The emergence of Indonesian modern art was signaled by the contradiction between the conservative colonial perceptions in art with a new tendency influenced by the European realism movement of 19th century. However, the conflict was not purely on esthetics. The contradiction between those perceptions had a social background.
The continuation of art of the colonial times can be sighted in the works of three landscape painters who emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. They were Raden Abdullah Suriasubroto (1878–1941), Wakidi (1889–1980) and Mas Pirngadi (1865–1936). These three painters are often cited as Indonesian art figures of the Dutch colonial period. They are also recorded as having passed on knowledge and painting skills to other indigenous painters.[1]
However, unlike the representative painting techniques of classic European painting, (which were linked to attempts to depict the realities of nature) the art of representative and realistic painting in Indonesia developed into a kind of craftsmenship—reminiscent of the tradition of handicrafting which was known as a part of traditional art. This skill exhibited that the development of art of that time was influenced by the esthetic framework of kagunan, a Javanese conception of fine art.[2] The beauty of nature in these crafted landscape paintings was the result of an esthetic transcendental experience related to poetic and lyrical sensibility. No wonder if many of the landscape painters, afterwards became “commercial” painters. These commercial artists produced landscape paintings by repeating certain patterns in their studios. Later, this practice was criticized by younger painters who called it cynically, mooi lndie (beautiful Indonesia).
During the last years of the colonial period, Raden Basoeki Abdullah (1914–1994)—the son of Abdullah Suriasubroto—was the best known of the indigenous Indonesian painters. From 1930 to 1940 he was recorded as having been very active in presenting exhibitions. This painter explored beauty and sensuality beside landscapes. Most of his works were depictions of beautiful women in portraits and as models, as well as female beauty as reflected in legend. This painter was also known as a worshiper of nobleness.
Basoeki Abdullah’s paintings exhibited a tendency toward the development of representative painting techniques that resulted in painstakingly realistic depictions. The painter came by this high level of skill through formal education in the Netherlands. The techniques exhibited in his paintings show very skillful drawing techniques, which were the specialty of Dutch art from the 19th century until the beginning of 20th century.
The emergence of this Indonesian modern art could be seen in particular when S. Sudjojono (1913–1986) began criticizing the paintings of Basoeki Abdullah. In 1939, he criticized Basoeki Abdullah who had expressed the concern that he could run out of subjects for painting. Sudjojono disapproved of Basoeki Abdullah’s view that only certain subjects had a high level artistic value, and were thus appropriate for use as subject matter in painting. In Sudjojono’s opinion, the subject matters that Basoeki Abdullah thought were of value had no roots in the truth, but rather only in convention. In Sudjojono’s opinion, what gives value to the painting is not convention, but “the soul of the painter.”[3]
Sudjojono did, indeed, play an important role in articulating new thoughts which later became the basis of Indonesian modern art and also the discourse of Indonesian modernism. His views, which later heavily influenced the development of Indonesian modern art, exhibited the fact that he was turning toward realism and believed in “honesty”. Sudjojono’s views clearly exhibited the belief that the beauty in art was not necessarily related to idealization, conventional esthetic measurements, sensuality, and the lives of the nobility. Beauty could also be found in the realities that convention defined as “not beautiful”. The dark side of life, the way of life of the rough and common people, also contained beauty. Sudjojono’s view can be compared with Gustave Courbet’s “realism” manifest (1861) which could be seen as regarding three points: (1) rejecting the conservative idealism’ (2) adapting the principles of positivism and (3) belief in the liberation of the individual as a political goal.
The tendency toward realism set forth by Sudjojono should not be viewed as only a challenge to the views on beauty. The realism principles were chosen because they were related to social realities. Sudjojono saw that within the feudal community a nobleman held more value than a carriage driver or a vegetable seller due to social conventions: feudalism established a vertical distance between human beings. Heroic events were considered to be of more value than the buying and selling of vegetables in the market place due to social conventions. And animals such as bulls and lions were viewed as having a higher value than goats.
Sudjojono rejected this hierarchy of reality and convention Painters, according to Sudjojono, must only resort to their own souls. To him painting was the visualization of the soul Because of that, painters must be free of the ties introduced by all forms of collectivity, so that they are ‘true’, that is, that they are capable of setting forth everything that is in their hearts, everything that stirs in their souls, in a pure, straightforward manner without any limitations. Painters must be free of conventional standards, tradition, and the conventional grouping of people. The soul of a painter visible in a painting is what gives value to that painting. In this way painters could truly paint anything and bring forth works of quality as long as they guarded the quality of the soul.[4]
There was a relationship between Sudjojono’s stance and the emergence of modernity on a larger scale. His thoughts had a direct connection with the idea of social reformation among the indigenous people during the last years of the colonial period. Here all of the new visions began to touch the awareness of modernity.
Sudjojono, like Basoeki Abdullah, came from feudal circles due to his father-in-law, Raden Sasmojo, the concierge of the art club in Jakarta, The Batavia Art Circle. His stance and vision were a continuation of the search for identity among the Javanese noble society which could be seen in Raden Saleh’s perception in the 19th century. Sudjojono’s struggle was part of a larger movement started in 1908. In this year the organization Boedi Oetomo was founded by Javanese scholars (most of them came from feudal families) based on concern for the education of the indigenous people. In the history of Indonesia, the emergence of this organization is seen as the rise of Indonesian nationalism. Later, Boedi Oetomo developed ideas on social reformation and modernism. These ideas became clear when in 1935/1936 a cultural discussion participated in by nearly all the Indonesian scholars and intellectuals of that time, debated nationhood and the future of Indonesia, including how modernity would function in Indonesia.[5]
Around the time of that cultural discussion, Sudjojono, along with a number of other painters, established Persagi, the Persatuan Ahli Gambar lndonesia (Indonesian Drawing Association ) in Jakarta, in 1937. Over a period of four years, this group attracted a membership of around thirty artists. Among the members were Agus Djaja, Abdul Salam, Setyoso, Herbert Hutagalung, Otto Djaya, Mochtar Apin and Emiria Soenassa Sudjojono, due to his ability to speak and write well, became the spokesman for Persagi.
At that time, the spirit of rebellion against the colonial powers was burning bright. In reaction to the domination of the colonists, which limited art circles to the Dutch and the nobility, these artists declared that Indonesians could also paint and could develop their own styles. At that time only a few painters were acknowledged as modern painters. They were Dutch painters who at that time had also started to adopt new styles. Their paintings were influenced by primitivism, surrealism, German expressionism, post-impressionism and Orientalism points of view. Noted Dutch artists of that time, were Jan Frank, Piet Ouburg, Rudolf Bonnet, W.G. Hofker. W. Dooijewaard and Walter Spies (a German artist), among others.
The conflict between the perceptions of Sudjojono and Basoeki Abdullah exhibits an important discursive element of the discourse of modernism in Indonesia, different than that of the modernism of Europe, both in content and time frame These new thoughts, as well as the conservative values which it rejected, were local products rooted in local realities. Out of this contradiction and these debates, one principle survived and became a basis which showed localness. This basis, which is valid until this day, is reflected in the dominant belief that artistic sensibility and art expression always link to moral precepts and not to avant-gardism. Here the collective consciousness is more important than the individual potential in making progress and breakthroughs.
Through Sudjojono’s stance the anti-West tendency emerged in the discourse of Indonesian modernism. However it was not linked in any way to the East/West dichotomy or the modern/traditional contradictions. The West in this conflict between concepts was not related to the “culture of the West”, but was rather a result of the position of Westerners in the way of life of the larger community. The colonists, along with the indigenous feudal society of Java, constituted an elite group which, within the development of art, could be said to have established conservative esthetics. It was the indigenous rebels who adopted the Western modern artistic thoughts along with the aim of promoting a change in reality and also social reformation.
The East/West dichotomy which later became a longstanding debate, emerged with the advent of the Japanese occupation (1942–1945). The Japanese military government felt the need to mobilize intellectuals and artists to develop the culture of the East and to seek advancement for the people of Greater East Asia. The awareness of nationality which emerged in the run-up to World War II was directly related to this Japanese campaign. The Indonesian intellectuals who were raising the issue of nationalism were immediately attracted to the concept of easternness being offered by the Japanese due to the victory of Japan in the war against Russia in 1904–5. In this case, Russia, as were the Dutch colonists, was considered “The West”. In 1943, Keimin Bunka Shidosho with its facilities for artistic activities, was established. The art of painting, which was undergoing changes (with the emergence of Indonesian modernism) immediately experienced a new type of observation based on a totally different point of view.
Indonesia announced its independence in 1945, shortly after Japan surrendered, but the Dutch moved back in with the help of the Allied forces. Political and military rebellion seethed throughout the archipelago. Painting became one with the struggle to maintain independence. The painters and political leaders believed that art could play a role in the fight for independence.
It makes sense in this kind of condition for Indonesianess, which was raised through easterness, to become a central issue. On this matter Sudjojono wrote, “. . . our painting here has no Indonesian character or style as yet. Actually we must have a way to formulate our own character – if we relate ourselves directly to our souls through the formulation of ourselves . . . But because we continue to follow patterns set out from others as we have done since the times of Raden Saleh, Abdullah Suriasubroto and Pirngadi, up to the painters of today, we will continue to be hindered from formulating our true selves.”[6]
However in viewing Indonesianess, Sudjojono saw honesty as more important than intellectual effort in the formulation of Indonesianess. He said, Indonesianess would appear, “. . . if we relate ourselves directly to our souls . . .”[7] This honesty has a moral connotation. Within his views, Sudjojono appeared to believe that artists/painters were moralists. Painters in his view, must “…. be courageous enough to live, to face poverty, to love the truth, to struggle for the truth, even though they make enemies of the gods themselves, they must continue to be modest, but must also be as arrogant as a garuda (mythical eagle-like bird).”[8]
Sudjojono’s views reflect the discussion of Indonesianess contained in societal values related to the situation of that time: Indonesia with a sad face. A society which had suffered suppression for so long, a people lacking progress and development, who had been plunged into even greater poverty and disorder due to the war, a people whose culture was under pressure, suppressed and dishonored, a society which had no sense of itself or pride in what it was.
This reality is the most important basis of the discussion of Indonesianess in the discourse of Indonesian modernism Although Indonesianess emerged through the discussion of easterness, the discussions did not directly relate to the East/West dichotomy. The discussion did not propose characteristics of the East or characteristics of Indonesia. It rather reflects a layer of reality that was hard, bitter, sorrowful, and full of injustice. In the practice of painting, this Indonesianess was reflected in the “People” themes—depictions of daily life, poverty, the struggle for life, the seething and the survival of a simple people. These themes were selected and painted on the basis of raw emotion, a mixture of a feeling of awe, a feeling of awakening, and a feeling of the poetic and lyrical. The paintings produced reflected the movement of these emotions—between the feelings of awe and anger—which made them expressive in nature. However, the placement of elements often appeared lyrical.
