Tak Berakar Tak Berpucuk - Indonesian Visual Art Archive

handiwirman
dan benda-benda in-situ
/ and objects in-situ.
“tak berakar tak berpucuk
/ no roots no shoots”
galeri nasional indonesia,
29 maret-5 april 2011
/ the national gallery
of indonesia
march 29th-april 5th 2011
daftar isi / content
berjalan bersama / walking
together—biantoro santoso
6
Dari yang Remeh-Temeh,
yang Tersisa dan Tersia-sia /
From the Trivial, debris and
the Wasted—enin supriyanto
10
Melampaui Naturalisasi:
Yang Akrab dan yang Asing
/ Beyond Naturalization:
The Familiar and the Foreign
—AGUNG HUJATNIKAJENNONG
26
benda-benda in-situ: tak berakar,
tak berpucuk / objects in-situ:
no roots, no shoots
38
riwayat hidup / curriculum vitae
74
berjalan bersama / walking
together—biantoro santoso
Kerjasama Handiwirman Saputra dengan Nadi Gallery telah
terbina cukup lama. Kami mengawalinya dengan pameran
tunggal Handiwirman: “Apa Apanya Dong” pada tahun 2004.
Setelah itu, Nadi Gallery makin sering menampilkan karyakaryanya di berbagai acara pameran, baik di dalam negeri
maupun di luar negeri (Singapore Show Case 2008, dan CIGE
2008 Beijing.)
Nadi Gallery has had a long collaboration with Handiwirman
Saputra. We began it with Handiwirman’s solo exhibition,
“Apa-apanya Dong”, in 2004. After that, Nadi Gallery has
presented his works in many exhibitions, whether in Indonesia
and abroad (Singapore Show Case, 2008, and CIGE 2008
Beijing).
To me, Handiwirman’s works exert a strong attraction because
he always has a distinct point of view about things that often
escape our attention; the things that he then re-presents in
unique ways through his works. The distinct quality of his
works is related to the materials he uses: from Styrofoam
to hairs, from iron to fabric, etc. He can always process
these materials to create detailed, beautiful, and eyecatching appearances. He is an artist who thoroughly thinks
of the various production and presentation techniques for
all his works so that they can best contain and convey his
imaginations and ideas.
Bagi saya karya-karya Handiwirman punya daya tarik yang
kuat, karena ia selalu punya cara pandang khas terhadap halhal yang seringkali luput dari perhatian kita; untuk kemudian
ia tampilkan dengan cara yang unik pula melalui karyakaryanya. Kekhasan karyanya juga berkaitan dengan bahanbahan yang ia pakai: dari karet-busa sampai rambut, dari besi
sampai kain, dan lain-lain. Berbagai jenis bahan itu selalu
bisa ia olah sampai pada tampilan yang rinci, apik, memikat
perhatian. Ia adalah seorang seniman yang tekun memikirkan
berbagai aspek teknik produksi dan presentasi bagi tiap-tiap
karyanya agar bisa menampung dan menghadirkan imajinasi
dan gagasannya sesempurna mungkin.
This time, after a thorough process of preparation, we again
present Handiwirman Saputra’s latest works, the results of his
explorations in more varied directions compared to his works
in the past. This is a new stage for a series of works that he
wishes to develop in the future.
Kali ini, setelah melalui persiapan yang cukup matang,
kami hadirkan kembali sejumlah karya terbaru Handiwirman
Saputra, hasil dari penjelajahannya ke arah yang makin luas
dari karya-karya masa sebelumnya. Ini adalah babak baru dari
suatu runtutan karya yang hendak ia kembangkan di masa
mendatang.
6
In the preparation for today’s exhibition, I have been lucky to
be able to follow and witness the intensity of Handiwirman
Saputra’s creative work. The pictures of his works in the open
7
Dalam persiapan pameran kali ini, saya beruntung bisa
mengikuti dan menyaksikan intensitas kerja Handiwirman
Saputra. Foto-foto karyanya yang hadir di alam terbuka—
bagian terpadu dari pameran kali ini—adalah juga bagian
dari intensitas kerja itu. Handiwirman memilih lokasi yang
dianggapnya paling pas untuk masing-masing karya. Segala
upaya ia tempuh agar karyanya bisa tampil di lokasi-lokasi
itu.
nature—an integrated part of the exhibition today—also form
a part of such intensity. Handiwirman chose the location that
he considered the most suitable for each one of his works. He
would do anything to make sure the work can find a place in
such locations.
Apart from such an energy-consuming process of preparation,
I was also involved in several meetings between Handiwirman,
Enin Supriyanto, and Agung Hujatnikajennong. We were
often engaged in lively discussions and debates. It is from
such opportunities that I was able to witness Handiwirman’s
thoroughness, seriousness, and meticulousness in every
stage of his creative process.
Selain persiapan yang menguras tenaga semacam itu, saya
juga terlibat dalam sejumlah pertemuan antara Handiwirman,
Enin Supriyanto dan Agung Hujatnikajennong. Kami sering
terlibat dalam obrolan, diskusi, dan perdebatan yang seru.
Dari kesempatan-kesempatan ini saya dapat menyaksikan
keuletan, keseriusan, serta ketelitian Handiwirman dalam
setiap tahapan proses berkaryanya.
The exhibition will not be possible without the help of many
parties. I wish to thank Handiwirman Saputra who has worked
so hard to make sure the exhibition can be held. I have
the same real appreciation for Enin Supriyanto and Agung
Hujatnikajennong who have been so thorough in conducting
their dialogues and discussions with Handiwirman, and
thus enable the exhibition to find interesting and strong
format and content. I am grateful for Agung Sukindra and
Anan Prayz, two photographers who have been willing to be
Handiwirman’s partners, so that he could have the pictures
that would be suitable with his ideas for this exhibition. I
extend my gratitude also to my best buddy, Agus Suwage,
who has been willing to open this exhibition.
Pameran ini tidak akan terlaksana tanpa bantuan banyak
pihak. Saya mengucapkan terimakasih kepada Handiwirman
Saputra yang telah bekerja keras hingga pameran ini dapat
terlaksana. Penghargaan juga saya sampaikan kepada Enin
Supriyanto dan Agung Hujatnikajennong yang rajin berdialog
dan berdiskusi dengan Handiwirman, hingga pameran ini
bisa menemukan format, bentuk dan isi yang kokoh serta
menarik. Terimakasih untuk Agung Sukindra dan Anan Prayz,
dua orang fotografer yang telah bersedia menjadi rekan
kerja Handiwirman, agar ia bisa mendapatkan foto-foto yang
sesuai dengan gagasannya untuk pameran ini. Dan, akhirnya
terimakasih juga kepada sahabat saya, Agus Suwage, yang
telah bersedia membuka pameran ini.
8
Dari yang Remeh-Temeh, yang
Tersisa dan Tersia-sia / From
the Trivial,debris and the Wasted­
—enin supriyanto
Semua ini bermula dari selembar foto, hasil jepretan kamera
Handiwirman Saputra. Ia berikan foto ini kepada saya, dan
juga kepada Agung Hujatnikajennong, dengan satu pesan
yang sederhana dan jelas: “Pandanglah (foto ini)!”
It all began from a piece of photograph, which Handiwirman
Saputra had taken using his camera. He gave the picture to
me, as well as to Agung Hujatnikajennong, with one simple
and clear message: “Look (at the picture)!”
Foto yang ia sodorkan menampilkan pemandangan yang
amat biasa: aliran sungai kecil yang mengalirkan air yang
tidak bisa dibilang jernih, dan sebentang bantaran sungai
yang dipenuhi rumpun bambu di sana-sini. Permukaan tanah
dan bebatuan di tepi sungai tampak lembab, basah, ditutupi
lumut yang tampak hijau terang dibawah terpaan terang
sinar matahari. Tepat di bagian tengah gambar foto itu, yang
jadi pusat perhatian, tampak akar-akar pohon bambu yang
menjuntai, sambil beberapa yang lebih panjang menjulur ke
bawah, menembus permukaan air sungai.
The picture he presented to us showed a common view: a brook
whose water is not at all clear, and a shoal with a bamboo
grove. The soil and stone surfaces by the river appear damp,
wet, covered with vivid green moss under the bright sunlight.
Right in the middle of the picture, the focus of attention, one
sees dangling roots, the longer one extending downward,
piercing the river surface.
Because the water seems to be receding, the river surface
lies lower than its normal height, and the roots that are
commonly hidden under the water are now exposed. They are
no longer concealed under the muddy water. The secret has
been revealed: the filaments are now out in the open, visible.
One can see a range of objects or, to be exact, ex-objects
and remains of things and objects attached on to the roots,
swaying and dangling. At the back, however, other roots
remain concealed in the dark although they are no longer
covered by the water.
Dan, karena air sungai yang tampaknya susut dari ketinggian
normalnya, akar-akar yang biasanya tersembunyi di bawah
permukaan air itu kini jadi terlihat jelas. Akar-akar itu tidak
lagi tersembunyi di bawah air sungai yang keruh. Ia tidak
lagi menyimpan rahasia: kini urat-urat nadinya tersingkap,
terlihat. Pada sulur-sulur akar itu, berbagai barang, atau
tepatnya, bekas dan sisa berbagai benda dan barang, tampak
menempel atau tersangkut, melambai, menjuntai. Namun
agak ke belakang, meski sudah tidak tertutup air, sebagian
akar yang lain tetap tersembunyi di balik kegelapan.
10
The closer we observe all the details in the picture, the further
we are taken into an enigmatic visual atmosphere. A riverbank
panorama is quite common and mundane. Handiwirman’s
request for us to take a look at it—instead of merely seeing
11
Semakin kita perhatikan semua rinci pada foto ini, semakin
terseret pula kita ke dalam suasana visual yang enigmatik.
Sebentang bantaran sungai adalah pemandangan yang biasa
dan sepele. Ajakan Handiwirman untuk memandangnya—
bukan sekedar melihat—adalah ajakan untuk mengenali dan
bertanya-tanya tentang apa, mengapa, bagaimana berbagai
hal rupa, bentuk, bahan bertemu dan berpadu, bertautan di
bantaran sungai itu.
it—is a request to recognize and pose questions about what,
why, and how a range of visual stuffs, forms, and materials
meet and converge, intermingling at the riverbank.
hanya serpihan dan cabikan yang tersangkut atau menjuntai
lepas; sementara sejumlah yang lain menjulur kesana-kemari,
atau saling terkait, membelit, berkelindan.
Handiwirman’s request for us to look at the riverbank, to
observe and examine it, seems to be an echo of the warning
by Henri Lefebvre, who liked to quote Hegel’s saying: the
familiar is not necessarily the known.
Ajakan Handiwirman untuk memandang, mengamati, menelaah
bantaran sungai itu, seperti memantulkan gema peringatan
Henri Lefebvre yang gemar mengutip pernyataan Hegel: yang
akrab tidak selalu berarti sama dengan yang kita ketahui.
Under the examining gaze and questioning mind, the mundane
and trivial appear as a series of splinters or fragments that
are increasingly disjointed or piled up one on top of another.
Everything present becomes increasingly obvious and
recognizable. At the same time, something feels alien and
peculiar. To observe closely the mundane, the everyday, is
to get to know the familiar and the esoteric, the real and the
surreal, simultaneously, at the same time.
Kali ini, saya mengajak kita semua memandang foto karya
Handiwirman—foto yang sama yang ia berikan pada saya
dan Agung Jennong—juga sekaligus memandang sejumlah
objek dalam presentasi ini, membaca berbagai kutipan dan
komentar yang saya rangkum dan ajukan (juga teks yang
ditulis Agung Hujatnikajennong) untuk sama-sama masuk
dalam suatu dialog yang berpeluang menghadirkan berbagai
penafsiran dan pemahaman.
Di bawah pandangan yang menyelidik dan benak yang terusmenerus mengajukan berbagai pertanyaan, yang serba biasa
dan sepele malah tampil sebagai sederetan cabikan atau
serpihan yang makin tercerai-berai, atau bertumpuk-tumpuk.
Segalanya hadir makin nyata dapat dikenali. Pada saat
bersamaan, ada juga yang terasa aneh dan asing. Memandang
jeli hal yang sehari-hari, the everyday, adalah mengenal
yang akrab dan yang esoterik, yang real dan surreal, secara
serentak, bersamaan.
