The International Summer School in Southeast Asian Studies was a collaboration between Universitas Gadja Mada (UGM), Yogyakarta; Humboldt Universitat (HU), Berlin; and Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) that was anchored on the theme “The Return of the Past: Memory Making and Heritage in Southeast Asia”. A total of 45 students from UGM, USM and HU participated in this programme that was separated into two main events – lecture series in the first week and field work to different memory and heritage sites in the following week. Yogyakarta is well known for its rich cultural heritage (‘wayang kulit’ and Javanese dance) and ancient sites, such as Borobudur and Prambanan. The choice of venue perfectly fitted the theme for the summer school as there was much to learn, explore, research, and appreciate in relation to memory, historiography and cultural heritage of South East Asian studies.
Elements from Hindu and Buddhist civilizations are still very much present in the daily lives of the people in small yet significant ways – despite the fact that Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation in SEA. For instance, there is a statue of Lord Ganesha placed in the middle of a fish pond on the campus ground of UGM, and if one were to go the batik house on Malioboro Street, jasmine and roses are placed as offerings to Lord Buddha which is placed at the center of the stairway. Albeit, these practices may not be seen as significant as some of their magnanimous historical sites, nevertheless, small practices as such can be related to memory making of past cultural and/or religious beliefs. More importantly, there seemed to be a sense of liberation and freedom amongst the youth there, from the way they dressed, and to the way they spoke their mind. Point to moot, in Indonesia, one could not distinguish the race or religion or ethnicity of an individual merely by the physical appearance. Unlike in Malaysia, an individual is labelled – race and religion, and stratified into certain social categories by his/her skin colour and physical appearances.
‘Memory’, ‘Heritage’, and ‘Memory Making’ were among the words that were repeated within the span of two weeks. The summer school kick started with an unofficial dinner amongst the students/participants and the speakers. The very first lecture for this summer school was delivered by Dr. Bambang entitled: ‘War Memory and Question of National Narrative in Indonesia Historiography’. His lecture gave the students fundamental understanding on the theme of this summer school, that indirectly paved way for the upcoming lectures for the rest of the week. Dr. Bambang’s talk was anchored on the history and historiography of Indonesia and how it had shaped the nation state to its present day since the times of Dutch colonialism. He had critically analyzed the impact of Dutch colonialism on the Dutch itself as well as its impact on the transformation of the local political agenda. More importantly, he had highlighted how history could be operated for different reasons: (i) compensation, (ii) political agenda, and (iii) tourism. The net result of it all, however, was the manipulation of historical facts for different reasons by various individuals or organisations.
As such, with history being subjective and volatile, thereby history and historiography can be written for different reasons: Who is writing this particular history? (Native of the particular nation state or is she/he seeing it from a 3rd person’s point of view) What are the reason(s) he/she is writing or re-writing history for? (to strengthen nationalism or to impose certain political agenda, or to deconstruct current history and revoke the past from a different perspective, or merely to sell history as an economic commodity.). When is history being written? (E.g.: the differences on the interpretation of Holocaust immediately after WWII as to how it has been analyzed from different perspectives involving various nations within the last few years). In conclusion to Dr. Bambang’s talk, Prof. Vincent Houben had summarized that history could not be written in total objectivity, as inter-subjectivity existed in historiography. Consequently, this begs the question: Does legitimacy apply to national and historical narrative? And more importantly, who exerts this legitimacy?
Prof. Houben delivered his lecture on ‘Memory Making and Heritage’ that was anchored on how the past influenced our current lives, and how we understood and chose to remember the past based on the present time that we live in. Prof. Houben had identified three factors – (i) memory, (ii) memory making and (iii) heritage that contributed to the configuration of history. More interestingly, these elements can be seen to be in a continuous flux where one affects the other, and under certain circumstances, it may be difficult to even establish the differences between one element from the other. For instance, when a certain historical event of the past based on memory/history was re-enacted, how would one distinguish memory from memory making? On the contrary, when the past was brought forward to the present time and played out to suit current times and social needs or certain institutional interest; can this event be categorized as memory? With this in regard, would it be fair to justify the past from current point-of-view in comparison to the specific ‘time frame’ when it took place? It would be vital to bear in mind that the socio-political and economic landscape had changed greatly (from the past to the present), transforming people, culture together with their beliefs, attitude and values.
