The project, which I was working on during the summer 2008, resulted in an investigation and documentation, regarding the forms of archiving and representing recent history in the public sphere.

My research consisted of photographing the on display collections and juxtaposing them with found footage from archives of those museums. Furthermore I searched for written information, which could shed light on the changes that those institutes were going through after 1989.
In the scope of my research I photographed in the following museums: The National Museum of Ethnography and Natural History, the National museum of history and Archeology, The National Museum of Fine Arts, The Pedagogical Museum, The Military Museum, The Union of the Writers museum, The Union of the public transport workers museum.
I photographed as well in the former buildings where some other museums connected directly to the former regime were located. Obviously those institutes ceased to exist after Moldavian independence in 1991.

As a result of my research, a clear and disturbing reflection evolved: I traced the process of omitting recent history that is present in those public institutes. Each institute tried to re-create its own concept and strategy of re-presenting the continuity and existence of the Moldavian state. Artifacts related to ancient history of the state where re-contextualized, while the artifacts and other archeological exhibits dealing with recent history of XXI-XX century where removed and replaced with the other artifacts which support the new national discourse.
Reflecting on the idea of the museum as a cultural machine that produces the content for the group identity, a thought-provoking question emerged: how does national identity can be formed if the different presented narratives do not correspond one with each other?

Through this process, I wish to initiate question marks regarding the political truths that were shifting the Moldova region in the last decades. A question is being raised to the extent of the national trauma that might be causing the Moldovan society to erase and reject any objective reference to the cultural and social atmosphere of the Soviet era. The role and responsibilities of cultural heritage institutions like the museums seems ambiguous in the light of the denial ideology they present to the public. Finally, a more general discussion is opened regarding the intersection of politics, history, culture and social participation in a period of rapid changes.