Painting review

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