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.