Face Value, oil on canvas, 200x280cm,2009

Sumiantara’s Paintings: Portable Art World

 

There are a lot of distracted faces present together; each is fenced by framelike border. That is the depiction in the paintings of Agus Sumiantara—or known as Kacrut. The images of faces are distracted thanks to the refraction effect from the glass block. Almost all of the face images present by Kacrut are behind the glass block. In other words, there is always glass block wall between the spectators and the presented images. Kacrut is also recognized as an artist who intens¬¬ely working on glass block as subject matter. However, there is something different between the glass block and images showcased in this exhibition. Kacrut was prior to portray opaque character, not quite transparent, and blurring the objects behind. In this exhibition, Kacrut’s paintings present more translucent glass block so that the images behind are quite clear. Those are the images of adults’ faces, mostly Caucasian or Westerns. Kacrut is indeed changing his painting approach. Developing his paintings from computer software in his last solo exhibition, Kacrut uses more photos in this one. He works on realist paintings from self-made photos with the objects of glass block stacks and the artist’s portrait behind. He chooses transparent glass block with distracted face images because the refraction resulted are very different compare to the previous paintings, and closer to abstract paintings.

It is safe to say that Kacrut’s paintings in this exhibition are more enriched with layers of meanings and representation. For those who are familiar with history, figures of modern and Western contemporary fine arts, it is not difficult to recognize the faces. Some of the most prominent ones are Picasso, Salvador Dali, Jackson Pollock, Basquiat and Frida Kahlo. What is the real meaning behind the distracted faces of Western artists that Kacrut tried to represent? Displaying well-known Western artists, Kacrut has at least trying to question the matters around existence, hegemony, and the effect of Western fine arts towards Indonesian modern and contemporary fine arts. The matter of how Western contemporary fine arts affect the global one is a latent problem. Even in the context of contemporary fine arts, Western’s hegemony and impacts are still lingering, not to say greater. It is easy for artists living in remotest part of the art world such as Indonesia to access books and journals of fine arts, thanks to the advanced technology to reproduce printing media and digital transmission from video and Internet. It is also eases the access to the development of both discourse and practices of most contemporary Western fine arts. It arises interesting situation. Such information access that is effortless and open are welcomed by various motives and interests. For few members of Indonesian artists, it is viewed as a method to understand more about the discourse, theory, and paradigm of most contemporary Western fine arts. As for some others, they would merely accessing visual representation of the latest printed and digital reproductions. For me, Kacrut’s artworks have given the opportunity to contemplate and to review the bargaining position of Indonesian’s contemporary fine arts in the eyes of the world.

Like it or not, what is called by global and international fine arts mainly consists of Western pieces. Kacrut is aware about this matter. As an artist who finished his education in Fine Arts University, the history and theory of Western fine arts are not unfamiliar. Yet, there is wide gap between the syllabus of Indonesian curriculum in fine arts campus and the most recent development of global discourse and theory. Most of Indonesian artists who graduated from Fine Arts University feel as a part of world’s fine arts. It is caused by their value parameter that commonly based on theory, history, and discourse of Western fine arts. The matter is also based on the belief towards universalism of modern fine arts that could be applied beyond any borders of any countries. Ironic, because when the principles of formalism modernity have been long neglected by Western fine arts universities, non-Western countries are adopting such principles into the most important part of the curriculum in their campuses.

For artists in Indonesia who graduated from university, the problem lies on the time they go out to the practice world of Indonesian fine arts—in which existence and infrastructure are very much different and left behind the ones of more advanced countries. On the other hands, the representation of global contemporary fine arts has been justified by inter-disciplinary theories that are difficult and complex. To this extent, even the artists who have graduated from university are, so to say, having minimum experience in relation with the history, theory, and the discourse of Western fine arts that have become a role of global fine arts. As for me, Kacrut’s artworks have precisely represent such matters. We are brought into the feeling of acknowledgment towards the “face” of Western fine arts on one side, while on the other side, there is this uneasy feeling if such recognition and acknowledgment are “distracted” because of language barrier, distance, and culture gap that resulted in limited understanding and incompleteness. There is a wall, though transparent yet massive, that separates us with global contemporary fine arts, as frankly shown in Kacrut’s paintings.

Kacrut chooses not to appropriate famous Western artworks. He prefers to work on the faces of such artists. Depiction of the artists remind us of the opinion of Gombrich, an England art-historian in the opening of his book, The Story of Art, “THERE REALLY IS no such thing as Art. There are only artists. In the beginning, an artist has become acknowledged because of his or her works. Yet, when fame achieved, it is the works that finally gain the aura of such artist. What Gombrich explains emphasizes the mater that the history of modern Western contemporary fine arts is the history of some artists whose artworks are considered to contribute in thoughts, discourse, and the theory of modern Western fine arts. Finally, what really matters is the artist’s idea. Artworks could never exist without the existence of the artist. The history of Western fine arts is an agreed construction and generally takes as the “truth” about the importance of some Western artists, especially Caucasian, male, from the middle class.

It is known that the paradigm of modern fine arts has later on deconstructed by post-modern fine arts. Therefore, the contemporary fine art is freed from the determination of modern fine arts. However, the existence of modern fine arts will not disappear easily. Contemporary fine arts is somewhat “continuing” the modern Western fine arts. The construction of history and modern fine arts theory are needed as the anti-theses of contemporary fine arts. As a result, the faces presented specifically by Kacrut are the ones of modern and contemporary artists of the Western. In the context of global discourse and history, the field of Indonesian contemporary fine arts is somewhat become an outsider. We have become an external player. Hans Belting shows the picture about global fine arts as Western construction for Western world,

“World art has been physically collected in the West for along time and thus seemed to have become the possession of Western culture—while the native culture seemed to lack any appropriate discourse.”

Therefore, for Kacrut, the choice of appropriating artists’ faces is a correct one, because Western artists’ faces are less acknowledged than their works. Except whose faces are frequently present in printed media, it could be said that most faces in Kacrut’s paintings are unknown. We do not recognize the faces not because of its distraction but because we simply do not know them. The faces distraction from unrecognized faces resulted in glass block refraction has become a tautology linked to “unknownness.”

Kacrut’s artwork is the criticism and negotiation of an artist within, in the field of Indonesian fine arts, and in the world of global fine arts. Such distraction in those maestros’ faces could be an artist’s depiction about the distraction of history, theory, and the discourse of Western fine arts in Indonesia. Global fine arts discourse has frequently become a dilemmatic matter for Indonesian contemporary artists. Should they pay more attention towards the discourse and paradigm of global fine arts led by the West? Or, is it possible not to pay attention to global discourse and development in fine arts? However, the matter that disturbs Kacrut more is that contemporary fine art is not an important part of modern Indonesia culture. That is why Kacrut prefers to turn his head to Western artists—even tough there is a massive wall in between.

The practice of contemporary fine arts have become an important part that could not be unattached from fine arts history in Western culture since Renaissance. To them, contemporary fine arts is the son of Western culture. Art museums and major exhibitions (biennale and triennial) have become a significant part in the practice and discourse of fine arts world in the West. Public appreciation could be sensed thickly. It plays an important role to grow an artist’s confidence in the society. Society acceptance and the needs of contemporary fine arts in Western countries have become a cultural memory empowered through the construct in the history of fine arts,

“The image of art history to which I refer is precisely this ‘cultural archive,’ in which the events that have taken place in art, arranged according to their importance, form elements of that very construct we used to call the history of art.”

