Farewell Lenin - Good Bye Nikolai: Two Attitudes towards Soviet Heritage in Former East Berlin

V Y T A U T O D I D Ž I O J O U N I V E R S I T E T O L E I D Y K L AKaunas, 2007

V Y T A U T O D I D Ž I O J O U N I V E R S I T E T A S / V Y T A U T A S M A G N U S U N I V E R S I T YM E N Ų I N S T I T U T A S / A R T I N S T I T U T E

MENAS IR POLITIKA: RYTŲ EUROPOS ATVEJAI

ART AND POLITICS: CASE-STUDIES FROM EASTERN EUROPE

Meno istorija ir kritika Art History & Criticism

ISSN 1822-4555

3

REDAKCINĖ KOLEGIJA / EDITORIAL BOARDPirmininkas / Editor-in-chief:Prof. habil. dr. Vytautas Levandauskas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva / Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania)Nariai / Members:Prof. Ph.D. Joakim Hansson (Gotlando universitetas, Švedija / University of Gotland, Sweden)Dr. Rūta Kaminska (Latvijos dailės akademija / Art Academy of Latvia)Prof. dr. Vojtěch Lahoda (Čekijos mokslų akademijos Meno istorijos institutas / Institute of Art History of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic)Prof. dr. Aleksandr Smolik (Valstybinis kultūros universitetas, Baltarusija / State University of Culture, Belarus)Prof. dr. Małgorzata Sugera (Jogailaičių universitetas, Lenkija / Jagielionian University, Poland)Prof. Ph.D. Bronius Vaškelis (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva / Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania)Prof. Ph.D. Kęstutis Paulius Žygas (Arizonos universitetas, JAV / University of Arizona, USA)

Numerio sudarytoja / Editor of this volume:Dr. Linara Dovydaitytė (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva / Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania)

Recenzentai / Reviewers:Prof. habil. dr. Egidijus AleksandravičiusDoc. dr. Lolita JablonskienėDoc. dr. Giedrė JankevičiūtėProf. dr. Vojtěch LahodaProf. dr. Piotr PiotrowskiDr. Skaidra TrilupaitytėDoc. dr. Rasa Žukienė

Rėmėjas / Sponsor:

Lietuvos Respublikos kultūros ir sporto rėmimo fondas Lithuanian Fund for Culture and Sport

© Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas / Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, 2007

UDK 7(05)Mi 121

3

Turinys / Contents

Pratarmė / 6Preface / 7

ART AND POLITICS IN EASTERN EUROPE MENAS IR POLITIKA RYTŲ EUROPOJE

Vojtěch LahodaThe Artist and Politics: Pablo Picasso and the Communist Bloc during the Cold War / 9Menininkas ir politika: Pablo Picasso ir komunistinis blokas Šaltojo karo metais

Piotr PiotrowskiFrom the Politics of Autonomy to the Autonomy of Politics / 18Nuo autonomijos politikos prie politikos autonomijos

ART AND DICTATORSHIPMENAS IR DIKTATŪRA

Giedrė JankevičiūtėFacing the New Myths: on Lithuanian Art in 1940-1941 / 26Naujų mitų akivaizdoje: apie 1940–1941 m. Lietuvos dailę

Jindřich VybíralThe Architecture of Discipline and Mobilisation: A Contribution to an Interpretation of theNeo-Classicism of the Stalinist Era / 37Disciplinos ir mobilizacijos architektūra: indėlis į stalininės epochos neoklasicizmo interpretaciją

Oliver JohnsonAssailing the Monolith: Popular Responses to the 1952 All-Union Art Exhibition / 45Ardant monolitą: liaudies reakcijos į 1952 m. Visasąjunginę dailės parodą

Marta FilipováA Communist Image of the Hussites: Representations and Analogies / 53Komunistinis husitų vaizdinys: reprezentacijos ir analogijos

IDEOLOGY AND ARTISTIC STRATEGIESIDEOLOGIJA IR MENINĖS STRATEGIJOS

Debbie LewerThe Agitator and the Legacy of the Avant-garde in the German Democratic Republic: Willi Sitte’s Rufer II (Caller II) of 1964 / 62Agitatorius ir avangardo palikimas Vokietijos Demokratinėje Respublikoje: Willio Sitte’o Rufer II (Šauklys II, 1964)

Erika GrigoravičienėArt and Politics in Lithuania from the Late 1950s to the Early 1970s / 71Dailė ir politika Lietuvoje XX a. 6-ojo dešimtmečio pabaigoje – 8-ojo pradžioje

