Valentin Starchev is one of the key names in 20th century Bulgarian sculpture and memorial art. His works can be seen right across the country, and one thing I have always appreciated about them is the way they weave together socialist symbols with the visual languages of Christian art, and even more ancient traditions.
Professor Starchev was kind enough to let me interview him in spring 2023.
Translation provided by Kamen Starchev.
As someone who has witnessed, and indeed been a part of, the developing traditions of Bulgarian art and sculpture throughout the second half of the twentieth century, your own work has visibly changed and developed too across your career.
What would you say are the defining characteristics of your work, that have stayed true throughout?
A person gradually builds himself up as an author. Gradually, he feels that he has to get out of his academic education. That he has to do things which are different from other authors. Things that are different from what has already been created and from things seen in different galleries.
It is a very complex period that one gradually experiences, gradually makes sense of, and, to a large extent, much of that rationalisation comes spontaneously. This rationalisation is based on some, I would say, personal discoveries in art. Personal discoveries in the developed themes in art. Personal findings in the discovery of famous themes, of developed themes, of classical themes. A process in which a person wants to find his own language, his own way, his own interpretation. I’ve made works based on famous classical artworks, based on famous authors’ works, based on famous themes, familiar themes and so on. But I’ve tried to make my own interpretations of the original work and to make them very different from the original works. This is how the Pieta composition was made. Now someone will think that what I’m saying is very strange and made up, but this is how it happened.
I was on a trip to Rome. Although I knew the works of Michelangelo, his Pietas, but it was different when I saw the original works in San Pietro in Vincoli. When I saw and examined them, I can’t even say examined, I was dazed by them, standing in front of them, looking at them detail by detail, thinking about them and my own work. I was particularly impressed by Michelangelo’s Pieta in Milan. This is the second Pieta. At first glance, it is a little more coarse, unfinished. And in fact, it is very exciting. The Pieta in San Pietro is perfect as a classical execution. It is incredible, I would say it is divine. While the other one has something earthly, something strange, depicts some human tragedy, some human experience. It made a much stronger impression on me.
When coming back from Italy, travelling on the bus, I mainly thought about those Pietas and particularly the second Pieta. And it occurred to me why not make my own interpretation of that Pieta? Actually, the Pieta is a famous theme in art history and I wanted to try and see if I could make my interpretation of it. And even then, on the road, I came to the idea of the Mother of God holding Christ in her arms. The Mother of God is only a silhouette and a womb that holds a human body. And when I came back, I tried and I made it.
This work was liked by everyone because, in my opinion, it was very well executed. I tried very hard to do it. This work allowed me to come up with and create different personal interpretations. To make my own deformations. To build my image of the figure that is in this convex interior of the mother’s silhouette without having an image, a concrete image of the mother. And this was my decision, my personal decision. This work opened the way for me to continue solving my questions with greater courage when interpreting themes and interpreting the treatment of the form. Thus, I received moral support and an inner enthusiasm to act, to work.
By the way, I received the Dimitrov Prize for this Pieta. And I found out that members of the commission were Svetlin Rusev, Lyubomir Levchev, architect Georgi Stoilov, who all together, very unanimously, voted for this award.
It was a bit of a rebound for me personally. A rebound because my work became the centre of the exhibition. It earned my friends’ respect for my work. It became an incentive for me as an author to broaden the angle of my reasoning on different themes.
While art of the socialist period avoided the theme of Christianity, for obvious reasons, there seemed to be a great symbolic interest in the Greek gods, and mythology. Throughout Bulgaria, we see numerous likenesses of Icarus, Hermes, Prometheus, and Orpheus, for example. The Soviet Union also made use of such figures in their own monuments and decorative art. In your work, you have depicted the “Wounded Pegasus” in Sofia, while at Burgas you created the Monument to the Resistance with a figure that, for me, feels strongly reminiscent of the Titans of Greek mythology.
a) Can you comment on the symbolic function that Greek mythology played within the broader tradition of socialist art? And why it was preferable to Christian themes?
b) How and where do you believe these trends originated?
c) Is it fair to say that the archetypes of Greek mythology provided a universal visual language which otherwise would be absent in art, once religion was removed?
Since the early days of socialism in our country, the situation was very harsh in terms of religions, in terms of how socialism was perceived, and so on. There was a very harsh regime at that time. During those years the regime treated these topics, religious views and that way of life, very harshly. It was a period that affected art and somehow the Church and Christianity were suppressed as much as possible to the point of obliteration as a theme.
Of course, at the same time, classics, such as ancient art, Hellenic art, art that was in the world’s museums, could not be suppressed so lightly. And the themes about Orpheus and Icarus immediately found some equivalent that could be used. Even we have our master Manol – the Bulgarian Icarus, who makes wooden wings for himself to fly. So, these themes intertwine very peculiarly, very strangely, as Orpheus is a theme that no one denied as a symbol of music, beauty, and so on. And it could hardly be thrown out of the framework of contemporary art. Many artists, myself included, referred to these themes because I could find a contemporary sound in them. А contemporary sound that, to put it bluntly, could pass and be accepted by the regime. It could pass as artwork. And I made several works that actually carried the true theme of the legend.
