“Everything that was directly lived has moved away into representation”
― Guy Debord, The Society of The Spectacle

“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.” [1] 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”.

The issue of realism related with the assumption of realistic mimicry constitutes a distinct linguistic phenomenon. In linguistic studies, a realistic image is called an iconic mark, in relation with the claim of visual appearance with certain resemblance with the forms that the image wishes to refer to or explain about. In the system of pictorial language, an “iconic” mark serves as a sign when someone is able to interpret a certain image within the context of a similar pattern of reception with another. This is possible due to a kind of “natural generalitivity” that enables everyone to recognize the depicted object. The pictorial interpretation with this “natural generalitivity” concludes that the realism containing iconic signs can bind the “recognizing capacity” that is more or less “similar” among a group of people regarding the depicted objects, and be considered as a “typical seeing experience” about the world. Such expressions of realism that have been considered as a system of general—and generalized—receptivity are not actually representative of a natural human ability to recognize images, but have instead been shaped through a learning process that is cultural and historical in nature. We know that history records the development of realism as constituting human efforts to copy forms in such a way that they can be considered “realistic”. Eventually, the discovery of the technology of photography is seen as the peak of the decades of visual experiments to find ways of realistic mimicry in swifter and more accurate ways, compared to what had been offered by the traditional ways through the pictures and paintings.

The exhibition “Reality Effects” wishes to present the issue using a path that is different from the “traditional” ways to understand realism as a framework that projects the artist’s subjective attitude regarding the world of appearance and reality (of objects) as he or she understands them. On the contrary, the idea of “Reality Effects” is to understand expressions of “realism” as resulting from the changes in the situations of reality (of the contemporary society), which is very much affected by the progress in the technology of visual representation that has changed drastically since the discovery of photography. For the context of the discussion regarding realistic works, there are two inescapable conditions arising from the significant role played by the media and the technology of photography. First, the processes in which works of realism are created have now been increasingly assisted by the technology of photography—which the artists at least use as “models” or visual records for the details involved in the making of the works. The results of such processes are the drawings, paintings, or sculptures. Second, all the methods and the results of our recognitions about reality and our day-to-day experiences are actually shaped and habituated by a variety of photographic representations (through a range of information media and interactions).

Unlike the situations in the eighties, today it has become easier for everyone—including the artists—to own cameras and “create” photographic realities. It might very well be that the technology of photography has now become a primary means for everybody to record the vagaries of everyday living. Today, the cameras are not necessarily used as specialized tools for professional photographers, but have rather become increasingly compact and easy to use. Photography and photographic reality are now considered as constituting the most comprehensive images of our contemporary experience and significantly characterizes the contemporary living. This is a typical model of image production and consumption that differentiates the contemporary society with the societies of the preceding eras. Photography, therefore, has essentially been defined as an agent and distributor of the cultures and technology of the contemporary societies. [2] But how about the expressions of the contemporary art?

The contemporary art is often incorrectly defined as constituting a return to the realistic art, or the art of realism, or “anti-abstract” art. In fact, there is no basis for such descriptions. It is actually more apt to explain it in relation with the scope of concerns of the contemporary art expressions, which try to move closer to the expressions of the everyday living of the people and the contemporary culture. This is a matter of the closing distance between the contemporary art and the realities of life that have increasingly been influenced by the circulation and the proliferation of photographic images. Walter Benjamin, the philosopher and aesthetic theoretician of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, has warned us of the effects of reality conditions influenced by the developments in the technology of photography and even envisioned a radical change in the art condition. In his brilliant analysis, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Benjamin states that photography has fundamentally changed the “natural” condition of art. Benjamin believes that photography has destroyed the art’s “autonomy to copy” in relation with the processes in social and political developments, and diluted what has previously considered as “the traditional values of cultural heritage”. [3] I think the contemporary artists certainly do not use the photographic cameras and images only for their models and work modules, but also understand them as a field of new issues in art that can bring them closer to the “realities” of the contemporary society. Benjamin also explains how a certain process of transmutation takes place, transforming the rituals that have previously owned by the traditional societies into novel ritual forms and practices of repetitions. Such processes liberate the linkage between art objects and traditional rituals (the religions and customs), called the cult value of art, and result in certain novel values, the autonomous exhibition values of art. [4]