What is important to be considered as substance in the discussion of Indonesianess is the intensity of memories related to the colonial era when the change in Indonesia pushed it into the modern era. It became a part of the concept of modernity due to the wish to see modernity as resulting in revolutionary change, and not progress (more emotional than intellectual). The intensity of the memories made the West in Indonesian modernism discourse a symbol of “power” and oppression. This perception of the West contained a kind of hatred which grew toward xenophobic, anti-West, and ultra-nationalistic stances. In practice it became a tendency to select out Western influence. It is because of this content that the discussions within the Indonesian modernism discourse were very late in entering the post-colonial platform. This is also the basis for Indonesian modern art becoming very selective in adopting thoughts, styles and concepts developed in the world of modern art, which is perceived as Western modern art.
A small sign of openness can be sighted only in Jakarta. In 1946, the painters Mochtar Apin, Baharudin Mara Sutan and Henk Ngantung, along with the poets Chairil Anwar, Asrul Sani and Rivai Apin, founded an organization called Gelanggang (Arena). The organization was meant not only for finding an Indonesian identity, but also for promoting progress. Among their basic thinking was, “We want to leave the old structures which made the society rotten. We decided to challenge the old established values and their dominance to make it possible for the new power to emerge.”[9] The openness of this movement is quite clear. In 1950, in the “Glanggang Manifest,” the movement stated, “We inherit the world’s culture, and we will develop this heritage in our own way.”[10]
Because of the relatively “closed” condition of the Indonesian modernistic discourse due to the anti-West intensity, the kagunan framework became more apparent in the development of Indonesian modern art. Within this frame work moral aspects, the feeling of awe, the feeling of awakening, as well as the feeling of beauty are among the main issues behind the search. Within the art of painting, the conviction of modernism appeared as an expression and pouring out of feelings. This sense of awe was far removed from the expression which contains a vision such as exists within the modernistic we have become familiar with.
Two important aspects are seen within this Indonesian modernistic discourse, those being morality and lyricism. Within the development of modern art in Indonesia, these two aspects can be seen to have become dominant channels of development. It was this tendency which has become the basis of a genre known as the Yogya School.
This genre is related to the establishment of an art academy in the city of Yogyakarta in 1950. In 1968 this academy became the High Education Institution of Art and is now the Faculty of Fine Art and Design of the Indonesia Art Institute. Because of its faith in morality, the tendencies apparent in the Yogya School were those of the themes of the people and the community, while the belief in honesty/feelings/emotion as a source of truth gave rise to expressive paintings. Indonesianess and the commitment to the society constituted important issues within this genre. No wonder if the Yogya School has become dominant in Indonesian modern art development. Artists committed to this school are Kusnadi, Abbas Alibasyah, Fadjar Sidik, Edi Sunarso, Kartika Affandi, Handrio, Ida Hadjar, Bagong Kusudiardjo, Sapto Hoedoyo and Djoko Pekik.
An important sign which shows the influence of the kagunan framework within the development of the Yogya School, is the emergence of decorativism (it should not be categorized as decorative art). This tendency which emerged in the period between 1940 and 1950, is a style of painting characterized by the use of lines, flat shapes and colors. Each form depicted was converted into carefully organized two dimensional shapes. It was Kartono Yudhokusumo who founded this style. Among his first paintings done in this style was a corner of a guerrilla battle field in Wonosari (done in 194 7). Kartono picked up the decorative mode when he and a number of his followers worked in Bali Island in the mid-1940s. He consciously adopted this style because, in his vision, decorativeness shows the characteristic of Indonesian visual art, especially its ornamentation, its craftsmanship and its lyricism.[11] In 1950, Hendra Gunawan followed in the steps of Kartono. Through this particular painter, who was very influential at that time, the decorativism spread to a number of important artists in Yogyakarta.[12] One of Hendra’s followers, who later became an important and influential artist in spreading out decorativism, is Widayat. In the hands of Widayat this decorativism led to another development and spread to several generations of painters, among others Suparto, G.M. Sudarta, Mulyadi W, Ida Hadjar and Nyoman Gunarsa. In this development the artists no longer needed an object or a model to paint (in Kartono’s and Hendra’s paintings, an object in reality is always needed). The subject matter could be arranged in any possible composition in line with the aesthetic elements. The object then became a general, non-specific form. For example, a figure would become that of a human being, not that of a recognizable individual. Within this development, there occurred a shift from expressive forms reflecting individual thought and feeling (an emotional interaction between the artist and his or her artistic objects) towards symbolism (creating symbols or more precisely, symbolization, following Suzanne K. Langer’s term).
The Yogya School, however, is not the only school in Indonesian modern art development. Another genre which should also be considered as important in Indonesian modern art development is the Bandung School. This genre can be seen as an eclectic development due to its openness. Here the post-colonial discussions emerged very early in the 1950s. Discussions within this genre were apparently no longer connected to memories of the colonial era. There is no xenophobia and anti-West within the discourse behind this genre. No wonder, in the development of this genre, the influences of world modern art were most apparent. The existence of Mochtar Apin, founder of the Gelanggang movement, in this school, should be seen as an important factor. Based on his experience as an artist in Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris (here he joined the Réalités Nouvelles movement), Mochtar Apin should be considered as a Modernist (in the Western sense). However, within the Bandung School, perhaps he is the only one who really understands the basic principles of Modernism.
This genre, like the Yogya School, is related to an art academy established in 1947. In the beginning, the academy was an art education center for drawing teachers which was directed by Ries Mulder, a Dutch art lecture. ln 1951, Sjafei, with the help of Ries Mulder, converted this school into a fine arts academy. In 1958, Mochtar Apin came back from Europe and strengthened the school. In 1959, Ries Mulder left the school. It is now the Faculty of Fine Art and Design of the Bandung Institute of Technology. Artists committed to this school, among others, are Ahmad Sadali, But Muchtar, Srihadi Soedarsono, A.D Pirous, Popo Iskandar, G. Sidharta Soegiyo, Rita Widagdo, Farida Srihadi, Yusuf Affendi, T. Sutanto and Kaboel Suadi.
It is within this Bandung School that the Modernist tradition was adopted. Most of the artists committed to this genre believe that art is a universal phenomenon. The artists here do not believe that modern art is framed by national boundaries. Most of their works clearly show formalistic exploration. Through Ahmad Sadali and Srihadi Soedarsono, abstraction grew among the younger artists in the 1960s (however Srihadi, who was basically connected to the Yogya School, in the 1970s went back to figurative art). It is a matter of course, that the Bandung School was directly accused by the Yogya School and most Indonesian art critics. The artists of the Bandung School were seen as not belonging to Indonesian art development. The late Trisno Sumardjo, one of the vocal critics of that time, resulted in the Bandung School as having an “anti-national” stance. One of Trisno Sumardjo’s statements, which later became a “label” of the Bandung School, is that the Bandung Art Academy is a “laboratory of the West.”[13]
However, the Bandung School does not adopt Modernist tradition completely. There is no sign that formalistic exploration within this genre is committed to the search of an essence within the code of visual arts. The form (the language) here is still considered the artistic medium for representing feelings and sensations as the result of emotional interactions with reality (mostly artistic objects and nature). Thus, this Modernist tendency, in a way, is still committed to the Realist tradition. Abstract paintings produced within this genre can never really be categorized as non-representational. As it turns out, the development of this visual reality exploration turned in the direction of lyricism.
Thus, the sensibility behind the formalistic measurement and the organization of visual elements in the Bandung School is again based on the expression of lyrical feelings. Although the theme of the people and the issue of Indonesianess were not emphasized in this genre, the influence of the kagunan frame cannot be denied. For example, the thick and beautiful texture in the paintings of Ahmad Sadali (one of the pioneers of the Bandung School) depicts the sentimental feeling in seeing the cracking process of a rotting natural substance. In most of his abstract paintings, Sadali expressed his vision of power of nature and the will of God.
In spite of the long-standing confrontation between the Yogya School and the Bandung School, which has become a legendary debate in Indonesian modern art development, in the sense of lyricism related to the kagunan framework, there is no essential difference between the two schools.
[1] Sanento Yuliman, “Masa Pertama, 1900–1940”, Seni Lukis Indonesia Baru, Sebuah Pengantar, Jakarta Art Council, 1976. p. 7.
[2] The term kagunan which means none other than “fine arts”” exists with in (should be within) Javanese culture where the influence of Western values has become mixed into the process of assimilation since the 17th century. Within a cultural context, the term kagunan is known as term kagunan adilulung or “High Art.” The definition of kagunan has a similarity to the understanding of artes liberates and mousike techne, even though Plato’s premises concerning the sensibility, and truths of art behind these two terms are not fully adopted (this is then the result of assimilation). The definition of kagunan set out nobility of character (in the moral sense) as the basis of sensibility. In the Dictionary of High Javanese, kagunan is defined as: (1) cleverness (2) beneficial activity (3) the pouring out of intelligence/sensibility related to nobility of character, which produces the aesthetic/beauty as in a drawing or in a sculpture, musical composition and lyrics for· songs.
[3] S. Soedjojono, “Basuki Abdullah dan Kesenran Meloekis,” Seni Loekis, Kesenian dan Seniman (Collected Writings), Indonesia Sekarang, Jogyakarta, 1946. p. l 6. Jogjakarta or Yogyakarta??
[4] Sanento Yuliman, “Chapter 6: Modernisme,”Berberapa Masalah dalam Kritik Seni Lukis di Indonesia, thesis for Faculty of Fine Art and Design, Bandung Institute of Technology, 1968. p. 130.
[5] All essays involved in this discussion were published in Polemik Kebudayaan, Achadiat K. Mihardja (ed.), Pustaka Jaya, Jakarta, 1977.
[6] “Menoedjoe Tjorak Seni Loekis Persatoean Indonesia Baroe,” Seni Loekis, Kesenian dan Seniman, pp. 11–12.
The Emergence of Indonesian Modern Art
Jim Supangkat
Soource: The Birth of Modern Art in Southeast Asia:
Artists and Movements, 1997.
The emergence of Indonesian modern art was signaled by the contradiction between the conservative colonial perceptions in art with a new tendency influenced by the European realism movement of 19th century. However, the conflict was not purely on esthetics. The contradiction between those perceptions had a social background.
