In a series of letters Mykhailyna Kotsiubynska wrote in 1971 to her friend in Prague-Zina Genyk-Berezovska-we learn more about the circumstances surrounding Horska's death, in particular its impact on her close friends and colleagues, most of whom had been under surveillance for a number of years and/or had been arrested and imprisoned. In a letter from January 13, 1971, Kotsiubynska writes that Horska's death was "so wild, so frightening, so unexpected" that it left their community shaken. She goes on to say that Alla's husband Viktor Zaretsky suspected that something had gone wrong but could not bring himself to enter his father's house alone. He asked Nadia Svitlychna to go to Vasylkiv and find out what happened. Svitlychna did go, together with Yevhen Sverstiuk. Horska was discovered dead in her father-in-law's house, while the latter was found on train tracks near Fastiv, decapitated and also dead. After a quick forensic analysis, the authorities determined that these gruesome deaths were the result of a domestic dispute and closed the case.
Kotiubynska processes the revelation that Horska had been killed by her father-in-law. Although many people did not believe this version of events, Kotsiubynska writes, with some sadness, that there were no concrete facts pointing to another assailant, adding that even those closest to Alla--Zaretsky and Svitlychna--did not seem to doubt the official version of events. Lamenting her own expulsion from the Institute of Literature, she adds: "By the way, the Ukrainian Artists Union reinstated Alla after her death. Perhaps, I too should die?"
In a letter dated June 28, 1971, Kotsiubynska writes again about Horska, this time indicating that there was a new version of what happened. The consensus had shifted, a reevaluation of the evidence suggesting that both Horska and her father-in-law had been killed by an unknown assailant who had not been identified. Alla Horska's murder remains unsolved and unresolved to this day.
Cardboard box with a large, red, stenciled, symmetrical question mark on the outer top of one side and the inner bottom of the other side. On the outer back side, a series of ten photos arranged in a grid demonstrating the possible combinations of similar boxes in an open and closed state.
On the third photo the box on the left is marked with an arrow pointing to a handwritten caption reading “that is this box.” Under the photo appears the typewritten title of the work and the following sentence: “The aim of the experiment is to examine the sensory and esthetic effects of generally asked questions.” Beside the photos, above the label the typewritten name of the author is visible.
The handwritten commentary suggests that a box can be interpreted alone as well (this concrete example incorporates two differently positioned, painted question marks). Looking at the photos, one can conclude that more—though not necessarily identical—copies exist, which were given away (as this example got to the archive).
Politics did not constitute the primary context of Péter Türk’s oeuvre, but a subtle, sometimes ironic, criticism of the system can be observed in his works produced during the first half of the 1970s. During this period, he created geometric, but more and more conceptually oriented works, pursuing visual, semantic-logical investigations, which formed an implicit statement in the eyes of cultural politics at the time.
The question marks appearing in several series of his works are “visual conundrums,” which come into play via their color, position, material, constellation and, last but not least, their variations. Contemplating the object, the viewer becomes involved in a conceptual-associative process.
During our visit, we first wanted to define what is a generally asked question. According to professor Beke, “how are you?” or rather “what’s up?” is a good example. Hearing (or reading) a question of this type it is worth noting that this still concerns the sensory effect.The object bears the marks of time and the consequences of its storage conditions. Dedicated wood crates or humidity control could not be provided for an item kept in a private archive, but it did not lose any of its authenticity and conceptual clarity even in its current condition.
This is a detailed analysis made within the Ideological Commission, based on a study of the state of the social sciences developed by the Council on Scientific Research of the People's Republic of Croatia (PRC) and the results of information provided by certain groups of scholars or institutions. It is an analysis of previous scholarly research in certain social sciences and humanities and also work programs for the subsequent five-year period (1961-1965). The analysis encompasses economics, law, philosophy, sociology, pedagogy, psychology, philology, history and art history. In the analysis of each of these fields, an overview of institutions dealing with this discipline, its role in society, personnel issues, scholarly production, programs and plans for future work with critical reviews and suggestions for further work are presented. For example, in the field of historical science, a criticism was that the establishment of the Institute for the History of the Labour Movement of Croatia (IHLMC) was only then in preparation, and it was noted that these issues were artificially separated from the organic whole of more recent national history, for which there was no Institute, so that one needed to be established.
The document illustrates the considerable role of the Ideological Commission in guiding, among other areas, scholarly research in Croatia at that time. The work programs attached to each of the fields clearly outline the ideologically designed course that needed to go and clearly defined topics to be studied.
By 1995, the document was, along with the other records of socio-political organisations, a part of the Archive of the Institute of History of the Labour Movement of Croatia/Institute of Contemporary History. That year, in July, it was handed over to the Croatian State Archives (CSA) where it is kept today. The documents are accessible for use without any restrictions.
- Zagreb Trg Marka Marulića 21, Croatia 10000
- Charakteringas eksponatas: