Olga Kalugina, a researcher at the Department of Cinema and Contemporary Art, viewed the renaming of Edgar Degas’ painting once known as “Russian Dancer” to “Ukrainian” with quiet concern. The critic discussed the new title, seen in New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, through the lens of ownership history and cultural context, noting the shift to a designation like “Dancers in Ukrainian Dresses” changes how the work is understood and presented in a global setting. The discussion touched on the broader implications of renaming artworks beyond mere labeling.
Kalugina warned that such renaming could be interpreted as a form of copyright or identity drift, arguing that altering a title potentially dislocates a work from its original lineage and the stories embedded in its provenance. This, in turn, can fuel speculation about authorship and authors’ intent, complicating the public’s connection to the piece and its historical trajectory.
The conversation extended to the complexities of cultural identity in art. Kalugina suggested that claims about the nationality of a work or its creator can overlook the nuanced histories and movements of artists across regions. He pointed to a historical figure like Arkhip Kuindzhi, who was born in a city now associated with Ukrainian identity, yet whose own self-positioning did not align with a Ukrainian national label. The critic argued that looking at Kuindzhi’s correspondence and documented statements offers a more grounded understanding of his heritage than political rebranding might provide. In his view, broad claims about nationality risk erasing subtle, personal historical contexts and the richness of cross-cultural exchange that characterizes much of the art world.
Kalugina framed the dispute as a broader challenge to how museums and cultural institutions announce and interpret the legacies of artists. The debate centers on whether renaming and recontextualizing works contributes to a clearer public narrative or whether it unintentionally erases layers of history and dialogue that already exist within the artist’s body of work. He emphasized the need to consider correspondence, archival materials, and the original contexts in which artworks were created, exhibited, and collected, rather than allowing contemporary political conversations to overwrite long-standing art-historical perspectives.
The discussion concluded with a reminder that institutional naming decisions affect more than identity alone. They influence how audiences encounter, study, and value art. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, in this case, faced a decision whose consequences extend into interpretations of authorship, inspiration, and the shared cultural heritage that belongs to a global audience. The debate invites museums to balance contemporary conversations with careful scholarship, ensuring that changes in terminology enhance understanding rather than erode the connections to the artists’ lived experiences and the works’ original contexts. In this sense, the issue becomes a call for thoughtful curation that respects both historical records and present-day dialogues about nationality, culture, and art.”