The Japan Foundation Asia Center│Art Studies Vol.04

The Japan Foundation Asia Center

Art Studies Vol.04

About
Art Studies 04

The Japan Foundation Asia Center Art Studies series is published by
the Japan Foundation Asia Center with the purpose of deepening
artistic exchanges in Southeast Asia.
The first three issues of Art Studies reviewed and investigated theconditions for art in Asia since the 1960s through the viewpoints ofresearchers, curators, artists, and cultural administrators, paying
special attention to Southeast Asia. Shifting the focus to the current
art scene, this fourth issue takes the form of a “curators’ book.”
It is a collection of reports by the curators who participated in“Condition Report,” a collaborative art project developed by young
curators from Southeast Asia and Japan from late 2015 to 2017.
The “Condition Report” project was conceived to provide
emerging curators from Southeast Asia and Japan opportunities
for networking and improving their exhibition-making skills by
having them participate in workshops, research art scenes, andplan and execute four large-scale exhibitions and twelve smallscale local exhibitions and events. The project was structured toprovide multiple channels and processes for responding to shifting
environments and sharing curatorial strategies in their practices in
the cities of Southeast Asia. The participating curators expended agreat deal of energy, flexibility, and negotiation in order to refine
their curatorial ideas and further develop their practices.
In assembling the curators’ reflections at the close of “Condition
Report,” this volume, Condition Report: Shifting Perspectives in Asia,
gives form to the comprehensive platform of the project itself, while
also serving as a publication originating from Southeast Asia thatexamines the ever-changing socio-cultural and artistic contexts andconditions for curatorial activities in the region. By having readers
gain an actual sense of the environments in which young curatorsin the regional art scene work, the kinds of positions and roles theytake, the concerns they address, and the kinds of practices they aredeveloping, we hope to create a space for mutual understandingthat builds towards the future.
In closing, we wish to once again acknowledge the curators who
took time to participate in this more than two-year-long project,and furthermore contribute texts to this publication. We also thankBeverly Yong for her excellent work in editing this volume, andHoriuchi Naoko for her assistance with the Japanese texts. We are
incredibly grateful to all.
The Japan Foundation Asia Center
March 2018

The Japan Foundation Asia Center
Art Studies 04
Condition Report:
Shifting Perspectives in Asia
Book
Curators’

Editors:
Beverly Yong
Furuichi Yasuko
Assistant Editor:
Horiuchi Naoko
Editorial Assistance:
Kugai Kyoko
Diana S. Nugroho
Andrew Maerkle
Roger Nelson
Misouda Heaungsoukkhoun
Translators:[Japanese to English]

Andrew Maerkle[Indonesian to English]

Nadia Maya Ardiani
Ninus D. Andamuswari[Burmese to English]

Mg DayContributors:
Ade Darmawan
Aung Myat Htay
Ayos Purwoaji
Bayu Genia Krishbie
Che Kyongfa
Patrick D. Flores
Furuichi Yasuko
Goh Sze Ying
Hattori Hiroyuki
Hoo Fan Chon
Iida Shihoko
Kurnia Yunita Rahayu
Le Thuan Uyen
Vittavin Leelavanachai
Nakamura FumikoSouliya Phoumivong
Alice Sarmiento
Lisa Ito-Tapang
Yoshizaki Kazuhiko

Art Director / Designer:
Kimura Toshimasa
Printed by:
SunM Color Co., Ltd.
Published by:
The Japan Foundation
Asia Center
4 -16-3 Yotsuya, Shinjuku-ku,
Tokyo 160 -0004 Japan
Tel: 81-3-5369 -6140
Fax:81-3-5369 -6141
http://www.jpf.go.jp
www.jfac.jp
Published on March 30, 2018©2018 The Japan Foundation Asia Center / Authors
All rights reserved.

Condition Report:
Shifting Perspectives in Asia
Curators’Book

Contents

Introduction
010

Condition Report: Shifting Perspectives in Asia—a Curators’Book
Beverly Yong and Furuichi Yasuko

Essay
What is Southeast Asia?

019

The Construction of Collaborative Space and Its Possibilities 2000–2017:
From“Under Construction”to“Condition Report”
Furuichi Yasuko025─
協働空間の構築とその可能性 2000–2017
Under Construction からCondition Report まで
古市保子

031

Toward Reciprocity and Change
Che Kyongfa036─
相互作用と変化に向けて
崔敬華

Shifting Practices

043

The Provisionality of Southeast Asia: The Value of Shifting Practices
Iida Shihoko049

─東南アジアの仮設性 ─ 揺れ動く実践の価値
飯田志保子

055

Curating, Collectives, and Conversation
Ade Darmawan─060

Kurasi, Kolektif, dan Percakapan
Ade Darmawan066

Unseen Connections:Collective Art Practice and Public Space in Southeast Asia and Japan
Hattori Hiroyuki

071

─
集団的芸術活動と公共空間
服部浩之

076

Curating Histories of Cultural Activism: What Are We Trying to Change?
Lisa Ito-Tapang

Negotiating National Contexts

085

Changes and Uncertainties in Contemporary Myanmar Art
Aung Myat Htay

090

Laos in Motion

Souliya Phoumivong

Institutions, Communication,
and Discourse

095

Communicating with People Behind the Black Mirror
Vittavin Leelavanachai

006

098

Learning with Citizens
Yoshizaki Kazuhiko103─
市民とともに学ぶ美術館・アートセンターの試み
吉崎和彦

108

Fixing a Broken Paper Boat:
On Art Museums and Museum Curators in Indonesia
Bayu Genia Krishbie─
114

Memperbaiki Perahu Kertas Yang Rusak:
Tentang Museum Seni Rupa dan Kurator Museum di Indonesia
Bayu Genia Krishbie

121

Indonesian Curators Do Not Engage in Enough Debate
Kurnia Yunita Rahayu

─128

Kurator Indonesia Minim Adu Gagasan
Kurnia Yunita Rahayu

Learning, Relationships,
and Responsibility

137

Phases of Curatorial Passage
Patrick D. Flores

142

The Game-maker, the Player, and Levelling the Playing Field
Hoo Fan Chon

146

Friend First, Colleague Second!
A Reflection on the Issue of Trust in Curatorial Practice
Le Thuan Uyen

150

Letting Go of Doubts: My Views on Transnational Curation
Nakamura Fumiko153─
戸惑うこと、
ほぐすこと─トランスナショナルなキュレーションについての私見
中村史子

156

Curatorial Circuit: Getting Past the Confusion
Ayos Purwoaji

─
161

Gelanggang Kekuratoran: Lepas dari Kebingungan
Ayos Purwoaji

167

The Earth From The Air: Curating as Diplomatic Work
Alice Sarmiento

170

Giving Shape to Painful Things
Goh Sze Ying

Afterword

007

177

Furuichi Yasuko

180

Appendix: Collaborative Curatorial Projects by the Japan Foundation

Introduction

Introduction

Condition Report:
Shifting Perspectives in Asia — a Curators’Book* See appendix for fig. 04.

The premise of this book was to gather ideas and concerns about
curating today from participants in the collaborative “Condition Report”
project as a way of looking at current conditions for art through the eyesof curators working in Asia. “Condition Report” offers a broad base for aninteresting range of perspectives, since it brings together curators fromeight different countries in Southeast Asia, and from Japan. Most of thesecurators, both independent and attached to institutions, are relatively
new to their practice, working in this project alongside mentors who are
already leaders in their field. The project itself, carried out over two years
and involving workshops, research trips, major co-curated exhibitions
in four cities, and individual curatorial projects［fig.04］, has provided amultilayered experience of curating in Southeast Asia.
When asked to consider what they would like to write about for thispublication, the participants responded with quite a mixed bag of ideas.
There was no real consensus on what a book by curators, in relation to
the project’s theme, “What is Southeast Asia?” should include. Subject
matter was proposed and negotiated; proposals took shape and changed
as participants worked through their individual projects, and a few ofthem never materialized.
Among the 19 essays in the resulting collection, project mentors
Che Kyongfa, Iida Shihiko, Ade Darmawan, Hattori Hiroyuki, and Patrick
D. Flores take a macroscopic view of challenges and opportunities for
curatorial practice in and in relation to Southeast Asia. Meanwhile,the younger participants have by and large chosen to address specificissues which are immediate to them in the local contexts in which they
practice and/or their personal journeys, many of them drawing on theirexperiences during “Condition Report.” What is clear from the range ofthese contributions is that there are many considerations—discursive,
practical, infrastructural and institutional, social and political, andpersonal—involved in curating today, and that the regionality pursued in
the project’s theme is multivalent, incoherent, and constantly in flux.
We have attempted to impose an informal order on this very diverse
collection of texts, grouping them into broad areas of concern. It begins

010

by addressing Southeast Asia as a site of curation and curatorial learning,and moves into discussions about curatorial and artistic practices,
negotiating a place for contemporary art in developing national contexts,
and improving infrastructure, communication and discourse. At thelatter end of the publication, participants offer personal reflections on
their experience as curators, and of the “Condition Report” program inparticular, bringing up issues of learning, relationships, politics, andethics in practice.
What is Southeast Asia?
“Condition Report” explores the question of “What is Southeast Asia?”
The first two essays in this collection discuss the significance of Southeast
Asia in this and other curatorial projects initiated in Japan, providing a
useful framework for considering the collection as a whole.
For Furuichi Yasuko, Art Coordinator at the Japan Foundation Asia
Center, Southeast Asia is a site for constructing collaborative space. As
program director, she introduces the concept, motivation and methodology
behind “Condition Report” and preceding projects by the JapanFoundation which have focused on collaborations with young curators inAsia since 2000, and specifically Southeast Asia since 2013. Growing fromthe Asia Center’s original mandate to promote understanding of Asianart in Japan, this kind of programming has developed over time to meetchanging circumstances, providing opportunities for building networks
and developing human resources within the regional art scene as well as
between the region and Japan. Furuichi’s approach is infrastructural—collaborations with and within Southeast Asia, and the artistic andcuratorial explorations and experimentations which grow out of them,
help to construct the future environment for art in Asia as a whole.
Che Kyongfa puts “Condition Report” and other regional curatorial
projects initiated in Japan under closer scrutiny. In her essay, making a
curatorial claim for Southeast Asia is inherently problematic from a numberof perspectives. How much is this colored by political and diplomatic
agendas towards the region? How relevant is it to a new generation of
curators busy addressing concerns in their more immediate local contexts?
What does or can it mean to curators, and more importantly, audiencesin Japan? How does one curate “Southeast Asia” without objectifying it
and trapping its artists in the gaze of the other? The essay brings up such
issues to provoke further thought, and calls for self-reflexivity on the partof curators approaching the regional subject. A project like “Condition
Report” prompts the kind of probing, experiment, and discussion needed
to keep the site of curatorial practice open to more expansive discourse
and thinking, collaboration being one step towards reciprocity.
Shifting Practices
Iida Shihoko discusses current conditions for curatorial practice andthe challenges of representing and evaluating contemporary art and

011

Beverly Yong and Furuichi Yasuko│Condition Report: Shifting Perspectives in Asia — a Curators’Bookcuratorial practices in Southeast Asia. These include the limitationsof the exhibition, as an experience particular to a time and space, andthe difficulty of translating art practices from one context to another,
as well as prevailing mindsets about difference and assumptions
about art. In an evolving context loaded with geopolitical/postcolonialconsiderations, it is important to consider where value is located and how
it is produced. For example, the practices of collectives like ruangrupa
in Indonesia, where emphasis is on breaking down hierarchies, groupself-management, and engagement with communities, do not fit
comfortably into art world systems based on a Western “modernist”
model, nor do they necessarily correlate to notions of participatory
practice developed in the Euro-American context. In the process ofworking on “Condition Report,” “provisionality” was identified as a
useful descriptor for and characteristic of Southeast Asia, countering
static definitions of the region, and open to shifting values and practices.
Ade Darmawan, one of the founders of ruangrupa, expands on thepositioning and methodology of collective art practices in Indonesia,
centering on the idea of sharing space and conversation. Rooted within
their surrounding communities and finding non-hierarchal, organic
means of organization and decision-making, these practices open up
the dynamic of art’s relationship to and role in society through theirevents and activities. Addressing the challenge of how to curate suchpractices in an exhibition context, a fresh approach was taken during thecollaborative exhibitions for “Condition Report,” where the curators wereinvited to work as as part of a temporary collective, Sindikat Campursari.
Hattori Hiroyuki describes the sympathy and inspiration he has
found in collective practices encountered around Southeast Asia in
relation to his own practice as an independent curator and organizer
in Japan. Drawing parallels between the grassroots activities of theseregional collectives and the early 20th century Japanese folk art
movement, Mingei, he is interested in their capacity and potential for
creating public space through art.
Lisa Ito-Tapang looks at how curators have responded to morepoliticized forms of social engagement in artistic practice, drawing
on her research and experience working on her exhibition “Dissident
Vicinities,” which addressed the work of artist-activists and collectives
in relation to people’s movements for liberation and rights in thePhilippines. She surveys ways in which curatorial projects in thePhilippines and elsewhere in the world have sought to represent culturalactivism, and argues for the importance of such efforts in foregrounding
practices of dissent, calling for curators to recognize a responsibility“to intervene where inequality... persists.”
The essays here discuss practices which emphasize social andpolitical engagement, that have perhaps partly grown out of specificcircumstances such as a culture of community organization in Indonesia
or a tradition of protest in a Philippine political context which has beenin perpetual crisis for decades. Such practices invite a rethinking of
curatorial roles and approaches, answering a broader urgency to findIntroduction012

new, relevant ways of representing and positioning art in society beyond
familiar, modernist frameworks based on Euro-American models.
Negotiating National Contexts
Conditions for curating differ vastly between countries in Southeast Asia.
“Condition Report” is the first of the Japan Foundation Asia Center’s
curatorial workshop programs to include participants from Myanmar,
Cambodia, and Laos, where infrastructure and discourse supporting
contemporary art is at best minimal.
Independent curator and artist Aung Myat Htay introduces the art
scene in Myanmar, laying out the challenges in place for the acceptanceand development of curatorial practices, briefly describing the characterand history of current art practices, and proposing collaboration andcollective strategies as ways of working towards a thriving contemporary
art scene. Artist and educator Souliya Phoumivong writes about hishopes for change and improvement in art practice in Laos, where theconvention is paintings of local landscape and culture, and his ideas
for introducing new media as an effective way of communicating ideas
and expressing responses to social issues. Unfortunately, his proposed
project for “Condition Report,” an exhibition inviting Lao artists to use
new media to explore changes happening in Laos today, could not berealized.
For both writers, living in countries which are beginning to open
up to globalization, the development of art is part and parcel of social
development and the nation-building process. As curators, they assume
a role in helping to negotiate the future of their art scenes, and being
included in Southeast Asia provides a useful frame of reference.
Institutions, Communication, and Discourse
Infrastructural development remains a core concern for most art scenes
in the region. While artist-run and collective-based projects create
important, productive spaces and systems supporting art practice andengagement, they operate alongside more conventional mainstream
structures, often compensating for their shortcomings. Even in Japan,
with its extensive and formidable cultural apparatus, shifts in art
practice and cultural discourse invite reconsiderations of approach andmethodology. Here, curators address issues regarding and propose ideas
for public spaces as sites where they operate, among other concerns
affecting the development of curatorial practice.
Vittavin Leelavanachai looks at the challenge of engaging art
audiences in the digital era of information overload and virtual
accessibility. He surveys the most effective strategies employed bydifferent types of art venues in Bangkok to attract audiences, andsuggests that online tools could be better harnessed to promote activities
and disseminate information.
Yamaguchi Center for Arts and Media curator Yoshizaki Kazuhiko013

Beverly Yong and Furuichi Yasuko│Condition Report: Shifting Perspectives in Asia — a Curators’Bookconsiders the issue of communication on a deeper level, specificallythe role cultural institutions like art museums can play in society
today and how they relate to the communities they serve. Inspired byhis encounters with practices using art-based strategies to solve social
problems in Indonesia, the United Kingdom, and at his own institution
in Japan, he argues that a way forward for museums is to encourage
the active participation of citizens in its life and work, taking a nonhierarchical approach in which the curator plays the role of a mediator,
bringing together artworks, artists, and communities.
National Gallery of Indonesia assistant curator Bayu Genia Krishbie
attempts to address the lack of leadership and underdevelopment ofstate-sponsored public institutions in the unwieldy context of Indonesia,
where artist-run as well as privately sponsored and market-based
initiatives provide the main support for a rapidly growing contemporary
art scene. Introducing in brief the history and current landscape of
museums, institutional collections and curatorship in Indonesia, he
underlines the need for more institutional curators, formal curatorial
training, and professional benchmarks.
Kurnia Yunita Rahayu takes up a different issue with curatorship inIndonesia, giving her essay the title “Indonesian Curators Do Not Engage
in Enough Debate.” While her point is that more written discourse would
enliven and give further meaning to the art scene, her punchy summaryof topics that have spurred heated exchanges in the mainstream press
provides a guide to some of the concerns that have preoccupied curators
in Indonesia over the past 20 years—from how art, artists, and curators
should be defined to fake paintings in exhibitions.
Learning, Relationships, and Responsibility
In the final part of this book, curators reflect on their personal journeys
in curating in Southeast Asia, most of them drawing on the specificexperience of “Condition Report” and lessons learned.
Patrick D. Flores, today a leading figure in the fields of curating andart history in the region, looks back at his participation in the first of theJapan Foundation Asia Center’s collaborative curatorial projects, “Under
Construction: New Dimensions of Asian Art” (2000–03) as a moment oflearning. He uses his essay to reflect on curatorial education, writing
about the processes involved in “Under Construction,” of research,collaboration and exhibition making, working within the framework of
a curatorial inquiry into a region (Asia), and the approaches and ideas
he developed along the way. He then considers “Condition Report” inhis capacity as mentor, comparing the structures and processes, andthe groups of curators involved in the two projects, finding ultimatelythat both offered a methodology for honing talent and “troubling the
curatorial at its every turn,” and as importantly, conditions for building
friendships within the field.
Hoo Fan Chon and Le Thuan Uyen underline the importanceof friendship in their respective essays on the relationship between

Introduction

014

curators and artists. Being also a member of an artist collective, Hoo
Fan Chon struggles with the power he holds over artists as a curator
and feels that we need to reconsider this political dynamic, particularly
in developing scenes in the region where curators are beginning toexert greater influence. Le Thuan Uyen writes about the importanceof cultivating trust and friendship between curator and artist to create
a deeper mutual understanding, and a more meaningful and equal
working relationship. In Vietnam, where support for art is thin and there
remains a culture of surveillance and suspicion, friendship also helps
in mobilizing resources and creating a sense of shared passion andsolidarity in the art community.
A transnational project like “Condition Report” naturally introducessome of the challenges that come with the increasing globalization of
curatorial practices—of how to operate outside one’s comfort zone,
remain grounded, and engage with different contexts.
Nakamura Fumiko writes about how she overcame her initial selfconsciousness about being Japanese in Southeast Asia during her
exhibition project in Chiang Mai. Once she had put aside assumptions
about larger frameworks of nation and region, getting to know theplace and the people she was working with on an individual level, theexperience changed her ideas about exhibition making coming from aJapanese art institution with set protocols.
Conversely, Surabaya-based independent curator Ayos Purwoaji
feels overwhelmed by the opportunities and exposure provided by the“Condition Report” project, and struggles with the question of “whatnext?” In his essay, he assesses the impact of “Condition Report” andother Japan Foundation Art Center projects for curators in Indonesia,
making suggestions for how such programs might be improved.
Like Ayos, Alice Sarmiento felt uncomfortable with the fast pace oftravel undertaken during the program, but here because it seemed topreclude real engagement or grounded research. In her essay, she forms
a critique of the globalization of curatorial practice and the rootlessness
it might seem to engender, and concurrently of the curator’s diplomaticrole in cultural exchange.
Both Alice Sarmiento and Goh Sze Ying focus on a moment ofcrisis for the “Condition Report” project—the removal of an artwork
by Sabahan collective Pangrok Sulap from the collaborative exhibition“ESCAPE from the SEA” because of its politically controversial content.
Sarmiento proposes this act of censorship as a failure of curatorial
diplomacy, a failure to engage; Goh goes further, considering theconditions which allow for such censorship, and the violent effects of
its enactment on public expression as well as on the relationships built
around the affected exhibition. Ultimately, her essay is a way of fulfilling
what she argues is a curator’s responsibility, as a defender of theexhibition space and a cultural mediator, to reclaim the power displacedby censors, by “making room for difficult questions to be asked andcontentious issues to be unpacked.”

015

Beverly Yong and Furuichi Yasuko│Condition Report: Shifting Perspectives in Asia — a Curators’BookThe essays in this collection touch on many aspects of what it is to curatein (and about) Southeast Asia at this moment.
We intuit certain kinds of practices and strategies at play inSoutheast Asia of particular interest to this group of curators, whichhave the potential to transform attitudes to and methodologies in how
art relates to society. We may also start to see a picture of how different
art scenes in the region are shaping up, and where curators see their role
within them—part of the future infrastructure of Asian art envisioned by
Furuichi Yasuko. And we learn what is important to curators emerging
in Southeast Asia, as well as Japan, as two nodes in a larger context ofglobalized practice, as they exercise that important self-reflexivity both
Che Kyongfa and Iida Shihoko call for in approaching curatorial work,
expressing concerns about how to relate, engage, defend, stay true tothemselves.
There is a sense that interesting things may be happening in
curatorial practices, of new urgencies and changing maps. In places,
support systems still need to be built or “fixed.” Partly because of thenature of the “Condition Report” project, and partly perhaps becauseof the informality and “provisionality” of working in art in Southeast
Asia, much is predicated on relationships: collaboration, conversation,
friendships, reciprocity.
Through these relationships, a collaboration such as “Condition
Report” both registers and helps to shape changing perspectives on
Southeast Asia. Bringing together the many voices involved in thisproject, this curators’ book hopes to deepen knowledge and articulate
a clearer image of developments in the region’s art scenes, with a viewto contributing to larger conversations on art in Asia and the rest of
the world.

Beverly Yong and Furuichi Yasuko

Introduction

016

What is Southeast Asia?

018

The Construction of Collaborative Space and
Its Possibilities 2000–2017:
From“Under Construction”to“Condition Report”

Essay
01

─

Furuichi Yasuko［Art Coordinator, The Japan Foundation Asia Center］“Condition Report” is the latest addition to a series of collaborative
projects with young Asian curators sponsored by the Japan Foundation
since 2000. The series began with “Under Construction” (2000–03), which
was followed by “Out the Window” (2004), “Have We Met?” (2004–05),“Omnilogue” (2010–12), “Media/Art Kitchen” (2013–14), “Run & Learn”(2014–15), and now “Condition Report” (2015–17).［fig.01］None of theseprojects shared the same structure, as their forms of realization evolved
in response to the times in which they were implemented. Reflecting thepolicy on art exchanges of the first Japan Foundation Asia Center period(1995–2004), the first three projects realized considered Asia as a whole.
In contrast, the projects initiated after 2013 have focused on Southeast
Asia, with “Condition Report” being organized as an initiative of the new
Asia Center (2014–).
There are also collaborative curatorial projects that have been coorganized by the Japan Foundation in Asia on the basis of institutional
cooperation, as opposed to collaboration among individual curators.
These include “Cubism in Asia” (2005–07, with the National Museum ofModern Art, Tokyo, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary
Art, Korea, and the Singapore Art Museum), “Time of others” (2015 –16,
with the Museum of Contemporary Art Tokyo, the National Museumof Art, Osaka, the Singapore Art Museum, and the Queensland Art
Gallery | Gallery of Modern Art), and “Awakenings” (scheduled for
2018–19, with the National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo, the National
Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Korea, and the National
Gallery Singapore). Although I will not touch upon the institutional
collaborations in this essay, I would like to explain why and how theJapan Foundation began these types of collaborative projects involving
Asian art in general.

* See appendix for figs. 01–03.

Building Networks: From Introductory Efforts to Multinational
Understanding
The Japan Foundation’s formal engagement with art exchanges in Asia

019

Furuichi Yasuko│The Construction of Collaborative Space and Its Possibilities 2000 –2017

01
For more, see my contribution to
the Under Construction catalogue.
Furuichi Yasuko, “Asia: The Possibilityof a Collaborative Space,” in Under
Construction: New Dimensions of AsianArt, exh. cat. (Tokyo: Japan Foundation
Asia Center/Tokyo Opera City Art
Gallery, 2002), 13–16. Prior to its workin the field of art, the Asia Center had
success in collaborative projects with
its theatrical production of Lear (1997).

began with the establishment of the ASEAN Culture Center in 1990.
Initially, the goal was to introduce the best of contemporary art andculture in Southeast Asia to the Japanese people, but in 1995 the ASEAN
Culture Center was restructured to cover a broader region and operate
on an expanded scale as the Japan Foundation Asia Center, as which it
implemented numerous projects for exhibiting contemporary art andpromoting understanding of the social and cultural contexts informingthat art. This was also around the time when Asian art was starting to
be introduced in Australia, to the south, through initiatives like theQueensland Art Gallery’s Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art.
Entering the 2000s, the Asia Center’s program still had thegoal of promoting the understanding of Asian art in Japan, but in
response to shifts in culture and society in Asia it came to emphasize
regional exchanges based on collaborative projects, with the aim of
fostering common values and building networks in Asia. The first ofthese collaborative projects was “Under Construction,” led by nineemerging curators from seven Asian countries. Comprising both local
exhibitions and a final comprehensive exhibition, this was an Asiabased collaborative/process-oriented project that sought to approachcontemporary Asia from multiple perspectives through extensive
dialogue and research guided by the main theme, “What is Asia?” Thestructure of “Under Construction” subsequently became the archetypefor similar art projects that built networks through collaboration and］fig.02］
sharing in the organizational process.［01［Up to that point, exchange exhibitions had followed the form of
having a single exhibition that toured to different venues, such as inbilateral exchange exhibitions between countries like Japan and thePhilippines, or Thailand and Indonesia. Administrative formalities tooktime, as differences in languages and systems were a hindrance, andthere were limits to the accessibility of each country. The developmentof information technology after the year 2000 not only reduced
communication time, it also led to the creation of horizontal networksof actors in which information could be shared equally. That is, once
the technological conditions were in place, it became easier to build
networks across multiple layers from intergovernmental exchange torelations between individual artists, facilitating the diversificationof actors involved in these exchange projects. And it was not justinformation: the emergence of cheaper means of travel and the liftingof visa restrictions eased the actual movement of people and increased
the absolute volume of exchange. It could be said that collaboratively
produced exhibitions like “Under Construction” were made possible
because of such circumstances.
In “Under Construction” the development from initial meetings toa final comprehensive exhibition flowed from the process of carryingout the project itself, and not from a program that had been plannedat the start. The comprehensive exhibition was a cutting-edge Asian
exhibition that was held simultaneously across two venues, Tokyo
Opera City Art Gallery and the Japan Foundation Forum, respectively,

Essay 01020

and brought together all 43 participating artists from the local
exhibitions organized in each country. From the long-term perspective,
the project can be considered a major achievement, as many of theexhibiting artists went on to find global success, and the nine curators
grew into contributors not only to their national art scenes but also to
the international circuit.
On the other hand, since the comprehensive exhibition wasconceived in the middle of the development process as an aggregate
exhibition, it lacked the impact it might have had if it had been planned
from the start in response to the theme “What is Asia?” This could also
be considered a drawback of having an exhibition organized by multiple
curators instead of a single curator. Moreover, at the start of the 2000s,
the imagination necessary for obtaining a comprehensive overview ofAsia may have escaped the curators, who were then in their 20s and 30s.
As such, increasing the sharing of information, increasing the numberof cooperative exhibitions, and raising the quality of the curation weredeemed essential, and so “Under Construction” was followed by the
implementation of “Out the Window,” involving curators from China,
Korea, and Japan, and “Have We Met?” involving curators from India,
Indonesia, Thailand, and Japan.
The issues that arise every time for the participating curators inthese projects are what collaboration means when working with multiple
partners on collaborative projects, and who should contribute what
and how much.［02］Communication between curators takes time, andnegotiation requires a flexible yet tough mentality. However much work
goes into it, there is no guarantee that a cooperative exhibition will comeout better or more successful than one organized by a single curator.
As program manager, I always seek substance over results, but
in fact it is undeniable that a sense of solidarity and cooperation has
emerged among the participating curators and artists in all the projects,
and that their networks have given visible form to the possibilities for
new developments, opening up space for the contributions of future
generations.

02
For a dialogue by curators on
collaborative projects, see Pooja
Sood, “Have We Met? Have We Told
Our Stories? Will We Fall in Love?” inHave We Met? exh. cat. (Tokyo: JapanFoundation, 2004), 20–24.

From Building Networks to Developing Human Resources
While the expansion of the Asian network built by its first threeprojects came to a halt after the Asia Center was dissolved in 2004, ina globalizing world, a clear expansion of other forms of networks was
already taking place via the Internet.
In view of this situation, alongside the goal of building networks
that has remained constant from “Under Construction” to “Condition
Report,” the element of “developing human resources” was added after
the establishment of the new Asia Center in 2014.
The new Asia Center has the mission of producing a new generationof actors for connecting Japan and Southeast Asia and developing art
and culture across Asia. The year prior to its establishment, in 2013,“Media/Art Kitchen: Reality Distortion Field” (“M/AK”), a project

021

Furuichi Yasuko│The Construction of Collaborative Space and Its Possibilities 2000 –2017

showcasing media art involving Japanese and Southeast Asian curators
and artists, was produced in commemoration of the 40th anniversary ofJapan-ASEAN Friendship and Cooperation, recommencing a full-scale
exchange program in Southeast Asia.
During the 10-year hiatus from 2004 to 2014, rapid economic
growth in Southeast Asia progressed even further than before, andthere was marked growth in the middle classes, who enjoy culture.
Singapore actively incorporated culture into its national strategy,
and alongside inviting leading galleries to set up branches there
and launching art fairs and international exhibitions as part of its
foundational art infrastructure, the government implemented a
British-style art museum system, establishing the new National
Gallery Singapore in 2015. Although public institutions have beenslow to emerge in Thailand and Indonesia, private collectors havestarted building their own cutting-edge museums for contemporary
art in those countries. Furthermore, the activity of artist collectives
across Southeast Asia is as lively as ever, particularly in Indonesia. In
Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam, the reality is that foreigncultural organizations, foreign gallerists, and artist collectives provide
the main support for the local art scenes.
Accompanying the growth of the middle classes, public funds
are starting to be invested in the field of art in the form of museum
infrastructure and the implementation of international exhibitions.
For curators to spread Southeast Asian and international art to local
audiences through museum projects and international exhibitions,the holding of high-quality exhibitions is essential, while in terms
of know-how it is necessary to increase the number of experienced
curators and coordinators who can contribute to the regional art scene.
Moreover, there is no single type of curator who is best for all contexts.
Opportunities for disciplined training in response to these conditions
are necessary.
It could be said of the new Asia Center’s collaborative exhibitions
that they reflect the concordance of current social and cultural
conditions in Southeast Asia with the Japan Foundation’s mission asa cultural exchange organization. Specifically, they follow a programby which the Japan Foundation’s foreign centers take the lead inorganizing open calls to attract potential curators who then participate
in workshops with Japanese peers, after which the participants who
advance to the next stage are selected from the entire group, and thoseparticipants plan and realize an exhibition by conducting surveys andengaging in dialogues on site. This is how “M/AK” led to “Run & Learn,”a next generation curator development program in Southeast Asia, which
was in turn followed by “Condition Report.” In this way, the challengesof “M/AK” were taken up by “Run & Learn,” and the challenges of“Run & Learn” were taken up by “Condition Report,” reinforcing thehuman resource development aspect of the program while improving
operational protocols and processes.

Essay 01

022

Condition Report
In planning these collaborative exhibition projects, there are a numberof conditions that apply to the participants. First, as the program targets
the next generation, the age limit is set at 35. Second, participants
must be able to express their ideas in English, which is the sharedcommunication tool. Third, they must have some degree of professional
experience or be recognized for possessing especially rich inventivenessand intelligence.
On top of this, the general theme to be shared by all participants
is decided in advance of the start of the project. The theme for “Under
Construction” was “What is Asia?” and this time the theme for “Condition
Report” is “What is Southeast Asia?” In both cases, the theme was ashared framework for producing an at times ambiguous and confusing
situation that required all participants to rethink their assumptions.
In each of these projects, once the participants were finalized, the firstcollaborative task was to consider and decide upon the title for thewhole project using the shared language, English. From there, they
worked toward realizing the project, breaking down the general theme
into individual themes, selecting artists and works for exhibition, anddiscussing practical concerns like exhibition display.［fig.03］
With the above-mentioned “human resource development” policyin mind, an open-call system was introduced with “Run & Learn.” Inorder to discover unknown talents, it was decided to cast a wide net
through online media. Additionally, in “Condition Report,” a group ofslightly older curators were brought on board as mentors to the younger
curators. Prior to organizing their exhibitions, the young curators worked
as a group to put together collaborative exhibitions by the mentors thatwere shown in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, and Bangkok, creatinga chance for them to experience the possibilities and limitations ofworking in different countries with different systems, think about what
they could contribute, and divide responsibilities.
When they were invited to Tokyo, the curators who were selectedfrom five workshops in Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Bangkok, Manila, andHanoi were split into four groups, and then sent on research trips tothe four countries in advance of the collaborative exhibitions. The age
difference between the mentors and the younger curators was kept
to a minimum because we wanted the participants to have a sharedgenerational sensibility. This is how Jakarta’s “Sindikat Campursari,”
Kuala Lumpur’s “ESCAPE from the SEA,” Manila’s “Almost There,”and Bangkok’s “Mode of Liaisons” were produced. Departing from thecurators’ individual interests, these four exhibitions were each highly
distinctive, reflecting the senior curators’ understanding of Southeast
Asia on the basis of their own countries’ historical and cultural contexts
as well as the local art scenes.［03］And then came the final stage of small,
local exhibitions organized by the young curators across Southeast Asia.
This time, the senior curators advised the younger curators on how
best to realize their small-scale projects. Through this structure, the023

03
For more, see the catalogues foreach exhibition: Condition Report:
Sindikat Campursari, exh. cat. (Tokyo:
Japan Foundation Asia Center, 2017);
Condition Report: ESCAPE from the SEA,
exh. cat. (Tokyo: Japan Foundation
Asia Center & Kuala Lumpur: National
Art Gallery/Art Printing Works, 2017);
Condition Report: Almost There, exh. cat.
(Tokyo: Japan Foundation Asia Center& Manila: Jorge B. Vargas Museum &Filipiniana Research Center, 2017).

Furuichi Yasuko│The Construction of Collaborative Space and Its Possibilities 2000 –2017

communication network spread across multiple levels, and solidarity
inevitably deepened across both understandings and misunderstandings(and, at times, also collapsed). The reason for having the local
exhibitions come last was that, contrary to “Under Construction,” whichassembled all the artists/artworks in Japan for its culmination, we
wanted for this project to begin, develop, and end in Southeast Asia.
What is Southeast Asia?
Given its geographical conditions, Southeast Asia is a region of diverse
ethnicities, religions and languages where many communities have
deepened their political and economic relations after experiencing
the progression from colonization by Western powers to postwar
independence and nation building under the Cold War-era geopoliticalstructure. Formed in 1967, ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations) initially had five member states and now has 10, essentiallycovering the entire territory designated by Southeast Asia. That is,Southeast Asia did not exist as a given from the start but is a geographic
concept that was formed through numerous historical processes.
The main theme for “Condition Report” is “What is Southeast Asia?”
Rather than prescribing it as a research topic from the outside, thisproject is an attempt to reconsider this question in the field of art,with the young generation who live in Southeast Asia taking the lead.
The exhibitions that have been realized can be called a response tothis question by the region’s curators and artists in this moment.
This urgency is reflected in the title, “Condition Report.” It would beinteresting to know what sort of messages audiences received from these
exhibitions.
The space for collaboration in Southeast Asia has certainly expanded.
Unfortunately, this kind of process-oriented project is unlikely to enjoy
the same instant, visible acclaim as regular art events. Yet in thinking
about the future of the environment for art in Asia as a whole, including
Japan and Southeast Asia, there is no doubt about its importance.
Dogged persistence and passion are necessary for increasing thenumber and scope of multilevel networks in the region. I look forward
to seeing what fruits they bear in 10 or 20 years’ time.
(Translated by Andrew Maerkle)

Essay 01024

協働空間の構築とその可能性 2000–2017
Under Construction からCondition Reportまで
─

Essay
01

古市保子
［国際交流基金アジアセンター 美術コーディネーター］「Condition Report」は、国際交流基金が 2000 年より手がけているアジアの若手キュレーターによる共同キュレーション事業の最新のプロジェクトである。
「Under

fig.01–03については巻末のAppendixを参照のこと。

（2000 –03）
（2004）
Construction」
からはじまり、「Out the Window」「、Have We
（2004 –05）
（2010 –12）
（2013 –14）
Met?」「
、Omnilouge」「、Media/Art Kitchen」、［fig.01］（2014 –15）
（2015 –17）
「Run & Learn」、
そして「Condition Report」。
これらのプロジェクトはひとつとして同じ構造のものはなく、実施する時代の状況に応じて実施形態を少しずつ変えている。2000年からの 3つのプロジェクトは最初のアジアセンター時代（1995 –2004）の美術交流事業の最終的アプローチでありアジア全体を対象としている。2013年からはじまった3つのプロジェクトは東南アジアを対象にしており、「Condition Report」
は新しいアジアセンター（2014 –）の事業として実施している。
一方、アジア域内の共同キュレーションとしては、キュレーター個人ではなく組織間（東京国立近代美術館、韓国国の協働を前提とした展覧会もある。
「Cubism in Asia」
立現代美術館、
シンガポール美術館、2005 – 07）（東京都現代美術館、、「Time of others」

2015 –16）、
国立国際美術館、
シンガポール美術館、
クィーンズランド州立美術館｜現代美術館、（東京国立近代美術館、韓国国立近現代美術館、
シンガポール国立美術館、「Awakenings」

2018 –19予定）がある。ただし、組織間の協働については本稿では触れないことにし、まずは国際交流基金がこのような形態のプロジェクトを実施している背景の説明から始めたい。

紹介から多国間相互理解へ、ネットワークの構築
国際交流基金のアジア地域への本格的な美術交流の取り組みは、1990 年設立の「アセアン文化センター」から始まる。日本の人々に東南アジアの現代の優れた芸術文化を紹介することが当初の目的であり、1995年には対象地域と事業内容

025

古市保子│協働空間の構築とその可能性 2000-2017

01
詳細は以下の拙稿を参照。

を拡大して「アジアセンター」となり、美術の分野では現代美術の紹介とその背景で

古市保子「アジア：協働空間の可能性 ─アン

ある社会・文化への理解を促進する事業を行ってきた。クィーンズランド州立美術

ダー・コンストラクション・プロジェクト」『アンダー・

館のアジア・パシフィック現代美術トリエンナーレ（APT）をはじめ、南半球のオースト

コンストラクション：アジア美術の新世代』
カタロ
グ、国際交流基金アジアセンター／財団法人東2002年、
pp.10 –12。
京オペラシティ文化財団、
アジアセンターの共同事業としては、先行事例として舞台芸術の分野で1997年の「リア」がある。

ラリアでも活発にアジアの美術が紹介されるようになってきた時期でもある。

2000 年代に入って、従来の日本国内におけるアジア美術の理解推進という目的は継続したが、
アジア地域の社会・文化の変化を踏まえ、アジア共通の価値観醸成とネットワーク形成を目指して、協働作業を通じた地域内交流を重視する方針をとるようになる。その最初がアジア 7カ国 9 名の新世代キュレーターの共同企画である「Under Construction」であった。
「アジアとは何か」という全体テーマのもとに、対話と調査を重ねて現代のアジアを複数の視点で捉える試みとして、
ローカル展と総合展で構成されたアジア発の進行形・共同プロジェクトであった。
この「UnderConstruction」の仕組みが、事業のプロセスを共有し協働することによりネットワーク［fig.02］を形成していくという、それ以降の同種の美術プロジェクトの原型となった［01］。

それまでの交流展と言えば、例えば日本とフィリピン、
タイとインドネシアといった二国間交流の交換展であったり、ひとつの展覧会が巡回していく形式であった。また言語と制度の違いがネックとなり各国の窓口が限定されたり事務手続きに大変時間がかかった。
ところが 2000年以降のIT 情報技術の発展は、通信時間を短縮するだけでなく、広く情報を提供し、水平的な担い手のネットワークを形成していくことになる。つまり、技術的な条件が整うことにより、政府間交流から個別の作家間交流までいくつものレイヤーでのネットワーク構築が容易となり、交流事業における担い手の多様化が進んだ。
また情報だけでなく安価な移動手段の発達や査証の省略化
等も、実際の人の移動を容易にし交流の絶対量を増やした。そのような環境が整う
ことにより「Under Construction」をはじめとする協働企画展が可能になったとも言える。
「Under Construction」
を振り返ると、最初の顔合わせから最後の総合展までの流れは、プログラムの最初から組まれていたものではなく事業を進める過程から生まれてきたもので、総合展は各国で企画されたローカル展の出品作家 43 名全員の作品が、東京オペラシティアートギャラリーと国際交流基金フォーラムの二会場で展示され、同時開催のカッティングエッジ的なアジアの展覧会であった。出品作
家たちはその後グローバルなアートシーンで成功を収めるようになった作家も多く、

9 名のキュレーターたちは当事国のみならず国際的に活躍するキュレーターに成長したことは、
長期的な観点からは大きな成果と言えよう。
一方、反省点としては、総合展は事業の過程で発案された集合展で、「アジアとは何か ?」というテーマに直接応答する総合展としての企画構成とインパクトに欠けたことが課題として残った。それがひとりのキュレーターが企画する展覧会ではない複Essay 01026

数のキュレーターの企画であるがゆえの弱点とも言える。加えて2000 年代はじめには、
アジア全域を網羅するような視点を 20 ～ 30代のキュレーターたちが持ち得なかったための想像力の欠如でもあっただろう。
したがって共有する情報を増やし、協働展の数を増やし、質を高めることが重要と思われ、その後、「Out the Window」（日・韓・中のキュレーター）（日・印・タイ・インドネシアのキュレーター）、「Have We Met?」と継02
協働をめぐるキュレーターたちの対話は、以下のようなものがある。
プージャ・スード「私たちはすでに出会っているのだろうか ? それぞれの物語は語り合えたのだろうか ? そして、互いに恋に落ちたのだろうか?」『Have We Met? 』カタログ、国際交流基金、2004年、pp.15 –19。

続して実施することになる。
このようなプログラムに参加するキュレーターにとっては、複数で企画する場合の協［02］。
働とは何か、実際に、誰がどこまで何をするのかという課題が毎回ある
キュレー

ター間の意思疎通に時間もかかるし、交渉には柔軟かつタフな精神力も必要だ。
どれだけ努力しても、成果としての展覧会がひとりが企画した展覧会より出来上がりが良いとか成功するとかいうわけではない。プログラム担当者の立場からいえば、常に企画の強度、質的内容に期待している。現実的には、キュレーター、
アーティストの間に共感や共生の意識が生まれ、ネットワークが目に見える形で次の展開を見せて、次世代の活躍の場を拡げていったことは確かである。

ネットワーク構築から人材育成へ
最初のアジアセンターが改組によりなくなった 2004年以降も、グローバル化の進む世界のなかでインターネットを介した様々な形態のネットワークは益々増加した。
このような状況を踏まえつつ、2014 年設立の新しいアジアセンターでは「Under

Construction」から「Condition Report」
までのネットワーク構築という目的と平行して、「人材育成」という要素が加わった。新アジアセンターは、
日本と東南アジアの若い担い手をつなぎ、
アジア共通の文化芸術を創造していこうというミッションを持つ。その前年の 2013 年には、日・ASEAN 友好協力 40周年を記念して「Media/（以下、M/AK）Art Kitchen: Reality Distortion Field」を企画し、国際交流基金

は再び本格的な東南アジア域内交流プログラムを開始することになった。

2004 年から2014 年の空白の10 年間、東南アジアの高度経済発展はますます進み、大衆文化を享受する中間層が確実に増えた。シンガポールは本格的に文化を国家戦略のひとつに据えて、美術基盤整備の一環として有力画廊の誘致、アートフェアや国際展を開始するとともに、英国式の美術館制度を導入し2015 年には新しいシンガポール国立美術館（National Gallery Singapore）を設立した。
タイとインドネシアでは公的機関の歩みはゆっくりだが、個人コレクターによる最新の現代美術館建設が始まった。
また、東南アジア全般にわたりアーティスト・コレクティヴの活動はあいかわらず活発で、特にインドネシアは成功していると言えよう。ベトナム、
カ
ンボジア、
ラオス、
ミャンマーにおいては、外国文化機関と外国人ギャラリスト、アー

027

古市保子│協働空間の構築とその可能性 2000-2017

ティスト・コレクティヴの活動がその国・地域のアートシーンを支えている現状がある。
大衆中間層の成長に伴い美術館の整備、国際展の実施というような形で公的資
金が美術の分野にも投資されるようになる。キュレーターが美術館活動や国際展を通じて、東南アジア美術や国際的な美術を自国の観客層に広めていくためには、
良質な展覧会が開催されることが不可欠であり、ソフト面では東南アジアのアートシーンに寄与する才能のあるキュレーターやコーディネーターの絶対量を増やしていくことが求められる。
しかも、望まれるキュレーターのあり方は各国一様ではない。そのため、状況に応じて切磋琢磨する訓練の場が必要となる。新しいアジアセンターの協働企画展は、
このような現在の東南アジアの社会文化環境と文化交流機関としての基金のミッションが併行して進められていると言ってよいだろう。具体的には、基金の海外拠点が中心となってキュレーター志望者を公募形式で募り、日本から同世代キュレーターも参加してワークショップを行い、全員の中から次の段階へと進む参加者を選定し、
日本と東南アジアで美術調査と対話を重ね、展覧会を企画し実現するというプログラムとなった。
これが「M/AK」に続く東南アジアにおける次世代育成プログラム「Run & Learn」であり、「Condition Report」である。
こうして「M/AK」の 課 題 は「Run & Learn」へ、「 Run & Learn」の 課 題 は「Condition Report」へと、引き継がれ、人材育成的側面を強化しつつ事業の仕組み／プロセスを改定し、実施していった。

Condition Report
協働プロジェクトを企画する際に参加者の条件としていくつか決めていることがある。
第一に、次世代をターゲットにしているので年齢を35 歳までとした。第二に、共通のコミュニケーション・ツールとして英語での議論が可能なこと。第三に、参加者はある程度の実績がある、もしくは目立って豊かな発想力と思考力が認められるといった点である。さらに事業の最初に全員に共有されうる大きなテーマを予め設定する。
例えば、「Under Construction」では「アジアとは何か ?」、今回の「Condition

Report」では「東南アジアとは何か ?」といった具合である。
つまり参加者全員にとって時として漠然として理解不可能な、
しかし誰もが改めて考えなければならない共通の枠組みである。
参加者が決まった時点で、プロジェクト全体を覆うキーワード／タイトルを全員で考え、共通言語である英語で設定する。
これが最初の協働作業となる。その後、全体テーマを各人が個別テーマに落とし込んでいき、個別のタイトルを決め、作家や作品の選定、展示方法など様々な過程の検討を経て、展覧会を具現［fig.03］
化していくことになる。

前述したように「人材育成」という観点から、「Run& Learn」以降、公募制度を導Essay 01028

入した。未知の新たな才能を見出すためインターネットを通じて広く呼びかけることにしたのだ。
クアラルンプール、
ジャカルタ、
マニラ、バンコク、ハノイでの 5 つのワー
クショップで選んだキュレーターを東京へ招聘した際に、全員を 4 つのグループに分け、それぞれインドネシア、
タイ、
フィリピン、マレーシアへの美術調査を行った。
さらに「Condition Report」では参加キュレーターとあまり年齢差のない年長の03
具体的には各展記録カタログを参照。

1『）Condition Report: SindikatCampursari 』
カタログ、国際交流基金アジアセンター、2017年。

2『）Condition Report: ESCAPE from theSEA 』カタログ、国際交流基金アジアセンター／国立美術館／アート・プリンティング・ワークス、

キュレーターたちをメンター的役割で参加してもらい、グループで行うメンター世代

2017年。

の企画展を、ジャカルタ、
クアラルンプール、マニラ、バンコクで実施し、参加する

タログ、国際交流基金アジアセンター／フィリピ

育成世代には、環境や制度の異なる外国で仕事をする際の可能性と不可能性を

3）『 Condition Report: Almost There』
カン大学付属ヴァルガス美術館、2017年。

体験し、若いキュレーターたちが現場で貢献できることは何かを考え行動する機会を設けた。
育成世代とメンター世代の年齢差があまりないのは、時代感覚を共有できる範囲の世代で構成しようとしたためである。そのようにして、
ジャカルタの「SindikatCampursari」、
クアラルンプールの「ESCAPE from the SEA」、
マニラの
「AlmostThere」、バンコクの「Mode of Liaisons」が実施された。
これら4 つの展覧会は、
自国の歴史・文化的背景をもとに年長世代キュレーターの関心事から出発し、アートシーンを踏まえて東南アジアを捉え、各々極めて個性的な展覧会になった［03］。
そしていよいよ最後は、東南アジア各地での若手キュレーターによる小規模なローカル展である。今度は、年長キュレーターが育成世代の小企画をよりよいものにするために
若いキュレーターにアドバイスをしていく番だ。
このような過程を経て、幾重にもコミュニケーションの網が張り巡らされ、理解も誤解も含めていやがおうにも連帯が深まってい（そして、時には破綻する）
く。
。

なぜローカル展が最後かと言えば、「Under Construction」が作家・作品を日本に集合して帰結したのと反対に、
このプロジェクトは東南アジア各地で始まり東南ア
ジア各地で展開され、東南アジアに開かれた形で終わることを目指したからである。
東南アジアとは何か ?

東南アジアという地域は、地理的条件はもとより多様な民族、宗教、言語をもとに多くの地域が、西洋の植民地支配と戦後の独立、東西冷戦構造下での国民国家形成の過程を経て、政治・経済的関係性を深めていった。1967 年結成のASEAN（東南アジア諸国連合）
は当初 5カ国から始まり現在では 10カ国となり、東南アジアと呼ばれる地域とほぼ同一地域となった。つまり東南アジアは所与のものとしてはじめから存在したのではなく、幾多の歴史的過程を経て形成されてきた地域概念である。そのことを再考する機会として「Condition Report」の全体テーマを「東南アジアとは何か」とした。

029

古市保子│協働空間の構築とその可能性 2000-2017

本プロジェクトは、東南アジアという概念を外部から研究対象として規定するのではなく、東南アジア域内に住まう若い世代が主体となって改めて美術の分野から考えてみようとするプロジェクトであり、実現化された展覧会は、投げかけられた問いかけに対する地域のキュレーターとアーティストからの 2017 年時点の応答とも言えるものなのである。その意味も込めて、「Condition Report」というタイトルがある。
鑑賞者たちはどのようなメッセージを受け取ったであろうか。
東南アジアの協働空間は確かに広がった。
このようなプロセス重視のプロジェクトは、残念ながら通常の美術イベントのように目に見える形ですぐに評価されることはないだろう。だが、日本や東南アジアを含むこのアジア全体の美術環境の将来を考えるにあたり、事業の重要性は疑うべくもない。

幾重にも張り巡らされたネットワークの数を増やし、幹を太くしていくための根気強い継続と情熱が必要だ。10 年後、20 年後、どのような形での実りをもたらしてくれるだろうか。

Essay 01030

Toward Reciprocity and Change

Essay
02

─

Che Kyongfa［Curator, Museum of Contemporary Art Tokyo］

Originating in 2015 with a series of curatorial workshops held in fivecities in Southeast Asia, “Condition Report” was conceived to provide
the young Southeast Asian and Japanese curators who were chosen forthe project (including cultural producers pursuing curatorial practices infields other than art) with opportunities to gain experience in different
aspects of curatorial practice, ranging from collaborating on relatively
large-scale exhibitions in Bangkok, Jakarta, Manila, and Kuala Lumpur
to organizing smaller presentations on their own and contributing
texts to this publication. My role was to facilitate the workshops in
Manila and Bangkok and co-curate an exhibition at the Jorge B. Vargas
Museum in Manila, but at each stage of the project I had to respondto the overarching theme chosen by the project’s organizer, the JapanFoundation, which was the question of “What is Southeast Asia?”
This theme recalls the question that was debated in the discourse andhistoricization of Asian art from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, “Whatis Asia?” Dialectically driven by the desire to seek out the essence andspirit common to art in the region defined as Asia and formulate theseas a coherent discourse on the one hand, and the counter action that
resisted and critiqued that desire on the other, this discourse madevisible the potential for critiquing and rethinking the Eurocentricmodernity that is inevitably—and in differing ways—implicatedin modern and contemporary art in Asia. The development of this
discourse on the art of Southeast Asia as part of this larger question was
led by the countries in the region that already had economic resources
and infrastructure: Australia, which emphasized inclusivity toward
the art of the Asia-Pacific region through the Asia-Pacific Triennial ofContemporary Art and exchange programs with Southeast Asia suchas the Artists’ Regional Exchange; Singapore, which sought to becomea cultural hub in Southeast Asia by creating a canon for modern andcontemporary art in Southeast Asia through the establishment ofmuseums and collections; and Japan, which, with the Fukuoka Art
Museum (the current Fukuoka Asian Art Museum) and the Japan

031

Che Kyongfa│Toward Reciprocity and ChangeFoundation as the two main conduits, introduced the modern andcontemporary art of Southeast Asia in Japan and further developed thediscourse on the basis of cooperation with researchers and practitioners
in the region. Behind these developments was the turn toward building
politico-economic alliances with Southeast Asia that was made by theabove-mentioned countries. Following the economic growth of many
Southeast Asian countries after the Cold War, Australia, Singapore, andJapan, having already achieved economic success through the changes
in geopolitics, increased their focus on the region in their cultural
policies. That is, the approach to Southeast Asia in Asia is connected to acertain degree with cultural diplomacy, and when viewed from a certain
angle, it appears that what shifted the attention from the West to Asia
were the attempts by each country, in anticipation of a new global era,to establish its position in the cultural hegemony. In this nationalismbased cultural politics, even as the “art of (Southeast) Asia” was formed
and modified by the dominant forces generating discourse, there werealso many elements that were excluded or occluded in the process. In
fact, the Japanese gaze on “Asia” has been criticized by researchers forbeing imperialist, while Singapore and Australia have also encounteredopposition and criticism from their neighbors with regard to theinfrastructural advantages that facilitate their hegemonic influence.
Meanwhile, however, specific research on the modern andcontemporary art of each country in Asia has been gradually furtheredby researchers both within the region and beyond, while the art
market and infrastructure have expanded and matured, new artorganizations and biennales have materialized, and projects and smallscale organizations rooted in particular communities and regions haveemerged and disappeared. Amid these hectic changes, there has been an
incredible development of networks of curators and artists in Asia, andwith the continued diversification of approaches to curatorial practice, it
now feels as though the discourse on “What is Asia?” is already history.
So what possibilities for inquiry, dialogue, and practice did the question“What is Southeast Asia?” provide to the participants in the “Condition
Report” project? I took it as an open-ended question, as an opportunity
to use curatorial practice to investigate from a specific site the current,
dynamically changing geopolitical situation in Southeast Asia, whereindividual countries continue evolving politically and economicallywhile mutually influencing each other. In fact, many of the concerns andthemes in the projects developed by the young curators from Southeast
Asia who participated in my workshop responded to the specific contexts
and issues of their own societies, focusing on their inquiries into how
to integrate these into curatorial practice. Apart from considering theconcerns in their curatorial practices, it was also apparent that thequestion of how to understand Southeast Asia was for the participants
not an urgent issue with the same substance as what had been addressedin the past. Rather, it is almost as though the incoherence apparent
among their projects was an indirect response to the theme.