The continuation of art of the colonial times can be sighted in the works of three landscape painters who emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. They were Raden Abdullah Suriasubroto (1878–1941), Wakidi (1889–1980) and Mas Pirngadi (1865–1936). These three painters are often cited as Indonesian art figures of the Dutch colonial period. They are also recorded as having passed on knowledge and painting skills to other indigenous painters.[1]
However, unlike the representative painting techniques of classic European painting, (which were linked to attempts to depict the realities of nature) the art of representative and realistic painting in Indonesia developed into a kind of craftsmenship—reminiscent of the tradition of handicrafting which was known as a part of traditional art. This skill exhibited that the development of art of that time was influenced by the esthetic framework of kagunan, a Javanese conception of fine art.[2] The beauty of nature in these crafted landscape paintings was the result of an esthetic transcendental experience related to poetic and lyrical sensibility. No wonder if many of the landscape painters, afterwards became “commercial” painters. These commercial artists produced landscape paintings by repeating certain patterns in their studios. Later, this practice was criticized by younger painters who called it cynically, mooi lndie (beautiful Indonesia).
During the last years of the colonial period, Raden Basoeki Abdullah (1914–1994)—the son of Abdullah Suriasubroto—was the best known of the indigenous Indonesian painters. From 1930 to 1940 he was recorded as having been very active in presenting exhibitions. This painter explored beauty and sensuality beside landscapes. Most of his works were depictions of beautiful women in portraits and as models, as well as female beauty as reflected in legend. This painter was also known as a worshiper of nobleness.
Basoeki Abdullah’s paintings exhibited a tendency toward the development of representative painting techniques that resulted in painstakingly realistic depictions. The painter came by this high level of skill through formal education in the Netherlands. The techniques exhibited in his paintings show very skillful drawing techniques, which were the specialty of Dutch art from the 19th century until the beginning of 20th century.
The emergence of this Indonesian modern art could be seen in particular when S. Sudjojono (1913–1986) began criticizing the paintings of Basoeki Abdullah. In 1939, he criticized Basoeki Abdullah who had expressed the concern that he could run out of subjects for painting. Sudjojono disapproved of Basoeki Abdullah’s view that only certain subjects had a high level artistic value, and were thus appropriate for use as subject matter in painting. In Sudjojono’s opinion, the subject matters that Basoeki Abdullah thought were of value had no roots in the truth, but rather only in convention. In Sudjojono’s opinion, what gives value to the painting is not convention, but “the soul of the painter.”[3]
Sudjojono did, indeed, play an important role in articulating new thoughts which later became the basis of Indonesian modern art and also the discourse of Indonesian modernism. His views, which later heavily influenced the development of Indonesian modern art, exhibited the fact that he was turning toward realism and believed in “honesty”. Sudjojono’s views clearly exhibited the belief that the beauty in art was not necessarily related to idealization, conventional esthetic measurements, sensuality, and the lives of the nobility. Beauty could also be found in the realities that convention defined as “not beautiful”. The dark side of life, the way of life of the rough and common people, also contained beauty. Sudjojono’s view can be compared with Gustave Courbet’s “realism” manifest (1861) which could be seen as regarding three points: (1) rejecting the conservative idealism’ (2) adapting the principles of positivism and (3) belief in the liberation of the individual as a political goal.
The tendency toward realism set forth by Sudjojono should not be viewed as only a challenge to the views on beauty. The realism principles were chosen because they were related to social realities. Sudjojono saw that within the feudal community a nobleman held more value than a carriage driver or a vegetable seller due to social conventions: feudalism established a vertical distance between human beings. Heroic events were considered to be of more value than the buying and selling of vegetables in the market place due to social conventions. And animals such as bulls and lions were viewed as having a higher value than goats.
Sudjojono rejected this hierarchy of reality and convention Painters, according to Sudjojono, must only resort to their own souls. To him painting was the visualization of the soul Because of that, painters must be free of the ties introduced by all forms of collectivity, so that they are ‘true’, that is, that they are capable of setting forth everything that is in their hearts, everything that stirs in their souls, in a pure, straightforward manner without any limitations. Painters must be free of conventional standards, tradition, and the conventional grouping of people. The soul of a painter visible in a painting is what gives value to that painting. In this way painters could truly paint anything and bring forth works of quality as long as they guarded the quality of the soul.[4]
There was a relationship between Sudjojono’s stance and the emergence of modernity on a larger scale. His thoughts had a direct connection with the idea of social reformation among the indigenous people during the last years of the colonial period. Here all of the new visions began to touch the awareness of modernity.
Sudjojono, like Basoeki Abdullah, came from feudal circles due to his father-in-law, Raden Sasmojo, the concierge of the art club in Jakarta, The Batavia Art Circle. His stance and vision were a continuation of the search for identity among the Javanese noble society which could be seen in Raden Saleh’s perception in the 19th century. Sudjojono’s struggle was part of a larger movement started in 1908. In this year the organization Boedi Oetomo was founded by Javanese scholars (most of them came from feudal families) based on concern for the education of the indigenous people. In the history of Indonesia, the emergence of this organization is seen as the rise of Indonesian nationalism. Later, Boedi Oetomo developed ideas on social reformation and modernism. These ideas became clear when in 1935/1936 a cultural discussion participated in by nearly all the Indonesian scholars and intellectuals of that time, debated nationhood and the future of Indonesia, including how modernity would function in Indonesia.[5]
Around the time of that cultural discussion, Sudjojono, along with a number of other painters, established Persagi, the Persatuan Ahli Gambar lndonesia (Indonesian Drawing Association ) in Jakarta, in 1937. Over a period of four years, this group attracted a membership of around thirty artists. Among the members were Agus Djaja, Abdul Salam, Setyoso, Herbert Hutagalung, Otto Djaya, Mochtar Apin and Emiria Soenassa Sudjojono, due to his ability to speak and write well, became the spokesman for Persagi.
