Suchergebnisse

The object of the master's work is to rethink and reevaluate the totalitarian past on the example of the attitude to its heritage in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The purpose of the work is to analyze and evaluate the ways of rethinking and the methods of assimilation of totalitarian ideological heritage in the post-Soviet countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus and Russia). Understand their experience in this area, which may be useful for Ukraine. The main tasks of the work: to analyze the phenomenon of Soviet monumental propaganda, the ideas embedded in it, popular replicated ideological plots in order to understand and define this phenomenon; explore the monument as an instrument of the politics of memory and a marker of public space in order to understand its features and functions; outline the features of the search for identity and the establishment of a memory policy, as well as the memory war of the post-Soviet countries (Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus and Russia) in relation to the Soviet past; consider the course, range, logic and features of the overthrow of Soviet monuments at the beginning of 1990s in Central - Eastern Europe in order to understand how the attitude towards Soviet monuments has changed, what explains such changes, what are the consequences of these changes; to conduct a comparative analysis of the forms of development of relics of Soviet monumental propaganda in the museum environment using the example of theme parks of Soviet ideological art Muzeon (Russia), Memento (Hungary) and Grutas park (Lithuania) in order to understand how the methods of development and memory policy of these countries differ to the Soviet past; to study the phenomenon of Leninfall, its political and ideological context, which led to the decommunization laws in Ukraine in order to understand why the attitude to the Soviet heritage has changed; to describe the artistic practices perception of Leninfall in order to understand how both representatives of creative professions and the audience react to it consumers; summarize the debate about the present and future of Soviet monumental propaganda in Ukraine in order to determine its place in the history of the country; examine the influence of Leninfall on its attitude to the Soviet totalitarian heritage in Lithuania, Belarus, and Russia. Using a retrospective, historical - comparative, chronological method, also the systematization and generalization method, it was possible to conclude that Soviet monumental propaganda created a pantheon of the leader and heroes, which were circulated throughout the USSR. Monuments became symbols of the Soviet Union and in some countries survived it for decades. Monuments symbolize Soviet power, and the territory on which they stand is part of the "Russian world". After gaining independence, with few exceptions, only Western Ukraine got rid of Soviet ideological monuments. Due to the transition period and the formation of the economy, the ideological functions of Soviet monuments were scored. But at the time of the country's reorientation of values, the monuments turned out to be alien, moreover, they became the symbols of another country that was trying to reintegrate the post-Soviet space on the basis of the imperial project called "Great Russia." The search for the identity of an independent country was largely based on its opposition to the USSR. In Lithuania, it was possible to determine a consistent negative assessment of the Soviet, Russia altogether included the Soviet in its historical narrative, while Belarus was unable to critically look at the Soviet past. For many years in Ukraine, Ukrainian and Soviet identities coexisted, which are mutually exclusive. The situation changed during the Euromaidan, when Ukraine finally decided on the European vector. Political and value changes in the countries of Central - Eastern Europe resulted in the dismantling of ideological monuments, symbols of foreign power. The situation was not always solved using dismantling, sometimes the monuments were transferred, names changed, etc. thus they no longer performed their ideological functions. At that time, the understanding of this layer of heritage began, the understanding that dismantling without explanation or discussion is the Soviet method of unifying memory. The museum form of assimilation of the totalitarian heritage allows to physically preserve the monument, for subsequent study and use. Such monuments can be used for educational and enlightening purposes. The choice of the pro-European vector of the country's development and the desire to create own Ukrainian historical narrative stimulated Leninfall as a process of cleaning the symbolic space of the country. The artistic practices of comprehending Leninfall begin a discussion about the significance of Soviet monumental sculpture, about who will replace Lenin and whether it is worth continuing this practice. Ideological sculpture has prospects for being used in tourism and museum activities. Nevertheless, the main problem of this heritage lies in its interpretation, the criteria of which should be developed. The Leninfall influenced the perception of the Soviet ideological heritage in neighboring countries for Lithuania, it became an opportunity to look at the unresolved situations from the 1990s, Belarus shows an example when monuments are removed from the center or completely removed, which indicates a reassessment of the past. Against the background of the authorities of the country that protects and values the Soviet heritage. In Russia, despite several demolitions, and petitions for dismantling, new monuments to Lenin appear which indicates that the country has a pro-Soviet dominant narrative, but there are alternative views. The territory of the annexed Crimea shows distance from Ukraine, in the form of the dismantling of the monument to the hetman P. Konashevych-Sagaidachny, while in Ukraine there was Leninfall. And the appearance of monuments not only to Lenin, but also to figures of Russian history, may indicate a symbolic marking of the territory as Russian.

