https://englishkyoto-seas.org/

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius, Imam Santosa, Widjaja Martokusumo, andAdhi Nugraha

A Study on Indonesian Sociopolitical Design Objects within the Framework ofGesamtkunstwerk
Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, August 2024, pp. 287-310.

How to Cite:
Lucius, Christophera Ratnasari; Santosa, Imam; Martokusumo, Widjaja; andNugraha, Adhi. A Study on Indonesian Sociopolitical Design Objects within the
Framework of Gesamtkunstwerk. Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, August
2024, pp. 287-310. DOI: 10.20495/seas.13.2_287.
Link to this article:
https://englishkyoto-seas.org/2024/08/vol-13-no-2-christophera-ratnasari-lucius-et-al/View the table of contents for this issue:
https://englishkyoto-seas.org/2024/08/vol-13-no-2-of-southeast-asian-studies/
Subscriptions: https://englishkyoto-seas.org/mailing-list/
For permissions, please send an e-mail to:
english-editorial[at]cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University

A Study on Indonesian Sociopolitical Design Objects
within the Framework of Gesamtkunstwerk
Christophera Ratnasari Lucius,* Imam Santosa,** Widjaja Martokusumo,*** andAdhi Nugraha†This article proves how the practical implementation of the Gesamtkunstwerk idea
in design objects in Indonesia can provide sociopolitical value. The framework ofGesamtkunstwerk in this study is contained in two design projects: the architectureof the Indonesian Legislative Building Complex by Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo and thedesign of museum objects in the Electricity and New Energy Museum by Widagdo.
The literature review leads to two perspectives of Gesamtkunstwerk—the ideas ofWilhelm Richard Wagner and those of the Bauhaus School—with both implemented
together in a design object. Data were collected in April and July 2022 throughfield observations, supported by interviews. The data were analyzed through both
perspectives based on the idea of Gesamtkunstwerk. The results showed that theidea of Gesamtkunstwerk was successfully implemented in the two design projects.
The first project aimed to represent the noble values of Indonesia and demonstrate
the nation’s proficiency in modern technology, while the second aimed to incorporate interdisciplinary knowledge in the presentation of museum objects, creatinga shared experience for visitors. In conclusion, the simultaneous implementationof both Gesamtkunstwerk perspectives—Wagner’s and the Bauhaus—allowed fora surprising amount of meaning in design objects.
Keywords: Bauhaus idea, Gesamtkunstwerk, Wilhelm Richard Wagner,
Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo, Indonesian Legislative Building Complex,
Widagdo, Electricity and New Energy Museum* Doctoral Program in Visual Art and Design, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No. 10,
Bandung 40132, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Corresponding author’s e-mail : 37019008@mahasiswa.itb.ac.id
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6527-3543** Design and Visual Culture Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No. 10,
Bandung 40132, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
e-mails: imamz@itb.ac.id; imamz.santosa@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1241-6893*** Architectural Design Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No. 10,
Bandung 40132, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
e-mail: wmart@itb.ac.id
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1756-5916†
Human and Industrial Product Design Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl.
Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
e-mail : adhinugrahadesign@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6052-9221
Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, August 2024, pp. 287–310© Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University

DOI: 10.20495/seas.13.2_287

287

288

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

Introduction
The main purpose of this study is to prove the role of the Gesamtkunstwerk idea (TGKWI)
in the design of two projects in Indonesia. The development of the two projects was
initiated by the government of the Republic of Indonesia in order to present the face ofIndonesia on the international stage. The first project is the Indonesian Legislative
Building Complex, which was designed by the architect Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo and built
in 1965, during the administration of Soekarno, the first president of the Republic ofIndonesia. The second is the interior and objects of the Electricity and New Energy
Museum, designed by Widagdo and built in 1995, during the rule of Soeharto, the second
president of Indonesia.
According to the principles of Gesamtkunstwerk,1) attempts are made to combine
art forms or designs along with other features. Fátima Pombo (2014) described thecreation of an atmosphere of well-being and fruitful space, literally and metaphorically,
as a total work of art in the productions of the Belgian interior designer Jules Wabbes.
Anatoli Tsampa (2017) demonstrated a transmedial, global, total work of art througha synthesis of media, mythical/archetypal subject matter, social relevance, andphilosophical concerns. Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake (2018) highlighted
speech sounds, singing voices, instrumental music, and dance as the main features ofGesamtkunstwerk, which can be found in the aesthetic practice of artwork as a whole
as well as in religious ceremonies. Studies proving the implementation of TGKWI
focus on the perspective of unifying various types of art, designs, or features. This is
the definition of Gesamtkunstwerk: the amalgamation of various art forms, without any
one form dominating (Neumann 1951, 4) but rather all forms making use of one another(Koepnick 2017, 277).
Éric Michaud (2019) described an understanding of the origins of TGKWI fromWilhelm Richard Wagner with two variations. Wagner’s essay on the Gesamtkunstwerk
aesthetic aimed to achieve gemeinsame Kunstwerk der Zukunft, which translates as“future collective artwork” as well as “future communal artwork.” The first is a perspective that emphasizes the collective realization of work by the community, while
the second emphasizes work realized for the people (Michaud 2019, 2).
Previously, two different ways of understanding total design were explained byMark Wigley (1998). Wigley’s explanation of architectural control is relevant to the two
perspectives in understanding the meaning of total design: the first is the implosion of1) For the purposes of this research, the term “Gesamtkunstwerk” is not translated into other languages.

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

289

design, in which design is focused inward on a single intense point; while the second is
the explosion of design, in which the design expands outward to touch every possible
point in the world (Wigley 1998, 1).
This study agrees with the two perspectives for understanding TGKWI as proposedby Michaud and Wigley. A review of the theoretical framework explains these two
perspectives in more detail. According to Wigley and Michaud, TGKWI must be implemented in design objects through “two perspectives from opposite directions”2) at thesame time. The first is the implosion of design (Wigley 1998, 1) or future collective
artworks (Michaud 2019, 3), which is relevant to Wagner’s TGKWI. The second is the
explosion of design (Wigley 1998, 1) or future communal artworks (Michaud 2019, 2),which is relevant to the Bauhaus TGKWI.
The results achieved by the practical implementation of TGKWI through these“two perspectives from opposite directions” will be demonstrated in two design casestudies in Jakarta, Indonesia. The first is the Indonesian Legislative Building Complex,
and the second is the Electricity and New Energy Museum. An analysis of design objects
that encompass sociopolitical values reveals the role of TGKWI in realizing the vision of
two Indonesian presidents to present the character of the Indonesian nation. It is
important to note that the mention of “two perspectives from opposite directions” isnot intended to provide a new definition of TGKWI but merely to reveal the role of
TGKWI ideas in the architectural and design objects in the case studies.

