Shoes are indeed made for our feet, but one can say that their prestige is higher than that of head coverings. Shoes are even known as one of major fetish objects, as we know that there are cases of shoe fetishism, although it usually has to do with the shoes that are often linked with sexual fetishism or fantasy, such as the stiletto high heel shoes. Shoes are also a significant fashion item. The kind and brand of shoes signify the wearer’s social class, as insinuated by the expression “You Are What’s on Your Feet”. Shoes, therefore, also reflects the wearer’s lifestyle and identity, and often function as signifier for certain communities or sub-cultural movements, such as the boots-wearing punkers.
However, no other shoes are perhaps as important as the sneakers in serving as marker of the contemporary culture known as the sneaker culture.

The story of sneakers began from a pair of rubber-soled shoes sold cheaply and produced in 1839 by Liverpool Rubber Company. The shoes were initially called “plimsoll” and were in the form of simple rubber soles with coverings of canvas cloth. In 1892, the US Rubber Company made a higher-quality version and called it “Keds”. Since the 1900s, demands for the rubber-sole shoes increased rapidly due to the comfort they offered. The rubber-soles shoes almost never made any sounds whenever they were used, and the wearer could thus sneak in and out. That was why the rubber-soles shoes are subsequently known as sneakers. Sneakers then grew to become sport shoes, like basketball and tennis shoes. Sport sneakers, however, are also used in myriad of activities that have nothing to do with sport. The informal and casual nature of the shoes, as well as the comfort and “style” they provide, make sneakers the shoes of choice for the youth.

Sneakers become a mark of identity and the preferred fashion style for the urban youth. Like the jeans, sneakers have grown to become a fashion statement related to the spirit of freedom, the egalitarian and popular culture, and urban cosmopolitan lifestyle. Sneakers also become a part of the underground and street lives, and therefore often linked with the hip-hop culture.

Producers of sneakers shrewdly promote and heighten sneakers’ prestige. The passion and the fetishist attitude among lovers of sneakers are of course related to the identity construction surrounding the shoes, which are often linked to sub-cultural elements with the spirit of the counter culture. As usual, however, when huge capitals are involved, elements of this counter culture become co-opted and transformed into parts of the mainstream culture. Branded sneakers, therefore, have become representation of the middle- to upper class lifestyle. They do not come cheap, especially for most Indonesians.

Sneakers are the theme and subject matter in Dodit Artawan’s paintings. If we find ourselves stand face to face with Dodit’s paintings, we will immediately suspect that Dodit is crazy for sneakers. Such suspicion proves to be correct. Dodit is indeed a lover of sneakers; one can say that he is a “sneaker-freak” or a “sneaker head”. The range of sneakers that we see in Dodit’s canvases actually represents his personal collection. Scores of pairs of sneakers are neatly stored in a glass case in Dodit’s bedroom, like treasures. When he was still a high-school student, Dodit had the desire to collect branded sneakers. Branded sneakers, with their many kinds of designs, exert a strong appeal on Dodit—and to other sneakerheads in general, of course. In this case, we can say that they have a fetishist attitude toward sneakers. The term ‘fetish’ itself is defined as such:

“Fetish is a familiar word for an exotic thing. In ordinary usage everyone knows that it means an object of irrational fascination, something whose power, desirability, or significance a person passionately overvalues, even though that same person may know very well intellectually that such feelings are unjustifiably excessive.”

From the above explanation by William Pietz, we understand that the term “fetish (object)” was initially used for objects of worship in primitive societies, which are seen as having certain powers due to the spirits that reside within them. The term has a strong anthropological/ethnographic bias and at first only applied to objects in primitive societies according to the Western observers. Some observers, however, went on to say that the term “fetish” should also apply to the worship of objects or artifacts in the Western society, an act that is also far from being rational, as the above quote explains. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu even said that in the modern society, manifestations of this fetish attitude can be observed in the peak of modern art: “While a sociologist like Bourdieu might have well written, ‘Greenbergian modernism was an apotheosis of fetishism in the visual arts in the modern period’.”

Using Bourdieu’s opinion above as our basis, we can say that Dodit’s paintings displayed in this exhibition are a form of double fetishism, as they depict fetish objects (i.e. the sneakers) while the paintings are themselves fetish objects. Dodit seems to combine two kinds of fetishism, just as George Bataille has once commented, “to love a canvas as much as a fetishist loves shoes”. The two aspects are evident in Dodit’s paintings. They strongly reveal how Dodit is a true sneaker-fetishist. Observe how he is almost drowned in a sea of his beloved sneakers, in Colourful Sneakers. The colorful sneakers appear strong and life-like, and we almost forget that we are actually looking at a painting. With highly sophisticated and detailed photo-realist techniques, Dodit is able to make the paintings look “alive”. Sneakers, as fetish objects in Dodit’s canvases, make for enticing images.

Dodit’s paintings are interesting as they explain to us two matters that are actually separate or detached: the territory of high art and its rival, i.e. that of popular art or popular culture. At the same time, many parties are of the opinion that the boundary between the two realms has become increasingly blurred; in many cases they even seem to merge. The mechanism involved in the production and consumption of Dodit’s paintings is nevertheless far removed from that found in the production of sneakers, as Julian Stallabrass explained:
“The art market is still dependent upon the buying and selling of rare or unique objects far removed from the mass-produced commodities found in ordinary shop. In most markets a few dominant companies control production, but there are few in which consumption is regulated. The commercial art world tries to hold both reins tight, for the buyers of these objects are few and known to the sellers, production is often artificially limited, and patronage often has a personal dimension.”

One thing that often seems to obscure the boundary between popular art and high art—so much so that many often believe that the two territories have merged—is the fetish drive that the two regions of art can create. Many producers of fashion products often take advantage of this fact. The fetishist attitude toward sneakers is brought up by giving personal touches on the sneakers, for example by means of special-edition products or limited edition linked with certain famous athletes or celebrities. The limited edition sneakers gain thus higher values and become precious collectibles. This is reflective of what Karl Marx has explained about commodity fetishism.

“The theory of commodity fetishism therefore suggests that capitalism reproduces itself by concealing its essence beneath a deceptive appearance. Just as quality appears as quantity, so objects appear as subjects and subjects as objects. Things are personified and person objectified.”

Special edition sneakers like Nike Air Jordan—a product of collaboration between Nike and Michael Jordan—are highly successful in the market and reflects what Marx said, “things are personified”. Nothing, however, beats works of art in reflecting how “things are personified”, as obvious in Dodit’s paintings. One cannot separate Dodit’s paintings from the artist himself. The works exist because they are seen as representing the artist, while at the same time the artist gains credits in the world of art through his works—just as explained in the quote above about commodity fetishism: “things are personified and person objectified.”

However, there is still separation between high art and popular art; between art and non-art—although the two are sometimes represented by the same images or visual methods. Stallabrass further confirms:
“Above all, while ordinary commodities live or die by millions of individual decisions to buy or not to buy, the feedback mechanisms which determine the track of contemporary art are regulated and exclusive, and the ordinary viewer of art is permitted no part in them.”

Stallabrass goes on to show that there are different spaces of consumption and production between branded consumer goods and works of art. The separation between the two remains, no matter how strong the efforts are to obscure it.

“Separated from the full rigour of the market, art can flirt with consumer culture while remaining assured of its safe demarcation. Indeed, those works that appear to threaten such a merging of art and the commodity actually reinforce the boundary by making it visible.”

Nike Air Jordan refers to mass-produced sneakers, while every one of Dodit’s paintings—just like any other work of art—is a unique “product”, the only one of its kind in this whole wide world.

Athletes or celebrities from the territory of popular art gain their recognitions based on certain standards of achievements, and this is especially true for athletes. Meanwhile, we can judge how popular artists perform by observing their record sales, for example. For artists like Dodit, however, it is rather difficult to determine the parameters with which we can assess their qualities—although lately their financial or market success, with their works being sold in high prices, has been considered as one of the hallmarks of a successful artist.

In art, myths about the artist becomes important. Modern art considers important artists as creative geniuses. Recognition and awards are hard to come by in modern art, and that is why we know only a few modern artists in the world (all of them coming from the West). Sometimes the recognition is given posthumously. This, for example, is obvious in the myths about van Gogh:
“In this family of artists, figures whose ‘art and life are one,’ Van Gogh is the absolute champion, in all categories. Madness, the severed ear, unlucky in love, unsuccessful commercially—Vincent was no winner, and not even a moral example. But he did suffer, and that is a serious point in his favor. You can imagine the high priests of the artist cult having replaced Christ’s words ‘for this is my body’ with ‘for this is my canvas’.”

As Judith Benhamou-Huet points out, the fetish for van Gogh’s paintings has been inseparable from the myths regarding van Gogh’s torturous life. Van Gogh’s suffering became a myth that could “sell” and “advertise” van Gogh’s paintings—after his death. Van Gogh’s canvases serve as the reification of the artist’s suffering. What we see happening with van Gogh’s paintings is the example of how “things are personified” in the context of commodity fetishism.

Of course, the myths regarding the contemporary artists are an altogether different thing. The “myths” of the contemporary artists must be constructed while they are still alive, and they can immediately perceive the results—while they are still young, if possible. This is evident in the case of the Young British Artists (YBAs), with Damien Hirst as its “forward propeller”. The success of the Young British Artists show that myths regarding the “greatness” of young contemporary artists have to do with their market success and celebrity status. The same is true on the global level: the Indonesian contemporary artists today enjoy the fruits of their artistic career—in terms of successful market reception—more so than their seniors, and earlier, too.

The success of many young artists all over the world reveals that the plurality of contemporary art still requires “heroes”. The world of the contemporary art is nevertheless the continuation of the patterns of production and consumption of modern art—but without the absolute parameters of formalist modernism. Heroes in the contemporary art thus appear with many different parameters, but one thing remains the same: the artwork is the object of the elite’s fantasy.

“Sotheby’s, Christie’s and, now, Phillips, take twofold approach to their key customers. They arouse the desire to possess a painting or sculpture by transforming it into fantasy object… If such an excessive price was paid for this lot, then there must have been a good reason. And that can only be the quality of the work. The work, it is assumed, is unique and irreplaceable, and, therefore, priceless.”

Fantasy object, of course, is none other than fetish object. In this case, Dodit’s paintings open the path for us to understand the kind of fetishism that is different from other kinds of fetishism that are related to fetish objects such as sneakers. Dodit’s paintings—like many other modern or contemporary paintings in general—are works of oil paints on canvas and exist as works of art. Today we are sustaining a massive assault by elements of the mass culture.
The visual appearance of digital technology such as the LCD screens or the gigantic advertising banners naturally threaten the visual potentials of works of art. Art must compete with all these elements of mass culture. Dodit, however, takes the path that goes in the opposite direction from that of the ease offered by digital technology, by creating photo-realist images through paintings.

This is an old technique—some even say primitive. Our foremost fascination with Dodit’s paintings do not originate from the visual aspect—which we can easily produce using photography—but from the fact that the images were hand-made. An image that looks like a work of photography but is in fact a painting surely catches people’s attention. In this case, Dodit’s paintings are able to “entice” the audience to keep on looking at the collection of shoes in his canvases. Apparently the method of photo-realism is the most logical method to take. One can say that it is even the logical consequence of his choice, and one that he must take advantage of. It is only by employing this method that the characteristics and the quality of the sneakers as the object of desire can be brought to the fore.

The theme of sneakers in Dodit’s paintings is an “alibi” for him to create (or to produce) paintings (i.e. works of art). Isn’t it true that contemporary painting always has to deal with “something”? Of course, for a painting to be considered significant, the content, or the alibi, is also important. This significance (the content or the meaning) is what the audience will “read” in the work. The quality of such an effort of reading—and how well the audience enjoys the work—mainly has to do with the selection of visual methods. In this case, Dodit has chosen to present sneakers with the technique of photo-realism. That is why Dodit’s sneaker paintings are far removed—in terms of the context and the appearance—for example with Van Gogh’s shoe paintings that are highly expressive in nature.

Apart from the appearance of his paintings that entice the viewers, as works of art Dodit’s paintings contain rich meanings and messages, and are especially important in terms how the issues are presented. Observe, for example, the work Footwear and Fashion that clearly speaks of how identity and “value” of a person are often seen as depending on what the person wears. To stress upon this fact, Dodit deliberately does away with faces in his paintings, presenting a statement of sorts that what is important is not the person, but rather the attributes, or that someone becomes important because of the attributes he or she is wearing. In Low Rider, sneakers take a central position. The wearer seems proud and keenly aware of how special the sneakers are. Again, the wearer’s face is invisible, because what is important here are the cool sneakers that he or she is wearing.

