Deviation, rebellion and modern Indonesian art<\/p>\n
By Chandra Johan<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Deviation, rebellion and new movements have
\ncharacterized the journey of modern fine arts, whether in
\nIndonesia or in other parts of the world. In Indonesia, it was
\nSindu Sudjojono who first rejected the way his teacher, Mas
\nPirngadi, idealized nature in his paintings. That was in l928,
\nand since then the Indonesian tradition of fine arts has had many
\nother pioneers of \"rebellion\" and \"deviation\".<\/p>\n
At that time, Sudjojono felt that the world of Indonesian fine
\narts, especially paintings, was stagnant, sterile and suffering
\nfrom \"anemia\", because of taboos that posed as general
\nlimitations. Those taboos were manifested in landscape paintings,
\nrepresented by the Dutch and the European middle-class (the
\nbourgeois), which, in fact, were oriented to the market and a
\nforeign tourist interest in Indonesian exoticism.<\/p>\n
Sudjojono and Persagi's rejection of this tradition is
\nconsidered the beginning of modern Indonesian fine arts, even
\npreceding the words \"rebellion\" and \"deviation\" in the Indonesian
\nfine arts vocabulary. On the part of the bourgeoisie who
\nestablished the genre of Indonesian exoticism through paintings
\nof Mooi Indie landscapes, Sudjojono had clearly rebelled and
\ndeviated. But on the other hand, he was freed, therefore
\nimplanting an awareness with his concept of the democratization
\nof creation and visualization that modern Indonesian painting was
\na democratic art.<\/p>\n
As a consequence, acts of deviation and rebellion showed that
\nmodern art was marked by a democratic character. People could
\nhave the freedom to like or dislike a certain form of art.
\nHowever, not every deviation always runs smoothly. Because of its
\ndemocratic nature, the establishment also has the right to refuse
\nany form of deviation on behalf of the New. They, who in their
\nyouth supported changes or progress, are unable to sit back and
\nallow just form of change or deviation from the norm.<\/p>\n
There are several factors which explain why any change or
\ndeviation within modern Indonesian art is often first rejected.
\nFirst, critics and the artists themselves are overly certain of
\nthe infallibility of their own concepts. Critics and artists tend
\nto generalize based on a tendency and norm of the past, taking it
\nas a reference to judge the development of the human condition.
\nSometimes the norms are not based on observations toward the
\ndevelopment of the society but on the norms of art itself. In
\ngeneral, they assume that a society is unable to accept a new
\nform of art, without considering changes which occur in the
\nsociety itself.<\/p>\n
The second factor, pertains to identity issues in the nation.
\nThese questions occur not only in Indonesia, but in colonies
\nsuffering paranoia. Such places tightly guard their own cultural
\nvalues and consider \"the new\" or \"the other\", especially material
\nidentified as originating from the West, as a threat. In point of
\nfact, as long as an artist attempts to present himself, the
\nsearch for national identity is not a realized step.<\/p>\n
A third reason relating to the rejection of new art forms
\nrelates to the desire to endow art with a role in society. The
\nrejection of a new art trend is often based on a consideration of
\nthe distance between what is modern and the society in question.
\nThis concept neglects change in society, basing the judgment from
\na purist art angle. In this sense, a gulf exists between modern
\nart and society.<\/p>\n
In fact, it is because of the rapid changes in the society
\nitself, beginning with the social system, science, technology,
\nindustrialization and the penetration of mass culture that the
\narts became marginalized activities. Practices, in which the
\nactivities of artists can only be observed in galleries or
\nbuildings, for the enjoyment of a handful of people. So the
\ndistance between modern art and society is not the result of one-
\nsided change, but of multiple massive changes in society,
\nincluding the world of art, which create heterogeneity and
\nplurality.<\/p>\n
Therefore, you will find there is no single form of art which
\ncould precisely represent the wishes of a society. In the history
\nof modern Indonesian art, the enforcement of a form of art in the
\nsociety resulted in the assumption that the form of people's art
\nwas the only ideal, and a priori toward another form of art, so
\nthat realism was considered the only suitable form.<\/p>\n
The fourth factor is related to academic standards. In modern
\nIndonesian art academies separate every field; specialization,
\nstandardization, professionalism are an inseparable part of the
\ndevelopment and modernization process. Narrowing each field of
\nactivity means narrowing the media, method and valuation.<\/p>\n
But standardization in the academies of modern art is
\nsometimes contradictory. First because each academy has a general
\nstandard. But from this general standard subjective standards
\nshould not be rejected. These standards are surely not recorded
\nin the list of the institutional aims (preference) of the
\nacademy.<\/p>\n
Teachers in the modern fine arts academies are generally
\nartists, who certainly bring subjective values with them.
\nAlthough each teacher refers to established academic general
\nstandards, it is not impossible that subjective values influence
\nthe teaching system.<\/p>\n
So, when an artist is called a deviator and a rebel, it might
\nbe because s\/he steps outside the general academic standard, but
\nalso because they do not conform to the teachers' own subjective
\nstandards. In certain fine arts academies, the individual style
\nof the artist-teacher often influences the students, giving an
\nimpression of a uniform style and trend to that academy.<\/p>\n
It cannot be denied that this was the case at the School of
\nArt and Design at the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), the
\nIndonesian Institute of the Arts (ISI) in Yogyakarta, and the
\nInstitute of the Arts in Jakarta (IKJ). Has not our modern art
\nhistory be known to have (mazhab) (schools of thought), like the
\nBandung School or the Yogya School? Doesn't Achmad Sadali, as an
\nartist and former ITB teacher, exert a strong influence on the
\nBandung style? So, when there is a new form of art which is
\ndifferent from the established general form, the work and the
\nartist are considered rebellious and deviators from the
\ndetermined definitions. Rejection of a new art trend is contrary
\nto the characteristics and nature of modern art itself, which
\nsupports plurality and individual freedom.<\/p>\n
Those four factors occur in each era, and often lead to heated
\ndebates. However, not every deviation and rebellion can be
\nequated with innovation. It is possible that the tool or media
\nused by the artist originates from an old tendency, but the way
\nit is used is different, as is the case of many installation
\nworks of contemporary art.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/deviation-rebellion-and-modern-indonesian-art-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}