Essay 02032

It could be said that the potential meanings of the question andthe structure of the project itself presented significantly different
challenges for the curators who came from the participating Southeast
Asian countries and for the “outside” curators from Japan. The curatorsfrom Southeast Asia were faced with the question of how to achieve a
critical approach to the constantly reimagined community of Southeast
Asia. Meanwhile, the Japanese curators invited by the Japan Foundation,
who traveled to Southeast Asia (some for the first time), participatedin discussions with the curators who came from the Southeast Asian
countries, and had to plan an exhibition on site, could not avoid facing
questions, as cultural producers, about cultural geopolitics, such as
why (aside from the motive of professional curiosity or the desire
to acquire resources such as networks and information/knowledge
about the region) they would want to engage with Southeast Asia andmake an exhibition there, or what Southeast Asia means to Japan (andJapanese people). On those occasions, there may have been times when,in confronting the social and political context of Southeast Asia, they
probably could not help being self-conscious about being Japanese, andabout the historical relations between Japan and Southeast Asia.
In order to formulate an exhibition with integrity and necessity,
it is necessary to self-reflexively investigate one’s motives for “being
involved,” and assess one’s standing in a relationship that is neitherfamiliar nor completely new and neutral—even if the opportunity toparticipate in the project was given by the organizer. As such, it is not
only essential to have a visual or linguistic dialogue or negotiation withartists and viewers through one’s curatorial practice, but also to know
how to formulate an exhibition and mediate its representation, as wellas to be willing to investigate one’s own subjectivity. Without such selfreflexivity, it is impossible to build a horizontal, reciprocal relationshipfor eliciting new knowledge or imaginative possibilities in responseto criticism by other Asian professionals regarding the modality ofrepresentation that objectifies (Southeast) Asia as an anthropological“other” from a hegemonic perspective—evident in the exhibitions anddiscourse on Southeast Asia that have originated in Japan to date—or
through a transnational curatorial practice that can overcome mutual
psychological distance.
Delving into the recent past, Nakamura Hideki, who was involved inmany of the exhibitions of Asian contemporary art held in Japan in
the 1990s, posed the question “Who ‘Introduces’ What to Whom andWhy?” at the symposium “Asian Art: Prospects for the Future,” hosted
by the Japan Foundation Asia Center in 1999. Nakamura asserted
that although the introduction of Asian contemporary art in Japan by
public institutions and museums had to an extent stimulated exchange
between art professionals in Japan and other Asian countries, it did
not engage the general audience or make a significant impact on thelocal art scene in Japan. One reason he gave for this was that, instead of
spontaneously emerging from the initiative of people working in the art

033

Che Kyongfa│Toward Reciprocity and Change

01
Nakamura Hideki, “Who ‘Introduces’
What to Whom and Why?” inInternational Symposium 1999 “Asian
Art: Prospects for the Future” Report(Tokyo: Japan Foundation Asia Center,2000), 150–51.

scene, the introduction of Asian art in Japan was burdened by a politicaland commercial agenda that had nothing to do with the Japanesezeitgeist. He further stated that ambiguities about “why” and “to whom”
this introduction was being made reflected a lack of awareness thattaking a global perspective while being rooted in Japan, and introducing
other cultures with a mind toward expanding the Japanese worldview, isthe best way to show respect for those cultures.［01］Since then, there have been more opportunities in Japan for
individual presentations of artists from Southeast Asia throughexhibitions, residencies, and art festivals organized by institutionsof varying scope as well as at commercial galleries. Through this, theconnections between art professionals in Japan and Southeast Asia,
including artists, curators, and organizers, have continued expanding.
But does this really mean that the lack of initiative identified byNakamura has now been overcome? Amid the spectacularization ofcontemporary art as a cultural industry that relies on stakeholders inboth the governmental and private sectors, there is a tendency toward
Southeast Asian artists being consumed by a gaze that (still) expects thepeculiarity inherent in otherness. Furthermore, because of the alarming
spread of narrow-minded and intolerant attitudes toward otherness
across society in recent years (and not just in Japan), sites for cultural
production have sought to disinfect themselves, and the room forsharing diverse visions is increasingly circumscribed. Perhaps it could
even be said that Nakamura’s “initiative” is actually more strictly reinedin than before. Of course, it is impossible to make decisive judgments
about the current situation. The reality is that many cultural producers
in art institutions and organizations in Japan are exploring what they
can do, while also dealing with challenges such as budget limitations
and quotas for visitor numbers, and negotiating political relationships
with the government.
It is precisely because autonomy in cultural production is being
threatened by increasingly neoliberal conditions and tighter centercontrolled policies that curatorial practices that unravel existing
conditions and subjectivities, and seek out and visualize new forms ofimagination and knowledge, must be updated and refined. To makeway for this, the site of curatorial practice must open a horizon for more
expansive thinking that can explore the question of who we are notinstead of defining who we are, and allow for alterity.
“Condition Report” went through multiple phases over a two-year
period: from workshops and discussions about the significance andstructure of the project involving curators who played mentor-like roles,
to research in Japan and research in Southeast Asia in preparation
for the international exhibition, as well as the implementation of theexhibition itself, and then the planning for individual projects by theworkshop participants. The dialogues shared by the participants inorder to communicate their activities, critical sensibilities, and interests
emerged from a mutual sympathy, from wanting to learn more about

Essay 02034

each other. Building trust and camaraderie in this way may lead tomore personal friendships or collaborations and exchanges following
the conclusion of the project. It is my hope that such relationships willproduce collaborations and projects that lead to the cultivation andsharing of a more flexible and radical imagination.
(Translated by Andrew Maerkle)

035

Che Kyongfa│Toward Reciprocity and Change

Essay02

相互作用と変化に向けて─
崔敬華［東京都現代美術館学芸員］「Condition Report」は、2015 年から東南アジアの 5 都市で行われたキュレー
ター・ワークショップから始まり、そこでの提案企画が選ばれた東南アジアと日本の若い世代のキュレーター（美術以外の専門分野からキュラトリアルな実践を志す文化生産者を含む）
による、バンコク、
ジャカルタ、
クアラルンプール、マニラいずれかの都市で行われた比較的大規模な展覧会への参加や、彼らが個々に実施した小規模な展示、そしてこの出版物への寄稿と、一連のキュラトリアルな実践を行うためのプロジェクトであった。
これにおける私の役割の大きなものとしては、
マニラとバンコクでのワークショップのファシリテートと、マニラのヴァルガス美術館で行われた展覧会の共同キュレーションであったが、このプロジェクトを組織した国際交流基金が全体を通して掲げたテーマは「東南アジアとは何か？」であり、プロジェクトの各段階で、この問い対する何らかの応答を求められた。
この「東南アジアとは何か？」という問いは、1980 年代後半から2000 年代初めにかけて、アジアの美術を巡る言説の構築と歴史化の過程で論じられた「アジアとは何か？」という問いを想起させる。議論は、アジアと括られる地域の美術に共通する本質や精神性を求め、あるまとまりをもたせて言説化しようとする志向性と、それに対する批判や抵抗という循環運動によって、
アジア各国の近現代美術が不可避的に、また異なる仕方で内包している西欧近代に対する批評と再考の可能性を生み出した。
「アジア」の一部である東南アジアの美術に関する言説形成を推し進めてきたのは、
アジア内ですでに経済的な資源とインフラを持っていた国々でRegional Exchange」で行われた東南アジアとのあった。
つまり「The Artists’
交流事業や、
アジア・パシフィック現代美術トリエンナーレなどで、アジア太平洋地域の美術に対する包括性を強調したオーストラリア、東南アジア美術に焦点を当てた美術館とコレクションの構築によって、この地域の近現代美術に関する正史

036

を創出し、文化的ハブとなることを目指したシンガポール、
そして、主に福岡市美術館─ 現在の福岡アジア美術館─と国際交流基金を軸として、東南アジア美術の国内紹介や、国内外の研究者や実践者たちの協働をベースに言説構築と交流を進めてきた日本である。そのような動きの背景には、冷戦後、東南アジアの多くの国々が経済的発展を遂げ世界的地政学が変化したことによって、上記のような国々が、東南アジアとの政治経済的同盟を強化すべく舵を切り、文化政策においてもこの地域における協力や交流を重視するようになったということがある。異なる
角度から見れば、アジア内における東南アジアへの関心は、程度の差こそあれ、
外交上のアジェンダと結びついており、新たなグローバル時代を見据えた、文化覇権を巡る各国のポジション確保のための動きでもあった。そのようなアジェンダと（東南）
ナショナリズムに支えられた文化政治において、「
アジアの美術」は、言説を生成する覇権的な力によって形成され、変容されてきたと同時に、多くの要素が排除され不可視なままにされてきた。実際、日本の「（東南）アジア」に対する眼差しは、他国の研究者たちから帝国主義的であるとの指摘を受けてきたし、シンガポール
やオーストラリアも、
そのインフラが可能にする覇権的な力に対しての、周辺国からの抵抗や批判を受けてきた。
その一方で、徐々にアジア各国の近現代美術に関する個別的、具体的な研究がアジア内外の研究者によって進み、美術市場やインフラが拡大し、いくつもの新たな美術組織やビエンナーレが立ち上がり、
また特定のコミュニティや地域に根付いたプロジェクトや小規模な組織が生まれ、消えていった。その目まぐるしい変化の中で、アジア内のキュレーターやアーティストのネットワークも広がり、キュラトリアルな実践も多様化した現在、「アジアとは何か」という問題はすでに言説史となったような感がある。
では、「Condition Report」における「東南アジアとは何か ?」というテーマは、プロ
ジェクトの参加者たちにとって、どのような考察や対話、実践の端緒となりえたのだろうか。私はこれを開かれた問いとして、互いに作用しながらダイナミックに変化する
現在の東南アジアの地政学的状況を、ある具体的な場所から、キュラトリアルな実践を通してどう考察しうるのかと解釈し、
ワークショップや展覧会のコンセプトの出発点とした。実際、私が関わったワークショップに参加者した東南アジア出身の若手
キュレーターたちが発表したプロジェクトの企画にある多くの関心やテーマは、彼らの社会のある具体的な文脈や問題から導きだされたものであったし、キュラトリアル
な実践を通じてそれらにどのように作用することができるかという考察がなされていた。それらを見ても、彼らにとって東南アジアをどう捉えるかという問題は、以前考察されていた時と同じアクチュアリティを持った、喫緊のテーマではないということを示して

037

崔敬華│相互作用と変化に向けているようでもある。むしろ彼らのプロジェクトから見えてくるまとまりのなさが、間接的にテーマに応答しているようにも思える。
では日本人キュレーターにとっては、
このテーマは何を意味したのだろうか。テーマだ
けではなく、
プロジェクトの構造自体、東南アジアのいずれかの国にバックグラウン
ドを持つキュレーターと日本のキュレーターに、ずいぶん異なる課題を提示したと言える。東南アジアのキュレーターたちには、
これまで繰り返し想像されてきた東南ア
ジアという共同体に、
いまどのように批評的にアプローチできるのかが問われた。一方で、このプロジェクトの主催者である国際交流基金からの招聘を受け（その中の何人かは初めて）東南アジアに赴いて、東南アジア各国から集まったキュレーターたちとの議論に参加し、かつ現地での展覧会の企画提案を行わなければならなかった日
本人キュレーターにとっては、
この地域に関する情報や知識、ネットワークといった職業的な資源の獲得や好奇心いう動機以外に、「日本（人である自分）にとって東南ア
ジアとは何か ?」もしくは「なぜ東南アジアと関わり、そこで展覧会を行うのか」という、文化的地政学に関わることに対する問いに対峙せざるを得なかったであろうと思われる。同時に、自らの中に立ち顕われてくる日本人としての同一性や自意識、または日本と東南アジアの歴史的関係性を意識せざるを得ないということもあっただろう。
展覧会が何を伝えるのか、説得力や必然性を持たせるためには、たとえプロジェク
ト参加のきっかけが組織による招請であったにせよ、馴染みがないながらもまっさらでニュートラルとはいかない関係性の中で自らの立ち位置を見定め、「なぜ関わるのか」という動機をまず自らの中で検証することが必要となったのではないかと想像する。またそれには、キュラトリアルな実践を通して行われるアーティストや観客との視覚的または言語的な対話や交渉だけではなく、展覧会を通じて形成される表象や言説の基盤となる自らの知や主観の検証を引き受ける姿勢が要請されるのではないか。
このような自己の省察なしには、
これまで日本国内で行われてきた東南アジ（東南）
ア美術に関する展覧会や言説化において、覇権的な視点からアジアを人類学的他者として対象化し「紹介」することに対する、他のアジアの実践者たちからの批判や、相互の心理的な距離を克服し、新たな知や想像を引き出すための水平的で相互作用的な関係性を築くことは不可能ではないだろうか。
少し遡るが、1990 年代に日本におけるアジア現代美術の展覧会に多く携わった中村英樹は、1999 年国際交流基金アジアセンターが開催したシンポジウム「アジアの美術：未来への視点」で、「だれが／だれに／何を／なぜ〈紹介〉するのか ?」という発表を行った。
ここで彼は、日本国内における行政機関や美術館によるアジア美術の紹介は、
日本とアジア諸国の美術関係者の交流をある程度盛んにはしたものの、一般の観客の関心を引きつけたり、国内の美術状況に大きな影響も与えなかっEssay 02

038

たとし、
その理由として、それまでの国内でのアジア美術紹介が、日本の美術に関わる人々の内発性に結びついたものではなく、政治的または商業的なアジェンダをに
おわせ、
日本の精神状況と無関係に行われたためであると指摘した。さらに、
そのよ
うな「なぜ」や「だれに」といった問いが曖昧なままに紹介が行われてきたのは、「局

01
中村英樹「だれが／だれに／何を／なぜ〈紹介〉するのか？」『国際シンポジウム 1999 アジアの
美術：未来への視点』報告書、
国際交流基金アジアセンター、2000年、pp60–61。

所的にしてグローバルな視点を獲得するため」という目的や、「日本の精神状況を深化するために他国の文化を紹介することこそが、それに対する尊重をもたらすという認識が欠けているため」と述べた［01］。
その後、日本国内の異なる規模の組織による展覧会、レジデンス、芸術祭、そして民間のギャラリーでも、東南アジアのアーティストが個別に紹介される機会は増えつづけている。それにより、
アーティスト、キュレーター、オーガナイザーをはじめとする日
本と東南アジアの美術関係者のつながりは広がりを増した。
この状況を、中村が指摘した内発性の欠如の克服と捉えることが果たしてできるだ
ろうか。現代美術が、行政・民間問わずステークホルダーに頼った文化産業としてスペクタクル化している中、東南アジアのアーティストたちは、他者が織りなす物珍しさを（未だ）期待する眼差しによって消費される傾向にないだろうか。加えて、
ここ数年の傾向として、偏狭で不寛容な他者への態度が社会のいたるところで顕著に顕われるようになったことで（日本だけの話ではないが）、文化生産の場はどんどんと自らを無菌化し、異なる視点を共有するための余地を狭めている。中村のいう内発性はむ
しろより制限されている傾向にあると言ってもいいのではないだろうか。
もちろん、現状を白黒つけて判断することはできない。多くの組織や文化生産者が、予算難や目標観客数というハードルや、行政との政治的な折り合いを付けながら、できることを模索しているのも事実なのだから。
だからこそ、中村が述べたように、「局所的にしてグローバルな視野を獲得」
し、新たな想像力や知のかたちを模索するキュラトリアルな実践が更新されるべき時ではないだろうか。その風穴を開けるためには、キュラトリアルな実践の場において、「私（たち）は何者であるか」という問いよりも、「私（たち）は何者でないか」を模索し受け入れるための、開かれた思考の地平を創出し、自他ともに変化する可能性を湛えていなければならない。
「Condition Report」は 2年にわたり、様々なプロセスを経た。プロジェクトが参加者たちに提示したのは経験や知識だけではなく、それぞれの局面でのコレクティヴもしくは個人間での対話であり、それによって生まれた信頼関係であり、親密な友好関係である。そのような関係性を土台に生まれる今後の協働や対話が、より柔軟でラディカルな想像や知の生成に向けたものになることを期待したい。

039

崔敬華│相互作用と変化に向けてShifting Practices

041

042

The Provisionality of Southeast Asia:
The Value of Shifting Practices

Essay
03

─

Iida Shihoko［Independent Curator /Associate Professor, Tokyo University of the Arts］

Since my first involvement with contemporary art in Asia while working
on the “Under Construction” project in 2000–03,［01］I have had several
opportunities to collaboratively work with curators and artists who
have explored specific practices of modern and contemporary art oftheir respective regions, and made them globally recognized throughexhibitions, working actively on international stage. This is a good
moment to reflect on current conditions for curatorial practice inrelation to the recent history established by such pioneers, and I will use
this essay to examine the value of practices that shift in and out of theapparatus of art, while also reviewing a number of pertinent discussions
regarding contemporary art in Southeast Asia.
The site of curatorial practice is not necessarily an independent, open
field. It exists within the numerous institutions and politics thatsurround art in society, and it is constantly renewed and shaped byendless negotiations with these institutions and the changing times.
In particular, in the 1980s and 1990s there was a flurry of art andcultural exchanges in Southeast Asia, East Asia, and the Asia-Pacific that
resulted from the support of not only museums but also organizations
like Asialink in Australia and the Japan Foundation in Japan, andnumerous (collaborative) surveys and exhibitions have been carried out
in these regions since then. Benefiting from these initiatives, debatesover the reevaluation of modern and contemporary art history have
evolved alongside new networks, and the revision of this discourse
has gradually proceeded in recent years.［02］But I often get the feelingthat, once shifted to sites of discussion beyond the region’s islands andlandmasses, the curatorial practices for contemporary art that were
nurtured in Southeast Asia by such pioneering research and practices
still do not enjoy sufficient recognition—even in Japan.
One reason for this is that the temporal and geopolitical fields
in which an exhibition can be appreciated as lived experience arelimited. Put another way, this is because the practices intrinsic to a timeand place are transformed and lose their particularity when they are043

01“Under Construction: New Dimensionsof Asian Art,” organized by The
Japan Foundation Asia Center. After
conducting research and organizing
local exhibitions in Ashiya, Seoul,
Bandung, Manila, Beijing, Mumbai and
Bangkok in 2001–02, a comprehensive
exhibition was held in Tokyo from
December 7, 2002, to March 2, 2003,
co-organized by the Tokyo Opera City
Cultural Foundation. In all, there werenine curators and 43 participating
artists and groups. The author worked
for the comprehensive exhibition inTokyo in her capacity as assistantcurator of the Tokyo Opera City Art
Gallery at the time.
02
Important precursors include the
Fukuoka Art Museum’s Asian Art
Show (first held in 1979–80, theexhibition evolved into the current
Fukuoka Asian Art Triennale after
the opening of the Fukuoka AsianArt Museum in 1999); ARX: Artists’Regional Exchange, held in Perth from1987 to 1999; and the Queensland Art
Gallery | Gallery of Modern Art’s AsiaPacific Triennial of Contemporary Art(launched in 1993). For more examplesof pioneering projects, papers andreferences, see Kajiya Kenji, “Learningfrom Modern and Contemporary Art
in Southeast Asia,” introduction, in
The Japan Foundation Asia Center Art
Studies Vol. 03: Shaping the History of
Art in Southeast Asia (Tokyo: JapanFoundation Asia Center, 2017), 9 –13.

Iida Shihoko│The Provisionality of Southeast Asia: The Value of Shifting Practices

03
Another reason that should not be
overlooked is the lack of teaching
about Asian modern art in Japan, as
noted by Kuroda Raiji. Kuroda Raiji,“In Search of a Lost Totality: Teaching
Asian Modern Art (in Japan),” in
The Japan Foundation Asia Center Art
Studies Vol. 03, 83–86. Adapted froma paper presented in English at theinternational symposium, “Locus
Redux: Speaking Across Contexts,
Learnings and Negotiations in Writing
and Teaching on Art,” held at the
Yuchengco Museum in Manila on May
19, 2012.
04
See Nicholas Thomas, “Our History
is Written in Our Mats,” in The 5th
Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary
Art, exh. cat. (Brisbane: Queensland
Art Gallery, 2006), 27–29: “The issue
that has tended to come up again
and again is whether various Africanand Oceanic genres should be talkedof as art... The imputation was thatIndigenous art forms emerged
from a wholly alien cultural space,that anything approaching theiraccurate characterisation posed
formidable problems of translation
or interpretation. Hence, in any
instance of their inclusion in a nonnative context, such as a collection
or an institution, the issues ofdecontextualisation or inappropriate
recontextualisation were inescapable...
it cannot be doubted that global
processes and cultural forms impact
and are received locally in very uneven,diverse and unpredictable ways.
Hence the cultures of the colonial andpostcolonial world are neither purely
exotic (they never were), nor have they
become derivative expressions of theWest (they are both less and more),
nor can we see them productively as
hybrids (that suggests too smooth andoperation of blending)... If we needa more complex and nuanced visionof the complexity of the postcolonial
world... we need to extend thisvision to the arts of the modern andpostmodern epochs outside the West.”
05
A good recent example of this is “Kalpa
Vriksha: Contemporary Indigenous
and Vernacular Art of India,” a special
focus project within the 8th AsiaPacific Triennial of Contemporary Art,
held at the Queensland Art Gallery |Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane, from
November 21, 2015, to April 10, 2016.

Essay 03brought to and shared in different contexts.［03］From the geopoliticalperspective, the particularity of not only Southeast Asia but indeed all
postcolonial regions to date has been foregrounded by the difficultyof justifying curatorial attempts to relocate works from one place toanother and translate them for different contexts.［04］Moreover, with thecontinued rise in the mobility of people, information, and knowledge
brought about by globalization, the focus of curation has turned toward
fluid and hybrid artistic practices, without objectifying the relevant
regions as static, a priori objects. As such, curation is expanding toencompass the reevaluation of the subtle but deep-rooted differences
and commonalities, the indigeneity and internationality, and the socialpolitical-historical conditions at play in such practices.［05］
From the temporal aspect, the speed of diffusion and span of
relevance for exhibitions attempting to present comprehensive art
experiences that extend to space and physicality while transcendingtime to accumulate/develop experiences along with knowledge simply
do not compare to the acceleration in the circulation of information
brought about by social changes and media such as the Internet. Evenso, as a transient event expected to deliver instant impact, or as a tool
for representing the nation or region, the exhibition has been compared
to projects for promoting diplomacy, trade, and tourism in capitalist
economies. The worldwide proliferation of biennale exhibitions andart projects is another factor spurring on this situation. That is, whenconfronted with the reality that art practices intrinsic to each region
and era are inevitably transformed in their reception as they are spread
both regionally and beyond by the circulation of people and media, wenaturally become aware of the conditioning and limitation/ephemeralityof the exhibition as “a particular practice in a specific time.” As such,the effectiveness of concepts of the particularity of region/time is shortlived and limited—and as dubious as those regarding authenticity. What
comes to mind here is Paul Virilio’s comment on the violence of the
speed of the modern state:
If alacrity is the very essence of war, and if, as Kipling explained, “thefirst victim of war is the truth,” then it is indeed necessary to statethat the truth is the first victim of speed.［06］The evolution of speed represented by rail, car, and jet fighter is also thehistory of modern nations conquering others in order to test their own
knowledge and power. The art of a Southeast Asian region that is now
the object of intense scrutiny from all around the world might also becalled a victim of the speed of modernization, in respect to how it has
been repeatedly marginalized, exoticized, and represented to date.
In recognition of this limited particularity of the exhibition, there
are a number of requirements for sharing the curatorial practicesof contemporary art in Southeast Asia substantially, and not just as
superficial information, both within the region and beyond. Curators
who wish to do so must: 1) represent the unique context and aesthetics044

of artists, works, and exhibitions, and produce values and knowledge
that can be shared with contemporaneous peers; 2) allow the depth
and flexibility for others to imagine the material in their own contexts,
even where it might be impossible to completely exchange contexts;
3) develop a discourse that can be recognized by future generations as aresource with social/cultural value; and 4) resist speed (to share time andresist instant “comprehension” while creating a sense of community).
In order to pursue these practices, I will further address some prevailingissues we face below.
First, the assumptions about where to find value differ depending onwhether one is inside or outside the art system. Institutions “inside”
the art system like museums, galleries, biennales, and art fairs, allpresume that there is an autonomous universality of value to be foundin the work—regardless of their differing missions and objectives.
Even though the concept of “the universality of value” is itself afantasy created by modernism, existing values are revised and newvalues created on the basis of this presumption. Tatehata Akira, whocommented that this aspiration to universality is not a fantasy peculiar
to modernism, but rather the “massive rupture” contained within
modernism itself, once wrote:
It might be most appropriate to say that modernism did promote
the idea of universal values based on rationalism, but as a result it
also produced unavoidable conflicts (sometimes latent) between
particular traditions. If differences exist, they are not differencesfrom modernism, but differences caused by modernism.［07］The above-mentioned institutions all developed with modernization.
If even now there are still conflicts or differences between the values
produced by Southeast Asia and the universal values upheld bymodernism, they result from an attitude that does not adhere to theself-justification of the modernist art system, and today they are better
understood as horizontal “distinctions” instead of vertical “gaps.” It is
not that they have yet to obtain universality, but rather that they havevalues and motives that exist on a different horizon from modernism in
the West. This has been clearly stated in essays by Shioda Junichi andApinan Poshyananda as well.［08, 09］
On the other hand, “outside” the art system—at sites of
production/practice that are not integrated into the value system ofart institutions—there are indeed different assumptions for debating
value. As is evident in the activities of the many collectives in Indonesia,
importance is placed on breaking down hierarchy to produce an evencommunity, as well as on identification with, knowledge production
for, and co-ownership of that community; and on the self-management
and sustaining of activities through an independent economic systemthat does not rely on the market. For instance, the slogan of the
Jakarta-based collective representing the post-Suharto democracy

045

06Paul Virilio, Negative Horizon: An Essay
in Dromoscopy, trans. Michael Degener(London: Continuum, 2005), 125.
First published in French by Editions
Galilée in 1984.
07
Tatehata Akira, “Art as Criticism,”in Asian Modernism: Development inIndonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand,
exh. cat. (Tokyo: Japan Foundation
Asia Center, 1995), 201; revised andreprinted in The Japan Foundation
Asia Center Art Studies Vol. 03, 32. The
quotes here and below follow therevised text.
08
Shioda Junichi, “Glimpses into the
Future of Southeast Asian Art: A
Vision of What Art Should Be,” in
The Japan Foundation Asia Center Art
Studies Vol. 03, 46. First published in
Art in Southeast Asia 1997: Glimpses
into the Future, exh. cat. (Tokyo:
Museum of Contemporary Art Tokyo,
Japan Foundation Asia Center &Hiroshima: Hiroshima City Museumof Contemporary Art, 1997). “Briefly
stated, the expression of individuality
in a modernist sense is not the mostimportant issue for these artists.
Their concern is how to participate in
the communities in which they live,
how to build a better future for thesecommunities, and what art can do tothat end. This also holds for the artists
who are involved in the search for theirown identities, since they approach
the problem of identity in the wider
context of family, community andethnic affiliation. This position is far
removed from the thinking of Westernmodernism, in which absolute value
is placed on individual creativity andthe artist’s task is to explore a pureand autonomous artistic world… Theestablishment of art’s independence
from society that occurred in Westernmodernism is an anomaly in thehistory of art. As Jim Supangkat says,
the Indonesian modernism based on
moralism has been proactively engaged
with society and the defense of thecommon people. This can also be said
for the modernisms of other countries
in Southeast Asia.”

Iida Shihoko│The Provisionality of Southeast Asia: The Value of Shifting Practices

09
Apinan Poshyananda, “’Con Art’
Seen from the Edge: The Meaning ofConceptual Art in Southeast Asia,” in
The Japan Foundation Asia Center Art
Studies Vol. 03, 49–50. First publishedin Global Conceptualism: Points ofOrigin, 1950s–1980s, exh. cat. (NewYork: Queens Museum, 1999). “TheNew Art Movement was galvanized bysocial and political pressures within
the local art scene, and not so muchthe desire to keep up with Western‘isms.’... In the process, conceptual
artists have gained confidence that
their works are not merely stylistic
quotations of Western ‘originals.’ Infact, many artists dismiss Westernversions of conceptualism as selfreflexive, tedious communiqués
between members of intellectual
cliques.”10“List of GB Fellows with Slogans,” in“2016 Gwangju Biennale Forum: To All
the Contributing Factors,” referencematerial handed out at the Gwangju
Biennale Forum, held September 2–4,
2016, as part of the 11th Gwangju
Biennale. For more, see the dedicatedwebsite of the 2016 biennale, The 8th
Climate, accessed July 28, 2017, http://
www.the8thclimate.org.
11
Julie Ewington. “Five Elements: An
Abbreviated Account of Installation
Art in South-East Asia,” in The JapanFoundation Asia Center Art Studies Vol.
03, 37–38. First published in Art and
AsiaPacific 2, no. 1 (1995): 108–15.
12Claire Bishop, Artificial Hells:
Participatory Art and the Politics ofSpectatorship (New York: Verso, 2012), 19.

generation, ruangrupa (founded in 2000), “Make friends not art,”［10］might first appear to be playfully provocative, but it also reflects thesocio-political background that group action has been considered an
expression of resistance to the previous military regime. From their useof organizational methods that resemble associations who cooperatively
run their spaces and share the funds and manpower required for theiractivities with other groups, and from the way they function as analternative educational organization that sees the collective’s entire
activity as a site of learning through deep involvement with local artists
and diverse communities, we can observe an attitude that places highvalue not only on works that result from individual creative activities, butalso on the ecology of the community that is the matrix for producing
such works.
In 1995, Julie Ewington already made the following observation
about concepts of community in Southeast Asia:
Notions of community are far stronger in Southeast Asian societies
than the sense of the individual personality which animates thepractice of art in Western cultures…an essential part of theirartistic functioning is not their appearance, however imposing; itis the opportunity that is offered for shared group action by thecommunity.［11］Another issue that arises from the standpoint of values and group action
as community is the question of how to recognize artistic value in cases
where practices obtain significance from the participation of others andfrom their functioning in actual society. In recent years, practices inwhich artists address local social issues like education, the environment,
gentrification, depopulation, prostitution, and human rights havebecome known in Japan under names such as social practice, sociallyengaged art, or the community art movement. Even when the use of
these terms is a matter of expedience, similar practices in Southeast andEast Asia are not contextualized in the regional art history in the same
way as, say, social practice in the United States, which is rooted in art
history thanks in part to the work of Suzanne Lacy, who was influenced
by Alan Kaprow’s aesthetics. This difference from the West in theestablished historical background and the aesthetics of such practices isstill not fully recognized, except by a few scholars and researchers.
Addressing practices involving participation and social engagement,
Claire Bishop writes:
In short, the point of comparison and reference for participatory
projects always returns to contemporary art, despite the fact thatthey are perceived to be worthwhile precisely because they are nonartistic. The aspiration is always to move beyond art, but never tothe point of comparison with comparable projects in the social
domain.［12］This may be a reasonable conclusion when working on the assumption

Essay 03046

of the universality of modernist values in the West, but as John Clark
has also asserted, what brought about the correspondence of antiestablishment art with social practice and linked it with social issues inSoutheast Asia from the 1990s onward was the effect of the spread anddecline of modernist art.［13］As such, social practices in Southeast Asia
exist at the point where the two fields of art and society overlap, andthey are contextualized there as practices that both offer an alternative
to modernist art and have artistic value as a new orthodoxy, without
resorting to the inversion of perceiving worth in the “non-artistic.”
Collectives are formed and sustained by the artistic/intellectual
contributions of their diverse members, while the ecologies andaesthetics that distinguish such communities are produced by group
action. It is only on this basis that it becomes possible to build,
temporarily form, or reproduce new communities, working with special
communities that bear their own problems. Taking this logic to its
extreme, when seeking to find artistic value in practices that create
communities, which incorporate the dynamic interactions between
individual and group, it is necessary for a complete revision of the ideathat worth can be found only in discrete, autonomous works made byindividual artists.
Yet at the same time, we must keep in mind Tatehata’s warning that“the idea of ‘Asia’ should not be upheld as representing an oppositional
value.” Tatehata continues:
Oppositionalism in the name of equality (what might also be called
absolutist relativism) in fact entails stifling the ability to imagine
the other. … The prejudiced viewpoint that reduces the other to asingle entity is not confined to the dominant culture, but can just as
easily be maintained by the opposition.［14］13John Clark, “Modern Art in Southeast
Asia,” in The Japan Foundation Asia
Center Art Studies Vol. 03, 22. First
published in Art and AsiaPacific, Sample
Issue (1993): 35–38. “With greater
security for the art establishments
now producing modernist art, thetendency seen in Bangkok andYogyakarta for certain art schools todominate state art exhibitions should
produce a much stronger art antiestablishment with a wider rangeof small exhibition venues… In thePhilippines, Thailand and Indonesia
this art anti-establishment has begun
to link its activities to social issues
such as environmental despoliation,
prostitution and AIDS, both throughits subject matter and through thematerials it adopts. This may mean areturn of a new orthodoxy.”14
Tatehata, “Art as Criticism,” 31.
15“Condition Report: SindikatCampursari | The Mashup Syndicate,”held January 14 to February 14, 2017,at Gudang Sarinah Ekosistem (Hall
A4), Jakarta. See also the exhibition
catalogue published by the JapanFoundation Asia Center, 2017. Moreinformation is available on the JapanFoundation website, accessed July 28,
2017, http://jfac.jp/en/culture/events/
condition-report-sindikat-campursari1701140214/.

Here I would like to return to the preordained questions that accompany
curation over how to justify the attempt to relocate a work andtranslate it for a different context. Context-less external refinement andspectacularization reduce a work to its shell, but the desire to relocate
the original context along with work also invites oppositionalism. If thisis so, then it might be more productive to seek meaning in reconfirming
the kernel of expression that remains even after the filtration andmisinterpretations of relocation and translation.
In the collaborative curatorial project series spanning four cities inSoutheast Asia that preceded this publication, “Condition Report,” theteam in Jakarta attempted to establish a temporary collective, SindikatCampursari | Mashup Syndicate, comprising nine artists, architects
and collectives and six curators, including the author, from Southeast
Asia and Japan.［15］In Bangkok, three collectives, and a curator from thefirst group were joined by Thai artists in a new arrangement whereby
the playful means of collaboration characterizing this syndicate were
amplified, envisioning an imaginary nation through a series of works
produced in response to the context of Bangkok.［16］047Iida Shihoko│The Provisionality of Southeast Asia: The Value of Shifting Practices

16
Nid Noi Tan (a collective project bySindikat Campursari) in “Condition
Report: Mode of Liaisons,” held March
31 to July 9, 2017, at the Bangkok Art
and Culture Centre. See also the JapanFoundation website, accessed July 28,
2017, http://jfac.jp/en/culture/events/
condition-report-mode-of-liaisons1703300702/.
17
Ewington, “Five Elements,” 36 –39.
18
From an interview at Jatiwangi Art
Factory conducted June 24, 2016,
during a research visit with othermembers of the curatorial team in
preparation for “Condition Report:
Sindikat Campursari.”Through the Bangkok project’s invocation/further developmentof the curatorial framework of Jakarta by jumping from establishing atemporary collective to establishing an imaginary nation, the idea of“provisionality” emerged as a commonality between the two. As was alsosuggested previously by the title “Under Construction,” this perpetual
provisionality could be considered a condition of locality in Southeast
Asia. It was a critical response to the question of how to define Southeast
Asia in the “Condition Report” project as a whole, and it also resonateswith the possibilities and problems that Ewington identified in thehistorical context for installation art in Southeast Asia.［17］Even now, after all our advocating of multiculturalism, or in fact
precisely because of it, assumptions of the universality of values basedon discourses and art historical views developed in the West insistently
appear in the site of curation as vestiges of colonialism. This is due tothe above-mentioned limited particularity of exhibitions on the one
hand, and also because there are still aspects where artists and viewers
have yet to fully break away from those vestiges on the other. The artist’s
dilemma that “local people do not recognize our practice as art,” which I
heard on a research trip to Jatiwangi Art Factory in Indonesia, illustrates
the deep entrenchment of this issue.［18］It is difficult to experientially share the value of group action as
community outside of that community. But experientialism could havean exclusionary effect, and it is meaningless for curators who follow
artistic practices that shift both in and out of the art system to view
different sets of assumptions in binary terms. In the absence of a fully
self-contained system, the resources brought to the sites of artistic
production also derive from and are tied to the system. Consideringthat decisions determined from within contiguous systems could
affect individual practices, there is no absolute “outside” for curatorial
practice. Even under limited conditions, what curators must work
toward, in collaboration with artists, is the continued production ofvalues that can shift between contexts and systems. This is because thecontinued bridging of values from past to future is also the process ofthe historicization of the larger community of contemporaneity.
(Translated by Andrew Maerkle)

Essay 03048

東南アジアの仮設性 ─ 揺れ動く実践の価値
─

Essay
03

飯田志保子
［インディペンデント・キュレーター／東京藝術大学美術学部先端芸術表現科准教授］［01］
筆者は 2000 年から2003 年にかけて実施された「Under Construction」に従事したことを契機にアジア地域の現代美術に携わるようになって以来、国際的な01「アンダー・コンストラクション：アジア美術の新世代」は、国際交流基金アジアンセンター主

活動をしながら各地域固有の近現代美術の実践を切り拓き、展覧会を通してそれ催。2001年から2002 年にかけて芦 屋、ソウ

らをグローバルに発信してきたキュレーターやアーティストと協働する機会を幾度かク各都市で現地調査とローカル展を実施後、得てきた。キュラトリアルな実践に関する現状を、先達が築いてきた近い過去に重ね合わせながら顧みる好機として、本稿では東南アジア地域の現代美術について

ル、バンドゥン、
マニラ、北京、
ムンバイ、バンコ
東京で総合展（2002 年 12月7日─ 2003 年 3 月 2日）
を開催（財団法人東京オペラシティ文化財団共催）。参加キュレーター 9 名、
アーティスト43 組。

筆者は当時東京で開催された総合展に東京

極めて示唆的な幾つかの言説を振り返りながら、美術制度の内外で揺れ動く実践

オペラシティアートギャラリーのアシスタント・キュの価値について考察する。

レーターとして従事した。

02

キュレーションが実践される現場は、決して独立した自由の平原ではない。それは社会のなかで美術を取り巻く様々な制度と政治の内に存在しており、時代の変化
や制度との絶え間ない交渉によって都度更新され、形作られる。特に1980 年代から1990 年代にかけて、美術館のみならずアジアリンクや国際交流基金といった機関の後押しも作用し、東南アジア、
東アジア、アジア太平洋地域間で芸術文化交流が興隆するのに伴い、これらの地域内で数多くの（共同）調査や展覧会が実施され主要な先行事業としては、
福岡市美術館「アジ（1979 /80 年第一回展開催。1999 年
ア美術展」の福岡アジア美術館開館以降、「 福岡アジア美術
トリエンナーレ」）
1987–1999 年にかけてパー、スで 実 施され た「ARX: Artists’Regional

Exchange」、
クイーンズランド州立美術館│現代美術館「アジア・パシフィック現代美術トリエ（1993 年第一回展開催）
ンナーレ」
等が挙げられる。他の先行事例、論考や参考文献については、以下の加治屋健司氏の序文を参照のこと。

てきた。その恩恵を受けて、ネットワークの構築と共に近現代美術史の再検証に関加治屋健司「東南アジアの近現代美術から学する議論が蓄積され、近年では言説の再編も徐々に進められている［02］。
こうした先

ぶ」
『 The Japan Foundation Asia Center

行研究や実践によって培われてきた東南アジア地域おける現代美術のキュラトリア

を形づくる』国際交流基金アジアンセンター、

ルな実践は、
しかしながら、
ひとたび大陸や島々を隔てた地域外に議論の場を移す

Art Studies Vol. 03 東南アジア美術の歴史
2017年、
pp.9 –13［英］／ pp.111 –115［日］。

と、
日本を含め未だ十分には認知されていないと実感することがしばしばである。その理由のひとつには、ある展覧会が生きた経験として享受される時間と地政学上の領域には限りがあることが挙げられる。その時と場に固有な実践は、別の文脈に伝達され共有される頃には変容し、固有性が失われるためと言い換えても良い［03］。
地政学的な観点からは、文脈を異にする地域へ作品を移相し、翻訳しようとする

049

飯田志保子│東南アジアの仮設性 ─ 揺れ動く実践の価値03
他の理由として、黒田雷児氏が指摘する日本
におけるアジア近代美術教育の欠落も看過（黒田雷児
できない点であることを付記しておく。
「失われた全体を求めて（日本で）
アジア近代美術を教えるということ」『 The Japan Foundation Asia

Center Art Studies Vol. 03 』
、pp.83 –86［英］／pp.188 –190［日］
。所収論考は 2012 年 5月 19日マ
ニラのユーチェンコ美術館で発表された英語原稿に加筆、翻訳、編集されたもの。
）

04
ニコラス・トマス「Our history is written

in our mats 」『 The 5 th Asia-Pacific
Triennial of Contemporary Art 』カタロ
グ、Queensland Art Galler y 、2006 年、

pp.27–29 参照：「何度も浮上しがちな問題は、アフリカやオセアニアのさまざまなジャンルをアートとして議論すべきかどうか、ということだ。…
［中略］… 先住民のアートの形態が全く見知らぬ文化的空間から現出しているということが、それらの特性を正確に説明しようとするあらゆる姿
勢に、翻訳もしくは解釈という手ごわい問題を投げかけることになる。
したがって、
コレクションまたはインスティチューションといった、本来の帰属先ではない文脈にそれらの作品を含めるあらゆ
る例において、脱文脈化や不適切な再文脈化は避けられない問題である。…［中略］… グ
ローバルなプロセスと文化的な形態は、きわめて不平等、多様かつ予期しない方法で地域的に影響を与え、かつ受容されることに疑いの余地はない。それゆえ植民地時代ならびに植民

キュレーションの試みを正当化することの困難さによって、これまでにも東南アジアに限らずポストコロニアルな各地域の固有性が前景化されてきた［04］。加えて、
グロー
バル化によって人々と情報と知識のモビリティがさらに増した現在、キュレーションの焦点は関与する地域を静的でアプリオリな対象とせず、
アーティストの流動性とハイブリッド化した実践に留意したうえで、そのなかにある微細だが根深い差異と共通
項、土着性と国際性、社会的・政治的・歴史的諸条件を再検証することへとより拡
［05］。
張している
時間的な側面からみると、空間や身体性も含めた総合的な芸術体

験を提示し、時代を超えてそれらを知識と共に蓄積・継承しようとする展覧会の伝達速度ならびに有効期間は、元来、社会変化とインターネット等のメディアによる情報伝達の加速度に比例しない。にもかかわらず、即時的なインパクトを期待される一過性のイベントとして、あるいは国家や地域を表象するツールとして、展覧会は資本主義経済を背景にした外交や商業、観光促進目的の事業との比較に晒される。
ビ
エンナーレやアート・プロジェクトの世界的な増加もこの状況に拍車をかける一因となっている。つまり、各地域と時代に固有な美術の実践が、人々の移動とメディアによって否応なしに地域内外に速度を伴って伝達され、変容しながら受容されていく
現実と対峙する際、自ずと展覧会に「ある特定の時点における固有な実践」という条件付けと限定化／暫定化の意識が働くのである。
こうして地域／時代の固有性という概念の有効性は、
オーセンティシティと同じぐらい疑わしく、短命で限定的なものとなる。
ここで筆者が想起するのは、近代国家の速度の暴力について言及したポー
ル・ヴィリリオの一説である。

地時代以降の世界の文化はいずれも、純粋にエキゾチックでもなければ（それらは決してそうでは

もし迅速さが戦争の本質そのものであり、またキップリングがかつて述べたようなかった）、西欧の表現の亜流にもなっておらずに『戦争の最初の犠牲者は真実である』
ならば、
こう言うべきだろう、『 真実とは（それ以上でも以下でもある）、
また、ハイブリッドとし（それは円滑すぎて生産的に見なすこともできない［06］。
速度の最初の犠牲者である』とるし融合手術を連想させる）。…［中略］…もし我々が植民地時代以降の世界の複雑さについて、より複雑で語感をもった展望を必要とするなら…
［中略］… 我々はこの展望を、西欧の外にあるモダンならびにポストモダン時代のアートに拡大しなければならない」（
。筆者訳）

鉄道、
車、
戦闘機に代表される速度の進化は、近代国家が己の知と権力を確認するために他者を征服していった歴史でもある。今や世界各地から探求の熱い眼差
しを向けられる東南アジア地域の美術もまた、
これまでしばしば周縁化され、エキゾ

05
ここでは近年の好 例 のひとつとして、「第8回アジア・パ シフィック現 代 美 術トリエン
ナーレ」内 の特 別プロジェクト展「Kalpa

Vriksha: Contemporary Indigenous andVernacular Art of India」を付記しておきた（クイーンズランド州立美術館│現代美術館、
ブリい。
スベン、2015 年 11月21日─ 2016 年 4月10日開催）

チック化され、表象されてきた点において、近代化の速度の犠牲者と言えるだろう。
展覧会に付随するこうした限定的固有性を認識したうえで、東南アジアにおける現代美術のキュラトリアルな実践を地域内外で表層的な情報としてのみならず、活きた経験として場所や時代を越えて本質的に共有しようとする際、キュレーションに求められることがある。1）
アーティスト、作品、展覧会に固有な文脈と美学を提示し、同時代の人々と共有し得る価値と知識を生産すること。2）
たとえ他の文脈に置換不可能であっても、他者がそれぞれの文脈で想像できる奥行きと柔軟性を持たせること。

Essay 03050

3）後世においても社会的／文化的な価値を持つ資源として認められ得るよう、言説（時間を共有し、即時的な「理解」に抗い、共同体の意識を作を築くこと。そして4）
速度に抗うる）ことである。
これらの実践にあたり、とりわけ現前する課題について以下に論じる。

06
ポール・ヴィリリオ
『ネガティヴ・ホライズン─
（丸岡高弘訳）
速度と知覚の変容』、産業図書、

2003 年、p.152。
07

ひとつは、何に価値を見出すのか議論する際、美術制度の内外で前提が異なることである。美術館、ギャラリー、
ビエンナーレあるいはアートフェアといった各種制度の「内」においては、それぞれが負う使命と目的は異なるが、作品には自律した価値の普遍性があることが前提とされる。その前提によって既存の価値が見直され、同時に新たな価値が創出されもする。
「価値の普遍性」という概念自体、モダニズムが産出した幻想であるにもかかわらず。普遍性の志向はモダニズムに特異な幻想
ではなく、またモダニズム自体に内在する「巨大な分裂」を指摘した建畠晢は、か建畠晢「批評としての美術」『アジアのモダニズ
ム─その多様な展開：インドネシア、
フィリピン、
タイ』
カタログ、国際交流基金アジアセンター、

1995年、
p.14［日］／p.201［英］初出。
なお、
本論
考の英訳は
『 The Japan Foundation Asia

Center Art Studies Vol. 03』再録時の修正（p.32）
版の該当部分を引用した。

08
塩田純一「東南アジアから─来るべき美術のために」『東南アジア 1997 来るべき美術のために』カタログ、東京都現代美術館／広島市

つて次のように述べた。

現代美術館／国際交流基金アジアセンター、

1997 年、pp.11–17［日］／pp.153–159［英］初あるいはこのように言うべきかもしれない。確かにモダニズムは悟性に基づいた

出；『 The Japan Foundation Asia Center

Art Studies Vol. 03 』再録、p.46［英］／148

価値の普遍性を掲げたが、またそれ故に個別の伝統との間に（時に潜在的では［日］：「一口で言えば、これらの美術家たちにあれ）不可避的な葛藤を生むのだと。落差があるとすれば、それはモダニズム

個性の表出ではない。むしろ彼らが住まう共同

とって問題なのはモダニスティックな意味での体にいかに関与し、いかにより良き未来を築い［07］。
との落差ではなく、モダニズムによる落差なのであるていくかということであり、そのために美術には何ができるかということなのである。個人のアイデ

先述の諸制度は近代化とともに発展してきた。
もし仮に現在でも東南アジアから生み出される価値とモダニズムが掲げた普遍的な価値との間に葛藤や落差があるとンティティの探求を主題とする作家にしたところ
で、事情は変わらない。彼らもまた家族や共同体、民族といったより大きな枠組みと自己を重ね合わせつつ、
アイデンティティの問題を探求しすれば、それはモダニズムに依拠した美術制度のマッチポンプに加担しない態度ている。
こうした立場は、個人の創造性に絶対によるものであり、今日では垂直軸の「落差」ではなく、水平軸に位置する「差異」との価値を置き、純粋で自律した芸術世界の探呼ぶべきものである。そこには、未だ普遍性を獲得していないのではなく、西洋におは大きく隔たっている。…［中略］… 西欧モダニ

けるモダニズムとは別の地平に存在する価値と動機がある。
このことは塩田純一や
アピナン・ポーサヤーナンによる論考においても明確に指摘されている［08, 09］。
一方、諸制度の価値体系に組み入れられていない制作／実践の場という意味での制度「外」においては、実際、価値に関する議論の際に異なった前提がある。インドネシアに数多くあるコレクティヴの活動に顕著なように、重視されるのはヒエラル

求に邁進してきた、西欧モダニズムの発想からズムにおけるように、美術が社会から独立した存在であり得たのは、美術史においては例外的な事例にすぎない。スパンカットが述べているように、道徳主義に根差したインドネシアのモダニズムは積極的に社会に関わり、民衆を擁護しようとしてきた。
このことは、
他の東南アジ
ア諸国のモダニズムにも敷衍して考えることができるだろう」。

キーを解体し水平化した共同体の生成、そこへの帰属意識、知識生産と共有。そしてマーケットに依存しない自立した経済システムを持った活動の自主運営と継続である。例えばジャカルタを拠点とし、
スハルト政権後の民主化世代を代表するコレクティヴのひとつルアンルパ（2000 年設立）が掲げるスローガン「アートより友だち［10］（Make friends not art）」
は、一見プレイフルで挑発的だが、集団活動が先の軍事政権時代に対する抗いの表現となる社会的・政治的背景がある。また、活動に要される財源と人的資源を同居団体と一部共有し、スペースを共同運営する組合

051

飯田志保子│東南アジアの仮設性 ─ 揺れ動く実践の価値

09
アピナン・ポーサヤーナン「辺境からみる『コン・アート』─東南アジアにおけるコンセプチュア
ル・アートの意味」『 Global Conceptualism:

Points of Origin, 1950 s –1980s 』展（Newにも似た経営方式の適用や、地域のアーティストや多様なコミュニティに深く関与しながらコレクティヴの活動総体を学びの場とみなすオルタナティヴな教育機関としての在り方からは、個人の創造活動の産物としての作品のみならず、それを生成すYork: Queens Museum, 1999）
初出；『 Playing

る母体としての共同体の生態系にも大きな価値を置く態度が看守される。東南アwith Slipper y Lubricants: Apinan

ジアにおける共同体の概念について、ジュリー・エウィントンは既に1995年の時点

Poshyananda, Selected Writings, 1993 （ Bangkok: Office of Contemporary
2004 』

で以下のように観察している。

Art and Culture, Ministry of Culture, 2010 ,pp.253 –260）
再録；『 The Japan Foundation

Asia Center Art Studies Vol. 03 』再録、東南アジアの社会において共同体という概念は、西洋文化において美術の実

pp.48 –51［英］／ pp.151 –152［日］
：
「
［ジャカ
ルタの］
ニュー・アート・ムーヴメントを奮い立た践を活気づけている個性という意識よりもはるかに強い。…［中略］… 重要なのは、せたのは、ローカルなアートシーンのうちでの社［11］。
共同体が集団的行動を共有するための機会を提供していることなのである

会的政治的圧力であって、西洋の『諸イズム』に遅れを取るまいという思いはあまりなかったのである。…［中略］… コンセプチュアル・アートの芸術家たちは、彼らの作品が西洋の『オリジナ
ル』の単なる様式的引用ではないという自信を獲得してきたのである。実際、多くの芸術家が、知的集団のメンバー間の自己言及的で退屈なコミュケであるとして、西洋版のコンセプチュア
リズムを却下しているのである」。

10「List of GB Fellows with Slogans」『 2016

Gwangju Biennale Forum: To All the（フォーラム会場配布プ
Contributing Factors 』
ログラム）、2016 年 9月 2日─ 9月4日開催、第11 回光州ビエンナーレ、光州、韓国。
［http://
www.the8 thclimate.org］スローガンの和共同体としての集団活動と価値という観点からもうひとつ思い起こされる課題は、他者が関与し、実社会で機能することに意味がある実践の場合、そこにいかにして芸術的価値を認めるかである。近年、アーティストが教育、環境汚染、ジェントリフィ
ケーション、過疎化、売春、人権といった地域社会問題に取り組む活動がソーシャ（社会実践）
ル・プラクティス、
ソーシャリー・エンゲージド・アート、
コミュニティ・アート運動等の呼称で日本でも知られるようになってきた。便宜上これらの用語を使うことがあったとしても、東南アジアや東アジアにおける同様の実践は、例えばアメリカでアラン・カプローの美学を継承したスザンヌ・レイシーを経て社会実践が美術史に定着したようにはこの地域の美術史に文脈化されておらず、成立の歴史的背景と実訳はあいちトリエンナーレ 2016 出展時の表記

践の美学を西洋のそれらとは異にしていることが、一部の研究者を除いてまだあまりに倣った。

意識されていない。
クレア・ビショップは参加や社会的関与を伴う実践を念頭にこう

11

述べる。

ジュリー・エウィントン「5つの要素 ─東南アジ
アのインスタレーション・アートに関する概略」『Art

and AsiaPacific 』2、no.1、
1995 年、pp.108 –参加型プロジェクトは、
まさにそれが非芸術的であるために価値を見出されると115 初出 ／『 The Japan Foundation Asia

いう事実にもかかわらず、
その比較と参照点はつねにコンテンポラリー・アートへCenter Art Studies Vol. 03』再録、pp.37 –38［英］／ p.139［日］。

と舞い戻るのだ。それは、つねに芸術を超え出ようと強く望む。だが決して、社会領域に存在する、対比しうるプロジェクトとの比較にまでおよぼうとしない［12］。

12
クレア・ビショップ『人工地獄 現代アートと観（大森俊克訳）
客の政治学』、株式会社フィルム2016 年、p.42。
アート社、

これは西洋におけるモダニズムの価値の普遍性を前提とした際にはあり得る帰結
かもしれないが、東南アジアで反権威の芸術が 1990 年代から社会問題とリンクし社会実践に相当するようになったのは、
ジョン・クラークが指摘するように、
モダニズ
［13］。
ム芸術の波及と終焉の影響によるしたがって、東南アジアにおける社会実践