The work Purple reveals how shoes—like other fashion items in general—often have far more important functions than merely their physical functions. They often have symbolic meanings. That is why the shoes here seem to be hanging from the user’s neck. Again, the face is not shown; what we see are only the tattoos that run through the person’s arm. It is as if Dodit is trying to say that tattoos and sneakers have similar function: to shape the wearer’s identity and character. Meanwhile, the work Look Up becomes interesting because it makes us feel as if we are standing under a cloud of sneakers. We are seeing the soles of a multitude of sneakers. Is Dodit actually talking about the superiority of sneakers? Is that why these sneakers are present above us, instead of existing merely as foot covers? Fetishism for mass produced objects has affected our frame of thoughts and our perceptions about objects. The modern human is one who is often proud of his or her rationality. The fetish attitude, however, reveals how the modern humans often become irrational simply because they want to have fun. Or perhaps the fetishism tendency constitutes an “escape” by the contemporary modern humans to run away from the burdens of modern life. One of the most accessible havens to which we can escape would be the “objects” produced by modern civilization. The world of capitalism gladly provides the fantasies that they attach to their products—or run toward works of art. The two aspects are present in Dodit’s paintings, which I think are representatives of the “double fetishism”.

Asmudjo Jono Irianto

Opening : Saturday, November 6 · 2:00pm – 8:00pm
Closing : Sunday, 21 November 2010
Venue : SIGIarts
Address : Jl. Mahakam 1 No.11 Jakarta, Indonesia

de-illusion

Opening : Friday, 24 September 2010, 7.30 pm
Closing : 11 October 2010
Venue : Bale Tonggoh Selasar Sunaryo Art Space
Address : Jl Bukit Pakar Timur no.100 Bandung 40198 West Java – Indonesia

Ade Dermawan | Andre Tanama | | Agapetus K | Agung Kurniawan | Arahmaiani | Ari Dyanto | Arief Tousiga |Arya Ade Sukapura | Astari | Budi Adi Nugroho | Dipo Andi | Entang Wiharso | Hanafi | Handy H | Heri Dono | Indah Arsyad| Ivan Sagito | Iwan Effendi | Iwan Hasto | Januri |Krisna Murti | Laksmi Sitoresmi | Moelyono | Nindityo | Noes Salomo| Oky Rey MB | Radi Arwinda | Riswandi | Setyo |Sigit S | Syagini Ratnawulan | Teguh Ostentrik | Tisna Sanjaya | Valasara |Wilman Syahnur | Yuki

Host : Andi’s Gallery
Opening : Saturday 28 August 2010 at 5.00 pm
Closing : 5 September 2010
Venue : Galeri Nasional Indonesia
Address : Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur no. 14 Jakarta

“Reality Effects” constitute the fundamental problems faced by the “realism” genre in Indonesian art. The curatorial invitation of this exhibition asks the artists to trace back the problems of “reality” in order to re-assess what has previously been called “realism”. The term “realism” does not necessarily have the same meaning with the keyword to this exhibition, or “reality”. “Reality”, however, is an important issue in the way we understand realism, as the two concepts are inextricably linked. The cultural theoretician Raymond Williams explains that realism is one of the problematic cultural terms. Realism, according to Williams, is a difficult word not only because of the intricacy of the disputes in art and philosophy to which its predominant uses refer, but also because the two words on which it seems to depend, real and reality, have a very complicated linguistic history.” In practice, the understanding of realism is often represented by our judgment about certain art expressions (a painting or a sculpture) containing forms or images that are realistic in nature. To the commoners, realism is even considered as “art-ism” that explains the ability of an artist to copy the nature and other forms in realistic manners, making them look “natural” or “honest”.

Host: sigiarts and Galeri Nasional Indonesia
Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Time: 7:00pm – 10:00pm
Venue: Galeri Nasional Indonesia
Address: Jl. Merdeka Timur No.14 Jakarta, Indonesia

Humans, constructions, animals, and plants serve as the basis for the modules in Albert’s configurations. These modules seem to represent the universe and all its content. The underlying problem that unites these components, however, is not immediately apparent. We can view Albert’s works as symbolic artwork, but one with no binding meaning; rather, the artwork has an open meaning that suits each of our perceptions and backgrounds.

It is undeniable that the repetition of the same objects (i.e. the modules) is the most significant part in Albert’s works in this exhibition. It states that the individual is not important; what is important here is the entity that consists of the whole constituents—which in this case are the human beings and the universe. Here, the modules that represent humans, animals, plants, and constructions can be viewed with the perspective that considers the relationship between humans and culture or nature. On the subsequent level of signification, one can also say that Albert’s artwork also symbolizes the problem of human existence; the existence and the “purpose” of human’s existence on earth.