As we look at the picture above, and then consecutively look
at Handiwirman’s works in Benda ‘In Situ’ project (literally:
In Situ Objects), we are taken into a condition of cathexis,
an encounter of various urges and knowledge of which we
are not fully conscious, in the network of memories and
recollections.
Memandang foto di atas, dan kemudian berganti-gantian
dengan memandang karya-karya Handiwirman dari proyek
Benda ‘In-Situ’, membawa kita masuk dalam situasi cathexis,
suasana pertemuan berbagai dorongan dan pengetahuan
yang tak sepenuhnya kita sadari dalam jaringan ingatan dan
kenangan.
Like the splinters and fragments of a range of objects attached
on the bamboo roots in Handiwirman’s pictures, the following
notes below are brought together. The various quotes and
comments are stuffs that had been torn and become attached
to my mind as I faced the picture, and then Handiwirman’s
works (which he always calls “Objects”). They do not have
to be treated as a whole and integrated series. Some of them
are merely tatters or slivers, accidentally hooked or dangling
freely; others spread out here and there, or are entangled with
one another, interweaving, interlacing.
Seperti juga serpihan dan cabikan berbagai benda yang
tersangkut di akar-akar pohon bambu dalam foto yang dibuat
Handiwirman, demikian pula saya menghimpun catatancatatan di bawah ini. Berbagai kutipan dan komentar ini
adalah hal-hal yang tercabik dan tersangkut dalam benak
saya saat berhadapan dengan foto itu, dan kemudian dengan
karya-karya Handiwirman (yang selalu ia sebut sebagai
Objek). Semuanya tidak serta-merta harus diperlakukan
sebagai rangkaian yang padu dan utuh. Beberapa memang
This time, I ask for all of us to look at the above picture
by Handiwirman—the same picture that he had presented to
me and Agung Hujatnikajennong—and at the same time view
several objects in this presentation; read the various quotes
12
and comments that I have brought together and presented
here (and peruse, too, the text Agung Hujatnikajennong had
written), in order for us to enter a dialogue that might provide
us with a variety of interpretations and understanding.
The whole presentation today does not constitute a request to
go to a certain point of conclusion, but rather to be engaged
in a lively discussion: about the relations between art and
objects, the role of the artists, with regard to everything that
is trivial, mundane, or perhaps even historical; everything
that we have come to believe as a final convention.
Let me once again quote Lefebvre (and Hegel): The familiar is
not necessarily the known.
Seluruh sajian kami ini bukanlah ajakan untuk menuju pada
satu titik konklusi, tapi untuk terlibat dalam suatu diskusi
yang meriah: tentang hubungan benda dan seni, juga peran
seniman, terkait dengan segala hal yang remeh-temeh, yang
sehari-hari atau bahkan sejarah; yang terlanjur kita yakini
sebagai konvensi yang serba final.
***
As I have explained that art is actually the soul laid bare,
we might now ask: “What is art in general, art that is
not only speak of human struggle, but also of mundane
things that are of value to humans?” ­– S. Sudjojono, Kesenian,
Sekali lagi, saya kutip Lefebvre (dan Hegel): The familiar is
not necessarily the known.
Seniman, dan Masyarakat (The Art, Artist, and Society), 1945
The real daily life precisely contains so many mundane things.
The great and grandiose, the heroic and the struggling, take
us away from daily realities. The issue is: how much attention
do we give to the mundane. “The human struggle” that S.
Sudjojono had imagined had a lot to do with the issues that
escaped our attention because it was present and treated as
trivial.
***
Sesudah saya menerangkan bahwa kesenian sebenarnya
jiwa yang kelihatan, maka sekarang kita bertanya:
“Apakah kesenian umumnya, kesenian yang tidak hanya
menceritakan perjuangan hidup manusia, yang juga
menceritakan barang yang remeh-temeh berguna bagi
manusia?” —S. Sudjojono, Kesenian, Seniman dan Masyarakat, 1946.
***
The New Art Movement 1987 is a common effort wishing
to situate artistic activities in the map of banal day-today living, like the rhythms and manifestations of our
lives in general. –Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru, Proyek Satu (The New
Kehidupan sehari-hari yang nyata justru berisi sedemikian
banyak hal yang remeh-temeh. Yang besar dan agung, yang
penuh perjuangan dan heroik, justru menjauhkan kita dari
kenyataan sehari-hari. Persoalannya: seberapa besar perhatian
kita pada yang remeh-temeh. “Perjuangan hidup manusia”
yang dibayangkan S. Sudjojono begitu banyak terkait dengan
soal-soal yang luput dari perhatian kita sehari-hari karena
terlanjur hadir dan diperlakukan sebagai yang remeh-temeh.
Art Movement, First Project, June 1987), Pasaraya Dunia Fantasi
catalogue, page 2.
13
***
(...) And the market is the place where any forms and
kinds of objects—the necessities of the public—are
brought together. The market as the center of life of the
society, the center of movements, center of needs, center
of imaginations. The market as everything! – Gerakan Seni
***
Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru 1987 adalah upaya bersama yang
hendak meletakkan kegiatan berseni dalam peta kehidupan
yang sehari-hari yang amat biasa, seperti irama dan wujud
kehidupan kita pada umumnya. —Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru,
Proyek Satu, Juni 1987, Katalog Pasaraya Dunia Fantasi, hal. 2.
Rupa Baru, Proyek Satu, June 1987, catalogue for Pasaraya Dunia
***
(…) Dan pasar itu adalah tempat bertemunya segala
rupa dan jenis barang yang merupakan kebutuhan hidup
orang banyak. Pasar sebagai pusat tumpuan kehidupan
masyarakat, pusat gerak, pusat kebutuhan, pusat khayal.
Pasar sebagai segala-galanya! —Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru,
Fantasi, page 1.
With the unassisted Ready-made, art changed it focus from
the form of the language to what was being said. Which
means that it changed the nature of art from the question
of morphology to a question of function. This change—
from “appearance” to “conception”—was the beginning of
“modern” art and the beginning of “conceptual” art. All art
(after Duchamp) is conceptual (in nature) because art only
exists conceptually. —Joseph Kosuth (1969), in David Hopkins,
(after Duchamp) is conceptual (in nature) because art only
exists conceptually. —Joseph Kossuth (1969), in David Hopkins,
Re-Thinking “Duchamp Effect”, in Amelia Jones (ed.), A Companion to
Contemporary Art since 1945, Blackwell Publishing, 2006, p. 152.
***
OBJET SURRÉALISTE. An art form that transformed the
conception of sculpture, it was associated with the socalled “crise de l’objet” (crisis of the object) in the 1930s.
It arose out of the objets trouvés or ready-mades that
Marcel Duchamp exhibited during the heyday of Dada.
(…)
Re-Thinking “Duchamp Effect”, in Amelia Jones (ed.), A Companion to
Contemporary Art since 1945, Blackwell Publishing, 2006, p. 152.
Proyek Satu, Juni 1987, Katalog Pasaraya Dunia Fantasi, hal. 1.
S. Sudjojono mengajukan kekuatan “jiwa seniman” untuk
menghadirkan “perjuangan hidup manusia”, yang nyata,
dari kehidupan sehari-hari. Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru 1987
memusatkan perhatian mereka pada pasar dalam konteks
masyarakat urban, “pasar sebagai segala-galanya!” Pasar
memang tempat yang menghimpun kesibukan dalam
kehidupan keseharian kita.
S. Sudjojono proposed the idea of the strength of “the
artist’s soul” to present the “human struggle”, one that is
real, taken from day-to-day living. The New Art Movement
in 1987 focused their attention to the market in the context
of the urban society, “the market as everything!” The market
is indeed the place that brings together all activities in our
day-to-day living.
***
OBJET SURRÉALISTE. An art form that transformed the
conception of sculpture, it was associated with the socalled “crise de l’objet” (crisis of the object) in the 1930s.
It arose out of the objets trouvés or readymades that Marcel
Duchamp exhibited during the heyday of Dada. (…)
Handiwirman has also been busy and engrossed in observing
various objects that is present around him, moving near him,
or piled up around him.
In the words of William S. Rubin (in 1968), “The Surrealist
object is essentially a three-dimensional collage of ‘found’
articles.” —Keith Aspley, Historical Dictionary of Surrealism,
In the words of William S. Rubin (in 1968), “The Surrealist
object is essentially a three-dimensional collage of ‘found’
articles.” —Keith Aspley, Historical Dictionary of Surrealism,
Scarecrow Press, 2010, p. 353-354.
Still, can we say that what Duchamp called as the “readymade”
had been thoroughly detached from his artistic intensity as
an artist? Is it not true that, here and there, his actions had
been present, intervening the presence and existence of these
objects? First, he presented himself as the person who took
the action of selecting the object—the urinal. He did not
choose just any other object. Then, he placed it in a specific
manner: lying down and no longer standing up; thus in the
normal perception we could see the plumbing holes. Next,
he took the action of naming the object, giving it a title and
giving it his signature. He took nominative actions over an
object that had been previously anonymous.
Scarecrow Press, 2010, p. 353-354.
***
FOUND OBJECT: A found object is an existing object—
often mundane manufactured product—given a new
identity as an artwork or part of an artwork. (…) In 1913
Duchamp began to experiment with what he dubbed the
Readymade. After adding a title to unaltered, massproduced object—a urinal or a shovel, for example—he
would exhibit it, thereby transforming it into a readymade
sculpture. —Robert Atkins, ART SPEAK, A Guide to Contemporary
Handiwirman juga sibuk dan suntuk memperhatikan berbagai
hal yang sehari-hari hadir, beredar dan lalu-lalang, atau
teronggok disekitarnya.
***
FOUND OBJECT: A found object is an existing object—
often mundane manufactured product—given a new
identity as an artwork or part of an artwork. (…) In 1913
Duchamp began to experiment with what he dubbed the
Readymade. After adding a title to unaltered, massproduced object—a urinal or a shovel, for example—he
would exhibit it, thereby transforming it into a readymade
sculpture. —Robert Atkins, ART SPEAK, A Guide to Contemporary
Ideas, Movements, Buzzwords, Abbeville Press, New York, 1990, p. 81.
***
With the unassisted Ready-made, art changed it focus from
of the form of the language to what was being said. Which
means that it changed the nature of art from the question
of morphology to a question of function. This change—
from “appearance” to “conception”—was the beginning of
“modern” art and the beginning of “conceptual” art. All art
Ideas, Movements, Buzzwords, Abbeville Press, New York, 1990, p. 81.
***
14
Namun, apakah yang disebut Duchamp sebagai “Readymade”
itu seluruhnya terlepas dari intensitas artistiknya sebagai
seniman? Bukankah di sana-sini ada tindakan-tindakannya
yang mengintervensi kehadiran dan keberadaan benda-benda
itu? Pertama-tama, ia mengajukan diri sebagai orang yang
bertindak memilih benda tersebut, misalnya urinal, tempat
pipis itu. Ia tidak memilih sembarang benda. Hal lain lagi,
ia meletakkannya dengan cara yang khusus, tertidur dan
bukan lagi berdiri, sehingga dari sudut pandang normal, kita
bisa melihat lubang-lubang saluran air tempat pipis itu. Dan
kemudian, ia melakukan tindakan penamaan terhadap benda
itu dengan memberinya judul dan menandatanganinya. Ia
melakukan aksi nominatif terhadap benda yang sebelumnya
serba anonim.
In the later days, Duchamp would expand his ideas about
“ready-mades”. He separated them into two groups:
“unassisted Ready-mades” and “assisted ready-mades”. The
first one required the purity of anonymous objects, without
the intervention from the artist; while the second one allowed
the artist’s intervention although the main materials are still
ready objects, found objects, whether industrial or natural
ones.
15
Belakangan hari, Duchamp memperluas gagasannya
mengenai “Readymade”. Ia mengelompokkannya jadi dua
jenis: “unassisted Readymade” dan “assisted Readymade”.
Yang pertama mensyaratkan kemurnian benda-benda anonim,
tanpa campur tangan seniman, sedang yang jenis kedua
menghalalkan campur tangan seniman, meskipun bahanbahan utamanya adalah bahan-bahan jadi, benda-benda
temuan, baik hasil industri ataupun dari alam.
