The Era Of Indifference

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?