27.08.19 — 09.09.19

Imaginative Mimetic: Against Interpretation

Solo exhibition by Agung Santosa

Agung Santosa’s Solo Exhibition
IMAGINATIVE MIMETIC: AGAINST INTERPRETATION

Some of Agung Santosa’s works at this exhibition have familiar forms—pillows, inner tube of a tractor tire, a piece of rusted steel. Others aren’t so immediately recognizable, such as those that assume abstract biomorphic forms. These two approaches to form appear together in Agung’s first solo exhibition at Galeri Nadi, showing how both methods are somehow connected. It is truly not easy to classify Agung’s creative methods and, perhaps, it is not needed. Perhaps, because he is a self-taught artist, Agung is able to let his creative spirit flow without restraint, employing a variety of methods in his creative work. Thus, we can find a unique singularity to Agung’s works.

Although he has no formal art background, Agung is close to the art world in Yogyakarta by virtue of working as an assistant to several artists in the city. Agung unobtrusively uses this opportunity to experiment, increase his technical skills, and learn more about material possibilities. These experiences helped to form/sharpen his senses and technical skills. However, it seem that his insights changed and flourished once he began discovering things about the wider world, online. It further solidified his resolve to pursue a career in art.

Agung moves intuitively, none too preoccupied with the rigid dictates of a particular method or approach. As can be seen at this exhibition, such movements often lead to mimetic and abstract forms. They intertwine, enriching the way by which each work can be read and understood. His mimetic works are able to detach themselves from the strictures of the nature of the objects being alluded to or borrowed. Thus, the possibilities of representation could flow everywhere, not just toward accepted formal perceptions. In the same way, works that initially appear abstract might in time come to be read as narrative or representational artworks.

According to Agung, his creative intuition is triggered by his ‘daydreams’, or his imagination. He wonders: is ‘daydreaming’ also considered ‘thinking’? Interestingly, his daydreams and imaginations are often triggered by his own works. This shows how Agung tends to think or to enter into a dialog with himself within the spaces of his own imaginations, synthesizing his next steps. This esoteric dialog is his way of building his creative ideas.

For this exhibition, the chain of imagination begins with a work titled Tertidur dalam Ingatan, a pillow put up on a wall that is also a music box playing a strain of music at a pull of a cord. Then: Dengar-Dengar, an ear-shaped wall relief that also serves as an opening salvo. These two works represent the importance of ‘daydreaming’ or ‘listening to one’s heart’. According to Agung, the very voices that come from inside himself are the ones that have invited him onto a journey into the world of imagination, thusly further realized in his sculptures.

Narration is an important element in Agung’s works, even his abstract works They come from the fictional narratives wrought by Agung’s imagination. Agung is able to relate many different stories through his works. His stories come from many sources—his childhood memories, his surroundings, or even his own heart. It is of course quite difficult to build new or different interpretations onto mimetic works, but by using such an approach, Agung is able to imbue his works with a poetic touch. His compositions help to jog the imagination and trigger many more approaches leading to further understanding of his works.

A series of artworks uses the form of an inner tube (or colloquially known as a floatier)—along with their additional components—to present a variety of narratives. Most interesting, I feel, is Frenemy. The two shark fins on the tube’s face feels like a unified and natural addition. Frenemy describes the paradox found within the works. A tube is considered a safety device that helps people stay afloat in a body of water, in this case, the sea. On the other hand, a shark is seen as a ‘threat’, a predator feared by those who find themselves stranded at sea. Friend and enemy come together in Frenemy. The sense of an inner tube’s suppleness or the spongy fin is quite visibly perceivable despite the fact that they are both made from solid resin. This demonstrates Agung’s smart and skilful handling of his materials.

Dayung Palinggam also uses an inner tube, with two steel rings holding down two oars on the left and right side of the tube. It resembles an emergency vessel and conveys a sense of some rudimentary journey. Looking at the title, however, we soon learn about the importance of maintaining a level of morals and wisdom while embarking on a journey. The inner tube here is made of resin, although the oars are from wood and the rings from metal. This muddles the extent of Agung’s material usage for his mimetic ends. While the tube has been made using resin, the oars and rings are made according to their usual materials, wood and metal respectively. Certainly, it is possible for Agung to make his oars and rings from resin, but it would be quite impractical, especially when easier alternatives are available. This shows how artists will also consider the practical and technical aspects of their creative processes. For Agung, he begins his ‘journey’ with a realization of his intentions—it is not to ‘highlight’ or ‘lean into’ the identity of resin as material. He uses resin merely due to practical reasons, because he feels that resin has the ability to help him create forms according to the desired or required characteristics.

