Venice Biennale as a Mirror of Ukrainian Ways

The life of the arts in Ukraine, especially its main venue, Kyiv, continues at its usual leisurely pace. The loud provocations, even scandals that can generally serve to liven such things up happen rarely if at all. Why should they? We are all engrossed in our own problems. The artists paint, now and then exhibiting their works (depending on individual productivity), and some visit their displays, even buying something. Occasionally an artist decides to broaden his or her horizons and ventures an exposition in the West. Such projects are not often successful. Once again, this is done on a purely private basis. Want to spend your money and nerves? Be our guest! We are just fine staying home. But then people like Yuri Onukh come out of nowhere.

He appeared in Ukrainian art in 1990 as the curator of numerous exhibits that made headlines. In 1997 he headed the Modern Art Center in Kyiv, which became perhaps the only such entity with a consistent strategy aimed at the development of Ukrainian modern art. Small wonder that Yuri Onukh should raise the question about Ukraine being still absent at the Venice Biennale, the world’s largest modern art exhibition. Considering that holding a nation’s presentation is the prerogative of the government (ministry of culture) of a given country, it was only natural for him to bring up the issue with the Ukrainian authorities. He must have been sufficiently convincing, for the idea was officially approved, and Onukh was appointed the presentation’s curator, with Yevhen Karas acting as commissioner. Yet even then the local artistic community remained unmoved; no one knew what would come of the project, so why get excited? Meanwhile, a task force was set up under Onukh and went to work. I can add only that their work was like building a whimsical mosaic. They could not expect anyone to look forward to their appearance in Europe; few knew much about Ukraine, and what they did made them somewhat wary. Thus they had to use personal contacts, seek sponsors, spend long hours in various offices, persuading bureaucrats that the presentation was necessary and had to be supported, rent adequate exhibition premises in Venice, and then spend quite some time talking the lessor into delaying the rent, because the promised funds had not as yet been received.

Finally, as the mosaic pattern was practically ready, it turned out that the arts community was strongly opposed to the very project proposed by the team of two artists, Masoch Foundation founders Ihor Podolchak and Ihor Diurych, preparing the presentation.

Then it happened, the long-awaited scandal, and now there was every reason to expect creative lances to be broken and an exciting creative dispute which, even if not establishing the truth, would give plenty of food for domestic contemporary artistic thought. True, there was a strongly embarrassing aspect; the dispute could well turn out belated. Figuratively speaking, was it reasonable for a gravid woman to complain about choosing the wrong partner in her ninth month? We are civilized, after all. In any case, we try to appear that way in the eyes of the international community, so maybe we should have remembered half a year back that there are things like birth control and family planning. As it was, no creative dispute ensued and it was very sad, because everybody realized that all the fuss with the Biennale was just another bureaucratic game played by the Jesuitical rules, with motivations ranging from the fear to losing office, desire to satisfy one’s ambitions, or make a profit. In short, there were more than enough motivations. But what does all this have to do with art or with building Ukraine’s positive image in the international arena, something such games are supposed to be about? This remained unclear. On the other hand, one should not be surprised. The Biennale is just an excuse. Quite often similar situations develop in various spheres, particularly when privatizing different kinds of property.

Are you interested in how the Biennale saga ends? Does it really matter? What truly matters is whether the Ukrainian national presentation will take place in Venice. No one is really sure.

IN LIEU OF AFTERWORD

Yuri ONUKH, former curator of the presentation:

Yevhen Karas, officially appointed presentation commissioner by the Ministry of Culture and the Arts, made me curator of the Ukrainian presentation in September 2000. On March 22 I learned from a Kyiv newspaper quoting a cabinet press release that the government had appointed another commissioner who had selected another curator, and that a new project had been adopted to represent Ukraine at the Biennale. No one had informed me about the replacements and none of the artists had been told to stop working on the original project.

