“…objects are culturally powerful because in practice they connect physical and mental manipulations.”

(Ian Woodward)[i]

Similar to the first exhibition of Contemporary Archeology, today’s exhibition is dominated by object works. This has to do with the understanding of the term “archeology”, a discipline of knowledge that tries to understand the history of mankind and past societies through analyses on manmade objects or artifacts. Archeology focuses mostly on the prehistoric society, which provided no written records for the historians to understand the said society. Etymologically, “archeology” means “ancient history” from “the past”, and thus the term “contemporary archeology” sounds rather paradoxical—archeology that refers to the contemporary society. Still, the term is actually used in archeological studies and refers to archeological researches focusing on the most recent past:

“Contemporary Archeology is a field of archeological research that focuses on the most recent (20^th and 21^st century) past, and also increasingly explores the application of archeological thinking to the contemporary world… Unlike ethno-archaelogy, contemporary archaeology studies the recent and contemporary past in its own right. Often informed by anthropological material culture studies, but characterized by putting traditional archaeological methods and practices to new uses, research in this field generally aims to make an archaeological contribution to broader social scientific studies of the contemporary world, focusing especially upon contributing methods of studying material things (objects, landscapes, buildings, material heritage, etc) to sociological, geographical and political studies of the modern world.”[ii]

As explained by the above quote, “contemporary archeology” is closely related with material culture studies, which position materiality as an important part of culture. “Material culture” refers to the artifacts and objects in the culture. “Studies of material culture have as their primary concern the mutual relations between people and objects.”[iii] In the context of the contemporary culture, what is being studied are the objects in our contemporary day-to-day life. The relations and perceptions of humans in relation to objects are determined by and depend on social and cultural aspects. Social, economic, and political issues, as well as that of identity, can be “read” through the presence of objects in our surrounding. In this case, the objects are perceived as signs analyzed through a variety of disciplines of knowledge, such as semiotics and studies of material culture and visual culture, as well as cultural studies. Semiotics, for example, uses objects as signifiers for other things that are external to them:

“The essential principle of the semiotic approach to studying material culture is that objects are signs referring to something other than themselves. As Eco (1976) beguilingly put it—the sign is intrinsically a lie. That is, an object is held to be a ‘sign’ of something else, a proxy for other social meaning.”[iv]

Artwork as (aesthetic) objects can also be perceived as visual constructs to understand the society that has formed them. Contemporary artwork is indeed seen as reflecting the situations and conditions of the contemporary culture. Artwork, therefore, is valued due to its representational contents. In other words, artwork is valuable owing to its potentials as “signifier” to the issue that the artist is talking about. Artworks, however, exist not merely as representations or signifiers; they are also valued for their “artistic contents” or “aesthetic contents”. The aesthetic content, or the “beauty aspect”, lies not only within an artwork, but is also present in practical objects. Today, industrial objects are produced with careful considerations about their appearances, because they must be able to persuade people to buy them. On the contrary, modern and contemporary artworks even move further away from beauty, which artists often deem “superficial beauty” or beguiling beauty—which they think should only exist in the realm of “low art” or popular culture. Bordieu, therefore, said of two aesthetic realms: popular aesthetic and “pure” aesthetic.[v]

The history of modern art in the West since early twentieth century—be it the formalist-modernist or the anti-aesthetic (Marchel Duchamp)—has always shown certain suspicions toward the popular aesthetic-type of beauty. The formalist-modernists, therefore, tried to seek the essence of art that reveals the ultimate aesthetic quality. On the contrary, Duchamp had since early on been exploring the anti-aesthetic tendency, which ironically had to be recorded also as a distinct aesthetic tendency. Thus, as a parameter of quality, the term “artistic quality” is more logical than “aesthetic quality”, although what is referred to by the term “artistic quality” in the era of pluralism is highly contextual, depending on the artist’s artistic area and intentions. For example, artworks with unmonumental tendency do not look at all beautiful, but it does not mean that they have no “artistic qualities”. Audience or observers who like to see the aspect of “beauty” in artworks might deem such unmonumental works as having no artistic quality. One can say that such judgment misses the idea and objective of unmonumental works.

Artworks are also frequently used to justify good taste. Taste plays a significant role in determining social class identity in a society:

“Bordieu emphasizes the role of aesthetic choice—one’s tastes—in reproducing social inequality. Bordieu usurped the (Kantian) idea that judgments of taste are based upon objective and absolute criteria by showing that particular social and class fractions tended to have distinctive taste preferences, which amounts to professing a liking for certain objects over others. Moreover, dominant social groups have the authority to define the parameters of cultural value (e.g. notions of what is ‘highbrow’ and ‘lowbrow’ culture) thus devaluing working class modes of judgment as ‘unaesthetic’.”[vi]

In this case, it is clear that artworks are constructed to occupy a high position as an object of high art, in the realm of high culture. Art objects are the pinnacle of bourgeoisie taste, and are therefore deemed the realm of pure aesthetic that in its development also accommodates deconstructive aspects such as anti-aesthetic aspects. One can consider this as a logical consequence of the disinterestedness aspect of the Kantian aesthetic disposition. It is often been said that everything connected to values and positions of modern and contemporary art are inextricably related to social constructions, especially with reference to the culture of the West. The awareness that cultural aspects are something constructed has spurred many artists to create works that are critical to high art construction, although eventually the works also contain their own paradox: challenging the high art but cannot be free from the production and consumption pattern of high art.

