.jpg)
Recently we had a discussion in one of my classes about commemoration, celebration and nation building and a few questions came to mind. How do you represent controversial subjects in public history? Whose perspective do you ultimately take? How do you deal with these types of issues if you are working in a museum or writing a text for a monument or plaque? Is it possible to represent both sides of any historical subject in these sorts of mediums? Obviously these are very loaded questions, for which I do not have the answers. However, I would like to consider some of these issues, using an example I have studied and am very interested in.
Joseph Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union for over two decades. If there is a subject I think that is absolutely loaded with controversy, it is everything to do with this man. What I would therefore like to consider is the ways in which you would commemorate/represent this historical figure in public history.
To begin, I would like to point out some of the conflicting factors that surround this subject. First of all, Stalin and the Soviet Union are still within living memory for so many people. Therefore, we have to consider the audience, a good portion of which could have lived under the Soviet Union, or even during Stalinist rule. The second problem is that there are those who recognize that Stalin committed immeasurable atrocities, from executing people of the communist party to the formation of the Gulag system; he is basically responsible for the deaths of millions upon millions of his own people. Then there are those who argue that despite all this, he accomplished much when he was in power and some even now remember life to have been somewhat better when the Soviet Union existed, in particular, when Stalin was in power. One of the accomplishment’s that will forever be linked with Stalin is the industrialization of a primarily agricultural society. What is so remarkable about this transition is that he accomplished it more rapidly than any other country in the world ever has. Unfortunately, the cost of that success was the loss of millions of lives.
Joseph Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union for over two decades. If there is a subject I think that is absolutely loaded with controversy, it is everything to do with this man. What I would therefore like to consider is the ways in which you would commemorate/represent this historical figure in public history.
To begin, I would like to point out some of the conflicting factors that surround this subject. First of all, Stalin and the Soviet Union are still within living memory for so many people. Therefore, we have to consider the audience, a good portion of which could have lived under the Soviet Union, or even during Stalinist rule. The second problem is that there are those who recognize that Stalin committed immeasurable atrocities, from executing people of the communist party to the formation of the Gulag system; he is basically responsible for the deaths of millions upon millions of his own people. Then there are those who argue that despite all this, he accomplished much when he was in power and some even now remember life to have been somewhat better when the Soviet Union existed, in particular, when Stalin was in power. One of the accomplishment’s that will forever be linked with Stalin is the industrialization of a primarily agricultural society. What is so remarkable about this transition is that he accomplished it more rapidly than any other country in the world ever has. Unfortunately, the cost of that success was the loss of millions of lives.
.jpg)
Visible throughout Soviet culture, during Stalin’s long reign of power, were many monuments erected in his honour. These monuments were considered a part of the Stalin cult that prevailed. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of these monuments were taken down. I only know of one which remains erected in Georgia, Stalin’s birthplace (although I am sure more exist). Other measures were taken, such as having Stalin removed from photographs.
These actions seem logical because of the atrocities he committed, which were largely concealed from the world. Why then are people considering re-erecting monuments of this tyrant? Part of the reason is that the quality of life in areas of the former USSR is poor. People in living memory of those times are remembering that things were better – they had free education, were guaranteed a job and so on. I recently read some articles stipulating that they want to reinstate monuments in Stalin’s honour commemorating things such as his contribution in the Second World War, as a way of connecting with a powerful past. This is something that often occurs when a society is trying to nation build. They look to a past, to a time when they were powerful, and try to revive it.
However, I wonder about the power a monument’s message carries? What meaning is produced by simply erecting another monument of Stalin? Then again what point were they sending by tearing one down?
These actions seem logical because of the atrocities he committed, which were largely concealed from the world. Why then are people considering re-erecting monuments of this tyrant? Part of the reason is that the quality of life in areas of the former USSR is poor. People in living memory of those times are remembering that things were better – they had free education, were guaranteed a job and so on. I recently read some articles stipulating that they want to reinstate monuments in Stalin’s honour commemorating things such as his contribution in the Second World War, as a way of connecting with a powerful past. This is something that often occurs when a society is trying to nation build. They look to a past, to a time when they were powerful, and try to revive it.
However, I wonder about the power a monument’s message carries? What meaning is produced by simply erecting another monument of Stalin? Then again what point were they sending by tearing one down?
.jpg)
It all depends on your perspective. Erecting a monument of Stalin, could represent power and growth, for those who believe that the end justified the means. It could also represent fear and murder, for all those who were victims of his tyranny. In tearing one down, you could be representing the end of that reign of terror, or you could be signifying the denial of its history. It all depends on your perspective, on your link to this history. Were you a loyal communist who prospered in those times? Or were you someone who was sent to the Gulag? And no matter which person you are, Stalin represents something very different. However, this is an extreme case that is difficult to grasp because on the one hand he did help the Allies win the Second World War. On the other hand, he went as far as to starve millions of Ukrainians during the Holodomor. For me, what cannot be argued is that Stalin played a huge role in the history of the twentieth century, and we cannot ignore it nor can you erase it.All of these problems in representing Soviet history were something I encountered when I enrolled in an independent study course during my undergraduate studies. I was given the opportunity to produce a work of art based on any subject I wanted to pursue. I chose to research the paradox that surrounds Stalin’s rule of the Soviet Union. I understood that there were those people who believed he had accomplished a great deal, particularly with his industrialization project. Neither could I ignore the subservient voices of the survivors who bravely told stories of the absolute horror they experienced during those very same times.
The way that I approached the subject was to juxtapose the two views together in the form of a photomontage. I displayed images of industrial work and juxtaposed it with text that described the atrocities committed by Stalin and the communist party. I chose to contrast images with words, because the industrial success was a dominating physical element. What I felt was somewhat less evident were the crimes against humanity committed in order to achieve this creation, because so much of it was denied and hidden within the realm of the Soviet Union. Mostly what exist now are the testimonials of survivors, which are simply words that can always be disputed. In the end, I hoped that my art would showcase that the end did not justify the means. However, I tried to leave it up for interpretation.
Therefore, I wonder if this sort of approach would work, if you were to represent Stalin. Would it help to juxtapose both his accomplishments and his crimes? Would it work in the way that it worked for me in my art? I do not know. In the end, how do you represent Stalin or any historical figure (Hitler, Mao Tse-tung) for that matter? Do you reject the production of monuments in honour of these historical figures? They are a part of history, but because of what monuments tend to represent (heroism and a place where we remember the dead); the creation of a new Stalin monument would be very contoversial indeed.
Photographs:
1) Soviet Montage by Kalyna Klymkiw
2) Stalin monument
3) A Stalin monument being destroyed
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment