Monument to Courage – Tashkent

Posted on 04/08/2025 by Michael

Tashkent was hit by an earthquake on April 26, 1966 at 05: 23 local time. It had a magnitude of 5.1 on the Richter Scale with the epicentre right under the city at a depth of from 3 to 8 kilometres. Most of the buildings were destroyed (including the historic ‘Old Town – which is now only a replica of the original), remarkably no more than 200 people were killed but 300,000 were left homeless.

Tashkent, with the assistance of the other Union Republics of the former Soviet Union, was rebuilt and even extended following its destruction and the monument commemorates that effort and unity of purpose. (If such an event were to happen again it’s unlikely that such a joint effort would come to the city’s aid.)

The monument was created by the sculptor and artist Dmitry Ryabichev and was inaugurated on May 20, 1976.

It’s basically in three parts. On the left hand side is a black, labradorite cube with the date of the disaster on one side and a round clock face showing the time the earthquake struck on an adjacent side. This cube is split through the date and this fracture leads in the direction of the main element of the piece – a group of a man, woman and child.

The male stands in front of the woman and child, in a protective stance, with his right hand facing any approaching danger. Although this fits into the traditional trope of the male being the protector the woman herself is not entirely passive as her right arm also extends towards the threat, with the palm of her hand ready to push back. She has turned so that the child, which clings to her neck and which she supports with her left arm, is as far away as possible from the danger. The stance of both of them gives the impression they are walking towards the threat and not running away from it. Note should be taken of the plinth upon which they stand as this continues the idea of a fractured earth with the jagged line that runs away from the cube.

The other element of the monument is a number of bas relief panels which form a back ‘wall’ to the couple. Here are represented the various trades that were needed for the reconstruction of the city. As is the case in many Soviet era monuments (celebrating both military and civilian events), here women are depicted as playing a role equivalent to that of the men in the construction trades.

The story of the reconstruction reads from the left to the right, starting with basic clearing away and preparation for the new buildings and ending in the festival celebrating the completion of the rebuilding of the country’s capital city.

The area is clean and obviously well tended demonstrating that this monument still has resonance amongst the people of Tashkent.

Location;

Sharaf Rashidov Avenue 74

GPS;

41.32370 N

69.27270 E

How to get there;

It’s about a 10-15 minute walk from Abdulla Kodiriy Metro station along the street with the name of the station.

Tashkent Metro – Uzbekistan

Posted on 09/07/2025 by Michael

Tashkent Metro

Tashkent Metro – Uzbekistan

The Tashkent Metro was a relatively late addition to the Soviet Union’s mass transit system being the seventh to be completed in 1977. The system followed many of the conventions established since 1935 in Moscow; the design of the station platforms; the style (if not the content) of the decoration; the use of light to give the impression of not being underground; the use of the finest materials; and the method in moving people through the system as fast as possible. However, following the lead from the centre, which began with the Premiership of Khrushchev but continued after he was ousted, there was a general ‘depoliticisation’ of the decoration.

Although by 1977 Revisionism was well entrenched within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the newer metro stations in Moscow, for example, there was still some reference to the construction of Socialism, using images and motifs that had been part of Soviet culture since the 1920s – the image of the Hammer and Sickle, for example.

However, there was none of that in Tashkent. In fact, there’s barely a reference to the social system supposedly being constructed at the time. The Red Flags in the image at the top of this post are one of few such references and they stand out because they are so few. This would tend to reflect the anti-Communist views of the leadership of the local Communist Party and demonstrate the weakness of central control of the periphery.

The purge of the local Communist Parties in the 1930s are understandable at the time (although I have to admit I do not really know a great deal of the details) as in a part of the Soviet Union where there was little tradition of working class organisation it wouldn’t have been a surprise if the remnants of the feudal ruling class hadn’t been able to infiltrate the Communist Party leadership and manipulate it to their own personal ‘class’ advantage. Through the imagery in the metro it is possible to see how the replacement ‘leadership’ was as divorced from the ideology of Marxism-Leninism as the group they surplanted.

