Fragment of the MUHi 2009-2021 book

Fragment of the MUHi 2009-2021 book

13 February 2023

The book covers the 12-year history of the MUHi Competition, capturing the changes and trends in the young art of this period. Having collected an archive of the cooperation of young Ukrainian artists with the MUHi Competition, it reflects the changes in young art over the last decade. At the same time, the book seeks to find answers to the most pressing questions: how did the pace of socio-economic and technological development affect the formation of creative practices of young artists? how did political changes and upheavals in Ukraine affect young people? how can art create the ground for change and provoke qualitative changes in public life?

The book consists of four main sections: an introductory part with articles by the MUHi project team, an analytical part with articles by invited experts, an archive of exhibitions of the finalists of 2009-2021 and an archive of exhibitions of the winners and finalists of the MUHi.

“MUHi 2009-2021” received a jury’s special award for a design that reveals the value of young art at the international contest The Best Book Design 2022.

“The book ‘MUHi 2009-2021’ is a significant step in our daily work. It is also a choice in favor of all those involved in art in Ukraine today, who not only believe in change, but also make it. These are materials for further discussions, actions, analysis, conclusions, ideas. I hope that we will all get additional motivation to support each other in order to further guide Ukrainian art to involvement in all spheres of society and improve its quality”—Maryna Shcherbenko, author of the idea and curator of the project.

About compilers:
Yevheniia Butsykina — culturologist, art critic, and manager of the 2015-2019 MUHi Сompetition.
Milena Khomchenko — art critic, cultural manager, and manager of MUHi 2021 Сompetition.

We publish an article by Yevheniia Butsykina prepared especially for the “MUHi 2009-2021” book.

Young Ukrainian Artists and… a competition created for them

This book is about the MUHi competition, its history, and its impact on Ukrainian art. The project has gained the status of an institution over the years due to its sustainability, consistency, commitment to its goals and ideas, combined with dynamism, relevance, and willingness to adapt to the demands of the time.

Despite the fact that the format of the competition involves the interaction of many elements (namely; the institution, the curator, the expert committee, critics, journalists, sponsors and patrons, lecturers and consultants, etc.), from the start, the central figures are artists who are just beginning their careers. This seemingly obvious thesis immediately raises a number of critical questions, including why artists need competition in the first place. Why are competitions and prizes for young artists created? What criteria are used to classify artists as young? The scene of contemporary Ukrainian art from year to year is increasingly filled with controversy or at least heated discussions on these issues, because institutional development and diversification necessitate appropriate reflection: for whom? why? and what comes next?

So, we shall try to trace the history of the MUHi competition within the limits of the question: why hold a competition for ‘young artists’? To do so, we gathered feedback from people who were and still are essential parts of the project, including the project’s founder and curator Maryna Shcherbenko, past coordinators, experts, and contestants, as well as journalists who covered the nominees’ exhibitions. This polyphony is intended to produce a structured view of MUHi’s history, and to examine how it has responded to this question over time.

2009–2010. Start and the approval of the format

The second half of the 2000s was a flourishing period for exhibition life and commercial gallery activity, at least in Ukraine’s capital. Bottega Gallery, founded in 2007 by Maryna and Vitalii Shcherbenko, was one of the most active, successful, and popular galleries. Each exhibition’s opening was accompanied by a large number of visitors and sales. “It was a stable period of exhibition activity. Bottega Gallery’s work was markedly different from how the Shcherbenko Art Centre operates today. It was a tight schedule of exhibitions of already well-known and recognized Ukrainian artists,” comments Maryna Shcherbenko.

Among the visitors of the exhibitions were recent academy graduates, who brought their works to galleries to initiate collaborations. These were not isolated occurrences, rather a gradual trend was emerging — the new generation demanded the attention and support of galleries and other institutions. “At that point, it became clear that this was a large swath of artists who would shape our future,” says Maryna Shcherbenko. “Despite the fact that they worked mostly with traditional materials and types of art, their work differed from was in the gallery. Initially, I decided to choose and curate works from what I already had and make a group exhibition. This idea began transforming into a project.”

Liudmyla Skrynnykova, Bottega Gallery manager and coordinator of the 2009-2010 MUHi competition, notes that the economic crisis of 2008 played an important role in the decision to work with young artists, which significantly reduced sales and forced the gallery to look for new opportunities. “Although, I think, this desire matured long ago out of a sense of need to find new ideas and formats. And constant communication with young artists who brought their works with the hope of cooperation, and awareness of their ability to invest in new, potentially promising areas, and, indeed, with the understanding that it will be easier to work with commercially”.

