ARTICULATING FIXER 2021 An Appraisal of Indonesian Art Collectives in the Last Decade
iv
PREFACE
F
IXER is a research initiative that collects and archives knowledge about the operating models and sustainability strategies of art collectives in Indonesia. This initiative started in 2010, when North Art Space, Jakarta, launched
a research project and exhibition called “Alternative Space & Art Groups in Indonesia,” later known as FIXER. The research project in 2010 involved 21 art groups and alternative spaces that had flourished between 2000-2010 across several cities in Indonesia. The first FIXER exhibition was curated by Ade Darmawan and Rifky Effendi, along with Mirwan Andan as researcher. Nearly a decade later, we have a renewed aspiration to record the dynamics of art collectives in Indonesia. Thus, Gudskul Ekosistem is now continuing the project of mapping and examining the development of art collectives over the last ten years, especially in the context of their sustainability strategies, artistic ideas and practices, and how these factors vary and interconnect across multiple generations and regions. Building upon FIXER’s previous research, the FIXER survey this time covers 59 art collectives spread across various locations in Indonesia. FIXER’s aspiration to record the dynamics of art collectives in Indonesia is motivated by an awareness of the significant growth of the Indonesian art ecosystem over the last 11 years. This is marked by the emergence of a multitude of collectives with various artistic practices—some of which have received recognition from international art communities. The growth of art collectives in many regions in Indonesia has led to the birth of numerous artistic events and initiatives, which have been organized without facilitation by the state. To cite Ade Darmawan in the 2010 FIXER catalog, the emergence of these art collectives or groups needs to be seen as “an effort to respond to changes in the society, for the sake of the development of
Preface
with the reality in the society.”1 On that basis, we believe that an ongoing survey is needed to record developments in the practices of these art collectives. However, in the current survey we do not stop at just recording; there is also an aspiration to expand this research initiative into a common platform that, one day, can become a bridge for collectives, organizations, and alternative spaces in Indonesia to connect, support each other, and share resources.
The Significance of Art Collectives in Indonesia In an essay, Sanento Yuliman wrote that collective expressions in art have deep cultural roots in Indonesia. This is due to the social ties imbued in the life of traditional communities in Indonesia. These collective artistic expressions are still very common today in various communities in Indonesia. In the process of bolon house construction among the Batak community, for example, the collective participation of the community is a necessity. Some people will be busy laying out the structure of the house; others are in charge of installing the roof; while those with certain talents will work on the intricate gorga carvings around the façade of the house. It is the same with the Balinese, who have endless cycle of ceremonies throughout their lives, art as a collective expression becomes everyday reality and is passed down from one generation to next. As Sanento wrote, it “is integrated with collective life, becoming an inseparable part of people’s lives.”2 Although this kind of collective artistic expression is still alive in society, knowledge about it has been absent from art academies in Indonesia. This is because the knowledge taught in art education institutions consists of the modern art forms developed in the Ade Darmawan, “Fixing the Chain of the Cycle of Ideas” in FIXER: Alternative Spaces and Art Groups in Indonesia, catalog (Jakarta: North Art Space, 2010), p. 15. Sanento Yuliman, “Keindonesiaan, Kerakyatan dan Modernisme dalam Kritik Seni Lukis di Indonesia,” in Estetika yang Merabunkan, eds. Danuh Tyas Pradipta, Hendro Wiyanto, Puja Anindita (Jakarta: Penerbit Gang Kabel, 2020).
