On May 24 of this year, an exhibition “Places” featuring three laureates of the Malevich Prize – Alevtina Kahidze (2008), Stas Volyazlovsky (2010), and Zhanna Kadyrova (2012) – opened at the National Art Museum of Ukraine in Kyiv.
The project was first shown at the “Arsenal” gallery in Bialystok (Poland). The opening in Kyiv was planned for February 21, 2014. But around 100 people were killed between February 18-20, and the event was postponed because of this.
The curator of the exhibition and member of the Kazimir Malevich Prize jury, Monika Shevchik, emphasized in her concept that the NAMU was chosen deliberately. The barricade line ran right in front of it: “On one side – the buildings of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Presidential Administration, the Verkhovna Rada; on the other – Maidan and European Square, where citizens of Ukraine gathered to declare: enough of abusing state instruments, enough corruption and disregard for the opinions, freedoms, rights, and duties of citizens.”
It was logical to assume that the “Polish” format and the “Kyiv” one would differ – due to the impossibility of not reflecting on the events in Ukraine. However, Stas Volyazlovsky insists on the original form of his conceptual idea – not because he is indifferent to his homeland, but due to a principled position: his installation “Cozy” was initially far from politics and there is no reason (for the sake of anything or anyone) to change anything in it. The artist’s right. That is what we are talking about.
Yulia Manukyan: What, besides the general concept, united the three of you in this exhibition?
Stas Volyazlovsky: Nothing except that we are laureates of the Malevich Prize. Absolutely different artists, absolutely different works. Despite the fact that the curator’s concept of the exhibition mentions both the deaths of people on Maidan and the then-relevant “slogans” about fighting corruption and other abuses by Yanukovych’s government, you will not find any political subtext in my work. The concept of the installation “Cozy” was conceived long before all these events. It was first shown in Poland, and at that time there was no hint of Maidan.
Y.M.: Then it’s clear. And now? Surely those “revolutionary codes” that permeate the current art space have not slipped into it? I am not talking about direct opportunism, which, however, is hard to distinguish from patriotism (both sincerely manifest themselves), but about the formed habit of politicizing any socially and culturally significant event.
S.V.: No, it did not affect me. This despite the fact that earlier I did not avoid politics, depicting well-known political figures. But they and everything related to them were part of the set of symbols typical of chanson art and carried no specific political message. By the way, when we were preparing the installation, a Ukrainian wreath lay nearby. Someone jokingly put it on the dog’s sculpture head – it looked funny. But I later removed it from the composition. The only difference from the previous exhibition was the increase in the number of objects, as the hall is large and the space needed to be filled organically. As a result, there were two almost identical interiors – mirroring each other, except for a couple of “decorative” details.
Y.M.: What is the meaning of the identity?
S.V.: Such “coziness” is not a unique phenomenon but a template, an interior cliché. This series can be continued endlessly – just as endless are the “designer” repetitive homes of “ordinary citizens.” The installation is interactive: anyone can sit in the armchair, watch my video works on the TV. Try on my coziness for themselves.
Y.M.: Nevertheless, a very clear parallel has formed: your “cozy” interiors and the luxurious entourage of Mezhyhirya – products of the same aesthetics (read: mentality). And the only difference is the price. This is confirmed both conceptually (according to the curator’s vision) and logically – on the museum’s first floor, there is an exhibition of items from Mezhyhirya and Pshonka’s house (“Mezhyhirya Code”). Even the most impartial viewer, passing through it, will put two and two together. Does this interpretation of your work, somewhat imposed by circumstances and location, not bother you?
S.V.: You can’t escape it. The internet is flooded with photos of Pshonka’s apartments and the like. So, willingly or not, the viewer will have certain associations. By the way, I myself did not specifically look at photos of Mezhyhirya; acquaintances sent them to me. But I did visit this exhibition with “Yanukovych’s treasures.”
Y.M.: Your impression?
S.V.: I am not surprised at all. Yanukovych and all the others “in power and money” are our people, flesh of the common folk. I would be very surprised if their homes were decorated in minimalism or German constructivism style. That would be a real break of the template! But everything is quite natural. Give the common man the same financial opportunities, he will replace artificial flowers with real palms and surely won’t resist a golden toilet, or at least something golden in the interior. To make it beautiful. Moreover, I am sure such beauty can be found somewhere in Eastern Europe. I even saw a shop in Stockholm selling mink hats. People, especially the older generation, are conservative in their ideas of beauty. By the way, a telling example: when I was taking from a hypermarket for the installation sculptures of the most tacky kind (Cupid, kitty, doggy, etc.), the security guard, looking at this wealth, admiringly said: “Add a little fountain and it will be Bombay!” And he might well hate Yanukovych, love Ukraine, maybe even threw Molotov cocktails… I do not want to offend anyone, but there is something plebeian in such greedy curiosity about the lord’s life.
Y.M.: Did nothing catch your attention at the “Mezhyhirya Code”? There were funny things, weren’t there?
S.V.: One painting made me laugh, in the style of canvases from Andriyivskyy Descent. Yanukovych and Pshonka, leaning towards each other, hold a bouquet of roses – tenderly, like a baby. As if they were receiving a newborn from the maternity hospital. They posed, apparently, for a photo. At the same time, Yanukovych’s face is pierced, the prosecutor general’s is cut. And that was a mistake – a cool kitsch work. It shouldn’t have been treated that way.
Y.M.: For some reason, I think some donors still had a sense of humor, albeit a specific one…
S.V.: Anything is possible. Well, you can’t seriously give such junk as a gift. Although there was also antiques and items of great artistic value. Actually, what bothers me more is the lively trade literally a few meters from the place where people died. It’s some kind of spiritual looting. Magnets with golden loaves, toilets, and the former president, various symbols – next to memorial lamps. It disgusts me, which I said openly at the discussion on the day of our exhibition opening. Not everyone liked it. One of those present indignantly exclaimed that he leaves my words without comment. And that’s sad, considering that most participants in the discussion are artists.
Y.M.: So, you believe such places require special treatment?
S.V.: Yes. I remember when I visited Auschwitz, I took into account the fact that I was not going to Disneyland. I dressed accordingly. And I tried to behave restrainedly there, although the place is such that laughing and joking is inappropriate. And you can’t buy concentration camp-themed magnets there. My respect for the deceased is on a subconscious level. And it doesn’t matter to me that millions died in Auschwitz and only a hundred on Maidan. I do not call for a mourning dress code when going to Maidan. But this place is definitely not for trading.