Albert’s works are interesting precisely because they do not talk within the social and political framework, but instead with the perspective that considers the essence of human’s existence in this world. They are even more interesting because Albert Yonathan is presenting the issue using ceramic works, whose presence in the contemporary art world in Indonesia is still minimal, and are therefore often seen as unimportant.

Start Time: February 11, 2010
End Time:February 15, 2010
Venue: SIGIarts Gallery
Address: Jl. Mahakam I No. 11 Jakarta 12130

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

Adding public appreciation towards the art of ceramic, there will be sessions of lecture about the development of art and the practice of ceramic and workshop of Japanese Raku technique; also the one open for public is shaping ceramic on potter’s wheel. It is a high hope that this contemporary ceramic biennale, organized by NAS, bring the development of both national’ and international’s ceramic practice.

In the purpose to gain wider public appreciations and to support The JCCB#-1-09 , NAS as the organizer invite Ceramic Stuidos and some Ceramic Shops and Galleries, to participate in the Bazzar that will be held during the exhibitions. See the details:

Venue: Pasar Seni Ancol Jakarta
Time : 9.00-17.00
Day : Every Saturday and Sunday
Date : 20 Des, 26-27 Des 2009, 2-3 Jan 2010, 9-10 Jan 2010, 16-17 Jan 10

Facilities : 1 booth approx : (3×3) m2/free/no commission charge
Free ticket to Ancol

INTERESTED?. …
Book your booth immediately, booths are limited.

Contact:
Ms. Nia Gautama/ alampot@yahoo. com/0811- 193869

p.s.: please share this information to some potential ceramic studios/shops.

Thank You,
Nia G
Public Program Coordinator
JCCB#-1-2009

Talking about flatness in contemporary painting practice obviously feels awkward and absurd. The contemporary painting has shown its function as a representation media, has it not? The canvas surface of painting in the contemporary art era is loaded with many narration and problems from outside the art region. The contemporary art no longer has any interest in questioning itself. The defenders of modern formalist painting have accused representational paint as displaying “art” through a “non art” subject matter, while underlining that abstract shows “art” through “art”. What they meant was that by displaying merely the basic component of visual art: line, shape, form; the art will not be contaminated by the existence of subject matters from outside the art region. This is what we recognized as abstract painting. According to Clement Greenberg, it is only through abstract paintings that paintings can show their true form, which is its flatness,

“Flatness alone was unique and exclusive to that art….Flatness, two-dimensionality, was the only condition painting shared with no other art, and so modernist painting oriented itself to flatness as it did to nothing else.”[1]

We now knew that the glory of formalistic modernists with its abstract paintings has crumbled to dust. Although the contemporary painting practices has shown a more diverse display, it can be said that painting has dominantly become more representational. More than the paintings of the past, the contemporary painting has become a field of joy for the celebration of images. Despite the myriad of faces, as the visual text with representational nature, the realist approach has grown dominant once more. Thus, the paintings of Ito in this exhibition are showing photo-realistic images. Anyone who sees the paintings can easily see that the subject matters are grass and bikes. This is indeed as plain as an elephant in front of your eyes. However, what exactly does Ito represents through the subject matter of patch of grass, bushes and groups of bikes?

One has to admit that facing Ito’s paintings, one will be fascinated by how similar the paintings look compared to the real patch of grass, or in this case, a photograph of a patch of grass. However, the simplicity of the subject matter puts one in a difficult position when asked, just what exactly does the artist want to represent? What is the meaning that we can extract from a patch of grass? Obviously, we can always try to reproduce meanings from a visual text. However, a patch of grass is too “simple” an image to trigger a construction for a meaning, is it not? We can suspect Ito for deliberately invites us to be able to directly construct meanings from his patch of grass. Usually, the photo-realistic paintings in contemporary art practice puts forth content and meaning that can be deducted from the subject matter existence. If that is so, what is the meaning of grasses in Ito’s paintings? I doubt that we can instantly see the “story” and “meaning” from Ito’s paintings.

Ito Joyoatmojo offers “empty” paintings, with no content whatsoever, although one can still find subject matters on the canvas. Thus, one can say that Ito deliberately chose grass as his subject matter because of his “emptiness of meaning”. These grasses and bushes with their frontal representation has been his subject matter for quite sometimes. Thus, what he chose to show through his subject matter of grass can actually be implied in relation to his thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions of culture and art, which obviously is the result of his life experiences. Thus, one can say that Ito’s works represent his personal identity issues.

The title of this exhibition is Allegorical Flatness Painting. It means that Ito’s painting is positioned in the discourse of flatness in the journey of modern and contemporary art. “The absence” of meaning in the grass paintings can also be related to the absence of “depth” offered to the audience for content and meaning. The flatness of Ito’s painting in contemporary art context can instantly be connected to the contemporary condition of culture, which is shallow and superficial. Therefore, at first Ito’s paintings can be called an allegory for the shallow contemporary culture. Then, his paintings can be seen as an allegory for the “shallowness” of art who had believed at its existence as a deep pool. This can be seen in the statement of the often mentioned the end of art who believes that art is over and what is left is only its celebrations, or to be more precise the celebration of its “shallowness”. However, contemporary art can still, in its practice and discourse, be a place that accommodates the many problems, stated by the artist. Although Ito’s works are also referring to the cultural condition and art that he saw and ponder, his works are also the reflection of his identity.

As is common for the Indonesian people¬¬—or anyone who has been separated for a long time from its country—who has spent his life in Europe, the problem of identity, or identity crisis, is an important issue. Ito has long worked as graphic designer in Swiss, for more than 20 years. He has returned to practice painting for a couple of years now. As is common to artists, the problem of personal identity is an important issue. We can assume that as an artist Ito spend more time pondering and questioning his identity. Andrew Edgar referring to the thoughts of Erik Erikson noted this about identity crisis,

“At first the term referred to a person who had lost sense of ‘personal sameness and historical continuity’ (Erikson 1968: 22). As such, the individual is separated from the culture that can give coherence to his or her sense of self.”[2] (Cultural Theory, hal. 186).

The problem of has also always related to race, class, gender, ethnicity and sexuality. In this case, what instantly hit Ito as a Javanese in Swiss is obviously the gap of cultures based on ethnicity and nationality. However, in other point of view the field of contemporary art is not a field, which can “clearly” answer the problems of identity. Often times the contemporary art is merely a field where this problem are represented and displayed but serve no answer. After his comeback into art in its contemporary context, Ito soon felt and saw that the place he had returned to (the contemporary art) is also a field that has been experiencing acute crisis related to its identity. We can never be sure of the meanings and identity of contemporary art, can we? If this is so, it is easy to see that Ito also had his doubts on the possibility and effectiveness of contemporary art, or in this case paintings, as the tool or instrument in answering the problems of identity.

I assume this problem had grown more clearly in his consciousness when he tried to seek “another possibility” and entering the contemporary art in Indonesia. Aside from the “content” or “narration” offered by the contemporary artists, the problem of value, meaning, and methods of art are obviously mostly imported—unknowingly/unconsciously—from the West. Often times, the problems lies not in the paradigm or the contemporary art thinking which is mainly constructed by the Western artworld—which seems to be the model of global contemporary artworld—but in the reality of taken for granted attitude of Indonesian contemporary artists who thinks that contemporary art is valuable—without the ability to explain why. What can one do? The contemporary art in Indonesia, which is actually a cultural appropriation of its Western part, obviously serve no answer to Ito’s anxiety on his identity and art itself. Therefore, the only way left is to empty oneself and freeing oneself from contemporary art, not by leaving it but by diving into and subverting it from the inside. That is why Ito emptied his self from any possibility of expressing emotion or constructing meaning. One can say that philosophically Ito’s works are anti-meaning works, and by itself can also be said to be anti-art. It can be said as a passive subversion. He made paintings, while denying “hope” and “believe” about their representational ability as a critical field.

Obviously, Ito’s works turned out to be “meaningful” and “critical”, through his way of denying the stereotype of contemporary painting. The same case goes into his works being intentional because it has no intention. That is why the flatness in Ito’s works are different from the concept of flatness in the Early Modern pieces, such as Matisse’s works which reduces form into flat patterns, or the flatness of Jackson Pollock which completely nullify the pictorial aspect to get into the true flatness of paintings as two dimensional works.

