Yogyakarta was Java’s principal art centre during the\n1950s. According to Claire Holt’s “Art in Indonesia” (1968), there\nwere a total of 74 registered art-related organisations in the city in 1955. Of\nthat number, 14 were general groups; there were 17 dedicated to dance, 16 to\nmusic, 12 to theatre, and 7 to visual art. All dealt with both traditional and\nmodern forms. Some were student-founded organisations with common ethnic\nbackgrounds; campus-based student bodies were not idle in their respective\ninstitutions. Overall, it is estimated that two-thirds to three-quarters of\nJava’s painters lived in Yogyakarta.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hersri Setiwan, the former secretary general of\nCentral Java’s Lembaga Kebudayaan Rakyat (LEKRA; People’s Culture\nOrganisation), vividly captured this world in “Tembang Turba” (from a\ndraft; the book is as yet unpublished):<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the\nearly 1950s, numerous budding painters and aspirant men of letters would\ndeclare themselves artists — after sketching a self-portrait or composing\nverses about moonlight or love. Shaggy, unwashed long hair, and nothing but\nrags (patched here and there), were part of a typical liberal artist’s look.\nThey were not too fond of taking showers either, because water and soap (so\nthey said) killed inspiration. They would trawl through the city, in search of\nglimmering inspirations amid the debauched darkness of its squares. Deceive and\nsteal — they would say — like Chairil.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hersri spoke about Yogyakarta’s transformation from a\npolitical centre to a cultural centre, and described its genuine — as well as\nfake — “extremists”: “I don’t know about other cities, but that\nwas what became of Yogyakarta, then. This was the result of the 1945 bohemian\nwave, as well as Yogya’s history as the ‘Revolution Capital’.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yogya had lost its status as a political centre ever\nsince the central government moved back to Jakarta — but the city has since\ngained its reputation as a campus town and centre of national culture,\ninheriting with these the good and bad remnants of Indonesia’s war for\nindependence. During the later half of the 1940s, Yogya, as “Revolution\nCapital”, was swarmed with refuges from all across the nation. Day and\nnight, “extremists” — NICA’s term for youth guerrillas, the\nsupporters of the new republic — were seen in every corner of the city.<\/p>\n\n\n\n NICA’s definition pointed to those who violated the rust en orde<\/em> (security and order) they\nhad imposed on the people, but to laymen the word “extremist” merely\ndescribed a physical image: unshaven, long-haired and moustached men who\ncarried cartridge rounds and hand grenades wherever they went. As such, there\nwere fakes walking among the real fighters<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nationalism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The two most important artists’ organisations of that\nera, SIM and Pelukis Rakyat, operated from their headquarters in Yogyakarta.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Claire, there were “no fitting\n‘isms’ available, at the time, to describe the variety of [these\npractitioners’] artistic style — not least ‘lndonesianism’ “. Though\nworks from the period can usually be identified by their examination of the\nrelationship between Society and Nature, one can easily distinguish one artist\nfrom another through their respective working methods and ideological\norientation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two of the biggest art patrons in the 1950s were\nPresident Soekarno and the Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI; Indonesian Communist\nParty), who shared LEKRA’s ideologies. Soekarno espoused a form of nationalism\nknown as Marhaenist Nationalism; PKI’s nationalism was Communist, commonly referred\nto as People’s Marxism by many observers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Dutch scholar Saskia Eleonora Wieringa, in\n“Penghancuran Gerakan Perampuan di Indonesia” (1999) believed that\nthe populist ideology of Soekarno’s Marhaenism emphasised homogeneity and\nmutual cooperation. Revolution is the dream of a perpetual struggle. The\nnationalist sentiment was shaped by having to face a common enemy: the colonial\nDutch; this required that the difference between cooperating factions be\noverlooked. Soekarno’s populism was based on his charismatic leadership, which\naimed to create a mythical unity to defend against external threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, PKI focused on class struggle — even though its ideology was not as steadfastly Marxist as expected, considering the party’s Communist roots. Its leaders focused on building a tremendous base of supporters, from all over the country -\u00ad- instead of building a party whose cadres were educated in, dedicated to, and eloquent about the class struggle. By creating this huge “communist family”, PKI embraced elements of Javanese values like harmony — which was also a foundation of Soekarno’s Marhaenism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Soekarno<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n President Soekarno’s enthusiasm in collecting works of\nart since the 1940s made him into one of Indonesia’s biggest art patrons.