Rully Shabara, NGM Interview
Interview host: Shih Wei Chieh
2022.07.05
Senyawa Studio, Yogyakarta
What is art?
R: For me, an Indonesian artist who grew up here in practice as well as the profession, if you ask me, "what is art?", it is a terminology created to be able to answer that question. Art without the term art itself is already happening organically everywhere. Especially in Indonesia, to be able to explain what is art and group it and to create an institution out of it and to create professions and to create money, it's become an industry. But without that it's happening anyway because that's what people do. Art is just an act of creation. So if we remove the artificial definition, that means everybody is an artist right? Everybody who uses their minds and creates something is an artist. Someone who just makes knives is an artist, who makes chairs is an artist. And then you come up with the academic term "art" to define it. Once they define it, it becomes a field of study, so people learn and practice it to become artists. And that becomes a profession because there's industry; there's institutions, funding, everything and festivals, concerts, exhibitions. But then it separates the definition and meaning of art itself; people make art first, if you think about it is not supposed to be liked by everybody because the purpose is individual. It is about mindset and perception and appreciation…The difference between people who like art and don't care about art is appreciation. You see, when someone likes a painting for example and somebody else doesn't understand the painting, someone who understands it says he appreciates how it's being made, he appreciates the effort behind it, the thinking behind it. Imagine what society will become if everyone is appreciated, understood for their effort.
But that cannot happen instantly like that. You cannot force art to change like, for example, what the West is doing right now. Art now is trying to be... I don't know, colonization? How the fuck are you going to change the whole world? It has to be focused on individuals because what will change the world is not a global thing like that.That's why art should be personal, it should be relatable because it should be able to change individual perception on things. Evolution, it helps as a generation. But then norms in societies always change. Arts would reflect the change of values, the change of norms.
Should art be associated with politics?
R: It doesn't have to be because it automatically changes society. It reflects what is happening, or norms or failed standards happening in that time. If you follow an artist from the past, for example, how do you know his philosophy, his life, his journey? It is from the art because you see the progress. For example, Monet, Van Gogh, you know the whole story from their art, the progress. You learn something from that person, the individual person, the change in his mind from this art. So it's all about the artist, the person, not the art, the artist is just a tool to understand the artist's mind. So imagine this kind of knowledge or how to appreciate someone and how to make some become artists or recipients, both have the same approach on things the society changes. Because it levels up the understanding and appreciation of things. So that's the true purpose of art, not money right?
If you want to be an artist in the industry, that's a different thing. Because the industry and infrastructure is all built to make money, for whoever is involved in every step of that process. Not just the artist, everyone; the venue, the gallery, would get money from this industry. So it's a whole different topic to talk about. But in essence, art is just this. Originally the industry or the existence of the industry is supposed to help the original purpose of art, right? But that means you have to realize in that context, an artist is not a lead. An artist is not something revealed in society, it should be the same as any other profession. You have to treat art like that in that context, otherwise it's dangerous. Because they say they want to change society, but they just want to build up this funding, it's very different. But if you did treat art just for wanting to make money, just give the money, support them. This is how you support young artists who are still on the journey finding themselves. Support them! Because they will build the infrastructure of industry for these people so they can be part of the scene, get money, and then if they are serious with their art, they keep developing and they can understand what the essence of art is. That means you have to remove the hierarchy in art. In this industry, artists or curators, or whoever, should be treated as any other professions like architects, or plumbers, doctors, lawyers, etc. So artists are not above society, in the context of the industry, because it's just a profession. Artist is a normal job in this case. It’s a personal thing, but at some point of your career you have to have to get up to the point where your work is not about you anymore. It’s important to focus on how I can make the things that I find all these years to be useful for people around me. Artists can detach themselves from the art profession or see themselves and just as no more than a person who just possesses a profession. At some point, what they do is a reflection of what they are struggling with that they cannot answer. So they cannot detach, when they detach, it becomes purely industry, it's for others to consume. But if art is to help his journey to develop his mind…I always want to attach myself with this part of me, because I need it to help me grow. But art as a profession, is also still a very critical job. And sometimes it doesn't make you compatible in the context of industry. In the context of an artist's profession, right? Art has to be critical, because you are critical either to yourself or to the society that you're living in. If the purpose of art that you're doing is actually to make a change, whether for yourself or to society, there’s also the context of profession or industry. The art itself is trying to make something that doesn't look like it is, but it makes people think and changes people in the long run. Art should not compromise. In your real life, from the moment you wake up till the moment you sleep, you already compromise in your life. You compromise with your friend, your mother, your girlfriend, society, your job, every day. Life forces you to compromise. The only place that you can be fully to whatever you want is with your art. I have to be smart about it. I can compromise with the surface of it, but I'm not compromised with the message or what I want to achieve. You can't compromise with it.
