 | ||||||||||||
|
Artists : Rieswandi
Venue : Edwins Gallery
Duration : 22 Maret 2011 - 3 April 2011
Curator : Heru Hikayat
Preface : Edwin Rahardjo
Curatorial Note
Between Form and Non-form by Heru Hikayat
I am reminded of a work by René Magritte, a picture of a smoking pipe along with the words “this is not a pipe”. In that work, we are presented with the distinction between the image and its reference. Recognized in the image are pipe, chair, trees and so forth because of the similarity in the forms. The similarity in turns associates the image with its reference as something that exists in reality. Thus the image is connected to reality. This is presumably the starting point of our discussion regarding Rieswandi’s works: does his work relates to reality or not?
You may or may not recognize certain shapes in the works of Rieswandi. This recognition also relates to the imagination. The imagination is not exclusive to the artist, but also the beholder. Hence, works of art become the realm of different imaginations.
If a painter concentrates on the precision of form, it does not mean that this is purely a mechanistic form of imitation. Imagination remains involved. A number of artistic decisions must be made, and the media becomes the platform that conditioned those decisions. Therefore a picture of a tree is not merely a tree, but a tree that has been filtered with imagination. Thus the beholder, upon seeing the picture, recognizes it based on the experience of seeing trees, referring to the image of trees in mind. The beholder recognizes the tree in the picture because his imagination relates the image of the tree with the tree in reality.
In Rieswandi’s works, even if there is a recognizable form, the familiarity is not fixed. This is mainly because the image in his works is not solid, not completely similar to something that exists in the world. It does not necessarily mean that his works are abstract works—in the sense that they are created by fully considering the aspects of form. There are figures that within certain limits remind us of something of this world, and this is not a coincidence.
Or perhaps our recognition is not fixed because the presented images are the forms we are not entirely familiar with, or something we never see?
There is a story of someone who has never seen a horse all his life, and then he is shown a painting of a horse. Thus the man is not able to recognize the form in the painting. Imagine a microorganism, something that can be seen only through a microscope. Will we ever know its exact shape? Is the form of a lower level organism the same with a multi-cell organism? In fact, we never know. We only know through experiments, but during the times other than when examined by humans, who knows what the organisms look like?
Rieswandi admits to be interested in this kind of forms of organism, the organisms similar to fungi that always develop in forms. He confesses, when painting, forms appear in his mind which then develop in the drawing plane, along with the process of creation.
He does not remember exactly where and when he have seen the organism whose image then presents itself in his mind and becomes the idea behind his works. He is not concerned by this connection. Hence there is no access for the beholder to trace it because it is not significant.
Clive Bell proposed the term “significant form”. There are certain forms that somehow evoke an aesthetic emotion within us, by some mysterious law. Significant form originates from special experience. Experience of beauty requires direct experience, something that is experienced by the subjects themselves without any intermediary. This peculiar emotion is triggered by significant form. This is the experience of dealing with works of art, so that art exhibitions are important, regardless of how sophisticated the digital technology processed visuals, in art exhibitions we have the opportunity to deal directly with works of art. For Bell, significant form is what makes a work of art. A work of art does not determined physically, nor does it because of its success in illustrating something, but because of its ability to awaken that peculiar emotion. Absorbing this emotion is completely different with absorbing descriptive information. Looking at a painting of a tree is not about absorbing information about tree. Even if a representative form is considered successful, it succeeded as a form and not as a representation. This success is a matter of the forming of the visual elements.
I remember, in Rieswandi’s works years ago are forms reminiscent of something in reality, in a rather surrealist atmosphere. There are images similar to meadows above tree stumps, or a house similar to a giant creature. His works from the previous years often use repetitive pattern. But since then, the forms always look organic, as if tempted to continue to grow, leaving a fixed form and without a definite design. When I started observing his latest works many months ago in preparation for the exhibition, I saw that he followed this “organic” encouragement.
Because the search for the origin of form in Rieswandi’s paintings becomes unimportant, I focus on the drawing plane. I was tempted to look at his works fully from a formalistic point of view. At a glance, the way he cultivates forms may seem formalistic. But the images that only show abstract forms, Rieswandi always present an accent, usually a small image with a prominent and fixed form. The color is sometimes also stands out amidst his analogous palette. This accent is sometimes similar to plants in nature. In another picture, an image suggests a connection with reality. These correlations create a bridge between the works with the world. The formalistic restriction is skipped. I think Rieswandi can be considered as a middle class, Clive-Bellian form adherent: self-affirming charms within the works as well as leaving a faint trail of the connection to the world.
In this exhibition Rieswandi also features tri-dimensional works. This is the first project where he showcases tri-dimensional works. As mentioned above, something in his mind triggers the process of creating. It can be considered as a design to compose the tri-dimensional formation. Of course this “design” is organic. The option to execute the “design” in a tri-dimensional form does not render his work to be mechanistic. The display of the tri-dimensional works involves real space, which is the exhibition space itself. Almost all two-dimensional works (painting and drawing) use the background as a vacuum space where the forms manifest themselves. If the drawing plane in that vacuum space is the background, then in the tri-dimensional works the space is the real space, where we are. Tri-dimensional works expand the exploration of space. They expand it to the limited world where the art works are being presented.
In one painting, he treats the background differently. The background is similar to the sky, thus the overlay becomes the landscape. The connection to reality is much stronger here. Even if it is called a panorama, so as in all his works the position of the beholder remains ambiguous: between familiarity and unfamiliarity. There is consistency, and there is also a shift.
Finally, the chosen title, Amorphous, is intended to emphasize the uncertainties of form, not only is it not fixed but also not final. In his composition, Rieswandi always highlights the potential development of the form. A force contains within every form. What else but art that is most appropriate to expose these forces?
(Bandung, 10 Maret 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment