>> View the Artwork              

neat
Yusra Martunus’ Silence Zones

“Silence indicates inevitable gaps in our comprehension, gaps that should be respected, rather than bridged” ―Jean-François Lyotard(1

I

Among the Minang ethnic group, centered in West Sumatra, there is a famous proverb that runs “di ma bumi dipijak, di sinan langik dijunjuang” that may translate as “where your feet touch the earth, the sky there you shall raise high”. Many take the saying as asserting the exemplariness of those who combine tolerance, flexibility, and conviction in their attitudes. I do not intend to discuss here the Minang mindset that makes Minang people show no hesitation to leave their land in West Sumatra to travel or settle in other places. Neither do I want to deal with the biography of Yusra Martunus, a Minang who was brought up in Padang, lived for some time in Bandung in West Java and then went to Yogyakarta to live there until now. Any way I find Yusra Martunus’ works invite me to ponder again on the well-known saying quoted above. The works, mostly sculptures, tend to be abstract and have so simple appearances that many people often remark them as ‘minimalist’. In these ‘minimalist’ works, Yusra does not seem to show ‘anything’ but the material aspect of the works. Here I am making a general observation, as there are exceptions in this regard: some of his works also contain associations to meaningful forms ―or ‘nameable’ forms to be precise, like skies, clouds, stones, thorns, wires, and so on―, though he never really wants to deal with such significations. Another minor part of Yusra’s works also bear associations to the names of objects that are related with meanings due to their functions, for instance: nails, chairs, and door handles. Yusra insists that he doesn’t have the intention to particularly make use of the functions of such objects; he even, more often than not, ‘confuses’ the nominal identities of the objects with respect to their functions. Meanwhile, the most obvious message we could get from Yusra’s works is the interest in the issues of forms and materials (of his works). It is plain to see that Yusra doesn’t like to either expose names or to emphasize identity that generally makes someone feel comfortable at his/her position and place. So a question may arise: Where do his feet touch the earth and what does Yusra Martunus raise high?

For works of abstract art, as Yusra’s, the period in the development of art known as ‘contemporary art’ seems like implying a sort of verdict. Isn’t it conclusive that abstract (work) is ‘modernist’ and outdated? I don’t see it that way. We may causally trace such an opinion along the line of Kantian-Hegelian tradition of thoughts that has been influential to ideas and thoughts around art since the nineteenth century. Art historian Heinrich Wölfflin holds there are two roots of styles in works of art. The first one is ‘the visual root’ that is also called ‘the internal root’ connected with developing issues of previous art creation; the second one is ‘the social root’, also called ‘the external root’, which is connected with the contemporary cultural conditions surrounding the process of art creation(2. The ‘internal root’ of a work of art ―supported by Immanuel Kant’s philosophical thinking and historicized by Hegelian principles―, was taken as providing the root of a value basically and esthetically ‘internal’ to works of art so that various other values (including attempts to analyze works of art and their social relevance cognitively) were rendered as just ‘additions’ and ‘external’ to works of art. The visual or internal root was generally taken as the field appropriate for the basis of materials for the art history to write. Yet since the recognition of the emerging condition called ‘the crisis in art development’ (since the 1960s in the West), the view inherited from the nineteenth century has seen revisions. Art critic Thomas McEvilley, in his Sculpture in the Age of Doubt (1999), notes that the inherited hierarchical perspective has been changed. According to him, in the era of crisis befalling art there has been ‘a fundamental negation of the esthetic aspects of works of art’. The hierarchy of the ‘style roots’ of works of art has shifted or, to be more precise, been reversed. Nowadays both of the two roots are seen as existent and significant in a given work of art. However, while attention to the external root was previously suppressed, today the external root is taken as the most important, even predominant, matter(3. Such development often provides the background for the fallacy of ‘punishing’ works of abstract art.

