|
<< Media List
CP
Open Biennale 2003 : Sophistication that Confuses
Wicaksono Adi
Sunday, September 7, 2003
MEDIA INDONESIA
The CP Open Biennale 2003 (September 4-October 3, 2003) at the Indonesian
National Gallery, Jakarta, could be said to be a part of the efforts to
feel out just how extensively modern art in Indonesia can be assumed to
have developed within its own context, opening up various possibilities
in relation to ideas (in various international events) that are believed
to be the basis for a paradigmatic shift toward cultural conditions that
are represented through claims of post-modernity, so that, specifically,
they can be utilized as an adequate jumping off place for further efforts
at theorizing about them in a more reasonable manner. Thus, here, it is
not too surprising if one would be immediately reminded of the hackneyed
jargon that has been set forth far too often: that art in Indonesia in
its most recent developments -- wherever it originates from, even though,
as it turns out, it is centered at the two strongest academies (the Bandung
Institute of Technology [ITB] and the Indonesian Institute of Art in Yogyakarta
[ISI]), -- demands inter-textual threshold reading.
It is imagined, art in Indonesia embraces simultaneously the paradoxes
of pluralism, localism-internationalism, differentiation-distinction,
center-margin, political identity, mimicry, the naivet of the poor
with inferiority complexes toward the idea of the freedom of the global
world, the reinterpretation of history, and the Goddess Minerva who flies
blindly beneath the dark sky of the dusk of modernity, whose form is not
clear, but can be felt directly. Within this pot there is a broken body,
ailing and nauseous, sometimes faint, sometimes comatose, stammering and
impotent, along with a shaky ontology and epistemology, and alienation,
as well as the half-hearted throwing of the existentialist dice. Even
the way of speaking of some is self conscious, only partially articulate,
copying from this Ð copying from that, over-intellectual and pseudo
analytical, while others lose orientation, with some taking on the attitude
of a pistol happy cowboy on a shooting spree.
This is all mixed up with misguided desire in a game of confidence and
anxiety in the face of all the possibilities of the ideas dangling in
the sky of the international art world. And within this game, as is going
on in third countries, they seem to not ever have become imprisoned in
the turmoil of history with all of the paradigmatic trauma going on in
the background. It is as if the modern art that exists far from it place
of origin takes on the attitude, Òjust be free, as if I care. You
donÕt have anything to do with me.Ó The art world would
then be much like the American territory that had not been burdened with
those various antagonistic histories to the European immigrants; a place
where democracy is celebrated even though the black man is still spit
upon and hidden among the debris of a history which has been abandoned
by the Goddess Minerva wearing blue jeans with a Coca Cola in her hand.
Thus, this kind of theorizing about art must be built on top of the altar
of its own paradigm. A within the context of Indonesia, Jim Supangkat
is the prophet who is industriously importing a holy book to be used for
preaching at the sheep, who are predominantly illiterate farmers dressed
in tattered clothing, which is probably made from copying the rags of
the fabric of modernism.
With ever increasing enthusiasm, this glorious prophet has begun cooperatively
lugging in rough stones, while developing political knowledge in order
to take part in the massive project of building a house of discourse to
compete with the Euro-American centrism (which has already collapsed),
along with colleagues from his Asia-Pacific neighbors. He has also made
an official stamp to legitimize his campaign through the international
curatorial network, and even exhibitions and competitions of the ilk of
the Philip Morris Art Award.
The enthusiasm of the sheep and the their prophet continues to whirl
around us: the prophet consistently seeking the most appropriate way to
design the foundation for the discoursing which will connect with the
themes of his colleagues, while the sheep are crashing into and internalizing
the ideas offered by the prophet even though these concepts often have
no direct relationship to their experience culturally. The ideas of the
prophet are sometimes too lofty so that they are frequently not understood
by the sheep. Some of the sheep do successfully internalize these concepts
into their creative work, while some others are forced to simply posture
in front of the mirror in order to appear cutting edge, intellectual,
and articulate. Those parties who fail to internalize all of this end
up producing over-intellectualized works that do not heed the context,
and if this runs up against a wall, they are forced to cover up with the
declaration that: "Well, this is certainly the contemporary, so what
is the matter with it anyway?Ó
So, if you visit that space, be ready to act sophisticated and to over-intellectualize
concerning the thinking, but not the experience. You are being asked to
observe the ideas, not the forms when the ideas are questioned within
the visual experience. The energy of the sheep is indeed impressive, so
that this over-intellectualization even begins to appear more and more
reasonable. Something that was previously not understood, in their hands,
becomes more familiar and so seemingly close to the current/ongoing sociological
and even epistemological experience. However, a certain points one will
witness how extensively this sophistication has become a procedure and
not substance. One will be impressed by their ability to ÒanalyzeÓ
but not to ÒpresentÓ ideas/concepts.
