Independence Monument: will we put up with, oppose, or postpone it?

The idea of erecting an Independence Monument in Kyiv as early as in August 2001 has triggered a heated debate in The Day. It comprises three aspects. The first is the artistic value of the monument itself, which can raise very many questions and much criticism (it will be recalled that a sluggish contest for the best monument ended up with three winning designs and it was decided to erect the monument by mechanistically combining their features). The second is the UAH 95 million taxpayers will have to pay for its construction. And, finally, the third and most important is that the overwhelming majority of discussants are convinced society has not yet crystallized any clear ideas of itself, while self-identification is an indispensable condition for the national symbol to be designed. The suggested monument would make sense in a way if we decided to put up a monument to our former ideas of ourselves. New times require a new graphic language to describe the emotional, moral, social, and economic state of society, meaning it would perhaps be best to declare a moratorium on monument construction until such a language has come to be. As the debate causes an increasing public interest, we have decided to continue it with some roundtable participants.

“Being aware that if the top leadership has blessed the idea of a monument it is very difficult to stem the tide, we did not set ourselves any revolutionary task. But we are sure it is never too late to heed the pro and contra reasoning of competent people and we hope this will be heeded when the final decision is to be made,” Larysa I VSHYNA, The Day’s editor-in-chief, said, opening the debate.

The Day’s round table was attended by Serhiy KRYMSKY, Doctor of Philosophy, professor, corresponding member of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences and the New York Academy of Sciences (USA); Myroslav POPOVYCH, Doctor of Philosophy, professor, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; Larysa SKORYK, professor at the architecture department of the Academy of Fine Arts and Architecture; Yuri POKALCHUK, writer, member of the National Television and Radio Broadcasting Board; Maksym STRIKHA, writer, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics; Volodymyr KANASH, editor-in-chief, News from Ukraine weekly; and Anatoly KHARECHKO, sculptor.

THE RETURN OF OLD SYMBOLS IN A NEW GUISE

Myroslav POPOVYCH:

“Here the idea is inseparable from esthetics, and esthetics is inseparable from the interpretation of the essence of the state whose tenth anniversary we are to celebrate. I must say the interpretation of our state embodied in this esthetics and, accordingly, the idea and esthetics themselves are alien to me. Everybody can call up ideas and associations of their own, but it is absolutely clear this is classicism, as far as the style is concerned. Imperial, neo-imperial, Russian, or whatever it is, this monument conveys a great- power style of ambitious pretensions for a certain powerful might hanging over and organizing the people in the, pardon the expression, ‘toe-the-line-or-else’ pattern. We can only say this kind of structure should not be destroyed but handed down to our children and grandchildren, so that they know in what spiritual discomfort their ancestors lived. French sculptor and architect Manetti once tried to persuade me that we, God forbid, should never ruin the monuments of Stalinism because this is part of our history. This is indisputable, and it is a part of history I do not want to hand down to my children. And the last remark about the twelve figures of Ukrainian apostles. This is a truly Soviet principle! It is an absolutely senseless problem who should or should not be eternalized — Franko, Hrushevsky, or Vynnychenko. I think a moratorium should be declared on this whole monument affair. And what about the inevitable irritation of the people who have nothing to pay for electricity with? Should we put up this magnificent thing against the background of beggars and homeless children squatting in the basements and underpasses of that same square? I am sorry, but this is somebody’s very ill-considered, to say the least, scheme.”

Maksym STRIKHA:

“Leaving apart today’s situation, I would like to remind you of a small example of how the people exercised their will a hundred years ago, when Ukrainian society was underwriting funds to erect a monument to Ivan Kotliarevsky in Poltava. This solemnly-unveiled monument still exists. Small but very touching, it still reflects the all-Ukrainian cause. Does at least a little similar upsurge of public opinion exist today? I say not. Absolute rejection on the part of the intellectuals and the indifference and irritation of the common people who will see this is one thing, but quite another thing is the interest of certain people who know only too well that this is a question of big money, a sizable part of which will be pocketed. On the other hand, the state issues a stinging indictment against itself, allotting almost a hundred million hryvnias when we do not have a gallery of modern Ukrainian art and the National Museum of Ukrainian Art is leaking and falling down. The state shows what it needs and what it does not need absolutely. Finally, I can repent for all to hear that nine years ago I, as deputy chairman of the culture and historical monuments preservation commission of the Kyiv City Council, reported at a session on the decisions to dismantle the October Revolution Monument. Incidentally, we nurtured the idea of laying out a totalitarian sculpture park, which, unfortunately, never came true. I do not think that even the hottest heads of the then democrats could see in their wildest dreams the image of such a monument here. The past few years have seen very many attempts to discredit the idea of national sanctums, so this monument will not be the least factor in discrediting the idea of Ukrainian independence.”