は芸術と社会の両領域が重なり合う地点に存在し、そこでは「非芸術的であるために価値を見出される」という転倒は起きず、
むしろモダニズム芸術に対するオルタナ

Essay 03052

13

ティヴかつ新たな正統としての芸術的価値を持つ実践として文脈化される。
多彩な個人の芸術的／知的貢献によってコレクティヴは形成・維持され、集団活動によってその共同体を特徴づける生態系と美学が生成される。
こうした基盤を以てはじめて、問題を抱えたある特定のコミュニティと新たな共同体を構築、仮設、あるいは再生し得る。個人と集団が相互に影響し合うダイナミズムも含め、共同体が成ジョン・クラーク「東 南アジアのモダン・アー
ト」『 Ar t and A siaPacif ic 』、Sample

Issue, 1993, pp.35–38 初 出；
『 The JapanFoundation Asia Center Art Studies Vol.
03 』再録、p.22［英］／ p.124［日］：「モダニズム
芸術を今や生み出している芸術機関がより堅固になっていくにつれ、バンコクやジョグジャカ

す実践に芸術的価値を見出すには、極論すれば個人による自律した個別の作品

ルタで見られるように、特定の美術学校が国のだけが価値を持つという考えを刷新する必要がある。だが同時に、
「
“アジア”
は対

展覧会を支配するという傾向が、より広く幅を抗的な価値として主張されるべきではない」という建畠の警句も思い起こされるべ

ずっと強い芸術を生み出すはずである。…［中きである。建畠はこう続ける。

権威の芸術はその活動を、その主題においてと持つ小さな展示スペースにおいて反権威的で略］… フィリピン、
タイ、
インドネシアをはじめ、反使用する素材においてとの両方で、環境破壊

対等主義の名を借りた対抗主義（絶対的相対主義と言い換えてもよい）は、
その実、他者に対する想像力の封殺を意味するからである。…［中略］… 他者の一元化という偏見は何も支配的な文化の側だけがもつものではなく、それに対抗する側にもまた同じ偏見がありうるのだ［14］。

や売春や AIDSといった社会問題とリンクさせ始めている。
これは、新たな正統という信念と創造のためのプロパガンダへと芸術が回帰することを意味しているのかもしれない」。

14
p.13［日］／p.200［英］。
建畠、
前掲書［07］、
なお、
本論考の英訳は『 The Japan Foundation

Asia Center Art Studies Vol. 03』再録時のここで再び、文脈を異にする地域へ作品を移相し、翻訳する試みをいかに正当化するかというキュレーションに付随する宿命的な問いに立ち返ってみたい。文脈を修正版（p.31）の該当部分を引用した。

15

欠いた外観上の洗練やスペクタクル化は作品を形骸化するが、本来の文脈ごと「Condition Report: Sindikat Campursari」、の移相を欲望することは対抗主義を誘き寄せる。そうであるならば、移相や翻訳に

ジャカルタ、2017 年 1月14日─ 2月14日。同

よって濾過され誤読されてもなお立ち現れる表現の核を再確認することに意味を見出す方が生産的ではないだろうか。
この出版に先立ち東南アジア4 都市で開催された「Condition Report」共同企画展シリーズのうち、ジャカルタでは型どおりのキュレーションではなく、東南アジアと日本から計 9 組のアーティスト、建築家、
コレクティヴと、筆者を含む 6 名のキュレーターから成るテンポラリーなコレクティヴ

Gudang Sarinah Ekosistem（ Hall A4 ）、（国
展カタログならびにウェブサイト参照のこと
際交流基金アジアセンター、2017年）；http://jfac.

jp/culture/events/condition-reportsindikat-campursari-1701140214（ア/ クセス：2017 年 7月28日）

16『 Nid Noi Tan（
』Sindikat Campursari による展

「Sindikat Campursari」の仮設を試みた［15］。続くバンコク展では、メンバーの覧会内協働プロジェクト）、「Condition Report：

うちコレクティヴ 3 組と一名のキュレーターにタイのアーティストを加えた新たな編成

2017 年 3 月 31日 ─ 7月 9日。
ター、で、
このシンジケートを特徴づけるプレイフルな協働の手法を増幅させ、バンコクの文脈に即して制作された一連の作品によって仮想国家が表象された［16］。コレ
クティヴを仮設するというジャカルタ展のキュラトリアルな枠組みがバンコク展で仮想国家を設立するアイデアに援用・発展されたことで、「仮設」という共通項が浮かび上がる。振り返ると、かつての「Under Construction」のタイトルも示唆するよう

Made of Liaisons」、バンコク芸術文化セン
http://jfac.jp/culture/events/conditionreport-mode-of-liaisons-1703300702 /（アクセス：2017 年 7月28日）

17
エウィントン、前掲［11］論考参照、pp.36 –39［英］／pp.137–141［日］。

に、東南アジアの地域性にもたらされた条件のひとつは、その永続的な仮設性といえるのではないか。
これは東南アジアとは何かを問う「Condition Report」事業全体に対する批評的な応答であり、またエウィントンが東南アジア地域のインスタ
レーションの歴史的文脈に見出した可能性と課題にも共鳴する［17］。

053

飯田志保子│東南アジアの仮設性 ─ 揺れ動く実践の価値

18
2 016 年 6 月 24 日「 Condition Report：

多文化主義が提唱されて久しい今日においてもなお、
あるいはだからこそ、キュレー

Sindikat Campursari」調査旅行において、ションの現場においては西洋で築かれてきた言説と美術史観に則った価値の普筆者を含むキュレーターチームによるジャティワ

遍性という前提が、旧植民地主義の名残として存在感を持って立ち現れる。一方

ンギ・アート・ファクトリーへのインタヴューでの聞き取り。

では先述した展覧会の限定的固有性のためであり、他方ではアーティストと観客もその名残から抜け出せていない側面があるためである。調査で訪れたインドネシアのジャティワンギ・アート・ファクトリーで耳にした「地域住民には自分たちの実践がアートだと認識されていない」というアーティストのジレンマが、このことの根深さを物
［18］。
語っている

共同体としての集団行動が持つ価値を、その外で経験的に共有することは難しい。
しかし、経験主義は排他的に働く危険性があるうえ、
アーティストの実践が制度内外に移行されるどちらの場にも従事するキュレーターにとって、異なる前提を二項対立的に捉えることは意味をなさない。自給自足のシステムを構築しない限り、アーティストの制作の場にもたらされた財源も制度に由来し、紐づけされている。地続きの制度内から届けられる意思決定が個別の実践に影響を及ぼし得ることを考慮するに、キュレーションの実践に決して絶対的な外は存在しないのである。キュレーター
が取り組むべきは、限定された条件下においても、
アーティストとの協働によって揺れ動く価値を生産し続けることである。過去から未来へとその価値の橋渡しを続けることもまた、同時代性という大きな共同体が歴史化される過程にあるからである。

Essay 03054

Curating, Collectives, and Conversation

Essay
04

─

Ade Darmawan［Member of ruangrupa］

In 2009, I co-curated “Fixer,” with Rifky Effendy, an exhibition in Jakarta
that presented works of communities/groups/collectives of Indonesianartists—21 groups, to be exact, from various cities, including Padang,
Jakarta, Bandung, Cirebon, Jatiwangi, Yogyakarta, Semarang, Malang,
Surabaya, and Makassar. Today, some of those groups still exist whileothers have become dormant or even disbanded. The exhibition featured
artist-run organizations and groups that had emerged in recent years,
which had managed to survive and play a role in their local contexts,
whether rural or urban. At least two common tendencies could beobserved among the organizations and groups involved in the exhibition.
First, their artistic practices, whether collaborative or individual,
constituted their artistic statement as a group. Secondly, these artists’groups and organizations played the role of a support system within
the art ecosystem, through activities or programs that raised publicawareness, aimed at a broad public, such as exhibitions, workshops,
festivals, discussions, publications, film and video screenings, websites,
archiving, and research. The combination of these two practices, as
artist collectives and as support systems in the art ecosystem, clearly
distinguishes the role and type of these artists’ groups and organizations
emerging at this time from those of previous generations.
In preparing the exhibition, we did a small survey by sending themquestions about their vision as collectives and organizational data, while
also requesting some photographs that could represent their practices.
When they sent us the pictures, we could see that almost all the photos
representing their organizations showed the houses where they have
lived and worked. Another common characteristic was that there wasalways a photo in which they were sitting down in a circle. Meetingsand sharing through conversations had become really important, and ahouse provided a very comfortable space for allowing these to happen.
Such meetings most often took place in the living room, since it is
the largest room in most spatial designs of a typical Indonesian home.
All the groups above used a home as the starting point and the centerof their activities, altering and adapting a domestic space into a more055

Ade Darmawan│Curating, Collectives, and Conversation

public space, converting the living room into a meeting space andexhibition space; and the bedrooms into working spaces or studios, thelibrary, and a space for archives. Typically, it is a rented house. There
are practical reasons behind the choice of a rented house as a working
place: these are easy to find and the rents are affordable. As such, aninitative’s space has a better chance of surviving financially. The lease
usually applies for a year, and the rent is paid with money collected frommembers of the group. The rented house is often also used to serve thevarious combined interests of the group, as a living and working space.
Thus, the house can have two functions: as a space for living and a spacefor working and gathering.
The financial ability to rent in a certain area also shows that theartists come from more or less the same social and economic class asother residents in the area. Most artists usually also divide their time,
as workers in the creative or media industries, part-time freelancers, or
students. Most groups choose a working or middle-class housing area, ormixed areas with residences and small to medium businesses—secularareas with a melting pot of people from various backgrounds. A mixed
area is particularly suitable because it is also a place for diverse kinds of
independent enterprises.
From a simple living room, a group positions itself as a vital part ofthe supporting infrastructure for both art and the community, becoming
a stand-alone citizen’s initiative. This kind of group, this initiative, which
typically uses a residential house as its basecamp or meeting ground,
imagines itself as living among the people. Its presence in a residential
area is an opening, or calls for a skill, to negotiate and dialogue withthe values of the community surrounding it. Living together with thepeople, its activities are naturally carried out with an awareness of,and alongside these values, and may even tap from them. The direct orindirect involvement of the nearby residents can be a strategy of artistic
exploration, influenced by those residents.
Meetings between groups of artists and local residents in spatial contexts
have generated certain styles of artistic approaches and methods, andactivities and engagement that bring together local residents and theartists’ spaces have become a natural process. The festival is a form ofactivity that has emerged in various places, being a familiar and sensible
format to work with—a social event rooted in celebration, togetherness,meeting, sharing, and conversation. The festival form has a strong
resonance in the collective memory of society as an artistic and social
form that is a tradition in many places. Artist initiatives and residents
have given other meanings to the festival as a form of collective artisticcelebration that also represents a hierarchical power structure in society.
As a combination of some quite complex events and gatherings, thisactivity has become important as it may come to critique and disturb theexisting hierarchical power structures we see in society.
Forms of experimentation in organizing a public activity can be seen
as an artistic process that enriches both the public and the artists. They

Essay 04056

create a new space where various elements can intersect without having
to merge, and remain independent. The event then becomes a space of
encounters and conversations, leading to innovations without having tofall into the trap of institutional formality.
The convergence of the two practices in the groups andorganizations mentioned earlier—the production of artistic statements
and the role of a supporting system—through its public nature, cancreate a specific color and a more organic character in such an activity or
event, being open to adjustments to contextual needs. More imaginative
artistic approaches have also greatly influenced methods of management
and activities. An activity, an event, becomes a medium of expression.
This is manifest not only in the underlying vision of the program designor the contents of the program, but even in the overall approach toward
the event and the structure of how it is organized, including how anactivity communicates and engages with its space and audience, how it is
supposed to exist as an idea to be experienced by the public. An activity
can be seen as an artistic event in which parts are open and ready togrow organically, welcoming interventions. Unexpected and speculative
events potentially provide for encounters between all kinds of elements.
This results in innovations that can be appreciated and absorbed by the
public in organic, flexible ways. In taking such a role and approach, an
activity becomes a distinctive form of artistic expression.
This is quite a complex action that deals not only with artistic
matter, but also with broader matter: the space, the public, andmanagement. It comes in the form of gatherings and social interactions,ones that must be relevant to the context of its space and public. Not onlyis it an artistic practice, it is furthermore a social practice. It becomes avehicle for the development of cross-disciplinary and cross-professional
works, combining art and activism, combining management with theskills required to network, generate support, read situations, and use
local resources.
This act, or platform, that brings together and bridges transactions
and social relations slowly grows bigger and finds its public characterand position in the community. It grows together with the community’s
support and engagement. After being organized several times, andgaining acceptance and engagement from the community, an event
finds an important and relevant position, and garners good and broad
support. Slowly it becomes its own force among other existing forces as
a producer of images, ideas, and values in the community.
To seize a space is also to seize a public. The organic nature of thegathering/social interaction/show/attraction/spectacle concept makes anevent all the more attractive for the public; it feels more intimate, like a
festive, collective party that facilitates social dialogue and transactions.
Everyone feels invited to participate in meetings and conversations.
It does not specify exceptions or limits; it does not create social or
intellectual boundaries. These encounters have a character that is open
and diffuse. The position of “living together with the people” imagines
an art institution’s relationship within a society: it exists within the057

Ade Darmawan│Curating, Collectives, and Conversationsociety and becomes a part of it—a strategy built on friendship andcommon enjoyment.
Addressing the idea of artists’ collective practices in an exhibition isindeed a challenge. Considering the complexity of spaces, acts, andevents involved in certain collective practices, it is almost impossible totransfer an entire experience and event into an exhibition space. How do
we present a series of events and complex acts in an exhibition? How do
we curate an artistic practice that already contains a curatorial practiceand an institutional critique?
Reviewing the experience of curating an exhibition about ideas ofcollective artistic practices, as well as participating—with ruangrupa—in
exhibitions based around the idea of collective artistic practices, manyof which fell into the trap of representation or group profiling, I havefound that such exhibitions ultimately tend to present a selection ofarchival materials and methods of working collectively, but none of these
exhibitions or curatorial projects have ever become collective works
in themselves. It is a real challenge to exhibit a collective practice, andso a representative form is always chosen. Archival and documentarymaterials are shown; sketches, drafts, and process notes are presented
for examination by the audience. This is a kind of presentation which
always reduces the process and liveliness of the real thing. The questionof how to curate and present a collective practice itself constitutes aparadox as a curator’s centralistic curatorial practice comes face toface with a collective practice that wants to collapse centralistic power
patterns.
For the project, “Condition Report: Sindikat Campursari” in Jakarta,
once again we tried to think about and question collective practices,among various artists and groups in Asia. We wanted to use thisopportunity to further challenge the idea of the collective by attempting
to explore questions around collective work through getting curators andartists to make works together. The closest method we could imagine fordoing this was by actually becoming a collective.
There are a number of ideas about collective conversation anddecision-making that are familiar to the local Indonesian context. In
Jakartan slang, there is the word nongkrong, a concept of getting together
so typical of Indonesian tradition. It means spending time to cometogether in a friendly and comfortable atmosphere with old and new
friends, or in a small group brought together by space and time due
to proximity of location or a common background. It means sharing
stories, ideas, problems, and sometimes solutions. There is a sense of
mutuality and taking care of each other in the aimless conversations
involved. Another phrase is musyawarah-mufakat, an assembly in whicha group’s members humbly gather to solve problems or make decisions
for the sake of the common interest, not through casting votes andgoing with the majority, but instead talking things over to create anagreement—this can be held without a set timeframe and is very open
in nature. Yet another phrase, gotong royong, can mean a form of mutual

Essay 04058

cooperation among a number of people or citizens to carry out a task orwork deemed useful for the common good as part of social life. In thesocial sciences, mutual cooperation is seen as a principle of working
together, of helping one another without direct rewards, for the common
or public good. Gotong royong also means the active participation of anindividual in a community, who gets involved and finds positive values
in the surroundings, issues, or needs of those around them. Such active
participation can take the form of physical help, materials, mental input,
skills, and so forth.
By looking at models of dialogue and decision making, as well as
models of managing control and power that already exist in society, the“Campursari” project became a way to rethink possible ways of bringing
together a more relational and less authoritative curatorial process
suited to collective practice.
Conversations teach many things, and grow them into traditions.
And so we created, or more exactly speculated, a curatorial strategy
that relies on conversations and space. Meetings and forums are held;
artists, curators, producers gather and discuss things tirelessly. They
throw in, select, and decide on ideas together. Conversations meander,decisions spring. We reduce individual control and ownership, sharing
power and authority, as well as respecting silence and absence. Ideas
merge organically without a clear ownership. It is a collage, thousands ofpieces of ideas coming together. There is an openness to share, give andtake, lose and find. Bad ideas are polished up with some imagination
through a conversation, making them better ideas. Conversations andcommunication open up the territory of decision making, widening it
and making it a common act without a timeframe. Efficiency can beignored with this imagined luxury of time. Even uncertainty and failure
can be seen as luxuries. Luxuries that contemporary society compels us
to do without.
(Translated by Ninus D. Andamuswari)059

Ade Darmawan│Curating, Collectives, and Conversation

Essay04

Kurasi, Kolektif, dan Percakapan─Ade Darmawan［Anggota ruangrupa］

Pada 2009, saya menjadi kurator bersama Rifky Effendi dalam pamerandi Jakarta berjudul “Fixer” yang menampilkan kerja-kerja komunitas/
kelompok/kolektif perupa di Indonesia, tepatnya 21 kelompok dariberbagai kota seperti Padang, Jakarta, Bandung, Cirebon, Jatiwangi,
Yogyakarta, Semarang, Malang, Surabaya, dan Makassar. Sekarang
sebagian dari inisiatif tersebut masih ada yang bertahan hidup
sedangkan sebagian yang lain sudah tidak aktif lagi atau bahkan bubar.
Pameran itu menampilkan organisasi dan kelompok seni rupa yangdikelola oleh seniman yang muncul selama beberapa tahun terakhir,yang bertahan dan berperan dalam konteks lokal masing-masing, baikrural maupun urban. Paling tidak ada dua kecenderungan praktik yang
dapat diamati dari organisasi dan kelompok yang terlibat. Pertama,
praktik kerja artistik yang mereka lakukan secara kolaboratif maupun
secara individual merupakan pernyataan artistik kelompok. Kedua,
organisasi dan kelompok seniman ini mengambil peran sebagai
salah satu sistem pendukung dalam ekosistem medan kesenian yangditerjemahkan ke dalam kegiatan atau program yang membangun
kesadaran publik, seperti penyelenggaraan pameran, lokakarya, festival,
diskusi, penerbitan, pemutaran film dan video, website, pengarsipan,
dan penelitian. Paduan dari kedua praktik itulah, sebagai kolektif
seniman dan lembaga pendukung ekosistem seni, yang dengan sangat
jelas membedakan peran dan jenis organisasi dan kelompok senimanyang berkembang saat ini dari generasi sebelumnya.
Saat mempersiapkan pameran tersebut, kami melakukan survei
kecil dengan mengirimkan beberapa pertanyaan tentang gagasan
kolektif dan data organisasi, juga meminta beberapa foto yang bisa
merepresentasikan praktik-praktik mereka. Ketika mereka mengirim
foto-foto tersebut, kami bisa melihat hampir semua foto yang dikirim
untuk merepresentasikan organisasi mereka memperlihatkan rumah
di mana mereka bertempat tinggal dan bekerja. Lalu, selain itu, salahsatu ciri khas yang sama adalah selalu ada foto di mana mereka sedang
berkumpul dengan formasi melingkar. Pertemuan dan saling berbagi
dalam percakapan menjadi hal yang sangat penting. Rumah menjadi

060

sebuah ruang yang sangat nyaman untuk membuat semua hal tersebut
terjadi.
Biasanya pertemuan itu terjadi di ruang tamu rumah, karena ruang
ini adalah ruang yang paling besar yang ada di kebanyakan rancanganruang-ruang dalam rumah tipikal di Indonesia. Semua kelompok
menggunakan rumah sebagai awal dan pusat kegiatan mereka;mengubah dan mengadaptasi ruang domestik menjadi sebuah ruangyang lebih publik. Adaptasi ruang dilakukan dengan menjadikan ruang
tamu sebagai ruang berkumpul dan ruang pamer; kamar tidur menjadi
ruang kerja atau studio, perpustakaan, dan ruang arsip. Biasanya,rumah itu rumah sewaan. Ada alasan praktis, tentu, yang menyebabkan
rumah tinggal menjadi pilihan tempat bekerja: harga sewa yang cukup
terjangkau dan mudah didapatkan. Dengan begitu, sebuah ruang
inisiatif bisa bertahan lebih baik secara finansial. Sistem penyewaan
biasanya per tahun dengan uang sewa yang terkumpul dari iuran secara
kolektif anggota kelompok. Rumah yang disewa juga sering dipakai
untuk atau digabungkan dengan kepentingan anggota kelompok
sebagai tempat tinggal dan bekerja. Ini membuat rumah sewaan
mempunyai dua fungsi: sebagai tempat tinggal sekaligus tempat bekerja
dan berkumpul.
Kemampuan finansial untuk menyewa rumah di area tertentu juga
memperlihatkan bahwa para seniman berasal dari kelas ekonomi dansosial yang kurang-lebih sama seperti warga setempat. Kebanyakan
seniman biasanya juga membagi waktu sebagai pekerja industri media
atau kreatif, pekerja paruh-waktu, atau mahasiswa. Sebagian besar
kelompok memilih area permukiman kelas menengah atau campuran
antara permukiman dan usaha kecil hingga menengah—area sekuler
berupa wahana percampuran antar orang dari berbagai latar belakang.
Area campuran ini khususnya menjadi tempat yang cocok dan tepat
untuk banyak inisiatif/kolektif seniman karena merupakan tempat bagi
tumbuhnya juga beragam rupa usaha mandiri.
Dari ruang tamu yang sederhana, sebuah kelompok memposisikan
diri sebagai pengisi infrastruktur pendukung yang vital, menjadi
inisiatif warga yang berdiri sendiri. Kehadiran inisiatif, yangkebanyakan menggunakan sebuah rumah tinggal sebagai markas atauruang bertemu ini, membayangkan dirinya hidup bersama warga.
Keberadaannya di lingkungan permukiman membuka tawaran atau
menuntut kemampuan bernegosisasi dan berdialog bersama nilai nilaiyang ada di masyarakat sekitarnya. Berada bersama warga, seluruh
kegiatannya menjadi secara alami mempunyai kesadaran akan nilai-nilai
sekitar yang bisa saja berdampingan, juga dimanfaatkan. Keterlibatan
warga sekitarnya secara langsung tidak langsung menjadi sebuah
strategi eksplorasi artistik yang juga dipengaruhi oleh kehadiran warga.
Perjumpaan antara kelompok-kelompok seniman dan warga setempat
dalam konteks ruang telah melahirkan gaya pendekatan dan metodeartistik tertentu, dan aktivitas dan keterlibatan yang menyatukan warga
setempat dengan ruang seniman menjadi proses alami. Festival adalah061

Ade Darmawan │ Kurasi, Kolektif, dan Percakapan

bentuk kegiatan yang muncul di berbagai tempat, sebagai format yangfamiliar dan masuk akal untuk dipakai—ajang sosial yang berakar dalam
perayaan, kebersamaan, perjumpaan, aksi berbagi, dan percakapan.
Bentuk festival bergaung kuat dalam memori kolektif masyarakat
sebagai bentuk sosial dan artistik yang merupakan tradisi di banyak
tempat. Inisiatif seniman dan warga memberikan makna lain padafestival sebagai bentuk perayaan artistik kolektif yang juga mewakili
struktur kuasa hierarkis dalam masyarakat. Sebagai paduan dari ajang
dan kumpul-kumpul yang cukup rumit, kegiatan ini menjadi penting
karena bisa menjadi kritik dan mengganggu struktur kuasa hierarkis
yang kita lihat dalam masyarakat.
Bentuk-bentuk eksperimentasi dalam penyelenggaraan suatu
kegiatan publik dapat dilihat sebagai proses artistik yang memperkayabaik publik maupun seniman. Bentuk-bentuk itu menciptakan
ruang baru, ruang-ruang irisan dari berbagai elemen yang bersalingsilang, tanpa harus melebur dan bisa tetap mandiri. Ajang itu makamenjadi sebuah ruang pertemuan dan percakapan dengan penemuanpenemuan di dalamnya tanpa harus terperangkap dengan keformalankelembagaan.
Meleburnya dua praktik di atas, produksi pernyataan artistik dan
peran sebagai sistem pendukung, melalui kepublikannya memberi
warna yang spesifik dan warna yang lebih organik dalam kegiatan
atau ajang seperti itu, karena secara terbuka bisa disesuaikan dengan
kebutuhan-kebutuhan kontekstual. Pendekatan artistik yang lebih
imajinatif telah banyak mempengaruhi pula bentuk-bentuk pengelolaan
dan bentuk-bentuk kegiatan ini. Kegiatan atau sebuah peristiwa menjadi
sebuah media ekspresi. Tidak hanya dalam pandangan perancangan
atau penyusunan programatik atau bagaimana isi program, tetapi
bahkan dalam pendekatan keseluruhan peristiwa dalam kegiatan dan
struktur pengelolaan, termasuk bagaimana sebuah kegiatan harus
dikomunikasikan dan didialogkan dengan ruang dan publiknya;
bagaimana ia harus berada dan menjadi gagasan yang dialami oleh
publik. Sebuah kegiatan bisa dilihat sebagai sebuah peristiwa artistikyang di dalamnya ada bagian terbuka yang siap menjadi penampang
organik dan terbuka bagi intervensi-intervensi. Kejadian yang tak
terduga dan spekulatif memberi potensi pada pertemuan-pertemuan
berbagai elemen. Ini akan menghasilkan juga penemuan-penemuanyang secara organik dan fleksibel dapat diapresiasi dan diserap oleh
publik. Dalam peran dan pendekatan inilah, suatu kegiatan menjadi
sebentuk ekspresi artistik tersendiri.
Ini sebuah tindakan yang cukup kompleks karena tidak hanya
berurusan dengan soal artistik tapi juga masuk ke wilayah yang lebih
luas: ruang, publik, dan pengelolaan. Wujudnya adalah pertemuan,berkumpul, dan interaksi sosial seperti festival yang selalu harus bisa
dipertangungjawabkan dalam konteks ruang dan publik. Ia tidak hanya
menjadi praktik artistik tapi, lebih jauh lagi, menjadi praktik sosial. Ia
menjadi wadah berkembangnya kerja-kerja lintas disiplin dan profesi:
menggabungkan seni dan aktifisme, menggabungkan pengelolaan dan

Essay 04062

kemampuan berjaringan, kemampuan mencari dukungan, membaca
sekeliling dan menggunakan sumber daya lokal.
Tindakan atau wadah yang bersifat mempertemukan dan menjalintransaksi serta relasi sosial perlahan membesar dan menemukan sifat
kepublikannya dan posisinya di masyarakat. Ia membesar bersamaan
dengan dukungan dan keterlibatan masyarakat. Setelah diselenggarakanbeberapa kali dan mendapat sambutan serta keterlibatan masyarakat,
ketika sebuah peristiwa dapat menemukan posisi penting dan
relevansinya, ia mendapat dukungan yang baik dan meluas. Perlahanpula, ia menjadi sebuah kekuatan lain di tengah kekuatan-kekuatanyang ada sebagai produsen citra, gagasan, wacana, dan nilai dalammasyarakat.
Merebut ruang juga berarti merebut publik. Dengan konsep
gathering-interaksi sosial-pertunjukan-atraksi-spektakel, keorganikannya
membuat suatu kegiatan menjadi lebih menarik bagi publik; lebihterasa lebih dekat, seperti pesta bersama yang semarak yang mewadahitransaksi dan dialog sosial. Setiap orang merasa terundang untuk ikut
serta dalam pertemuan dan percakapan. Ia tidak juga memberi sebuah
batas tertentu dan keberatan tertentu, tidak memberi batas sosial dan
intelektual. Pertemuan ini mempunyai sifat terbuka dan melebur. Posisi“hidup bersama warga” ini membayangkan bagaimana sebuah hubungan
institusi seni di masyarakat: ia berada di dalamnya dan menjadi bagiandari masyarakatnya; suatu strategi dibangun berdasarkan kedekatan dan
kesenangan bersama.
Menyoal gagasan praktik kolektif seniman dalam sebuah pameran
menjadi sebuah tantangan. Dengan kompleksitas ruang, tindakan,dan peristiwa yang terjadi dari praktik kolektif tersebut, hampir tidak
mungkin seluruh pengalaman dan peristiwa tersebut bisa dipindahkan
ke dalam sebuah ruang pamer. Bagaimana memamerkan sebuah
rangkaian peristiwa dan tindakan yang kompleks ke dalam sebuah
pameran? Bagaimana mengkuratori sebuah praktik artistik yang bahkan
di dalamnya sudah mengandung praktik kuratorial dan institutional
critique?
Melihat kembali pengalaman mengkuratori pameran tentang
gagasan praktik seni rupa kolektif, juga mengalami—bersama
ruangrupa—partisipasi dalam pameran yang menggagas ide praktikseni kolektif yang banyak terjebak dalam representasi atau profilingkelompok, pameran akhirnya berisikan sekumpulan arsip dan caracara bekerja kolektif. Tapi pameran atau kerja kuratorial tidak pernah
menjadi kerja kolektif itu sendiri. Maka menjadi sebuah tantangan
untuk memamerkan sebuah praktek kolektif; bentuk representatifselalu menjadi pilihan yang banyak terjadi. Arsip dan dokumentasi
diperlihatkan. Sketsa, draft dan catatan-catatan proses dikemukakan
untuk dilihat dan ditelisik oleh pemirsa. Inilah cara presentasi pameranyang selalu mereduksi proses-proses dan momentum-momentum.
Pertanyaan bagaimana mengkuratori sebuah praktek kolektif juga
menjadi sebuah praktik yang paradox, ketika praktik kuratorial yang

063

Ade Darmawan │ Kurasi, Kolektif, dan Percakapan

sentralistik pada kurator berhadap-hadapan dengan praktik kolektifyang justru ingin meruntuhkan pola-pola kuasa yang sentralistik.
Untuk proyek ini, “Condition Report: Sindikat Campursari”
di Jakarta, sekali lagi kami berusaha untuk menggagas danmempertanyakan praktik kolektif beberapa seniman dan kelompok diregional Asia. Kesempatan ini kami gunakan untuk menantang gagasan
kolektif secara lebih dalam dengan berusaha menemukan pertanyaanpertanyaan sekitar kerja kolektif melalui kerja-kerja kolektif antara
kurator dan seniman. Cara yang kami bayangkan paling dekat adalah
dengan menjadi kolektif itu sendiri.
Paling tidak ada beberapa gagasan tentang berkumpul yang dekat
dengan konteks lokal di Indonesia. Dalam bahasa slang Jakarta ada
kata nongkrong (hang-out), sebuah konsep berkumpul yang sangat kental
dalam tradisi Indonesia. Artinya adalah menghabiskan waktu untuk
berkumpul dalam suasana nyaman dan bersahabat, di tengah kawan
baik yang lama maupun yang baru, atau dalam kelompok kecil yangkarena lokasi atau kesamaan latar belakang dipertemukan oleh ruang
dan waktu. Saling berbagi cerita, ide, masalah, solusi kadang. Ada saling
berbagi dan saling jaga dalam perbincangan tanpa tujuan tersebut.
Yang berikutnya adalah musyawarah-mufakat, bentuk pertemuan
dengan sikap rendah hati untuk memecahkan persoalan (mencari jalan
keluar) dalam memutuskan beberapa hal atau memecahkan masalah
untuk kepentingan bersama. Jadi bukan memutuskan dengan suara
terbanyak melainkan membicarakan hal-hal sehingga terbentuk sebuah
kesepakatan atau persetujuan. Ini diadakan tanpa kerangka waktu yangjelas dan sangat terbuka. Selanjutnya lagi adalah gotong royong, yang
dapat diartikan sebagai bentuk kerja sama antara sejumlah orang atau
warga masyarakat dalam kehidupan sosial dalam menyelesaikan sesuatu
atau pekerjaan tertentu yang dianggap berguna untuk kepentingan
bersama. Dalam ilmu sosial, gotong royong diartikan sebagai salahsatu bentuk prinsip kerja sama, saling membantu tanpa imbalanyang langsung diterima tapi hasilnya berguna untuk kepentingan
bersama atau kepentingan umum. Gotong royong juga dapat diartikan
sebagai partisipasi aktif setiap individu yang ikut terlibat di mana
ia mendapatkan nilai positif dari setiap objek, permasalahan, atau
kebutuhan orang di sekelilingnya. Partisipasi aktif tersebut dapat berupa
tenaga, materi, mental, keterampilan atau lain sebagainya.
Dengan mengamati model-model dialog dan pengambilan
keputusan, sekaligus model-model pengelolaan kendali dan kuasa
yang sudah ada dalam masyarakat, proyek “Campursari” menjadi cara
untuk memikirkan kembali langkah-langkah yang mungkin untuk
menghadirkan proses kuratorial yang lebih relasional dan tidak terlalu
otoritatif, yang sesuai dengan praktik kolektif.
Percakapan mengajarkan banyak hal dan mengembangkannya
menjadi tradisi. Maka kami menciptakan, atau lebih tepatnya
menspekulasikan, sebuah strategi kuratorial yang bersandar pada ruang
dan percakapan. Pertemuan-pertemuan dan forum-forum diadakan.
Seniman, kurator, dan produser berkumpul dan berdiskusi tanpa

Essay 04064

kenal lelah. Banyak ide dituangkan, dipilih, dan diputuskan bersama.
Percakapan bergulir tanpa arah, keputusan-keputusan muncul.
Kepemilikan dan kontrol individu berkurang, kuasa dan otoritas
diemban bersama sembari menghargai hening dan ketidakhadiran.
Gagasan-gagasan lebur secara organik tanpa klaim kepemilikan. Muncul
kolase, keping-keping gagasan yang menjadi satu. Ada keterbukaan
untuk berbagi, memberi dan mengambil, kehilangan dan menemukan.
Gagasan-gagasan buruk menjadi lebih tajam berkat imajinasi dalam
percakapan dan terasah menjadi lebih baik. Penggabungan gagasanyang seadanya dan biasa saja menjadi ide yang lebih baik. Percakapan
dan komunikasi membuka teritori pengambilan keputusan menjadi
lebih luas dan keputusan diambil bersama, tanpa limitasi durasi waktu.
Efisiensi menjadi hal yang bisa diabaikan dengan membayangkan
kemewahan atas waktu. Bahkan ketidakpastian dan kegagalan dilihat
sebagai sebuah kemewahan. Kemewahan yang masyarakat kontemporer
telah paksa supaya kita tidak mampu mendapatkannya.

065

Ade Darmawan │ Kurasi, Kolektif, dan Percakapan

Essay05

Unseen Connections:Collective Art Practice and Public Space inSoutheast Asia and Japan─

Hattori Hiroyuki［Independent Curator/Associate Professor,

Graduate School of Transdisciplinary Arts, Akita University of Art］

Grass has strong roots. For a certain project, I eradicate the weeds
before tilling and ridging the soil. But no matter how many times
I pluck the weeds, they quickly sprout again. The roots of plants
are tenacious, spreading deep into the earth, and although on thesurface they may seem to be gone, they hide beneath the soil, neverdying out.
In Southeast Asia, I have often heard phrases like “grassroots
relationships” and “organic relationships.” Being there, one quickly
realizes that invisible relationships develop across borders and overtime as an extension of humble and casual friendships between
individuals, rather than through the imposing, formal relations thatare intentionally constructed between institutions. A mix of different
countries and regions all contained in a two-or-three-hour radius by
air, Southeast Asia is home to diverse peoples and languages, andcross-border traffic and exchanges are frequent there. In recent years
this situation has been reinforced by the emergence of low-cost airlines
and the development of virtual social networks. Artists have gained
experience, built networks and fostered the conditions for art throughtheir own efforts in places where infrastructure like museums and art
centers has been slow to develop, Singapore being an exception.
Of course, this situation is constantly changing. Art spaces andartist collectives appear and disappear, but their roots never perish.
Often, venues visited on one trip might have moved or closed down by
the time of the next, but the people involved continue making use of
their experiences and networks in different ways and places. Certainly,
there are multiple reasons for why a space might stop running, fromfinancial issues to political and social conditions, so it is hard toconsider this an absolute good. Perhaps it could simply be chalked up to
weak infrastructure. But most people flip the situation, using grassroots
networks to freely spread into diverse fields. Having felt the restriction of
rigidly enforced structures, I have found that “Southeast Asia” presents away for me to escape preexisting frames and find room to breathe. Grass066

roots are strong and never die, continuing to spread where we cannot
see. I am drawn to this strength and flexibility.
The Philosophy of Mingei and Artistic Practices in Southeast Asia
Given that they are home to such diverse peoples and more or lessincomprehensible as a totality, I am conscious of the violence oflumping the countries of Southeast Asia together into a single category.
Yet, looking at the world map, it seems possible to find a degree of
coherence within this aggregate of geographically proximal regions, so I
will address “Southeast Asia” here in a broad sense.
On my visits to art spaces and collectives in Southeast Asia, there
were repeated occasions where, transcending nations and regions, I
was reminded of the Japanese folk art movement, Mingei. With thephilosopher Yanagi Muneyoshi［01］as its main proponent, the Mingei
movement was active from the Taishō (1912–26) to the early Shōwa(1926–89) periods. It was driven by a philosophy that found value not inbranded luxury items, but rather in nameless artifacts like the utensils
used over the years by the common people. Instead of individualism
and the pursuit of self-interest, it upheld the “public beauty” of themasses, using phrases such as the “expression of connected people” and“cooperative beauty.” It recognized social principles and lifestyle values
in collective creation through the arts and crafts.
I think that this philosophy of the common people can also befound in the activities of the art practitioners of Southeast Asia. The
ideas of Mingei overlap not only with the way that artists’ activities there
are often close to the ground and expression is interconnected withlife and politics, but also with an attitude that seeks to form collectives
and create new values through group action in places most people
would overlook, as well as with the struggle to acquire public space(in a political sense). For instance, the Jakarta-based group ruangrupa
has strong parallels with the society envisioned by Mingei. Instead of
the artist as singular genius who bears artworks by his signature, theslogan they came up with for their Institut ruangrupa project［02］at the
Aichi Triennale in 2016, “Moderation, Productivity, Happiness,” andtheir credo, “Make friends not art,” both emphasize artistic practiceas a tactics for living in society, recalling Yanagi’s idea of “social
beauty.” Moreover, that many of the artists and art practitioners I met
in Southeast Asia had chosen to work in collectives as aggregates ofindividuals rather than in organizations with hierarchies and clear
structures (i.e., institutions; although it could be said they have no
choice, given the lack of infrastructure), also seems to echo Yanagi’s
belief in establishing “a world of beauty among the people.”［03］Searching for the similarities between ideologies and values
that emerged in Japan in the Taishō and early Shōwa periods and theactivities of contemporary Southeast Asian artists may be nostalgic
and slightly presumptuous. Yet, despite their different approaches,
the attitude in Southeast Asia of using interdisciplinary grassroots

067

01
Yanagi Muneyoshi (1889–1961),
also known as Yanagi Sōetsu, was areligious philosopher and founderof the Mingei movement. He was thefounding director of the Japan Folk
Crafts Museum.
02
A project that develops schools withalternative ideals for mutually learning
tactics for living imaginatively in thecity, using art and culture as the key.
It is part of the educational program
run by ruangrupa called Institut
ruangrupa.
03
Yanagi Muneyoshi, Mingei to wa
nani ka [What is Folk Craft?] (Tokyo:
Kodansha, 2006), 83.

Hattori Hiroyuki│Unseen Connections: Collective Art Practice and Public Space in Southeast Asia and Japan

04
In 1927, the architecture researcher
Kon Wajirō (1888–1973) proposed“modernologio” (modernology)
as a field of study for investigatingand examining contemporary social
phenomena, in counterpart toarchaeology.
05
Known in Japanese as the Rojōkansatsu gakkai, the ROJO Society wasestablished in 1986 by Akasegawa
Genpei, Fujimori Terunobu, Minami
Shinbō and others. As the namesuggests, they observed the streets(rojō) and found value in things that
had been disregarded by society.
Akasegawa’s concept of the “Tomason,”which finds value in useless things thathave lost their function, is the basis forrojō observation.
06
From 2007 to 2009, the author ran
the Maemachi Art Center (MAC) in ahouse in Yamaguchi City shared byartists like Yamashiro Daisuke andAida Daiya; from 2009 to 2016, he ran
the Midori Art Center (MAC) in part ofa Japanese inn in Aomori; and in 2012,
he developed the Mami Art Center(MAC) in Hanoi with artist Tuan Mami.

networks and collective action to stir up new waves in oppressive
and unchallenged existing situations recalls how Yanagi and his
peers expanded their ideas into a social movement, finding value
in supposedly worthless objects through their encounters with thepeople of different regions as they roamed across Japan. In fact,
the comparison of the activities of Southeast Asia’s collectives with
Mingei is not altogether unrelated to how I arrived at art after studyingarchitecture.
The Homogenization and Loss of Public Space Due to Urban Renewal
Issues related to urban renewal triggered my turn to art. I studied
architecture in Tokyo from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, at a time
when massive redevelopments were underway in areas like Roppongi
and Marunouchi. I enjoyed taking strolls around the city with noparticular objective, and my interest in everyday scenes of humanactivity fed my ambition to pursue architectural design. But with thelarge-scale redevelopments, I all too often encountered moments where
the chaos of the city and the scenes of human activity that were so dear
to me were disappearing. On the surface, real-estate developments
based on capitalist principles were generating beautiful new skylines
while also increasing the value of the land, but there was nothing in thishomogenized landscape that inspired me.
I did not want to be directly involved in the kind of urban renewal
that stripped away the charm of public spaces where all kinds of people
could gather and, at times, friction might occur. Having been exposedto the creative potential of the process of documenting after coming
across Kon Wajirō’s “modernologio” (modernology),［04］I was also
deeply inspired by the attitude of playing in the city and the approachto art represented by Akasegawa Genpei and the ROJO Society,［05］who
overturned existing values by discovering, naming, and documenting
the seemingly worthless things filling urban space. I sensed beauty inthe way artists like Akasegawa found value in the city’s interstices bymethods that did not conform to theories of economics and capital. At
the time, I thought committing myself to art instead of architecturaldesign, and living outside of Tokyo, could be my own means ofresistance against getting caught up in this situation.
Toward Reclaiming Public Space: Deviation and Play
These experiences became the foundation for me to develop specific,
individual activities for exploring the public sphere and issues
surrounding space and life in small, regional cities. I opened up myhome, set up an independent art space, and held artist residencies.［06］I will forego detailed description here, but through these activities I wastrying to create a space that would be part of everyday life, where people
with different ways of thinking and values could meet each other, as
opposed to a uniform space detached from everyday life. I envisioned

Essay 05068

a space like the engawa, or veranda of the traditional Japanese house,providing both a border and connection between inside and outside.
From a certain viewpoint, it may have also been a political act aimed
at obtaining semi-public space through democratic means. At times,
I took actions that overstepped current Japanese law, like making aplatform on the river running in front of our space. Perhaps I broke therules made by those in power, but I believe there was value in generating
new relationships with my neighbors and creating a dense, semi-public
space where different people could gather as a result, recalling the spiritof earlier art spaces that arose from squatting in places that had beenforgotten by the city.
My encounter with Southeast Asia convinced me of this. As mysmall-scale activities gradually accumulated and brought me newconnections, I came to visit Southeast Asia more frequently after 2011.
In Southeast Asia, I encountered numerous artists, collectives, andart spaces addressing the same issues related to urban renewal andgentrification that had brought me to art. Their activities were incredibly
exciting, and there was much to sympathize with and learn from. Artists
were finding spaces in the city that had been neglected or overlooked
and establishing their bases there. When I visited a few years later, manyof those spaces had already disappeared or moved, but that did notmean their spirit and activities had ceased, as they were still making useof their grassroots networks. Perhaps it is not out of the question to saythat in its grassroots connections and philosophy of the people, this is
the updated form of Mingei?
Aside from the above-mentioned ruangrupa, there is also
Lifepatch,［07］which brings together professionals from different fields
to a quiet house in Yogyakarta for diverse social activities utilizing
media technology, or 98B COLLABoratory,［08］which gathers in halfabandoned buildings in Metro Manila to work on the city’s slum
problems, while artists, curators, and critics in Kuala Lumpur are
coming together to start making new hotbeds. In Bangkok, there is
the Reading Room, where books on art can be read for free and it
is possible to discuss issues regarding politics, society, and art.［09］In Hanoi, where the socialist state authorities can make it difficult
to practice art, the group Nhasan has kept going for more than 20
years while moving around and sustaining a network across multiple
generations.［10］The list of these collectives’ grassroots activities is probably endless,and none of them are necessarily major. Perhaps most of them will go
unrecorded in the canonical art histories. Yet they all maintain a sense ofplay and humor that keeps them from getting too serious. Writing that“civilization arises and unfolds in and as play,” the cultural anthropologist
Johan Huizinga proposed the idea of the playing man as homo ludens.［11］It is possible to see the human essence of the playing man and theemergence of culture in the activities of these Southeast Asian collectives
that have created new values by laughing off the countless difficulties
they face and letting things pass without overly worrying.

069

07Lifepatch—citizen initiative inart, science, and technology, wasestablished in 2012 as a communitybased, cross-territorial project. See
lifepatch.org, accessed July 27, 2017,
http://lifepatch.org/Main_Page.
08
98B COLLABoratory is an artist
initiative and platform in Manila
established by Mark Salivates andHirano Mayumi in 2012. See 98-b.
org, accessed July 27, 2017, http://
www.98-b.org.
09
The Reading Room is a libraryfor contemporary art that houses
over 1,000 publications and alsoarchives Thai contemporary art. Seereadingroombkk.org, accessed July 27,
2017, http://www.readingroombkk.
org/.
10
Recent information about these art
spaces can be found in publications
like the Japan Foundation’s Run &Learn: Projects & Art Guide (Tokyo:
Japan Foundation, 2015) and Ogawa
Nozomu’s Southeast Asia Research Trip:
83 Art Spaces in 9 Countries (Tokyo: Arts
Council Tokyo, 2017), as well as his
website, Alternative Asia, accessed July27, 2017, https://alternativeasia.net/
en/.
11
Johan Huizinga, foreword, Homo
Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in
Culture (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1949), 12.

Hattori Hiroyuki│Unseen Connections: Collective Art Practice and Public Space in Southeast Asia and Japan12
Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition(Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1958), 22.
13
Implemented in 2013 as a part of“Media/Art Kitchen” in Manila, where
the author was a participating curator.
The program was rapidly assembled
in response to calamities caused by amassive typhoon that struck soon after
the exhibition opening.
14
A project by Lifepatch.

On the Potential for Creating Public Space Through Artistic Activities
Meeting and working with art practitioners in Southeast Asia led me tofocus my thinking on the potential for creating public space throughself-organized artistic activities. Something that I encountered andwhich stayed with me no matter where I visited was the art space as acommunal place for people to gather as an extension of the street. I
feel Hannah Arendt’s statement, “No human life… is possible withouta world which directly or indirectly testifies to the presence of otherhuman beings,”［12］is intrinsically embodied in many of the art spaces
and other places where artists gather. Activities mediated by art areoften cultivated in the kind of surprising places that beg the question,“why here?” Gathering or hanging out without any real purpose can beeven more important than producing something that is easily defined.
Projects arise as an extension of just being there. In many cases, they are
directly connected to local issues and contexts, and do not result in what
is typically considered an artwork.
All kinds of creative practices that do not conform to the formatsof the art market or the exhibition are happening in these places. For
instance, in the Philippines, where there are many natural disasters,a workshop was held for building emergency shelters in immediate
response to damage caused by a large typhoon,［13］while in Indonesia,
where the government tries to discredit the local brewing culture andproduction of traditional liquor, and allows global corporations to sell
their alcohol in exchange for paying a large tax, there are projects forsafely producing homemade liquor using DIY fermentation and brewing
apparatuses and homegrown fruits.［14］Activities that arise in responseto the demands of the location become a source for generating public
space in each city. Instead of insisting on the norms and formats of art,
they establish creative modes for shaping artistic attitudes as alternate
structures. Concepts like relationality and antagonism are inherently
involved in these activities born out of necessity, and participating insuch processes leads to the discovery of value.
Having recognized anew that public space is spontaneously
produced not in a park surrounded by a fence or an enclosed area
provided by the government, but rather in the gaps in the urban fabricwhere human activities collide, and that there is potential now in theplaces where the artists who find value in those gaps gather, I would
like to continue exploring how artistic activities can contribute to thegeneration of public space using my own approach that incorporates
what I have experienced and learned in Southeast Asia.
(Translated by Andrew Maerkle)

Essay 05070

集団的芸術活動と公共空間
─

Essay
05

服部浩之
［インディペンデント・キュレーター／秋田公立美術大学大学院准教授］

草の根はつよい。
あるプロジェクトで土を耕し、畝をつくるために、雑草の駆除を行なっている。
しかし雑草は抜いても抜いてもすぐに新たな芽を吹き、決して絶えることがない。植物の根は丈夫で、地中深くまで広がっており、表面的にはなにもなくなったように見えても、土の下で息を潜め、決して絶えることはない。
東南アジアで、よく「草の根の関係」
とか「有機的な関係」ということばを耳にした。
組織と組織のような巨大でフォーマルな意図的に築かれた関係ではなく、個人と個人のささやかで気楽な友達の延長での目にみえない関係が国境を越えて時間をかけて築かれてきたことは、現地を経験すると容易に体感するものだろう。飛行機で

2 ～ 3 時間で移動できる圏内に、たくさんの国や地域が入り混じる東南アジアは、多様な民族が暮らし、言語も様々で、国境を越えた往来や交流がとても頻繁だ。近年は格安航空会社が生まれ、SNSなどが発展したことで、その状況はさらに加速している。シンガポールなどは例外として、美術館やアートセンターなどのインフラの整備がなかなか進まないなか、
アーティストたちが独力で経験を積み、ネットワークを構築し、環境を育んできた。
もちろんその状況は刻々と変化する。アートスペースや
アーティスト・コレクティヴは生まれては消えを繰り返しているが、その根自体が絶える
ことは決してない。数年前に訪れた場所が移転したり、既にその活動を終えていることは多いが、彼の地で出会った多くの人々が別の場所で別のかたちでその経験とネットワークを活かした活動を続けている。
もちろん、同じかたちが継続されないことには、資金などの問題だけでなく、政治や社会の状況など、
様々な理由があり、この状況が手放しによいとは決して言えない。
イ
ンフラが脆弱と言ってしまえばそれまでかもしれない。だが、彼らの多くはその状況を逆手にとり、草の根のネットワークを活かして、
自由にさまざまな地へと伸び広がって071

服部浩之│集団的芸術活動と公共空間

01
柳宗悦（1889 –1961）。宗教哲学者、民藝運動の創始者。
日本民藝館初代館長。

02
文化芸術を基軸に都市を想像的に生きる戦略

いく。ガチガチに固められた仕組みのなかで動くことの窮屈さを感じていた僕に、既存の枠を軽々と逸脱し、風穴をあける方法を提示してくれたのが「東南アジア」だった。草の根は強く絶えない、
そして見えないところで根を張り続ける。そんな強さとしなやかさに惹かれた。

を相互に学ぶオルタナティヴな理想の学校を展開するプロジェクト。
「Institut ruangrupa」というルアンルパの教育プログラムの一環とな「民藝」の思想と東南アジアのアーティストたちの実践

る活動。

03
柳宗悦『 民藝とは何か』講談社学術文庫、

2006 年、p.83。

多様な人々が暮らし、ほとんど統一的に捉えることが不可能な東南アジアを一括りにするのは随分暴力的なことだとは承知している。
しかし、世界地図を眺めると地理的には遠くない地域の集合に、ある程度のまとまりを見出すことは可能だと思うので、敢えて「東南アジア」という地域を大きく括って述べることにする。
東南アジアのアートスペースやコレクティヴを訪れると、国や地域を超え、折々の場
面で日本の「民藝」の思想が想起された。
「 民藝」は、大正から昭和初期にかけて、思想家の柳宗悦［01］が中心となって提唱した運動だ。特定の有銘の高級品ではなく、昔から庶民が用いてきた雑器など無名の工藝品に価値を見出す民の思想だ。そして、個人主義や利己の追求ではなく、「結ばれたる人間の表現」や「協団的美」ということばを用い、民衆のなかにある「公有の美」を掲げた。それは、美術や工藝を通じて社会的な理念、生活のあり方の価値を、集団的な創造のなかに認めるものだった。
この民の思想は、東南アジアの芸術関係者たちの実践にも見出されるように思う。アーティストたちの活動がストリートと近く、生活や政治と表現が密接に関係しているのみでなく、彼らがコレクティヴを形成し、集団的活動を通じて多く（政治的な意味の人が気にも留めないところに新たな価値を創造しようとする態度や、での）公共空間を獲得しようとする姿に、民藝の理念が重ねられてならないのだ。

例えば、ジャカルタに拠点を置くルアンルパのあり方などは、
まさに民藝が求めた［02］で掲
社会の姿と重なる。彼らがあいちトリエンナーレのプロジェクト《ルル学校》（Make friends not art）
げた「節約、多産、幸福」という標語や、「アートより友だち」というメッセージは、唯一の天才としての芸術家とその署名のもと生まれる芸術作品というより、社会を生きる戦術としての芸術活動という側面が強く、柳の言うところの「社会美」と通ずるものがある。
また、東南アジアで出会った多くのアーティストや芸術関係者がヒエラルキーや構造の明確な組織（インスティチューション）という形態よりは、個人の集合であるコレク（インフラが整わずそうせざるを得なかったという状
ティヴというあり方を選択している点にも［03］
況があるにしろ）、柳の「美の世界を、大衆の中に樹立せねばならない」という理念と根源的に共有される思想を感じる。大正から昭和初期の日本で生まれた思想や価値観との共通点を、現代の東南アジアのアーティストたちの活動に見出すこと

Essay 05072

は、ノスタルジックで少々乱暴なことかもしれない。
しかし、超域的な草の根ネットワー

04
建築学者の今和次郎（1888 –1973）
が、考古学クを活かし、誰もが疑わない圧倒的な既存の状況に集団的な活動を通じて新たなに対して現代の社会現象を調査・研究する学

うねりを巻き起こす彼らの態度は、柳らが日本全国を歩いて各地域の人々と出会う

1927年に考現学（＝モデルノロヂオ）
問として、
を
提唱した。

なかで無価値とされていたものに価値を見出し、ひとつの社会運動へと昇華していったあり方と、
手法は違えど重なるものを感じるのだ。
実は、東南アジアのコレクティヴの活動と民藝を重ねてしまうのは、僕自身が建築を学んだうえでアートに辿り着いたことと決して無関係ではない。

05
路上観察学会は、赤瀬川原平、藤森照信、南伸坊らを中心に1986 年に設立された。文字
通り路上を観察し、世間がほとんど意識しないものを対象に価値を見出した。機能を失った無用の長物に価値を見出す赤瀬川の「トマソン」

都市再開発による均質化と公共空間の喪失が路上観察の基礎となっている。

06

僕がアートに傾倒した引き金となったのは、都市再開発にまつわる諸問題だ。1990
年代後半から2000 年代前半に東京で建築を学んでいたのだが、その頃の東京は六本木や丸の内などを中心に大規模な再開発が進められていた。僕自身は、
特に目的もなく街を散策するのが好きで、その際に人の営みがあらわれる、取るに足らない風景に興味をもち建築の設計を志した。
しかし、実際に目の当たりにする大規筆者は、2007 年から2009 年までは山口市でアーティストの山城大督や会田大也とシェアする一軒家で「Maemachi Art Center（MAC）」
を、2009 年から2016 年までは青森市の旅館の一角で「Midori Art Center（MAC）」
を、
そして2012 年にはハノイにてアーティストのトゥア
ン・マミとともに「Mami Art Center（MAC）」
を展開していた。