In the contemporary era, there’s bound to be many issues that
we can discuss in relation to Duchamp’s ideas and works,
especially in relation to the limits to the artist’s intervention
in the works that he called “assisted Ready-mades” (from the
simple ones such as Bicycle Wheel, 1913; Ball of Twine, With
Hidden Noise, 1916; to the more complex ones in terms of the
materials and arrangement: Rotary Glass Plate, 1920; Why
Not Sneeze Rrose Sélavy, 1921). We can, however, agree on
one thing: his actions and works have opened a new paradigm
for what we call “art” or how we today define “art”.
Di masa sekarang ini tentunya ada banyak masalah yang
bisa kita persoalkan berkaitan dengan gagasan dan karyakarya Duchamp, khususnya terhadap batasan intervensi
seniman dalam karya-karya yang ia sebut sebagai “assisted
Readymade” tadi (dari yang sederhana seperti Bicycle Wheel,
1913; Ball of Twine, With Hidden Noise, 1916; sampai yang
lebih kompleks bahan dan penataannya: Rotary Glass Plate,
1920, Why Not Sneeze Rrose Sélavy, 1921.) Tapi, satu hal
yang tampaknya bisa kita sepakati adalah bahwa tindakan dan
karyanya telah membuka paradigma baru bagi apa yang kita
sebut sebagai “seni” atau bagaimana kita merumuskan “seni”
hari ini.
Duchamp, and then a range of conceptual art practices, have
enabled us to keep on questioning art, epistemologically (how
do we know that this is truly art?) as well as ontologically
(what makes it art?). In this context, Duchamp had a special
position, as affirmed by Joseph Kosuth (in one of the quotes
above).
To this day, even Handiwirman is not able to escape from
the urge to keep on questioning his own artistic practices,
epistemologically as well as ontologically.
Duchamp, dan kemudian berbagai praktik seni konseptual,
telah memungkinkan kita untuk terus menerus mempertanyakan
seni, baik secara epistemologis (bagaimana kita tahu bahwa
ini sungguh-sungguh karya seni?), maupun ontologis (apa
yang menjadikannya karya seni?). Dalam konteks ini Duchamp
punya posisi khusus, seperti yang ditegaskan oleh Joseph
Kosuth (dalam salah satu kutipan di atas).
If we accept that Handiwirman’s works in the Benda In Situ
project constitute his efforts of investigation regarding the
epistemological and ontological issues of the contemporary
art practices, we can imagine that he is not wishing to receive
a final answer. What he has done actually constitutes his
speculative efforts so that his artistic practices and ideas—at
least for himself—can be skeptically examined.
Sampai hari ini, bahkan Handiwirman pun tidak bisa
menghindarkan diri dari dorongan untuk terus mempertanyakan
praktik artistiknya sendiri, secara epistemologis maupun
ontologis.
***
What modern art means is that you have to keep finding
new ways to express yourself, to express the problems,
that there are no settled ways, no fixed approach. This
is a painful situation, and modern art is about this
painful situation of having no absolutely definite way
of expressing yourself. —Louise Bourgeois, 1988, in David W.
Jika kita bisa menerima bahwa karya-karya Handiwirman
dalam proyek “Benda in-situ” adalah upaya investigasinya
atas persoalan-persoalan epistemologis dan ontologis
praktik kesenian kontemporer, maka kita bisa membayangkan
bahwa ia tidak sedang berharap untuk mendapatkan jawaban
Galenson, Conceptual Revolutions in Twentieth-Century Art,
Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 3.
16
final. Apa yang ia lakukan sesungguhnya adalah upaya-upaya
spekulatif agar pemikiran dan praktik artistik—untuk dirinya
sendiri, paling tidak—bisa terus-menerus diuji dengan sikap
skeptis.
After his readymade urinal object, Fountain (1917), had
been rejected from the exhibition of Society of Independent
Artists in New York, Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) took the
work to Alfred Stieglitz to be photographed. He then brought
the resulting picture to The Blind Man magazine, which
would subsequently publish it. The magazine presented
the picture of Fountain alongside an editorial note by
Duchamp’s friend, Beatrice Wood, who questioned the basis
for the Society of Independent Artists’ rejection for the work.
***
What modern art means is that you have to keep finding
new ways to express yourself, to express the problems,
that there are no settled ways, no fixed approach. This
is a painful situation, and modern art is about this
painful situation of having no absolutely definite way
of expressing yourself. —Louise Bourgeois, 1988, in David W.
***
…. Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the
fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took
an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful
significance disappeared under the new title and point
of view—created a new thought for that object. —Beatrice
Galenson, Conceptual Revolutions in Twentieth-Century Art,
Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 3.
Sesudah karya “Readymade”nya yang berupa tempat pipis,
Fountain (1917), ditolak untuk ikut dalam acara pameran
Society of Independent Artists di New York, Marcel Duchamp
(1887-1968) membawa karya itu ke studio Alfred Stieglitz
untuk difoto. Hasil foto ia bawa ke majalah The Blind Man,
yang kemudian memuatnya. Di majalah itu, foto Fountain
hadir dengan disertai catatan editorial oleh rekan Duchamp,
Beatrice Wood, yang mempertanyakan dasar penolakan
Society of Independent Artists terhadap karya itu.
Wood/The Blind Man magazine, in Tony Godfrey, Conceptual Art,
Phaidon, 2006, p. 30.
Duchamp was officially a member of the selection team
for the exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists.
He submitted his work, Fountain (1917), under the name
of R. Mutt. After long debates and various arguments,
the President of the Society, William Glickens, still voted
against the work.
***
…. Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the
fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took
an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful
significance disappeared under the new title and point of
view—created a new thought for that object.
Apart from the fact that Duchamp’s work, and the rejection it
suffered, have contributed to the emergence of a variety of
new streams in the contemporary art practices, Fountain was
born and present as a part of Duchamp’s provocative actions
against art practices in his time.
—Beatrice Wood/The Blind Man magazine, in Tony Godfrey,
If today Handiwirman wishes to try to bring a range of garbage,
or banal found objects into an art exhibition space, chances
are such an action would be accepted as legitimate. I suppose
there is no longer any possibility to do some provocative
actions against the various contemporary art practices that
the public has so widely accepted today.
Conceptual Art, Phaidon, 2006, p. 30.
Duchamp sendiri secara resmi adalah anggota tim seleksi
acara pameran Society of Independent Artists. Ia memasukkan
karyanya, Fountain (1917), dengan menyaru sebagai R. Mutt.
Setelah melalui berbagai perdebatan dan argumen, karya itu tetap
ditolak oleh Presiden lembaga penyelenggara, William Glickens.
17
Lepas dari kenyataan bahwa karya Duchamp dan peristiwa
penolakannya telah menyumbang berbagai arus baru dalam
praktik seni rupa kontemporer, Fountain memang lahir dan
hadir sebagai bagian dari tindakan provokatif Duchamp atas
praktik seni rupa di masanya.
So, how does and artist, through his works, propose any
reflective proposal to re-examine the variety of aspects in
art practices that have been established and accepted as the
norm today?
Handiwirman took the way of persuasion, full of speculations.
The works in Benda In Situ, like other works with clear
conceptual characteristics, are the manifestations of his
wish to prompt reflections upon the reasons of his own art
practices.
***
Most Jakarta citizens still have the same view about
how they manage their waste; they merely dispose them.
Households, the biggest producer of waste, have not
conducted any efforts of reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Jika hari ini Handiwirman ingin coba-coba membawa berbagai
jenis sampah, atau benda-benda temuan remeh-temeh ke
ruang pameran seni rupa, besar kemungkinan hal itu akan
diterima sebagai sesuatu yang sah. Rasanya, tidak ada lagi
kemungkinan untuk melakukan provokasi terhadap berbagai
bentuk praktik seni rupa kontemporer yang sedemikian luas
diterima umum di masa sekarang ini.
Jadi, bagaimana seorang seniman, melalui karya-karyanya,
masih bisa mengajukan suatu proposal reflektif yang hendak
menguji kembali berbagai aspek dalam praktik seni rupa
yang telah mapan dan diterima sebagai kewajaran di masa
sekarang?
–Penanganan Sampah: Sampah, Memang Sampah (The Management
of Waste: Waste, and Waste Indeed), Kompas daily, Monday March
7, 2011, p. 27
In the same week as when the news above appeared in the
Kompas daily, the artist Tisna Sanjaya brought a number
of objects, many of them are waste products, as a part of
the presentation of his art project entitled Cigondewah: An
Art Project. The things will fill the exhibition room at NUS
Museum, Singapore, from February 18 to April 24, 2011.
Handiwirman memilih cara persuasi dan penuh spekulasi.
Karya-karyanya dalam Benda In-situ, seperti juga karya-karya
lain dengan karakteristik konseptual yang jelas, adalah wujud
dari keinginan untuk melakukan refleksi pemikiran terhadap
alasan-alasan keberadaannya sendiri.
***
***
Cara pandang sebagian besar warga Jakarta dalam
menangani sampah ternyata belum berubah, masih sebatas
membuang. Rumah tangga sebagai penghasil sampah
terbesar belum melakukan upaya daur ulang dengan
reduce, reuse, recycle. —Penanganan Sampah: Sampah, Memang
The report or news in the Kompas daily and Tisna Sanjaya’s
exhibition speak of the same thing (waste, environment) using
different methods and tools. The first one makes use of some
sort of investigations and journalistic report through the
mass media; the second involves public participations and
the artistic intent of an artist. As socio-political actions, if
they are successful, can lead to the same area: the awareness
regarding waste management in public life.
Sampah, KOMPAS, Senin, 7 Maret 2011, hal. 27.
Handiwirman does not wish to perceive and speak of waste as
some social problem. He is only interested in the possibility of
using waste as the point of origin from which we might depart
in order to discuss about the formal aspects that enable us
***
Pada minggu yang sama dengan berita harian KOMPAS di
atas, perupa Tisna Sanjaya membawa sejumlah barang, banyak
diantaranya adalah sampah, sebagai bagian dari presentasi
18
proyek seni rupa-nya yang diberi judul Cigondewah: An Art
Project. Barang-barang itu akan mengisi ruang pameran di
NUS Museum, Singapura dari 18 Februari - 24 April 2011.
to re-examine some issues in relation to the artistic practices
of the contemporary art today, without having to repeat what
Marcel Duchamp had deconstructed (and constructed).
Laporan atau berita di koran Kompas dan pameran Tisna
Sanjaya mempersoalkan masalah yang serupa (sampah,
lingkungan hidup) dengan alat dan cara yang berbeda. Yang
pertama memanfaatkan suatu investigasi dan pelaporan
jurnalistik melalui media massa, yang kedua melibatkan
partisipasi publik dan intensi artistik seorang seniman.
Sebagai suatu tindakan sosial-politik, jika berhasil, keduaduanya bisa bermuara pada wilayah yang sama: kesadaran
pengelolaan sampah dalam kehidupan publik.
Still, that does not mean we cannot (re)examine Duchamp,
does it?
***
Duchamp exalts the gesture without ever falling, like so
many modern artists, into gesticulation. In some cases
the Ready-mades are pure, that is, they pass without
modification from the state of being an everyday object
to that of being a “work of anti-art”; on other occasions
they are altered or rectified, generally in an ironic manner
tending to prevent any confusion between them and artistic
objects. —Octavio Paz, Marcel Duchamp, Appearance Stripped
Bare, Arcade Publishing, New York, 1978, p. 16 .
Handiwirman tidak berminat memandang dan mempersoalkan
sampah sebagai suatu persoalan sosial. Ia hanya berminat
pada kemungkinan untuk mengajukan sampah sebagai
titik awal untuk mempersoalkan aspek-aspek formal yang
memungkinkan kita mengajukan kembali sejumlah soal yang
berkaitan dengan praktik artistik seni rupa masa kini, tanpa
harus mengulang apa yang telah dibongkar (dan dibangun)
oleh Marcel Duchamp.
Marcel Duchamp’s choice for a range of ready-mades was
based on the fact that he was able to present “pure” forms, the
results of machine productions, free from artistic intention or
aesthetic quality, or even from the taste about what is good
and what is ugly. Now we can speculate or be skeptical about
it: the things he had selected, and the way he treated and
arranged them (in what he called “assisted ready-mades”),
were the things that, to a certain extent, we could consider as
acts that had damaged the purity of the ready-mades.
