Guest Author of September 2009

The last months saw our Summer Seminar and two conferences – Hong Kong and Karlsruhe; after this long break, we return to our series of key texts by writers, curators and other international art experts. These texts offer different perspectives on globalization, artistic practice and the changing role of the museum, and will, as we hope, help to establish a network of involved authors – and readers.

In his contribution to the third GAM platform “A New Geography of Art in the Making” in Hong Kong, Jim Supangkat, our Guest Author for September 2009, traced the linguistic and philosophic basis for artistic discourse in Indonesia, as compared to a Western ideology of art. By analyzing the key phrases of “seni”, “seni rupa” and “kagunan”, he pointed out the necessity of cultural translation to fully understand the developments in art and art history, without having to resort to the persistent thesis of cultural incommensurability. The theoretical analysis of these issues is informed by Jim Supangkat’s long career as a curator, and his own work as one of the defining protagonists of the contemporary Indonesian art scene in the 1970s; likewise, the text can be read as a foundation for 2008’s Manifesto exhibition at the National Gallery in Jakarta, which presented over 350 artists from Indonesia.

The ‘Seni’ Manifesto

1. Why manifesto

In early 2007, the National Gallery of Indonesia, Jakarta, decided to organize an exhibition to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the National Awakening Day on May 20, 2008. A series of discussions and meetings with invited independent curators had been held to find an appropriate theme for the celebration. It was only in mid-2007 that the committee hit upon the theme.

The theme rests upon the terms of ‘seni’ (literally: ‘art’) and ‘seni rupa’ (literally: ‘visual art’) in the Indonesian language. Etymologically, the terms originated in the nineteenth century, around the time when the term ‘art’ emerged in English with the meaning that we know today. This shows that the thinking on art in Indonesia arose at the same time when the West was also formulating thoughts on art, which would become the basis for the global art development until today.

The emergence of the thinking on art in Indonesia, which at a first glance might seem trivial, actually signified something important; i.e. that the early thoughts about the modern world—which so far have generally been believed as occurring only in Europe—also arose in Indonesia in the nineteenth century. The early thoughts on the modern world developed within a small circle of the colonial society. In this context, the romanticist painter Raden Saleh, female intellectual R.A. Kartini who fought for human rights and Dutch origin socialist Eduard Douwes Dekker (more known as Multatuli, the author of Max Havelaar) who introduced the awareness of democracy could be considered as being among the very few first moderns in the Far East.

In the early twentieth century, it was precisely these modern thoughts that gave rise to a form of national awakening, and from this, the concept of Indonesia would be born (history would then record this moment as the ‘National Awakening Day’).

The emergence of modern thoughts in Indonesia in the nineteenth century was thus fundamentally related to the National Awakening moment, whose centennial anniversary is celebrated this year. The view that considers this relationship, however, has not been a popular view in the effort to understand how Indonesia came to be. The national narrative that the general public knows of has been that which influenced by the myth based on the desire to prove of the “greatness of the nation”. This narrative pivots on the stories about the greatness of the kingdoms in the Archipelago before the colonial time, and about the heroism of the nation in fighting against the colonial power and liberating the country. In such an understanding, there is only a very thin awareness to view the National Awakening moment as forming a part of the conceptual development of the idea of Indonesia.

To contest the origin of the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ is to bring to the surface some of the early signs of the modern thoughts in Indonesia during the nineteenth century. This effort might reveal the relationship between the contemporary Indonesia and the early modern thoughts of the native people at the time. This thinking serves as the point of departure for the National Gallery of Indonesia to take the theme of “Manifesto” for the exhibition commemorating the centennial anniversary of the National Awakening Day. To avoid any misunderstanding, however, it must immediately be explained that the title of “Manifesto”—which for some might sound political—is not meant to introduce some concept of Indonesian art or certain art philosophy that might give rise to the formulation of a “characteristic Indonesian art”, or to present some nationalistic statement about the practices of art. The Manifesto is a common statement from the 354 artists—reflects three generation of development—in this exhibition, which confirms the meanings of the term ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’. There has certainly been no effort to engineer the statement, as the thoughts that this exhibition confirms are not novel thoughts. All the artists understand these terms due to their own linguistic sense and cultural intuitions.

Such understanding has existed since the nineteenth century. If we compare it with the early meaning of the term ‘art’ in the West, the term ‘seni’ in this “Manifesto” exhibition can be understood as the raison d’être of the Indonesian art practices. However, a manifesto is necessary because the understanding that has been based on the linguistic sense and the cultural intuitions cannot be present as actual awareness. This understanding resides under the surface as a subversive understanding. The common understanding in the use of the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ have been dominated by the meaning of the English term ‘art.’ Such understanding, however, does not make Indonesian art expressions understood internationally. Rather, it gives rise to latent confusion along its journey since the early twentieth century. The genealogy of the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’, as well as the linguistic analysis as presented in this curatorial introduction, were attached to the invitation sent to the Indonesian artists whom the curators of the exhibition think as recognized artists (in the sense that they already have a large following). The invitation mentions that the artists are expected to re-confirm their perceptions regarding art (seni) and visual art (seni rupa), by presenting their works in the “Manifesto” exhibition. All of the 354 artists invited replied the invitation letter sent by the National Gallery. They confirmed their understanding of the two terms by sending their works that could most show the understanding.

2. Cracking the confusion

In the Indonesian art world, the terms ‘international art,’ ‘modern art,’ ‘world art,’ and ‘contemporary art’ are translated as ‘seni rupa internasional,’ ‘seni rupa modern,’ ‘seni rupa dunia,’ and ‘seni rupa kontemporer’ — note here that the term ‘art’ is taken as parallel with the term ‘seni rupa’ (which literally means ‘visual art’; as ‘rupa’ can be taken as parallel with ‘visual’).