模再開発では、自分が愛おしく思った都市のカオスや、人の営みにより生み出された風景が失われていく瞬間に多く出会った。資本主義の原理に基づいた不動産開発により表面上は美しく新しい景観が生まれ、土地の価値も上がっていくが、均質化する風景には面白味を見出せなかった。そして、雑多な人が集まり時に対立も生じる公共空間の魅力を剥奪するこのような都市開発に直接携わることは避けたいと思った。
そんなときに、今和次郎の考現学［04］を知ることで、記録に宿る創造性に刺激を受け、赤瀬川原平や路上観察学会［05］の都市を遊ぶ態度と街に溢れるなんでもないものを発見し名付け、記述することで価値観を大きく転倒させてしまうアートという方法に激しく揺さぶられた。赤瀬川をはじめとするアーティストたちが経済や資本の論
理には則らない方法で、都市の隙間に価値を見出すことに美しさを感じた。建築の設計ではなくアートの現場に身を置いてみること、そして東京ではない場所で暮らしてみることが、自分なりのこのような状況に巻き込まれないための抵抗の方法だと当時は考えたのだ。

逸脱と遊び、公共空間の再獲得に向けてこれらの体験が基礎となって、空間と生活にまつわる諸問題や、公共圏を探求すべ
く、地方の小さな都市で具体的で個別の活動を展開することになる。自宅を開き独力でアートスペースを立ち上げたり、アーティスト・イン・レジデンスを展開した［06］。そ073

服部浩之│集団的芸術活動と公共空間

07「 Lifepatch – citizen initiative in art,

れについての具体的な記述は省くが、均質で日常から閉ざされた空間ではなく、生science and technology」は、コミュニティ

活と地続きで、異なった思考や価値観をもつ人々が出会ってしまう場をつくろうとして2012 年にベースの領域横断的活動体として、いた。それは、公私を隔てるとともに接続させる境界面として日本の家屋が備える「縁

設立された。

http://lifepatch.org/Main_Page側」のような場を育むことであった。民主的な方法で半公共空間の獲得を目指す、（アクセス：2017 年 7月27日）

政治的な行動という側面もあったように思う。自宅を開いたアートスペースでは目の08

前の小川の上に川床をつくるなど、正規の手続きを踏まずに法の境界を超える行為「98 B COLLAboratory」は、マーク・サルヴァ
トスと平野真弓が 2012年にフィリピンのマニラに設立したアーティスト・イニシアティヴでありプ
ラットフォーム。

http://www.98 -b.org/（アクセス：2017 年 7月27日）

09「The Reading Room」は1000 冊以上の書をゲリラ的に実施してしまったこともあったが、それは近隣との新たな関係を生み出し、より多様な人が集う濃密な半公共空間の生成へとつながり、そこには価値があったと信じている。それらは、都市の忘れられた場所をスクウォッティングすることから始まるアートスペースの原点に立ち戻るものでもあった。東南アジアの多様なアート活動と出会うことで、その無意識の行為の意味について確信を持つことができた。

籍を所有する現代アートのライブラリー。
タイ現

2011年以降東南アジ
これらの小さな活動が少しずつ蓄積され、つながりが生まれ、

代アートのアーカイブにも取り組む。

アを訪れることが多くなった。東南アジアでは、僕がアートに辿り着く原点でもあった

http://www.readingroombkk.org/（アクセス：2017 年 7 月 27日）

10

都市再開発やジェントリフィケーションにまつわる諸問題に取り組むアーティストやコ
レクティヴ、
アートスペースに多数出会った。彼らの活動に大いなる刺激を受けたし、近年のアートスペース情報は、国際交流基

共感することや学ぶことも非常に多かった。アーティストたちは、都市のなかで忘れら

金 他 編『 RUN & LEARN Projects & Art

れた、
あるいは人があまり気にもとめない場所を発見し、そこに拠点を築く。数年後に（ 国 際 交 流 基 金、2015 年）や、小 川 希
Guide 』

『 東南アジアリサーチ紀行 ─東南アジア 9カ国・83カ所のアートスペースを巡る』
アーツカ
ウンシル東京（公益財団法人東京都歴史文化財
団、2017 年）に詳しい。
また、小川氏によるウェブ（https://alternativeasia.net/en/）
サイトに多 数（アクセス：2017 年 7月 27日）
掲載されている。

11（高橋英夫訳）
ホイジンガ『ホモ・ルーデンス』、中1973年、
p.12。
公文庫、

訪れると、
その場所は無くなったり移動していることも多いが、それでもその精神や活動は絶えず、
しなやかに草の根のネットワークを活かして動き続けている。草の根のつながりと民の思想という、民藝の現在進行形の姿がここにあるとは言えまいか ?
先に上げたルアンルパ以外にも、
ジョグジャカルタのひっそりとした一軒家で異なる職能をもつ専門家が集まりメディアテクノロジーを駆使して多様な社会活動を展［07］や、
開する「Lifepatch」
メトロマニラの半廃墟のビルに集い都市のスラム化［08］がおり、問題などにも取り組む「98 B COLLABoratory」
クアラルンプールではアーティストやキュレーター、批評家たちが集まり新たな巣をつくりはじめている。バンコクには芸術に関する本を無償で読むことができ、集って政治や社会から芸術［09］がある。
の諸問題について語れる場として私設図書館「The Reading Room」

社会主義国としてアート活動においては様々な困難があるベトナムのハノイでは、

20 年以上にわたり場所を変え世代をまたぎネットワークを保ち続ける「Nhasan」［10］。
の集団が存続する
コレクティヴによる草の根の活動は、際限なく列挙できるだろう。多くの活動は決して大きくはない。大文字の美術史には描かれない側面がほ
とんどかもしれない。それでも、みんな深刻になりすぎないユーモアや、
どこかに遊びの感覚を持っている。文化人類学者のホイジンガは、「人間文化は遊びのなかに［11］
おいて、遊びとして発生し、展開してきたのだ」と述べ、遊ぶ人＝ホモ・ルーデンスを提唱した。無数の困難を笑い飛ばし、構えすぎず適当にやり過ごすように、
いつの

Essay 05074

まにか新たな価値を創造してきた東南アジアのコレクティヴの動きには、
遊ぶ人とし

12

ての人間の本質と文化の発生を見出すことができる。

ちくま学芸文庫、1994 年、p.43。

（志水速雄訳）
ハンナ・アーレント『人間の条件』、

13

芸術活動による公共空間生成の可能性について2013 年に、筆者がキュレーターのひとりとして参加した「Media/Art Kitchen」
マニラ展の一環
で実施された。展覧会オープン直後に発生し東南アジアの芸術関係者との出会いや協働を通じて考えてきたのは、自発的な芸術活動によって公共空間を生み出すことは可能か、に尽きる。
どんな土地を訪れても必ず出会い、心に残るのは、ほぼ路上と地続きのかたちで人が集うコミュニティとしてのアートの場だった。アーレントによる「人間生活は、…［中略］… 直接間接にた巨大台風による災害に応えるべく急遽組み立てられたプログラム。

14
Lifepatch によるプロジェクト。

［12］
他の人間の存在を保証する世界なしには、不可能である」という言葉が、多くのアートスペースやアーティストたちの集う場において本質的に体現されているように感じる。なぜこのような場所にと驚くような場所ほど、アートを介した活動が育まれていることが多い。そういう場では、わかりやすく何かを生産するよりも、
むしろなんとなくそこに集まることや、ただ居ることが重要だったりする。そこにただ居ることの延長で、プロジェクトが発生するのだ。それはその界隈の文脈や問題に直結していることが多く、いわゆる展示作品などには繋がらないことも多々ある。例えば、自然災害の多いフィリピンで巨大な台風による被害に即応して緊急時のシェルターをつくるワーク［13］、ショップが開催されたり
インドネシアでは地場産の伝統的な酒や醸造文化を政府がないがしろにし、大きな税をかけてアルコール類を販売することをグローバルな大企業に許可したことに対して、自ら栽培した果実とDIY による発酵器や醸造器［14］、を用いて自家製の安全なお酒をつくるプロジェクトが起こったりと
いわゆるアー

トのマーケットや展覧会というフォーマットに縛られることのない多様な創造活動がそれらの場では実践されている。
その場所に応じた必要から生まれる諸活動は、それぞれの都市において、それぞれの公共空間を生み出す源となっている。アートの作法やフォーマットに固執するのではなく、アーティスティックな態度をかたちにしていく創造の手つきをオルター・ストラク
チャーとして確立していくこと。必要から生まれるそれらの活動には、関係性や敵対などという概念が自ずと内包されており、そのプロセスに参加することで、価値は見出されていく。
公共空間とは、フェンスで囲まれた公園や行政から与えられた閉域にではなく、人の生活の営みが衝突する隙間に自発的に生み出されるものであるということ、そしてそれは都市の隙間に価値を見出すアーティストたちが集う場に今をもって可能性があることを改めて認識したうえで、芸術活動が公共空間生成にどのように寄与できるか、東南アジアでの経験と学びを咀嚼し自分なりの方法で引き続き探求していきたいと思う。

075

服部浩之│集団的芸術活動と公共空間

Essay06

Curating Histories of Cultural Activism:
What Are We Trying to Change?
─Lisa Ito-Tapang［Independent Curator/Instructor, University of the Philippines College of Fine Arts］

A gargantuan poster spanning a full six floors of the [Architecture]building, bannering the slogan “Expose and isolate the handful of
Marcos diehards on the campus!” and penned by the indefatigable
comrades of the Nagkakaisang Progresibong Artista at Arkitekto (NPAA),
fell seemingly from the skies in blatant protest against militarization. To
many this was ultrafantastic; but the greatest joy stemmed from the fact,of course, that it was real and there and hanging, a brilliant tribute to
the lengths of labor that revolutionary spirit makes possible.
—Ann Lourdes Clemente and Jose Dalisay, Jr.［01］01
Ann Lourdes Clemente and Jose
Dalisay, Jr., “Reveille for Revolt in
the ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training
Corps),” Philippine Collegian,
September 29, 1971.
02
The exhibition was held from August 18
to September 1, 2017 at the Universityof the Philippines Bulwagan ng Dangal
Heritage Museum in Quezon City. The
museum is located within the current
UP Main Library building, where thesaid protest by the NPAA was staged in
1971.
03Jose F. Lacaba, “If It’s Wednesday,
This Must Be The Cultural Center,”Philippines Free Press, September 20,
1969, 10. Lacaba’s account narrates
how artists inside the premises heldup placards with the words “We wanta home not a fascist tomb!” (Mars
Galang), “Re: Gun-Go Home!” (Jun
Lansang) and “A Bas La Mystification!
Down with the Philistines!” (David
Nedalla) in the presence of dignitaries.
04
Alice Guerrero Guillermo, Protest andRevolutionary Art in the Philippines(Manila: University of the Philippines
Press, 2001).

This excerpt was among the archival texts used in my project for“Condition Report,” titled “Dissident Vicinities.”［02］Extracted from anarticle published in the student paper of the University of the Philippines(UP) Diliman, it chronicles how the NPAA ’71—an organization ofprogressive artists and architects—produced a colossal painting,fashioned from craft paper and wheat paste. It was unfurled from a
university building fronting a popular public ground during a military
parade, a year before President Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law
in 1972. The story illustrates an opportune moment of cultural activism:a transient but certainly monumental gesture of dissent 46 years ago.
This recalls other daring acts of this period. In September 1969,
Filipino artists protested then California Governor Ronald Reagan’s
presence at the inauguration of the Cultural Center of the Philippines(CCP) by demonstrating with placards inside the premises.［03］TheNPAA is considered by Filipino art historians as the first militant artists’organization locally, with a membership of close to 200 before theimposition of Martial Law compelled activists to operate on more covert
modes.［04］Since then, many artists have formed groups, throughout the
Marcos dictatorship and the succession of facile democratic regimes
from 1986 to today.
For me, as a curator, the drive for redeploying such archival
materials within an exhibit is not limited to reminiscing. It is also
motivated by the impetus to connect to the present. For such stories

076

represent cycles of rupture throughout the longue durée of crises.
Currently, the Philippines has a number of artist-activist collectives
and initiatives who are contributing to the cultural work of its people’s
movements for rights, land, justice, and other historical demands. Theseare practices which the “Dissident Vicinities” project tried to touchon, and which can be directly traced to the legacy and groundwork of
the NPAA ’71 and other initiatives. Antedating the current fascination
with craftivist strategies and the institutional validation of sociallyengaged art practice, these archived moments point to the progressive
and emancipatory possibilities of mobilizing creative labor andcollective practice throughout history. Which brings us to questionsof introspection and action in relation to curatorial practice: Can we as
curators contribute to more encompassing acts of political intervention andhistories of cultural activism? What are we trying to change?
Conditions for Cultural Activism
It seems imperative to return to locality and history in searching foranswers to these questions. As curators based in and responding toparticular aspects of nation and geopolitics, let us consider the particularmaterial and social conditions of contemporary Southeast Asia, which isoften framed as a diverse multicultural region connected by shared seasand skies, shifting towards regional and economic integration.
Historically, this premise has underpinned the discourse of
all sorts of statist initiatives, from regional trade alliances, tourism
campaigns, and politico-military exercises to cultural production. Yet
also arising and responding to these conditions are parallel histories
of grassroots movements for independence, democracy, and rights.
Like the 1971 article, these stories attest to how the region’s peoples
continue to protect and defend their respective resources, livelihoods,
and communities in the face of economic inequality, intensely feudal
ecologies, aggressive colonial and imperial expansion, and rapid political
upheavals. Emerging from the archives, one realizes that presentday regional and local dissent against foreign military intervention,saber-rattling, and the opening of vulnerable national economies andecologies emanate from colonial and postcolonial crises persisting even
before ASEAN was founded in 1967.
Often, such struggles and manifestations of social contradiction
have been countered with repression, censorship, silence, integration,or fragmentation by both state and market forces. These recurring
conditions provided both fire and grounding for so-called “cultural
revolutions” across post-war Southeast Asia, the idea of which wasarticulated and promoted by political figures across the region. Filipino
poet, revolutionary, and exile Jose Maria Sison, for instance, was writing
about the need for a cultural revolution in the Philippines as early as
1966, responding to the polemics and practice of Maoist revolutionary
aesthetics in China and connecting it to the then nascent and still
continuing struggle for national democracy in his home country.

077

Lisa Ito-Tapang│Curating Histories of Cultural Activism: What Are We Trying to Change?

05
Jose Tence Ruiz, “Fact Finding Mission,
2002,” in Locus: Interventions in Art
Practice: A Project of the Lopez Memorial
Museum and Pananaw ng Sining Bayan,
Inc. (Manila: National Commission for
Culture and the Arts, 2005).
06
Ruiz was a member of the progressive
artists group Kaisahan (Solidarity)
founded in 1976 during the heightof the Marcos ditatorship. Cruz wasa founding member of Ugnayan
at Galian ng mga Tanod ng Lahi
(UGATLahi), founded in 1992 as acollective of progressive artists andactivists based in the National Capital
Region. UGATLahi exists up to today,
continuously producing visual projects
for mass mobilizations in coordination
with long-standing political umbrellagroups such as Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan (New Patriotic Alliance).
07
These are several common tendencies
noted in the presentations of art
historians and curators Suzuki Katsuo
and Patrick D. Flores, as documented
in The Japan Foundation Asia Center Art
Studies Vol. 01: Cultural Rebellion in Asia
1960–1989 (Tokyo: Japan Foundation
Asia Center, 2015).

Conference histories underscore that these expressions of cultural
revolt are interwoven in contemporary narratives of art in the region.
The national conference “Locus: Interventions in Art Practice” (2005)
in Manila, for instance, devoted a session to discussing the past andprospects of Social Realism in the Philippines with visual artists Jose
Tence Ruiz and Mideo Cruz,［05］who represent a historical arc of artistactivist collectives after the NPAA ’71.［06］Their experiences in turncorrespond to a larger post-war phenomenon of progressive artist
organizations emerging across Southeast Asia. This was explored byprojects such as the international curatorial seminar on “Cultural
Rebellion in Asia 1960–1989” nine years later in Tokyo (2014). Thisfeatured scholarly presentations on the rise of student-led democracy
movements across Asia from the 1960s to the 1980s—looking into thecontributions of artistic impulses which responded to “political powersthat had prohibited freedom of speech” and the “rediscovery of thepolitical role of art that commits to real situations,” advancing the ideaof art for the people.［07］Such discursive platforms on how cultural revolt has operated acrossSoutheast Asia sheds more light on the respective practices, polemics,
and images of activism in and across each country. Continuing crossdisciplinary research and reflection can yield more opportunities forstrengthening dialogues, critical assessments, and political solidarity—
beyond the surface affirmation of that colorful phrase, “cultural
diversity.” These and other sources also point to how curatorial practicemight articulate local legacies (or continuing courses) of action against
the status quo—and to what end, exactly.
Warm Bodies, Tough Objects
The curatorial challenge to respond to practices and histories of culturalactivism yields many strategies of representing revolt. Exhibition
histories, for instance, reveal how projects engaging such themes surface
several current impulses and directions or motivations of practice:among these, the historical, the material, and the interventionist.
Though this attempt at curatorial taxonomy can be imprecise andunwieldy—often such impulses are intertwined and combined across
many projects in different degrees—it may help unpack the range anddegrees of curatorial responses to cultural activism.
History. The interest in cultural activism within and across Southeast
Asian countries has been pursued largely through national and regional
projects. For instance, one encounters regional exhibitions organizedaround celebrations or commemorations of how contemporary art
production unfolded during particular historical periods of dissent.
Some examples of projects in the Philippines revolve around theexperience of Martial Law during the 1970s and the People Power 1
revolt in 1986, or around the 1998 centennial celebrations of the1898 Philippine Revolution against Spain and centenary occasions ofPhilippine revolutionaries during the colonial period. In the latter, for

Essay 06

078

instance, one comes across landmark exhibitions such as “Piglas: Artat the Crossroads, A Celebration of the February Revolution” (1987).
This opened the CCP’s premises to a broad range of artists claiming
a commitment to art for social change, reflecting the cultural sector’sembrace of coalition politics before the Marcos dictatorship’s downfall.
Twenty-five years later in 2012, the CCP again hosted retrospectivesof the period, such as “ReCollection 1081: Clear and Present Danger(Visual Dissent on Martial Rule).” Elsewhere, there have been a numberof projects involving configurations of artists associated with thedevelopment of social realism as well as revisiting the period of Martial
Law. One also encounters projects connecting examples across theregion, such as “Telah Terbit (Out Now): Southeast Asian Contemporary
Practices During the 1960s to 1980s” held parallel to the Singapore
Biennale of 2006.
Such undertakings have the potential to contribute to political
discourse beyond nostalgic longing, and are often attempts to connect
the traumas and traces of the past to the troubles of the present.
Exhibiting alternative histories can help assert that parallel practicesof dissent do exist alongside forms of cultural expression associatedwith the status quo. For art as memory and bearing witness becomesa powerful way of truth-telling in this time of fake news and historicalrevisionism.
Materiality. The material culture of dissent is another significant
entry point explored by curatorial projects. It focuses on actual things
produced and used for demonstrations or on documentation in the formof archival materials. The use of agitational propaganda, handmade
props and other exigent objects deployed in protests, for instance, wasthe highlight of exhibition projects such as “Objects of Demonstration,”
focusing on the “indigenous cultural and political expressions” in Hong
Kong, collated by the Community Museum Project and shown in Hong
Kong, Seoul, and the United Kingdom (2002–04), and “Disobedient
Objects,” focusing on the period of 1980 to the present, at the Victoria
and Albert Museum (2014). At the other end of the spectrum and closer
to home are largely small-scale and under-the-radar efforts to exhibit
objects or crafts produced in cooperation with marginalized groups(such as political prisoners and indigenous peoples), often in alternativeor public spaces such as picket lines, camp-outs, universities, andgovernment buildings.
The fascination with objects and the histories that they represent
also carries with it the possibility of surfacing stories of how, when,
and why they were made. One must not underestimate the materiality
and eloquence of tough things. For these are often made or displayed
under circumstances of risk—whether of institutional censure, statesurveillance, or military harassment—and possessing or making themmeans crossing the personal line of safety and protection. They are
survivors, evidence of the urgent realities of the times. On the other
hand, other material objects of interest are those made within safer
spaces of production or more opportune times of solidarity, such as civil

079

Lisa Ito-Tapang│Curating Histories of Cultural Activism: What Are We Trying to Change?

08
Che De los Reyes, “Who’s behind
Trump’s effigy at the ASEAN Summit?”
ABS-CBN News Online, November
20, 2017, http://news.abs-cbn.com/
focus/11/20/17/whos-behind-trumpseffigy-at-the-asean-summit.
09
Maura Reilly uses the term as title
and subject of a forthcoming book,
Curatorial Activism: Towards an Ethics
of Curating (London: Thames & Hudson2018).

Essay 06society initiatives, workshops, university projects of a progressive nature,and the like. The experience of documenting such initiatives and objects,of course, yields its own share of lessons and challenges, especially due
to the precarious conditions and practices of archiving in these contexts.
Intervention. The fascination with the history and material ofcultural activism, lastly, leads one to the question of interventionist andemancipatory practice. This last aspect is inevitably associated withtaking risks, whether pursued through the continuous and contiguous
deployment of political protest or, conversely, within institutional spaces
and initiatives that enable the display and afterlife of protest.
Under such an impulse, cultural activism ultimately goes beyond the
project of capturing the effects and material culture of demonstrations.
It entails the claiming and continued defense of contested space: space
to speak out, to protest, and to change the state of things. Histories ofcultural activism teach us that artistic and creative labor have immense
potential to mobilize and intervene in social movements, going beyond
reflecting social reality to actively articulating what is at stake.
The sites for intervention vary. In the Philippines, militant artistic
practice often deliberately operates out of museums. It also thrives
in unexpected places, actively contributing to cultural production in
the “parliament of the streets” and pockets of dissent in the vast ruralcountryside. Last November, for instance, Philippine art collective
UGATLahi made it to the international and national news with an effigy
critical of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and of US President
Donald Trump, when the latter visited Manila for the 31st ASEAN
Summit.［08］Some of the works featured in the “Dissident Vicinities” exhibit were
produced in the context of—or in response to—such sites and instances.
From these, we learned several lessons. For instance, be prepared for
unexpected results whenever art is put to the test of public space. Set free
into such common and contested sites, objects of protest can inhabit
a life of their own. One must adjust to the conditions of the streets,
which are neither stable nor sacrosanct: overstepping and overlapping,dismissal and heckling, surveillance and tension are constant andexpected risks to be faced in the pursuit of solidarity. One must learn
how to communicate and work with the moving crowd—certainly a force
to reckon with as it passes through, reclaims, and navigates through thetraffic of things.
But sites of artistic intervention may be symbolic as well as physical.
In recent years, scholars have been forwarding the idea of curatorialactivism as including previously marginalized artists (and consequently
the racial, gender, or class constituencies they represent) in exhibitions［09］while more exhibition projects are increasingly looking at forms ofcollectivization, unionization, and organizational structures initiatedby artists as a response to various expressions of social injustice. These
can and should be linked to broader struggles for emancipation and forjustice.
These instances underscore that, aside from caring for objects and080

their contexts, curatorial practice is largely invested in reaching what it
calls publics: audiences, communities, individuals, and warm bodies.
The term “warm bodies” unfortunately is often deployed with either
utilitarian urgency or dismissive derision, in the parlance of traditional
politics. I think we should choose neither and re-wield the term “warmbodies” as a source of life and vitality, a sign of the heart stirring.
For this may well be the most urgent curatorial challenge of all: theresponsibility to intervene in conditions where inequality against warm
bodies persists. In integrating the discourses of daily life and stakes ofreal world struggles into the exhibition space—wherever this may be—it
may be possible not to be immensely complicit in the aestheticization ofpolitics. Instead, it may be necessary to unpack as political what would
otherwise be compartmentalized or left to the fascination as aesthetic.
These are things easier said than done, but then the emancipatory
enterprise and continuing dream of revolt has never been an easy one.
Imagine the possibilities whenever curatorial labor is invested for
purposes beyond largely passive consumption, and into the sphereof activating political participation: for making tough objects andunfinished projects matter to the warm bodies of this world.

081

Lisa Ito-Tapang│Curating Histories of Cultural Activism: What Are We Trying to Change?

Negotiating National Contexts

083

084

Changes and Uncertainties inContemporary Myanmar Art

Essay
07

─

Aung Myat Htay
［Artist/Independent Curator /Founder of SOCA］

Curators’ workshops in Southeast Asia organized by the JapanFoundation Asia Center have been an important new step for the
Myanmar art scene. These workshops have provided new experience,
new knowledge, and new technical skills. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar
has lagged behind other member countries in terms of gathering dataon its post-20th century art history. This has created challenges whenit comes to making comparative analyses. We are talking about acountry which, despite having a strong history of art and culture, has
not seen these aspects develop as much as they should have in the ageof globalization. The country embarked on modernist and conceptual
art movements in the 1990s like other Southeast Asian countries, butdevelopment has stagnated between generations and the integration ofart into the education system has also been weak.
Most art exhibitions in the country are organized informally and in
a conventional, dated manner. Curators do not have a prominent rolein the contemporary Myanmar art scene and, with so much uncertainty
about their status and future, there are not many professional curators.
There are people who have substantial knowledge of art history, who canmanage and who have established galleries, but they are not functioning
on a professional level with enough skills and expertise. Therefore,
exhibitions lack fresh curatorial ideas and interesting, well-thought out
displays. Additionally, if someone chooses to work as both a curator anda full-time artist, they face many difficulties.
In Myanmar, the role of a curator still needs to be discussed anddebated. Myanmar artists have not fully acknowledged or understoodthe importance of art criticism and curating. Some confuse curatingwith the evaluation of artworks. There are large spaces, buildings, andgalleries but these are not equipped to offer to put on contemporary art
exhibitions. Art exhibitions have not received their deserved place in thesocial psyche. Many people do not see why there should be designatedspaces or buildings for contemporary art.

085

Aung Myat Htay│Changes and Uncertainties in Contemporary Myanmar Art

As a curator and artist, I see these challenges:
	There is still little support from the government for art and culture,
and as a result, people in the art scene are not equipped with enoughknowledge of contemporary art, and that includes theoretical,
intellectual, and technical understanding of contemporary art forms.
●	Due to bureaucratic weaknesses, the performance of the art council
has been mediocre, and art and cultural policies have not changed or
evolved much since 1962.
●	People still feel inhibited from working with foreigners, whether
on a personal or organizational basis. This may be related to thedifferences in language, level of education, and access to professional
opportunities, and may also be caused by the nationalist sentimentthat some people have.
●	Communication and cooperation between young artists who studied
art outside of the country and those who did their studies inside thecountry are next to non-existent.
●	Artists who have studied art abroad do not have enough opportunities
and space in the local art scene, partly because people have beentaught to have contempt for foreign education. They have found it
difficult to challenge or criticize the way things are done in the local art
scene. People lack understanding of new approaches that these artists
attempt to bring in, and there may also be fear of being dominated bythese foreign-educated artists.
●	Most artists with progressive minds have become indifferent to
the local art scene and prioritize showing their works outside of
the country. Artists who have made a name in the international art
scene and art market also sometimes try to create distance between
themselves and other local artists. This has affected the developmentof the local art scene.
●	Curatorial studies, arts management, and arts research are not taught
at universities, leading to the continuation of old approaches.
●	Artists are only used to making art on an individual basis, and are
not familiar with collective art practices. They have very limited
knowledge of community art, do not understand the importance ofarts management, and have doubts over the role of curators.
●

Faced with these challenges, working as a curator in Myanmar comeswith risks. A few curators are trying to lay a foundation, but have notgone very far at the present moment, and so art curating in Myanmar
has not developed much.
How to Set New Standards for Curating Art
Art exhibitions organized in today’s Myanmar can be categorized as follows:	Specific group exhibitions (students only, women only, members only, etc.)●

Essay 07086

	Exhibitions dedicated to a particular medium or technique (watercolor,
traditional art, abstract art, etc.)●	Exhibitions dedicated to specific formal themes (the beauty of Pagan
temples, Myanmar landscapes, portraits, etc.)●	Exhibitions of loose or casual groupings of artists (these exhibitions
are often organized by the exhibiting group itself or by foreign curators
under a common general theme like “beauty of our land,” politicalpropaganda like portraits of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, or as a regularannual show for a gallery)●	Exhibitions that mark the opening of new spaces and galleries●	Exhibitions organized to raise funds for a social cause or for a political
campaign●

Most Myanmar artists tend to show their works in one of these types ofexhibitions. Such exhibitions are more friendship-based than projectbased, and do not have a central concept. Therefore, the works shownin these exhibitions do not necessarily dialogue with each other or are
not threaded together conceptually. Mostly, they are just a mess of ahuge range of different subjects and styles, although some exhibitions
may be dedicated to a common theme like women’s issues, civil war,
peace, alleviation of poverty, freedom of expression, and environmental
degradation.
Art That Has Survived Social and Political Unrest
A researcher may find a lot of Myanmar paintings and sculptures
depicting various typical subjects like monks or daily life or the local
landscape, drawing on Impressionist and Expressionist techniques.
Many of these artworks are largely decorative. There is an art market
for these kinds of works and tourists purchase them. The state-run art
institutions focus on teaching how to make artworks like these. Like
the country itself, the art scene still lacks democratic and progressive
thinking. Artists tend to make artworks to express their personal
feelings, to promote traditional cultural aspects, to study nature, or to
depict people, instead of touching on urgent contemporary issues.
During the military regime, artworks that depict Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi, her father General Aung San, roses, guns, and naked women were
censored on an arbitrary basis. Having too much red color in a painting
could put the artist in danger. Censors obviously did not understand art
and made their judgments based on political reasons only. Some artists
experimented with new media and approaches, finding different ways tomake art to work around the censorship, and continue the same kind ofpractices today.
In a way, the effect of censorship also stifled the development of theart scene because the artists focused so much on self-expression andresistance against the oppression.

087

Aung Myat Htay│Changes and Uncertainties in Contemporary Myanmar Art

Art That Has Broken Away from the Traditional
There has been experimentation and inventiveness throughout thehistory of Myanmar art. If we look back at the modernist phase of
Myanmar art, we will see two major groups of artists. Modern art trends
can first be seen around 1950 in Upper Burma. At this time, for example,
the artist U Khin Maung (Bank) studied modern art from Europe and the
USA through distance education, and in turn passed on its lessons to his
assistant artists Paw Oo Thet and Win Pe.
Then in the lower Burma center at Yangon around 1960, a group ofarchitects, filmmakers, painters and sculptors got together and founded
the AI group. Their base was the office of co-founder Khin Maung Yin,
Architects Incorporated, which became an art club or meeting point formodern art, a rare place within the old-fashioned mainstream art scene
in town.
In the late 1980s and 90s, artists and students from Yangon
University made a major breakthrough with their artworks. Interestingly
they were from various different faculties of the university and not fromany art school. Gangaw Village Art Group and Inya Artist Group areprobably the best known groups of artists that emerged in this period.
Contemporary art trends emerged in the following decades.
Art festivals and exchanges such as Beyond Pressure International
Performance Art Festival, Blue Wind Art Festival, New Zero Multimedia
Art Festival, and so on were held. Artists who got engaged with these
festivals and exhibitions were drawn to new ideas and art forms.
However, reaching a wider audience and being part of the internationalart community were still a far-off thing.
We Need Art Collectives and Collaborations
It is rare to find people working as a collective in the Myanmar art scene,and not many artists collaborate with each other. This is partly because
the notion of art-making as an individual thing has been taught widely
among local artists, with an emphasis on personal space and expressionin art. The political system that had been used in the country divided
artists and created distrust; therefore, politics can also be considered amain reason. Historical and ongoing conflicts between the hundred overethnic groups in Myanmar has also isolated communities.
Most social teachings center on maintaining traditional values
and following the footsteps of the previous generation. Myanmar is ademocracy hampered by the old ways of dictatorship. Art associations,art schools, and foundations need to encourage collaboration.
Collaborations will bring in new art practices and ideas, and will help lay
a good foundation for contemporary art.
The Immune System of Present-day Myanmar
Today, foreign investors are keeping a close watch on Myanmar. A horde

Essay 07088

of corporations, aid agencies, and other forms of organizations will
come into the country. This will test the strength of the society, test how
much people can cope with the changes or work with them.
Recently, an international NGO started talking about having an art
fair that will be called Yangon Biennale, its main idea being to create athriving commercial art market. This has led to an argument between
local artists and the organization in question, in which local artists havedemanded that the organization not use the name Yangon Biennale.
This is an example reflecting the current conditions.
The Myanmar art scene will start attracting a lot of businesspeople and other organizations, for example from other Southeast
Asian countries, and this will also bring opportunities to local artists
to get larger exposure for their works. But local artists need to makewise decisions by weighing up their options. They need to examine
who is benefiting and how. They also need to work to change thepolicies regarding art and culture. Hopefully, a significant number of
independent art spaces will spring up, and there will be more investment
from the government to support contemporary Myanmar art.
(Translated by Mg Day)

089

Aung Myat Htay│Changes and Uncertainties in Contemporary Myanmar Art

Essay08

Laos in Motion─Souliya Phoumivong［Artist /Lecturer, National Institute of Fine Arts, Vientiane］

Laos is in motion. Laos as I have known it all my life is a peaceful land,
full of tradition and culture. The country has changed a great deal during
the past 15 years, in many different areas. In my generation, we see somany issues in society. We want to express and discuss these problems,
but it is not easy to find platforms for expression. More discussion ofsocial issues in Laos today can be a good thing and get the public moreinterested and engaged.
I support change and improvement for art in Laos as part ofthis change. Until now, most artists have only used traditional media
like painting, and this is the main thing that is taught in the Lao art
education system. I believe that new media is an alternative way for
artists to talk about new issues facing Laos, issues which arise partly
from Laos’ position in between many other powerful nations, and our
status as a member of ASEAN. In order for more artists in Laos to feelable to experiment with new media, we need to create opportunities forthis. This is why, for “Condition Report,” I proposed an exhibition, titled“Laos in Motion,” inviting artists to use new media to talk about thechanges that are happening in Laos today.
My proposed exhibition is not about criticizing, or being
oppositional. Instead, it is more about inviting people to think, toconsider the many kinds of problems we are facing, and their manydifferent sources.
Comparing Laos to Other Southeast Asian Nations
I have gained a lot more experience by seeing things outside of Laos,
during my travels and residencies. My participation in the JapanFoundation’s “Condition Report” project has been especially helpful
in allowing me to compare the situation in Laos with that of other
Southeast Asian countries. From what I observe, we in Laos, unlike inother countries, have found unique ways to express our opinion. We
often use indirect means to express our thoughts, an attitude resulting
from the way we have grown up, where we try to avoid conflict.

090

In Laos, most artists make artwork about Lao culture and the Laolandscape, because this is what we have learnt from art school and thisis what most of Lao society accept as art. Most art students when they
graduate choose to follow these themes as they think this is the only
kind of art they can make money from. This is the main reason why
conceptual art or art using new media is not so popular. Only very few
Lao artists make work that is more conceptual, or has a more critical
attitude. And for those artists, it is difficult to find an audience. It isdifficult to show contemporary art and get people involved in it as
the audience is still used to beautiful paintings of Lao landscape andculture. The other difficulty faced by the art scene in Laos, as in othercountries, is insufficient support from the government.
I have learned a lot from my experience of “Condition Report.” Lao’scontemporary art situation is still in the development stage. Meeting
curators from other countries in the region, I am inspired by their work.
Vietnamese curators, for example, have a creative way of expressing
their ideas. In Myanmar, they also have a very strong government andexperience censorship there; however, artists there have their own
ways to give their opinion, and many artists have stepped out from theframe of traditional culture and art to create new kinds of thinking andexpression in their artworks.
The Potential of New MediaIn Laos, most artists work in painting, or in other traditional media.
It is only in the last few years that a few artists have joined new media
workshops, which have inspired those artists to utilize new media (including
photography, installation, video, and clay animation) as an art form.
What are the new subject matters expressed by today’s Lao artists
when they are presented with new media and new foreign influences?
How does their art, using new tools of expression, reflect the modernsocial landscape of Laos? What are the strategies used by the artists—
painters, performers, animators—in order to freely express themselves
while still respecting the deeply varied cultural and social frameworks
of Laos?
As a curator, I chose to focus on new media for my proposed projectfor “Condition Report” because new media is something fresh that can
attract more attention than traditional media like painting, to get people
more interested, and more open to the messages that we want to talkabout. New media can reach a much wider audience.
It is a very powerful tool for communicating ideas to an audience,
especially in the new technology era. The new generation loves to share
information via new media, including photos, videos, and social media.
New media provides a good way for us to learn from outside Laos, andalso to share ideas from our neighbors within our society. It is also very
fast—audiences can get messages directly and quickly through social
media, and they can share among themselves, instead of having to go
to see artworks in an exhibition or gallery, or in books. There are more

091

Souliya Phoumivong│Laos in Motionpossibilities for artworks to reach a broader audience, and to discussthem among themselves. In Laos, very few people visit art exhibitions orgalleries. If we make new media art, people will be curious about it andshare it by social media, which means more people will see the work andjoin in the discussions about the new problems and changes that Laos isfacing today.
In Laos, if we want to develop new media art, we have to start fromwhat we are used to. If we start by doing something too similar to what
is happening in other countries with a longer history of new media
art, it will be too complicated, and difficult for people to understand.
Instead we have to start from what people are familiar with, and not be
too complex. New media artwork should be more conceptual, and havea message, but the main purpose is for Lao people to understand what
artists want to say. Lao new media art needs to speak primarily to Laopeople, though audiences outside the country can follow it.
The Japan Foundation is very good for supporting a small country
like Laos to be exposed to new things, to get the chance to do somethingwhich can better connect us to the rest of the region. My hope wasthat this project could be the starting point for a new generation to
stand up and think more about the possibilities of new media art, andcontemporary art in general. About how to create more work, and how tochange the future of art in Laos, and come closer to our neighboring art
scenes in ASEAN.
(With thanks to Roger Nelson and Misouda Heaungsoukkhoun)

Essay 08092

Institutions, Communication,
and Discourse

093

094

Communicating with People Behind
the Black Mirror

Essay
09

─

Vittavin Leelavanachai［Independent Curator］

The evolution of the Internet and its influence on the modern world
has had an undeniable effect on contemporary art and visual culture.
Information overflow has changed art audiences’ behavior to thepoint that some may even argue that we may not need to be present
in the physical space of an artwork to experience it. As an exhibitionmaker, I still believe in the importance of being present in an art space.
Obviously, the accessibility to images, videos, or even virtual tours offers
alternatives to the traditional art exhibition experience. “Black mirror”
is a reflection on the turned-off screen of computers, mobile phones,
televisions, and all modern telecommunication devices as such. It is also
the title of a British science fiction series which examines modern society
with regards to the unanticipated consequences of new technologies.［01］This article is written during my participation in a curators’ workshop
by the Japan Foundation Asia Center. During these two years, I have
had the chance to observe and interact with several art spaces including
city center art venues, alternative spaces, artist-run spaces, andmultipurpose spaces such as cafés or bars which also function as art
exhibition spaces, regarding each space's strategies to attract, build,and communicate with their audiences, especially in drawing them out
from behind the computer or mobile phone screen to the physical space.
Crowd-pulling artists, location, targeted media promotion, well-planned
activities and educational programmes, and souvenir stores are various
factors considered and tactics applied by each art space depending on
their focus and positioning. The positive effect of a successful exhibition
opening can extend through the remainder of the exhibition period, so
the selection of a suitable opening date (for example, whether it falls on
a weekday or weekend) is also important. This article explores recent
case studies from contemporary art spaces.
We might begin with a “white cube” space such as Bangkok Art
and Culture Centre (BACC), which opened in 2008. BACC is located at
a very high audience traffic spot, between several big shopping malls.
In handling such an advantage, this space wisely manages the firstand second floors as activity areas, which are connected to the public

095

01“Black Mirror,” All 4, Channel 4
Television Corporation, accessed
December 7, 2017, http://www.
channel4.com/programmes/blackmirror/.

Vittavin Leelavanachai│Communicating with People Behind the Black Mirror

Skytrain walkway on the third floor via a circular exhibition walkway.
These floors are the crucial determinant to encourage art viewers or
irregular viewers to circulate to other upper floors. Moreover, coffeebars and cafés, designer souvenir shops, and selected bookstores also
invite people to spend a longer time or even all day in this exhibition
complex, inspiring them to take the opportunity to get to art exhibitions
and activities. In my opinion, BACC is an early successful model of
how to bring people into a contemporary art space, particularly if we
consider Thai people’s perception of art in the past, which has mostly
been based on an appreciation of paintings seen in galleries. Whether
they are interested in art or not, audience traffic flows into the first andsecond floor to eat, shop, or participate in other activities, quickly taking
in artworks as they circulate up to the third floor. All these points leadthem by elevator access to the seventh, eighth, and ninth floors which
are the three connecting floors of the main gallery, which regularly holds
temporary exhibitions, running for two to three months at a time.
Unless an art space has a super location like BACC, program andartist selection would be its most important considerations. Bangkok
CityCity Gallery is not located in such a prime location but is also quite
accessible and surrounded by many foreign art and culture institutes.
Its selection of influential artists such as cartoonist and animator Wisut
Ponnimit, for its inaugural exhibition (“Melo House,” August 26 toOctober 11, 2015) and artist-filmmaker Nawapol Thamrongrattanarit(“I WRITE YOU A LOT,” June 18 to August 7, 2016) is a great strategy toenhance the space's reputation and attract a crossover of art and film
visual culture audiences. Other, more critical art exhibitions could havebeen placed during the same time slots and attracted audiences better,encouraging them to explore other types of art and exhibitions like
Korakrit Arunanondchai’s “Painting with history in a room filled withpeople with funny names 3” (April 3 to June 5, 2016) or “To Whom It
May Concern” (August 9 to September 3, 2017) curated by Judha Su, an
educational program-cum-art exhibition enquiring into the position andreach of art criticism and journalism in Thailand, and reflecting on theimportance of discourse for trained and untrained viewers.
Another model can be found in art community-focused spaces thatmainly attract people from the art field and art students. N22 space is ashared warehouse in Narathiwat Road which houses gallery VER, Cartel
Artspace, Artist + Run Gallery, Tentacles, and three artist studios, aswell as art storage. This space often strategically schedules events andgallery exhibition openings on the same day, creating an opportunity
for sharing audiences as well as art buyers. Three to four openings andperformances always happen at the same time, thus creating small
gatherings and discussions among the established and young artists
attending. Tentacles is more focused on young artists, and they also
conduct workshops every weekend by people with all kinds of expertise.
Likewise, JAM, a bar, underground music venue, gallery, and cine club in
Sathorn, builds up its community using social networks by conducting
interesting visual culture events in conjunction with an art exhibition.

Essay 09096

“Cult Movie Night,” “8-bit Bangkok—Modern Retro Night,” “The No
Mic Open Mic,” or even the occasional outdoor movie night are someexamples of their special events.
You get the highest rate of audience traffic in Bangkok for art at
art fairs and festivals, even though their targets are most likely to be art
dealers, collectors and upper-class society. The successful Hotel Art Fair,
and Art Ground at The Jam Factory are good case studies, for the majority
of Bangkok people tend to visit fairs, festivals, and art and visual culture
events instead of going to more serious or educational art programs.
I have discussed here some examples of how current art spaces
in Bangkok are moving and the curatorial strategies they apply. To
conclude, the strategic use of the physical environment around art
exhibitions is one key factor in achieving audience traffic at an exhibition
venue. Curatorial strategies can be applied to manage audience traffic
to the right space, encouraging people to access exhibitions. Meanwhile,
including well-known and highly visible artists that also relate to an art
space's direction is a crucial factor in maintaining its reputation andvisitor rate.
We should consider other mediums besides physical space formats
when presenting exhibitions, and find strategies to manage anddisseminate information via the Internet and social networking. Public
and media relations need to be developed to effectively use social media
to communicate with people behind the screen, considering that themainstream media has already moved onto social networks—expertiseon Facebook and online strategies are a must for this era.
How can curatorial practice be applied to social media tools?
For example, how do you make an attractive page header following
the limited text regulations and still communicate an art space's or
exhibition's information? Online film festivals are a good example
of curatorial practice applied on an alternative platform. This sort ofplatform can be found in mobile app stores as well—the new AppleApp Store “curates” its content, presenting apps in a story package,and content-led curation is also used on the Steam online game store
platform. Although this can indicate an overuse of the concept of“curation,” at the same time it points to interesting ways in which
curatorial practice can be applied on new online platforms, especially inthis era of information overload.
We need to combine the possibilities of new channels with moreestablished ones to communicate to the audience behind the black
mirror, whose antenna has today moved into the digital space.

097

Vittavin Leelavanachai│Communicating with People Behind the Black Mirror

Essay10

Learning with Citizens
─

Yoshizaki Kazuhiko［Curator, Yamaguchi Center for Arts and Media］

01“Social inclusion” is cited as a functionof art and culture even in the Japanese
government’s policies for cultural
promotion, as in the Third Basic
Policy established by cabinet decision
on February 8, 2011. See “Bunka
geijutsu no shinkō ni kan suru kihonteki na hōshin (Heisei 23-nen 2-gatsu
8-ka kakugi kettei)” [Basic policy on
the promotion of culture and thearts], Agency for Cultural Affairs,
Government of Japan, accessed January
9, 2018,
http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/
bunka_gyosei/hoshin/kihon_
hoshin_3ji/index.html.

A heap of soil occupies a corner of the exhibition space in the massive
former warehouse building. A tree and grass grow from it, and there
are two small pools, as well as a red swing. One of the pools is filledwith cloudy water, which is drawn through a hose into a filter and thenpumped into the other pool as clear water.
Presented at the Jakarta Biennale in 2015, this is Flowing Water(2015), a work made by Lifepatch, an organization based in Yogyakarta.
The work is a water purification apparatus that was made for acommunity in Surabaya, East Java, where there is no access to clean
drinking water and the inhabitants must use river water that theydisinfect with chlorine.
Including artists, programmers, and scientists, the members ofLifepatch come from diverse backgrounds. Calling themselves a “citizen
initiative,” not an “artist collective,” they work not only in art but also
in cross-disciplinary fields, such as biotechnology and agriculture.
Often collaborating with specialists, they propose concrete solutions
for problems faced by communities, using technology, and also opensource their solutions so that other people with similar problems canuse them. What distinguishes their practice from other artistic practices
is that they not only try to solve issues in specific communities, butalso attempt to encourage an environment in which citizens can takeinitiatives in engaging with social issues.
Such practices, that attempt to solve social issues using art-based
strategies, are now being pursued not only by artists but also in theactivities of the museums and art centers. In particular, it seems that
there is a high degree of interest in the role of art and culture as a factor
in promoting inclusivity and enabling people with differences in ability,
economic status, race, or nationality to be equally accepted in society.［01］During my research trips to Indonesia in recent years, both visiting
the Jakarta Biennale as well as during the “Condition Report” program,I have met many artists and artist collectives who engage closely with
communities and make works about their issues—not only in Jakarta but
also in other cities in Indonesia. Then, in 2017, I had the opportunity to098research educational programs for local communities at museums andart centers in England and saw many examples of projects addressing
social inclusion. In 2017, I also relocated from a public museum inTokyo to an art center in a regional city, and this change in environment
has made me more conscious about community relations and the roleof museums in society. It is for these reasons that I would like to use thisessay to introduce the initiatives of regional museums and art centers in
England and Japan, respectively, and consider the roles that are possible
for cultural institutions to play in society, focusing on the relationshipwith citizens.
A Socially Useful Museum: The Initiatives of the Middlesbrough Instituteof Modern Art
Located in Middlesbrough in northeast England, the MiddlesbroughInstitute of Modern Art (mima) is a public museum that actively engages
with issues of local communities. With a current population of about
140,000 people, Middlesbrough once had a thriving steel industry, but
industrial decline, closed factories, and rising unemployment rates
mean that the city now has one of the highest poverty rates in England.
Middlesbrough also has many refugees, and societal issues related tohousing and public safety are becoming more and more apparent
in the area.
Following the appointment of Alistair Hudson as its director in
2014, mima has implemented major changes to its management,
programming, and identity as a museum under the vision of the “usefulmuseum.”［02］Located in a region confronting numerous issues, themuseum has a need to present art as a benefit to society that has an
immediate connection with society and people’s lives, rather than as
objects for viewing only that are divorced from real society. This is thecore thinking behind the concept of the “useful museum” that Hudson
advocates. Stating that “the role of this institution is to show the valueof art in society and how to be creative as a society,” Hudson says, “thesubjects we talk about and our way of making exhibitions with people areabout getting people to think creatively to address social problems andhow to regenerate this postindustrial town collectively by community.”［03］
Under the rubric of the socially “useful museum,” Hudson
announced that the vision for the museum for the four-year period
from 2015 to 2018 would be “Museum 3.0.”［04］Museum 3.0 considers
all people who use the museum, including both visitors and staff, tobe “users,” with the museum’s significance depending upon how it isemployed by these users. It also sees the museum as an environmentthat is generated from the totality of all the users’ actions.
The vision is an attempt to change the traditional relationshipbetween museums and the public. Following the traditional model,
the public would go to the museum to see an exhibition made by
the curators, and view and appreciate the artworks on display there.
However, Museum 3.0 puts the “user” at the center of the museum

099

02
The concept of the “useful museum”
was first proposed by the Cuban artist
Tania Bruguera, who organized an
exhibition called “Museum of Arte Útil”
at the Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven,in 2013. After the exhibition ended,
an organization called Asociaciónde Arte Útil has continued operating
independent of the Van Abbemuseum,focusing its activity on archival
projects. As Bruguera’s codirector,
Hudson has set up the organization’s
office at mima.
Alistair Hudson is currently the
director of the Whitworth andManchester Art Galleries.
03
Alistair Hudson, interview by Yoshizaki
Kazuhiko, on February 28, 2017.
04
See “Where do we go from here?
A vision statement for 2015 –18,”
Visitmima.com, accessed January 9,2018,http://www.visitmima.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/mimavision2015-18.pdf.

Yoshizaki Kazuhiko│Learning with Citizens

model, and the museum’s resources—such as the works in thecollection, the knowledge of the curators, the equipment, and thefacilities—are there to be shared and used by the users. The museum’s
resources are the shared wealth of the community, and the involvementof the community in the planning of programs is also encouraged. Mostof the programs at the museum are created through conversations withthe users, including the museum staff.
Creating Programs in Dialogue with the Public: Developing Exhibitions
Through Educational Programs
In many museums, exhibitions are planned first and then the details(theme, exhibited works, artists, and so on) provide the basis fordeveloping educational programs, but at mima, it is the educational
programs that provide the basis for the temporary and collection
exhibitions. For example, once a week, the museum holds a communityoriented program called “Community Day.” This program features
various events throughout the day, from workshops for different age
groups and communities, such as children under the age of five, young
people between the ages of 14 and 24, and adults with dementia, toEnglish classes for non-native speakers, community gardening, freelunches, and film screenings. Through these participatory events, thethemes and artists for planned exhibitions are selected through direct
dialogue with the public about their needs and concerns.
Works for exhibitions are selected through conversations between
the museum staff and the community, even in the case of collection
exhibitions. A public tour of the collection is held once a month,allowing visitors to see the works in person and share their opinions
about what they would like to see in future exhibitions. Curators thenplan exhibitions based on those requests. Here, curators are not incharge of selecting works but rather take on the role of facilitators.
Having the public directly involved in the selection of works fosters anawareness that the museum’s collection is the shared wealth of all.
The museum also develops projects for addressing social issues
in the region. For example, the former sculpture garden is now acommunity garden, managed in cooperation with outside groups. The
garden is intended primarily to be a space for minority communities tosocialize and learn new skills. And it seems that the people who care forthe garden are mostly refugees. The harvested vegetables are used at themuseum’s café and are also given away at community events.
Museums and art centers that address issues faced by the local
community are uncommon in Japan. What kind of art is useful tosociety, and what kind of art could have an effect on the social reality?
It would be rash to see what Hudson calls the usefulness of art as an
immediate force for providing solutions or panaceas to social problems.
As Hudson says, the community is the main constituent that “thinks
creatively about social problems,” and perhaps the usefulness of art lies
in its power to foster the creativity for dealing with such problems.

Essay 10100

Although it does not deal with social problems directly, I will next
introduce the “Korogaru Koen” project at Yamaguchi Center for Arts andMedia, where I currently work, as an instance of creating a space where
members of the community can think independently and creativity is
nurtured.
A Place for Learning About Renewable Public Space: The Yamaguchi
Center for Arts and Media’s “Korogaru Koen”

05
For details, see Aida Daiya, “Kyōiku
fukyū no genba kara: Kore kara no
myūjiamu no mottomo shigekiteki na tsukaikata [From the siteof educational activity: The moststimulating way of utilizing the future
museum],” artscape, August 15, 2016,
accessed January 9, 2018,
http://artscape.jp/focus/10126094_1635.
html.