At that time, the spirit of rebellion against the colonial powers was burning bright. In reaction to the domination of the colonists, which limited art circles to the Dutch and the nobility, these artists declared that Indonesians could also paint and could develop their own styles. At that time only a few painters were acknowledged as modern painters. They were Dutch painters who at that time had also started to adopt new styles. Their paintings were influenced by primitivism, surrealism, German expressionism, post-impressionism and Orientalism points of view. Noted Dutch artists of that time, were Jan Frank, Piet Ouburg, Rudolf Bonnet, W.G. Hofker. W. Dooijewaard and Walter Spies (a German artist), among others.
The conflict between the perceptions of Sudjojono and Basoeki Abdullah exhibits an important discursive element of the discourse of modernism in Indonesia, different than that of the modernism of Europe, both in content and time frame These new thoughts, as well as the conservative values which it rejected, were local products rooted in local realities. Out of this contradiction and these debates, one principle survived and became a basis which showed localness. This basis, which is valid until this day, is reflected in the dominant belief that artistic sensibility and art expression always link to moral precepts and not to avant-gardism. Here the collective consciousness is more important than the individual potential in making progress and breakthroughs.
Through Sudjojono’s stance the anti-West tendency emerged in the discourse of Indonesian modernism. However it was not linked in any way to the East/West dichotomy or the modern/traditional contradictions. The West in this conflict between concepts was not related to the “culture of the West”, but was rather a result of the position of Westerners in the way of life of the larger community. The colonists, along with the indigenous feudal society of Java, constituted an elite group which, within the development of art, could be said to have established conservative esthetics. It was the indigenous rebels who adopted the Western modern artistic thoughts along with the aim of promoting a change in reality and also social reformation.
The East/West dichotomy which later became a longstanding debate, emerged with the advent of the Japanese occupation (1942–1945). The Japanese military government felt the need to mobilize intellectuals and artists to develop the culture of the East and to seek advancement for the people of Greater East Asia. The awareness of nationality which emerged in the run-up to World War II was directly related to this Japanese campaign. The Indonesian intellectuals who were raising the issue of nationalism were immediately attracted to the concept of easternness being offered by the Japanese due to the victory of Japan in the war against Russia in 1904–5. In this case, Russia, as were the Dutch colonists, was considered “The West”. In 1943, Keimin Bunka Shidosho with its facilities for artistic activities, was established. The art of painting, which was undergoing changes (with the emergence of Indonesian modernism) immediately experienced a new type of observation based on a totally different point of view.
Indonesia announced its independence in 1945, shortly after Japan surrendered, but the Dutch moved back in with the help of the Allied forces. Political and military rebellion seethed throughout the archipelago. Painting became one with the struggle to maintain independence. The painters and political leaders believed that art could play a role in the fight for independence.
It makes sense in this kind of condition for Indonesianess, which was raised through easterness, to become a central issue. On this matter Sudjojono wrote, “. . . our painting here has no Indonesian character or style as yet. Actually we must have a way to formulate our own character – if we relate ourselves directly to our souls through the formulation of ourselves . . . But because we continue to follow patterns set out from others as we have done since the times of Raden Saleh, Abdullah Suriasubroto and Pirngadi, up to the painters of today, we will continue to be hindered from formulating our true selves.”[6]
However in viewing Indonesianess, Sudjojono saw honesty as more important than intellectual effort in the formulation of Indonesianess. He said, Indonesianess would appear, “. . . if we relate ourselves directly to our souls . . .”[7] This honesty has a moral connotation. Within his views, Sudjojono appeared to believe that artists/painters were moralists. Painters in his view, must “…. be courageous enough to live, to face poverty, to love the truth, to struggle for the truth, even though they make enemies of the gods themselves, they must continue to be modest, but must also be as arrogant as a garuda (mythical eagle-like bird).”[8]
Sudjojono’s views reflect the discussion of Indonesianess contained in societal values related to the situation of that time: Indonesia with a sad face. A society which had suffered suppression for so long, a people lacking progress and development, who had been plunged into even greater poverty and disorder due to the war, a people whose culture was under pressure, suppressed and dishonored, a society which had no sense of itself or pride in what it was.
This reality is the most important basis of the discussion of Indonesianess in the discourse of Indonesian modernism Although Indonesianess emerged through the discussion of easterness, the discussions did not directly relate to the East/West dichotomy. The discussion did not propose characteristics of the East or characteristics of Indonesia. It rather reflects a layer of reality that was hard, bitter, sorrowful, and full of injustice. In the practice of painting, this Indonesianess was reflected in the “People” themes—depictions of daily life, poverty, the struggle for life, the seething and the survival of a simple people. These themes were selected and painted on the basis of raw emotion, a mixture of a feeling of awe, a feeling of awakening, and a feeling of the poetic and lyrical. The paintings produced reflected the movement of these emotions—between the feelings of awe and anger—which made them expressive in nature. However, the placement of elements often appeared lyrical.