However, the translators whose concerns tend to lie within the linguistic sphere will be inclined to translate them using the term of ‘seni’ instead of ‘seni rupa’ — thus ‘seni internasional,’ ‘seni modern,’ ‘seni dunia,’ and ‘seni kontemporer.’ In this case, ‘art’ is taken as parallel with ‘seni’.

In both cases, the translations are fine. There is nothing wrong with them, because ‘art’ can indeed be understood as either ‘seni’ or ‘seni rupa.’ Therefore, there are two Indonesian terms for the single English term of ‘art.’ This is a peculiarity that will certainly create some confusion, because the Indonesian terms of ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ actually have a different understanding. When one reads a book in English, there is nary a note explaining which understanding the term ‘art’ means—‘seni’, or ‘seni rupa’?

In the Indonesian art world, and especially in the art academies, there are efforts to neutralize the confusion by holding on to the understanding of the term ‘art’ itself, and ignore the understandings that the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ contain. The reasoning for this says that the term ‘art’ has been supported by a long series of references that has become a body of knowledge of sorts. Meanwhile, the understanding of the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ is meager as it has been given nary a thought, much less has it been developed. It is limited to mere lexical definitions that are too simple to be taken to the level of discourse.

The efforts to hold merely on to the understanding of the term ‘art,’ however, prove to be futile as it has not been easy to grasp what the term ‘art’ really means. The term garners its meaning through an intricate construct of discourses which can only be recognized in the West. There have been a large number of interpretations in the theories of art. The art history (which only documents the development of art in Europe and United States) records many shifts in the understandings of the term ‘art.’

No matter how advanced the Indonesian academics analyze and go through those references, it would never be enough to create an understanding that is equal to that which has been forged in Europe and United States. The understanding about the term ‘art,’ therefore, will only be half-baked. Such an understanding will not be adequate to conquer the confusion.

Meanwhile, the understandings of the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ remains. The dominant use of the Indonesian language in the discussions on art—including the discussions on art in the art academies—makes the understandings of these two terms inevitable. As a result, a form of dualism takes shape, without anyone being fully aware of it. In the world of Indonesian art, such dualism hampers the discussions and analyses that rely on the half-baked understanding of the term ‘art.’

In the practices of art, the artists are not required to describe their opinions and expressions in words, and here the understanding of the term ‘seni,’ which has been garnered through the linguistic sense and cultural intuitions, plays a big role. The influence of the term ‘art,’ however, is not dominant — it ain’t worry me, the artists are wont to say.

But art works and expressions only mean something when read and understood. Here, discussions are necessary, and the problem arises as the reading and criticism on art—which inevitably use words—arrive with the understanding of the term ‘art.’

Thus a clash of understandings takes place. The impact of such a clash has been long recognized in the art world in Indonesia: it is uncertainties. This is what lies at the basis of the disappointment about the doubtful art criticism all along the development of the art in Indonesia. This is also what lies at the basis of the feeling of frustration in facing art discussions that invariably ends in tensions, confusions, and even chaos.

At the end of the day, the clash points at the defeat of the understandings of ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’. Intellectually, the understandings generated by these two terms will not be able to beat the construct of the term ‘art,’ which has been composed after a long, intricate series of discourses. Politically, they will also suffer a defeat as the English term ‘art’ lies at the base of the art development in the world—from the modern art up to the contemporary art—and Indonesia cannot disengage from this development.

The protracted chaos and confusion, however, exactly show that the terms of ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ have not totally lost. The discussions about art in Indonesia are yet to “surrender” and totally use the understanding of the term ‘art’—which might be the case in Malaysia, Singapore, and India. The confusion precisely indicates that the understandings of the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ works are simmering under the surface and become subversive forces. Existentially, it shows that the understandings of these two Indonesian terms have never disappeared and been playing a significant role.

The “Manifesto” exhibition is an effort to overturn the condition; taking the subversive understanding of the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ to the surface and turning them into the main principle in the practices of art and the reading of art works. This effort is the opposite of trying to conquer the confusions generated by the choice to hold on to the term ‘art,’ which had proven to be a futile choice as it only brought us to half-baked understandings.

The statements presented in the “Manifesto” exhibition have a larger significance than mere local efforts to overcome the confusions and uncertainties. Their linkage with the problem of the domination of the term ‘art’ makes the common statement of the 354 artists have a global scope.

In the world forum, the statement serve to reduce the misinterpretations that generate wrong impacts; preventing the deprecating views that sees the Indonesian art as decorative arts (according to the West) or retarded modern art—backward art forms due to their concerns with “dead” isms. The latest deprecating opinion criticizes the contemporary Asian art as cold potato.

There is a more basic, global problem contained within the statement in the “Manifesto” exhibition. At the global forum, the effort to break the condition of being dominated as implied by the statement has been the main concern of the discourse regarding the cultural politics of difference.

The discourse came to be at the end of the twentieth century and tried to explore and develop the meanings of the term ‘marginalization,’ which have been previously used since the middle of the twentieth century. ‘Marginalization’ is a radical term used in various rhetoric that criticizes the European and North American modernists (i.e. proponents of modernism) who disregarded the non-Western world, which they considered as unable to understand what modernism truly is.

The term ‘marginalization’ does not signify a certain concept. It does not create a clear image about the center of domination that has given rise to the marginalization. Modernism is a complex discourse, and only some of the thinking therein are linked to the marginalization of the non-Western world. Marginalization, therefore, is not only about the confrontation between modernism and the non-Western world. Audre Lorde tries to identify the center of domination with the following words: “White, narrow-minded, male, young, Christian, heterosexual, and financially secure.”