The object of the master's work is to rethink and reevaluate the totalitarian past on the example of the attitude to its heritage in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The purpose of the work is to analyze and evaluate the ways of rethinking and the methods of assimilation of totalitarian ideological heritage in the post-Soviet countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus and Russia). Understand their experience in this area, which may be useful for Ukraine. The main tasks of the work: to analyze the phenomenon of Soviet monumental propaganda, the ideas embedded in it, popular replicated ideological plots in order to understand and define this phenomenon; explore the monument as an instrument of the politics of memory and a marker of public space in order to understand its features and functions; outline the features of the search for identity and the establishment of a memory policy, as well as the memory war of the post-Soviet countries (Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus and Russia) in relation to the Soviet past; consider the course, range, logic and features of the overthrow of Soviet monuments at the beginning of 1990s in Central - Eastern Europe in order to understand how the attitude towards Soviet monuments has changed, what explains such changes, what are the consequences of these changes; to conduct a comparative analysis of the forms of development of relics of Soviet monumental propaganda in the museum environment using the example of theme parks of Soviet ideological art Muzeon (Russia), Memento (Hungary) and Grutas park (Lithuania) in order to understand how the methods of development and memory policy of these countries differ to the Soviet past; to study the phenomenon of Leninfall, its political and ideological context, which led to the decommunization laws in Ukraine in order to understand why the attitude to the Soviet heritage has changed; to describe the artistic practices perception of Leninfall in order to understand how both representatives of creative professions and the audience react to it consumers; summarize the debate about the present and future of Soviet monumental propaganda in Ukraine in order to determine its place in the history of the country; examine the influence of Leninfall on its attitude to the Soviet totalitarian heritage in Lithuania, Belarus, and Russia. Using a retrospective, historical - comparative, chronological method, also the systematization and generalization method, it was possible to conclude that Soviet monumental propaganda created a pantheon of the leader and heroes, which were circulated throughout the USSR. Monuments became symbols of the Soviet Union and in some countries survived it for decades. Monuments symbolize Soviet power, and the territory on which they stand is part of the "Russian world". After gaining independence, with few exceptions, only Western Ukraine got rid of Soviet ideological monuments. Due to the transition period and the formation of the economy, the ideological functions of Soviet monuments were scored. But at the time of the country's reorientation of values, the monuments turned out to be alien, moreover, they became the symbols of another country that was trying to reintegrate the post-Soviet space on the basis of the imperial project called "Great Russia." The search for the identity of an independent country was largely based on its opposition to the USSR. In Lithuania, it was possible to determine a consistent negative assessment of the Soviet, Russia altogether included the Soviet in its historical narrative, while Belarus was unable to critically look at the Soviet past. For many years in Ukraine, Ukrainian and Soviet identities coexisted, which are mutually exclusive. The situation changed during the Euromaidan, when Ukraine finally decided on the European vector. Political and value changes in the countries of Central - Eastern Europe resulted in the dismantling of ideological monuments, symbols of foreign power. The situation was not always solved using dismantling, sometimes the monuments were transferred, names changed, etc. thus they no longer performed their ideological functions. At that time, the understanding of this layer of heritage began, the understanding that dismantling without explanation or discussion is the Soviet method of unifying memory. The museum form of assimilation of the totalitarian heritage allows to physically preserve the monument, for subsequent study and use. Such monuments can be used for educational and enlightening purposes. The choice of the pro-European vector of the country's development and the desire to create own Ukrainian historical narrative stimulated Leninfall as a process of cleaning the symbolic space of the country. The artistic practices of comprehending Leninfall begin a discussion about the significance of Soviet monumental sculpture, about who will replace Lenin and whether it is worth continuing this practice. Ideological sculpture has prospects for being used in tourism and museum activities. Nevertheless, the main problem of this heritage lies in its interpretation, the criteria of which should be developed. The Leninfall influenced the perception of the Soviet ideological heritage in neighboring countries for Lithuania, it became an opportunity to look at the unresolved situations from the 1990s, Belarus shows an example when monuments are removed from the center or completely removed, which indicates a reassessment of the past. Against the background of the authorities of the country that protects and values the Soviet heritage. In Russia, despite several demolitions, and petitions for dismantling, new monuments to Lenin appear which indicates that the country has a pro-Soviet dominant narrative, but there are alternative views. The territory of the annexed Crimea shows distance from Ukraine, in the form of the dismantling of the monument to the hetman P. Konashevych-Sagaidachny, while in Ukraine there was Leninfall. And the appearance of monuments not only to Lenin, but also to figures of Russian history, may indicate a symbolic marking of the territory as Russian.