CRITICAL ART ON IDEOLOGY IN INDONESIA

Transcription

1 CRITICAL ART ON EXPOSEE Ideologies have always been a powerful tool of control. The goal is to create a form of collective art that brings up the right questions and disenchants the power of the Pancasila state ideology in Indonesia. IDEOLOGY IN INDONESIA An anonymous Movement as a form of civil disobedience against the power of ideology

2 Agenda 1. Prerequisites for bringing up the real questions 2. How can a movement be one unit of art? 3. How should critical art look like? a. Why the diversity of artistic expressions? 4. Civil disobedience a. Critical art as provocation 5. Examples a. Antagonistic graffiti b. The Vitruvian broker c. Offspring of the Garuda d. Symbol for the youth from the youth e. The Pancasila equals an empty box 6. References and Sources

3 1.) Prerequisites for bringing up the important questions In my understanding, critical art differs a lot from what can be considered mainstream artistic expressions. Especially ideologies such as the Pancasila state ideology are very complex and deeply rooted in cultural institutions and beliefs. Therefore, to disenchant the power of such ideologies, critical art should go further than just materialising negative aspects in metaphors, paintings or sculptures. It does not need to be restricted to one artistic expression, but should address all crucial aspects of ideology from different perspectives. It is very important, in my understanding of critical art, to make it public and visible to everybody, as everyone is influenced by it in one way or another. Now, how exactly do I interpret critical art and what is my imagination in how far the Pancasila in Indonesia can be disenchanted by critical art? For me, critical art should be accessible especially for those, who don t seem to be interested in it in the first place. Critical Art in a museum or theatre does not meet the requirements for efficiency and range of people that are addressed. Those who visit theatres or museums most likely have the intellectual and economical resources, to be educated and question ideologies anyway. But more important, those people, who don t belong to an intellectual or artistic elite, should be confronted with critical art. Thus, public performances and display of the art is a prerequisite for critical art to reach many people. Not only should everybody see it, I think participation in art is very important too. It is not a one-way street, but a dynamic, interdependent movement of people who want to express their criticism. One requirement that I see as a necessity, is anonymity in the movement. As in Indonesia, just like in every other state that is led by an ideology, the normative law enforcement hinders harsh criticism on the elite or the ideology itself. People who express their critique publicly, can be persecuted and punished. Thus, to lower the chances of persecutions, anonymity can serve as a protection. Don t fearing personal harm through law enforcement is necessary to express critique freely and directly. Only if that is possible, the important questions about ideology can be asked. Of course, everybody defines differently what the right question is, but that is a very good aspect of the diversity of the movement. As people have diverse experiences and perceptions about the ideology, diversity in expression can be achieved. Thus, different aspect, perceptions und forms of interpretation show ideology from several

4 perspectives and makes it understandable. Therefore, I believe anonymity can serve critical Art and is important for bringing up the real questions. 2.) How can a movement be one unit of art? I am aware, that I may break with mainstream norms when I say, that critical art can be considered as an accumulation of artistic expressions of all sorts. Of course, each expression can be considered itself as critical art, but my idea is, that an anonymous movement can create a certain Zeitgeist in a country and consists of questioning almost every aspect of life. Just like synchronised swimming or dancing, the power of expression is generated by the collective. And its value is much bigger than the accumulation of all individual artistic expressions. One expression or performance can bring up questions and entertain, but the diversity of expressions can disenchant fundamental ideological beliefs. As I already described, the movement is anonymous, therefore we don t have one artist as well. The focus is mainly on the expression itself and a charismatic artist or his personal background might mislead. Anonymity has always been a tool to criticize the elite. Georg Büchner for example was the author among others that published the Hessischer Landbote anonymous, in which they criticized the political environment of their time. Even today, the Anonymous-Movement uses the Internet to express their anger or disbelief globally (Schaub, 1976; Vance, Helft: 2010). Moreover, in my perception, access to this movement should not be limited. Not by location, educational background, interests, ethnicity or economic accessibility. Everybody can join or leave, does not need to pay for entrance or exit, or give away personal data. I like to see this form of critical art as a permeable system, so that everybody who has a sudden intuition about how one can criticize ideology, can immediately join by materializing it in whatever form they think is understandable. The expression does not need to be very transcendental or metaphorical nor very complex. As everyone is addressed, everyone should be able to understand it, because if it is a complex way of thinking to realise or materialise critical art, the viewer must think also very complex to understand the key aspects of the critique. Only the diversity of its members and artistic expressions creates an added value und public

5 recognition. To create sustainable artistic criticism, it should be present and visible over a longer period. 3.) How should critical art look like? Why the diversity of artistic expressions? As I already mentioned, there are no restrictions as how to express fundamental criticism. But obviously there should be some rules to follow, that are somehow self-explanatory. Obviously, no one must be physically harmed nor attacked and wantonly vandalism is no form of art. A deep rooted, critical question needs to be delivered and the critique must not be based on other fundamental or ideological beliefs, such as religious fundamentalism, capitalism or communism. However, when thinking about ideologies, one question comes to mind: How does one implement the complexity of an ideology in one simple artistic expression with bringing up important questions in the viewer mind? My answer to this question is rather simple: One can t. Therefore, it is mandatory in my understanding to combine several aspects, forms of expression and critical questions in one movement. How to organise that in society or in an anonymous movement can be considered the real art as it is very difficult without a central control organ, institution or leader, that defines structure. But it creates the freedom that is necessary to break out of classical ways of thinking.