Yuri POKALCHUK:

“I naturally support all those who spoke before me because I believe there is a clearly defined line of imperial policies discernible in history, that is, Rome- Fascism-Stalinism. A very witty headline of Stalin’s article, “Dizzy from Success,” could apply very well to this monument. This is the exact picture of building the monument against the backdrop of our energy crisis and all the bad things our state has. To build an imperial style monument today is to run absolutely counter to the Ukrainian spirit. What vividly exemplifies Ukrainian spirit is St. Andrew’s Church: Ukraine is too baroque, not classical, to build so pompous a monument. And the language of today’s time is not so tough as it might seem when you look at the approved design: we do not live in a totalitarian state, nor did we win independence in hard struggle — we got it in an entirely different way. Building a commemorative sign in connection with the tenth anniversary of Ukrainian independence is not a bad idea as such. However, let it be the way Mr. Strikha said, a publicly discussed monument detached from specific individuals and monetary resources. Yes, I find more acceptable the idea of laying out a landscape park rather than creating this chimerical colonnade.”

WERE THE PRESIDENT AND MAYOR MISLED?

“Many of our contributors said the central square would not look worse even if it remained with the current television screen, a medium of information. The idea of Ukrainian independence does not deserve this kind of representation. Even if we imagine this is almost a copy of the Budapest monument, then why not borrow the Arch of Triumph, a flag surrounded by greenery, or some easy on the eye symbols acceptable to Ukrainians? Somebody said correctly: ‘The Russian voter should be electrified, while the Ukrainian one should be kept from being scared.’ What was the procedure of design approval? Why did we see no modern ideas?”

Larysa SKORYK:

“A round table was organized at the Union of Architects to discuss precisely this topic. This in fact turned the spotlight on how the contest was conducted and how many juridical violations were committed. The contest was on the verge of criminal prosecutions, some of them quite serious. Ukraine has a law On Architectural Activity. It clearly defines the procedure of contests. In addition, Ukraine has signed a clause on international, not only architectural, contests. The analysis of what had happened convinced us (and Union of Architects Vice President Mr. Khudiakov reported on this) there were at least twenty basic violations of the contest’s juridical procedure. Shall I also say that this flash contest, as one wit said, was held in the summer, when there was almost nobody in Kyiv? The design was finalized as follows: Oleksandr Omelchenko was shown the only project by Mr. Kushch (the situation was as absurd as could be imagined: Mr. Znoba’s project had been discussed behind the scenes), and the obviously misled mayor reported to the president who came the next day and blessed the only option for the monument. Just think over the name of the contest itself: ‘The Image of Independent Ukraine.’ This is not the way to mark the tenth anniversary of the proclamation of independence. One could do a more modest thing: to put up a gorgeous cloth flag accompanied by the guards of honor: passers-by would know this was the symbol of the flag carried to Verkhovna Rada when independence was proclaimed. This is the wrong time, gentlemen. Neither we nor the idea have ripened, so imposing this design on a society in a totalitarian and despotic way is the height of amorality, a mockery of the people of Ukraine, the ideals of Ukrainian independence, all our thoughts and dreams. It is mockery to eternalize things so pompously in a maniacal gigantic spirit, as if it were the Altar of Pergamum against the backdrop of the decline and fall of Ancient Greece. This money could have financed shelters for homeless children at least in Kyiv. This is also a national shame from the viewpoint of so-called pseudo-expression. In principle, this nothingness does not even deserve being discussed from the esthetic standpoint, for it is the defilement of any esthetics. To top it all, it is plagiarism. It is the worst thing one can imagine: the compilation of a colonnade with the Brandenburg Gate in the middle plus three more arches completely out of place.”

Anatoly KHARECHKO:

“The point is that this could have been an international contest. However, victory would have been awarded to the person who presented the design to Mr. Omelchenko. This has always been the done thing. As chairman of the Union of Architects Ihor Shpara said, this contest is the ideal example of falsification, deceit, and the way contests should not be held. It was held in violation of all norms. Just imagine that the contest was announced on August 7, with August 21 the deadline, a mere two weeks. The jury worked in camera (an absolutely unacceptable practice) ostensibly to ward off any outside pressure. But, in my opinion, this only increased the pressure. In the contests of this magnitude, the jury should be transparent. There is also information in our circles that Mr. Kushch has already assigned the twelve apostles to the jurors because he himself will be able to do all this in a year’s time at the earliest. This very much resembles the notorious sword-wielding woman on the Pechersk hills. Perhaps this (Independence Square) is an altogether unlucky place, for not a single monument has held out there.”

IN SEARCH OF COMPROMISE

“We have a vice premier and a minister coming from the artistic intelligentsia and, moreover, patriots. Why did they allow this colonial style? Or perhaps we don’t understand something, while most people take a fair view of this and the monument will boost public morale? We invited Mr. Kushch to the discussion. He said he had so much work to do and didn’t have the time to be distracted by what he called schoolboy talk. We also expected to see other people involved in this design, but never saw them.”