TU

RI

NY

S

4

Andris TeikmanisLate Soviet Political Art – Between the Meta-Narrative and Intervisuality / 79Vėlyvojo sovietmečio politinis menas – tarp metanaratyvo ir intervizualumo

Linara DovydaitytėLanguage and Politics: Expressionism in Lithuanian Propaganda Painting during the Thaw / 87Kalba ir politika: ekspresionizmas Lietuvos propagandinėje tapyboje atšilimo metais

Nataša PetrešinSelf-Historicisation as an Artistic Strategy: Neue Slowenische Kunst, Dragan Živadinov, and East Art Map by Irwin / 96Saviistorizacija kaip meninė strategija: Neue Slowenische Kunst, Draganas Živadinovas ir Irwino Rytų meno žemėlapis

CENSORSHIP, POWER, AND SPACECENZŪRA, GALIA IR ERDVĖ

Ieva Pleikienė Between Myth and Reality: Censorship of Fine Art in Soviet Lithuania / 104Tarp mito ir tikrovės: dailės cenzūra sovietinėje Lietuvoje

Jūratė TutlytėThe Intended Breakaway: The Case of Recreational Architecture in Soviet Lithuania / 111Užprogramuotas kitoniškumas: rekreacinės architektūros atvejis sovietmečio Lietuvoje

Damiana OtoiuNational(ist) Ideology and Urban Planning: Building the Victory of Socialism in Bucharest, Romania / 119Nacional(ist)inė ideologija ir miesto planavimas: Socializmo pergalės statyba Bukarešte (Rumunija)

Liutauras NekrošiusThe Particularity of Lithuanian Structuralist Architecture: Case of the Dainava Settlement in UkmergėDistrict / 129Lietuvos struktūralistinės architektūros raiškos savitumai Ukmergės rajono Dainavos gyvenvietės pavyzdžiu

CULTURE AS RESISTANCE: DOUBLE GAMESKULTŪRA KAIP PASIPRIEŠINIMAS: DVIGUBI ŽAIDIMAI

Klara Kemp-WelchAffirmation and Irony in Endre Tót’s Joy Works of the 1970s / 137Afirmacija ir ironija Endre Tóto XX a. 8-ojo dešimtmečio Džiaugsmo kūriniuose

Kristina BudrytėPublic / Private: The Abstract Art of Juzefa Čeičytė in the Lithuanian Soviet System / 145Viešumas ir privatumas: Juzefos Čeičytės abstrakcijos sovietmečio Lietuvoje

Justyna JaworskaRoman Cieslewicz: Double Player. The Case of the Ty i Ja Magazine / 152Romanas Cieslewiczius: dvigubas žaidėjas. Žurnalo Ty i Ja atvejis

CO

NT

EN

TS

5

Andres KurgDeath in the New Town. Leonhard Lapin’s City of the Living – City of the Dead / 158Mirtis naujajame mieste. Leonhardo Lapino Gyvųjų miestas – mirusiųjų miestas

ART AND DEMOCRACYMENAS IR DEMOKRATIJA

Malcolm MilesAppropriating the ex-Cold War / 168Savinantis buvusį Šaltąjį karą

Izabela KowalczykStruggle for Freedom. Art for Tolerance in Poland / 175Kova už laisvę. Menas už toleranciją Lenkijoje

Virginija VitkienėEliminated Man: Shifts of Traumatic Identity in Post-Soviet Lithuanian Art / 183Išmestas žmogus: trauminės tapatybės slinktys posovietinės Lietuvos mene

POST-COMMUNIST CULTURE AND NEW MYTHSPOKOMUNISTINĖ KULTŪRA IR NAUJI MITAI

Matteo BertelèFarewell Lenin – Good-Bye Nikolai: Two Attitudes towards Soviet Heritage in Former East Berlin / 192Sudie, Lenine – viso gero, Nikolajau: du požiūriai į sovietinį palikimą buvusiame Rytų Berlyne

Andrew D. Asher and Jarosław JańczakTransnational Mythmaking in Post-Soviet Europe: Cold War and EU Monuments in a Polish–German “Divided City” / 200Transnacionalinė mitų kūryba posovietinėje Europoje: Šaltasis karas ir ES paminklai lenkų ir vokiečių „padalintame mieste“

Vaidas PetrulisManifestations of Politics in Lithuanian Architecture: Examples of Architectural Dehumanisation during the Transition from a Soviet to a Post-Soviet Society / 209Politikos apraiškos Lietuvos architektūroje: architektūros dehumanizavimo atvejai pereinant iš sovietinės į posovietinę visuomenę

Ana Žuvela BušnjaThe Transition of a Cultural Institution from Socialist Communism to Democratic Capitalism:Case-Study – Dubrovnik Summer Festival / 217Kultūros institucijos perėjimas iš socialistinio komunizmo į demokratinį kapitalizmą: Dubrovniko vasaros festivalio tyrimas

MŪSŲ AUTORIAI / OUR AUTHORS / 226

TU

RI

NY

S

192

Matteo BertelèHumboldt University, Berlin

Farewell Lenin – Good-Bye Nikolai: Two Attitudes towards Soviet Heritage in Former East Berlin

Key words: Berlin, Soviet monuments, Fall of the Wall, Lenin monument, Nikolai Tomsky, dismantle-ment, reunification, normalisation, protests, reflec-tive nostalgia, memorial in Treptower Park, Yevgeny Vuchetich, restoration, Ostalgie, Great Fatherland War, Putin-Schroeder Friendship, rubble, ruin.

demonstration of German-Soviet friendship, per-sisted in its iconoclastic version in the post-socialist era. This was symbolically emphasised by the deci-sion to start the dismantling on November 8, 1991 – on the eve of the second anniversary of the fall of the Wall. In this way, the removal was declared and justified as a continuation of the democratic revolu-tion that had started two years earlier, and as a step toward reunification – or, as it was often declared,toward “normalisation” of the city. In her studies on the concept of nostalgia, Svetlana Boym describes Berlin in the 1990s as “the virtual capital”: “The NewBerlin is an anti-nostalgic city that displays its pride through the panoramic vistas from the glass cupola of the renovated Reichstag. The key word of NewBerlin is normalisation, not memoralisation”.2

The removal of the Lenin monument was approvedwhen the revolutionary impulse of the first days hadvanished, and soon became a purely administrative act. It had nothing to do with what Katalin Sinkó defines as “the people’s magic and ritual iconoclastic act, perceived and executed as a symbolic destruc-tion of certain taboos”.3 On the contrary, the an-nounced removal of the statue was seen as an ex-treme example of the vacuity and stubbornness of the city’s authorities, and aroused strong protests. A Political Monuments initiative, founded in 1990

In Berlin, capital city of the German Democratic Republic, the most striking public monuments were commissioned, executed, and funded by the allied Soviet Union. Most of these monuments survived the spontaneous iconoclastic attacks which accom-panied and followed the collapse of the socialist regime, since the target of these assaults was more often the most “hated” of Berlin monuments – the Wall.

In the euphoria during the first period after the fallof the Wall, several small-scale political monuments, including busts and memorial plaques, were arbi-trarily removed from barracks, embassies, schools, and public offices. At the same time, certain munici-pal deputies took on the entire artistic heritage on the east side of the city, and declared their firm intentionto wipe all Stalinist monuments off their pedestals.1 The removal of a Lenin monument, erected on ananonymous square [fig. 1] in 1970 on the occasionof the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s birthday, was ap-proved in 1991. No-one seemed to care that the 19-metre high granite statue belonged to the protected artistic heritage of Soviet sculptor Nikolai Tomsky, and was included on a list of protected Berlin mon-uments – and that the entire square had been de-signed for the monument. Evidently the ideological function of the Lenin monument, conceived as a

PO

ST

-C

OM

MU

NI

ST

CU

LT

UR

E A

ND

NE

W M

YT

HS

193

by art history students in order to preserve GDR monuments from arbitrary political decisions, was now joined by a citizens’ Lenin Monument initia-tive, which began to collect signatures against the dismantling. The people who signed were not onlyhistorians, architects, journalists, and deputies with the political minority, but also residents from the area, for whom the Lenin monument had become a kind of familiar landmark. Paradoxically, they had realised this only at that fateful moment. Mikhail Yampolsky writes: “By its very nature, a monu-ment is intended to be admired, contemplated and worshipped. In reality, however, monuments rarely become objects of a genuine cult or even of admira-tion. In urban landscapes, as a rule, their perception is automatised, and they virtually disappear from the field of vision”.4 The German word for monu-ment is composed of two terms: Denken (thought) and Mal (spot). The Denkmal (monument) is “an encounter place in the present, suspended between past and future. It’s an encounter place for an indi-vidual, but also, and especially, for a community. Themonument is a sign physiognomically traced on the city’s face, on the landscape’s surface, on the com-mon feeling, as an anonymous connective tissue of our experiences”.5 This collective feeling is mostlyperceived in times of change – in this case, when the existence of the monument itself was threatened.

