Monument in the Maidan: Symbol of Ukraine’s Independence?
Oleksandr DERHACHOV, Politychna Dumka, editor-in-chief:
I believe this is not a simple yes or no question. The thing is that Ukraine is in constant search of itself, of national symbols able to rally our state’s citizens into a single nation. This process is far from simple. A symbol might work here which has existed, taken root, and been transformed during all the years of Ukrainian history, while artificially creating such a symbol is practically impossible. I can say that the existing symbol is characterized by both the provincial and the primitive; perhaps, in some way it even turns to the past. However, we should mention that there are various people among Ukrainians, and what is absolutely or partially unacceptable to the intelligentsia can fit for and find understanding with many citizens, especially if the quality state propaganda machinery is geared up.
Yury PAVLENKO, Ph.D., chief research fellow, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences:
The authors of the Monument to Independence in Maidan Nezalezhnosty [Independence Square] made an attempt to combine incompatible styles: the Ukrainian baroque with its imperial features and the classical image of a column or a monument. These things belong to absolutely different genres, and combining them demonstrates all the eclecticism of what is going on in our country. Speaking about the female figure at the top of the column, in my opinion, the very fact that it stands on a sphere is a vivid characteristic of Ukraine and the ten years during which it had to balance trying not to fall down. Balancing on a ball is a very complicated acrobatic trick requiring constant concentration; it also takes much effort, and there is always the risk of failure. If the authors of the monument wanted to demonstrate the solidity of the Ukrainian state, they should have chosen some other architectural form, which would look more solid.
Myroslav POPOVYCH, philosopher, corresponding member of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science:
It seems to me that the monument is a large pretense to classicism, but in this case it looks artificial. The new monument became an organic part of the whole picture already existing in Kyiv: the Iron Lady (the monstrous Motherland Monument dwarfing the Monastery of the Caves — Ed.) on the shore of the Dnipro, Yoke of Nations (the particularly servile monument to the friendship of Soviet peoples marring Europe Square, formerly the Square of the Leninist Communist Youth League — Ed.), etc. And all this is in spite of the fact that times have changed, but, alas, the stylistics remain the same. I believe it would not be this way if conditions for the contest of architectural works and deadline for the designs and construction of the monument were different. Speaking about whether this monument can really claim to be a symbol of Ukraine’s independence and national unity, I am not sure about how today’s young people will accept. In my view, for the next generation of Ukrainians it will be nothing but a memory, as well as the other monuments contributing to the embellishment of our capital.
