First trial
No. 13, January—February 2004
Myths are something no normal community can live without. Even more so – a state. There can be no country without the myth of independence and national culture. The freshest and most relevant myth of Ukraine today is the creation of a museum of contemporary art.
Archaeology
Since the late 1980s, Ukrainian contemporary, that is, current art has been recognized as existing. This recognition came at a high cost – the loss of milestone works through their purchase by private Western collections, the departure of the artists themselves, and finally, the settling of works by artists of the so-called “South Russian wave” in the collections of enterprising Russian galleries that saw considerable commercial opportunities in Ukrainian contemporary art.
It took another ten years to form a circle of artists whose works a priori began to interest buyers, curators, and critics. And viewers – but that was the last priority. Finally, the process ended with some unnoticed but fundamentally qualitative leap in the status of artists. Suddenly, young and promising Ukrainian artists, often provincial compared to the West and East, turned into masters and classics. Their position simply obliges them not only to sell works expensively but to move into the museum category.
This is where the idea of a museum arose – it cannot be said that it was sudden. Nor can it be said that the idea was very original – judging by the number of people and organizations who simultaneously decided to create their own museum.
A museum of contemporary art is now as essential an element of a large city as once was a cathedral or a church, and a little later – a city hall or regional committee. For possession of a good collection of contemporary art, sums exceeding the annual income of a small country are paid: the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao cost 320 million dollars – this refers, of course, only to the building. But now this building, designed by Frank Gehry, is almost the main reason to visit the capital of the Basque Country and, consequently, a very profitable source of income. As, indeed, are the Pompidou Center in Paris or Tate Modern in London.
Our eastern neighbors already have their own, albeit not the most successful, museum – its director is the controversial artist Zurab Tsereteli.
One of the first in Kyiv to announce the “Museum of Contemporary Art” program was Viktor Khamatov, chairman of the Association of Galleries of Ukraine. For 10 years, his gallery “Soviart” has been systematically collecting a collection for the future museum, which has yet to become a reality.
Following this, a similar initiative was supported by the branch of the Kyiv City History Museum – the Museum of Cultural Heritage, which in 2001 announced the creation of a permanent exhibition of contemporary art on its basis. The first paintings were donated, champagne was drunk, and that was the end of it.
Until now, the most persistent rumors have been about the possibility of creating a contemporary art hall at the National Art Museum – like in the Tretyakov Gallery, which moved 20th-century works to a separate space on Krymsky Val. Even such a decision still seems a matter of distant prospects.
Nevertheless, Ukraine needs a museum of contemporary art, and right now. Because in a year or two, there will be nothing left to museify: everything will be taken out of the little that remains. It will be time to make a museum of Little Russian art somewhere within the Garden Ring. A very indicative exhibition in this regard was Oleg Holosiy’s at the National Museum: none of the works belonged to Ukrainian collectors or galleries. All the canvases have long been in the collection of the Moscow gallery “Regina,” which once worked with former Kyiv resident Oleg Kulik, now former Kharkiv resident Sergey Bratkov, and still Odesa resident Volodymyr Kozhukhar.
The most promising initiative today for creating a museum of contemporary art is private. At the end of November, the exhibition “First Collection” opened at the Central House of Artists, which is supposed to form the collection of the first such Ukrainian museum. The founder of the future museum was People’s Deputy Viktor Pinchuk, which means the plans for the museum’s arrangement are taking quite real shape.
Futurology
Little is known about the future museum so far. More precisely, answers to three most important questions are unknown: where, who, and when? No comments have been received from the founder regarding the proposed premises where the museum should be located. It also remains unclear who will be its director and when the institution will open. It is highly unlikely that a special building will be constructed for the museum: at the press conference about the exhibition opening, the organizers stated that the building already exists. But its location is still kept secret. Since it is quite difficult to hide a new building in the capital, it is assumed that an existing space will be adapted for the museum’s needs. The question of directorship, as well as specific dates, remains open.
This did not prevent viewers from enjoying the exhibition, experts from assessing the quality of the works and their value – collectors. When the museum finally opens, we may have something to be proud of for the first time – the works are so convincing, and the list of names presented for expertise is so authoritative.
