oksana kazmina

first of all, i should clarify: i prepared two episodes of “contemporary history of ukraine” for the ukrainian audience in the summers of 2022 and 2023. in 2022, a lecture was held at the interroom space in lviv, at the invitation of oleksiy kuchanska*, and in 2023, at the pererva* studio in kyiv, at the invitation of oleksandr yeltsin*. when i reflected on why i said it was the first time i was giving a lecture in ukrainian, i realised that both times in ukraine it did not feel like a lecture at all, even in the critical and ironic sense in which i use the word. both events were more like conversations in a friendly circle. the distance to the subject and between the participants was short, and the space between me and the audience was too small for a “vacant stare.” so, although i gave two lectures in ukraine, my physical memory registered them as something “different.”

in my lectures i strive to address the notion of place (both physical and discursive), and the latest lecture specifically explored the concept of distance (not solely in terms of physical space).

during the walk in the frame of our lecture, philosopher and researcher svitlana matviienko explores the concept of distance in relation to how individuals position themselves within the external environment. she emphasises the challenge of grasping the logic of distance during times of war, where concepts like “close” and “far,” “long ago” and “recently,” are not clear anymore. reflecting on why my lectures on “contemporary history of ukraine” in ukraine felt “different,” i dare to assume that this might not be because the gap between the subject of discussion and the audience is narrow, but rather because it remains undefined and varies depending on the listener’s experiences. this is why it’s impossible to pinpoint the “right” tone, mode of engagement, or level of involvement.

at the same time, the institutional history of ukraine is being produced quite rapidly in other planes. during her lecture, kateryna mishchenko noted that within the german-speaking environment, ukrainians themselves are absent from discussions on ukrainian subjectivity. as if the narrative could only be shaped by a detached observer, and not in ukrainian. reflecting on why the lecture series “contemporary history of ukraine” resonated so well with the english-speaking audience, i realised that my self-exoticization, irony, and occasional humour played a crucial role in this process. kateryna also highlighted in her lecture that ukrainian agency outside ukraine is confined to the role of a victim. to this, i would add the role of a clown.

creating a lecture in ukrainian for the third time, and engaging in discussions around it made me reflect more deeply on my role as a ukrainian and subject of war.  i realised that a significant part of this state involves constantly clarifying my position both for others and for myself. if we refer to the “bodies in the ground” that need to be dug up, i believe that’s what these clarifications are intended to address. 

live editing, exposing the creative process, and openness to inaccuracies, gaps, errors, and technical failures, as well as using multiscreen techniques and clashing different temporalities are all important to me. they simultaneously reveal the place from which i speak and become an interface through which the impossible can be expressed.

the place in this passage, everything said here means more than what is actually spoken. each statement seems to gain an additional layer of meaning as it is confronted with different versions of itself through repetition, delay, or variety.

this place is both real and concrete, as well as discursive and conceptual. on the one hand, the listeners and i are physically present in specific locations where the video and audio were recorded. on the other hand, i use audio recordings of walks and videos made at different times, juxtaposing them and adding images of maps that seem to exist outside or above time. nevertheless, they don’t, and typically maps are not supposed to be read from a social or psychological perspective. such a place at the intersection or on the margins is probably better referred to as “miestiak,”* which i mentioned at the beginning of the lecture.

miestiak* is essentially a form and a method, or a form in action.

to briefly describe my fascination with maya deren’s approach to working with images, the most valuable aspect of it is the idea of form as an attitude or gesture.despite its fluidity and literal portrayal of moving images, the film failed to capture the essence of voodoo dance. the movement depicted in film is just a change of frames or camera movement, and it differs from the movement experienced as a shift in consciousness during a religious dance. therefore, deren went for a text that described her personal experience of voodoo initiation. this text served as a miestiak through which she found a way to express herself.