Putting paradox before the dilemma in art

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.