plaster. The statue is divided into several independent, interconnected parts: the lower and upper halves of the torso, and the right and left arms above the elbow.

The sculpture represents a boy aged 5–6 years. He is completely naked. The boy's head is slightly raised, and his gaze is directed forward. The child's right foot is supported, while the left foot is slightly forward as if he has just taken a step; the toes of this foot are spread out and extend beyond the pedestal. On the upper part of the small round pedestal on which the statue stands, behind the boy's feet, one can easily read the inscription made by the sculptor: 1975. M. Anikushin. The inscription is scratched into the wet plaster. The boy's hands are raised at the level of his abdomen and are slightly distanced from his body. The elbows are bent and positioned behind his back.

Sculpture’s history

Mikhail Anikushin's plan

Elena Litovchenko, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Arts and Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation, wrote that Mikhail Anikushin “suffered from the impossibility of speaking sincerely about the tragedy of Leningrad”. He envisioned the memorial to the Heroic Defenders of Leningrad as consisting of figures that were “tragic, solemn, and lyrical,” aiming for it to “stand out with soulfulness and lyricism” in contrast to the already erected monuments, where symbolic elements prevailed. The sculptor insisted on rejecting pathos, small figures, and conventional realism. Contemporaries noted that Anikushin constantly improvised during the creative process. He described “sincerity and individuality” in this memorial ensemble as his “author's protest against the so-called generalized, conventional monuments”.

The composition of the memorial is divided into three parts: a staircase with sculptural groups and an obelisk, an open-air hall in the form of a broken ring, and an underground memorial museum. According to the author's plan, the tour of the memorial complex should begin at the staircase. The contrast between the dynamic sculptures and the balanced, static architectural structure imbues the staircase ensemble with “excitement and spirituality”. Currently, the composition of the staircase includes 26 figures facing the front line during the blockade. Another figure was created as a plaster model and later cast in metal in accordance with the sculptor's original vision.

External images
| A variant of the project published in the magazine Construction and Architecture of Leningrad (1973, No. 9) [1]
| Variant of the project. The first half of the 1970s. Photo of the layout from the personal archive of V. S. Speranskaya [2]

Mikhail Anikushin wrote in his diary about the creation of the sculpture Golden Boy: “There were three projects for the monument. In the second project, I thought for a long time about what to place at the center of the composition. And suddenly, I realized: the symbol was found! It is the figure of a small child—his striving for life should unite all these big and courageous people. We fought not for glory; we fought for life. And the child, for me, symbolizes this invincible life. But they wouldn’t let me. I cried for a week... The third one was approved".

Alexander Zamoshkin, a candidate of art history and corresponding member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR, wrote in a 1978 monograph on the sculptor's work that the original memorial projects were created as a layout with 15 cm figures. This approach made it possible to envision the entire composition and the placement of each individual sculpture and group. In the project exhibited at the 1972 exhibition, the Golden Boy sculpture was placed at the very edge of the elliptical site. The child symbolized “the life to come, the establishment of peace and tranquility on earth”. In contrast, the other sculptural groups —“sternly powerful, extremely tired people”— represented the hardships of the blockade, the courage of the citizens, their solidarity, and “the will to fight”. The new project, created after the end of the exhibition, incorporated suggestions from Leningraders who had endured the blockade. It was characterized by monumentality, with a giant statue of Victory playing a central role. According to the art historian, this statue, holding a banner, revived ancient traditions of depicting heroic feats. In front of this statue, on the same axis as in the previous project, at the beginning of the stylobate, stood the sculpture of a child, which retained its original meaning as the "renewal of life" and the "embodiment of the future". On either side of this axis were two multi-figure compositions depicting the military and labor exploits of Leningrad residents. In 1973, the project was approved by the Leningrad City Planning Committee, the Art Council of the Main Department of Culture of the Leningrad Executive Committee, and the Presidium of the Leningrad branches of the Union of Architects of the USSR and the Union of Artists of the RSFSR. After this approval, according to Alexander Zamoshkin, Anikushin continued to refine the composition. As a result, the statue of Victory was replaced by the Winners — a statue that was more concrete than allegorical, portraying the heroes of Leningrad. In the spring of 1974, the project was finally approved by the board of the Ministry of Culture of the USSR, and work on its realization began. In Zamoshkin's account of this project, he no longer mentions the freestanding figure of the child, Golden Boy.