MethodThis study on the implementation of the TGKWI idea in two designs in Indonesia uses
qualitative methods through historical research, case studies, and narrative inquiry.
Since the focus of this study is TGKWI, that is discussed at the outset. Based on
the description by Wigley (1998) and Michaud (2019), historical research through areview of the literature provides “two perspectives from opposite directions” to understand the implementation of TGKWI. On the one hand is the idea of the origin ofGesamtkunstwerk based on Wagner’s perspective; on the other is the idea of modern
Gesamtkunstwerk based on the perspective of the Bauhaus School. “Two perspectives
2) Wigley uses “two concepts of total design” (Wigley 1998, 2), whereas Michaud notes “two elementsof variation for their striking opposition to each other” (Michaud 2019, 2). This study uses the term
“two perspectives from opposite directions” to explain the implementation of the Gesamtkunstwerk
idea. It does not aim to provide a new definition of Gesamtkunstwerk but to underline the differences between the two perspectives.

290

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

from opposite directions” for understanding TGKWI becomes the analytical tool forthe case studies of the two design artifacts in Indonesia.
The first step in this analysis is an overview of Soejoedi’s and Widagdo’s German
educational background, to highlight the influence of Bauhaus ideas on their designs.3)
This is followed by a brief description of the role of the Indonesian government in thedevelopment planning of the two case studies and Soejoedi’s and Widagdo’s involvementin their respective designs.
In design discipline research, design objects function as reported evidence and areused to interpret arguments (Biggs 2002, 20). Objects that are instructional works arecalled artifacts, because they display the structure of actions within cognitive frames(O. F. Smith 2007, 5). Soejoedi’s architectural work being analyzed here is the IndonesianLegislative Building Complex (TILBC), which was built in 1965. This was the first major
project in Indonesia that demonstrated the technological capabilities of Indonesian
experts at the time (Budi et al. 1995, 22). Widagdo’s interior work being analyzed is
the Electricity and New Energy Museum (TEANEM), which was inaugurated in 1995.
The first modern science museum in Indonesia, this is located in Taman Mini Indonesia
Indah (Beautiful Indonesia Miniature Park; BIMP), which houses projects that provide
educational value (Suradi et al. 1989, 11).
Robert Yin has stated that the case study approach requires direct observation of
the object along with interviews with associated sources and the designer (Yin 2018, 43).
Therefore, observations were made at TEANEM in April 2022; these focused on thedesign and arrangement of displays of museum objects. Data collection and documentation were done through photography, video shooting, archive collections from themuseum, and 1995 photos owned by Widagdo. Observations at TILBC were made in
July 2022; these focused on observing architectural forms, spatial interior arrangements,
and works of art found throughout the TILBC area. Data collection and documentation
were done through photography, video shooting, and archive collections from the Indonesian Legislative Museum.
The limited literature on Soejoedi’s architectural design concept and Widagdo’s
interior design concept requires a narrative case study approach. This inquiry focuseson the meaning obtained from exploring the experiences and perspectives of the informants (Kim 2016, 215). Data and information on Soejoedi were obtained by interviewing3) This study is part of a research project to identify traces of the Bauhaus in Indonesia. Soejoedi
Wirjoatmodjo and Widagdo were selected as representatives for studying the influence of the
Bauhaus on design practice in Indonesia. Their education in Germany was influenced by figures
who were members of the Bauhaus and Deutscher Werkbund: Kurt Dübbers, Egon Eiermann,
Herbert Hirche, Wilhelm Kreuer, Hannes Neuener, and Hans Scharoun.

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects291

his assistant, the architect Yuswadi Saliya.4) Data and information on Widagdo’s designer
were obtained through direct interviews with him. The interviews with the two informants were open and guided by questions on the implementation of TGKWI in the twocase studies.

Theoretical Framework: The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk
According to Wigley (1998) and Michaud (2019), the definition of Gesamtkunstwerk
denotes two different perspectives of the Gesamtkunstwerk idea (TGKWI), which inthis study are referred to as “two perspectives from opposite directions.” The first is
Wagner’s perspective, which is generally taken to be the origin of Gesamtkunstwerk.
The second is Gesamtkunstwerk according to the Bauhaus, which is generally viewed
as the modern version of Gesamtkunstwerk.
The German composer Wagner (1813–83) became a major figure in TGKWI bothmusically and spiritually during the Romantic era (Tsampa 2017, 20). According to
Alfred Neumann (1951, 2), the word “Gesamtkunstwerk” is defined only in Wagner’s(1850) aesthetic essay Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft (The artwork of the future).5)
TGKWI according to Wagner means resynthesizing forms of art that are historicallyseparate, such as dance, music, and poetry. Wagner’s TGKWI means a work unit inwhich all parts are integrated evenly (Neumann 1951, 224), mutually utilize one another(Koepnick 2017, 277), and create a completely new meaning (Kultennann 1995, 165).
Wagner’s TGKWI became a model for experiments involving various genres and composite media in Modernism (Koepnick 2017, 274).
A very modern form of TGKWI appears in the Bauhaus School6) (M. W. Smith
4) Yuswadi (b. June 15, 1938) obtained his doctorate in engineering science, majoring in architecture, fromthe Bandung Institute of Technology. He has played an important role in the education and professional development of architects in Indonesia, including being a member of the Council of IndonesianArchitects since 2020. Yuswadi was an assistant to Soejoedi, who was involved in the constructionof the Conefo Project, specifically the construction of the Nusantara V Building or auditorium.
5) Das große Gesammtkunstwerk, das alle Gattungen der Kunst zu umfassen hat, um jede einzelne dieser
Gattungen als Mittel gewissermaßen zu verbrauchen, zu vernichten zu Gunsten der Erreichung desGesamtzwecks aller, nämlich der unbedingten, unmittelbaren Darstellung der vollendeten menschlichen Natur- dieses große Gesammtkunstwerk erkennt (der Geist) nicht als die willkürlich mögliche Tat des Einzelnen,
sondern als das notwendig denkbare gemeinsame Werk der Menschen der Zukunft (Wagner 1850, 32).
6) The Bauhaus was a design school that existed in Germany from 1919 to 1933. It was grounded in
the idea of creating the Gesamtkunstwerk and became known for its approach to combining craft,
art, and technology. The founder of the Bauhaus, Walter Gropius (1883–1969), was the first
director of the school. In April 1928 he was replaced by Hannes Meyer (1889–1954), and in August
1930 Mies van der Rohe (1886–1969) became the third and last Bauhaus director.