In connection with the particular stance (still) of defining ‘superlatives’ (the truest, the greatest, the most relevant, etc) in mapping the situation of art today, I would like to quote the art historian Hans Belting’s interesting observation concerning the socio-cultural situation prevailing globally nowadays: “Today, people no longer appropriate culture for themselves but like a collective spectacle. . . we are not as much producing culture but reproducing the culture of other times. . that is entertaining than instructing”(4. To Belting, now in the era of globalized practice of advanced capitalism, artists are faced with the options of esthetic strategies (only) so that there are no longer any ‘compulsory’ rules within and for the development of art history. Therefore, the notion of the inverted hierarchy of ‘the root of (artistic) style’ can be taken as ‘strictly’ applying to a certain development of art (Western art), yet it may also be inappropriately made to apply to another locus of artistic development. Certainly, now the issue is not just about making an absolute choice of the most ‘valid’ position between the two “roots of style”; rather, it is about how to regard and evaluate them in connection with the developments of a wider cultural context. Regarding this, Belting offers an important observation: “(W)e now use our ancestor’s original motifs to interrogate the exercise of art history”(5. The point is ‘which’ and ‘whose’ art history that we do mean.

The artistic developments of Yusra Martunus’ works have, of course, their characteristic historical situations. Like his friends in the “Jendela” group in Yogyakarta in the 1990s, he emerged in the time when ‘Indonesian contemporary art’ was growing while bearing a heap of issues around (Indonesian) socio-political change. If we take McEvilley’s perspective, we will see Yusra’s works beginning to emerge just in a situation where the hierarchy of ‘artistic styles’ was being ‘turned upside-down’. In the case of the emergence of Yusra Martunus’ works, McEvilley’s perspective offers two possible inferences: one, Yusra’s works were (apparently) unexpected ever since their early development; or, two, the slack application of McEvilley’s findings on the context of Indonesian cannot be tolerated any longer. In my opinion, abstract works, like those made by Yusra, if seriously considered, will just help us to weed the proceeding ‘modernism’ practiced in the context of Indonesian art developments.

II

What is often called ‘Indonesian modernism’, is not something plain and clear. Anyway, historian and critic Sanento Yuliman believed that the principles of modernism had been adopted in Indonesia since the ‘art revolution’ took place ‘in silence’ in Indonesia in the 1930s(6. Most people take modernism as a mere movement in the field of esthetic principles to challenge tradition (of the past) so that various discussions on art regarding such principles are dominated by the stance of ‘merely’ disparaging tradition (of the past). So we just fail to notice the most significant aspect of the principles of modernism, namely the direction of the movement? (7. It is true that Yusra’s abstract works cannot be likened to traditional sculptures widely spread throughout the archipelago (as works brought out of tradition). Yet the emergence of Yusra’s works didn’t owe mainly to his resistance of the various traditional works. One may say that Yusra’s works ‘only’ came out of another tradition that is the tradition of modern sculpture but with some characteristic developments of its principles. A feature of Yusra’s works is certainly the awareness to work on the strength of form in serving personal considerations. Yusra’s works are certainly not intended as the manifestation of resistance of narration derived from tradition as the source of sculptural forms to make; he just wants to adopt a different tradition. What Yusra develops is the sense that sculpture is a medium characteristically situated on the crossing point between stillness and motion where the dimension of time feels as if contained or flowing through.(8 The absence of representational depiction and message in Yusra Martunus’ abstract works renders basic sculptural elements able to present themselves optimally. Such approach is naturally different from the standpoint of traditional art that regards sculpture as a medium for conveying or preserving certain messages in figurative and ornamental forms. To be specific, what Yusra tries to do is making sculpturing principles the central points of the content of his work instead of transferring specific messages through sculpture.

What are the ‘meanings’ of Yusra Martunus’ abstract works? Such ‘minimal’ works like his do not give themselves to signification in the sense of forms that tell stories. We can ‘only’ infer the sense. This kind of works provides a ‘new’ situation that explains the relationship between the object (work) and the subject (sculptor). The sense or significations of such works are no longer defined by ‘the subject’ alone (namely the artist, with all the messages he/she wishes to convey), but just by the relationship between the form of the sculptural object and the aspect of ‘participation’ on the viewer’s part. Therefore, actually the suggestion offered by literary researcher and critic Roland Barthes concerning the interpretive model based on the notion of the death of the author applies here.(9 The model of the viewer’s participation in the sculptural work, as explained by the sculptor Robert Morris (1966), proceeds in a situation where the functions of a viewer’s space, light and ‘field of vision’ get merged with the sense of a (sculptural) work.(10 Of course, from such perspective, searching for the ‘meaning’ of Yusra Martunus’ abstract works equals to a proceeding that emphasizes the aspect of experiencing on the viewer’s part some characteristic way. Nothing reads very plainly here. In my opinion, there is indeed the important moment when we have to comprehend the signification of a work of art through the experiential involvement of our feelings rather than by pensively trying to make out its meaning. Let me quote a good suggestion made by a famous sculptor, an Englishman, Tony Cragg: “At some point we’ve got to stop asking ourselves what is the meaning of everything, maybe it’s not so very important what it means. It’s probably more important what the sense of it is . . . they are two very basic and different things”.(11