Elena Lezik, the director of the State Memorial Museum of the Defense and Siege of Leningrad, describes the work on the project somewhat differently in an article about the monumental complex. She wrote about the very first compositional version: “And in the center of the composition, without a high pedestal and directly on the ground, stands a small figure of a boy. This is the little boy for whose happiness great human sacrifices were made, whose joyful laughter was so eagerly dreamed of by those who did not live to see the time of peace”. She also claimed that as early as May 1972, the people of Leningrad saw this very model of the future monument at an exhibition in the State Russian Museum. The Doctor of Art History, Professor, and Corresponding Member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR, Igor Bartenev, mentioned one of the variants in which a mother holds a small boy above her head on top of the obelisk— “our future, the representative of the generations following us, for whose happiness the Soviet people fought with the furious enemy”.

Yuri Trefilov, a journalist and a close friend of Mikhail Anikushin, attributed the appearance of the Golden Boy not to the first projects, but to the final stage of work on the monument. During the work, the obelisk, which is 48 meters high and rises above the monument, caused the greatest difficulties. In front of it, according to Anikushin's idea, the Winners were placed: the statues Soldier and Worker. The authors could not come up with a successful completion of the obelisk itself. They suggested a golden wreath of glory, the Order of Victory, a statue of the goddess of victory Nike, and an angel. Among Anikushin's proposals was the figure of a boy, one and a half meters tall, made in the classical Greek style. The first secretary of the Leningrad regional committee Grigory Romanov, as it seemed to the sculptor during the discussion, supported this option, but suggested that the Golden Boy not be placed on the top of the obelisk, where no one would be able to see it, but on the top step of the stairs leading to the central composition of the complex — the Winners group. The meaning that Romanov gave to this position of the sculpture of the child — the heroes who fought against fascism, standing behind the back of the boy who will become a symbol of life, worked and fought for the sake of children of new generations like him.

Romanov's proposal was well received both by Anikushin himself and by the Monumentsculpture enterprise. The work on the sculpture was assigned to the team of foundry workers Karl Khabarov and the team of hunters Boris Komissarov. In the sculpture factory of the Leningrad branch of the RSFSR Art Fund a plaster model was made according to Anikushin's sketches. Then it was sent to the Monumentsculpture enterprise for the production of the final version in metal. Due to the importance and complexity of the order, most of the specialists worked around the clock. Dormitories were set up in the building and a canteen was open around the clock.

The sculpture was made in metal to the highest standards. At the request of the sculptor even two "boys" were prepared and covered with a layer of gold leaf. At the same time, the whole monument is executed in dark colors — in dark red granite (it was noted that it was mined exclusively from local deposits near Vyborg and Priozersky, in 1974 it was assumed that the granite would be pink) and patinated bronze, which create a strict and solemn color palette, traditional for Leningrad.

Model

Mikhail Anikushin's grandson, Adrian, claimed in his publications that he was the prototype for the Golden Boy, but he interpreted the placement of this sculpture differently within the overall composition of the memorial. According to him, “instead of him [Golden Boy] in the middle, they put a giant stick, saying that the small figure from the airplane was invisible” — that is, the boy should have stood not in front of the Soldier and Worker, but behind them, in place of the stele. At the same time, he, along with other sources, assesses the role of the boy in the sculptor's plan: “This child was to run down the stairs, inside, as a personification of life returning to the city”.

Adrian Anikushin's words are confirmed by the artist's article Pain and Courage, published in the May 1975 issue of the magazine Aurora (it was written before the official opening of the Memorial, and while working on it Anikushin was sure that the statue of the Golden Boy would be placed in the place intended for it):

I spent a long time thinking about what to put in the center of the composition. Once, while I was working on the monument, my five-year-old grandson Adriyashka came running into the studio. Suddenly it became clear to me: I had found the symbol! It was the figure of a small child, his tiny life, which should unite all these great and courageous people. The Nazi officers urged their soldiers: "Destroy, crush, hack for the glory of the Fuhrer — and let your conscience be clear..." We weren't fighting for glory, we were fighting for life. And for me, the child symbolizes this invincible life.

The Soviet poet, publicist, and playwright Vsevolod Azarov recalled that when he and Mikhail Anikushin were discussing the first draft of the future monument in his studio in Vyazemsky Garden, "light, hurried steps were heard" and the sculptor's little grandson ran into the room. Azarov asked the sculptor if the image of the child in the center of the composition was not related to this boy. Anikushin just smiled.

Destination

Yuri Trefilov, who knew Anikushin and the situation with the monument intimately, speculated that Grigory Romanov changed his position on the boy's sculpture at the very last moment, when he was preparing to move to Moscow and be promoted. He believes that the reason for this decision was that the party official did not want to risk his career. Romanov did not want to sacrifice it to an artistic solution that was controversial from the point of view of ideology and philistine morals. Mikhail Suslov, a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee responsible for ideological work, was to arrive in Leningrad for the opening of the monument. The "gray cardinal", as he was called, was known for his puritanical morals. He could negatively evaluate the nakedness of an underage boy, who occupied such an important position in the composition of the monument dedicated to the World War II, and welcomed visitors even at the approach to its central figures.

According to Trefilov's assumption, the figure of the "strong, shining" boy was, from Romanov's point of view, in sharp contrast to the emaciated heroes of the Blockade composition in the inner part of the broken ring of the monumental complex. The situation was also complicated by the accessibility of the Golden Boy to the visitors of the Memorial (he was on the same level as them, without the high pedestal on which the other sculptures stood) and the small size of the Golden Boy (he was only 1.5 meters high, unlike all the other figures in the composition, whose height was more than 3.5 meters). As Trefilov put it, the Golden Boy "can be grabbed by anyone .... anywhere". The directive of the leadership of the regional party organization to the director of Monumentsculpture ordered not to hurry with the installation of the already cast statue of the boy: "Do not hurry. Let's open the monument quietly, and then we'll return to this issue". Despite this formulation of the decision, the decision to return to the question of the sculpture's place in the monumental complex was not made, and traces of both versions of the sculpture were lost. Anikushin's student, the Honored Artist of the Russian Federation Vladimir Gorevoi, who took part in the work on the monument, recalled that after the opening of the monumental composition the sculptor's studio in Vyazemsky Garden brought one of the two bronze Golden Boys, which was not in demand, but admitted that the fate of this sculpture and the second version of the sculpture was unknown to him.

Anikushin was not warned of the complications that arose during the installation of the monumental complex. Seeing that the sculpture was missing on the day of the memorial's opening (on May 4, 1975, it was presented to the distinguished Moscow guests), the sculptor continued to believe that it would soon be brought to the beginning of the ceremony itself. Several times he tried to call the director of Monumentsculpture from the neighboring hotel Pulkovskaya, but each time he received a reply from the secretary that the director was absent, having gone to Smolny to find out the fate of the sculpture from the Party leadership. In the end, Mikhail Anikushin left the opening ceremony and went to the factory himself, where he did not find the boy's sculpture, but the director of Monumentsculpture V. P. Stepanov. According to Yuri Trefilov, who witnessed their meeting, Anikushin grabbed Stepanov's cane and three times, chasing the director who was running away from him (Stepanov was wounded during the World War II and therefore limped), circled a large table in pursuit of him. Only when Stepanov shouted to Anikushin that Grigory Romanov had forbidden him to erect the sculpture of the boy, the sculptor stopped. Anikushin himself did not like to remember the story of the Golden Boy. It became widely known only years after his death. Yuri Trefilov's version of the last minute change of the city authorities' attitude to the boy's sculpture is confirmed by an article by the art historian Nina Veselitskaya-Ignatius in the May 1975 issue of Tvorchestvo. The author of the article describes in detail the recently opened memorial and does not mention the Golden Boy, but the illustration to the article with the caption "Monument in honor of the heroic defense of Leningrad in 1941-1943 and the defeat of Nazi troops in 1944. 1975. Layout", the sculpture of a child is clearly visible.

