Contemporary trends in Indonesian art

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.