1
2
Research Team
v
ideas of art practices that are more relevant and immediately involved
vi
West—prioritizing rationalism and individual expression. Sanento’s essay provides an early sketch of how modern art came to Indonesia and marked many socio-cultural fractures and shifts, such as “loosened regional boundaries” and “the breakup of old traditions”, which enabled the birth of a “new art at a distance from society”, a “manifestation of national consciousness (...) that must be disseminated beyond the boundaries of regional traditions to a public of diverse cultural backgrounds.” Meanwhile, the collective art expression of traditional art forms was “becoming more marginalized (...) less and less seen” while some other art forms were “in decline or neglected,” and even “corrupted.” Perhaps Sanento’s conception of collective art was derived from a very limited perspective, but he wrote as if this small fragment was representative of the whole. In addition, it is very possible that Sanento’s conception of collective artistic expression was situated in a vacuum, where there was a certain standard of quality—to distinguish what was corrupt and what was not, and guaranteed that the forms of expression seen as traditional were exempt from changing across time. We can surmise that what Sanento described is not entirely accurate by comparing it with sociologist Umar Kayam’s travelogue, which invites us to see the cultural expressions of various communities, from Aceh Gayo, Dayak Kenyah Bakung, to Asmat. From his notes, one gets an impression that modernization appeared in many places, but collective expression was adaptable in the face of all kinds of change.3 Umar Kayam notably wrote about the art of didong— a collective art performance that consists of a group of men energetically singing and replying to each other all night long. Despite the difficult times during the Indonesian government’s military operation in Aceh, Gayo artists continued to practice didong. To this day, we can still find this art in the Gayo highlands, Central Aceh. The lyrics have evolved with the times and the artists have given way to a new generation. The Umar Kayam, Harri Peccinotti, Semangat Indonesia: Suatu Perjalanan Budaya, (Jakarta: Gramedia & Mobil Oil Indonesia, 1985).
3
Preface
everywhere in Indonesia. Through the various works of Umar Kayam—both fiction and nonfiction—we get a picture of how modernity and traditionality often go hand in hand. This kind of eclecticism remains common, even in the most heterogeneous societies in some cities of Java, where rationality can coexist with spirituality, and individuality is intertwined with collectivity. Although we may suspect that such mixtures are very likely to occur in opportunistic and situational contexts, it’s worth emphasizing that the cultural memory of these traditional ties has never been completely lost in Indonesian society— or in other communities around the world that have experienced, or continue to experience, forced modernization. The idea of hybridity was championed by Ki Hajar Dewantara during the Cultural Polemic in the 1930s. At that time, the scholar Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana became a representative of modernists who believed in advancing Indonesia by way of comprehension and implementation of progressive Western values, such as materialism, intellectualism, and individualism. In the opposite camp, Ki Hajar Dewantara considered that the implementation of progressive Western values must be matched with traditional values in the life of the Indonesian nation, namely spiritualism, compassion, and collectivism.4 In fact, the development of modern art in Indonesia has never been separate from the spirit of collectivism. It began with the formation of Seniman Indonesia Muda (SIM—Young Indonesian Artists) in 1946; Lembaga Seniman Indonesia Tionghoa (Yin Hua Meishu Xiehui, the Chinese Indonesian Artists Association) in 1949;5 Lembaga Kebudayaan Rakyat (Lekra—the People’s Cultural Institute) in 1950; Lembaga Seniman dan Budayawan Muslim (Lesbumi—the Indonesian Polemik Kebudayaan, ed. Achdiat K. Mihardja (Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 1948); the digitalized version can be accessed from http://archive.ivaa-online.org/khazanahs/detail/3749. Brigitta Isabella, Yerry Wirawan, “Praktik Seni Rupa Seniman Tionghoa Indonesia 1955-1965,” in Hibah Penulisan Seni Visual IVAA (2015), a project by IVAA and Ford Foundation to support archiving of visual art in Indonesia.