292

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

2007, 48; Roberts 2011, 159; Trimingham 2016, 95; Munch 2021, 9). The manifesto for
the founding of the Bauhaus School in 19197) was an invitation from the architect Walter
Gropius (1883–1969) to the members of the Bauhaus to create a Gesamtkunstwerk
cathedral that could restore a divided society (Michaud 2019, 7). Gropius repeatedly
tried to find forms of shared ideas through activities such as collaboration, coordination,collectives, and integration. In the Bauhaus School, Gesamtkunstwerk was developedby the painter Lázló Moholy-Nagy (1895–1946) into the idea of Gesamtwerk, namely,
the synthesis of moments in life to form total life (Moholy-Nagy 1927). Through the ideaof Gesamtwerk, humans explore their senses to find alternative forms of future spaceand become the media that adapt to the nature of modern society (Koepnick 2017, 283).
The term “Gesamtkunstwerk” is generally accepted in German as well as in English
through several translations,8) one of which is “synthesis of the arts.” Since this translation underlines the word “synthesis,” which describes the unifying connection of different elements, this translation of Gesamtkunstwerk is relevant to the present study.
“Synthesis” comes from the Greek word sýnthesis, which means various forms ofknowledge put together to form complete knowledge (Machauer 2009, 14). Based on
this philosophical view, on the one hand synthesis is understood as a unifying activity
and on the other as the whole gained through it (Machauer 2009, 14).
This basic understanding of the word “synthesis” is relevant to Wigley and Michaud’s
explanation of the two perspectives for understanding TGKWI. According to Wigley(1998, 1), the perspective of the architect who organizes various forms points to Wagner
Gesamtkunstwerk while the perspective of the architect who designs all objects points
to Bauhaus Gesamtkunstwerk. According to Michaud (2019, 1), the second perspective—
Bauhaus Gesamtkunstwerk—is a reworking of the first in the Bauhaus School program.
The two TGKWI perspectives are connected, and they must be implemented together
for a design object to be regarded as a Gesamtkunstwerk object.
According to Wagner’s perspective, namely, the collation of different art forms to
produce a single meaning, a Gesamtkunstwerk design object does not show the dominanceof one design form. Wagner’s TGKWI, as manifested in architecture, is the focusing ofdesign inward on a single intense point (Wigley 1998, 1). Wigley calls this the implosionof design, which takes over a space, subjecting every detail, every surface, to an over7) Das Bauhaus erstrebt die Sammlung alles künstlerischen Schaffens zur Einheit, die Wiedervereinigung
aller werkkünstlerischen Disziplinen – Bildhauerei, Malerei, Kunstgewerbe und Handwerk – zu einer
neuen Baukunst als deren unablösliche Bestandteile (Gropius 1919, 3).
8) There are several English translations of the term “Gesamtkunstwerk”: synthesis of the arts
(Machauer 2009, 15; Gabriel 2020, 189); unified work of art (Lægring 2020, 96); total work of art(Vidalis 2002, 50; M. W. Smith 2007, 3; Menninger 2016, 1; Koepnick 2017, 273; Michaud 2019, 3);integrated work of art (Neumann 1951, 222); and others.

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

293

arching vision. Meanwhile, Michaud has defined Wagner’s TGKWI as the collective workof art of the future (Michaud 2019, 3). Michaud’s definition makes a Gesamtkunstwerk
object the embodiment of a collective work of art or communal work. Based on thisdescription, a design object resulting from a synthesis of various scientific disciplines
implements Wagner’s TGKWI if the object can provide a new design meaning for the
benefit of human life.
The second perspective on Gesamtkunstwerk design refers to the Bauhaus idea ofbeing able to meet universal human needs. Bauhaus TGKWI is defined by Wigley as
the expansion of design to touch every possible point in the world (Wigley 1998, 1).
Wigley called this the explosion of design, the ability of an architect to design everythingfrom teaspoon-sized objects to urban planning. Meanwhile, Michaud defines Bauhaus
TGKWI as the communal work of art of the future (Michaud 2019, 3). Michaud’s
definition provides an understanding of a Gesamtkunstwerk object as fulfilling the needsof the public in a homogeneous manner. Based on this description, a design object isconsidered to implement Bauhaus TGKWI if the new meaning given by the object cansatisfy the broadest possible needs of human life.
A design object implements TGKWI practically, because the object is a synthesis ofvarious scientific disciplines that satisfy universal human needs. This is in line with theperspective of the Bauhaus School, which is oriented toward the synthesis of all aspectsof life (Michaud 2019, 10). Referring also to Bauhaus, the practical implementation of
TGKWI includes more modern forms of media, namely, architecture, interior design,
product design, media design, and others. TGKWI provides an aesthetic laboratory forthe reintegration of the auditory, visual, and tactile senses, in which modern subjects
can explore different artistic settings (Koepnick 2017, 278).

Indonesian Legislative Building Complex: Implementation of the Idea ofGesamtkunstwerk by Architect Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo
Soejoedi (1928–81), the architect of TILBC,9) was a pioneer of modern architecture inIndonesia and set up architecture schools in the nation’s big cities. He was an outstanding representative of a German education, with his work being formalistic, measurable,
and well defined (Yuswadi 2003, 111). In Soejoedi’s artistic approach, form, function,and material came together in geometric compositions (Bagoes 2013, 181). Soejoedi
used two types of aesthetic inspiration to immerse himself in design matters, namely,9) The selection of the Indonesian Legislative Building Complex for this study was approved by sources
who knew Soejoedi during a site survey in July 2022.

294

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

the harmonization of small and large universe targets (Budi 2011, 44). His aesthetic
inspiration came from his interest in Indonesian vernacular architecture along with his
experience in Europe.
Soejoedi graduated from Technische Universität (TU) Berlin in 1960. He returned
to Indonesia in 1961 and became the head of the Department of Architecture at theBandung Institute of Technology (ITB). He laid the foundation for an architectural
education that emphasized the exploration of modern technology in construction andbuilding materials (Bagoes 2013, 181). Soejoedi’s final project at TU Berlin, which was
exhibited in the Department of Architecture at ITB, reflected a mix of Indonesian andPrussian traditions (Yuswadi 2012, 110). The Western ideas in Soejoedi’s architecturaldesign were the result of his educational and apprenticeship experiences in Europe in
1954–61.10)
Soejoedi won an architectural design competition for his TILBC project. TILBC
was originally set up as a political venue to complement the sports complex that was built
in 1962 for the the Fourth Asian Games in Jakarta (Budi et al. 1995, 17). Through a
Presidential Decree dated March 8, 1965, President Soekarno (1901–70), the firstpresident of the Republic of Indonesia, assigned Minister of Public Works and Energy
Soeprajogi to carry out the construction of a project for political activities, namely, theConference of the New Emerging Forces (Conefo).11) The Conefo project had to becompleted before the commemoration of the Proclamation of Independence of the
Republic of Indonesia on August 17, 1966. The groundbreaking of the first pillar of theConefo project was carried out on April 19, 1965, coinciding with the Celebration of
the Decade of the Asian-African Conference in Jakarta (Budi 2011, 65).
10) In 1951 Soejoedi began his architecture studies at the Bandung Faculty of Engineering, Universityof Indonesia. In 1954–56 he continued his studies at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris with ascholarship from the French government. His architecture education in Indonesia was not recognized by the École des Beaux-Arts, so in 1956 he transferred to the Technische Hogeschool
Delft in the Netherlands and remained there until 1958. Due to tensions between the Dutch andIndonesian governments, in 1958 Soejoedi transferred yet again—this time to Technische Universität
Berlin, where he remained until 1960. In Berlin he studied under Wilhelm Kreuer (1910–84) andKurt Dübbers (1905–87). According to the Dipl.-Ing. Arsitek Exhibition in Jakarta (December 12,
2022–January 13, 2023), Soejoedi did internships in architectural offices during his studies in
Europe: in 1957 he apprenticed at Kraaijvanger Architects in Rotterdam, in 1958 at Kasper in
Freiburg, and in 1960 at Hentrich Petscnigg und Partner in Düsseldorf.
11) At the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement in Belgrade in 1961, President Soekarno introduced
the political ideas of Nefos and Oldefos: Nefos (New Emerging Forces) as a force of imperialism
consisting of countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America along with socialist countries; Oldefos(Old Established Forces) as a colonial force consisting of Western capitalist countries. Indonesia
also tried to persuade the Non-Aligned countries to create a counter-UN called the Conference of
New Countries (Conefo), which resulted in a rift between Indonesia and the other countries (Agus
2014, 155).

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

295

The Conefo project is one of the monumental projects built by President Soekarno
after the proclamation of Indonesian independence in 1945. “Monumental project” wasthe term used by President Soekarno to celebrate the independence of the Indonesiannation through architectural works (Yuke 2023). This term encapsulates the ideas ofglory and immortality embodied in the unity of architecture, art, and science. Throughthe 1961–69 Pola Pembangunan Nasional Semesta Berencana (Planned universal national
development pattern) policy, President Soekarno prioritized the construction of monumental projects for developing the personality of the Indonesian nation (Bambang 2023).
The Conefo project consisted of several buildings complete with interior and landscaped design areas, all approved by President Soekarno, who had given certain design
specifications: the buildings had to reflect Indonesian personality traits, and they had todisplay the excellence of Indonesian design through their grandeur and ability torespond to modern challenges (Budi et al. 1995, 20). The time constraints for implementing the Conefo project development were overcome by mobilizing resources fromvarious government departments and agencies, private companies, as well as young
workers and students from various universities in Indonesia. The Conefo project, which
was developed by Wahono, chairman of the Indonesian Legislature, was touted as
implementing a spirit of togetherness (Budi et al. 1995, xvi). The collaborative work
between technical and non-technical personnel transformed the project into a field
laboratory that produced technical and management cadres for the future implementationof modern development in Indonesia. The Conefo project was the first large-scalebuilding project in the country (Budi et al. 1995, 22). However, a change in the politicalsituation disrupted the allocation of the facilities. Since May 1968, Conefo has been theofficial place of work and trials of Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat dan Dewan Perwakilan
Rakyat Republik Indonesia (People’s Consultative Assembly and People’s Representative
Council of the Republic of Indonesia) (Budi et al. 1995, 61).
Soejoedi was appointed by the Indonesian government to be the head of theEngineering Planning and Supervision Team. He designed four separate facilities12) for
the Conefo political venue: the Nusantara Building as the main conference building, theNusantara III Building as the secretariat building, the Nusantara IV Building as thebanquet hall, and the Nusantara V Building as the auditorium (Fig. 1). The separationof venues was based also on time considerations, so that construction could be carried12) The names of the existing buildings in the Indonesian Legislative Building Complex reflect thefollowing changes: the main conference building was renamed from Grahatama to Nusantara Building,the secretariat building was renamed from Lokawirasabha to Nusantara III Building, the banquet
hall was renamed from Pustakaloka to Nusantara IV Building, and the auditorium was renamed from
Grahakarana to Nusantara V Building.

296

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

Fig. 1 Model of the Indonesian Legislative Building Complex: (1) Nusantara
Building, (2) Nusantara III Building, (3) Nusantara IV Building, (4) Nusantara
V Building
Source: Budi et al. (1995), reprography

out simultaneously by different contractors (Budi et al. 1995, 23).
The description below shows how Soejoedi implemented the TGKWI idea to realize
President Soekarno’s mandate. Referring to the “two perspectives from opposite directions” of Wagner and Bauhaus, where design objects are a synthesis of various scientificdisciplines that give new meaning and fulfill universal human needs, TGKWI was implemented in the fields of architecture, interiors, and landscape design. The change in thedesignation of facilities from the Conefo project to TILBC in 1968 had no effect on thefunction of each building. Therefore, the analysis of this case study is carried out along
two tracks: as the Conefo project as well as TILBC.
Soejoedi designed the main conference building or Nusantara Building as the mainbuilding in the Conefo project. This was based on the major activities carried out at thebuilding, namely, meetings for making important decisions. On the first floor are fivemeeting rooms—called wacanasabha rooms—with different seating capacities. On thesecond floor is the main conference room, with a capacity of around 1,700 seats, whichis called Grahasabha Paripurna. In keeping with President Soekarno’s stipulations,Soejoedi designed the Nusantara Building to display the personality of the Indonesiannation. Its embodiment in TILBC is the values that must be fulfilled in the sessions of
the Indonesian Legislative Body as a representative of the Indonesian people.
The Nusantara Building is the venue for sessions of the People’s Consultative
Assembly and the People’s Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia. It has

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

297

2a

2b

2c

Fig. 2a The Two-Part Shape of the Domed Roof of the Nusantara Building
Fig. 2b 
The Kesaksian (Testimony) Mural in the Commission II Meeting Room,
Nusantara Building, Second Floor
Fig. 2c 
The Gotong Royong (Mutual cooperation) Relief in the Commission V
Meeting Room, Nusantara Building, Second Floor
Sources: 2a: photo by authors, 2022; 2b and 2c: DPR RI (1990)

a domed roof with two parts, with the edges raised and truncated at a point (Fig. 2a). The
two-part shape of the roof was the result of experiments by Soejoedi and his assistantNurpontjo, and the construction was approved by Sutami (Budi et al. 1995, 43). Saliya(author interview, 2022) stated that there are several interpretations of this form, but
the most appropriate is the “yes or no” opinion symbol. The symbolism of the two opinions shows that there are two attitudes that must be chosen by the representatives of
the Indonesian people for making decisions in the Indonesian Legislative Body sessions.
In the Commission II Meeting Room is a mural titled Kesaksian (Testimony), by the
painter Ahmad Sadeli (1924–87). This mural is made of wall paint and mixed medium(Fig. 2b). The composition is not intended to express any particular illustration orsymbol. In the middle of the mural is a dominant black spot that is similar to the shapeof an eye. Black spots are a manifestation of eyes that look attentively even though theperson does not show himself (DPR RI 1990, 15). The mural is seen as symbolizing thepresence of an invisible supervisor, so that the people’s representatives can be held
accountable to the Indonesian nation for their decisions.
In the Commission V Meeting Room there is a relief titled Gotong Royong (Mutual

298

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

cooperation), which is the work of the sculptor and painter But Muchtar (1930–93).
This relief is made of copperplate material using a welding technique (Fig. 2c). Gotong
Royong shows a group of people holding hands (DPR RI 1990, 19). The human reliefs
are of different heights and sizes, while the sun shape reflects the brightness of life.
The work is seen as a symbol of the need for cooperation to achieve the ideals of theIndonesian state. This collaboration must be carried out by all levels of Indonesiansociety regardless of differences based on ethnicity, religion, and race and relations
between groups.
President Soekarno’s stipulations also covered the exterior layout of the Conefo
project (Budi et al. 1995, 18). The person responsible for designing the outer area was
Slamet Wirasondjaja (1935–2016), assisted by Soelarto, Soemardjan, Wahyudi, andZaini, who supported the monumentality of Soejoedi’s architectural works. The placementof the four buildings in this wide open space gives the impression of monumentalarchitecture. The dominant horizontal planes and lines of the four structures can reducethe monumental impression of the Conefo project requested by President Soekarno.
Slamet Wirasondjaja presented monumental axes in his landscape design to strengthen
the monumental impression (Budi et al. 1995, 47). He realized the monumental axes
through hard and soft landscape designs (Fig. 3a): the former by a row of fountains at

3a

3b

3c

Fig. 3a Designing the Conefo Project LandscapeFig. 3b 
The Batu-Batu Pembangunan Relief on the East Facade of the Nusantara
IV Building
Fig. 3c The Statue with Aesthetic Elements in Front of the Nusantara Building
Sources: 3a: DPR RI (1990), reprography; 3b and 3c: photos by authors, 2022

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

299

the front of the Nusantara Building, and the latter in the form of green elements at theback of the building. The design of other exterior elements was guided by the monumental axes.
On the monumental axis in the front of the Nusantara Building is a statue of anaesthetic element that is also the work of the sculptor and painter But Muchtar. This
statue is made of an iron frame construction covered with copper sheets and embedded
in a concrete foundation (Fig. 3c). The statue is a spatial amplifier to achieve thearchitectural unity of the four masses in TILBC (DPR RI 1990, 14). The sculptural
aesthetic elements are the supporting elements, reinforcing elements, and limiting
elements of the entire TILBC design. The aesthetic elements of the statue represent
the hopes of the Indonesian people in the past, present, and future. The value of spatial
penetration is derived from the shape of the statue, which has volume and space thatis not dense.
The relief on the east facade of the Nusantara IV Building is titled Batu-batu
Pembangunan (Development stone). The relief, made of lightweight concrete, is 63
meters long and 5 meters wide (Fig. 3b). Batu-batu Pembangunan is in the originalform of a traditional jaja pattern arrangement from Bali, which was made as an offering
to God (DPR RI 1990, 15). This pattern, which consists of shapes in a geometricarrangement, describes various aspects of Indonesian people’s lives that together build
the future of the nation.
President Soekarno required the greatness of Indonesian engineering design to be
displayed in the Conefo project (Budi et al. 1995, 20). This demanded an architecturalform that displayed technological advances, new constructions, and new building materials that were able to meet the challenges of the times.
The domed roof of the Nusantara Building consists of two parts whose ends areraised, with the truncated parts meeting at a point. The roof arc structure, with one
meeting point, plunges below the ground surface to ensure its load is distributed evenly(Fig. 4a). The shape of the roof is the result of an experiment to make a pure domeshaped roof mock-up. Experiments through unplanned manual work led to the decision
to produce an architectural work, along with its technological completion. The roof shapeof the Nusantara Building meets the requirement to respond to the challenges of thetimes through the use of new construction and new building materials.
The design of the Nusantara III Building or secretariat building, with a total of nine
floors, has an outer area as a receiving room for the sports venue complex, which lies tothe east of the TILBC area. The sun visor material installed on the western facade of
the building reinforces the impression of a positive outdoor space design presented by
the Nusantara III Building (Fig. 4b), as does the use of new building materials for the300

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

4a

4b

4c

Fig. 4a The Roof Arc Structure of the Nusantara Building
Fig. 4b The Nusantara III Building or Secretariat Building
Fig. 4c The Nusantara IV Building or Banquet Hall
Source: Photos by authors, 2022

Nusantara IV Building or banquet hall. The Nusantara IV Building is in the International
Style, namely, a simple and modern volume-over-mass architectural form (Fig. 4c).
The architectural design analysis and design objects explain how Soejoedi implemented TGKWI in the Conefo or TILBC project design. The synthesis between architecture and various design objects in the design of the Nusantara Building produces a
new meaning for the activities carried out by the Legislature, which represents the
expectations of the Indonesian people. The new meaning is that decisions on Indonesia’s
future are based on the character of the Indonesian nation. The Nusantara Building may
be viewed by the national and international public as a symbol of the Indonesian nation’s
character. In this context, the design of the outer spaces strengthens the symbolism of
the Nusantara Building. Thus, TILBC is viewed by the Indonesian people as representing them and by the international community as representing the character of theIndonesian nation.

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

301

The above analysis explains how Soejoedi implemented TGKWI to achieve excellence in design works by Indonesian technicians. Experiments with materials produced
new architectural forms that adapted to technological developments. Soejoedi’s demand
for modern technology in the selection of materials for the Conefo project resulted inan International Style development that may be compared with modern buildings in theWestern world.

Electricity and New Energy Museum: Implementation of the Idea ofGesamtkunstwerk by Designer Widagdo
Widagdo (b. May 1, 1934) was the interior designer as well as exhibition designer at
the Electricity and New Energy Museum (TEANEM). His works emphasize honest,
geometric, functional forms and detailed processing (Agus and Yan 2002, 77). Widagdo’s
works have triggered the growth of interior design services in Indonesia. His interior
design of the Indonesian Pavilion at the 1970 Osaka Expo was the starting point for therecognition of Indonesian interior designers (HDII 2004, 12). Widagdo was one of thefounders of the Indonesian interior designers association13) in 1983 and the Indonesian
Design Center in 1995 (Widagdo 2011, 224).
He graduated from the Staatliche Akademie der Bildende Künste Stuttgart in 1964.
After his return to Indonesia, Widagdo taught at the Bandung Institute of Technology’s
Department of Fine Arts from 1966 until he retired in 2004. He said (author interview,2022) that two of his lecturers at Stuttgart were students from the Bauhaus School:
Hannes Neuner (1906–78)14) was a Bauhaus student in 1929 who taught the Basic
Course and selected Widagdo to join his class; Herbert Hirche (1910–2002)15) was a
Bauhaus student in 1930 who taught interior architecture. Widagdo explained that
Hirche’s teaching method was not instructional in nature but left design decisions to13) Indonesian Society of Interior Designers (Himpunan Desainer Interior Indonesia, or HDII) is theagreed-upon name to cover the broad group of interior design fields. The inauguration and first
congress of HDII was held on January 17, 1983, in the Multipurpose Building of the Erasmus Huisin the Netherlands embassy, Jakarta. At the event, Achmad Sadali and Widagdo were appointed to
the HDII Honorary Council.
14) Neuner taught at the Staatliche Akademie der Bildende Künste Stuttgart in 1953–67. He taught
classes in abstract or non-representational direction, interior design and furniture making, andpainting and drawing (Büttner et al. 2011, 207, 211, 254).
15) Hirche was the rector of the Staatliche Akademie der Bildende Künste Stuttgart in 1969–71 andalso taught interior design and furniture making (Wobus 2011). He visited Indonesia, though thevisit was not documented. While writing his memoir from his time as a student at the Bauhaus
School, Hirche was a guest of the Widagdo family in Indonesia (Solichin 2020, 2).