6 4.) Civil disobedience Critical art as provocation Just like Satire, a provocation can lead to an actionist overreaction of those, who are criticised, thus confirming the critique. It is like petting a lion s tail to showcase his aggression potential. And just like satire, the consequences are very often of higher value than the expression itself. Not seldom, does satire lead to discussion about boundaries und fundamental roots of indoctrinations. Now even though those sorts of expression may violate laws and some people take it personal, civil disobedience and pushing the existing boundaries of law enforcement further receives public recognition. Examples like Rosa Park, Georg Büchner, or resistant groups during the Nazi-regime in Germany show, that there is no End of History that Francis Fukuyama predicted. Values and norms are in fact not invariable but created by society in constant development. Being civil disobedient has a high symbolic value and shows, that in some moderate cases, breaking the law can lead to overthinking this law and asking if it is still contemporary. This form of civil disobedience can also play a role in the movement I am describing. Criticizing the government or elite is very likely forbidden by law, yet an expression of humanistic, democratic values. So even though one breaks normative laws, that protect the elite und their ideology, it is not to enrich oneself personally, but helping society to question the law. Not only criticism, but also forms of expression can be normatively forbidden. As I will showcase later in some examples, graffiti is a simple example of vandalism and therefore forbidden. Yet it can be used in public spaces to encounter ideologies just like governments use public space to advocate and advertise their ideology. Also using famous statues like the garuda-statue in Jakarta as a place to express criticism is most likely forbidden when asked for by public regulations. Thus, using the materialised ideology in statues as a place to disenchant its weaknesses breaks a law, even though it is neither destroyed nor vandalised. This goes to show that the boundaries of law enforcement are very strict, yet they don t express rational, by the people legitimised norms. The freedom of speech has always been eked out against the elite and their established norm system, yet it is considered one of the most valuable achievements in humanistic and democratic societies.

7 5.) Examples Example 1) Antagonistic graffiti One way to deliver criticism even in rural regions is simple graffiti or other sorts of pictures that are visible in public places. In this example, I choose a wall that could be anywhere in Indonesia. On the wall, one can see two pictures with very antagonistic meanings. On the one side, one can see a group of angry people that raise their fist. A very typical form of expressing nationalism all over the world. On the other side, one can see hands of different skin colour holding the globe together. A simple metaphor for unity in diversity, that is the state moto in Indonesia. Its symbolic value is not as important as the contrast both pictures draw. Moreover, both pictures stand for the Sila s two and three. They refer to nationalism and civil humanity yet they seem to be contractionary. Nationalism often is the root of exclusion and intolerance (not to forget violence) and therefore quite the opposite of humanistic beliefs, that don t draw lines between the place you were born or the colour of your skin. To display this contrariety and structural disbalance of the Pancasila may lead to awareness that its content is incoherent when scrutinized.

8 Example 2) The Vitruvian Broker This example is rather simplistic in its expression but very hard to nanage in real life. It shows a banner or poster that is tied on a banks building. It shows Leonardo Da Vinci s The Vitruvian Man, which became an international symbol for humanism, But crossed out and displayed in negative colours. It should show, that many activities of banks do not go along with humanistic beliefs or contribute to social welfare. Again, the second Sila, which is teached by the government, is threatened by capital speculations and other questionable activities in banks, yet that is supported by the government. Humanism does not go with todays liberalisation of the banks, especially not with the second Sila. The negativity of the colour expressed that degenerated banks achieve the opposite of what the government preaches in the second Sila.

9 Example 3) Offspring of the Garuda eagle This example shows a statue of the garuda eagle (wisnu Rencara 1 ) as a representation of the Pancasila. In front of it, there are Eggs placed. Those can be made of everything imaginable, like paper or cardboard. They represent the offspring of the eagle, so equally the offspring in terms of consequences of the Pancasila. I choose four examples: Corruption, control, ideology and elitism. Of course, those derive not exclusively from the Pancasila, but the ideology as its mother, protects them by any means. Just like the Pancasila, established and instrumentalised by the government to achieve and cultivate their elite status. Whenever one tries to get rid of corruption for example, the Pancasila can be used as a legitimisation of the current political and social system to preserve the laws. It protects its offspring against any kind of danger that questions their legitimisation or existence. As a result of this art, one can expect, that employees of the state (whether police or other official authorities) appear to destroy or at least remove the paper/cardboard eggs from the 1 Jl. Raya Uluwatu, Ungasan 80364, Indonesia