Maksym STRIKHA :

“A small note on this occasion. We have just come to the conclusion that the top leadership was misled, which is very unfortunate. But I have a different question. Why should the top leadership be involved in solving everything connected with building this monument? It shows we have got used to the idea that we have lost any normal, open, and democratic procedure of discussion and decision-making. After all, decisions should be finally approved by experts in various fields, not by the head of state. In any normal state, a question of debating such a monument is a question of certain non-governmental organizations and professional communities. For in a normal situation, this kind of design would have been torpedoed by specialists.”

“This monument story shows its importance from the public viewpoint and reveals the depth to which the reverse processes have gone on in this country. We appeal to highly-renowned officials who did not dare to react one way or another. If you are sure this monument is unnatural from the angle of style and out of place from the taxpayer’s viewpoint, we are supposed to hear the voices of officials. Why don’t they react? But there also are creative people who should not keep silent but instead tell us how to find a way out. A moratorium seems to be the best option so far.”

Larysa SKORYK:

“When I was making a landscape model of Kyiv, I saw that our city’s fantastic landscape had not yet been destroyed and, if you look closely, you will see the green streaks running in fragments from the Dnipro slopes deep into the city. This can make lay out gorgeous landscape belts all over Kyiv, from May Day Park to the Central Stadium. Those slopes are Kyiv’s sacred cow, for their landscape profile goes as far as the Lybid estuary. If we added a bit of this landscape lyricism to the granite-clad square, this would hide, pardon me, the scarecrow of the Moskva Hotel and humanize this part of the square. One should not lay emphasis on the Moskva Hotel; let it live on its life as a hotel. One can use the underground space, while the surface should be covered with greenery. Put some sign: ten years ago Ukraine proclaimed its independence, and only time will show the extent to which the former deserves the latter.”

Volodymyr KANASH:

“I would like to revert to the Budapest monument which so much resembles our design. Incidentally, Budapest is like Kyiv in many respects: e.g., it is also divided into two parts by a river. So Pe s яt, the part of the city where the monument was built, resembles very much Kyiv’s left bank. This used to be outskirts, so it was decided to erect such a portentous monument precisely there. I would like to support the idea that the downtown should be left alone. If one decides to build something, let him do this with due account of the landscape. Moreover, contests for this kind of big project should be international and conducted by an international jury. We should not fear this. For example, the Greeks are now inviting architects from around the globe to take part in reconstructing the Colossus of Rhodes. And they see in this nothing humiliating for their homeland. But, as was noted earlier, we also have a wealth of talented sculptors and architects who could win the competition.”

Serhiy KRYMSKY:

“I would like to support Ms. Skoryk who advanced a very interesting idea about expanding Kyiv’s landscape. The point is Khreshchatyk (derived from Ukrainian khrest, “cross” — Ed.) was not named so in memory of the baptism of Rus. The true reason is that back in the fifth century the geometrical space of Khreshchatyk developed two ‘pockets.’ One ‘pocket’ is the place where the monument is planned to be erected and the other one is Independence Square. We have been gradually destroying this symbol of the cross, laying the foundation of Khreshchatyk and now try to replace it with symbols absolutely alien to Ukraine. Incidentally, I can say this monument’s design is one of unused opportunities. I have professionally studied the archetypes of Ukrainian culture and mentality and can assert that Ukrainian culture does not have the symbol of womanhood now being instilled in this woman. There is the symbol of the Great Mother, but this has been depicted entirely differently; in other words, the externally-imposed image of Motherland is esthetically unworkable and hackneyed. The point is the sources of Ukrainian civilization were connected with Sun worship, which was reflected in the Great Sun adoration of the primordial Slavs. These were very simple and well-known symbols. This is also evidenced by the fact that the St. Sophia and Assumption Cathedrals were topped with discs which were interpreted as the light extracted by the righteous in the dark of catacombs and brought outside. So why not give the golden disc of the sun which could symbolize the adoration of light inherent in our mentality or the Golden Gates? This design ignores simple and well-known symbols. To my mind, even a simple spiral with the first Constitutional article inscribed on its first turn will be much more meaningful as a symbol. Very much has been said here about the idea of monumental propaganda exclusively derived from imperial policies and that all empires in human histories would build, irrespective of financial squeezes crises, and various pseudo-monumental structures. So I would touch upon the following subject in this context: in the nineteenth century, the renowned traveler Marquis de Custine visited Petersburg and, seeing some colonnades, pointed out that porticos were put up in Ancient Greece to keep a structure to the sun a snow-covered column is an aberration. Then the colonnade was made a symbol of empire. A graphic example of this can be the building of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine, where the colonnade is the symbol, esthetic or not, and the face of imperial policies. This is why I think the colonnade planned in the design of Independence Monument will remind us the horrible times of the past. I want to adhere to the opinion that from the esthetic angle this is an outrage pure and simple, and I consider it a point of honor to raise our voices against the construction of this monument.