302

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

the subjectivity of his students.
As mentioned earlier, TEANEM is located in the BIMP16) area, Kramat Jati, DKI
Jakarta 13560. BIMP was built under President Soeharto (1921–2008), the second
president of the Republic of Indonesia, and was inaugurated on April 20, 1975. It is amodern ethnographic garden constructed by the Indonesian government in an effort toadvance the Indonesian state (Yulia 2016, 121). BIMP is designed to reflect the diversityof Indonesia’s population and represent Pancasila, the five principles laid down by thestate for political and social order, the philosophy of the Indonesian state (Hitchcock
2005, 45). BIMP is a permanent and modern tool for introducing Indonesia to othernations, so that the outside world ostensibly has a correct understanding of the country(Suradi et al. 1989, 9).
BIMP showcases the culture of each region of Indonesia. A glimpse of Indonesian
culture is displayed in the provincial administrative area, which is equipped with arts,
educational, and recreational facilities. BIMP’s target market is the domestic community,
and its purpose in attracting visitors is to increase their sense of national pride while
adding scientific treasures. BIMP is a counterbalance to Indonesia’s economic development and is directed at the development of projects in the mental-spiritual field (Suradi
et al. 1989, 11).
Parmanto, the coordinating officer for development at the Electricity and New
Energy Museum when the observation was carried out in April 2022, stated thatTEANEM was the first modern science museum in Indonesia (author interview, 2022).
TEANEM is one of 18 museums in the BIMP region. As an educational tool complementing BIMP, TEANEM has the duty of being a science ambassador with the goal of building
an energy-efficient Indonesian society. For more than 25 years, TEANEM has been
active in developing scientific understanding of electrical energy among the Indonesian
people. The TEANEM development concept was designed in 1990 by Minister of Minesand Energy Ginanjar Kartasasmita, on the thirtieth anniversary of the Organization ofPetroleum Exporting Countries and the hundredth anniversary of Indonesia’s Electricity
Day. Exhibition objects as tangible objects are used by museums to represent certain
intangible concepts (Wood and Latham 2014, 42). Based on this idea, TEANEM presents
a collection of objects that show the development of science and technology with regard16) The Taman Mini Indonesia Indah (Beautiful Indonesia Miniature Park, or BIMP) project was initiatedby Siti Hartinah, the wife of President Soeharto, as a recreation area that could depict the greatness
and beauty of Indonesia in miniature. The park has an area of approximately 150 hectares. In thecenter is a lake with some islands representing the territory of the Republic of Indonesia anddepicting its tribes, customs, religions, cultures, flora, and fauna. The purpose behind BIMP wasto showcase the what, who, and how of Indonesia; improve the education and knowledge of Indonesians; as well as foster a sense of national pride.

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

303

Fig. 5 The Plan of the Block of the Electricity and New Energy Museum
Source: Directorate General of Electricity and Energy Development (1992), reprography

to electrical and renewable energy, as well as information on its various applications ineveryday life.
TEANEM occupies two hectares, with a total building area of 6,500 square meters.
The architecture consists of four building masses depicting the shape of an atom with
one proton surrounded by three electrons. The Electricity Pavilion, designed to illustrate
the atomic arrangement of protons, is the central building and is surrounded by threeother buildings: the New Energy Pavilion, the Fossil Energy Pavilion, and the Conventional Energy Pavilion (Fig. 5). Parmanto stated that the construction of the TEANEM
development was directed toward the future, so the Electricity Pavilion and the New
Energy Pavilion were built first (author interview, 2022). Based on the April 2022
observations of the research team, the TEANEM development includes the two buildings.
The basic concept behind the TEANEM design is to provide a comprehensive
demonstration of electrical energy (LAPI-ITB 1993, 1) that can provide a correct understanding of the theory and basic principles of electricity, convey an overview of the
production and distribution of electrical energy, and show the use of electricity for industrial purposes and daily household needs. A comprehensive demonstration of scienceand technology with regard to electrical energy requires the simultaneous involvement

304

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

of several disciplines. The best strategy is to have interdisciplinary teams, thus increasing the possibility of multidimensional decision making (Pekarik et al. 2014, 18). For
this reason, TEANEM formed a team of experts from the fields of electricity, physics,
education, visual communication design, display product design, and museum interior
design (LAPI-ITB 1993, 3). The team designed objects that could be displayed in themuseum to explain the principles of electrical energy. The objects embody a synthesisof concepts from various scientific disciplines and provide a new experience when
visiting TEANEM.
The description below shows how Widagdo implemented the idea of Gesamtkunstwerk
to realize President Soeharto’s mandate. Referring to the “two perspectives from
opposite directions” of TGKWI from Wagner and Bauhaus, where design objects embody
a synthesis of various scientific disciplines in order to satisfy universal human needs, theimplementation of TGKWI in designing the interior and museum objects of TEANEM
are described below.
The main purpose of a visit to TEANEM is to learn about scientific and technologicaldevelopments in the rapidly progressing field of electrical and renewable energy. This
information is shared by each museum object through educational methods that are
informative but not analytical, popular but not scientifically deep, and recreational but do
not demand reasoning (LAPI-ITB 1993, 2).
TEANEM shares information on the science and technology of potential sources ofgeothermal energy and their use in everyday life (Fig. 6). Decisions on display objects

Fig. 6 Museum Objects That Explain the Potential Sources of Geothermal Energy
and Their Use in Everyday Life (photo by Widagdo, 1995)

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

305

Fig. 7 
A Museum Display That Explains the Potential Sources of Solar Energy
and Its Use in Everyday Life (photo by authors, 2022)

and visitor experiences are made by a team of experts in electricity, education, productdesign, visual communication design, and interior design.
TEANEM also uses a team of experts to share knowledge about the potential
sources of solar energy and its use in everyday life: electricity experts weigh in on thepotential conversion of solar energy into electrical energy; education experts formulate
informative, recreational, and popular ways to educate visitors about the use of solar
energy sources; product designers design models of solar energy sources; and visualcommunication designers put information into a two-dimensional display so that visitors’
attention is focused on information about potential solar energy sources. The interior
designer combines the inputs from the various experts to devise a display object for
TEANEM (Fig. 7).
Knowledge about the electric power system is conveyed to visitors through displays
showing the generation, high-voltage transmission, and medium-voltage distributionof electrical energy (LAPI-ITB 1993, 6). The expert team’s input was realized by theinterior designer as follows: The knowledge object is a compilation of data on a map of
the electric power system in Indonesia which displays power plants in two-dimensional
media, high-voltage transmission information, and information on the consumption ofelectricity in Indonesia (Fig. 8). The object provides information on where electricalenergy is produced, where it comes from, and where it is used. Visitors gain knowledge
through direct interaction with objects, such as lights that can be turned on in the animatedmap of the electric power system. This TEANEM object is equipped with several other306

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

Fig. 8 
Display on Electric Power Systems Showing the Generation of Electrical
Energy, High-Voltage Transmission, and Medium-Voltage Distribution(photo by authors, 2022)

elements to support knowledge about the production and distribution of electrical energy
in Indonesia.
Technology for the production and distribution of electrical energy is also demonstrated in the form of artificial objects. Such TEANEM objects provide information
about the location of power plants, which must be far from the load center, whereproblems are caused by differences in geographical conditions. From such museum
objects, visitors learn that hydroelectric power plants are always located far from consumers, while electric steam power plants are located far from cities in order to avoid
dust pollution. The model object displays are focused primarily on details of the substation, based on the application of the theory of converting electrical energy into electricity
through a transformer.
The analysis of some of the teaching aids above explains the way in which Widagdo
implemented TGKWI in designing objects for TEANEM. With reference to the “twoperspectives from opposite directions,” on the one hand the definition of TGKWI is asynthesis of knowledge from experts in the fields of electricity, education, product design,visual communication design, and interior design who gave birth to new meanings ofobjects containing knowledge about electrical and renewable energy. On the other hand,the understanding of TGKWI through informative, recreational, and popular methods inthe form of objects at TEANEM gives Indonesians knowledge of electrical and renewableenergy, which can help them use such energy wisely.

