David Burliuk: Was He a Ukrainian Artist? Arguments For and Against

Winnipeg – Early twentieth century modernist art movements are rarely associated in the public mind with Ukraine. Yet Kyiv and Kharkiv and other Ukrainian cities figure prominently as creative centres of new art trends.  One does encounter names of Tatlin, Malevich, Archipenko, Ekster, Burliuk and others in the great museums of the world. Yet one wonders about their identity.

Was Archipenko Ukrainian because he was born in Ukraine? Was he French or American because he lived and created in those countries? Was Malevich Ukrainian  because he identified himself as such? Or was he Russian because he was born in Imperial Russia? Or is there something fundamental in the art of these individuals, their world view and their approach to elements of design, form and function that reflects and builds on a particular Ukrainian art tradition?

These are some of the questions that participants asked themselves at the Ukrainian Cultural and Educational Centre on May 31 during a presentation entitled “David  Burliuk: Was He a Ukrainian artist? Arguments For and Against,” part of a lecture series sponsored by the Centre. The presenter, Prof. Myroslav Shkandrij, is a professor of Ukrainian literature in the Dept. of German and Slavic Studies at the University of Manitoba. He was also the person behind the exhibition “The Phenomenon of the Ukrainian Avant-garde 1910-1935” at the Winnipeg Art Gallery in the 1990’s.  He has been doing extensive research into the cultural climate in Ukraine at the beginning of the twentieth century, especially in Ukrainian literature of the 1920’s, a vibrant period of experimentation, innovation and intellectual dialogue about the nature and function of literature and art and its role in society.

David Burliuk was the driving force behind the creation of Futurism in Russia and Ukraine. He started out as an impressionist, worked his way through Cubism to Futurism. Born in Ukraine, he travelled widely, through Russia, Siberia, Japan and ultimately settled in New York City where he lived until the 1960’s. In making a case about Burliuk’s identity, Prof. Shkandrij acknowledges that the Russians adopted Burliuk as their own – the founder of Russian Futurism. Burliuk also wrote poetry in Russian and his notations are in Russian.

However, testimony of his son and surviving family indicates that Burliuk clearly defined himself as a Ukrainian. He was very proud of his Cossack lineage and asserted that his family was very Ukrainian. He tried to imitate early Cossack paintings and kept painting images of “Kozak Mamai”, referring to these images as “my ancestors”.

Shkandrij analyses Burliuk’s body of work and comes to the conclusion that it is essentially Ukrainian reflecting the steppe landscape in which Burliuk grew up. The vibrant colours, the particular interest in the horizontal, the enthusiasm for the primitive world, the unspoiled primitive landscape and the abundance of the land define Burliuk as an artist. These reflect elemental characteristics of the Ukrainian soul, if you will.

Shkandrij summed up his arguments for the Ukrainian identity of David Burliuk in four brief phrases: self-identification; statement of others; contribution to the Ukrainian art scene; and the art itself.  Finally, Shkandrij talked about the renewed interest in the art of David Burliuk and the work of art historians in Ukraine in reclaiming emigr artists and those adopted by other cultures.

(SMK)