STORMS OVER INDONESIAN ART / PRAHARA SENI RUPA INDONESIA

STORMS OVER INDONESIAN ART

By hendrotan

February 22, 2013. 06.00 PM

THE CONSECUTIVE STORMS STRIKING INDONESIAN ART GALLERIES GET SUPPORT FROM A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WHILE THEY CLAIM THAT THEY HVE CONTRIBUTED THE MOST TO INDONESIAN ART.

1.   The Reporter Storm

As a member of the Indonesian Art Gallery Association (AGSI) and the owner of Emmitan CA Gallery I got speechless when reading Aryo Wisanggeni G’s article  “Duplikasi Pola Indonesia di Singapura” (“Duplication of the Indonesian Patterns in Singapore”) and that of ROW “Pasar Seni Singapura Kian Menggoda” (“Singaporean Art Getting More Tempting”) in KOMPAS daily, Sunday, 27 January 2013, page 21. Frankly, I was taken aback. The articles tend to present assumptions rather than facts, particularly with regard to “disputes” between Art Stage Singapore director Lorenzo Rudolf and the Indonesian Art Gallery Association (Asosiasi Galeri Seni Rupa Indonesia - AGSI).

The word “disputes” (“pertikaian” in the Indonesian original version) that I put between quotation marks is from Aryo Wisanggeni’s article. I’d like to contend here that actually the dispute between Lorenzo Rudolf and the Indonesian Art Gallery Association did not spring from what is reported by Aryo W. as “Because Lorenzo Rudolf communicated with tens of Indonesian artists about sending their works to Art Stage Singapore, AGSI got mad.”¹ The dispute was initially triggered by Lorenzo Rudolf’s arrogant statement with implicit insult to Indonesian galleries as published in Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop’s “Art Fair Turns Dealer at Art Stage Singapore to Promote Indonesian Art” (ARTINFO, 19 September 2012).

Allow me to quote Lorenzo Rudolf’s statement: “We interfere here in a structure of galleries and artists. But I would never do this in New York or in Europe, because you have there a gallery infrastructure that is working. Here, we have to do it; if not, we will have an entire art scene that doesn’t have a chance to move to the next stage. We are only doing this with Indonesia, not Japan, China, where you have a very strong art scene.”

In addition to the implied insult to Indonesian art galleries we notice also something curious about the stated intention to help Indonesian artists in the style of a master during the colonial age by exhibiting the artists’ works but charging a commission rate of 50% of the value of sale. Such misconduct is of course shameful and it worsens the infrastructural condition of Indonesian art that is still shaky in its renovation process particularly with respect to gallery-to-artist and artist-to-gallery infrastructural links. We can easily see Rudolf’s statement as reflecting the intention of a market payer (art dealer or broker art shop) to make use of Indonesian art’s infrastructural weaknesses for the sake of his own interests.²

                                                                                                                                               

Perhaps reporter Aryo is not equipped with adequate knowledge about the Indonesian art world especially the nature of its market so it is understandable that ROW ends his writing with a rhetorical statement and question: “If the Indonesian Art Gallery Association (AGSI) want to do more than getting mad because Rudolf has presented Indonesian artists abroad without involving the Association, they should organize an art market to surpass the Art Stage Singapore. Can they? Let’s wait and see!”

So far those actively involved in the world of art know that different stakeholders in the art infrastructure do different things in accordance with their respective parts and professional functions. On reading ROW’s statement and question anyone will laugh at ROW’s ignorance, because in any part of the whole world the task of making an art fair doesn’t belong to the profession of the gallery; it is among the things to do by professional event organizers of integrity. Besides, why should “organize an art market to surpass the Art Stage Singapore”? It should be realized that what Lorenzo Rudolf did in setting up the Indonesian Pavilion was an anomaly; the action is even something unethical in that it ignores the principles and functions of art fair that are in effect.