The discourse of difference, especially the cultural politics of difference, has the goal to breakdown the concept of the term ‘marginalization’ and manages to find a breakthrough. To Russell Ferguson, the cultural politics of difference comprises a series of efforts such as: (1) Gathering analyses, critical opinions, and debates about the contemporary culture in Europe and United States of America, in the realms of philosophy, literature, films, architecture, and art; (2) Re-questioning and recognizing the complex conditions of the culture within a repressed society; (3) Discovering contra-movements, analyses, critical views, as well as arguments against marginalization.

Meanwhile, Cornel West sees the thinking within the cultural politics of difference as a creative reaction that might help us to understand correctly conditions of the contemporary culture. The effort does not stop at the genealogy of the term (or the analyses on the “dark side” of the history, which might delineate the origins of the uncertainties); it also complements this genealogy with a historical framework that can serve to pinpoint the problematic, Euro-centric points of view. In confronting the intellectual challenges—as evident in the methodological debates that make academics to dominate the world of thoughts—the reaction has the power to break into the (real) representation, based on the history and the culture of the people¹.

3. Reconfirming difference: linguistic Analysis

To confirm that the domination of the term ‘art’ over ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa,’ one needs to delineate how the terms are fundamentally different. To pinpoint the peculiarity that exists in the translation of the term ‘art’ is restricted to showing the uncertainties that causes the confusions to arise. The difference between the term ‘art’ and ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ can only be confirmed by means of linguistic analysis.

To view it using linguistic analysis, the English term ‘art’ indicates an almost-absolute nounish phenomenon. The term ‘art’ is invariably used as a noun and it always occupies the position of a subject in the phrases. This shows that art is considered as an intrinsic part of an artwork (as it carries the nounish property), and can be most obviously identified in works of art (as they are concrete objects).

In its plural form of ‘the arts,’ it contains the art of music, dance, and theater. This is indicative of the perception which views the (visual) art as higher than other forms of art, and sees it as the standard with which all other art expressions are measured. In such a perception, the term ‘art’ has double meanings, i.e. the fundamental matter (‘seni’ in Indonesian language) and a form of expression (‘seni rupa’ in Indonesian language).

With such a perception, almost all of the thoughts that seek the meaning of art focus on the analyses of the visual art. This perception—which believes that the development of the (visual) art serves as the keynote of the development of art in the West—emerged in the nineteenth century at the time when the English term ‘art’ was being established. This is the raison d’être for the art practices in the West.

Meanwhile, thoughts on art that had been forming previously (in Germany during the eighteenth century) did not view art in that light. The thinking on art during the eighteenth century (assembled in aesthetics) questioned the sense of beauty. Here, art pertains to the quality of the senses in the human’s mental condition—a kind of sensibility that resulted in sense perception.

The philosophy of beauty, or aesthetics, was brought into a corner in the nineteenth century. A radical change took place. The analysis on the human’s sensibility turned into the analysis on the objects of art that carried with them the nounish characteristics; i.e. the art works. This analysis took place, among others, through the formulation of art history, which would then become the main reference used to understand art².

The Indonesian term of ‘seni’ is also known as a noun. Linguistically, however, this noun can be interpreted differently—especially in the context of the group of phrases that use the root word of ‘seni.’

Linguistic analyses would recognize that the phrase ‘seni rupa’ (visual art) consists of two words, ‘seni’ (literally, art) and ‘rupa’ (literally, visual). The word ‘seni’ in this phrase is a noun occupying the position as the subject (linguistically, it would be defined as the ‘head’). Meanwhile, the word ‘rupa’ modifies the subject and occupies a lower position (linguistically, it is called the modifier).

In linguistic studies, the modifier ‘rupa’ can be considered as an adjective that explains the noun. It can also be regarded an adverbial, i.e. the part of speech that modifies any other part of the language.

If one considers the word ‘rupa’ as an adjectival (the adjective that modifies the noun ‘seni’), then the phrase ‘seni rupa’ can be said as having the same meaning as the English phrase ‘visual art.’ This is the most generally accepted meaning—an artistic expression in visual form. In the world of art today, there happens to be a tendency to replace the term ‘fine art’ with ‘visual art,’ whose meaning parallels that of the term ‘seni rupa.’

We can analyze the word ‘rupa’ further by viewing it as an adverbial. In its relation to the word ‘seni,’ the word ‘rupa’ lies on the same level as other adverbs such as the noun-adverb of ‘dance’ (in ‘seni tari’ or the art of dance), ‘music’, ‘theater’ (in ‘seni teater’ or the art of the theater), and ‘literature’, as well as the adverbial verbs such as ‘melukis’ or painting (in ‘seni [me]lukis’ or the art of painting), ‘bercinta’ or love-making (in ‘seni bercinta’ or the art of love-making), and ‘mengukir’ or carving (in ‘seni [meng]ukir’ or the art of carving, or sculpting).

The equal positions of these adverbials indicate a perception that views the visual art as equal to other forms of art (such as dance, music, and the literary art). ‘Seni rupa’ or the visual art is simply one form of art expressions and not a standard with which art expressions are understood, unlike what the term ‘art’ implies. ‘Seni rupa’ or the visual art can even be considered as having the same position as ‘seni memasak’ or the art of cooking. Meanwhile, the English word ‘art’ in such phrases as ‘the art of cooking’ or ‘the art of love’ is never considered as designating a part of the arts.