The themes represented in the various stations follow a traditional, folklore style. In place of drawing upon a new form of representation of the interests of the working class the artists commissioned to produce the art works in all the stations represented here took as their starting point traditions established during the feudal, pre-revolutionary period. Instead of creating images that could assist in the battle for the construction of Socialism the artists chosen to decorate the station harked back to feudal traditions and imagery, reinforcing the old social system, not the new. If there are any ‘new’ styles they tend to be in the more abstract images, especially in the imaginative use of metal.

The dominant material used in the decoration were ceramic tiles which were built up to create large images with rural themes dominating. Industry, which had been introduced to the predominantly agricultural society, appears only sporadically and briefly in the imagery.

The main reason for including these images is to allow viewers to compare and contrast the way the metro systems in the Soviet Union were seen during the different stages of its existence and the difference between the Revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist leadership (as represented in the decoration in the Moscow and Leningrad Metros) and the Counter-revolutionary, Revisionist leadership (represented in Tashkent) which eventually led the Soviet Union to its self-destruction.

There are also images included in the slide show below from some of the stations opened after so-called ‘independence’.

Plan of the Tashkent Metro.

Location;

Various places in the city.

Access;

All the stations have staffed ticket offices and entry to the system costs 3,000 Uz Som (in the summer of 2025). With that ticket you can visit all the stations on the network as long as you don’t go out into the street.

Kazakhskiy University – Almaty – Socialist bas reliefs

Posted on 06/07/2025 by Michael

Kazakhskiy University – Almaty

Kazakhskiy University – Almaty – Socialist bas reliefs

This is a (relatively) unique example of Soviet art in Kazakhstan for a number of unrelated reasons;

this was the only such example that I came across in my travels in the summer of 2025, not just in Kazakhstan but in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan;

it has obviously been looked after and any repainting and renovation has been carried out with care and consideration;

it is unusual that in the images on both sides of the entrance to the building it is the women who are playing the leading role – it’s normally shared by the genders;

the Hammer and Sickle is in a central and therefore important location but it is depicted in a form that is unusual (although not, I think, unique as I am sure I’ve seen such a representation but – unfortunately – can’t remember where). Here, in place of the shaft of the hammer crossing the blade of the sickle, the back edge of the sickle rests on the head of the hammer and its shaft touches the tip of the sickle’s blade. I cannot think of a reason for this inversion of the hammer, especially as this is at the entrance of an educational establishment. However, the laurel leaves (representing achievement and success) cradle the symbol of the agricultural and industrial workers;

both the women are striving high in their respective endeavours. The one holding the flaming torch (the flame of which is painted red) is promoting – and striving for – technology, knowledge and civilisation, but here a civilisation based on a newer and finer ethic, that of Socialism and internationalism. The woman stretching to her utmost so that her book is as high as possible represents learning, literacy (an always primary goal of any society with a Socialist aspiration) and the acquisition of knowledge in general.

These images are now at the edge of a much bigger educational complex than it would have been in the immediate pre-Great Patriotic War period but it is good to see that there are some people in a position of authority to ensure that this important aspect of Kazakh history and culture is preserved and respected.

The black plaque notes that this was the Kazakh State Institute of Foreign Languages, 1938-1940. I assume that was the period it took to build the complex as the Soviet Union always – even in its revisionist manifestation – placed great importance on the country having people with an excellent understanding of many of the world’s languages.

The gold plaque states that the building was completed and opened on 1st September 1941.

This is now quite a large complex but the learning, and teaching, of foreign languages does not seem to have the same importance in capitalist Kazakhstan as it did in the Soviet Union. Presently the building is used for a whole variety of subjects – including the ubiquitous business/management’ courses (which will lead students into debt and then into a dead end ‘start-up’, in the vast majority of circumstances).