Yamaguchi Center for Arts and Media, or YCAM, is a multiuse cultural
institution that functions as an exhibition space, theater, cinema andlibrary. Since it opened in 2003, YCAM has offered diverse programs
such as exhibitions, theater performances and workshops, with a focus
on the creation of new expression using media technology. Among these
programs is “Korogaru Koen,” launched in 2012.
“Korogaru Koen” is a playground-type installation that is madewith large, steep slides and shaky platforms to stimulate children tothink and create through play. The playground equipment includes
microphones, speakers, lights, and video projections, and there aremechanisms that operate in response to the children’s movements or
according to pre-designed programs. Meetings are held regularly during
the exhibition period, allowing the children to think on their own about
adding new rules of play and software to the playground or changing the
hardware itself. Some of the ideas that come up are then implemented a
few days later.
The program has been held recurrently since 2012, and over timea group of children has formed that voluntarily maintains the venue
and joins in its management. In 2013, the children wanted to extend
the four-month exhibition period beyond its scheduled end date, sothey independently started a petition and gathered signatures that they
delivered to the mayor.［05］This led to the extension of the exhibition
period and the return of the installation the following year.
Here, children can learn through play about the necessity for rules
in communal space, as well as their own ability to modify those rules
on occasion. Through their experiences in this small community, thechildren obtain a sense of their self-efficacy in society—a concept which
is otherwise so abstract as to escape comprehension.
In this essay, we have looked at the engagement of museums and art
centers with local communities through the initiatives of mima and
YCAM. What they share in common is the aspiration to a dynamic in
which the community is the main constituent and professionals (thecurators and staff) and nonprofessionals (the community) think andlearn about social realities together through art, instead of one in which
museums and art centers provide objects for appreciation to be admiredby the people. This non-hierarchical relationship with citizens can also
be seen in the practices of Lifepatch, described at the beginning of
this essay. The role of the curator or educator in this context is not to101

Yoshizaki Kazuhiko│Learning with Citizens

authoritatively transmit knowledge; rather, it could be said that they are
mediators who bring together artworks, artists, and communities.
“Whose museum is it?” “What is public?” These questions havebeen discussed ad nauseam in recent years with every instance of
censorship that occurs when museums try to exhibit works addressing
political and social issues. Perhaps the initiatives to encourage theactive engagement of the community on the part of these two cultural
facilities, as introduced above, could offer a suggestion for breaking
through the mental blocks confronting these issues.
(Translated by Andrew Maerkle)

Essay 10102

Essay

市民とともに学ぶ美術館・アートセンターの試み
─

10

吉㟢和彦
［山口情報芸術センター キュレーター］

かつて倉庫だった広大な空間を利用した展覧会場の一画に土が盛られている。その上には木が生え草が生え、二つの小さな池があり、赤いブランコもある。ひとつの池には濁った水が入っており、そこからホースでその水が汲み取られ、フィルターを通01
例えば、日本政府の芸術文化の振興に関する2011年に閣議決定された方針においても、「第3次基本方針」から「社会包摂」という言葉が、文化芸術の機能のひとつとして使われている。

してもう一方の池に透明な水となって出ている。

（第「文化芸術の振興に関する基本的な方針」

これは、ジャカルタ・ビエンナーレ 2015で発表されたインドネシアのジョグジャカル

3 次基本方針、平成 23年 2月8日閣議決定）（2015 年）
タを拠点に活動する団体、「Lifepatch」の作品《流れる水》
である。
きれ

いな飲み水にアクセスできず、川から汲み取った水を塩素で消毒して使用している

http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunka_
gyosei/hoshin/kihon_hoshin_3ji/index.
html（アクセス：2018 年 1月9日）

ジャワ島東部の都市スラバヤのあるコミュニティのために浄水装置を開発することによって、都市における水質汚染の問題を顕在化させた。
「Lifepatch」はアーティスト以外にも、プログラマーや科学者、デザイナーなど多様なバックグラウンドを持つメンバーで構成された団体で、自らを「アーティスト・コレク
ティヴ」ではなく「市民団体」と呼び、アートの領域にとどまらず、バイオテクノロジー
や農業などさまざまな分野で活動している。彼らはコミュニティが抱える問題に対して、しばしば外部の専門家とも協働しながら、
テクノロジーを使って具体的な提案を行い、さらにそのアイデアをオープンソース化し誰もが活用できるようにしている。ただ特定のコミュニティの問題を解決するだけでなく、市民が主体的に問題を解決できるような環境づくりまでをも試みている点が彼らの実践の特徴である。
こうした社会課題の解決を試みる芸術的実践は、
アーティストに限ったことではなく、作品を展示する美術館やアートセンターの活動自体にも求められるようになっている。
とりわけ、障がいや貧困、人種及び国籍が異なる人たちが平等に社会に受け入れられるようにする社会包摂機能が文化芸術の効用として注目されているように
［01］。
思われる

ジャカルタ・ビエンナーレ2015 だけでなく、「Condition Report」の一環で調査のためインドネシアを訪れた際にも、コミュニティと密接に関わり、そのコミュニティが103

吉㟢和彦│市民とともに学ぶ美術館・アートセンターの試み

02
この「有用な美術館」というコンセプトはキュー
バ人アーティスト、
タニア・ブルゲラが提唱したも（オランダ、
ア
2013年にファン・アベ美術館
ので、
イントホーフェン）で「有用芸術のための美術館（Museum of Arte Útil）」という展 覧 会が開催された。展覧会終了後も、
ファン・アベ美術館からは独立した形で、アーカイヴを中心に活動は「Asociación de Arte Útil」という組織として継続している。ハドソンはブルゲラとともに共同
ディレクターを務め、その事務所をミドルズブラ・
イ
ンスティチュート・オブ・モダンアート内に構える。

2018 年よりハドソンはマンチェスターにある抱える問題に取り組むアーティストあるいはアーティスト・コレクティヴには、ジャカル
タ以外の都市においても多く出会った。その一方で、2017年にイギリスの美術館やアートセンターにおける地域住民向けの教育普及事業について調査をする機会を得たが、そこでその多くが社会包摂的な取り組みを行っているのを目の当たりにした。さらに、筆者は同じく2017年東京の公立美術館から地方都市のアートセン
ターへと移り、
この環境の変化によって、コミュニティとの関係性を、
そして美術館が社会の中で担う役割についてこれまで以上に考えるようになった。
こうした背景から、
本稿では、イギリスと日本の地方都市の美術館及びアートセンターの取り組みを紹

ウィットワース美術館並びにマンチェスター・アー

介し、社会の中で文化施設がどのような役割を担うことができるか、特に市民との関トギャラリーの館長を務める。

係性に着目して考えてみたい。

03
筆者によるハドソンへの2017年 2月28日のインタビューより。

04
2015 -18 年のビジョンについては、同館ホームページからダウンロードすることができる。

http://www.visitmima.com/wp-content/

社会に有用な美術館：ミドルズブラ・インスティチュート・オブ・モダンアートの試み
イングランド北東部、
ミドルズブラ市にあるミドルズブラ・インスティチュート・オブ・モダンアート、通称「mima」は、地域が抱える問題に積極的に取り組んでいる美術

uploads/2014 /12 /mima-vision2015 -18 .

館である。美術館が位置するミドルズブラ市は、人口約 14 万人で、かつては鉄鋼

pdf（アクセス：2018 年 1月 9日）

業で栄えてきたが、現在、その鉄鋼業は衰退し、工場は閉鎖され、失業率が高く、英国の中でも貧困率が高い都市となっている。
また、難民や亡命者が多く、その他、住宅問題や治安問題など多くの社会問題が顕在化している地域でもある。

2014 年にアリステア・ハドソンが館長に就任して以来、同館は「有用な美術館」というコンセプトを掲げ、それまでの同館の運営やプログラム、
そして従来の美術館のあり方を大きく変えるような試みを行ってきた［02］。様々な問題を抱える地域の美術館として、芸術を現実の社会とかけ離れた、単なる鑑賞するためのオブジェとして提示するのではなく、芸術が人々の生活や社会と直結したものであり、社会にとって役に立つものとして提示していく必要がある。
これがハドソンの掲げる「有用な美術館」というコンセプトの根幹にある考えである。
「この美術館の役割は、社会における
芸術の価値、
いかに創造的な社会になりうるかを示すことです」。
「私たちのプログ
ラムと、住民と展覧会を作るやりかたというのは、すべて人々に社会問題に創造的に取り組んでもらうためです。そして、脱工業化社会に直面するこの街をコミュニティの手によって再生するためです」とハドソンは語る［03］。
この社会にとって「有用な美術館」というコンセプトの下、ハドソンは 2015年から2018 年まで4 年間の美術館のビジョンとして「ミュージアム 3.0」構想を掲げる［04］。
「ミュージアム 3.0」とは、来館者、美術館のスタッフも含めて美術館を利用する人を「ユーザー」と呼び、美術館はユーザーによって使われることによってはじめてその存在意義がある、という考えである。そして、美術館をあらゆるユーザーの行為の総体に

Essay 10104

よって生まれる空間と考える。
この構想は、従来の美術館と市民との関係性を変える試みである。従来の美術館
モデルでは、キュレーターが作る展覧会を市民が美術館に出かけて行き、そこにある芸術作品を鑑賞し、享受するというものだった。
しかし、「ミュージアム 3.0」の美術
館モデルは、「ユーザー」を中心にした考えであり、収蔵作品、キュレーターの専門知識、技術、施設といった美術館が所有する資源は、ユーザーによってシェアされ、活用されるために存在する。美術館のもつ資源は市民の共有財産であり、そのプログラムの企画に関しても市民の参加を促す。同館において多くのプログラムは美術館のスタッフも含むユーザーとの対話を通して作られている。
市民との対話で作るプログラム：教育普及事業から作る展覧会
多くの美術館では、展覧会がまず企画され、その内容（テーマや出品作家・作品等）に基づいて教育普及プログラムが作られるが、mima では、教育普及プログラムから企画展やコレクション展が作られる。例えば、同館では「コミュニティ・デー」という市民向けのイベントを週に一度開催している。
このイベントは、5 歳以下の子どもや

14 歳から24 歳の若者から認知症を患う人々まで、異なる世代、
コミュニティを対象としたワークショップや、英語を母語としない人向け英語教室、
コミュニティ・ガーデ
ン、
フリーランチ、上映会などさまざまなプログラムを一日中館内で開催する。
こうした市民が参加するイベントを通して、市民が何を必要としているのか、
どのような問題を抱えているのかを直接話を聞き、そこで聞いたことを元に企画展のテーマや作家を決めていく。
さらに、コレクション展においても、美術館スタッフとコミュニティとの対話から展示作品が構成されている。毎月一回、市民向けの収蔵庫ツアーを行い、作品を直接見てもらい、そこで見たい作品の希望も聞く。その希望を元にキュレーターが展示を構
成する。
ここでは、
キュレーターは作品の選定者ではなく、ファシリテーターの役割を担っている。作品の選定に市民が直接関与することにより、同館のコレクションは市民の共有財産であるという意識が芽生える。

mimaは、地域が抱える社会問題を解決するための事業も展開している。例えば、
かつて彫刻庭園だった場所に、
コミュニティ・ガーデンを作り、外部団体と協力して運営している。
このガーデンは、主にマイノリティのコミュニティの人々にとって社交したり、技術を学んだりする場になることを目指している。
この庭を世話するのは、
亡命者の人たちが中心だという。
ここで収穫された野菜は美術館のカフェで調理され、市民にふるまわれるイベントも開催されている。

105

吉㟢和彦│市民とともに学ぶ美術館・アートセンターの試み

05
この経緯については、会田大也「教育普及の現場から─これからのミュージアムの最も刺激的な使い方」『artscape 』2016 年 8月15日
号に詳しい。

http://artscape. jp/ focus/10126094 _1635.html（アクセス：2018 年 1月9日）

このように地域住民が抱える問題に取り組む美術館やアートセンターは日本においては多くはない。
ここでいう社会にとって有用な芸術とは何か、社会の現実に対して実効性を持つ芸術とは何か。
このハドソンの言う芸術の有用性を社会問題の解決策や特効薬を提供するような即時的な効果と捉えてしまうのは危険であろう。ハドソ
ンの言うように「社会問題に対して創造的に考え」る主体はあくまで市民であり、その問題に対処するための創造性を育む力が芸術の持つ有用性ではないだろうか。
次に、社会問題に対して直接取り組むわけではないが、市民が主体的に考え、創造性を育む場の創出の事例として、筆者が勤務する山口情報芸術センターの「コロガル公園」シリーズを紹介する。
更新可能な公共空間を学ぶ場：山口情報芸術センターの「コロガル公園」
山口情報芸術センター、通称「YCAM」は、山口市にある展示空間、劇場、映画館、図書館の機能を備える公立の複合文化施設である。2003年の開館以来、メ
ディア・テクノロジーを用いた新しい表現の創出を活動の軸に、展覧会や舞台芸術
作品の公演、
ワークショップなど多様なプログラムを展開しているが、そのひとつに2012 年から開催している「コロガル公園」シリーズというプログラムがある。
本プログラムは、傾斜の急な大きな滑り台や不安定な床がある公園型インスタレー
ションで、子どもたちが遊びを通して考え、創造するために作られた。遊具の中にはマイク、スピーカー、照明、映像プロジェクションが備え付けられており、子どもの動きに反応する、
あるいは事前に作られたプログラムによって作動する仕掛けがある。会
期中には、子どもたちが自らこの公園での新しい遊びのルールやソフトウェア、
ハード
ウェアの追加を考えるためのミーティングが定期的に開催される。
ここで話し合われたアイデアのいくつかは数日後実現されていく。
本プログラムは 2012年から継続的に開催されているが、回を重ねるごとに、子どもたちの中から自発的に会場メンテナンスや運営に加わる自治コミュニティが生まれてきたという。2013年に開催された際には、約 4カ月の会期の終わりが迫る頃に、
子どもたちの中から継続を求める声が出始め、ついには子どもたちが自発的に著名活
［05］。
動を行い、
その集められた署名は市長まで届けられたという
その結果、
子どもた

ちは会期延長と翌年の開催を勝ち取った。
子どもたちはここで、遊びを通して公共空間におけるルールがなぜ必要かを学び、ときにそのルールは自らアップデートすることもできることを経験する。
この小さなコミュニティの中での経験を通して、子どもたちは抽象的でとらえどころない社会への自己効力感を得たのではないだろうか。

Essay 10106

mimaとYCAMの地域社会に対する取り組みを見てきた。両者に共通す
本稿では、
るのは、美術館・アートセンターが鑑賞の対象を提供し、市民はそれを享受するという関係性ではなく、
あくまで主体は市民にあり、社会の現実について芸術を通して専門家（キュレーター、スタッフ）と非専門家（市民）がともに考え、ともに学ぶ関係性を目指しているということである。
こうしたフラットな関係性は、前述の「Lifepatch」のコミュニティとの関係性にも同様に見られるものである。
ここでのキュレーターやエデュケーターの役
割は、一方向的な知識の伝授ではなく、芸術作品やアーティストを市民と結ぶメディ
エーターと言える。
「美術館は誰のものか」「公共性とは何か」。
こうした問いは、近年美術館で政治的、社会的問題を扱う作品を展示する際に表現規制といった問題が生じるたびに議論されては堂々巡りが繰り返される。
ここで紹介した、市民の主体的な運動を引き出すような二つの文化機関の試みは、
この問いが直面する閉塞感を打ち破る手
がかりにならないだろうか。

107

吉㟢和彦│市民とともに学ぶ美術館・アートセンターの試み

Essay11

Fixing a Broken Paper Boat:
On Art Museums and Museum Curators inIndonesia─Bayu Genia Krishbie［Assistant Curator, National Gallery of Indonesia］

The opening of the MACAN Museum (Museum of Modern andContemporary Art in Nusantara) in Jakarta in early November 2017 wasgreeted with two expressions: joy and irony. It is exhilarating of course
that, for the first time in history, Indonesia finally has a world-class art
museum with a collection, design, management, and programs of suchan excellent quality and standard. Under the command of Aaron Seeto—formerly curatorial manager of Asian and Pacific art at Queensland
Art Gallery—as director, this ultra-modern museum designed by MET
Studio from London holds about 800 important works by Indonesianand prominent international artists. The irony is that this is a private
museum.
The MACAN Museum has appeared on the scene just when the art
public has been getting increasingly frustrated by the lack of government
attention to the development of the cultural sector, and especially art.
Thus, while private sector initiatives to turn art-collecting activities tothe benefit of public education might be worthy of a thumbs-up, theyalso give cause for lament.
On the one hand, the presence of the MACAN Museum
demonstrates the government’s success in stimulating private sector
initiatives to contribute to the development of art practices in Indonesia.
On the other hand, such initiatives should also provide momentum
to fix the state’s art management and infrastructure as a means ofinclusive cultural education for all citizens, protecting it from market
mechanisms that only provide access to an exclusive, segmented
audience. In the education sector, for example, the government has
been trying hard to improve the quality of public schools to adapt (if notcompete) to face the capitalization of education characterized by theonslaught of better quality and costly private schools. The government’s
task is now becoming more difficult—with a limited budget for thecultural sector (about 1% of the total military budget), they are pushed
to improve the infrastructure, management, and programs of art
museums to meet fairly high benchmarks. And there are other lingering
unresolved fundamental issues, such as the decentralization of modern

108art infrastructure to reach communities beyond the capital, and the
management of state collections. The question then is, how far has thegovernment come in improving things?
Art Museums and Art Collections in Indonesia
The dynamic history of modern art in Indonesia is not directly reflected
in a tradition of collecting works of art by the state. If we mark the
beginning of modern art in Indonesia as the moment Raden Saleh
returned to Batavia (present-day Jakarta) in 1851, after 20 years of his
wandering in Europe, we have seen more than 150 years of modern art
in Indonesia. What is the number of modern state-owned art museums
to date? Only three, two belonging to the central government and one
belonging to Jakarta’s provincial government: the National Gallery ofIndonesia, the Basoeki Abdullah Museum, and the Museum of Fine
Arts and Ceramics. They are all located in Jakarta. In addition to thesethree museums, there are also collecting institutions such as the
Presidential Palace of the Republic of Indonesia under the Ministry ofState Secretariat, the Governing Body of Taman Ismail Marzuki (Jakarta
Arts Center), and the Jakarta Arts Council, but unfortunately these three
institutions do not have museums or permanent exhibition spaces fortheir collections to be accessed easily by the public.
In general, the development of museums in Indonesia has beenquite slow. There are currently around 428 museums［01］throughout
Indonesia that are managed by the government and private owners.
That number is of course very small for the biggest country in Southeast
Asia, which consists of 34 provinces, 515 districts/cities, and over 261
million inhabitants. In the United States, which has a population of
about 320 million people, there are about 35,000 museums［02］scatteredthroughout the states! This comparison is of course rather unfair, but
the extreme difference in the quantity of museums compared to the
population of these two countries is astounding. This indicates how
much education in Indonesia depends on the process of learning in
the classroom due to the lack of educational infrastructure such as
museums outside the school system.
Among the 428 museums in Indonesia, about 24 museums ofmodern art,［03］both government-owned and private, have beenrecorded. These museums tend to be concentrated around major cities
such as Jakarta, Bandung, Yogyakarta, and the province of Bali; they
are predominantly museums with monographic collections of specificartists, such as the Basoeki Abdullah Museum, Affandi Museum,
Ciputra Museum (which focuses its permanent collection on theworks of Hendra Gunawan), Widayat Museum, Barli Museum, Selasar
Sunaryo Art Space, NuArt Sculpture Park, Nyoman Gunarsa Museum,
Le Mayeur Museum, Griya Popo Iskandar Art, and so on. Except for the
Basoeki Abdullah Museum, these museums are usually managed andfunded independently by artists or their families and private collectors.
Meanwhile, the number of museums with art historical collections

109

01
Petrik Matanasi, “Darurat Museum
di Indonesia,” Tirto.ID, November 13,
2016, https://tirto.id/darurat-museumdi-indonesia-b4KJ.
02
Jillian Steinhauer, “The United States
Has More than 35,000 Museums,”
Hyperallergic, June 24, 2014, https://
hyperallergic.com/134152/theunited-states-has-more-than-35000museums/.
03
Mia Maria et al., Ekonomi Kreatif:
Rencana Pengembangan Seni Rupa
Nasional 2015-2019 (Jakarta: Republik
Solusi, 2014), 56.
Here, it is written that there are 25
art museums in Indonesia, but in myopinion, the Jakarta Arts Building
and Jogja National Museum are notmuseums because they do not have acollection of art. In November 2017,
the MACAN Museum opened to the
public, bringing the total number ofart museums in Indonesia to 24.

Bayu Genia Krishbie│Fixing a Broken Paper Boat: On Art Museums and Museum Curators in Indonesia

04
Reja Hidayat & Mawa Kresna, “Rezim
Seni di Istana, Beda Soekarno Beda
Soeharto,” Tirto.ID, August 10, 2016,
https://tirto.id/rezim-seni-di-istanabeda-soekarno-beda-soeharto-bySR.
05
Sularko, “Koleksi Nasional,” Majalah
Mimbar Indonesia 37 (September 10,1949), 20-21. S. Sudjojono, RM Subanto
Suriosubandrijo, Nyi Tjokrosuharto
and Ir. Sam Uddin then left thecommittee for various reasons, forexample on matters of principle or
because of prolonged absence.
06
Kusnadi, “Sejarah Seni Rupa
Indonesia,” in Ars Longa Vita Brevis(Yogyakarta: Bentara Budaya
Yogyakarta, 2011), 183.

Essay 11

in Indonesia is still minimal—in addition to the National Gallery ofIndonesia, these include the Museum of Fine Arts and Ceramics (Jakarta),
Bentara Budaya (Jakarta, Yogyakarta, and Denpasar), the Oei Hong
Djien Museum (Magelang), the Pelita Harapan University Museum(Tangerang), and now the MACAN Museum (Jakarta). Other than in
the cases of the National Gallery of Indonesia and the Museum of Fine
Arts and Ceramics, the management of these museums is in the handsof private collectors, universities, and corporations in the field of mass
media such as Bentara Budaya Kompas Gramedia.
President Sukarno played an important and integral role ininitiating the collecting of modern art in Indonesia. He is often referred
to as one of the first patrons and collectors of modern art in Indonesia.
His collecting activities, which began in 1942, have been documented
in the renowned five-volume catalogue, Paintings and Statues from theCollection of President Sukarno of the Republic of Indonesia, compiled byartists Dullah and Lee Man Fong. After the fall of President Sukarno andthe beginning of the New Order in 1967, approximately 2,400 paintingsand 1,300 sculptures were handed over to the state. These are now
managed by the Presidential Palace of the Republic of Indonesia.［04］Institutionally, art collecting by the state began at least as early as
1947 when the Ministry of Education, Teaching, and Culture formed
the Committee for the Acquisition of Artworks, which included figures
such as scholars Dr. Prijono (chairman), Ir. Sam Uddin, and Dr. Sularko,
educators Katamsi and Nyi Hadjar Dewantoro, artists S. Sudjojono,
RM Subanto Suriosubandrijo, Affandi, Basuki Resobowo, Rusli, andMohd Hadi, art experts Kanjeng Mangkujudo and Nyi Tjokrosuharto,and employees of the Ministry of Education, Teaching, and Culture
Sindusawarno and Suhamir.［05］The committee was an honorary bodytasked by the government to select works of art worthy of beginning anational collection which in the future would be shown in a planned
National Art Museum. During this process, some important works weresuccessfully selected, such as Tjap Go Meh by S. Sudjojono and Ibu Pelukis(The Painter’s Mother), a rare realist-style painting by Affandi (theseworks are now part of the collection of the National Gallery of Indonesia,
which includes over 1,800 artworks). Later on, Kusnadi, in his positionas Head of the Department of the Arts, continued collecting modern
artworks through the Directorate of Arts in the Ministry of Education,
Teaching, and Culture from the 1950s onwards. Meanwhile, the Ministryof Information and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also began to acquire
art works occasionally.［06］At the provincial level, cultural institutions such as Taman Ismail
Marzuki (Jakarta Arts Center) and Jakarta Arts Council started collecting
works of art in 1968 and 1969 respectively through acquisitions andespecially through donations from exhibiting artists. In 1976, President
Suharto inaugurated the establishment of the Jakarta Art Gallery, anidea mooted by Vice President Adam Malik, a very influential collector ofmodern art. This institution evolved into the Museum of Fine Arts andCeramics in 1990.

110

An awareness of the role of private collecting can be traced back at
least as far as the 1950s, when Raka Sumichan began collecting Affandi's
paintings after visiting one of his exhibitions,［07］and other art collector
figures such as Prime Minister Ali Sastroamidjojo, Bambang Sugeng,Overste Prajoga, Harjoto, and Kushardjono also began to appear.［08］Within a few years, private collectors had grown in number, as recorded in
an article by Anita Zarivin, "Can Collectors Become Barometers of Art?"
This article talks about a "Painting Exhibition from the Collection of Six
Collectors from Jakarta," held from 24 to 30 April 1972 in the Exhibition
Room of the Jakarta Arts Center, which showcased the collections of Alex
Papadimitrou, Hendra Hadiprana, Mrs. (Herbert) Hutagalung, Soedarpo
Sastrosatomo, Dr. Umar Kayam, and Ir. T. Soekarno.［09］Collecting
activities in the private sector then experienced a rapid development,
especially in the 1980s and 90s, when there was a paintings boom in theIndonesian art market signifying the emergence of a well-establishedeconomic class in Indonesia. This period was marked by high prices
for paintings in the market and the emergence of new collectors using
paintings as a trade commodity and investment tool. The lack ofcollecting activities by the government during this period caused many
works considered important to the history of Indonesian art to end up in
the hands of private collectors.
Art Museums and Curatorial Practice in Indonesia
The emergence of art curating as a profession in Indonesia has been
relatively recent. The term “curator” was unfamiliar to the Indonesianart public until Jim Supangkat declared himself an “independent
curator” in the early 1990s.［10］Shortly after, he was involved with Toeti
Heraty, Mara Karma, G. Sidharta, Ikranegara, and Sri Warso Wahono in
preparing Biennale Jakarta IX 1993, which was the first Jakarta Biennale
to employ curators.［11］This marked a change in the pattern of art
exhibition making in Indonesia, so that now exhibitions would ideally
be curated by an autonomous person responsible for the content andcontext of the exhibition as well as communicating and mediating theartworks to the public.
The development of the profession of art curator in Indonesia
contrasts with the history of its development in developed countries
such as the United States or Western European countries. If in Westerncountries the curatorial profession has historically been attachedto museum institutions, in Indonesia it has emerged from outside
the institution. Jim Supangkat has said that he was inspired by the
rampant phenomenon in the late 1980s of art museum curators in
the United States coming out of institutions and deciding to become
independent curators because the government's program was becoming
too government-led for the benefit of the United States.［12］At the time,
he also saw the importance of the curator's role in bridging Indonesianartists’ networks with international art institutions, especially fromJapan and Australia, which had Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific111

07Bambang Bujono, Melampaui Citra
dan Ingatan: Bunga Rampai Tulisan
Seni Rupa 1968–2017 (Jakarta: Yayasan
Jakarta Biennale, 2017), 451.
08
Kusnadi, “Sejarah Seni Rupa
Indonesia.”
09
Newspaper clipping, Anita Zarivin,“Bisakah Kolektor Menjadi Salah Satu
Barometer Senirupa,” Kompas, Jakarta,
May 16, 1972, 4, Indonesian Visual
Art Archive, http://archive.ivaa-online.
org/files/uploads/texts/19720516Bisakah%20Kolektor%20Mendjadi.pdf.
Although she writes that the exhibition
took place on April 24–30, 1952,
I assume there was a typing error
and that the date should be 1972,
considering the date of the article, andsince it mentions that the organizerof the exhibition is the Jakarta Arts
Council, which was only founded in1969.
10Agung Hujatnikajennong, Kurasi dan
Kuasa: Kekuratoran Dalam Medan Seni
Rupa Indonesia (South Tangerang:
Marjin Kiri, 2015), 199.
11
“Sejarah Jakarta Biennale,” Jakarta
Biennale, accessed December 13,
2017, http://jakartabiennale.net/2015/
jakarta-biennale/.
12
Fandy Hutari, “Memonitor Dunia
Kurator/Monitoring the Curator’sWorld,” Jurnal Ruang, February 17,
2017, https://jurnalruang.com/
read/1486023073-memonitor-duniakurator.

Bayu Genia Krishbie│Fixing a Broken Paper Boat: On Art Museums and Museum Curators in Indonesia

programs. The painting boom of the 1980s to 90s period also had the
profound effect of creating a market need for curators. In addition to
stitching meaning to exhibitions they organized, they also gave some
sort of “legitimacy” to the artists being promoted. As a result, a newgeneration of curators after Jim Supangkat enlivened the Indonesian art
scene in the 1990s as new art galleries and art museums opened.
The need for curatorial professionals is an acute problem formuseums in Indonesia, not to mention art museums. Until now, mostmuseums in Indonesia do not have a permanent museum curator, andthat includes even the National Gallery of Indonesia. Since its founding
in 1998, the National Gallery of Indonesia has never had a museum
curator who is truly attached to the institution (in-house), working
full-time. The board of curators, which was established in 1998 and is
not part of the gallery’s organizational structure, consists of five guest
curators, selected periodically, who come from academic backgrounds or
are professional practitioners in art, and who help to build programmingand give input to the director on policy and exhibition content. In theexecution of permanent exhibitions and temporary exhibitions, thesecurators play an important role in the selection and presentation ofworks from the gallery’s collection. The board of curators also helps
to nominate and provide input on appropriate artists’ associations,galleries, and foreign and local cultural institutions to collaborate withthe gallery to organize activities and exhibitions. A similar situation
occurs in the Basoeki Abdullah Museum and Museum of Fine Arts andCeramics, which often invite exhibition consultants or guest curators to
help prepare both their permanent and temporary exhibitions. Among
private art museums, only the Selasar Sunaryo Art Space and MACAN
Museum have a permanent organizational structure of curators.
Challenges and Proposals for Art Museums and Museum Curators inIndonesia
The obligation of every museum in Indonesia to have curatorial staff isin fact mandated by Law no. 11/2010 on Cultural Heritage. Government
Regulation (PP) no. 66/2015 on Museums even contains technical rules
concerning the duties and functions of museum curators and theirrelation to other museum resources such as conservators, registrars,
exhibition administrators, and public relations officers. The government,
through the Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museum, Ministry of
Education and Culture, continues to disseminate this regulation andencourage museums in Indonesia to improve the structure of museum
management by developing professionals in the field. The ministry has
also begun to assign more specific job titles (such as museum curator,
conservator, educator, exhibition administrator, public relations, andadministrative staff) to state employees in the museum sector. In 2017,
the Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museum conducted a museum
curator certification program with an assessment system (interview
and portfolio tracking) in several cities in Indonesia, including Jakarta,

Essay 11112

Yogyakarta, Makassar, and Batam. This program is intended tolegitimize the competence of the museum curator profession, creating anational standard, and it is open to public or private museum curators.
It is hoped that in future, this museum curator certification can be
developed to include classifications of competency—junior curator,
associate curator and senior curator, regulating the curatorial career
ladder in Indonesia.
In addition, in order to provide wider career opportunities, it is time
the government, both central and local, began to develop new stateowned art museums both in Jakarta and in other cities, so that career
progression, networking, and experience for art museum curators will
be more dynamic and diverse in the future. We see the potential of art
in cities like Bandung and Yogyakarta, where many artists are actively
practicing and which have played an important part in the historyof Indonesian art. These days there are also emerging new nodesof contemporary art practice in cities such as Surabaya, Semarang,
Makassar, Padang, and Medan. Of course, art activities should ideallyfind room and thrive in all parts of the country, as they do, for example,
in Japan. In 2004, The 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art,
Kanazawa, a public museum, opened in Kanazawa, a small city with apopulation of only 462,000. In addition to supporting education andcultural development, the decentralization of cultural infrastructure,especially in art, can be a means of encouraging economic improvement
and contributing to the spread and movement of the population to areas
outside of the national and provincial capitals.
The eternal challenge of art museums and museum curators as
disseminators of knowledge and ideas is public outreach, to both theart public (ie., the art world) and the general public. Today, the art
museum is challenged to position itself as an out-of-school educational
center capable of providing a representation and experience of modern
Indonesian collective memory, as well as inspiring the public to thinkcritically, rationally, and ethically about various contemporary social
issues surrounding them. This is where the museum curator has animportant role in contextualizing and mediating collections of art to the
public. In the context of collecting works of art, the biggest challenge
faced is how to compete with museums that have Asian or Southeast
Asian art collections policies such as the Singapore Art Museum,
National Gallery Singapore, Queensland Art Gallery | Gallery of Modern
Art, Mori Art Museum, and Fukuoka Asian Art Museum in collecting theworks of modern and contemporary Indonesian artists.
Finally, in addition to harnessing the political will of the government,
it is also necessary to initiate cooperation between public and private
museums, who share a role (and interest) in the field of collecting anddeveloping contemporary art practices, especially in the development ofart activities at the regional level of Southeast Asia and Asia Pacific, as a
strategy to face the phenomena of global art today and in the future.

113

Bayu Genia Krishbie│Fixing a Broken Paper Boat: On Art Museums and Museum Curators in Indonesia

Essay11

Memperbaiki Perahu Kertas Yang Rusak:
Tentang Museum Seni Rupa dan Kurator
Museum di Indonesia
─Bayu Genia Krishbie［Asisten Kurator, Galeri Nasional Indonesia］

Dibukanya Museum MACAN (Modern and Contemporary Art in
Nusantara) awal November 2017 ini di Jakarta disambut dengan dua
ekspresi: sukacita dan ironi. Menggembirakan tentunya, untuk pertama
kalinya dalam sejarah, bangsa Indonesia akhirnya memiliki sebuah
museum seni rupa kelas dunia dengan standar kualitas koleksi, desaininterior, manjemen, dan program publik yang amat baik. Dibawahkomando Aaron Seeto—sebelumya adalah manajer kuratorial seni rupa
Asia Pasifik di Queensland Art Gallery Australia—sebagai direktur,
museum dengan desain interior ultra-modern yang dikerjakan oleh
MET Studio dari London ini memiliki sekitar 800 koleksi penting dariseniman Indonesia dan seniman Internasional terkemuka. Ironisnya,
museum ini milik partikelir.
Museum MACAN hadir tepat saat publik seni rupa sudah frustrasi
dengan minimnya perhatian pemerintah pada pengembangan sektor
kebudayaan, khususnya seni rupa. Maka, inisiatif sektor privat padaaktivitas pengoleksian karya seni rupa untuk kepentingan edukasi
publik ini, sekali lagi, selain patut diacungi jempol juga pantas diratapi.
Di satu sisi, Hadirnya Museum MACAN menunjukkan keberhasilan
pemerintah menstimulasi inisiatif sektor privat untuk turut
berkontribusi dalam pengembangan praktik seni rupa di Indonesia.
Namun di sisi lain, hal ini seharusnya juga menjadi momentum bagi
pemerintah untuk membenahi manajemen dan infrastruktur seni rupa
milik negara sebagai sarana edukasi kultural yang inklusif bagi seluruh
warga, melindunginya dari mekanisme pasar yang hanya memberikan
akses pada audiens terbatas yang tersegmentasi. Pada sektor pendidikan,
contohnya, pemerintah selama ini berupaya keras meningkatkan kualitas
sekolah-sekolah negeri untuk dapat beradaptasi (kalau tidak bisa disebut
bersaing) menghadapi kapitalisasi pendidikan yang ditandai dengan
gempuran sekolah swasta berkualitas baik dan berbiaya mahal. Tugas
pemerintah kini menjadi lebih berat, dengan anggaran untuk sektor
kebudayaan yang terbatas (besarnya hanya sekitar 1% dari total anggaran
militer), mereka dipacu untuk memperbaiki infrastruktur, manajemen
dan program museum seni rupanya dengan standar acuan yang cukup

114

tinggi. Problem fundamental lain yang masih belum terselesaikan juga
masih menghantui hingga kini: desentralisasi infrastruktur seni rupa
modern dan pengelolaan koleksi seni rupa milik negara. Pertanyaannya
kemudian, sudah sejauh manakah pemerintah berbenah?
Museum Seni Rupa dan Pengoleksian Karya Seni Rupa di Indonesia
Sejarah perkembangan seni rupa modern di Indonesia yang dinamis
tidak berbanding lurus dengan tradisi pengoleksian karya seni rupa oleh
negara. Jika kita menandai permulaan seni rupa modern di Indonesia
pada momentum Raden Saleh kembali ke Batavia (Jakarta sekarang)
tahun 1851, setelah 20 tahun pengembaraannya di Eropa, maka sudah
lebih dari 150 tahun usia seni rupa modern di Indonesia. Berapakah
jumlah museum seni rupa modern milik negara hingga saat ini? Hanya
tiga, dua milik Pemerintah Pusat dan satu milik Pemerintah Provinsi:
Galeri Nasional Indonesia, Museum Basoeki Abdullah, dan Museum
Seni Rupa dan Keramik. Ketiganya berada di Jakarta. Selain museummuseum tersebut, terdapat pula institusi pengoleksian karya seni rupa
milik negara seperti Istana Kepresidenan Republik Indonesia dibawah
Kementerian Sekretariat Negara, Badan Pengelola Taman Ismail Marzuki(Pusat Kesenian Jakarta) dan Dewan Kesenian Jakarta misalnya, namun
sayangnya ketiga institusi tersebut tidak memiliki museum atau ruang
pameran tetap sehingga koleksinya tidak dapat diakses dengan mudaholeh publik.
Perkembangan museum secara umum di Indonesia cukup
memprihatinkan. Saat ini tercatat sekitar 428 museum［01］di seluruh
Indonesia yang dikelola pemerintah dan swasta. Jumlah itu tentu
saja sangat sedikit untuk sebuah negara terbesar di Asia Tenggara
yang terdiri dari 34 provinsi, 515 Kabupaten/Kota dan lebih dari 261
juta penduduk. Bandingkan dengan Amerika Serikat, dengan jumlah
penduduk sekitar 320 juta jiwa, terdapat sekitar 35.000 museum［02］yangtersebar di seluruh negara bagiannya! Perbandingan ini tentu saja sama
sekali tidak seimbang, namun ekstrimnya perbedaan kuantitas museum
dibandingkan dengan jumlah penduduk kedua negara ini sungguhlah
mencengangkan. Ini mengindikasikan betapa pendidikan di Indonesia
sangat bergantung pada proses pembelajaran di dalam kelas akibat
minimnya infrastruktur pendidikan luar sekolah seperti museum.
Diantara 428 museum di Indonesia tersebut, tercatat sekitar 24
museum seni rupa modern,［03］baik milik pemerintah ataupun swasta.
Sejumlah museum ini masih terpusat di kota besar seperti Jakarta,
Bandung, Yogyakarta, dan Provinsi Bali; didominasi oleh museum
dengan koleksi monografi seniman tertentu seperti Museum Basoeki
Abdullah, Museum Affandi, Museum Ciputra (yang memfokuskan
koleksi permanennya pada karya-karya Hendra Gunawan), Museum
Widayat, Museum Barli, Selasar Sunaryo Art Space, NuArt Sculpture
Park, Museum Nyoman Gunarsa, Museum Le Mayeur, Griya Seni PopoIskandar, dan sebagainya. Selain Museum Basoeki Abdullah, museummuseum ini biasanya dikelola dan didanai secara mandiri oleh seniman

115

01
Petrik Matanasi, “Darurat Museum
di Indonesia,” Tirto.ID, 13 November
2016, https://tirto.id/darurat-museumdi-indonesia-b4KJ.
02
Jillian Steinhauer, “The United States
Has More than 35,000 Museums,”
Hyperallergic, 24 Juni 2014, https://
hyperallergic.com/134152/theunited-states-has-more-than-35000museums/.
03
Mia Maria, dkk., Ekonomi Kreatif:
Rencana Pengembangan Seni Rupa
Nasional 2015–2019 (Jakarta: Republik
Solusi, 2014), 56.
Tertulis 25 museum seni rupa diIndonesia, namun menurut penulis
Gedung Kesenian Jakarta dan Jogja
National Museum bukan merupakan
museum/lembaga pengoleksian
karya seni rupa karena mereka tidak
memiliki koleksi seni rupa. November
2017 dibuka Museum MACAN sehingga
museum seni rupa di Indonesia genap
24 jumlahnya.

Bayu Genia Krishbie│Memperbaiki Perahu Kertas Yang Rusak: Tentang Museum Seni Rupa dan Kurator Museum di Indonesia

04
Reja Hidayat & Mawa Kresna, “Rezim
Seni di Istana, Beda Soekarno Beda
Soeharto,” Tirto.ID, 10 Agustus 2016,
https://tirto.id/rezim-seni-di-istanabeda-soekarno-beda-soeharto-bySR.
05
Sularko, “Koleksi Nasional,” Majalah
Mimbar Indonesia No. 37, 10 September
1949, 20–21. S. Sudjojono, RM
Subanto Suriosubandrijo, Katamsi,
Nyi Tjokrosuharto dan Ir. Sam Uddin
kemudian dicoret dari kepanitiaan
karena alasan yang bermacam-macam
mulai dari berhalangan hadir dan halhal lain yang bersifat prinsip.
06
Kusnadi, “Sejarah Seni Rupa
Indonesia,” dalam Ars Longa Vita
Brevis (Yogyakarta: Bentara Budaya
Yogyakarta, 2011), 183.

Essay 11

atau keluarga yang bersangkutan dan kolektor swasta. Sedangkan
museum dengan koleksi sejarah seni rupa Indonesia jumlahnya masih
terbilang minim, selain Galeri Nasional Indonesia kita bisa menyebut
Museum Seni Rupa dan Keramik (Jakarta), Bentara Budaya (Jakarta,
Yogyakarta, dan Denpasar), Museum Oei Hong Djien (Magelang),
Museum Universitas Pelita Harapan (Tangerang), dan yang terbaru
Museum MACAN (Jakarta). Selain Galeri Nasional Indonesia dan
Museum Seni Rupa dan Keramik, pengelolaan museum-museum ini
berada di tangan kolektor swasta, universitas, dan korporasi di bidang
media misalnya Bentara Budaya milik Kompas Gramedia.
Upaya pengoleksian karya seni rupa modern di Indonesia
sejatinya tidak terlepas dari peran penting Presiden pertama Republik
Indonesia, Ir. Sukarno. Beliau kerap disebut sebagai salah satu patron
dan kolektor awal dari karya-karya seni rupa modern di Indonesia.
Aktivitas pengoleksian yang dilakukannya sejak 1942 kemudian
didokumentasikan kedalam buku katalog lima jilid yang tersohor,“Lukisan-lukisan dan Patung-patung Koleksi Presiden Sukarno dariRepublik Indonesia” disusun oleh seniman Dullah dan Lee Man Fong.
Pasca lengsernya Presiden Sukarno dan dimulainya Orde Baru padatahun 1967, sekira total 2.400-an lukisan dan 1.300-an patung koleksi
Presiden Sukarno kemudian diserahkan kepada negara dan kini dikelola
Istana Kepresidenan Republik Indonesia.［04］Secara institusional, pengoleksian karya seni rupa oleh negara
setidaknya dimulai sejak 1947 ketika Kementerian Pendidikan,
Pengajaran, dan Kebudayaan membentuk Panitia Pembelian BarangBarang Seni Rupa yang terdiri dari tokoh-tokoh seperti Dr. Prijono(chairman), Ir. Sam Uddin, dan Dr. Sularko dari kalangan cendikia,
Katamsi dan Nyi Hadjar Dewantoro dari kalangan pendidik,
S. Sudjojono, RM Subanto Suriosubandrijo, Affandi, Basuki Resobowo,
Rusli, and Mohd Hadi dari kalangan seniman, Kanjeng Mangkujudo
dan Nyi Tjokrosuharto dari kalangan ahli kesenian, serta pegawai dariKementerian Pendidikan, Pengajaran, dan Kebudayaan, Sindusawarno
dan Suhamir.［05］Panitia ini merupakan badan kehormatan yang diberi
kewajiban oleh pemerintah untuk memilih karya-karya seni rupa yanglayak untuk dijadikan awal koleksi nasional yang dikemudian hari akan
dipamerkan pada sebuah Museum Seni Rupa Nasional (Galeri Nasional).
Dari proses ini terpilih karya-karya penting seperti Tjap Go Meh karya
S. Sudjojono dan Ibu Pelukis, lukisan bergaya realis dari Affandi yangcukup langka (karya-karya ini sekarang menjadi bagian dari sekitar
1.800-an koleksi Galeri Nasional Indonesia). Di kemudian hari, Kusnadi
dalam posisinya sebagai Kepala Bagian Kesenian, melanjutkan aktivitas
pengumpulan karya seni rupa modern di lingkungan Direktorat
Kesenian, Kementerian Pendidikan, Pengajaran dan Kebudayaan sejak
1950an. Sementara itu, Kementerian Penerangan dan Kementerian Luar
Negeri juga mulai mengakusisi karya-karya seni rupa modern secara
insidental.［06］Di level pemerintah provinsi, institusi kebudayaan seperti Badan
Pengelola Taman Ismail Marzuki (Pusat Kesenian Jakarta) dan Dewan

116

Kesenian Jakarta juga memulai tradisi pengoleksian karya seni rupa
sejak tahun 1968 dan kemudian 1969 melalui akuisisi dan terutama
sumbangan dari seniman yang berpameran. Pada tahun 1976,
Presiden Suharto meresmikan berdirinya Balai Seni Rupa Jakarta yanggagasannya diprakarsai Wakil Presiden Adam Malik, kolektor karya senirupa yang juga sangat berpengaruh selain Presiden Sukarno. Institusi ini
kemudian berkembang menjadi Museum Seni Rupa dan Keramik sejak
tahun 1990.
Dimulainya kesadaran kolektor partikelir dalam aktivitas
pengoleksian karya seni rupa setidaknya terlacak pada tahun 1950an,
ketika Raka Sumichan mulai mengoleksi lukisan Affandi setelahmengunjungi salah satu pamerannya,［07］dan beberapa tokoh kolektor
seni rupa seperti Perdana Menteri Ali Sostroamidjojo, Bambang
Sugeng, Overste Prajoga, Harjoto, dan Kushardjono mulai muncul.［08］Beberapa tahun kemudian, kolektor partikelir kemudian semakinbertambah jumlahnya seperti yang tercatat dalam tulisan Anita
Zarivin “Bisakah Kolektor Menjadi Salah Satu Barometer Senirupa”
pada tahun 1972. Dalam tulisan itu disebutkan bahwa pada tanggal
24 –30 April 1972 di Ruangan Pameran Pusat Kesenian Jakarta telahdiadakan “Pameran Lukisan Koleksi Enam Kolektor Djakarta” yangmenampilkan koleksi-koleksi milik Alex Papadimitrou, Hendra
Hadiprana, Nyonya (Herbert) Hutagalung, Soedarpo Sastrosatomo,
Dr. Umar Kayam, dan Ir. T. Soekarno.［09］Aktivitas pengoleksian oleh
sektor swasta kemudian mengalami perkembangan yang pesat terutama
di periode 1980-1990an ketika terjadi boom seni lukis di pasar senirupa, yang menandai munculnya kelas ekonomi mapan di Indonesia.
Periode ini ditandai dengan harga lukisan di pasaran yang melambung
tinggi dan bermunculannya kolektor-kolektor baru yang menjadikan
lukisan sebagai komoditas dagang dan alat investasi. Minimnya
aktivitas pengoleksian oleh pemerintah pada periode ini menyebabkan
banyaknya karya-karya yang dianggap penting bagi sejarah seni rupa
Indonesia berakhir di tangan kolektor partikelir.

07
Bambang Bujono, Melampaui Citra
dan Ingatan: Bunga Rampai Tulisan
Seni Rupa 1968-2017 (Jakarta: Yayasan
Jakarta Biennale, 2017), 451.
08
Kusnadi, “Sejarah Seni Rupa
Indonesia.”
09
Kliping Koran, Anita Zarivin, “Bisakah
Kolektor Menjadi Salah Satu Barometer
Senirupa,” Kompas, Jakarta, 16 Mei
1972, 4, Indonesian Visual Art Archive,
http://archive.ivaa-online.org/files/
uploads/texts/19720516-Bisakah%20
Kolektor%20Mendjadi.pdf.
Tertulis pameran tersebut berlangsung
pada 24–30 April 1952, penulis
berasumsi terjadi kesalahan
pengetikan karena disebutkan
penyelenggara pameran tersebut
adalah Dewan Kesenian Jakarta yangbaru didirikan pada tahun 1969.
10
Agung Hujatnikajennong, Kurasi dan
Kuasa: Kekuratoran Dalam Medan Seni
Rupa Indonesia (Tangerang Selatan:
Marjin Kiri, 2015), 199.
11
“Sejarah Jakarta Biennale,” Jakarta
Biennale, diakses pada 13 December
2017, http://jakartabiennale.net/2015/
jakarta-biennale/.

Museum Seni Rupa dan Praktik Kekuratoran di Indonesia
Sejarah kemunculan profesi kurator seni rupa di Indonesia belumlah
panjang. Istilah kurator masih begitu asing terdengar oleh publik
seni rupa Indonesia hingga pada awal 1990an Jim Supangkat
mendeklarasikan dirinya sebagai “kurator independen.”［10］Taklama setelahnya, ia bersama Toeti Heraty, Mara Karma, G. Sidharta,
Ikranegara, and Sri Warso Wahono terlibat dalam mempersiapkan
Biennale Jakarta IX 1993, yang merupakan Biennale Jakarta pertamayang mempekerjakan kurator.［11］Ini kemudian mengubah tatanan pola
penyelenggaraan pameran seni rupa di Indonesia, dimana pameranidealnya terkurasi oleh sosok otonom yang bertanggungjawab terhadap
konten dan konteks pameran, juga bertugas mengkomunikasikan dan
memediasi karya seni rupa dengan publiknya.
Perkembangan profesi kurator seni rupa di Indonesia kontras

117

Bayu Genia Krishbie│Memperbaiki Perahu Kertas Yang Rusak: Tentang Museum Seni Rupa dan Kurator Museum di Indonesia

12
Fandy Hutari, “Memonitor Dunia
Kurator/Monitoring the Curator’sWorld,” Jurnal Ruang, 17 Februari
2017, https://jurnalruang.com/
read/1486023073-memonitor-duniakurator.

berbeda dengan sejarah perkembangannya di negara maju seperti
Amerika Serikat atau negara-negara di Eropa Barat. Jika di Barat profesi
kurator secara historis melekat dengan institusi museum, di Indonesia
profesi ini muncul dari luar institusi. Jim Supangkat menyebut dirinya
terinspirasi oleh fenomena maraknya kurator-kurator museum seni rupa
di Amerika Serikat keluar dari institusinya di akhir 1980an, memutuskan
untuk menjadi “kurator independen” karena program museum terlalu
diarahkan oleh Pemerintah untuk kepentingan Amerika Serikat.［12］Di sisi lain, Jim juga memandang pentingnya peranan kurator untuk
menjembatani jejaring seniman Indonesia dengan institusi seni rupainternasional, utamanya dari Jepang dan Australia yang ketika itu
memiliki program-program Asia Tenggara dan Asia Pasifik. Booming
seni lukis di periode 1980–1990an juga memiliki pengaruh yang besar
terhadap kebutuhan pasar atas profesi kurator, utamanya selain untuk
menjahit makna pada pameran yang mereka selenggarakan juga
memberikan semacam “legitimasi” pada seniman-seniman yang mereka
promosikan. Akibatnya, generasi kurator baru setelah Jim Supangkat
kemudian meramaikan medan seni rupa Indonesia tahun 1990an seiringmaraknya sejumlah galeri dan museum seni rupa partikelir baru dibuka.
Keberadaan profesi kurator museum adalah problem akut bagi
permuseuman di Indonesia, tak terkecuali museum seni rupa. Hinggasaat ini hampir sebagian besar museum di Indonesia tidak memiliki
kurator museum tetap, bahkan Galeri Nasional Indonesia sekalipun.
Sejak didirikan pada tahun 1998, Galeri Nasional Indonesia tidak pernah
memiliki kurator museum yang benar-benar melekat kepada institusi(in-house) dan bekerja penuh waktu. Dewan kurator, dibentuk sejak
tahun 1998 dan bukan merupakan bagian dari struktur organisasi Galeri
Nasional Indonesia, terdiri dari lima orang kurator tamu yang dipilih
secara periodik, berasal dari latar belakang akademisi atau praktisi
profesional di bidang seni rupa yang diperbantukan dalam menyusun
program dan memberikan masukan kepada Kepala Galeri Nasional
Indonesia terkait kebijakan dan konten pameran. Dalam pelaksanaan
pameran tetap dan pameran temporer kurator berperan penting dalamproses seleksi dan presentasi koleksi Galeri Nasional Indonesia. Dewan
kurator juga berperan penting dalam memilih dan memberikan masukan
kepada Kepala Galeri Nasional Indonesia untuk menetapkan institusi
yang layak bekerjasama menyelenggarakan kegiatan-kegiatan di Galeri
Nasional Indonesia. Hal yang sama juga terjadi pada Museum Basoeki
Abdullah dan Museum Seni Rupa dan Keramik yang kerap mengundang
konsultan pameran atau kurator tamu untuk pameran tetap maupun
temporer yang mereka persiapkan. Kondisi museum seni rupa milik
swasta juga setali tiga uang, tercatat hanya Selasar Sunaryo Art Space danMuseum MACAN yang memiliki struktur organisasi kurator tetap.
Tantangan dan Prasaran Untuk Museum Seni Rupa dan Kurator
Museum di Indonesia
Kewajiban setiap museum di Indonesia untuk memiliki tenaga kurator

Essay 11118

sesungguhnya sudah diamanatkan Undang-undang No. 11 Tahun
2010 tentang Cagar Budaya. Aturan turunannya juga sudah disahkan
melalui Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) No. 66 tahun 2015 tentang Museum,
memuat aturan teknis mengenai tugas dan fungsi kurator museum dan
hubungannya dengan sumber daya permuseuman lain seperti kurator,
konservator, registrar, penata pameran, dan hubungan masyarakat.
Pemerintah, melalui Direktorat Cagar Budaya dan Permuseuman,
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, terus berupaya
mensosialisasikan peraturan ini dan mendorong museum-museum diIndonesia untuk membenahi struktur manajemen museum dengan
mengembangkan profesi-profesi di bidang permuseuman. Kementerianjuga mulai menerapkan jabatan pekerjaan yang lebih spesifik seperti
kurator museum, konservator, edukator, penata pameran, hubunganmasyarakat dan staff administrasi kepada pegawai negeri yang berada
di lingkungan permuseuman. Pada tahun 2017, Direktorat Cagar
Budaya dan Permuseuman melaksanakan program sertifikasi kurator
museum dengan pola asesmen (wawancara dan penelusuran portofolio)yang berlangsung di beberapa kota di Indonesia seperti Jakarta,
Yogyakarta, Makassar, dan Batam. Program ini dimaksudkan untuk
melegitimasi kompetensi profesi kurator museum dengan standarnasional dan terbuka untuk kurator museum publik ataupun privat.
Harapan besarnya dikemudian hari sertifikasi kurator museum ini
dapat dikembangkan untuk melegitimasi jenjang karir kurator museum
di Indonesia kedalam klasifikasi kompetensi—kurator muda, kurator
madya, dan kurator ahli.
Disamping itu, guna memberikan peluang karir yang lebih
luas, sudah saatnya Pemerintah, baik Pusat maupun Daerah, mulai
mewacanakan untuk membangun museum seni rupa milik negara yangbaru baik di Jakarta maupun di kota lainnya, agar sirkulasi jenjang karir,jejaring dan pengalaman kurator museum seni rupa di masa depan
semakin dinamis dan beragam. Seperti kita ketahui, potensi seni rupa
juga terdapat di kota-kota seperti Bandung dan Yogyakarta yang aktif
berpraktik dan memiliki sejarah seni rupa yang penting. Belakangan
ini bahkan muncul simpul-simpul praktik seni rupa kontemporer
baru di kota-kota seperti Surabaya, Semarang, Makassar, Padang dan
Medan. Tentu saja idealnya kegiatan seni rupa menemukan ruangnya
dan berkembang di seluruh pelosok tanah air, seperti yang terjadi di
Jepang, misalnya. Pada tahun 2004 dibuka 21st Century Museum ofContemporary Art, Kanazawa, sebuah kota kecil yang hanya dihuni oleh
sekitar 462.000 jiwa penduduk. Desentralisasi infrastruktur kebudayaan
khususnya seni rupa ini diyakini selain mendukung program
pengembangan pendidikan dan kebudayaan juga memantik kemajuan
perekonomian dan berkontribusi terhadap penyebaran serta pergerakan
penduduk ke daerah-daerah non-ibukota.
Tantangan abadi dari museum seni rupa dan kurator museum
sebagai agen penyebarluasan pengetahuan dan gagasan adalah sejauhmana perluasan publik (public outreach) museum dapat dicapai, baik
publik seni rupa maupun masyarakat umum. Kini, museum seni rupa

119

Bayu Genia Krishbie│Memperbaiki Perahu Kertas Yang Rusak: Tentang Museum Seni Rupa dan Kurator Museum di Indonesia

ditantang untuk memosisikan dirinya sebagai pusat pendidikan luar
sekolah yang mampu memberikan gambaran dan pengalaman tentang
memori kolektif bangsa Indonesia modern sekaligus pula menginspirasi
publik untuk berpikir kritis, berbudi, dan rasional merespon pelbagai
isu sosial kontemporer di sekitarnya. Disinilah kurator museum
memiliki peran penting dalam mengkontekstualisasikan dan memediasi
koleksi seni rupa kepada publik. Dalam konteks pengoleksian karya senirupa, tantangan terbesar yang dihadapi adalah kontestasi pengoleksian
karya-karya perupa modern dan kontemporer Indonesia oleh museummuseum yang memiliki kebijakan koleksi seni rupa Asia atau Asia
Tenggara seperti Singapore Art Museum, National Gallery Singapore,
Queensland Art Gallery|Gallery of Modern Art Australia, Mori Art
Museum Tokyo, dan Fukuoka Asian Art Museum.
Akhir kata, selain kemuan politik dari pemerintah, rasanya
juga diperlukan inisiatif kerjasama antara museum publik dan
museum partikelir dalam berbagi peran (dan kepentingan) di bidang
pengkoleksian dan pengembangan praktik seni rupa kontemporer,
terutama dalam perkembangan aktivitas seni rupa di tingkat regional
Asia tenggara dan Asia Pasifik, sebagai strategi menghadapi fenomenaseni rupa global dewasa ini dan di masa yang akan datang.

