Encounter as a point of departure: interview with Agung Hujatnika

(Brigitta Isabella, editor of The Equator corresponds by email with Agung Hujatnika, curator of Biennale Jogja XII, to discuss his curatorial vision as well as his views on the potentials of collaboration that could develop from this BJ XII platform.)

In a public presentation at Kedai Kebun Forum (25/07), Sarah Rifky related her experience of visiting the Afro-Asian Conference Museum in Bandung. Looking back at the records of that event, she felt like she was looking at a theatre performance in which the language and gestures of the leaders of state seemed artificial. The question then is whether the Biennale Jogja, as a major biennial event, is also simply a formal diplomatic activity? How do you see the position and role of BJ XII in the framework of contemporary geopolitics?

From the curatorial perspective, BJ XII is far removed from the intensity or missions of state diplomacy, let alone premeditated formal political diplomacy. The Biennale Foundation, although under the umbrella of the provincial government, is not an organisation with that kind of agenda. The equatorial concept on which the organisers decided for the biennale series, I think, does not have a direct relationship with any formal political diplomatic mechanism, nor is it an effort to be directly involved with South-South political discourse.
The Afro-Asian Conference (AAC) can be interpreted as an event of symbolic solidarity, not only because of the museum records that are now mere frozen artefacts. It is also a symbol that perished when brought to bear with the reality of multilateral relations between South-South countries, and never truly progressed. The Non-Aligned Movement that echoed from the AAC has also receded (we know the term ‘non-aligned’ is no longer relevant in the current international political situation). But, don’t all historical symbols continually ‘await’ reinterpretation? The fact that this movement had major repercussions in its time cannot be diminished. The AAC is still relevant as a historic event and is relevant, not only to this year’s Biennale Jogja, but to the entire Biennale Jogja Equator Series.
Even so, I prefer to make AAC as one of the sources of inspiration for BJ XII, instead of using it as the main historical reference point. Other inspirations come not from major events or historical narratives, but from everyday experiences. I would rather begin the curatorial process of this exhibition with the desire to understand the meaning of ‘encounter as a point of departure’, wherein coincidence, trial, spontaneity and surprise are important. In everyday conversation, the meaning of ‘encounter’ is different to ‘meeting’ or ‘conference’, terms which equate with big agendas.

Speaking about the curatorial process, what is the role of the curator in BJ XII; simply exhibition maker, expert diplomat, mediator, or what? Could you also elaborate further on the choice of the theme of ‘mobility’ from the curatorial perspective you offer?

As curator, I never had an adequate frame to enable me to see my own role, except as a curatorial ‘worker’ – as someone who merely works. As with an artist, who works to fulfil a very personal theme, I think curatorial work also deserves to be understood as a job that brings subjective pleasure to those who involved – of course, in addition to frequently imposed public responsibility.
I believe there are always some opposing characters (exhibition maker, diplomat, connoisseur, mediator, librarian, writer, etc.), but we can’t just separate these in the curatorial work. It would be better if the role and the work of a curator were assessed after the exhibition, as in after-the-(f)act, when the long-term impact of the exhibition can be seen in the art field.
The theme of mobility wasn’t originally intended as the basis for formulating the curatorial method, but more relative to the concept of ‘encounter’. This theme was inspired by the phenomenon of human shifting/moving (especially of migrant workers and Muslim pilgrims from Indonesia to the Arabia) and other forms of ‘migration’ in the process of general globalisation. Afrizal Malna used the metaphor of migration for all forms of moving, not only of humans, but also objects, languages and ideas. This Biennale ultimately sets mobility and migration as two important keywords to look at art practice (and the various social, political, economic and cultural problems that go with it) in the Arab region and Indonesia.

One form of encounter initiated by BJ XII will be residency. Why residency? What distinguishes physical encounter from virtual encounter in an increasingly sophisticated technological era, especially in the context of creating art works? How does your method encourage encounters and not just superficial impressions for the stereotypical artist who comes on a residency program that lasts only two months?

Sarah Rifky and I assume that, specifically in the field of contemporary fine art, Arab-Indonesian encounters have never really happened before. Cultural encounters are actually made by migrant workers, students, Muslim pilgrims, or merchants. Art has never been the main theme in Arab-Indonesian encounters. History, trade, migration and religious pilgrimage are in fact driving the emergence of contiguity, influence and fusion, through to the cultural contradictions we now see in Indonesia. We want the encounters in BJ XII (between the exhibited art works, between the artists and the region with which they are in dialogue, between one artist and another) to be able to learn from and reflect on the social reality that actually goes on between the two regions.
The artist’s residency program in Jogja, and its Arab counterpart, is only one of the ‘platforms of encounter’ that I propose as an attempt to overcome the lack of interaction and communication between the two fields of art in the two regions. This platform serves also to prevent the biennale from becoming a formal, or artificial, futile ‘meeting’, as we often see in exhibitions that represent regional fine arts.
Residency is basically a very regular pattern of work undertaken by artists everywhere. A number of biennales in the world have already done it. The difference with this BJ XII residency is that it is organised by two parties in their relative regions – it’s more like a cultural exchange mechanism, but with an emphasis on direct interaction with one location/place, culture and local community. Consequently, an ethnographic approach (through encounters that are both physical and empirical) is an inherent part of the plan of the works to be created. I am not worried about stereotypical results due to the short duration of the residency. With their creative capacity, the resident artists are certainly already aware of these kinds of risks and can, a much as possible, avoid them from the start.
Besides the residency, that requires artists to leave home and migrate to work, Sarah and I also propose another platform that uses virtual communication. This platform has never before had an official name. What we are doing is a kind of ‘matchmaking’ for collaborative projects between artists in the two regions. As much as possible, these projects will result in encounters and ‘fusions’ between the two parties. In this process, I ask some artists to submit a sort of work proposal to be realised by other artists. We attempt to match artists who have similar, as well as completely different tendencies (some projects have an interdisciplinary nature). For us, this is the most challenging and experimental part of the exhibition. We realise that this platform has a significant risk of failing.