It is admitted that art museum serves as the pillar of modern fine arts, and the museum serves also as spiritual temples of Western culture. Inside, kept, guarded, and exhibited, the artworks considered as important in the history of fine arts. In Western countries and in most of advanced countries, art museums are established constantly. They believe that museums are the generators of the culture. Great exhibitions in the museum have obliquely disseminating artists’ aura and works to the public. Non-Western countries that considered themselves as civilized, or want to prove their civilization, are following the Westerns and busy in building art museums. It could be viewed in some Asian countries whose economics are strong such as Japan, Korea, China, and Singapore. They are also busy in making art museums. In this relation, Kacrut is scrutinizing the journey of Indonesian fine arts outside the history of global fine arts. Besides, the demanding matter that needs to be addressed is the absence of society’s cultural memory about the history and the journey of Indonesian’s modern and contemporary fine arts. This situation has brought us to the doubt around the role of Indonesian contemporary fine arts in Indonesian contemporary culture.

The depiction of world’s artists figures in Kacrut’s artworks have also refreshing the minds around what Andre Malraux called as Imaginary Museum (musee imaginaire), or, more popular term, museum without the wall. Although the term is not exactly correct, museum without the wall is an accurate metaphor for Indonesian fine arts, where access towards global arts is mainly through image reproduction of prominent artists. Rosalind E. Krauss explains the concept of Andre Malraux about reproduction as follows,

“In the second wave they are, through their transplantation to the site of reproduction (through art books, postcards, posters), unmoored from their original scale, every work whether tiny or colossal now to be magically equalized through the democratizing effects of camera and press.”

It is known that Indonesia hardly has art museum—the ones that are sufficient, qualifying, and having continuous programs. Yet, modern and contemporary fine arts could still blooming and developing. Though, of course, Indonesian artists know more about modern Western fine arts, the artists, and their works, most of art practitioners could never see directly such iconic masterpieces of modern and contemporary Western fine arts. It has to be admitted that most of the members of Indonesian fine arts see such art pieces through reproductions, by looking at them in photo illustrations in the books about Western fine arts. We understand, recognize, and “access” Western fine arts without coming and seeing those iconic masterpieces directly, without seeing them in an exhibition. Through reproduction from such books, we have visited what Andre Malraux called as museum without walls.

Kacrut’s artworks are no longer talking about the matters of meanings and contents, yet, they speak about the medium itself: realist paintings, especially photo-realist. Through his paintings, Kacrut seems to find a way to return the aura of artists’ images that he represents. It is undoubted that such images are gained from books and Internet. An irony to present them in paintings, those faces have gained more attention and placed as meaningful subject matter. Those distracted faces that make uneasy or discomfort feeling have become appealing display when moved into canvas. It is stunning to see the illusive quality that could show the glass character, be it thickness or the cracks; the melting and dots of paints; and the impression of natural distraction in Kacrut’s paintings. They have somewhat returned the “aura” of the painted figures, that once “lost” because they have become the images that dispersed through photo reproduction on printed products and Internet world. Kacrut seems to seek a way to turn Walter Benyamin’s dogma upside down, about the lost of art aura thanks to the technology in reproduction. In other words, through his paintings, Kacrut have returned the “faces’” aura of such prominent artists. Even in the era of plural contemporary fine arts nowadays, when everything is acceptable, paintings has become one of the mediums with the rights to perform. It is true that paintings have more value. Isn’t that during the journey of Western fine arts the aura tic position of paintings have become unparalleled since the Renaissance? It is proved that the disseminated reproduction of an artwork on printed products or digital transmission added more auratic impression towards the original artwork.

Isn't that during the journey of western fine arts the position of paintings and how it radiates its influence is unparalleled since renaissance era?

It is proved that the dispersed reproduction of an artwork over printed products or digital transmission is somewhat radiating the influence of the original masterpiece.

To emphasize the distraction effect because of glass block refraction, Kacrut also paints a standalone artist’s face. He, too, eliminates the edges of glass block, so that the distracted face of the artist filled the canvas. Needs more than refraction effect of the glass block, Kacrut also pour, splash, and cover the glass block surface with thin paint. This enriches visual effect. Those faces looked “disturbed”, yet, on the other side, they don’t seemed mind about it. It could be meant as the representation of awareness and concern of an artist towards Western fine arts. However, on the other hand, “they” don’t seemed to pay attention to us. Perhaps, that is why Kacrut needs to crack the glass surface like one of the paintings that present Robert Rouschemberg and Francis Bacon in which the names are also the title of the paintings. Kacrut seems to show his “displease” towards the hegemony of Western artist. Yet, his “attack” could reach the glass surface only, impervious to the images behind. Kacrut shows that it is difficult to “attack” and interact with them. They seem invisible, yet could be seen and greeted.