Taking to account these concepts, the first exhibition of young Ukrainian artists with a peculiar name MUHi opened in 2009, which the following year turned into a full-scale art award: with the announcements of application submissions, expert committee, the exhibition of nominees (consistently held at the Modern Art Research Institute until 2012) and awarding the winners. The project unfolded swiftly, and hence, as Maryna Shcherbenko notes, a certain intuition in some of the decision-making was an accompanying factor in the implementation: “There were many things: victories, mistakes, new experiences and lack of money. Artists brought works that were somewhere and somehow already completed, they delivered them themselves, the premises were provided by the Institute, rent-free, they assembled the works themselves as best they could. All arrangements were quickly and efficiently carried out. Ideas arose instantly and either were implemented or vanished into the thin air. This project had such an incredible energy that it both inspired me and kept me awake at night”.

However, the project’s founder admits that in the early years, the team often operated intuitively, driven by the inspiration and energy gained from the collaboration with young artists. Each exhibition and award ceremony drew the attention of the entire artistic community of Kyiv and Ukraine, as there were not so many projects back then. The name, which was coined by the entire team of Bottega Gallery, played a vital role in the competition’s bright start. According to Liudmyla Skrynnykova, “It seems that it was at the time when I was preparing a material about Young British Artists for Bottega Magazine and, adapting this version by chance to the Ukrainian one, I discovered that an interesting abbreviation was formed — MUH (i.e. fly). We were skeptical at first because the association with insects did not appeal to us. However, there was a certain provocation, a movement of energy, an attempt to find a better place, a chance for development. That is how MUHi came to be, a grammatically incorrect plural form with a dynamic  — i (and), a new independent word that eventually became the competition’s name”.

The acronym name, which referred to a high-profile generation of contemporary British artists, popularized a new and appealing phrase at the time — ‘young artists’. Although this connection has existed in global practice for a long time, it echoes another concept in the international art market — emerging artists (artists who are in the process of formation, at the beginning of their careers). The goal of a competition launched by a commercial gallery ought to be the transformation of the usage of ‘young artist’ into ‘emerging artist’. The first phrase reflects the artist’s youth and lack of experience. The second emphasizes a certain status: the artist must already have a certain level of professional development, have received initial institutional recognition, have entered the local art market system, and have begun their path to commercial success and recognition.

Today, there is growing criticism of both signifiers: ‘young’ does not satisfy the art community because of its ageistic praise of youth and precocity, and emerging (it is difficult to choose a successful Ukrainian analogue) is invariably associated with an imperfect state and a lack of experience. Do artists want to be associated with such labels? This is a question that is still relevant today. However, in the late 2000s, the Ukrainian community was more concerned with new opportunities than criticism.

So, what opportunities did young (both in terms of age and experience) artists see for their development when they applied for the first MUHi competitions, and did they receive them?

“It was crucial support. I recall quick preparations. After that, I began to grow accustomed to criticism. I started to take the exhibition not so seriously. I perceived it as living through a certain time on my own, recording a certain period”1, says Nazar Bilyk, winner of the second MUHi Prize 2010. Aside from a valuable critical examination, the prospect of the artist’s first solo exhibition at Bottega Gallery, which he had been planning for a long time, was significant. A finalist of the same year, Anna Naduda, emphasized the value of criticism in helping shape an artist’s freedom of expression and self-confidence. “The MUHi competition provided me with an emotional boost because I presented my first fully formed project, which was determined solely by internal understanding. Such competitions should be larger in size because they provide an appropriate incentive for internal development. If everything was genuine and honest, rather than an attempt to look ‘pretty’  or ‘cool’ in order to conform with social expectations, then a few years later it can be useful for artists to be able to draw on the experience of their first exhibitions”2. Starting out, the MUHi competition was an opportunity for its participants to go beyond the academic workshop and their small circles of colleagues and like-minded people, allowing them to become more visible and seen, and to receive feedback (even negative feedback) from the professional community.

2011–2012. Dynamic development and the first criticism

Having generated a great deal of interest from both artists and other agents of the cultural field, the competition got on track and confidently paved its way, filling the appropriate niche. “There were few opportunities for young artists back then,” says Maria Vergeles, coordinator of MUHi 2012. “PinchukArtCentre, MUHi, and the Rinat Akhmetov Foundation’s  i3 grant program were three institutions that assisted young artists. But, in my opinion, the MUHi competitions were the best option because the grant program had specific conditions and was not suitable for everyone, and the PinchukArtCentre’s list of finalists regularly included artists from one group.”

Andrii Sihuntsov, who in 2011 combined the role of both coordinator and participant of MUHi, also emphasizes the importance of the competition at a time when there was a lack of opportunities for young artists: “There were not many festivals where artists could display their work at the time. The powerful rave scene and a large circle of people interested in contemporary art that we have now among young audiences have never existed before. The artistic community was much older, and there were few opportunities to present new ideas and works, so the competition became a kind of spotlight that highlighted and exposed new artists.”

In 2011, Despite its still somewhat experimental nature, the competition gained traction: it was a large-scale project with a powerful lecture program, an energetic opening, and an award ceremony. Most members of the art community were drawn to these events, and the participating artists felt a responsibility — a responsibility to present their works. “Participating in competitions allows you to demonstrate new work in a new setting. I like it that it is a situation in which an artist can afford to implement nearly any idea, without worrying about the cost of creating the work. As a result, each participant passes an invisible test for the meticulous of their creative method,” says MUHi 2011 winner Daniil Galkin3.

According to Andrii Sihuntsov, the competition provided the opportunity to declare oneself. “It was a really cool project that involved participants like Synchrodogs, Daniil Galkin, Sasha Kurmaz, Maksym Chatskyi, the group that was called Tenpoint back then, and others… In ten years, all of these artists have accomplished a great deal and realized their full potential, not just in Ukraine. The MUHi competition provided a great start and a sense of assurance that your activity is needed and that someone is interested in it. That was the most essential factor at the time”.

Kateryna Yermolaieva, who participated in MUHi 2012 under the pseudonym Mikhalych, emphasizes the competition’s positive impact on her professional growth: “MUHi provided me with my first experience of working with an exhibition space. That was when I realized that street art does not always belong in galleries. It was also the time when I came to Kyiv, so MUHi provided me with invaluable connections. I met many talented young artists and interesting people4.

But not everything was so cheery and straightforward. The competition had flaws at this point, which gradually became a topic of reflection and discussion among both participants and art critics. For example, Yevhen Samborsky, the first MUHi 2012 award winner, described working on the project as a challenge for him, albeit a positive toughening experience. Yevhen Samborsky mentions: “There were 28 [participants], and everyone could choose their place. We all had equal rights and had to work together. We had to adapt to the situation in some way.” 5 Yevhen recreated his peculiar position as a young Ukrainian artist in his winning work Velvet Nothing — an installation of stuffed cats and dogs peering into black velvet fabric. “I graduated from university and was taught the same as everyone else. Everyone knows about our lack of education. That is something we must all agree on. I was taught to draw landscapes, portraits, and still lifes. I have a strong educational background in art. But, due to the Internet and trips to Europe, I discovered that young artists there work with a great deal of materials and have a long history of working with different mediums. I felt disarmed”. 6

This creative statement was aptly interpreted by art critic Asia Bazdyrieva, who wrote a harsh critical review not only of the MUHi 2012 finalists’ exhibition, but also of the MUHi project in general: “The stuffed animals, which peek with interest into something covered in velvet, serve as a metaphor for the Ukrainian artist who must find his way by touch, trial and error, and self-education. As a result, the works of young Ukrainian artists often appear helpless on the international stage”7. In 2012, the competition was addressed in numerous publications that contained critical remarks that were not always well-reasoned but were emotional and crucial. Such reactions were more a manifestation of the art community’s new requirements for projects like MUHi: the competition had to reach a new institutional level, providing young artists with not only a platform to express themselves but also a quality and solid foundation for development. Maryna Shcherbenko, the project’s founder, could not help but react to this: “Criticism was necessary, and a lot of it was stated very accurately, which helped expose the pros and cons in the work, in the structure and the rules… While the project appeared to be stable on the outside, on the inside there was no coordinated process and no clear vision of what to do next, not even the certainty that we would hold a competition the following year.”

2013–2014. A break for rethinking

The competition did not take place the following year due to internal (the launch of the new Shcherbenko Art Centre as an institution, which required a lot of resources from the team) and external (political cataclysm and economic crisis in the country) circumstances. Bottega Gallery and the Shcherbenko Art Centre — located on the Mykhailivska Street, five minutes from Maidan Nezalezhnosti, were at the epicenter of the difficult historical events that would be experienced by both the team of two institutions and the artists who exhibited there. Since 2012, the economic situation had been in disarray. Maria Vergeles comments on her experience as the project coordinator of the 2012 MUHi competition: “The country was approaching the 2014 crisis, and finding financial support was becoming increasingly difficult. We had already been actively working on the opening of Shcherbenko Art Centre, but we still had the strength and funds to hold another competition. Even artists were allocated certain funds to create works”.

However, due to political events and economic problems, this leap could not be repeated in the next two years. “Art is not the first necessity, and as a result, as soon as an economic crisis begins, the first thing that companies cut is the budget for sponsorship of cultural projects. Sponsors attempted to assist us with equipment, but due to budget cuts, large financial support was not even a consideration,” indicated Maria.

