|
Seit Oktober 2022 forscht eine neue Gruppe von Doktorand:innen an unserem Graduiertenkolleg. In den folgenden Ausgaben unseres Newsletters geben die Kollegiat:innen einen Einblick in die Themen und Gegenstände ihrer Arbeiten. In diesem Newsletter stellen wir Olga Juutistenaho (OJ) und Yevheniia Moliar (YM) vor:
Research topics: brief introduction
OJ: In my doctoral research, I assess urban space as a representation of memory culture and history politics. As an example, I analyse how the memory of World War II (WWII) has been narrated spatially in Helsinki. For Finland, WWII has played an integral role in nation-building: the war has been traditionally presented through a heroic narrative of protecting a small nation’s independence and democracy next to the hostile neighbouring Soviet Union, combined with a bitter trauma of lost regions and large-scale evacuations, while paying less attention to a contested military alliance with Nazi Germany. I am interested in exploring which aspects of this complex past are conveyed through either monuments, memorials, or other spatial fragments in the Finnish capital.
YM: My research focuses on the topic of working with uncomfortable cultural heritage. Namely, how contemporary artistic practices can rethink such cultural heritage. Rethink it, create new meanings and educational potential instead of hiding and destroying it. I study the Ukrainian Soviet cultural heritage and how it is being analyzed in contemporary art.
How did you choose your topic?
OJ: The choice of my topic is a result of a long process. The spatial heritage of WWII has interested me for a long time, and I have acquainted myself with several European contexts over the years. In my doctoral research, I decided to narrow down the focus to my native country Finland. In terms of memory culture, it is difficult to place Finland in an East vs. West dichotomy. Furthermore, the country’s self-identification can be described as multifaceted and somewhat controversial from an international viewpoint. The underlying controversies in the Finnish narrative of the past intrigued me to start preparing a dissertation on this topic.
Given the importance of wartime memories for Finnish identity, there is a lot of WWII research in Finland. However, there has been less focus on spatial representations and reflections of the country’s complex memory culture. As my academic background is in the fields of architecture and landscape architecture, looking at urban space as a medium of remembrance was a natural starting point. In my current research, I am interested in spatial, aesthetic, as well as socio-political aspects of memory culture in urban space. I aim to present a reflective and critical analysis of these aspects in the cityscape of Helsinki.
YM: At first, I studied Ukrainian Soviet cultural heritage as a phenomenon. And I was constantly faced with the fact that this phenomenon is stigmatized and many valuable works of art are destroyed because of it. The hiding and deconstruction of objects of uncomfortable cultural heritage is a very common phenomenon. Gradually, I began to search for other ways to work with such heritage, namely critical rethinking.
Inspiration: what type of inspiration do you draw from the main theme “identity and heritage”?
OJ: Both main themes of the research training group are highly complex, contested, and therefore difficult to define. In my research, I look at identity at the collective level of a nation state: this type of identity is something consciously constructed for a specific purpose. Heritage, in my case, is a tool used to define and communicate this identity. At the same time, the understanding of identity also shapes the way heritage is evaluated and authorized. These both concepts are interconnected and mutually dependent.
YM: First of all, I was inspired by the reference to identity. Any heritage, whether we like it today or not, is part of the collective experience. It is impossible to refuse one's experience, just as it is impossible to deny it, it must be recognized. And it is contemporary art, in my opinion, that significantly makes it possible to understand and accept cultural heritage as a recognition of its value and historical significance.
Contemporary relevance: Which contemporary debates are mirrored in your topic?
OJ: The scars of the 20th century are still very present in today’s Europe. When I started drafting my research plan, the geopolitical realities of Europe looked quite different than they do today. During the application process, the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine started, which re-framed my research quite drastically. A new crisis has brought forward and activated contested aspects in the collective memory and memory culture of WWII in Finland.
The war in Ukraine has awakened several cultural, societal, and political debates in Finland. Like many European nations with former ties to Russia, Finland has needed to actively redefine its identity as an independent nation, a process which the current political tensions in Europe highlight yet again. The country’s choice to join NATO can be pointed out as a recent example of this. Additionally, some of the current debates are directly linked with cultural heritage in urban space. Since 2022, elements with Russian or Soviet connections, such as statues and place names in Helsinki, have either been removed or are currently being questioned.
YM: I am interested in decolonial studies. In particular, Madina Tlostanova's texts are very relevant to my work. Also important to me are discussions of iconoclasm, such as Stacy Boldrick's "Iconoclasm in the Museum" and other authors. Of course, I closely study researchers who study the Soviet legacy in different countries: Nini Palavandishvili from Georgia, Boris Chukhovich from Uzbekistan, Diana T. Kudaibergenova from Kazakhstan, and Marija Dremaite from Lithuania.
Challenges: which challenges do you face?
OJ: I have given a lot of thought on my role and position as an author. As a Finn conducting research in English in Germany, I am balancing between being an insider and an outsider in regard to my topic. In an international context, not everyone is very familiar with the special characteristics of Finnish memory culture. In my work, I need to consider the varying knowledge levels among potential readers and be able to communicate complex phenomena in a clear, simplified, and careful manner to avoid misunderstandings. The spatial dynamics I am researching cannot be fully understood or explained without first contextualizing their background.
YM: My biggest and most difficult challenge is that the cultural heritage I write about is rapidly disappearing. Every day there are irreparable losses and destruction. It is very painful to realize this, and it is very difficult to maintain a distanced analytical position in the face of this. Also the fact that Soviet history is a constant subject of manipulation and speculation by the Russian Federation also complicates research, which has become especially problematic since the outbreak of war in 2014 and especially after the full-scale invasion in 2022.
How do your previous experiences contribute to the current dissertation project?
OJ: I have a long-standing interest in difficult heritage. In my master’s thesis, I looked into the concept of trauma in built heritage, so I have been able to take advantage of that knowledge and to delve deeper into the literature I acquainted myself with back then. In terms of methods, I will draw on my professional experience and study background by applying visual methods, such as GIS, to visualize the multilayered nature of spatialized memory culture.
YM: I have experience in finding, describing, and archiving objects of Ukrainian Soviet cultural heritage. That is, I am directly familiar with the material objects in question. I have also worked for a long time as a curator with contemporary artists who refer to Soviet heritage in their practices. Thus, I have empirical and theoretical experience that I will combine in my research.
|