Slavoj Žižek regards the monumental sculptures of socialist realism, oppressive in their inferior view, as a manifest representation of the threatening com-munist society.6 With the fall of the regime, these monuments lost their reason for being, and became harmless remnants from a past which was still alive in many people’s memories. After interviewing peoplein post-socialist countries, Laura Mulvey, co-direc-tor of the documentary film Disgraced Monuments (1992) stated: “An ability to live with monuments to the heroes of communism would now mark an ability to live with the past, however hostile to that past they might be personally”.7 The disappearanceof remnants of the socialist past would eliminate the possibility for people, in this case coming from East Germany, to face their past, and to elaborate it. And that would bring about what the Croatian writer Dubravka Ugrešič defined as “confiscation ofmemory”.8

The Lenin monument was split into 125 partswhich were buried in a secret place in order to pro-tect them from souvenir-hungry tourists. In keep-ing with the new politics of normalisation, Lenin Square was renamed United Nations Square (and unavoidably nicknamed United States Square) [fig.2]. The gap left by the monument was filled with afountain – as had happened thirty years earlier at another site which fell into oblivion, when, as a re-sult of Khrushchev’s policy of de-Stalinisation, a Stalin monument was removed from the homony-mous Allee. The fountain, located on what is nowcalled Karl-Marx-Allee, has in the meantime dried up, its copper plates fallen down – but in contrast to the former Lenin Square, here at least there is a plaque outlining the history of the monument.

The Lenin Monument initiative carried out a last sol-emn ceremony: after its removal, discarded bits ofthe monument were loaded onto a supermarket cart, carried in procession to the Memorial to Socialists in the Central Cemetery in Berlin Friedrichsfelde, and placed on the graves of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. By nighttime a biblical quotation appeared as graffiti on the former Lenin Square,and Lenin’s shadow was outlined on the ground in memory of his murder.9 All these actions could be regarded as a manifestation of what Boym calls “re-

PO

KO

MU

NI

ST

IN

Ė K

UL

TŪ

RA

IR

NA

UJ

I M

IT

AI

Fig. 1. Lenin Monument in the anonymous square in East-Berlin, with some members of the FDJ (Freie Deutsche Jugend – Free German Youth), c. 1970s. Photo courtesy: Rainer Görß, Archive Mnemotop, Berlin

194

flective nostalgia”: a nostalgia which doesn’t evoke a national past and future, but concentrates on in-dividual and cultural memory, and therefore can be ironic, critical, inconclusive, and fragmentary.10 The “affaire Lenin” prompted the city authorities toset up a Commission for the Treatment of Post-War Political Monuments in East Berlin11, right after themonument’s removal was completed in February 1992. The decision to focus on monuments exclu-sively from East Berlin implied an a priori acceptance of the entire architectural and artistic heritage of the western part of the city – an implication which had a strong ideological significance. The possibility of re-moving monuments to a special park, as happened in Moscow, Budapest, and Grūtas Park in Lithuania, had originally been rejected as being a strong con-tradiction to the necessity of preserving the monu-ments in their original historic sites. Among the 23 monuments examined by the commission, only four were condemned to removal. A re-transcription of descriptive texts on plaques was approved for the others.12 But given both the unexpectedly high cost of dismantling the Lenin monument, and fading public interest, most of the monuments remained untouched, and both condemned and approved

ones continue standing in a miserable state on their original site to this very day.13

The “much ado” about Lenin opened up new per-spectives towards a critical and constructive use of political monuments, and in many cases changed the way they were perceived – from monuments to an ideology to monuments to history, from instru-ments of power to instruments of education.14

Construction in Treptower Park of the Memorial to the Fallen Red Army Soldiers began in the sum-mer of 1947, according to a design by a group of Soviet architects and artists who had conceived the ensemble as a “Gesamtkunstwerk”. The choice ofsite was clearly politically motivated. At the begin-ning of the 20th century the park was a venue for political demonstrations by Berlin workers’ move-ments, and this fact was often used by GDR propa-ganda to prove the historical continuity between the struggle of the German workers, and the heroic ges-tures and victory of the Red Army over conservative and fascist forces. Conceived as a funeral ensemble, the memorial in Treptower Park became a Victory Monument not only for the Soviets, but also for part of defeated Germany – the anti-fascist German

PO

ST

-C

OM

MU

NI

ST

CU

LT

UR

E A

ND

NE

W M

YT

HS

Fig. 2. United Nations Square in reunified Berlin, 2006. Photo by the author

195

Democratic Republic.15 Yevgeny Vuchetich sculpted a statue of the soldier Nikolai Masalov, who, accord-ing to official legend, had saved a three-year oldGerman girl from certain death during the assault on Berlin. For his heroic gesture, Masalov was de-clared an honorary citizen of East Berlin. The statuewas inaugurated as part of Vuchetich’s Sword Trilogy, which, in concordance with politically correct Cold War geopolitics, included the monumental stat-ues for the Mamaiev Kurgan in Volgograd (former Stalingrad) and for the UN building in New York.

The Soviet memorial in Treptower Park was inau-gurated on May 8, 1949, on the fourth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and just few months before the birth of the GDR. It soon became a model for the Soviet war memorials that were built after the mid-1960s, when Leonid Brezhnevdeclared May 9 the Day of Victory, and inaugurated the cult of the Great Fatherland War.16

The main issues regarding the status and preserva-tion of the memorial in Treptower Park were sanc-tioned in 1965 by the GDR and the Soviet Union in bilateral laws on the conservation of monuments to war victims, and were ratified in 1990 in agreementsbetween a re-unified Germany and the Soviet Union.Since then, Berlin municipality and the Home Officehave been designated responsible for the conserva-tion of the whole ensemble, which has undergone complete renovation.17 The removal of the statue ofNikolai for proper restoration in 2003 [fig. 3 and 4]aroused media interest in the memory of the dis-mantling of the Lenin monument 12 years earlier.18 Actually, Lenin was back in Berlin – this time as a film star: Good-bye Lenin, a film whose title and fo-cal scene are dedicated to the Lenin monument that was removed in 1991, became the biggest German success of the year, and one of the most successful German movies ever made. It didn’t matter that the papier-mâché copy portrayed the communist leader in a completely different position: historical accu-racy was certainly not the principal aim of either the film director or producers, all of whom came from West Germany. The film marked and exploited thepopularity and commercialisation of the German version of “Nostalgia” for the socialist past – the so-called Ostalgie (from the word Ost – East). The phe-

nomenon of Ostalgie is regarded as being the third period in the process towards German integration after the euphoria of the first years following reuni-fication and the difficulties and disillusionment thatarose in the latter half of the 1990s.19 Some cultural studies experts argue that German integration only effectively started when Ostalgie became a product and object of popular culture, and was thereby ab-sorbed by the free market system.20

The restored Nikolai statue was re-erected just in timefor the 59th anniversary of the end of the War, and for the Year of Russian Culture in Germany in 2003/04, followed by the Year of German Culture in Russia in 2004/05. After the election of Gerhard Schroederand Vladimir Putin, as chancellor of Germany, and president of the Russian Federation respectively, relations between the two nations improved not only in economic and political affairs but also incultural matters, and have been regularly publicised every year since 2001 during a meeting known as the Petersburg Dialogue. One of the main issues in the cultural approach refers to what Putin defines as“the historical reconciliation” between Germany and Russia, which was officially sanctioned (not without

PO

KO

MU

NI

ST

IN

Ė K

UL

TŪ

RA

IR

NA

UJ

I M

IT

AI

Fig. 3. Removal of the Nikolai statue from the Memorial in Treptower Park, 2003. Photo courtesy: Rico Kassmann

196

internal criticism) by Schroeder’s attendance – the first by a German Chancellor – at a Victory Parade in Red Square on the 60th anniversary of the end of the War. According to historians, after the collapse of theSoviet Union, the Great Fatherland War became even more meaningful in the cultural memory of Russian society: if the Soviet system was doomed to fail, then the victory of the Soviet Union in the Second World War was one of the few historical events which peo-ple in contemporary Russia and in many post-Soviet states were able to feel confident and proud of.21 Even now, the memory of the Great Fatherland War re-mains actual, “as a reference point and ‘litmus paper’, as the last bastion of a national self-consciousness”.22 Thus in the Petersburg Dialogue cultural agreements, both Russian and German authorities have pledged to invest more resources into the preservation of me-morials and museums dedicated to the victims of the Second World War, and to promote excursions to these sights.23

With a growing economic crisis, Berlin is trying to merchandise (with some good results) its im-age not only as a multicultural and tolerant city, but also as a key site for commemorating the history of the 20th century, and the battleground of the Cold War.24 In many tourist guidebooks and excursions, the classic Russian Berlin of the aristocratic intel-

ligentsia who escaped the bolshevik revolution in the 1920s has been replaced by the more modern and exciting Soviet Berlin25 – and the War Memorial in Treptower Park has become a “must” for tourists, especially Russians.26

The attitude regarding the two monuments is symp-tomatic of the two periods under consideration, and illustrates two different political uses of art ina re-unified Germany. Intended to be another steptoward the integration of the two Germanys, the removal of the Lenin monument demonstrated the deep existing internal divisions and the necessity to develop an open dialogue on how to face the cul-tural heritage of the GDR. During that period, the collapsing Soviet Union was occupied with its own internal crisis, and in keeping with Gorbachev’s for-eign policy of self-determination, did not interfere. The restoration of Nikolai in Treptower Park was notonly the result of a new historical and commercial confidence vis-a-vis Berlin’s political monuments, it was a further step in the intensification of Russian-German relations. Under Putin, Russia once again started to play a primary role in foreign policy, and succeeded in finding legitimation, in this case in theSoviet past, and on German territory.

