Owen Hatherley is an author who’s popped up on the Ramblings before; I reviewed his stimulating book “The Chaplin Machine” back in 2016, and I read a number of his works pre-blog, so I was delighted to be able to review his most recent book for Shiny New Books. “The Adventures of Owen Hatherley in the Post Soviet Space”, with its cheeky cover homage to Herge’s “The Adventures of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets”, is a fascinating, entertaining and surprisingly deep read. If you have any interest in Soviet architecture, the state of the disassembled nations of the USSR, aesthetics and politics and how they intersect, or indeed the history of the various ex-Soviet states, this is definitely the book for you.
To go off at a slight tangent, I was (perhaps rather foolishly) surprised by the amount of discussion of iconoclasm in the book. As is fairly obvious to anyone following the Ramblings, it’s a subject that has become of increasing interest to me over the last year or two. I guess in the past, due to my reading of all things Russian, I’d thought of it as a fairly simplistic equation: Angry Mob + Statues of Hated Leaders = (Concrete) Heads Will Roll – what you might just think of as a visceral response to detested rulers. However, when I began watching the programmes of, and reading the books, by Professor Richard Clay on the subject, in particular with regard to the French revolution (though he *has* moved his study of the subject onto a wider platform more recently), I started to realise that iconoclasm was anything but straightforward.
In France, in particular, the state sponsored iconoclasm was a structured and planned approach to the removal of particular symbols thereby changing the meaning of objects in public space. This actually made me think anew about what is actually *meant* by iconoclasm; it’s not just a religious term any more, but one applied to the alteration of any symbol of control which is out of keeping with the public space in which it sits. Context is all – the objects concerned stay the same, but a statue of Lenin in a Soviet controlled country has a very different meaning and effect than one in a post-Soviet location. As I mentioned, this kind of thinking addled my brain a little when I was taking my mum round Edinburgh on our trip in 2017 – so many statues of dead white men in the city! What where they meant to be saying? What relevance did they have to today?
The topic of state-sponsored iconoclasm comes up in the Hatherley book, of course, where it’s given the heady title of decommunisation; though as Hatherley points out wryly at one point, a number of places could only be decommunised by razing them to the ground, so ingrained is the Soviet iconography. The Lenins, Stalins and Marxes have often been removed, as have the hammer and sickle emblems; but in many places they haven’t, and you wonder whether the imagery has been there so long that people just don’t see it any more, or whether they actually have a hankering for simpler times. Bearing in mind the extreme poverty which now exists in many of the cities, and the massive divide between rich and poor, I’m afraid you can see the appeal of Soviet times where the state provided everything…
Anyway – as you can tell, the Owen Hatherley book is one which provokes any number of thoughts, and I found it fascinating. You can read my thoughts about it here.







Jan 22, 2019 @ 07:41:25
Fascinating post Kaggsy! I feel really conflicted on this. With the Cecil Rhodes statue outside Oriel College I thought it should go, but I also worry that those sort of actions could lead to a denial of history (such as the horrors of British colonialism). It’s a really complex issue – clearly I need to read Hatherley’s book!
Jan 22, 2019 @ 08:42:11
Thanks Madame B! I feel conflicted too – I understand how offensive some of this iconography is, but you’re right to say we shouldn’t whitewash history. We perhaps need to use the various monuments to spark discussions around our past. But there is no easy answer I think. It gets more complicated when you take on board another aspect, which I saw Clay highlight in an online talk, which is the treatment of those objects as works of art which someone has spent ages producing. Is it possible to divorce that object from its meaning and consider it *just* as a work of art? It’s a really complex subject and I can understand why it generates so much study and discussion.
Jan 22, 2019 @ 11:53:10
Really interesting post. I can absolutely see the conflict people have with aspects of iconoclasm, which often seems to comemorate events and times at odds with modern thinking. I think we become so used to seeing particular structures or statues we do forget to think about what lay behind them, and what meaning they might have now. As you say, so often they are statues of dead white men, how much relevance do they have now for our communities in 2019? However, I worry too about the eradication and rewriting of the past. We can (though seldom do) learn so much from it. So glad this book prompted you think so much about this subject as it is an important one for many people today.