\nPierre Labrousse, in “The Second Life of Bung Karno: Analysis of the Myth\n(1979 – 1981)” (1994) recorded Soekarno as saying: “Buying and\ncollecting paintings are works of art cannot be compared to collecting\njewellery or accumulating gold … to collect art is to preserve an authentic\nnational legacy.” Although Soekarno’s taste weren’t always consistent, it\nwas nonetheless respected — and often became the benchmark for what artists\nunderstood as the “Indonesian emotion” or “authentic national\nlegacy”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Edhi Sunarso, a sculptor and member of Pelukis Rakyat, relates Soekarno’s role as the inspiration for the artist’s monumental projects. Edhi says: “Back then, I was working on the Monumen Dirgantara project. I had various designs to show, but none satisfied Bung Karno. Then he said to me, ‘we haven’t the means to manufacture any planes –\u00ad least of all the fighting kind — but during revolution, we all have the courage to fly them. So make<\/em> a statue that evokes this spirit of courage. That’s all we’ve got. We have spirit. We have “Gatutkaca”!’ Then he posed like ‘Gatutkaca’ right in front of me. ‘Hurry! Make a sketch. Here, like this!’ he said. There it was. I made the statue.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sanggar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The most influential sanggar (or art\nstudio-cum-commune), such as SIM and Pelukis Rakyat, depended on both\nSoekarno’s and PKI’s version of nationalism. Due to their members’ involvement\nin PKI’s activities, these sanggar were often called “left-wing\nsanggar”. However, political attitudes among these groups’ members\nremained diverse, because a particular political attitude had never been\nimposed. (This was not the case with later sanggar like Bumi Tarung, for\nexample, which forced its members to take up LEKRA membership).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Compared to Persagi, a similar group that possessed\nthe appearance of a collective of professionals, sanggars had a more\ntraditional approach: they resembled the kind of education developed in Taman\nSiswa, but were run in a looser manner; more senior artists, with their\nfamilies, lived together with the younger, unmarried painters. The process of\nlearning at a sanggar was based on the principle of togetherness — the leaders\nand senior painters would mentor the juniors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A sanggar would receive their income from the sales of\nworks at art fairs, as well as donations from the government. These funds were\nspent on the basic materials required to run such initiatives. The issue of\nmoney was contentious for some:<\/p>\n\n\n\n SIM member Hendra Gunawan withdrew from his group,\nbecause he disagreed with that organisation’s subsidy distribution policy.\nSudjojono emphasised a meritocracy: classifying artists into four classes: A,\nB, C and D; evaluating them on respective artistic achievements and positions.\nHendra strongly opposed this model, and demanded a classification scheme based\non the marital or familial status of all members (married member receive 200\nrupiah per month; unmarried ones: 100 rupiah). To him, their merit as artists\nshouldn’t count.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The above disagreement was recorded by Claire Holt.\nHendra left SIM and founded Pelukis Rakyat, and applied his ideal system there.\nOn the rare occasion when the group did not make enough money, Hendra or\nAffandi (another artist at Pelukis Rakyat) would dip into their private funds\nto keep the sanggar going. In fact, according to Edhi Sunarso, Hendra’s wife\nwould sometimes sell her batik to help with funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sudjojono<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n With the good reputation he enjoyed while leading\nPersagi, Sudjojono would come to hold a significant position in the history of\nIndonesian modern fine art. Agu Darmawan T reports (in “Hendra Gunawan dan\nPikiran-pikiran yang Terempas”, Kompas, October 5th<\/sup>, 2001) that\nHendra Gunawan once acknowledged Sudjojono as the artist “who brought\nIndonesian fine art to new heights, and to where it rightfully should be.”