Contemporary trends in Indonesian art

By Chandra Johan

JAKARTA (JP): Contemporary art is a plural phenomena. In Indonesia, contemporary art is also a continuation of the development of modern art. Modern as well as contemporary, their unique characteristics and notions can be analyzed, in so far as the observation is based on the pluralistic conviction that art anywhere in the world, besides showing international characteristics, also possesses local traits.

Although it is a continuation of modern art, contemporary art shows a different development pattern. While modern art knows a linear development, contemporary art leaves the linear development pattern. As long as we use the term "contemporary art", this consideration cannot be ignored.

In contemporary art, there appears to be a rediscoursing of all agreements which are basic in art. So, there are several redefinition or de-definition concepts of art in contemporary art. Part of the rediscoursing in contemporary art is the tradition of modern art, which believes in the superiority of art -- sculpture, painting, graphic art -- as a form of expressive media.

In the development of Indonesian art, a contemporary concept of art is a nearer approach to reality because basically Indonesian art is really very heterogeneous. Even modern art which, in the Euro-American-centric concept, believes in one standard, is broken into several tendencies in Indonesia. The differences mostly do not depend on the difference of intensity of touching upon international art and the intensity of the influences of the situation and local culture.

In most cases, this tendency was clear since the 1980s and the Jakarta Art Bienniale 1993.

Jim Supangkat brought the point to the forefront at the curators' bienniale consideration: "So I need to stress once again the tendency that appears in Jakarta Art Bienniale IX is not the only contemporary Indonesian art that has many patterns. But misinterpretation seems still to be spreading. There are even comments which sternly threaten the development of installation works that will kill (how horrifying) the development of other arts.

"This kill and be killed attitude is a tradition in modern art, which on one side believes in domination (therefore also survivalism, and an elbowing strategy) and on the other side, believes too much in a conviction (one standard) as the only truth, that is there is only one art, others are not."

According to Jim, as long as we agree with his arguments, the anxiety that the tendencies of the contemporary art bienniale 1993 will dominate the development of contemporary art in the future is senseless. Compared with art that appears in a series of exhibitions in art centers and private galleries nowadays, the presence of contemporary art means relatively little. This art still has not attracted business and is made only because of idealistic commitments, and its appearance, in many ways, depends on the subsidy by the artist.

Recognizing the tendency in contemporary art, as Jim put it, is to recognize the bases through art discourse, without having to oppose with tendency bases of other contemporary art. In Indonesia, discourse even plays a role for modern art, which is influenced by local image, social conditions and decorative sensibilities. While modernism has not really become a main factor in this modern art, it is very possible that this art is to be called contemporary. Momentarily, only the development of the 1980s has produced sufficient materials to be investigated as theoretical discourse.

Therefore, among several tendencies of our contemporary art -- which need to be centered one by one -- the development in the 1980s is the clearest in showing the growth of contemporary Indonesian art. The conflict at the basis of art development in the 1980s was substantially different from developments before. But, actually, the term "contemporary art" is not merely the change of a name. Consideration is needed to use that term. Actually, we have been late in witnessing the contemporary art paradigm in our development of art. However, discussion of the term contemporary art, anywhere, is slower than the development of the art itself. Even in international art circles, where the term was born at the end of the 1960s, the real base behind the term cannot be seen.

Recognizable is the tendency to redefine and de-define -- the end of linear "ism" development and the appearance of new art concepts, like Minimal Art, Post-studio Art, Scattered Art, Conceptual Art, Pop Art, etc.

Basic changes in contemporary art became clearer when issues and debates about postmodernism appeared on the surface. Especially in the 1970s, when thoughts about postmodernism in art touched with several new thoughts which were in rhythm with the philosophy and social science. The confusion of postmodernism occurred a few years ago, with postmodernism becoming a problematic term. This issue possesses a dimension and horizon of observation which is very variable. So, postmodernism in the development of thoughts about the art should not be "totaled" with postmodernism, although there are several similarities. Postmodernism in art cannot be forced to reflect postmodernism as a whole.

However, postmodernism in art does not have a clear definition. In three decades as an issue in architecture and art, the understanding has changed and changed again. So it is absurd to think that postmodernism is a stream, view or ideology which could be imported and peddled in Indonesia. Or to think that it is a reference that could be memorized and practiced purely and consequently.

To question postmodernism is to question our position in the international art circles. This also was the idea in the curation of the Jakarta Art Bienniale 1993, which anticipated the appearance of the development of art in several alternative galleries which, through their own efforts, are capable of penetrating international art circles.