When analyzing the late Soviet period and its culture, one would uncover a distinct division inside the former Soviet culture between the official and unofficial arts, the legacy of which could be linked to a specific dissident ideology of the 1970s. Having existed alongside the official stylistics of Soviet Socialist Realism, established by the state in 1932, dissident movements tended to express their nonconformist viewpoints and critical opinions on the soviet government, most frequently through different artistic forms, adhering to the extremely strict limitations that were placed upon them.

The alternative to the state ideologies could only found and published in the unofficial books, journals and artworks until the periods of ‘glasnost’ – a Soviet policy enabling open discourse of political and social issues and ‘perestroika’ – a political reform aiming to restructure and enhance stagnant soviet economics, both established by Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. According to Aleksei Yurchak, an anthropologist and researcher on Soviet history, people spoke of having experienced a dramatic and unpredictable ‘break of consciousness’ (perelom soznania) and ‘stunning shock’ (sil’neishiy shock) during the introduction of these policies, which shortly followed by excitement and willingness to take part in this radical ideological shift.

The Green Triangle group and the period of its existence from 1987 to 1995 coincided with both policies of ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’, which had a huge impact on its artistic practice and its development. From the very start its members – young artists both citizens and immigrants of Alma-ata the capital of Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (KazSSR) from 1936 to 1991, presented themselves as a separate independent group from other art councils, organizations, and institutions.

The curator of The Crossroads Exhibition (1989), Irina Yuferova recalls that the members of The Green Triangle used to live in collectives, listened to Western rock music, wore outrageous hairstyles and had ripped trousers that resembled homemade costumes, strongly supporting the authenticity and the spontaneity of artistic expression. As represented in a photograph of the artists from the Green Triangle group at Crossroads Exhibition in 1989 (1989) it is visible to which kind of social environment Menlibayeva was belonging in the way people used to dress and experimentally express themselves. This was, in a way, young rock, new voice of the first generation of perestroika eager to start a new era of social and cultural liberation. Hence, from Menlibayeva’s perspective participation in such artistic circle was an act of rebellion, a protest, a struggle against the demands of conformity, which conveys a strong sense of social pressure and her inner conflicts during such uncertain historical period.

As Menlibayeva stated in our interview, the audience reacted to their art and performances in diverse ways: some people were frightened, some were surprised, whereas most of the public was impressed by their creativity. Nonetheless, the most important thing for the members of the artistic group was not the reaction of the audience, but rather its eagerness to demonstrate their apolitical position in a society highly impacted by state propaganda. Moreover, such historical events of The Jeltoqsan (Kazakh: Желтоқсан көтерілісі) in 1986 – a massive wave of protests taking place in Alma-ata in response to Mikhail Gorbachev's dismissal of Dinmukhamed Kunaev - the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, when hundreds of young people and students were violently killed by the Soviet regime, dramatically influenced the human consciousness of Kazakhstani people in the late 1980s, indicating the instability and turbulence of the late soviet period and common loss of hope in “utopian communist future”.

Being heavily impacted by the events happening in the state, the members of the group were born in the society that was heavily controlled, therefore the creation of diverse happenings and artworks, the examples of which unfortunately were lost, was the only opportunity to declare who they were until their dissolution in 1995. In retrospect, The Green Triangle and its activity as a group can be seen as a threshold between the old and new world and its realities, which directly intersected with art and its evolution in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. After the group’s short but vigorous period of existence, Kazakh contemporary art evolved into a dynamic phenomenon of artistic shapes, forms and representations, challenging the contemporaneity and transforming the long-standing system of governments, ideologies and lifestyles of other people. Therefore, it is important to evaluate its impact not only on the contemporary artists of that time, but also on the ordinary citizens of Soviet and post-Soviet Kazakhstan, visiting their exhibitions and looking at the new unknown type of art, embedded with anti-communist beliefs from a different perspective.

According to Vaclav Havel, a Czech statesman, author and dissident, each nation is fully subordinate to its superpower centre and has been entirely penetrated by a network of manipulative instruments under its control. Hence, when looking at countries under the totalitarian regime, such as the USSR, an accurate understanding of so-called dissident movements in these countries demands a perpetual awareness of the specific background from which they originate. When examining works of The Green Triangle and furthermore, the early works of Menlibayeva from that period, it is visible how she, similarly to dissidents, always represented a specific hallmark of Kazakh origin in her art. This tendency of celebrating and bringing back the authentic Kazakh culture remained one of the central themes of her artistic practice since her graduation from the faculty of decorative and applied arts of Kazakh National Academy of Arts in 1992 in Alma-ata. As Menlibayeva states, she specifically chose this faculty as it was the only opportunity for her to study and deeply understand nomadic civilization. The national art in the USSR was associated with such terms as “backward” and “primitive”, hence working with applied art could be perceived as another form of Menlibayeva’s protest to the society embedded with communist ideologies.

Furthermore, the artistic system of Menlibayeva, defined by its intricate use of symbols and images, draws inspiration from unconscious mythological themes and incorporates a wellspring of improvisation, bearing numerous resemblances to the shaman’s conjurings. In fact, this strongly correlates with the technique which she employs while producing these pieces: the artist is using a similar technique of making a tekemet (a type of rug used to lie on or hang up as a decoration tool in the Kazakh yurt). It integrates a complicated process of layering coloured wool on to a reed mat, which finishes with a certain ritual of several women pressing the wool into the surface with bare feet. These rhythmic intricate movements reflect centuries of Kazakh tradition and history, invoking a journey to the ancient nomadic past, showcasing Menlibayeva’s endeavor to resurrect the past by placing and integrating in with the modern world. These magical and shamanistic features are seen in her other works from that time, such as White and Music Sounds (1993) for instance. In comparison to Man of Barramundi and His Woman (1992), this piece is more reminiscent of the tekemet (a Kazakh rug) in its form and visible texture (fig. 5). It does not include any figurative elements but abstract figures which recall the ancient symbols, enhancing its expressive shamanistic features.