With the fall of communism, eastern Europe’s art scene began to take on a completely new form and began to present new works of art that were not previously displayed. Curators would begin to take charge of museums and art galleries throughout the east and present these new revolutionary works.

Without Soviet control these curators were allowed to showcase whatever art they desired in their galleries. New post modern artist began to emerge in these galleries, taking their new found freedoms to their advantage to showcase revolutionary art that conveyed new messages that were previously censored by the communist régime.

Curators saw this new art and openly and actively pursued to present it to the public. The position of the curator of a museum of gallery was one of the most influential to the newly discovered art scene. They had the ability to create new narratives about art and dominate how the new art movement was formed.

Without these new curators taking advantage of the positions they were in, the modern art movement in Eastern Europe may have not grown to become as influential on its observers as it was. The curators shaped the movement by presenting works they saw as the most revolutionary and influential at the time. If not for their work this art would not have gained the recognition it did, in turn possibly shifting the entire post soviet art movement in a different direction.

Curators are essential to the art movement still today in dictating what art is displayed for public view. Without curator’s, art would be displayed throughout public view and not gain the recognition it deserves or receive the wrong recognition for its perceived message. They are the essential part of the art movement by coordinating and collecting works to be displayed together. Without Curators, art would undoubtedly move in a different direction in society then it does.

This weeks reading of “Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias” by Michel Foucault was one of the most interesting, yet complicated and confusing pieces of text we have read in this class. It requires one to think about things in a new perspective. What exactly is a Utopia or Heterotopia in our society? Does it truly exist, and if so where? How can we justify a space as either of these? And if it is neither, then what is this space?

Before a space can be classified to one of these categories you must understand exactly what a Utopia or a Heterotopia is. Webster’s Dictionary defines a Utopia as an imaginary place in which everything is perfect, though if it is only imaginary and does not exist no space can properly be classified as utopian. So if a space is not utopian is must be heterotopian, but how can we prove this true? A heterotopia is defined by Foucault as space that functions under non-hegemonic conditions; or a space where no one has true control, is not freely accessable, yet serves a function in relation to those in the space.

Foucault gives us six principles that define to us exactly what justifies a heterotopias space. Each principle with its own example and with a quality that makes you wonder what other spaces may have these same qualities. The best example given though to a heterotopias space is a boat. The boat is a space with no true place that exists on its own over time and is not freely accessible to others. The boat serves as a heterotopia floating around in space. But what other space holds these same characteristics as the boat, a space that is separate from space?

However if we take a step back and think about what exactly makes up a heterotopia we can begin to see that almost all space can fit into this classification, an example being a town square. At first we see the square and think that there is no way it is a heterotopia since it is public space, it can be freely accessed, and constitutes as an exact place, where a heterotopia does not. This is where we are wrong; it is not the exact place, but the space within the square that constitutes the heterotopia. Also, even though it seems like a space that may be freely accessable, there is a slight cost to entering the square, ranging from dealing with the propaganda surrounding the square, the other people in the square, there are things that make the space not ideal and is ultimately the cost for entering the space. The Square is also linked to time, meaning that several different heterotopias could all take place within the same square due to different activities occurring in the square at different times. And lastly, there is not one culture or group within the square at a time, staying consistent with the principles that constitute this space as a heterotopia.

We may see a space and not see how it can be classified as anything, but that is not the reality. Though a Utopia may not exist, all other spaces can constitute a heterotopia based on the principles set forth by Foucault. Any and all spaces consist of one or more heterotopias interacting with each other and creating different heterotopias in the space.

With the current censorship going on in Ukraine to try and stop the revolution, art has become such an influential way for members of the movement to communicate and move people behind the movement. By either ways of art galleries or social media, the art community has become a driving force in the movement against the government in Euromaidan. Due to this, militants are targeting and trying to stop the spread of their ideologies portrayed through such art exhibits and threatening many of the leaders of the movement.