“From Manet to Stelaa. Modernist painting has progressively surrendered to the resistance of its medium, to the point where very little was left beside its flatness itself.”[3]

However, what Greenberg promoted about the flatness as the essence of painting, is also accompanied by the important existence of Jackson Pollock. The gestural—drip—paintings of Pollock become important because the paintings are the product of his bodily gesture while splish-splashing and dripping the paint on the canvas, do they not? It means that what was recorded is the “emotional depth” of Pollock. David Joselit referred to Pollock’s paintings as the allegorical dimension of depth in Abstract Expressionism,

“This allegory arises from the conviction, shared equally by Pollock and his critics. That gestural painting emerges from an inner source—a psychological depth. Pollock’s interest in the unconscious is well documented, as his assertion, in a statement of 1951, that ‘the method of painting is the natural growth out of need. I want to express my feelings rather than illustrate them.”[4]

What Ito’s works and the choice of working represent is the flatness aspect, which is closer to the metaphor of the shallowness condition of culture, some kind of a negation to the dominant culture, just like the one showed by Frederic Jameson,

“A new kind of flatness or depthlesness, a new kind of superficiality in the most literal sense (is) perhaps the supreme formal feature of all postmodernism to which will have occasion to return….”[5]

In other words, the concept of flatness in art and contemporary painting is not merely related to the physical and optical of art, just as David Joselit said further,

“There is a great deal at stake in acknowledging that the flatness or depthlessness we experiences in our globalized world is more than optical effect.”[6]

The idea that nowadays the flatness aspect cannot merely be connected to the flatness of non-representational painting, and the realization that the representational painting cannot bear any fruit in answering and understanding the problems of society and culture, drove Ito to move between these two possibilities. That is why; he can easily talk about flatness through the language of realist painting. While emotion and expression are almost invisible in the Ito’s paintings, the coldness shown by the paintings represents the shallowness and artificiality aspect of the culture. Theoretically and logically, every representational painting that tried to represent the contemporary humane condition is instantly trapped by the shallowness of contemporary culture. Because what the painting represents is shallow culture, then, as its consequence, what is represented is the shallowness itself. That is why Ito refuses the notion that his grass works directly represents a condition in the context of society and culture.

The flatness—and in accordance shallowness—of contemporary culture that Ito tries to simulate through his paintings reminds us to the concept of superflatness from the contemporary Japanese artist Murakami. Through the concept of flatness, the works from Murakami represent the shallowness and childishness of popular culture and the flatness of social structure in Japan.[7] That is why Murakami appropriates the popular culture like crazy. Simply put, Murakami’s superflat has this meaning,

“The term is used by Murakami to refer to various flattened form in Japanese graphic art, animation, pop culture and fine art, as well as the ‘shallow emptiness of Japanese consumer culture.”[8]

Ito did not choose to represent the tome of popular culture. Ito chose grass because he wants to try avoiding the trap of “subject matter” which is so pretentious and “strong”. According to him, he chose grass because it enables him to paint this subject matter in a monotone and orderly rhythm, without having to do it in an exact and definite tick-tocks. Painting a field of grass enables him to work in a rhythmic and monotone way, continuously, like a machine. Thus, the grass subject matter, in essence and in its process does represent emptiness and flatness.

The issue of working process is the prominent issue in Ito’s works, at least for the artist himself. If Andy Warhol bragged about his producing painting in the “machine” way, which is by using screen print, then Ito does more than that. He made himself a machine by working in a highly methodic way. By applying the CMYK methods of printing, Ito puts layer upon layer in a discipline rhythm of work. Ito does work like a printer, without emotion, without the need to change. Ito is a “MANual printer”. Ito does “reprint” photographical image. This is a further underlining in the aspect of optical flatness in Ito’s painting. Is it not the photo image, which is naturally a flat plane, which he paints?

To further strengthen the issue of “value”, the consciousness or critic that Ito wants to say, what David Joselit said might be of help,

“There is a great deal at stake in acknowledging that flatness or depthlessness we experiences in our globalized world is more than optical effect. I will argue that flatness may serve as a powerful metaphor for the price we pay in transforming ourselves into images—a compulsory self-spectacularization which is the necessary condition of entering the public sphere in the world of late capitalism.”[9]

However, Ito do not want this flatness to be an issue that can only be deducted from the assumptions of the content and emotional “emptiness” of his paintings, but also recorded in his canvas and recorded optically. One must admit that facing Ito’s painting, one is reminded to the “window of illusion”. One seems to stare at grasses or bushes outside the window. There is a spatial impression made by grasses in the lower part of canvas into the upper part. However, the absence of horizon in Ito’s painting seems also to deny that depth, so that what appears is an invitation to the flatness of the field of grass. Staring at Ito’s painting, especially the “grass” works, seems to be an invitation to look down, bowing our head, and staring at the (surface) of the earth. This can also be a symbolic invitation or offer from the artist.

Ito had once said this regarding his past exhibition about time,

“My observation of ‘time’ as phenomena resulted to the product and led me to detach myself from the demand for an end result of the dynamic process. By emphasizing the dynamic, the product loses its significance …”

What Ito said is clearly shown in the works in this exhibition. Ito paintings seems to be a collage of print materials, fulfilling the surface of his canvas. With his own way, we can say that Ito is requestioning the identity and the possibility of painting. How far can painting in the context of contemporary art justify its existence and identity? Is it only a matter of medium? Is it the materials: the canvas and paint? Is it still possible to see painting ontologically? In the end, one must admit that Ito’s intention to abandon content and meaning is the main content of his works. This can also be seen as an effort of critic, or his self-critic to his art journey, and the contemporary painting practices. I had said that Ito stand between the self-criticizing modernist principles and the contemporary art who preoccupied itself with criticizing the world outside the art. On this matter, what Clement Greenberg said is worthy to be observed,

“I identify Modernism with the intensification, almost the exacerbation, of this self-critical tendency that began with the philosopher Kant…The essence of Modernism lies, as I see it, in the use of the characteristic methods of a discipline to criticize the discipline itself—not in order to subvert it, but to entrench it more firmly in its area of competence.”[10]

Asmudjo Jono Irianto
Exhibition curator

Notes:
[1] Thierry de Duve, Kant after Duchamp, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1999, p. 207.
[2] Andrew Edgar, Cultural Theory, The key Concepts, London: Routledge, 1999, p. 186
[3] Op,Cit, p. 216.
[4] David Joselit, “Note on Surface, Toward a Genealogy of Flatness”, in Theory in Contemporary Art Since 1985, editor: Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005, p. 295.
[5] Frederic Jameson, Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham; Duke University Press, 1991, p. 9.
[6] Op.Cit, p. 293.
[7] Midori Matsui, “Murakami Matrix: Takashi Murakami’s Instrumentalization of Japanese Postmodern Culture” in Murakami editor Paul Schimmel, New York: Kaikai Kiki Co., Ltd, 2008, p. 84.
[8] www.wikipedia.org/wiki/superflat.
[9] Op. Cit., David Joselit, p. 293.
[10] Op.Cit., Thierry de Duve, p, 207.

Start Time: Friday, September 4, 2009 at 7:00pm
End Time: Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 8:00pm
Location: SIGIarts Gallery
Street: Jl. Mahakam I no. 11 Kebayoran Baru Jakarta, Indonesia
Phone: 62217260949
Email: sigi.arts@gmail.com

PULUHAN wajah terpiuh tampil bersama, masing-masing dibatasi semacam frame.
Itulah gambaran yang tampak dalam lukisan Agus Sumiantara, atau biasa disapa
Kacrut. Citraan wajah-wajah tersebut terpiuh karena efek refraksi dari glass
block. Hampir seluruh citraan wajah yang ditampilkan oleh Kacrut berada di
belakang glass block. Dengan kata lain selalu ada dinding glass block antara
pemirsa dengan citraan wajah yang ditampilkan. Kacrut memang dikenal sebagai seniman yang intens menggarap subject-matter glass block.

Namun ada yang berbeda dari glass block dan citraan yang ditampilkan Kacrut dalam pameran ini. Jika sebelumnya glass block Kacrut tampil dengan dengan karaktek opaque, tidak cukup transparan, sehingga tidak jelas gambaran objek di belakangnya, dalam pameran ini lukisan-lukisan Kacrut menampilkan glass block yang lebih transparan, sehingga cukup jelas citraan yang ada di baliknya, yaitu wajah-wajah orang dewasa, sebagian besar orang Barat.

Asmudjo Jono Irianto

Start Time:  Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 7 PM
End Time: Saturday, August 22, 2009
Location: Semarang Gallery
Address: Jl Taman Srigunting no 5-6 Semarang 50174
Phone: +62 24 355 20 99
Email: galeri_semarang@yahoo.com

curated by Asmudjo Jono irianto

Start: Saturday, July 11, 2009 at 7PM
End: Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 5PM
Place: Kendra Gallery
Address: Jl. Drupadi 88B Basangkasa, Seminyak, Bali – Indonesia
Email: enquiries@kendragallery.com
Web: http://kendragallery.com