4
5
Research Team
vii
resilience of traditional art isn’t exclusive to Gayo; it can be found
viii
Muslim Artists and Culture Activists Association) in 1954;6 Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru Indonesia (GSRBI—the Indonesian New Art Movement) in 1974; Decenta in 1975; Kelompok Kepribadian Apa (PIPA—What Personality Group) in 1977; Jaringan Kerja Kebudayaan (JAKER— Cultural Networks) in 1989; up to the emergence of artist groups in the ‘90s, including Kelompok Seni Rupa Jendela (1993), Apotik Komik (1997), Taring Padi (1998), KUNCI Study Forum & Collective (1999), HONF (1999), and Tanahindie (1999). Apart from those mentioned, there have also been studios that accommodate artists’ need for space—to gather, have a process, and create. Some of these are Sanggar Jiwa Mukti (1948), Sanggar Seniman Kartono Yudhokusumo (1952), Sanggar Bambu (1959), Sanggar Bumi Tarung (1961), Akademi Seni Rupa Surabaya (AKSERA—the Surabaya Fine Arts Academy) (1967), and Sanggar Dewata (1970). This fact can actually serve as a premise about the contribution of artist groups, collectives, or studios and their long history in the development of modern art in Indonesia. And this tendency to gather together continued into the 2000s, and until today. In fact, it has recently emerged strongly in various regions. In his article in this book, Hendro Wiyanto— quoting Ugeng T. Moetidjo—notes that the emergence of numerous artist groups in the last 20 years has marked a shift in artistic practice from activism to collectivism. One of the impacts is the positional shift of the public in an artistic work. If artist-activists in the 1980s “presented the individual voice of the artist” and saw the exhibition hall as “a terminal for an activist’s adventures and explorations,” then an art collective of the 2000s “echoes the struggle of identification regarding issues of citizenship” and uses public space as its “arena, target, engagement, victory, and defeat.” An attempt to identify this shift in artistic practice is very likely to be developed in the future, given the wide variety of the practices in Indonesia today that dissolve into everyday life, making them difficult to measure in conventional terms. The fusion of collective artistic practice with social practice was a 6
Choirotun Chisaan, Lesbumi: Strategi Politik Kebudayaan (Yogyakarta: LKiS, 2008).
Preface
“art collective”? How do we differentiate between the practice of an art collective and the work of a local neighborhood youth group? How do we assess the artistic practice of an art collective whose members are not artists? In truth, the questions above reflect the diversity of forms, principles, and practices of various art collectives that are growing in Indonesia today. Thus, the definition is not limited to their institutional structure. There are even art collectives that do not call themselves “art collectives”. Instead, our definition of them refers to their prominent principles of collectivity. Hence, the definition of an art collective in Indonesia is not limiting, or even exclusionary, and in fact allows a further development along the shift in practices that may arise in the future. Gesyada Siregar, in her essay in this book, tries to pursue the intertwining insights to be used in detecting art collectives’ practices that are often amphibious and take the form of institutional experimentation. As far as this survey has been conducted, we have come to understand that art collectives are awareness, method, and survival strategy that generally emerge on the basis of a certain closeness; have dynamic collaborative relationships; have an interest and need to learn, grow, and work together; share resources and the workload of managing a space/forum; strive for independence; and have a division of labor and artistic articulation in expressing opinions. Typically, membership in art collectives is open and managed in a joyful spirit. The form of the organization is also fluid, in congruence with the needs and context of the place in which a collective appears or is situated: some are formal, but many more are organic.
Research Team
ix
crucial starting point for this survey: Is there a rigorous definition of
x
Designation of Organization7
From the designations above, we can conclude that collectives’ names or designations can largely overlap. The definition of a collective is not predetermined but evolves over time and throughout the context in which they work. Some collectives have more than one definition. This indicates that any singular designation might actually limit the full range of their potential creative work.
One can also conclude that a collective is a way of working. The organizational structure can take any form. This is perhaps because a collective cannot apply for a legal status as a collective per se since, in the legal nomenclature of organizations in Indonesia, “collective” as a category doesn’t exist. 7
In the FIXER survey, this question allows a collective to choose more than one answer.