Such linguistic analysis indicates that the term ‘seni’ is an abstract noun that implies ‘sensibility’ or the quality of the sense in the human’s mental condition. Seen in this light, art is formless and only finds some shape after it is expressed, not only as a work of art. The sensibility leaves a trace in the various work and activities such as cooking or, even, making love. It is this artistic sensibility that serves as the standard for all artistic expressions as well as for the work and activities that produce outstanding results. From such linguistic analyses, the differences between the meanings of ‘art’ on one side, and the meanings of ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ on another side can be seen more clearly. There is actually only a slight difference, which lies in the distinction in the interpretation of the word ‘seni.’ The impact, however, is significant.

4. The genealogy of ‘Seni’ and ‘Seni Rupa’

The distinction between the understanding of the meaning ‘seni’ and ‘art’ is in no way reflecting the difference between the Western culture and that of the (ethnic) Indonesian culture, because the term ‘seni’ is unknown to the ethnic cultures in Indonesia.

The Indonesian terms of ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ do not originate from one of the dialects in the Indonesian archipelago. In around five hundreds dialects spoken by close to three hundred and fifty ethnic groups in the archipelago, there are no equal terms for both ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’. In other words, all the ethnic cultures in the Indonesian archipelago have no concepts of ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’.

The Indonesian language is a modern language born in the early twentieth century and recognized as the national language of the country. Although it originated from the Malay language, the Indonesian language cannot be viewed as a dialect that evolved gradually and eventually was adopted as the national language. The Malay language was deliberately chosen as the basis for the Indonesian language as it had been a common language—a lingua franca—in the Archipelago and the surrounding region prior to the colonial time.

The term ‘seni’ also originated from the Malay language. In its adoption, however, the term was ascribed some other meanings. In the Malay language, the word ‘seni’ had another meaning, i.e. ‘fine’ or ‘small’. The phrase ‘air seni’, which literally means ‘minor water’ but actually means ‘urine’, is inline with such an understanding.

Due to the fact that the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ did not originate from one of the ethnic languages in the Indonesian archipelago, the historical analysis on the genealogy of both terms cannot be done by observing symptoms of art within those ethnic cultures in Indonesia. The historical analysis cannot avoid the complex condition that served as the background for the emergence of these two terms. Such analysis, therefore, requires a specific historical framework.

The influences of the local cultures must indeed be considered in such analysis. They must, however, be linked with the process of cultural translation which causes the local cultures to occupy a peripheral position in the analysis. Because the terms ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ arose in the modern Indonesian language, the genealogy of both terms is inevitably interlinked with the history of the modern thoughts in Indonesia. Because the Indonesian language was born as a part of the birth of the Indonesian nation, the genealogy of both terms must also consider the history of the nation.

In post-colonial studies, the Republic of Indonesia is one of the post-colonial states—i.e. a state whose administrative unit arose from the occupied region of the colonial period. This fact indicates that the Indonesian nation does not come from a certain race or ethnic group that became liberated from colonial reigns. The Indonesian state and nation had been formed during the colonial period, based on the modern thoughts in which the ethnic and racial boundaries had been eliminated, first of all in the realm of ideas.

The modern thinking did not immediately give rise to the concept of an Indonesian nation during the twentieth century. The concept took shape from a century-long history that involved a myriad of aspects.

During the process, the societal development was not distinct from the confrontation between the colonial and the native societies. The development of the modern thoughts can thus not be separated from thoughts about humanity, the religious tensions, cultural differences, as well as awareness about rights and welfare. The idea of nationalism became the umbrella for all those simmering matters.

Although the process gave rise to social and political upheavals in the early twentieth century, in the preceding century it had long been simmering and given rise to unexpected changes, and had therefore escaped the public attention for years. It was in such undetected cultural disturbances that what Homi Bhabha dubbed a ‘cultural translation’ took place.

Homi Bhabha proposed the concept of the cultural translation in the early nineties, when he was seeking a ‘third space’ between universalism and cultural relativism. He stated that “the translation is a way of imitating but in a mischievous, displacing sense – imitating an original in such a way that priority of the original is not reinforced but by the very fact that it can be simulated, copied, transferred, transformed, made into a simulacrum and so on: the ‘original’ is never finished and complete in itself. The ‘originary’ is always open to translation so that it can never be said to have a totalized prior moment of being or meaning—an essence³.”

The idea of Indonesia was born amid the society of mestizos, out of the myriad of cultural translations that had been taking place since the nineteenth century. The mestizo society had been comprised of the educated natives, the Dutch colonial society, and the “Indo” or half-Dutch people. The community grew along with the growth of cities, especially on Java, which was the center of the colonial government.

It was in that community where modern thoughts were born. The awareness about a civil society turned this urban community to reject the monopoly politics of the colonial government who controlled all trade sectors. The fight succeeded to achieve its goal through civil society movements, the awareness about the freedom of speech, and the right to have a voice in the Dutch parliament.

The Dutch monarchy recognized the rights of the civil society in the fields of trade and politics. In keeping with this recognition, the Dutch monarchy then adopted the ethical politics (ethische politiek), which raised the issue of the natives’ struggle against the colonial exploitation.

The victory of the civil society movement in the colony seemed to have opened a Pandora box, and all the malicious mischief of the colonial government became known. The natives in the mestizo community thus started to be aware of their rights as a people. This awareness especially developed after a group of educated natives from various places in Indonesia—especially from the Islands of Sumatra, Sulawesi, Bali, and the Moluccas—went to the only place where universities existed at that time: the Island of Java.

It was in this group of educated natives that the concept of Indonesia took shape in the beginning of the twentieth century, and gave rise to the fight for the right to independence. Originally, this was because the natives were still treated differently although some of their rights had been recognized. For the common native people in the colony, the politics of discrimination still reigned and their rights were completely denied.

The seething development among the mestizo society indicated symptoms of cultural translations. From such cultural translation, arose the completely novel understanding among the natives about the civil society. A concept of Indonesia, which was distinct from the 1850 concept formulated by two British ethnologists G.W. Earl and J.R. Logan, took shape. A form of nationalism that was different from the original concept of nationalism—as had been formulated by Ernest Renan at the Sorbonne University, France, in 1882—also came to being.