But one can only wonder whether entering and approaching an altar such
as this can be done with the problems that are apparently becoming transcendent:
between theory and practice? WouldnÕt it be more pleasant if we
just returned to the contexts of the texts, which the sheep are so intent
on and active about internalizing? Why is it so necessary for us to have
to theorize, and unwrap such a thick description, just to take some inspiration
from interpretive anthropology? WouldnÕt it be better if the strategy
of reading texts were simply initiated from what is apparent, and not
from the basis of what is desired?
However that may be, what we need to remember is that the result of the
prophetÕs overwhelming enthusiasm/passion is that the sheep have
been induced to leave their pen. Many artists have lost their sense of
perseverance in the effort to elaborate on the texts that are close to
them. In Yogyakarta, a lot of the artists have lost interest in persevering
with modest/simple themes that are directly related to their practical
grounding in their own epistemology because they are worried that they
will be considered to be lacking intellectually, or to be unsophisticated.
Thus, this hysteria of ideas/concepts has at the very least given rise
to two risks. The first risk is the critics, who tend to undertake such
sophisticated readings that they overlook what is referred to as ÒTasteÓ
within the limits of interpretation. The second is the loss of sensitivity
of artists toward context. The first risk is caused by the overwhelmingly
massive spirit/enthusiasm for theorizing, while the second is a result
of the loss of faith in the texts that have been internalized naturally.
Efforts to build a paradigmatic altar are, indeed, important, but if
the text is cleared of and becomes devoid of its context, the distance
between the experience of the discourse and the praxis of the prophet
will only become much wider. The prophet is moving ahead, way out in front,
while the sheep donÕt care about the distinction. The hysteria
of ideas has plunged the sheep into a play of concepts, but not into the
process relating to how these ideas can be tested and internalized within
a text based in their partial experience. In other words, this huge project
of discoursing, and also the search for an Indonesian art paradigm being
pioneered by Jim Supangkat seems to contain still another risk, that being
the reduction in the awareness among the artists and the critics of the
distance between theorizing and praxis/practice.
So it would really be nice if Jim Supangkat would be patient and not
so tensely enthusiastic about this effort. You cannot dream alone. A battalion
of theorists would be required to build that altar. And let the artists
be to work with their own experiences, without having to be provoked to
plunge into this hysteria of ideas and not into the hysteria of text instead.
What is more important is how to start an effort to understand the contexts
of the texts that have been internalized within praxis/practice.
Specifically in relation to this CP Open Biennale, it is truly a shame
that the forceful inclusion of names such as ES Edos, Gede Mahendra, Heru
Susilo, Irman Rahman (replaceable with Dipo Andy), Sasya Tranggono, Toto
Kamdani, Agus & Nia Ismoyo, and Sartono, all of whose artworks are
not significant to this event, has, in fact, only add to the numbers.
Also, it is a shame that there has occurred a disappearance of names like
Made Wianta, Nyoman Erawan, Nyoman Masriadi, Moelyono, Agung Kurniawan,
Hedi Haryanto, Sutjipto Adi, Hendro Suseno, Ugo Untoro, Isa Perkasa, and
Dolorosa Sinaga (whose presence would have more fully completed the representation
of female sculptors rather than just Altje Ully).
While it seems that we cannot hope much from the artists such as Nyoman
Nuarta, AD Pirous, F Widayanto, Setiawan Sabana, Hendrawan Riyanto, and
even Dadang Christanto, who have put in very disappointing appearances
in this exhibition, to the point that they seem to have become totally
anemic. But, never mind, an event of this massive a scale always carries
its own stench, which is, in fact, a result of the ambition to be great.
|