Tapi, tidak berarti kita tidak bisa mempersoalkan (kembali)
Duchamp, bukan?
***
Duchamp exalts the gesture without ever falling, like so
many modern artists, into gesticulation. In some cases
the Readymades are pure, that is, they pass without
modification from the state of being an everyday object
to that of being a “work of anti-art”; on other occasions
they are altered or rectified, generally in an ironic manner
tending to prevent any confusion between them and
artistic objects. —Octavio Paz, Marcel Duchamp, Appearance
Some have also declared Duchamp’s acts as “avant-garde
opportunism”.
***
I actually discovered the shapes (of my works) around me,
every day. I found them through my interest in observing
a variety of minute things around me. There are rarely
big objects. Often only the small and mundane things.
Stripped Bare, Arcade Publishing, New York, 1978, p. 16.
—Handiwirman Saputra, interview with Enin Supriyanto,
Pilihan Marcel Duchamp atas berbagai benda jadi, Readymade,
adalah karena ia bisa menampilkan bentuk yang serba ”murni”,
August 2009.
19
/ I actually discovered the shapes (of
my works) around me, every day. I found them
through my interest in observing a variety of
minute things around me. There are rarely big
objects. Often only the small and mundane
things.
—Handiwirman Saputra, interview with Enin Supriyanto, August 2009.
***
In Surrealism the everyday is not the familiar and banal
realm that it seems to be; only our drab habits of mind
understand it in this way. Instead the everyday is where the
marvelous exists. —Ben Highmore, Everyday Life and Cultural
hasil proses produksi mesin, yang terbebas dari intensitas
artistik atau kualitas estetik, atau bahkan dari selera tentang
yang baik dan buruk. Kini, kita bisa berspekulasi, bersikap
skeptis: bahwa benda-benda yang dipilihnya, dan cara ia
memperlakukan dan menatanya (dalam apa yang ia sebut
sebagai “assisted readymade”) adalah hal-hal, yang sampai
batas tertentu, bisa kita nyatakan sebagai tindakan yang telah
menodai kemurnian benda Readymade itu.
Theory: An Introduction, Routledge, London, 2002, p. 46.
***
Surrealism is about an effort, energy, to find the marvelous
in the everyday, to recognize the everyday as a dynamic
montage of elements, to make it strange so that its
strangeness can be recognized. —Ben Highmore, Everyday
Ada juga yang menuduh tindakannya itu sebagai “oportunisme
(kaum) garda depan” (avant garde opportunism).
***
Aku sebenarnya menemukan bentuk-bentuk (karyaku) itu
di sekitarku, sehari-hari. Aku temukan lewat keasyikanku
sendiri mengamati berbagai benda kecil di sekitarku.
Jarang benda yang besar. Seringkali benda yang kecil
dan sepele. —Handiwirman Saputra, wawancara dengan Enin
Life and Cultural Theory: An Introduction, Routledge, London,
2002, p. 47.
This is the niche that Handiwirman wishes to exploit.
Today, he chooses waste, or even splinters and rags of used
objects, of remainders. In the previous period, for his threedimensional works as well as his paintings, Handiwirman
began by creating various shapes and objects from a range of
mundane materials around him.
Supriyanto, Agustus 2009.
***
In Surrealism the everyday is not the familiar and banal
realm that it seems to be; only our drab habits of mind
understand it in this way. Instead the everyday is where the
marvellous exists. —Ben Highmore, Everyday Life and Cultural
In other words, Handiwirman does not believe in the purity
of forms and ready-mades that Duchamp had proposed.
To Handiwirman, even the act of choosing is already the
manifestation of the artist’s intent, taste, and knowledge.
Theory: An Introduction, Routledge, London, 2002, p. 46.
***
Surrealism is about an effort, an energy, to find the
marvellous in the everyday, to recognize the everyday as a
dynamic montage of elements, to make it strange so that
its strangeness can be recognized. —Ben Highmore, Everyday
Inilah celah yang ingin dimasuki oleh Handiwirman.
The fact that the objects that Duchamp had selected were
objects that had specific forms and materials—although
they were indeed factory-made—did not necessarily cancel
out the fact that the objects had already certain artistic
qualities. Duchamp’s desire to present all-neutral objects and
forms, without any “art blemish”, was never truly fulfilled;
even his intervention as an artist could never be distanced,
indifferent.
Kali ini ia memilih sampah, atau bahkan serpihan dan cabikan
benda-benda bekas, sisa. Di masa sebelumnya, baik untuk
So, if we try to find regular objects or materials around us
that might still be free from such qualities, the only option
Life and Cultural Theory: An Introduction, Routledge, London,
2002, p. 47.
22
karya trimatra maupun lukisan-lukisannya, Handiwirman
memulai dengan membuat dulu berbagai bentuk dan benda
dari berbagai bahan remeh temeh yang ada di sekitarnya.
available are: garbage, broken used objects, remainders,
splinters, rags. Such objects have even been liberated from
any of their formal-functional binds that had once been
attached to them when they were being designed and produced
in the factories.
Dengan kata lain, Handiwirman tidak percaya pada kemurnian
bentuk dan benda Readymade yang diajukan Duchamp. Bagi
Handiwirman, tindakan memilih pun, sudah merupakan
perwujudan niat, selera, pengetahuan si seniman.
In various used and leftover objects, from various castoffs,
Handiwirman tries to find a range of possibilities to design a
certain characteristic artistic logic, one that is fully depend
on his own conceptual formulations. In their most common
forms, there are no artistic or aesthetic codes that are still
attached to waste, used objects, castoffs. With these things
we find the condition of being “an-artistic”— in the words of
Octavio Paz, the condition of not art, but not anti-art either;
rather, it is the condition in between—that is almost total in
nature. It is such a void that Handiwirman then wishes to fill
through the presence and appearance of his objects.
Kenyataan bahwa benda-benda yang dipilih Duchamp adalah
benda yang mempunyai bentuk-bentuk dan bahan yang
khas—meskipun memang hasil produksi pabrik—tidak serta
merta menggagalkan kenyataan bahwa benda-benda itu sudah
memiliki tanda-tanda kualitas artistik tertentu. Keinginan
Duchamp untuk menghadirkan benda dan bentuk yang serba
netral, tanpa noda “seni”, sesungguhnya tidak pernah benarbenar berhasil; bahkan intervensinya sebagai seniman tidak
pernah bisa sepenuhnya bersifat ‘masa bodoh’, berjarak,
indifference.
Handiwirman’s works actually constitute the effort to represent the “artistic mode” of a range of materials, forms,
visual qualities, and their various links that he finds in
different used and leftover objects. The paradox, or even the
irony, that he faces here is that he can only present all of them
within the scope of the existing artistic practice: painting,
shaping, arranging, assembling—things that require
craftsmanship in a certain mimetic project: presenting the
reality of the existence of “the aesthetic of waste, of used and
leftover objects” in a new configuration, a collage of various
materials and visuals.
Jadi, jika kita berusaha mencari benda atau bahan di sekitar
kita, dari kehidupan sehari-hari, yang masih mungkin terbebas
dari kualitas semacam itu maka pilihan yang tersedia adalah:
sampah, barang bekas yang terkoyak, berupa sisa-sisa,
serpihan, cabikan. Benda-benda semacam ini bahkan sudah
terbebas dari apapun ikatan formal-fungsional yang pernah
melekat padanya saat ia dirancang dan diproduksi dalam
pabrik.
Pada berbagai benda sisa dan bekas, dari serakan berbagai
bahan yang tersia-sia inilah Handiwirman berusaha
menemukan berbagai kemungkinan untuk menyusun suatu
logika artistik yang khas, yang sepenuhnya bergantung pada
formulasi konseptualnya sendiri. Dalam bentuknya yang
paling umum tidak ada kualitas artistik atau kode estetik
apapun yang melekat pada sampah, barang bekas dan sisasisa. Pada benda-benda ini kondisi “tak ber-seni”—atau
“an-artistic”, dalam istilah Octavio Paz: kondisi bukan seni,
tidak juga anti-seni, tapi di antara keduanya—nyaris bersifat
total. Ruang jeda, void, inilah yang kemudian hendak diisi
Such an attitude precisely puts him in another paradoxical
realm (meta-paradox?), or even a tautological circle: different
formal and visual elements in his works are present to
continuously affirm the presence and existence of their point
of reference: waste and castoffs. Still, it is precisely this
condition that Handiwirman wishes to target.
To confirm the presence of his objects—as “waste”, “used
and leftover objects”—Handiwirman had the chance to make
several pictures showing these objects piled up, piled up at
23
oleh Handiwirman melalui kehadiran dan penampilan objekobjeknya.
different sites (river, by the road, the dumpster, a field of
grass, rice fields, etc). Photographic records, as we are all
aware of, are the medium that would be so obstinate in trying
to convince us about the “truth” of what they have recorded.
Every piece of picture thus presents itself as an index of a
reality: at a certain time, in a certain time (in the past).
Karya-karya Handiwirman sesungguhnya upaya penghadiran
kembali “moda artistik” berbagai bahan, bentuk, kualitas
visual serta berbagai kemungkinan pertautannya, yang ia
temukan pada berbagai benda sisa dan bekas. Paradoks, atau
bahkan ironi yang segera ia hadapi adalah bahwa ia hanya
bisa menampilkan semua itu dalam lingkup praktik artistik
yang telah tersedia: melukis, membentuk, menata, merakit—
hal-hal yang mensyaratkan keterampilan kerja, craftmanship,
dalam suatu proyek mimetik: sebisa mungkin menghadirkan
kenyataan adanya “estetika sampah, barang bekas dan sisa”
dalam suatu konfigurasi baru, kolase dari berbagai unsur
bahan dan rupa.
The presence of Handiwirman’s objects in these pictures also
convey the statement: sometime, somewhere, I was a used
object, a castoff, piled up and lay at a random place, interrelated, becoming a strange form, in a theater of absurdity.
At the same time, the various objects precisely wish to be
present as themselves.
wujud aneh, dalam suatu teater absurditas. Pada saat yang
bersamaan, berbagai objek itu justeru ingin hadir menjadi
dirinya sendiri.
***
Bahkan Octavia Paz, dalam ulasannya yang bernas dan
lancar, erudite, mengenai Marcel Duchamp, sempat juga
menyinggung soal objek dan sampah ini:
***
Objects are not born: we make them, they have no sex; nor
do they die: they wear out or become useless. Their tomb
is the trash can or the recycling furnace. —Octavio Paz,
Marcel Duchamp, Appearance Stripped Bare, Arcade Publishing,
Even Octavio Paz, in his erudite review about Marcel Duchamp,
had also spoken of the issue of objects and waste:
Sikap ini justeru memasukkannya dalam lingkup paradoks
yang lain (meta-paradoks?), atau bahkan lingkaran tautologis:
berbagai unsur bentuk dan rupa dalam karyanya justeru hadir
untuk terus menerus menyatakan kehadiran dan keberadaan
sumber rujukannya: sampah dan barang-barang sisa. Tapi,
justeru kondisi inilah yang memang hendak dituju oleh
Handiwirman.
***
Objects are not born: we make them, they have no sex; nor
do they die: they wear out or become useless. Their tomb
is the trash can or the recycling furnace. —Octavio Paz,
Marcel Duchamp, Appearance Stripped Bare, Arcade Publishing,
NY, 1978, p. 27.
Untuk menegaskan kehadiran objek-objeknya—sebagai
“sampah”, “benda-benda sisa dan bekas”—Handiwirman
sempat membuat sejumlah foto yang menghadirkan mereka
sedang teronggok, tergeletak di berbagai tempat (sungai,
tepi jalan, tempat pembuangan sampah, lapangan rumput,
daerah persawahan, dan lain-lain). Rekaman fotografi, seperti
umum kita ketahui adalah medium yang sangat keras-kepala
meyakinkan kita akan “kebenaran” apa-apa yang direkamnya.
Dengan itu pula setiap lembar foto menghadirkan dirinya
sebagai indeks dari suatu kenyataan: di suatu tempat, di
suatu waktu (yang lalu).
NY, 1978, p. 27.
Handiwirman menemukan objek-objeknya yang “ideal” di
kantong-kantong sampah, di berbagai barang dan kotoran
yang tersangkut di akar pohon di bantaran sungai, di manamana, di sekitarnya, benda-benda sisa, bekas ini dan itu, yang
tersia-sia; benda-benda yang tampil “murni”: tak berfungsi,
tak ber-seni. Atau, dalam ungkapan Handiwirman: Tak berakar,
tak berpucuk.