Before resuming the competition in 2015, the project team faced the challenges of implementing a number of significant changes and introducing new rules while remaining true to the original concept of MUHi. Tetiana Serediuk, who coordinated the 2015 competition, recalls: “From the economic standpoint, this was a difficult time. The consequences of Maidan were still being felt. I would even say they showed up in full force: Ukraine’s economy was frantic; the dollar exchange soared to 40 UAH in February, and then settled at 25 UAH. Kyiv’s cultural centers, which had not been operating at full capacity since the beginning of 2014, began to see an outflow of attention and resources. The majority of donors, sponsors, and private clients who had supported the sphere through purchases of artists’ works began to devote their entire attention to supporting the military and volunteers in eastern Ukraine. It was once again ‘wrong time, not now’ for culture, art, and support of young artists.”

Aside from a lack of external support from patrons and sponsors, the competition had to undergo an internal rethinking in the context of a number of occurrences and demands of the art community. The Revolution of Dignity significantly contributed to this, as a catalyst for exposing the institutional crisis in the field of culture, issues of interaction between the state and public organizations, the role of private figures seeking change, and other qualitative changes in the country’s cultural life. And all this was combined with the general public’s underestimation of the role of culture during the crisis. Serediuk comments: “Since then, I still remember the public’s rejection of most cultural events. In 2013-2014, I ran a poster on the website Platfor.ma and felt the full wave of the nation’s outrage: “How can you hold concerts/exhibitions/festivals when there is a war in the east?!” This sparked a flurry of cultural policy debates,”

2015–2019. Recovery after a break and time for reflection

All of these factors contributed to the continuation of the MUHi competition in a significantly revised format: beginning in 2015, the competition would be held every two years, with a shortlist of 10-12 participants, an international expert committee would be involved in evaluating the works of applicants and nominees, and, in addition to the cash prize and personal exhibition, the prizewinner would obtain the possibility of a foreign residency and further institutional support from Shcherbenko Art Centre (Bottega Gallery, at that time, ceased to exist). “Now the features of the MUHi project have stabilized. One year for the preparation and work of the competition, in which we gather an expert committee, announce the call for applications of young artists, from whom the experts then select 10 nominees. Then we prepare nominees’ projects for the exhibition. Then the exhibition. Parallel program. The winners are chosen by experts. The award ceremony. Prizes are given out. Then in the second year: work with the winners of the competition. Coordination of projects, preparation/creation of exhibitions. Half of the prize money is shared as the budget of personal projects, and the other half is given to artists for the independent realization of their ideas. Some artists from the competition continue to work with Shcherbenko Art Centre, so our exhibition schedule is half-filled with projects from previous MUHi finalists, and some of the first-year nominees have already had their first retrospectives,” clarifies Maryna Shcherbenko.

If you look at the first post-Maidan exhibition of finalists, its content became a topic for discussion: many were interested in how young artists will react to the difficult events happening in the country. Tetiana Serediuk comments on the exhibition from the position of an insider: “On the surface, it appeared to be an attempt to reconsider the events of the Maidan, the war in the East, and the annexation of Crimea. At that moment, making such statements is surprisingly difficult; it is as subjective as it can be. And the viewer is still unable to fully comprehend and appreciate everything.” Oksana Barshynova, from the panel of experts for the competition, problematized this aspect of the project: “There were many works about the war and Maidan, but none of them touched me… The war is significant not in itself, but in how it alters the global picture. The artist is already reacting to these shifts in worldview… There are obvious flaws in the works presented at the competition: almost all of them are propagandistic, unambiguous, and straightforward. Except in a few cases where the content is complex and the form is appealing” 8.

Another significant aspect of the changes to the 2015 MUHi competition was the appearance of foreign experts in the jury. They were not as emotionally and deeply involved in Ukraine’s political events as their domestic colleagues were. This enabled them to evaluate the artists’ applications as well as the finalists’ work from another perspective. Janusz Baldyga, a Polish artist, and curator, for example, highlighted the political and personal counterbalance in the works he saw: “Given the conservatism of Ukraine’s art schools, it is worth taking note of the great independence of young Ukrainian artists who very often seek inspiration in their life histories as well as family and cultural traditions… On the one hand, we are dealing with political or sociological reflection, but on the other hand, private, personal messages, directing us towards human intimacy, are beginning to appear and dominate.” 9.