Jan 22, 2019 @ 13:22:01
Thanks Ali! Yes, it’s a knotty subject and I certainly think familiarity has a lot to do with our indifference towards the signs and symbols around us. And goodness knows, enough of those get flung at us nowadays. I think we just need to think about these issues and subjects more, perhaps engage more with our surroundings. But alas we have even less time nowadays than we used to, and life is at such a rapid pace, that most people seem to go round in a real state of unawareness (if there’s such a word!) All very thought-provoking, I find.
Jan 22, 2019 @ 12:37:01
Joining those who found your post interesting and thought provoking. I had the fortune to spend almost a month in Minsk in the eighties, -outskirts, but we went to the city almost daily-, and saw those statues. The regime icons were still very present, and the rituals around, -everlasting fires, change of guards, etc.
I too wonder where they are now, with that chasm between the rich and the poor. What you say about the appeal of the Soviet times, my friend in Poland says it’s true in that former communist country.
I like when you say iconoclasm is not just religious. Chris’s last post about Angels and Demons, also spoke about something not quite the same, but it’s about symbols too. https://calmgrove.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/angels/
Jan 22, 2019 @ 13:29:45
Thanks Silvia! I think the study of iconoclasm has come on a bit since it was was regarded as simply a religious act, and the range of eras, places and topics covered by modern thought on the subject seems very wide. Much is to do with the remaking of images, how they control our lives and semiotics in general. It’s a fascinating field of study!
As for the former Soviet statues, they seem to generate so much controversy and discussion. To many they represent a former hated regime; yet you’re right about the appeal of former times. In fact, in Richard Clay’s Utopia series, he interviewed a woman from Lithuania who made it clear that under the former regime many things were much better than after the fall: housing, medical care, education and holidays were all provided for workers and the contrast for them after the collapse of the Soviet Union must have been quite dramatic. The oligarchs may have done ok for themselves but as usual the ordinary people end up suffering.
And it’s always worth remembering that some poor artist has laboured for hours to produce what’s being destroyed – though whether that object can ever be divorced from the meaning it carries is another matter!
Jan 22, 2019 @ 18:49:31
A very though-provoking piece. Along with your other commenters, I can see the complexity of issues at play here, but these statues and icons do remain an important reminder of the terrible horrors of the past, however uncomfortable or abstract that may seem to be. It’s a very tricky subject indeed…
Jan 22, 2019 @ 20:54:25
Thanks Jacqui! Yes, a subject with so many different aspects, and it’s an emotive one too. I *can* understand the hostility towards signs and symbols of power – as I said, I was struck by the amount in Edinburgh and although some I was happy to see (David Hume, for example) the number of military figures was vaguely unsettling. It’s hard to know the best way to deal with objects that no longer seem in line with space in which they sit. Perhaps lugging them off to Lenin and Stalin museums is the right way to go! 🙂
Jan 23, 2019 @ 11:01:27
Well, I do hope the Scottish won’t destroy their statues anytime soon, at least not before I get to visit Edinburgh ! They are a very important feature of the city. And there aren’t just soldiers: there’s Sherlock Holmes, Robert Fergusson, Blackfriars Bobby, Burns, of course, Adam Smith…
Jan 23, 2019 @ 11:18:39
LOL! Well, I don’t think the Scots will be tearing Edinburgh to bits any time soon (at least I hope not!) And yes, there are plenty of folks I’m happy to see remembered (all those you list for a start) – I think I just got vaguely jaded wandering around on the Royal Mile with my mother having to read aloud any inscription on a statue of a soldier…. :s
Jan 24, 2019 @ 10:51:00
Oops, yes, the *Scots*, silly me !
Jan 24, 2019 @ 11:38:43
LOL, well I think we can be Scots or Scottish or Scotch, and personally I don’t mind that much. I once got admonished by a fellow countryman who said that Scotch should only be used for the drink, but since authors as esteemed as Robert Louis Stevenson apply it to people I think we shan’t fuss too much!
Jan 24, 2019 @ 16:37:29
Well you don’t say *a* Turkish”, or *a* Finnish, do you ? You say a Turk, or a Finn, a Swede…and a Scot. And a Scotch…is my husband’s favourite drink :-).
Jan 24, 2019 @ 20:23:19
LOL! 🙂
Jul 23, 2019 @ 06:55:31