What is important to be considered as substance in the discussion of Indonesianess is the intensity of memories related to the colonial era when the change in Indonesia pushed it into the modern era. It became a part of the concept of modernity due to the wish to see modernity as resulting in revolutionary change, and not progress (more emotional than intellectual). The intensity of the memories made the West in Indonesian modernism discourse a symbol of “power” and oppression. This perception of the West contained a kind of hatred which grew toward xenophobic, anti-West, and ultra-nationalistic stances. In practice it became a tendency to select out Western influence. It is because of this content that the discussions within the Indonesian modernism discourse were very late in entering the post-colonial platform. This is also the basis for Indonesian modern art becoming very selective in adopting thoughts, styles and concepts developed in the world of modern art, which is perceived as Western modern art.
A small sign of openness can be sighted only in Jakarta. In 1946, the painters Mochtar Apin, Baharudin Mara Sutan and Henk Ngantung, along with the poets Chairil Anwar, Asrul Sani and Rivai Apin, founded an organization called Gelanggang (Arena). The organization was meant not only for finding an Indonesian identity, but also for promoting progress. Among their basic thinking was, “We want to leave the old structures which made the society rotten. We decided to challenge the old established values and their dominance to make it possible for the new power to emerge.”[9] The openness of this movement is quite clear. In 1950, in the “Glanggang Manifest,” the movement stated, “We inherit the world’s culture, and we will develop this heritage in our own way.”[10]
Because of the relatively “closed” condition of the Indonesian modernistic discourse due to the anti-West intensity, the kagunan framework became more apparent in the development of Indonesian modern art. Within this frame work moral aspects, the feeling of awe, the feeling of awakening, as well as the feeling of beauty are among the main issues behind the search. Within the art of painting, the conviction of modernism appeared as an expression and pouring out of feelings. This sense of awe was far removed from the expression which contains a vision such as exists within the modernistic we have become familiar with.
Two important aspects are seen within this Indonesian modernistic discourse, those being morality and lyricism. Within the development of modern art in Indonesia, these two aspects can be seen to have become dominant channels of development. It was this tendency which has become the basis of a genre known as the Yogya School.
This genre is related to the establishment of an art academy in the city of Yogyakarta in 1950. In 1968 this academy became the High Education Institution of Art and is now the Faculty of Fine Art and Design of the Indonesia Art Institute. Because of its faith in morality, the tendencies apparent in the Yogya School were those of the themes of the people and the community, while the belief in honesty/feelings/emotion as a source of truth gave rise to expressive paintings. Indonesianess and the commitment to the society constituted important issues within this genre. No wonder if the Yogya School has become dominant in Indonesian modern art development. Artists committed to this school are Kusnadi, Abbas Alibasyah, Fadjar Sidik, Edi Sunarso, Kartika Affandi, Handrio, Ida Hadjar, Bagong Kusudiardjo, Sapto Hoedoyo and Djoko Pekik.
An important sign which shows the influence of the kagunan framework within the development of the Yogya School, is the emergence of decorativism (it should not be categorized as decorative art). This tendency which emerged in the period between 1940 and 1950, is a style of painting characterized by the use of lines, flat shapes and colors. Each form depicted was converted into carefully organized two dimensional shapes. It was Kartono Yudhokusumo who founded this style. Among his first paintings done in this style was a corner of a guerrilla battle field in Wonosari (done in 194 7). Kartono picked up the decorative mode when he and a number of his followers worked in Bali Island in the mid-1940s. He consciously adopted this style because, in his vision, decorativeness shows the characteristic of Indonesian visual art, especially its ornamentation, its craftsmanship and its lyricism.[11] In 1950, Hendra Gunawan followed in the steps of Kartono. Through this particular painter, who was very influential at that time, the decorativism spread to a number of important artists in Yogyakarta.[12] One of Hendra’s followers, who later became an important and influential artist in spreading out decorativism, is Widayat. In the hands of Widayat this decorativism led to another development and spread to several generations of painters, among others Suparto, G.M. Sudarta, Mulyadi W, Ida Hadjar and Nyoman Gunarsa. In this development the artists no longer needed an object or a model to paint (in Kartono’s and Hendra’s paintings, an object in reality is always needed). The subject matter could be arranged in any possible composition in line with the aesthetic elements. The object then became a general, non-specific form. For example, a figure would become that of a human being, not that of a recognizable individual. Within this development, there occurred a shift from expressive forms reflecting individual thought and feeling (an emotional interaction between the artist and his or her artistic objects) towards symbolism (creating symbols or more precisely, symbolization, following Suzanne K. Langer’s term).
The Yogya School, however, is not the only school in Indonesian modern art development. Another genre which should also be considered as important in Indonesian modern art development is the Bandung School. This genre can be seen as an eclectic development due to its openness. Here the post-colonial discussions emerged very early in the 1950s. Discussions within this genre were apparently no longer connected to memories of the colonial era. There is no xenophobia and anti-West within the discourse behind this genre. No wonder, in the development of this genre, the influences of world modern art were most apparent. The existence of Mochtar Apin, founder of the Gelanggang movement, in this school, should be seen as an important factor. Based on his experience as an artist in Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris (here he joined the Réalités Nouvelles movement), Mochtar Apin should be considered as a Modernist (in the Western sense). However, within the Bandung School, perhaps he is the only one who really understands the basic principles of Modernism.