III

I think Yusra Martunus’ works suggest an invitation to a series of adventures that may invoke experiences of sensibility in us (as viewers). These works are far from any condition that suggests as if the signification of a work could be defined by an immediate correspondence between the (level of) knowledge (on the viewer’s part) and what is ‘stated’ by a given object of sculpture. It is in this adventure of sensibility, I think, will one discover and acquire the signification of a work as effects that will not be forever stable – he/she may, naturally, ‘re-comprehend’ the work continuously yet differently each time he/she appreciates it.(12 Viewing these ‘minimalist’ works by Yusra is like being face to face with an invitation into ‘the territory of silence’, a territory of a quiet visual quality, not aggressively suggesting any specific subject. Still, there is for me some interesting note in this case. Yusra seemingly intends to show the difference perceivable (through what we can sense) between ‘material’ and ‘form’. Material is the basis for the tangible that we know, see, with its various attributes (and we call it as 'metal’, ‘wood’, ‘glass’, or ‘plastic’, etc.); while ‘form’ actually concerns ‘power’, which is something that gives the sense of ‘motion’ to the superficial quality of a given material that we observe. This means that any object we see actually has the notions of (a) material and (b) form (that is made to work by a certain kind of power). At this point, I believe, a certain stance we live out through our interaction with Yusra’s works will be effective in taking us beyond ‘merely’ visible things in the strictest sense. This concerns the living out of values. In this regard, it is important for us to understand the basis of Yusra’s decisions to adopt certain materials and forms for his works. In broad lines, Yusra Martunus’ ideas for works spring from his reflection around the realities of nature and the world of objects and goods in the daily (modern) life.

Intense association with natural environment is common among the people in our surroundings excepting, perhaps, those living in big cities increasingly detached from natural settings. Yusra grew up in an environment closely related with nature. And even currently, in Yogyakarta, he still prefers residing in a quiet area far from the noises of the city. Yusra is closely related with nature not only physically but spiritually as well. For young artists coming from places outside the big cities of Java, like Yusra Martunus, the realities of nature provide the most immediate implied examples in the process of their moral education and the shaping of their spiritual stances. To Yusra who is a Muslim, the signs of God’s greatness come in the manifestations of natural phenomena. To many Muslims, natural realities never stand as just physical phenomena; instead, they also represent signs relevant for the spiritual life. A stone that Yusra Martunus adopts for one of his works, for example, doesn’t only stand as just a physical material but is taken as a unity of a (physical) ‘matter’ and ‘the power affecting it’ (its form). Therefore, a stone is not taken as a reality apparently ‘as it is’, as seen in its material appearance; rather, it is a ‘form’ of material already affected by ‘a distinct power’ that has enabled it to have that certain appearance. The strength of such power naturally implies the notion of its origin and source. In the Muslim’s religious belief, in such power one can find some insight concerning the signs and indications of the greatness of God. As revealed in the Holy Quran:

“And we spread the land and we place solid mountains there on and we grow on the land all kinds of plants beautiful to look at” (Qąf:7).

To Yusra, a ‘form’ that he tries to show is a small part of greater and nobler ideological reasons, which enable it to appear as it does. Thus, Yusra’s works are not as ‘minimal’ as they are apparently. Yusra, by also inviting those viewing his works, tries to develop a kind of reverent attitude. A kind of attitude that reminds me of the great Sufi poet Maulana Jalal Al-Din Rūmi who said that there is a chain above all strings and comparisons: linking God, the universe and their spiritual beings”.(13 ‘Their’ in Al-Din Rūmi’s observation is but “us” in Yusra Martunus’ perspective.

