Architects are Reluctant, But the Monument Must be Built 

The noble faces bore a petrified mien of extreme seriousness: "Where is it, the desired masterpiece to decorate the capital's main square?" That the situation has now reached the point of no return and something of what was exhibited will have to be declared a masterpiece is beyond all doubt. There will be no third round, according to reliable sources, and the city authorities, judging by the comments of deputy chief of the Kyiv State Administration Stanislav Stashevsky made at the exhibition, are all but bursting with enthusiasm to erect the monument as soon as possible and, so to speak, incarnate a bold artistic idea in a weighty material substance.

So what is in store for, as they would put it in the years of monumental propaganda, capital natives and guests? What kind of magnificent symbol of Independence shall we get? Reporting on the inauguration of the exhibition to last, by the way, until January 15, a TV channel journalists branded the extravaganza of the sculptural ideas of enthusiastic modern creators with the comprehensive pejorative Sovdepiya. This viewpoint, in essence is deeply penetrating, if rather narrow, for the exhibited works featured not only a repeated mechanistic pretense to grandeur but also merciless fantasy which must still be treated as the fruits of wild freedom of creativity. There is, for example, an original composition whose author must have been inspired by Ukraine's beautiful and matchless nature. Having probably remembered that the present-day Khreshchatyk once was a place where wild nature ran riot, an anonymous architect proposes to erect on Independence Square a genuine sculptural sanctuary rather than a trivial monument: the central composition displays grain-ears and wild running mustangs with thick manes against a background of woods and waterfalls - all in a down-to-earth realistic manner without any dainty stylization.

There also are other, no less original, projects. For instance, Valery Sokolov imagined the newly-acquired independence of his motherland as an Icarian superman reaching out his hands. The author must have forgotten that the destiny of the mythological hero is slightly different from the triumphal flight of Superman. So what? It looks nice! Some visitors were taken aback by this surprisingly well-streamlined sketch. The author lost his composure and came clean: the energetic young man he depicted turned out to have been made at the request of air force veterans in honor of the late aircraft designer Antonov. So why should a good thing go to waste? Let it serve yet another glorious cause!

Have I covered the "most refined" projects? By no means. Deputy jury chairperson of the contest Leonid Novokhatko told journalists that the commission still had a couple of dozens of sketches at its disposal which are out of the main exhibition due to non-compliance with the set standards. One can only imagine what kind of gems these are. In addition, Mr. Novokhatko complained about "old-fashioned thinking and stereotypic mentality." Well, the exhibition is indeed brimming with plastic clichОs. For example, some authors intend, without having consulted each other, to enrich Independence Square with grandiose colonnades or arcades. First, this always impresses; secondly, a statue (the larger the better) may be easily fitted in the space between the columns and in the arches. It this principle that Ruslan Kukharenko, Anatoly Kushch, and a couple of other contestants chose.

All this might have been all right, but creative individuals are poorly aware of today's realities. Some kind of monument is bound to be built, but then what? Vast free spaces inside the structure, all those niches, nooks, and crannies could do tremendous harm to the monument while being unlikely to inspire any special awe in the common people. For there is no prophet in one's own country. So the monument cavities may be used by the people for some peculiar needs in the dark. Now, that would be an outrage.

However, the situation with the laconic projects proposed by the contestants is no better. Whatever we want, an Independence Monument should symbolize the national spirit. And what is being proposed as this symbol? A weak-stemmed flower with twisted petals, an acrobatic apparatus perhaps fit for a circus, a massive trident aggressively snarling skywards, some hefty women with a bandura player, spires, arches of triumph, and again horses. Some authors would like to tell the whole history of Ukraine in persons, but Ukraine did not suffer only in order to blush the rest of its life.

Passing from one sketch to another, one may hear contenders running down their colleagues' versions. I asked one of them: "And what project do you like in addition to your own?"

"Nothing else, it's all crap," he answered, an answer typical for all.
Thank God, at least the material appetites of the contestants went down compared with the previous round: in fact, the exhibit featured no projects costing over ten million hryvnias. But I have a feeling that even this time it will all go down the drain, for the price is too high. Deputy chairperson of the Ukrainian League of Artists Viktor Sydorenko recently said wisely, "It will take a generation for plastic thought to catch up with the time." I agree. And for the time being, we might have a small pavilion built on Independence Square and set up there a permanent exhibition of competing sketches to be periodically supplemented with new projects. I that case we might even end up with something we deserve.