S: I don't really want to change people's ideas around me, if I encounter any difference or value difference or disagreement...
R: But you can do it with your art. Art is a representation of my process of discovering the truth, For example you don't know what is the truth. That's why I create. It creates discussion, it creates debates or conflict so that we know whether it's true or not.
S: For example, when I came here I wanted to experience the culture here. And I had a workshop, the e-textile workshop with local people, which is the experience I'm learning to hang out with a local to do things together. And to consider this process is part of an exchange or education for both sides. I want to work more with the local batik makers to make a huge conductive fabric with a synthesizer circuit, with the wax technique. Then Marc (Marc Dusseiller) says, you shouldn't do that because this is colonial thinking, you just want the locals to help you. Of course in my intention I don't possess this thinking, I just do it. But then someone who possesses the higher level of moral or critical thinking immediately acknowledges this is a problematic behavior. I also organized an event before, to collaborate with Aboriginal people. So I listen, that’s me in this case. But if it was someone else in this case, maybe he doesn't listen and he chooses to do whatever he wants. You cannot force. Another example is, I tell my friend I'm here and I'm making this workshop with local artists, and they ask if we should sell something for a profit. I don't call it colonial thinking, just capitalist thinking. I already know it's wrong, so I said no because the real value is in the culture.
R: First of all I agree with Marc, because you cannot just do things if you think it's fun or interesting or inspiring. But if, for example, you have a highly interesting batik technique or motive, then you use it in your work, or you pay them to make it for you. and then you modify it and it becomes yours. But what's in it for the culture itself? You know why traditional music, or traditional art is important? Because it teaches people the value of that culture. For example the Gamelan music, there is so much philosophy behind it, the Javanese philosophy. So if you learn that instrument, you will understand the philosophy. The purpose is not just to teach you how to play. There's always value behind every traditional melody, because there is a story and history. And it's because there's a value that ancient tradition has been taught so it’s not lost. If it was about the product (instrument) then what's really about it is gone. In a way that makes me no different than the person who proposes this capitalist thinking. So you need to know the value of whatever it is. That's you learning from outside of your culture.
What is empowerment to you?
S: There are still some differences between me and that capitalist way of thinking. I had this idea to work with the batik artist, as a way to empower them, because what I share is the technique, for example, engineering or electronics. And then we can make things together and have fun with knowledge exchange. And then later on we could make something innovative based on their own skills, so they still could be the culture promoter for themselves.
R: Maybe that person who proposes this capital thinking also thinks, okay I sell you art and you make money so that makes you rich. But maybe the difference is just between these two cases, just one I shared, not just money, and knowledge. Empowerment in the best case, firstly, the people who do the batik will definitely want to do that because of money, and promotion. Secondly, what you think is your exchange, you say is technology; I teach you this so you can make this better. This is already not fair, what you're teaching them is not yours, and what they're giving you is not only theirs but is their whole culture. So it’s not fair, the exchange. What you are giving them is just technology, something they can get from anywhere else, they can get it from learning by themselves. Giving them technology or infrastructure or money…. It's not equal exchange, it's not fair, because it also emphasizes hierarchy. All people who have power of money, access and technology will always be in power and by doing this it will never get out of this. It’s not empowerment.
