you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Okay, können wir beginnen? Ja? Hi everyone! Ah, ich kann meine Maske runternehmen. okay can we begin yeah hi everyone so hi everyone thanks for being here with us today tonight my name is Michaela Gibbalsberger I'm representing IG Architektur I would like to welcome you in our rooms of IG Architektur today. We have guests on site and we have quite a lot of digital participants. The digital participants can ask questions in our chat and we will answer them after the talk of Zhenya. I would like to point out that this event will be recorded and it will be available on YouTube afterwards on our website. We meet today in times of crisis and war. This war is taking place on European ground. We are here today in Vienna in IG Architektur and Neutral Ground, and we will talk about architecture, the built heritage in Kharkiv, and the danger in which this heritage is situated or located right now. Today we will hear the lecture of Zhenya Gubkina. So Zhenya is the short version of Evgenia. She will talk about Ukrainian heritage of leftist urbanism under Russian threat. And the event is organized by IG Architektur and claiming spaces of the Technical University of Vienna. Just briefly about our schedule today after short introduction we will hear the presentation of Shania kubkina and it will take around 40 minutes 45 minutes and afterwards the guests invited to ask questions also our digital digital guests, as I said, in the chat, in the YouTube chat. Afterwards, the guests on site are invited after the talk for informal exchange in our courtyard outside. A few words about Zhenya Gubkina. She's an architect, historian, and curator of architecture and art projects. She is from Kharkiv. She was born there and is living there. She's a co-founder of several NGOs and projects, among others, Urban Form Center and Women's avant-garde movement she graduated in khaki of National Academy in urban planning she published several books and we will you can also have a look at some of the books a selection on the table at the entrance and we will also hear a little bit more about her publications after the war started in Ukraine she was forced to leave leave khaki and now temporary moved to Latvia where she's based right now and Shania is visiting Vienna just very briefly and we are happy that we have you tonight. We first, or I first met Zhenya in 2016 for a project I did about architecture research project with transit and Zhenya gave us a tour through Kharkiv and we were amazed about the city. It was beautiful, this architecture and it was very impressive and Chen yeah really knew every corner of the city a lot has been destroyed already unfortunately and it's feared that worse will become so we will hear today Shania's ideas impression and assessments with us today I will now give the word to inge Manka from claiming spaces and about she will also talk about her and to Xenia. Thank you, Michaela. Hello, so from my side, as Michaela said, I'm Inge Manka. I work as a senior scientist at the Institute of Art and Design at the TU Wien. Today I'm here as a representative of our feminist bottom-up collective Claiming Spaces at the Faculty of Architecture and Spatial Planning. In November 2019, Xenia Kupkina was a guest and speaker at our first Claiming Spaces conference. Just before our second conference at the 26th of March, about two weeks ago, at the Architekturzentrum Wien, Schenja contacted us and asked whether we could help organize today's event. For the conference itself, Schenja wrote us an open letter, which was read out there. I would like to quote briefly from this letter. Dear participants of the second Claiming Spaces conference, in 2019 it was a different time. In my other old reality, I was here in Vienna participating in the first Claiming Spaces conference. I gave a talk that my colleagues called a burn-out speech, and I called it the dead architect's speech. Through my personal story, I revealed a multidimensional aspect of the phenomenon of inequality and toxicity of some positive attitudes produced by liberal feminism. What is my reality today? My reality is a vastly destroyed home city of Kharkiv. For many years I have been a guide of hundreds and thousands of people, as we heard, into this city. Most of my research and activist architecture and restoration projects were related to this city. I wrote a book about this city and I send it to my publisher month before the war. Its historical center, its heart, with the largest number of heritage sites of all styles and all periods is located was ruined. Each fourth building has been destroyed. Heritage objects, including the dash prom from the UNESCO tentative list, are in danger. End of quote. Today she will tell us in more detail about this heritage in Kharkiv. Before this book on Kharkiv, she wrote and edited or co-edited several other books on the Ukrainian urbanist heritage. And as Michaela mentioned, some of them are in the back and you can have a look at them. On my side, there exists a second connection with the architecture and urban heritage of Ukraine. Since 1995, the two schools of architecture of Lvivska Politechnik and Teowin are cooperating. I've been part of this cooperation since 2016 and have had the opportunity to organize small artistic workshops with students in Lviv, Kharkiv and Slavutich. The workshop in Kharkiv took place in the Traktor city, which you will hear more about from Zhenya, I think. You can find a small booklet on this workshop on the book table, as well as another one on the workshop we did in Slavutich, the replacement city for Pribyat near Chernobyl. Zhenya's guide on this last ideal city of the Soviet Union, as she called it, was a big help for us. So I'm really sad that we have to meet again under these cruel circumstances. Thank you for coming, Xenia, for finding the time and above all the energy to come to Vienna and give us this lecture. Thank you. Thank you. That is my first event, public event since COVID started. So I'm very happy to see all of you. It's really very specific experience and it's really sad that we should talk about such a sad topic thank you thank you very much for presentation in such a warm words of me and moreover saying thank you for having me to Egea architecture and claiming spaces so I'm really an architect I'm really an architect. I'm really from Kharkiv. And for me it was a question how to... Yesterday, for example, I thought how should I popularize or share information about this event during the whole very difficult situation in Ukraine when people are dying. And I even wrote a small post about that and I can read that Kharkiv is under the threat of a new phase of the war heritage is memory memory of both difficult and contradictory periods it is hard to talk about heritage preservation while people are being killed but heritage is not just bricks and walls. It's what is beyond. But what is there? There are people, people of yesterday, people of tomorrow, and people of today. Today are often as dead as alive, as their homes, as their cities, so ruined and so withstanding so I think that is the question how should we talk about heritage preservation and even just in general how should we talk about architecture when such a lot of people are dying and when there are so many bigger more tragic and more difficult events situations happened for me that is the answer that we should talk about heritage in such a moment but there is a question how should we talk about that and i'm desperately seeking for the answer for the tool for the method how should we think about heritage how should we talk about heritage how should we protect heritage during war and then how should we act actually and i can say in different we act actually and i can say in different consultations in different events concerning the situation in heritage protection issues during war in ukraine i can be maybe pessimistic or even a bit cynical i can say that no one world institution or heritage protection organization, even including UNESCO, can't protect heritage during war. Because you can do actually nothing in front of missiles, in front of bombs, in front of shellings. And that is a reality, if we talk about my words on claiming the space last conference, that is the reality that we should think about which actually. Because most of post-war organizations that were developed after the Second World War actually designed the procedures, designed the methods, tools and so on for peaceful times. And that is a huge problem because they have no answers and no methods what to do during war. Of course we can be very angry when they said us that they are deeply concerned and that is all that they can do. But actually they really can do nothing. And in such a situation, I think that intellectual society, architects, art and historians should somehow think about how to reflect and how to understand that reality. And then what type of reflection should we give people? Because people asking me each day in messenger and all other networks by calls, how to think about that? How to think about what actually happens? What actually happens with our cities? So today I decided to talk about exactly leftist heritage. Why leftist heritage? I think that was some misunderstanding in the Soviet heritage issues and Soviet heritage questions for many years. I think that, by the way, for many years, for decades, I think, I was involved exactly in Soviet heritage issues and in Soviet modernism issues. That's why I somehow know the situation from inside. That's why I somehow know the situation from inside. That is quite trendy thing, you know, that modernism, postmodernism and everything in between was very trendy for many years. And I think that it happened in such a strange way that the Russian Federation somehow appropriate the whole that concept of Soviet heritage. It means when you talk about Soviet heritage, usually you think about Moscow heritage or Russian heritage. I think that we should somehow start dividing Soviet Union in different republics. We should understand that Soviet Union, it's not just Moscow and not just the Russian Federation. It was 15 republics in the Soviet Union and Russian Federation was just one of them. That's why maybe you heard now the current political news about the UN meeting where our diplomat said that actually not Russian Federation should be a member of UN because the member of you UN it was Soviet Union and I think that is the question of continuity that somehow russia explained everybody that they continued the story of exactly soviet union the whole that's why my attempt today will be to describe the absolutely separate not absolutely but autonomous world of ukrainian leftist architectural ideas. And to explain that that is not something like, I don't know, some Moscow guys came to our empty space and built something. And even I remember some people said that Ukraine for decades, for centuries, was just some land for implementing experimental ideas of Russian avant-garde. That is actually not true. And today I will try to explain you why it's not true and why that is quite a dangerous construct. That somehow connected not with leftistist ideas but much more with imperialistic ideas so absolutely opposite situation so what we can say about kharkiv kharkiv actually that is really my native my hometown my heart and everything that i have uh for it happens actually, all my research started from Kharkiv because the topic of my PhD was exactly Kharkiv tractor settlement, Kharkiv, the settlement that called New Kharkiv, near Kharkiv tractor factory. From that period it lead to the understanding of the whole picture of Ukrainian Soviet Ukrainian heritage from the beginning like 1917 till 1991 and it finished exactly with the book on Slavutich the last Soviet city actually so but Kharkiv Kharkiv was the capital of Soviet Ukraine, first capital of Soviet Ukraine. That was quite modern city even before. So all that construct about empty space, I think is again something very colonial, just to think that nothing was built before. Uh, so, uh, another point was that, uh, we should understand somehow economical and political situation that when we think about Soviet union, we think all the time about command and administrative system, but we should understand that in the twenties, in the thirties, it was a new economical politics that have a bit, but not actually a bit different structure and different logic. And when we look at the interwar heritage, Soviet heritage in general, and Ukrainian heritage, we should understand that that is actually the consequences of new economical politics, but not actually of common administrative system. I think that is very crucial point for understanding how architecture actually builds, how architecture works, and how to understand why some strange things can happen with it in future. So, I can say that in that period of new economical politics it was not just the period of some economical development of ukraine but moreover it was the period of so-called so-called executed renaissance so it's a quite interesting more literature phenomenon of flourishing of our culture with a lot of beautiful poets writers authors moreover it was a huge rise of different and very interesting movements in artistic sphere ukrainian avant-garde and moreover it was really a huge development of architectural ideas architectural sphere but what should i say that it's not something that developed just again in empty space if we talk about architecture because i can talk first of all about architecture. I can say that usually architectural development, especially architectural theory development, connected with architectural education. And when we look to Kharkiv, we can see that in the end of the 19th century in Kharkiv Polytechnic, in those times it was technical institute, architectural department was open. And from that moment exactly quite separate, quite autonomous architectural, Kharkiv architectural school start to develop. That's why we should understand that it happened not in Soviet times like some historical propaganda books wrote, but even in before revolution times. Moreover, when separate local architectural school start growing and developing, that leads to another consequences, for example, such phenomena of Ukrainian national modern. It's like pre-modernist style. It's not the same with Art Nouveau or Jugendstil or something like that. It's much closer exactly to modernism. And moreover, it had, of course, national features. All this is somehow connected with the revolution of 1905. So not everything started just from the scratch in 1917. That was a background of a lot of things. And moreover, if we talk about leftist urbanism, what my surprise was when I opened the book of architect, architect, Macy Dickenski and Alexander Ginzburg. They were Kharkiv architects. They start writing books on urbanism, on new issues of new architecture in 1906-1911 so before the First World War and when I read the book of Dickens key I understood that it looked like methodological guidelines for the whole idea for the whole concept of socialist architecture and socialist urbanism like each statement each methodological base is already developed it was developed before the before evolution appeared so I think there is some background on on all the topics but let's return to architecture. And if we return to architecture, we should return to typologies. So of course, first of all, when we talk about leftist urbanism or leftist architecture, I mean, socialistic architecture actually, or social oriented architecture. It was not, should be like a guard somewhere, build that buildings, actually people build that buildings by their own finances. And the cooperative movement stopped exactly when Stalin decided to switch an economical system from a new economical politics to a common administrative system. It started that that closing of the project of cooperative movement started either like the house for military workers in Kharkiv on Sumskaya Street. It was built exactly as a cooperative house. That was actually one of the very interest street. It was built under the project of Jewish architect Steinberg here is again another scratched of Steinberg who was quite an interesting theorist exactly of leftist architecture and it was his own name called himself as marxist architect and tried to explain his ideas and how he interpreted marxist theories through architecture even in text that was quite a good in and into and that's why they just like urban planners that that have just very old uh not current situation map that's why they heated a lot of buildings for military issues. If the buildings are now the shops or even some glamour shops for Max Mara and so on. But in the Soviet times, that building was for military workers. And when we talk again about typologies, we talked about residential buildings and cooperative movement. Here is the building of another function and I can say that I can call that like social infrastructure, but it's not just social infrastructure, it's social cultural infrastructure. And exactly in Kharkiv we had great and numerous with lots of objects, network of exactly clubs. Usually they were working class clubs, sometimes they were some social groups clubs or some organization clubs and so on such clubs they can be such a point of interest for community and can be a community hubs or something like that but first history of such clubs of course started from the factories from the working-class culture and that is the part of working class culture actually. And the first working class club was built before revolution in Kharkiv and it called Club Metalist for the workers of railway factory. And here is the club. Not comfortable? Okay, okay. I want to be closer. So that is a club of culture of railway workers. And maybe some people who know the history of revolution know that railway workers, it was one of the, all the narrative of revolution was built. Another point of building, built under the project of, and it was in quite a good condition before this war started. So there's a lot of authentic details, stairs, beautiful windows and all this. And I can say that the situation with heritage protection actually in Ukraine wasn't good even before war. So we have some troubles in our legislation base, we had some problems with preservation issues and with conservative work. That's why that example was actually something like a treasure because it was under the heat and you can see here that it was destroyed from this point but it looks more or less okay from that side but the heat was from the courtyard that's why it was heavily heavily demolished from that courtyard. And moreover, you can see that here, we lost windows. We lost all the details of the first floor. Moreover, in such situation, what is very, very dangerous when the house or such a monument can be burned? That is even more difficult situation, what to do then. That is even more difficult situation how to, what to do then. And of course my first love, that is Kharkiv tractor factory, settlements that called socialist city New Kharkiv. When I talk about that social oriented functions like cooperative houses and club of cultures, it's more or less similar, I think, with European tradition of such a socialist architecture that can include, for example, hospitals, kindergartens, schools, for example, some other network of social-oriented typologies. But that was another example of quite radical architecture, much more radical leftist architecture. And I think that how I understand my native place where actually I lived in fourth generation, so I'm a local from that district, that is exactly the most radical ideas. And how the idea worked, actually. It was a team of young architects with the leader of the team, architect from before Revolution Times, academician Pavlo Alyoshen. And the idea was to try again to interpretate the Marxist theories in urban space. Exactly not in one object, not in one building, but exactly in urban space. It was a huge, quite a big town city satellite near Kharkiv, near that Kharkiv tractor factories that was built with the ideas and with the help of American architects and American engineers. But exactly that settlement was built just by the ideas of Ukrainian architects, actually from Kyiv. So they decided to use open quarter. And that was actually a discussion that is in books. The discussion between old architects and young architects, because old architects, they said that the best form of quarter of block should be closed block. But young architects, they stress that the quarter should be open, because that is actually the idea of new architecture. We can see that Ernst May idea of stroking bow, we call that strojne as a stroke it means like some stripes striped development and it should be 36 such quarters in in that settlement so quite a big population of people another idea was that each quarter should consist from different functions that allow people to live happily but the main idea equally. So equality was like a strong idea, like a core idea of all that project. So how they, that young students, try to explain how to So how did young students try to explain how to gain equality? For example, they decided that if they use the method of Ernst May, we will have equal space for each person. Another point, we will have equal greenery for each person another point we will have equal greenery for each person we will have equal Sun sunshine for each person moreover that allowed wind just just going through the buildings and that is the sanitarium hygienic ideas of healthy society. Another point was exactly marked as a separate order for the architects. It was how to gain emancipation, actually emancipation of women. So they decided just to delete kitchens. So it's quite interesting idea. So if you have actually a problem with kitchen connected with women it's simpler just to delete that kitchen at all so all that buildings they have no kitchens and how people should actually eat and find food in that complex it should be a so-called kitchen factory, we call that, it's literally translation, but it's like semi-finished products, cafe or canteen, something like that. So it looked like here people will have the food and moreover all that buildings should be connected on the level of the second floor with such a bridge so bridge it's really some very important idea of Kharkiv architecture because it's not just here it's in a lot of other projects and another point was that on the rooftop of the buildings should be gardens but it's quite the same for the whole world in that period and another point was that kindergartens you can see here four kindergartens they are connected on the level of second floor two it allowed women go to work actually so they can live here and go here and leave the child in kindergarten then go here and eat and then go to the factory so they have had even the schedule what is the ideal schedule of a day of the worker of Kharkiv tractor factory. That was quite an interesting evidence again of such a type of rationalization of the life. So, I can say that some ideas of that trying attempt to equality, they failed. But that was for many years, I think the idea that that ideas failed just because the ideas actually were bad. But I don't think that ideas were bad, but implementation maybe sometimes not good. Moreover, the project was changed on the period of construction. And again, we can match that date quite important date of 1932 the data is connected not just with the architectural issues not with political issues or economical issues but moreover with some um development of so-called style of socialist realism. So in 1932, like the one main style in the whole Soviet Union should be socialist realism. That idea to implement one style finished with the huge campaigns against constructivists, modernists, functionalists, and all other people who are not socialist realist architects. And moreover, such ideas that I described here, they were called exactly leftist ideas, Levatskyi ideae who understand Russian. That is quite funny because actually Stalin said that he is leftist, and Soviet Union is leftist state, but why leftist project is bad? But I think that is actually an answer, that real leftist ideas maybe is not okay for them. real leftist ideas maybe is not okay for them. And so they decided to demolish that bridges. Moreover, they decided to build such a roof. I don't remember how to translate that. So flat roofs called as not economical are not good. Moreover, they called all that architects, that they were crazy young architects who were under the crazy ideas of Ernst May. So that's why Soviet architects should find their solution and their answers not to copy ideas of Western architects. Here you can see actually what was built. So a bridge should be here. That is the pictures and photos from very good Ukrainian archive of Pshenichny. And here you can see exactly that canteen. And now it looks like that because really it's not the, it wasn't the paradise even before war because it was exactly proletarian district and the factory stopped working, as I remember, in 2009 or something like that. This way, it's quite difficult place with different problems, social problems. But here, you can see exactly what happened during the war. That idea actually were not maybe the craziest one because, for example, some, again, some members of the team of Socialist City New Kharkiv, they've producted another experimental ideas especially exactly female architect Manucharova. I will, because that is connected with Manucharova, Nina Manucharova. Мужчина-архитекторка Манучарова, я буду... потому что это связано с Ниной Манучаровой. Она планировала довольно интересное и создала довольно интересное проект детских комьюн под названием FED. Феликс Эдмундович Дзержинский. FED. Это была довольно контроверсивная идея Макаренко, педагогист Макаренко, что дети That was a quite controversial idea of Makarenko, pedagogist Makarenko, that children from, abandoned children, clachar, from, without parents, they can be somehow educated through work. But from other side, actually, they built factory, and it was the story much more about child labor. But from the point of heritage protection issues, I think that examples are quite interesting. Now, we are going to maybe the most important point, where we actually met with Mikhail. That is Freedom Square. Can't. So that is Freedom Square and I'm definitely sure that through that weeks you saw a lot of pictures from Freedom Square. That is the place where the most famous building of modernism in Ukraine, I think, but definitely in Kharkiv situated. It is a building of Dershprom, or maybe some people know better in Russian language Gazprom, but it's not actually Gazprom it's Gazprom because Gazprom it means a variation of the citizen a permissionist state industriality so it's nothing common with Gazprom anyway but it's better to call that there's from in Ukrainian language so that building situated here there is a masterpiece of constructivism made from monolite concrete and the first skyscraper in Soviet Union. In bigger scale, from my urban planning background, I can mention that here is that Freedom Square and that the function of the Freedom Square was actually Parliament Center. So it should be the center of governance of the whole Ukraine, Soviet Ukraine. But here is the old center. And it's quite interesting idea of not to build to demolish old center and to build something new, but to make such a dialogue in the space between old and new. So they preserved old center as it was, and build new center in the distance and such a new city and old city all the time we were somehow in the dialogue between each other like some old life and new life and the way from old life to new life connected through the main street of Kharkiv so that was actually the idea of architect Steinberg that I mentioned in the beginning of the lecture, that according to historical materialism, we shouldn't demolish the old buildings even if they were the part of bourgeois heritage. So, we should somehow combine bourgeois heritage with new parts of modernist heritage or with the communist or socialist heritage and to show some new discussion between that historical layers and moreover you can see why I use exactly that picture because I think that that structure is very beautiful and it can show how that modern is big structure urban structure exactly appeared in the old network of old streets i think it's quite conceptual idea here is again that freedom square so as a main object of freedom square was exactly a dash prom building. And you can see that bridges, I mentioned that bridges, it's very important for Ukrainian architecture of the 20s and the 30s. And from my point of view, that symbolize exactly the horizontal connection, because if you look at Stalinist, socialist realism, Seven Sisters in Moscow, you can see that vertical. And that is actually the main idea of vertical construction of power. But here you can see the other type of power. So they try to interpretate exactly power phenomenon and how new power should be implemented and formed exactly in architectural forms with architectural language or through architectural language and here you can see a so-called square and in the period when it was constructed it was sometimes even permanent constructions with a logo or motor where it was written to manage in new way a caravata so it's quite interesting that they combined exactly such statements or such even promo messages about their power and how they will power or manage in uva through architecture too so what is actually the universe of that new power of Ukrainian state and I think of Ukrainian National Communism period You can see the main object that is That Drshporom building but what is important about that building is again the connection with new economical politics because that building should be the office for different separate and autonomous trusts syndicates and and other formations of industriality it means that separate factory actually had opportunity even to sign contracts with foreign specialists but not just with foreign specialists, but even with foreign customers and foreign partners. So it's quite a big gap of freedom and of doing what they want to do. So that should be exactly the one building with offices of all that trusts and syndicates. And it was even the first time it was even called like house of trusts,. So I think that a bit American or capitalist lexicon, it's quite interesting tool exactly in our attempts to understand what was actually the period of the 20s. So other buildings that should be here, now that is the building of Kharkiv State University, but on those time previously during the designing the square, it should be the House of Parliament. So, but in of Parliament. But in 1930 they already understood maybe that the capital will be in future moved to Kyiv because we were capital just for not from 1917 till 1934. So I'm not very good in mathematics but some period, period and then they decided to switch the function to house of projects I think from some semiotic side of the question is quite interesting metaphoric statement too because on which we based exactly that new type of power on industriality, on architectural projects actually. And from this side, it should be the building of cooperation. But what is actually a cooperation? And it's again some interesting that when architectural historians talk about new economical politics functions, I think we have the lack of understanding of that economical system and from which functions actually it consists that's why usually people just said house of cooperation who is whom should cooperate in that building nothing understandable just the title but actually it was a part again of new economical politics with the thought that here should be industriality like one of the biggest basic columns of economy economy but cooperation it means exactly agricultural cooperation so we can see that freedom friendship between people from villages who should be somehow connected with agricultural sphere and with proletariat in the cities so that is actually the universe of that new power and from other side so that is a beautiful picture of that period. I will tell you about other site in few minutes. So, this is the picture how that house of projects look like after the Second World War. So, it was under shelling again. It looked like this, but you see actually is a structure of the building and it's quite impressive even being not totally partially demolished it's again the pictures after the Second World War and now my best friend, Socialist Realism. After the Second World War, there was no discussion actually, no discussion how cities should be reconstructed after bombing and after the Second World War. They were definitely sure that it should be reconstructed in the order of socialist realism. So that is actually the project for this building. It should look like Moscow State University, Lomonosov University. You can see that spile and all that details and so on. So I think that when we talk about Stalinist reconstruction of the cities, we should understand that it's not just something that all the cities were totally deconstructed, that's why they built new buildings. But some people, even some professors from university, they thought that maybe that building was built in the 50s. So it's something like manipulation, historical manipulation in space, because people and ordinary people start thinking that that is actually the achievement of the period of Stalinist reconstruction of the city. But it was not because you can see that all the structure of the building is the same. They just combined that with this pile and with architectural details. So they put such a coverage of Stalinist details on the whole buildings of the Parliament Center. Moreover, it was even in the newspapers and the architectural magazines, very strict critics of modernist idea of that double center but actually they again didn't mention that kharkiv was a capital of soviet ukraine that's why they built new center and another problem was that architecture changed but implementation of the project of that project with this pile exactly appeared in the period of hhrushchev's law. That's why it was not trendy anymore to put all that Stalinist details and that decorations even it called actually in Ukrainian or Russian language like Stalinist decoration. It's really like decoration. It's just decorate the building and the initial structure of the building. And that's why they decided to change the project and made something in between. It's not Stalinist anymore, but it's not modernist like it was before. And such a type of architecture that was built, for example, in 1955 till 1956-58, it's called even Abdir Arkhitektura that we can translate like scratched architecture so we had all that layer of Stalinist details but then it was scratched so scratched architecture the same situation was with other side of the square. So I shown you the three buildings of the central part. That is the Hotel Internacional or now that is the Hotel Kharkiv. So you can see how it looked before the Second World War. It was again in the same condition as House of Projects. It's still okay. And then actually the author of building, he should actually, he had no other choice to change his project to socialist realism. That's why he put that huge balconies and other details on his project. Moreover, what is a quite funny detail of socialist realism reconstructions is they always put some column portico on the facade. It means if you have some constructivist or modernist building, you should just put that Stalinist portico and it will be Stalinist realism at the same time. So, and another very important building that is quite famous in last days, not days, weeks, I think. That is actually the project of architect Steinberg that I mentioned maybe for three times today. That is his idea how actually that Marxist ideas or his ideas of historical materialism should look like in one object. So he decided that he should actually reconstruct the building of old administration of the city, regional administration of the city, but in Russian language or Ukrainian it's called Zemstvo. So it's like regional council. He should reconstruct that to the building of Central Committee of Communist Party, ЦКВКПБУ of Ukraine, of course. And his idea was to preserve old building, even eclectic building, and it was called eclectic, but it's some negative connotation in the word eclectic, so it's some historicism building. But why historicism building was deeply criticized by Marxist critics, architectural critics in those times because it was connected exactly with bourgeois. And they even called that bourgeois heritage. So he decided to preserve bourgeois heritage and that architecture and translate that in the language of architecture as the basis. So that is actually the basis, something old. And here you can see that very beautiful and simplified architecture, such a transparent architecture that is actually a superstructure. So that is exactly basis and superstructure. I think it was quite bold and interesting idea. Moreover, for exactly constructivism or for interval modernism of Soviet times for all other republics, it's very experimental because it looks like a bit even postmodernist architecture and quite fresh, I think. So for 1927, I think it's quite an interesting interpretation. Moreover, he really theorized I think it's quite an interesting interpretation. Moreover, he really theorized all that principles, and that is very important. So unfortunately, in 1932, the process of denying of such a controversial idea started, and the Central Committee of the Communist Party decided to change that structure of base. So they wanted to make it monolite. They said that it's not good when the building is such a controversial with such a contrast. That is better to standardize all the building in the one way. So they changed this. And during the Second World War, building was under shelling again and it was burned. And then Stalinist socialist realism again appeared. So you can see exactly here how the ideas Central Committee of Communist Party should exactly speak with us what is the ideas. And we can see the starting point of the development of the ideas from that idea of historical materialism and implementation actually of that idea to such a more a bit fascio style building with the one style. And then after the Second World War, socialist realism with a lot of huge columns. Usually, when it was before current war, I said that just imagine that building now is the regional administration of Kharkiv but it's still Central Committee corridors and that is still somehow the same rooms that Central Committee of Communist Party owned and it was some my critical point what actually changed if the building the same but when war started maybe you saw that beautiful photo in New York Times in Washington Post and in a lot of other newspapers all over the world it was made by my friend and photographer of exactly that book that I gave to my publisher in December. He made a lot of photos exactly of Kharkiv before war, before destruction, before demolition. And now he is on volunteer ideas. He decided to stay in Kharkiv and under Shelling he made all that photos his name is Pavlo Dragoi and I think he is a hero because he is our eyes in all that architectural world of demolition actually moreover he is very bold because just just when something exploded Pavel Pavlo is already there and made photos. Moreover, when we talk with different preservators, international preservators, they usually say that the one thing that we can do actually is that is documentation. So Pavlo is doing exact documentation now, documentation of demolition, but with some artistic and with some emotional side of that process. So here is the photos from inside space. It's not already Pavlo. You can see here the names in each photos. I put the names of photographers. Because a lot of photographers and reporters, they actually stayed in Kharkiv, and I think again that is the part of resistance of Kharkiv people that they decided to stay. Moreover, I have a friend who is actually a conservator who decided to stay in Kharkiv and preserve what she can. Her name is Katya Kublitskaya, and she is all the time in communication with city authorities, with regional authorities about how we should protect all the buildings of Kharkiv, and she even gathers some parts of buildings in some warehouse to preserve that. in some warehouse to preserve that. And another picture that I think that is a great picture exactly for the end of my lecture, because you can see exactly that place form a central committee of Communist Party and that window. Actually, it's still in East realism architecture but from the window, broken window you can see modernist architecture of Dershprom. I think that after all that background and after all that information, I can share some experience how usually I talk about the role of socialist realism. I usually said that socialist realism had the aim exactly, for example, in Kharkiv after the Second World War to exactly to change some historical narrative, to switch the narrative that everything was built after the Second World War. And to cover, to put some layer exactly on the heritage of interwar period and the heritage of national communism. Not to remember the period of Ukrainian capital, not to remember the tragedies that happened there. For example, because Kharkiv was one of the biggest cities with the victims of Gala Damor. Moreover, in 1934, even all the capital was like abandoned capital and moved to Kyiv, to more traditional, more religious center of Ukraine. And I think another point, it was exactly appropriation point. And I think we should somehow mention that appropriation phenomena in that context. But if we talk about Stalinist socialist realism, it looks like physical appropriation. They just wanted to take that achievement or to take that building, to take that physical form of the building and just to cover that like during, you know, that Egypt pharaohs, each new pharaohs, they change, tried to change the information about previous one. But they preserved actually the, the building, the structure of the building. But what is something different about this neo-Stalinism, I think, of Russia or that neo-imperialism of Russia, is that they don't want to preserve and change narrative or switch narrative. They want to demolish that totally so there is another type of appropriation and I think that is no more appropriation of physical objects but much more about ideas and that's why I think that in the case if all our leftist heritage in Kharkiv and all the Kharkiv will be demolished totally it gives an opportunity to change the historical narrative about what who was actually leftist architects and who actually appropriate and who actually take preserve that narrative about leftist heritage and leftist architecture and moreover leftist ideas that's why I think that the aims that should be somehow connected with leftist architects, Ukrainian leftist activists should be to preserve that narrative, to claim that narrative as our narrative and to think about that from our history, not to allow to appropriate that narrative. Because for many years I should somehow fight with a lot of people to describe that that is Soviet, not just Soviet, that is Soviet Ukrainian modernism. Moreover, that is Ukrainian modernism. That is Ukrainian constructivism. For years I should argue that that is exactly existence of Ukrainian culture, existence of Ukrainian leftist culture, and not everything Soviet is just Moscow. I think that if people say that architecture is not something political, I will just laugh. Because it's the most political type of art or type of activity. But if now people say that architectural heritage or heritage protection or heritage issues is not something political, I would argue and my arguments will be that pictures. Thank you. Thank you very much, for this. Maybe we should say, because maybe there will be some questions of our audience. I would like to just really thank you for this historical overview of leftist architecture in Kharkiv. I think we saw, and it was really interesting again because some of the architecture heritage I saw in reality, and you see how architecture can shape the everyday life and also how architecture can be also instrumentalized by power structures, by political structures. And the question is how to protect this heritage. This was the question you asked at the beginning. And also how to reconstruct it because this heritage is architecture we saw went through different phases also phases of deconstruction or yeah and also reconstruction and I think that's the question we will face for the future, how to reconstruct, how to deal with this heritage, how to preserve it. And yeah, thank you very much for this interesting talk and your ideas you shared with us. Now you have the possibility to ask questions if somebody would like to ask something. So maybe now is the time to ask questions. I will also check the YouTube chat. So if somebody would like of our digital guests can also ask questions in our chat right now. So Inge will go through with the microphone and if somebody would like to add something, if somebody would like to ask something, please feel free to make your questions now. You were talking about the tradition of clubs in Kharkiv. And I'm interested if this tradition is still alive and if there are still clubs that are used. And if that's the case, which function do they have nowadays? That is quite interesting that function preserved and even the clubs of some factories that not existed anymore, for example like the club of the factory Hems. Actually hams not working anymore. Or club of serp molot, it's harm and, why call, how to call that? Serp molot. Ah, harm, yeah. So it's not working, but club exist. And club still works with a lot of different community functions, with some small children opportunities for artistic training, for some musical training, and so on. Sometimes objects are given for the rent, Yeah, really, for example. But again, for some activities, usually for activities. I don't remember, for example, some shop or something like, I don't know, some commercial function. Usually it's something about activities. Moreover, I think that network of working class clubs can give even more opportunities if it will be like community centers. Moreover, I think that network of working class clubs can give even more opportunities if it will be like community centers. Because usually they spread through all the whole city and it can provide that functions like community centers. But another problem is that sometimes that is very problematic to understand in which property that object is because if factory not existing anymore who is actually the owner of the building. Sometimes that is the city council property that's why it still works for example with that social or cultural function sometimes that is private owner but usually what is interesting for example is that club of culture of Hems that I mentioned that even private owner I don't know why but still preserved all that activities I don't know why of course it's it's really in very bad conditions but it's still working so it's really in very bad conditions, but it's still working. So it's working. That is not like abandoned buildings or something like that. And that building of railway workers, I think it's quite successful and quite good. And they even had some conservation projects because they are straighted the appearance of the building and some movies were shot in that building. That's why they really thought about restoration of the building and preserve it and they estimated the quality and function of the building. Yes, thank you for your fine lecture. I also think that heritage is very, very political and to concern with heritage. When I saw your lecture I'm thinking from a Western point in direction Berlin where they are also handling heritage in a special way and when we think that the Russian troops have to leave Ukraine, what will then be to handle heritage? Do you see that there is also a use to make a river between Russia and Ukraine in form of heritage to choose special heritage of certain periods? Or will there be of Ukrainians that will ask for their history and what they are remembering that there was. And what are you concerned about that? I definitely should in response of your question that the future is in some new type of critical heritage studies. So there is the question of some critical type of thinking, and I'm definitely sure that Ukrainian society is ready to be critical and not to choose one style, because it's quite funny, and it looks like socialist realism approach, because exactly in those times it was chosen some styles that are allowed to be somehow implemented in that socialist realism. For example, some ethnical architecture or sometimes that can be some features of Baroque architecture. Definitely, heritage is deeply politicized. That's why I think that it will be really our mistake if we said that there is bad style, that is good style, and the same actually like the discussion about bourgeois architecture, absolutely the same. That's why I think that there is a great opportunity to think about leftist heritage and how we should preserve that and how should we preserve that and how should we understand that as our heritage to understanding what is even even even in contradiction periods even connected with contradiction on history that is a huge world of that leftist architecture is a lot of persons with a lot of networks with a lot of lines with a lot of networks with a lot of lines with quite tragic and beautiful histories that's why i am definitely sure that we shouldn't deny all that past because actually if we talk about heritage protection what what is the reason why why should we actually protect heritage exactly Exactly to remember what happened, exactly to preserve memory. That's why I'm definitely sure that we will find the solution. What is something maybe connected with Mihaela question, what we should do, I think exactly that Freedom Square can be a case of new approach and of discussion. If after the Second World War, it was no discussion between