One of the early signs of the establishment of the mestizo community had been the emergence of the culture of the Java Classic in the early nineteenth century. This culture, which had the various symptoms of cultural translations, could not be wholly considered as the Javanese culture, as it was not a linear development from the Javanese culture. Rather, it had been formed by the Javanese nobility, Dutch experts on the Javanese culture, and the colonial government.

In the culture of the Java Classic, one could find the term ‘kagunan’, which was indicative of the emergence of thoughts on art. The term can be found in the dictionary of high Javanese, Baoesastra Jawa[4]. The existence of the term ‘kagunan’ showed that the process of cultural translations had taken place, as such term was nowhere to be found in the previous Javanese culture. The term was more closely related to the Western thoughts on art than any other terms before it.

This adaptation of Western thoughts indicated the emergence of modern thoughts in Indonesia. This was the sign of which one must be aware: modern thoughts were already known in Indonesia in the nineteenth century, at the same time when the West was still establishing the bases of the modern world.

One cannot be certain about when the term ‘kagunan’ actually arose (there has been nary historical studies or linguistic researches about the term). It is possible, however, that the term ‘kagunan’ came to being during the development of the Instituut voor het Javaansche Taal (The Institute for the Javanese Language), established in Surakarta in 1883. In 1840, the institute was taken under the wing of the Royal Academy in Delft, the Netherlands, and subsequently the University of Leiden and became the Javanologie Instituut (or the Javanology Institute)[5].

Considering the development of the institute, it was highly possible that the term ‘kagunan’ arose in the early nineteenth century, or perhaps the middle of the century. The sign that could confirm this possibility was the fact that the term ‘kagunan’ could be found in the writing by the Javanese bard Ronggowarsito (1802 – 1873), in the book Pustaka Purwa Raja (or the Book of Kings).

History shows that the formation of the term ‘kagunan’ took place almost simultaneously with the development of the meaning of the English term ‘art’. The basis for the term ‘art’ had been the concept of fine art or high art in the writing of such philosophers as G.W.F Hegel, Immanuel Kant, Max Scheler, and Schopenhauer at the end of the eighteenth century. It was only in the early nineteenth century that the thinking spread and known as the concept of High Art.

Like many other early modern thought, the English term ‘art’ was adapted from the thoughts of the classic Greek (500 BCE), which had in turn been adopted and translated into Latin. The Greek term that served as the origin of the term ‘art’ was ‘mousikě techně’.

The term ‘mousikě techně’ was understood as mental activities that were distinct from physical work activities. Such mental activities were also different from the rational thinking which had to do with the ‘epistěmě’ or knowledge.

The root word of the term ‘mousikě techně’ was the word ‘techně’, which could be understood as “useful activity” or “skill”. This was also the origin of the word ‘technic’. The word ‘mousikě’ in the phrase ‘mousikě techně’ insinuated “something of the muse”, an inspiration or “some poetic sense”.

In Latin, the term ‘mousikě techně’ was translated (and imbued with some interpretation) as ‘artes liberales’, and understood as “the work of the free people”—i.e. “the intellectuals” who were “free” from menial works to sustain their day-to-day living. It was from this Latin phrase that the English term ‘liberal arts’ originated, forming the basis for the term ‘art’ and the concept of high art.

It might very well be that the term ‘kagunan’ that emerged during the nineteenth century originated from the same source; i.e. the term ‘mousikě techně’. This possibility lies in the process of formation and the meaning of the term ‘kagunan’, which was very close to the process of formation and the meaning of the term ‘mousikě techně’.

The root word for the term ‘kagunan’ had been the word ‘guna’, whose meaning was similar to that of the word ‘techně’—i.e. “something useful”, or something related to skills. In Baoesastra Jawa, the word ‘guna’ is listed as having the meaning of: character, skill, advantage, or useful result.

Meanwhile, the understanding of the term ‘kagunan’ was also very similar to that of the term ‘mousikě techně’. Baoesastra Jawa notes that the term had the meanings of: (1) Intellegence; (2) Useful capacity; (3) The development of the mind by expressing the sense of beauty⁶.

The word ‘kagunan’, therefore, is the “twin word” of the English term ‘art’. Although the two words seemed to have the same source, the meaning ascribed to the term ‘kagunan’ was not influenced by the meaning of the term ‘art’, nor was it affected by the concept of “high art”, because these words and concepts were born almost simultaneously. At the time, the concept of High Art had not become influential.

One could immediately sense that the terms ‘art’ and ‘kagunan’ actually were distinct from each other. In interpreting the term ‘mousikě techně’, the word ‘art’ had focused more on the aspect of reflections (i.e. the activity of the free people), which was far removed from daily activities (or functional activities). Meanwhile, in the formulation of the term ‘kagunan’, the emphasis was more on the functional aspect (techně) rather than on the reflective aspect. In the meanings ascribed to the term ‘kagunan’, no emphasis was given which differentiated work as the practice of art from work in day-to-day living.

Albeit having been adapted from a Classical Greek term, the definition of the term ‘kagunan’—i.e. “the development of the mind through the sense of beauty”—indicated the influence of local perspectives. In this definition, the “inspiration” and “sense of beauty” of the term ‘mousikě techně’ had been interpreted as the interaction between the mind (intellect) and the sense of beauty.

In the Javanese philosophy—and in the philosophy of most other ethnic cultures in the Archipelago—such interaction indicates the efforts to seek wisdom, which is related to morality and the noble values held by the society. Such local influences confirm the differences between the terms ‘kagunan’ and ‘art.’