The invitation of foreign experts required that the work of young Ukrainian artists be evaluated in European and global contexts, which became relevant in 2017. Sasha Gomeniuk, director of Hales Gallery (London / New York), while on the committee for MUHi 2017, spoke as an expert on this topic: “We should not demand that young artists focus on ideas and concepts inherent to Western thinking or interesting for global contemplation. It seems to me that it is not fair to ask that the younger generation try to engage with ideas and concepts that would be accessible and interesting to the Western mind/eye. To ask this is to demand a compromise and in artistic practice there should be no place for compromise. I can only speak from my perspective and from my observations, but it seems to me that one way to go about it is to focus on continuing to develop local structures that would provide support for young art rather than to try to enter the dominant framework. Local galleries, collectors, museums, private and governmental initiatives have in many countries provided the important support that artists need to make unique, uncompromising work”10. Despite the fact that the revolutionary noise was gradually subsiding and the state of shock had passed, the question of the reactions of MUHi finalists to social and political events in the country was still being debated: “With the flow of time, I have a feeling that the works of the finalists contain echoes of the Revolution Dignity. 2017 was not so long after, and artists were still actively reflecting on those events. There were many ironic works, for example, with a sense of not only the Ukrainian but also the global context,” points out Vira Kruzhylina, MUHi 2017 coordinator.

Oksana Barshynova, who returned as an expert for a second time, was able to compare the applications and works of the finalists to those of the 2015 competition and reached the following conclusions: “The last time the theme of war dominated, affecting us as experts and appearing in a number of interesting projects (Daria Koltsova, the art-group Supovoi Nabor). At the moment, we see a much broader range of artistic reflections: some in response to decommunization, others in response to social change. However, there are artists who are purely interested in formal issues, such as color or the emotional and psychological impact of art.”11 Journalist Anna Parovatkina did not quite agree with Barshynova in her article about the MUHi 2017 exhibition: “MUHi nominees preferred to avoid both acute and simply relevant social issues. As well as the military. Instead of harsh reality, the ‘star’ participants, as well as the award’s unknown young authors from the shortlist, preferred ‘pure’ art”12. In fact, many visitors noted that the majority of the finalists avoided social criticism in the works they displayed at the exhibition: some were interested in researching their own art or their inner state, while others were purely interested in institutional critique.

Questions about the status of ‘young artists’, the role of the competition, and new opportunities for institutional support were raised both during and after the exhibition. Last year, Oksana Barshynova also commented on this topic: “The competition of ‘young artists’ has its own restrictions and is widely criticized today. A young artist is defined not by his age, but by the moment he recognizes himself as an artist, which can occur at any age. The definition of ‘young artist’ is still being worked through, but it should serve as an incentive to reconsider ‘young art’13.

The competition team worked on the development of the project, realizing that first of all the artist-participant should remain in the center of attention. “Artists who made the shortlist and won prizes saw it as an opportunity to have a personal exhibition in a prestigious gallery and sell their works. For example, for Maria Proshkowska and Oleh Dimov, these were their first personal exhibitions. Participants had the opportunity to speak with members of the jury, which broadened their future horizons. Jerzy Onuh and Sasha Gomeniuk, for example, provided invaluable advice. In my personal opinion, getting on the shortlist gave many people the confidence that you can do it in the future,” recalls Vira Kruzhulina. Later, the winners shared their experiences of passing through the fires of competition. Oleh Dimov received his third award and claimed: “I recently heard the opinion of American philosopher John Dewey expressing his belief that human nature has a deep desire to be meaningful. Channeling these words through myself, I would say that everyone requires a positive evaluation. I received such an evaluation on the MUHi project. It is as if they have given the official go-ahead to a practice I have been doing for a long time and have frequently criticized myself for.” 14.

Additionally, Maria Proshkowska, the winner of the second place, emphasized that the artist should understand at the moment after the award: “It is like winning the lottery: people win millions and then return to hard physical labour to feed themselves after a few years. And here is the thing: you are given the opportunity, but what you do with it is entirely up to you. The best thing that happened to me after I had received the special award was that I started believing in myself 15.

In this context, the opinion of MUHi 2017 winner Mykhailo Alekseienko is particularly interesting (that year he also became a finalist of the PinchukArtCentre Award and the Festival of Young Ukrainian Artists at Mystetskyi Arsenal). The artist emphasized not the role of the moment after the award (as a realization of his responsibility for his future career), but before — how prepared an artist is to participate in such projects: “I always wanted some institutional benefits until the artist Madlen Franco and I organized Apartment 14 and began to freely implement projects there and show them in other spaces. I was able to let go of thoughts about competitions and institutions, and I felt an inner strength in the fact that I could function completely calmly and independently. Then the institutions appeared on the horizon and provided positive responses” 16.

At the end of 2018, by his right as a competition laureate, Mykhailo Alekseienko implemented a personal project titled Big Party! For Artists Only! The artist organized an action in which he ‘set the table’ for all visitors who could somehow prove their status as an artist, thus sharing his cash prize from winning MUHi with Ukrainian colleagues: “I was always interested in the relativity of the evaluation of works and the determination of the winners in the contests for artists. In such situations, completely different works of art are compared, and it is impossible to formulate certain selection criteria. Is it interesting? Is it relevant? Usually, apart from the implementation of the artist’s idea, such awards are an opportunity to receive funds, since most artists are deprived of financial support and cannot earn a living from their professional activity exclusively 17.

It is worth noting that almost every MUHi finalist exhibition included at least one work dedicated to the artist’s internal critique of his own status and institutional environment. Mykhailo Alekseienko took this criticism to a new level by, on the one hand, establishing his own exhibition space, Apartment 14, and declaring relative autonomy. On the other hand, he was able to sharply and ironically raise the question of the importance to the emerging artist in the MUHi competition, and other similar prizes and open calls, the number of which continues to grow in Ukraine.

In response to these messages, the MUHi team revised the competition rules in 2019, increasing the age limit for participants to 35. Despite the implicit ageist meaning, the concept of a ‘young artist’ had expanded in meaning. That year’s competition attracted both newcomers and established artists. For example, Alina Yakubenko, a MUHi 2019 finalist, described the competition’s role for herself as instrumental: “The MUHi competition provided an opportunity to finance one of the parts of the film [referring to the work Forest Song]. I took the structure of the drama as a basis, and only transferred the action in time — into today’s Ukrainian forest, with its participants and events that are no less mythologized and celebrated”18.

Maria Kulikovska, a 2010 participant and 2019 competition expert, noticed a new trend in that year’s shortlist: “I noticed that the finalists were now artists who, not having been able to get specialized education in contemporary art in Ukraine, had made themselves. These are people who have either practiced for a long time or have travelled abroad and learned this language there” 19. And, although there were works in the exhibition that responded to recent events in Ukraine, they did so through the lens of a very personal prism. Perhaps this is why many visitors thought the exhibition lacked expressiveness for ‘young art’.

In her review, art critic Iryna Tofan describes the work of the finalists: “They are united by being conflict-free and cautious. Without sensationalism and fuss, artists dissect what falls into the focus of attention and often prefer to document the process rather than speak out or build an artistic image” 20. However, Maria Kulikovska, as an insider, saw the exhibition in a different light: “All of the finalists we have chosen have empathy for society and the audience”. These are people who face problems on a daily basis, and, knowing them from within, interpret and present them to society through visual language21.

What comes next? That is the reason for this book.

We saw that there has never been a year in MUHi history when everything went smoothly and flawlessly. The competition has evolved, receiving praise, gratitude, and community support, and as well as harsh criticism, disregard, and persistent calls for changes. The accumulated experience, the collected archive of such diverse and valuable projects, comments, and names now requires a new understanding from both inside and out. That is why this book has been created. “I want this work to provide us all with material for analysis, research, and the formation of trends and directions in a professional setting. This analysis is required for self-evaluation and understanding of all the negative and positive aspects of the work. It is a summary that will give us a better understanding of what to do next,” states Maryna Shcherbenko.

Thus, in the book MUHi 2009-2021, we attempted not only to publicly archive the competition but also to reflect on what it has gained as an institution over the years. The first part of the book is devoted to this, and it contains texts by people important for the competition and its formation, whom we have invited to share their thoughts on acknowledging ‘young art’ in the world and in Ukraine, as well as opportunities for its support and development. They were the insiders as well as people who stood by, keeping a watchful eye on the competition. At our request, MUHi experts of different years (from the very beginning till today) have responded, artists, curators, art critics, art managers — people who have constituted and developed the Ukrainian art field over the past decades — representatives from various generations, teachers and students, masters and fresh blood, experienced and demanding. Each of these voices has contributed to and continues to contribute to the transformation of the MUHi competition so that it can more effectively fulfill its primary function — the support of young Ukrainian artists.

The second part of the book is an archive. Our goal was to systematize as much information as possible about the history of MUHi, each competition, participant, project, illustration, and related group and personal exhibition that would not have happened without MUHi. The outline of the competition’s cultural and artistic context is given a special place in the book: we tried to recall the key events, phenomena, names, and trends in the Ukrainian world of visual culture, which could not but affect the projects of participating artists. When you read this book all the way through, you will notice that the competition never repeated itself: each time, its organizers raised the bar, set new goals, expanded the horizons, and responded to the new challenges they encountered.