If the question is about the justification of exchange, you give something that's yours and then they give something that's theirs, it's still not fair, because what you give is just one bit of knowledge, but what they give is knowledge of the whole entity based on generations of knowledge. Indigenous culture and traditional culture is not about the surface, it is not about the motive, it is not about value. What they want you to give them so it can be fair, it's for you to understand them, and that's it. Once you really know the value of a tradition…You don't want to exploit it…by understanding the value and the power in your work, just the value, then you will know in my work, I will have to be able to reflect that. And they will look at it like, “Wow, you use the same value as us.” That’s what’s more important. Then there is no exploitation happening there because what is spread is only the value. Nobody has been exploited, the value is spread even more. It’s not about the individual, the individual is just a carrier of the culture. That's why my focus of all my art only focuses on two things, voice and language. Language is not only verbal. Expression is just the language, the language itself, the verbal itself, the expression, you know? Accent, behavior, etc? But when you learn the language, you will easily understand it better because you know because you are practicing and using it. People want shortcuts to understand other people's traditions, and they say they think they understand a lot of traditions but they don’t. They just learn the academic version of that tradition. And shortcuts are actually very capitalist thinking.
What’s your opinion on making the old work with the new?
S: Tribe Against Machine I organized, or I worked with national craftsmanship centers. I always deal with how to make the new work with the old, and what is the purpose? I think each culture, maybe they represent a period of a history, so the new technology should reference the old model, and that is the purpose why we want to work with the old. You can just keep developing technology based on the shortcut mindset but that is only making problems. In principle it's also hard. It is very hard for me to go to their culture and live with them from the beginning, learn from all the characters of this culture.
R: Same for them exactly. And so if you want a fair exchange, what you need to do is you learn about them, and then they learn about you. You teach them how to make things that you do. So they build themselves, they create themselves. You give them access to what you know, not what you have. Exchange between new and old happens everyday. It doesn't need us to trigger that. People who possess lower technology always want to go to higher places, that's natural. It's maybe not just the desire from the capital. It's just human nature. They need to know the purpose of the form, the potentials and the dangers.
What was your experience with the Instrument Builders Project (IBP)?
S: We had fourteen European artists at Atayal. I brought them to the village, they all had very high moral concerns. So we lived together and we shared workshops. There was no hierarchy, it was a very fair exchange. And we had exchange of the basic knowledges of electronics, schematics and tribe cultures. But for the locals…I think they can only see the utility and they want to possess the technology to empower themselves. And I think the collaboration was very funding based. The exchange stoped after the artists left. We have done this ten-days workshop for continuously two years, it was an annual event, and then we stopped because it was the first trial.
R: You don't want an artist to stop making progress. You let them make mistakes, but the thing is, they just need to keep doing it constantly and develop it along with their mind change. That's it for me, that's what an art it should be. Just never stop and expect the outcome straight away, keep developing it, stick to a vision, don't change. Just stick to one vision and develop it with multiple projects. Focus on one idea that you think that you are really concerned with personally, and society will see whether it's worth it or not because a lot of art is worthless or doesn't have an impact, but it's there and it's why not you know it doesn't matter. Because art is not about the art itself, it's about the artist itself, it’s about changing that person. Art is not about the outcome, it is the process itself. As long as we have people who are focusing on preserving traditional arts and there are people who are focusing on developing new art. It's two different fields, two different practices, now the conflict or the discussion between them, that is what's important. The mistakes and the political correctness is part of the process, because the next generation will get the benefit of it .
According to your experience, how do you connect the two fields, Australian builders and Indonesian local builders? And what are the pros and cons of this global collaboration?
R: Promoting artists who built their own instruments or creative with making instruments – that's beneficial; they get money, support, and experience learning from other artists as well from other countries. For the bad things, well, depending on how much trash is created. If there is no reflection , there's no development or progress to make it better next time, it's just trash. Then it's just capital. Like biennales are based on the structure that's already in place to distribute funds and support to art and artists and collectives. It's just a machine developed by the industry to distribute funds to support the art. In the industry in general, as I said, there are two, there's art itself, and the machine called industry for that, and this goes in this category.
S: If you are the curator, you need to think, how do you want to continue this, or do you want to continue this kind of collaboration?
R: If I am a curator, I need to include something that will at least do what I want, to change people's own form of art itself. You need to learn how to make it sustainable, accessible, and a little bit critical. There is no such thing as an easy answer, to change everything all of sudden. I think you have to take time to progress by focusing on the one thing that you want.
Is the best outcome is to get rid of the machine?