Handiwirman finds his “ideal” objects in disposal bins,
in various objects and waste attached to the roots by the
riverbank, everywhere, around it, the leftover things, used
things, and the castoffs; the objects that appear “pure”: had
no function, no art. Or, in Handiwirman’s words: Having no
roots, no shoots.
Keberadaan objek-objek karya Handiwirman dalam foto-foto
itu juga menyuarakan pernyataan: di suatu waktu, di suatu
tempat, aku adalah benda sisa, bekas barang yang teronggok
dan tergeletak sembarangan, terkait satu sama lain, menjadi
24
25
Melampaui Naturalisasi: Yang
Akrab dan yang Asing / Beyond
Naturalization: The Familiar
and the Foreign —AGUNG
HUJATNIKAJENNONG
26
1/ Prosedur kuratorial
1/ Curatorial Procedure
Bagi seorang kurator terdapat beberapa prosedur dan
pendekatan yang bisa ditempuh dalam penyajian sebuah
pameran. Salah satu yang utama dalam prosedur itu adalah
pembacaan karya-karya. Galibnya, dalam membaca, kurator
segera berhadap-hadapan langsung dengan karya-karya
seniman. Di situ, kurator seringkali memosisikan sebagai
mediator, selaku penafsir yang ‘superior’, yang berusaha
untuk memahami maksud seniman dengan cara menampilkan
kekuatan-kekuatan pengungkapan visual yang tersirat. Melalui
berbagai analisa, karya-karya seni dimaknai, dihubungkan
dengan ranah teoretik tertentu atau konsep-konsep kunci,
misalnya dalam filsafat, sosiologi dan sejarah seni rupa.
There have been several procedures and approaches that a
curator can take to present an exhibition. One of the main
procedures is the reading of the works. Normally, as the
curator reads the artwork, he or she stands directly facing the
works that the artist has made. Here the curator often takes
the position as a mediator, a “superior” interpreter who tries
to understand the artist’s intent by putting forth the implicit
power of the visual displays. By employing different analyses,
the works of art are understood, given meaning, related with
certain theoretical realms or key concepts, for example in
philosophy, sociology, and art history.
Oleh karena berorientasi pada objek / artefak, dalam banyak
kasus, kerja kuratorial kebanyakan sangat bergantung pada
‘produk jadi’. Setiap karya seni dilihat sebagai tindakan
penciptaan makna yang merupakan manifestasi paling
sahih dari ‘jati diri’ sang seniman. Secara historis, hal ini
Owing to its orientation to objects/artifacts, in many cases
the curatorial work depends on the “end product”. Every
work of art is seen as an act of signification, an effort to
create meaning, which is the most legitimate manifestation
of an artist’s “identity”. Historically, this has to do with the
27
curator’s work as a part of the museum institution that is
responsible for the presentations of objects in the exhibition
space. By employing the phenomenological method, a curator
explores and gives meaning to the visual objects, using
visible evidence such as the quality of the forms, surfaces,
symbols, or other kinds of signs. The curator also often
relates works with certain categories, or puts them into such
categories, in order to determine their position vis-a-vis the
map of history.
berhubungan dengan kerja seorang kurator sebagai seorang
bagian dari institusi museum yang bertanggungjawab
terhadap presentasi objek-objek dalam ruang pamer. Melalui
metode yang fenomenologis itu seorang kurator menggali
dan membubuhkan makna pada objek-objek visual dengan
bukti-bukti yang kasatmata, misalnya kualitas bentuk,
permukaan, simbol atau tanda-tanda lainnya. Kurator juga
pada umumnya menghubungkan karya-karya dengan, atau
menggolongkannya ke dalam kategori-kategori tertentu untuk
tujuan pemetaan dalam sejarah.
Using the comparison with the above-mentioned curatorial
“method”, I would like to give an emphasis how Handiwirman
Saputra’s solo exhibition has undergone different procedures
or manners in terms of its formulation and presentation.
Personally, I even think that this exhibition constitutes a
distinct curatorial experiment.
Melalui perbandingan dengan ‘metode’ kuratorial di atas, maka
saya ingin menggarisbawahi bagaimana pameran tunggal
Handiwirman Saputra ini menempuh prosedur atau cara-cara
yang berbeda dalam hal perumusan dan penyajiannya. Secara
pribadi, saya bahkan menganggap pameran ini sebagai suatu
eksperimentasi kuratorial tersendiri.
During the preparation, the exhibition has seen delays,
changes, and an intriguing process of ‘changing and mending”.
In the beginning, we—Enin Supriyanto and I—as curators
designed the exhibition using the conventional method and
format; i.e. as a presentation of Handiwirman’s latest works
in an exhibition space. The process in which the works were
made had taken more than a year, and throughout the process
we have been involved in a continuous, triangular process of
dialogues to prepare and determine the title and framework of
the exhibition.
Dalam proses persiapannya, pameran ini mengalami
penundaan, perubahan dan proses ‘tambal-sulam’ yang
menarik. Pada awalnya, kami—saya dan Enin Supriyanto—
selaku kurator merancang pameran ini dengan format dan
metode yang konvensional, yakni sebagai suatu presentasi
karya-karya mutakhir Handiwirman di dalam ruang pamer.
Proses pengerjaan karya-karya Handiwirman telah memakan
waktu lebih dari satu tahun, dan selama itu pula kami terlibat
dalam dialog segitiga yang kontinyu untuk merumuskan tajuk
dan kerangka pameran.
Only three months before the opening of the show, however,
Handiwirman surprisingly came up to us with a new idea.
Precisely after his works of installation have all been finished
and the writing for the curatorial texts has proceeded,
Handiwirman asked us to re-think the curatorial procedure
that we have previously selected. Rather than asking us to
finish the writing of curatorial text about his latest works of
installation, he asked us to review a piece of photograph.
Intriguingly, the picture is not among the works he wishes to
present in the exhibition space.
Akan tetapi, hanya tiga bulan sebelum pembukaan pameran,
secara mengejutkan Handiwirman menawarkan kepada kami
gagasan yang baru. Justru ketika karya-karya instalasinya
telah selesai dikerjakan, dan proses penulisan sudah dimulai,
ia meminta kami untuk berpikir ulang tentang prosedur
kuratorial yang sebelumnya ingin kami tempuh. Ketimbang
meminta kami untuk menyelesaikan tulisan tentang karyakarya instalasi terbarunya, dia malah meminta kami untuk
mengulas sebuah foto. Namun menariknya, foto itu justru
bukan merupakan salah satu karya yang ia ingin presentasikan
di dalam ruang pamer.
1/ I.J. Gleb, A Study of Writing, dikutip oleh Tia Setiadi, dalam Benda-benda, Bahasa
dan Kala: Mencari Simetri Tersembunyi dalam Teman-temanku dari Atap Bahasa
karya Afrizal Malna, lihat Zen Hae (ed.), Dari Zaman Citra ke Metafiksi, Bunga Rampai
Telaah Sastra DKJ, Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia, 2010, hal. 131.
2/ Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, Richard Howard (trans.), New York: Hill and
Wang, 1981, hal. 7
1/ I.J. Gleb, A Study of Writing, quoted by Tia Setiadi, in Benda-benda, Bahasa dan
Kala: Mencari Simetri Tersembunyi dalam Teman-temanku dari Atap Bahasa karya
Afrizal Malna, see Zen Hae (ed.), Dari Zaman Citra ke Metafiksi, Bunga Rampai Telaah
Sastra DKJ, Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia, 2010, p. 131.
2/ Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, Richard Howard (trans.), New York: Hill and
Wang, 1981, p. 7
28
Pada awalnya, saya menganggap tawaran itu sebagai suatu
ajakan untuk berspekulasi. Namun bukan tanpa alasan, bagi
Handiwirman foto ini ternyata sangat istimewa. Menurutnya, ia
adalah ‘artefak’ penting yang bisa mewakili gagasan mendasar
dalam karya-karya instalasi yang ia siapkan untuk pameran
ini. Penting untuk digarisbawahi bahwa Handiwirman tidak
memberikan informasi tambahan apapun dalam bentuk tulisan
/ caption yang menyertainya. Sebaliknya, ia justru menganggap
bahwa tulisan kuratorial kami dan karya-karya instalasinyalah
yang kelak akan menjadi caption untuk foto itu.
Initially, I consider the offer as an invitation for speculation.
However, it is not without reasons that to Handiwirman
the picture is very special. He thinks that the picture is an
important “artifact” that can represent the fundamental idea
in the works of installation that he has prepared for this
exhibition. It is important to underline that Handiwirman
does not give any additional information in the form of some
text or caption accompanying the picture. Rather, he thinks
that our curatorial texts, along with his works of installation,
would later serve as the caption for the picture...
Pada tataran paradigmatik, kita boleh membandingkan foto
Handiwirman ini dengan suatu format dalam fotografi yang
disebut panorama (dari bahasa Yunani, ‘pan’, all dan ‘horama’,
view). Dimensi foto yang memanjang secara horisontal
menegaskan hal itu. Secara historis, gaya ini berakar dari
tradisi penggambaran dalam seni lukis. Kelahiran gaya ini
juga didorong oleh keinginan untuk menyalin apa yang
tertangkap sejauh-jauhnya oleh jangkauan pandangan mata
manusia, sebisa-bisanya secara rinci dan horisontal, nyaris
180 derajat. Dianggap efektif untuk menyajikan impresi tentang
keluasan suatu lansekap atau momen bersejarah, dalam
tradisi piktorial Barat format ini adalah pengembangan dari
... We welcomed the idea not only as a way to escape
from monotony, but also as a challenge to rethink about
the procedures that we usually adopt in presenting an art
exhibition. In this show, the curators eventually did not only
face the works of art as the final products of a creative process.
Rather, Enin and I were forced to perform different acts of
reposition and retroaction. Our reading can go retroactively,
or going back and forth in inductive as well as deductive
manners as we took the position as interpreters, and stepped
into a more open field. One can even say that at a certain
point, the three of us—Enin, Handiwirman, and I—take the
same position of a spectator who reads and freely responds
to the information presented to us in the picture.
lukisan-lukisan di dinding dalam rotunda yang melengkung.
Sementara dalam tradisi Timur, kita juga bisa menemukan
format ini dalam gambar-gambar dinding candi, lukisan
gulung (scroll painting), bahkan artefak wayang beber, yang
umumnya digunakan untuk memaparkan suatu sekuens, atau
urutan suatu kisahan /narasi.
Handiwirman’s picture does not seem to present any distinct
narrative sequence. We can “read” it from left to right or
the other way round. Apart from the objects that represent a
riverbank view, the panoramic format of the picture tends to
give an emphasis on the aspect of the landscape, in which
expansiveness is presented in such a way. The objects
that dominate our sight are a part of Kontheng River. The
calm water implies that the riverbed tends to be flat. As we
briefly look at the picture, we cannot immediately conclude
the direction in which the water goes. The upstream and
downstream seem to be hidden, until we discover the sight
of a higher ground under the bridge. A man is sitting there,
looking at the spectator from afar.
Foto Handiwirman nampaknya tidak sedang mengemukakan
urutan narasi tertentu. Kita bisa ‘membacanya’ dari kiri ke
kanan, atau sebaliknya. Selain karena objek-objek yang
mewakili pemandangan tepi kali, format panoramik di
situ cenderung merujuk menekankan aspek lansekap, di
mana keluasan ditampilkan sedemikian rupa. Objek yang
mendominasi pandangan kita adalah sebagian wajah dari
batang Sungai Kontheng. Air yang tenang menyiratkan kontur
dasar sungai yang cenderung datar. Melihat foto ini secara
sekilas, kita tak bisa dengan segera menyimpulkan arah arus
yang mengalirkan air. Ia seperti menyembunyikan posisi hulu
dan hilir, sampai kita temukan gambaran dataran yang sedikit
lebih tinggi di kolong jembatan. Di situ, seorang laki-laki
tengah duduk dan memandang ke arah kita dari jauh.
As a whole, the picture constitutes a spatial fragment from
the natural architecture taken at a certain moment in time.