Such dynamism added some uniqueness to the project’s history, which was reflected in the complexity of archiving. Some information (particularly about the first-year competitions) has not been preserved or has been partially lost. Some information is motley and colorful. Again, the first years were years of adjusting to the process, which also meant allowing the participating artists free rein in their expressions within the exhibition of nominees. With each subsequent competition, the process of collaboration between the participant and the organizers, the institution and the artist, was established, and MUHi sought appropriate ways to moderate the means of expression for artists who did not always have sufficient experience and frequently required assistance.

The processes are still being fine-tuned today. The MUHi competition continues, it is growing, and it requires assistance from the environment in which it was born and lives. So we hope that the readers of this book will not be indifferent to the project, but will voice their opinion and participate in the next step of MUHi’s evolution, and hence our joint development.

Yevheniia Butsukina
Сulturologist, art critic, manager of the MUHi from 2015-2019 competition

NOTES:

[article titles have been translated to English from their original Ukrainian or Russian titles]

[1] Butsykina, Yevheniia. Nazar Bilyk: “The time has come, when it is necessary to offer our own solutions rather than serve ideology”/“Настав час, коли треба не обслуговувати ідеологію, а пропонувати свої власні рішення”. [Electronic resource] / Yevheniia Butsykina // Mind.ua. — 2017. — URL: https://mind.ua/style/20176827-nazar-bilik-nastav-chas-koli-treba-ne-obslugovuvati-ideologiyu-a-proponuvati-svoyi-vlasni-rishennya?fbclid=IwAR0bHho3_zMYsNAYSw18RhIgemPYKaVCzcpBW_x-bNBgQuPPR5mdshC40O8

[2] Butsykina, Yevheniia. Anna Naduda: “If an artist is only able to work if he is being funded, then he is not exactly an artist”/“Якщо художник здатний працювати лише за умов фінансування, то це не зовсім художник”. [Electronic resource] / Yevheniia Butsykina // Mind.ua. — 2017. — URL:  https://mind.ua/style/20176335-anna-naduda-yakshcho-hudozhnik-zdatnij-pracyuvati-lishe-za-umov-finansuvannya-to-ce-ne-zovsim-hudozhnik

[3] Butsykina, Yevheniia. Daniil Galkin: “If you differ from others, it will be noticed”/“Якщо ти відрізнієшся від інших, це помітять”. [Electronic resource] / Yevheniia Butsykina // Mind.ua. — 2017. — URL:   https://mind.ua/style/20177694-danilo-galkin-yakshcho-ti-vidriznieshsya-vid-inshih-ce-pomityat

[4] Sanduliak, Alina. Kateryna Yermolaieva: “I am interested in problems we can never cope with”/“Меня интересуют проблемы, с которыми нам никогда не справиться”. [Electronic resource] / Alina Sanduliak // Art Ukraine. — 2014. — URL:https://artukraine.com.ua/a/ekaterina-ermolaeva-menya-interesuyut-problemy-s-kotorymi-nam-nikogda-ne-poluchitsya-spravitsya–/#.YQ6zIY4zY2x

[5] Radionova, Arina. “MUHi returns: Yevhen Samborsky on immersion in Velvet Nothing”/МУХі» повертаються: Євген Самборський про занурення у «оксамитове Ніщо» [Electronic resource] / Arina Radionova // Art Ukraine. — 2015. URL:https://artukraine.com.ua/a/mukhi-povertayutsya–yevgen-samborskiy-pro-zanurennya-u-oksamitove-nishcho/?fbclid=IwAR3yd3UI9YGTR27YbKChT_7YFZv-Ias40xpD5ZKbVYgxuHdHRlHbGSuNijo#.YQmM9NQzaDL

[6] ibid.

[7] Bazdyrieva, Asia.” MUHi: patronage or speculation?”/“МУХі: меценатство или спекуляция?” [Electronic resource] / Asia Bazdyrieva // Art Ukraine. — 2012. — URL:https://artukraine.com.ua/a/muhi-mecenatstvo-ili-spekulyaciya/#.YReSC4gzY2y

[8] Leontieva, Maryna, Oksana Barshynova: “The expert of the competition of young artists sees things which are unknown to anyone”/“Експерт конкурсу молодих художників бачить речі, які не відомі нікому”. [Electronic resource] / Maryna Leontieva // Art Ukraine. — 2015. — URL: https://artukraine.com.ua/a/oksana-barshinova–ekspert-konkursu-molodikh-khudozhnikiv-bachit-rechi-yaki-nevidomi-nikomu/#.YQ7BkY4zY2x

