In modern art discourse, Paul Gauguin is often discussed for the non-Western elements in his paintings. As a child, he had often moved around with his family. Recent studies of Gauguin’s works have uncovered how photographs of the reliefs of Borobudur, which he took with him on his voyage to Tahiti, were recreated in his paintings. Victor Segalen, one of Gauguin’s correspondents, kept the two photographs of Borobudur. According to Bernard Dorival, there are at least two works by Gauguin which are derived from photographs which he took with him everywhere he went for at least ten years. Firstly, the gestures of the figures in Gauguin’s paintings, is one example. A second, is the detail of the leaves and trees which we can see in the first painting which he made in Tahiti, la Orana Maria (Hail Mary, 1891). This work, which is regarded as the start of his Orientalist style paintings, actually represents the Catholic aspect of this island which was a French colony. Does this mean that local beliefs had already started to be lost at the time of Gauguin’s arrival? Or, was it his surprise that this far off land also had many similarities with his home town? 

In contrast to Gauguin’s paintings, in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur, there is virtually no imagery of quiet, distant or individualist scenes. The rituals of the lives of the king, priests or whoever was in power, always creates space for a gathering; for the people to get together. Of course, there are only a few kings or priests. As a means to highlight them, the other figures are depicted in a uniform manner. Until now, depictions of the powerful remain the same; one, or just a few people, wearing easily identifiable clothes, perhaps standing on a stage, surrounded by many others. Who started such a practice? Or, does power work in the same way throughout the world, whatever the climate or natural environment?

It is always interesting to imagine how a culture shifts, moves, is absorbed, inherited, rejected or adapted. Not to mention the change or adjustment of meaning which happens in this journey. The practice of kenduri (a kind of ritual feast), for example, is identified with the practice of selamatan (performing a ceremony of gratitude) in Javanese culture. But this term comes via Hindu traders and was already used in various cultures throughout the archipelago before Islam’s arrival. A kenduri is an event which is held by someone in power and is open for the people. The interaction amongst the people is not the main aim of the practice. Just as with the presence of many people as represented on the reliefs of Borobudur, the presence of the people is needed to demonstrate the leader’s power. The presence of elements of reliefs from Candi Borobudur, mixed with Gauguin’s infatuation with Oceanic society, is evidence of the privilege to choose the reality which they want to represent or use. 

*

In this section of the exhibition, the festivities and liveliness become homogenizing, categorizing or placing people in one kind of tendency, label or ideology. In Paul Gilroy’s view (After Empire, Routledge, 2004), the discourse of multiculturalism has too often been used to avoid open conversations about the influence of colonialism, slavery and imperialism in the contemporary political reality. As if echoing such a view, the works in this section of the exhibition, have a tendency to act as a catalyst of political and social allegiance of artists and not their assumed context. The privilege of the artist is evident through the choice of subject, resulting in their works becoming a means to stating a particular truth. Can such works be regarded as propaganda? From whom, by whom and for whom do these works speak?  Do such festivities, which implicate large numbers of people, truly reflect the needs of the people? If they don’t fully agree with the agenda of kenduri, do the artists in this section of the exhibition offer an alternative agenda? Will the powerful always win? How do artists use their privilege in their works? Apart from explicit categorization, what is implied by these works? Is there room diversity in the crowd which has a tendency towards uniformity in such a kenduri? Can we, as the audience, create such a space through our own readings?