The Second Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art exhibition catalogue (APT2)

Contemporary Art: What/When/Where Jim Supangkat The term contemporary art, the meaning of which has been taken for granted in international events, shows a hegemony of meanings. References behind the understanding of this term constitute a discourse within mainstream thinking. This condition has the potential to dominate international contemporary art exhibitions which have seen the participation of Third World artists. The term contemporary art has, in fact, never really been defined. However, curators, writers and art historians apparently concur that contemporary art is related to the development of international art after the 1970s. We can see this kind of perception in Klaus Honnef's book Contemporary Art, in which Honnef points out that contemporary art has been more open to social and cultural tendencies outside the art world. 1 Thus, his evaluation that contemporary art, 'concentrates not only on the art world, but also-wherever it seemed necessary– on more general events and tendencies in society and culture as a whole'. 2 No doubt Honeff's stance reflects the position commonly taken by curators, art writers and art historians in judging and evaluating contemporary art works. Contemporary art in Third World countries has become more prone to misinterpretation. Considering Honeff's opinion, we can ask-to what kind of general events, tendencies in society and kinds of cultures is contemporary art open? As we know, political comment has become a characteristic of Third World contemporary art. Via the international media network, social and political affairs in the Third World are accessible internationally. However, how far do writers and curators in the international art world really understand social life and political struggles in the Third World. How do they perceive the transformation of social and political issu~s into artistic expressions. In a discussion in Amsterdam early this year, Hou Hanru, the noted Chinese curator, stated: The writers of most articles on Chinese contemporary art, instead of discussing the artists' creative efforts and the cultural-intellectual values of the work, concentrate their energy and interests on revealing how the 'unofficial' artists suffer from political pressure in the country as if the significance of both artist and work can only be found in ideological struggles.This recalls the methodology of the 'Western' official ideological propaganda during the Cold War. 3 Another example can be seen in the commentary of noted Australian art historian John Clark on a contemporary art work entitled Terdesak (Backed into a corner) by Indonesian artist, Hedi Haryanto, shown at the 'Exhibition of Contemporary Art from the Non-Aligned Countries'. John Clark saw political confrontation in Terdesak, which shows two iron circles combined with nails that 26 I Es sAvs penetrate to the empty centre of two halves of a split log.4 Haryanto's work has a totally different meaning however. The two halves of a porous log with holes in it were actually parts of a traditional Javanese container meant to hold honey. It was only by coincidence that the design of the container and the modification done by Haryanto gave the impression of bondage or shackles. Haryanto is an artist who pays specific attention to the indigenous materials and simple technologies of Indonesia's traditional communities which, up to now, are still in use in making functional utensils. Haryanto's works are part of the discourse of 'low art' in Indonesia which attempts to demystify the common perception of traditional culture by pointing out that the actual traditional culture has itself been marginalised by the concept of traditional culture. One way or another these misinterpretations are related to stereotypes and exoticism. I fear this tendency will become a set identity in the post– colonial era which, in fact, follows the divisions of the colonial era. Where there was once a distinction made between 'the modern society' and 'traditional societies' using progress as a parameter, now the division is between 'developed societies' and 'not-yet-developed societies', using democracy as a parameter. Hou Hanru noted that it is important to consider the creative effort of the artist in judging a Third World contemporary work. Does this mean that taking artistic development as a consideration is more reliable? And, does the paradoxical change from avant-garde to post avant-garde as a paradigm of contemporary art, apply outside the mainstream? In a way, the paradoxical change from avant-garde to post avant-garde is related to the discourse of post-modernism. Charles Jencks, the prominent figure in post-modernism, wrote that: ... the avant-garde which drives Modernism forward directly reflects the dynamism of capitalism, its new waves of destruction and construction, the yearly movements and isms which follow each other as predictably as the seasons ... But this situation has changed in the last ten years, not because the bourgeoisie and capitalism have 'melted into the air', but because artists, architects, critics and the public have begun to understand these dynamics and have taken up a new position, what I would call, perhaps rather predictably, the 'Post-Avant-Garde'. 5 It is quite clear that the post avant-garde is an important part of the deconstruction of modernity, which has been dominated by the bourgeoisie and capitalism. But how far can the deconstruction of modernity be applied outside the Western world? Noted Dutch scholar Jan Nederveen Pieterse pointed out that the debate on post-modernism has been conducted almost entirely with backs turned to the world outside the West. 6 In trying to see the connection between the deconstruction of modernity and other developments outside the Western world, Nederveen Pieterse wrote that: The way to come to terms with the specificity of Europe is to explain the singularity of its development in contrast to that of other continents. In a word, unpacking the specificity of European development.7 The unpacking of Western modernity in Nederveen Pieterse's thought is based on the same platform as the rethinking of absolutism/totality in modernism which has been my interest in recent years. Neither approach can fully be seen as deconstructing modernity/modernism but rather, criticise its singular development. It was absolutism and totality which caused modernism to be perceived as related to modern art which had only one way to develop (the Western way), and the denial of other models of development -the basis of its domination. However, i.n discussing this domination, we should be aware that the condition discussed is not only related to a confrontational condition-between the West and the East, the dominant and the dominated, the mainstream and the marginalised. The dominant concept was adopted without pressure among the dominated (although with various interpretations which resulted in differences).There are scholars in Third World art circles who believe that modernity/ modernism presupposed universal/absolute/total values. Thus, modern art also developed in the Third World. But the extent to which modernity and modernism have been critically discussed within the Third World should be questioned. One way or another, it can be seen that the understanding of modernism in the Third World is not clear. This lack of under– standing became apparent when Third World artists and curators became involved in the contemporary art 'movement'. It was argued that modernism/ modernist development was the cause of domination and marginalisation. Contemporary art, which critiques modernist development, had freed the Third World from being dominated and marginalised. However, what was the motivation behind the Third World criticism of modernist development; was it against modernism or the resulting marginalisation?