“Pictures are defined not by some magical affinity to the real but by their ability to create what Roland Barthes called ‘reality effect’.”1

The term ‘reality effect’ or the effect of (resembling) reality became widely known from the article by Roland Barthes under the same title. In the article, Barthes analyzes the function of detailed descriptions in realist novels. In principle, accurate descriptions will create what Barthes calls “the illusion of reality” that presents “reality effects”. Reality effects also apply to realist images, especially in photos and films, “...we typically behave as though photographs show ‘exactly what happened’—what Barthes called ‘the reality effects’.”2

In painting, reality effect is inseparable from the realist tendency in Western art history—before the discovery of photography. This is shown by the popularity of the technique of trompe l’oeil—which literally means, “deceives the eye”, referring to paintings that try to create illusions of three-dimensionality in the depicted objects. Therefore, the realist tendency is often called ‘illusionism’. The discovery of photography as the medium that is considered more objective in representing reality naturally threatens the existence of realist paintings. The decline of realist tendency in modern painting was more or less caused by the existence of photography. As a work of art, photography is more closely related to, and depends on, reality. In 1927, Albert Renger-Patzh, an avant garde photographer, answered the question about the existence of photography as an autonomous medium, “The secret of a good photograph, which can have artistic qualities just like a work of the visual arts, lies in its realism.”3

The presence of realism painting as representation has in fact been taken over by photography, as explained by Arthur Danto and quoted by Eleanor Hertney,

“In his essay ‘The End of Art,’ philosopher and critic Arthur Danto argues that photography ‘solved’ the problem that artists had faced since the Renaissance, namely how to create a convincing representation of the visible world through painting and sculpture. As a result, he believes, photography freed art to pursue a different set of goals involving ideology rather than representation.”4

As the task of painting to represent reality has been taken over by photography, painting took a totally different direction, delving into unknown territories, to completely novel realms, ones that were removed from reality. We recognize such efforts as the abstract painting, which “leaves behind the world” and is busy searching for its identity: the essence of painting. The representation of reality was thus presented more by works of photography. Along the journey, however, the objectivity of photographs in representing reality is questioned. Photography is easily manipulated, moving away from reality or denying it. The progress of the digital imaging technology even enables the creation of images that look realistic without being based on reality and are instead completely constructed by image-making software.

Technological development, especially one that is related with the production of images, has changed the perception of the contemporary society about reality and the world. Today it is difficult to determine what the true reality is as human perception is shaped by the deluge of images and spectacles, giving rise to what Guy Debord calls “the society of spectacle.” The perception of reality within the contemporary society is indeed shaped by, and depends on, the culture of spectacles. People are not aware of the political and commercial manipulations instilled in their minds through the TV sets in the family rooms. Similarly, in Indonesia the reality shows and gossip shows presented by the TVs become daily staples of the people, who ironically feel that they are in control by holding the remote controls and zapping through the TV channels.5

What we consider as reality today is in fact always a construct shaped by a variety of often-conflicting interests. It is thus difficult to determine what “reality” is. The term of ‘simulacrum’ shows how hard it is for us to pin down true reality, as what is present before us is often a copy of copy.

“Only since the 1960s—in response to a breakdown in the solidity of the ‘real,’ its massive mediation by new technologies of the visible, the increasing numbers of images permeating everyday life and concomitant transformations in what is considered ‘art’—have philosophers, critics, and most crucially, artists themselves returned to the repressed term ‘simulacrum’ and revived it as a crucial concept for interrogating postmodern artistic practices and theories of representation.”6

The bankruptcy of modern art inescapably returned art in the contemporary art era to the position of the realm of representation. Naturally, representation in contemporary art has different motives and urgency compared to the context of representation in realist works prior to the era of modern art. At the time when the dualism model between reality and copy is difficult to uphold, the realm of representation understandably undergoes certain problems: “the simulacrum also disturbs the order of priority: that the images must be secondary to, or come after, its model.”7 On the other hand, at the time when the dualism concept can no longer be applied consistently, the realm of representation precisely becomes the territory that provides a range of possibilities of adventure. If everything is simulacrum (a copy of a copy), isn’t the opposite also true: that everything can be considered as reality in itself? Reality effect in the contemporary realist art is the effect about its reality as an artwork, as a real and autonomous entity—that is not necessarily related to what it represents.

That is why the realist tendency—in a range of forms and media—regains its force of life in contemporary art. The distrust in reality does not mean that the artists do away with assumptions about reality. No matter how fluid reality is, the realist artists still need to question the roots of the problems (of the realm considered as “reality”) in their works. At the time when “reality” is no longer stable, the involvement of art in questioning “reality” precisely appears in a variety of attitudes, possibilities, and forms. It is thus not easy to determine the understanding of realism in the contemporary art.

