Georgian-Russian sculptor Zurab Tsereteli, known for his gigantic and controversial work, dies
In the 1970s, Tsereteli became an art director with the Soviet Foreign Ministry, traveling the world and decorating Soviet embassies. In between, he worked on Mikhail Gorbachev's summer house in Abkhazia.
'I don't know why they chose me,' he said in a 2013 interview. 'But I went through a good school - maybe that's why. A school that synthesised architecture and monumental art! I had good teachers.'
In 1989, a monument designed by Tsereteli was erected in London. In 1990, another one was unveiled in front of the United Nations headquarters in New York.
After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Tsereteli moved to Moscow and built a rapport with then-mayor Yuri Luzhkov. The relationship guaranteed him regular and lucrative commissions. He designed several squares and two metro stations in central Moscow and put up a dozen massive monuments around the city.
Advertisement
Tsereteli's distinctive style prompted much criticism over the years, both in Russia and abroad. Critics argued his pieces were too colossal and didn't fit in the city's architecture.
One of his most controversial monuments was in 1997 when a 98-meter-tall Peter the Great standing on a disproportionally small ship was erected a block away from the Kremlin, prompting protests from Muscovites.
Advertisement
Tsereteli tried to put up a similar monument of Christopher Columbus in New York. Russian media reported in 1997 that current U.S. President Donald Trump supported his plans at the time, but city authorities rejected them. After being turned down by Columbus, Ohio and Miami as well, the statue found a taker in Puerto Rico.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2003 awarded Tsereteli Russian citizenship 'for special services to the Russian Federation.'
In 2010, Luzhkov was dismissed as Moscow mayor. The new city administration preferred Western architects to work on ambitious urban projects, and Tsereteli was shifted to the sidelines.
However, Tsereteli remained president of the Russian Academy of Arts and director of the Moscow Museum of Modern Art, which he founded in 1999.
His legacy includes some 5,000 pieces in Russia, Georgia and several other countries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
As America Steps Back, Others Step In
Recently, while in Geneva, I sat down with the ambassador of a closely allied country. In the shadow of the Palais des Nations—the European home of the United Nations—we discussed the state of multilateral diplomacy. At one point, he offered a blunt assessment of America's diminished presence on the world stage. 'It used to be,' he said, 'that before we committed to a position on any significant matter, we would wait to see where the United States stood. Now? We really don't care anymore.' The remark was particularly jarring because it was intended not as an insult, but as a sincere lament. It underscored that in capitals and conference rooms across the globe, decisions are now being made without American leadership. And while many Americans might think that shift doesn't matter, it does. In places like Geneva, decisions are made every week that affect our lives at home, relating to global aviation-safety protocols; pandemic-response standards; food and drug regulation; international trade and customs frameworks; cybersecurity norms; rules governing space, telecommunications standards, environmental safeguards. These aren't distant, abstract concerns. They influence the price of the goods on our shelves, the safety of our airways, the health of our communities, and the competitiveness of our businesses. When the United States pulls back or fails to engage, these decisions don't cease to be made. They're simply made by others—and, more and more, by those whose values don't align with ours. China, in particular, is adept at filling vacuums we leave behind, not just with economic leverage, but with bureaucratic muscle and long-term strategic intent. Where we disengage, the Chinese organize. Where we hesitate, they solidify influence. That same diplomat who noted America's increasing irrelevance pointed to China's stepped-up engagement in precisely these areas—and its eagerness to shape the rules that govern everything from trade to emerging technologies. David A Graham: The voluntary surrender of U.S. power The consequences are not temporary. International standards and agreements, once set, can take years—even decades—to be renegotiated. The absence of American leadership today could mean being bound tomorrow by rules we had no hand in setting. At its best, U.S. global leadership has been about more than projecting power. It has meant convening allies, reinforcing norms, and defending a rules-based international order that, while imperfect, has broadly served our interests and reflected our values. Walking away from that leadership not only imperils our credibility; it cedes ground to nations eager to reshape the system in ways that diminish liberty, transparency, and accountability. The good news is that this trajectory can be reversed. But it requires more than rhetoric. It requires showing up. That means filling diplomatic posts quickly and with professionals who are empowered to lead. It means prioritizing our institutions