The right way to love Taras, or: What is the difference between a scholarly debate and a scandal?
You can find portraits of Taras Shevchenko everywhere — from the president’s office to a village house. Monuments to the Bard are ubiquitous. Streets, squares, and educational institutions bear his name. In a word, there is no dearth of the conspicuous manifestation of love and veneration. Moreover, there is no doubt in the sincerity of these feelings.
But are all these visible signs of adoration just a customary background that actually erases Shevchenko’s very personality? We often have a superficial acquaintance with his oeuvre, contenting ourselves with what we read in our childhood and youth. We know his life story from school textbooks — but usually just the bare outlines.
How can we include Shevchenko in our real spiritual and public life, so that the magnitude of his genius can help us realize ourselves and Ukraine in the globalized world? What methods can we use to interest as many of our compatriots as possible in Shevchenko’s works with due account of their age, education, and general background? This can be done by publishing semi-popular works. But you will agree that this is a questionable way.
Popularizing Shevchenko can also be done by employing the most up-to-date and sophisticated technologies in book printing, museum organization, and other fields of culture. Here are two good pieces of news for those who choose the latter way. First, the seventh volume of Shevchenko’s collected works has just been published. It is devoted to our genius’s pictorial art, which for most people is overshadowed by the Bard’s poetry. The second is Decree No. 529/2006 of the President of Ukraine “On Establishing the ‘Shevchenko House’ Research, Cultural, and Informational Center.”
To tell the truth, the first piece of news went unnoticed by the general public. The second news triggered a stormy and mixed reaction that made one reflect on the difference between a scholarly debate and a scandal. In all probability, the difference lies in the readiness of all sides to hear one another and seek points of understanding. One of the chief opponents of this center is the National Taras Shevchenko Museum on Kyiv’s Shevchenko Boulevard, which is supposed to become part of the new center. Today we present the viewpoints of both supporters and opponents of the idea to establish Shevchenko House.
Last Tuesday Natalia Klymenko, director-general of the Taras Shevchenko Museum; Tetiana Chuiko, deputy director-general of research; Vasyl Bilinchuk- Portiak, scholarly secretary; Yulia Shylenko, chief curator of the museum fonds; and Kyrylo Stetsenko, member of the National Council for Culture and Spirituality, held a press conference to tell the media about the museum’s situation.
“Aware of the importance of establishing a center like Shevchenko House, which will be a chief center for preserving and studying the national manuscript heritage, we still cannot agree to what amounts to the liquidation of the museum as a self-sufficient and highly specific institution,” Klymenko said. “The museum employees and executives, as well as the members of the National Council for Culture and Spirituality, whom the decree presents as initiators, are worried that the presidential decree, which contains instructions on the museum’s further destiny, was drawn up and signed without prior consultations with the museum’s staff and National Council members. In fact, the decree jeopardizes the active science-extension, cultural, and informational work in the building that the museum has occupied since 1949.”
Klymenko also recalls that in 2001 the Shevchenko Museum was granted national status. She refers to the presidential decree of June 16, 1995, in which Item 2 of the “Provision on the Status of a National Institution” states that administrative bodies may not transfer a national institution’s property to any other bodies, enterprises, institutions or organizations.
Stetsenko also spoke in the same vein. “The National Council has held three sessions, but for some reason never discussed the question of reforming the Shevchenko Museum. This seems to be a continuation of Soviet practice, when certain matters were discussed as a pure formality, but everything was in fact done in keeping with a prearranged plan.”
In other words, the museum staff has taken a militant stand and rejects the very idea of transferring the museum to other premises. Bilinchuk-Portiak says they will do their utmost to ensure that the museum remains in its current location. “I see no sense in moving the museum from Shevchenko Boulevard, i.e., a place that is near Shevchenko Park and the Bard’s monument. We are going to launch a public outreach campaign and take some legal steps,” he said.
The chief problem is the new premises. Nobody knows where the new building will be located. The museum staff sees no reason why they should move to a different place. In their view, the museum functions well, hosting art exhibits, and literary and artistic soirees. “All the necessary conditions have been created for the proper maintenance of the collection. Temperature, humidity, and lighting meet all requirements,” says Shylenko.
The staff believes there is a different reason why the museum is being moved. Word has it that the building will be used for all kinds of socials, buffets, and the like. But Bilinchuk-Portiak warned, “We will not have the Holy of Holies utilized for other purposes.”
