CRITICAL ART ON

IDEOLOGY IN

INDONESIA An anonymous Movement as a form of civil

disobedience against the power of ideology

EXPOSEE Ideologies have always been a powerful tool of control.

The goal is to create a form of collective art that brings

up the right questions and disenchants the power of the

Pancasila state ideology in Indonesia.

Agenda

1. Prerequisites for bringing up the real questions

2. How can a movement be one unit of art?

3. How should critical art look like?

a. Why the diversity of artistic expressions?

4. Civil disobedience

a. Critical art as provocation

5. Examples

a. Antagonistic graffiti

b. The Vitruvian broker

c. Offspring of the Garuda

d. Symbol for the youth from the youth

e. The Pancasila equals an empty box

6. References and Sources

1.) Prerequisites for bringing up the important questions

In my understanding, critical art differs a lot from what can be considered mainstream artistic

expressions. Especially ideologies such as the Pancasila state ideology are very complex and

deeply rooted in cultural institutions and beliefs. Therefore, to disenchant the power of such

ideologies, critical art should go further than “just” materialising negative aspects in

metaphors, paintings or sculptures. It does not need to be restricted to one artistic expression,

but should address all crucial aspects of ideology from different perspectives. It is very

important, in my understanding of critical art, to make it public and visible to everybody, as

everyone is influenced by it in one way or another.

Now, how exactly do I interpret critical art and what is my imagination in how far the

Pancasila in Indonesia can be disenchanted by critical art?

For me, critical art should be accessible especially for those, who don’t seem to be interested

in it in the first place. Critical Art in a museum or theatre does not meet the requirements for

efficiency and range of people that are addressed. Those who visit theatres or museums most

likely have the intellectual and economical resources, to be educated and question ideologies

anyway. But more important, those people, who don’t belong to an intellectual or artistic elite,

should be confronted with critical art. Thus, public performances and display of the art is a

prerequisite for critical art to reach many people. Not only should everybody see it, I think

participation in art is very important too. It is not a one-way street, but a dynamic,

interdependent movement of people who want to express their criticism.

One requirement that I see as a necessity, is anonymity in the movement. As in Indonesia, just

like in every other state that is led by an ideology, the normative law enforcement hinders

harsh criticism on the elite or the ideology itself. People who express their critique publicly,

can be persecuted and punished. Thus, to lower the chances of persecutions, anonymity can

serve as a protection. Don’t fearing personal harm through law enforcement is necessary to

express critique freely and directly. Only if that is possible, the important questions about

ideology can be asked. Of course, everybody defines differently what “the right question” is,

but that is a very good aspect of the diversity of the movement. As people have diverse

experiences and perceptions about the ideology, diversity in expression can be achieved.

Thus, different aspect, perceptions und forms of interpretation show ideology from several

perspectives and makes it understandable. Therefore, I believe anonymity can serve critical

Art and is important for bringing up the “real questions”.

2.) How can a movement be one unit of art?

I am aware, that I may break with mainstream norms when I say, that critical art can be

considered as an accumulation of artistic expressions of all sorts. Of course, each expression

can be considered itself as critical art, but my idea is, that an anonymous movement can create

a certain Zeitgeist in a country and consists of questioning almost every aspect of life. Just

like synchronised swimming or dancing, the power of expression is generated by the

collective. And its value is much bigger than the accumulation of all individual artistic

expressions. One expression or performance can bring up questions and entertain, but the

diversity of expressions can disenchant fundamental ideological beliefs. As I already

described, the movement is anonymous, therefore we don’t have “one” artist as well. The

focus is mainly on the expression itself and a charismatic artist or his personal background

might mislead.

Anonymity has always been a tool to criticize the elite. Georg Büchner for example was the

author among others that published the “Hessischer Landbote” anonymous, in which they

criticized the political environment of their time. Even today, the “Anonymous-Movement”

uses the Internet to express their anger or disbelief globally (Schaub, 1976; Vance, Helft:

2010).