While realism in the Indonesian contemporary art several decades ago was invariably linked with social and political representations, lately the themes that the realism genre takes on enjoy greater variety and complexity. Among the realist styles, it seems that photo-realism has acquired certain dominance. It is undeniable that today many realist artists make use of photography and digital technology such as the LCD projector in creating their realist works, in order to capture reality and the depicted objects with utmost accuracy. Thus the photograph that is used as the reference can also be viewed as the object that the artist has chosen to depict. What the artist represents, therefore, is a copy of reality. This shows the aspect of simulacrum in photo-realist paintings, or the realist works that use photographs as their points of reference. The use of photographs very much depends on the artist’s intention: is it merely technical, or also conceptual? Is it not true that to paint by using photographs constitutes an effort to deconstruct the identity of photographic reproduction, to return images to their unique quality, their aura? There will be no two paintings that are completely identical. The unique quality of painting—as the one and only painting—has even influenced photo-artists to create one-edition photography works, or the monoprints, which is actually contrary to the characters and identity of photography as something that can be continuously reproduced.

“In so far as contemporary art photography has become as much a creation of the market-place as an engine of it, it comes as no surprise to encounter the ultimate denial of photography as a mechanically reproducible technology in such phenomena as Emmet Gowin’s recent production of ‘monoprints’—edition of a single print from negative. Indeed, a recent press release from the Laurence Miller Gallery announces on the occasion of an exhibition entitled ‘The One and Only’.”8

This exhibition affirms that the dualism model in representation (reality vs. copy) can no longer be used as the only reference. However, this exhibition does not want to belittle realist works by considering them as merely copies of copies, a kind of simulacrum, as Margot Lovejoy once said: “We can call a photorealist painting a simulacrum because it was a painted copy of a photograph, which was itself, inherently, a copy of the real.”9 On the contrary, as Hal Foster has shown, even works by Andy Warhol can be viewed as representation of reality. This is evident in Thomas Crow’s opinion that rejects the assessment over Andy Warhol’s works as simulacral:

“Underneath the glamorous surface of commodity fetishes and the media stars Crow finds, ‘the reality of suffering and death’; the tragedies of Marilyn, Liz, and Jackie in particular are said to prompt ‘straightforward expression of feeling.’ Here Crow finds not only a referential object for Warhol but an empathetic subject in Warhol, and here he locates the criticality of Warhol…In this way Crow pushes Warhol beyond humanist sentiment to political engagement.”10

Hal Foster saw the two choices—to place Warhol’s works as simulacral works or merely as representations—as an option, a possibility, based on each party’s perspective and motive. Hal Foster explains this in relation with Andy Warhol’s work with the theme of “Death in America”.

“Both camps make the Warhol they need, or get the Warhol they deserve; no doubt we all do.  And neither projection is wrong. I find them equally persuasive. But they cannot both be right…or can they? Can we read the ‘Death in America’ images as referential and simulacral, connected and disconnected, affective and affectless, critical and complacent? I think we must, and we can if we read them third way, in terms of traumatic realism.”11

The quote shows that Hal Foster mentions at least two realist approaches in contemporary art; first, traumatic realism, and, second, critical realism, which Foster indirectly talks about.

Although according to Hal Foster realism today can still be viewed as images showing the relationship between reality and its representation, there is no longer a stable connection, unlike what the realist tradition of the West had in the nineteenth century. Similarly, the intent of realist art to serve as a realm of representation is being rivaled by the mass media and popular art. There is often the question of what actually separates the representation in art from the representation in popular art. It can very well be that the fluid boundaries between high art and popular art are due to the distrust on the part of the high art regarding its representation potentials. To some extent, however, these boundaries have been maintained. For example, the works presented in this exhibition has a “distinct characteristic” as a realm of representation as they exist as “artwork”. Realist painting in the era of digital images production and reproduction will certainly look “illogical”. What is the exigency in creating difficult images using the hand-made technique, and consuming a lot of time, while the very same images can be produced in an instant using the digital technology? The answer: realist images presented/executed through paintings create certain reality effect in terms of its existence (= its reality) as “artwork”. In other words, the realist paintings, or other hand-made realist works today have the potentials to be critical towards the “instant culture” and the culture of spectacle, precisely because the painting is done using the technique that might seem illogical in the eyes of the people dealing with the technology of digital images production and reproduction, which are massive and instantaneous.

Furthermore, it might very well be that most realist artists in Indonesia do not concern themselves with the issue of the breakdown of reality. Therefore, the dualism model between reality and representation (= painting/realist works) can still be applied quite consistently. It means that their works can still be viewed as the effect of reality that they are questioning. Apparently, the anxiety about reality that is no longer real takes place in greater intensity on the level of cultural theories and discourses in the West. In our everyday living, or in the realm of the common sense, what is considered, as “reality” is often perceived just like that, taken for granted as certainty. Everything that appears to be present as material (object) or self-evident events constitutes the “reality” that we humans encounter in our day-to-day living. Naturally, the daily reality mostly constitutes the reality of routine activities. The reality becomes special when it is re-presented, as a kind of documentary, news (journalist), or artwork.