In the end, Kacrut’s artworks remind us about the ease to access contemporary fine arts. When discourse and fine arts theory are needed, overwhelming information are provided from books and Internet connection. Global fine arts world have become a portable area. Contemporary fine arts books are somewhat a packed depiction of global fine arts. Those books and digital transmission, in relation with contemporary fine arts, are museum without walls, the one that is portable and easy to “carry”. We could be “mistaken” in understanding a discourse, or “misinterpret” the artworks discussed in the books. But that does not matter anymore: couldn’t we just create our own thoughts and meaning? Through his paintings, isn’t Kacrut trying to show that even the “incorrect” and distracted faces have the power of ideas and aesthetics in their own unique ways?

 

Curator: Asmudjo Jono Irianto

 

Portable Art World

 

08 Aug, 2009 - 22 Aug, 2009

 

Sumiantara’s Paintings: Portable Art World

 

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. Kacrut memang mengubah pendekatan melukisnya. Jika dalam pameran tunggal yang lalu ia mengembangkan citraan yang akan dilukis dengan menggunakan perangkat lunak komputer, dalam pameran ini ia lebih banyak menggunakan bantuan foto. Karya-karya kacrut merupakan lukisan realis dari foto-foto yang dibuat sendiri dengan objek berupa susunan glass block dengan citraan wajah seniman di belakangnya. Pilihan glass block block transparan dengan citraan wajah terpiuh karena refraksinya menghasilkan lukisan yang jauh berbeda dari lukisan Kacrut dalam pameran terdahulu yang tampak lebih dekat dengan tampilan lukisan abstrak. Lukisan-lukisan Kacrut dalam pameran ini bisa dikatakan lebih kaya dengan lapisan makna dan representasi. Bagi pihak-pihak yang terbiasa dengan sejarah dan tokoh seni rupa modern dan kontemporer Barat, maka tak sulit untuk mengenali wajah-wajah tersebut. Beberapa yang cukup kentara adalah Picasso, Salvador Dali, Jackson Pollock, Basquiat, dan Frida Kahlo.

Apa sesungguhnya makna yang hendak ditawarkan oleh Kacrut dengan menampilkan wajah-wajah terpiuh para seniman penting dari dunia seni rupa Barat? Dengan menampilkan wajah-wajah para seniman Barat tersohor dan mendunia, setidaknya ia telah mulai dengan mempersoalkan perkara eksistensi, hegemoni, dan pengaruh seni rupa Barat pada seni rupa modern dan kontemporer Indonesia. Pengaruh seni rupa modern Barat pada dunia seni rupa global merupakan perkara laten. Dalam konteks seni rupa kontemporer pun pengaruh dan hegemoni Barat tak juga lekang, bahkan mungkin lebih besar. Saat ini melalui saluran reproduksi cetak (buku dan jurnal seni rupa) dan transmisi digital (video dan internet) dengan sangat mudah perkembangan seni rupa paling mutahir di Barat —baik praksis maupun wacana— diakses oleh para seniman dari wilayah pinggiran, seperti Indonesia. Hal ini menampilkan situasi menarik. Akses informasi yang sangat mudah dan terbuka disambut oleh beragam motif dan minat. Untuk sebagian kecil para anggota medan seni rupa Indonesia akses informasi ini merupakan jalan untuk memahami lebih mendalam wacana, teori, dan paradigma seni rupa Barat mutakhir. Sebagian lain, mungkin sekadar mengakses tampilan visual reproduksi cetak dan digital karya-karya mutakhir. Bagi saya, lukisan-lukisan Kacrut memberikan kesempatan pada kita untuk merenung dan melihat kembali posisi tawar seni rupa kontemporer Indonesia di panggung dunia.