Using Marc Augé’s distinction between ruin and rubble, one could define the Nikolai statue a ruin,

PO

ST

-C

OM

MU

NI

ST

CU

LT

UR

E A

ND

NE

W M

YT

HS

Fig. 4. Removal of the Nikolai statue from the Memorial in Treptower Park, 2003. Photo courtesy: Rico Kassmann

197

and the Lenin monument rubble. In ruins, which are subject to nature and time, we can see and per-ceive the past, and acknowledge history. Augé calls this their main “educational vocation”.27 Augé also emphasises the function of ruins, restored or not, as tourist attractions – as a “synthesis or compromise” between documenting information and being part of an integral décor. And, as is particularly appro-priate in the case of Treptower Park, Augé definestourism as one of the most spectacular forms of present-day ideology.28

The Lenin monument, however, is mere rubble, forits fate was deliberately decided by a destructive hu-man action. There is no function ascribed to rub-ble, and as Augé points out, the fundamental issue is “how to get rid of it? What to build in its place?”.29 Although the last question appears to remain par-tially unanswered, what is clear is that the Lenin monument has not had time to age, to become his-tory – to become a ruin.

Notes

1 See Paul Kaiser, ‘Gestürzte Helden, gestützte Welten’ (‘Fallen Heroes, Supported Worlds’), in: Paul Kaiser, Karl-Siegbert Rehberg (eds.), Enge und Vielfalt (Narrowness and Diversity), Hamburg: Junius Verlag, 1999, pp. 375-376.2 Svetlana Boym, The Future of Nostalgia, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 176. On the problematic of “normalisation” in post-socialist Europe, see Bojana Pejić, ‘The Dialecticsof Normality’, in: Bojana Pejić, David Elliott (eds.), Afterthe Wall – Art and Culture in post-Communist Europe, Stockholm: Moderna Museet, 1999, pp. 16-27. In the catalogue of the exhibition, which appeared in Stockholm (1999), Budapest (2000), and Berlin (2000/2001), the head curator points out the necessity to present a “nor-mal-looking exhibition that would by-pass any need for the exotic” (ibid., p. 18) and any (post)ideological mystifi-cation. In doing that, she quotes Deimantas Narkevičius: “I am a little bit tired of being a ‘Lithuanian artist’. I would like to be just an artist.” (Ibid., p. 19.) As one step towards the so-called process of normalisation, Pejić includes the removal of Lenin statues from most of the public spaces in eastern Europe. Interestingly, some years later, in a video called Once in the 20th Century (2004), Narkevičius showed the dismantling of the main Lenin monument in Vilnius (like Berlin’s Lenin, executed by Tomsky, and also removed in 1991!). Narkevičius edited the video in reverse, however, so that the Lenin monument seems to be erected and acclaimed by the joyous people gathered around it. This work perfectly illustrates the concept ofnormality as purely a question of relativity, dependant not