Preface
we found that several art collectives or groups still exist; some have evolved and changed their names; others have disbanded. However, disbanding here does not mean a dead end, because in many cases members of art collectives that have disbanded went on to form other collectives. For them, an art collective is not only a medium for channeling artistic expression, but also a social forum or even a mode of survival. This answers a classic question: How can a collective’s artwork enter and be accepted by the art market? First, most art collectives have no idea about, nor dependence on, market mechanisms. Theirs have a different character compared to artist groups that are oriented toward a certain artistic medium. Second, most art collectives position their artistic practice as a method for achieving social goals. Their artworks cannot be neatly framed as commodities, but can include various forms of interdisciplinary work. Ayos Purwoaji, in his essay in this book, writes, “[t]heir process of art creation—and the artworks produced—can only be seen from a certain vantage point because it requires a long timespan and involves the participation of many parties.” The absence of a direct relationship between the artistic practices of art collectives and the mechanisms of the art market is interesting and deserves further examination. In this survey, we try to map collectives’ sustainability strategies—not only in terms of ideas, but also in an economic sense. How do these collectives survive? How do they map their resources? Through various interviews, we discovered that there is a diversity of resources that sustain the practices of art collectives today. In the 1990s or even in the 2000s, some art collectives received support through foreign funding or resorted to dues, as described in Berto Tukan’s essay on factors leading to the emergence of art collectives. In it, he argues that in the last ten years there has been a diversification of resources, ranging from cooperation with the private sector, establishment of business cooperatives, securement of access to government funding, to building independent economic strategies
Research Team
xi
When comparing our study subjects to those in the FIXER 2010 survey,
xii
and developing community-based businesses. The definition of capital for art collectives in Indonesia is not limited to financial capital. Above all, various forms of social capital turn out to support their survival in more robust ways as an art collective. An interesting illustration of this appears in one of the interview sessions with an art collective that is more than ten years old and has not yet received external funding. Their works are not for sale, but they take part in various activities involving dozens of other art collectives in their region. Through interviews hosted by Ajeng Nurul Aini, also published in this book, representatives of these collectives share stories of their survival strategies. How do they survive as an art collective? Collective members we interviewed say that their collectives survive because of factors such as spare time, generosity, social relationship, shared sense of humor, etc. They fulfill their personal daily needs by working odd jobs, while art collectives function as their social fora and channels of expression. Since they never depend on the global art market, their existence is not influenced by fluctuations in market prices and value. In this context, independence must be understood as a form of resilience and sovereignty to support the social dimension of their artistic practices.
Working Together This survey was carried out for approximately 16 months (throughout 2019-2021) by a research team consisting of Ajeng Nurul Aini, Ayos Purwoaji, Berto Tukan, Gesyada Siregar, Dwita Diah Astari, and Gusti Hendra Pratama. Initially, we designed a qualitative research method in which every researcher was to travel and make direct observations of the art collectives across the various regions of Indonesia. Before setting out, the team conducted workshops to collect the names of potential art collectives, enrich our research literature, and invite two sources to share perspectives on youth collective culture and the basic anthropology of social networks. However, the COVID-19 pandemic turned this research agenda upside down. The method
Preface
remote interviews. There were survey sheets for 59 collectives, of which 49 responded, four responded through interview, and the remaining six did not respond. In these sheets, six aspects were the focus of our questions: (1) organization; (2) economic sustainability; (3) continuity of ideas; (4) artistic articulation; (5) carrying capacity and locality; and (6) communication and media. The responses were then processed into data and collectively studied by members of the research team. A review of the results was then verified through a series of remote interviews. These were also an attempt to obtain a variety of views between members of an art collective, especially one with a generational bias. Why is this important? Because in a collective, especially one with a long life, a dynamic interchange of ideas between generations inevitably occurs. It is likely that what the founder initially conceives an art collective to be is different from the conceptions of newly joined members. This difference in views or distance between generations is important because every generation within a collective will have different ideals. How can they bridge this difference? What is the division of authority and power in an art collective? How does an art collective pass on its ideas between its own members? Throughout 2020, the research team also paid attention to the several collectives that adjusted their normal activities and formed crisis units to respond to social problems faced by residents around them due to COVID-19. When exhibitions, residencies, or trips were canceled, art collectives did not become dormant and wait for the pandemic to pass. Some of them quickly organized workshops to produce personal protective equipment (PPE), built solidarity networks, organized distribution of masks, coordinated public kitchens, helped farmers distribute crops, opened community educational spaces to teach residents about the pandemic, invited residents to plant spices and medicinal plants, set up online workshops, and so on.