We are aware that the nature is a living entity that keeps on
changing with time. In the picture, however, the temporal
aspect is present only vaguely. The first set of signs of time
are presented through the bridge and the road, which bring
us to the conclusion that the picture was taken at a time when
humans already use cars as a mode of transportation. The
second sign is the reflections of sunlight on the water surface
and land, which might indicate the time in which the picture
was taken. We could not, however, be certain whether the
picture was taken in the morning, during the day, or in the
evening, except if we map the direction of the shadows of the
bamboo groove and the upstream and the downstream using
the compass points. Another set of elements that indicate the
time is the moss-covered rocks at the riverbank. We are aware
that the water would naturally recede and flow. It seems that
the water was receding when the picture was taken. The rocks
would not be covered in moss and forms such irregular lumps
had they not been covered under the water and eroded by the
river flow.
Secara menyeluruh, foto ini adalah fragmen ruang dari
arsitektur alam yang diambil pada suatu momen tertentu.
Kita tahu, alam adalah entitas yang hidup dan terus berubah
dalam lintasan waktu. Namun dalam foto ini, aspek waktu
hadir secara samar-samar. Yang pertama adalah penanda
masa yang dihadirkan melalui jembatan dan jalan, yang
mengarahkan kita pada kesimpulan bahwa foto ini diambil
pada jaman ketika manusia sudah menggunakan mobil
sebagai moda transportasi. Kedua, cahaya matahari yang
jatuh pada permukaan air dan tanah memang bisa memberi
petunjuk kapan foto ini diambil. Akan tetapi kita tidak bisa
memastikan apakah foto ini diambil pagi, siang atau sore
hari, kecuali jika kita mau memetakan arah bayangan rumpun
bambu, posisi hulu dan hilir Sungai Kontheng dalam koordinat
mata angin. Keempat, elemen lain yang menunjukkan waktu
adalah batu-batu berlumut di tepian sungai. Kita tahu sungai
selalu mengalami pasang surut secara alamiah. Dan rupanya
sungai itu tengah surut. Batu-batu itu tak mungkin berlumut
The panoramic composition of the picture triggers my
imagination about a proscenium, with us, the spectators,
watching the objects as horizontally-arranged actors in a
scene. On the stage, we observe how the picture does not
3/ Dalam tulisan ini, saya banyak memanfaatkan cara-cara analisa foto yang
dianjurkan Roland Barthes dalam bukunya Camera Lucida, sebagian besar melalui
paparan dan elaborasi St. Sunardi, dalam bukunya, Semiotika Negativa, Yogyakarta:
Penerbit Kanal, 2002.
3/ In this text, I often make use of the methods of analyzing pictures as proposed by
Roland Barthes in his book, Camera Lucida, mostly explained and elaborated by St.
Sunardi in Semiotika Negativa, Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanal, 2002.
31
dan berbentuk gumpalan tak beraturan jika tak terendam dan
terkikis oleh aliran air.
only present the panorama of the nature as mere phenomena
of plants, river, and landscape. Right in the middle, we see
the main object, or “actor”, of the photograph. That part looks
conspicuous, because amid the brownish and greenish hues
of the nature, we see objects whose shapes and colors look
“foreign”. There we see the bamboo groove with roots and
shoots toward the river. On the roots we see pieces of plastic
waste, cloth, and other objects attached to them, dangling
randomly.
Komposisi panoramik foto ini memancing imajinasi saya
tentang suatu panggung bertipe proscenium, di mana
kita sebagai penonton tengah memandang objek-objek di
dalamnya sebagai aktor-aktor yang tertata secara horisontal
dalam suatu adegan. Pada panggung itu kita menemukan
bagaimana foto ini tidak sekadar menampilkan panorama
‘alam’ sebagai fenomena tampilnya tetumbuhan, sungai dan
lansekap belaka. Tepat di bagian tengah, kita menangkap
objek atau ‘aktor’ utama foto ini. Bagian ini terlihat mencolok,
karena di tengah nuansa alam berwarna kecoklatan dan hijau
yang dominan, kita justru menangkap benda-benda dengan
bentuk dan warna-warna yang ‘asing’. Di situ, terlihat rumpun
bambu yang sebagian cabangnya menjulur-julur dan menjorok
ke sungai. Pada cabang-cabang itu, lembar-lembar sampah
plastik, kain dan benda-benda lainnya tersangkut, terjurai
dan bergelantungan secara acak.
Here we might already have certain estimations about the view
of Kontheng River, whose water was receding, enabling us to
see the roots and shoots that had normally been submerged
under the water flow, which now appear like “clothes line”
on which the passing objects were hung: pieces of fabric,
plastic, and other “industrial” waste. The garbage are attached
to the roots, hanging and dangling, and even covering parts
of the bamboo, creating a strong impression of a process of
encounter, unification, or, perhaps, a “fusion” between waste
and nature. I think these are the signs that might provide
us with significant hints for us to understand Handiwirman’s
artistic practices.
Sampai di sini kita beroleh dugaan tentang pemandangan
Sungai Kontheng yang surut, sehingga ranting-ranting yang
semula terendam air pasang berubah menyerupai ‘tali jemuran’
yang menangkap benda-benda yang lewat: serpihan kain,
sobekan plastik dan potongan-potongan sampah-sampah
‘industrial’ lainnya. Sampah-sampah itu melekat, tergantung,
tersangkut, bahkan menutupi segenap bagian ranting bambu,
memberikan kesan kuat tentang proses pertemuan, penyatuan,
atau barangkali, ‘suatu senyawa’ antara sampah dan alam.
Saya pikir, inilah tanda-tanda yang bisa memberi petunjuk
penting untuk memahami praktik artistik Handiwirman.
3/ Artistic Attitude
From the ebbing Kontheng River, I wish to move on by first
observing the works that Handiwirman has made. Although
there is no demand to discuss about the works in details, it
is undeniable that during the preparation I have followed the
process in which the works of installation were made for this
exhibition. Apart from that, images of Handiwirman’s works of
installation have already been strongly imprinted in my mind.
Therefore, before I return to the picture, I wish to discuss
about Handiwirman’s artistic attitude that has been familiar
to me.
3/ Tabiat Artistik
Dari foto Sungai Kontheng yang surut saya ingin beranjak
terlebih dahulu dengan mengamati karya-karya Handiwirman.
Meskipun tidak ada tuntutan untuk membahasnya secara
rinci, tidak dapat disangkal bahwa dalam proses persiapan,
saya sudah terlanjur melihat proses pembuatan karyakarya instalasi Handiwirman untuk pameran ini. Selain itu,
In Handiwirman’s works of installation so far, characters of
mundane materials (hairs, Styrofoam, cotton balls, plastic,
threads, pieces of paper, cigarette butts, etc) are re-presented,
not in a thoroughly novel manner, but not simply as they are
32
gambaran karya-karya instalasi Handiwirman sebelumnya
juga sudah terlanjur melekat kuat dalam ingatan saya. Maka,
sebelum kembali ke foto, saya ingin menengok tabiat artistik
Handiwirman yang selama ini saya kenal.
either. So far, Handiwirman’s works also hint at an intent to
combine, merge, and unify one, two, or more materials with
different visual characteristics, for example the soft and the
sharp, the fragile and the sturdy. This becomes evident when
one observes, for example, his works presenting human hairs
joined together with small folds of plastic garbage. Another
work shows his arrangement of light pieces of Styrofoam,
shaped into a seemingly solid three dimensional object.
As one observes his works, our mental perceptions about
the characters of the mundane materials and objects are
provoked. We often encounter surprises and find ourselves
with questions owing to the often peculiar forms of the works,
especially with his three-dimensional works.
Dalam karya-karya instalasi Handiwirman selama ini,
karakter-karakter material yang remeh-temeh (rambut
manusia, busa, kapas, plastik, benang, serpihan kertas,
puntung rokok, dll.) dihadirkan kembali, tidak sepenuhnya
secara baru, tapi juga tidak secara apa adanya. Selama ini,
dalam karya-karya Handiwirman juga tersirat suatu intensi
untuk menggabungkan, mencampur, dan menyatukan satu,
dua atau lebih material yang berkarakter visual berbeda,
misalnya antara yang lembek dan yang tajam, yang ringkih
dan yang kokoh, dan lain sebagainya. Hal ini terbaca ketika
mencermati, misalnya, karya-karyanya yang menampilkan
helai-helai rambut manusia yang dirakit-rakit menjadi satu
dengan lipatan-lipatan kecil sampah plastik. Atau ketika ia
mengikat dan menjahit sobekan-sobekan busa ringan yang
dibentuk menjadi benda tiga dimensional berkesan pejal.
Memandangi karya-karyanya, persepsi mental kita tentang
karakter material dan benda-benda yang serba remeh itu
juga seringkali ‘dipermainkan’. Terutama pada karyakarya trimatranya, kita seringkali menemukan kejutan dan
pertanyaan oleh karena wujudnya yang seringkali ‘ganjil’.
Handiwirman’s works have also been based on his peculiar
manner in perceiving the relations among objects, and the
relationship between objects and humans (personally as well
as socially). Apart from that, he also likes to observe how
objects can trigger mental reflections in us. Handiwirman
even has unique personal and emotional bonds with certain
materials such as hairs, rubber bands, silicone rubber, and
paper. His penchant in observing and collecting mundane
materials, which to others are simply waste, has begun since
he was a small child. It is also such a background that has
shaped his intimate rapport with the works he makes.
Karya-karya Handiwirman juga dilatarbelakangi oleh caranya
yang unik dalam melihat hubungan antar benda, dan hubungan
antara benda dan manusia (secara personal maupun sosial).
Selain itu ia juga gemar mengamati bagaimana benda-benda
dapat menimbulkan refleksi mental pada manusia. Untuk
beberapa material seperti rambut manusia, karet gelang, karet
silikon dan kertas Handiwirman bahkan punya ikatan personal
dan emosional yang unik. Kegemarannya mengamati dan
mengumpulkan benda-benda remeh-temeh, yang bagi orang
lain adalah sampah, sudah dimulai semenjak ia kecil. Latar
belakang itu pula yang membentuk keintimannya dengan
karya-karya yang ia buat.
Handiwirman sees any object or material, natural or synthetic—
metal, rubber, resin, wood, fabric, thread, Styrofoam, etc.—
as an entity with certain quality and potential. He can, for
example, explain well how pieces of hair trapped in a bar
of soap are difficult to remove using wet fingers; how water
leakage on the ceiling can create stains resembling certain
images; or how a wrinkled part of a T-shirt might remind us
to the shape of a closed eye. To him, these are all (visual)
phenomena revealing the distinct structure or “grammar” of
a material.
Another thing that is characteristic of him is how he goes about
his work. For him, the term of “arranging” or “composing” is
not enough to explain his artistic practices so far. The way he
33
Bagi Handiwirman, benda atau material apapun, yang
alamiah maupun sintetik—logam, karet, resin, kayu, kain,
benang, busa, dll.—dilihatnya sebagai entitas yang punya
kualitas dan potensi ‘bahasa’ tertentu. Sebagai contoh,
ia dapat menjelaskan dengan baik bagaimana helai-helai
rambut terjebak pada sabun batangan tidak dapat dengan
mudah dihilangkan dengan jari-jari tangan yang basah;
bagaimana rembesan air pada langit-langit yang bocor dapat
menciptakan noda yang menyerupai gambar tertentu, atau
ketika sebuah bagian keriput dari T-shirt dapat mengingatkan
kita pada bentuk mata yang terpejam. Baginya semua itu
adalah fenomena (visual) yang memperlihatkan ‘struktur’ atau
‘tata bahasa’ tersendiri dari suatu material.
works with the objects does not only involve specific technical
aspects such as ripping, cutting, sewing, organizing, patching,
copying, shaping, etc, in order to achieve certain practical or
easy method. He does not hesitate to break way with certain
conventional methods usually applied to a material. At times,
for example, he dares dealing with dangerous chemical
without heeding safety procedures, in order to have a direct
contact with the specific natures of the material.
As we begin to understand Handiwirman’s personal and
artistic attitude, we could start making a guess about the
relation between the picture of the riverbank landscape from
the Kontheng River, which at a glance seems so trivial, and
the works of installation that he has made for this exhibition.
