Remembering the Manmade Famine: What Kind of Memorial Should Be Built?
Kyiv has just conducted a public debate as part of the second all-Ukrainian competition for the best design of a memorial complex to victims of the manmade famine (Holodomor) and political repressions. It will be recalled that Ukraine’s parliament, cabinet, and president have issued a number of instruction on building the complex. The latter will comprise a museum, an international research center, and a commemorative sign. The first competition was held almost a year ago and produced no results: there was no winner, with just a few competitors being awarded consolation prizes. In addition, there were fundamental differences over the complex’s whereabouts: while parliament decided that the territory of what is now military police headquarters next to the Arsenalna subway station should be the place, the city administration wanted to locate the memorial by the Dnipro — in Primakov Park near the Paton Bridge. The reason would seem very simple: the city authorities intend to erect... a high-rise at the place preferred by parliament. There were other options also, for example, the territory of Lukyanivske Cemetery.
Yet, Deputy Minister of Culture and Arts Vasyl Romanchyshyn thinks that postponing the competition is to some extent positive. First, the number of designs has increased twofold to 42, and, secondly, there were also proposals from the regions and even one from Australia. Protracted discussions have at last resulted in choosing the place of the commemorative sign — in the park where the monument to Volodymyr the Great stands. Some projects include a small underground museum beneath the sign. By decision of the Kyiv authorities, the building at 4b Triokhsviatytelska Street will house the research center.
As to the designs, experts regret to know the abundance of heavy emotions and “vulgar naturalism.” “To convey the essence of what happened seventy years ago, the commemorative sign should be an allegory, a parable; the museum should exhibit documents and photos showing the horrors of famine; and the sculpture ought to symbolize a mighty spirit,” a competitor noted. In his view, there are also too many crosses in the architectural compositions, while this locality should be dominated with only the crosses of St. Volodymyr and St. Michael’s Gold-Domed Cathedral.
Others do not agree with him: architect Larysa Skoryk considers this viewpoint unfounded, “This is a symbol of the peasantry, so why should the deceased be denied this? After all, the cross symbolizes the unity of the sky and the earth.” And the winner is precisely one of such designs. As was forecasted by many experts, the absolute majority of votes (18 of 22) was given to the work by two Kyivans, chief professor and student of the National Academy of the Arts, Roman and Dmytro Seliuks. The composition’s main accent is a tracery cross, the vertical part of it being shaped as an ear of wheat. It will stand on a hill under wheat crops. In the fall and spring, the hill becomes a ploughed field for a while, and again repeats the cycle of growing grain of which peasants were deprived in 1932-1933. A simple and simultaneously optimistic idea contained in this project favorably distinguishes it among the other 42, in the experts’ opinion.
In addition to experts’ conclusion “Recommended for implementation,” the contest winners obtained a 20,000 hryvnias money award. Winners of the second and third prizes, sculptor Mykola Oliynyk and the Lviv-based V. and A. Sukhorsky, received, respectively, 15,000 and 10,000 hryvnias along with the right to carry out their project in one of Ukraine’s cities. The jury also marked two other works that were constituent parts of other compositions: an angel and a girl with wheat ears (in the photo). These sculptures will be erected in the park near the St. Michael Golden-Domed Monastery and monument to St. Volodymyr.
Simple as this idea seems to be, it is very ingenious and clear: “there is some soft Ukrainian lyricism as well as the symbols of death and rebirth in it,” Ms. Skoryk says.
“If we promote the subject of Holodomor (although many still treat it as obvious ‘exotica’), we must understand: it is the duty of all Ukrainians that the memorial should stand in Kyiv’s epicenter, on a Dnipro cliff,” says Ms. Skoryk. In her opinion, the first competition was beset with problems because this rule was disregarded and it was proposed to choose between “a cemetery and almost a beach.”
“I think all doubts stem from superficial treatment of the subject: there is no better place to perpetuate the memory of the dead than a cathedral or a monastery (especially one that was also repressed), where God and the Spirit dwell, where one can light a candle and gather his thoughts. This is even better than the earlier-suggested guardhouse.” She also believes the Lavra area would do, but the newly built apartment blocks and “elite” garages have disfigured the landscape beyond recognition. The architect thinks that any other place — outside downtown Kyiv — will only cause us to blot out our memory. Whatever one may say, the current decision was made not thanks but contrary to the opinion of some deputies. “Kyiv authorities are very reluctant to give away such precious downtown land on the Dnipro’s slopes. We must give Kyiv’s Mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko his due: he finally sided with the experts who chose Triokhsviatytelska Street as the best place,” Ms. Skoryk says.
It was stressed again that the commemorative sign would and should have nothing “pompous or verbose” — first, because the territory is really protected by law, and, secondly, because “great, especially dramatic, ideas require concentrated and symbolic means of expression.” As was mentioned above, the research center is to be organized in a renovated building on Triokhsviatytelska Street. “All talk about changing the place shows that those people have lost the sense of deep sympathy with those who deserve that Kyivans visit their memorial more often than once a year, as is the case with other monuments,” Ms. Skoryk adds. “This should be a place where one could reflect on human sin and human steadfastness. It should also be a place of remembering, not mourning.”