Another wellspring of Yusra Martunus’ ideas is his pondering on the world of objects/goods. Before giving remarks on Yusra’s actual works, I’d like to examine what the Minimalist movement has passed on to us today. Without many people noticing it, Minimalism seems to also have something in common with the POP art movement in terms of their interest – this something superficially hard to confirm considering that in practice POP art seems colorful and ‘boisterous’ while Minimalism is just ‘simple’ and color efficient. Below the surface, however, it turns out that both POP art and Minimalism made stands in response to the same reality, namely the advent of a new order concerning the law of serial production and consumption in the life of modern society (the post-industrial society particularly). In order to respond the invasion of various representational forms of massive industry, both movements decide their respective artistic strategies. While the POP art movement adopts low art and popular art to be its artistic manifestation of a new ‘high art’, Minimalism just rubs out the framework of the notion of high art tradition (that is generally stated as an artistic expression oriented to the subject that creates, as in the case of Abstract Expressionism as the latest example) and that of popular art expressions. The movement of Minimalism works toward restoring a firm belief in the effectiveness of ‘esthetic practices’ that have their autonomous and transformative power. This is not identical with Formalism as an esthetic approach that ‘alienate’ formal elements into the field of autonomous artistic creation (as painting and sculpture), just because of the intention to extend the awareness of the autonomy of esthetic practice into a broader realm of cultural practices (particularly the cultural life of modern society).(14 It is just this legacy of the Minimalist movement that Yusra tries to weed, while some of its points eventually contributes to shape Yusra’s artistic sensibility. Some of Yusra’s works come up as responses to various forms of daily life items. In giving such responses, Yusra doesn’t care too much about the identities or names of the items; he just pays attention to some particular parts of them. The kind of Yusra Martunus’ works that springs from this world of goods offers the effects of attractive composition resting on (i) the parts of the objects’ forms and (ii) the functions suggested by the forms or objects/articles in question. As the result, again, Yusra offers forms that are far from being just the imitations of the things as his original inspirations. These works tend to suggest one common principle: we will get something valuable from our thorough and earnest observation of various effects of natural phenomena as well as the thoroughly modern life all filled up with goods.

Yusra’s works are not ‘sculptures’ in the conventional sense. Individually, his works affirm the importance of surroundings (where the works are) and the (active) response on the part of the viewers. So I think I’d like to regard the individual works as turning into silence zones or so. In such ‘zones’ one seems to be about to arrive at an attitude marked with an uncertain condition where there is no name and identity. This situation, I think, will make the Minang saying “di ma bumi dipijak, di sinan langik dijunjuang” even more emphatic and assume a more complex signification. The uncertain condition and doubt are positive as far as they inspire us with an ascetic attitude. Today in Indonesia perhaps there are not many works with willingness to suggest the issue of emptiness as a mental starting point for people to transform themselves to better humans. In Zen Buddhism there is a saying, “if someone is really doubtful, he/she will indeed be able to experience an awakening in the true sense of the word”. Even more clearly, the Zen Buddhism master, Hakuin, relates (the condition of) emptiness, (the attitude of) doubting and one’s awakening (of the self) in this statement: “When a person faces the great doubt, it is just as though he was standing in complete emptiness . . . At the bottom of great doubt, lies great awakening. If you doubt fully, you will awaken fully” (15

Bandung, March 2008

Rizki A Zaelani | Curator

Foreword from the Gallery

"Simple”, that is the impression I get from Yusra’s works. Yet the simplicity apparent in his works implies at the same time the complexity of their creation process. I became convinced of this latter inference when I was observing Yusra at work preparing this solo exhibition.

At the early preparatory stage, for months Yusra didn’t make any single work. Yusra "only" spent time on searching for and selecting tools he would need in making works that include, for instance, welding devices and finishing means. Only after all the tools he desired had been there did he begin working.

During the creative process –particularly for this exhibition– I noticed something distinctive: Yusra would first decide on the material to work with and then envision and make his works in accordance with his evaluation of the quality of the material he already prepared. For this exhibition, Yusra adopts aluminum for most of his works. The execution often involved redoing in cases when what resulted didn’t fulfill the qualitative standard that Yusra set.

This solo exhibition is Yusra Martunus’ first, and I am happy to have the opportunity to organize and host it. I thank Yusra for preparing the works presented here, Rizki A. Zaelani the exhibition curator, and Mr. Biranul Anas for the favor of giving official opening to the exhibition.

Biantoro Santoso