Furthermore, ROW’s statement and question doesn’t reflect the nature of a genuine reporter that should work with some investigative skill. With its tendency of one-sidedness the writing of reporter ROW sounds like public-relation material from Art Stage Singapore.³

2.  The storm of artists with “Colonized Mind” mentality

So strange! As found in Helmi Yusof’s article “A Perfect Storm of Disputes” (The Business Times, 18 January 2013), amid “the storm of issues” around Art Stage Singapore 2013 several Indonesian artists just make statements that put the blame on Indonesian art galleries.

The young artist HH, for example, says that the relationship between art galleries and artists in Indonesia is often distant. According to the artist the situation effects from the practice of galleries charging commission rates over 50% of the price of artwork sold. In another case an artist that doesn’t want her/his name to be known makes the statement that some galleries never pay the artists for works sold – they even steal artists’ works. I think it may be true that one or two galleries fail to fulfill the obligation to give artists what they are entitled to get but there are also cases in which artists violate the terms of MOU’s with galleries for given exhibitions. Such artists directly sell their works at their studios and then fail to pay back the loans from the galleries they betray. Yet such matters and cases are personal incidents not to be generalized and unseemly provided for the consumption of international media for the spread of such news will surely harm nothing else but Indonesian art.

I read an artist’s statement quoted in Ginanne Brownell’s “In Indonesia, a New Freedom to Explore” (The New York Times, 30 January 2013). The Indonesian artist says that in Europe and America there is good balance between art market and art discourse, art criticism and non-commercial space. But, it is said, the situation in Indonesia is different because there are only commercial galleries that only think about selling goods. Such galleries do not educate and promote artists. Considering the caliber I think the artist shouldn’t have given such remark without any specification. The “statement” just betrays a blemish in the thinking of an artist who could have done something more meaningful for Indonesian art infrastructure than slurring in international media without reference to any concrete proof of what is said.

The artist in question ignores the reality that at one point in his career he got supported – not to say promoted – by a commercial gallery that is a member of the Indonesian Art Gallery Association (AGSI). He should realize that the (current) disappearance of credible and actively willing art critics and their non-commercial space is the common responsibility of the entire Indonesian Art components. I also need to convey that Indonesian commercial galleries do not only think about just selling goods but also about the education and promotion of Indonesian artists home and abroad – in fact this has been done this last decade.⁴

So I want to stress that your “statements” to international media regarding Indonesian galleries do not necessarily make you artists that are free from commercial interests.⁵ In my previous article “Ugly-faced Twins” I have made this clear.

3.  The storm of “Boasting Magicians” and their followers

Four years ago, asked to describe his activities in the world of art Charles Saatchi said, among other things, “Art collectors are pretty insignificant in the scheme of things. What matters and survives is the art. I buy art that I like (...) I don’t buy art to ingratiate myself with artists, or as an entrée to social circle” (2009, pp 4 & 6).

As an art collector Saatchi has the principle of collecting works he loves without being crazy about⁶ belonging to the circle of artists let alone doing it for the sake of easing his way to get good works at lowered, “friendly” prices.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Yet everyone actively involved in the world of contemporary art must know Saatchi’s most significant contributions in establishing the good name of English contemporary art through his gallery. He has done it through, among other things, the exhibition “Sensation” presenting works by Young British Artists at Royal Academy, London and Brooklyn Museum of Art, New York (not for sale) in 1997, which triggered controversies about English new art among art communities in America and England. From the exhibition emerged names like Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin and Chris Ofili as Young British Artists exponents with soaring reputations in the international art until today.⁷ With his excellent reputes and contributions Saatchi deserves to be called a patron and mentor of English art. Yet how modest is he as reflected in the statement quoted above, calling himself “pretty insignificant in the scheme of things” – how beautiful and noble is his humbleness!

Using the humble figure of Saatchi as our mirror we may find curious and ironical reflections as far as the world of Indonesian art is concerned. It concerns the “boasting magician” figure and his followers that often worsen the problems of Indonesian art infrastructure. That’s why attempts at improving Indonesian art infrastructure have frequently met with obstacles; they are responsible for this. The funny thing is that they are regarded just as patrons or mentors by some of our established artists as yet benighted.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Consider, for instance, this passage from Ginanne Brownell (The New York Times, 30 January 2013): “Because Jakarta’s museum and commercial gallery scene lacks a strong infrastructure, collectors . . . . . . . . have filled the vacuum by promoting the scene domestically and abroad.”

