The New Iron Curtain in Culture: Three Years of Resisting Russia's Cultural Imperialism

As we mark three years since russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and eleven years since the illegal annexation of Crimea, what began as an emergency response from cultural institutions has evolved into a fundamental reassessment of centuries-old colonial practices. This moment demands acknowledging historical wrongs and active resistance against ongoing cultural imperialism.

Historical Roots of Cultural Colonization

The origins of russia's cultural colonialism can be traced to 1721 when the Muscovite Kingdom declared itself the russian Empire. Unlike Western colonial powers, russia's imperialism focused on neighbouring territories, making its colonial nature less evident to the international community. The empire employed specific policies to suppress Ukrainian culture, including the Valuev Circular (1863) and Ems Decree (1876), which banned the Ukrainian language and publishing.

During the Soviet era, this cultural suppression reached new heights. The regime eliminated an entire generation of artists during the "Executed Renaissance" 1920s and early 1930s. Approximately 30,000 Ukrainian cultural figures fell victim to Stalinist repression, fundamentally altering the trajectory of Ukrainian art.

Institutional Response: Correcting Historical Misattributions

Major museums worldwide are now revising their collections to address centuries of misattribution. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has led this change, updating artist attributions to reflect their actual cultural heritage:

1. Illia Repin: Now correctly identified using Ukrainian transliteration (Illia Repin) followed by his russian name (Ilia Efimovich Repin), acknowledging his birth in Chuhuiv, Ukraine.

2. Arkhyp Kuindzhi: His biographical information now reflects his Greek heritage and Ukrainian background, particularly his connection to Mariupol.

3. Kazimir Malevich: Previously presented as russian, his artistic vision is now recognized as fundamentally shaped by Ukrainian village life. His suprematist works' dominant colours - white, red, and black - directly reference Ukrainian folk traditions and mazurka hut aesthetics.

The Dance of Attribution: Beyond Simple Labels

The case of Edgar Degas's pastels illustrates the complexity of cultural attribution. Major institutions, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the National Gallery in London, have renamed works from "russian Dancers" to "Dancers in Ukrainian Dress," recognizing the distinct cultural elements depicted. This change reflects a broader movement to correct historical inaccuracies that served russian imperial narratives.

Document and Protect: The Current Crisis

Three years of full-scale war have brought devastating losses to Ukraine's cultural infrastructure:

- Over 500 cultural sites damaged or destroyed (UNESCO verification)

- More than 30 museums were looted or damaged

- Over 15,000 artworks and unique artefacts stolen

- Systematic targeting of cultural institutions in Kherson, Mariupol, and Melitopol

The Kuindzhi Museum's destruction in Mariupol is a particularly poignant example. Before its destruction by russian missiles, it housed works by Kuindzhi and Aivazovsky. The occupiers removed several original paintings, including "Red Sunset," "Autumn," and "Elbrus" to occupied territories.

Digital Resistance and Preservation

As traditional preservation methods face unprecedented challenges, cultural institutions have developed innovative digital strategies to protect and promote Ukrainian heritage:

- The Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw maintains a comprehensive digital archive documenting the destruction of Ukrainian cultural sites

- Virtual exhibitions provide global access to threatened collections

- Emergency digitization projects preserve cultural artefacts at risk of destruction

- International collaborations enable the creation of 3D models of threatened monuments and buildings

Artists Reclaimed: Confronting Colonial Appropriation

The systematic appropriation of Ukrainian artists extends beyond individual cases to artistic movements. Consider these examples:

Sonia Delaunay: Born in Odesa, her groundbreaking work in modernist art and design was long disconnected from her Ukrainian origins. As the first woman to have a retrospective at the Louvre, her contribution to avant-garde art reflects the vibrancy of Ukrainian cultural innovation. "I love bright colours. These are the colours of my childhood, the colours of Ukraine," she wrote in her memoirs.

David Burliuk: He self-identified as a "Tatar-Zaporizhzhia futurist," not the "founder of russian futurism," as russian sources claim. His declaration that "Ukraine has been and remains my home. Here lie the bones of my ancestors, free Cossacks who fought for the victory of strength and freedom" stands as a decisive rejection of russian appropriation.

Responding to Current Threats

The international museum community has implemented unprecedented measures in response to russia's aggression:

1. Loan Suspensions: Major institutions, including the British Museum, have suspended loans to russian institutions.

2. Emergency Conservation: The Metropolitan Museum of Art leads initiatives to preserve threatened Ukrainian artefacts.

3. Refugee Artist Support: European institutions have provided resources and residencies to hundreds of displaced Ukrainian artists.

A Call for Sustained Action

As we enter the fourth year of full-scale war, the responsibility to resist cultural erasure extends beyond museum walls. Each stakeholder in the cultural sphere has a crucial role:

For Museums and Cultural Institutions:

- Continue reviewing and updating collection attributions

- Develop programs highlighting Ukrainian cultural achievements

- Maintain the suspension of cultural cooperation with russian institutions until accountability is achieved

For Scholars and Researchers:

- Investigate and document cases of cultural appropriation

- Develop frameworks for decolonial approaches to art history

- Support Ukrainian scholars and research initiatives

For the Public:

- Question traditional narratives about "russian" art

- Support exhibitions and programs featuring Ukrainian artists

- Share knowledge about Ukrainian cultural heritage

- Engage with digital preservation initiatives

Looking Forward

The cultural iron curtain emerging today isn't merely about current politics - it represents a necessary step in correcting centuries of appropriation and erasure. Until russia acknowledges its colonial past and makes reparations for destroyed heritage, the international cultural community must maintain its stance: Ukrainian culture deserves recognition, protection, and celebration on its terms.

The work of cultural decolonization belongs to everyone. Each exhibition visit, each revised label, each digital archive, and each shared story contributes to preserving and promoting Ukrainian cultural sovereignty. As we witness the continued physical destruction of Ukrainian heritage, our commitment to maintaining and celebrating it must only grow stronger.

This moment demands more than passive observation. It requires active participation in cultural preservation and a sustained commitment to correcting historical wrongs. The future of Ukrainian cultural heritage depends not just on the actions of major institutions but on the daily choices of everyone who values artistic freedom and cultural authenticity.

Image: https://en.uartlib.org/exclusive/malevich-ta-ukrayina/

More articles:

- English newsletter: https://artxchange.substack.com-

-Lithuanian newsletter: https://artxchangelt.substack.com