What does the concept of “exhibition value” of art signify? The contemporary art expressions, albeit dealing with the ideas of traditions and cultures as well as the social and political issues, have in practice a field and models of recognition that are distinct from those of the traditional arts, which cannot even be adequately explained by the selected subject matters (the unity of themes: cultural-social-political). Works with the themes of social protests or death rites, for example, do not necessarily have the same values as ascribed to the actual events by the political or traditional world. The “exhibition value” of artwork confirms the separation between the values of art expressions and the actual ritual values. Benjamin even states that the visual images constructed by the image-reproduction technology set off by photography can no longer be considered as containing the “aura” of timelessness and sanctity, as we had once viewed the classical and traditional art. Benjamin envisions the existence of “the age of mechanical reproduction”—and today it becomes the “age of digital reproduction”—as a condition in which there is a moment of distinct aesthetic contemplations. During the classical age, aesthetic contemplations were commonly conducted only by certain groups (the educated and the aristocracy); today, it has become a model of reception done by the masses and determined by the moods of artistic experiences as affected by social changes and the progress of technology. [5] The artists (producers), the artwork (object), and the art audience (consumers) are not far removed from the influence of the logic of the “production-consumption” model that unceasingly undermines the standing of the distinct process of aesthetic contemplations.

In the contemporary society, the development of realism is indeed inextricably linked with the consumptive characteristic of the public with regards to the productions and proliferation of photographic images. In the mid-eighties, the art historian and art critic Sanento Yuliman also had explained the phenomenon of image proliferation within the society as a situation of “image booming” (ledakan gambar). Sanento Yuliman writes:

Every day, every where, and every time we see images. They are ubiquitous, in all sectors of life—in the handmade images, photographic images, print images, projected images, electronic images (television, video), and a range of other images. If only the history of our community could be displayed again quickly, as is the norm with films, we would be seeing the development process during the ancient time to this day, from the rarity of images to the “explosion of images”. [6]

Sanento Yuliman was not only thorough in his observation regarding the pulses of changes among the Indonesian contemporary society at the time; his attitude resembled that of the French cultural observer, Guy Debord, who had first sensed such a situation in Europe, which he then viewed as a new international phenomenon that began since late sixties. In the midst of the roaring production and circulation of images, Guy Debord mentioned the birth of a distinct form of society which he called as “the society of the spectacle”. According to Guy Debord, “the spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images. ... In societies dominated by modern conditions of productions, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles.” [7] Guy Debord also concluded that “Everything that was directly lived, has receded into a representation.” [8] In the conclusion, he reminded us that every form of knowledge that we have today are more strongly influenced by the “existence” of a certain [appearance of] representations or varieties thereof, rather than resulting from the interactions of direct experiences.

In the contemporary society, the issue of representation becomes crucial. What does “representation” mean? In its general sense, representation constitutes a certain or a number of artificial constructions (understanding, signification, meaning) through which we understand the world in which we live. In practice, such constructions can be taken as conceptual representations in the forms of images, languages, or definitions, including various conceptual constructions with social dimensions, such as race or gender. Although in real life these conceptual constructions rely on their material forms in, a representation is often taken as a natural “fact”, and such misunderstanding often blurs our recognition and understanding about reality. Our access to reality—whether we realize it or not—is mediated by such cloud of representation. [9] The curatorial issue of “Reality Effects” first and foremost is about the sophisticated awareness among the artists in recognizing and dealing with the cloud of representation, which is often positioned as “natural fact”. Or, in stronger terms, the issue of “Reality Effects” is more about the awareness about the problems of the latest reality (the contemporary society), without having to insist taking it as the manifestation of the awareness about the realism “ideology”.