This genre, like the Yogya School, is related to an art academy established in 1947. In the beginning, the academy was an art education center for drawing teachers which was directed by Ries Mulder, a Dutch art lecture. ln 1951, Sjafei, with the help of Ries Mulder, converted this school into a fine arts academy. In 1958, Mochtar Apin came back from Europe and strengthened the school. In 1959, Ries Mulder left the school. It is now the Faculty of Fine Art and Design of the Bandung Institute of Technology. Artists committed to this school, among others, are Ahmad Sadali, But Muchtar, Srihadi Soedarsono, A.D Pirous, Popo Iskandar, G. Sidharta Soegiyo, Rita Widagdo, Farida Srihadi, Yusuf Affendi, T. Sutanto and Kaboel Suadi.
It is within this Bandung School that the Modernist tradition was adopted. Most of the artists committed to this genre believe that art is a universal phenomenon. The artists here do not believe that modern art is framed by national boundaries. Most of their works clearly show formalistic exploration. Through Ahmad Sadali and Srihadi Soedarsono, abstraction grew among the younger artists in the 1960s (however Srihadi, who was basically connected to the Yogya School, in the 1970s went back to figurative art). It is a matter of course, that the Bandung School was directly accused by the Yogya School and most Indonesian art critics. The artists of the Bandung School were seen as not belonging to Indonesian art development. The late Trisno Sumardjo, one of the vocal critics of that time, resulted in the Bandung School as having an “anti-national” stance. One of Trisno Sumardjo’s statements, which later became a “label” of the Bandung School, is that the Bandung Art Academy is a “laboratory of the West.”[13]
However, the Bandung School does not adopt Modernist tradition completely. There is no sign that formalistic exploration within this genre is committed to the search of an essence within the code of visual arts. The form (the language) here is still considered the artistic medium for representing feelings and sensations as the result of emotional interactions with reality (mostly artistic objects and nature). Thus, this Modernist tendency, in a way, is still committed to the Realist tradition. Abstract paintings produced within this genre can never really be categorized as non-representational. As it turns out, the development of this visual reality exploration turned in the direction of lyricism.
Thus, the sensibility behind the formalistic measurement and the organization of visual elements in the Bandung School is again based on the expression of lyrical feelings. Although the theme of the people and the issue of Indonesianess were not emphasized in this genre, the influence of the kagunan frame cannot be denied. For example, the thick and beautiful texture in the paintings of Ahmad Sadali (one of the pioneers of the Bandung School) depicts the sentimental feeling in seeing the cracking process of a rotting natural substance. In most of his abstract paintings, Sadali expressed his vision of power of nature and the will of God.
In spite of the long-standing confrontation between the Yogya School and the Bandung School, which has become a legendary debate in Indonesian modern art development, in the sense of lyricism related to the kagunan framework, there is no essential difference between the two schools.
[1] Sanento Yuliman, “Masa Pertama, 1900–1940”, Seni Lukis Indonesia Baru, Sebuah Pengantar, Jakarta Art Council, 1976. p. 7.
[2] The term kagunan which means none other than “fine arts”” exists with in (should be within) Javanese culture where the influence of Western values has become mixed into the process of assimilation since the 17th century. Within a cultural context, the term kagunan is known as term kagunan adilulung or “High Art.” The definition of kagunan has a similarity to the understanding of artes liberates and mousike techne, even though Plato’s premises concerning the sensibility, and truths of art behind these two terms are not fully adopted (this is then the result of assimilation). The definition of kagunan set out nobility of character (in the moral sense) as the basis of sensibility. In the Dictionary of High Javanese, kagunan is defined as: (1) cleverness (2) beneficial activity (3) the pouring out of intelligence/sensibility related to nobility of character, which produces the aesthetic/beauty as in a drawing or in a sculpture, musical composition and lyrics for· songs.
[3] S. Soedjojono, “Basuki Abdullah dan Kesenran Meloekis,” Seni Loekis, Kesenian dan Seniman (Collected Writings), Indonesia Sekarang, Jogyakarta, 1946. p. l 6. Jogjakarta or Yogyakarta??
[4] Sanento Yuliman, “Chapter 6: Modernisme,”Berberapa Masalah dalam Kritik Seni Lukis di Indonesia, thesis for Faculty of Fine Art and Design, Bandung Institute of Technology, 1968. p. 130.
[5] All essays involved in this discussion were published in Polemik Kebudayaan, Achadiat K. Mihardja (ed.), Pustaka Jaya, Jakarta, 1977.
[6] “Menoedjoe Tjorak Seni Loekis Persatoean Indonesia Baroe,” Seni Loekis, Kesenian dan Seniman, pp. 11–12.
[7] Ibid.
[8] “Kesenian, Seniman dan Masyarakat,” Seni Loekis, Kesenian dan Seniman, p. 74.
[9] Preamble a Gelaggang (19 November 1946)
[10] Surat Kepenjajaan, “Gelanggang Seniman Merdeka,” Indonesia (18 February 1950) (If Indonesia is a name of magazine, should be in Italics)
[11] Based on an interview with Batara Lubis, Kartono’s follower.
[12] Based on an interview with the painter, H. Widayat.
[13] Mingguan siasat, 5 December 1954 (If Mingguan siasat is a name of magazine, should be in Italics)