When the Indonesian language was born in the beginning of the twentieth century and the term ‘seni’ was thus born, the meaning for the latter adapted the understanding of the term ‘kagunan’. There was almost no other possibility, because the term ‘seni’ had no equal terms in any other language in the Indonesian archipelago—including the Malay language. One can therefore be certain that the term ‘kagunan’ had been the only reference that could be used when the term ‘seni’ was being formulated in the Indonesian language.

The relationship between the term ‘seni’ and ‘kagunan’ showed the link between the terms ‘seni’ and ‘art’. The term ‘seni’ can thus be considered as the “twin word” of the term ‘art’. Just as the term ‘kagunan’ before it, the fundamental understanding of the word had not been influenced by the concept of High Art.

The link between the term ‘art’ and ‘seni’ has never been investigated, as the definition of the word ‘seni’ in the Indonesian dictionary indicates an ambivalent view. There is a sign that the definition of the term ‘seni’ as delineated in the dictionary has actually been influenced by the concept of High Art. Merely considering its definition and ignoring the genealogy, therefore, will not motivate anyone to link the term ‘kagunan’ with ‘seni’, much less confirm the link and adopt it as a certainty.

In the general dictionary of the Indonesian language, there are two definitions for the term ‘seni’, which show the ambivalent view. One of the definitions shows its close relationship with the term ‘kagunan’, while the other one indicates the influence of the concept of High Art.

The definition that indicates a close link with the term ‘kagunan’ describes that ‘seni’ pertains to “the skill to make [or create] something beautiful”. One can immediately detect that this relationship resembles the definition for the term ‘kagunan’. Here, both the definition for the term ‘seni’ and that for the term ‘kagunan’ talk about the mental capacity in the expression of beauty. Both definitions also put some emphases on the capability of the sense in experiencing the beauty that is the source for the creation of art works.

The definition that has apparently been affected by the concept of High Art says that ‘seni’ is “a work that has been produced (or made) with remarkable skills.” The definition indicates an effort to translate the definition of the term ‘art.’ Here, the focus is on the artwork and the extraordinariness of the creative process. The basis for such a definition is the Western belief on art that views art as an intrinsic part of an artwork. It sees the art as carrying a nounish phenomenon—which has been present in the artist and is then transferred to the work of art without undergoing any substantial change.

Another symptom that shows how the term ‘seni’ has been influenced by the understanding of the term ‘art’ is the emergence of the Indonesian term of ‘seni murni’. This means, literally, ‘pure art’. This is the opposite of mechanical art, applied art, and decorative art, which are categorized as being ‘non-art’. The term ‘pure art’ reflects the belief in the concept of High Art⁷.

If we merely consider these definitions, a question will arise: Which one is true—the term ‘seni’ as originating from the term ‘kagunan’, or the term ‘seni’ as a translation of the term ‘art’?

Linguistic studies on the terms having the root word of ‘seni’ — kesenian (the arts), seni rupa (visual art), seni tari (dance), seni musik (music), seni sastra (literature) — firmly indicates that the term ‘seni’ has its origin in the term ‘kagunan’. Linguistically, the word ‘seni’ is an abstract noun whose meaning indicates sensibility and formlessness, and implies that ‘seni’ will only take shape when it serves as a basis for expressions. This is clearly different from the understanding about the term ‘art’.

Considering such linguistic signs, the definition of the term ‘seni’ that shows the influence of the concept of High Art should be taken out of the dictionary, as it would create paradoxes when applied to understand the group of terms having the root word of ‘seni’.

The multiple definitions of the term ‘seni’ are one of the factors that have created confusions in the construction of the understandings and perceptions about the art in Indonesia. In a dominated condition as has been suffered by the modern art in Indonesia along its journey during the twentieth century, the definition that shows the link between the words ‘seni’ and ‘art’ merely serves to confirm the “obligation” for the Indonesian artists to follow the definition of the term ‘art’.

Such obligation faded as modernism saw its demise at the end of the twentieth century. The downward slide toward this demise started when the modernism dreams of creating a homogenous modern world across the globe can obviously not be achieved in the real world. As modernism faced its downfall, post-modernist philosophy questions the concept of ‘fine art’ and its influences all over the world.

The demise of modernism—which was one of the reasons behind the emergence of the cultural politics of difference—allowed the abolition of the confusing definition of the term ‘seni’. The definition of ‘seni’ as something closely related to the understanding for the term ‘kagunan’ could thus be confirmed. Such confirmation was actually a re-confirmation, because the understanding of the term ‘kagunan’ that had been contained within the understanding of the term ‘seni’ never really disappeared.

With this confirmation, the term ‘kagunan’ can be more thoroughly explored to expand the meanings of the term ‘seni’. The definition of the term ‘kagunan’ that was missing from the definition of the term ‘seni’ has been the assignation of ‘seni’ as a form of “the development of the mind by expressing the sense of beauty.” This definition reinforces the link between ‘seni’ and reflections and contemplation, proving that ‘seni’ is not merely about forms of beauty that trigger the feeling of happiness.

All these notes in the genealogy of the terms of ‘seni’ and ‘seni rupa’ show that the domination suffered by these terms is not as bad as is often described by the discourse about the politics of difference.

The genealogy indicates that the term ‘seni’ is basically similar to the term ‘art’. The different perceptions contained within the similarity do not make the concepts of art as understood by the Indonesian artists become removed from the global art development. It is therefore not difficult for the Indonesian artists to absorb the symptoms of the world art, from the modern art development in the twentieth century to the contemporary art development.

The unique thing was that the Indonesian artists read the symptoms of the world art development as a text (a visual language) unbounded by art history. The different perception on art prevents them to go further in and understand the underlying thoughts. The texts are used as the language of expression that follows the perception that relies on the subversive understanding of the term ‘seni’.