Vadim Bass, an architectural historian and associate professor at the Department of Art History of the European University at St. Petersburg, also wrote in his article A Modernist Monument for a Classical City that the Golden Boy was present in the memorial designs until the last moment (in his words, he embodied the present for which sacrifices were made during the war years). During this time, versions of the project with him were presented both to the public (in the archives there are about 4,500 sheets of appeals to the Public Commission, reviews of project exhibitions, and letters to newspaper editors about the memorial) and to the city government. The decision of the city authorities was taken, contracts with the executors were signed, but in reality the final form of the ensemble was formed only at the last moment. The working model of the sculpture Golden Boy was accepted by Mikhail Anikushin only on March 3, 1975, that is, two months before the end of work on the ensemble. At the same time, the project itself, with his figure in the foreground, was published in 1973 in the magazine Construction and Architecture of Leningrad No. 9. An unattributed drawing of the Golden Boy, clearly visible in the composition of the memorial's staircase, was also published there.

In 2017, the Golden Boy was presented in St. Petersburg at the exhibition Sculptor Anikushin, dedicated to the 100th anniversary of his birth. Mikhail Anikushin's pencil and ballpoint sketches on paper for the monument with the figure of the Golden Boy were presented at an exhibition in Leningrad in 1988.

Reviews

Soviet and Russian writer and publicist Viktor Ganshin wrote about the moving figure of a child reaching for the sun and light at the foot of a 30-meter pedestal with a 15-meter statue of Victory holding a waving banner. According to Ganshin, the Golden Boy embodies "the joy and hope of future generations, their unbreakable chain. He quoted the words of the sculptor himself in connection with this composition: "Such a monument should be a warning to future soldiers. Our grandchildren were born in a happy time, we must not let what we have experienced break into their lives".

Journalist and writer Viktor Senin called the Golden Boy "a poetic resolution of the concept" of the entire memorial. Senin wrote that "the boy connects each composition of the monument with invisible threads". He saw in the sculpture "a symbol of the invincibility of life".

Nikolai Malakhov, a candidate of philosophical sciences, wrote in his 1976 book On the Historical Significance of Soviet Fine Art, that the Golden Boy faces the viewer and "symbolizes the saved life of Leningrad's youth. The four-sided granite obelisk and the sculptural group the Winners behind it are symbols of the unbreakable unity of the heroic defenders of the city and the entire Soviet people. According to Malakhov, all the sculptor's works are not allegorical, because "there is no excessive generalization of forms". They "bear the stamp of easel work, endowed with a high degree of bourgeois art, combined with a subtle nuance of the heroes' characters". In these figures, he noted the psychological intensity, the social capacity, the artistic expressiveness, "a combination of subtle lyricism with the deepest awareness of the social mission of art".