only on points of view and on intentions, but also on the way (and on the direction) this process is shown to us. 3 Katalin Sinkó, ‘Die Riten der Politik: Denkmalserrichtung, Standbildersturz’ (‘The Rites of Politics: MonumentErection, Statue Destruction’), in: Péter György (ed.), Staatskunstwerk: Kultur im Stalinismus (State Artwork: Culture under Stalin), Budapest: Corvina, 1992, p. 71. 4 Mikhail Yampolsky, ‘In the Shadow of Monuments’, in: Nancy Condee (ed.), Soviet Hieroglyphics: Visual Culture in late 20th Century Russia, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995, p. 93.5 Andrea Pinotti, ‘Dal monumento al non-umento. E ritorno’ (‘From the Monument to the Non-ument. And Return’), in: Chiara Cappelletto, Simona Chiodo (eds.), La traccia della memoria, Monumento-rovina-museo (Memory Traces, Monument-Ruin-Museum), Milano: Cuem, 2004, pp. 27-28.6 Slavoj Žižek, Il godimento come fattore politico (For TheyKnow Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor), Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore, 2001, p. 14.7 Laura Mulvey, ‘Reflections on Disgraced Monuments’,in: Neil Leach (ed.), Architecture and Revolution: Contemporary Perspective on Central and Eastern Europe, London: Routledge, 1999, p. 222.8 See Dubravka Ugrešič, ‘Confiscation of Memory’, in: TheCulture of Lies: Anti-Political Essays, London: Phoenix House, 1998, pp. 217-235.9 See Sergiusz Michalski, Public Monuments, Art in Political Bondage 1870-1997, London: Reaktion, 1998, p. 150.10 See Boym, 2001, pp. 50-51.11 See Hubert Staroste, ‘Politische Denkmäler in Ost-Berlin im Spannungsfeld von Kulturpolitik und Denkmalpflege’(‘Political Monuments in East Berlin between Cultural Policy and Preservation’), in: Bildersturm in Osteuropa (Iconoclasm in Eastern Europe), ICOMOS – Hefte desDeutschen Nationalkomitees, no. 13, 1996, pp. 84-86.12 See Kaiser, 1999, p. 377.13 On the removal of the Lenin monument and the fate of other Soviet monuments in Berlin see also Matteo Bertelè, ‘Die Russen kommen! Fortuna e ricezione del patrimonio iconografico sovietico a Berlino dopo la caduta del Muro’(‘Die Russen kommen! Success and Reception of Soviet Iconographic Heritage in Berlin after the Fall of the Wall’),in: Eva Banchelli (ed.), Taste the East, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press and Sestante Edizioni, 2006, pp. 165-198.14 See Nike Bätzner, ‘Helden der Vergangenheit’ (‘Heroes from the Past’), in: Pawel Choroschilow, Jürgen Harten, Joachim Sartorius, Peter-Klaus Schuster (eds.), Berlin-Moskau/Moskau-Berlin 1950-2000, Chronik (Berlin-Moscow/Moscow-Berlin 1950-2000, Chronicle), Berlin: Nicolai, 2003, p. 192.15 On the mystification of the Second World War in thecollective and national memory, and the new myth-mak-ing in both German states see the catalogue Monica Flacke (ed.), Mythen der Nationen, Arena der Erinnerungen (Myths of Nations, Arena of Memories), Berlin: Deutsches Historisches Museum, 2004.16 See Peter Fibich, ‘Der Triumph des Sieges über den Tod’ (‘The Triumph of Victory over Death’), in: Gartenkunst, no. 1, 1996, pp. 137-152; and Antonina Manina, ‘Sowjetische Denkmäler für Moskau und Berlin’ (‘Soviet Monuments for Moscow and Berlin’), in: Irina Antonowa, Jörn Merkert (eds.), Berlin-Moskau/Moskau-Berlin 1900-1950

PO

KO

MU

NI

ST

IN

Ė K

UL

TŪ

RA

IR

NA

UJ

I M

IT

AI

198

(Berlin-Moscow/Moscow-Berlin 1900-1950), München, Berlin: Prestel, 1995, pp. 475-478.17 See Klaus V. Krosigk, ‘Die sowjetischen Ehrenmale in Berlin, eine denkmalpflegerische Herausforderung’(‘Soviet Memorials in Berlin, a Challenge for Monument Preservation’), in: Stalinistische Architektur (Stalinist Architecture), ICOMOS – Hefte des deutschenNationalkomitees, no. 20, 1996, p. 35.18 See Stefan Jacobs, ‘Good-Bye, Nicolai!’, in: Der Tagesspiegel, 2 February 2003.19 See Britta Freis, Marlon Jopp (eds.), Spuren der deutschen Einheit: Wanderungen zwischen Theorien undSchauplätzen der Transformation (Remnants of German Unity: between Theories and Places of Transformation), Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2001, pp. 211-325.20 See Paolo Capuzzo, ‘Good-Bye Lenin, la nostalgia del co-munismo nella Germania riunificata’ (‘Good-Bye Lenin,Nostalgia for Communism in Reunified Germany’), in:Studi culturali, no. 1, 2004, p. 161.21 See Peter Jahn, ‘Sowjetische Erinnerung an den Krieg’ (‘Soviet Memory of the War’), in: Burkhard Asmuss, Kay Kufeke, Philipp Springer (eds.), 1945 – Der Krieg und seine Folgen (1945 – The War and its Consequences), Bönen: DruckVerlag Kettler, 2005, p. 84. Until 2006, Peter Jahn was director of the Deutsch-Russisches Museum Berlin Karlshorst (German-Russian Museum in Berlin Karlshorst), which has a permanent collection on Russian-German relations in the 20th century; and oftenspecial exhibitions, including two on the perception and the reception of the Second World War in Soviet, post-