The exhibition, however, still invites the artists to work within the framework of the “realism” ideology, but still in the context of the contemporary changes. The artists are invited to respond to the following issues that reveal the relations to the society of today:

1.New Epoch of Mimetic Representation

This theme is related to the shift in our understanding about the problems of “the mimetic appearance of visual representations”. This issue came to the fore especially in relation with the discovery and the progress in the technology of photography. The development in the technology of photography since the discovery of the camera to the image processing using digital technology has fundamentally changed the logic to view and understand the appearances of reality. How do we today understand the expressions of realism artwork, which conventionally is ideologically connected to the claim of the truth of the visual appearance?

2.The Rise of Contemporary Urban Life

This theme has to do with the mimetic representations of a variety of situations and changes in urban living, which shape the horizon of our cultural awareness today. In fact, the rapid progress in the technology of visual representations that today are more photographic and digitalized in nature has been due to the distinct characteristic of urban life. How does the contemporary visual art reveal how the issue has been represented?

3.Age of “the End”

The themes of “death” and the conditions of the “terminal” boundaries are latent in many discussions about the theoretical problems of “representation”. The themes constitute criticism toward the conventional logic of applying the monolithic and fixed meaning to each forms of representation. Furthermore, the changes in the urban society have today shaped the “new” awareness about the orientation of the existential values of the “self” in specific ways. This awareness constantly renews the boundaries of the existential “truth” and the way someone interprets the facts of realities that have been previously established in the conventional/traditional manner.

4.New “Heroism”

The theme of “new” heroism is distinct from the project to envision the existential hero in the style of the rational modern subject. The “new” heroes precisely consider important the issue of boundaries contained by each representations (including about the greatness of the “heroes” themselves). Indeed, the art ideology of realism “traditionally” venerates the theme of “heroism”, believed to be representable in certain figures (including the artists themselves), who are taken to be able to epitomize the true essence of life. The art ideology of realism has been kept alive through the spirit of empiricism and scientism, which forms the undeniable trust in epistemology: “The subject that assesses the object (the reality)”. Today, in the awareness about the representational boundaries of self existence and subjectivism, how does the contemporary art show its stance and defend the value of the “truth” of reality?

This exhibition, “Reality Effects”, clearly considers important the technology of photography as the anchor for the problem of “realism” that in “novel” ways connects our understanding to the changes in the reality of the contemporary society. In this understanding, the technology of photography is understood within the context of the manifestation in its expanded development in a variety of digital technology effects. As a method of representation, photography has taught us a kind of new visual codes, by showing the significant aspects of someone’s attention or interest, and/or blowing up parts of them as the focus of attention. At the end of the day, a photographic representation will shape our perceptions about the choices and the results of the “representations” of reality that we have appreciated in certain ways. A photographic image that is often used as a point of reference, for example, in reality functions as a kind of “structure of regulations” (a “grammar”) in our way of seeing, and can be further understood even as an “ethics of seeing”.

How do we now understand—even only to recognize again—the role of art in order to achieve the meaning of the “truth” of reality, in the midst of the ocean of representations with the grammar and ethics of seeing that have been affected by the “perfect” visual model of appearance à la photography? How do the “realistic” works in this exhibition reveal their significations? There are at least two theoretical frames that I believe have also been used by the artists whose works are displayed today, and which I believe are noteworthy. First, the effort of art to regain the significant meaning of the “aura”. According to Walter Benjamin, the presence of the auratic aspects in the artwork that is viewed as unique is essentially related with the whole relationship of the work within its specific ritual function. Benjamin believes that an artwork gains its aura depending on two factors; i.e. (1) the existence of a tradition that applies as a framework of common experience that is relatively stable within a certain community, in which an art object can be viewed as auratic; and (2) the sustainable condition of the object as a unique physical entity. [10]

