Decolonising Central Asian Art [part 1] – war as a trigger
Decolonising Central Asian Art is a regular column from Alexey Ulko.
Street grafitti, photograph by Alexey Ulko, underpass near the Maidan – Kyiv 2021
Russian military aggression in Ukraine has triggered a significant shift in the perception and interpretation of the Russia-centred history of art in countries that once comprised the Russian Empire and the USSR. This shift is arguably largely driven by the communal need for a deconstruction of the historical, colonial narratives within politics, history – and art – that have been dominated by Russian influence.
As Ukrainian historian Svitlana Biedarieva argues: “understanding of this postcolonial entanglement has changed, as has the attitude toward decoloniality in Ukrainian culture’ [1].
In her text, Biedarieva agrees with Madina Tlostanova’s linear sequence of 1) an immediate postcolonial reaction followed by 2) further decolonial disentanglement and argues that Ukraine has moved into the latter phase of this framework, as “all of the controversies and diversities of positions … have been at once and forever erased by Russia’s ongoing attack”. [2] Although I see this statement more as an expression of intent rather than a purely ‘objective’ observation even for Ukraine, I agree that Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has also heralded the advent of at least some form of reckoning in other parts of the Russian/Soviet [post]colonial space, including Central Asia.
I would like to start my regular contributions to dekolonizatsiia by speculating on the ways in which we might begin to reevaluate the history of art and culture in Central Asia – in the context of the tectonic shift described above but not fully registered in the region, still immersed in [post]colonial hybridity and ambiguity rejected by Biedarieva. In recent years, I have reflected and even lectured on the issues related to decolonisation of various cultural discourses, including a series of talks on the position, role and functionality of art institutions in times of the #hybridwar [3]. The pressing questions that arise for me now in the context of Central Asia are: how has the Russian full-scale invasion changed the moral climate in the region? Are Central Asian art communities facing a different set of challenges now, or have these been only so slightly transformed by the invasion? Is Russia’s renewed interest in its [former] Central Asian colonies changing the rules of [post]colonial engagement? How can these and many other questions be epistemologically interwoven within a broader international reflection on coloniality?
In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, numerous and diverse reactions against the assault emerged in the international cultural space calling for the ‘decolonisation of Russia’. Many discussions, particularly in Russian-speaking contexts, have focused on issues and themes of guilt and responsibility, including that of cultural actors. Some of the suggested practices of ‘decolonisation’ fall into the trap of antagonism strengthening dependence (which is a version of the liar paradox [4]). As the [former] Russian curator Ekaterina Degot quipped: “it is difficult to grasp what is toxic here: Russian culture per se, or the pedestal it is being put on, positively or negatively” [5]. Despite such sentiment, it seems that most of current writers and analysts strive towards a singular, logically and ethically consistent stance opposed to a wishy-washy postmodernity so eagerly presenting itself through a hackneyed formula which aims to enlighten the doubtful that the world isn’t strictly black and white.
I propose an analytical framework for decolonisation in the current context inspired by David Kolb’s learning cycle; which starts with experience followed by reflective observation and conceptualisation [6]. I have identified five ontological levels at which decolonial reactions to the Russian invasion are taking place. These include; superficial #cancelrussia policies, the affirmation of non-Russian nationalist discourses, the de-normalisation of Russian urban culture, the need to remove Russia from the centre of decolonial discourse and recognition of other syntagmatic and paradigmatic localities. As a separate issue permeating all the five discursive tiers is the question of colonial language[s] (or as the French would have it, la langue and le langage) of colonial communication. From describing and reflecting on these decolonial practices in accordance with Kolb’s process-based framework, I hope to contribute a comprehensive model for redrafting the history of art and culture with a focus on Central Asian modernity.
New Russian Cards designed by Nikolay Karazin (1897–1898). They depict Russians as hearts, Polish as diamonds, Ukrainians as clubs and Kyrgyz as spades.
Street graffiti, photograph by Alexey Ulko, Weimar 2022
References
[1] Biedarieva, Svitlana. “Decolonisation and Disentanglement in Ukrainian Art” (2022) https://post.moma.org/decolonization-and-disentanglement-in-ukrainian-art/
[2] Ibid.
[3] Улько, Алексей. «Институции в эпоху гибридной войны» (2022) https://youtu.be/AWpxPL83-Zc?si=digotmBGsowdJTnT
[4] The paradox of the liar is embodied in the statement, “I am lying.” If the statement is a lie, then it paradoxically becomes the truth, and vice versa. It is a self-negating sentence which leads to logical contradiction.
[5] Degot, Ekaterina. “Is Russian Culture as Powerful as Her Missiles? Yes, and Let’s Use It Against Putinism” (2022) https://www.e-flux.com/notes/455040/is-russian-culture-as-powerful-as-her-missiles-yes-and-let-s-use-it-against-putinism
[6] MacLeod, Saul. “Kolb’s Learning Styles And Experiential Learning Cycle” (2023) https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html
