Zhukova Olena

Biography

Constructivism: a Sovieticus load of crap or an international brand?

We have had a discussion about Constructivism - is it the Soviet or the imperial heritage? - and about its perception, because even the word constructivism is rather Russian. Should we strive to think of Soviet constructivism as a global brand or should we highlight a local brand of Kharkiv constructivism?

Your question is a bit controversial because public discussions about a cultural brand are common things in any society. Speaking of Monumental Studies, there is no room for inaccuracies and discussions, because the medieval fortified dwelling will always remain a castle. If we are talking about a certain architectural style that emerged in the Soviet Union, and it is characterized by certain features that previously did not exist; if it began and ended in a certain time, we mean Constructivism. And its structures are objects of cultural heritage. And it's very good, and it's really cool because the local identity is valuable. Why? Because any object of cultural heritage is, first of all, a result of a certain historic and cultural situation that has developed in a certain area, in a certain specific period of time. And if you take, for example, the 1920s,  the Bolsheviks were already in Kharkiv but they have not yet seized power in Kyiv. The situation in Lviv or in Uzhhorod was completely different. The different historical and cultural situations on the territory of modern Ukraine in the same period of time gave us completely different phenomena. Just look at the Gothic architecture. The different countries produced variations of this style, while speaking of Tudor Gothic style, we emphasize the word "Tudor '' because it denotes certain features that distinguish Tudor Gothic and Gothic in France. Therefore, the local identity is really important in many cases, including the formation of the brand.

It seems to me that there is a problem with local identity in Kharkiv, and its residents believe that the city is boring for visitors. Is it a problem of identity, and how does identity affect the brand?

let me explain. Speaking of local identity, I do not mean the identity of residents, I mean the identity of the territory with cultural heritage sites. And these objects of cultural heritage form the identity of the territory, regardless of its residents' perception of it. Therefore, first of all, we are talking about the identity of the area, its cultural heritage objects that emerged there and exist up to these days. I will probably not reveal any secrets saying that, as a rule, local people do not understand, do not appreciate, are not proud of cultural heritage sites in the territory they live on. This is typical not only for the post-Soviet countries but it is also typical for many countries around the world. It is simple to explain by psychology. Every man or woman perceives the place he was born in, he lives in it, all those surrounding landscapes as something familiar. Then he or she goes to another country, sees completely different objects of cultural heritage formed in another area,  in a completely different historical and cultural situation, and feels fascination. Then he or she goes back, saying, "Oh, how boring, gray, and depressing is everything here." But if a person lives in another city and, let's say, in a Renaissance 14th-century building, he or she would moan,  "How bored I am of this old barn, I want a modern one," but it is impossible to change because the building is on UNESCO list. Then such a person comes to Kharkiv and, "Wow, look at these wide avenues, at these huge buildings! Constructivism is really cool." Such perception is natural, and again, it is characteristic of many people, not only Kharkiv's residents. Of course, the narrative is generated by Kharkiv residents that are simply accustomed to the city's face. Well, there are certain features of the local mindset but we should remember that not all Kharkiv residents are habitual. Their perception of the environment they live in is rather a question of culturology.  If the local residents could change their narrative, broadcasted outside, they might see that Kharkiv has unique cultural heritage sites.

Kharkiv is often called the first capital of Ukraine. But, as sociologists note in the research, this term does not refer to Constructivism, it rather refers to imperial Kharkiv. 

Speaking of the first capital term, we probably deal with creating a brand among a certain community, well, for example, among the population of Ukraine. These words, as a rule, are commonly associated with the city of Kharkiv. But the "first capital" of what country? Why are we talking only about the Twentieth century without remembering the previous capital? Kharkiv became the first capital of Ukraine because the Bolsheviks did not occupy Kyiv yet, so they named Kharkiv the capital. I would say there is no reason to be proud of that. But a certain association is already formed in our minds since the media and public narrative are repeatedly emphasizing an associative connection with the fact that Kharkiv was the first capital of Ukraine. If we talk about the architectural heritage of the 1920s and 1930s, just before Stalin's repressions, it is often called Soviet Romanticism. Many people sincerely believed in the ideals of the Great Revolution, in communism, brotherhood, equality, and other things like that. They gave all their creative energy to build this new society. This time, so-called Soviet Romanticism had given rise to many trends in culture, literature, and architecture. And since Kharkiv became the capital of Soviet Ukraine, famous architects of that time embodied their fantasies in producing a new architectural style that we call Constructivism.