R: No! We don't get rid of the machine. How do we get money? What you want is a better machine, we can call it a better model, and nobody knows what it is. This is by research, and everybody should work towards that with their own version, and it's always different by country or place. There's no "one machine", there should never be "one machine". IBP’s curators are from Australia, and the funding sources are from the Australian government, not Indonesia, because Australia has a lot of support from the government in terms of art, unlike Indonesia.
S: So for example, like if we get funding from Taiwanese government, and if we try to do something here, you clearly will have more opinions on what to do and what not to do. We need to go back to see what the purpose of doing international exchange is.I think it's very crucial because for myself, this global experience has given me diversity, cultural flexibility, and cultural reliability. And other people see the culture through me, but I don't really promote any Taiwanese culture or Chinese culture. I see myself as just an individual without a national label , I learned everything you said just now and I don't get this anywhere from Taiwan, Taiwanese friends, Taiwanese artists. I personally think Taiwanese artists don't participate in global exchange, usually they just want their reputation to be visible globally. But they don’t really, for example, discuss the hierarchy of colonialism in India.
R: You cannot blame Taiwanese artists for not participating because they don't know it, maybe it is not their knowledge yet. But your responsibility, your art should be able to reflect your knowledge….Your conscious decision should be based on your life and show that in your art. That's all that matters, that your art is really representing you. It reflects your progress.
If global network is important and beneficial, how do we promote it, make it more concrete and accessible?
R: Your art can define the problems that you're concerned with. You can make two different kinds; 1. Art that gives solutions by experimenting with different models, and 2. Just taking the problem without coming up with a solution or alternative. Then you can be super practical, exactly, just create an art that presents us a problem, and then we’ll kill the machine. Art is very flexible. There's no right or wrong, no good or bad. It's only the artist themselves that defines what they want to make. Do you know about Alkisah Sanyawa's album Break Experiment? For our last album, we did an open call on Instagram because the issue we had was the hierarchy and the music industry, where both the label and the artist exploit the art to make money and then the money always goes up to the label. The label has always capitalized on that. So we experimented on how to change this. So what we did is, we had the album and then the stems file of each track of each sound of each instrument, and gave them to anyone who wants. What happened was, The New York Times called it a “music experiment” in their headline, because this was the first time in the music industry that one album was released by 44, exactly 44 labels all over the world, released independently to create a localized version of this album. So this album exists in 44 different cities in different countries, but they are all different, the packaging is different, the cover design is different, and each album has curated its own remixes. There are only ten different labels in Indonesia, and then outside of Indonesia there's much more. The Remixes are now over now is almost 300, the most remixed album in history. This is our own Spotify. It is spreading naturally, without my power. So what that also means financially, not only Senyawa and the label gets money, everybody gets money. The key is to share the power once you have it. Academics make money from this because they make a paper about this and are invited to talk everywhere. You can do research about this, because this is what you want like, global networking but organic, non funded, collectives... no funding? You make the album with your own money, and then you send the files to all labels around the world to whoever wants it. You have to be smart in that, because that’s giving them power, and there is a lot of discussion about this. For example, if we want to press vinyl, it’s normally very expensive because you have to press at least 300-500 to make it cheap. That's not sustainable for small labels. We sell it to retail and we get money from touring, selling the vinyl, so it gets paid itself. That's what is called sustainability, that's what it is called organic. No one is forcing them. Everybody gets money and they decide what they want to do with it. They make it into a pop remix, a metal cover, and then the song lives and non-stop keeps developing progress.
S: To me, the music industry is relatively a little bit more clear and mature than experimental art because labels, discs, it's already there, the hardware and the system, so....
R: Yeah, it is a little bit easier to understand why it works, but it’s working in a different field. The music industry has labels, distributors, etc. We create a different market without distributors. It’s local and doesn’t need major distribution. It’s small, but spreading. So that means the power is not here anymore. It's everywhere. There’s now a lot of a talk about this, even after one year. Because if it's applied by someone like Taylor Swift, then this industry is just gone. They suddenly realize they don't need distributors. They don't need major labels. What they need is the locals. You don't have to pay for the media they come to you, all the major ones, all the institutions, and all the festivals want to know about this. With the sharing of power, it teaches them, it gives them authority.
Links in interview
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}