Art Exhibition/ Galeripadi/ 1998/September.

By the end of the 90’s, the Indonesian modern art tradition is ‘shaken’; it has to face what has been believed by most of its supporters as the turning point of the development. The phenomenon was declared at the same time with the assumption about "the social corruption", which then blew some art practices out with assumptions like: The modern art doesn’t function because the public doesn’t need it.

Consequently the art expression that is functioning is that of anything ‘involved’ with what’s the public need. Or, alternately, there has to be an art empowerment so it will be able to ‘help’ the public (and its self as well), through production management strategy and effective presentation of the art works. Eventually there will be an added value (economically) which will drive the public economics.

In relation to all of these things we then pondering on what kind of art that (will be) "in demand" or acknowledged?

This phenomenon can’t conceal the questions about: Does social corruption necessarily mean art corruption as well? Is the falling social, political and economical condition to the ‘nadir’ applied to the artistic expression as well? Upon contemplating these questions, we are connecting two things: Firstly, doesn’t it mean that we’re observing the problem of ‘what kind of art expression’ do we refer to? Secondly, isn’t it the assumption made on social corruption (which is also tied to economical and political corruption) is a kind of explanation for a social change as well? Then, isn’t it both are the problem of the shifting of value?

In "The Shifting of Moral Values, Art Development and Social Changes" (1), Ignas Kleden explained the presence of ‘value’ as something regarded to be related with culture, or to be more specific, is in the symbolical world of culture. This symbolical world is a world where production, reproduction and storing of mental and cognitive contents of culture in the form of science and belief, meaning and symbol, value and norm take place. Within this symbolical world there is aesthetic value that is appeared in the form of art and moral value which then is manifested into social action and interaction. If this symbolical world is a fabric of meaning, then the social world is its real and concrete manifestation of the value. It is reflected in daily action that is then institutionalized in social norm. Through their more advance relationship later on, the social world is not only manifesting, it could also deceiving, concealing, trespassing or violating the existed norm in the symbolical world of culture. Social behavior always has ambivalent or even multivalent value.

The above explanation could be applied to help our understanding on the ‘theory of art’ and ‘art practice’. Hence, in art practice (production, presentation, distribution, and institutionalization) there’s always aesthetic value (whether a certain thing is beautiful or not) and moral value (whether a certain thing is good or not) involved in it. It is interesting to draw a relationship between art practice (including art theory) and the social world, to discuss the changes of social condition and the belief in the social corruption condition (for some art practitioners). It seems that we should read the development of art tradition from decades before. Still fresh in our memories is the Indonesian modern art (painting) booming phenomenon during the eighties, particularly the later half. Even though in the art theory region some people are worried and never cease to remind us of the problem of the devalue, the art practice never listen and keeps on moving towards their own standard of achievement. This situation is continued to the middle of the 90’s. That time is noted as the drama of Indonesian economic rise, when the expansion of capitalism network reached its most complex point never before happened in Indonesia. The rise is identified not only through the successful physical development, but also in its most intimate form, that is behavior and life style (2).

The development of art, as well as life itself, is always looking for its own path. In the clamor of the art booming there grew some different art practices that tried to deny it, a kind of art aimed to be ‘an alternative’ against it. Apparently the category of ‘alternative’ as a term could be used for many interests and references (just like the term ‘reformation’ recently). But what is meant by the ‘alternative’ in the 80’s is an art practice reminiscence of the ‘contra movement’ spirit of the 70’s Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru (The New Art Movement). This "alternative style" is trusted to have potentials to mediate the art development in other side of the world, including its many problems such as the contemporary art, post-structuralist philosophy, or postmodernism art and culture.

Although many has concluded that we haven’t been involved enough with the above problems, the invasion of thoughts through media and publications has inspired a kind of another "emancipating project" emphasizing the struggle against the violence of domination and absolutism. (3). The inspiration is not growing alone, it is evolving together with the many questions about the modernization process that has never came to be fair. Postmodernism is indeed partially pictured with another frequently neglected part that of to be modern and understanding the modernity.

The inspiration works through its reflection to the social world. The culture is then realized as being ‘threatened’, not by the bayonet tip, but by the obedience to a kind of pragmatic attitude, leaving the question of right or wrong according to a certain doctrine or belief behind. The legitimating criteria are almost entirely being connected to the end result or performance.(4). Thus in the pluralistic reality of Indonesia, the effect of mass culture is no more dangerous than embourgoisement fantasy. It is no more latent than the cultural politic project of the state that demands a centralized power and homogenized attitude and behavior. The hegemony of the New Order state-system has been built on its role as the re-stabilizer begun with the rule arrangement. The fear of the threatening communism has worked effectively as a reminder to the dark past and as a justification to impose the order and law of state hegemony.(5)

Now the practice of our modern art is in a time that is frequently dubbed as the Pasca-New order era, or more popularly called the Reformation era. Just like the term ‘alternative’ in our modern art discourse, it could mean a category and could be used in its many meanings or for many different purposes. Now it seems that it means a ‘spirit’ desired to change the pragmatic obedience attitude before. It is far too difficult for me to answer whether this new spirit will make it in the social-political context. I can only hope that it will not only be an arena to fight over status and position with authority and legality to rule the interest of larger publics. Hence the question of ‘who’ will be more crucial than ‘how’ because the matter of ‘how’ is defined by the ‘who’.

