Abstract Late Soviet-era architecture, especially in rural areas, often remains overlooked in heritage discourse—often dismissed due to its deteriorated condition, peripheral location, or ideological associations. However, among these neglected structures are architecturally and historically significant buildings that deserve attention and preservation. This article examines one such case, the Kmytiv Museum of Fine Arts in central Ukraine, where a striking example of late Soviet modernism is inseparably intertwined with a complex institutional and political history. The museum’s architecture and trajectory—from a model ideological project to a stigmatised and neglected institution—underscores the need to preserve not only the physical structure itself but also its multilayered cultural legacy. Founded by WWII veteran Yosyp Bukhanchuk, the Kmytiv Museum was conceived as a cultural institution that would bring art to rural audiences in line with the Soviet ideal of ‘art for the people’. Bukhanchuk’s vision shaped both the museum’s collection and its architectural form. In response to this concept and the rural context, architect Mykhailo Severov designed a dedicated structure that merged late Soviet modernism with references to the local vernacular. Opened in 1985, the building’s ten exhibition halls, natural lighting, and distinctive silhouette made it a landmark and a cultural focal point for the village. Following the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Bukhanchuk’s death, the museum experienced an institutional and physical decline. In the wake of Ukraine’s 2015 decommunisation laws, it became politically uncomfortable—too ideologically charged for rehabilitation yet too architecturally significant to ignore. Despite efforts by cultural initiatives such as DE NE DE and artist-curator Nikita Kadan to reframe its meaning and restore its visibility, the museum’s deteriorating condition remains unresolved. This article argues that the preservation of architecturally significant buildings such as the Kmytiv Museum can be obstructed not by technical limitations but by a lack of political will and institutional recognition. Restoration requires not only material intervention but also a conceptual relegitimisation of the heritage itself. Ultimately, recognising Ukraine’s Soviet-era legacy in its full complexity and tragedy is essential for enabling the preservation of its material remains.
Yevheniia Moliar (Thu,) studied this question.