Suka atau tidak yang disebut seni rupa global dan internasional terutama tak lain dan tak bukan adalah seni rupa Barat. Agaknya Kacrut menyadari hal tersebut. Sebagai seniman lulusan perguruan tinggi seni rupa, maka perkara sejarah dan teori seni rupa Barat agaknya tak asing bagi Kacrut. Namun tentu saja, ada jarak lebar antara apa yang menjadi silabus kurikulum seni rupa di perguruan tinggi seni rupa Indonesia dengan perkembangan wacana dan tori seni rupa global yang paling mutakhir. Kebanyakan para seniman Indonesia lulusan perguruan tinggi seni rupa merasa menjadi bagian dari seni rupa dunia. Hal ini disebabkan parameter nilai seni rupa mereka umumnya didasari oleh teori, sejarah, dan wacana seni rupa Barat. Hal itu juga didasari oleh kepercayaan pada prinsip universalisme seni rupa modern yang bisa diterapkan melampaui batasan negara. Ironisnya, pada saat prinsip-prinsip modernisme formalis telah lama dicampakkan oleh perguruan tinggi seni rupa Barat, justru kadang di negara-negara non-Barat prinsip-prinsip tersebut masih menjadi bagian penting kurikulum pendidikan tinggi seni rupa.

Persoalannya, untuk seniman lulusan perguruan tinggi seni rupa di Indonesia, pada saat mereka keluar ke dunia praksis yang dihadapi adalah medan seni rupa Indonesia—yang keberadaan dan infrastrukturnya sangat berbeda dan jauh tertinggal dibandingkan dari infrastruktur seni rupa negara-negara maju. Di sisi lain, seni rupa kontemporer global kehadirannya disertai dan dijustifikasi oleh bangun teori-teori interdisiplin yang kompleks dan sulit.

Dalam kaitan ini, bahkan para lulusan perguruan tinggi seni rupa di Indonesia pun bisa dikatakan minim pemahamannya berkenaan dengan sejarah, teori dan wacana seni rupa Barat, yang menjadi role model seni rupa global. Bagi saya karya-karya Kacrut secara telak merepresentasikan persoalan tersebut. Di satu sisi kita merasa mengenali “wajah” seni rupa Barat, namun di sisi lain jangan-jangan pengenalan tersebut adalah pengenalan atau pengetahuan yang “terpiuh” karena kendala bahasa dan jarak budaya sehingga kerap hanya dipahami secara seadanya dan tidak lengkap. Ada dinding, kendati transparan namun masif yang memisahkan kita dengan seni rupa kontemporer global, sebagaimana ditunjukkan secara gamblang dalam lukisan Kacrut.

Kacrut memilih tidak mengapropriasi karya-karya seniman Barat yang terkenal. Dia lebih suka mengolah wajah para seniman tersebut. Gambaran wajah seniman ini mengingatkan pada pendapat Gombrich, sejarahwan seni Inggris dalam pembukaan bukunya, The Story of Art, “THERE REALLY IS no such thing as Art. There are only artists. Awalnya seorang seniman menjadi terkenal karena karyanya. Namun pada saat sang seniman telah ternama, maka karya-karyanya yang kemudian mendapatkan aurora dari sang seniman. Apa yang diutarakan oleh Gombrich menegaskan bahwa sejarah seni rupa modern Barat adalah sejarah segelintir seniman, yang karya-karyanya dianggap memberikan kontribusi dalam konstruksi pemikiran, wacana dan teori seni rupa modern Barat. Hal ini menunjukkan pada akhirnya yang penting adalah gagasan senimannya. Karya tidak mungkin ada tanpa keberadaan seniman. Sejarah seni rupa Barat adalah konstruksi yang disepakati dan umumnya bisa diterima sebagai “kebenaran” mengenai pentingnya segelintir seniman Barat, umumnya seniman kulit putih, laki-laki dan dari kelas menengah.