Nevertheless, is this concern could be applied to the art practice? It seems like we are now watching the matter of "whose turn is it now?", or "what is the appropriate model of production-representation for an art work to be ‘in’? If there is, the reformation as a spirit in the practice of art has been blundered. More often than not, it has also became "suspicious" in relation to its previous forms and practices which had not (yet) been explained well even though some of the unexplained things had been mentioned by Sanento Yuliman:

• The homogenized view that believes in one kind of art practice for the development of Indonesian modern art. This view acknowledges sole homogenous public that serves as both audience and patron whose appreciation for art should be continually improved.
• The belief in the assumption of linear history of the development of art. As a result, the modern art as a manifestation of modern culture is shaped by the past cultural journey, which obviously could be traced back to its roots.
• The practice of the excessive emphasizing in painting and sculpture as the main phenomenon inherited from the Western aesthetics. (6)

From the three statements of Sanento Yuliman above we learn that the rejection wave and the contra-movement initiated by the New Art Movement since its start in the 70’s through its development after the 80’s was not a manifestation of the spirit of reformation.(7). The widely accepted ideas of pluralism, genealogy (8) and the strong attack to the hegemony of the Western Modernism didn’t turn it into a revolutionary ideas and reformation movement. It was a project of deviation and emancipation, a process of deformation.

The deformation would arise from ‘the same game with different sets of rule’ (since the rules were now under revision). It has an intention to create a new kind of game. A deformation would not be end up formless (amorf), on the contrary it is an effort to find a different form, a ‘new’ form that still related (genealogically) to the previous form. A deformation is a kind of "(creative) denial" from the rigidity idea of a standardized form. The denial would worth nothing if the new form to be created should be confirmed through a formulated conception. The deformation would become an ‘opposition’ against the requirement for a fixed stylization. Nevertheless a meaning could still be established through a reflective way, not necessarily be more important than its process.

In this case, the deformation is not considered as a part of the process in a certain art practice. It is indeed an inspiration for the continuity of art theory and practice. Another symptom has to be anticipated, that is, a kind of ornamentation attitude. The noisy deformation is an attitude of ornamentation; it is not grown into an awareness of a process. Instead, it is a construction in the name of the end result. Ornament becomes a definitive part of the whole, a part of the hegemonic structure. The contemporary art practice in Indonesia may under the possible trap, an invitation to obey the hegemony of meaning (9) of the mainstream contemporary art development in one side, and to the lure of market expansion on the other side. In consideration to the projected result, executing a deformation is apparently not as ‘pleasing’ as ornamentation. Naturally, integrity and patience are rarities already.

Rizki A. Zaelani Curator

Notes:

Ignas Kleden, Pergeseran Nilai Moral, Perkembangan Kesenian dan Perubahan Sosial ("The Shifting of Moral Values, Art Development and Social Changes"), Jurnal Kebudayaan Kalam, 1996, no.8, page 5-6.

Ariel Heryanto’s notes in his papers, "Kajian Budaya Menjelang Abad 21", on a panel discussion "Cultural Reflection", 9 September 1995, Taman Ismail Marzuki, organized by Jaringan Kerja Budaya and Jurnal Kebudayaan Kalam. Read Ariel Heriyanto.

The polemic about Postmodern issues was started since the discussion on the topic in Salatiga in 1993, the papers of the discussion then were published in Jurnal Kebudayaan Kalam I /1994. I referred to this Jurnal Kalam, particularly to Ahmad Sahal’s writing "Then, Where Is The Emancipation" and Gunawan Mohamad’s, "Revolution and Anarchic Praxis".

Read Gunawan Mohamad, Revolusi dan Praksis Anarkis: Marxisme dan Postmodernisme, Dilihat dari Indonesia di tahun 1993, (Revolution and Anarchic Praxis: AS seen from Indonesia in 1993), Jurnal Kebudayaan Kalam I/1994, page 71.

Read Michael van Langenberg, Negara Orde Baru: Bahasa, Ideologi, Hegemoni, (New Order State: Language, Ideology, Hegemony) in Yudi Latif and Idi Subandy Ibrahim’s,ed. BAHASA dan KEKUASAAN: Politik Wacana di Panggung Orde Baru, (Langauge and Power: Political Discourse in the New Order Stage), 1996, Pustaka Mizan, Bandung, page 229-231.

Sanento Yuliman, Dua Seni Rupa, (Two Arts), National Symposium of Art, Surabaya Committee of Art, July, 1984.

Particularly the development of the contemporary art in the 80’s didn’t elaborate the matter of rebelling anymore. It emphasized the faith to pluralism and its more "international" characteristic. The development of Indonesian modern art has never been considered in the map of the decisive mainstream discourse of Europe-America). Because of that and of the receding popularity of the grand narrative of ‘reformation’ or ‘revolution’, the development of contemporary art since the 80’s (particularly in the 90’s) has neither spirit nor the intention for a ‘reformation’.

Genealogy is a science of family descent. It has been popular since Michel Foucault used the term in his critic to history, which according to him has a characteristic to categorize things in the name of certain power/knowledge. The word ‘history’ always supposing a series of events that entwined continually, and is well ordered under the causality principal. It is supposing a center point as a point of departure or destination. Foucault believes that events happen in discontinued way, they are random fragments. Foucault further mentioned about a genealogical criticality, in the sense that it is not a deductive inherence from a certain fixed form, something we have no way to acknowledge and know. On the contrary, he only chose and sorted it out from the temporariness that shaped us to the way we are now. Genealogy does not try to invoke metaphysical thoughts that will eventually become a science; it reaches as far as possible to search for a new driving force to achieve an unlimited work of freedom. For discussion, read Ahmad Sahal’s Kemudian, Di manakah Emansipasi (Then, Where Is The Emancipation), Jurnal Kebudayaan Kalam, I/1994.

Read Jim Supangkat, Contemporary Art: What/When/Where, Catalog, The Second Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art Exhibition, 1996, Queensland Art Gallery, Australia, page 26-28. translated by Lie Fhung September 1998