WHICH-IS-NOT-THE-I Heru Hikayat An essay of Goenawan Mohamad (GM) about creation and circumstance fascinated me. In terms of a creation, he says The artist acts in the middle of long process that is not fully known: a situation in the edge of chaos, yet towards the presence of a form. How to imagine this, A situation in the edge of chaos, yet towards the presence of a form? Yet perhaps the artist is the type of person who tends to be demented. They continuously strive to surpass themselves. As far as I know, the artist cannot adjust himself when he created works, which are similar to his previous works. He was successful when he got beyond. The transcendence itself indeed will not occur without failures. When I was in college, I heard that it seemed Affandi had advised: if you want to exhibit, instead of creating 20 works, just create 100 works and select the best 20s among them. In other words, to breed a “good” work (whatever the criteria is), an artist must be willing to invent more creations that are defective – to not telling it bad. It was insane, wasn’t it? If this proposition is accepted, then everytime they have intention to make a creation, first of all an artist dealing with ‘himself’ before dealing with the other. Please imagine yourself dealing with an empty drawing extent. This is infinite possibility. You are dealing with ‘something-that-somehow-will-be-what’. It could be something very important, it could also be meaningless—rubbish. Faced with the-undetermined, we might be more comfortable entering it with what we have known before. Forget about art, but what weve done before is a path that establishes clarity in a mystification of possibilities. By doing so, it is reasonable if we tend to depict the same thing over and over again. Because of that strange undetermined—was too petrifying. The history can take a role. It gives justification of art whether it is valued or stunning. Yet history is a narrative that is presented from a particular perspective. Whenever it is arranged, then he bears the risk of omitting a huge amount of other things. Therefore, those-which-is-missed, the undetermined remains tempting, for those who are resilient enough to explore it. In my opinion, Jonv Tarumanagara is a good visual artist. He could portray almost anything. He could draw anything that is generally recognized gorgeous or things complicated. He could also mimic the images, which have been widely reproduced precisely. After a long time-absence of presenting his drawing in an official exhibition forum, then what he wanted to perform when he had the opportunity to accomplish in a solo exhibition? This question makes me willing to assist him in his solo exhibition project. In the tradition of art education, students will be asked to practice using a variety of medium. This exercise is expected to cultivate skills. The premise was the mastery of the medium will ensure the availability of vocabularies pretty freely used to depict anything. I guess Jonv also traverses it. He has been practising and then mastered various mediums till when faced with the drawing extent, he can freely choose the medium, which is appropriate. Underpinning the tradition” is an interpretation that the medium is a subject to The-I. I was the one who have determinations. Everything is the manifestation of the will of The-I. The canvas, is an autonomous space where I can thrive freely. In 2000, Ed Harris, the veteran actor, starred at once directed the movie of Pollock, a story about Jackson Pollock, one of the important figures of Abstract-Expressionism in United States. I remember the scenes when Pollock moved his residence from the crowded city and frenetic relief to rural areas and deserted in Long Island, and exchanging the farm barn into a studio where Pollock confined himself. For me this depiction is similar to the classic story of recluses. The ascetic seclusion in the mountain over years until after a period of enlightenment, he went down the mountain back to the crowd of people and preach the way to enlightenment. Pollock’s period hermitage in “the barn” produced his drip-painting masterpiece. The world is stunned. What a genius! In the early 1950s, a photographer Hans Namuth exhibited a series of portraits of Jackson Pollock. He captured the motion of Pollock, in which the gestures how Pollock faced the canvas, which splattered paint filled up his shoes. Namuth’s photographs serries then seems exposing the other of Pollock. In fact, only the divine did not create Pollock drip-painting. Its a matter of the body. The intimacy of body when faced with a canvas is unusual—where canvas is not used the easel upright seated. This achievement comes from the human side. Pollock photographs by Namuth then considered important in the study of particular performativity. In return to GM, he explained the particular circumstances. The circumstances were not created by The-I who had determinations. In contrary, the circumstances were I was there because I stimulated and encouraged, as GM said. Hence, in the circumstances, Im not an unsurpassed master. I became a “thing” among the other things. Series of Jonv’s creations in this exhibition came from a “simple” decision. He decided to draw with his left hand and claimed that if he was drawing with his right hand, he will has made-up the result. What did he intend inner undoubtedly be realized by his (right) hand. This fixed association is then interrupted by the decision to use the left hand. As if not enough difficulty, he decided to use ink that requires candor in outlining, in the notch. Intentions in The-I with the circumstances in the outer The-I no longer have a fixed association. The limited ability of the left hand, the type of inks and paper that had different character; the difference of temperature, humidity, mood, memory, and the undefined things had helped Jonv to shape the imageries. Hence, I think, Jonv no longer affirmed the autonomy subject as generally believed in the study of modern art. Refers to the modernist perspective, only The-I who autonomous could obtain the original creation. This kind of I is The-I who is surpassing—overcome everything. The body, is the subject of The-Other, which is immensed. I think that was why Jonv depicted women, because he is not a woman. This time Jonv illustrates what-is-not-his-The-I. It is about The Other. Because our body is intermingling of voluntary and involuntary muscles, we can train our hands or feet to reach the skill level of gods. We spectacle the accuracy of David Beckham’s backlash for example, but who can rule the heart’s muscle? Who can control his eyelids sudden twitch by itself? Perhaps pregnant women and patients with post-stroke had a real experience of how the body had a will of its own, which is not immensed to The-I. This time Jonv creates in order to deal with WHICH-IS-NOT-THE-I: when the body is not immensed to The-I. [Cigadung, 7th April 2014]
Posted on: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:33:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015