of statecraft, including the State Department, with the seriousness they deserve. And it means recommitting to the alliances and international bodies that magnify our influence rather than dilute it. I saw the value of diplomacy firsthand during my tenure as U.S. ambassador to Turkey, when Sweden sought NATO membership over Turkey's objections. At the time, the impulse of the U.S. and its NATO allies was to apply pressure or issue public rebukes. What was needed wasn't force, however, but diplomacy: persistent, behind-the-scenes engagement that respected Turkey's security concerns while reinforcing the cohesion of the alliance. Over 18 months, these negotiations facilitated constitutional changes in Sweden, addressed legitimate Turkish concerns, and helped unlock a long-stalled sale of F-16s to Turkey that enhanced NATO interoperability. In the end, Sweden joined the alliance, Turkey saw its security interests addressed, and the U.S. proved itself a trusted interlocutor. That kind of success—durable, strategic, and built on trust—doesn't happen without diplomats in the room. Today, Republicans in Congress need to step forward in defense of U.S. leadership. We can't expect the Trump administration to reverse course—global disengagement seems to be part of its design. But Congress has tools at its disposal to mitigate the long-term damage: through setting funding priorities, exercising oversight, and engaging in public advocacy for diplomacy and alliance building. With margins so close in both houses, legislators who value U.S. global leadership have significant leverage. Having run several congressional campaigns, I understand that valuing diplomacy and prioritizing international institutions don't make for popular political slogans. But with an administration unmoored in its approach to foreign policy, it's more important than ever for Congress to provide crucial ballast. The recent visit to Ukraine by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal is a perfect example of members of Congress providing that ballast—reassuring our allies that they are still our allies. American leadership isn't inevitable. It's a choice—one we must make again and again, not just for the sake of our standing in the world, but for the practical, everyday interests of American citizens.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
World Bank restores funding to Uganda despite controversial anti-gay law
The World Bank has restored funding to Uganda nearly two years after suspending new financing in response to the country's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The World Bank has resumed funding to Uganda after a two-year suspension instigated by the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The Bank justified resumption through effective mitigation measures within ongoing Ugandan projects to limit potential adverse impacts. While Uganda's AHA remains unchanged, the decision signals shifting geopolitical dynamics by international financial institutions. The World bank in 2023, suspended funding to Uganda after the country's parliament passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), saying the law contradicted its values. The legislation sparked international condemnation for imposing severe penalties on LGBTQ+ individuals, including life imprisonment and, in some cases, the death penalty. According to Reuters, the World Bank said it had developed a working relationship with Ugandan authorities to implement strong measures aimed at mitigating potential harm resulting from the law. " We have now determined the mitigation measures rolled out over the last several months in all ongoing projects in Uganda to be satisfactory," " Consequently, the Bank has prepared three new projects in sectors with significant development needs – social protection, education, and forced displacement/refugees, which have been approved by the Board." said a Bank spokesperson, who requested anonymity. The decision to resume funding signals a shift in the Bank's engagement strategy with Uganda and raises broader questions about how global institutions navigate the tension between promoting human rights and maintaining development partnerships. While there has been no indication of changes to Uganda's legal position on LGBTQ+ rights, the World Bank's renewed support may reflect wider geopolitical and economic considerations in the region. How the world reacted to Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), signed into law in May 2023, imposed sweeping criminal penalties for same-sex relationships, including life imprisonment and, in cases of so-called 'aggravated homosexuality,' the death penalty. The law drew swift and widespread condemnation from Western governments, human rights organizations, and international institutions, and was widely regarded as one of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world. Beyond the World Bank's suspension of funding, several Western governments issued strong rebukes and implemented measures affecting Uganda's international standing. The United States led the diplomatic response, with the Biden administration describing the law as 'a tragic violation of universal human rights.' In turn, Washington imposed travel restrictions on Ugandan officials believed to be involved in the legislation and initiated