Materials or mediums are important in art. The history of art in the Western world recognizes a hierarchy of art materials and mediums. Oil on canvas is considered one of the primary mediums, even a key paradigm in Western art history, from the Renaissance up to the Modern Era. Meanwhile, sculpture considers bronze and marble as its major substances, while ceramics and wood are quite low in the hierarchy. Even lower, however, is resin because it is considered unnatural and characterless. Consider Roland Barthes:

In the hierarchy of the major poetic substance, it figures as a disgraced material… it embodies none of the genuine produce of the mineral world: foam, fibers, strata. It is a ‘shaped’ substance: whatever its final state, plastic keeps its flocculent appearance, something opaque, creamy, and curdled… [i]

Judith Collins concluded Barthes’s statement thusly: With plastic, Barthes felt that hierarchy of substance had been abolished, to be replaced by a single one that could mimic them all. [ii]

Agung shares Judith Collin’s conclusion. Resin, as polymers—like plastic—can mimic almost all kinds of materials. Resin is a neutral media that possesses almost no character. Materials in the traditional Western sense—like bronze and marble, even wood and ceramics—have strong characteristics that may influence the final work’s narrative content and extent of representation. Sometimes, the narrative itself can become coopted by the material being used. Bronze has typical metal characteristics—sturdy and weighty. Marble is solid but also fragile, like ceramics. For Agung, who prioritizes the conveyance of his imaginative narrations, resin seems to be the best choice. The use of neutral and compliant resin allows Agung to take his explorations of narratives and forms a step further.

These days, contemporary art no longer classifies materials into hierarchies. Resin is considered a legitimate material of equal standing, alongside other mediums and substances. Instead, an artwork’s class is determined by the class of the artist. On the other hand, the art world still recognizes qualities and classes of a medium or material in relations to the intrinsic value of the materials being used, and the level of sophistication involved in the development of such materials it into a three-dimensional artwork. Works made using bronze or metal—from an artist who also works with resin, for instance—are often considered more prestigious than said artist’s resin-based works. Agung surely understands this reality, but he comfortably works with resin because his intention is not to champion resin as a medium, but rather to use resin as means to facilitate his endeavor.

Like the inner tube series, the same artistic desire can be found in Benda Temuan– and Benda Temuan– We see a block of metal and a thick sheet. A rusty curved sheet stands precariously on a cylindrical pedestal, almost pushing past its balancing point. Meanwhile, the rusty metal block is held only by a fragile rope. Both works play with our tactile and perceptual preconceptions. These works represent the duality of softness and hardness.

Other works are comprised of biomorphic abstract objects, like Benda Temuan #6 and Benda Temuan #7. The narratives in these works are related to those found in the inner tube series, where they claim connections with water, or in their case, the sea. The connection between the two series is found in Menyelam, comprised of a pair of feet circled by an inner tube; the rest of the legs and body are not visible, as though already diving into a realm of imagination. “Found” objects, benda temuan, refer to objects that Agung ‘finds’ beneath the surface of the sea. These objects could be anything: flotsam and jetsam, things thrown away by people, sea-dwelling things. In this series of works, objects are no longer expected to mime or resemble any known counterparts, because imagination has surpassed the objects themselves. The same could be found, for instance, in Gelombang Pasang and Sekitar Pesisir, which are clearly abstraction of natural scenes. In these works, Agung’s imagination has been transformed into poetic semi-abstract objects, as though a poetry of form that invite and encourage audience to explore their imagination.

From discussions with Agung, we learn that his works are inspired by or related to his past personal experiences. They seem like catharsis for his past traumas, but are also opportunities for him to explore beautiful memories—like his experience among the natural wonders of Bukit Tinggi. These desires inspire the dualism or paradox in his works. Even so, experiences are not the most important element of Agung’s works: only that they serve as triggers. The main representative aspect of his works is his own imagination or ‘daydreams’. It is not easy to put ‘daydreams’ into reality, and so Agung builds a launching pad for his narrations by ‘miming’ or ‘patterning’ his works after known forms or objects.

Agung, the artist, is still young and his sculptures are already promising. In a contemporary art world, replete with socio-political identity representations or enviro-cultural content, imagination seems to have become a rare commodity. Agung has the potential to work within these spaces, especially considering his unpretentious approach toward representation as the main aspect of work. He is content that he is able to ‘represent his daydreams’. Most notably, however, is the importance he places on having the desire and ability to realize his daydreams into art objects perfectly and completely.

Agung has a long road ahead of him. We pray that he will become a strong and important artist from Indonesia. We look forward to it.

Bandung, 11 August 2019.

i. Judith Collins, Sculpture Today (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2007), hlm. 172.
ii. Ibid.