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

307

Conclusion
It is very possible that when Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo designed the architecture of TILBC
and Widagdo designed objects for TEANEM, they did not announce that they had
implemented TGKWI. However, since the design projects incorporate cross-disciplines,
it is certain that the two case studies can be referred to as TGKWI. This is because thesynthesis of various disciplines has been identified as the implementation of TGKWI.
This practice is, of course, an outcome of Soejoedi’s and Widagdo’s German educational
background, where the idea of modern Gesamtkunstwerk is synonymous with Bauhaus.
TILBC is a Gesamtkunstwerk design object. Its synthesis is presented through its
architectural form, its various types of artwork that complement the inside and outsideof the building, as well as its landscape arrangement. The synthesis gives architecture
a new meaning to express the noble values of the Indonesian nation, which are represented by the various activities of Indonesians around the world.
All the museum objects in TEANEM are Gesamtkunstwerk design objects. Eachmuseum object is a synthesis of interdisciplinary knowledge, a realization of concepts
from electricity, physics, education, visual communication, display design, and interior
museum design. This synthesis is aimed at ensuring that knowledge about the use ofelectrical energy resonates with all types of visitors, that it raises awareness and concern
such that Indonesia becomes known for its energy efficiency.
The above analysis of the architectural design of TILBC and the interior design
and museum objects of TEANEM has shown the role of TGKWI in presenting the faceof the nation that two presidents of the Republic of Indonesia wanted to convey on theworld stage. TILBC displays the political policies that affect the lives of Indonesian
people and the ability of Indonesian experts to master modern technology, while
TEANEM displays the mastery and utilization of electrical energy science and technology
by Indonesians.
Within this framework, it has been underlined that TGKWI must be implemented
with “two perspectives from opposite directions.” TGKWI according to Wagner’s
definition aims at giving new meaning to design objects through the synthesis of various
scientific disciplines. However, as a design object that is owned by the public, its newmeaning must also be provided to the public; this aspect refers to TGKWI according to
the Bauhaus definition. Implementing two TGKWIs simultaneously allows for a surprising number of meanings in design objects. This study offers ideas for various
experiments with TGKWI through the many design forms or features available.
Accepted: August 17, 2023

308

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Widagdo and Yuswadi Saliya for sharing their expertise on various aspectsof Bauhaus ideas.

References
Agus Budiman. 2014. Implementasi Politik Luar Negeri Bebas Aktif pada Masa Demokrasi Terpimpin
1959–1965 [Implementation of “free and active” foreign policy during the Guided Democracy period
1959–1965]. Jurnal Ilmiah Cakrawala 5(2): 149–158. http://repository.unigal.ac.id:8080/handle/
123456789/607, accessed August 1, 2022.
Agus Sachari and Yan Yan Sunarya. 2002. Sejarah dan Perkembangan Desain dan Dunia Kesenirupaan
di Indonesia [History and development of design and the world of fine arts in Indonesia]. Bandung:
ITB Press.
Bagoes Wiryomartono. 2013. Soejoedi and Architecture in Modern Indonesia: A Critical Post-colonial
Study. Archnet-IJAR 7(1): 177–185.
Biggs, Michael. 2002. The Role of the Artefact in Art and Design Research. International Journal of
Design Sciences and Technology 10(2): 19–24. https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/handle/2299/324, accessed
August 1, 2022.
Brown, Steven and Dissanayake, Ellen. 2018. The Synthesis of the Arts: From Ceremonial Ritual to“Total Work of Art.” Frontiers in Sociology 3(9): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00009.
Budi A. Sukada; Yulius Pour; and Hilmi Syatria. 1995. Gedung MPR/DPR RI: Tonggak Karya-Cipta
Putera Bangsa Indonesia Wahana Perujudan Demokrasi Pancasila [The MPR/DPR RI ’s building:
A milestone work by Indonesians, manifestation of Pancasila democracy]. Jakarta: Tim Panitia
Penerbitan Buku Gedung MPR/DPR-RI Sejarah dan Perkembangannya.
Budi Sukada. 2011. Membuka Selubung Cakrawala Arsitek Soejoedi [Unveiling the horizons of Soejoedi
the architect]. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Büttner, Nils; Bernhardt, Ulrich; and Bracht, Nadine. 2011. Rücksichten. 250 Jahre Akademie der
Bildenden Künste Stuttgart [Considerations: 250 years of the Stuttgart Academy of Fine Arts].
Stuttgart: Staatliche Akademie der Bildenden Künste. https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/
3291/, accessed July 1, 2022.
Directorate General of Electricity and Energy Development. 1992. Proyek Pembangunan Gedung
Museum Listrik dan Energi Baru Taman Mini Indonesia Indah [Construction project for the new
Electricity and Energy Museum building at Beautiful Indonesia Miniature Park]. Jakarta: PT Citra
Konsulindo Utama.
DPR RI. 1990. Parlementaria Majalah Bulanan DPR RI [Parliamentarians: Monthly magazine ofPeople’s Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia] 22(3): 11–22. Jakarta: DPR RI.
Gabriel, Marcos Faccioli. 2020. Da obra de arte total à síntese das artes [From total work of art to thesynthesis of arts]. Trans/Form/Acao 43(2): 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2020.v43n2.
11.p189.
Gropius, Walter. 1919. Programm des Staatlichen Bauhauses in Weimar [Program of the state Bauhaus
in Weimar]. Weimar: Bauhaus. https://monoskop.org/images/c/c3/Gropius_Walter_Programm_des_Staatlichen_Bauhauses_in_Weimar_1919.pdf, accessed July 1, 2022.
HDII. 2004. Karya Desainer Interior Indonesia [The works of Indonesian interior designers]. Jakarta:
Pustaka Rumah Kebun.
Hitchcock, Michael. 2005. We Will Know Our Nation Better: Taman Mini and Nation Building in

The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk on Indonesian Design Objects

