Putting paradox before the dilemma in art<\/p>\n
By Amir Sidharta<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The increasing attention paid to Indonesian
\npainting attests to the prevailing art paradox mentioned in The
\nJakarta Post's editorial earlier this month. Referring to the
\nsurprising sale of Raden Saleh's Deer Hunt for the astronomical
\nprice of Rp 5.5 billion (US$2.3 million) at Christie's Singapore
\nauction at the end of last month, the editorial pointed out that
\n\"Indonesians tend to overvalue and be overattentive to painting,
\nwhile ignoring and remaining ignorant of the other arts.\"<\/p>\n
The editor justifiably questions why other fine art, such as
\nsculpture, tapestry, drawing and photography, has not received
\nthe same attention as painting has enjoyed. Then the editor
\nbrings to our attention the traditional art forms which \"must
\nbrave an even graver future\".<\/p>\n
The editorial's claim that only Asmat sculpture and Balinese
\nart, owing to their international eminence, continue to flourish,
\nand that local arts are \"being trivialized by mass tourism\", may
\nwell be true.<\/p>\n
The situation, however, is more complex than that. The reason
\nmore attention is paid to Indonesian painting than Indonesian
\ntribal art is not just a matter of trends.<\/p>\n
Laurence A. G. Moss, in his article International Art
\nCollecting, Tourism, and a Tribal Region in Indonesia, published
\nin Fragile Traditions; Indonesian Art in Jeopardy (Honolulu:
\nUniversity of Hawaii Press, 1994, ed. Paul M. Taylor), states
\nthat interest in Indonesian tribal art started to emerge in the
\n1920s, most probably following the first exhibitions of
\nethnographic material as art in European and North American
\nmuseums. At the same time, modern artists such as Paul
\nGaugain, Paul Klee and Pablo Picasso became interested in
\nprimitivism.<\/p>\n
Interest in collecting tribal art continued in the 1950s
\nhelped along with a growing knowledge of anthropology and the way
\nof life of tribal peoples. The popularity of tribal art further
\nincreased during the 1960s and 1970s, in conjunction with the
\nemergence of tourism in Indonesia. The international popularity
\nof Indonesian tribal art culminated with a series of exhibitions
\nand publications in the 1980s.<\/p>\n
Moss writes that parallel to the rise in interest in tribal
\nart, was a tremendous growth in the trade of tribal artifacts.
\nArt galleries in Australia, France and the United States, as well
\nas auction houses like Christie's and Sotheby's, started to pay
\ngreat attention to Indonesian tribal art.<\/p>\n
In the same publication, an article by Eric Crystal called
\nRape of the Ancestors: The Discovery, Display, and Destruction of
\nthe Ancestral Statuary of Tana Toraja tells of the emergence of
\ntribal art theft as a result of the increasing popularity of
\ntribal art and the rise of tourism. The first recorded theft of a
\ntau-tau death effigy happened in 1971. The theft increased
\nproportionally with the rise of tourism in Tana Toraja.<\/p>\n
As the two articles state, the popularity of Indonesian tribal
\nart actually threatens Indonesia's artistic heritage. Popularity
\nhas not fostered growth, but rather threatened continuity. The
\ndeterioration of Indonesian art could well be a result of its
\npopularity rather than neglect. That is the art dilemma.<\/p>\n
Why painting is the most popular art form is hard to explain.
\nPerhaps collectors have considered the problems in collecting
\ntribal art, problems that cause a dilemma in the effort to
\nrepopularize tribal and regional Indonesian art.<\/p>\n
Authenticity and legitimacy are most important to art
\ncollecting. The more authentic an artifact, the more questionable
\nits legitimacy becomes. Collectors of authentic and even sacred
\nobjects are starting to worry about their proprietary rights over
\nthe pieces, as a result of the ambiguous and often misunderstood
\nNational Heritage Act of 1992. A stigma is attached to collecting
\nauthentic tribal objects.<\/p>\n
By contrast, there is no stigma at all in collecting authentic
\npaintings. The more you can prove that your painting is a real
\nHendra, for example, the prouder you are expected to be.<\/p>\n
National identity also seems to be involved in collecting
\npainting. Most critics would agree that Indonesian painting
\nemerged along with the rise of Indonesian nationalism. Although
\nindigenous painters have always existed, true Indonesian painting
\nwas born with the formation of Persagi in 1938 and was nurtured
\nduring the war for independence from 1945 to 1949. Today, artists
\ncontinue to search for an Indonesian cultural identity through
\nthe medium of painting.<\/p>\n
Collecting Indonesian paintings can be loosely associated with
\nthe process of nation building. By collecting paintings instead
\nof tribal art, collectors avoid the accusation of \"raping the
\nancestors\" of a certain tribal group. Collecting paintings about
\nIndonesia is also associated with preserving a truly national
\nIndonesian patrimony.<\/p>\n
A significant portion of art collectors in the country are
\nIndonesians of Chinese descent. For these non-indigenous
\ncollectors, buying paintings on Indonesia seems part of the
\nprocess of becoming Indonesian. Through depictions of the
\ncountry, Indonesian citizens reflect on their national history<\/p>\n
Collecting and promoting Indonesian tribal and regional art
\nmight seem as noble and perhaps nationalistic an effort as
\ncollecting and promoting Indonesian painting is considered.
\nHowever, due to the dilemma tribal art is bound to face, the art
\nparadox continues to prevail. The various Indonesian arts should
\ndefinitely not \"fade into oblivion,\" as the Post's editorial
\nwarns, but the art dilemma must be solved before the art paradox
\nin order to foster the diversity of Indonesian art.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/putting-paradox-before-the-dilemma-in-art-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}