Brownell received misleading information that is not entirely true from a young collector of the “boasting magician”-follower level. We witness the narcissistic and even megalomaniac claims to the “boasting magician’s” central role in the country. There lies the principal sin of “the boasting magician” and his followers. They like to boast that they contribute the most to the progress of Indonesian art domestically and abroad while denigrating the roles of Indonesian galleries. But now it’s for him and his followers to show concretely and convincingly what they have ever done as major contributions to Indonesian art, and let the Indonesian art world check and consider that.

Anyway, we have to admit that against the background of the as-yet poor infrastructure of Indonesian art no one seems to have the time to think that what’s said and done by the “boasting magician” and his followers can ruin the dignity and prestige of Indonesian art. To make it worse, some established but remaining benighted Indonesian are still under the spell of the magician and followers. Such artists, who also have their followers that are after popularity, are willing to serve as mouthpieces disseminating the lie about a boom in contemporary art in Indonesia before the opening of Art Stage Singapore 2013.

Yet with optimism, and beyond transitory and misleading image-making, we need to build our critical capacity through the establishment of research institutions as well as the publishing of comprehensive historical books on art that present serious, profound studies into the canon of Indonesian modern and contemporary art written by Indonesians.

That way art enthusiasts – particularly those from outside Indonesia – will have the necessary background references of some intellectual validity to perceive and acknowledge the existence of Indonesian art. Hopefully, this will also help subdue the storm over Indonesian art and inspire peacefulness, advances, enlightenment and smooth progress while maintaining alertness.

---------------o---------------

NOTES

1.  Such exhibitions as Art Jog and Bakaba are never known to international art infrastructure but Indonesian galleries are willing to support them by way of sponsorship. Why? Because we realize that the current Indonesian art infrastructure is not on the right track as yet. Given the actual situation, flexibility, tolerance and mutual help are needed.

2.   The misconduct got support from his Indonesian lackeys that also have evil intentions toward Indonesian art infrastructure.

3. The team researching into the evolution of mammals, led by Maureen O’Leary, can painstakingly trace mammalian ancestors. So how can it be that Aryo/ROW as a Kompas journalist, for the sake of ethics and balance, doesn’t have the eagerness to know the real issue before making reports?

4.  Since 2002 Edwin, Mondekor, Langgeng, Canna, Nadi, Semarang, D galeri, Lawangwangi and some other Indonesian galleries have introduced and promoted works of Indonesian artists to international forums in China, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Dubai, Paris, the Netherlands, Germany and other places abroad. And since 2005 Emmitan Gallery on a monthly basis has incessantly organized rotating discussions on art in the enclaves of its community in Denpasar, Batu Malang, Jakarta and Surabaya (attended by artists, senior and junior collectors, senior and fresh investors, thinkers of culture, curators and art enthusiasts).

5. An attitude born from the inferiority complex of colonized people, or the colonized mind (borrowing from an expert in critical theories) is to be discarded! Such attitude positions someone as the master and reduces those served into downgraded objects; at any time the master may relapse into ambivalence for the sake of satisfying materialistic desire or narcissistic libido.

6. The original word is kemaruk that could mean arrogantly greedy that implies excessive actions. 

7. Why doesn’t the boasting magician (collector?) who enjoys disrupting our art infrastructure serve Indonesian art by founding an ideal gallery like Saatchi and Rudy Akili (Ark Gallery) have d

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRAHARA SENI RUPA INDONESIA

Oleh hendrotan
Tanggal 22 Februari 2013. jam 18.00

PRAHARA YANG MENDERA GALERI DAN BERTUBI – TUBI ITU, TERNYATA DI AMINI OLEH SEGELINTIR ORANG SEMBARI MENGKLAIM DIRINYA SEBAGAI PALING BERJASA DI DUNIA SENI RUPA INDONESIA

