Social criticism's role in contemporary art

Social criticism's role in contemporary art

By Chandra Johan

JAKARTA (JP): The history of Indonesian art is also the
history of Indonesian society. Since the birth of Indonesian
modern art in the 1930s, social criticism and the problem of
social struggle have become a part of the discourse that is
conspicuous enough in the representation of the works of
Indonesian modern artists.

Social representation becomes stronger when nationalism
influences our artists and their art becomes a tool or medium of
social and political struggles. However, artworks in Indonesia
not only are a tool of criticism, but also objects of criticism.
To put it succinctly, social criticism in our art causes
criticism of the art itself or vice versa.

The rejection of the Association of Indonesian Illustrators
(Persagi) of the "Mooi Indie" genre of art, for instance, was not
merely opposition against works of art and the principle of art,
but balked at the restrictive social and political system present
during Dutch colonialism. Mooi Indie was an idealized style of
painting, belonging to a dominant social system and dominant
discourse, which glossed over realities of the lives of ordinary
Indonesians.

A mountain, a coconut tree or rice field in Mooi Indie
paintings in the eyes of Persagi artist S. Sudjojono were not
merely objects, but reflected the ideology of a social system.

The New Art Movement in the mid 1970s which bucked the
dominant tradition of fine arts did not only dispute the
pictorial of line, color, space or form, but was a rebellion
against the "ivory tower" discourse which prevailed at that time,
when art was considered isolated from society. Idealization
criticized in the artworks was countered by the creation of the
de-idealization values. Art, they said, must express more of its
environment and society, to reflect the era and become an
"antennae of society".

By bringing daily objects into the gallery, the movement
denied the "art eternity" which had become a social convention,
even a reflection of certain values of its community. The
movement did not only deride art, but also society, mainly the
habits of the elite. Criticism meant criticism against social
convention.

Today, in the works of contemporary artists -- whether
installation, paintings or other medium -- social, cultural,
political and environmental problems often become a source for
creating. Artists deal not only with aesthetic aspects; as with
society, they are also aware of social, cultural, political,
environmental and gender issues. The tendency inevitably becomes
stronger in line with the advent of political euphoria today. In
each representation, these contemporary artists create metaphors
or symbols which reject oppression, authoritarianism, domination,
violence, etc., while taking sides with the oppressed and the
marginalized in the capitalistic economic system.

It is evident in a number of recent exhibitions and art
movements, such as Stone Order (Moelyono), Tubuh (Oky Arfie &
Hafiz), Rape'n Rob (Arahmaiani), Wearable (Asia-Pacific Artists),
Virtual Reality (Heri Dono), Kawat Duri (Dan Hisman), Knalpot
(Group), Tumbal (Hendro Suseno), Bullshit (Odji Lirungan), Ayam
Mati Dalam Lumbung (Liem Keng Sien), and Pacul (Gigih Wiyono).

The social criticism of these contemporary artists should be
seen not only thematically, but also in the manifestation of
aesthetic form or their presentation. They no longer care whether
the work is called art or not. It is plainly evident in
Moelyono's and Arahmaiani's works and pieces from Apotik Komik
and Taring Padi in Yogyakarta.

Moelyono's drawings, which use cheap and simple frames, are a
protest against the eternity and elitism of modern paintings
which are manifested in luxurious, expensive frames. Aware that
most people can understand realistic and simple drawings, this
artist is deliberately unpretentious in the presentation of
obscure visual manifestations.

An intent to communicate art to the community at large has
been a problem of Indonesian artists from the 1940s until today.
While the search for national identity bore the question "what is
the relation between Indonesian art and the existing culture",
the search is actually a search of norms, and that question is a
question of legalizing and justification of Indonesian modern art
in the midst of marginalized traditional culture.

Since the marginalization of traditional culture in the modern
era cannot be avoided, cultural legalization is not the only
thing sought by Indonesian artists. They are also searching for
social legalization. What must Indonesian art be in order to be
confirmed in society and among the people of Indonesia? This
social legalization contains two main problems: the problem of
social function of art -- what must be done so that a work of art
can be useful for the society and people. Second, it is the
problem of appreciation and what is needed so that Indonesian art
can be understood by the people to provide benefits.

The problems have led a number of artists to consciously
position their art as a tool of social communication, like Apotik
Komik and Taring Padi. However, at this point, and also in
reality, each modern or contemporary work of art finds its
contradiction in itself as well as in society at large.

But as the artists strive to be accepted by society or to
reflect a certain condition, their works actually become more
distant from society. In reality, people are more capable of
understanding the message contained in the garish pictures in
pedicabs, trucks, comic strips and film posters.