It is of interest at this point of juncture, on the topic of ‘culturalization of memory’ that was highlighted in one of the presentations. During one of the group’s presentation on Jogjakarta Heritage Society (JHS), there was some sort of argument and contestation going on when ‘ontel’ was exemplified as ‘culturalization of memory’. ‘Ontel’ was used to gain independence from the Dutch after WWII. However, in current times, the ‘ontel’ has taken a more political and cultural symbolism among the older as well as the younger generation. With the ‘ontel’ being a medium to remember the past and creating memory, for instance: the re-enactment of ‘Jogja Kembali’ which is held on 1st March every year - would this suit as an evidence of culturalization of memory? Has the past – the fight for independence - become a culture when it is remembered and re-enacted yearly by the younger and newer generation?
Dr. Soon Chuan Yean’s much enthusiastic lecture on ‘Invention of Heroes, Memory Making and Claiming Lost Legitimacy: Philippines’ imparted a great deal of political and historical background on The Philippines’ socio-political under-currents that had shaped and transformed the island nation to what it is. Even though one may perceive that Malaysia’s political landscape may be different from the Philippines, somehow, traces of similarities exist upon scrutinization. Among few points that were highlighted: (i) patron-clientism which surrounded families with political history, (ii) controlled democracy that could be related to the culture of vote buying and rewards, and (iii) political culture that reflected certain groups’ depth of gratitude towards political power. Despite the fact that The Philippines is a republic and Malaysia a democratic entity, such instances and evidences can be found within the Malaysian political terrain to this very day, especially during the last two general elections. Nowhere else is this more apparent when politicians who lack credentials as well as qualifications opt to take an easy way out to validate their credibility by riding on the legitimacy of their fore fathers.
Moreover, ‘pockets of collective memories’ that was highlighted by Dr. Soon crystallized the process of memory and memory making. This was simply because every individual have a particular way or personal preference to remember or evoke a memory. Although memory can be something personal and individualistic, yet it contributes to the collective memory of a society on a larger scale. The same can also be said for the multi-cultural and pluralistic society of Malaysia which is built upon assimilation of various ethnic and different religious groups. Taking the struggles for independence of Malaya as an example, each racial or ethnic group would have contributed and made its own sacrifices towards independence, therefore creating a memory of its own. Malaysians, as a society, will always reflect to memory in the same direction, but perhaps in different ways, motives and/or channels. Among factors that contributed to the differences in pockets of memories as noted by Dr. Soon are: (i) interest within a field, (ii) historical records/facts, (iii) natural calamity and (iv) memory gap.
Taking a break from political underpinnings and historical facts of SEA, Dr. Lye Tuck Po’s talk – ‘Other ways of Remembering’ was a welcomed relief. Her talk was anchored upon the subject of landscape in memory making. Based on the ‘Penan’ in Sarawak and ‘Tana Toraja’ in Sulawesi case studies respectively, Dr. Lye brought forward a new dimension on the significance of landscape in memory making – how trees, rocks, creeks, rivers, hills, and other forest settings (not forgetting the houses of the ‘Tana Toraja’) played vital roles in the daily lives of these tribes. Furthermore, Dr. Lye pointed out how certain interaction with historical or ancient sites became part of the memory making process, that lead towards cultural formation within a particular society.
Moving on to the lecture titled, ‘Contestation of Memory Making’ by Dr. Sri Margana, who brought forward the contestation between the Hindu and Islamic groups in Banyuwangi’s ancient site. However, it is important to note that this contestation among the Hindu and Islamic groups had surfaced due to manipulation and falsification of facts in the interest of tourism as well as economic development, as noted by Dr. Sri Margana. As tension existed between the optimistic and critical divide in association to the manipulation of facts or beliefs of the stupa, nonetheless, it must be mooted that these ancient sites/ruins are very much present and tangible to the current day. Albeit the presence of terror and self-interest of certain individuals, these ancient ruins in Banyuwangi continue to exist despite the multitude of various struggles.
In comparison with the case of ‘Candi Lembah Bujang’ and other ancient sites in Malaysia, which are not given due recognition, let alone preservation or even restoration, The ‘Indianisation of SEA’ was not brought forth due to ethno-religious political interest. Thus, there is a dire need to re-learn the history of SEA and more importantly the founding and formation of the current nation state – Malaysia. In order to solve the identity issues among many other issues at hand, it is imperative to step away from National Cultural Policy and look back at the history of SEA region in order to move forward. Without doubt, the long standing history of multifarious Malaysians will point towards various cultures and ethnic groups from its surrounding archipelago, and as far as from South Asia to East Asia.