I think Benjamin might have failed to envision what the institutions of art museums would do after his death. After World War II and during the restoration of the West European countries and the United States of America, the museums became a significant cultural institution and managed to shape the traditions and framework of art appreciation that were social in nature. The museums brilliantly maintain the existence of the art objects so that we would later define these objects as “masterpieces”. The museums can even be called the “temples” for the existence of the auratic values and the art aura. The development of the contemporary art that is often seen as rebelling against the system of the museums in practice does not take place in its understanding as something that is “antimuseum”.

The important spirit supported by the contemporary art is the spirit to celebrate the complexities of everyday living in ways that are “more concrete” and closer to the daily experiences, including the dynamics of problems resulting from the social, economic, cultural, and technological changes. The effort of the contemporary art to regain the aura of art can be taken by reviewing what Benjamin has explained, but referring to the contemporary contexts and situations. In another note, Benjamin has also made clear that the value of the experience in the aura is “the unique appearance or semblance of a distance, no matter how close the object may be”. [11] Are such conditions reflected in the practice of contemporary art? The contemporary art expressions that are often viewed as banal and directly presenting the ideas (using found objects, for example) basically present different effects.  The banal works precisely try to create a certain “distance” from the observations, hoping that certain reflections of values can be made possible. The realistic painting about a car, or a portrait or a painting of an object resembling a toy or doll, for example, is not presented truly as it is, referring to the public recollections of such objects as they encounter the objects during their day to day activities. Certain reflections and appreciations must be explored, arising from the distance prepared through the appearance of the work. I think the imagined distance is subtle in nature. I am reminded of Benjamin’s explanation, saying that “by distance, I mean ‘unapproachability’.” [12]

It is the matter of unapproachability as Benjamin had meant that brought us to the second theoretical problem: How do we understand the reality effects on the art today? The ocean of (photographic) images plays an increasingly important role, serving as our entry to what we recognize as experience and reality. Here a kind of signs for understanding has actually been prepared through the explanations by the art theoretician W.J. T Mitchells, who says that “images, like histories and technologies, are our creations, yet are also commonly thought to be ‘out of our control’—or at least out of ‘someone’s’ control, the question of agency and power being central to the way images work.” [13] Therefore, if our everyday experiences have been framed by a range of visual representations that are constantly changing and proliferating out of our control, certainly our valuable experiences in dealing with the artwork constitutes a different matter altogether. It is in such an experiential path that we can keep on exploring what is actually valuable in art (expressions).

The musing of the philosopher Jean-François Lyotard might serve as a source of inspirations for us to reconsider the significant meaning of art representations in the midst of the flux of captivating and brilliant photographic representations. To Lyotard, there will always be a kind of gap between the experiences we have had and the languages that we use to represent them, so much so that someone can never master fully the “extralinguistic experiences”. Lyotard is thus certain that language can never succeed in fully constructing our experiences; and this is so because there are events—or “Ereignis”, to use Martin Heidegger’s term—that the language cannot explain. [14] The issue of “ereignis” or event containing “extralinguistic experiences” might consist of: everything that is too detailed, too much, too profound, too tragic, or too happy, that it cannot be fully “described” in words, presented in our everyday linguistic expressions. It is with such matters that the representation of art has a significant role, irreplaceable by the common languages.

In this exhibition, can we say that the realistic images that show certain physical resemblance with our daily experience of seeing constitute a common language? Naturally, every realistic art expression can be considered “merely” as an object: painting, sculpture, photograph, or film; still, we have to try finding the value of art that the respective medium of expression states. The range of the media can be meaningful in so far as we are able to find a distinct recognizing capacity as an “art expression”. We will then appreciate them as valuable expressions, because we find them as a “language” that go beyond the boundaries of the common languages. The aspect of resemblance in the realistic works actually constitutes codes of recognition that we have learned about, deliberately or otherwise. History also shows the changes in the forms of these iconic signs (for example about the female physique), which in their respective periods have been viewed as containing the value of resemblance with reality. These changes confirm the existence of a separating distance from what we envision as “the real” with the “reality”. In this subject, we find again the important value of the “aura”, in relation with the “unapproachability” that we humans (including the artists) are seeking to conquer with zest, in order to understand the essence of life.

