The artist who said “No”!

An absolutely absurd situation emerged in Kyiv the other day, which in fact exposes a few unhealthy tendencies among those usually referred to as intelligentsia. The news that it is planned to grant ex-President Leonid Kuchma the title of honorary member of the League of Painters (!) was at first received by many, including the League’s current members, as a joke. But when it turned out that it was more than serious, they voted against but failed to voice their clear attitude to this uncommon event.

Interestingly, this tragicomedy has hardly caused a stir in society as well as in the artistic milieu itself – just perhaps some joking. It is a pity.

The 1+1 TV channel journalists, who attended the League’s plenary meeting on May 26, filmed this bizarre event. It was Oleksii Rohotchenko, chief of the art critique section, who nominated Leonid Kuchma’s candidature. He forbade recording his speech about the ex-president’s major contribution to this country’s cultural life. The journalists briefly say in their program that Rohotchenko compared Kuchma with the well-known art patrons and sang the candidate’s praises for his special merits in Ukraine’s art sphere. There is no particular stir, surprise or indignation in the room where the current League members – painters, sculptors, and art critics – are seated. It is just a routine sitting, a routine item to discuss, even though the ex-president does not meet any criteria. In other words, the procedure was to bypass all the rules. Even the politically indifferent (is this possible among intellectuals?) should have recalled that there are no official grounds for admitting Kuchma to the League.

The only one who can’t stand it any more and takes the floor is mural painter Oleksandr Melnyk. The Day’s readers know him as curator of the Historical Painting Biennale and an active participant in the Revolution of Dignity. He says briefly that it is absurd and if the League members choose to vote for Kuchma’s membership, this will sure be, at the same time, a vote to expel Oleksandr Melnyk from the League. “For this is a shame which the League will never wash away,” he says.

“I said in my speech that I do not consider Kuchma a human being – I just couldn’t find a word to characterize him as precisely as possible. He is an ‘evil spirit’ that reduced Ukraine to the condition which it cannot still scramble out of. His family stands behind all the shade schemes and corruption systems, to say nothing about Gongadze,” Melnyk says to The Day. “It is common knowledge what this man did to this country in his two presidencies. How on earth can a man like this be granted honorary membership? The whole situation is completely absurd. This would have been a terrible disgrace to the League. I could not possibly have been in a league like this.”

The voting result is as follows: 13 – against, 3 – for (including Rohotchenko), with the rest abstaining. Only one person, Oleksandr Melnyk, voiced his principled attitude. That’s all.

Photo by Andrii YELOVIKOV

“I think it is absolute nonsense. Once there were ‘honorary members’ often dubbed as ‘wedding-party generals,’ but this was practiced at the level of academy members. But I can’t recall anything of the sort at the League of Painters. You know, it seems to be a comic situation, but, for some reason, you don’t feel like laughing,” says Yaroslav Kravchenko, Ph.D. (art history), member of the National League of Ukrainian Painters. “How could they go so far as to invite Kuchma to the league after two revolutions, when, incidentally, the best artists showed their civic and professional position on the Maidan by creating a series of artworks. It is their humiliation pure and simple. I think it is the handiwork of art sphere bureaucrats. There have always been this kind of games with artistic leagues – in the eras of Stalin, Brezhnev, and Khrushchev – but today it looks fully absurd. And the controversial attitude of some league members, who voted ‘yes’ or just don’t want to say ‘no’ publicly and in a well-reasoned way, preferring to keep a low profile, can be explained very simply – it is the ‘syndrome of a shot-dead renaissance.’ A certain part of today’s artists and writers adhere to a deep-seated principle of ‘it’s no concern of mine,’ a principle of conformism and flattery.”

Eduard DYMSHYTS, art critic, member of the National League of Ukrainian Painters:

“This question was discussed at a session of the critique section of the National League of Ukrainian Painters, and, as I understood, it is the league’s critique section that Leonid Kuchma wanted to join. When I came to the session and was told about this initiative, I, naturally, voted against his candidature. Why did I vote against?

“The answer is very simple: I find it difficult to recall any of Mr. Kuchma’s professional works associtaed with art, especially art critique. I had no hesitations at all – only against! Any artistic communinty that respsects its profession should consider admitting new members on the basis of their professional qualities rather than such things as repute, wealth, or ambition. This matter should in general be put outside politics, so I don’t even want to speak about Kuchma’s human virtues or professional gains. It is only important to me that, I say it again, he has nothing to do with our profession. Yes, the League of Painters will hardly set the Thames on fire today, but if you are part of this organization, you shoulds at least respect it – also by admitting new worthy members.”