Soviet, and both divided and reunified German memory:Stalingrad erinnern – Stalingrad im deutschen und im rus-sischen Gedächtnis (Remembering Stalingrad – Stalingrad in German and Russian Memory), Berlin: Links, 2003; and Triumph und Trauma: Sowjetische und postsowje-tische Erinnerung an den Krieg 1941-1945 (Triumph and Trauma: Soviet and post-Soviet Memories of the War 1941-1945), Berlin: Links, 2005.22 Natalja Konradova, Anna Ryleva, ‘Geroi i zhertvy, Memorialy Velikoj Оtechestvennoi’ (‘Heroes and Victims, Memorials to the Great Fatherland’), in: Neprikosnovennyj Zapas, no. 2/3 (40/41), 2005, p. 135. 23See: www.petersburgerdialog.de/de 24 See Hanns Peter Nerger, ‘Die Spuren der Teilung fehlen uns heute’ (‘The Traces of Division are Missing Now’), in:Der Tagesspiegel, 6 November 2004, p. 10. 25 On the ‘Soviet style’ as a new brand of Berlin tour-ism, design and club aesthetics see Giovanni Moretto, ‘Nostalgie e retaggi iconografici sovietici a Berlino dopola caduta del Muro’ (‘Nostalgia and Soviet Iconographic Legacy in Berlin since the Fall of the Wall”), in: Banchelli, 2006, pp. 199-223.26 See Victoria Syromolotova, ‘Vozvrashcheniye v Berlin 60 let spustya’ (‘Return to Berlin 60 Years Later’), in: Gorod aeroport, no. 2, 2005, pp. 16-21. 27 Marc Augé, Le temps en ruines (Time in Ruins), Paris: Galilée, 2003, p. 45.28 Ibid., p. 69.29 Ibid., p. 94.

Matteo BertelèHumboldto universitetas, Berlynas

Sudie, Lenine – viso gero, Nikolajau: du požiūriai į sovietinį palikimą buvusiame Rytų Berlyne

Reikšminiai žodžiai: Berlynas, sovietiniai paminklai, Berlyno sienos griūtis, Lenino paminklas, Nikolajus Tomskis, išmontavimas, susijungimas, normalizacija, protestai, refleksyvi nostalgija, Treptowerio parko me-morialas, Jevgenijus Vučetičius, restauracija, ostalgija, Didysis tėvynės karas, Putino-Schröderio draugystė, nuolaužos, griuvėsiai.

Santrauka

Straipsnyje aptariami ir lyginami du susijungusio Berlyno valdžios požiūriai į du sąjungininkės Sovietų Sąjungos paliktus įspūdingus paminklus Rytų Berlyne: skulptoriaus Nikolajaus Tomskio sukurtą Lenino paminklą ir Jevgenijaus Vučetičiaus sukurtą Nikolajaus Masalovo statulą Treptowerio parko Karo memoriale, skirtame kri-tusiems Raudonosios Armijos kariams. Žlugus Vokietijos Demokratinės Respublikos režimui, abu paminklai at-laikė spontaniškus ikonoklastų puolimus, nes tų puolimų objektas dažniau buvo Siena – labiausiai „nekenčiamas“ Berlyno paminklas.

PO

ST

-C

OM

MU

NI

ST

CU

LT

UR

E A

ND

NE

W M

YT

HS

199

Miesto valdžia priėmė sprendimą nugriauti Lenino paminklą ir pateikė tai kaip natūralią Berlyno susijungimo ir prieš lygiai dvejus metus, griuvus Berlyno sienai, prasidėjusios revoliucijos pasekmę. Paminklo išmontavimas sukėlė seną neapykantą ir stiprius protestus, kurių metu pasirodė seni šūkiai iš demonstracijų, surengtų kaip tik prieš VDR žlugimą. Bet vaidmenys dabar buvo pakitę.

Nikolajaus statula taip pat buvo nukelta, bet tai įvyko daugiau nei po dešimties metų ir dėl visai kitokių priežasčių: ją reikėjo tinkamai restauruoti. Statulos, o kartu ir viso Treptowerio parko ansamblio restauravimas, buvo ne tik naujo geopolitinio etapo Vokietijoje (Schröderio-Putino draugystė), bet ir naujų istorinių, komercinių ir ekonominių sąlygų rezultatas. Vokiečių nostalgija socialistinei praeičiai, vadinamoji „ostalgija“, pastaraisiais me-tais tapo dideliu verslu. Miesto valdžia mėgina išsaugoti netolimos miesto praeities įrodymus ne tik kaip istorines vietas, bet ir kaip turistinius objektus.

Gauta: 2007 03 10Parengta spaudai: 2007 10 08

PO

KO

MU

NI

ST

IN

Ė K

UL

TŪ

RA

IR

NA

UJ

I M

IT

AI