At the end of the day, the realist paintings or sculptures in the contemporary art constitutes the reality itself; reality about their concreteness, their beings as (art) artifacts that have been arranged directly by the artists—or at least are hand-made. This is certainly the antithesis of the mass and instantaneous image production processs using the digital technology. The hand-made realist works automatically become auratic again due to their unique (inimitable) qualities. They act as the reality effect to the artwork’s presence as an artwork, or the artwork that is “real”, concrete, although the content might serve as a part of a series of simulacrum. Eventually what is consumed in the production and consumption processes of the contemporary art is the “work” of art itself as the object, constituting the concretization of the artist’s idea.

Realism formed a highly significant part of the journey of the modern and contemporary art in Indonesia. Abstract painting, the backbone of the modern art in the West, has never recognized the existence of other modern art outside the West—in which the abstract principles are also applied. According to Hans Belting, one of the ways out would be through strong nationalism:

“…for the continuing hegemonial modernism still demanded the exclusion of artists other than Western. The only alternative was an excessive nationalism in the representation of modern art in order to counterbalance the colonial definition.”12

In any case, the discourse of the modern/contemporary art in Indonesia has different situations and urgency compared to the discourses in the contemporary art in the West—although one cannot deny the fact that it has been influenced by the latter discourses. What is called reality is the fact that is seen as easy to find in the everyday living of the Indonesian people—although in general this has to do with unpleasant realities, involving social issues such as poverty, corruption, destructions in the nature, social clashes, violence of the state officers, etc. Indeed, these “negative realities” often appear “naked” before the public eye. Although many things/values have been constructed using the tactics and capital strategies taking advantage of spin-doctoring technology (spin-doctoring politics) that is so prevalent in the Indonesian political life of late, in general people take them as reality: the desire to gain political positions “by any way possible”. In other words, to separate reality from fiction, the original and the copy, might not be too complicated—for the artists and the audience. One must admit that the issue of complexity in the relationship between reality and its representation, between representation and copy, between one copy and another, is a well-elaborated discourse, dissected in sophisticated manner by the cultural thinkers and philosophers in the West, but it has not become a significant issue in the Indonesian cultural practices and discourses.

On the other hand, even the Western artists after the nineties, according to Jean Robertson, no longer concern themselves with theories. In the Indonesian art world, theories are neither important nor determinant. Which art theories to choose, anyway, as there are so many theories that the artists must think about. Jean Robertson thus writes,

“Artists didn’t seem to pay attention to theory as much after 1990, and the debates of the previous decade over modernism, postmodernism, and poststructuralism died down…Instead, artists took up accessibility, communication, humor and play.”13

Two of the characteristics of realist works are communicative and accessible. The communicative aspects are combined with the approach of criticism, as in critical realism, and the aspects of catharsis and therapy, as in traumatic realism, have proven to endow again the realist works with strength. The exhibition presents the realist tendency in a variety of possibilities. All kinds of realist approaches and motives in this exhibition can be traced back to the attitude and motive of the respective artist, and the reading on them would depend on the audience’s backgrounds and motives. Realism in contemporary art does not provide ready answer regarding its essence, and indeed it is better that way, because we no longer have an affirmed trust in reality and truth.

Eventually, reality effect no longer becomes important—is it not true that effects on reality are a part of our everyday living? When reality—no matter how complex—is represented or triggered the creation of art, a new reality is born (=the artwork) that is separate from the true reality. It does not matter that its existence is seen merely as simulacrum or copy, because there are always artists that act as the anchor behind the works. The “distinctness” of the work by an artist—compared to those of other artists—will give rise to the artist’s “identity” and “originality”, although it is the result of the effort to represent or copy the reality. Naturally, at the end of the day, all values of the artwork, as well as the parameter of quality and originality, are the result of constructions in the art world that “seems” to be distinct from the reality of the shaping culture. Reality effects are perhaps not important because the effects that the realist artists wish to create are the development of a critical attitude regarding the issue that the artists present through the realist visual works—a kind of critical realism. The artists seem to hope that it is this critical effect that would be achieved—apart from another effect, which is the artwork’s potential to become a contemporary fetish object.

Asmudjo Jono Irianto

Curator

___________________

End Notes:

1 Nicholas Mirzoeff, An Introduction to Visual Culture, London: Routledge, 1999, p. 37

2 Tony Schirato and Jen Webb, Reading the Visual, Crost Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2004, p. 46.

3 Kerstin Stremmel, Realism, Koln: Taschen, 2006, p. 19.

4 Eleanor Hertney, Art Today, London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2008, p. 96

5 See Margot Lovejoy, Digital Currents, Art in the Electronic Age, London: Routledge, 2004, p. 113

6 Robert S. Nelson and Richard Shiff, ed., Critical Term for Art History, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003, p. 35.

7 Ibid.

8 Abigail Solomon Godeau, “Photography After Art Photography” in Brian Wallis, ed., Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation, Boston: David R, Godine, Publisher, Inc., 1984, p. 77.

9 Op. Cit.,  Lovejoy, p.135.

10 Ibid, hlm. 130.

11 Ibid.

12 Hans Belting, “Contemporary Art as Global Art,” in Hans Belting and Andrea Buddensieg ed., The Global Art World, “Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2009, p. 53.

13 Jean Robertson and Craig McDaniel, Themes of Contemporary Art, Visual Art after 1980, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 29.