Changes needed at Jakarta Biennale<\/p>\n
By Amir Sidharta<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Many people come out of the 11th Jakarta
\nBiennale feeling disappointed. The event is far from being a
\nbiannual event presenting the most current art forms created in
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
Instead, it is noting more than a show of a kind of
\nconservative \"salon\" with exclusive membership. It is clear that
\nthe Jakarta Biennale is trying to uphold a \"status quo\" in the
\nart field.<\/p>\n
The exhibition features, among others, the works of Srihadi
\nSoedarsono, Kartika Affandi, Nyoman Gunarsa, Nunung WS, Yanuar
\nErnawati and Hanafi.<\/p>\n
The only newcomer featured in the event is George \"Odji\"
\nLirungan, an emerging artist who recently had a solo exhibition
\nat Taman Ismail Marzuki's Cipta gallery.<\/p>\n
Although the artists in the show have managed to maintain the
\nquality of the works, none of them have offered any considerable
\nartistic breakthrough in the paintings they are showing here.<\/p>\n
The curators of the event defended their work in this biennial
\nby claiming it to be an \"evaluation\" of the previous 10 biennials
\nheld since 1972.<\/p>\n
However, the presentation of the show does not reflect this
\nconcept. If the curators were serious in their efforts they could
\nhave obtained two to three works reflecting different periods of
\nthe artists' development and showed them in the exhibition.<\/p>\n
In any event, the notion of evaluation seems to be
\ncontradictory to the idea of biennials, which is supposed to
\npresent the most current art forms over the last two years. So,
\nthe notion of an \"evaluation biennial\" is certainly an oxymoron.<\/p>\n
Just before the opening of the show, an artwork by artist
\nHanura Hosea was taken down by the curators after it had been
\ninstalled.<\/p>\n
The curators considered the work to be unsuitable for the
\nevent, as it was an installation and not a painting. They
\nasserted that this biennial, like the previous biennial, was a
\nbiennial of painting. An incident like this clearly shows neglect
\non the part of the curators.<\/p>\n
The curators claimed to have conducted a comprehensive survey
\nof the art works, either by visiting the artists themselves, by
\nobtaining information from certain regional advisors, or
\nreviewing photographs sent by the artists.<\/p>\n
This has resulted in the participation of artists from 17
\ntowns, and this effort of gathering artists from different
\nregions of the country does deserve commendation.<\/p>\n
However, it seems that the curators were only concerned with
\nthe names of the artists they invited to participate in the
\nbiennial, but they did not pay much attention to their works.<\/p>\n
As a result, they did not realize that the work that Hanura
\nHosea was going to submit was not a painting. Whatever the reason
\nmight be, the curators had a lame excuse. Their rejection of a
\nwork of an artist who they had actually invited to participate in
\nthe biennial seems to be unethical and should not have been
\ntolerated. Furthermore, whether biennials should be limited to
\nonly paintings should also be questioned.<\/p>\n
Many artists were particularly disappointed by the lack of a
\ndefinite criteria for inclusion into the event. An artist
\nquestioned why he had not been invited. He became even more
\ndisappointed when one of the curators told him that the curators
\nlimited invitations to artists who had participated in previous
\nbiennials. \"If that is the case, how can one expect to be able to
\nenter the Jakarta Biennale then?\" the artist asked.<\/p>\n
It is not true that all of the participants of the 11th
\nJakarta Biennale participated in previous biennials. It is
\ncertain that George Lirungan did not participate in any of the
\nprevious biennials.<\/p>\n
It is unclear whether participation in previous biennials is
\nactually a prerequisite for this biennial, or if the curator was
\njust making it up.<\/p>\n
Some artists who participated in previous Jakarta biennials,
\nbut who were not invited to participate in this year's event,
\nalso questioned the criteria for inclusion.<\/p>\n
One of the curators explained that they had to work under
\nvarious limitations, including limitations of space, time and
\nfunding, and this caused them to limit the number of artists they
\ncould invite to the event. If this is the case, that some artists
\nwere favored over others could also be questioned.<\/p>\n
The presentation of the 11th Jakarta Biennale, with all its
\nshortcomings, emphasizes the need for reforms in the event's
\norganization.<\/p>\n
For one thing, it seems certain that the Fine Art Committee of
\nthe Jakarta Arts Council is inept at putting the show together.
\nThe members of the committee correctly identified the need to
\nselect a single curator capable of offering a vision for the
\nevent, and set a definite criteria for selection of the works to
\nbe included in the show.<\/p>\n
But only changing the curator would not be enough to remedy
\nthe situation. It seems that the committee needs to be
\nrevitalized, electing younger and more dynamic members. Perhaps
\nthe effort could even go as far as restructuring the entire
\nJakarta Arts Council and its working relationship with the
\nJakarta Arts Center and the Jakarta Arts Foundation.<\/p>\n
The writer is curator of Universitas Pelita Harapan Museum in
\nKarawaci, West Java, and a jury of the Philip Morris Arts Awards.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/changes-needed-at-jakarta-biennale-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}