As for Tistol and Reunov, despite their certain formal closeness to the “Ukrainian wave,” there is still a fundamental ideological difference. Many young Kyiv colleagues regard the “post-eclectics” with caution, suspecting them of insincerity. From the outside, their program looks like nothing more than a lockpick successfully chosen for the “Moscow castle,” and the peculiar everyday situation, freely or involuntarily formed by Reunov and Tistol, is also unsettling. They opposed the turmoil of “post-eclecticism” to the metaphysical calm of the unquestionable leaders and founders of the “Ukrainian wave,” A. Savadov and G. Senchenko. Moreover, involuntarily parodying the situation among Kyiv youth, naturally influenced strongly by Savadov’s work and personality, Reunov and Tistol began recruiting their supporters. It can be said that the first mobilization into the ranks of the “willful edge” has already been completed. I do not dare to deny the accusation of an Oedipus complex towards the “fathers” — the founders of the “Ukrainian school,” although I note that the Oedipus complex can be a driver of progress.
As for the first accusation, I dare to assert that it is incorrect. The element of “programmatic cynicism” is undoubtedly present in the theoretical constructions of Reunov and Tistol, but they have never hidden it. To the “transcendental cosmopolitanism” of postmodernists, the “national post-eclectics” opposed not only an actualized grotesque but also their “Ukrainianness,” declaring it as the cornerstone of their own program. This is where the “willful edge” began. The essence of the “willful edge of national post-eclecticism” in practice boiled down to the use of hackneyed national (or regional) symbol-stereotypes in a grotesque context. The artists explained such use as the only way to escape the aestheticization of reality, since they also poetize the signs used, not just operate with them. Still, their work is typologically close to social art. To be fair, it should be added that “national art” turned out to be not as straightforward as its social ancestor, and purely painterly qualities largely softened its literariness. Here we must return to the declarative “Ukrainianness” of Tistol and Reunov. I fear that for artists who regret today that there is a “Ukrainian wave” but the “Ukrainian khvylya” has not yet formed, the Dionysian dance of Tistol and Reunov may seem a far more dangerous heresy than the “rootless cosmopolitanism” of postmodernism, because even the post-eclectics, dancing the jig on the “graves of the fathers,” hinder the further flourishing of the national salon, so dear to the hearts of representatives of the emerging “khvylya.” Ultimately, Reunov and Tistol use not so much the clichés of national culture as a peculiar subculture characteristic of eastern Ukraine, which can be defined as the culture of Surzhyk. This word denotes a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian languages spoken by the Kyiv population, mostly without realizing it. But Surzhyk is not only a language. It is also a falsified history filled with clichés, and a riotous bloom of national kitsch. It is the chestnut candle, the girl in a wreath, and thousands of meters of canvas used by Kyiv painters to depict the “Kyiv slopes” and landscapes of “Picturesque Ukraine.” Despite all their differences, both artists are united in that they embodied the poetics of Surzhyk (perhaps unconsciously) in a visual language that structurally surprisingly resembles linguistic Surzhyk, since both consist of a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian elements. This material is limitless and creatively still uncomprehended. Its comical beauty guarantees the sincerity of Reunov’s and Tistol’s intentions.Comment type: Published comment
Author: Kostyantyn Akinscha
Bibliography:
Levashov V. Another Face: Ukrainian Phenomenon (View from Moscow) / Vladimir Levashov // Decorative Art of the USSR. — 1989. — No. 12. — P. 29.
Sources: Akinscha K. The Poetics of Surzhyk, or Kyiv-style Cutlet (Poetyka surzhyku, abo kotleta po-kyyivsʹky) // Decorative Art, 1989. — No. 3. – 26