1. Prahara Pewarta

Sebagai anggota AGSI dan pemilik Emmitan CA Gallery, ketika membaca tulisan Aryo Wisanggeni G “Duplikasi Pola Indonesia di Singapura” dan ROW “Pasar Seni Singapura Kian Menggoda” di harian KOMPAS, Minggu, 27 Januari 2013, halaman 21. Terus terang saya dibuat tertegun. Karena, apa yang tersaji di dalamnya lebih cenderung merupakan asumsi ketimbang fakta, utamanya tentang “pertikaian” antara Lorenzo Rudolf, direktur Art Stage Singapore, dengan Asosiasi Galeri Seni Rupa Indonesia (AGSI).

Kata pertikaian yang berada dalam tanda petik itu berasal dari tulisan Aryo Wisanggeni. Dengan itu saya ingin menegaskan bahwa sesungguhnya pertikaian antara Lorenzo Rudolf dengan AGSI, bukan disebabkan seperti pernyataan wartawan Aryo W. : “Gara-gara Lorenzo Rudolf, berkomunikasi dengan puluhan perupa Indonesia untuk menurunkan karya mereka dalam Art Stage Singapore, AGSI meradang”.1 Melainkan trigger pertikaian berawal dari reaksi simultan terhadap pernyataan jumawa yang tersirat menghina galeri Indonesia oleh Lorenzo Rudolf yang tersiar dalam tulisan Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop “Art Fair Turns Dealer at Art Stage Singapore to Promote Indonesian Art” (ARTINFO, 19 September 2012). 

Silahkan disimak pernyataan Lorenzo Rudolf ini: “We interfere here in a structure of galleries and artists. But I would never do this in New York or in Europe, because you have there a gallery infrastructure that is working. Here, we have to do it; if not, we will have an entire art scene that doesn’t have a chance to move to the next stage. We are only doing this with Indonesia, not Japan, China, where you have a very strong art scene.”

Selain ada kecenderungan menghina para galeri di Indonesia juga kejanggalan dalam pernyataannya ingin membantu perupa Indonesia layaknya gaya tuan dijaman kolonial, dengan memamerkan namun memungut komisi 50% dari nilai penjualan, perbuatan dengan perangai buruk ini jelas memalukan dan memperparah kerusakan infrastruktur seni rupa Indonesia yang belum kuat, yang sedang berproses renovasi, khususnya infrastruktur galeri pada perupa dan perupa pada galeri di Indonesia. Dengan mudah kita bisa memahami pernyataannya tersebut sebagai iktikad seorang pemain pasar (art dealer atau broker art shop) yang memanfaatkan kelemahan infrastruktur SRI untuk kepentingan pribadinya.2

Mungkin wartawan Aryo tidak memiliki pengetahuan yang memadai tentang dunia seni rupa Indonesia, terutama seluk-beluk pasarnya, wajar saja jika ROW menutup tulisannya dengan pernyataan dan pertanyaan retoris : “Kalau Asosiasi Galeri Seni Rupa Indonesia (AGSI) mau lebih dari sekadar meradang karena Rudolf memboyong para perupa Indonesia tanpa mereka, AGSI seharusnya membuat pasar seni rupa yang melebihi Art Stage Singapore. Bisa ? Kita tunggu !”

Selama ini yang berlaku dan diketahui oleh penghayat seni rupa bahwa peran setiap stakeholder dalam infrastruktur seni rupa, akan berbeda sesuai bagian dan fungsi profesinya. Dengan membaca pernyataan dan pertanyaan ROW tersebut siapa pun akan tertawa getir atas ketidak mengertian si ROW, karena dinegara belahan mana pun tugas membuat art-fair bukanlah profesi galeri, itu merupakan bagian pekerjaan para event organizer yang profesional dan memiliki integritas. Selain itu, mengapa harus “membuat pasar seni rupa yang melebihi Art Stage Singapore” ? Perlu diketahui bahwa apa yang dilakukan Lorenzo Rudolf dengan mendirikan Paviliun Indonesia adalah suatu anomali bahkan tidak terkandung etika dengan mengabaikan prinsip dan fungsi art fair yang berlaku.