a review of its financial assistance to the country. The European Union also condemned the law, emphasizing its incompatibility with international human rights norms and warning that it would reassess its relationship with Uganda. Similarly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called the legislation 'shocking' and 'discriminatory,' urging its immediate repeal. Outside of official government action, Western-based human rights organizations, NGOs, and civil society groups amplified the global outcry. Advocacy campaigns were launched to pressure the Ugandan government, while some multinational corporations voiced concern about the law's potential impact on employees and business operations in the country. Despite this international backlash, Ugandan officials have welcomed the recent restoration of World Bank funding, portraying it as an endorsement of the country's sovereignty and development agenda.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
'Elon is going to get decimated:' How Trump's feud with the world's richest man might end
'Elon is going to get decimated:' How Trump's feud with the world's richest man might end Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. WASHINGTON — If history is any guide, and there is a lot of history, the explosive new falling out between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is not going to end well for the former White House advisor and world's richest man. The political battlefield is littered with the scorched remains of some of Trump's previous allies who picked a fight with him or were on the receiving end of one. Lawyer Michael Cohen. Political advisor Steve Bannon. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. John Bolton, John Kelly and Chris Christie, to name just a few. 'If what happened to me is any indication of how they handle these matters, then Elon is going to get decimated,' said Cohen, the former long-term Trump lawyer and fixer who once said he'd 'take a bullet' for his boss. Musk, he said, "just doesn't understand how to fight this type of political guerilla warfare." 'They're going to take his money, they're going to shutter his businesses and they're going to either incarcerate or deport him,' Cohen said of what he thinks Musk will suffer at the hands of Trump and his administration. 'He's probably got the White House working overtime already, as we speak, figuring out how to close his whole damn thing down.' Cohen had perhaps the most spectacular blow up, until now, with Trump. He served time in prison after Trump threw him under the bus by denying any knowledge of pre-election payments Cohen made to a porn actress to keep her alleged tryst with Trump quiet before the 2016 election. More: President Trump threatens Elon Musk's billions in government contracts as alliance craters Cohen felt so betrayed by Trump that he titled his memoir 'Disloyal,' but the Trump administration tried to block its publication. Cohen ultimately fought back, becoming a star witness for the government in the state 'hush money' case and helped get Trump convicted by a Manhattan jury. Some suffered similar legal attacks and other slings and arrows, including Trump taunts and his trademark nasty nicknames. Trump vilified others, casting them into the political wilderness with his MAGA base. When Sessions recused himself from the Justice Department's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Trump savaged him, calling his appointment a 'mistake' and lobbing other epithets. Sessions resigned under pressure in 2018. When he tried to resurrect his political career by running for his old Senate seat in Alabama, Trump endorsed his opponent, who won the GOP primary. After firing Tillerson, Trump called the former ExxonMobil chief lazy and 'dumb as a rock.' Trump still taunts Christie, an early supporter and 2016 transition chief, especially about his weight. Trump also had a falling out with Bannon, who was instrumental in delivering his presidential victory in 2016 and then joined the White House as special advisor. 'Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency,' Trump said in 2018, a year after Bannon's ouster from the White House. 'When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.' Trump's Justice Department even indicted Bannon in 2020 for fraud, though the President pardoned him before leaving office. One of Trump's biggest feuds was with Bolton, whom he fired as his national security advisor in 2019. Trump used every means possible to prevent his book, 'The Room Where it Happened,' from being published, Bolton told USA TODAY on Thursday. That included having the U.S. government sue his publisher on the false premise that Bolton violated a nondisclosure agreement and was leaking classified information, Bolton said. Bolton said Musk is unlike most others who have crossed swords with Trump in that he has unlimited amounts of money and control of a powerful social media platform in X to help shape the narrative. Musk also has billions in government contracts that even a vindictive Trump will have a hard time killing, as he threatened to do on Thursday, without significant legal challenges. Even so, Bolton said, "It's going to end up like most mud fights do, with both of them worse off. The question is how much worse the country is going to be off."