Research Team
xiii
was then adjusted, and we distributed survey sheets and conducted
xiv
One of those initiatives is recorded in this book by Nuraini Juliastuti, who writes about the collective garden Humatera, cultivated by the art collective Kerjasama 59 in Surabaya, East Java. When the pandemic hit, members of Kerjasama 59 realized that the crisis was likely to last a long time. So, they modified the roof of their rented house into a garden for various vegetables and plants, from eggplant, spinach, tomatoes, and chilies to rice. The initiative is based on “a desire to be able to meet their regular food needs, in the hope of reducing daily living costs.” In addition to Humatera, Kerjasama 59 collective also initiated Pawon’e Arek-Arek: a public kitchen that distributes free food to residents in need—the majority of whom are informal workers—every Friday. Nuraini writes about Kerjasama 59’s two pandemic initiatives as characteristic of a collective with an organic way of working and the flexibility to throw together activities designed toward achieving independence. To record such impromptu initiatives, the research team also created a WhatsApp group and a limited virtual chat session where collectives could share the local conditions and their activities in the first months of the pandemic.
A Multitude of Perspectives Not only presenting the research team’s articles, this time FIXER has also invited guest writers to enrich our study of the development of art collectives in Indonesia in the last ten years. They are Doni Ahmad, Hendro Wiyanto, Nuraini Juliastuti, and Renal Rinoza. In addition, FIXER has also invited writers from art collectives across a variety of contexts and practices, namely Jatiwangi art Factory, Hysteria, Pasirputih, Ladang Rupa, Rakarsa, Taring Padi, and Tikar Pandan, while Lakoat.Kujawas article is written by us based on interview and a short visit there. We hope that FIXER will become a decennary survey to record the development of art collectives and groups in Indonesia. It is hoped that continuous examination can provide adequate information and
Preface
the work and contribution of art collectives to the development of contemporary art in Indonesia. We would like to thank all parties that have been involved in and assisted in the process of FIXER 2021.
FIXER 2021 Research Team
Research Team
xv
materials for other researchers who are interested in documenting
xvi
Contents Preface..................................................................................iv Table of Contents................................................................. xvi
A Different Season on the Same Soil and Water: On the Emergence of Art Collectives........................................................................... The Art World’s Games: Between Realities and Metaphors..............................................
1
29
An Alternative for a Daring and Resilient Art Education.............................................................
43 From Tikar Pandan to FIXER...................................................... 55 As If Looking at the Weaving of Ampang: In Search of Art within Art Collective Practice in Indonesia................................................................
67
Anonymous Creativity: Activism and Collectivism.........................................................
99
Communal Tea-Drinking at Jatiwangi art Factory: An Analysis of the Effect on the Policies of Government, Family, Spouses, and Friends............................................................
127
Evoking Memories: Construing Taring Padi..........................................................
141
xvii
Plowing Soil, Spreading Seeds: Geographic Dispersion of Art Collectives in Indonesia 2010–2020........................................................
153
Lakoat.Kujawas and Mollo: Cultural Practice and Local Mutualism...............................................
181 Stories from Pasirputih......................................................... 195 Lumbung: Sharing Strength, Sharing Power......................... 217 Now or Ten More Years?........................................................
229
Juwana Softboned Milkfish Art Manifesto.........................................................................
269
Art to Live: Experimental Survival Strategies for Economic Independence in Alternative Cultural Arts Spaces........................................
289
Premature Evaluation: Co-operative As a Model for Collective Work in Bandung..........................
317
Afterword........................................................................... 332 Directory............................................................................ 338 Profiles.............................................................................. 372 Acknowledgement............................................................... 382 Publication Team................................................................. 384