Kita tahu bahwa paradigma seni rupa modern kemudian didekonstruksi oleh seni rupa posmodern. Karena itu, seni rupa kontemporer pun terbebas dari determinasi sejarah seni rupa modern. Namun bagaimana pun keberadaan sejarah seni rupa modern tak lantas lenyap begitu saja. Bagaimana pun seni rupa kontemporer merupakan semacam “lanjutan” dari seni rupa modern Barat. Konstruksi sejarah dan teori seni rupa modern dibutuhkan sebagai antitesa seni rupa kontemporer. Karena itu wajah yang ditampilkan oleh Kacrut terutama adalah wajah para seniman modern dan kontemporer Barat. Dalam konteks konstruksi sejarah dan wacana global ini, medan seni rupa kontemporer Indonesia sepertinya menjadi outsider. Kita menjadi pemain di luar. Gambaran mengenai sejarah seni rupa global sebagai konstruksi Barat untuk dunia Barat ditunjukkan oleh Hans Belting,

“World art has been physically collected in the West for along time and thus seemed to have become the possession of Western culture—while the native culture seemed to lack any appropriate discourse.”

Karena itu, bagi Kacrut pilihan mengapropriasi wajah seniman merupaka pilihan yang tepat. Sebab wajah seniman Barat kurang dikenali dibandingkan karya-karyanya. Kecuali beberapa seniman yang memang wajahnya kerap ditampilkan di media cetak, maka bisa dikatakan sebagian besar wajah dalam lukisan Kacrut tidak kita kenali. Kita tidak mengenalinya, bukan karena keterpiuhannya, namun karena memang kita tak mengenalinya. Keterpiuhan wajah dari wajah yang tidak kita kenali karena refraksi glass block menjadi semacam tautology berkait dengan “ketidaktahuan.”

Karya-karya Kacrut merupakan kritik dan negosiasi sang seniman pada dirinya, medan seni rupa Indonesia maupun medan seni rupa global. Bisa jadi keterpiuhan wajah-wajah seniman besar tersebut merupakan gambaran sang seniman mengenai keterpiuhan pengetahuan sejarah, teori dan wacana seni rupa Barat di Indonesia. Wacana seni rupa global kerap menjadi perkara yang dilematis bagi para seniman kontemporer Indonesia. Haruskah mereka peduli dan mementingkan wacana dan paradigma seni rupa global yang dikomandoi Barat? Atau mungkinkah tak memedulikan wacana dan perkembangan seni rupa global? Namun agaknya perkara yang lebih mengusik Kacrut adalah sepertinya seni rupa kontemporer bukan bagian penting dalam kebudayaan Indonesia modern. Barangkali itu sebabnya Kacrut lebih suka berpaling pada wajah para seniman Barat —kendati harus dipisahkan oleh dinding kaca yang masif.

Praksis seni rupa kontemporer merupakan bagian penting tak terpisahkan dari perjalanan seni rupa dalam kebudayaan Barat sejak masa Renaisans. Bagi mereka seni rupa kontemporer adalah anak kandung dari kebudayaan Barat. Museum seni rupa dan pameran-pameran besar (bienal, trienal) menjadi bagian penting dalam praksis dan wacana pada medan seni rupa di Barat. Apresiasi dan penghargaan publik dapat mereka rasakan dengan kental. Hal ini menjadi bagian penting dalam menumbuhkan konfidensi seniman dalam masyarakat. Penerimaan dan kebutuhan masyarakat di sana pada seni rupa kontemporer menjadi semacam cultural memory yang diperkuat melalui konstruksi sejarah seni rupa,

“The image of art history to which I refer is precisely this ‘cultural archive,’ in which the events that have taken place in art, arranged according to their importance, form elements of that very construct we used to call the history of art.”