Lebih dari itu, pernyataan dan pertanyaan ROW tak mengesankan watak seorang wartawan sejati yang seharusnya bekerja dengan kemahiran investigatif. Dengan kecenderungan berat sebelah, tulisan pewarta ROW seperti tulisan public relation Art Stage Singapore saja.3

2. Prahara perupa bermental “Colonized Mind”

Aneh ! sebagaimana terungkap dalam artikel Helmi Yusof “A Perfect Storm of Disputes” (The Business Times, 18 Januari 2013), di tengah “badai perkara” Art Stage Singapore 2013, sejumlah perupa Indonesia justru mengeluarkan pernyataan yang menyalahkan galeri di Indonesia. 

Perupa muda HH, misalnya, mengatakan bahwa hubungan antara galeri dan perupa di Indonesia acap kali renggang. Menurut dia berpangkal dari galeri-galeri yang meminta komisi lebih tinggi dari biasanya 50 % harga karya. Lebih dari itu, ada perupa yang tak ingin disebutkan namanya mengatakan bahwa ada galeri-galeri yang tak pernah membayar karya-karya mereka yang terjual—bahkan mencuri karya-karya mereka, menurut saya, mungkin saja ada benarnya bahwa satu - dua galeri tidak melakukan kewajiban membayar haknya perupa dengan mengemplang, walau tak urung ada sela–catatan perupa yang menyalahi nota kesepahaman pameran dengan galeri, dan menjadi pedagang karya-karya mereka di studionya, tanpa bisa menyelesaikan pinjaman uangnya pada pihak galeri yang dikadali. Akan tetapi macam persoalan ini merupakan insiden personal, tidak bisa digeneralisasi dan tidak pantas di ketengahkan pada media internasional, karena turunnya wedhus gembel atau awan abu panas sudah bisa dipastikan di seni rupa Indonesia juga.

Membaca pernyataan perupa yang termuat dalam tulisan Ginanne Brownell “In Indonesia, a New Freedom to Explore” (The New York Times, 30 Januari 2013). Katanya, “Di Eropa dan Amerika, ada keseimbangan antara pasar dan wacana artistik, kritik seni dan ruang nonkomersial. Tapi di sini (Indonesia—Red.) berbeda karena yang ada galeri-galeri komersial yang hanya berpikir jualan. Mereka tidak mendidik dan mempromosikan para perupa.” Saya pikir, bagi seorang perupa sekelas dia sungguh tidak pantas berucap tanpa spesifikasi yang jelas, “pernyataan” seperti itu justru menunjukkan cacat berpikir seorang perupa yang sebenarnya bisa melakukan sesuatu yang lebih berarti bagi infrastruktur seni rupa Indonesia daripada sekedar berceloteh di media massa internasional tanpa menunjukkan bukti konkrit yang dikatakan. 

Perupa tersebut telah mengabaikan kenyataan pada suatu titik tertentu dalam karir seni rupanya, ia pernah disokong—jika bukan dipromosikan—oleh galeri komersial anggota AGSI. Tapi ia perlu tahu bahwa ( sekarang ini ) menghilangnya kritikus seni rupa yang kredibel dan ( mau ) aktif berikut ruang non komersialnya itu merupakan tanggung jawab bersama seluruh komponen SRI, juga perlu saya beritahukan bahwa galeri-galeri komersial di Indonesia tidak hanya berpikir masalah jualan semata, tapi juga edukasi dan mempromosi perupa Indonesia di dalam dan luar negeri—sebagaimana sudah dijalankan sejak satu dasawarsa terakhir ini.4 

Dengan demikian, saya ingin menegaskan bahwa “pernyataan-pernyataan” kalian di media massa internasional terhadap galeri Indonesia tidak serta-merta membuat kalian menjelma sebagai perupa-perupa yang bersih dari kepentingan komersial,5 janganlah merentan hati, karena itu di tulisan saya sebelumnya “ Anak Kembar Bermuka Bopeng “ sudah jelas makna dari maksud tulisan tersebut. 