One such instance occurred on Tuesday, September 23, 2014, when the instructor at a local university in Ukraine was attacked in Kontraktova Square outside of a metro stop by a group of men wearing camouflage uniforms. Vasyl Cherepanyn, PhD of Theory of Art, is a lecturer at the Cultural Studies Department at the National University ”Kyiv-Mohyla Academy” and is the predominant figure behind the art exhibit “The Ukrainian Body” in 2012. He was recently involved in helping organize the international conference “Ukraine: Thinking Together”. All this involvement with the art movement is believed to be the reasoning behind the attack.

“The Ukrainian Body” Art Exhibit

 

 

 

 

With all the censorship in Ukraine, especially porn and nudity, having an art exhibit portraying naked people was bound to stir up a lot of controversy. Many people viewed the exhibit as pornography, and promoting homosexuality, which led to it almost instantly being shut down by the government, though it was allowed to stay open for the press and private viewings, though it received constant protest from military and right wing activist. All of this ultimately led to Cherepanyn to issue a public appeal to the government asking for them to cease their military aggression and to support Ukrainian Democracy.

Obviously all this push by Cherepanyn has brought a lot of attention towards himself from the government and people opposed to the revolutionary movement. However, the attack on Tuesday comes as a total shock to those who back Cherepanyn in the movement. The men who attacked him have not been identified as either government sanctioned militants, or “Ukrainian Neo-Nazis”, though the claims have come through that he was attacked for being a “separatist”. Though no matter the cause, he was clearly targeted for his involvement in revolutionary acts in Ukraine.

With all the censorship inside the Ukraine it is essential that someone, such as Cherepanyn, takes a stand and goes to such extreme lengths to help the movement. Though with attacks like the one on Tuesday, many others fear to take such a stand on these issues, as they do not want to face the same fate as Cherepanyn. It is unlikely that the attackers will be caught or prosecuted for their attacks either. But without anyone willing to risk taking a stand and push revolutionary ideas out into society the revolution will move nowhere.

 

Works Cited

Mostovych, Anna. “University lecturer attacked in Kyiv.” 24 September 2014. Euromaidan Press. 25 September 2014 <http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/09/24/university-lecturer-attacked-in-kyiv/>.

Shekhovtsov, Anton. “Ukrainian intellectual was attacked by paramilitary right-wing thugs in Kyiv.” 24 September 2014. Anton Shekhovtsov’s Blog. 25 September 2014 <http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2014/09/ukrainian-intellectual-was-attacked-by.html>.

 

 

With a changing art scene in post soviet Russia many different artist began trying new forms of art, some of which were accepted, others highly rejected. A separation seemed to be emerging between eastern and western art, along with separate views from each on the art. What one person saw as revolutionary and groundbreaking another saw as trash, disrespectful, and vandalism.

But is this art truly vandalism? Or is it simply someone portraying a view and searching for others reactions. It is “Art for Arts Sake”. It represents something that makes you think outside of the box, what is the artist is trying to say to its viewers? Even though some of this art does not fit what society might classify as art because it is not astatically pleasing, it is still art. For art as defined by Merriam- Webster’s dictionary is something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings. So even if some say something is vandalism or trash that is nearly an opinion, for it conveys an idea through its expression. And that is exactly what Kulik did with his “Dog”, express an idea through his performance.

His “Dog” was seen in the east, where it was first presented, as “skinhead ideology” and rejected by most who saw it. A new category of art emerged classifying the “Dog” and other artistic acts like it as vandalism since it did not fit into any other art classification. Simply because there was a new radical form of art that wasn’t astatically pleasing or could have a value placed on and sold, it was rejected by the art community. It was as if they had lost track of what art actually was, a way to relay a message through ones ideas.

The “Dog” was a way of Kulik trying to reach out to the community, to get them to open their eyes to what was happening in their society. By living as a dog, Kulik represented how much of lower class Russians lived, how they are falling out of civilization and treated as dogs by the upper class ruling society. However, that’s just my perception of his piece. Art is made to make people think, for someone to present an idea through an image to society, to provide a different way of seeing an idea. So even if apiece is seen by some as an act of vandalism, or rejected by critics and those alike, it is still art, it is doing its purpose, and presenting an idea through imagery in order to get a reaction from its viewers.