Moreover, in my perception, access to this movement should not be limited. Not by location,

educational background, interests, ethnicity or economic accessibility. Everybody can join or

leave, does not need to pay for entrance or exit, or give away personal data. I like to see this

form of critical art as a permeable system, so that everybody who has a sudden intuition about

how one can criticize ideology, can immediately join by materializing it in whatever form

they think is understandable. The expression does not need to be very transcendental or

metaphorical nor very complex. As everyone is addressed, everyone should be able to

understand it, because if it is a complex way of thinking to realise or materialise critical art,

the viewer must think also very complex to understand the key aspects of the critique. Only

the diversity of its members and artistic expressions creates an added value und public

recognition. To create sustainable artistic criticism, it should be present and visible over a

longer period.

3.) How should critical art look like?

Why the diversity of artistic expressions?

As I already mentioned, there are no restrictions as how to express fundamental criticism. But

obviously there should be some rules to follow, that are somehow self-explanatory.

Obviously, no one must be physically harmed nor attacked and wantonly vandalism is no

form of art. A deep rooted, critical question needs to be delivered and the critique must not be

based on other fundamental or ideological beliefs, such as religious fundamentalism,

capitalism or communism.

However, when thinking about ideologies, one question comes to mind: How does one

implement the complexity of an ideology in one simple artistic expression with bringing up

important questions in the viewer mind?

My answer to this question is rather simple: One can’t.

Therefore, it is mandatory in my understanding to combine several aspects, forms of

expression and critical questions in one movement. How to organise that in society or in an

anonymous movement can be considered the “real art” as it is very difficult without a central

control organ, institution or leader, that defines structure. But it creates the freedom that is

necessary to break out of “classical ways of thinking”.

4.) Civil disobedience

Critical art as provocation

Just like Satire, a provocation can lead to an actionist overreaction of those, who are

criticised, thus confirming the critique. It is like petting a lion’s tail to showcase his

aggression potential. And just like satire, the consequences are very often of higher value than

the expression itself. Not seldom, does satire lead to discussion about boundaries und

fundamental roots of indoctrinations. Now even though those sorts of expression may violate

laws and some people take it personal, civil disobedience and pushing the existing boundaries

of law enforcement further receives public recognition. Examples like Rosa Park, Georg

Büchner, or resistant groups during the Nazi-regime in Germany show, that there is no End of

History that Francis Fukuyama predicted. Values and norms are in fact not invariable but

created by society in constant development. Being civil disobedient has a high symbolic value

and shows, that in some moderate cases, “breaking the law” can lead to overthinking this law

and asking if it is still contemporary. This form of civil disobedience can also play a role in

the movement I am describing. Criticizing the government or elite is very likely forbidden by

law, yet an expression of humanistic, democratic values. So even though one breaks

normative laws, that protect the elite und their ideology, it is not to enrich oneself personally,

but helping society to question the law. Not only criticism, but also forms of expression can

be normatively forbidden. As I will showcase later in some examples, graffiti is a simple

example of vandalism and therefore forbidden. Yet it can be used in public spaces to

encounter ideologies just like governments use public space to advocate and advertise their

ideology. Also using famous statues like the garuda-statue in Jakarta as a place to express

criticism is most likely forbidden when asked for by public regulations. Thus, using the

materialised ideology in statues as a place to disenchant its weaknesses breaks a law, even

though it is neither destroyed nor vandalised.

This goes to show that the boundaries of law enforcement are very strict, yet they don’t

express rational, by the people legitimised norms. The freedom of speech has always been

eked out against the elite and their established norm system, yet it is considered one of the

most valuable achievements in humanistic and democratic societies.

5.) Examples

Example 1) Antagonistic graffiti

One way to deliver criticism even in rural regions is simple graffiti or other sorts of pictures

that are visible in public places. In this example, I choose a wall that could be anywhere in

Indonesia. On the wall, one can see two pictures with very antagonistic meanings. On the one

side, one can see a group of angry people that raise their fist. A very typical form of

expressing nationalism all over the world. On the other side, one can see hands of different

skin colour holding the globe together. A simple metaphor for unity in diversity, that is the

state moto in Indonesia. Its symbolic value is not as important as the contrast both pictures

draw. Moreover, both pictures stand for the Sila’s two and three. They refer to nationalism

and civil humanity yet they seem to be contractionary. Nationalism often is the root of

exclusion and intolerance (not to forget violence) and therefore quite the opposite of

humanistic beliefs, that don’t draw lines between the place you were born or the colour of

your skin. To display this contrariety and structural disbalance of the Pancasila may lead to

awareness that its content is incoherent when scrutinized.

