Cultural landscape of the Arctic: ‘recycling’ of soviet imagery in the Russian settlement of Barentsburg, Svalbard (Norway)

Gerlach, Julia; Kinossian, Nadir

doi:10.1080/1088937x.2016.1151959

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both Norway and Russia have the long-term ambition of maintaining their presence on the Svalbard archipelago (Grydehøj, 2014;Kaltenborn, Østreng, & Hovelsrud, 2019). The past, present, and future of these communities' development are governed in a top-down manner by the states and their respective ministries (Gerlach & Kinossian, 2016;. The Svalbard Treaty (1920) recognises Norwegian sovereignty over Svalbard.…”

Section: Background: Socioeconomic Transitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barentsburg and Longyearbyen in times of socioeconomic transition: Residents’ perceptions of community viability

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geopolitical interventions since the end of the 1980s—such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, a decline in the activities of state-owned coal companies, and governmental initiatives to increase tourism activities—have affected the community viability of two main settlements on Svalbard: Barentsburg and Longyearbyen. This paper explores how the residents of these settlements (with different cultural backgrounds) perceive the effects of socioeconomic transitions on community viability. The analysis of qualitative interviews with residents of Barentsburg (n = 62) and Longyearbyen (n = 36) reveals the residents’ perceptions of the pace of the transition and the changing community composition. New types of commercial activities, such as tourism, contribute to local value creation and socioeconomic development but come with concerns grounded in community fluctuation, environmental protection, economic prioritisation, and power relationships. Compared to Longyearbyen, Barentsburg has undergone relatively minor demographic and social changes and remains stable in terms of culture, language, and management practices. We conclude that the viability of Longyearbyen and Barentsburg during the transition was affected by community dynamics and fluctuations, social relationships within and between communities, and local institutional practices.

show abstract

Section: Background: Socioeconomic Transitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barentsburg and Longyearbyen in times of socioeconomic transition: Residents’ perceptions of community viability

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The three sites now have unique symbolic roles. While Grumant is a typical ruined landscape, Pyramiden and Barentsburg have recently undergone a "recycling" of their images (Gerlach and Kinossian 2016). The former now represents the Soviet Arctic, and the latter the modern Russian Arctic, while both respond to the curiosity of Russian and foreign tourists who seem to be puzzled by the presence of former Soviet settlements on the Norwegian territory.…”

Section: The Russian Settlements On Svalbardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Soviet planning tradition is clearly visible in Pyramiden, and Soviet monumental propaganda is visible in both Pyramiden and Barentsburg. Nowadays, this appeared to be a part of the "recycled" image of the Russian settlements (Gerlach and Kinossian 2016). The Communist ideology praised working-class people, celebrating their heroism and dedication.…”

Section: Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Russian/Soviet coal-mining settlements of Barentsburg, Pyramiden, and Grumant present an interesting case because of their location on the Norwegian territory, partial abandonment, and the current attempts to revive them through tourism. References to a romanticised Soviet past, distinct Soviet imagery, and associated 'otherness' are used in the current tourism development strategies as 'selling points' (Gerlach and Kinossian 2016). The apparent uniqueness of the Russian/Soviet settlements (compared to their Norwegian counterparts) provokes further questions concerning the meanings hidden within landscapes, the connections between the observer and the landscape, and the ways in which conceptualisations of cultural landscapes could be attuned to capture a broader diversity of landscape settings beyond those that are ordered and symbolically rich.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Svalbard's Haunted Landscapes

Kinossian

2020

Nordlit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural landscapes represent social structures, interests, and values. At the same time, the observer can derive, interpret, reinterpret, and inscribe new meanings to the landscape. Landscapes that are saturated with ideologically charged symbols dictate to the viewer what can and cannot be seen and derived from them. On the other hand, landscapes that are abandoned, ruined, partly erased, and deprived of actors, activities, and political context present a different sort of setting. What can be derived from them? What or whom do they represent? Can the current conceptualisations help to capture their meanings? This paper attempts to expand the debate on cultural landscapes, by exploring the linkages to the concepts of haunting and ghosts. It uses the Russian settlements of Barentsburg, Pyramiden and Grumant, located in Svalbard (Norway), as an example. The paper argues that ruined and abandoned landscapes are ‘haunted’, and that the viewer can engage with a haunted landscape through interactions with ‘ghosts’ – fictitious agents that fulfil two roles: i) allowing the viewer to associate with the ghost, and ii) reminding the viewer of the bygone actors, forces, and contexts that shaped the landscape.

show abstract

“…The region subjected to normatively regulated, as well as spontaneous transformations. The production of cultural landscapes has attracted growing interest in human geography, humanities, and social sciences, linking space with discourses on identity, memory, signification, and symbolic power (Gerlach, Kinossian, 2016) 1 . The role of the state in creating landscapes that yield attachment to places (including symbols, images, etc.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transformations of the cultural landscape of Donbas during the armed conflict 2015–2017

Slyvka

Atamaniuk

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of the article – to show the different trajectories of the cultural landscape in controlled and uncontrolled parts of the war-torn Donbas. The cultural landscape of Ukraine significantly changed during the twentieth century. The main factors of these transformations were ideological, military and geopolitical. The sub-ordinate position of Ukraine within the USSR allowed communist leaders to enforce sovietisation of the cultural landscape. This policy was especially noticeable in the great industrial region of Donbas. Achievements of independence by Ukraine and democratization of country' public life have led to transformation/conservation of the cultural landscape, which corresponded with political culture of individual regions. The war in the Donbas has become a catalyst for the processes of creating different types of cultural landscape on the different sides of the contact line. The policy of creating a cultural landscape has become an instrument of political socialization and mobilization of the population. This process is not complete, and can contribute to the crystallization of new subregional identities on different parts of contemporary Donbas.

show abstract

Cultural landscape of the Arctic: ‘recycling’ of soviet imagery in the Russian settlement of Barentsburg, Svalbard (Norway)

Cited by 15 publications

References 30 publications

Barentsburg and Longyearbyen in times of socioeconomic transition: Residents’ perceptions of community viability

Barentsburg and Longyearbyen in times of socioeconomic transition: Residents’ perceptions of community viability

Svalbard's Haunted Landscapes

Transformations of the cultural landscape of Donbas during the armed conflict 2015–2017

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About