It happens that freedom brings surprises. Getting rid of settled reference points and former connections throws out in space of vagueness, where it is necessary to be newly redefined, to discover the stability points in an incoherent variety and to build up at least any relations, including with one's own. Frequently, such a ranging is carried out by means of reproduction and former repetition, thus, being under a great risk to save things, which where aimed to get rid of. It happens so, that unfettered one does not recognize the signs of his past in his present, as though there is no influence of the outer changes on himself and new terms of existence will not claim new self- determinations.

It looks, as it is our case, inasmuch as Ukrainian mainstream art and culture experiencing something similar - being pushed away from the soviet past, they try to save and reproduce all those features and properties, which finally strengthened exactly in soviet times, supposing that this is the way to revive original Volksgeist. It is hard to say about predomination between nostalgia, complexes or impure conscience. Anyways, all this is a ressentiment. Ukrainian image as a village country was deep-rooted in soviet times and still prevails over ideas of true look, despite that current changes do not allow them to be strengthened. Improbably, that art will become a reliable helper in establishment or regeneration such an "organic national community" (one nation, one language, one culture). It seems impossible to realize a project of peacefully homogenized Ukraine.

Ukrainian mainstream, not that drags a pitiful existence, but he forms a parallel world of reproduction both management methods (including culture administration) and self-understanding standards, which were inherited from soviet times. A link between both two provides mainstream necessary existence facilities, but the absence of former compulsion regime forces to isolate oneself. However, the resource is enough so far, to stage some motion, certain semi-official decor. Indeed, the impossibility of expansion brings a feeling of weakness, anger and hysterics in his existence, because the surrounding not as much resists, as just does not take seriously, reacting only on violations of peaceful co-existence, in other words on the attempts of direct administration and interference. Naturally, nobody would refuse from the support, but there is no- it is ok. 

In other words, Ukrainian present demonstrates an exceptional example of almost peaceful coexistence of both cultures and, if to be exact, of settled difference of vital spaces, a simultaneous being of two streams, which intersect between themselves occasionally. A pathetic governmental mainstream of national holidays and other official ceremonies and parallel with it world of contemporary art that is filling a public space. New things here are not about alternative (it existed before but in unofficial conditions). They are much more about an extension of informal public space as a residence of contemporary art, which is peculiar not to establish a general environment according to certain standard, but to rearrange the objects and images of this world that are able to change our views and approaches towards it. A divergence of these two spaces is a distinctive feature of situation nowadays. Really, it is hard to imagine an arrangement of Ukrainian official spaces with the works of A.Say, V.Tzagolov or I.Isupov, except as an art-provocation.

However, this situation demonstrates streaks of instability, and the reason is the increasing interest to contemporary art from the business elite representatives. The growth demand on actual art works is a hopeful symptom that allows supposing about coexistence of two streams as a temporary phenomenon. This process has an opportunity to cause high-quality transformations in the mainstream itself as soon as a necessity of changes will ripen. Probably, neither the process nor we are able to avoid self-definition. However, might it lead also to transformations (in style, in subject, in quality) and in contemporary art itself?

Vladimir Fadeev