3. Prahara “Dukun Pembual” dan pengikutnya

Empat tahun lalu, ketika diminta menggambarkan aktivitasnya di dunia seni rupa, Charles Saatchi mengemukakan, antara lain seperti ini: “Art collectors are pretty insignificant in the scheme of things. What matters and survives is the art. I buy art that I like (...) I don’t buy art to ingratiate myself with artists, or as an entrée to social circle” (2009, halaman 4 & 6).

Prinsip berkesenian Saatchi sebagai seorang kolektor seni rupa—yaitu membeli karya seni rupa yang disukainya tanpa kemaruk6 untuk masuk ke lingkaran gaul dengan Perupa, apalagi untuk sekadar dapat karya bagus ( pilihan ) dengan harga pertemanan. 

Namun demikian, setiap pelaku seni rupa kontemporer di dunia pasti tahu kontribusi maha penting Saatchi lewat galerinya dalam mengukuhkan reputasi seni rupa kontemporer Inggris, antara lain, penyelenggaraan pameran “Sensation” Young British Artists di Royal Academy, London, dan Brooklyn Museum of Art, New York ( tidak untuk dijual ), pada tahun 1997—yang menyulut kontroversi tentang seni rupa Inggris baru di kalangan masyarakat seni rupa Amerika dan Eropa sendiri. Dari pameran itu, mencuatlah antara lain Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, dan Chris Ofili sebagai perupa Young British Artists dengan reputasi yang menjulang di seni rupa internasional hingga hari ini.7 Dengan reputasi dan kontribusinya yang mengagumkan itu, sungguh pantaslah Saatchi disebut sebagai salah seorang patron dan mentor seni rupa Inggris. Tapi, seperti kutipan pernyataannya di atas, dia justru menyebut dirinya sebagai bagian dari skema hal-hal yang “sepele” atau paling banter “cukup berarti” dan “tidak luar biasa”, terbukti begitu indah dan mulianya kerendahan hati seorang Saatchi.

Berkaca kepada sosok Saatchi yang sebenarnya luar biasa itu—kita akan menemukan pantulan-pantulan cermin yang ironis di dunia seni rupa Indonesia. Ironi berkenaan dengan adanya “dukun pembual” dan pengikutnya yang gemar memperparah karut-marutnya infrastruktur seni rupa Indonesia. Itulah sebabnya kenapa upaya memperbaiki infrastruktur seni rupa Indonesia acap kali tersendat-sendat, mereka itulah biangnya. Tidak lucunya, mereka justru dianggap sebagai patron atau mentor oleh sebagian perupa mapan kita yang belum cerdas ... 

Perhatikan, misalnya, pernyataan Ginanne Brownell (The New York Times, 30 Januari 2013) ini: “Because Jakarta’s museum and commercial gallery scene lacks a strong infrastructure, collectors . . . . . . . . have filled the vacuum by promoting the scene domestically and abroad.”

Brownell telah menerima bisikan yang menyesatkannya dalam deskripsi yang tak sepenuhnya mengandung kebenaran dari kolektor muda yang kelasnya masih sebagai pengikut dukun itu. Kita lihat adanya klaim yang narsistik bahkan megalomania atas peran dia di negeri ini. Di sanalah, dosa utama “dukun pembual” dan pengikutnya itu. Mereka suka bertepuk dada yang paling berjasa dalam memajukan seni rupa Indonesia di dalam negeri dan mancanegara seraya tak lupa mendera dan merendahkan peran galeri Indonesia, karena itu seharusnya dia bisa membuktikan dengan masif dan meyakinkan apa yang pernah dilakukan dengan klaimnya berjasa pada Seni Rupa Indonesia, agar penghayat seni rupa atau art world Indonesia dapat menimbang nimbang.. 

