Deviation, rebellion and modern Indonesian art

Deviation, rebellion and modern Indonesian art

By Chandra Johan

JAKARTA (JP): Deviation, rebellion and new movements have
characterized the journey of modern fine arts, whether in
Indonesia or in other parts of the world. In Indonesia, it was
Sindu Sudjojono who first rejected the way his teacher, Mas
Pirngadi, idealized nature in his paintings. That was in l928,
and since then the Indonesian tradition of fine arts has had many
other pioneers of "rebellion" and "deviation".

At that time, Sudjojono felt that the world of Indonesian fine
arts, especially paintings, was stagnant, sterile and suffering
from "anemia", because of taboos that posed as general
limitations. Those taboos were manifested in landscape paintings,
represented by the Dutch and the European middle-class (the
bourgeois), which, in fact, were oriented to the market and a
foreign tourist interest in Indonesian exoticism.

Sudjojono and Persagi's rejection of this tradition is
considered the beginning of modern Indonesian fine arts, even
preceding the words "rebellion" and "deviation" in the Indonesian
fine arts vocabulary. On the part of the bourgeoisie who
established the genre of Indonesian exoticism through paintings
of Mooi Indie landscapes, Sudjojono had clearly rebelled and
deviated. But on the other hand, he was freed, therefore
implanting an awareness with his concept of the democratization
of creation and visualization that modern Indonesian painting was
a democratic art.

As a consequence, acts of deviation and rebellion showed that
modern art was marked by a democratic character. People could
have the freedom to like or dislike a certain form of art.
However, not every deviation always runs smoothly. Because of its
democratic nature, the establishment also has the right to refuse
any form of deviation on behalf of the New. They, who in their
youth supported changes or progress, are unable to sit back and
allow just form of change or deviation from the norm.

There are several factors which explain why any change or
deviation within modern Indonesian art is often first rejected.
First, critics and the artists themselves are overly certain of
the infallibility of their own concepts. Critics and artists tend
to generalize based on a tendency and norm of the past, taking it
as a reference to judge the development of the human condition.
Sometimes the norms are not based on observations toward the
development of the society but on the norms of art itself. In
general, they assume that a society is unable to accept a new
form of art, without considering changes which occur in the
society itself.

The second factor, pertains to identity issues in the nation.
These questions occur not only in Indonesia, but in colonies
suffering paranoia. Such places tightly guard their own cultural
values and consider "the new" or "the other", especially material
identified as originating from the West, as a threat. In point of
fact, as long as an artist attempts to present himself, the
search for national identity is not a realized step.

A third reason relating to the rejection of new art forms
relates to the desire to endow art with a role in society. The
rejection of a new art trend is often based on a consideration of
the distance between what is modern and the society in question.
This concept neglects change in society, basing the judgment from
a purist art angle. In this sense, a gulf exists between modern
art and society.

In fact, it is because of the rapid changes in the society
itself, beginning with the social system, science, technology,
industrialization and the penetration of mass culture that the
arts became marginalized activities. Practices, in which the
activities of artists can only be observed in galleries or
buildings, for the enjoyment of a handful of people. So the
distance between modern art and society is not the result of one-
sided change, but of multiple massive changes in society,
including the world of art, which create heterogeneity and
plurality.

Therefore, you will find there is no single form of art which
could precisely represent the wishes of a society. In the history
of modern Indonesian art, the enforcement of a form of art in the
society resulted in the assumption that the form of people's art
was the only ideal, and a priori toward another form of art, so
that realism was considered the only suitable form.

The fourth factor is related to academic standards. In modern
Indonesian art academies separate every field; specialization,
standardization, professionalism are an inseparable part of the
development and modernization process. Narrowing each field of
activity means narrowing the media, method and valuation.

But standardization in the academies of modern art is
sometimes contradictory. First because each academy has a general
standard. But from this general standard subjective standards
should not be rejected. These standards are surely not recorded
in the list of the institutional aims (preference) of the
academy.

Teachers in the modern fine arts academies are generally
artists, who certainly bring subjective values with them.
Although each teacher refers to established academic general
standards, it is not impossible that subjective values influence
the teaching system.

So, when an artist is called a deviator and a rebel, it might
be because s/he steps outside the general academic standard, but
also because they do not conform to the teachers' own subjective
standards. In certain fine arts academies, the individual style
of the artist-teacher often influences the students, giving an
impression of a uniform style and trend to that academy.

It cannot be denied that this was the case at the School of
Art and Design at the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), the
Indonesian Institute of the Arts (ISI) in Yogyakarta, and the
Institute of the Arts in Jakarta (IKJ). Has not our modern art
history be known to have (mazhab) (schools of thought), like the
Bandung School or the Yogya School? Doesn't Achmad Sadali, as an
artist and former ITB teacher, exert a strong influence on the
Bandung style? So, when there is a new form of art which is
different from the established general form, the work and the
artist are considered rebellious and deviators from the
determined definitions. Rejection of a new art trend is contrary
to the characteristics and nature of modern art itself, which
supports plurality and individual freedom.

Those four factors occur in each era, and often lead to heated
debates. However, not every deviation and rebellion can be
equated with innovation. It is possible that the tool or media
used by the artist originates from an old tendency, but the way
it is used is different, as is the case of many installation
works of contemporary art.