Putting paradox before the dilemma in art
By Amir Sidharta
JAKARTA (JP): The increasing attention paid to Indonesian painting attests to the prevailing art paradox mentioned in The Jakarta Post's editorial earlier this month. Referring to the surprising sale of Raden Saleh's Deer Hunt for the astronomical price of Rp 5.5 billion (US$2.3 million) at Christie's Singapore auction at the end of last month, the editorial pointed out that "Indonesians tend to overvalue and be overattentive to painting, while ignoring and remaining ignorant of the other arts."
The editor justifiably questions why other fine art, such as sculpture, tapestry, drawing and photography, has not received the same attention as painting has enjoyed. Then the editor brings to our attention the traditional art forms which "must brave an even graver future".
The editorial's claim that only Asmat sculpture and Balinese art, owing to their international eminence, continue to flourish, and that local arts are "being trivialized by mass tourism", may well be true.
The situation, however, is more complex than that. The reason more attention is paid to Indonesian painting than Indonesian tribal art is not just a matter of trends.
Laurence A. G. Moss, in his article International Art Collecting, Tourism, and a Tribal Region in Indonesia, published in Fragile Traditions; Indonesian Art in Jeopardy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994, ed. Paul M. Taylor), states that interest in Indonesian tribal art started to emerge in the 1920s, most probably following the first exhibitions of ethnographic material as art in European and North American museums. At the same time, modern artists such as Paul Gaugain, Paul Klee and Pablo Picasso became interested in primitivism.
Interest in collecting tribal art continued in the 1950s helped along with a growing knowledge of anthropology and the way of life of tribal peoples. The popularity of tribal art further increased during the 1960s and 1970s, in conjunction with the emergence of tourism in Indonesia. The international popularity of Indonesian tribal art culminated with a series of exhibitions and publications in the 1980s.
Moss writes that parallel to the rise in interest in tribal art, was a tremendous growth in the trade of tribal artifacts. Art galleries in Australia, France and the United States, as well as auction houses like Christie's and Sotheby's, started to pay great attention to Indonesian tribal art.
In the same publication, an article by Eric Crystal called Rape of the Ancestors: The Discovery, Display, and Destruction of the Ancestral Statuary of Tana Toraja tells of the emergence of tribal art theft as a result of the increasing popularity of tribal art and the rise of tourism. The first recorded theft of a tau-tau death effigy happened in 1971. The theft increased proportionally with the rise of tourism in Tana Toraja.
As the two articles state, the popularity of Indonesian tribal art actually threatens Indonesia's artistic heritage. Popularity has not fostered growth, but rather threatened continuity. The deterioration of Indonesian art could well be a result of its popularity rather than neglect. That is the art dilemma.
Why painting is the most popular art form is hard to explain. Perhaps collectors have considered the problems in collecting tribal art, problems that cause a dilemma in the effort to repopularize tribal and regional Indonesian art.
Authenticity and legitimacy are most important to art collecting. The more authentic an artifact, the more questionable its legitimacy becomes. Collectors of authentic and even sacred objects are starting to worry about their proprietary rights over the pieces, as a result of the ambiguous and often misunderstood National Heritage Act of 1992. A stigma is attached to collecting authentic tribal objects.
By contrast, there is no stigma at all in collecting authentic paintings. The more you can prove that your painting is a real Hendra, for example, the prouder you are expected to be.
National identity also seems to be involved in collecting painting. Most critics would agree that Indonesian painting emerged along with the rise of Indonesian nationalism. Although indigenous painters have always existed, true Indonesian painting was born with the formation of Persagi in 1938 and was nurtured during the war for independence from 1945 to 1949. Today, artists continue to search for an Indonesian cultural identity through the medium of painting.
Collecting Indonesian paintings can be loosely associated with the process of nation building. By collecting paintings instead of tribal art, collectors avoid the accusation of "raping the ancestors" of a certain tribal group. Collecting paintings about Indonesia is also associated with preserving a truly national Indonesian patrimony.
A significant portion of art collectors in the country are Indonesians of Chinese descent. For these non-indigenous collectors, buying paintings on Indonesia seems part of the process of becoming Indonesian. Through depictions of the country, Indonesian citizens reflect on their national history
Collecting and promoting Indonesian tribal and regional art might seem as noble and perhaps nationalistic an effort as collecting and promoting Indonesian painting is considered. However, due to the dilemma tribal art is bound to face, the art paradox continues to prevail. The various Indonesian arts should definitely not "fade into oblivion," as the Post's editorial warns, but the art dilemma must be solved before the art paradox in order to foster the diversity of Indonesian art.