Pieces of garbage on the bamboo shoots and roots might
signify pollutions in the nature, or traces of industrialization
in the suburbs. However, I don’t think that it is the most
significant issue in the context of this exhibition. Although
we can always interpret or discover symbolic associations
in Handiwirman’s works (for example in the presence of a
gigantic plastic bag representing the issue of “waste” or
“consumerism”), I think the emphasis on the quality and the
“linguistic” structure of the objects or materials is of greater
importance here.
Hal lain yang khas dalam karya-karya Handiwirman adalah
soal tindakannya dalam bekerja. Dalam kamus kerjanya,
istilah ‘menyusun’ atau ‘merakit’ tidaklah cukup untuk
mendefinisikan praktik artistiknya selama ini. Caranya
mengolah benda-benda tidak hanya melibatkan aspek-aspek
teknis yang spesifik seperti menyobek, memotong, menjahit,
merangkai, menambal, meniru, mencetak, dsb., demi mencapai
suatu kemudahan atau kepraktisan. Ia juga tak segan-segan
melanggar cara-cara kerja atau metode konvensional yang
galib diterapkan pada suatu material. Misalnya, pada saatsaat tertentu, ia berani menangani langsung bahan-bahan
kimiawi yang berbahaya tanpa prosedur yang aman dan
seharusnya, demi untuk bersentuhan langsung dengan sifatsifat khususnya.
4/ In Situ Objects
For the current project of “Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk” (No
Roots, No Shoots), Handiwirman created a number of large
installations with reference to the world of objects that he has
been observing. One can say that throughout his career, it is
only now that Handiwirman presents works that are almost
entirely gigantic in size. Apart from copying and enlarging
the scale of found objects such as plastic bags, he also
presents works of installation that are the “enlargement” of
assembled objects with the materials familiar to him, such as
the Styrofoam, roots, tree branches, fabric, and metal.
Memahami tabiat personal dan artistik Handiwirman, maka
kita dapat mulai menduga-duga hubungan antara foto
pemandangan di pinggiran kali Kontheng yang sekilas
terkesan remeh-temeh itu dengan karya-karya instalasinya
yang ia buat untuk pameran ini. Serpihan sampah yang
menempel pada ranting-ranting bambu itu memang bisa
menyiratkan petanda tentang polusi lingkungan, atau jejakjejak industrialisasi di pinggiran kota. Akan tetapi bukan
persoalan itu yang saya pikir menjadi paling penting dalam
konteks pameran ini. Meskipun kita selalu bisa menafsirkan,
atau menemukan asosiasi-asosiasi simbolik dalam karya-
In the context of Handiwirman’s artistic practices, the entire
process in which his works are made can be understood as
34
karya Handiwirman (misalnya pada kehadiran instalasi plastik
kresek raksasa sebagai representasi persoalan ‘limbah’ atau
‘konsumerisme’), bagi saya penekanan pada kualitas dan
struktur ‘bahasa’ benda-benda atau material adalah aspek
yang justru lebih menonjol.
an effort of “liberation”, especially the liberation from the
conventions of the language of objects in our material culture.
In the common world, objects are related to us through
social conventions such as functions, the value of signs, and
economic values. Our perception about the significance of
an object has been determined by how it can assist us in our
work, gives benefit or prestige to us. Handiwirman peculiarly
challenges such relations by discovering, observing,
selecting, picking, and merging the pieces of small and often
mundane objects that are usually lying about and futile. In
Handiwirman’s hands, the merging of such mundane objects
gives rise to a certain mysterious quality that might hamper
our effort to grasp its meaning and objection. We are taken
into a play of peculiar and absurd visual language. In the
process of assembling, Handiwirman liberates the objects
from the stereotypical context of their functions and values.
4/ Benda-benda ‘in-situ’
Untuk proyek Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk kali ini, Handiwirman
mengerjakan sejumlah instalasi berukuran besar dengan
rujukan pada dunia benda-benda yang diamatinya. Boleh jadi,
sepanjang karirnya, baru pada pameran kali ini Handiwirman
menampilkan karya-karya yang hampir seluruhnya berukuran
gigantik. Selain meniru dan memperbesar skala benda
temuan seperti bungkusan plastik kresek, ia juga menyajikan
instalasi yang merupakan ‘pembesaran’ benda-benda rakitan
dengan material-material yang telah ia tekuni, seperti busa,
akar, dahan dan ranting pohon, kain dan logam.
Similarly, as Handiwirman enlarges the small objects in
an uncommon scale, he succeeds in erasing the signifier
aspect that had been bound to our perception about the
futile and banal objects. The mundane, small objects that
had been “subjugated” by human power were transformed
into something that dominates our sight. One might perceive
it as an artistic process that eventually liberates the world
of objects from the burdens of associations, conventions,
and meanings: liberation through the play of the objects’
languages.
Dalam konteks praktik artistik Handiwirman, seluruh rangkaian
proses perwujudan karyanya bisa difahami sebagai suatu
upaya ‘pembebasan’, terutama pembebasan dari konvensi
bahasa benda-benda dalam kebudayaan material kita selama
ini. Dalam dunia sehari-hari, benda-benda terhubung dengan
kita oleh konvensi sosial, seperti fungsi, nilai tanda dan
nilai ekonomi. Sudah lama cara pandang kita untuk melihat
pentingnya sebuah benda selalu ditentukan oleh bagaimana
ia dapat mempermudah pekerjaan, memberikan keuntungan
atau prestise kepada manusia. Handiwirman justru secara
unik melabrak hubungan-hubungan itu dengan menemukan,
mengamati, memilih, memungut dan menyatukan serpihanserpihan benda-benda kecil dan seringkali mundan, yang
biasanya berserakan dan sia-sia. Di sisi lain, di tangan
Handiwirman, penyatuan benda-benda remeh-temeh itu
menghasilkan kualitas misterius, yang mungkin menghambat
upaya kita untuk segera menangkap makna dan tujuannya.
Kita ditarik ke dalam permainan bahasa visual yang ganjil dan
absurd. Dalam proses merakit, ia membebaskan benda-benda
itu dari konteks fungsi dan nilai yang stereotipe.
For the project “Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk”, Handiwirman
prepares a specific presentation strategy. He places his works
of installation in another habitat: in the middle of a river, a
grass field, and an open land. Thus, the works, which are the
enlargement of small materials, once again undergo a change
of context due to the dimension of the open space that tends
to be infinite. Furthermore, by employing such a method,
Handiwirman also intends to question the understanding
about “the art space”. So far, conventional art spaces such as
galleries and museums are often considered as “institutional
tools” that are able to give certain aesthetic aura to any
objects (urinary, a pile of bricks, mud, etc) that are placed
35
Demikian halnya, ketika ia memperbesar benda-benda kecil
itu dengan skala perbandingan yang tak biasa, ia berhasil
menghilangkan aspek penanda yang semula terikat pada
persepsi kita tentang hal-hal yang remeh temeh dan siasia. Benda-benda kecil yang semula ‘tunduk’ pada kuasa
manusia itu kini bertransformasi menjadi sesuatu yang
berbalik mendominasi pandangan kita. Semua itu bisa kita
lihat sebagai proses artistik yang pada akhirnya melepaskan
dunia benda dari beban-beban asosiasi, konvensi dan makna:
Suatu pembebasan melalui permainan bahasa benda-benda
itu sendiri.
within them. By placing the works in an open air, Handiwirman
seems to be testing how far the works can still be considered
“art”. It is perhaps yet another way of “liberation”.
As we arrive to such an explanation, we can better understand
how Handiwirman’s artistic stance is related to his efforts in
exploring the psychological impacts of the objects and the
meanings they have in certain contexts. To him, the most
interesting part of the project lies in the possible tension
between the personal intention, the language conveyed by
“his objects”, and the mental reflection on the part of the
audience when they see something that is familiar and
peculiar at the same time. As we syntactically position
the picture of Kontheng River in the midst of the works
of installation in the open air, we arrive at an interesting
juxtaposition between the everyday sight that is aesthetic in
nature and the “aesthetic objects” placed in daily situations.
This is perhaps what Handiwirman wishes to target with his
poetic project of Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk (No Roots, No
Shoots). Closing this essay, I envision a living entity that
has no history and simultaneously no future, orphaned in a
temporal horizon, becoming a timeless fragment, having no
name. Most people might find it difficult to imagine such a
thing—if not downright impossible. To Handiwirman, it is all
possible through speculations and experiments.
Untuk proyek Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk, Handiwirman
menyiapkan strategi presentasi yang khusus. Kali ini ia
menempatkan karya-karya instalasinya di habitat yang lain: di
tengah sungai, lapangan rumput dan tanah terbuka. Dengan
begitu, karya-karya yang merupakan hasil pembesaran bendabenda kecil lantas kembali mengalami perubahan konteks
karena dimensi ruang terbuka yang cenderung tak terbatas.
Lebih jauh, dengan cara itu ia juga bermaksud mempersoalkan
batasan tentang ‘ruang seni’. Selama ini, ruang seni yang
konvensional seperti galeri dan museum seringkali dianggap
sebagai ‘perangkat institusional’ yang mampu memercikkan
aura estetik pada benda-benda apapun (urinoir, tumpukan
batu bata, lumpur, dsb.) yang berada di dalamnya. Dengan
menempatkannya di ruang terbuka, ia seperti tengah menguji
sejauh mana karya-karya itu dapat disebut sebagai ‘seni’. Ini
juga barangkali suatu upaya ‘pembebasan’ dengan cara yang
lain lagi.
sintaksis, maka kita beroleh jukstaposisi yang menarik, yakni
antara pemandangan sehari-hari yang ‘estetik’ dengan ‘objekobjek estetik’ yang ditempatkan dalam situasi keseharian.
Inilah barangkali yang disasar oleh Handiwirman dalam tajuk
proyeknya yang puitik, Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk. Menutup
tulisan ini saya tengah membayangkan suatu entitas hidup yang
tak punya sejarah dan masa depan sekaligus, terputus dalam
cakrawala waktu, menjadi fragmen yang nirkala, tak bernama.
Buat banyak orang, membayangkan hal semacam itu tentu
saja sukar, kalau bukan mustahil. Bagi Handiwirman semua
itu dimungkinkan melalui spekulasi dan eksperimentasi.
Sampai pada penjelasan ini, kita semakin memahami
bagaimana sikap artistik Handiwirman berhubungan
dengan upayanya untuk mengeksplorasi dampak psikologis
dan makna benda-benda dalam konteks tertentu. Untuk
Handiwirman bagian paling menarik dalam proyek ini justru
terletak pada ketegangan yang mungkin timbul antara tujuan
pribadi, bahasa yang disampaikan oleh ‘objek-objeknya’, dan
refleksi mental pemirsa ketika menyaksikan sesuatu yang
akrab sekaligus ganjil. Menempatkan foto Kali Kontheng
dengan instalasi-instalasi di ruang terbuka itu ke dalam suatu
36
37
benda-benda in-situ: tak berakar,
tak berpucuk / objects in-situ:
no roots, no shoots
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 1
2010 - 2011
steel plate, tree’s root, paraffin lamp, auto paint
305 x 560 x 260 cm
photographed by Anan Prayz
40
41
details from Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 1
photographed by Anan Prayz
42
43
44
45
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 2
2010 - 2011
resin fiber, autopaint, plastic ropes
155 x 210 x 170 cm
photographed by Agung Sukindra
46
47
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 3
2010 - 2011
resin fiber, autopaint, plastic ropes
155 x 210 x 170 cm
photographed by biantoro santoso
48
49
installation view from Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 2 & 3
photographed by biantoro santoso
50
51
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 4
2010
resin fiber, silicone glue, screen print puff ink,
cloth, plastic, acrylic paint
173 x 240 x 115 cm
photographed by biantoro santoso
52
53
details from Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 4
photographed by biantoro santoso
54
55
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 5
2010-2011
resin fiber, screen print puff ink, cloth, plastic,
corrugated roof sheet, wire, acrylic paint
339 x 255 x 116 cm
photographed by biantoro santoso
56
57
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 5
2010-2011
resin fiber, screen print puff ink, cloth, plastic,
corrugated roof sheet, wire, acrylic paint
339 x 255 x 116 cm
photographed by biantoro santoso
58
59
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 6
2010-2011
resin fiber, screen print puff ink,
cloth, steel, acrylic paint
186 x 396 x 270 cm
photographed by Anan Prayz
60
61
details from Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 6
photographed by Anan Prayz
62
63
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 7
2011
plywood, cloth, corrugated roof sheet, screen
print puff ink, steel, acrylic paint
3 pcs ( 247 x 122 x 122 cm each )
photographed by Anan Prayz
64
65
details from Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 7
photographed by Anan Prayz
66
67
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 8
2011
silicone rubber, plastic, cloth, photograph
dimension variable
photographed by Anan Prayz
68
69
Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 8
2011
c-prints
20 pcs ( 30 x 240 cm each )
photographed by Anan Prayz
70
71
DETAILS FROM Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk n o. 8
photographed by Anan Prayz
72
73
riwayat hidup / curriculum vitae
Handiwirman is a cofounder and member of Jendela Art
Group. He was initially known for his installations of objects
and found objects he composed almost without any artistic
pretension. The objects – thread, wire, bits of paper, plastic
lumps, and hair – were present nearly as just what they were.
