Traps of the “Russian avant-garde”. Response to the Financial Times review of the Eye of the Storm exhibition – Views

The Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 is not the rising event of the Ukrainian avant-garde. With a letter about it Tatyana Filevska – art critic and creative director of the Ukrainian Institute – turned to Financial Times.

It was her response to the publication’s article dedicated to the exhibition of the Ukrainian avant-garde “In the Eye of the Storm” at the Royal Academy of Arts in London. UP. Culture has the opportunity to make the letter public. In English, you can find it on the English version Ukrainian truth.

I am writing to you in connection with the review “Bright utopias and bitter failure at the exhibition of Ukrainian modernism at the Royal Academy of Arts” Jackie Wullschlager from June 29, 2024.

Of course, it is great that the review of the Ukrainian exhibition made it to the FT. This is one of the few articles about Ukrainian culture in one of the world’s leading media. And this desire to learn more and understand better cannot but be welcomed and appreciated. Especially considering that Ukrainian culture is one of the targets of the Russian army in their brutal war (which was recently recognized by PACE and OSCE as part of genocidal aggression). Spreading information about it is support for the brave resistance of Ukraine.

Of course, it is always difficult to work with a new and relatively unknown topic, which is Ukrainian culture. And it is clear that a lot of effort needs to be made to eliminate traps and fight stereotypes imposed by a Moscow-centric view of the region. In particular, the pitfalls of the Russian interpretation of history at such exhibitions as “Revolution: Russian Art 1917–1932” at the same Royal Academy.

Actually, I would like to draw your attention to some of these traps.

1. The “Russian revolution” trap

The author believes that the exhibition was supposed to illustrate how the Russian revolution inspired and shaped all the artists of the former empire. And there are several points to disagree with.

The concept of the Russian revolution is incorrect if we are talking about the Bolshevik coup of 1917 and the subsequent occupation of a number of independent states, including Ukraine, which arose after the collapse of the Russian Empire. During the years 1917–1921, the Ukrainian People’s Republic was created thanks to the free will of Ukrainians, who finally freed themselves from centuries of imperial colonization.

But even for artists who were called avant-garde in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the events of 1917 did not have a decisive impact. All major innovations in art took place years earlier.

Even “Black Square” by Malevich was exhibited in 1915, and it was one of the last discoveries.

The Bolsheviks used the potential of avant-garde art to communicate with the masses. And the Marxist-Leninist ideology demanded that art be dependent on political events (and never the other way around).

The opening took place on June 29 at the Royal Academy of Arts in London

Embassy of Ukraine to the UK

This connection of the so-called revolution with avant-garde art has recently been promoted by the public diplomacy of the Russian Federation, including a number of exhibitions in the world’s largest museums. In particular, at the Royal Academy of Arts. They were made possible by generous oil and gas financing, which comes from Russian state sources or from Putin’s closest associates.

2. The “Russian identity” trap

It seems that the second task of the author of the article was to attribute Ukrainian artists as Russian, ignoring any other identities they had. When enumerating the artists presented at the exhibition, we read that, in addition to connections with Ukraine, they all worked in “Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities.” The phrase “other cities” hides Paris, Munich, New York, Berlin, Warsaw, Istanbul, etc.

Why is it more important to name two Russian cities than a dozen cities in Europe and the USA? For many of the artists presented at the exhibition, Russia did not play any role: as for Boychuk, who made his career in Paris, or for Bogomazov, Yermylov and Arkhipenko, who studied for one year in Moscow, and spent the rest of their lives in Kyiv and Kharkiv or in Europe/USA.

Oleksandr Bogomazov, “Sawmills”, 1927

National Art Museum of Ukraine

There is no particular need to emphasize Russian connections.

But it is worth mentioning that in the Russian Empire, many professional artists had no choice where to study or work, since the empire did not allow them to obtain higher art education in their provinces, including in Ukraine.

It was a way to drain talent and also to keep the desire for sovereignty in check, as local institutions allowed more freedom of expression. This is why artists like Malevich had to go to Moscow/Petersburg or Europe, not Kyiv, if they wanted to get a professional art education.

3. The “Russian avant-garde” trap

The author refers to the term “Russian avant-garde” and suggests that it includes artists from the entire former Russian Empire, and also gathers artists of various cultures, including Ukraine, under the auspices of Russianness. If this term refers to a phenomenon from the entire empire, then it would be more correct to call it the imperial or Russian-imperial avant-garde.

The exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts was held, in particular, in order to take a critical look at this problematic concept, which is so little discussed in Western academic circles and the art community.

The fact that a joint Ukrainian-British curatorial group brought it to the Royal Academy of Arts is a big step forward in this debate.

Alexandra Exter, “Three Female Figures, 1909-1910”

National Art Museum of Ukraine

Even if we discuss the terms “Ukrainian avant-garde” vs “avant-garde in Ukraine”, we must remember that Ukrainian artists of that time chose the Ukrainian language as the language of literature and theater, and also admired Mykola Khvylovy’s slogan “Get away from Moscow!”.

4. Trap of ignorance

Several facts stand out. Chagall has nothing to do with the exhibition and Ukrainian art. He is quoted without any reason.

Malevich deliberately dated his early canvases, created in the late 1920s, with later dates, because he claimed that the history of easel painting had ended. And also because he needed to reproduce his works for a solo exhibition in 1929, while most of his early works were stuck in Berlin. Charlotte Douglas explored this phenomenon.

Boychuk was shot because of accusations of national-bourgeois views, not for formalism. Exter lived in Kyiv for 35 years.

There are various reasons for the global ignorance of what Ukrainian culture is: the colonial position in the Russian Empire and the USSR, Russia’s long-term policy aimed at destroying and belittling Ukrainian culture, the appropriation of Ukrainian heritage and talents, and the Russian monopoly on the representation of the region. And last but not least, Russian disinformation.

Highlighting art from Ukraine is an important act of support and solidarity, as well as a tool to check one’s own collections, both public and private, for objects labeled as Russian but actually part of Ukrainian heritage.

Preparation of works for the exhibition.

Museum of Theater, Music and Film Arts of Ukraine

Ukrainian culture can give a lot to the world and add to the global agenda. Despite all the challenges and destruction, it survived and continues to produce meaning and unite creative people. There are answers to European and global problems that can be found, there are solutions that can be achieved, puzzles that can be put together – if you discover the knowledge, experience and meanings that Ukrainian culture can share. While everything Russian will remain under strict sanctions for more than one decade.

This conversation about Ukrainian culture has only just begun. We hope that this trend will develop into more regular coverage and even, I would like, into cooperation with Ukrainian authors and the local artistic community.

Tatyana Filevskacreative director of the Ukrainian Institute specially for UP.Zhyttia.

Publications in the “View” section are not editorial articles and reflect exclusively the author’s point of view.