The text was prepared and first published in “Sztuka Europy Wschodniej.” An extended and supplemented version was published as part of the collaboration with the PinchukArtCentre Research Platform
One of the important chapters in the history of contemporary Ukrainian art is the activity of the Kharkiv photographic group “Vremya,” from which the development of alternative photography in late Soviet Ukraine began. The subject of separate analysis was the image of the body in Kharkiv photography as a tool of socio-critical expression and artistic expressiveness.
Let us consider the first generation of the Kharkiv School of Photography [1] — the group “Vremya” (Time) 1971–1976 [2], as well as the individual artistic approaches of certain authors in depicting the nude body. The general method of working with photographic images among the Kharkiv artists is aimed at the destruction of photographic documentality. The artistic method is based on the “theory of impact” developed by the members of the “Vremya” group, according to which the authors positioned photography as a work of art in opposition to the pseudo-documentary official Soviet photography. The nude body and “bare sociality” are prevailing themes of the Kharkiv “theory of impact.” In addition, Kharkiv photographers actively used collage, montage, and superimposition (the so-called “photographic sandwich”) as a way to create metaphorical and alternative reality in attempts to destroy the documentary; social reportage; coloring photographs and kitsch as a reaction to absurd reality; collectivity of photographic practices in developing ideas and methods; as well as actions, photo-installations, and photo-performances as an exit beyond the photographic plane [3].
“Vremya” — an alternative association of young photographers that operated in the city photo club at the Palace of Trade Unions. The initiators of the group’s creation were Yevhen Pavlov (1949) and Yurii Rupin (1946–2008), joined by Boris Mykhailov (1938), Oleh Malovanyi (1945), Oleksandr Suprun (1945), Oleksandr Sytnichenko (1949-?), Hennadii Tubalev (1944–2006), and a little later — Anatolii Makienko (1949) [4].
At the height of the geopolitical cataclysms of the 20th century, the image of the body manifests the idea of the human and humanity in art and world culture. The documentary involvement effect inherent in photography emphasized and highlighted the polarity of the perception of the body in society. According to photography historian Iryna Chmyriova, the ambiguity of the interpretation of the body in photography as an embodiment of the idea of a person is felt in the second half of the 20th century due to the geopolitical confrontation between the USA and the Soviet Union, when two military-political camps coexisted in a cold political and social confrontation [5]. On the other hand, Tetiana Pavlova, in an article about the body in Ukrainian photography of the 1970s–1980s, outlines another fracture zone, more focused — between Ukraine and Russia, emphasizing that the mental fracture did not arise in the 20th century but existed in this territory since ancient times [6]. But both researchers note the manifestation of simultaneous propaganda and revolutionary nature of the theme of corporeality in Soviet photography precisely in the polarity of the perception of the idea of a person, which existed in the grip of photographic documentary properties [7].
Since 1960, in the Soviet Union, the depiction of the nude body was legally classified as pornography and criminally punishable [8]. Researcher Nadiia Kovalchuk notes that the nude body “was part of the traditional triad of shooting prohibitions. It was also forbidden to shoot from a high angle, as well as strategic objects — factories, railways, military facilities” [9]. In conditions of censorship and prohibitions on depicting any manifestations of sexuality, whether literal eroticism or the nude body as an artistic metaphor of intimacy, the nude body for Kharkiv photographers became a tool for releasing internal ideological and political tension, which young critical thinkers felt most acutely during the post-thaw period and needed to react to.
“The “theory of impact” is a concept of perceiving photography as a work of art in opposition to official Soviet photography as a document. The concept of “impact” became bright, aggressive photography that literally “hits the viewer” and forces them to respond actively to the photographic image. The justification of the “theory of impact” in the 1970s at the Kharkiv photo club was formulated and conceptualized by the members of the group.
If we structure and thematically divide the generations of the Kharkiv School of Photography, particularly in their work with the image of the body, we can distinguish three generations and three decades. The first generation, represented in the history of Kharkiv photography by the group “Vremya” and the 1970s decade, partly identified the nude body with the category of a driven individuality under the pressure of ideology and socio-political control. Tetiana Pavlova explained it as follows: “Only in the context of those years, when defeminization and demasculinization were imposed by the Soviet regime, is the dominant cult of the nude body in the photographs of the “Vremya” group understandable as one of the fundamental positions of their “theory of impact”” [10]. A decade later, the generation of the 1980s adopts from their older colleagues in the “Vremya” group social reportage and a palette of methods of working with photographic images, but the body in their practice, intimate and personal, manifests with the literalness and audacity characteristic of the social moods of the 1980s. Among the authors of the 1980s are Roman Piatkovka (1955), Viktor Kochetov (1947), Mykhailo Pedan (1957), Serhii Bratkov (1960), Ihor Manko (1962), as well as the circle of authors of the “Derzhprom” group. The 1990s in the history of Kharkiv art are marked by going beyond clear photographic boundaries — authors practice performativity and installation through photography. In the context of geopolitical processes, compared to Eastern European art of the 1990s, where the body in the situation of the war in the Balkans was interpreted as “physically vulnerable, pushed to the periphery of social reality” [11], the body of Kharkiv artists in the general mood of the USSR collapse and the formation of a new political reality acquires theatrical traits reflecting new social constructs and, accordingly, new roles [12]. In particular, the practice of the “Rapid Response Group” [13] is characterized by a collective approach to creating works, which fundamentally distinguishes the activities of Kharkiv photographic groups from each other: “Vremya” in the 1970s and “Derzhprom” in the 1980s, despite group work in understanding and discussing photography, did not collectively create works.
It is worth separately considering the category of collectivity in the practices of the “Vremya” group, as it can be mistakenly associated with the tendency toward collective actions in Western European art of the 1960s–1970s. Tetiana Pavlova describes the specificity of the collectivity of the “Vremya” group with the words of Boris Mykhailov: “At this first stage, the group was like one person, with a common hero who <…> realized himself as a beyond element of the social machine. It is no coincidence that in 1987 at the historically important exhibition at the Palace of Students <…> Mykhailov, who had already become the recognized leader of the group, insisted on a monolithic image, the image of a house. “Its walls,” he said, “are Malovanyi, the foundation — Suprun, the roof — Pavlov.” Mykhailov himself undoubtedly represented the core of this “card” house, to which, I would say, the mezzanine had already adapted — V. Kochetov, S. Solonsky, R. Piatkovka, and the terrace — the “Derzhprom” group — M. Pedan, V. Starko (founders), S. Bratkov, H. Maslov, L. Pesin, I. Manko, K. Melnyk — completing the classical architectural appearance” [14].
Having united into a group, the authors actively discussed, reviewed, and commented on works. Becoming heroes of each other’s photo-narratives, photographers introduced a performative component into the images, which manifested as a metaphorical projection of their own lives through the camera lens. The lack of professional photographic discourse caused the authors to form a circle of communication, where gradually, in a regime isolated by Soviet ideology from global artistic trends, ideas of another, artistic vision of photography were developed and voiced. The focus of discussions was both the theoretical foundations of photography and the exchange of technical and methodological developments among the authors.
Members of the “Vremya” group, even before its creation in 1971, individually experimented with creating alternative photography within the photo club. For example, Boris Mykhailov created the first works of the famous series “Overlays” (also known as “Yesterday’s Sandwich”) already from the late 1960s. The peculiarity of Mykhailov’s “Overlays” was not exclusively the nude body; the series is rather one of the vivid examples of conceptual social photography with an embedded metaphor of duality between the literal and hidden Soviet reality. According to Boris Mykhailov: “[one of] the “overlays,” where text from school notebooks is superimposed on the image of a woman (there lies the girl Suzy) [the heroine of Mykhailov’s series “Suzy and Others” — author’s note], — quite a kitschy picture. The text goes over the woman and seems to “fuck” her like a man. The same method as in social art was used. The lines of text embody the Absolute Anonymous, but the image of a naked woman is difficult to visually imagine within the framework of Russian conceptualism” [15] [16]. The method used by Mykhailov and the series “Overlays” itself were shown by the author in the 1970s to the members of the “Vremya” group in the format of a slide film accompanied by music from the band Pink Floyd, which was also a new and experimental form of presenting works within the typical Soviet leisure of the trade union photo club.
