{"word_count": 992, "character_count": 6714}
By Elżbieta Olzacka  (Jagiellonian University, Kraków) During oneexcursion of the Transregional Academy “After Violence: The (Im-)Possibility ofUnderstanding and Remembering”, we visited the Diorama “Battle for Dnipro” andthe ATO Museum located in the same building. The diorama was opened in 1975 onthe 30th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. Bothplaces are now part of the Dmytro Yavornytsky National Historical Museum ofDnipro. The dioramais dedicated to the one of the largest military operations of the Second WorldWar, which took place in the Dniepropetrovsk region in autumn 1943. The giantpainting was originally created as a unique monument, commemorating the Sovietsoldiers’ heroic deeds during the crossing of the river. Its restoration carriedout last year has allowed not only for technological modernization, making itone of the most modern museum exhibitions in Ukraine, but also for displaying anew historical narrative that tries to deal with the myths of the GreatPatriotic War. What’s particularly interesting is that the new narrativeoverlaps with the old literally at the moment when the historical image isphysically obscured by a modern, panoramic screen, which displays afictionalized document emphasizing the multitude of the victims of thisdramatic battle and the war effort of local, often unarmed soldiers.On the ground floor of this building dedicated to the war from the last century, a new exhibition was created in 2017. The Museum of the “Anti-Terrorist Operation” is the first museum in Ukraine dedicated to the ongoing war in Donbas beginning from spring 2014. The museum consists of four interconnected parts. The first is a street exhibition, “Donbas Ways”, which is devoted directly to military operations in the east of Ukraine. The exhibition consists of authentic items brought from battlefields, such as an ambulance, combat vehicles and a Ukrainian Army checkpoint. The other part of museum is the internal exhibition, “Battle for Dnipro”, divided into several spheres associated with the local battalions, volunteers, medics, journalists, chaplains, and refugees. In a separate room, there is the “Hall of Blessed Memory of Dnipropetrovsk Region’s Heroes”, dedicated to the fallen, where personal items, such as chess pieces, books, icons, a letter from a mother and a damaged mobile phone, were placed next to their photographs. The most emotional part of the museum is the video hall where a 360-degree panoramic multimedia exhibition is displayed. The video tries to create the effect of full immersion in the center of events together with the Ukrainian soldiers and volunteers, frontline journalists, and fleeing civilians. It also touches on the issue of Russian TV propaganda, as well as the reaction of international public opinion. The film is prepared in two language versions – Ukrainian and English. We watched the latter during our excursion.Photos:  Elżbieta Olzacka and Michal Korhel Thedioramaand the new exhibition are connected by the name “Battle for Dnipro”, indicating, on the one hand, the locality of the events andtheir importance tothe local community. On the other hand, we could also see here an attempt to includetoday’s military effort into a wider national history of Ukrainian liberation struggle,and to show contemporary warriors as continuators of these efforts. According to Sharon Macdonald(2003), it was characteristic of nineteenth-century museum institutions toshape the viewers’ sense of stability, their awareness of progress and a coherentand strongly rooted identity by creating an “objective” scientific point ofview on past events. Similarly, the new exhibitions can be read as a stage forexhibiting new national myths legitimized by “authentic” stories and objects.At the sametime, we could interpret the ATO Museum through the concept of a “performingmuseum”, where “theatrical tropes”, such as audio and video testimonies,interactive displays, architecture, sound and interactive exhibits, whichaugment the historical artefacts, are used not only to create an affectiveengagement, but also to invite or even force the visitor to perform the role ofwitness (cf. Sodaro 2018). This ethical aspect is also visible in the museum wevisited. Authentic artefacts brought from Donbas – often deformed and damagedby explosions – as well as the personal effects of those who died evoke strongemotions. Video footage in particular may substitute a rational view of realitywith a representation that allows the visitor to empathize with the experiencesthat befell the participants of the dramatic events. Therefore, the museumcompels the visitor not only to learn about the evidence and testimonies of theconflict in Donbas, but also to engage in a moral confrontation with the issuesof violence, military aggression, as well as with the need and moral right tofight for the defence of the homeland.It is thisemotional narrative that hinders an objective assessment of the events, whichsplit opinions within our group and even caused some controversies. The titleof our excursion was “The Construction of Trauma”, but for some of us theplaces we visited were associated instead with the “Construction of Propaganda”– both related to the new perception of history and the ongoing war in Donbas.The confusion is already apparent on the plaque which displays the name of themuseum, where, in Ukrainian, we can read that this is a museum of the “Civilfeat of Dnipropetrovsk region in ATO events” (Громадянський подвигДніпропетровщини в подіях АТО) and, in English, “Museum of the Russian Aggression in the East ofUkraine”. For some of the participants inthe excursion, the museum turned out to be chaotic and disordered, and theunderstanding of the meanings of some of the exhibits was hindered by a lack ofinformative descriptions in English. Some doubts were also raised by therepresentations of nationalist groups involved in the conflict. At the sametime, the excursion triggered interesting discussions on the problems ofrepresenting recent and ongoing events during the conflict, the process ofcreating historical continuity by “weaving” new narratives into old ones, aswell as symbolic violence and the hierarchies of power and knowledge related tothe reception of various visitor groups. For me, the opportunity to observe thevarious perceptions of people from different countries, with different viewsand backgrounds, was a particularly valuable experience.References:Macdonald Sharon, 2003, “Museums, National, Postnational and Transcultural Identities”, Museum and Society, 1 (1).Sodaro Amy,2018, “Affect, Performativity and Politics in the 9/11 Museum”, Liminalities.A Journal of Performance Studies 14 (3).