Feeding our comfort quotient in modern Indonesian art

By Chandra Johan

JAKARTA (JP): When sekolah dasar (elementary school) was still called "sekolah rakyat" in the 1960s, drawing lessons were a boring subject for most pupils, even for those who were interested in art and showed talent in drawing.

For them, the subject was merely copying from the teacher's example.

"Copy" probably sounds strange, although in reality it was no stranger than how the subjects were taught by drawing teachers at the time. In general, elementary school teachers in the 1960s prepared materials which they liked and were popular, for example landscape drawing. The landscape paintings which were considered worthy always became a point of reference in the lesson.

Students were unable to discern whether they were expressing something in their drawing or merely copying. They used a combination of instinctive feeling and copying in their works.

What was felt and copied was basic; the subjects which were popular among teachers at the time were nature or landscapes.

Every student who realized these subjects were the most popular -- and wanted a good grade from the teacher -- drew them whether they liked them or not, carefully copying the example of how to draw a mountain, rice fields, the sky, a coconut tree and, sometimes, an electricity pole.

The latter at that time were not common, and not a significant subject to be presented, either because electricity was still uncommon for most people or because the subject could "damage" the composition of a landscape's beauty. It was odd, too, that human beings were also not important enough to be drawn, whether because the subject was difficult for the teacher to teach or for composition reasons.

If there were a number of subjects in the drawing composition, it meant the drawing patterns taught by the teachers were not being followed. Subjects such as goats, buffaloes, cows, cats or even dogs were seldom shown when drawing nature. Landscape drawings were supposed to be clean and not consulting reality. Although the unspoken rule was meaningless for talented or rebellious pupils, it is no wonder that the style of painting of Basuki Abdullah or Abdullah Sudjono was idolized by every drawing teacher at the time.

Landscape paintings were supposed to look clean, quiet and peaceful because the appreciation of beauty in our society conformed to that of Dutch East Indies painters from the highly stylized "Mooi Indie" genre.

"Mooi Indie" painters put values on different types of subjects. This hierarchy was caused by social conventions and values applied by the Dutch bourgeois at the time.

In feudal society, for example, a nobleman was more important than a carriage driver or vegetable seller, because feudalism determined status among people. In paintings, heroic events were more valued than a depiction of bargaining in the marketplace because of social convention. Animals like bulls and lions were considered of higher value than goats.

Raden Saleh wanted to paint noblemen, heroic events and the fight of a lion and a bull; he was not interested in showing everyday scenes. He accepted the conventional belief of some subjects having a higher value than others.

But Dutch East Indies painters did not believe that scenes from nature were of a lesser value. Eventually, scenes from nature became the main subject. Dutch East Indies painters drew from different social conventions than Raden Saleh; the values found in their depictions of scenery were the values of the bourgeois. To them, the landscape of Mt. Bromo, for instance, was of higher merit to paint than the dirty banks of the Ciliwung River in Jakarta.

Dutch East Indies paintings and Raden Saleh's works did not free their subjects from the upper-class values of that time. In this case, a work of art did not become autonomous because the value system and experience of one group was bapplied to another.

In this era of globalization, we no longer find the two types of paintings. We seldom witness a modern painter who paints nature a la Mooi Indie, maybe because they fear being called nonacademic and boorish. We also seldom see a modern painter showing a fight between a bull and a lion, because Raden Saleh's romanticist style is no longer popular.

The mainstream of our modern painting has developed with several styles and subjects, seemingly with no influence. Does this mean that our modern art is already democratic and pluralistic enough and freed from social conventions, such as the Dutch East Indies period painter or one from the feudal era? It cannot be stated for certain.

Our modern painting's mainstream trend has developed in line with the trends of the Indonesian upper class in modern society. Of course, it is a society possessing certain values, which are reflected in its lifestyle or philosophy. Contentment and comfort are part of our middle and upper class lifestyles, together with a "reach for the stars" philosophy in the world.

The values are reflected in the paintings on the market.

Paintings which reflect values of contentment, comfort and happiness will garner more attention than paintings showing gloom. Colorful paintings that are arranged well -- which are harmonious and pleasing on the eye and show "positive values" -- are considered more valuable than ones which are gloomy and use random colors reflecting chaos.

It is the reason why galleries in Indonesia, especially those which are commercially oriented, still tend to accept bright, calm and orderly paintings, over chaotic ones. During the New Order, chaos was identified with "subversive" works. Not surprisingly, the Indonesian Visual Art Foundation (YASRI) made a "happiness" criteria for works that could be auctioned and exhibited.