The realistic expressions that reveal the iconic signs and the aspect of resemblance in relation with reality will become mere “objects” if we take them only as artwork—perhaps some people will even take them as decorative objects. In fact, these expressions can act as an experiential space that is alive and inspirational once we understand them as “text”. Unlike its understanding as a “work” of art that is valuable in its physical aspects, our appreciation toward the art expression as text constitutes an attitude of acceptance toward a certain entity that gains its meaning due to the interpretational space of its signs. [15] To link a realistic portrait with a brilliant self-portrait will not result in a worthy discussion if we only superficially compare their appearances. We will precisely find the “value” of such comparison if we understand them as texts to intriguing themes and connect the two of them within a space of interpretations.

A work of art will become a material for the interpretational processes once we transform its physical aspects into valuable meanings. Even the realistic works—be it a painting, sculpture, photograph, or video—can have profound meanings not because they can give a certain assurance or confirmation that all aspects of reality and our experiences presented there appear just like how they are depicted in these works. Rather, a realistic representation is valuable precisely because of its success to show strong art expressions, which provide inspirations and distance and assist us in constructing our affirmation in respecting the reality. I wish to conclude our discussion with an important quote by Anthony Savile, a philosopher. Savile convinces me about ways to understand the self and reality by saying that “the role of art helps us to prevent ossification in our assumption about the world and our affective response to other. The arts help us to feel our way into the situation of others in all their subtlety.” [16]

Rizky A. Zaelani

Curator

______________

End notes:

1.Raymond Williams, Keyword: A vocabulary of culture and society (London: Fontana Press, 1976), pp. 257 & 262.

2.See Abigail Solomon-Godeau, Photography After Art Photography, in Brian Wallis, ed. ART AFTER MODERNISM: Rethinking Representation (New York – Boston: The New Museum of Contemporary Art – David R. Godine, Publisher, Inc, 1984), p. 76.

3.See W. Benjamin, “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” in Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, Hannah Arendt, ed. (New York: Schocken, 1969), pp. 226-7.

4.Ibid. p.225.

5.See Paul Mattick, “Mechanical reproduction in the age of art” in ART IN ITS TIME: Theories and practices of modern aesthetics (New York – London: Routledge, 2003), p. 87.

6.Sanento Yuliman, “Seni Rupa dalam Kehidupan Sehari Kita Sekarang”, in Asikin Hasan, ed. DUA SENI RUPA: Sepilihan Tulisan Sanento Yuliman (Jakarta: Yayasan Kalam, 2001), p. 40.

7.Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle (1967) (New York: Zone Books, 1995), p. 12.

8.Ibid.

9.See. Brian Wallis, “What’s Wrong With This Pictures? An Introduction”, Brian Wallis, ed. op.cit. p. xv.

10.Paul Mattick, op.cit. p. 223.

11.See W. Benjamin, “A Small History of Photography”, in One Way Street (London: Verso, 1979), p. 250.

12.W. Benjamin, “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction”, op.cit. p.187

13.W.J.T Mitchell, “The Pictorial Turn”, in PICTURE THEORY, Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), p.6.

14.See Jae Emerling, “Jean-François Lyotard” dalam THEORY FOR ART HISTORY (New York – London: Routledge, 2005), p. 204.

15.See Roland Barthes, “From Work to Text”, Brian Wallis, ed. op.cit, p. 171.

16.Anthony Savile, The Test of Time (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), pp. 96-7.