Tentu saja harus diakui, dalam kondisi infrastruktur seni rupa kita yang masih karut-marut begini, siapakah yang sempat memikirkan bahwa perkataan dan kerjaan ”dukun pembual” dan pengikutnya itu bakal merusak harkat dan martabat seni rupa Indonesia ? Apalagi mereka masih juga memiliki pesona di mata sejumlah perupa mapan yang ingin aman dan nyaman tetapi belum cerdas itu, juga pengikut sesatnya yang haus popularitas, sehingga rela menjadi corong untuk menghembuskan kebohongan tentang bakal booming karya-karya seni rupa kontemporer di Indonesia pra pembukaan Art Stage Singapore 2013.

Namun demikian, dengan optimisme yang ada dan melampaui pencitraan sesaat dan sesat, kita perlu menciptakan daya kritis melalui pembentukan lembaga-lembaga riset dan penerbitan buku-buku sejarah seni rupa yang komprehensif—yang berisi kajian-kajian serius dan mendalam terhadap karya-karya kanon seni rupa modern dan kontemporer Indonesia yang dibuat oleh anak negeri sendiri. 

Dengan itu akan menjadi rujukan bagi segenap penghayat seni rupa—terutama dari mancanegara untuk memahami dan mengakui keberadaan seni rupa Indonesia dengan media intelektual yang kesahihannya dijunjung bersama, dengan itu pula prahara Seni Rupa Indonesia diharapkan mereda, menjadi damai, maju, cerdas dan lancar, asal tidak terlena.

---------------o---------------

Catatan kaki

1. Keberadaannya pameran macam Art Jog dan Bakaba sesuatu yang tidak pernah ada di 
    infrastruktur seni rupa internasional, namun para galeri Indonesia berbesar hati tetap      
    mensupport dengan ikut mensponsori, mengapa ? justru kita menyadari kondisi infrastruktur 
    seni rupa Indonesia belum diatas ril yang benar, karena itu dibutuhkan sikap toleransi dan 
    kegotong royongan.

2. Perilaku salah ini terbukti didukung oleh para begundalnya dari Indonesia yang juga 
     beritikad buruk pada infrastruktur seni rupa Indonesia.

3. Kalau team penelitian evolusi mamalia yang dipimpin Maureen O’Leary saja bisa tekun 
    melacak nenek moyang mamalia, mengapa Aryo / ROW sebagai jurnalis Kompas tidak 
    memiliki semangat mencari tahu persoalan sebenarnya sebelum memberitakan, agar 
    beretika dan berimbang ?

4. Sejak th. 2002 Edwin, Mondekor, Langgeng, Canna, Nadi, Semarang, D galeri, 
    Lawangwangi dan galeri lainnya telah mengantar dan mempromosikan karya Perupa 
    Indonesia ke ruang internasional antara lain China, Korea, Jepang, Hongkong, Singapore, 
    Kuala Lumpur, Dubai, Paris, Belanda, Jerman dll. sedangkan sejak th. 2005 Emmitan galeri 
    (tiap bulan) tanpa hentinya ber–rotasi mengadakan bincang seni rupa di kantong 
    komunitasnya Denpasar, Batu Malang, Jakarta dan Surabaya – (dihadiri Perupa, Kolektor 
    senior dan kolektor muda, Investor senior dan investor pemula, budayawan, Kurator dan 
    pemerhati seni).

5. Sikap yang lahir dari inferioritas pikiran bangsa terjajah, atau colonized mind (meminjam 
    istilah pakar teori-teori kritis Frantz Fanon), harus dibuang ! Sikap itu menempatkan diri 
    sebagai tuan dan memosisikan yang dilayani sebagai obyek yang dipandang rendah ; tetapi 
    sang tuan setiap saat bisa kambuh berambivalensi untuk memenuhi hasrat materialistis atau 
    syahwat narsisnya.

6. Kemaruk = besar kepala, tingkah yang berlebihan

7. Mengapa dukun pembual ( kolektor ? ) yang gemar mengobrak – abrik infrastruktur kita itu 
    tidak mengabdi pada Seni Rupa Indonesia dengan mendirikan galeri ideal seperti yang 
    dilakukan Saatchi atau Rudy Akili ( Ark Galeri ) ! ?