Changes needed at Jakarta Biennale

By Amir Sidharta

JAKARTA (JP): Many people come out of the 11th Jakarta Biennale feeling disappointed. The event is far from being a biannual event presenting the most current art forms created in Indonesia.

Instead, it is noting more than a show of a kind of conservative "salon" with exclusive membership. It is clear that the Jakarta Biennale is trying to uphold a "status quo" in the art field.

The exhibition features, among others, the works of Srihadi Soedarsono, Kartika Affandi, Nyoman Gunarsa, Nunung WS, Yanuar Ernawati and Hanafi.

The only newcomer featured in the event is George "Odji" Lirungan, an emerging artist who recently had a solo exhibition at Taman Ismail Marzuki's Cipta gallery.

Although the artists in the show have managed to maintain the quality of the works, none of them have offered any considerable artistic breakthrough in the paintings they are showing here.

The curators of the event defended their work in this biennial by claiming it to be an "evaluation" of the previous 10 biennials held since 1972.

However, the presentation of the show does not reflect this concept. If the curators were serious in their efforts they could have obtained two to three works reflecting different periods of the artists' development and showed them in the exhibition.

In any event, the notion of evaluation seems to be contradictory to the idea of biennials, which is supposed to present the most current art forms over the last two years. So, the notion of an "evaluation biennial" is certainly an oxymoron.

Just before the opening of the show, an artwork by artist Hanura Hosea was taken down by the curators after it had been installed.

The curators considered the work to be unsuitable for the event, as it was an installation and not a painting. They asserted that this biennial, like the previous biennial, was a biennial of painting. An incident like this clearly shows neglect on the part of the curators.

The curators claimed to have conducted a comprehensive survey of the art works, either by visiting the artists themselves, by obtaining information from certain regional advisors, or reviewing photographs sent by the artists.

This has resulted in the participation of artists from 17 towns, and this effort of gathering artists from different regions of the country does deserve commendation.

However, it seems that the curators were only concerned with the names of the artists they invited to participate in the biennial, but they did not pay much attention to their works.

As a result, they did not realize that the work that Hanura Hosea was going to submit was not a painting. Whatever the reason might be, the curators had a lame excuse. Their rejection of a work of an artist who they had actually invited to participate in the biennial seems to be unethical and should not have been tolerated. Furthermore, whether biennials should be limited to only paintings should also be questioned.

Many artists were particularly disappointed by the lack of a definite criteria for inclusion into the event. An artist questioned why he had not been invited. He became even more disappointed when one of the curators told him that the curators limited invitations to artists who had participated in previous biennials. "If that is the case, how can one expect to be able to enter the Jakarta Biennale then?" the artist asked.

It is not true that all of the participants of the 11th Jakarta Biennale participated in previous biennials. It is certain that George Lirungan did not participate in any of the previous biennials.

It is unclear whether participation in previous biennials is actually a prerequisite for this biennial, or if the curator was just making it up.

Some artists who participated in previous Jakarta biennials, but who were not invited to participate in this year's event, also questioned the criteria for inclusion.

One of the curators explained that they had to work under various limitations, including limitations of space, time and funding, and this caused them to limit the number of artists they could invite to the event. If this is the case, that some artists were favored over others could also be questioned.

The presentation of the 11th Jakarta Biennale, with all its shortcomings, emphasizes the need for reforms in the event's organization.

For one thing, it seems certain that the Fine Art Committee of the Jakarta Arts Council is inept at putting the show together. The members of the committee correctly identified the need to select a single curator capable of offering a vision for the event, and set a definite criteria for selection of the works to be included in the show.

But only changing the curator would not be enough to remedy the situation. It seems that the committee needs to be revitalized, electing younger and more dynamic members. Perhaps the effort could even go as far as restructuring the entire Jakarta Arts Council and its working relationship with the Jakarta Arts Center and the Jakarta Arts Foundation.

The writer is curator of Universitas Pelita Harapan Museum in Karawaci, West Java, and a jury of the Philip Morris Arts Awards.