Kateryna Yevheniivna Kublytska is a Ukrainian architect and restoration specialist, laureate of the State Prize of Ukraine in Architecture (2011).

Difficult Heritage: Can We “Cut Off” History? A Conversation with Kateryna Kublytska

We speak with Kateryna Yevheniivna Kublytska –  a Ukrainian architect and restoration specialist.

At the center of the conversation is the building of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration and a question that is being raised more and more often today: should it be preserved if it is associated with a traumatic past?

The expert’s position fundamentally differs from common assumptions: the building is not “lost”; it has retained a significant part of its structure and can be re-created.

Yet the key issue here is not even technical.

The KhОDA building is not just an object. It is a fragment of history that cannot be edited according to the principle of “like / dislike.” The postwar re-creation effectively produced a new building –  a “child of the 1950s” –  which has itself become an architectural monument.

Kateryna Kublytska emphasizes: an architectural monument is not only about aesthetics. It is evidence of the development of society, technologies, and the experience of previous generations.

Moreover, an attempt to reject “difficult” heritage may trigger a dangerous logic: first –  the architecture of the 1950s, then –  modernism (constructivism), then –  imperial periods… and eventually, the complete erasure of historical memory.

In this perspective, trauma does not disappear –  it only changes its form.

Another dimension is particularly important. This architecture is local –  created here, using Ukrainian materials, by Ukrainian craftsmen. Even within the framework of socialist realism, it contains national codes that often remain unnoticed.

Thus, the question of re-creation is not only about the physical restoration of a building. It is about the capacity of society to work through its own memory.

And perhaps the central thesis of this conversation can be formulated as follows: history cannot be “cut off” without losing a part of ourselves.

We speak with Olha Shvydenko, architect-restorer, PhD in architecture.

Young Heritage and the Problem of Value: Rethinking Soviet Architecture

The conversation attempts to shift the focus from an emotional rejection of Soviet architecture toward its analytical reading.

This is not only about the Kharkiv Regional State Administration building (KhODA), but about a broader question: how do we define the value of “young heritage”? That is, heritage for which the temporal distance of perception has not yet been achieved. According to international logic, at least three generations are needed to remove the emotional layer and begin to perceive an object as a historical source. We are still inside this process; therefore, evaluations oscillate between rejection and attempts at reinterpretation.

The key thesis of the discussion is that the value of architecture cannot be reduced to “like / dislike”.

Value may be:
– material (quality of construction, durability),
– artistic (level of design and craftsmanship),
– scientific (as a carrier of continuous historical information).

Buildings register not only forms, but also modes of thinking of an эпоха (the author does not use this wording explicitly, but the context implies: the intellectual and cultural framework of a period): a post-war belief in “eternity”, different attitudes toward materials, toward the future, and toward the role of architecture itself.

A separate line of the discussion is the critique of “simplified labels”. What is commonly referred to as “Stalinist Empire style” in fact consists of different periods and approaches, which cannot be reduced to a single ideological category. Architecture is not identical to ideology, even when it emerges within its framework.

In this sense, another question arises: do we have the right to reject these objects, if it is precisely through them that we are able to understand previous generations?

The journal Zodchiy (Architect), 1896.

A selection of photos of buildings from the beginning of the 20th century

Kharkiv at the beginning of the 20th century

The new building of the provincial zemstvo

Philip Dikan’s programme “Starodruk”.
Kharkiv Antiquities.
Issue No. 262, 8 January.

The journal Zodchiy, 1896.

Competition project

In the late 1890s, the Provincial Zemstvo announced an open competition for the design of the Zemstvo building in Kharkiv. The competition was won by a project submitted by the young Odesa-based architect Adolf Borysovych Minkus (1870–1948), a graduate of the Odesa School of Art.

Most members of the Kharkiv zemstvo clearly understood the importance of timely informing society about the actions of its representatives, as well as the potential of printed media to draw attention to and build public support for the activities of local self-government bodies.

Activities of the Kharkiv Provincial Zemstvo

(Based on: O. O. Bakumenko, “The Kharkiv Provincial Zemstvo and the Development of the Information Space of the Province in 1864–1890 (in the Context of the Formation of Elements of Civil Society)”)

The bodies of zemstvo self-government, established as a result of the reform of 1864, from the very first days of their existence faced an informational vacuum in the sphere of their activities. The newly elected deputies (glasnye) had virtually no experience of local public work. The Zemstvo Regulation of 1864 was imperfect, and many issues concerning the organisation and functioning of zemstvos remained debatable. Finally, society itself lacked a clear understanding of what zemstvos should be. Moreover, the majority of the population (the peasantry), both in the state as a whole and in the provinces in particular, was illiterate, yet according to the law they were also expected to participate in the creation and functioning of the new self-government bodies.

Thus, alongside purely practical socio-economic and legal problems, zemstvos were also confronted with issues of a cultural and ideological nature.

One of the directions of activity of the Kharkiv Provincial Zemstvo became the search for ways to influence local mass media, the main form of which at that time was the periodical press.

Already at the first provincial assemblies in most zemstvos, voices were raised about the necessity of creating local zemstvo print publications. In the Kharkiv Provincial Zemstvo, this issue was first put on the agenda in December 1877 by the deputy Ye. S. Hordiienko, who proposed that the zemstvo should publish an uncensored zemstvo journal.

Most members of the Kharkiv zemstvo clearly understood the importance of timely informing society about the actions of its representatives, as well as the possibility of using printed media to draw attention to and secure public support for the activities of self-government bodies. Petitions for the establishment of an uncensored zemstvo publication were submitted several times, but were never approved.

The zemstvo also attempted to use already existing periodical publications. In the Kharkiv province, several local periodicals were in operation. From 1879, Kharkiv Provincial Gazette began to be published; from 1880 – Kharkiv Herald, Kharkiv Reference Bulletin, and Southern Region. Provincial gazettes were official publications issued in every province. As a rule, they contained an official and a non-official section. The official section reflected the governmental viewpoint on events in state and local life, acting as a conduit for official ideology. The non-official section contained secular news, announcements, and similar materials.

If one examines the pages of the Kharkiv Provincial Gazette during the first decades of the zemstvo’s existence, a clear predominance of purely informational publications becomes evident. The presence of analytical and polemical materials was rather limited.

Over time, publications began to appear that aimed to attract the attention of the local population to interaction with the zemstvo. However, all these publications did not fully satisfy the zemstvo’s need for its own printed organ, as they were unsystematic and diverse, and did not reflect all aspects of zemstvo life.

An important provincial publication of that time was Southern Region. The newspaper covered all the most significant issues of zemstvo хозяйство that were discussed at regular and extraordinary assemblies, and the course of zemstvo meetings was followed almost day by day. Issues such as the re-election of provincial deputies, discussions on railway construction, debates on the project of establishing a zemstvo bank, and meetings of representatives of zemstvos from different provinces to develop measures against the diphtheria epidemic were among the topics covered in Southern Region during 1880–1881.

The attempt of the Kharkiv zemstvo to create its own printed organ or to transform an existing publication into one was unsuccessful at the initial stage of its existence. However, active discussion of this issue within zemstvo circles and among the local community, as well as the publication of substantive articles by zemstvo members in local periodicals, undoubtedly attracted public attention, broadened horizons, and contributed to the development of a sense of personal responsibility among local residents.

A more productive direction of activity of the Kharkiv Provincial Zemstvo was associated with the dissemination of printed materials concerning its work. Maintaining extensive connections with zemstvos across Ukrainian and many Russian provinces, the Kharkiv zemstvo exchanged reports of boards, proceedings of regular assemblies, printed brochures, journals, and similar materials. However, before the zemstvo was able to fully establish this system, state authorities, fearing the excessive development of public initiative, introduced a number of restrictions on the exchange of information.

On 13 June 1867, a law was issued regulating the printing of various zemstvo materials, introducing prior censorship by the governor, and strictly regulating the number of copies of any publications. The printing of reports, proceedings, and journals of zemstvo assemblies was permitted only in quantities corresponding to the number of members of the assembly.

The Kharkiv Provincial Zemstvo made considerable efforts to ensure the publicity of the results of its work. Direct evidence of this is the fact that printed copies of the proceedings of губернські and district zemstvos of the region can be found not only in the libraries and archives of Kharkiv region, but also in Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kyiv, Sumy, and Poltava. Today, the resources of Kharkiv scientific libraries contain printed proceedings of provincial and district zemstvos, collections of reports, and reports for almost all years of the zemstvo’s existence.

Moreover, the zemstvo members themselves, seeking to facilitate the processing of information for ordinary citizens, published various summarising compilations of resolutions and decisions, as well as scholarly and practical studies illustrating the condition of life in Kharkiv region and its отдельных parts. Such studies exposed the urgent needs of the local population, drew public attention to them, and thus contributed to social solidarity.

Already in the early 1880s, the statistical department of the Kharkiv Provincial Zemstvo Board issued a series of publications characterising land ownership and land use in the province. These publications had not only economic significance but also socio-political importance, as they raised such sensitive issues as peasant land scarcity, low living standards, and property stratification of the population.

The Kharkiv zemstvo was not unique in publishing such materials. In doing so, zemstvos of the Russian Empire began to perform two functions simultaneously in the sphere of the information space and civil society formation: the representation of the needs and aspirations of different social groups, and the function of group formation and the creation of public opinion, since the exchange of information allowed zemstvos of different provinces to perceive themselves as a certain social force.

In addition, the free dissemination of zemstvo materials was necessary for familiarising the national press with developments in the zemstvo environment and for ensuring the public nature of their activities.

Thus, already during the first two decades of the functioning of the Kharkiv Provincial Zemstvo, much was done to expand the sphere of the information space. Although efforts to create its own mass media were not completed due to resistance from the authorities, the zemstvo achieved significant success in popularising its activities and disseminating information through printed publications in the form of assembly journals, reviews of practical activities, statistical collections, and similar materials.

Such work contributed to bringing urgent problems of local public life to public consideration and encouraged citizens to participate more actively in community life. The problems and achievements of local zemstvos, reflected in printed materials, became accessible to a wide audience, facilitating the articulation of the interests of the zemstvo environment and helping to formulate the main demands of society towards the authorities. These processes continued at the next stage of zemstvo activity, which may serve as a promising direction for future research in the field of zemstvo studies.

Contacts

 

 

Support

Image

Publish modules to the "offcanvs" position.