Example 2) “The Vitruvian Broker”

This example is rather simplistic in its expression but very hard to nanage in real life. It shows

a banner or poster that is tied on a banks building. It shows Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The

Vitruvian Man”, which became an international symbol for humanism, But crossed out and

displayed in negative colours. It should show, that many activities of banks do not go along

with humanistic beliefs or contribute to social welfare. Again, the second Sila, which is

teached by the government, is threatened by capital speculations and other questionable

activities in banks, yet that is supported by the government. Humanism does not go with

todays liberalisation of the banks, especially not with the second Sila. The negativity of the

colour expressed that degenerated banks achieve the opposite of what the government

preaches in the second Sila.

Example 3) “Offspring of the Garuda eagle”

This example shows a statue of the garuda eagle (wisnu Rencara1) as a representation of the

Pancasila. In front of it, there are Eggs placed. Those can be made of everything imaginable,

like paper or cardboard. They represent the offspring of the eagle, so equally the “offspring”

in terms of “consequences” of the Pancasila. I choose four examples: Corruption, control,

ideology and elitism. Of course, those derive not exclusively from the Pancasila, but the

ideology “as its mother”, protects them by any means. Just like the Pancasila, established and

instrumentalised by the government to achieve and cultivate their elite status. Whenever one

tries to get rid of corruption for example, the Pancasila can be used as a legitimisation of the

current political and social system to preserve the laws. It “protects” its offspring against any

kind of danger that questions their legitimisation or existence.

As a result of this art, one can expect, that employees of the state (whether police or other

official authorities) appear to destroy or at least remove the paper/cardboard eggs from the

1 Jl. Raya Uluwatu, Ungasan 80364, Indonesia

setting. Those authorities act in the name and as an arm of the elite und are used as tools to

enforce laws and ideologies. So not only the static, critical art piece itself, but also the

provoked reaction of official authorities depicts the materialised structure of the Pancasila and

makes it visible.

This reaction would differ, as I believe, if the setting would be different. If, for example,

someone would place such a poster or written on cardboard in front of a mosque saying:”

Allahu ahkbar” (God is great) or “Jesus Christ” in front of a church (as the shortest creed,

accepting Jesus as a messiah (Christ)) the reaction would be quite different. Legally, it would

in both cases mean equally, that is “placing written on cardboard in public”. But authorities

would probably instantly see the first example as critique on what must not be critiqued

(rightfully so, as critical art should obviously criticize) and therefore remove it. Whereas the

second example would lead to confirmation and maybe wouldn’t be removed instantly.

So how can the exact actual situation be considered differently by authorities? This question

should be raised by those, who compare both situations. As a result, one can disenchant the

power of ideology and that law enforcement protects it irrationally and disproportionately in

contrast to other forms of publicly expressed opinion. One could conclude, that tools of the

state, like the Pancasila, are protected by any means to remain powerful over the population.

Example 4) Creating a symbol that is fashionable, but critiques the pancasila

subtlety

What can be seen here, is a Garuda eagle, that seizes a ganteng bull. Both are imparted in the

Pancasila logo and represent different columns. The ganteng bull is seen as a social animal

and represents democracy as a part of the Pancasila. The garuda on the other hand is the

symbol of the Pancasila as a whole.

The logo itself does not seem to have a hidden message, especially when it’s not clear, that it

represents pillars of the Pancasila. But, as seen in the seizure, the Pancasila brutally cracks

and seizes the bull and is way more powerful than it. This picture represents The Pancasila

and how this ideology “kills” or destroys democratic principles in Indonesia.