Unlike the director, the experts of the future museum are already known. From the Ukrainian side, the person who decided everything was Oleksandr Solovyov – not only an art expert but also the curator of the “First Collection” exhibition itself. The pricing policy of the future museum was formed by Oleksandr Roitburd, director of M. Gelman Gallery in Kyiv.
According to Oleksandr Roitburd, the value of an artist’s work recommended by the expertise for the museum’s collection should be evaluated in five-digit figures. That is, from 10,000 to 100,000 dollars. Of course, this refers to market prices, while museum prices worldwide are lower. But even with standard museum discounts, forming the collection will cost the founder a very solid sum – according to Roitburd, the project can be estimated at approximately 20 million dollars.
As for the collection itself, it currently includes 70 names. Among the most famous are Arsen Savadov and Heorhiy Senchenko, Pavlo Makov, Oleksandr Roitburd himself, Oleg Holosiy, Oleksandr Hnylytskyi, Oleg Tistol, Ilya Chichkan, Kyrylo Protsenko, Oleksandr Zhivotkov, Vlada Ralko. “The museum will exhibit those,” asserts Oleksandr Roitburd, “whose works are conceivable in the global context or actually exist in it. This is about 70 names, of which ten to twenty already have status and significance in the international context.” So far, it is mainly painting, some sculpture, and graphics. Video is also presented at the exhibition, but currently, there is no talk of purchasing copyrights. This can be afforded by established museums – the Ukrainian one only obtains rights to show.
Of course, the museum cannot represent a full slice of Ukrainian art if it does not include works by artists who are currently not Ukrainian citizens. Among the most serious emigrant names whose works are being negotiated for purchase are Boris Mikhailov and Ilya Kabakov. The former Kharkiv resident and former Dnipropetrovsk resident are now among the most authoritative artists in the world. Having their works in any museum in the world determines the status of the collection – all the more necessary for a starting museum.
Neither Kabakov nor Mikhailov were represented at the exhibition. Their absence was compensated by works of those still remembered as Ukrainians – Sergey Bratkov, Pavlo Kerestey, Sergey Anufriev. Naturally, preference was given to works made while they were still in Ukraine. “We literally rummaged through attics,” says Oleksandr Solovyov, “to find what we considered necessary.”
Attics, of course, are a great way to replenish the collection but not the main one: most works for the “First Collection” exhibition were selected in the artists’ own studios – so far, as contemporary art in Ukraine is a subject of sporadic interest from collectors, artists act as their own gallerists, promoters, and art dealers.
An exception is the works in the collection of Marat Gelman, another independent expert of the future museum. “At this stage, the M. Gelman Gallery in Kyiv, which I head,” states Oleksandr Roitburd, “works as a temporary operating administration of the future museum. And Marat himself, firstly, conducted one of the main stages of expertise. And secondly, as far as I understand, he somewhat pushed Viktor Pinchuk towards the idea of creating a museum. But I was not present at that conversation, so I cannot vouch for it. Moreover, Marat intends, when the museum acquires physical outlines and status, to donate his collection of contemporary Ukrainian art to it.”
The third member of the expert commission was a prominent French art figure, until recently heading one of the most famous European centers of contemporary art, the Parisian Palais de Tokyo, curator Nicolas Bourriaud.
Perhaps the idea of exhibiting not only Ukrainian but also Eastern European and Asian art in the museum belongs to him. Of course, these are all just plans for now, but already one can talk about creating such halls.
Reality
The “First Collection” exhibition is an amazing event, even if the museum’s further plans are still unclear. First, because such a number of works has not been seen at any exhibition since 1991, which, according to the museum organizers, is the starting point for contemporary Ukrainian art. Although, of course, works from the 1980s were also exhibited: it is impossible to do without some iconic canvases (such as Oleg Tistol’s “Reunion”) and the most important trends of that time, which preceded and formed today’s current art of Ukraine. These undoubtedly include the Odessa and Lviv painting schools, as well as Kharkiv photography. It is a pity that its main representative – Boris Mikhailov – was not shown at the exhibition, although negotiations for purchasing a series of his works, including the famous “At the Earth,” are already underway.
