I won't tell (at the table) 1991

Curator: Here we have Oleg Holosiy's 1991 drawing, "I won't tell (at the table)." It is an ink, pen and colored pencil drawing with elements of narrative and portraiture, but the unsettling quality has made it a work frequently linked to contemporary art discourse. Editor: Spooky. Gives me the shivers, that raw quality and the looming figure in the doorway. It is like Edward Hopper’s ‘Nighthawks’ on absinthe. The color palette is almost sepia toned—as if pulled from a dim, shadowy memory, what do you make of it? Curator: The social and political climate in Ukraine during the late Soviet period definitely lends itself to a darker interpretation. The "Wild Field" group, to which Holosiy belonged, actively confronted the stale aesthetic codes dictated by the Communist Party. We can view this table, the weapons, the game perhaps, as symbols of that underground resistance. Editor: Right, the “Wild Field.” It is apt, the narrative suggests uncertainty. Who is that standing in the back? Is he with the seated figure, or against? The table as a stage for unspoken conflict – feels relevant. The very texture adds to this anxious feel, what is Holosiy conveying with such frenzied marks? Curator: I would suggest we view his approach to the line not as "frenzied" but as representative of an anxiety felt towards systems of power. There is a deliberateness there; a clear illustration of feeling isolated, surrounded, while maintaining a need for action that can be found reflected across Holosiy's other works. Editor: Ah, perhaps I was a bit hasty in my assessment. So not "frenzied" more...strategically agitated? I am really struck by the lone figure at the back. He's the axis point, almost—resolutely planted, overseeing this grim tableau. But I do agree the rawness speaks volumes about the tensions in the Eastern European art world at that time. Curator: Absolutely. This isn't just a simple genre scene; it is a historical document that represents and engages with social discontent and artistic resistance. The narrative begs to be reinterpreted for decades, if not centuries, to come. Editor: Well said! Gives me something to ponder about next time I am sat around a table… maybe I will stay silent, as the title demands.