When the textual construct—the absolute categorization in the history of art—is made relative within the development of the contemporary art, the artistic perceptions of the Indonesian artists seem to enter the “track” of global art development, in which the tendencies or the isms are detached from the history and considered as texts. Therefore, if expressions found in the works of the Indonesian artists today still perceived as showing dislocation, we can conclude that the development of the (global) contemporary art today cannot be entirely detached from the fine art tradition, which it has fought against.

5. The global dimension

The understanding of the term ‘seni’, which is the focus of the common statement of the artists in this “Manifesto” exhibition, has a global dimension; not as a statement that might abolish the domination, but as a proposal in the thinking to rediscover the meanings of art after Arthur Danto talked about “the end of art.” The understanding of the Indonesian term ‘seni’ might serve as an element of discourse in the debates about the meanings of the English term ‘aesthetics.’

In the theories of art today, the word ‘aesthetics’ is understood as a quality of the visual appearance. All aesthetics analyses in art theories, therefore, are efforts to analyze and describe what is seen as visually “fine” or “beautiful”. As aesthetics is an autonomous quality (unaffected by cultural perceptions), the experience gained from such visual quality is entirely subjective. This belief makes the understanding of the English term ‘aesthetics’ differ from the understanding of the term ‘aesthetics’ that has been imbued with social or cultural values.

Stephen Davies in his writing, “Non-Western Art and Art’s Definition”, questions the understanding of the English term ‘aesthetics’. He is of the opinion that the meanings of ‘aesthetics’ have been relying on the Western ideology of art, which is inextricably linked to the material world, the nounish phenomenon of the word ‘art’, and the belief that views art expressions as reflective abstractions detached from morality and social conventions.

Davies believes that such an understanding makes the art practices in the West to become atrophied. He then goes on to delineate the difference between the term ‘art’ in lowercase ‘a’ and ‘Art’ in uppercase ‘A’. The atrophy takes place because the development of the art practices in the West has marginalized the ‘art’ in lowercase ‘a’, which has been closely related to the social and cultural development.

Davies views that the term ‘aesthetics’ should be linked to the experience of complex beauty. Therefore, the understanding of the term ‘aesthetics’ cannot be restricted to mere visual qualities. To support this argument, Davies points out that in the art practices in the non-Western world, ‘aesthetics’ is seen as related to story-telling, drawing, sculpting, singing, theatrical performances, and dances. Davies is certain that the aesthetic property in the non-Western world contains the possibility to see what is called “transcultural aesthetics⁸.”

Davies then mentions Adrian Vicker’s thoughts on Bali (in the book entitled Bali: A Paradise Created)[9]. Such quote-taking shows that what Stephen Davies meant by art practices in the non-Western world is the art practices in the ethnic traditions.

Denis Dutton rejects the understanding of the term ‘aesthetic’ as Stephen Davies proposed, although it is not a direct rejection. In his article “But They Don’t Have Our Concept of Art”, Dutton maintains that art works are not merely aesthetic. Technical excellence is not the reason why art works have meaningful allure. Denis Dutton has his doubts about the “art works” taken by such Western observers as Stephen Davies as they are constructing the meaning of the term ‘aesthetics’. He is not sure whether the art works can actually be categorized as works of art. Dutton says that the non-Western society might not have created these “works of art” as artistic expressions.

As reflected by the title of his writing, Dutton questions whether the non-Western world actually recognizes the concept of art. He points out that in the non-Western world, art remains an unknown term. Dutton does not mean to conclude that art is non-existent in the non-Western world. Indeed, he believes that the non-Western society recognizes works and activities considered as noble and have artistic qualities. The non-Western society might differentiate these from “non-art” works and activities. According to Dutton, the Western observers often find it hard to differentiate the two kinds of works and activities.

Dutton insists on the understanding of the term ‘aesthetics’ as a universal visual quality. He refers to primitive African sculptures, which he thinks as containing meaningful appeal. In their community, the sculptures have special meanings—they are taken as sacred objects. Outside their community (i.e. in the West), the appeal can still be recognized and sensed. It has been often discussed how such an appeal caught Picasso’s attention as he began the tendency of the modern sculptures in the beginning of the twentieth century. To Dutton, the primitive sculptures are works of art and cannot be categorized as decorative arts¹⁰.

The debates show that Stephen Davies’s views must still confront the beliefs that rely on the incommensurability thesis, which believes that the non-Western world cannot be understood outside its own context. So far, all analyses on the non-Western world are still dominated by such a view, which the ethnologists in the past have firmly believed. This belief sharply demarcates the boundaries between the modern world and the non-Western world, which have been identified with the ethnic traditions of the past.

Stephen Davies has not managed to go beyond such demarcations, although he is actually viewing the practices of art in the non-Western world of today—which is a part of the contemporary culture. He fails to show the link between the art practices in the non-Western world and the artistic concept that is considered as the “key” to the modern world. He cannot, therefore, avoid Denis Dutton’s questioning comment: but they don’t have our concept of art.

The understanding of the Indonesian term ‘seni’ can provide answers to all the nagging questions in the debate. The history that forms the background of this term answers Denis Dutton’s comment, which in its inverted form becomes the question: Do they have our concept of art?

Although the underlying concept behind the term ‘seni’ is not the same as the concept behind the term ‘art’, Dutton will never be able to repudiate this term because the two concepts came from the same source, i.e. the term ‘mousikě techně’.