[9] Butsykina, Yevheniia and Kucheruk, Olha. Janusz Bałdyga : “Tradition is important for young Ukrainian artists”/“Молодим українським художникам важливий ритуал”. [Electronic resource] / Yevheniia Butsykina, Olha Kucheruk // Art Ukraine. — 2015. — URL: https://artukraine.com.ua/a/yanush-baldiga–molodim-ukrainskim-khudozhnikam-vazhliviy-ritual/#.YQ7AUo4zY2x

[10] Butsykina, Yevheniia. Sasha Gomeniuk: “The artist has to trust the gallery”/ “Художник має довіряти галереї”. [Electronic resource] / Yevheniia Butsykina // Art Ukraine. — 2017. — URL: https://artukraine.com.ua/a/oleksandra-gomenyuk-nayvazhlivishe–rozvivati-miscevi-strukturi/#.YQ65OY4zY2x

[11] Butsykina, Yevheniia. Oksana Barshynova: “The sphere of art is a serious game lever in the international arena”/“Сфера мистецтва — серйозний важіль гри на міжнародній арені”. [Electronic resource] / Yevheniia Butsykina // Art Ukraine. — 2017. — URL: https://artukraine.com.ua/a/oksana-barshinova-sfera-mistectva–seryozniy-vazhil-gri-na-mizhnarodniy-areni/#.YQ7Es44zY2x

[12] Parovatkina, Anna. “Ukrainian art and European choice”/“Украинское искусство и европейский выбор”. [Electronic resource] / Anna Parovatkina // The Day. — 2017. — URL: https://day.kyiv.ua/ru/article/kultura/ukrainskoe-iskusstvo-i-evropeyskiy-vybor

[13] Butsykina, Yevheniia. Oksana Barshynova: “The sphere of art is a serious game lever in the international arena”/“Сфера мистецтва — серйозний важіль гри на міжнародній арені”. [Electronic resource] / Yevheniia Butsykina // Art Ukraine. — 2017. — URL: https://artukraine.com.ua/a/oksana-barshinova-sfera-mistectva–seryozniy-vazhil-gri-na-mizhnarodniy-areni/#.YQ7Es44zY2x

[14] Bohdanets, Svitlana. “Winners of the MUHi competition: on life after the award”/“Призери конкурсу МУХі: про життя після премії”. [Electronic resource] / Svitlana Bohdanets // YourArt. — 2019. — URL: https://supportyourart.com/stories/price/

[15] ibid.

[16] Butsykina, Yevheniia та Nepeina, Valeriia. “Winner of the MUHі competition: One man’s strange idea is a madman’s thought. If it is repeated by five people, it becomes the identification of the social group”/“Странная идея одного человека — мысль сумасшедшего. Если ее повторят пятеро — это срез соцгруппы”. [Electronic resource] / Yevheniia Butsykina, Valeriia Nepeina // Mind.ua. — 2018. — URL: https://mind.ua/ru/style/20179778-pobeditel-konkursa-muhi-strannaya-ideya-odnogo-cheloveka-mysl-sumasshedshego-esli-ee-povtoryat-pyate

[17] “BIG PARTY! FOR ARTISTS ONLY!”. [Electronic resource] — 2018. — URL: https://www.shcherbenkoartcentre.com/uk/project/mihajlo-alekseienko/big-party-for-artists-only/

[18] Kalyta, Nastia “Alina Yakubenko on the theme of war, collective practices and painting as autoeroticism”/“Аліна Якубенко про тему війни, колективні практики та живопис як аутоеротизм”. [Electronic resource] / Nastia Kalyta // YourArt. — 2020. — URL: https://supportyourart.com/conversations/yakubenko/

[19] Bohdanets, Svitlana “Visiting the artist Maria Kulikovska”/”У гостях у художниці Марії Куликовської”. [Electronic resource] / Svitlana Bohdanets // Mind.ua. — 2019. — URL: https://mind.ua/publications/20203321-v-gostyah-u-hudozhnici-mariyi-kulikovskoyi

[20] Tofan, Iryna. “Why so boring. About the finalists’ exhibition of the competition MUHi-2019”/“Чего так скучно. О выставке финалистов конкурса «МУХи»-2019” [Electronic resource] /  Iryna Tofan // LB.ua. — 2019. — URL: https://rus.lb.ua/culture/2019/11/05/441433_skuchno_vistavke.html

[21] Bohdanets, Svitlana “Visiting the artist Maria Kulikovska”/“У гостях у художниці Марії Куликовської”. [Electronic resource] / Svitlana Bohdanets // Mind.ua. — 2019. — URL: https://mind.ua/publications/20203321-v-gostyah-u-hudozhnici-mariyi-kulikovskoyi