For the second week of the Summer School, participants were divided into groups and assigned to a particular memory site. Having the Indonesian Visual Art Archive (IVAA) to work with as the memory site, would the collection of books or artworks reflect the political movement in Indonesia? Unsure with the direction of research (artist or particular art movement or certain style), IVAA personnel suggested to look at Sudjojono. Inextricably, it pointed towards the ‘Mooi Indie’ period (1932-1938) whereby the artworks depicted romanticized version of Java and its people, often ignoring the realities and difficulties that were faced by the locals. As a reaction and notably more of an opposition to ‘Beautiful Indie’, Sudjojono and his fellow artist established ‘PERSAGI’ (1938-1942) which on the contrary reflected daily lives and struggle of the locals. It was at this juncture, during the revolutionary years (1945-1949), that art became an ultimate tool for revolution in the form of posters and icons which embodied the aspiration and struggle of the nation. As such, painting became a tool for resistance to gain independence as both artists and political leaders believed that art could be used in a much more critical manner.
Unfortunately, when Suharto came to power, there were atrocities, violence and prosecution. Supporters of socio-political struggle went underground as politically sensitive art and art that implied criticism were considered dangerous. Although the government in power did not ban art officially, many painters who joined and worked for the People’s Cultural Body (LEKRA) were arrested and imprisoned. Indirectly, this brought forward the ‘culture of silence’ that lasted for almost 40 years (artists were not interested in politics anymore). In conclusion, the collection at IVAA reflected the political movement that has brought Indonesia to what it is today. This was such as there were certain gaps in the visual art history of Indonesia, and even IVAA could not provide with the necessary information and resources. However, with the current community projects and activities that are being organised by IVAA, it is hoped that it would provide a channel for the society to connect with the past – through discussions, exhibitions, competitions, research, archiving, interactions, community projects and alike.
Thus, this brings to Prof. Dr. Bambang Purwanto’s talk on ‘The Uses and Abuses of Memory’ in which he highlighted about ‘Frozen’ memory which was initiated by the state as a political business. However, it can be argued that every action has a reaction to it, and therefore the public may or may not interpret/understand the past in the same way the nation state wants it to. With that being said, it is almost impossible to ‘freeze’ memory. Even if the government in power tried to reconstruct the past, sooner or later there will be certain parties/organisation/individual who would want to de-construct the past (frozen memory) and its representation. For instance, Cemeti Art House which was concerned on how artist related to socio-political realities, created a space for experimentation and interaction, which further brought to the establishment of IVAA. As a result, in time, this would produce an alternative understanding and even pave way for history to be re-written in future.
Contestation of memory, memory making, history, historiography and nationalism were held paramount during the two weeks of summer school. There were active discussions and intellectual arguments amongst the students as well as with the speakers both in and outside the lecture rooms. It was two weeks that were both exhilarating and enlightening!
CHERYL C. THIRUCHELVAM
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Bibliography:
Cemeti Art Foundation (ed. 2001): Outlet. Yogyakarta within the Contemporary
Indonesian Art Scene. Cemeti Art Foundation.
Fuller, Andy (2013): 25 Years of the Cemeti Art House: 'Realities‘, in: The Jakarta Post, March 2nd 2013. Available online:http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/03/02/25-years-cemeti-art- houserealities.html
Kusumastuti, Yuliana (2006): Market Forces: A case Study of Contemporary Art
Practices in Indonesia,A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts Faculty of
Law, Business and Arts, Charles Darwin University.
http://espace.cdu.edu.au/eserv/cdu:6525/Thesis_CDU_6525_Kusumastuti_Y.pdf
Levin, Cecilia (2008): Unity in Diversity: The formation of modern Indonesian art, in:
ArtAsiaPacific, Issue 56, June/August 2008. Available online:
http://artasiapacific.com/Magazine/59/UnityInDiversityTheFormationOfModernIndonesianArt
Supangkat, Jim (1997): Indonesian modern art and beyond, The Indonesia Fine Arts
Foundation.
The Comitee of ‘Festival of Indonesia 1990-1991’ (ed.): Streams of Indonesian Art. From
Pre-Historic to Contemporary. Seni Budaya.
p/s:
The author (Cheryl) is currently attached to UTAR, Kampar while pursuing her PhD with the Schools of the Arts, USM. She obtained her undergraduate education from Multimedia University in 2002, and her Master in Comm from UTAR (PJ) in 2011. She has been in the education industry for the past 8 years, and comes from advertising and design background. She is keen and interested in writing critics or commentary within the local art scene.
Comments
Post a Comment