Igor Bartenev in his introductory article to the book The Monument to the Heroic Defenders of Leningrad in the Great Patriotic War, published in 1980, described in detail the process of work on the sculpture. The place of work was Mikhail Anikushin's workshop in Vyazemsky Garden in Leningrad. A group of workers consisting of A. Grigoriev, A. Ezhkov, V. Pospelov, B. Chadaev and V. Shilin made a frame and covered it with wooden panels according to the artist's sketch. On this basis the life-size composition was made in clay. When the "general forms" were created, Mikhail Anikushin and his students V. Azemsha, O. Godes, V. Gorevoi, S. Kubasov, V. Neimark and V. Petin began their work. At this stage the details of the sculpture were modeled in clay up to "the compositional and plastic requirements of the author's model". At the next stage —"molding in plaster"— worked a team consisting of I. and N. Petrunin and V. Ivanov. Then the plaster model was transported from the sculptor's studio to the Monument Sculpture Company. The whole process of making the statue from the frame to the casting took several months. In his book, Bartenev quotes two photographs of undated models of the monument. In one of them, the Golden Boy takes a place in front of a single sculptural composition on a common high pedestal in the form of a wide semicircle. In the other photograph, taken from above, the Golden Boy stands at the top of a single flight of stairs at a distance from the broad, low stele behind him. His figure is slightly in front of the center of the circular pedestal of the monument.

Writer Daniil Granin believed that the sculpture of the boy was central to the sculptor's original intention. He wrote in his book Memory Quirks:

The project of the Blokada monument was also good. Even in the sketch Mikhail Konstantinovich showed me. On it are the figures of dystrophic, starving, deprived citizens, bombed, shelled, all the misfortunes of the war fell on them. In 900 days they became shadows, transparent, weightless. Why are they still alive? Where are they going? They go to the boy, the golden boy, the embodiment of victory, shines before them. This is their faith. The author has found a beautiful metaphor, a symbol of the siege epic, despite everything, we believed in Victory.

According to the author, this idea began to change under pressure from the city's party leadership. The figure of the boy contradicted the new concept approved by the regional committee: representatives of various strata of the population (soldiers, sailors of the Baltic Fleet, pilots...) were guided by a new "reference point" — the party that led Leningraders to victory. Therefore, according to the writer, "the boy was categorically withdrawn". Granin himself assessed the new concept of the monument and the rejection of the figure of the child conceived by the sculptor extremely negatively: "We are left with a delegation of defenders of the city", "The soul of the monument has been taken out of the monument", "It is only worth looking at, and the monument causes confusion", "Destructive interference of party ignoramuses in art".

Monument to the heroic defenders of Leningrad. In the foreground (top step of the second staircase from the viewer) is the place intended for the Golden Boy.

The sculptor Grigory Yastrebenetsky in the article Forgotten subjects noted an extremely successful solution of the author's project of the monument: "In the foreground, in the gap between two semicircular pedestals, on which are placed multi-figure compositions of soldiers — participants of the war, who achieved victory, should stand a golden child, in whose name, in the name of the future, fought and died soldiers depicted on the monument. The absence of this figure, in his opinion, "considerably impoverished the idea of the monument and worsened its composition". In his other book, The Author's Interview with Himself, Yastrebenetsky perceived the situation with the Golden Boy as one of several serious miscalculations by the architects who worked with Anikushin on the monument: "On a gigantic square, even large figures look tiny, all the more so since the Golden Boy could get lost among them"; Anikushin's sculptural compositions "do not have a clear silhouette," so that from a distance they could appear to the viewer as "dark worms with ... confused legs"; the two faceless 22-story buildings standing at the entrance to the city on the square on either side of the monument. He wrote that Anikushin was most tormented by the search for a solution to the central part of the memorial, which was to carry the meaning of a symbol. In Yastrebenetsky's opinion, "the best and strongest of all [in this role] was the boy". For him and the future he personified, the figures depicted around him had performed heroic deeds. Yastrebenetsky allowed other symbols as the center of the monument: the image of the Motherland Calls or the Victory Banner. The two large figures Soldier and Worker, representing the front and the rear, in his opinion, cannot be considered as symbols, because in this case the purpose of the sculptural groups in the square in front of them is unclear. The theme of the memorial is now revealed twice, in one case "in symbolic images" (Soldier and Worker) and in the other case "illustratively" (the rest of the sculptural compositions of the ground part of the memorial in front of the Winners).