For example, I made a monument in front of the building of the Union of the writers of that time – a Pegasus, under which were the names of the poets who died for Bulgaria. And we know that Pegasus is a symbol of poetry and creativity. I used this figure by distorting and wounding the Pegasus so that it became a symbol of the murdered Bulgarian literature and poetry. Under this Pegasus were the names of those who died in all times until that day – from Botev to all the poets who died for Bulgaria until that time. This work was accepted without any objections.
The monument I made in Burgas also had a very symbolic meaning. In general, symbols were a very important element that could contribute to passing specific themes in a new way. To push through some new themes. To explain or express a personal attitude, a personal thought, or a personal world of yours towards these themes.
The monument I made in Burgas was for those who died in the fight against fascism. I, however, tried to bring the monument to a symbolic moment. I saw that at the port in Burgas, there were these so-called buoys where the ships tied their ropes. The shape of these buoys reminded me of some possibility of making such a form, which on a different scale after I tear it in two, would represent my theme. But I made the tearing so that it looks as if wrestlers, human figures, are tearing this tight ring.
I’ll tell you a secret. I just thought of it. I was commissioned to make this monument, but while I was travelling in my car, I suddenly thought that I could break this ring in two. I thought that the row of stones from which the monument will be built can be shuffled and destroyed. So I made some figures which destroy this row. I broke this buoy in two with some human figures, and not just any kind, but naked human figures, which are symbols of human thought in general, the human fighting spirit. They could not be determined to which regime they belonged and to what time. However, I was able to explain the idea, and from the original assignment for this monument, the only thing that was left was the memorial plaques with the names of the killed. And the whole monument carried the meaning of the struggle for freedom in general.
These things opened the way for me to do even more free works which I tried to do. I took part in many exhibitions and worked on many themes. For example, I made the monument “Christianisation” with the figure of Tsar Boris which is located in front of the City Gallery in Sofia. It represents a figure which is entirely covered in its volume. It is cracked and one hand is extended. On the top, only the head of the tsar is visible and the hand with the sceptre with the cross. This was a symbolic figure for me. It was not a real figure of a tsar. It showed how time cracks, how society cracks and takes a new path, and something new appears. This figure could also be treated as a Christian one. It could be related to other communities and generally to other philosophies dealing with the importance of religions in societies, and what is their contribution to given societies.
These ancient themes were very interesting to me because I could impart a modern interpretation to them. Even today, Orpheus is a figure that has been treated at all times. The Orpheus theme was treated a little later by other authors. They took the ancient figure and used the specific theme of Orpheus playing the lyre and all the animals gathering around him, which created a new world around them. This has a symbolic nature. This Orpheus was interesting to me.
Then we talked about Icarus. I made one Icarus in a small format. I made him with wooden wings, how he has fallen, but was not killed. In general, this topic moved me very much with its modern point of view – can I talk about a modern struggle and a modern way of living differently? Icarus is а man who wanted to fly. This is a very big and important idea for man. That is why I worked on it.
It seems to me that from 1981, depictions of the founders and first khans of Bulgaria began to occupy quite a similar role in art – as if they presented a domestic and Bulgarian pantheon of hero archetypes, in place of a foreign, Greek one. Examples include the Monument to the Founders of the Bulgarian State at Shumen, as well as the Khan Asparuh Memorial at Dobrich, and your own Monument to Khan Tervel. These figures often appeared fantastically powerful, and larger-than-life, almost like gods or Titans.
Is it fair to say that these historical characters became something like deity archetypes within the Bulgarian art tradition?
In Greek mythology, in Greek history and world history in general, there are many such Titans, mythological… and all kinds of Titans, that have entered our mythology as well. But our history is very much connected with our tsars, who meant much more to us. Because they, in fact, strengthened the Bulgarian state. For a long time, especially during the last years of socialism, it was very important that these great names from the founding of Bulgaria, from Khan Asparuh, onwards, all these tsars, khans, rulers and so on, received the same recognition. Not just recognition, but to become symbols of certain eras, movements, results, glory, and so forth, for Bulgaria. Many such monuments have been made since 1981. In Dobrich – a monument to Khan Asparuh made by Velichko Minekov. In Shumen – a monument to the First Bulgarian State, consisting of the monument of Khan Asparuh and monuments depicting the times of Tsar Boris and Tsar Simeon. And then the monument in Tervel to Khan Tervel, which is actually my monument.
These things were important because the authors tried to give a slightly different interpretation and the requirements were to raise the glory of the first and second Bulgarian states as much as possible. And not only the first and second Bulgarian states, but we also treated themes from further back in time because there are monuments to other of our rulers. So, there were great ambitions in making such monuments, which also affected the scale of the monuments themselves. Of course, these monuments were made by some of the best Bulgarian sculptors and architects, and this is of great importance.
