We believe the theme comedy correlates to the socio-political state our country is now in. It’s an attempt to look for collective ways of catharsis, not to burden ourselves with difficult themes. In that regard, comedy becomes a communal catharsis while at the same time suits our current condition. We understand comedy as a mode of communication. In a distressed country there tend to be a distortive and illusive pattern of communication. Such is the characteristic of a country in crisis. Whatever communication form conveyed by the government, society, or media, it always seems distortive. In the future, this obliges our mature judgment. We can see from our parody television shows. Democrazy, for instance, is a parody and a manifestation of obstruct political communication. Comedy as a form of communication tries to accommodate the on-going aspiration. Besides, it does not imply anything too hefty. That is pretty much why comedy has its reason to be the theme of this year’s OK. Video.
We classify videos into four categories. First category, the absurd, is the works that present a difficult sensibility of humor and requires certain level of intellectuality to comprehend. This kind of work is hard to classify, so we put them under the absurd category. Other categories are satirical, cynical, and critical. Video is often used as a way to criticize or to develop a very cynical language towards society and other common, general occurrence. In the amount of works submitted, the percentage between local and international participants are equal.
I see comedy as non-universal. Because it’s not universal, comedy contains specific languages born out of cultural differences. Comedy is expected to bridge unison, where comedy—in certain levels of communication—remains the same even when it takes different form.
How do you curate which works to exhibit in OK. Video?
In curatorial manner, videos are selected based on typical genres. For example, the video of Paul Wiersbinski, Ivo Burokvic. In this video, we see how cynical an artist can be in bearing the capitalistic practices of fine arts and the global market. The video is a reflection upon capitalistic practices in a postindustrial society. Then there is also parody, such as Anggun Priambodo’s video on sinetron (soap opera). We all hate sinetron and Anggun ably represents all of us with regard to that hatred. In the end we are led to laugh at it. Anggun took the paradigm of sinetron soundtrack as an icon of truth and parodies it through his work. His video uncovers ideological veil that sinetron is useless and foolish.
I think, yes. Video as a medium is actually immaterial. In a modern understanding, artifact is necessary. A painting has to be physically perceivable. In postmodern understanding, however, this does not apply since video is immaterial. Video is a subversion of painting, erasable at any point without restraint. Here we see the artists’ attempt to surpass the modern thinking that video is not solitary in meaning and has divisible meaning. Video art as resistance to media culture is one variable. Critically speaking, the presence of video in Indonesia is in fact assimilation to what happened in the Western world. So the will to enrich our video-making vocabulary is highly dependant to the West. If it’s happening in the West world, then we have to make it here, too, as well—as if we truly think what progresses in the Western should also progress in this country. If Western people utilize video, then we should, too. A lot of people are confused of how to position the video in the development of Indonesian fine arts since, historically, we never really own a tradition of painting on canvas.
I should think that OK. Video’s intention is not to offer change. I think, up till now, video’s presence is more to build a foundation for its being to make sense. Painting has its raison d’etre in Indonesia when Sudjojono observes that painting has a connection as a tool to the ideology of nationalism. Video, on the other hand, still searches for such kind of reason for being. Even in describing itself, video still has to map its position in the development of Indonesian fine arts. It’s like two cars of a train chasing one after the other. In one hand, video is the most contemporary medium compared to painting. While on the other hand, painting receives more public consumption. Painting receives more recognition among public than the video. I think it’s easier to look at video as binary opposition to painting.
What are the interests in curating OK. Video Comedy?
What interests me in curating OK. Video Comedy is the ground theme. That is one. The second is more personal in terms of satisfying my own curiosity to understand this medium better and hope that it reflectively constructs and challenges my way of thinking. I consider this festival as an entrance to personally comprehend the core. I also think that it’s the first time ever the theme is carried out in our country.
As a matter of fact, the state has yet to fully take care of fine arts. Government has never thought of fine arts as an agenda in the politics of identity. Ironically, the government conducts practices of politics of identity in the Ministry of Youth and Sports—and they support them all the way, too. It’s not about winning, but to achieve identity, to gain respect. Art can actually be treated the same way. I think we need to be patient. I mean, SBY’s administration has this agenda in nation character building. Other agenda to follow after the country’s economy. Maybe after basic, structural economy problems are addressed, we can start to build superstructures, including the arts. But it’s a long way and we need to be patient. That doesn’t mean we can whine. Government doesn’t want to regulate painting surtaxes and bestow them to the market, anyway. It’ll be far more complicated when it’s government-regulated. After all, if government takes over the arts and culture, artists’ creativity may well be threatened.
How do you observe the visual arts in our country?
Fine arts in our country develop in an organic way. It used to be a top-down development, regulated by the government and then implemented by the artist. It is now bottom-up, in an organic way—its expression, performer, practice, exhibition and appreciation. I think we should let it be. In time, government will see where this development takes us and will decidedly utilize it as an instrument in the politics of identity. Take China as an example, where everything is top-down. The government initiated to build a museum, its people refused because what they needed is fields of work. The government then proclaimed that they can have fields of work while at the same time be proud of its nation.
Indonesia is fairly better. We are far luckier. We are one of the most excelled in Southeast Asia in terms of expression, artist, exhibition theme, and level of appreciation. Within the Southeast Asia region, it is fair to say we are dignified in the field of fine arts.
«Translated into english by Efiya Nur Fadila»
Share this
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Yahoo
Blogmarks
Technorati
Googlize this
Facebook
"jadi Zizek memang enak. Bisa ngomong "seenak"-nya, bis...
Setelah beberapa lama, ada kendala teknis pada fasilitas komentar d...
tes
proyek new media art yang sebetulnya kembali pada sejarah visualisa...
tapi tonton dulu, soalnya suka ada PROMOTION ONLY yang muncul tiap ...
mmmm...von trier telah lama mati...bagi saya film ini tetap bermutu...
akhirnya yakin juga bahwa film keren ini ada maksudnya (lho!!) haha...
Boleh deh argumentasinya, tapi saya tetap bersepakat dengan para kr...
la'u cari aja di ambassador ato di lapak bajakan. banyak yg jual . . .
lom nonton filmnya juga,ada di jual ga yak???