All this is already known as the Biennale scandal and everything happened after the newspaper Literaturna Ukrayina carried an open letter from the Artists’ Union on February 15, 2000, addressed to the Minister of Culture and the Arts, urging the dismissal of the presentation commissioner and me as its official curator. As for me, the main argument was my non-Ukrainian nationality (I am a citizen of Poland and Canada, and have worked in Kyiv since 1997). The letter made no mention of the fact that I conceived the idea of Ukraine’s participation in the 49

th Biennale and convinced Minister of Culture Bohdan Stupka and Vice Premier for Humanitarian Issues Mykola Zhulynsky that Ukraine should take part in this most prestigious international modern art exhibit. In September the ministry announced its decision to participate in the Biennale and appointed the commissioner, Yevhen Karas, then a cultural advisor to the minister of culture. Mr. Karas chose me to be the curator and his choice was agreed upon with the minister.

All the preparations for the Ukrainian presentations were absolutely transparent and public; there were press conferences and press releases at every stage. The trouble came from backstage, as not all had accepted the Biennale rules. Valentyn Rayevsky and others wanted what they called an alternative presentation backed by the parliamentary Committee on Spiritual and Cultural Affairs. After the ministry told the committee the issue was out of its province, they withdrew. After most of the preparatory work had been done the Artists’ Union of Ukraine stepped in, usurping the project, saying the union was the only structure with the prerogative to decide who should represent Ukraine at international festivals. In this way its interests turned out more important than professionalism and competence. It turned out more important to defend one’s controlling status. AUU and the Art Academy seem to have made quite some headway in pressuring Vice Premier Zhulynsky to have the cabinet resolve to appoint a new commissioner, Mr. Oleksandr Fedoruk, Chairman of the State Service for the Oversight of the Transfer of Cultural Values Abroad, and Mr. Valentyn Rayevsky became the new curator.

Coming out with the initiative of Ukraine’s participation in the Venice Biennale, I wanted to show that Ukraine can be a party to the creative discussion side by side with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this society turned out to possess a lot of deeply rooted interests and those who don’t want to part with their Soviet- type control and privileges.

Halyna SKLIARENKO, art critic:

State structures have no control over the situation in the arts. They are professionally incompetent and they actually take no stand at all. This is precisely what causes all these squabbles among artists. If the Ministry of Culture and the Arts took somebody’s side from the outset — I mean precisely who should represent Ukrainian art at the Venice Biennale — we wouldn’t have the situation we do. The ministry wanted to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds — siding with those capable of putting more pressure on it — and this triggered off the conflict. It’s an absurd situation, and it may well happen that no one will go anywhere to exhibit anything.

Viktor MARUSHCHENKO, Oleksandr ROITBURD, participants in the International Exhibit of the 49th Venice Biennale:

What the Artists’ Union and Art Academy did can be described as a coup aimed at replacing a purely professional issue by a nomenklatura one. Moreover, the AUU members involved in this coup do not belong with modern professionals and do not understand the Biennale’s specifics, just as they do not realize the festival’s importance in the world of art. The situation is likely to result in: (1) the Venice Biennale refusing to cooperate with the Ukrainian presentation as such, because it is contrary to the festival’s rules and tradition; hence Ukraine’s presentation will not take place at the 49th Biennale; or (2) a politically colored scandal focused on the Ukrainian presentation.

As for artists siding with the nomenklatura to reach their quickly passing goals, their conduct blocks their own creative paths and those of the nation’s entire creative environment.

Kestus KUZINAS, manager of the State Center of Modern Art, Vilnius, commissioner of the Biennale’s Lithuanian presentation:

I was very perplexed by the situation with Ukraine’s participation in the Venice Biennale. Stopping the process at this stage is simply insane. If it happens, I think Ukraine won’t stand a chance of making its first presentation this year: first, because the international community will reject it — and a negative attitude is already felt in Venice — and, second, technically there is little time left to start on any so-called new project.