From the history of the Kharkiv School of Sculpture

Abstract

The article is devoted to the history of the formation and development of the Kharkiv School of Sculpture, examines its evolution through the prism of socio-political and artistic transformations of the twentieth century. Considerable attention is paid to the influence of European avant-garde movements, in particular cubism, futurism and constructivism, which laid the groundwork for formative experiments. The article analyzes the process of the emergence of the art school of sculpture on the basis of the Kharkiv Art School, its further formation under the influence of monumental propaganda of the 1920s and the introduction of ideologically determined methodological approaches to teaching. The paper investigates how political repressions of the 1930s and the control of the totalitarian regime led to the gradual unification of the artistic language, which led to the curtailment of avant-garde searches and the imposition of the socialist realist paradigm. The author identifies key aspects of the school’s development in the postwar period, when artistic life was subordinated to socialist realism, and the work of artists was largely limited to propaganda tasks. At the same time, the author analyzes how, despite the pressure of official ideology, in the 1950s–1980s there was a gradual expansion of artistic possibilities through the use of decorative elements, national motifs, and experiments in plastic. The impact of Perestroika in 1987 on the artistic community of Kharkiv is also considered. The restoration of creative freedom and the possibility of self-organization opened a new stage in the school’s development, which allowed it to return to the traditions of the avant-garde and formative experiments. At the same time, the author emphasizes the contemporary paradox: on the one hand, artists have ample opportunities for self-expression, and on the other hand, their creative process largely depends on the expectations of society and market demands. It is concluded that the Kharkiv School of Sculpture has gone through a difficult path of transformation: from avant-garde innovation of the early twentieth century, through the imposed socialist realist unification, to the modern search for a balance between traditions and new artistic forms. The current period of the school’s development is defined as “meta-freedom” – a state in which creativity balances between historical reflections, the latest artistic practices, and the challenges of the art market.