Now, as this logo does not seem to indicate that on first gaze, it can be established as a trendy

logo among maybe young peer groups. Using modern technology that is easily available in

Indonesia, such as printing on clothes, printing logos on phone cases or just easily printing

stickers, the logo can be distributed easily or created easily, as I created this logo myself

without any experience. As seen in the following picture:

In this picture, one can see the logo printed on clothes, phone cases and stickers and it shows

the scope of application. One can argue that putting stickers on street signs is vandalism, but

what I wanted to show, is how easily symbols are distributed these days.

If this logo (or any other logo in that sense) would be established as a symbol of critique on

the Pancasila, even if only a small circle of people understands the reference, it should

provoke authorities. If they understand the meaning of this picture, they may want to ban it.

But as the critique is very sudden and not evident, a ban would disenchant the ideological law

structure once again. Let’s just assume authorities ban the distribution or use of this picture as

it stands for governmental criticism, those people who don’t understand the deeper meaning

of it ask themselves: “Why do public authorities ban a picture of an eagle that seizes a bull?

Why would they do such ridiculous law enforcement?”

And once they try to answer this question, they might come across the deeper meaning and

understand, that exactly things like banning tame pictures is a violation of democratic values

by the Pancasila or authorities that support the ideology. The comparison with other banned

symbols like the swastika in Germany, as a symbol of the Nazi regime, seems to fail. This is

not a simple logo that stands for a certain ideology. It is more of a diverse picture, everybody

sees it differently and it doesn’t support destructive ideologies. So, the foundation of law

enforcement wouldn’t stand an intellectual discourse or independent court.

Example 5) The Pancasila as an empty box

The last example of materialisation of critical art is a symbol of the thin centred ideology the

Pancasila is. One can see a box that can be opened or closed and in it one can find the five

principles of the Pancasila. What can be seen as a simple form of materialisation the Pancasila

itself, can also reveal fundamental critique on the Pancasila. Those who are indoctrinated and

don’t question the Pancasila may interpret it as the Pancasila as a big foundation that holds the

values together and protects them. But this also contents a hidden message that makes the use

of the Pancasila visible.

The Pancasila can be seen as a big, overshadowing box that contents the five principles. But

the Pancasila is also useless of it were not for the five principles (Just like an empty box

would be useless if there wasn’t something it could store). The five principles, like religion,

on the other hand, don’t need the Pancasila to exist. So, the ideology Pancasila cannot exist if

it wouldn’t refer to other, full ideologies. Taking the empty “box” Pancasila without its

content shows the holder exactly what the Pancasila is: an empty case. It legitimises its

existence over other legitimate ideologies and does not create value itself.

This box moreover shows, that whoever controls it, can take out whatever ideology one likes

and what seems to fit in the contemporary, political agenda. As seen in the History of

Indonesia, the political leaders always interpreted the Pancasila differently, however it flowed

their boat the best.

6.) References and Sources

References:

Gerhard Schaub: Georg Büchner / Friedrich Ludwig Weidig. Der Hessische Landbote. Texte, Materialien,

Kommentar. Hanser, München 1976, ISBN 3-446-12196-X

Ashlee Vance, Miguel Helft: Hackers Give Web Companies a Test of Free Speech. New York Times

December 8, 2010

Picture Sources:

http://www.asiasentinel.com/new/society/nationalism-minority-rights-and-citizenship-in-indonesia/

http://dustira-damanik.blogspot.de/

https://uleema.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/wedding-review/

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3749/11585155713_355e88e69e_b.jpg

http://indoneculture.blogspot.com/2013/06/monument-garuda-wisnu-kencana.html

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thai_government_Garuda_emblem_(Version_4).svg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Thai_government_Garuda_emblem_%2

8Version_4%29.svg/1229px-Thai_government_Garuda_emblem_%28Version_4%29.svg.png

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/street-scene-indonesia.html

https://www.google.de/search?newwindow=1&client=firefox-

b&biw=1366&bih=659&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=phone+cover+white&oq=phone+cover+white&gs_l=ps

y-ab.3.0i8i30k1l4.15352.16396.0.16423.6.5.0.0.0.0.193.596.0j4.4.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.4.

592...0i19k1.IPl5aokER3A#imgrc=Y9K8pISAPPJmBM:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3749/11585155713_355e88e69e_b.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-10-28-1446059377-5353474-IMG_3344.JPG