Despite the similarity of Mykhailov’s practice with the key methods of Moscow conceptualism, the artist recalled that Kharkiv authors first saw the naked woman in photography from Lithuanians [17]. After the creation of the Lithuanian Union of Photographers in 1969, the first professional association of photographers in the entire USSR, Lithuania became the only “photographic republic” in the Union and a model for photographers of other republics to follow. Lithuanians had the opportunity to earn money through official commissions, publish their albums and catalogs, and also had permission to send their works to international exhibitions, which allowed them to become part of the global photographic process already in those years. Lithuanian photography, with its humanistic emphasis, represented a “new vision” in Soviet culture, particularly by exposing the body in photography. Connections with Lithuania among Kharkiv photographers were not limited to remote contacts. Photographers visited each other, spent leisure time together, actively exchanged developments, sent their shots to European competitions through Lithuanian colleagues, and also received fresh information about new trends in world photography from them. Vitas Lutskius (1943–1987) was one of the most audacious and free-thinking authors among Lithuanians, whose influence on his practice was noted by members of the “Vremya” group. In particular, Boris Mykhailov and Yurii Rupin, together with Vitas Lutskius, created performative portraits of each other while resting in Crimea, which allows us to talk both about close personal ties between photographers of different republics and about the direct circulation of a new vision of photography and artistic manifestations in the practice of the authors [18]. The naked woman among Lithuanians was romanticized, poetized; Lithuanian photographers did not resort to sharp social themes in aggressive visual forms. They very delicately felt the boundary of the permissible drawn by the Soviet authorities. Kharkiv artists, however, were under constant and thorough KGB control already after their first public meetings within the club as the “Vremya” group [19]. Their photography was more than noticeable, sometimes provocative, almost always with a shade of sociality and criticism of Soviet power, as well as with the characteristic “fig” in the pocket of the late Soviet intelligentsia — an internal protest against prohibitions and censorship.
Within the “Vremya” group, the depiction of the nude model had several differences. Following the example of painting nude practice, models for photographers were mostly girlfriends and wives — women close to their circle. Such shots with nude models could ideologically not correspond to the contemporary image of the Soviet woman but intuitively corresponded to the generally accepted canon of female attractiveness.
For many members of the “Vremya” group, despite the forbidden nature of the image, the female image in photography is partly hollowed out and reduced to a certain conditional standard: the category of attractiveness regarding the nude woman in photography remains dominant, mostly depicting a young body with correct proportions. Thus, the nude female body in Oleh Malovanyi’s photography appears attractive, aesthetic, even after the author’s application of a number of stylistic distortions and transformations to the shots. But the nude model in Boris Mykhailov’s work was the complete opposite of the aestheticized standard of female beauty and femininity. In Mykhailov’s photography, the woman is most often not idealized in her forms; her body is shown old, young, thin, or full, but always different; the author does not follow the unified tacit canon of attractive female nudity. Attractiveness for Mykhailov becomes a marker of the idealized Soviet image, against which he opposes in his visual practice by means of photography. But it is important to note that Kharkiv photographers within Soviet unofficial photography shoot the nude male body much more boldly. One of the first programmatic embodiments of the “theory of impact” through the image of the nude body can be considered the series “Violin,” created by Yevhen Pavlov in 1972. Pavlov sent a dozen shots from it for publication to the Polish magazine Fotografia, and bypassing the Soviet press, “Violin” was partially published in the Western press in 1973 with comments by Polish critic Jan Sunderland [20]. The “Violin” series depicts a group male nude photo session in a natural environment. The male body in Pavlov’s work is a poetic image of openness and freedom, a metaphor for vulnerable dissent, uncensoredness, and non-conformity. The composition and frame in Pavlov’s work are clearly structured and visually create a sense of surrealism of what is happening. Among other things, this is perhaps the first male nude in late Soviet photography. The danger of depicting a group male nude body was that it could be perceived by the authorities as propaganda of homosexuality. For post-Soviet society, this topic remains stigmatized to this day, and in the Soviet 1970s it was punished more severely than the depiction of female nudity in the category of “pornography.” Even the attempt to depict the nude body in public space beyond the natural conditions of permitted nudity — baths or during hygienic procedures — already bordered on provocation and political gesture. The entire shooting process of the series was planned by the author, took several days, and was implemented as a kind of happening, but the result was an artistic series of photographs, not documentation of an event [21].