The origin of the term ‘seni’ also indicates the relationship between the art practices in the non-Western world and the artistic concept that Davies fails to show. The concept arose due to the influence of the modern thoughts, but it has not received any influence from the concept of High Art. It contains, therefore, the perceptions that reflect the art practices in the ethnic traditions. The group of terms using the root word of ‘seni’ is indicative of this symptom, as the root word ‘seni’ can refer to art practices within the realm of the ethnic traditions, such as ‘seni batik’ or the art of batik making, ‘seni janur’ or the art of palm-leaves weaving, and ‘seni ukir’ or the art of sculpting. The word ‘seni’ can also be used to refer to crafts—which the concept of High Art does not consider as forming a part of the art—such as ‘seni keramik’ or ceramic-making, ‘seni tekstil’ or textile making, and ‘seni kayu’ or wood making. All these terms occupy the same plane of existence as ‘seni lukis’ (painting), ‘seni patung’ (sculpting), and ‘seni grafis’ (printmaking), which the concept of High Art considers as forms of Art, with a capital ‘A’.

The understanding of the Indonesian term ‘seni’ also confirms Stephen Davies’s effort to apply the understanding of the term ‘aesthetics’. In the beginning, Davies was searching for the transcultural aesthetics by returning to the art philosophy in the eighteenth century, which had been marginalized by art philosophy of the nineteenth century. This is why the art philosophy in the eighteenth century did not trigger development of art in the West and made Davies turns to the aesthetic property in the non-Western world.

When the term ‘kagunan’ came to being, the underlying philosophy might be the art philosophy of the eighteenth century. The concept of art in ‘kagunan’ was similar to that of the concept of art in the eighteenth century. As it gave rise to art practices, the concept reveals the ‘art’ in the lowercase ‘a’—in the past as well as in the present—similar to Davies’s view, and different from the ‘Art’ in the uppercase ‘A’ which Davies sees as being atrophied. The understanding of the Indonesian term ‘seni’, therefore, makes Stephen Davies’s thoughts become make sense.

The understanding of the Indonesian term ‘seni’ complements Stephen Davies’s views. If one can hold on to this stream of thinking, one can conclude that the understanding of the Indonesian term of ‘seni’ confirms the prediction regarding the development of the contemporary culture; i.e. the beginning of art after the end of Art. The emergence of the issue about the end of Art reflects some sense of frustration. It has been very difficult to discover novel ideas that are unaffected by the development of Western thinking, which has been going on for two centuries. Such Western thinking has given rise to modernism in the twentieth century and become very intricate and domineering. Its positive aspect can almost not be separated from its negative aspects.

The realm of Euro-American philosophy never expected that there would be other modern worlds that developed differently and provided alternative thoughts. That was exactly the case with the understanding of the term ‘seni’. Albeit meager and underdeveloped, this understanding survived to this day as it had emerged in the Indonesian language and has been influencing the Indonesian artists as they create their works.

The link between the term ‘seni’ and ‘kagunan’, as well as the relationship between the term ‘kagunan’ and the early modern thoughts of the nineteenth century, all indicate that the term ‘seni’ can be considered as forming a part of the modern thoughts. This term, however, is free from the domination of the Western thoughts that have been developing for two centuries (since the nineteenth century), as it uses as its basis the Western art philosophy of the eighteenth century.

The understanding of the term ‘seni’ could reflect the encounter between the Western philosophy and the ethnic traditions (all over the world). It shows, therefore, how the world of the ethnic traditions has been developing in the modern world, something that modernism considers impossible because it views traditions as the opposite of modernity. If one views the Western modernity that has been developing for two centuries as the moon, then the term ‘seni’ can be considered as a tiny notch of the other modernity in the dark side of the moon.

Stephen Davies tries to bring the Western art philosophy of the eighteenth century to life again after the demise of modernism. He tries to construct a theory that connects this art philosophy to the art practices in the world of ethnic traditions, in order to find a way out of the dead end reflected in the issue about the end of Art. Davies, however, fails to pierce through the thinking that relies on the incommensurability thesis, and seems also to fail to convince the present world his theory about the ‘art’ in the lowercase ‘a’ and ‘Art’ in the uppercase ‘A’.

The understanding of the Indonesian term ‘seni’ which has its influence in contemporary Indonesian artists’ perception complements Stephen Davies’s theory and confirms a prediction within the thinking of art in global contemporary culture; i.e. the idea about the beginning of art after the end of Art.

¹ Ferguson, Rusell et al. (ed). Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures. New Museum of Contemporary Art. MIT Press. New York 1995. Page 9 – 20

² Williams, Raymond. Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Fontana Press, London. 1988. pp.32-33, 40-43.

³ “The Third Space” Interview with Homi Bhabha. In Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. Jonathan Rutherford (ed.), Lawrence & Wishart, London. 1990.

⁴ Pigeaud, Th. (et.al). Baoesastra Jawa. (High Javanese Dictionary) JB Wolters. Groningen – Batavia, 1939. W.J.S. Poerwadaminta, who put together Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia (or the General Dictionary of the Indonesian Language, published for the first time in 1952), was one of the authors of this High Javanese Dictionary.

⁵ Kristanto, J.B. (ed.) Seribu Tahun Nusantara [A Thousand Years of the Archipelago]. Kompas Gramedia, Jakarta, 2000. See the attached timeline in the book.

⁶ The original text: (1) Kapinteran (2) Jejasan ingkang adipeni (3) Wudaring pambudi nganakake kaendahan (gegambaran, kidung, ngukir-ukir).

⁷ Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia [General Dictionary of the Indonesian Language]. All editions.

fn8. Davies, Stephen. “Non-Western Art and Art’s Definition.” In Theories of Art Today. Nöel Carroll (ed.). The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin. 2000.

⁹ ibid. p. 203

¹⁰ Dutton, Denis. “But They Don’t Have Our Concept of Art.” Op. cit.