Museum seni rupa harus diakui merupakan tonggak seni rupa modern, museum adalah kuil-kuil spiritual kebudayaan Barat, di dalamnya disimpan, dijaga dan dipamerkan karya-karya yang dianggap penting dalam sejarah seni rupa. Di Barat dan negara maju lain museum seni rupa terus dibangun. Di sana museum dipercaya sebagai pembangkit kebudayaan (generators of culture). Pameran-pameran besar di museum secara tidak langsung juga menyebarkan aurora seniman dan karyanya pada publik. Bangsa-bangsa non-Barat yang merasa beradab atau ingin membuktikan keberadabannya mengikuti jejak bangsa Barat sibuk membangun museum seni rupa. Lihat saja, di Asia bangsa-bangsa yang maju dan perekonomiannya kuat seperti Jepang, Korea, China, dan Singapura juga sibuk membangun museum seni rupa. Dalam kaitan ini bisa jadi Kacrut mempersoalkan perjalanan seni rupa Indonesia yang berada di luar sejarah seni rupa global. Selai itu, persoalan yang lebih penting adalah ketiadaan cultural memory masyarakat mengenai sejarah dan perjalanan seni rupa modern dan kontemporer Indonesia. Situasi ini membawa kita pada pada keraguan akan peranan seni rupa kontemporer Indonesia dalam kebudayaan kontemporer Indonesia.

Gambaran wajah para tokoh seniman dunia dalam karya-karya Kacrut juga mengingatkan kita pada apa yang disebut oleh Andre Malraux sebagai Imaginary Museum (musee imaginaire) atau lebih populer disebut sebagai museum without the wall. Kendati tidak tepat benar, namun istilah museum without the wall adalah perumpamaan yang tepat bagi seni rupa di Indonesia, yakni akses terhadap seni rupa global terutama hanya melalui reproduksi citraan karya-karya seniman terkenal. Rosalind E. Krauss menjelaskan konsep Andre Malraux mengenai perkara reproduksi tsb sebagai berikut,

“In the second wave they are, through their transplantation to the site of reproduction (through art books, postcards, posters), unmoored from their original scale, every work whether tiny or colossal now to be magically equalized through the democratizing effects of camera and press.”

Kita tahu bahwa Indonesia hampir-hampir bisa disebut tak memiliki museum seni rupa—yang memadai dan memiliki program yang berkualitas dan berkelanjutan. Toh seni rupa modern dan kontemporer dapat berjalan dan berkembang. Ya tentu saja kebanyakan para seniman tahu sedikit banyak tentang sejarah seni rupa modern Barat, tokoh-tokoh seniman dan karya-karyanya. Kebanyakan dari para pelaku seni tersebut bisa jadi tidak pernah melihat langsung karya-karya ikonik seni rupa modern dan kontemporer Barat. Harus diakui bahwa kebanyakan para anggota medan seni rupa Indonesia melihatnya melalui reproduksi, melalui ilustrasi foto di buku-buku seni rupa Barat. Kita memahami, mengenali dan “mengakses” seni rupa Barat tanpa harus datang langsung melihat karya-karya ikonik, tanpa harus melihatnya dalam sebuah pameran. Melalui reproduksi dari buku-buku tersebut kita mengunjungi apa yang disebut Andre Malraux sebagai Museum without walls.

