The art paradox

The art paradox

With an average annual per capita income in Indonesia of less than US$ 1,000, it is little wonder that many Indonesians are boggled by the Rp 5.5 billion (US$2 million) paid for The Deer Hunt, a painting by 19th century Indonesian artist Raden Saleh, at a Christie's auction in Singapore last week. "With that kind of money, you could buy 170 brand-new taxis and provide jobs for 500 drivers," a Jakarta taxi driver was overheard remarking.

Others see it differently. Some people have commented that the record price confirms that the Indonesian super rich have reached the stage where they can afford to do whatever they want with their money. Some time ago, for example, a daughter of a well- known Indonesian tycoon bragged that she is one of a handful of people worldwide who possess a Chopard watch. One of the diamond encrusted watches puts the buyer back a mere Rp 5 billion. These supra-elite, some observers have insisted, are proof that national development is a success. In reality, they illustrate how wide the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" has become.

One critic commented that the high price The Deer Hunt fetched proves that Indonesian painting is experiencing a second boom. The first boom began in 1991 after Indonesian paintings were reintroduced to the world at an exhibition in America. The boom is supported by the belief that collecting paintings is a sound investment.

Some people argue that the purchase of The Deer Hunt for well above its estimated value of US$ 600,000 to $900,000 by an anonymous Indonesian collector is a nationalistic notion by a person wanting to repatriate the nation's heritage.

Whatever the case, the astonishing price paid for Raden Saleh's painting indicates how deeply Indonesians have been duped, and perhaps lulled, by this so-called Indonesian painting boom. In recent years the price of paintings here have soared to unprecedented levels, bolstered by the lack of clear-cut price standards on the market. Painting exhibitions seem to open, particularly in Jakarta, almost every day. Many are officially opened by cabinet ministers. New art galleries are springing up in many Indonesian cities.

Meanwhile, other fine art forms are languishing or are being marginalized. There is only one photography gallery in Indonesia. Sculpture, tapestry and drawing exhibitions are very rare. Last year, the first Indonesian drawing exhibition in 16 years was organized in Jakarta.

Traditional art must brave an even graver future. Only Balinese art and the Asmat sculptures of Irian, due to their international reputations, continue to thrive. In the many other Indonesian subcultures, however, local arts are dying or are being trivialized by mass tourism.

Thus, a paradox prevails. Indonesians tend to overvalue and be overattentive to painting, while ignoring and remaining ignorant of the other fine arts. Being a nation that proudly points to its artistic people, this paradox is even more ironic.

Unless Indonesians reorientate their outlook, and then act accordingly, Indonesian art will deteriorate. Should the other arts really fade into oblivion?