The historian and journalist Tatiana Kutsenina wrote that "a child is the key figure of any war". Therefore, he was rightly the central figure of the sculptural composition dedicated to the heroic defenders of Leningrad during the siege. In her interpretation, "he would stand next to the adults — fighters, factory workers, men and women who defended their beloved city". Children were unwilling but participants in the events that took place during the blockade: they starved and died, fought for their lives, but if the older children could take care of themselves, the little ones, like the boy Anikushin depicts, had no choice: "Together with their mothers, they wandered through the woods, sat behind barbed wire, froze in the dark apartments of Leningrad.

Bibliography

Sources

• Anikushin, M. K. (1975). Боль и мужество [Pain and courage] (in Russian). Аврора: Журнал. pp. 18–19.
• Anikushin, M. K. (1997). Боль и мужество (в сокращении) [Pain and Courage (in abridgement)] (in Russian). СПб.: Славия. pp. 7–9.
• Anikushin, M. K. (2017). Несколько слов о себе. Тексты из дневниковых записей М. Аникушина [A few words about myself. Texts from the diary entries of M. Anikushin] (in Russian). СПб.: Петербургское наследие и перспектива. p. 107.
• Granin, D. A. (2017). Памятник Михаила Аникушина // Причуды памяти [Mikhail Anikushin's Monument // Quirks of Memory]. Наш XX век (in Russian). М.: Центрполиграф. p. 510. ISBN 978-5-9950-0273-4.
• Монумент защитникам Ленинграда [Monument to the Defenders of Leningrad] (in Russian). Л.: Ленинградская организация Союза художников РСФСР. 1988.