Today, many people believe that the boundaries between high art and low art have disappeared, “Distinction between art and the larger visual culture are dissolving and even disappearing.”[vii] It seems that there are interactions and interchange between the realms of high art and low art.

“The use of found objects and readymade, along with the appropriation and remixing of images and styles, remains significant, frequently involving borrowings from consumer and popular culture.”[viii]

Works in the exhibition of Contemporary Archeology reveal more or less what is expressed in the quote above. One cannot deny that the contemporary culture is lubricated by capitalism. Therefore, the existence of all kinds of objects and things in the contemporary society are inextricably linked with the paradigm of capitalism. The terms consumerism, commoditization, and commoditization have become inseparable from the objects that people “need”. It is often said that the contemporary society, especially in rich and developed countries, consume any commodity excessively. This is often related with the issue of the decreasing availability of natural resources and the earth’s capability to support human needs. It is a global fact that climate change has been caused by excessive consumption, especially of energy.

It seems not easy to reduce human needs for the consumption of things. Economic theories believe that economic growth will take place only if consumption keeps on growing. Capital owners will keep on persuading people to increase their consumption, in order to multiply their capitals. Lifestyle with different kinds of needs are distributed and aired through all channels of mass media. Lifestyle is naturally a construction that reflects social stratifications. Branding products are thus created to signify class differences. In this case, artworks are also branding “products”. If art has no practical use, one can perhaps say that branding is one of its main functions. This is one of the paradoxes of contemporary art. On one side it criticizes consumerism, on the other; art object becomes one of the super-branded commodities.

The exhibition “Contemporary Archeology” wishes to show how the artists question the existence and functions of objects in contemporary culture. That is why most of the works presented in the exhibition can be categorized as “objects” or, more precisely, object sculptures. One can say that the category of “object sculpture” lies outside the path of development of sculptural art. Chronologically, the development of modern Western sculpture includes figurative sculpture, abstract-formalist and biomorphic sculpture, installation, environmental art, and site specific. It is clear that the term “object” as artistic tendency is different from the understanding of object in the general sense, which can refer to any kinds of objects. Naturally, there is a link between the two—at least works of object sculpture refer to, and represent, the existence of objects or things around us.

Although the object tendency is derived from the readymade work ala Marcel Duchamp, there is almost no artist in this exhibition that fully presents readymade work. If there are readymade works, they are created through advanced processes. Cases in point are the arrangement of needles that resemble skulls by Teguh Agus Priyanto, or by Rini Maulina who arranged syringes in a grandiose chandelier design. Similarly, Leonardiansyah makes use of furniture, but one can surmise that it was made specifically for his work instead of being found object. It is clear that the figurines in an arrangement resembling headless terracotta army have been made by the artist. Dita Gambiro presents hair as materials that have been processed to resemble a hung dress. It is obvious that such a work requires a long and thorough processing.

Most of the artists in this exhibition—Risa Astrini, Maria Indriasari, Mulyana, Rangga Aditya, Faizal Reza, Putriani Mulyadi, Itsnataini Rahmadilla, and Ostheo Andre—show their abilities and skills in the execution of their works. One can say that the concepts and the ways the artists work in this exhibition are not in line with Marchel Duchamp’s idea of readymade objects, as evident in the works presented here. Apparently, the artists here still find the “process” of creating the works as significant. It seems to be based on the awareness that art, as a representational realm, will be more persuasive and inviting discussions if their “identities” as artworks are clear. To present readymade/found objects as they are has the risk of being perceived as the objects themselves, instead of as artworks with representational potentials. Apart from that, it has also the risk of being seen as deconstructive works (anti-aesthetic). Works that resemble everyday objects but re-made using other materials will confirm its existence as artworks that are distanced and different from their original objects. In short, in the context of the Indonesian contemporary art, the “traces” of work are seen advantageous in order to show the identity of the related object as an artwork.

The tendency of object sculpture has been more-or-less influenced by the development in contemporary craft that moves away from the functional aspects but are still retaining the capacity and skill to work using certain materials. Contemporary craft is oriented towards art and often called craft-art. The distinctness of object works, naturally, do not merely refer to the process of making and the skill in handling certain objects, but rather to the relationship between the idea and the realization. This is what the exhibition wishes to show; i.e. the existence of critical attitude towards the material culture that triggers art ideas and the ability to bring them about. The works of the artists in this exhibition do not merely give rise to perceptual sensations (aesthetic satisfaction), but also conceptual and intellectual capacities of the audience. That is what makes their works not merely objects, but rather art objects.

Asmudjo Jono Irianto

Exhibition curator

_________________
End Notes:

[i] Ian Woodward, Understanding Material Culture (London: SAGE Publication Ltd., 2007), p. 15

[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_archaeology

[iii] Woodward, op. cit., p. 14

[iv] ibid, p. 57

[v] See Janet Wolff, Aesthetics and the Sociology of Art (London: Macmillan Publisher Ltd, 1984), p. 20

[vi] Woodward, op. cit., p. 6

[vii] Jean Robertson and Craig McDaniel, Themes of Contemporary Art Visual Art after 1980 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 31

[viii] Ibid.