Essay 11120

Indonesian Curators Do Not Engage
in Enough Debate

Essay
12

─

Kurnia Yunita Rahayu［Member of Serrum］

Visual art curators in Indonesia do not engage in enough debate. Basedon my research into media archives in Indonesia over the past 17 years,
only 19 articles have been written on ideas about art that challenge or
respond to one another.
Professional curators have been active in the Indonesian art scene
since the 1990s, coming into curating not through an academic path,but rather via informal training from various cultural institutions, both
domestically and abroad. Curators here tend to learn and apply theirknowledge by making art exhibitions.
This pattern of learning continues to this day. Dozens of people
can call themselves curators. However, only a few of them are actively
discussing their curatorial ideas in writing, such as Jim Supangkat,
Hendro Wiyanto, and Enin Supriyanto.
Perhaps it is because they are not academically trained thatprofessional curators pay less attention to debating issues throughtheir writing. In addition, in the curator training programs conductedby cultural institutions, with the Japan Foundation being the mostconsistent institution conducting training in Indonesia and Southeast
Asia as a whole, writing material has not been included.
Tracking the debate of ideas on art in the Indonesian print media,
we find occurrences in 2000 and from late 2001 to early 2002, as well as
in late 2002. After that, such debates are no longer recorded in the mass
media until they reappear in 2006, 2009, 2011, and at the end of 2016.
There have also historically been few outlets for debate in the in themass media. In the past 17 years, the daily newspaper KOMPAS and weekly
magazine TEMPO have been the main forums for debating ideas aboutart. Today, however, a variety of mass media provide art commentary,
including publications from within art communities. What follows here
is a presentation of some of the topics that have been debated.
The Definition of Art
A first written debate on art appeared in 2000 between art observer Agus

121

Kurnia Yunita Rahayu│Indonesian Curators Do Not Engage in Enough Debate

Dermawan and curator Hendro Wiyanto. The debate began when Agus,in “Seni Rupa yang ‘Mengutang’ dan ‘Bermuatan’” (Art that is “Indebted”
and “Loaded”) in KOMPAS, June 11, 2000, criticized contemporary art
through the works of Kelompok Seni Rupa Jendela (KSRJ). The works
of KSRJ are considered to oversimplify aesthetic factors, prioritizing
instead the discourse of the context and process of art-making. In thisway, according to Agus, anyone can be an artist, and people with little
knowledge of art will surely admire them.
Six days later, on June 18, 2000, Hendro Wiyanto challenged Agusin his piece entitled “Arisan Nama-Nama: Misteri Apa dan Siapa” (ALottery of Artist’s Names: The Mystery of What and Who) in the samenewspaper. Here, Hendro accuses Agus of assessing contemporary
artworks solely on the basis of his personal taste:
The names of a number of artists in the article are tangled up
together, sorted only according to the author's taste, to those names“liked” and “disliked.” Without identifying works and trying todiscuss them, is it not just a group of names in a bag, with the writer
simply declaring he likes all the works by these artists? Is this not avery arbitrary and totalitarian approach—the kind of attitude we seein an arisan (a form of private lottery pool). Shake the bag and see
what names emerge. Depending on your taste and how you shake it,
different names will come out.
In his essay, Hendro demands that Agus discuss every contemporary
artwork he has criticized using a clear theoretical framework. Without
systematic discussion, art critics are thought to be presenting misguided
ideas to the public.
The debate over the issue of criticism and the analysis of artworks
ends with Hendro Wiyanto's article. There were no decent responses
from Agus Dermawan or other critics. In line with such an absenceof responses, public debate in the print media was not seen again foranother year and a half by the art scene.
The Commodification of Paintings
On December 15, 2001, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) lecturer
Aminudin T. H. Siregar, or Ucok as he is more commonly known,wrote a piece entitled “Seni Rupa Yogyakarta: Gemuruh Pasar yang
Tidak Mencerdaskan” (Art in Yogyakarta: The Market’s Roar That
Does Not Teach Us Anything) in KOMPAS. He argues that at that time
no significant discourse had developed in the Yogyakarta art scene
although quite a number of exhibitions had been held that year.
For Aminudin, this was because of the economic orientation ofart and exhibition making. New artists in Yogyakarta were not liketheir seniors, who were known for their discourse, such as Heri Dono,
Eddie Hara, Hanura Hosea, Mella Jarsma, Agung Kurniawan, Nindityo
Adipurnomo, Anusapati, S. Teddy D., Ugo Untoro, and Agus Suwage, but

Essay 12122

rather those who began their careers catering to market mechanisms,
such as Katirin, Nurkholis, Made Palguna, Made Sukana, Nyoman
Sukari, and Erica.
Under these conditions, Aminudin is pessimistic about the
dynamics of Indonesian art discourse. Moreover, university art
education, and the theoretical and aesthetic development which is partof this, does not play a role in this discourse. Aminudin writes,
Is this a signal that art education has been drowned out in the roarof the art market? That “market power” increasingly reveals its
superiority? But a superiority that is also inferior in reading global
cultural changes. The rumble of a “local” market does not educate
anyone.
The article attracted the attention of some critics. Within two
consecutive weeks, reactions emerged from art observers from theIndonesian Institute of the Arts (ISI), Yogyakarta, M. Dwi Marianto, andHendro Wiyanto.
Hendro Wiyanto in “Surat Buat Ucok dan Para Perupa di Yogya”(A Letter to Ucok and the Artists in Yogya), in KOMPAS, December 30,
2001, agreed with Aminudin's opinion that the Yogyakarta art scene waslacking when it came to the development of ideas. He writes that in the
midst of brisk painting sales, it was hard to find artists or painters who
were familiar with the latest art studies, or even to find artists who everread books.
Hendro writes that many artists attend art talks, but none of themask questions or offer ideas. At that time, Hendro also hoped that artists
who had the opportunity to travel around the world could bring backthe latest books and discuss them with fellow artists. “How can art
development happen if there is no discussion between artists, between
artists and critics, or between artists and curators?” he writes.
According to M. Dwi Marianto in “Atmosfer Kehidupan Seni di
Yogyakarta” (The Atmosphere of Art Life in Yogyakarta) in KOMPAS,
December 23, 2001, Aminudin T. H. Siregar’s view of the art scene
in Yogyakarta is caught up in economic determinism. In addition,
Aminudin only sees things from the point of view of contemporary art
in his reading of art trends. There are various art activities that support
many people as well as stimulate the growth of cultural dynamics in thecity, that are not taken into consideration by Aminudin. The perspectiveof Aminudin as someone who does not live in Yogyakarta is alsoquestionable.
Marianto suggests that Aminudin should not only take a cynicalview of artists who sell a lot of work, but also explore the buyers’
irrational culture of consumption. Why are they willing to buy paintings
at a very high price?
In addition, writes Marianto, Aminudin needs to acknowledge thatart collectors follow the development of art discourse by reading books
or visiting museums both at home and abroad:

123

Kurnia Yunita Rahayu│Indonesian Curators Do Not Engage in Enough Debate

It's better than artists who do not want to get out of their own
ideological world, or are always blaming others. The success of
the art world in Yogyakarta could not have just suddenly comeout of nowhere. It is surely born from a situation where various
art discourses exist and develop, both academic and arising fromintuitive and imaginative approaches.
The debate intensified when Aminudin again responded to Marianto in
his piece in KOMPAS, January 6, 2002, entitled “Retorika Positivistik Seni
Rupa” (Positivistic Art Rhetoric). Aminudin calls Marianto's thinking
trapped in a positivistic perspective, as if promising progress, celebrating
differences, incompatibility, offering a variety of scholarly approaches,
but limited to rhetoric. Developments are assumed to be orderly,
controlled, based on local-global coherences, rather than on fragmented,
discontinuous, and paradoxical points. Such a view on criticism canmislead the public, because it only spoils the artist and seems to resolve
social issues:This kind of critical writing based on aesthetic experience (like art
itself) can be turned into “an exchange rate” due to the manipulationof seemingly objective market mechanisms, which legitimize false
needs in society.
State Politics and Art
After this debate between the three critics, who also worked as curators,
the written exchange of ideas once again flagged. A new debate comes up
in KOMPAS, December 22, 2002, spurred by an article written by Mikke
Susanto entitled “Enam Kesakitan Seni Rupa Indonesia” (Six Maladies ofIndonesian Art). Mikke attempts to map out six acute problems affecting
Indonesian art, one of which is the state's indifference.
According to him, the state has never created a policy in favorof the development of art. On the contrary, the state often makes theenvironment unconducive and even unsafe for artists. Therefore,
the Indonesian art scene needs a political policy that supports its
development.
This opinion was immediately challenged by the artist Arahmaianiin KOMPAS, January 12, 2003, in “Menuju Kesehatan Seni Rupa
Indonesia” (Towards a Healthy Indonesian Art). She stresses that while
the immaturity of Indonesia’s democratization is indeed hampering
the development of art, it also creates distinctive characteristics within
the artist, such as the ability to take the initiative to survive without
government support. Therefore, for Arahmaiani, the urgency of
government support for art in the country is not so relevant.
Yuswantoro Adi, in “Siapa yang Sakit, Kawan?” (Who is Sick,
Comrade?) in KOMPAS, January 19, 2003, wrote the context of the state's
absence in Indonesian art should be used as momentum for artists toenact their cathartic role in society. Monumental artworks often appear

Essay 12124

when the state is in chaos, or under hegemonic control. For example,
Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago was produced under the powerful
Kremlin regime in Russia, Pramoedya Ananta Toer's Buru Quartet was
written during Soeharto's authoritarian regime, and Pablo Picasso
created Guernica with a good composition during a period of civil
conflict in Spain.
The Artist’s Identity
Unfortunately, the written debate of art ideas again stalled after thislast article by Yuswantoro Adi. The public debate of ideas about art only
returned seven years later, on January 11, 2009, when Wicaksono Adi's
published an article entitled “Yang Keren dan Terkendali” (The Cool andControlled) in KOMPAS.
Wicaksono characterized young Bandung artists as artists with anurban, pop, and agile character in their exploration of art in terms ofideas, objects, and artistic strategies. They are supported by the urban
culture of Bandung and a more active reading culture thanks to thequality of education at ITB. At the same time, he compares them withyoung Yogyakarta artists who are considered closer to agrarian culture,coming from lower economic class families but always trying to be themain actors in the Indonesian visual art scene. Besides which, according
to Wicaksono, Yogya artists are not fond of reading.
Yuswantoro Adi, in “Yang Mbentoyong yang Keren Euy” (Humble
is Cool) in KOMPAS, January 18, 2009, responded that whether artists
tended to come from an agricultural background or urban backgroundis irrelevant. A passion for reading books cannot be the only measure to
determine the intelligence of an artist. “There are so many methodologies
to choose from to use your intelligence—reading reality is one of them,”
he writes. In addition, artistic intelligence takes a variety of principles
and instruments learned over a long period in an always dynamic context
of space and time, and is better judged by the work produced.
G. Budi Subanar, in “Potret Perupa Yogyakarta: Dari Kepurbaan
Nasirun sampai Mimpi Samuel” (Portrait of Yogyakarta Artists: From
the Nasirun Priest to the Dream of Samuel) in KOMPAS, February 1,
2009, corroborated Yuswantoro's opinion. From analyzing a number ofartists, he concludes that the identity of an artist is a private realm thatthen merges with their social experience. For Subanar, it is importantthat the artist's identity is not alienated from their society, and is notdictated by fashion. Matters of identity are not directly correlated with
their artworks, because an artwork is a manifestation of the aesthetic
experience of each artist.
The Definition of “Artist” and “Curator”
The history of written debate on ideas about Indonesian art has
also included the question of the meaning of the word “artist,” bothprofessionally and culturally. Aminudin T. H. Siregar’s article “Salah

125

Kurnia Yunita Rahayu│Indonesian Curators Do Not Engage in Enough DebateKaprah Istilah Seniman” (The Misguided Use of the Term “Artist”) in
KOMPAS, September 11, 2011, is about how entertainers conveniently use
the term “artist” to identify their profession. On top of this, entertainers
also often use the term “artist” to get around issues or to justify activities
that are difficult for society to accept.
In fact, Aminudin writes, the term “artist” has a long history. The
father of modern Indonesian painting S. Sudjojono was the first to
popularize the term in his writings during the 1930s. Sudjojono began
by defining the artist as a person who creates works which come to becalled art. However, this alone is not enough. In 1946, Sudjojono wrotethat the artist does not only have to have skill but also great character andspirit. With this in mind, Aminudin invites entertainers such as dancers,
singers, and movie actors, not to be so ready to call themselves artists.
Yuswantoro Adi in his piece in KOMPAS, September 18, 2011, entitled“Salah Kaprah yang Jadi Salah Parah” (From Misguided to Misunderstood)
agreed with Aminudin. According to him, the title of artist cannot be usedby just anyone regardless of their background. However, in Indonesia,
it is not only the term “artist” that is often arbitrarily used to recognize
someone’s profession, but also the term “curator.”
Yuswantoro writes that people might claim to be curators simply
because they had done some writing about art. In fact, there are various
types of art writing, including writing by journalists, artists, critics,
as well as curators. According to him, a curator is someone who has
mastered curatorial knowledge through their task of sorting through andselecting artworks to further identify, categorize, and present them tothe public. In addition, a curator also needs to master various disciplines
such as history, sociology, psychology, and other supporting disciplines
as their profession helps to shape the development of art. He writes,
I imagine if only Indonesian curators could one day produce newtheories from their observations and research on various art eventsand those involved, so that these later could become a reference
for the next generation. Following the example of S. Sudjojono. Not
just picking up theories here and there from popular texts that are
sometimes forced onto art.
Fake Paintings
The most recent debate to emerge among Indonesian art curatorsconcerned the problem of fake paintings. In “Sebuah Pertanyaan untuk
Jim Supangkat” (A Question for Jim Supangkat) in TEMPO, March
14, 2016, Hendro Wiyanto questioned the fact that Jim Supangkat's
curator’s statement in the catalogue for “The People in 70 Years,” at theOei Hong Djien Museum in Magelang, Central Java, neglected to link theexhibition with the problem of fake paintings.
For Hendro, Jim's remarks were made merely to give the impressionthat the exhibition was flawless. In fact, there are a number ofmasterpieces in the Oei Hong Djien Museum which have been alleged

Essay 12126

to be false based on several studies. A number of works selected for“The People in 70 Years,” came from the museum. Therefore, Hendro
considers Jim Supangkat's statement unwise and urges that he should
be willing to read the relevant literature and to be wary of fake paintingsin an exhibition.
Jim Supangkat in TEMPO, April 4, 2016, acknowledged that he had
not been concerned about the issue of fake paintings while preparing“The People in 70 Years,” held in November 2015. The issue of fakepaintings in the museum had been blowing about since 2012, and wasstill being discussed in 2016.
According to Jim Supangkat, connecting an exhibition with the issue
of fake paintings would not be very useful. The public should be able tojudge for themselves the authenticity of a painting, without the guidanceof an authority.
For this author, written debate on art should be more prevalent because,currently, Indonesian art is growing rapidly. Hundreds of exhibitions
with thousands interesting ideas can be presented by curators. The
achievements of the Indonesian curators would not only be recognizedin their own national context, but also internationally.
The habit of debating ideas in writing would also expand the scopeof the understanding of art. This would mean we could build a picture ofa continually thriving art scene, instead of just creating events that run
out in an instant.

127

Kurnia Yunita Rahayu│Indonesian Curators Do Not Engage in Enough Debate

Essay12

Kurator Indonesia Minim Adu Gagasan
─Kurnia Yunita Rahayu［Anggota Serrum］

Kurator seni rupa di Indonesia minim adu gagasan tertulis. Berdasarkan
penelusuran terhadap arsip media massa di Indonesia selama 17 tahun
terakhir, hanya ditemukan 19 tulisan mengenai gagasan seni rupa yangsaling mengonfrontir.
Skena seni rupa di Indonesia baru mengenal profesi kurator padaperiode 1990-an. Perkenalannya pun tidak melalui jalur akademik
melainkan pelatihan informal dari beberapa lembaga kebudayaan baik
dalam negeri maupun luar negeri. Para kurator di sini belajar sambil
menerapkan ilmunya secara langsung dengan membuat pameranpameran seni.
Pola belajar itu berlanjut hingga saat ini. Puluhan orang dapat
menyebut dirinya sebagai kurator. Namun, hanya beberapa orang yangaktif mendiskusikan gagasan kuratorialnya secara tertulis, antara lain
Jim Supangkat, Hendro Wiyanto, dan Enin Supriyanto.
Bisa jadi penyebabnya adalah perkenalan Indonesia denganprofesi kurator yang tidak melalui jalur akademik, sehingga kurang
memerhatikan persoalan perdebatan gagasan melalui tulisan. Selain
itu, dalam pelatihan kurator yang dilakukan lembaga-lembaga
kebudayaan, salah satunya the Japan Foundation sebagai lembagayang paling konsisten menyelenggarakan pelatihan baik di Indonesia
maupun di seluruh Asia Tenggara, materi penulisan belum disertakan.
Perdebatan gagasan tertulis mengenai seni rupa di media massa
hanya terjadi pada 2000, akhir 2001 hingga awal 2002, dan akhir 2002.
Setelah itu, debat tidak lagi tercatat oleh media massa hingga muncul
kembali pada 2006, 2009, 2011, dan terakhir 2016.
Secara historis, media massa yang mewadahi perdebatan jugatidak banyak. Selama 17 tahun terakhir, harian KOMPAS dan majalah
mingguan TEMPO menjadi forum utama yang mewadahi perdebatanseni rupa. Padahal, saat ini beragam media massa menyediakan rubrik
seni, termasuk publikasi dari komunitas-komunitas seni rupa. Berikut
penulis sajikan beberapa topik perdebatan yang pernah terjadi.

128

Definisi Seni
Adu gagasan seni rupa yang dapat penulis telusuri setidaknya muncul
pada tahun 2000 antara pengamat seni rupa Agus Dermawan dan
kurator Hendro Wiyanto. Perdebatan bermula ketika Agus, dalam “SeniRupa yang Mengutang dan Bermuatan,” di KOMPAS, 11 Juni 2000,
mengkritisi seni rupa kontemporer dalam karya Kelompok Seni Rupa
Jendela (KSRJ). Karya KSRJ dianggap menyederhanakan faktor estetika
karena memprioritaskan pembahasan konteks dan dokumentasi sosial
proses pembuatan karya. Dengan begitu, menurut Agus, siapa saja dapat
menjadi seniman. Publik dengan pengetahuan seni rupa yang minim
akan serta merta mengaguminya.
Enam hari setelahnya, 18 Juni 2000, Hendro Wiyanto membantah
Agus melalui esainya berjudul “Arisan Nama-Nama: Misteri Apa dan
Siapa” di media massa yang sama. Hendro menuding penilaian Aguspada karya-karya seni rupa kontemporer hanya berdasarkan selera
pribadinya saja:
Nama-nama sejumlah perupa dalam tulisan itu dideretkan, dipilah
menurut selera sang penulis, antara “nama yang disukai” dan “yangtidak disukai.” Dengan tidak menunjukkan karya dan mencoba
membahasnya, tidakkah kepada kelompok nama-nama yangberada dalam karung, si penulis menyatakan bahwa seleranya telah
dipuaskan oleh seluruh karya mereka? Tidakkah cara ini sangat
sewenang-wenang dan totaliter—suatu sikap totaliter seperti yangkita saksikan dalam sebuah arisan? Kocoklah dan bersiaplah untuk
membaca sejumlah nama yang lolos dari sana. Berbeda selera dan
cara mengocok, akan berbeda nama yang keluar.
Dalam esainya, Hendro menuntut Agus membahas setiap karya seni
kontemporer yang dikritiknya menggunakan kerangka teori yangjelas. Tanpa pembahasan yang sistematis, kritikus seni dianggap akan
menghadirkan sesat pikir kepada publik.
Perdebatan yang berkutat pada persoalan kelaikan kritikus untuk
menganalisis karya itu berakhir pada tulisan Hendro Wiyanto. Tidak
ditemukan lagi tanggapan baik dari Agus Dermawan maupun kritikus
lain. Sejalan dengan ketiadaan tanggapan itu, adu gagasan tertulis
dalam skena seni rupa pun hilang selama satu setengah tahun.
Komodifikasi Lukisan
Pada 15 Desember 2001, pengajar seni rupa Institut Teknologi
Bandung (ITB) Aminudin T. H. Siregar, yang akrab disapa Ucok, menulis
esai berjudul “Seni Rupa Yogyakarta: Gemuruh Pasar yang Tidak
Mencerdaskan” di harian KOMPAS. Ia berpendapat bahwa pada masa
itu tidak terjadi perkembangan diskusi yang signifikan pada skena senirupa Yogyakarta. Padahal, pada tahun itu pula berlangsung sejumlah
pameran.

129

Kurnia Yunita Rahayu│Kurator Indonesia Minim Adu Gagasan

Bagi Aminudin, hal itu terjadi karena orientasi ekonomis dalam
pembuatan karya dan penyelenggaraan pameran. Seniman-senimanbaru yang mengemuka di Yogyakarta pun bukan orang-orang yangdikenal dengan wacananya seperti Heri Dono, Eddie Hara, Hanura
Hosea, Mella Jarsma, Agung Kurniawan, Nindityo Adipurnomo,
Anusapati, S. Teddy D., Ugo Untoro, dan Agus Suwage melainkan
seniman yang justru mengawali kariernya dengan tunjangan mekanisme
pasar, yaitu Katirin, Nurkholis, Made Palguna, Made Sukana, Nyoman
Sukari, dan Erica.
Berdasarkan kondisi itu, Aminudin pesimis terhadap dinamika
gagasan seni rupa Indonesia. Apalagi pendidikan seni rupa di tingkat
universitas yang dianggap bisa diandalkan sebagai referensi, acuan
perkembangan teori atau estetika, justru tidak mengambil peran apaapa. Aminudin kata,
Adakah ini sinyal, pendidikan seni terbenam dalam gemuruh
pasar seni lukis? Bahwa “kekuatan pasar” makin menampakkan
superioritasnya? Sebuah superioritas yang juga inferior dalammembaca perubahan budaya secara global. Gemuruh pasar “lokal”
yang tidak mencerdaskan siapa-siapa.
Tulisan itu menarik perhatian beberapa kritikus. Dalam waktu dua
minggu berturut-turut muncul tanggapan untuk Aminudin daripengamat seni Lembaga Penelitian Institut Seni Indonesia (ISI),
Yogyakarta, M. Dwi Marianto, dan Hendro Wiyanto.
Hendro Wiyanto dalam “Surat Buat Ucok dan Para Perupa di
Yogya,” di KOMPAS, 30 Desember 2001, menyetujui pendapat Aminudinmengenai skena seni rupa Yogyakarta yang kurang perkembangan
gagasan. Ia mengatakan, di tengah maraknya penjualan lukisan sulit
mendapati perupa atau pelukis yang akrab dengan kajian seni rupa
terbaru, bahkan mendapati seniman membaca buku saja tidak pernah.
Dalam berbagai diskusi seni rupa, kata Hendro, banyak seniman
berpartisipasi untuk hadir. Namun, tidak satu pun dari mereka
mengajukan pertanyaan dan gagasan. Saat itu, Hendro pun berharap
agar seniman yang kerap mendapat kesempatan keliling dunia dapat
membawa oleh-oleh buku terbaru dan mendiskusikannya dengan
sesame pegiat seni. “Bagaimana perkembangan seni rupa dapat terjadi
jika tidak ada diskusi antarperupa, antara perupa dan kritikus, atau
antara perupa dan kurator?” tutur Hendro.
Menurut M. Dwi Marianto dalam tulisan berjudul “Atmosfer
Kehidupan Seni di Yogyakarta,” di KOMPAS, 23 Desember 2001,
pandangan Aminudin T. H. Siregar mengenai skena seni di Yogyakarta
terperangkap pada determinisme ekonomi. Selain itu, Aminudinhanya menggunakan cara pandang seni kontemporer dalam membaca
kecenderungan seni rupa. Ada beragam aktivitas seni yang menghidupi
banyak orang serta merangsang tumbuhnya dinamika budaya di kota itu,
tetapi tidak dijadikan pertimbangan oleh Aminudin. Perspektif Aminudinsebagai orang yang tidak tinggal di Yogyakarta juga dipermasalahkan.

Essay 12130

Marianto menyarankan agar Aminudin tidak hanya memandangsinis pada seniman yang kerap menjual karya, tetapi juga
mengeksplorasi budaya konsumtif pembeli yang irasional. Mengapa
mereka bersedia membeli lukisan dengan harga yang sangat tinggi?
Selain itu, kata Marianto, Aminudin perlu memerhatikan kenyataan
bahwa kolektor seni rupa justru merupakan pihak yang selalu mengikuti
perkembangan wacana seni rupa dengan membaca buku atau
berkunjung ke museum baik di dalam maupun di luar negeri:
Ini lebih baik ketimbang seniman yang tidak mau keluar dari dunia
ideologisnya sendiri, apalagi yang hanya menyalahkan pihak lain.
Berbagai keberhasilan dunia seni rupa di Yogyakarta itu tidak mungkin
keluar dari kekosongan, atas sebagai sesuatu yang tiba-tiba muncul.
Akan tetapi sudah tentu lahir dari situasi dimana berbagai wacana
seni eksis dan berkembang, baik yang terkonsepsi secara akademikmaupun yang muncul dari pendekatan intuitif dan imaginatif.
Perdebatan semakin sengit ketika Aminudin kembali merespon
Marianto dalam tulisannya di KOMPAS, 6 Januari 2002, yang berjudul“Retorika Positivistik Seni Rupa.” Aminudin menyebut cara berpikir
Marianto terjebak dalam perspektif positivistik, seakan menjanjikan
harapan kemajuan, merayakan perbedaan, ketidakcocokan,
menawarkan berbagai pendekatan ilmiah, namun sebatas retorika.
Perkembangan diasumsikan berlangsung dengan tertib, terkendali,terkontrol, berdasarkan kesepakatan lokal-global, bukan sebagai titikyang terfragmen, diskontinu, dan paradoksal.
Pandangan kritis seperti itu dapat menyesatkan publik, karena
hanya menyajikan karya seni yang seolah-olah dapat menyelesaikan
masalah sosial. Ujar Aminudin,
Kritik yang awalnya merupakan pengalaman estetik (seperti seni
itu sendiri) dapat berubah jadi “nilai tukar” karena manipulasi
mekanisme pasar, diam-diam empiris sambil melegitimasi
kebutuhan-kebutuhan palsu di masyarakat.
Seni dan Politik Negara
Usai perdebatan diantara ketiga kritikus yang sebagian juga berprofesi
sebagai kurator itu, gagasan tertulis mengenai seni rupa kembali lesu.
Perdebatan baru dapat ditemukan kembali di KOMPAS, 22 Desember
2002, dalam esai yang ditulis Mikke Susanto berjudul “Enam Kesakitan
Seni Rupa Indonesia.” Mikke berusaha memetakan enam masalah akutyang melanda kondisi seni Indonesia, salah satunya pengabaian negara.
Menurutnya, negara tidak pernah menciptakan kebijakan yangberpihak pada perkembangan seni. Sebaliknya, negara justru kerap
membuat suasana tidak kondusif bahkan tidak aman bagi para pegiat
seni. Oleh karena itu, skena seni rupa Indonesia membutuhkankebijakan politik yang mendukung perkembangannya.

131

Kurnia Yunita Rahayu│Kurator Indonesia Minim Adu Gagasan

Pendapat itu segera saja mendapat tentangan dari seniman
Arahmaiani dalam esainya di KOMPAS, 12 Januari 2003 yangberjudul “Menuju Kesehatan Seni Rupa Indonesia.” Perupa ini
menekankan, demokratisasi Indonesia yang berjalan tidak matang
memang menghambat perkembangan seni rupa. Namun hal itu juga
menciptakan karakteristik yang khas di dalam diri pegiat seni, yaitu
kemampuan berinisiatif untuk bertahan tanpa dukungan pemerintah.
Oleh karenanya, bagi Arahmaiani, urgensi keberadaan pemerintah
dalam mendukung kerja seni di Tanah Air menjadi kurang relevan.
Yuswantoro Adi dalam tulisan berjudul “Siapa yang Sakit, Kawan?”di KOMPAS, 19 Januari 2003, mengatakan, konteks abainya negara padaseni rupa Indonesia semestinya dimanfaatkan sebagai momentum
bagi pegiat seni menunjukkan perannya sebagai katarsis. Karya-karya
seni monumental seringkali hadir dalam situasi negara yang kacaumaupun di bawah kekeuasaan yang hegemonik. Beberapa contohnya
adalah Dokter Zhivago karya Boris Pasternak yang dibuat di tengah
kuatnya rezim Kremlin di Rusia. Tetralogi Buru milik Pramoedya AnantaToer dibuat pada masa rezim otoriter Soeharto. Pablo Picasso pun
menciptakan Guernica dengan komposisi yang baik pada masa konflik
saudara berlangsung di Spanyol.
Identitas Seniman
Sayangnya, perdebatan gagasan seni rupa kembali terhenti usai tulisan
terakhir Yuswantoro Adi. Perdebatan ide seni rupa baru hadir kembali
tujuh tahun setelahnya, yaitu pada 11 Januari 2009 ketika tulisan
Wicaksono Adi berjudul “Yang Keren dan Terkendali” terbit di harian
KOMPAS.
Wicaksono menganalisis karakteristik seniman muda Bandung,sebagai pegiat seni yang memiliki karakter urban, pop, serta lincah
dalam mengeksplorasi seni baik dari segi ide, objek, hingga strategi
artistik. Mereka didukung oleh kultur urban Bandung serta budaya
baca yang lebih terbangun berkat kualitas pendidikan ITB yang bisa
dipertanggung jawabkan. Secara bersamaan, ia membandingkan
dengan seniman muda Yogyakarta yang dianggap lebih akrab dengan
kultur agraris, berasal dari keluarga kelas ekonomi bawah, namun
selalu berusaha menjadi aktor utama dalam skena seni rupa Indonesia.
Padahal, seniman Yogya menurut Wicaksono tidak gemar membaca.
Yuswantoro Adi, dalam tulisannya “Yang Mbentoyong Yang
Keren Euy” di KOMPAS, 18 Januari 2009, mengatakan, kecenderungan
penampilan seniman dari latar belakang kultur agraris atau perkotaansudah tidak relevan. Kegemaran membaca buku pun tidak bisa
dijadikan satu-satunya ukuran untuk menentukan kecerdasan seniman.
“Ada begitu banyak metodologi yang bisa dipilih untuk menjadi cerdas,
membaca realitas adalah salah satunya,” kata Yuswantoro.
Selain itu, kecerdasan dalam seni rupa juga akan lebih baik jika
dinilai dari karya yang dihasilkan. Untuk itu, perlu berbagai kaidah dan
instrumen yang dipelajari dalam waktu lama dalam konteks ruang dan

Essay 12132

waktu yang selalu berdinamika.
G. Budi Subanar dalam “Potret Perupa Yogyakarta: Dari Kepurbaan
Nasirun sampai Mimpi Samuel” di KOMPAS, 1 Februari 2009 menguatkan
pendapat Yuswantoro. Dari sejumlah seniman yang dianalisis, ia
menyimpulkan bahwa penampilan seorang seniman merupakan ranah
pribadi yang kemudian dileburkan bersama pengalaman sosial mereka.
Bagi Subanar, bagaimana pun penampilan seniman yang terpenting
adalah mereka tidak terasing dari masyarakatnya, serta tidak dikuasai
oleh benda-benda yang digunakan. Hal-hal menyangkut penampilan
pun tidak berkorelasi langsung dengan karya, sebab karya adalah
perwujudan dari pengalaman estetis masing-masing seniman.
Definisi “Seniman” dan “Kurator”
Sejarah perdebatan gagasan seni rupa Indonesia secara tertulis juga
pernah mempersoalkan arti kata seniman baik ditinjau dari segi
profesi maupun budaya. Aminudin TH Siregar dalam “Salah Kaprah
Istilah Seniman” di KOMPAS, 11 September 2011, mempermasalahkan
mudahnya pekerja hiburan menggunakan istilan seniman untuk
mengidentifikasi profesinya. Selain itu, istilah seniman juga sering
digunakan pekerja hiburan untuk berkelit dari masalah atau
pembenaran atas aktivitas mereka yang sulit diterima masyarakat.
Padahal, kata Aminudin, istilah seniman memiliki sejarah yangpanjang. Bapak seni lukis modern Indonesia S. Sudjojono adalah orang
pertama yang mempopulerkan istilah itu dalam tulisan-tulisannya padaperiode 1930-an. Sudjojono memulai definisi seniman sebagai orang
yang menciptakan karya yang kemudian disebut sebagai seni. Namun,
itu saja tidak cukup. Pada 1946 Sudjojono menulis bahwa seniman tidak
cukup memiliki kecakapan saja tetapi juga harus mempunyai watak dan
jiwa yang besar. Dengan begitu, Aminudin mengajak pekerja hiburan
seperti penari, penyanyi, pemain film, untuk tidak serta merta menyebut
dirinya sebagai seniman.
Yuswantoro Adi dalam tulisannya di KOMPAS, 18 September 2011,
yang berjudul “Salah Kaprah yang Jadi Salah Parah” sepakat dengan
Aminudin. Menurut dia, titel seniman tidak bisa digunakan oleh siapa
saja secara asal. Namun, di Indonesia bukan hanya seniman yang kerap
semena-mena diakui sebagai profesi seseorang tetapi juga kurator.
Yuswantoro mengatakan, pada periode itu begitu mudah orang
mendaku diri sebagai kurator setelah menulis tentang seni. Padahal,tulisan seni terdiri dari beragam jenis yang bisa dibuat oleh jurnalis,seniman, kritikus, hingga kurator.
Menurut Yuswantoro, kurator adalah seseorang yang menguasai
curatorial knowledge karena tugasnya memilah dan memilih karya senirupa untuk selanjutnya menamai, menandai, sekaligus menyajikannya
kepada publik. Selain itu, kurator juga perlu menguasai berbagai disiplin
ilmu seperti sejarah, sosiologi, psikologi, dan disiplin ilmu penunjang
lainnya karena profesi itu akan menentukan perkembangan seni rupa.

133

Kurnia Yunita Rahayu│Kurator Indonesia Minim Adu Gagasan

Ujar Yuswantoro,
Saya membayangkan seandainya kurator Indonesia mampu
membuat teori baru hasil pengamatan dan penelitiannya terhadap
aneka peristiwa seni rupa dan yang meliputinya. Agar kelak
dapat menjadi referensi generasi berikutnya. Sebagaimana telahdicontohkan S Sudjojono. Bukan sekadar mencomot sana-siniteori dari bacaan populer yang kadang dipaksakan menyenirupa
padahal bukan.
Lukisan-lukisan Palsu
Perdebatan terakhir yang muncul dari kurator seni rupa Indonesia
adalah mengenai persoalan lukisan-lukisan palsu yang dibahas Hendro
Wiyanto dan Jim Supangkat. Pada tulisan “Sebuah Pertanyaan untuk
Jim Supangkat” di TEMPO, 14 Maret 2016, Hendro mempertanyakan
pernyataan kuratorial Jim Supangkat dalam katalog pameran “ThePeople in 70 Years” di Oei Hong Djien Museum, Magelang, Jawa
Tengah, mengenai ketiadaan hubungan antara pameran dan masalahlukisan palsu.
Bagi Hendro, pernyataan Jim dibuat hanya untuk memberi kesan
bahwa pameran yang digelar hadir sempurna. Padahal, di Museum OHD
terdapat sejumlah old master yang diduga palsu berdasarkan beberapa
penelitian. Beberapa karya yang diseleksi kurator pada pameran “ThePeople in 70 Years” juga berasal dari museum yang sama. Oleh karena
itu, Hendro menganggap pernyataan Jim Supangkat tidak terlalu bijak
dan semestinya bersedia untuk membaca berbagai literatur untuk
mewaspadai adanya lukisan palsu dalam sebuah pameran.
Jim Supangkat di majalah TEMPO, 4 April 2016, mengakui bahwa
dirinya tidak mempedulikan isu lukisan palsu saat menyusun pameran“The People in 70 Years” pada November 2015 di Museum OHD,
Magelang, Jawa Tengah. Isu lukisan palsu yang ada di museum itu
memang sudah berhembus sejak 2012 dan masih didiskusikan pada
2016.
Menurut Jim Supangkat, menghubungkan pameran itu dengan isu
lukisan palsu tidak terlalu banyak manfaatnya. Publik dianggap dapat
menilai sendiri keaslian sebuah lukisan tanpa bimbingan otoritas.
Menurut penulis, perdebatan tertulis mengenai seni rupa semestinyabisa lebih banyak terjadi, karena saat ini seni rupa Indonesia
berkembang pesat. Ratusan pameran dengan ribuan ide-ide menarik
dapat disajikan oleh para kurator. Prestasi para kurator Indonesia pun
tidak hanya diakui dalam lingkup nasional, tetapi juga dalam lingkup
internasional.
Kebiasaan mendebatkan gagasan secara tertulis juga mampu
meluaskan jangkauan penikmat seni. Hal itu juga dapat menjadi
gambaran bahwa ada skena seni rupa yang hidup dan senantiasa
berkembang. Tidak sekadar membuat acara yang habis dalam sekejap.

Essay 12134

Learning, Relationships,
and Responsibility

135

136

Phases of Curatorial Passage

Essay
13

─

Patrick D. Flores［Curator, Jorge B. Vargas Museum, University of the Philippines］

One of the aspirations of “Condition Report” was to explore ways bywhich curators in Southeast Asia and Japan gather and grasp whatis broadly conceived as the curatorial. This elaborate project did not
only mean to offer an exhibition or a relay of exhibitions; it sought
to configure a passage in curatorial learning, one that invested inworkshops and research, collaboration, and discussions with peers of
the current generation and colleagues with more extensive experience inthe practice. For the curators from Japan, this was an initiation into theregion through curatorial work. For their contemporaries in Southeast
Asia, this was an opportunity to be in a field school, as it were, and go
through the process of thinking through and fleshing out a curatorial
inspiration, an exhibitionary urgency, or an intellectual anxiety. In these
instances in Japan and Southeast Asia, context and discipline were
central: the need to mark Southeast Asia as a curatorial situation and tocast the curatorial as a task, an effort, an activity that may end up in an
exhibition but need not be reduced to this event, object or, if one were
sufficiently self-righteous and malicious, the much-dreaded spectacle.
After all, there was a process involved before this exhibition took placeand it would have an afterlife of speculation beyond its duration in thelocus of appearance. That said, the workshop template was pivotal, andfor the Jorge B. Vargas Museum, the museum where I work as curator, thecollaboration with the Japan Foundation to nurture curatorial promise
had been fertile through what we called the Curatorial Development
Program for young curators in 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2015.
Curators always struggle with this possibility of going around, fillingout gaps between what they think is right and what might be achievedin light of certain material constraints. It is a tricky tightrope act that
others can belabor and dismiss as a mere exploitation of an opportunitythat practitioners profit on. Such a fundamentalist, uncharitable gestureforecloses not only the curatorial but also the contemporary.
I reflect on “Condition Report” from the vantage of my own
involvement in “Under Construction: New Dimensions of Asian Art”
(2000-2003). I was one of the nine curators from seven Asian countries

137

Patrick D. Flores│Phases of Curatorial Passage

of this undertaking that strove to track the energies of contemporary
art in Asia through the exigencies of the curatorial. I reconsider the said
project in this text as a moment of learning.
I remember very well that the long-term project began with aworking seminar in Tokyo on the question of “What is Asia?” It wasan unnerving proposition. How does one answer this monolith of aquestion? But I also saw it as a provocation. Ontologies always provoke,
and they always require equally provocative anthropologies. The
curatorium was, therefore, convened under the aegis of this conceptual
predicament and in the environment of a seminar, a word that alludes toan ongoing discourse. At the outset, the project was framed intellectually
as well as regionally. In many ways, the curators were led to a discursive
inquiry of a region as well as a regional inquiry into the discourse of
curation. Discourse and region intersected curatorially, or were made toshape the curatorial inquiry. Asia was being curated; and the curatorial
dispersed or dissipated through and across the condition that was Asia.
It is thus but opportune that “Under Construction,” some 17 years later,
be followed through with “Condition Report.”
The succeeding phase was research. The Japan Foundation provided
the resources for the curators to do research in the region on whatever
it was that interested them. I was keen on craft, or the relationshipbetween craft and the contemporary. For me, craft was a cipher of a deep
cosmology that was constantly subjected to refunctioning by diverse
interests. It was this openness that struck me, its being prone to beapprehended as an index of tradition and heritage, authenticity andlineage, skill and spirituality. But it was also quite enmeshed in capitalist
exchange, the production of cultural prestige, and the appropriation oflabor and bodies. I went to Osaka, Kobe, and Bali for this, investigating a
range of ways by which craft was rendered at once residual and emergent.
I then curated in 2001 an exhibition in Manila, at the Cultural Center of
the Philippines, on craft. Titled “Crafting Economies,” it sought to reveal
the different modes in which craft and the contemporary encounteredeach other and the techniques through which contemporary artists
would come in contact with so-called artisans. It was a problematic
proposition that initially rested on a binary opposition—and that was
the main idea. I learned that the curatorial was not about staging selffulfilling prophesies but about coming to terms with the points at which
persons and things get ambiguous, elusive, difficult to explicate. It could
be about errors and hindsight; obsessions and orthodoxies; chances andlapses and longings. As a writer and critic, I would liken it to an essay, anattempt at an argument, a stab at a premise.
In this regard, I set up matrices of possible interactions between
spheres of expressive practice. For instance, I invited the contemporary
painter and installation artist Mike Muñoz to engage with thewoodcarver Paloy Cagayat and his workshop in Paete, Laguna. Bothwere immersed in the culture of icon making, and I thought that
Muñoz’s installative aesthetic might be a productive tangent to Cagayat’s
steady production of religious statuary. Wire Rommel Tuazon, for his

Essay 13138

part, reinscribed the aesthetic milieu of his hometown Angono in
his installation, recalling ritual and folklore. And Mark Maestro, who
lived in Canada, renewed his ties to the homeland and the travails of
migration through terracotta and ceramic work. All these involved alevel of what I broadly conceived as “craft,” and the dialogue was either amatter of translation or an issue of self-consciousness. Either way, craft
was always a vessel on an uneven keel. Paloy Cagayat, to cite a case, wasconfounded, puzzled by how he was inserted into a contemporary art
context, while the sculptor Kitao Hiroshi was nearly autonomous in his
exquisite metal work that evoked flora and the cosmos.
As an aspect of curatorial learning, research offered me anothertrajectory into the dissemination of ideas and exhibitions, knowing
about artistic practice in disparate terrains, and appreciating the vast
ecology in which plural creative endeavors play out. It was through theresearch period that I had interesting conversations with Ranjit Hoskotefrom Bombay and Yamamoto Atsuo who was then working in Ashiya
City. Their backgrounds in cultural theory and poetry and curating theJapanese avant-garde, respectively, introduced me to other archives ofreading and writing, so to speak.
Together with research, collaboration was critical in my curatorial
education through “Under Construction.” The project allowed thecurators to explore lateral links within the already horizontal scheme of
the curatorium. And so, I decided to work with Atsuo who shared withme the desire to reference other ways of recognizing and presenting
creative form beyond the auspices of the modernity of art. As I was drawn
to craft, so was he attracted to art and artists who were, I surmised,ungovernable by the typical rules of art, like a forager of the forest in the
person of Futana Yoshihi, the two men of Rogues’ Gallery making soundfrom cars, and Jose Legaspi, whose turbulent drawings were testimonies
of a very private torment. We shared artists in our exhibitions, anoccasion for Philippine artists to collaborate with Japanese artists
and for the latter to be in Manila to carry out on-site experiments.
The collaborative dynamic, therefore, could be felt artistically andcuratorially. Ranjit also came over to Manila and was struck by theimagery of Philippine art; this led him to choose the painter Alfredo
Esquillo to exhibit works in his exhibition in Bombay. The exhibitions
I and Atsuo curated had a common publication and I wrote for Ranjit’s
catalogue. The reciprocity in intellection and interrogation was salient.
Finally, the aspect of exhibition making formed a significant partof the curatorial process. The collaborative nature of the research partly
animated the exhibitionary aesthetic. This came through dramatically insite-specific initiations as when Futana Yoshihi and Alfredo and Isabel
Aquilizan collaborated on an installation in the atria of the Cultural
Center of the Philippines and when Wire Rommel Tuazon worked withthe painting of Tanaka Atsuko and kindergarten schoolchildren in
Ashiya City.
The omnibus exhibition of “Under Construction” in the two spacesin Tokyo in 2002 and 2003 was daunting. It was in that setting where

139

Patrick D. Flores│Phases of Curatorial Passage

I realized that a curatorium as robust as ours could not be adequately
nimble in spite of the reflexivity of the conceptual technology. At thispoint, we found it hard to intervene in the layout of the exhibition andwe had to defer to the judgment of the curators of the venues and tosome extent the advisors. No one among the curators had a sweeping
perspective to take in the details of the various articulations of the(trans)local exhibitions, so it was impossible for any of us to actively
take part in the design of the exhibition as a whole, which definitely
was more than the sum of its parts. Here, I learned that curatorial
practice is effective when it is viewed as being made to happen interms of different scales, and that no single scale needs to dominate
others within a hierarchy. The local or collaborative exhibition was assignificant as the integrative one in Tokyo. The latter did not absorb
the rest and was not a culmination in a linear sequence of excursions.
The exhibitions across the three years mutated under multiple
metabolisms.
“Condition Report” was in a way structured similarly, except thatthe emerging curators chosen were younger and had less mileage incuratorial work. In fact, they were positioned within the project tointeract with curators who had invested more time in the practice. The
entire enterprise was akin to a curatorial residency in a region where
curatorial training has not been widely formalized. I think that a formal
education in curating should not overdetermine curatorial intelligence.
The processes put in place by “Under Construction” and “Condition
Report” offer an equivalent methodology of honing the talent of curatorsand troubling the curatorial at its every turn. I intuited from both
ventures that in the learning of the curatorial, atmosphere is vital: theecology of forces at work and the relationships that are woven around a
curator’s personal biography. In “Under Construction,” the curatorium
was greatly enhanced by the instincts not only of professional curators
but of poets, art historians and cultural workers. In “Condition Report,”
colleagues from a successor generation were equivalently strongly
placed to mediate the curatorial by a lush disposition reared elsewhere.
They were concerned about activism and cast their lot with specificideological visions. They were fascinated with the temper of a global
world as it acted upon a gamut of domains from housing to ecology
to memory. They were staking out an alternative topography of the art
world in their countries, building institutions while pursuing academic
or museological work. These identifications or belongingness topassions and politics require co-implications, liaisons with authority
and sensitive, adept uses of power. Curatorial learning is constantly
calibrated by these co-operations and co-incidences, and the other way
around. Curators in the course of their toil become alert to prospects
and precarities. What I noticed in this cohort is that they are patientwith their agency and that they are not quick to judge, and that they
are attentive to form and the demands of close reading. I am happy to
see this kind of curator. While they may inevitably align themselveswith certain political programs or theoretical persuasions, they are not

Essay 13140

careerists who take the curatorial signature so seriously as a professional
insignia. Also, they are not evangelists of the so-called alternative,
who are always lunging at evidence of complicity but silent on how
they themselves partake of the largesse of their self-proclaimed criticalarbitration and, worst of all, are not moved or chastened by the integrityof the creative form and the exhibitionary latitude, confining the latterto functions of economy or curatorial calculation and explaining thesame conveniently by anecdotes, polemics, and frustrations that are
passed off as critique.
What is finally indispensable in this curatorial exposure is thefriendship that springs from the curatorial commitment to be in acommon space of work. It is the friendship that generates afterlives
beyond the pale of even the most proficient of projects because it is afriendship premised on respect, that delicate virtue of generosity, thatlightens the burden of curatorial responsibility and at the same time
sharpens its edge against those who try too hard to curate in the name ofdisavowing its influence. Curatorial learning in Asia is unlearning thispretense and working through the always obliging curatorial potential.

141

Patrick D. Flores│Phases of Curatorial Passage

Essay14

The Game-maker, the Player, and Levelling thePlaying Field─

Hoo Fan Chon
［Artist/Independent Curator/Member of Run Amok］

01“Sindikat Campursari” was thecollaborative project from the Jakarta
curatorial team, as an attempt to
speculate on the sustainability of art
collective practices, and to address
the possible symbiosis between art
collectives and individual artists byforming a temporal collective throughthe format of a residency workshop.

It was the fourth day of the collaborative “Sindikat Campursari”
exhibition at Gudang Sarinah Ekosistem, Jakarta.［01］The pre-exhibition
opening adrenaline rush had subsided and some of us had managed
to sleep in for a little longer. As the day progressed, artists and curators
gradually showed up at the exhibition site. The co-curators team did
their routine check at the exhibition hall to ensure the artworks wererunning smoothly while compiling the exhibition manual for gallery
sitters. Several artists were busy setting up workshops that were going totake place later. Many, including myself, looked forward to the farewellparty later in the evening at Jaya Pub, a local kitsch pub with 1980s
memorabilia, live music, and eight-ball pool.
Before that, there would be two more meetings to attend—thefirst to finalize and discuss the content, budget, timeline, and tasks
delegation for the post-exhibition publication, and the second toformulate ideas on Sindikat Campursari’s participation in the Bangkok
exhibition, “Mode of Liaisons,” a concluding collaborative exhibition
which would feature previously exhibited and newly commissioned
artworks from the Jakarta, Manila and Kuala Lumpur projects, alongwith Bangkok’s selection of artworks.
During the second meeting, instead of selecting existing artworks,
the curatorial team favored the idea of reenacting the working
environment of Sindikat Campursari’s residency workshop by putting
together artists and collective members from Sindikat Campursari
together with Thai artists to form another temporal collective, torespond to the local sociocultural circumstances. Soon after, we
discussed the logistics and brainstormed on communities they could beengaging in Bangkok. The team started to review each artist's work andenvisaged the possibilities of them working in a new temporal collective.
All in all, considering the time constraints and relatively smaller budget,
we were looking for artists who could help to mobilize community, andcatalyze and facilitate the new collective in Bangkok.
After a few rounds of deliberations, the artists list was finalized. As
we were wrapping up, the co-curators were asked by Ade Darmawan, one142

of the mentor curators:［02］During the whole process of the curatorial
workshop, did we realize how much power was given to the curators? The
curators were in the position to allocate resources to the artists. It was adecision made exclusively by curators, and this decision determined who
got to further develop their project in an extended exhibition, and who
did not.
After immersing ourselves in the communal living of the residency
workshop for the past three weeks in Jakarta, it was easy to indulge in
the idea of a non-hierarchical lateral working structure, the one we wereaccustomed to seeing in collective practice. The residency workshop
demanded an art-making process and working strategy different fromstudio-based practice. Before the artists could start fabricating artwork,
they had to work with the curators to decide which local communities toengage, ways in which they would like to collaborate with one another,and formulate a theme for the exhibition. The exhibition-making format
might have afforded a greater sense of ownership among the artists
by sharing some of the decision-making processes with the artists.
However, many decisions were made beforehand that shaped theexhibition-making process and conceptual parameters of the exhibition,by the curators.
Sometimes, the artist-curator relationship is akin to the oneof player and game-maker. One work in the “Sindikat Campursari”
exhibition in particular exemplified this relationship in a light-hearted
manner. Arie Syarifuddin’s food-expo-kiosk work, Cur:, reflected on
the relationship between artist and curator through coffee-drinking
culture. According to the artist, despite being influenced by the Dutch
coffee bean trade, the coffee-drinking lifestyle has deep roots in Javaneseculture; and a conical coffee dripper, made from bamboo, had been used
long before a Japanese company invented the conical coffee dripper inthe 1950s. Unaccustomed with Javanese culture, the co-curator team
tried to fact-check and verify this claim, and we found out that it was infact a fabrication. By engaging local craftmakers, Arie custom designed
a handwoven bamboo conical coffee filter, and programmed a coffee
drip competition among curators to celebrate Javanese coffee heritage.
During the process, the multinational curators had to learn how to use
the bamboo conical dripper to produce the best tasting cup of coffee,with a winner decided by a group from the local audience. Arie employed
everyday marketing language (catchy logo, pseudo-historical claim,
merchandise, competition with reward) to fortify his falsified claim
for Javanese coffee-drinking culture. His work not only questioned thecurator’s responsiveness toward local culture (authentic or fabricated),it also queried the power relations in play. During the competition, thesupposed player turned out to be the game-maker. Sometimes, the player
does not follow the rules set by the game-maker.
Art-making is one of the ways in which the artist may choose torespond to the dichotomy between the artist and curator. Arie’s work,through humour, aptly highlighted the tension. But such ploys could
also end up being something of an in-joke catering to those involved in

143

02
The co-curators of “SindikatCampursari” were Hoo Fan Chon,
Yoshizaki Kazuhiko, Le Thuan Uyen,
and Vittavin Leelavanachai among
21 emerging curators selected from
Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Laos,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines,
Thailand, and Vietnam to participate
in the Japan Foundation Asia
Center curators’ workshop, as partof the project, “Condition Report.”
Established curators were appointed
to mentor co-curators and to lead thecollaborative exhibitions.

