What atmosphere will prevail at St. Michael's Cathedral: piety or vanity?
This author would like to thank all clergymen, parishioners and other
Christian laymen for responding so quickly and sincerely after my article
about St. Michael's Bell Tower appeared in print, sharing with me their
concern, amazement, objections and refutations.
Quite a few ask about my religious affiliation and criticize me for
not dwelling on shortcomings and improprieties existing in other confessions,
and what they believe in is my "burlesque" style of describing icons...
Of course, I appreciate their sincere attitude, but there is something
that worries me: none of my correspondents seem concerned about the aesthetic
importance of St. Michael's Bell Tower, which was the subject of my previous
article. My opponents painstakingly try to find an answer to the traditional
question, "Whose advantage does it serve?" They do not seem to realize
that the article is actually about bad taste and lack of style in the huge
religious structure. Some agree that yes, the whole thing looks like primitive
folk work, that it is "clumsy," but it was rebuilt and the authorities
handed it over to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate). So
the bell tower could look better, so what? There is the clock and the chimes
play folk melodies, don't they? So save your sarcasm and if you have something
substantial to recommend, please do.
I was particularly amazed by a letter from Ukrrestavratsiya (Ukrainian
Restoration Service), blaming the design and exterior decoration on the
18 c. architects and construction workers, wall decorators (19 c.) and
personally on Mr. Morhilevsky, who made the measurements of the bell tower
and cathedral proper in the 1930s. And the "Ukrrestavratsiya collective",
who appears offended by the tone of my article, has worked a miracle, "returning
from oblivion the meaningful whole of our history," bringing back intact
every brick and piece of wall plaster. I might retort that an open-air
museum with an unfinished cathedral should likewise be considered the pride
of the restorers, knowing that their child is worthy of being immortalized
as a truly heroic deed, shouldn't it? A deed for which residents and guests
of the capital will have to pay again, after making donations and paying
taxes. I was asked recently, "Can one count on being canonized after donating
hugely to the construction of a house of God?" I said no and silently praised
the Lord for it being really so, for did He not teach us that a poor widow's
mite had more value than millions possessed by the rich?
But I am determined to get back to the aesthetic aspect. The bell tower
was made into a folk fest stage prop, anything but its original functional
self; the walls must have a certain thickness and resonators without which
the desired acoustic effect will never be achieved. In other words, any
restoration of the original acoustic system is out of the question. The
facade was "restored" relying on a later 19 c. black and white, heavily
retouched photograph, meaning that colors and shades were applied "by ear."
Conclusion: the bell tower, the way it is now, is a stylized late 20 c.
project, made the way late 20 c. architects and designers imagined
what St. Michael's Cathedral really looked like. However, this stylization
shows no respect for either details or the spirit of the time.
So what? What difference does this make? The trouble is that a bell
tower is an inalienable component of any Eastern Orthodox cloister whose
inner space must conform with the Eastern Orthodox canons, different from
all the other Christian confessions. I will take the liberty of mentioning
that after Jesus ascended to Heaven, his disciples gathered in the room
where the Last Supper had taken place and where He had promised to return
to them. They waited for Jesus and would come time and again to celebrate
the Liturgy commemorating the Last Supper. The Church has continued to
await His Coming and the room in which this waiting takes place must be
properly decorated. Hence my reaction to the icon portraying The Last Supper
over the altar in the bell tower's chapel. Instead of proper solemnity,
the picture shows a merry party. An icon can be "primitive," but not to
the point where things holy are made into things banal, without a trace
of the heavenly spirit. Now stylizing such "primitivism" means replacing
the innate icon-painting spirit with crudely borrowed painting techniques.
There is a chapel in the bell tower, formally, but there is none in
actuality. Since the time of Rus' baptism the Slavs have regarded a house
of God as a place to be decorated in a very special way. We know from history
that all churches in the Byzantine Empire (whence Christianity came to
Rus) were richly decorated with expensive fabrics. A learned visitor stepping
into a Ukrainian temple, be it in Western, Eastern or Central Ukraine,
will immediately notice how different the interior is from that in a Russian
or Balkan church. The iconostasis is different by height, carving and the
number of icon rows. There are many rushnyky (embroidered towels), carpets
and upholstery donated to the temple by devout parishioners, becoming part
of an adobe in which everyone is waiting to make Him welcome when He comes.
This is something peculiar only to Ukraine. People come and bring with
them their most precious possessions, things they consider beautiful and
worthy of adorning His house. They make their presents for the Eternal
Life, expecting no reward in terms of money or praise. None of this atmosphere
is present at St. Michael's Bell Tower. Well, not yet, I hope. And I very
much hope that there will be more, much more than the highly polished parquet,
that there will be the living spirit of Faith.
Yes, there it stands, restored "to the best" of someone's ability. Nothing
can be done about this. But the cathedral proper is still under construction
and reconstruction on the ruins of the Lavra's Dormition Cathedral is in
full force. Again, haste, and too much of it. The sooner it's done, the
better the reports sent upstairs will sound. Is this one going to be another
haphazard stylization? Without any regard to tradition, national or religious
idea, even common sense? With the spirit of vanity, not piety, to prevail
in the end? Making one sense one's own and one's country's inferiority:
we have bungled it again! They couldn't even stylize it properly, let alone
keep it true to the canon. And to think that they spent so much on this
while a man in the street was struggling to scrape by. Who needs all this
pompous decor, knowing that there is emptiness behind?
What worries me the most, however, is the reactions of my colleagues,
art and literary critics who look genuinely surprised and ask me, "Listen,
why bother with that mess? Why don't you stick to your antiquities and
leave all those 'stylizers' alone? Can't you see that those upstairs will
have it their own way, not the way it should be?"
What is this?! Are we all swept under the tidal wave of indifference?
So that all our Orthodox aesthetics is in color albums and wishful memories
of past grandeur?