Stalinist reconstruction of the city, now we definitely should have the discussion. If after the Second World War, it was no discussion between Stalinist reconstruction of the city, now we definitely should have the discussion. We should have wider discussion about what we should do with such a multi-layer heritage object, because it's really, it's not just like Rembrandt picture, we can talk about this because it's so political. And if we can see, for example, that house of projects that I've shown with a lot of layers, I don't know what to do. For example, I remember during an interview with Jean-Louis Cohen, I asked him about that house of projects, what his opinion is on this. And he said that it's better to decolonize that object and it was like a joke, decolonize, to take off columns and to open up the initial structure, initial appearance and concept of that modernist architecture. So actually I have no answer because no discussions. I'm not a Stalinist architect to say how we all should do and what we should do with this heritage. First, I think that there is common heritage, moreover, Dershprom, he's in temporary list of UNESCO World Heritage. That's why I think that is actually our heritage. It's not just Ukrainian heritage, it's our common heritage. That's why I'm really waiting and I believe that we will have that beautiful discussion, discussion that maybe will change us or society. I also have a question about the so-called decommunization law, right? Which was, I think, realized after 2014 or something, 15, I don't remember exactly. But this was the question or it was the law to how to deal with the Soviet heritage. And how do you see this approach? Because when you talk about all heritage, we should be aware of it. And how do you see now this law? How did you see it before the war? First, that law wasn't connected with architecture. So usually it's like misunderstanding exactly that that law is connected with modernism or Soviet modernism. It's usually about monumental art. So it's connected, for example, with mosaic, with some paintings or some murals or something like that, if we talk about art that's why I think that moreover it was some descriptions as that is just about not about the whole picture but just about symbols of Soviet power from my side I think that it should be solved in a bit other way for example not to uh to put some uh some paintings on that symbols for example but it's better to make some descriptional text that describes what was the history what was the history of object and what is the context of all this i think that can provide exactly some critical approach in space and in understanding of art and place of art, actually in all that institutionalization of politics and power structures actually, because I think that the communication law somehow wanted actually aimed to do this, but actually did maybe not in very correct way but it's really nothing connected with architecture so modernism never was in danger because of the communication law it's definitely so I I heard some speculative talks about this but it's really not not like that it's really just about art and exactly monumental art not arts in museums it's it's art in public space as I remember so I'm that one who thinks that it's better to write some some description and it will be better than then to cover to remember it yeah to remember it and to think about it I was quite fascinated about this it's very crucial turning point of the year 1932 which you mentioned which was obviously quite quite important with the takeover of socialist realism and and that that the proponents of the new style, let's call the style, called the previous style a leftist, as sort of saying that it's bad. And I was wondering why they did that. If they say, and what if that was some kind of code? If you say leftist, you say Western. If you say Western, you say international. International is cosmopolitan, and that's a code word for Jewish. If there was some kind of anti-Semitism sort of running around in the background. Definitely. There was even some funny discussions in state magazines, intellectual magazines of that period when two objects, one object was in Kyiv, it was now that is a ministry, a minister it's now cabinet minister of cabinet of ministers on Gusha's car as I remember that was built by architect famine but a bit nearby that building there is like the same building actually as architect, I can say that it's the same, but with different color. That was made, it's now actually the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That was built by the architect Langbert. Langbert, we can understand according to surname what that he was Jewish and it was absolutely like two articles one article about famine was like such a beautiful building it's really correct building it's really socialist realism very socialist realism and near that it was an article about longboard architecture and they said that it's really very bad architect that is really very bad architecture they even made something like like a meeting with different leaders of opinions with different film directors they all said that this awful building it's from any point of views that building is really awful. I think that there were few ways of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, and to think about the Soviet Union as a non-anti-Semitic state, I think it's really a huge mistake and misunderstanding. For example, I worked with the third wave in in Brezhnev period because I made the research on exactly Kyiv modernism and exactly I took an interview with architect Mikhail Budilovsky and other team members of him. And moreover that is memories of Avram Merecki. It's usually about 70s. And they described a lot of features of anti-Semitism. And Budilovsky immigrated first in Vienna and then to the USA in Chicago, exactly according to that wave of anti-Semitism in architectural circles. Moreover, in the 30s, I'm definitely sure that it's connected with this. And that is exactly this logic as you described. Usually it's exactly like this. Another point is that sometimes they used any arguments just to say that that person was wrong for example sometimes at the same time they said that that is nationalist architecture even talking about modernism simplified modernism they said that that is nationalist Ukrainian nationalist built that or sometimes they said that that was built under Zionism so Zionist things so actually in the 30s, they have like a chaotic thoughts about what was actually a socialist realism at what is something on the other side of socialist realism. They tried to construct that awful modernism that is connected and that is an evil, but what is the answer to that modernism? I think they had a lot of mistakes zu fragen. In one text, they said absolutely opposite things. Thank you. Thanks for being with us today, tonight. Thank you, Xenia, for the talk. Thanks for coming to Vienna and also to IG Architektur. Also thank you to TREAT and Oliver Schmidt for the technical support and, of course the claiming spaces for the cooperation. So we will have the opportunity to talk also a bit more informal in our courtyard, and thanks for being with us tonight. Thank you. you