\nClaire Holt describes Sudjojono as “a versatile, determined and eloquent\nman — whom, at the same time, was torn between art and politics.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Holt believes that Sudjojono received a good education\nunder the Dutch regime, and had read European philosophy and literature. It is\nno wonder, then, that Sudjojono would urge artists to be politically conscious,\npraising Picasso and Diego Rivera as role models. He firmly believed that the\narts must be devoted to the cause of social and political struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, Holt may be mistaken in saying that\nSudjojono’s support of communism began after the War for Independence, in the\n1950s — at least if that conclusion is to take into account the testimonials\nby Oey Hay Djoen, Joesoef lsak, Sobron Aidit and Basuki Resobowo. In a\ndiscussion just outside the Jaringan Kerja Budaya headquarters in Jakarta, Oey\nHay Djoen — once a member of the Central Secretariat of LEKRA — said that\nSudjojono had been a communist since 1945. Joesoef lsak, a leading journalist,\nhinted that by the end of the 1940s Sudjojono had already aligned his\nsympathies with the communists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Are You\nStill A Marxist?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As reported by Hafis Azhari in “Biografi Joesoef lsak”\n(from a draft; the book is as yet unpublished), Joesoef claims that, after the\nMadiun Incident in 1948, which ended with the execution of Musso and the arrest\nof Amir Sjarifudin, Sudjojono met with Soekarno in Yogyakarta. At the time, the\nDutch had just released Soekarno from his exile on Bangka Island. Even during\nthose dire times, Soekarno could not resist the temptation of owning a painting\nby the artist. Both men agreed to exchange paintings for clothes. Sudjojono\nthen looked at Soekarno in the eyes, and asked in Dutch:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Mas Karno, are you still a Marxist?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Soekarno seemed a little offended. He retorted: ”Naturally, I am<\/em> still a Marxist!”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sudjojono would then reply: “Then, why did you\nlet your comrades get shot dead?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exchange struck Soekarno deeply. He remained\nstunned for some time, then finally broke into tears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sudjojono’s sympathies towards communism might have\neven predated the 1930s. Sobron Aidit, in “Taman Siswa (from a draft; the\nbook is as yet unpublished), that Taman Siswa, back then, was like a lair for\nPKI members; Sudjojono was educated there, and would eventually return to\nlecture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Basuki Resobowo’s testimonial “Bercermin Dimuka\nKaca: Seniman, Seni dan Masyarakat” (2005), about his meeting with\nSudjojono in 1936, also paints a similar picture of Sudjojono’s intimate\nrelationship with the ideology. Basuki relates: “I knew he’d come back\nfrom his journeys overseas. I came to him and asked, ‘Why did you come back so\nsoon? How far did you go?’ “<\/p>\n\n\n\n In typical Sudjojono habit, upon seeing his good\nfriend, he happily dragged his sleeves to a nearby cafe for coffee and a long,\nnice talk. “I only went as far as Singapore,” the artist told Basuki.\n“I cancelled the plan to go to Europe. In Singapore, I met some Indonesian\nexpatriates who advised me to go back to the country, instead of wasting my\ntime there. Youths are needed during times like these, when war is imminent in\nIndonesia.” Talking about the beliefs of an artist, Sudjojono would go on:\n“Artists must not be apathetic; we must take part in the crucial political\ndevelopments in the history of the Indonesian people.” Sudjojono believed\nthat time and place played an important part in the process of creating a work\nof art — though it wasn’t a determining component.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If this talk between Basuki and Sudjojono had taken\nplace in 1936, then chances are the meeting in Singapore with “Indonesian\nexpatriates” had influenced Sudjojono’s ideology, during the Persagi era.