Tentu saja lukisan-lukisan Kacrut tak hanya bicara perkara makna dan persoalan konten, namun juga perkara medium itu sendiri: seni lukis realis, khususnya foto-realis. Melalui lukisannya Kacrut seperti hendak mengembalikan aurora citraan para seniman yang ditampilkannya. Tak dapat dipungkiri bahwa citraan wajah-wajah tersebut diperoleh Kacrut melalui buku maupun internet. Merupakan suatu ironi bahwa dengan ditampilkan kembali melalui lukisan, wajah-wajah tersebut menjadi lebih diperhatikan, dan ditempatkan sebagai subject matter yang memiliki makna. Wajah-wajah terpiuh yang seharusnya menimbulkan rasa tak nyaman ketika dipandang justru menjadi tampilan yang menarik pada saat dipindahkan pada kanvas. Keterpukauan pemirsa pada kualitas ilusif yang dapat menampilkan karakter gelas, baik ketebalan maupun retakannya; lelehan dan bintik-bintik cat; serta kesan pemiuhan yang alami pada lukisan Kacrut telah mengembalikan “aurora” tokoh-tokoh yang dilukiskannya yang sempat “hilang” karena menjadi citraan yang tersebar melalui reproduksi foto pada barang-barang cetakan dan dunia internet. Sepertinya Kacrut hendak membalik tuah Walter Benyamin tentang hilangnya aurora seni karena teknologi reproduksi. Dengan kata lain, melalui lukisan Kacrut mengembalikan aura “wajah” tokoh-tokoh seniman tersebut. Saat ini, justru pada era seni rupa kontemporer yang pluralis dan apapun boleh, maka seni lukis pun menjadi salah satu medium yang berhak tampil. Tentu saja seni lukis memiliki kelebihan. Bukankah selama perjalanan seni rupa Barat sejak masa Renesans posisi auratik seni lukis tak tertandingi oleh medium lain? Terbukti bahwa penyebaran reproduksi sebuah karya seni pada barang-barang cetakan maupun transmisi digital justru menambahkan kesan auratik pada karya aslinya.

Untuk mempertegas efek terpiuh karena refraksi kaca glass block, Kacrut juga melukiskan wajah tokoh seniman seorang diri. Dia juga menghilangkan bagian pinggir glass block, sehingga wajah tokoh seniman yang terpiuh memenuhi bidang kanvas. Tak merasa cukup dengan efek refraksi dari glass block, Kacrut juga menumpahkan, mencipratkan, malaburi permukaan glass blocknya dengan cat encer. Hal ini memperkaya efek visual. Wajah-wajah tersebut tampak “diganggu”, namun di sisi lain tampaknya mereka tak bereaksi. Hal ini pun bisa dimaknai sebagai representasi kesadaran dan kepedulian kita pada sejarah seni rupa Barat, namun di sisi lain “mereka” seolah tak mengindahkan kita. Barangkali itu pula sebabnya Kacrut merasa perlu untuk meretakkan permukaan kaca, seperti tampak dalam karya yang menampilkan, sekaligus berjudul, “Robert Rouschemberg dan Francis Bacon”. Bisa jadi Kacrut ingin menunjukkan “kejengkelan” pada hegemoni seniman Barat. Namun “serangan” Kacrut selalu hanya sampai pada permukaan kaca, tak tembus pada citraan di belakangnya. Apakah Kacrut hendak menunjukkan bahwa sungguh sulit “menyerang” dan berinteraksi dengan mereka. Sepertinya mereka terlihat, namun tak dapat ditemui dan disapa.

Pada akhirnya, karya-karya Kacrut seperti hendak mengingatkan pada kita betapa mudah saat ini mengakses seni rupa kontemporer. Apabila yang dibutuhkan adalah perkara wacana dan teori seni rupa, maka buku-buku dan saluran internet berlimpah ruah dengan informasi mengenai seni rupa kontemporer. Medan seni rupa global menjadi wilayah yang portable. Buku-buku seni rupa kontemporer sedikit banyak merupakan pemadatan dari gambaran medan seni rupa global. Buku-buku dan transmisi digital berkenaan dengan informasi mengenai seni rupa kontemporer merupakan museum without walls, yang portable dan mudah “dijinjing”. Bisa jadi kita “salah” mengerti wacana atau “salah” memaknai karya-karya yang dibicarakan dalam buku-buku tersebut. Tapi barangkali tak masalah: bukankah kita bisa menciptakan pemikiran dan makna kita sendiri? Bukankah melalui lukisannya Kacrut menunjukkan bahwa wajah-wajah yang “salah” dan terpiuh pun memiliki kekuatan gagasan dan estetiknya sendiri?

 

Curator: Asmudjo Jono Irianto

Done