The choice of a point of view is the initial act of a culture. (Jose Ortega Y. Gasset)

The exhibition titled “Common Sense” wishes to show the link between art expressions and the ‘culture’ that is the manifestation of one’s attitude or self-awareness. The term ‘sense’ or ‘sensus’ (Latin) means ‘the faculty of feeling, thought, meaning’. The term ‘common sense’ is by no means considered as ‘an understanding or acceptance that is taken as common’ (as the term is understood by many parties. This term, on the other hand, has the meaning of something special (characteristic) that ‘an individual’ has done, which then becomes a model for the common (public) acceptance. The term ‘common’ (or ‘shared) explains that the attitude that someone takes does not necessarily mean that it is ‘the one and only’ or ‘the original’ position; rather, it has also much to do with the pattern of cultural acceptance and perceptions that a few others might also share.

As the manifestation of self awareness, the theme of ‘common sense’ is aimed at exploring our understanding and experience about the culture. As a term, ‘culture’ constitutes one of the most difficult terms to define. Within the context of the “Indonesian culture”, however, the term has a more complicated meaning, as complex as the issue of “the Indonesian-ness” itself. On one occasion, the late art historian and critic Sanento Yuliman mentioned about the concept of “Indonesian-ness” in relationship with an artist’s expression. He wrote:

We can indeed say that whatever concept we confer upon the word of ‘Indonesianness’, the concept will invariably be linked with the idea about the involvement or the engagement on the part of the artist toward Indonesia. However, Indonesia is an issue with a myriad of aspects, elements, recesses, and is as vast as a continent. The involvement or engagement to what aspect, specifically? I’m afraid such answers as “to the wholeness of it” or “to its totality” are mystical answers that will lead us deeper into the miasma. [1]

Sanento’s mention about the “totality” serves as an image to those of us who wish to embrace each and every aspect of the myriad ethnic cultures in Indonesia into our imagination. I wish to limit this issue of understanding within the context of a certain matter only, i.e. the experience of modernity, or the condition of modernity that encompass all of those aspects of life—in this case, I wish to avoid the issue of cultural studies in an anthropological sense. Rather, I wish to invite the artists to consider the idea of culture as the results of the fragmentation of life experiences within the context of the condition of modernity.

Modernity can be understood as marked by the increase of social and individual fragmentation, implying the definitive loss of the (imaginary) unified social world of the ancients, due to the division of labor and the market system.[2] In this sense, the art theoretician Paul Mattick says that art [expression] has begun to be seen as a manifestation of an ideal field of knowledge and experience, in which the reintegration of the individual personality and the social totality, unachieved in concrete reality, can be attained.[3]

The development of contemporary art is critical toward the idea of progress as had been formerly promoted strongly by the Modernism movement. As a result, the contemporary art is not allergic to the orientation toward the traditional and cultural values. In practice, expressions of contemporary art do not differentiate themselves with the practice of the creation of the modern art in general, and freely find their inspirations in a variation of cultural and historical sources, in line with the attitude of the artists, who find themselves interested in these sources.[4]

The exhibition of “Common Sense” certainly does not wish to describe, much less define, what ‘culture’ is. Rather, the works presented in this exhibition wish to express, show, and display other parts of the culture that are not easy to state within the limitations of descriptive and logical definitions. We think that the (art’s) aesthetic expressions can precisely “liberate” cultural expressions from the limits of definitions, something which we invariably strive to achieve.

I think that the attitude of the cultural theoretician T.S. Eliot, who considered that culture does not entirely constitute a form of our consciousness, is quite inspiring. To Eliot, a form of culture can never be entirely conscious—there will always be more to it than we are conscious of;  and a [life of] culture can never be wholly planned, because [on the contrary], culture will precisely serve as [the condition of] the background of the unconsciousness for all forms of such planning.[5]

The works in the exhibition “Common Sense” are certainly expected to be able to escape from the “miasma” and “mysticism” of the cultural identity; liberated from the desire to take in the understanding of culture as a totality. The works, in essence, inclusively state the various conditions of individual personalities, as well as a myriad of experiences that we have gained from the grinding totality of the social experience. The works in this exhibition should betray a living culture and a culture in its life. A culture, while it is being lived, is always in part unknown, in part unrealized. The making of a community is always an exploration, for consciousness cannot precede creation, and there is no formula for unknown experience. A good community, a living culture, will, because of this, not only make room for, but actively encourage, all and any who can contribute to the advance in consciousness which is the common need. Raymond Williams further say that “We need to consider every attachment, every value, with our whole attention; for we do not know the future, we can never be certain of what may enrich it; we can only, now, listen to and consider whatever may be offered and take up what we can.”[6]

Rizki A. Zaelani

Exhibition Curator

_____________________
End Notes:

1.       Sanento Yuliman, Langkah Kepalang, in Biranul Anas, Setiawan Sabana, Yustiono, Widihardjo, Yasraf A. Piliang, Mamannoor, ed. Refleksi Seni Rupa Indonesia: Dulu, Kini, dan Esok (Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 2000), p.104

2.       See Paul Mattick, ART IN ITS TIME, Theories and Practices of Modern Aesthetics (London & New York: Routledge, 2003), p.12.

3.       Ibid.

4.       See Arthur Danto, Introduction: Modern, Postmodern and Contemporary, in AFTER THE END OF ART: Contemporary Art and The Pale of History (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997) p.5.

5.       T.S Elliot, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (London, 1948), p. 94, 107

6.       Raymond Williams, Culture and Society 1780 – 1950 (London, 1958, reprinted Harmondsworth, 1963), p. 334.