14 Sep 2022 | Opinions

“Shoot Yourself”, the installation by Ukrainian artist Dmitry Iv in Kiev, removed from the public space within 8 hours.

DS.WRITER:

From the collective depositions of Lenin statues in Ukraine, in the 90s, to the recent, six meters in height, head of a “suiciding” Putin.

What role can Art play when it comes to periods of war (Art and War)? What are its versions today? According to Laura Brandon, the definition is difficult for this "type" of artistic production since the subject is sensitive and does not fit into narrow definitions. According to her, "war" art can be traced back to the entire history of civilization until today. Today we consider propaganda, documentation, public space memorials and resistance works to be such art. The "shoot yourself" installation, which is the subject of this article, also falls into the latter category. In short, it is a form of artistic expression that comments, cauterizes or commemorates. No matter the form, it certainly concerns the collective memory at the moment it is born. These are living organisms, which provoke and perhaps promote the participation of the viewer in a particularly personal way.

In the last century, the art of war consisted mainly of propaganda posters, painting and sculpture to a smaller degree, which stepped in to close the “open wounds” by erecting memorials to the fallen, hero statues to boost morale or, in other cases, to glorify some triumph. In those places where these types of -sculptural- monuments are erected, there is a shift of the popular sentiment and a transformation of each location into something metaphysical, into a sacred place, into a place of memory, into a place of identity. These spaces, even though they look - due to the presence of some solid and massive sculpture - stable and rigid, also appear to be highly alterable and are often “dressed”, depending on the circumstances, with new meanings concerning new realities. The Soviet monuments, that is the sculptures of Stalin and Lenin, as a rule, transformed the spaces they "occupied" with their pedestal, which according to Krauss ("Sculpture in the expanded field", '79) unites the real with the conceptual, in sanctified and conflictual spaces.

From 1989 onwards, there were multiple demolitions of these figures, understood as bearers of a Soviet-dominated era and "exorcising" it in this way. This animistic approach to the statue, because it is anthropomorphic, is a more recent version of paganism, or more accurately an iconoclastic act, which aims to de-sanctify the monument through its humiliation, thus giving an ephemeral dimension to something that before seemed immovable and imposing. Specifically in Ukraine, the demolition of Lenin's figures began with the fall of the Soviet Union. This phenomenon (dubbed “decommunisation”) spread throughout the state, with the destruction of the "Lenins" in 4 major historical phases -with the last being the recent 2014 phase-, while a term was even created to describe this practice of the literal and symbolic fall of monuments to the ground, the so-called Leninopad (Ленинопад, "Leninfall").

These practices, termed STATUE POLITICS by Katherine Verdery (“The Political Lives of Dead Bodies. Reburial and Postsocialist Change”), which are mainly traced in Soviet monuments in the post-socialist era, are once again relevant. Last April, The Guardian published an article titled "Back in the USSR", criticizing the fact that Lenin statues are returning to the conquered territories of Ukraine. In particular, the first restoration -if we can call it that- takes place in the city of Henichesk in the central square, outside the Town Hall, on the roof of which Russian and Soviet flags were placed. The construction of monuments, therefore, maintains a political quality, a kind of marking of conquered space, which remains elusive in a realistic form that is capable of displacing even the concept of time, bringing back to the collective memory a landscape that was previously lost in the past (Lisa Parola, “Giù i monuments?” 2022).

en.wikipedia.org

In Kyiv, near where Lenin's effigy once stood, sculptor Dmitry Iv installed a contemporary work combining effigy and caricature. The sculpture entitled 'Shoot Yourself' is one of those that can quite easily be categorized in the “war art" category - like the relatively recent (2014) work of the sculptor Iyad Sabbah entitled Worn Out, in Gaza after its destruction. It is a 6-meter iron sculpture, an abstract bust of Putin, who is about to kill himself by pressing a realistically rendered gun into his mouth, on the back of which the phrase "Putler, did you understand the hint?" is engraved.

english.alarabiya.net

The Ukrainian artist, although he usually works with softer materials, creates this particular public work out of heavy metal, symbolizing - as he says - the brutality of war. "The war is tough - Steel is tough. There should be no beauty in this.” The history of art in public space has also shown that the shift to more "hard" materials, compared to classic solutions such as marble, inevitably arises in times of unrest due to its durability and easier access to it -a more economical material-, compared to the fragile luxurious and glittering marble. The project also follows the path of the demolished statues after just 8 hours of presence in the Capital of Ukraine. It was moved to a warehouse in Kyiv as it was a project that had not received a placement permit(!). The sculptor is sure that the work has been temporarily withdrawn and that it will soon appear in a new square, perhaps in another city or village in Ukraine.

nypost.com

This act, deeply radical, raises the question of censorship. How does a state at war consider that a work of this type should have obtained permission for its exhibition in public space? Is there a public debate about this act? What is the stance of the art world on the issue of the Russian-Ukrainian war?

In light of the many horrific news from Ukraine, the art world is reacting by publicly condemning the current aggression. Many Russian art figures have publicly expressed their disgust at their government's policy, despite the fact that they could face charges. The speaker of the Russian parliament, Vyacheslav Volodin, called the anti-war statements a "betrayal of the people". At the same time, the Attorney General's office said that any Russian who helps a foreign state or organization threatens the country's security and can be charged with up to 20 years in prison. Can art be considered a threat to state security? Could the 'Shoot Yourself' case further endanger a state already at war?