309

Indonesia. Civilisations 52(2): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.4000/civilisations.754.
Kim Jeong-Hee. 2016. Understanding Narrative Inquiry: The Crafting and Analysis of Stories as Research.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Koepnick, Lutz. 2017. Gesamtkunstwerk. In The Cambridge History of Modernism, edited by Vincent
Sherry, pp. 273–288. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kultennann, Udo. 1995. The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk: Lenbachhaus and Stuckvilla in Munich. Journalof Art History 64(3): 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00233609508604384.
Lægring, Kasper. 2020. The Futility of the Collaborative Modernist Gesamtkunstwerk: A GoodmanianExplanation. Studii de Istoria si Teoria Arhitecturii [Studies in history and theory of architecture]
8: 95–112. https://doi.org/10.54508/sITA.8.08.
LAPI-ITB. 1993. Proposal Teknis dan Biaya Museum Listrik dan Energi Baru [Technical and cost
proposal for the Electricity and New Energy Museum]. Unpublished research report.
Machauer, Peter. 2009. Die Genealogie der synthetischen Werkidee. Zur Kulturgeschichte desGesamtkunstwerks von der Renaissance bis zur Romantik [The genealogy of the synthetic work
idea: On the cultural history of the total work of art from the Renaissance to the Romanticism
period]. PhD dissertation, Ruhr-Universität Bochum. https://d-nb.info/1154307514/34, accessed
August 1, 2022.
Menninger, Margaret Eleanor. 2016. Introduction. In The Total Work of Art: Foundations, Articulations,Inspirations, edited by David Imhoof, Margaret Eleanor Menninger, and Anthony J. Steinhoff,
pp. 1–18. New York: Berghahn Books.
Michaud, Éric. 2019. The Total Work of Art and Totalitarianism. Thesis Eleven 152(1): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513619850904.
Moholy-Nagy, Lázló. 1927. Bauhausbücher 8 Malerei, Fotografie, Film [Painting, photography, film].
Munich: Albert Langen Verlag. https://monoskop.org/images/6/6c/Moholy-Nagy_L_Malerei_
Fotografie_Film_1927.pdf, accessed July 1, 2022.
Munch, Anders V. 2021. The Gesamtkunstwerk in Design and Architecture: From Bayreuth to Bauhaus.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Neumann, Alfred Robert. 1951. The Evolution of the Concept Gesamtkunstwerk in German Romanticism.
PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Pekarik, Andrew J.; Schreiber, James B.; Hanemann, Nadine; Richmond, Kelly; and Mogel, Barbara.
2014. IPOP: A Theory of Experience Preference. Curator: The Museum Journal 57(1): 5–27.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12048.
Pombo, Fátima. 2014. Jules Wabbes (1919–1974): Creating Total Works of Art in Interiors. Journal ofInterior Design 39(3): 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12024.
Roberts, David. 2011. The Total Work of Art in European Modernism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
and Cornell University Library.
Smith, Matthew Wilson. 2007. The Total Work of Art: From Bayreuth to Cyberspace. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203963166.
Smith, Owen F. 2007. Object Artifacts, Image Artifacts and Conceptual Artifacts: Beyond the Object
into the Event. Artifact 1(1): 2–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/17493460600610707.
Solichin Gunawan. 2020. Setengah Abad dengan Desain [Half a century in design]. Unpublished research
report.
Suradi H. P.; Sutrisno Kutoyo; Masjkuri, Wahyuningsih; and T. A. Sukrani. 1989. Sejarah Taman Mini
Indonesia Indah [History of Beautiful Indonesia Miniature Park]. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan
dan Kebudayaan. http://repositori.kemdikbud.go.id/id/eprint/13426, accessed July 1, 2022.
Trimingham, Melissa. 2016. Gesamtkunstwerk, Gestaltung, and the Bauhaus Stage. In The Total
Work of Art: Foundations, Articulations, Inspirations, edited by David Imhoof, Margaret Eleanor

310

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

Menninger, and Anthony J. Steinhoff, pp. 95–114. New York: Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/
10.2307/j.ctvr6955g.11.
Tsampa, Anatoli. 2017. Wort Ton Bild Welt. Zum Filmischen Gesamtkunstwerk. Entstehung und
Aktualität Eines Visionären Konzeptes [Word Sound Image World: Toward the cinematic total workof art. The emergence and topicality of a visionary concept]. PhD dissertation, Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin.
Vidalis, Michael A. 2002. Gesamtkunstwerk: Total Work of Art. Journal of the Association of Greek
Architects 35: 50–52.
Wagner, Richard. 1850. Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft [The artwork of the future]. Leipzig: O. Wigand.
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_tuxAAAAAcAAJ, accessed July 1, 2022.
Widagdo. 2011. Desain dan Kebudayaan [Design and culture]. Bandung: ITB Press.
Wigley, Mark. 1998. Whatever Happened to Total Design? Harvard Design Magazine: Design, Arts,
and Architecture 5: 1–8. https://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/articles/whatever-happened-tototal-design/, accessed July 20, 2022.
Wobus, Undine. 2011. Innenarchitektur und Möbelbau an der Stuttgarter Kunstakademie nach 1945
[Interior design and furniture construction at the Stuttgart Art Academy after 1945]. In Rücksichten.
250 Jahre Akademie der Bildenden Künste Stuttgart [Considerations: 250 years Academy of Fine Arts
Stuttgart], edited by Nils Büttner, Ulrich Bernhardt, and Nadine Bracht, pp. 283–298. Stuttgart:
Staatliche Akademie der Bildenden Künste Publisher. https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/
3291/1/Buettner_250_Jahre_Akademie_der_Bildenden_Kuenste_Stuttgart_2011.pdf, accessed
July 1, 2022.
Wood, Elizabeth and Latham, Kiersten F. 2014. The Objects of Experience: Transforming Visitor-Object
Encounters in Museums. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315417776.
Yin, Robert K. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Yulia Nurliani Lukito. 2016. Taman Mini Indonesia Indah: The Rebirth of Indonesian VernacularArchitecture after Independence. In Exhibiting Modernity and Indonesian Vernacular Architecture:
Hybrid Architecture at Pasar Gambir of Batavia, the 1931 Paris International Colonial Exhibition and
Taman Mini Indonesia Indah, pp. 121–165. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3658-11605-7_4.
Yuswadi Saliya. 2012. Pagi Hari dan Lekang Siang Seorang Sujudi [Morning and afternoon of Soejoedi].
In Tegang Bentang. Seratus Tahun Perspektif Arsitektural di Indonesia [Stretching the landscape:One hundred years of architectural perspective in Indonesia], edited by Pusat Dokumentasi
Arsitektur Indonesia [Indonesian Center for Architecture Documentation], pp. 108–111. Jakarta:
Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
―. 2003. Perjalanan Malam Hari: Kumpulan Pilihan Tulisan karya Yuswadi Saliya [Night’s
journey: Selected writings]. Bandung: Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia Jawa Barat and Lembaga Sejarah
Arsitektur Indonesia.
Online sources
Bambang Eryudhawan. 2023. Arsitektur. Alat Membangun Jiwa Bangsa [Architecture: tool to build thespirit of the nation]. Webinar Papers. Jakarta: Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia [Indonesian Institute ofArchitects].
Yuke Ardhiati. 2023. Arsitektur Modern Indonesia Era Bung Karno [Indonesian modern architectureduring the Sukarno era]. Webinar Papers. Jakarta: Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia [Indonesian Instituteof Architects]. https://asrinesia.com/legacy-arsitektur-di-era-bung-karno/, accessed August 24, 2023.