Secondly, the “First Collection” turned out to be that rare case when quantity smoothly turned into quality. And the early works of Holosiy did not conflict at all with Ilya Chichkan’s video. By the way, against the backdrop of incredibly spectacular painting, the works of not only beginners but also well-known video artists looked rather weak – and this applies even to such recognized masters as the “Masoch Fund” and Roitburd, whose video participated in Harald Szeemann’s curatorial project “Plateau of Humanity” at the last Venice Biennale.
Thirdly, and in the end, the “First Collection,” as one art critic rightly noted, is truly a celebration of recognition. Looking at more than two hundred works in the Union of Artists hall, there was a sharp sense of déjà vu: they were divided into those well known from recent exhibitions and those well known from catalogs a decade old. The only hit missing was “Cleopatra’s Sorrow,” the famous painting by the no less legendary Senchenko-Savadov tandem. It was absent for obvious reasons: the work was acquired by a French private collector long before the idea of creating a Ukrainian museum. But, as the exhibition curator Oleksandr Solovyov asserts, nothing is impossible: it is quite likely that this iconic work will be acquired for the museum collection.
The same applies to Ilya Kabakov’s works. “There are artists who sell their works only to museums – Kabakov is among them,” says Oleksandr Roitburd. “So, prices for his works range from 15,000 for a graphic sheet to 100,000 dollars for a serious painting. And over time, when the building appears, it will be possible to talk about buying one or two of his installations.”
A crowd gathered at the exhibition opening. This indicates growing interest in contemporary Ukrainian art – and not only aesthetic: now most experts predict the commercial success of such projects.
Among the brightest and most unexpected works at the exhibition is Oleksandr Hnylytskyi’s new work “Shtirlitz and the Monkey,” an ironic and at the same time nostalgic canvas. And the heads cast by Oleg Tistol and Mykola Matsenko: in their eyes, otherworldly detachment and Buddhist indifference to the problems of contemporary art.
Viktor Pinchuk
People’s Deputy of Ukraine
– I dream that this endeavor grows into a real center of contemporary art.
Contemporary art liberates. It provokes and fascinates. It provides an example of a new way to depict and teaches a new way to see. It is a challenge to the development of modern society, its ability to absorb humanistic values.
Contemporary art is boundless like the eternally pulsating Universe.
The nation’s ability to let this pulsation in is the ability to keep pace with modern development.
Milestones of contemporary art are milestones of humanity’s intellectual creative search. Ukraine, as part of Europe, must fully participate in this process.
I understand that for the development and flourishing of contemporary Ukrainian art, it is not enough just to place artists’ works in halls. The Solomon R. Guggenheim centers in New York and Peter Ludwig in Cologne managed to become truly living organisms with art schools, traveling exhibitions, multimedia laboratories, research studios, and theaters. I hope much will succeed for us in Kyiv as well.
The longest journey begins with the first step. I believe that today we have taken this step on the new path of contemporary Ukrainian art.
Yuriy Onukh
director of the Center for Contemporary Art at NaUKMA
– It seems to me that two words in this context – both “collection” and “museum” – should be understood metaphorically. The concept of “museum” has its specific meaning. Behind this word stands a certain tradition, history, and a lot of work. Even the founder of the institution, Viktor Pinchuk, does not yet use the word “museum” – he states that he would like to create a center of contemporary art.
One should not mythologize the concept of “museum.” If a private person, the state, or a municipality wants to create a museum, it is necessary to define what it is. So far, all this is too virtual. We already have an example of a virtual museum: two or three months ago, Viktor Khamatov also announced the creation of a museum.
The same can be said about the concept of “collection.” Based on what I saw at the House of Artists, the word “collection” is a metaphor, the name of an exhibition that denotes a specific event. “First Collection” implies a second, third, and so on – like fashion seasons. Which is quite possible – as material from which, after serious work, a real collection can be created.
Now about the exhibition itself. I was there three times, and the first impression was positive. But with each subsequent visit, it became less pleasant. Let me explain why: a collection is a certain system, a principle by which works are selected. What principle was the “First Collection” built on? Neither chronological nor genre. Even the quality of the works cannot serve as a criterion for their selection for the exhibition because the works are very different. A collection requires selection. And reflection.
My criticism does not mean that I think it should not have been done. It is necessary, at least to see what should not have been done. And to be sure that there is material to work with.Link