Hoo Fan Chon│The Game-maker, the Player, and Levelling the Playing Field

a project, or discerning audiences who might pick up the artist’s hidden
agenda. Do the artist and curator really share the same playing field?
They exercise control in different areas. One at the artistic productionlevel that deals with visual art language and the chosen medium togenerate content for exhibition; the other at the exhibition making
level that handles resources, drafts artists lists, and contextualizes theartistic production of artists. Knowing this power relationship, why doartists find it difficult to say no to curators’ invitations to take part in
exhibitions? In my view, the lack of a transparent state funding system in
Malaysia, a relatively small art market compared to that of neighboring
countries, and the need for exposure have conditioned artists to be moreamenable to such opportunities.
Visual artist Liew Kwai Fei coined the term “workshop curator” in a
WhatsApp exchange, where he observed a recent rise in the number of
curators who were not necessarily institutional or academically trained
but had gained exposure through curator-focus workshops organized byinternational cultural agencies or local art institutions. With the supportof these agencies, these curators had the capacity to mobilize artists andproduce exhibitions with adequate production budgets. In the past few
years, substantial funding has been poured into nurturing Southeast
Asian curators in projects by international cultural agencies such as
the Japan Foundation Asia Center’s sophomore edition of its curators’
workshop, “Condition Report” (2015-17), and the Goethe Institut’s
CuratorsLab (2015-17), workshops serving as an alternative model tolearning and producing knowledge outside of academia.
The Japan Foundation Asia Center’s “Condition Report” project,which I took part in, was a curatorial training program which spread
across a two-year period. It started with a working seminar that covered
nine cities in Japan, with visits to different private and national art
museums, independent art spaces and cultural institutions, during
which we were given private exhibition tours by curators, interactedwith local artists, and attended lectures on Japanese art and cultural
infrastructure and conditions, as well as happenings. After the working
seminar, the co-curators were grouped into four different collaborative
projects based in Bangkok, Manila, Jakarta, and Kuala Lumpur. Informedby their chosen theme and respective exhibition focus, each group thenconducted research trips to gain insights into the local art scenes while
formulating ideas for a collaborative exhibition.
The co-curators worked alongside mentor curators to produce thecollaborative exhibitions before going on to carry out their individual
projects in their city of residence in Southeast Asia. Through the format
of “Condition Report,” we could look at how these hands-on learning
experiences in large-scale exhibition making, the networks built along
the process, and international cultural agency recognition have afforded
the co-curators social and cultural capital. As an increasingly mobile
class of cultural practitioner, curators are potentially positioned as vital
players within the art ecosystem by such privileged experiences.
As someone who straddles between the two fields of artistic

Essay 14144

production and curatorial practice, I was at once made aware of theprivileged position of the curator and at the same time empathetic
towards the artist’s reliance on the curator for exhibition opportunities.
But is there a way to level the playing field? Perhaps we should consider
ways in which we could keep the curator’s “power” in check, or at thevery least make the curatorial process visible during exhibitions andelucidate how certain curatorial decisions were made.
We could also expand our focus beyond just the power relations
between curators and artists, as we know there are other key players in
the the field of art and not all curators’ primary working relationshipis with artists, as Simon Soon put it in another WhatsApp exchange todiscuss the framework for a roundtable discussion focusing on the roleof curator. We should consider the agency of artistic production andcuratorial practice along with other players to imagine a meaningful
and fruitful working relationship for the production of knowledge andaesthetic experience.
Back in Jakarta, before we headed off to Jaya Pub for the farewellparty, I had to announce the selected artists for the Bangkok exhibition
during dinner. I do not remember if I explained how the selection was
made, nor were there any questions asked. The team congratulated
the selected artists, and soon after, we made our way to the farewellparty. Most of the production team, including the artists, technicians,
facilitators, and curators were present. Many engaged in conversations,shared a few jokes, took candid group photos, and exchanged contacts.
It was at the pool table where the team got animated and came to life
once again. That was the time where most of us shared the same role asplayers, no matter if we were potting the solids or stripes.

145

Hoo Fan Chon│The Game-maker, the Player, and Levelling the Playing Field

Essay15

Friend First, Colleague Second!
A Reflection on the Issue of Trust in
Curatorial Practice─

Le Thuan Uyen
［Independent Curator］

01
At least in Vietnam, where the term
“curator” is still being defined andmade sense of, and where there is little
attribution to what the job entails or
requires. The recruitment of curators,
particularly at alternative/independent
spaces, tends to be more flexible interms of box-ticking of academic
backgrounds, former training, and soon, especially when compared withthe analytical tests and rounds ofinterviews in corporate recruitment.
02
As highlighted by Singapore-based
curator Vera Mey and Saigon-based
curator Zoe Butt, there is an “ecology
of cultural lack” evident in but not
exclusive to Vietnam, characterized
by “a dearth of state (or any) funding;active historical amnesia throughdestruction of memory—archival,architectural or otherwise; visible
and violent impoverishment; andfreedom of expression in public
existing as a real threat with politicalramifications.” Vera Mey “We’re in This
Together,” A Year of Conscious Practice,accessed December 15, 2017, http://
ayearofconsciouspractice.com/texts/
were-in-this-together.

In most careers, when facing the challenge of finding a job, there
are certain “ticks,” or criteria, one needs to meet in order to secure a
position. I often wonder what these would be for a curator, particularly
an independent visual art curator who works mostly with living,practising artists? Here, the qualifications, requirements, or personalqualities required tend to be somewhat flexible, and the same might besaid of the selection process.［01］So what does it take to be a curator?
Of course, knowledge of art history and of visual languages aremust-haves, but more than that, a curator ought to be able to gain trustfrom the artistic community which he/she considers him or herself
rooted in. In the context of Vietnam, trust replaces the credibility
asociated with official establishments, and friendship acts as an
institution itself—a platform where contextual dialogues concernedwith artistic languages, aesthetics, and politics take place, consequently
leading to the production of new knowledge.
Why is this? In the landscape of Vietnamese art, where there isan unmistakable cultural lack,［02］physical, political, and knowledge
infrastructures and resources come from agencies that are not official
public institutions—the conventional entities that are assigned tocarry the task of providing for and legitimizing art and culture. Suchagencies include foreign funding bodies, independent art spaces, aswell as those who mediate between them and artists—curators. Thus,
curators, in Vietnam as elsewhere, are seen as bearers of accountability(to both sponsors and the public), a validating mechanism, sometimes
even patrons—roles that are traditionally identified with formal art
institutions.［03］It is important to acknowledge that the significance and power that
I mention here are not innate; they are earned through acquiring work
experience. Indirectly, they are proportional to the level of trust that
artists confide in curators.
I must qualify that what I am presenting in this article is restricted
to my experiences and knowledge of working in Vietnam, particularly
in Hanoi. I entered the local art scene as an outsider. I had no formal146

training in art history or art practice. I was partially ignorant of
the historical and social context that I lived in, having lived abroadand grown accustomed to Western ideologies and perspectives. My
colleagues and new-found friends welcomed me with open arms, yet
I still felt there was a silken thread that separated me and them. I wasable to deliver administrative tasks exceptionally well to produce events,
but I was not included in artistic dialogues. How could I have been,
for I, in all honesty, at that time knew very little about art-making or
about the backgrounds and personalities of the artists I was working so
closely with. In my present conception, a curator is someone who cares.
Did I really care enough? For what is curating but facilitating contextual
dialogues, enabling encounters between politics and aesthetics,
mobilizing resources to assist artistic production, and projecting theoutcomes of such conversations on to the wider community? Was I reallya friend artists could rely on and entrust their personal histories with,or was I merely a colleague who treated my work as tasks to be done
without feeling the need to understand mentalities or get emotionallyinvolved?
Over time, I came to understand the importance of trust andfriendship. In saying this, I make a distinction between colleague, or
network associate, and friend. In my definition, the term colleague isvoid of the emotional attachment (or compassion) that is embedded infriendship, predominantly due to the frameworks and rules that govern
the working environment.［04］Furthermore, working relationships areformed through appointment/recruitment, whereas friendships areformed by personal choice. Revisiting recent art history, it is evident thatfriendship has been a remarkable force that has held up the Vietnamese
art scene over the years despite the presence of an “ecology of culturallack.”［05］Friendships in the arts allow practitioners to mobilize resourcesthat may be unquantifiable in monetary terms, enable them to create
room for artistic languages to be challenged and developed, art spaces
to be formed, projects to be realized, and infrastructural platforms
to be built. Such friendships are sustained through a system of trust.
This trust may be founded on various bases: shared aesthetics, sharedexperiences, common goals, respect for each other’s talent or expertise,and so on. It is gained, not given. It is consolidated and tested with time,
not permanent.

03
It is worth noting that independent
curators are never fully independent.
And independent curators sometimes
associate themselves with institutions
that they work for on a temporary basis(such as a biennale) or they have close
connections with (for example, working
as an assistant to an established artist/
curator/collector is akin to working
for a small-scale institution). What
I am referring to is a stark contrast
between Vietnam, where museums areperceived to be dated and irrelevant tocontemporary life, and some other art
scenes (Singapore, for example), where
museums are largely trusted houses ofknowledge.
04
There are exceptions, always. But ascolleagues, we adhere to institutional
regulations and codes of conduct.
There is also no obligation outside of
office hours.
05
See footnote 03.

There are different approaches to curation and one may question my
fascination with friendship and trust, and point out that there exists sucha thing as so-called professionalism and that artistic production does
not always require friendship to take shape. Call me naïve or romantic
if you must, but I am a firm believer that trust enhances curatorial
practice in more ways than one can imagine. Light-speed studio visits
and portfolio viewing can only unveil a fraction of artists’ practices, forwhat they create is also informed by their personal backgrounds, andthe social circumstances where they live. If a curator flashes through theartworks, what guarantees that he/she is not likely simply to interpret the147

Le Thuan Uyen│Friend First, Colleague Second! A Reflection on the Issue of Trust in Curatorial Practice06
A Vietnamese idiom referring to thecustom practiced by many Vietnamesein the olden days of offering each otherbetel nut to chew, similar to offering
tea or water to a guest nowadays.

works in such existing frames that he/she is already familiar with? Welearn from a young age that everyone is unique and we need to embraceour differences, but we also are taught to “categorize” each other intoboxes, to figure each other out and deal with situations according to a
set formula. Knowledge differs from one community to another—whatgives me or any curator the authority to claim that my knowledge issuperior to that of an artist?
For example, if I was educated in England, where punctuality isa virtue and formal etiquette in the workplace is respected, should I
consider an artist in Vietnam to be unprofessional and disrespectful
if they arrived 15 minutes late to our meeting and asked to have a beer
first? Or would I understand that to be typical social conduct locally,or that the artist might have a certain complex and required somewarming up? “Mi ng tr u m đ u câu chuy n” (the betel nut opens up
the conversation)［06］as my elders often quote. Without this kind ofunderstanding, would the artist want to share their thoughts with me
given I did not respect their way of life?
For the exhibition I curated as part of the “Condition Report”
curatorial development program, I had a chance to work with a group ofimportant modernist painters who are considered leading figures who
have helped to open up the Vietnamese art scene to an international
audience. They developed their practices in a critical historic period,
when Vietnam had just escaped isolation and witnessed drasticchanges in all aspects of society. They come from an utterly different
generation—a generation that may find the work of a curator completely
unnecessary. In Vietnam, the war generation appears to have nothingin common with the post-war generation. Different times, different
measures! Changing values and ways of life are not easy to comprehendand accept. It is not uncommon that people are reluctant to share forfear of existing prejudice against them and misinterpretation. Let us notforget that censorship exists in Vietnam. The presence of a surveillancesystem fosters a sense of suspicion, resulting in unfruitful relationships.
In such situations, how do you resolve frictions that are the product ofhistory? The only answer is, with time and genuine care, and to findthe motivation to put yourself in others’ shoes. It is through mutual
understanding that we open up and become friends. As friends, we not
only understand each other’s practice from an aesthetic perspective but
are connected as people. This perception enables us to have compassion
and tolerance, consolidating our will to share and build each other’s
resources, to work together in a productive manner.
Curators are extremely lucky because, unlike the regular audience,
we have the opportunity to engage ourselves in the formation of awork of art, seeing things develop every step along the way. And what
is art but a visual and sensational experience that evokes emotions
and reflections? In this light, what do we make of the art landscape if
curators treat artists predominantly as content, not friends we share thesame passion with?
Having said all this, I am well aware that this way of working as

Essay 15148

friends does have its flaws. There have been known cases of favoritism
and unproductive exchanges due to the familiarity and emotional
attachment that are the very escence of friendship. However, we should
remember that another foundation of friendship is honesty—a qualitythat can limit the risks mentioned above. In a globalized world where art
is increasingly being commodified, regulated, and institutionalized, it
is important not to forget that there are more than mutual gains in any
working relationship. For friendship and passion are what keep your firegoing over the years.

149

Le Thuan Uyen│Friend First, Colleague Second! A Reflection on the Issue of Trust in Curatorial PracticeEssay16

Letting Go of Doubts:
My Views on Transnational Curation
─Nakamura Fumiko［Curator, Aichi Prefectural Museum of Art］

01
In the first half of the 20th century,
many Japanese artists visited thecountries of Asia for both research
and military service. Inspired by thecultures and climates of these foreigncountries, their works were not always
directly linked to promoting national
influence or boosting fighting spirit,
but even so we must cautiously
investigate their Orientalist perspective
toward other Asian countries and theirartistic activities as shaped by thenational context of Japan.

I gaze absentmindedly out the window from the back of the station
wagon. Small shops, houses, and fields spread along the road, andlooking beyond them I see low hills stretching into the distance. As I
continue gazing at the scenery, I suddenly have the illusion I am driving
through the small town in Hiroshima Prefecture where my grandparents
lived. But recognizing the next moment that the vegetation is completely
different from that of Hiroshima, I come to myself, and remember that I
am in Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Visiting there for the first time on my research trip, I found Chiang
Mai to be full of novelty, as well as nostalgia and intimacy. Perhaps this isbecause the relaxed atmosphere, particular to former capitals, reminded
me of Kyoto, where I live. But the rush of familiarity I felt toward Chiang
Mai was not entirely pleasant, as there was also something discomfiting
about it. It may have been overly naïve, but I could not forget theexistence of the many Japanese artists who visited Southeast Asia before
and during World War II. Regardless of their intentions, many of them
ended up tacitly approving Japan’s invasion of Asia.［01］It was on top of
this history that I was visiting Chiang Mai and feeling some familiarity
there. What could I make of this gaze of mine?
Moreover, what does it mean to put together an exhibition in sucha place under such a broad theme as “What is Southeast Asia?” In
my experience of working at public institutions in Japan, presenting
exhibitions is an unquestioned part of the job description. But Chiang
Mai was a foreign place to which I had practically no prior connection.
And an exhibition is in part an apparatus for highlighting specificsubjects and orienting the awareness of the viewers. It was because of
these factors that I was extremely excited to be working as a curator on
this exhibition project in Chiang Mai, but I also had to admit a sense of
doubt and anxiety.
Then I discovered a fascinating figure in my preparations for theexhibition, the Japanese photographer Tanaka Morinosuke. Tanaka
moved to Chiang Mai nearly a century ago, and established the first150

photography studio there. Although he was a prominent figure in
Chiang Mai who was liked by many people, Tanaka also cooperated
with the Japanese military during World War II, and was briefly
incarcerated in a concentration camp for Japanese following the war.
He was a transnational migrant, a contributor to Japanese-Thai relations,a promoter of the visual apparatus of photography, a cooperator withthe military, and a victim of war. Refracted across these multiple layers,
his true identity cannot be easily resolved. I had the intuition that,with Tanaka as the starting point, I could assess my own position of
temporarily entering from the outside to curate an exhibition in Chiang
Mai, and eventually decided to invite the participating artists according
to the theme, “Play in the Flow,” inspired by a photograph of Tanaka
playing in a waterfall.
Fortunately, while looking for potential exhibition venues in Chiang
Mai, I found a building that had ties to Tanaka. Called the Sriprakard
Hotel, it was an over hundred-year-old wooden building located on thePing River, near where Tanaka’s studio used to be. Moreover, the familyof the building’s owner had been close with Tanaka, and the owner told
me stories about receiving kimonos from him and how he had been sucha great neighbor. Since I was developing the exhibition around Tanaka,
being able to use this building as an exhibition space was a golden
opportunity for me. What was also interesting was that the building
had been renovated many times in response to necessity, alternately
serving as a kindergarten, zoo, printing plant, hospital, and hotel. I
sensed a parallel between this building with its many past lives andTanaka’s unveiling of different identities at different times in his life.
When I thought about the current space as yet another instance of thosemany transformations, the strained framework between Chiang Mai
and myself as an outsider gradually relaxed, and I was able to recognize
the exhibition as a site that provisionally comes into being through themutual interactions between spaces that evolve and people on the move.
Likewise, through working on the exhibition in Chiang Mai, my
preconceptions of curation were to a certain extent unraveled. Chiang
Mai is known for the artist-led art project Chiang Mai Social Installation(CMSI). Walking through the city, I could appreciate why CMSI was
possible here, even some 20 years since its inception. In Chiang Mai,tightknit communities exist both in the art scene and in the broader
public, and these communities are the foundation for flexible responses
to different events. For example, one of the participating artists proposedconstructing sculptures at a scale that exceeded my expectations, andinstalling them at locations across the city. In the case of urban areas inJapan, numerous procedures are required for this kind of proposal, suchas securing a site for constructing the sculptures, preparing a methodof transportation, and applying for a permit to install the sculpturesin public space. But this time, fortunately enough, everything fromsecuring a site for construction to obtaining manpower went smoothly
thanks to our engagement with the community, and we were able to151

Nakamura Fumiko│Letting Go of Doubts: My Views on Transnational Curationaccommodate the artist’s evolving thought process. Perhaps we got luckywith the people around us, such as the building owner and coordinator,
but I felt that we were able to realize what the artist wanted to express
without overburdening anyone or putting them in risky situations.
This process differed somewhat from my experiences organizing
exhibitions in Japan. The fundamental principle of organizing exhibitionsin Japan is to avoid problems by anticipating, adjusting, and preparing
everything in advance. Especially in multiuse facilities and large-scale
exhibitions where people of various positions are always coming andgoing, the precision of the advance adjustments often determines thequality of the exhibition. Through organizing the exhibition in Chiang
Mai, however, I realized that this method is not necessarily guaranteed
to work everywhere. For instance, the whole area experienced a sudden
power outage while we were installing. Because of the occurrence of suchsituations where detailed preparation is futile, it is perhaps sometimes
more effective to cooperate and determine the best solution as eachproblem arises, instead of making detailed plans for averting risks
beforehand. Doing so also allows the benefit of not limiting the artistic
motivation of the artist through excessive prior adjustments. And so my
preconceptions about organizing exhibitions were swept away.
My initial doubts were relativized in the midst of these experiences. It
could be said that my doubts at the time were the result of unconsciously
viewing frameworks such as Southeast Asia, Japan, and Thailand as
having actual substance, and basing my thinking on that assumption.
But then the exhibition is a medium that produces meaning through thetemporary gathering of individual artists and artworks in a specific place,and it has more physical and temporal restraints than other media. For
this reason, in an exhibition space where it is not necessarily possible toaccount for everything, ideas must begin from examining interactions
between individuals, even when they are fragmented, rather than fromtotalizing, conceptual frameworks such as the nation-state. And, for betteror worse, when these connections between individual, specific matters
are overturned, perhaps the larger framework itself is restructured andcorrected. This is what I sensed as I got to know, in my own limited way, thetown around the Sriprakard Hotel and the views of the people I met there.
Of course, it may be that this feeling is too simplistic, symptomaticof a temporary visitor. And the outcomes that this feeling may produce inthe contexts of Japan, Southeast Asia, and the globalized art scene cannot
be determined as of yet. But I can individually and specifically reveal theelements concealed within words such as “diversity,” and redefine themby actively integrating myself into that deeper context. And, even while
having doubts, I can acquire methods for relaxing a defensive bearing or
gaze. I would like to conclude by suggesting that doing so could lead tome obtaining a more thrilling, nuanced picture of myself, Southeast Asia,and the world.
(Translated by Andrew Maerkle)

Essay 16152

Essay

戸惑うこと、
ほぐすこと
トランスナショナルなキュレーションについての私見
─

16

中村史子
［愛知県美術館学芸員］

ワゴン車の後部座席に乗ってぼんやりと窓の外を眺める。車道沿いに小さな雑貨店

01

と民家、
そして田畑が広がり、遠くを見やるとなだらかな山並みが続いている。その風て従軍のためにアジア諸国を訪れた。異国の景をなんとはなしにずっと眺めていると、ふと、祖父母が生前暮らしていた広島の田舎町を走っているかのような錯覚を覚える。
しかし、次の瞬間、植生が広島とは全く異なることに気づき、
ここがタイのチェンマイだと我にかえる。
リサーチで初めて訪れたチェ
ンマイは、私にとって新鮮さと共に懐かしさや親しさをたたえた場所だった。古都特有

20 世紀前半、多くの日本人芸術家が取材そし文化や風土から刺激を受けた彼らの作品は、必ずしも国威発揚や戦意高揚と直接的に結びつくものばかりではないが、
それでも、
アジア諸国
に対するオリエンタリズムや国家に囲い込まれた表現活動については慎重に検証しなくてはいけない。

のゆったりとした雰囲気が、私の住む京都とどこか似通っていたからかもしれない。
そして、
このチェンマイに対して湧き上がる親近感は、心地良いだけではなくどこか
居心地悪いものでもあった。ナイーヴすぎるかもしれないが、それは、第二次世界大
戦以前、東南アジアを訪問した多くの日本人芸術家の存在が脳裏をよぎったためだ。真意がどうであれ、彼らの多くが結果的に日本のアジア侵攻を黙認することになってしまった［01］。その歴史の蓄積の上に立ちながら私はこうしてチェンマイを訪れ、そこに親近感を覚えている。
この私の眼差しについて、一体どう考えれば良いのだろう。
ましてや「東南アジアとは何か」という大きなテーマのもと、その土地で展覧会を組み立てるとはいかなる行為なのだろう。日本の公立美術館で働く限りにおいて、施設内での展覧会実施は改めて問うまでもない職務である。
しかし、チェンマイはほとん
ど縁のなかった未知の土地だ。
しかも展覧会は、特定のものを称揚し見る者の方向付けを行う装置という側面を備えている。
これらの点から私は、チェンマイでの展
覧会実施という本プロジェクトを前に、キュレーターとして非常に高揚すると同時に何か戸惑いと緊張を覚えずにはいられなかった。
けれども、展覧会を組み立てる過程で私は興味深い人物を見出す。それは田中盛之助という日本人写真家だ。彼は100年近く前にチェンマイに移り住み、
チェンマイ

153

中村史子│戸惑うこと、
ほぐすこと─トランスナショナルなキュレーションについての私見初の写真館を開いた。そして田中はチェンマイの名士として多くの人々に親しまれる
一方で、第二次世界大戦中は日本軍に協力し、戦後は日本人収容所にも一時収監される。
トランスナショナルな移住者、日泰の交流の貢献者、写真という視覚装置の伝播者、軍への協力者、戦争の犠牲者。彼の実像は幾重にも乱反射し容易にひとつには収斂されない。彼を手掛かりとすることで、外部から一時的にやって来てチェンマイで展覧会をキュレーションする自分自身の有り様を見定められるような直感があり、最終的に彼が滝遊びをする写真から企画のコンセプト「Play in theFlow」を立ちあげ、出展作家を選ぶこととした。
そして偶然にも、展示会場候補地をチェンマイ市内で探す中で、田中ともゆかりのある建築物と出会う。それはピン川沿いに建つシープラカート・ホテルという築 100
年以上の古い木造建築で、田中のスタジオ跡地のすぐ近隣に位置する。さらに、シープラカート・ホテルのオーナーの親族は田中本人とも親しく、田中から着物をもらった話などオーナーは非常に友好的な隣人としての田中を語ってくれた。彼を軸に企画を構成していた私にとって、この建物を展覧会会場として貸してもらえたのは、またとない幸運であった。
しかも興味深いのは、この建物が時代の要請に合わせて、幼稚園、動物園、印刷工場、病院、ホテルと何度も改装されてきた点である。
様々な役割を担ってきた建物は、その時々で異なる姿を見せる田中に似つかわしく感じられた。そして、今現在の空間は度重なる変遷の一環であると考えるうちに、
タイのチェンマイとよそ者である私という硬直した構造が徐々にほぐされ、移ろいゆく場所と移動し続ける人々の相互干渉によって仮設的に生まれる場として展覧会を捉えられるようになった。

また、チェンマイで展覧会作りを進める過程において、キュレーションに関する私の思い込みも一定、ほぐされた。チェンマイは、「チェンマイ・ソーシャル・インスタレー
ション（CMSI）」というアーティスト主導のアート・プロジェクトで知られる街だ。そして、

CMSI から20 年近く経過した今でも、チェンマイの街を歩くとこの地域でCMSI が可能となった理由がよく分かる。チェンマイでは、
アートシーンにおいても、
また、市井においても密なコミュニティが築かれており、そのコミュニティが基盤となって様々な出来事に対して柔軟な対応がなされているのだ。例えば、出展アーティストの一人が私の予想を超えた大型の立体物を街中で制作し市内各所に設置したいと言い出した時のことだ。
こうした提案に対し日本の市街地であれば、大型立体物の制作場所の確保から、その輸送手段の準備、そして街中に設置する際の各申請手続きに至るまで、様々な事前準備が必要となる。けれども今回は、非常にありがたいことに、コミュニティ内でのやり取りを通じて制作場所から人手の確保まで難なく進み、変わり続けるアーティストの考え方に臨機応変に寄り添うことができた。建物のオー

Essay 16154

ナーやコーディネーター等、周りの人々に恵まれたのかもしれないが、諸々のリスクを含め周囲にそれほど負荷をかけることなく、
アーティストの目指す表現を実現できた
ように考えている。
そして、このやり方は日本で私が経験してきた展覧会作りとは、幾分異なっている。日本では全てを事前に予測、調整、準備し、問題を回避してゆく展覧会作りが基本だ。
とりわけ、様々な立場の者が出入りする複合施設や大型展覧会では、事前の調整の精度がしばしば展示の質につながる。
しかし、
チェンマイでの展覧会準備を通じて、この方法は必ずしも絶対ではないと気づかされた。実際、本展の展示作業中に突然、地域一帯が停電に見舞われることがあった。停電のように、綿密な事前準備が意味をなさない事態があるからこそ、前もってリスク回避の計画を綿密に立てるよりも、問題が目に見える段になってそれを協力しあって最善の形で着地させる方が有効なのだろう。また、
こうすると、度重なる事前調整によってアーティストの表
現意欲を抑え込まずに済むという利点もある。
こうして、展覧会作りに関する私の固定観念は軽やかに打ち崩された。

そして、
これらの経験を積む中で、いつしか最初に抱いていた戸惑いは相対化されていった。当初の戸惑いは、東南アジア、
日本、
タイといった枠組みを、
無意識のうちに実体があるかのように見なし、思考の前提としていたが故のものと言える。一方、展覧会は、具体的な会場に個別のアーティストと作品を一定期間、集合させて意味を生じさせるメディアであり、他のメディアと比較しても物理的、時間的制約が多い。
そのため、事象の全てを決して網羅仕切れない展覧会という場においては、国家等の総体的かつ観念的な枠組みよりも、断片的であっても個と個の交錯に注視することから考え始めないといけない。そして、
この個別具体的な事物の連関が翻って、良きにせよ悪しきにせよ、大きな枠組み全体をも編成し直してしまうのではないだろうか。シープラカート・ホテル周辺の町の様子や、そこで出会った人々の考えにわずかながらも触れるうちに、
私はこのような予感を強く抱くようになったのだ。
無論、
この予感は一時滞在者ゆえの楽観的すぎるものかもしれない。
また、
この予感
が、
日本と東南アジア、
そしてグローバル化するアートシーンの中でいかなる実を結ぶのか、現段階では未だ見極め切れない。ただ、多様性等の言葉で覆われたその内にあるものを個別具体的に再描写し、自らの存在をも内側へ積極的に組み込みながら再編すること。そして、戸惑いつつも同時に、強張った仕種や眼差しをほぐす術を身につけること。それが自分自身と東南アジア、そして世界に対するよりスリリ
ングでニュアンスに富んだ見取り図の獲得につながるのではないかと述べ、本文を締めくくりたい。

155

中村史子│戸惑うこと、
ほぐすこと─トランスナショナルなキュレーションについての私見

Essay17Curatorial Circuit: Getting Past the Confusion─Ayos Purwoaji［Writer/Independent Curator］

01
Ayos Purwoaji, “Atas Nama Kolektif,
Kami Bersukaria!,” Sarasvati 41 (April2017).

For the last two years, I have been participating in a curatorial
development program organized by the Japan Foundation Asia Center.
I feel lucky, since through this program I have met other young curatorsfrom Southeast Asia, seen other countries’ curatorial practices and art
developments, had opportunities to share my thoughts with senior
curators whose ideas I could previously only enjoy through their writings
or exhibition catalogues, and gotten the support to develop my own
curatorial project. It can be said that through the “Condition Report”
program, I have been able to view my own practice in a broader context.
For the last two years, I have also felt like I have been on a race
circuit, along a track and at a speed I have never experienced before. Allof a sudden, my passport was filled up with immigration stamps, myinbox full of emails that had to be replied as soon as possible, and I wasworking collaboratively with keen and brilliant fellow young curators, all
the while moving through superefficient Japanese-style corridors. Was
this what they called the internationalization of the art world?
Not long before this, I was just a young man who wanted to be a
curator in Surabaya, a pragmatic port city with a very minimum of art
infrastructure and activities. Some good artists have indeed emerged
from this city, but they eventually either quit because of the unconducive
artistic climate or are forced to move out from the city to save theircareer. Some surviving artists or collectives have to work odd jobs tomake a living. There is not the aesthetic debate or experimentation that
there is in Jakarta, Bandung, or Yogyakarta. Surabaya has never had aposition in the development of Indonesia’s art narrative.［01］Thus, it
is safe to say that the decision to become a curator in Surabaya was a
choice that should have been free from any burden or expectations.
Then when I suddenly entered this internationalization (orregionalization) whirlpool, what happened turned everything around—
my imagination began to burst with fear and expectation about the
future. I needed to take a deep breath and start thinking further ahead.
Speculative questions arose in my mind: when the program—with all
its speed and luxury—was done, what would I do next? Would I be able156

to maintain the rhythm of work and speed that had been established?
What kind of expectations would society have of me now, and how would
I fulfill them? How do I fit in with internationalization without losing
sight of the context of Surabaya?
I could not stop this list of questions and this kind of confusionfrom growing wildly in my head. But this kind of anxiety did not seemto hit me exclusively. Con Cabrera, a young curator from Manila, who
had also attended a curatorial workshop by the Japan Foundation, once
said something similar during a sharing session in the Jorge B. Vargas
Museum, and that the future seemed very uncertain for an independent
curator like herself. I assume this anxiety is a shared anxiety for almost
all young independent curators in most parts of Southeast Asia, where
government support for cultural work is limited.［02］Thus, young
curators in Southeast Asia feel that it is important to spend time joining
various training programs and residencies, or to continue their studies
to a higher level. These are some of the forms of personal investment
made in order to increase their acceptance in the world of art, which canhelp fulfill a vision of a steady life and career.
The profession of curator has evolved organically in Indonesia.
You do not have to come from an art background to become an art
curator. The museology tradition and art history studies are very weakin Indonesia. Art schools tend only to prepare their students to be artists
or art educators, and do not provide any curriculum to prepare students
to be art historians, art critics, curators, conservators, researchers,archivists, or art managers.［03］In 2013, Bandung Institute of Technology
launched a new art management and curatorial option for their master’s
degree in fine arts, and the Indonesian Art Institute Yogyakarta openeda Department of Art Administration in 2014. Apart from this, the lackof formal curatorial training has been compensated for by various
workshops organized by art councils, art collectives, discussion groups,
and cultural institutions like the Japan Foundation and Goethe Institut
and those from countries like Australia.［04］These informal methods ofknowledge transfer have become the main force driving the curatorial
landscape in Indonesia today.［05］If we take a quick glance at the past, the footprint of the JapanFoundation in Indonesia’s curatorial development can be traced backto the “New Art from Southeast Asia 1992” exhibition (1992) which
involved curator Jim Supangkat.［06］Since then, Jim Supangkat has been
involved in many curatorial projects with the Japan Foundation, such as“Asian Modernism: Diverse Development in Indonesia, the Philippines,
and Thailand” (1995), “Art in Southeast Asia 1997: Glimpses into the
Future” (1997), “The Mutation: Painstaking Realism in IndonesianContemporary Painting” (1997), and “Heri Dono: Dancing Demons andDrunken Deities” (2000). Through such exhibitions at an international
level, Jim Supangkat’s curatorial ability and reputation was shaped andhoned, and the breadth and scope of his practice can be considered as amodel for other curators.
In 1997, the Japan Foundation held a workshop on curatorship.

157

02
In the context of Indonesia, this subject
has been written about by Alia Swastika
in her article “Praktik Kuratorial diIndonesia: Individu Sebagai Institusi,”
in Turning Targets: 25 Tahun Cemeti,
eds Mella Jaarsma et al. (Yogyakarta:
Cemeti Art House, 2014), 97–122.
03
Ade Darmawan, “Haruskah Seniman
Hidup Bergantung Dari Penjualan
Karya Seni?” interview, Surat 23(February –April 2005).
04
See Sita Maghfira, “Menjadi Kurator:
Jalur Pendidikan yang Berlubang dan
Kecelakaan Takdir,” Skripta 4, Semester
II (2016), and Mitha Budhyarto,“Beberapa Catatan Tentang Forum
Kurator Muda,” in Turning Targets,
123–126.
05
Agung Hujatnikajennong, Kurasi dan
Kuasa (Jakarta: Marjin Kiri, 2015).
06
Patrick D. Flores, Past Peripheral:
Curation in Southeast Asia (Singapore:
NUS Museum, 2008), 36–48.

Ayos Purwoaji│Curatorial Circuit: Getting Past the Confusion

07
A fairly comprehensive list tracing
curatorial projects between the JapanFoundation Asia Center with
Southeast Asian curators canbe accessed via the website SEA
PROJECT: Contemporary Art fromSoutheast Asia 1980s to Now, lastmodified 2017, http://seaproject.asia/
en/recommended_readings/japanfoundation/.
08
Suzy Sulaiman, “Trouble in Paradise:
How the removal of Pangrok Sulap’s
Sabah Tanah Air-ku points to a
weakened state of artistic expression in
Malaysia (revised),” accessed December
2, 2017, https://suzysulaiman.
wordpress.com/2017/03/17/trouble-inparadise-how-the-removal-of-pangroksulaps-sabah-tanah-air-ku-points-to-aweakened-state-of-artistic-expressionin-malaysia/.
09
Furuichi Yasuko has headed thecuratorial programs organised by
the Japan Foundation Asia Center
since 2000, and previously worked ona number of important exhibitions
involving Southeast Asian art. See“Collaborators: Yasuko Furuichi,”
Independent Curators International,
accessed January 24, 2018, http://
curatorsintl.org/collaborators/yasukofuruichi.
10
Asep Topan, interview by Ayos
Purwoaji, June 10, 2017.

Essay 17

Participants included two lecturers from Bandung Institute ofTechnology, Rizki A. Zaelani and Asmujo Jono Irianto, who would go on
to practice as independent curators.
Several programs related to curatorial and cultural exchangeorganized by the Japan Foundation would go on to encourage
young Indonesian curators of the next generations, such as “Under
Construction: New Dimensions of Asian Art” (2000–03) involving Asmujo
Jono Irianto; “Have We Met?” (2004–05) involving Ade Darmawan;
JENESYS Programme (2007) involving Hafiz Rancajale and Gustaff H.
Iskandar; and “Media/Art Kitchen: Reality Distortion Field” (2013–14)
which involved Ade Darmawan and M. Sigit Budi. S.［07］Through such programs, the Japan Foundation and its Asia Center
have made a cultural investment in the form of establishing Indonesia’s
art world actors. Malaysian art organizer/curator Suzy Sulaiman, whotook part in "Media/Art Kitchen" in 2013–14, has called the kind of
training and opportunities offered “Furuichi’s baptism-of-fire styled
curatorial training,”［08］in which young curators are molded through aseries of short programs headed by program director Furuichi Yasuko.
This kind of cultural investment is a long-term commitment, so in myview, it is natural for the Japan Foundation Asia Center to have assigned
someone who has been involved in the Southeast Asian art trajectory,observing and mapping its dynamics, since the 1990s.［09］With all her
experience, Furuichi is considered capable of identifying potential(though not always with perfect precision), and in whom this investment
should be made. A curator’s curator.
The Japan Foundation Asia Center once again held a workshop
for young Southeast Asian curators in 2014. Called “Run & Learn,”this workshop was open to young curators from Indonesia, Malaysia,
Thailand, and the Philippines. From Indonesia, four young curators werechosen from three cities—Angga Wijaya and Asep Topan from Jakarta,
Sita Maghfira from Yogyakarta, and Ahmad Khairudin from Semarang.
They completed a one-year program in which they each created acuratorial project. Their projects mostly responded to social issues intheir respective cities.
Anxiety drove me to find me a way to meet these four curators. I
invited them to talk about what they are currently doing and what they
have gained from the “Run & Learn” workshop. Are they still pursuing
curatorial practices today?
Asep Topan is a calm and careful person. He seems like a strategic
thinker who always pays attention to his every move. Currently heteaches at Jakarta Institute of Arts, and is still actively working on various
exhibitions, including assisting the Jakarta Biennale. When we met,
Topan said that by joining the “Run & Learn” program, he expanded his
networks in Southeast Asia and Japan. Armed with this network that hetakes care to maintain, he hopes to expand his work and its scope. He
also told me that he got a recommendation from Kataoka Mami from
Mori Art Museum to join the one-year De Appel curatorial study programin Amsterdam.［10］158Angga Wijaya told a similar story. After “Run & Learn” ended, hetook advantage of the networks that he acquired from the program toundertake follow-up projects involving artists and institutions fromIndonesia and Japan, like exhibiting EkstrakurikuLab projects by Serrum
at Koganecho Area Management Center［11］and becoming a project
coordinator in Jakarta for artist Kitazawa Jun.［12］In contrast, Asep Topan and Angga Wijaya’s two colleagues, Sita
Maghfira and Ahmad Khairudin, said that after “Run & Learn,” they
did not have much opportunity to do follow-up work with the networks
they established either in Southeast Asia or Japan. Perhaps this is partly
because both of them are also preoccupied with other activities apartfrom curating. After the success of the exhibition “Jinayah Siyasah” andother shows in Yogyakarta, Sita Maghfira chose to become a researcher
with Lifepatch, a collective which develops interdisciplinary projects.［13］Meanwhile Ahmad Khairudin is currently taking a master’s degree
in anthropology at the University of Indonesia and now prefers to be
known as an anthropologist rather than a curator.［14］All of these four participants in “Run & Learn” noted that themethods and approaches in this program did not provide a strong
enough foundation for further curatorial practice. Asep Topan compared
it with the curatorial course held by De Appel which also ran overa year but was very intensive, since there was a clear syllabus andeach participant was given knowledge about multifarious theoreticalframeworks as well as reading materials related to curatorial studies.
Through an article in Skripta, a publication of contemporary art
ideas published in Yogyakarta, Sita Maghfira tried to evaluate in detailwhat she got out of “Run & Learn” and compared it with a number ofother curatorial workshop programs which she had attended, suchas workshops organized by ruangrupa or Cemeti Art House. Echoing
Topan, Maghfira noted that the lack of a clear syllabus and benchmarks
personally made her feel “a little confused.” For her, the existence of asyllabus within a workshop is important because with that syllabus she
can measure her own competency, rather than having to “guess whatkind of competency that was actually expected” by the organizer, as was
the case in “Run & Learn.”［15］
Next, Sita Maghfira provided notes on the open recruitment
mechanism of the workshop’s participants, where the Japan Foundation
Asia Center opened the opportunity even to participants who were
truly “green” in curatorial practices. This kind of mechanism has abigger risk than workshops with a closed recruitment system suchas the one at Cemeti Art House, as there is no guarantee that theworkshop participants will continue to practice as curators, since their
participation in the workshop might be on a “just try and see” basis.［16］Ahmad Khairudin and Angga Wijaya also noted that the “Run &Learn” program did not provide for alternative aesthetics in reviewing
curatorial practices in Southeast Asia. Considering the framework ofthis program includes young curators of Southeast Asia, there shouldhave been productive discussions about curatorial practice in the region,

159

11
Meita Meilita, “EkstrakurikuLab:
Pasar Ilmu a Koganecho Area
Management Center, Yokohama,Japan” accessed December 2, 2017,
http://meitameilita.blogspot.
co.id/2016/05/ekstrakurikulab-pasarilmu-koganecho.html.
12
Angga Wijaya, interview by Ayos
Purwoaji, June 9, 2017.
13
Sita Maghfira, interview by Ayos
Purwoaji, June 9, 2017. “Jinayah
Siyasah” was held at Lifepatch from
November 2014 to February 2015.
14
Ahmad Khairudin, interview by Ayos
Purwoaji, June 9, 2017.
15
Sita Maghfira, “Menjadi Kurator,” 64.
16
Ibid., 62.

Ayos Purwoaji│Curatorial Circuit: Getting Past the Confusion

17
Ibid., 61.
18This is well described in the article“Sindikat Campursari exhibitionsummary: To Make Sense of a
Cacophony Chaos” compiled by Hoo
Fan Chon, Le Thuan Uyen, Yoshizaki
Kazuhiko, and Vittavin Leelavanachai
in the exhibition catalogue, SindikatCampursari, eds Iida Shihoko and Ade
Darmawan (Jakarta: Japan Foundation
Asia Center, 2017).
19
Steven ten Thije, The Emancipated
Museum (Amsterdam: Mondriaan
Fund, 2017).

generating dialogues or experimentations that could be worked onin the future. But the one-year-long program did not provide further
opportunities, other than through some sharing sessions in Tokyo,［17］to explore and experience art practices in neighboring countries.
Some of the issues above seem to have be recognized by the JapanFoundation Asia Center, and workshop methods and approaches weresignificantly changed in the following year. In the “Condition Report”
workshop, the time span of the training was extended to two years, andincluded a collaborative project where participants from the different
Southeast Asian countries and Japan worked together, guided by senior
curators. In my observation, this change provided a broader experience,
dynamic and perspective of the artistic situation, development andcontext in neighboring countries. Even though it felt like the curators
remained at the stage of “trying to get to know each other,” still leavingsome confusion here and there,［18］the experience of this kind ofcollaborative work is a small step in the right direction, and hopefully it
can lead to alternative aesthetics for curatorial practices in the region.
The search for alternative aesthetics is an important area to develop,
considering that the workshops organized by the Japan Foundation
Asia Center are dedicated to the development of Southeast Asia’s young
curators. So that such workshops are not only reactive, responding
to the need for curators as supporting agents in the growth of theregion’s art industry, but also anticipatory, playing an important part inshaping the future of Southeast Asia’s curatorial landscape. Workshop
participants need to be invited to review the curatorial practices they
already know and understand, and challenged to find new, more
speculative configurations, so as not to get continuously stuck in thewhite cube system, and to bring new approaches into Southeast Asia’s
curatorial practices. This is in line with the push for the decolonizationof discourse in the discipline of museology (or curatorial studies)
which has developed in recent years. Steven ten Thije, in his book The
Emancipated Museum, illustrates how today it has become increasingly
important—in the European context—to break down the previously
patriarchal and authoritative walls of the museum, so that it can be more
open and democratic, and follow social shifts within an increasingly
dynamic society.［19］Without doing so, the museum would increasingly
lose its relevance within society. In the context of Southeast Asia, there
is a need for young curators to understand and discuss such tendencies,
and to find new configurations for positioning curatorial practices ina very diverse society, in anticipation of all kinds of possibilities in theuncertain future.
(Translated by Nadia Maya Ardiani)

Essay 17160

Gelanggang Kekuratoran:
Lepas dari Kebingungan

Essay
17

─

Ayos Purwoaji［Penulis/Kurator Independen］

Selama dua tahun belakangan, saya mengikuti sebuah program
pengembangan kuratorial yang diadakan oleh The Japan Foundation
Asia Center. Saya merasa beruntung, karena melalui program ini saya
dapat bertemu dengan kurator-kurator muda lain dari Asia Tenggara,
melihat praktik kuratorial dan perkembangan seni rupa di negara
lain, mendapatkan kesempatan untuk berbagai gagasan dengan
kurator senior yang sebelumnya pemikiran mereka hanya bisa saya
nikmati melalui tulisan dan katalog pameran yang mereka susun, serta
dukungan untuk mengembangkan proyek kuratorial sendiri. Dapat
dikatakan, melalui program “Condition Report” saya dapat melihat
praktik kekuratoran saya dalam konteks yang lebih luas.
Selama dua tahun belakangan ini juga, saya seperti masuk dalamsebuah sirkuit balap yang memiliki lintasan dan kecepatan yang belum
pernah saya alami sebelumnya. Tiba-tiba saja paspor saya penuh dengan
cap imigrasi, inbox saya menjadi penuh dengan tumpukan email yangharus segera dibalas, berkolaborasi dengan rekan-rekan kurator mudayang gesit dan cemerlang, serta bergerak dalam koridor gaya Jepang
yang superefisien. Apakah ini yang disebut internasionalisasi dalamdunia seni rupa?
Sebelumnya, saya hanyalah seorang anak muda yang ingin
menjadi kurator di Surabaya, sebuah kota pelabuhan yang pragmatis
dengan infrastruktur dan kegiatan seni rupa yang sangat minim.
Beberapa perupa yang bagus memang sempat muncul dari kota ini,
tapi kebanyakan mereka menyerah karena iklim seni yang tidak
kondusif atau akhirnya terpaksa pindah kota untuk menyelamatkan
karirnya sebagai seniman. Beberapa seniman atau kolektif yangbertahan harus bekerja serabutan untuk menyambung hidup mereka.
Tidak ada perdebatan dan eksperimentasi estetis sebagaimana yangterjadi di Jakarta, Bandung, atau Yogyakarta.［01］Hal semacam itu yangkemudian membuat Surabaya tidak pernah punya posisi dalam narasi
perkembangan seni rupa di Indonesia. Sehingga, boleh dikatakan
keputusan menjadi seorang kurator di Surabaya adalah sebuah pilihanyang seharusnya tanpa beban dan ekspektasi.

161

01
Ayos Purwoaji, “Atas Nama Kolektif,
Kami Bersukaria!,” Sarasvati 41 (April2017).

Ayos Purwoaji│Gelanggang Kekuratoran: Lepas dari Kebingungan

02
Dalam konteks Indonesia, Alia
Swastika menuliskannya dalam“Praktik Kuratorial di Indonesia:
Individu Sebagai Institusi,” padaTurning Targets: 25 Tahun Cemeti,
eds Mella Jaarsma et al. (Yogyakarta:
Cemeti Art House, 2014), 97–122.
03
Ade Darmawan, “Haruskah Seniman
Hidup Bergantung Dari Penjualan
Karya Seni?” wawancara, Surat 23(Februari – April 2005).
04
Lihat Sita Maghfira, “Menjadi Kurator:
Jalur Pendidikan yang Berlubang dan
Kecelakaan Takdir,” Skripta 4, II (2016),
dan Mitha Budhyarto, “Beberapa
Catatan Tentang Forum Kurator
Muda,” pada Turning Targets, 123–126.
05
Agung Hujatnikajennong, Kurasi dan
Kuasa (Jakarta: Marjin Kiri, 2015).
06
Patrick D. Flores, Past Peripheral:
Curation in Southeast Asia (Singapore:
NUS Museum, 2008), 36–48.

Essay 17

Jadi ketika tiba-tiba saya masuk dalam pusaran internasionalisasi(atau regionalisasi) ini, yang terjadi justru sebaliknya, ketakutan
imajinatif dan ekspektasi akan masa depan mulai menyeruak. Saya perlu
menyiapkan nafas panjang dan mulai berpikir lebih jauh. Di benak saya
mulai timbul pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang bersifat spekulatif: ketika
program—dengan segala kecepatan dan kemewahan—ini berakhir,
apa yang akan saya lakukan selanjutnya? Dapatkah saya menjaga ritme
kerja dan kecepatan yang sudah dibangun? Ekspektasi semacam apa
yang perlu saya penuhi kelak di masyarakat? Bagaimana menyelaraskan
diri dengan internasionalisasi tanpa harus kehilangan konteks dengan
Surabaya?
Tanpa bisa saya hentikan, daftar pertanyaan dan kebingungansemacam itu terus saja tumbuh liar dalam kepala. Namun kegelisahanyang sama rupanya tidak hanya saya rasakan sendiri. Con Cabrera,seorang kurator muda dari Manila yang sempat mengikuti workshop
kuratorial dari Japan Foundation, sempat mengatakan hal yangsama dalam sebuah sesi berbagi di Jorge B. Vargas Museum, bahwa
rasanya hampir tidak ada masa depan yang pasti bagi seorang kurator
independen seperti dirinya. Saya rasa kecemasan itu adalah kecemasan
bersama bagi hampir semua kurator muda independen di Asia
Tenggara, di mana dukungan pemerintah tidak cukup signifikan untuk
kerja-kerja kebudayaan.［02］Sehingga para kurator muda di Asia Tenggara
merasa perlu meluangkan waktu untuk mengikuti berbagai pelatihan,
residensi, atau melanjutkan pendidikan ke jenjang yang lebih tinggi.
Semua itu adalah bentuk-bentuk investasi personal demi meningkatkan
penerimaan di dunia seni yang berujung pada bayangan atas karir dan
hidup yang lebih mapan.
Dapat dikatakan profesi kurator tumbuh secara organik diIndonesia. Seseorang dengan latar belakang pendidikan apa saja dapat
menjadi kurator seni rupa. Kondisi ini terjadi antara lain karena tradisi
museologi dan kajian sejarah seni di Indonesia sangat lemah. Berbagai
sekolah tinggi seni yang ada dianggap hanya berusaha mencetakmahasiswa mereka untuk menjadi seniman atau guru seni, dan tidak
menyiapkan kurikulum untuk mencetak sejarawan seni, kritikus seni,
kurator, konservator, peneliti, pengarsip, dan manajer seni.［03］Pada
tahun 2013, Institut Teknologi Bandung membuka jurusan Studi
Kuratorial untuk program master di Jurusan Seni Rupa. Sedangkan
Institut Seni Indonesia Yogyakarta membuka jurusan Tata Kelola Seni
sejak tahun 2014. Namun selebihnya, kurangnya pelatihan formal
untuk calon kurator ditambal dengan berbagai lokakarya yang diadakan
oleh dewan kesenian, kolektif seni, kelompok diskusi, hingga institusi
kebudayaan seperti The Japan Foundation dan Goethe Institut hingga
negara seperti Australia.［04］Berbagai metode alih pengetahuan yangbersifat informal ini merupakan pendorong utama yang mewarnai
lanskap kekuratoran di Indonesia hingga hari ini.［05］Sedikit menengok ke belakang, peran The Japan Foundation dalampengembangan kekuratoran di Indonesia sendiri dapat dijejak sejak
pameran “New Art from Southeast Asia” (1992) yang melibatkan kurator

162

Jim Supangkat.［06］Sejak saat itu, Jim Supangkat banyak terlibat dalamberbagai proyek kuratorial bersama The Japan Foundation, antara lain
“Asian Modernism: Diverse Development in Indonesia, the Philippines,
and Thailand” (1995); “Art in Southeast Asia 1997: Glimpses into the
Future” (1997); “The Mutation: Painstaking Realism in IndonesianContemporary Painting” (1997); dan “Heri Dono: Dancing Demonsand Drunken Deities” (2000). Melalui berbagai kesempatan pamerandi tingkat internasional inilah kemampuan serta reputasi kekuratoran
Jim Supangkat dibentuk dan diasah, selain itu meluasnya jangkauan
dan wilayah praktik Jim Supangkat bisa dikatakan menjadi model bagi
kurator-kurator lain setelahnya.
Pada tahun 1997, The Japan Foundation menyelenggarakan
lokakarya kekuratoran yang diikuti oleh dua pengajar Institut Teknologi
Bandung, Rizki A. Zaelani dan Asmujo Jono Irianto, yang kelak juga
berpraktik sebagai kurator independen.
Beberapa program terkait dengan praktik kekuratoran dan
pertukaran budaya yang diselenggarakan The Japan Foundation terus
berlanjut mendorong munculnya kurator-kurator baru, seperti “Under
Construction: New Dimensions of Asian Art” (2000–03) yang melibatkan
Asmujo Jono Irianto; “Have We Met?” (2004–05) yang melibatkan Ade
Darmawan; Jenesys Program (2007) yang melibatkan Hafiz Rancajale
dan Gustaff H. Iskandar; “Media/Art Kitchen: Reality Distortion Field”(2013–14) yang melibatkan Ade Darmawan dan M. Sigit Budi. S.［07］Melalui program-program semacam itu The Japan Foundation
dan The Japan Foundation Asia Center melakukan investasi kulturaldalam bentuk memunculkan aktor-aktor dalam dunia seni di Indonesia.
Kurator Malaysia, Suzy Sulaiman, yang menjadi bagian dalam program“Media/Art Kitchen” (2013–14), sempat menyebut pelatihan dan
kesempatan semacam ini sebagai “Furuichi’s baptism-of-fire styled
curatorial training,”［08］di mana kurator-kurator muda dibentuk melaluisebuah rangkaian program yang ketat di bawah kendali seorang Furuichi
Yasuko. Mengingat investasi kultural adalah sebuah komitmen jangka
panjang, maka menurut saya hal tersebut adalah sesuatu yang wajar,
sehingga The Japan Foundation perlu melibatkan seseorang yangterlibat dalam lintasan seni rupa Asia Tenggara, termasuk mengamati
dan memetakan dinamika di dalamnya, sejak 1990an.［09］Dengan segala
pengalaman tersebut, Furuichi dianggap mampu memprediksi potensi(meski tak selalu jitu) kepada siapa investasi ini mesti diberikan. A
curator's curator.
The Japan Foundation Asia Center membuat lokakarya lainnya
untuk kurator muda dari Asia Tenggara pada tahun 2014 yang diberi
nama “Run & Learn.” Lokakarya ini menjaring sekelompok kurator
muda dari Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand dan Filipina. Dari Indonesia,
terpilih empat kurator muda dari tiga kota yaitu Angga Wijaya dan Asep
Topan dari Jakarta, Sita Maghfira dari Yogyakarta dan Ahmad Khairudin
dari Semarang. Mereka menyelesaikan rangkaian program selama
setahun dengan membuat sebuah proyek kuratorial di mana sebagianbesar merespon isu sosial dari masing-masing kota.

163

07
Sebuah daftar yang cukup
komprehensif mengenai proyek
kekuratoran antara The JapanFoundation Asia Center dengan
kurator-kurator Asia Tenggara dapat
dilihat pada website SEA PROJECT:
Contemporary Art from Southeast Asia
1980s to Now, terakhir diubah padatahun 2017, http://seaproject.asia/
en/recommended_readings/japanfoundation/.
08
Suzy Sulaiman, “Trouble in Paradise:
How the removal of Pangrok Sulap’s
Sabah Tanah Air-ku points to a
weakened state of artistic expressionin Malaysia (revised),” diakses pada 2
Desember 2017, https://suzysulaiman.
wordpress.com/2017/03/17/trouble-inparadise-how-the-removal-of-pangroksulaps-sabah-tanah-air-ku-points-to-aweakened-state-of-artistic-expressionin-malaysia/.
09
Furuichi Yasuko telah mengepalaiberbagai program kuratorial yangdiselenggarakan oleh The JapanFoundation Asia Center sejak tahun
2000, dan sebelumnya telah terlibat
dalam beberapa pameran penting
yang memamerkan seni rupa dari Asia
Tenggara. Dapat dilihat “Collaborators:
Yasuko Furuichi,” Independent
Curators International, diakses pada
24 January 2018, http://curatorsintl.
org/collaborators/yasuko-furuichi.

Ayos Purwoaji│Gelanggang Kekuratoran: Lepas dari Kebingungan

10
Asep Topan, wawancara oleh Ayos
Purwoaji, 10 Juni 2017.
11
Meita Meilita, “EkstrakurikuLab: Pasar
Ilmu a Koganecho Area Management
Center, Yokohama, Japan,” diaksespada 2 Desember 2017, http://meitameilita.blogspot.co.id/2016/05/
ekstrakurikulab-pasar-ilmukoganecho.html.
12
Angga Wijaya, wawancara oleh Ayos
Purwoaji, 9 Juni 2017.
13
Sita Maghfira, wawancara oleh Ayos
Purwoaji, 9 Juni, 2017. Proyek “Jinayah
Siyasah” diadakan di Lifepatch dariNovember 2014 hingga Februari 2015.
14
Ahmad Khairudin, wawancara oleh
Ayos Purwoaji, 9 Juni 2017.

Essay 17

Kecemasan saya mempertemukan saya dengan keempat kurator
muda ini. Saya mengajak mereka berbincang mengenai apa yang sedang
mereka lakukan dan membahas apa yang telah mereka dapatkan dari
lokakarya “Run & Learn.” Apakah hari ini mereka masih melakukan
praktik kekuratoran?
Asep Topan adalah seseorang yang tenang dan berhati-hati. Dia
memiliki tipe sebagai seorang pemikir yang selalu memperhatikan
langkahnya dengan strategis. Saat ini ia mengajar di almamaternya,
Institut Kesenian Jakarta, dan masih aktif membuat berbagai pameran,termasuk membantu penyelenggaraan Jakarta Biennale. Saat kami
bertemu, Asep Topan mengatakan bahwa dengan mengikuti “Run &Learn,” ia dapat meluaskan jejaring di wilayah Asia Tenggara dan Jepang.
Berbekal jejaring yang terus dijaganya itu, ia berharap bisa meluaskan
kerja dan jangkauannya. Ia pun mendapatkan rekomendasi dari Kataoka
Mami dari Mori Art Museum untuk melanjutkan program studi setahun
mengenai kuratorial di De Appel, Amsterdam.［10］Hal yang sama juga dilakukan oleh Angga Wijaya. Setelah program“Run & Learn” berakhir, Ia masih dapat memanfaatkan jejaring yangia dapatkan dari program tersebut untuk melakukan proyek-proyek
lanjutan yang melibatkan seniman dan institusi dari dua negara,
Jepang dan Indonesia, seperti memamerkan proyek EkstrakurikuLabmilik Serrum di Koganecho Area Management Center［11］atau menjadi
koordinator proyek bagi seniman Kitazawa Jun di Jakarta.［12］Berbeda dengan dua koleganya, Sita Maghfira dan Ahmad
Khairudin mengaku bahwa setelah “Run & Learn” mereka mengaku
tidak cukup punya banyak kesempatan untuk melakukan kerja-kerja
lanjutan dengan jejaring yang sudah dibangun. Baik itu dengan jejaring
mereka yang ada di Asia Tenggara maupun Jepang. Barangkali salahsatu penyebabnya karena saat ini keduanya juga disibukkan dengan
kegiatan-kegiatan lain di luar kerja kuratorial. Setelah sukses menggelar
pameran “Jinayah Siyasah” dan beberapa pameran lain di Yogyakarta,
Sita Maghfira memilih aktif sebagai peneliti di Lifepatch, sebuah
kolektif yang mengembangkan proyek-proyek seni lintas disiplin.［13］Sementara Ahmad Khairudin, yang saat ini sedang mengambil masterdalam jurusan Antropologi di Universitas Indonesia, saat ini lebih suka
dikenal sebagai antropolog daripada sebagai kurator.［14］Keempat alumni tersebut memberikan catatan bahwa metodedan pendekatan yang digunakan dalam program “Run & Learn” tidak
cukup memberikan fondasi yang kuat terhadap praktik kekuratoran
mereka di kemudian hari. Asep Topan membandingkan dengan kursus
kekuratoran De Appel yang juga berlangsung selama setahun namun
terbilang sangat intensif, karena setiap peserta diberi pengetahuan atas
berbagai kerangka teoretik dan dukungan akan bacaan-bacaan yangmenunjang studi kekuratoran.
Melalui artikel di Skripta, sebuah publikasi pemikiran seni
kontemporer yang terbit di Yogyakata, Sita Maghfira berusaha
mengevaluasi dengan detail apa yang ia dapatkan dari program “Run &Learn” dan memperbandingkannya dengan beberapa program lokakarya

164kuratorial lain yang sempat ia ikuti—seperti lokakarya yang diorganisiroleh ruangrupa atau Rumah Seni Cemeti. Hampir senada dengan apa
yang dikemukakan Asep Topan, Sita Maghfira mencatat tanpa adanya
silabus dan tolok ukur yang jelas, secara personal ia merasa “sedikit
kebingungan.” Baginya keberadaan silabus dalam sebuah pelatihan
menjadi penting sebab dengan silabus tersebut ia dapat mengukur
kompetensi dirinya sendiri dan tak perlu “meraba-raba kompetensi apa
yang sebenarnya diharapkan” oleh The Japan Foundation Asia Centersebagai penyelenggara.［15］Berikutnya Sita Maghfira memberikan catatan atas mekanisme
perekrutan peserta lokakarya yang terbuka, di mana The JapanFoundation Asia Center membuka kesempatan lebar-lebar bahkan
kepada peserta yang “benar-benar hijau” dalam praktik kuratorial.
Mekanisme semacam itu memiliki resiko yang lebih besar daripada
lokakarya dengan sistem perekrutan tertutup sebagaimana yangdilakukan oleh lokakarya yang diadakan Rumah Seni Cemeti. Terutama
bahwa tidak ada jaminan dari peserta yang telah mengikuti pelatihan
akan terus berpraktik sebagai kurator, sebab bisa saja partisipasi mereka
dalam lokakarya tersebut hanya didasarkan pada “rasa ingin tahu dancoba-coba” belaka.［16］Pendapat lainnya disampaikan oleh Ahmad Khairudin dan Angga
Wijaya yang mencatat bahwa program “Run & Learn” belum mampu
memberikan “tawaran estetika alternatif” dalam melihat ulang praktik
kekuratoran di Asia Tenggara. Ekspektasi semacam itu adalah hal yangwajar mengingat kerangka dari program ini mencakup kurator-kurator
muda dari Asia Tenggara. Melalui pertemuan tersebut diharapkan terjadi
diskusi yang produktif dalam praktik kekuratoran di kawasan yang
dapat memunculkan dialog atau eksperimentasi yang dapat dikerjakan
di masa depan. Namun program yang hanya belangsung setahuntersebut tidak memberikan kesempatan lebih jauh, selain lewat sesi-sesiberbagi di Tokyo,［17］untuk berusaha mendalami dan mengalami praktik
berkesenian di negara-negara tetangga.
Beberapa catatan di atas tampaknya juga disadari oleh The JapanFoundation Asia Center, sehingga metode dan pendekatan lokakarya
berubah cukup signifikan pada tahun berikutnya. Dalam lokakarya“Condition Report” waktu pelatihan diperpanjang menjadi dua tahun
dengan menyisipkan sebuah proyek kolaboratif yang diikuti oleh
beberapa peserta dari negara-negara tetangga dan dibimbing oleh
kurator-kurator senior. Dalam pengamatan saya, perubahan ini mampu
memberikan pengalaman, dinamika, dan sudut pandang yang lebih
luas mengenai situasi, perkembangan serta konteks seni rupa di negaranegara tetangga di Asia Tenggara. Pengalaman bekerja kolaboratif
semacam ini, walaupun dalam amatan saya masih dalam tahap saling
meraba dan masih menyisakan kebingungan di sana-sini,［18］namun
sedikit demi sedikit berjalan menuju arah yang baik dan semoga dapat
menimbulkan “tawaran estetika alternatif” bagi praktik kekuratoran diwilayah ini.
Mencari “tawaran estetika alternatif” semacam ini menjadi sesuatu

165

15“Sita Maghfira, Menjadi Kurator,” 64.
16
Ibid., 62.
17
Ibid., 61.
18
Hal ini juga mengemuka dalamartikel “Sindikat Campursari
exhibition summary: To Make Senseof a Cacophony Chaos” yang disusun
oleh Hoo Fan Chon, Le Thuan Uyen,
Yoshizaki Kazuhiko, dan Vittavin
Leelavanachai dalam katalog pameran,Sindikat Campursari, eds Iida Shihoko
and Ade Darmawan (Jakarta: JapanFoundation Asia Center, 2017).

Ayos Purwoaji│Gelanggang Kekuratoran: Lepas dari Kebingungan

19
Steven ten Thije, The Emancipated
Museum (Amsterdam: Mondriaan
Fund, 2017).

yang perlu diusahakan, mengingat lokakarya yang diadakan oleh The
Japan Foundation Asia Center ditujukan bagi pengembangan kuratorkurator muda di Asia Tenggara. Sehingga workshop ini terlaksana tidak
hanya bersifat reaktif, hanya merespon kebutuhan kurator sebagaiagen pelengkap dalam pertumbuhan industri seni rupa di kawasan,
melainkan juga bersifat antisipatoris sehingga dapat menjadi bagianyang penting dalam membentuk masa depan lanskap kuratorial diAsia Tenggara. Untuk itu para peserta lokakarya perlu diajak untuk
melihat kembali praktik kuratorial yang selama ini mereka pahami dan
ditantang untuk mencari konfigurasi-konfigurasi baru yang bersifat
spekulatif. Sehingga tidak terjebak terus-menerus dalam sistem whitecube dan bisa memunculkan kebaruan dalam praktik kuratorial di Asia
Tenggara. Hal ini sejalan dengan desakan wacana dekolonisasi dalam
disiplin museologi (atau studi kuratorial) yang berkembang beberapa
tahun terakhir. Steven ten Thije, dalam bukunya The Emancipated
Museum, mengambarkan bagaimana hari ini—dalam konteks Eropa—
menjadi semakin penting untuk meruntuhkan tembok museum yangsebelumnya bersifat patriarkal dan autoritatif, agar menjadi lebih
terbuka dan demokratis sehingga mampu mengikuti pergeseranpergeseran sosial di masyarakat yang semakin dinamis.［19］Tanpa
melakukan hal tersebut, museum akan semakin kehilangan relevansinya
di tengah masyarakat. Dalam konteks Asia Tenggara, ada desakan bagi
para kurator muda untuk memahami dan mendiskusikan gejala-gejala
semacam ini, termasuk mencari konfigurasi-konfigurasi baru untuk
menempatkan praktik kuratorial di tengah masyarakat yang sangat
majemuk, sebagai antisipasi terhadap berbagai kemungkinan masa
depan yang penuh ketidakpastian.

Essay 17

166

The Earth From The Air:
Curating as Diplomatic Work

Essay
18

─

Alice Sarmiento［Writer/Independent Curator］

The research for “Condition Report” meant spending a substantial
amount of time in transit—a sizeable portion of which was spent in the
air. For me, a writer with no experience curating, it fulfilled my desire
to see more of the world and the fantasy that my ideas about what I
had seen on my travels could find an audience. This was the naïve
assumption that came with beginning my curatorial practice in an art
scene that was already—I had, again, naïvely assumed—global in scope.
From where I stood and from what I observed, it seemed artists werealways in transit, with the world as their studio. Indeed many artists
from Manila confirmed this, by always leaving for or returning fromsome residency, fellowship, or exhibition abroad. This observation,naïve as it was, became more evident from my experience with thisprogram—an experience that confirmed the good in having artists andcurators move around the world (or in our case, around the region).
Alongside however, it also raised persistent questions about when realcultural exchange happens and how it could be nurtured. In an art worldthat was beginning to prioritize conversation, it raised questions about
curatorship as an act of diplomacy.
In 2009, curator Nicolas Bourriaud coined the term “altermodern”:
Serving not only as an alternative to “postmodern,” Bourriaud meant
to problematize the identity politics that had become central to theglobal art world—a world of biennials, art fairs, and jetsetting curatorsand gallerists. These were the same conditions that made it necessary
for artists to turn nomadic, questioning whether and how the practicecame to require travel. Speaking from the views of certain artists thata “globalised state of culture” can already be taken as a matter of fact,
Bourriaud stated in an interview with Bartholomew Ryan that:01
Nicolas Bourriaud, “Altermodern: aConversation with Nicolas Bourriaud,”
interview by Bartholomew Ryan, Art inAmerica, March 17, 2009, http://www.
artinamericamagazine.com/newsfeatures/interviews/altermodern-aconversation-with-nicolas-bourriaud/.

the fact that you are born here or there does not necessarily
determine your frame of mind anymore. I am more interested inartists who produce singular itineraries within the different streamsof knowledge, than in those who insist on “representing” theircultures.［01］167

Alice Sarmiento│The Earth From The Air: Curating as Diplomatic Work

02
Nicholas Lambrianou, “Altermodern:
Movement or Marketing?” Mute,
April 23, 2009, http://www.metamute.
org/editorial/articles/altermodernmovement-or-marketing.

Bourriaud’s insistence on a new terminology was not without its critics.
In a review of the eponymous blockbuster show at the Tate Britain, thecritic Nicholas Lambrianou questions how a new term could actually
free artists—and by extension, art and curators—from the conditionsof the postmodern, which are, it goes without saying, the conditionsof neoliberal capitalism.［02］Could all this travel, this rootlessness, thisbeing suspended in air, be a productive starting point for an emerging
curator? Or, like Bourriaud’s altermodern, does it only serve to make theprofession more marketable?
These conditions nagged at me through the first meeting in Tokyo.
To even call it a meeting does not feel entirely accurate—without
adequate time for introductions at our hotel, we were whisked awayalmost immediately to another space, where we would be introducing
our projects. That was one of many opportunities to get to know eachother, but even then it felt too brief, too rushed, like flying over a country
and being asked to make sense of the life on the ground. Even in thebrief intervals wherein we could set our feet down and rest, I still could
not speak of being grounded—of being able to set down roots. My
suitcase remained packed, meals were typically taken in transit, there
were flights, trains, or buses to board in as little as a few hours.
To spend that much time in the air, I can imagine how one candevelop an uneasy relationship with the ground, and maybe withgravity itself. An idea takes shape, lifts off, takes flight, and the promise
thereafter is that you are never the same. I came to think that thiswas “normal” for an art world that spoke more and more of global
conditions, where art was often tasked with speaking of universal truths.
This also became the means by which to tease out the good in “goodart.” “Good art” reached across divides carrying this light, transcendent,
and typically vague “universal.”
In our case, as curators attempting to build exhibitions around thequestion of “What is Southeast Asia?” good art meant going beyond
the national, beyond the regional, even. It was like describing air, in its
capacity for abstraction and transcendence. But to do so went against
what I thought to be the very objectives of travel—to immerse, tounderstand, and to engage.
A productive challenge to this belief came about through an
exhibition we co-curated in Malaysia. As part of the apprenticeshipoffered through “Condition Report,” all the curators would have theopportunity to work together on larger exhibitions in Southeast Asia’s
major cities. Working under Yap Sau Bin and Hattori Hiroyuki, four of us
were there to open “ESCAPE from the SEA” at two venues, the National
Art Gallery and Art Printing Works (APW), in Kuala Lumpur. There
were stark differences between Japan and Malaysia, where the lack ofinfrastructure alone substantially increased our travel time, making the
ground all the more real. Going from Kuala Lumpur to Ipoh to Penang
meant spending entire days on the road and getting to know my cocurators better; but it also granted a familiarity with the landscape that
had not been as available during our brisk tour through Japan.

Essay 18

168

Seeing the Malaysian art scene meant taking the time to see things,
waiting, planting roots. “Finally, we could have conversations andengage!” or so I thought. On the night of the exhibition opening, as we,
artists and curators, sat down to celebrate, complaints about the largescale print, Sabah Tanah Air-ku, installed by Sabah-based collective
Pangrok Sulap at APW, were received by the organizers. For us, thetransient international arts professionals, the work had been selected for
how it alluded to the possibility of another kind of world—the utopian
premise and promise often invoked by exhibitions. Like most of theworks in the show, Sabah Tanah Air-ku was the result of negotiations
and conversations within a collective, but it also expressed what could
be achieved when communities prioritized creative pursuits and used
art—even critical art—as a means of healing.
That this could be questioned to the point of censorship seemedabsurd and unlikely. The fact that its censorship pushed through is,
to my naïve and idealistic emerging curator brain, still a shock. That“something was misinterpreted” was a common refrain, but this isalso an excuse we should not allow ourselves to get used to. How could
they misinterpret when the very exercise, to my mind, was one ofcommunication? We had a story to tell and conversations to initiate.
What was going to happen to that narrative once a plot point had beenstricken out?
Like diplomacy, to communicate as a curator should not be
anticipated as a simple back and forth. I want to say that this isbecause you never know who you will be up against, but even that is
too simplistic. In an interview with Carolee Thea, Harald Szeemann—arguably the pioneer of international and independent curatorial
practice—proclaimed globalization as “the great enemy of art.” Putting
the role of the transient curator in perspective, Szeemann goes on to
explain how:03
Carolee Thea, Foci: Interviews withTen International Curators (New York:
Apex Art Curatorial Program, 2001),
18–19, quoted in David Levi Strauss,“The Bias of the World,” Brooklyn Rail,
December 8, 2006, http://brooklynrail.
org/2006/12/art/the-bias-of-the-world.

Globalization is perfect if it brings more justice and equality to
the world... but it doesn’t. Artists dream of using computers ordigital means to have contact and to bring continents closer. But
once you have the information, it’s up to you what to do with it.
Globalization without roots is meaningless in art.［03］I bring up Szeemann in light of how the global had been a crucial
element in the narrative of “ESCAPE from the SEA,” wherein bodies ofwater stood in for the very borders being rendered problematic within
Bourriaud’s altermodern. Should censorship (an unfortunate event thattook center stage, arguably getting cast as an artifact on display in the
exhibition) be seen as a failure of the diplomatic relations promised, orat the very least alluded to, within curation? Is engagement, on the other
hand, the point where curatorial diplomacy triumphs?
How curious that we should see the importance of being able todistinguish the earth from the air in an exhibition about the sea/SEA .

169

Alice Sarmiento│The Earth From The Air: Curating as Diplomatic Work

Essay19

Giving Shape to Painful Things─

Goh Sze Ying
［Assistant Curator, National Gallery Singapore］

01
muf, This is what we do: a muf manual(London: Ellipsis, 2001), 25.
02
I worked as a publication assistant on
muf’s second monograph, more thanone (fragile) thing at a time. It was ataround the same time I submitted
my exhibition proposal to JapanFoundation Asia Center’s call for
applications to the sophomore editionof its curators’ development workshop.
03
muf architecture / art, interview
by Florian Heilmeyer, Crystal Talk,
accessed November 25, 2017, http://
www.baunetz.de/talk/crystal/index.php?lang=en&cat=Interview&nr=27.
04
Howard Becker, Art Worlds (London:
University of California Press, 1982), 5.
05
Stefan Heidenreich, “Against
Curating,” &&&, June 23, 2017, http://
tripleampersand.org/against-curating/.

I
Paradoxically, in order to make the thing, the collaboration has to beabout the making of the relationship rather than the object.
—muf［01］
I begin this essay with a line from a monograph published by muf, an
all-women art and architecture studio I interned at in late 2015.［02］Oneendearing ethos of muf’s practice is in how they think of architecture:
looking at the building beyond its being just a single, autonomous
object; as having edges that extend beyond its built boundary, each acomplex network of relationships.［03］So much of their ethos can beapplied to how we think of art, and by extension—as they are containers
through which we encounter and consume art today—how we think of
exhibitions. Artworks and exhibitions, as objects and containers that
extend beyond their material and temporal boundaries; each a condition
as well as consequence of relationships. We could also refer to the central
premise in Howard Becker’s Art Worlds, which holds that art is social
in character: for any work of art to appear as it finally does, it entails
a number of people setting out to undertake and complete a series oftasks.［04］Art is described as an agglomeration of activities, a product ofcooperation not only of artists but of all other constituents involved in
the production, distribution, and interpretation of the works of art. The
sociological worlding of the art landscape is as relational as it is aesthetic.
Whilst curating and exhibition making are often seen as acts ofcollaboration, calling something a collaboration these days has become
so de rigueur that it has become one of those words without consequence,an end that legitimizes participation without any consideration of
the necessary labor entailed. Today, the cult of curating has elevatedcurators to a rank of glorified gatekeepers between the art world and the
public. Art world folk who make decisions on who and what to show inorder to say something “about something,”［05］a gesture which for somehas become sufficiently exasperating to inspire a fair amount backlash

170

against the ascendancy of curating. This proverbial gauntlet to “overcome
the curating” is by no means a concession to discredit curatorial labor,rather an opportunity to clarify what it really means to “involve theviewer [and] democratize exhibition making.”［06］
I return to the line from muf, this time in the form of a query: What
are the “thing,” the “collaboration,” and “relationships” we are making?
Throughout this essay, in an attempt to lend more specificity tothese definitions, I draw references from the recent “Condition Report”
exhibition organized in Kuala Lumpur.［07］So, suppose “the thing” weare making is an exhibition and suppose curating is a “collaborative”
act —a way of making and working together—which emphasizes in
its labor a social and relational dimension: what happens when there
arrives a moment which threatens or ruptures this sociorelational bind?
How do we continue to be resolute in making and working together? The
short answer is: We cannot. Difficult moments take place within specificchronological containers. However, if we consider curating beyond
the timeframe of exhibitions, how might this temporal considerationinfluence what and how we do in terms of labor, i.e., the work we mustdo, and praxis, i.e., an application of what we do as a process?
In other words, how do we continue the making of relationships
beyond the thing?
Nine months on, the spectre of censorship of Pangrok Sulap’s Sabah
Tanah Air-ku from the “ESCAPE from the SEA” exhibition has yet to be
exorcized.［08］The ironic solace in censorship is this: it is never a lonely
statistic. This year alone, there have been a number of high profile
cases in circulation, enough to satiate the attention economy of the art
world: the Whitney Biennale row over Dana Schutz's Open Casket,［09］thethree works axed from the Art and China after 1989: Theater of the Worldshow at the Guggenheim Museum,［10］and more locally and recently,
the withdrawal of seven artists from the Kuala Lumpur Biennale.［11］In
the words of curator-writer, David Xu Borgonjon, the more pertinent
question in the aftermath of censorship and protest is perhaps notwhether the work should stay or go, but how should it go?［12］II
Censorship is like the house of the undertaker in which one never speaksof death.
—Michael Holquist［13］When an artwork is taken down before an exhibition is over, the violenceof its expulsion is visceral. Censorship arrives like a sudden death, and
it is rarely a fair departure. Loss is inscribed twice in a single instance:
first, a blackout of a public expression; second, a private demise of
relationships—those built around and upon the meanings and laborof the censored object. However, the first loss provides an insight to adifferent sort of gain. Censorship is a paradox.［14］The act of censoring
doubles as a context that explicitly foregrounds a conflict around an

171

06
Ibid.
07
For my participation in “Condition
Report,” I was involved in the curatorial
team of “ESCAPE from the SEA” before
curating my own show, “Between
States.”08
A timeline of the removal of theartwork is documented by cocurators Alice Sarmiento and Goh Sze
Ying here: “Timeline of removal of
Pangkrok Sulap’s ‘Sabah Tanah Air-Ku’
from ESCAPE from the SEA exhibition,
2017,” tumblr, March 13, 2017, http://
sze.tumblr.com/post/158371967598/
timeline-of-removal-of-pangkroksulaps-sabah.
09
Helen Stoilas, “Controversy overEmmett Till painting at Whitney
Biennial goes beyond art world,”
The Art Newspaper, March 24, 2017,
http://theartnewspaper.com/news/
controversy-over-emmett-till-paintingat-whitney-biennial-goes-beyond-artworld.
10“The Guggenheim Surrenders on Free
Expression,” editorial, New York Times,
October 13, 2017, https://www.nytimes.
com/2017/10/13/opinion/editorials/
the-guggenheim-surrenders-on-freeexpression.html.
11“Artists must challenge
censorship,” The Malaysian Insight,
November 28, 2017, https://www.
themalaysianinsight.com/s/24951/.
12David Xu Borgonjon, “The Art of
Destroying an Artwork,” New YorkTimes, October 25, 2017, https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/10/25/opinion/
guggenheim-artwork-animals-racism.
html.
13
Michael Holquist, “Corrupt Originals:
The Paradox of Censorship,” PMLA 109,
no. 1 (January 1994): 14.
14
Ibid.,14 –15.

Goh Sze Ying│Giving Shape to Painful Things

15
Becker, Art Worlds, 186.
16
Ibid.
17
Helen Freshwater, “Towards a
Redefinition of Censorship,” inCensorship and Cultural Regulationin the Modern Age, Beate Müller, ed.
(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2004).
18
Claire Fontaine, “Giving Shape toPainful Things,” interview, Anarchist
Without Content, accessed October 1,
2017, https://anarchistwithoutcontent.
wordpress.com/2012/06/11/givingshape-to-painful-things-an-interviewwith-claire-fontaine/amp/.

artwork and consequently, audiences are ostensibly made more aware of
the nuances of a redacted work insofar as what was potentially contentious
is now framed as effectively problematic. Censors call our attention tothat which they deny and why they deny it. Their motives therein become
a contention: who decides what is morally, politically, unacceptable, andon what grounds are such proscriptions based?
Furthermore, in a restrictive political climate that is still governedby market logic, the removal of an artwork neither diminishes its value
nor restricts its subsequent circulation. A censored object just does notdisappear. Even if we consider a more extreme scenario of an efficientcensorious regime where every physical copy of a work is destroyed(Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 comes to mind), the work continues
to exist in people’s memories.［15］The conditions and meanings of theartwork are magnified in its absence as its presence is now perpetuatedthrough debates as to why it has been expunged from the white cube.
Holquist explains the paradox as a reification of an omnipresent tension“between text and context.”［16］It is this tension that makes censorshipemblematically a counterintuitive device of erasure. The life of theobject becomes as if reincarnated in another form, a haunting more
pronounced. In spite of a period of protracted silence after Sabah Tanah
Air-ku was taken down, attention around the work, artists, organizers,
and exhibition intensified. The paradox highlighted by Holquist offers us
an initial consolation: a knowledge that the loss of an object is in fact areinforcement of its presence. While this is not an excuse to turn a blindeye to censorship when it happens, this complicates the narrative of loss
we are accustomed to.
The impetus to censorship is manifold—the suppression of
expression may be direct or indirect, imposed by the state, instigatedby an outraged public or initiated internally. The decision to take down
Sabah Tanah Air-ku from the exhibition space in APW Bangsar was
initiated internally. Thus, it is insufficient within our larger discourse
to unpack the effects of censorship by framing interdiction as a discrete
action, reducing it within an either/or logic. Censorship is rarely an us
versus them dichotomy but a process that reveals and enacted through“complex and often contradictory relations of power.”［17］III
We are not providing a social service with our art but giving shape todisturbing and painful things.
—Claire Fontaine［18］The task of lifting the lid over the networks, patterns, and divisions in
the art world within which we are located helps frame power relations
outside of a binary-vertical imaginary (us/them, top/down) so common
within art discourse. What Becker offers through his sociological lens isa moment of brief relief—the extra but necessary elbow room—for us tobe able to voice out loud and matter-of-factly the agendas and vested

Essay 19172

interests typically left unspoken due to art world’s self importance indiscussing anything outside of formal, aesthetic considerations. In
order to overcome the binary-vertical imaginary, we begin by locating
our own position within the art world. We would then come to realize
how those who make relationships are located coextensively with those
who unmake them.
For one, cultural grants and exchanges facilitated by institutions
operating under the aegis of foreign ministries or offices (such as theJapan Foundation) in this region are also instrumentalized as diplomatic
exercises for stakeholders not directly involved in the art or exhibitionmaking. In fact, the exhibition in Kuala Lumpur organized in 2017 aspart of “Condition Report,” publicized as a “collaborative art projectby curators” from this region and Japan, was also positioned as one of
the cultural offerings—or collaborations—in celebration of the 60th
anniversary of Malaysia-Japan diplomatic relations.［19］Once these extraneous conditions are acknowledged, the revelation
is instantaneous: matters related to the exhibition become mattersrelated to interstate affairs. We suddenly see how exhibition spaces are atonce also playgrounds for diplomatic pleasantries. In short, art does not
escape the reality of being the handmaiden of the administrative. Yet, weeasily neglect—either out of idealism or ignorance—that the state or an
exhibition sponsor, not unlike any other participants in the production
and distribution of artworks, pursues its own interests and does so by
having power to simultaneously sanction what it likes and proscribe
what it dislikes. The altruism of the state or sponsor in the arts extends
only as far as its own interests. Here, Becker states, “government policy
on support becomes de facto censorship.”［20］The earlier section of this essay elucidates the double bindof censorship and how the act of disappearance is also an act ofpreservation and circulation. Here, we acknowledge that the potential
for state intervention—and its non-intervention—gives art a politicaldimension regardless of the artist’s intention:

19
This was evident in the placementof the logo of the 60th anniversaryof Malaysia-Japan diplomatic
relations along the other exhibition
partners’ logos on the exhibition
acknowledgement wall during the“ESCAPE from the SEA” exhibition.
20
Becker, Art Worlds, 185.
21
Ibid., 188.

If the state refuses to censor a work, people may decide that after all
it does not contain any dangerous political content, no matter how
much the artist may have intended just that. Conversely, if the state
suppresses an art work, people will try to find some dangerous orradical political message in it, and will usually succeed, no matter
how innocent of such intent the artist was.［21］In other words, the potential for state intervention lends a latent
political potential to art, but this moment arrives only when the work is
selected for an exhibition.
IV
The exhibition space acts as a mirror to society at large. Claire Fontaine,a Paris-based collective, speaks of exhibition space as a “context” and173

Goh Sze Ying│Giving Shape to Painful Things

22
Claire Fontaine, “Giving Shape toPainful Things.”

that the role of art is thus to “challenge its pretended neutrality.”［22］Curators must undertake the necessary labor to defend this context,
and a commitment to this labor when a work goes on display and if awork is prematurely taken down. Capitulation in the exhibition spaceportends a greater crisis within the cultural landscape, in which thecurator relinquishes her role as a cultural mediator to the censor,
allowing instead the antagonist to “speak” to the public. At this moment,
relationships become unmade.
How do we redress this loss after the fact of censorship, remaking
the relationships unmade?
In order to reclaim power displaced by censors, curators ought tofind ways to open up space for uncertainty again; the exhibition spacemust strive to go against the undertaker’s maxim and find ways to speakof death, more frequently and openly. Otherwise, some things become
impossible to say or, if said, are impossible to take seriously. When wecannot step out of the space of prohibition, we are fated to responsibility.
Censorship’s success is at first indicated by its apparent abolitionof the censored object, but its ultimate triumph is in the subsequentsilence of voices. What follows the painful aftermath of censorship is asilence of denial, a silence of guilt, a silence of fear; we resist speaking
about the loss—both of object and of relationships—because mere
recollection of why and how censorship happens is painful. This is anecessary aspect of our labor as cultural workers—organizers, curators,
critics, collaborators, and artists—must perform, “giving shape to painful
things,” or at least, making room for difficult questions to be asked
and contentious issues to be unpacked. Collaboration necessitates acommitment to relationships wherein the curator’s tasks do not end
when the exhibition begins.
Even when the art goes down, the show must go on.

Essay 19174

Afterword

The overall structure of “Condition Report” was largely decided at aconference held in Tokyo in March 2016 for all the project members,
who had been chosen through the previous year’s workshop
sessions. At the end of the conference, the question arose of how to
encapsulate the project, and a collection of reports was proposed
as a “curator’s book”: a publication originating in Southeast Asia
that would differ from conventional approaches to exhibition
documentation. We assigned this volume to be the fourth issueof Art Studies, the publication series run by the Japan Foundation
Asia Center. Since the previous three editions had all dealt with thehistory of Asian art, we felt that it was necessary for following issuesof Art Studies to include perspectives on the present and visions forthe future. Hence, starting with this fourth issue, the design of Art
Studies has also been revamped.
Although we used English as the common language for preparing
this publication, some of the essays are written in the participating
curators’ native languages. Insofar as it was possible to edit andprint them in Japan, we have included these original texts alongside
the English translation. Given the necessity of editing in English,
we asked Beverly Yong of RogueArt, who have contributed to theSoutheast Asian art scene through their work publishing art books
in Kuala Lumpur, to coordinate with the curators and edit their texts.
Furthermore, Horiuchi Naoko agreed to oversee the editing process
in Japan, along with me. We also benefited from the cooperationof those who translated the essays from the source languages into
English at short notice. This publication would not have beenpossible without everyone’s seamless coordination and effort. Andof course, we are deeply grateful to the curators who took time fromtheir busy schedules to write their essays with such enthusiasm. We
express our gratitude to all involved.
As readers will have noticed, the “condition reports” by the young
curators from Southeast Asia and Japan are quite diverse in content.
The question of how to acknowledge and further develop theachievements of the pioneers who have guided the regional art scene
to date depends now upon the intellectual vision of the emerging
curators and their actual practices. It is our sincere hope that throughthis publication we will gain more colleagues who take an interest
not only in art, but in all creative fields in Southeast Asia.

Furuichi Yasuko
Art Coordinator, The Japan Foundation Asia Center

177

Appendix

fig.01_Collaborative Curatorial Projects by the Japan Foundation
Year

Title

City | Country

Venue

2000–2013

Under Construction
─
Local Exhibitions
1. From the Sea of Trees
2. Fantasia
3. Dream Project
4. Crafting Economies
5. Clicking into the Place
6. Sorry for the Inconvenience─Collaborative Exhibition
Under Construction:
New Dimensions of Asian Art

1. Ashiya, Japan
2. Seoul, Korea / Beijing, China
3. Bandung, Indonesia
4. Manila, Philippines
5. Mumbai, India
6. Bangkok, Thailand

1. Ashiya City Museum of Art & History
2. Space imA / East Modern Art Centre
3. Fabriek Gallery
4. Cultural Center of the Philippines
5. Sakshi Gallery
6. Project 304, Bangkok University Art Gallery,
Si-Am Art Space●Tokyo, JapanThe Japan Foundation Forum &Tokyo Opera City Art Gallery

2004

Out the Window:
Spaces of Distraction

1. Tokyo, Japan
2. Seoul, Korea

1. The Japan Foundation Forum, Tokyo
2. Project Space Zip

2004–2005

Have We Met?

Tokyo, JapanThe Japan Foundation Forum, Tokyo

2011–2013

Omnilogue
1. Alternating Currents
2. Journey to the West
3. Your Voice is Mine

1. Perth, Australia
2. New Delhi, India
3. Singapore

1. Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts (PICA)
2. Lalit Kala Akademi
3. NUS Museum

2013–2014

Media/Art Kitchen:
Reality Distortion Field
1. Consumer VS The Power ofIndustry: Society who Criticize
Technology
2. extra/ordinary
3. Sensorium
4. Media Shapes Mind:
Mind Shapes Choice:
Choice Shapes Future

1. Jakarta, Indonesia
2. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
3. Manila, Philippines
4. Bangkok, Thailand

1. National Gallery of Indonesia(Galeri Nasional Indonesia)
2. Black Box, Map KL & Art Row, Publika
3. Ayala Museum
4. Bangkok Art and Culture Centre (BACC)

2014–2015

Run & Learn:
New Curatorial Constellations
14 Local Exhibitions

●

●
●

●

●

●

Manila, Philippines
Jakarta / Semarang / Yogyakarta,
Indonesia
Kuara Lumpur / Penang /Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
Bangkok / Chiang Mai, Thailand

●
●

●

●

2015–2017

Condition Report
Collaborative Exhibitions
1. Sindikat Campursari
2. ESCAPE from the SEA
3. Almost There
4. Mode of Liaisons─
12 Local Exhibitions and Events●●

Jakarta / Surabaya / Yogyakarta,
Indonesia
Kuala Lumpur / Penang, Malaysia,
Manila, Philippines
Bangkok / Chiang Mai, Thailand
Hanoi, Vietnam
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Yangon, Myanmar

Jorge B. Vargas Museum, Manila
Kampung Bustaman, Semarang /Tetangga Seniman, Yogjakarta /Awanama Art Habitat /The Japan Foundation Hall, Jakarta
Sekeping Sin Chew Kee, Kuala Lumpur /People’s Court, Penang /Sabah Art Gallery, Kota Kinabalu
Bangkok Art and Culture Centre (BACC) /Cloud, Bangkok /Gallery Seescape, Chiang Mai

Collaborative Exhibitions
1. Gudang Sarinah Ekosistem, Jakarta
2. National Art Gallery & Art Printing Works,
Kuala Lumpur
3. Jorge B. Vargas Museum, Manila
4. Bangkok Art and Culture Centre (BACC),
Bangkok─Local Exhibitions●●

Curators

Artists

Patrick D. Flores
Gridthiya Gaweewong
Ranjit Hoskote
Asmujo Jono Irianto
Kamiya Yukie
Kim Sunjung
Pi Li
Yamamoto Atsuo
Kataoka Mami

Alfredo Juan & Maria Isabel Aquilizan, Chen Shaoxiong, Cui Xiuwen, Mareeya Dumrongphol,
Alferedo Esquillo, Futana Yoshihi, Gimhongsok, Subodh Gupta, Ham Jin, Handiwirman,
Jiang Zhi, Jung Yeondoo, Jitish Kallat, Kan Xuan, Bharti Kher, Kim Beom, Kim Sora,
Kitao Hiroshi, Lee Mikyung, José Legaspi, Gusbarlian Lubis, Mark Maestro, Miao Xiaochun,
Mike Muñoz + Paloy Cagayat Woodcaving Workshop, Shibu Natesan, Noguchi Rika,
Ozawa Tsuyoshi, Baiju Parthan, Syagini Ratnawulan, Rhii Jewyo, Rogues' Gallery, Saki Satom,
Sharmila Samant, Thasnai Sethaseree, Shinoda Taro, Michael Shaowanasai, Sofwan,
S. Teddy D., Montri Toemsombat, Wire Rommel Tuazon, Wang Gongxin, Apichatpong
Weerasethakul, Yang Zhenzhong

Li Zhenhua
Suh Jinsuk
Sumitomo Fumihiko

8gg, Bowda Katsushi, Cao Fei, Cao Kai, Chen Dili, Cho Isu, Cui Xiuwen, Du Jie,
Furukawa Koichi, Goshima Kazuhiro, Gwon Osang, Han Kyeryoon, Hayashi Yuki, Hino Keiko,
Ise Shoko, Jeon Joonho, Kim Changkyum, Kim Hyekung, Kim Jaewha, Kim Joon, Kim Kira,
Kim Yongkyoung, Kimura Mayumi, Kobayashi Kohei, Koizumi Meiro, Ku Jayoung,
Lee Hyungkoo, Lee Yongbaek, Li Yongbin, Nakamura Toshihiro, Noh Jaeoon, Okado Mikio,
Ou NIng, Park Hyesung, Park Jihoon, Park Junebum, Pol Malo, Ryu Biho, Saito Masakazu,
Sato Yoshinao, Sasaguchi Kazz, Seo Bohyung, Shimada Masamichi, Shi Qing, Shin Yongsik,
Tanaka Koki, Wang Ning, Wu Ershan, Wu Quan, Yang Fudong, Yoon Miyeon, Yu Hyoungjun,
Zhang Dan & Chen Man, Zhao Liang, Zhen Yunhan, Zhou Xiaohu

Ade Darmawan
Khono Haruko
Pooja Sood
Prabda Yoon

Krishnaraj Chonat, Anant Joshi, Kobayashi Youko, Rudi Mantofani, Mori Hiroharu,
Nawa Kohei, Eko Nugroho, Wit Pimkanchanapong, Sigit Pius, Anggun Priambodo,
Portaweesak Rimsakul, Sawa Hiraki, Kiran Subbaiah, Hema Upadhyay

1. Hashimoto Azusa, Jaime Pacena II,
Leigh Robb
2. Che Kyongfa, Iida Shihoko, Nivedita Magar,
Chattiya Kate Nitpolprasert
3. Ikegami Tsukasa, Yabumae Tomoko,
Michelle Ho, Shabbir Hussain Mustafa

1. Fujimoto Yukio, Izumi Taro, Mohri Yuko, Nadegata Instant Party,
Otomo Yoshihide, Sugawa Sakiko
2. Hashimoto Satoshi, Koizumi Meiro, Mori Hiroharu, Sasamoto Aki,
Teruya Yuken, Yahata Aki
3. Koie Makiko, Sasa Shun, SHIMURAbros, Tomii Motohiro,
Yamakawa Fuyuki, Yamamoto Takayuki

Ade Darmawan
M. Sigit Budi. S
Aida Daiya
Hattori Hiroyuki
Okamura Keiko
Adeline Ooi
Suzy Sulaiman
Lian Ladia
Dayang Yraola
Charmaine Toh
Pichaya Aime Suphavanij
Nikan Bow Wasinondh
Nguyen Trinh Thi

Achmad Krisgatha, Anggun Priambodo, Duto Hardono, lifepatch, Muhammad Akbar,
Narpati Awangga a.k.a. Oomleo, Prilla Tania, Reza Afisina a.k.a. Asung, contactGONZO,
Hagihara Kenichi, Horio Kanta, Kuwakubo Ryota, Makino Takashi, mamoru, Hohri Yuko,
Otomo Yoshihide, Rhizomatics, Sachiko M. Takeuchi Kota, Tamura Yuichiro, Tsuda Michiko,
Umeda Tetsuya, Yagi Lyota, Chew Win Chen a.k.a. Okui Lala, Chris Chong Chan Fui, Fairuz
Sulaiman, Lim Kok Yoong, Operasi Cassava, That Effing Show, Mel Araneta, Yason Banal,
Ringo Bunoan, Erick Calilan, Caliph8, Tad Ermitaño, Merv Espina, Paolo Garcia, Cris Garcimo,
Kawayan De Guia, Liby Limoso, Manny Montelibano, Kaloy Olavides, Renan Ortiz, Gary-Ross
Pastrana, Stanley Ruiz, Jon Romero, Mark Salvatus, Stephanie Syjuco, Tengal, Tito & Tita,
John Torres, Mannet Villariba, Weather Bureau, Maria Rosalie Zerrudo, Song-Ming Ang, Lucy
Davis, Bani Haykal, Ho Tzu Nyen, Bruce Quek, Apostrophy's, B-Floor, Witaya Junma, Mute
Mute, Kamol Phaosavasdi, Taiki Sakpisit, Nitipak Samsen, Chulayarnnon Siriphol, Pathompon
Tesprateep, Sina Wittayawiroj, Jamie Maxtone-Graham, Nguyen Trinh Thi, The Propeller GroupCon Cabrera
Merv Espina
Ricky Francisco
Hirano Mayumi
Ahmad Khairudin
Asep Topan
Angga Wijaya
Sita Maghfira
Ong Jo-Lene
Lee Cheah Ni
Harold Egn Eswar
Soifa Saenkhamkon
Turning Tweets Pulse
Horiuchi Naoko

Reza Afisina, Log Out Corps, Ardi Gunawan, Yudha"Fehung" Kusuma, Ismal Muntafa / Octara,
Wulang Sunu, The Popo/Annisa Rizkiana, Haryo Wibowo, Bowo Kajangan, Arief Hadinata,
Papillon, Tri Aryanto, Imam Budi, Cahyono, Hysteria, Pembangun, Bayu Putro, Bayu Tambeng,
Karamba Art Movement, Serrum / Jose Tence Ruiz, Hoshiba Ishihara Yumiko, Vermont Coronel
II, Bru Sim, Derek Tumala, The Axel Pinpin Propaganda Machine, Working Artists Group(WAG), Niwa Yoshinori, Kiri Dalena, Allison Wong David, Marc Gaba, Chim↑Pom, Aida Santos,
Santiphap Inkong-ngam, Elisa Nurvista, Yagi Kanade, Zeus Bascon, Maria Victoria Beltran /Zedeck Siew, Sharon Chin, Maung Day, Saiful Razman, Ilham Fadhli, Okui Lala, Kontak!,Jeffrey Lim, Goh Lee Kwang, Engku Iman, Daniel Chong, Chang Yoong Chia, Chua Teck Yeo,
Okui Lala, Tan Lay Heong / Bram Ibrahim, Dina Gadia, Pangrok Sulap, Kato Tsubasa, Cracko
Art Group / Eyedropper Fill, Tokin Teekanun, Wannarit Pongprayoon, Vuttipong Mahasamut,
Siwanut Boonsripornchai, Nattapol Rojjanarattanangkool, Apichart Yimyong, Chaiwat
Wiansantia, Namfon Udomlertlak, Tippawan Narinton, Surajate Tongchua, Paphonsak La-or,
Kritchnun Srirakit, Nuttapon Sawasdee, Kotaka Takuo

Ade Darmawan, Iida Shihoko,
Hoo Fan Chon, Le Thuan Uyen,
Vitavin Leeelavanachai, Yoshizaki Kazuhiko,
Yap Sau Bin, Hattori Hiroyuki, Goh Sze Ying,
Kurnia Yunita Rahayu, Alice Sarmiento,
Souliya Phoumivong, Patrick D. Flores,
Che Kyongfa, Ayos Purwoaji,
Lisa Ito-Tapang, Lyno Vuth,
Pichaya Aime Suphavanij, Aung Myat Htay,
Bayu Genia Krishbie, Nakamura FumikoCollaborative Exhibitions
1. Ardi Gunawan, Arie Syarifuddin, Buka Warung, Buku Jalanan, Erika Ernawan, Kato Tsubasa,
Lab Tanya, Then Group, Waft Lab / 2. Catalina Africa, Aoyama Satoru, Au Sow Yee, Adam David,
Han Ishu, Ismal Muntaha, Jeffrey Lim, Pangrok Sulap, Roslisham Ismail a.k.a. Ise, Shitamichi
Motoyuki, Mark Teh, Tita Salina, yang02-Ishige Kenta, Zai Kuning / 3. Universe Baldoza, Carolina
Caycedo, Cian Dayrit, Ho Rui An, Winner Jumalon, Kapwani Kiwanga, Runo Lagomarsino,
An-My Lê, Miyagi Futoshi, Nousaku Fuminori, Philippine Educational Theater Association(PETA),
Shen Shaomin, Maria Taniguchi, Adrienne Vergara / 4. Karakrit Arunondchai, Au Sow Yee,
Universe Baldoza, Ho Rui An, Miyagi Futoshi, Roslisham Ismail a.k.a. Ise, Albert Samreth, Ukrit
Sa-nguanhai, Tamura Yuichiro, Mark Teh, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Zai Kuning, Sindikat Campursari
For Local Exhibitions see fig.04.
●●

fig.02_Project Structure of “Under Construction”“Under Construction”Timetable and Process［FY2000］

Planning & Research
The First Working Seminar (Aug. 3 –5, 2000 ) (Tokyo)
Members meet for the first time and exchange perspectives on Asia
Discuss potential project theme and exhibition framework●●

Research Trip to Asian cities (Oct. – Dec., 2000 )Each member visits 2 –3 Asian cities to prepare plans for exhibitions●

The Second Working Seminar (Feb.19 –21, 2001 ) (Tokyo)
Discuss each exhibition proposal
Decide project theme:“Under Construction”
Decide framework: 7 local exhibitions + Tokyo exhibition●●●［FY2001］

Local Exhibitions
Planning & Research
Local Exhibitions in 7 Cities / Research Trips (Oct. 2001 – Mar. 2002 )From Sea of Trees *(Ashiya, Japan)

Fantasia **(Seoul, Korea)

Crafting Economies *(Manila, Philippines)

Fantasia **(Beijing, China)

Dream Project(Bandung, Indonesia)

Clicking into Place(Mumbai, India)

Sorry for the Inconvenience(Bangkok, Thailand)* collaboration by 2 curators** co-curation by 3 curators［FY2002］

Meeting & Collective Exhibition (Tokyo)
The Third Working Seminar (Apr. 11 –13, 2002 )Evaluate local exhibitions
Plan logistics, exhibition layout, etc. related to Collective (Tokyo) Exhibition●●

Collective Exhibition (Dec. 7, 2002 – Mar. 2, 2003)
Under Construction: New Dimensions of Asian Art(Tokyo Opera City Art Gallery / The Japan Foundation Forum)fig.03_Project Structure of “Condition Report”“Condition Report”Timetable and Process［FY2015］

Open entry>

Workshop/
Selection>

Research/
Working Seminar/
Grouping

Curators’Workshop in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, & Vietnam(Nov.– Dec., 2015 )Selection of co-curators based on presentations of exhibition proposals●

Curators’Working Seminar and Research Trip in Japan(Feb.22 – Mar.6, 2016 )Develop an understanding of the situation of Japanese contemporary art
through museum and exhibition tours, attending lectures and interviews withpeople in the art field
Presentation of the collaborative exhibition project and discussion
Grouping curators into 4 teams (curators + co-curators)●●●［FY2016］

Research>

Plan>

Preparation

Group Research Trip in 4 countries in Southeast Asia (May – Aug., 2016 )Malaysia (May 23 –29 ), Philippines (June 16 –24)
Indonesia (June 20–29 ), Thailand (Aug. 25–31)
Develop an understanding of the art scene in each country
Confirmation of the content of the collaborative exhibitions (participating
artists and works, role-sharing)●●>

Collaborative
Exhibition

Collaborative Exhibitions in 4 Cities (Jan. – July, 2017)>

Jakarta

Meeting

Kuala Lumpur

ManilaBangkok

Meeting in Bangkok (Mar. 29 –30, 2017)
Evaluate collaborative exhibitions
Presentation of plans for local exhibitions, advice and support from curators●●［FY2017］

Preparation

Local Exhibitions (Aug.–Nov., 2017 )Organize 12 exhibitions and events by co-curators in each city of Southeast Asia●>

Local Exhibition>

Publication

Phnom Penh

Hanoi

YangonPenangKuala Lumpur

Bangkok

Chiang Mai

Jakarta

Yogyakarta

Surabaya

Manila (2)Publish Curators’Book (Mar., 2018)
Create a book on curation in Southeast Asia as an achievement of the project●fig.04a_Condition Report in 2017
No.

Title

City

Curators

Dates

1

Sindikat Campursari |Mashup Syndicate

Jakarta

Ade Darmawan
Iida Shihoko

January 14 – February 14aVernacular is The New Gold

Bangkok

Vittavin Leelavanachai

October 14 – November 12bGang of Five: Chancing Modern

Hanoi

Le Thuan Uyen

October 21 – November 19cReperformed Stereotypes

Yogyakarta

Yoshizaki Kazuhiko

October 21 – November 5dSindikat Kurator di Penang

PenangHoo Fan Chon

November 18–19

ESCAPE from the SEA

Kuala Lumpur

Yap Sau Bin
Hattori Hiroyuki

February 24 – April 23eLiving Spaces: Hyperreal
Estate and the Architecture of
Dispossession

ManilaAlice Sarmiento

August 5 –20

f

Between States

Kuala Lumpur

Goh Sze Ying

September 21 – October 2

Almost There

ManilaPatrick D. Flores
Che Kyongfa

March 2 – May 6

g

Dissident Vicinities

ManilaLisa Ito-Tapang

August 18 – September 1hWhen the River Reverses

Phnom Penh

Lyno Vuth

September 14 – November 12i

Adu Doro : Art and Archive
Exhibition

SurabayaAyos Purwoaji

September 22–28

Mode of Liaisons

Bangkok

Pichaya Aime Suphavanij

March 30 – July 9jPlay in the Flow

Chiang Mai

Nakamura Fumiko

September 22 – October 8kMelting Boundary:
Making Identity

YangonAung Myat Htay

September 23 – October 2lRecipro(vo)cation: Participatory
Art Practices in Indonesia PostReformation

Jakarta

Bayu Genia Krishbie

October 5–19

2

3

4

1–4 Collaborative Exhibitions
a–l Local Exhibitions and Events

VenueArtists

Gudang Sarinah Ekosistem

Ardi Gunawan, Arie Syarifuddin, Buka Warung, Buku Jalanan, Erika Ernawan,
Kato Tsubasa, LabTanya, Then Group, Waft Lab

In front of Ku Bar

Pichan Sujaritsatit,
Pakphum (Nanu) Youttananukorn, Atelier2+,
Sarun Yen Panya (56th Studio), Grisana Eimamkamaol

Vietnam Film Studio

Dang Xuan Hoa, Hong Viet Dung, Tran Luong, Ha Tri Hieu, Pham Quang VinhiCAN

Eldwin Pradipta,
mamoruWisma U. A. B.

Participating Curators: Chuah Ee Yan, Haryany Mohamad, Hoo Fan Chon, Kuah Li Feng,
Yoshizaki Kazuhiko, Le Thuan Uyen

National Art Gallery
Art Printing Works Sdn Bhd

Catalina Africa, Aoyama Satoru, Au Sow Yee, Adam David, Han Ishu, Ismal Muntaha,Jeffrey Lim, Pangrok Sulap, Roslisham Ismail a.k.a. Ise, Shitamichi Motoyuki, Ali Alasri,
Faiq Syazwan Kuhiri, Mark Teh, Wong Tay Sy, Tita Salina, yang02+Ishige Kenta, Zai Kuning

VETRO

Marla Darwin, Grid Magazine, Make Believe Production and Marie Aguilar, Indy Paredes,
Miti Ruangkritya

OUR ArtProjects

Sharon Chin, Ian Carlo Jaucian, Candice Ng, Miguel Inumerable

Jorge B. Vargas Museum,
University of the Philippines,
Diliman

Universe Baldoza, Carolina Caycedo, Cian Dayrit, Ho Rui An, Winner Jumalon,
Kapwani Kiwanga, Runo Lagomarsino, An-My Lê, Miyagi Futoshi, Nousaku Fuminori,
Philippine Educational Theater Association/PETA, Shen Shaomin, Maria Taniguchi,
Adrienne Vergara

Bulwagan ng Dangal,
University of the Philippines Diliman

Nathalie Dagmang, Leonilo Doloricon & Tom Estrera, Renan Ortiz, Henrielle Pagkaliwangan,
Melvin Pollero, Pablo Baen Santos, Aldrein Silanga, UGATLahi Artists Collective, Renz Lee,
KARATULA, Tambisan sa Sining, Bakwit School, Archie Oclos, Karl Castro, Kiri Dalena,
Voltaire Guray, Federico “BoyD” Sulapas Dominguez, Raoul Ignacio “Iggy” Rodriguez

Sa Sa Art Projects

Chu Hao Pei, Hsu Chia-Wei, Piyarat Piyapongwiwat, Than Sok

C2O Library & Collabtive
Shin Hua Barbershop etc.

Surabaya Contemporary Heritage Council, Benny Wicaksono, Cahyo Prayogo, Pertigaan Map

Bangkok Art and Culture Centre

Korakrit Arunondchai, Au Sow Yee, Universe Baldoza, Ho Rui An, Miyagi Futoshi,
Roslisham Ismail a.k.a. Ise, Albert Samreth, Ukrit Sa-nguanhai,
Sindikat Campursari/Mashup Syndicate, Tamura Yuichiro, Mark Teh, Rirkrit Tiravanija,
Zai Kuning

Sriprakard Hotel

Tanaka Morinosuke, Yamashita Takuya,
Wantanee Siripattananuntakul, Piyarat Piyapongwiwat and Arnont Nongyao

Myanm/Art Gallery

Napat Vatanakuljaras, Mayco Naing, Kriz Channyein

National Gallery of Indonesia(Galeri Nasional Indonesia)

Moelyono, Angki Purbandono, Irwan Ahmett, Wimo Ambala Bayang, Elia Nurvista,
Fajar Abadi, Viencent Rumahloine, Alfiah Rahdini, Jatiwangi Art Factory, Cut and Rescuefig.04b

Collaborative Exhibitions( January–July, 2017 )Local Exhibitions(August –November, 2017 )1 ─ Jakarta
2 ─ Kuala Lumpur
3 ─ Manila
4 ─ Bangkoka ─ Bangkokb ─ Hanoic ─ Yogyakartad ─ Penange,g ─ Manilaf ─ Kuala Lumpurh ─ Phnom Penhi ─ Surabayaj ─ Chiang Mai
k ─ Yangonl ─ Jakarta

Hanoi

Myanmarb

Laos

Chiang Mai

jYangonk

Thailand
ManilaBangkokCambodia

4/ ahPhilippines

Phnom Penh

PenangdVietnam

Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur

2/f

1/l

Jakartac
Yogyakarta［ As of January 2018］

3/e,gIndonesia
Surabayai