In the same year, photographer Yurii Rupin created the series “Bath,” which is also a vivid example of a male nude group photo session. Unlike Pavlov, Rupin shoots naked men during hygienic procedures. Thus, deliberately crossing the boundary of the permitted but not violating it — this is a game with legislation and the system. The steam surrounding the subjects of the shoot veils the nudity, creates an imaginary screen that covers the subjects and gives the entire series a sense of voyeurism. The mist from the steam is also the photographer’s flirtation with the aesthetics of pictorial photography of the early 20th century, which was stigmatized by Soviet authorities as “bourgeois” and therefore not corresponding to Soviet reality.
Nadiia Kovalchuk notes in the “Bath” series Rupin’s admiration for the bodily plasticity of pioneers of Soviet photography — Boris Ignatovich, Arkadii Shaikhet, Maks Penson [22]. According to her, the body in Rupin’s work was not only an attempt to provoke the authorities with literal corporeality within the categories permitted by them but also an awareness of one’s own body as the last bastion of privacy and inalienable experience. This was most vividly manifested in the early series “Two and the Sea” of 1975 and, in particular, the work “We” of 1971 [23].
Rupin’s work “We” is an intimate family self-portrait. The relaxed and languid female figure next to the restrained and sensual male figure, which compositionally lie within the frame, add a sense of co-presence to the depicted scene. The couple embodies the image of another, intimate, and tender family that exists outside the social stamps of the Soviet “core of society” but within the humanistic tradition of world photography of that time. This similarity is felt if we compare Yurii Rupin’s practice with his Lithuanian colleague Vitas Lutskius, who also shot family self-portraits, placing individuality and humanity above the category of sociality.
Another aesthetic photographer, richly decorated with visual effects, was admired by the member of the “Vremya” group Oleh Malovanyi. He was recognized as a technological master among Kharkiv artists, mastering various complex approaches in working with the photographic layer, with the process of alternative color introduction into photography — the technique of equidensity. Color and the “melting” of form define the perception of the body in Oleh Malovanyi’s photography. His interest is the female body. It has no sociality but an unmasked admiration for the aesthetic characteristics not only of the final result of his work — the shot — but also of the heroines he photographs. For example, in the work “In Expectation” the author uses a wide-angle camera from a high shooting angle to portray a girl sitting on a chair with her head thrown back. In such an angle, the image seems to melt before the viewer’s eyes, creating a feeling of narcotic intoxication, as if dissolving like a drop of gasoline in a puddle with various shapes and colors. The technique of color isogelia successfully emphasizes the variability of possible interpretations, and the disturbing shades of blue-yellow, white, and black reveal a psychedelic subtext.
In another famous series “Gravity,” Malovanyi creates an alternative reality using black-and-white collage technique, assembling it from fragments of already existing photographs. In the frame, against the background of an apocalyptic landscape, female nude figures are depicted, the fragility of the portrayed heroines emphasized by the anxiety of the surrounding reality. Initially, “Gravity” was created as lyrical, but after the Chernobyl tragedy, it acquired new connotations and was interpreted as artistic visionary work — a premonition by the author of a technogenic catastrophe.
Modifications of the body, the introduction of additional elements into its integrity and appearance, whether piercing, tattoos, or even non-conformity to accepted appearance norms in Soviet society, were perceived as manifestations of dissent, marginality, and even associated with prison subculture. Partly for this reason, the alteration of the body image in art was also perceived as an attempt to violate the natural “perfection” of the human body, to bring it into the formal plane. For art, especially photography with its unequivocal function in Soviet society — documenting reality — such an approach became a dangerous manifestation of formalism, which was discredited at that time.
Fragmentation of the body and construction of a new corporeal form were practiced by the member of the “Vremya” group Hennadii Tubalev. His work “Ghost of the Matriarchy” of 1971 is a montage, a contrasting black-and-white symmetrical image assembled from photo fragments of the female body — breasts, the roundness of hips and waist. Tubalev objectifies the corporeal form, bringing it to a utilitarian image resembling objects of decorative and applied art — vases or surreal sculptures. This, in turn, refers to images of voluptuous primitive Venuses and multi-breasted mythological goddesses. But the surrealism of forms, allowed in historiography, literature, and mythology, was forbidden to be introduced into the field of Soviet visuality.
The body of the Soviet person actually belonged to Soviet power. Soviet society perceived itself as a body, a kind of corpus, in which there existed opposition of proper/improper, own/alien, formal/informal, official/unofficial, and even extremely subjective opposition of beautiful/ugly. And just as it was inappropriate for a Soviet citizen to reveal their soul to a foreigner, so it was forbidden for the Soviet body to be naked before the eyes of the Western world. At the same time, the body in late Soviet alternative culture was by no means limited exclusively to nudity: it existed between physical and ontological qualities of corporeality. It was defined simultaneously as a social cog of Soviet society and as the embodiment of the individual in non-conformist culture.
“About these years, Mykhailov recalls, speaking about the ‘fan of pain’ expressed by the group, where each had their own degree of turn: Malovanyi — aesthetic pain, Pavlov — bodily pain, Mykhailov himself — social,” writes Tetiana Pavlova in her article about the “Vremya” group [24]. The definition of “pain” by Pavlova as bodily pain requires explanation, as most authors at one time or another also shot nude models, or as the Kharkiv artists themselves called it — “acts.” Pavlova’s close connection with corporeality in Mykhailov’s definition is justified by one of Yevhen Pavlov’s programmatic series — “Alcoholic Psychosis,” created in 1983.
“Alcoholic Psychosis” — a reportage that the photographer shot in a psychiatric hospital. Formally and thematically, this work preceded the famous series by Boris Mykhailov “Medical History.” The convulsive and literally bound by hospital ropes corporeality in Pavlov’s “Alcoholic Psychosis” transformed over 15 years into the series “Medical History” by Boris Mykhailov with political, marginal pain and became an extremely real, though artistic, reflection of Soviet and post-Soviet reality.
The sexual revolution in Western culture was the opposite of the Soviet idea of the “core of society.” The process of liberating the body from the shackles of religious moralism defined the social post-revolutionary agenda of the 1920s and was evidence of progressive socialist ideas. The second wave of sexual liberation was ripening in the 1960s, parallel to the sexual revolution in the Western world. This internal tension of Soviet society never spilled over into the masses with ideas of sexuality but turned into an internal boiling volcano of thirst for freedom.
Oppressed and hidden corporeality acquired a critical social interpretation and became a hidden metaphor of rebellious ideas. In the context of those years, Kharkiv “acts” in photography existed outside of eroticism. Despite nudity, in the nakedness, the authors saw much more social metaphor than literal pornography. This became an internal need to bare their own thoughts within the circle of the “Vremya” group members, to frankness in working with photography and perceiving it as a megaphone of their own social moods. And it was embodied in the ideas of group communication, the emergence of the “theory of impact,” and the creation of an alternative photographic form in Ukrainian late Soviet photography.
In post-war Ukrainian art, there was a natural division into official and unofficial artistic products, often created by the same authors. In unofficial practice, artists used the image of a person for formal modernist experiments with color, composition, form, working out unrealized “modernisms” of the early 20th century in Ukrainian art. The theme of a contemporary and timely person was of little interest to unofficial art of that time, while socialist realism from the position of the official agenda took on the function of creating the image of the “ideal Soviet person.” But all this was not a real reflection of reality. Until Kharkiv photographers, in attempts to destroy the pseudo-documentarity of Soviet photography with artistic tools, showed contemporaries themselves, revealing alternative realism through the photographic medium in late Soviet Ukrainian art.