Painting review
I always enjoy reading the articles of my colleague and fellow art writer, R. Fadjri. He usually offers good writing and analysis of the Indonesian fine arts scene. However, I must take exception to his most recent article, about Yogyakarta photo- realist painter Bambang Pramudiyanto (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 15, 1995).
Fadjri writes that Bambang "successfully treats realism in the true sense of the word, showing things as they really are." He also suggests that the primary attraction of Bambang's painting is that he "paints the car as he had taken a photo," and that one work is "clearly photographic realism, since the only interpretation can be of an old, carefully maintained car." He compares his work with that of Dede Eri Supriya, who he says "transform(s) visual facts into metaphors concerning social realities." His tone suggests he is puzzled by Bambang's success and finds Bambang's paintings boring.
I am surprised that anyone who is a serious art observer and writer could suggest there can only be one interpretation of a work of art -- as if there is, or could be, only one interpretation of reality itself! Bambang's work does indeed use photographic realism as a technique, and his mastery of this technique, along with our fascination with creations that successfully imitate visual reality, do indeed serve to draw viewers into his paintings. However, Bambang never simply "presents reality" to us. This isn't possible, since there is always a selection of reality. For example, why has he chosen as his primary object the automobile and other forms of motorized transportation? What is the meaning of this selection? The car is one of the most commonplace and ubiquitous objects in urban Indonesia today. Its very commonness makes it an object all viewers can relate to, although for most Indonesians, owning a car is still a fantasy and a most unreal thing to them. (Bambang himself cannot yet afford to own a car). The car is a also highly-charged symbolic object, representing for many Indonesians a complicated mess of feelings and ideas about success, progress, modernity, the New Order, the stress of modern living, speed, hierarchical social relationships and inequalities in economic development within Indonesia and between Indonesia and other countries.
Bambang often uses this loaded symbolism to convey messages to the viewer -- in other words, he transforms "visual facts into metaphors concerning social realities." Fadjri's comment is to the contrary. Bambang shows his intentions through the titles and objects of his paintings. Look, for example, at his painting, Competition without winner (1992, oil on canvas). It portrays a Jakarta taxi crumpled into a mess, its front end having struck the Colt minibus in front, which is so damaged it's unrecognizable, except for a side panel with a white number painted on it like a race car. This painting is clearly not just a picture of a car crash, but a symbolic commentary on the harsh competition of daily life in Jakarta. While according to some theories of capitalism such competition should make for greater strength, it is often indeed experienced as a process with no winners among the lower groups, like taxi and bus drivers, and the many people who must use public transportation.
When Fadjri says the painting Family Heritage can only have one meaning, that of "an old, carefully maintained car", he neglects to think about the title. Warisan, or family inheritance and heritage, is an important concept in Indonesia. Objects such as the keris (traditional dagger) and valuable batik tulis have been the family heritages of times past. What does it mean to suggest that now a car, a classic American car at that, has become the "family heritage"?
Bambang's message is often subtle. For example, his prize- winning Back to Nature painting gives rise in this viewer to thoughts about the consequences of modernization and industrialization, the increase in trash and problems with trash disposal, and the consequences of moving from a traditional, production-oriented economy to a modern, capitalist, consumption- oriented economy. The title is a bit ironic, since the only sign of nature in the painting, besides the rust on the body of the truck, is the few blades of grass visible in the lower right-hand corner of the painting. Will this truck really "return to nature", or will it always retain its human-made form, a symbol of human dreams as well as human follies? We don't know but can only imagine. The title makes it clear that Bambang wants us to imagine, not just admire a photograph-like painting of a truck front.
I would encourage readers of the Post to keep an open mind, and eye, about the work of Bambang and make the effort to see it for themselves.
SARAH E. MURRAY
Yogyakarta