Researches and non-fiction

• Azarov, V. (1973). Заветные встречи [Treasured meetings] (in Russian). Советская культура: Газета. p. 6. ISSN 1562-0379.
• Alyansky, Yu. L. (1985). В мастерской на Петроградской стороне [In a workshop on Petrograd side] (in Russian). М.: Советский художник. p. 144.
• Bartenev, I. A. (1980). Вступительная статья // Монумент героическим защитникам Ленинграда в годы Великой Отечественной войны [Introductory article // Monument to the heroic defenders of Leningrad during the World War II] (in Russian). Л.: Художник РСФСР. pp. 1–41.
• Bass, V. G. (2019). Модернистский монумент для классического города [A modernist monument for a classic city] (in Russian). Неприкосновенный запас: Журнал. pp. 61–84. ISSN 1815-7912.
• Veselitskaya-Ignatius, N. V. (1975). Проект памятника героическим защитникам города Ленина [Project of the monument to the heroic defenders of the city of Lenin] (in Russian). Творчество: Журнал. pp. 17–19. ISSN 0039-2413.
• Ganshin, V. (1974). Монумент [The Monument] (in Russian). Литературная Россия: Газета. p. 10. ISSN 1560-6856.
• Gusarov, A. Yu. (2010). Был город-фронт, была блокада // Памятники воинской славы Петербурга [There was a city-front, there was a blockade // Monuments of Military Glory of St. Petersburg] (in Russian). СПб.: Паритет. pp. 133–189. ISBN 978-5-9343-7363-5.
• Zamoshkin, A. I. (1978). Глава седьмая // Михаил Константинович Аникушин [Chapter Seven // Mikhail Konstantinovich Anikushin] (in Russian). Л.: Художник РСФСР. pp. 213–304.
• Kolesova, О. (1973). Подвигу твоему, Ленинград [To your heroic deed, Leningrad] (in Russian). Ленинградская правда: Газета. p. 6.
• Kutsenina, Т. А. (2020). От автора // Дети войны: сборник воспоминаний [The author's words// Children of the war: a collection of memoirs] (in Russian). М.: ОМ-Пресс. pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-5-9063-6320-6.
• Lezik, Е. V. (2000). Монумент героическим защитникам Ленинграда (история создания) // Труды Государственного музея истории Санкт-Петербурга [Monument to the heroic defenders of Leningrad (history of creation) // Proceedings of the State Museum of the History of St. Petersburg] (in Russian). Vol. 5. Материалы к истории блокады Ленинграда. СПб. pp. 270–294.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Lezik, E. V. (2011). Вступительная статья // Monument to heroic defenders of Leningrad [Introductory article // Monument to heroic defenders of Leningrad] (in Russian). СПб.: Государственный музей истории Санкт-Петербурга. p. 71. ISBN 978-5-9026-7192-3.
• Leonova, N. G. (1999). Памятники истории // Дом в Вяземском переулке. Мастерская скульптора М. К. Аникушина [Monuments of History // House in Vyazemsky Lane. Workshop of sculptor M. K. Anikushin] (in Russian). СПб.: Наука. pp. 103–130. ISBN 978-5-9063-6320-6.
• Litovchenko, E. N. (2008). Вступительная статья // Михаил Константинович Аникушин. 1917—1997. Скульптура [Introductory article // Mikhail Konstantinovich Anikushin. 1917—1997. Sculptur] (in Russian). СПб.: Историческая иллюстрация, Научно-исследовательский музей Российской академии художеств. p. 96. ISBN 978-5-8956-6073-7.
• Malakhov, N. Ya. (1976). Об историческом значении советского изобразительного искусства [On the historical significance of Soviet fine arts]. Проблемы социалистического реализма (in Russian). М.: Изобразительное искусство. p. 248.
• Mikhailova R. F., Zhuravlyova A. A. (1983). "IV. «Подвигу твоему, Ленинград…»". Величию и подвигу человека: документальный рассказ о скульпторе М. К. Аникушкине [To the greatness and feat of a man: a documentary story about the sculptor M. K. Anikushkin] (in Russian). Л.: Лениздат. pp. 93–130.
• Senin, V. (1974). Вернуться герои на площадь Победы [Heroes return to Victory Square] (in Russian). Правда: Газета. p. 6. ISSN 1990-6838.
• Slavova, L. A. (1987). Вступительная статья // Аникушин Михаил Константинович. Cкульптура, рисунок: Каталог выставки [Introductory article // Anikushin Mikhail Konstantinovich. Sculpture, drawing: Exhibition catalog] (in Russian). Л.: Художник РСФСР. p. 31.
• Tolstaya, I. (1979). Монумент в честь героической обороны Ленинграда [Monument in honor of the heroic defense of Leningrad] (in Russian). Архитектура СССР: Журнал. pp. 36–39. ISSN 0004-1939.
• Trefilov, Yu. I. (2010). А был и мальчик среди скульптур на площади Победы [And there was a boy among the sculptures in Victory Square] (in Russian). Санкт-Петербургские ведомости: Газета. pp. 1–2.
• Frolov, V. A. (2000). Монумент наа площади Победы (архитектурно-художественный анализ) // Труды Государственного музея истории Санкт-Петербурга [Monument on Victory Square (architectural and artistic analysis)// Proceedings of the State Museum of the History of St. Petersburg] (in Russian). Vol. 5. Материалы к истории блокады Ленинграда. СПб. pp. 294–324.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Проект памятника героическим защитникам города Ленина [The monument to the heroic defenders of the city of Lenin project] (in Russian). Строительство и архитектура Ленинграда: Журнал. 1973. pp. 2–3. ISSN 0039-2413.
• Shefov, A. N. (2011). Бессмертный подвиг в бронзе и камне // Скульптор М. К. Аникушин [Immortal feat in bronze and stone // Sculptor M. K. Anikushin] (in Russian). ТОНЧУ. pp. 65–122. ISBN 978-5-9121-5066-1.
• Yastrebenetsky, G. D. (2019). Забытые сюжеты [Forgotten subjects] (PDF) (in Russian). Нева: Журнал. pp. 186–194. ISSN 0130-741X.
• Yastrebenetsky, G. D. (2005). На войне и после // Интервью автора с самим собой [At war and after // Interview of the author with himself] (in Russian). СПб.: Журнал «Нева». p. 320. ISBN 978-5-8751-6081-3.