I made a monument to Khan Tervel at that time. But the difference was that I made Khan Tervel symbolically jump over an obstacle with his horse. This composition consisted of the obstacle and half the horse fused together. This was based on the reign of that Khan. He was actually one of the greatest Khans, as he was the only one who reached Constantinople because he was summoned by Constantinople itself to defend it and became a Caesar. This is the greatest honour received by a Bulgarian Khan. And that’s why I had to portray him on horseback, but he had to jump over our Bulgaria to go administer justice in the great Byzantium.
This was a very strange task for me and I cannot compare it to other historical monuments. There are many other monuments of tsars on horseback, but they have the ambition to convey a strong suggestion through their clothes, images, packaging, weapons, etc. While for me, the idea behind the monument was the leading element and it therefore became an abstract structure in the town square of Tervel.
Finally, it brought me great sadness to follow the removal of your Monument to 1300 Years of Bulgaria, in Sofia. I feel that in the process the city lost quite a beautiful expression of Bulgarian identity and self-determination. We are now seeing similar conversations play out in many places – with examples across Europe of socialist-era art being removed from public spaces for ideological reasons.
a) Can you comment on this process?
b) Can you suggest a better way for societies to live with art that comes from previous periods, and perhaps expresses different political possibilities? The destruction of art seems like a failure to integrate multiple perspectives, and I wonder if you can suggest a better way to treat artwork or sculptures which in the current year, some people may deem to be contradictory to contemporary politics.
As you know, I am the author of the monument 1300 Years of Bulgaria. This monument no longer exists for inexplicable reasons… for no understandable reasons. I deeply experienced its removal. This monument was a synthesis of my work. It was a synthesis of Bulgarian history. It was a synthesis of Bulgarian culture. It was a synthesis of the sacrifices Bulgaria has made throughout its existence on this peninsula. And it was a synthesis of whether Bulgaria will continue to exist, and whether there will be anyone to defend this Bulgaria. This was not understood. And in some profoundly uncultured way, it was demolished.
I observed the demolition of this monument through the gaps in the fence. It was treacherous. It was cruel. Machines were breaking it, pinching it, knocking it down, pushing it. I felt like I was being knocked down and pushed. There is hardly a person who would endure such a thing. Other modern monuments were removed because of their political themes, which were socialist in nature. I don’t know how their authors themselves endured this. But this monument had a different symbol for Bulgaria.
For someone to demolish your monument is like someone to kill your child. However, I did not give up and continued working. I gritted my teeth and kept working. It was very cruel. I have photos of the monument itself. I have photos of newlyweds bringing flowers to this monument. I have pictures of us making this monument. I have pictures from the unveiling. I also have pictures of its brutal demolition. These are very difficult experiences that are a story which people hardly know.
Today, many monuments are being demolished, not only in our country. In America, too, monuments are being removed – monuments to Vasco da Gama, to the Discoverers of America, and so on. They tear down monuments, which for me is sacrilege. A true culture should not tear them down. A true culture must preserve these monuments as lessons. A true modern culture should not be vandalising its heritage.
For example, in Vienna, in Berlin, there are monuments to the Soviet Army from The Second World War. They are de facto monuments of the liberation of these countries from Hitler’s fascist regime. They’ve preserved them. What does that mean? That means high culture. To preserve monuments, to be able to compare time through them, to be able to compare history through them, this is of great importance.
The monument to 1300 Years of Bulgaria had a relief on the second low level, below level zero, which showed that our history began not in 681, but several thousand years earlier. It showed that our old culture is buried in the ground and we, with our archaeological excavations, are discovering our Thracian culture. Now this relief has been buried in the ground in the most vandalistic manner. It was one of a kind. After years, they might pull it out as some sort of a relic. If only they know who made it.
It’s sad when you see your monument being torn down. And on the other hand, it is an ambition to prove that you have spirit and that you can work.
After this, I emphasised some themes that I had only hinted at here and there before in my work, but now I emphasised them a lot. Themes from our history, religious themes, and ancient themes, which at my age were very welcome because they were my interpretation of those past times. In these 25 years, I made several compositions and worked on several themes. I enjoyed working on them from a modern perspective.
Some of these themes were the theme of the Pieta and the theme of the Mother of God and Christ from the icons. I tried to make the Bulgarian church icon, which is two-sided, but I made it three-sided. This was very courageous of me because I stood against several canons. But I tried and I did it.
I worked on the theme of Salome dancing with the head of John the Baptist. I treated all topics in a modern way, with a new form, with many conventions and with many new characters. I incorporated new characters into these old antique classical familiar art themes. This was, one might say, a new world of mine.
And I continue to work in this direction. Now I have a lot of freedom to do whatever I want. However, this freedom is relative. Аs it comes down to what are the chances for my work to be seen, to be popular, to say something to people, to convey my thoughts about the modern world and modern human life. I really wish my work would gain some popularity. But I will fight for it. I have some ways and people in my mind which are my hope.