Such anti-esthetic tendency also appeared in his painting.
Only in mid-2000 he surprisingly presented several works
with neatness and fascinating realist techniques. The same
thing went for his installation: it showed careful selection
of materials and technical rigor. What basically remained
the same was Handiwirman’s view of “beauty”. He has been
searching to offer beauty out of simple things around him.
To put it simply, his painting forms an extension of the stilllife genre. But the emphasis of Handiwirman’s painting is on
the issue of perception, the way of seeing. So the forms of
objects as seen in his painting are often the two-dimensional
shapes of objects he himself has made and assembled. With
careful consideration he will pick materials and colors to present
in configurations of ‘objects’ that provoke us to associate the
perceived forms with things that are perhaps familiar in our daily
life. Any definitive meanings or conclusive narrations, in case
of Handiwirman’s works, are almost always be cancelled by the
spacious possibilities of association on the viewers’ part.
74
75
Born January 24, 1975 in Bukittinggi
West Sumatra, Indonesia
Education and Background
1993 – 1996
Indonesian Institute of Arts (ISI), Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Solo Exhibitions
2011
“Tak Berakar, Tak Berpucuk / No Roots, No Shoots”
The National Gallery of Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia
2009
“Things, the Order of Handiwirman”
Cemeti Art House, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2008
“Nothing-Something-Nothing”
Showcase Singapore 2008, Singapore
Organized by Nadi Gallery
“In Lingo”, CIGE 2008 Beijing, China
organized by Nadi Gallery
2007
“Archaeology of a Hotel Room”
Nadi Gallery. Jakarta, Indonesia
2004
“Apa-apanya Dong?”
Nadi Gallery. Jakarta, Indonesia
2001
“Patah Hati; Broken Heart”
Cemeti Art House. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2000
“Provocative Objects”
Lontar Gallery. Jakarta, Indonesia
1999
“Benda”
Benda Art Space. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Selected Group Exhibitions
2011
“Art Stage Singapore 2011”
Nadi Gallery, Singapore
“Collectors Stage: Asian Contemporary Art
from Private Collections”
Singapore Art Museum, Singapore
2010
“Made in Indonesia”
Galerie Christian Hosp. Berlin, Germany
“The Show Must Go On”
Celebrating The 10th anniversary of Nadi Gallery
National Gallery of Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia
“Contemporaneity: Contemporary Art in Indonesia”
MOCA Shanghai. Shanghai, China
“ArtHK 10” (Hong Kong International Art Fair)
Nadi Gallery, Hong Kong
“Classic Contemporary” Contemporary southeast
asian art from the Singapore Art Museum collection. SAM (Singapore Art Museum). Singapore
“Art+Paris+Guest” Paris, France
“Pleasure of Chaos-Inside New Indonesian Art” Primo Marella Gallery. Milano, Italy
76
2009
“Jogja Jamming” Biennale Jogja X
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Fluid Zone: Traffic and Mapping” Jakarta Biennale
Grand Indonesia Shopping Town Jakarta, Indonesia
“Beyond the Deucht” Centraal Museum
Utrecht, Nederlands
“Kado #2”, celebrating the 9th anniversary
of Nadi Gallery, Nadi Gallery
Jakarta, Indonesia
“ArtHK 09“ (Hong Kong International Art Fair)
with Nadi Gallery, Hong Kong
“CIGE 2009” (China International Gallery
Exposition) with Nadi Gallery
Beijing, China “Jendela – A Play of the Ordinary”
NUS Museum, Singapore
2008
“Coffee, Cigarettes and Pad Thai”
Contemporary Art in Southeast Asia. Eslite Gallery
Taipei, Taiwan
“Bentuk – Bentuk: Contemporary Indonesian Art
in 3D” Melbourne Art Fair 2008. Organized by
Nadi Gallery & Valentine Willie Fine Art
Melbourne, Australia
“Alfi: Painting Series” & “Handiwirman Saputra: Exterior, Inside View—Interior, Outside View”
ShContemporary 08. Organized by Nadi Gallery
Shanghai, China
“Expose #1 - A Presentation of Indonesian
Contemporary Art by Deutsche Bank & Nadi
Gallery”, Four Seasons Hotel
Jakarta, Indonesia
“Manifesto” National Gallery of Indonesia
Jakarta, Indonesia
“Inanimate Performance”
Soka Art Center. Taipei, Taiwan
2007
”Cilukba! / Peekaboo!” by KSRJ
(Kelompok Seni Rupa Jendela)
Valentine Willie Fine Art
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
“Soka’s View” Southeast Asian Contemporary Art, Soka Contemporary Space.
Beijing, China & Taipei, Taiwan
“China International Gallery Exposition”
Langgeng Gallery. Beijing, China
“Indonesian Contemporary Art Now”
Nadi Gallery, Jakarta
2006
”Belief” Singapore Biennale 2006.
City Hall, Singapore
“Passing on Distance” Contemporary Art in
Indonesia: The 4th Generation, Base Gallery
Tokyo, Japan
“ICON : Retrospective” Jogja Gallery
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2005
“Open View” Biasa Art Space
Bali, Indonesia
“Sculpture Expanded” CP Art Space
Jakarta, Indonesia
“Realis(Me) Banal” Gracia Art Gallery
Surabaya, Indonesia
“Eksodus Barang” Nadi Gallery
Jakarta, Indonesia
“Seni Rupa Alat Bantu” Bentara Budaya Yogyakarta
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Pseudo Still Life: Obyek dan Auranya”
Semarang Gallery. Semarang, Indonesia
“Passing on Distance” Contemporary Art in
Indonesia: The 4th Generation
NAF Gallery. Nagoya, Japan & Indonesia
“Biasa”, KSRJ (Kelompok Seni Rupa Jendela)
Nadi Gallery. Jakarta, Indonesia
“Re-reading Landschap” Exhibition of Sakato group
Nadi Gallery. Jakarta, Indonesia
“Urban-Culture” 2nd Cp Biennale,
Bank Indonesia Museum. Jakarta, Indonesia
2004
“Wings of Words, Wings of Color”
Langgeng Gallery. Magelang, Indonesia
“Untitled, an Assemblage of Sign”
CCF. Jakarta, Indonesia
“Object(ify)” Nadi Gallery. Jakarta, Indonesia
“Mempertimbangkan Tradisi” Sanggar Sakato
The National Gallery of Indonesia,
Jakarta, Indonesia
“Barcode” 16th Yogyakarta Art Festival
Taman Budaya Yogyakarta
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2003
“30 : 30” Edwin’s Gallery
Jakarta, Indonesia
“In memory of 100 days of H. Widayat’s death”
H. Widayat Museum.
Mungkid, Magelang, Indonesia
“Borobudur” Borobudur International Festival 2003
H.Widayat Museum. Mungkid, Magelang, Indonesia
“Borobudur Agitatif” Langgeng Gallery
Magelang, Indonesia
“Fusion Strength” performance and installation
Benda Art Space. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Read” Cemeti Art House
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Shock and Wave” New Media Art
Bandung, Indonesia
“Interpellation” CP Open Biennale
National Gallery of Indonesia
Jakarta, Indonesia
“Countrybution” 7th Jogja Biennale
Taman Budaya. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2002
“Dream Project: Under Construction”,
Fabriek Gallery. Bandung, Indonesia
“Under Construction: New Dimensions of Asian
77
Art” Tokyo Opera City Art Gallery
Tokyo, Japan
“Ecstaticus Mundi”, Selasar Sunaryo Art Space
Bandung & Air Art House. Jakarta, Indonesia
“Object”, Fabriek Gallery, Bandung, Indonesia
“Tali Ikat: Fiber Connection”
Taman Budaya. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Pose” by KSRJ (Kelompok Seni Rupa Jendela)
Affandi Museum. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2001
“Not I, Am I?”, Nadi Gallery, Jakarta, Indonesia
“Pink Project”, Nadi Gallery, Jakarta, Indonesia
“Contemporary Craft” National Gallery of Indonesia
Jakarta, Indonesia
2000
“Membuka Kemungkinan” by KSRJ (Kelompok Seni
Rupa Jendela) Taman Budaya, Yogyakarta & Cipta Gallery, TIM Jakarta, Indonesia
1999
“6th Yogyakarta Biennale” Purna Budaya
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“From a Window” by KSRJ (Kelompok Seni Rupa
Jendela) Bali Padma Hotel. Bali, Indonesia
“Sakato” Benteng Vredeburg Museum
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
1998
“Philip Morris Indonesian Art Award”
National Gallery of Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia
“ASEAN Art Award”, Hanoi, Vietnam
1997 “Pelukis Muda Yogyakarta”
Benteng Vredeburg Museum.
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“FKY IX” Benteng Vredeburg Museum
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Philip Morris Indonesian Art Award”
Agung Rai Museum of Art. Ubud, Bali &
Graha Lukisan TMII. Jakarta, Indonesia
“Sakato” Purna Budaya. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Jendela” 1st exhibition of Jendela Group
Purna Budaya. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Paspatria I” Bahari Hotel. Tegal, Indonesia
1996
“8th Yogyakarta Art Festival”
Taman Budaya Yogyakarta.
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Dialog Dua Kota I” Cipta Gallery TIM
Jakarta, Indonesia
“Alumni SMSRN” Taman Budaya
Padang, Indonesia
1995
“Sakato” 1st exhibition of Sanggar Sakato
Purna Budaya. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
“Installation Object” celebrating the day of
The Human Rights, ISI. Yogyakarta, Indonesia
ucapan terima kasih /
acknowledgment
Dessy, Nam dan Ila
Mas Biantoro, Mbak Meli and family
Jendela (Yusra, Yunizar, Alfi, Rudi)
Nadi Gallery
Galeri Nasional Indonesia
Enin Supriyanto
Agung Hujatnikajennong
Agus Suwage
Tubagus Andre
Icuz (Artnivora)
Sudjuanda (Mahameru)
Heri Pemad art management
Anan Prayz
Agung Sukindra
Asmudjo
Amrizal
Arief Yudi
Topan
Wahyu Hidayat ‘Gogon’
‘Umplong’ A. Priyanto
Hulq
Wintolo
and for everyone who supported this project
This book was published as a supplement
to the solo show by Handiwirman Saputra
“Tak Berakar Tak Berpucuk / No Roots No Shoots”
at The National Gallery of Indonesia
Jakarta, March 29 th - April 5 th 2011
Curated by Enin Supriyanto and Agung Hujatnikajennong
Translated by Rani Elsanti Ambyo
Front & back inside cover “Sungai” photographed by Handiwirman Saputra
Other photographed by Agung Sukindra, Anan Prayz, Biantoro Santoso, Enin Supriyanto
Designed by Artnivora, www.artnivora.net
Printed in Indonesia by Mahameru Offset Printing
Published by Nadi Gallery
Jl. Kembang Indah III Blok G III no. 4 - 5
Puri Indah Jakarta 11610, Indonesia
p. (62-21) 5818129 f. (62-21) 5805677
e. [email protected]
www.nadigallery.com
©Nadi Gallery - 073/2011
Nadi Gallery
Jl. Kembang Indah III Blok G III no. 4 - 5
Puri Indah Jakarta 11610, Indonesia.
p. (62-21) 5818129 f. (62-21) 5805677
e. [email protected]
www.nadigallery.com
The National Gallery of Indonesia
Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No. 14
Jakarta, Indonesia 10110
p. (62-21) 34833954 F. (62-21) 3813021
E. [email protected]
www.galeri-nasional.or.id