\nThe identity of those “expatriates” remain a mystery, but it must be\nnoted that Singapore, during those times, was an escape destination for\nactivists — especially the communist activists who sought refuge after the\nfailed coups of 1926 and 1927, when PKI was branded an illegal party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hendra<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hendra Gunawan, on the other hand, differed greatly\nfrom Sudjojono. Holt describes the artist as “more open-minded, and not as\ndogmatic as Sudjojono.” Hendra’s interest in the integration of arts and\npolitics predated the 1950s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Agus Hermawan T’s records, Hendra paid\nhis respect to Sudjojono, admitting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n If there\nwas one person who brought Indonesian fine arts to new heights, that man would\nbe Sudjojono. Thanks to the fellow, many painters learnt this lesson — whether\nin person or through other people: that an artist must not just stand there; he\nmust not be passive. An artist must organise himself so doesn’t turn all of his\nattention to simply creating, while ignoring other movements, as these\nmovements are essential in generating a revolution That’s the least of it.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n But Hendra explored this concept — of the artist as\nexisting in the middle of a revolution, and his subsequent position in politics\n— further. When SIM, Pelukis Rakyat, and individuals like Soerono made\npassionate posters that advanced the cause of revolution, Dutch artists\nquestioned the local community in a hardened tone: “Must you get involved\nwith politics?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hendra Gunawan’s answer was: “That’s right. We\nmust. Politics that is unclear will bend the arts. The right politics will\nnurture the arts.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Outdoor\nClassrooms<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The important position that sanggar such as SIM and\nPelukis Rakyat occupied in the development of art was brought to the art\nschools then recently founded in Yogyakarta. Sanggar painters played a\nsignificant role in art schools, for a time. The most important of these\ninstitutions in Indonesia in the 1950s were Yogya’s Akademi Seni Rupa Indonesia\n(ASRI, Academy of Fine Arts of lndonesia), founded in January 1950; and the\nDepartment of Architecture and Fine Arts in Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB,\nBandung Institute of Technology).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most lecturers in ASRI were sanggar painters, and had\nno academic background; they had fashioned their teaching methods after the\nsanggar model. At the time, the school lacked studio spaces, so painting\nsession had to be done outdoors. The academy also saw to it that its teachers\nnot only taught artistic skills, but also imparted their political\nunderstanding and attitudes; some influential teachers, like Sudjojono, Affandi,\nHendra Gunawan, Abdulsalam, Harijaddi, Suromo, Trubus and Ng Sembiring,\nsucceeded in persuading their students to join organisations like SIM, Pelukis\nRakyat, LEKRA — and even PKI. Western art and techniques only made their way\ninto classrooms in the mid-1950s and, therefore, did not have as significant an\ninfluence over wartime arts as the sanggar-born teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bandung<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, in Bandung, according to Holt, “the artists were conquered by art itself.” Art schools in Bandung already had excellent studios and classrooms; art education was taught according to the Western model. Compared to the more politically-inclined artists of Yogyakarta, Bandung’s practitioners were more interested in methods and aesthetic theories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most influential teacher of the visual arts in\nBandung at the time was the Dutch painter Ries Mulder. In Holt’s reports, the\nartist described his teaching method as an introduction to the formal visual\nlanguage, in its widest possible sense: the possibility of line, tone, colour,\nshape, and space — and their function in artistic expression, as applied\nduring different periods, in different parts of the worlds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mulder admitted that he restrained himself from\novercriticising his students’ output, as he was aware of his personal\nlimitations in understanding, or knowing the in-depth creative processes that\ndrove their work. “Most of my students’ influences over each other is far\nstronger, compared to my influence on them,” he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mulder also told his students: “You are free to\nfind yourselves, without obstacles or prejudice or sentiments, without daily\npressures that you are ‘Indonesian’. Why would you hide this independence from\nother people?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Helena Spanjaard, in “Bandung, the Laboratory of\nthe West?” (1990) termed the words made by Mulder’s students — Ahmad\nSadali, But Mochtar, Popo Iskandar and Mochtar Apin, among others — as\n“Ries Mulder’s Cubism”. After the mid-1950s, these Bandung painters\nbecame more diverse in terms of their and content, but generally remained in\nthe abstract style.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Comparisons<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Artists from Yogyakarta would often say that the work\nof their Bandung counterparts — Mulder’s students — lacked ideological\ncontent. They called the works by these artists “Western art”:\nindividualistic and abstract expressions of the natural world; Yogyakarta’ s\nart was “Indonesian art”: socialist and realist in its expressions. Based\non these characteristics, Hendra Gunawan would always claim Yogyakarta as the\n“centre of nationalist art; the stronghold of revolution.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Observers generally say that the words of Yogya’s\npainters are, indeed, extraordinary realist and expressionist works. These\nworks mostly take the form of social documentary of the war years against the\nDutch, portraying troops, refugees, senior citizens, children — and profound\nself-portraits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Art critic Trisno Sumarjo, in his “Bandung\nMengabdi Laboratorium Barat”, divides modern Indonesian art into two\ncategories: firstly, spontaneous art, native of the country, born from the\nspirit and experience of Indonesia; the other, imitative or artificial art,\nmade in the classrooms of Western “laboratories”. Trisno condemns the\nart of Bandung — which, in his view, is “shallow … bloodless” and\nhas the stench of “European laboratories”: student artists as guinea\npigs of foreign teachers who supported modernism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, a Lembaga Kebudayaan Nasional (LKN, National Culture Organisation) officer, Sitor Situmorang, believes that Bandung artists have developed a shallow understanding of modernism, derived directly from Western bourgeoisie taste. Western paintings, Sitor proceeds, is in crisis; they are no more than a trick, a game of perspective, composition and colour. Modern art has no meaning, delivers no messages, and doesn’t possess a viewpoint of the world. This modern art, according to him, is only a visual expression of the private life of the painter, and will never fulfil its cultural function in Indonesia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other observers are keener to call the arena of Indonesian fine art during the 1950s as a contest between the concepts of “art for society’s sake” and “art for art’s sake”. The tendency towards Western art as seen in Bandung is a representation of the latter; the high sentiment of citizenship and nationalism in Yogyakarta is an expression of the former. This is why Yogyakarta became the perfect breeding ground for ideologies such as those of LEKRA. <\/p>\n\n\n\n ~~~ <\/p>\n\n\n\n First Published: 18.07.2007 on Kakiseni<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Yogyakarta was Java’s principal art centre during the 1950s. According to Claire Holt’s “Art in Indonesia” (1968), there were a total of 74 registered art-related organisations in the city in 1955. Of that number, 14 were general groups; there were 17 dedicated to dance, 16 to music, 12 to theatre, and 7 to visual art. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"iawp_total_views":12,"footnotes":""},"categories":[34,3543,3539],"tags":[3594,3564,3589,3567,3592,3590,709,3595,3566,3559,3560,3561,3565,3596,3593,3562,3563,3591,259],"language":[7523],"writer":[7600],"class_list":["post-27194","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","category-politics","category-visual-arts","tag-akademi-seni-rupa-indonesia-asri","tag-bumi-tarung","tag-claire-holt","tag-fine-art","tag-hendra-gunawan","tag-hersri-setiwan","tag-indonesia","tag-institut-teknologi-bandung-itb","tag-lembaga-kebudayaan-nasional","tag-lembaga-kebudayaan-rakyat-lekra","tag-partai-komunis-indonesia-pki","tag-pelukis-rakyat","tag-persagi","tag-ries-mulder","tag-sanggar","tag-sim","tag-soekarno","tag-sudjojono","tag-visual-art","language-english","writer-antariksa"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27194","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27194"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27194\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38833,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27194\/revisions\/38833"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27194"},{"taxonomy":"language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/language?post=27194"},{"taxonomy":"writer","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/writer?post=27194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}