10 setting. Those authorities act in the name and as an arm of the elite und are used as tools to enforce laws and ideologies. So not only the static, critical art piece itself, but also the provoked reaction of official authorities depicts the materialised structure of the Pancasila and makes it visible. This reaction would differ, as I believe, if the setting would be different. If, for example, someone would place such a poster or written on cardboard in front of a mosque saying: Allahu ahkbar (God is great) or Jesus Christ in front of a church (as the shortest creed, accepting Jesus as a messiah (Christ)) the reaction would be quite different. Legally, it would in both cases mean equally, that is placing written on cardboard in public. But authorities would probably instantly see the first example as critique on what must not be critiqued (rightfully so, as critical art should obviously criticize) and therefore remove it. Whereas the second example would lead to confirmation and maybe wouldn t be removed instantly. So how can the exact actual situation be considered differently by authorities? This question should be raised by those, who compare both situations. As a result, one can disenchant the power of ideology and that law enforcement protects it irrationally and disproportionately in contrast to other forms of publicly expressed opinion. One could conclude, that tools of the state, like the Pancasila, are protected by any means to remain powerful over the population.

11 Example 4) Creating a symbol that is fashionable, but critiques the pancasila subtlety What can be seen here, is a Garuda eagle, that seizes a ganteng bull. Both are imparted in the Pancasila logo and represent different columns. The ganteng bull is seen as a social animal and represents democracy as a part of the Pancasila. The garuda on the other hand is the symbol of the Pancasila as a whole. The logo itself does not seem to have a hidden message, especially when it s not clear, that it represents pillars of the Pancasila. But, as seen in the seizure, the Pancasila brutally cracks and seizes the bull and is way more powerful than it. This picture represents The Pancasila and how this ideology kills or destroys democratic principles in Indonesia. Now, as this logo does not seem to indicate that on first gaze, it can be established as a trendy logo among maybe young peer groups. Using modern technology that is easily available in Indonesia, such as printing on clothes, printing logos on phone cases or just easily printing stickers, the logo can be distributed easily or created easily, as I created this logo myself without any experience. As seen in the following picture:

12 In this picture, one can see the logo printed on clothes, phone cases and stickers and it shows the scope of application. One can argue that putting stickers on street signs is vandalism, but what I wanted to show, is how easily symbols are distributed these days. If this logo (or any other logo in that sense) would be established as a symbol of critique on the Pancasila, even if only a small circle of people understands the reference, it should provoke authorities. If they understand the meaning of this picture, they may want to ban it. But as the critique is very sudden and not evident, a ban would disenchant the ideological law structure once again. Let s just assume authorities ban the distribution or use of this picture as it stands for governmental criticism, those people who don t understand the deeper meaning of it ask themselves: Why do public authorities ban a picture of an eagle that seizes a bull? Why would they do such ridiculous law enforcement? And once they try to answer this question, they might come across the deeper meaning and understand, that exactly things like banning tame pictures is a violation of democratic values by the Pancasila or authorities that support the ideology. The comparison with other banned symbols like the swastika in Germany, as a symbol of the Nazi regime, seems to fail. This is not a simple logo that stands for a certain ideology. It is more of a diverse picture, everybody sees it differently and it doesn t support destructive ideologies. So, the foundation of law enforcement wouldn t stand an intellectual discourse or independent court.

13 Example 5) The Pancasila as an empty box The last example of materialisation of critical art is a symbol of the thin centred ideology the Pancasila is. One can see a box that can be opened or closed and in it one can find the five principles of the Pancasila. What can be seen as a simple form of materialisation the Pancasila itself, can also reveal fundamental critique on the Pancasila. Those who are indoctrinated and don t question the Pancasila may interpret it as the Pancasila as a big foundation that holds the values together and protects them. But this also contents a hidden message that makes the use of the Pancasila visible. The Pancasila can be seen as a big, overshadowing box that contents the five principles. But the Pancasila is also useless of it were not for the five principles (Just like an empty box would be useless if there wasn t something it could store). The five principles, like religion, on the other hand, don t need the Pancasila to exist. So, the ideology Pancasila cannot exist if it wouldn t refer to other, full ideologies. Taking the empty box Pancasila without its content shows the holder exactly what the Pancasila is: an empty case. It legitimises its existence over other legitimate ideologies and does not create value itself. This box moreover shows, that whoever controls it, can take out whatever ideology one likes and what seems to fit in the contemporary, political agenda. As seen in the History of Indonesia, the political leaders always interpreted the Pancasila differently, however it flowed their boat the best.

14 6.) References and Sources References: Gerhard Schaub: Georg Büchner / Friedrich Ludwig Weidig. Der Hessische Landbote. Texte, Materialien, Kommentar. Hanser, München 1976, ISBN X Ashlee Vance, Miguel Helft: Hackers Give Web Companies a Test of Free Speech. New York Times December 8, 2010 Picture Sources: Version_4%29.svg/1229px-Thai_government_Garuda_emblem_%28Version_4%29.svg.png y-ab.3.0i8i30k1l j psy-ab i19k1.IPl5aokER3A#imgrc=Y9K8pISAPPJmBM: