In the current development of art in Indonesia, the art of realistic painting can no longer be examined from a single point of view. There are various underlying thought processes in play, even when they looked the same on the surface. The variety of realistic painting styles we encounter nowadays have developed as though to free themselves from commonly-known realist art genres—academism, neo-classicism, naturalism, surrealism and realism. The current variety of realist styles stems from the shift in people’s perception of photography in relation to realistic paintings.

Historically, photography evolved from the art of realistic painting, that since the 17th century had utilized camera obscura for their works. When photography first emerged in the 19th century, its functions had undeniably replaced realistic paintings; creating portraits of nobilities and other important personages. In the 20th century, however, photography had freed itself from this historical background. It began to develop in various sectors outside art. The use of photography in newspapers and advertising helped the evolution of photography as a new paradigm far removed from realist art discourses.

When realistic painting, as an art form, reemerged in the end of the 60s in England—in Indonesia by the mid-1970s—it adopted the state of 20th century photography as its foundation. It is more appropriate to examine this style of realistic painting—identified as photo-realism—as the exercise of using realistic images to build communication. Such realistic images are comparable to textual languages. As with literal languages in a text, realistic images possess a clear meaning, and can be read clearly due to their commonality and similarity of perception.

In the 21st century, photo-realism’s references are no longer limited to photography. Photo-realism is also influenced by realistic comics, one of the signs of popular culture. The widespread adoption of this type of comic began with the renaissance of realistic comics portraying superhero characters. This type of comic emerged in the early 20th century—Superman was conceived in 1938; Batman in 1939; and Captain Marvel in 1940. [1] Nowadays, the influences of these superhero comics—which of themselves can be seen as harbingers of the coming Second World War—are most notable in computer games and digital art.

Within the digital art circle there are substantial developments in creating realistic paintings and drawings. Its catalyst is the possibilities offered by computer technology of the likes never experienced before: the computer’s ability to convert photographs into realistic paintings and drawings. Now, artists can create a realistic painting or drawing by relying on the structures of realistic painting/drawing afforded by these photographs. The artists can now develop details without having to slave away creating preparatory sketches or drafts for their realistic paintings/drawings. In digital art, this is known as ‘renderosity’ (from the term ‘rendering’).

In the past, one’s ability to paint realistically was based on: (1) the skill/ability to create structures or sketches of realistic paintings/pictures, and (2) the skill/ability to finish them, to create complete realistic paintings. Without these skills, one cannot be fully acknowledged as a realistic painter. However, it is now evident that these two abilities are separate. An artist without the ability to create a structure, scheme, or sketch of realistic images can in fact create realistic paintings/pictures. This reality shows how renderosity is linked to a separate/independent ability and sensibility quite distinct from the ability to create a realistic painting/drawing’s structure, scheme, or sketch.

In Indonesian Art development, the possibility afforded by computer technology more often than not led to the emergence of realistic paintings (on canvas); because digital art—usually found in print-form or book-form—are not entirely popular. Using projectors, a computer-developed painting or picture is projected onto canvas to be copied. Here, renderosity is not merely the result of a computer program, but the result of painting something realistically, not unlike conventional realistic paintings.

Renderosity, then, appears as realistic paintings we are familiar with. This similarity allows renderosity, on realistic paintings, to be examined as though they are conventional realistic paintings. Though its position is similar to that of language in a text, the accuracy with which a piece is rendered does influence the overall effect of the piece. A sloppy work will harm the attractiveness of the piece. A number of Indonesian artists have tried to solve this problem by employing artisans adept at painting realistically. These artisans' ability affect the end-result of the whole work.

In a text-oriented criticism, a particular realistic image will be seen as an attempt to present a readable 'sign'. However, in a more complex criticism, readability is not the only issue. This means that a good and accurate realistic painting can be construed as plastic language in a text. This indication is comparable to plastic language found in novels, short stories, essays, and even articles. Such linguistic plasticity builds on the pleasure found in reading, and can engage a reader’s interest (even to a point of obsession). This appeal helps to strengthen narration, but ultimately it is a question residing outside of the storyline.

Out of all visual languages—including semiotic language—used to compile a certain text (art work), only the language of realistic images can be seen as comparable to literal language, because realistic images are [already] well-known. This corresponding perception in understanding language is molded through the long tradition of realist art, as well as the development of photography as reference. The use of this language is different from the use of objects, signs, symbols, found objects or artifacts in compiling a text whose readability relies on semiotics. This demonstrates the use of realistic images in paintings as a language that cannot be separated from the art of realistic painting as we know today.

Chusin Setiadikara is a painter who mastered the ability to create structures, sketches or drafts of realistic drawings/paintings, as well as the ability to paint realistically (he is adept in renderosity). His ability to create convincing sketches and drafts is undeniable. For instance, in creating sketches for large-scale realistic paintings, he has managed to overcome the vexing need to constantly move back and forth (to adjust his field of vision), by making sketches from a distance. To achieve this, he affixed a Conté crayon to one end of a 1.5m-stick. By using this, he is able to create sketches from a distance.

Chusin has never used a projector to create his sketches or to complete his realistic paintings/drawings. He has no need for any of these equipments because he has mastered the techniques to draw and paint realistically. Both of these abilities evolved in parallel, and since 2002, he has combined realistic drawing and painting as his chosen language of expression: both appeared in harmony in all his works.

The accuracy in Chusin’s realistic paintings demonstrate the “plasticity of the language of realistic painting”. This plasticity is not merely the ability to paint realistically. His brand of plasticity is attractive because of its linguistic innovations. At the start of his debut, Chusin exhibited sharp and detail-oriented realistic paintings, as evident in his famous painting, Pasar Kintamani I (1995). In 2002, he changed the color policy he applied on his paintings, by limiting his color spectrum. He attempted to present a “subtle language” by relying on nuances. Chusin built realistic images using white colors on white surface (known as the ‘white on white’ series). Now, his works have once again demonstrated a change in color policy. Parallel to his evolution, integrating realistic drawing and painting, he has developed a spectrum of primary colors which produces sharp colors.

In turn, plasticity in Chusin’s language can be compared to the literal language found in best-selling novels known for their linguistic innovations. The literary world recognizes the term “plastic language”. The plasticity of realistic language, as shown in Chusin’s works, has never been [closely] examined in any realist art discourses, because realistic painting is always seen as the attempt to reproduce reality, which in turn is associated with the development of thought in the philosophical world.

Realistic painting reflects the earliest concept of 'representation' in the span of philosophical evolution, where the accuracy of copying reality is a basic issue. Here, representation is a “construction” that is entirely similar to a “construction” in reality, the only difference being that the former is artificial (descriptive, or described in imagery), and the latter is real. Convinced in this 'similarity', they began to believe that to discover truth in a representation also means discovering truth in reality. A long and convoluted debate regarding realism was proof to this conviction; concepts of realism, socialist realism, fascist realism, magic realism, and surrealism ‘fought’ with one another because each one of them believed theirs was the one and absolute truth regarding reality; despite these truths being merely ideological.

Such perception led to beliefs that the discovery of photography signaled the end of realistic painting. Compared to photographs, the attempt to replicate [reality] through paintings, however accurate, will always fall short. In addition, it was believed that photography would be able to present objectivity, where realistic paintings were seen as accommodating subjectivity and ideologies. In “The Ontology of the Photographic Image’ (1967), André Bazin declares the death of realist art. He asserts that the discovery of photography is the most important event in the history of art. Photography frees art from its obsession to connect art with reality (such obsession being the basis of an ever-convoluted realism) and returning art to its autonomous question of aesthetics. [2]

Chusin Setiadikara’s realistic paintings, emphasizing plasticity, are not based on such perceptions. Thus, his realistic paintings remain outside the commonly-understood discourses on realistic paintings. Chusin does not use realistic painting as a language to build representation. He has never attempted to find [absolute] truth in his art works. Thus, it is not relevant to question whether he believed in the search for an absolute truth as believed by various schools of realism. The search for any kind of truth has never registered within his mindset and his perceptions of art. As such, his conviction of realistic painting is not in any way hindered, even when realist art was thought to be dead following the discovery of photography. Unconcerned, he continues to paint realistically.

The discourse of the art of realistic painting must be reexamined if we are to consider Chusin’s realistic works. By considering how he creates his paintings, the art of realistic painting can be seen as having two languages (1) The language to replicate reality, inseparable from philosophy, and (2) A language of expression that provides a possibility to develop linguistic plasticity. Current discourses in realistic art have only examined the first type of language in any kind of depth. As such, the second type of language—as employed by Chusin—can be seen as a thesis within realist art discourses, something that has never been properly discussed.

The first step in compiling this argument is to expound the differences between the two languages. Indeed, we must start by evaluating the developments of philosophical thoughts, because the understanding of realistic art discourses, as we know it, cannot be separated from the question of ‘representation’ as mentioned by Arthur C. Danto, as the central concept of philosophy. [3] One such philosophical thought that can be employed to demonstrate the differences between the two languages can be found in the works of Bambang Sugiharto, the Indonesian philosopher. [4]

Part of Bambang Sugiharto’s body of work that particularly illustrates these signs is his exposition on the contrast between “literal language” and “metaphorical language”. His exposition closely examines various philosophical schools of thought discussing metaphorical language. He looks at how this language occurs in art expressions (indeed, this particular philosopher has close ties with the Indonesian art circle). This metaphorical language can be used to approach Chusin Setiadikara’s chosen language of expression.

Literal language is a simple, descriptive and systematic language (recognizing categories and classifications), and is used within an epistemological framework. For many centuries, this language (in the form of texts) was used to describe reality in order to discover truth; so much so that the development of philosophy could no longer be separated from the development of texts. As such, the development in the search for truth, in philosophy, went down two routes. One was to seek truth in reality, and another was to seek truth within a collection of texts.

The search for truth along the first route was rather unsuccessful, because truth in reality is very complex, and therefore, it cannot be truly proven. Philosophy's search for truth turned to the second route: text. The language that was once used to describe reality became the object, the venue, to seek truth. This led to the emergence of linguistic philosophy.

Linguistic philosophy was part of a dominant modern discourse of the 20th century. This school of thought evolved in parallel with scientific knowledge. Like all branches of science, with their respective complex language systems, philosophy developed a system of complex literal language in search of [this elusive] truth. Through this complex system, linguistic philosophy, as well as science, claimed to have found truth [at last].

However, the truth they found was a specific kind of truth: the kind of truth that existed only within the circle of each branch of knowledge. These truths were upheld in their respective fields based on commensurability (i.e. the truths were measurable to their own standards). This commensurability was based on the agreements reached within each "closed circle", and as such, they did not apply universally.

Like many other post-modernists, Bambang Sugiharto questioned the truths as claimed by linguistic philosophy. The act of defending these truths was regarded as corrupt, because linguistic philosophy attempted to align intra-linguistic truths (i.e. truths found within language), with extra-linguistic truths (i.e. universal truth). This attempt was made by structuring complex logic into something coherent, unambigious, and separate from a text's status, in order to appear transparent, able to display meaning and universal truth. This was the pinnacle of philosophical endeavors in using literal language in order to find the absolute truth.

This attempt failed, however, and philosophy was thrown into disarray, beginning with Jacques Derrida's deconstructive treatise—where he examined meaningless linguistic components within texts, and found another meaning behind a certain, accepted meaning. This became one of the catalyst in the emergence of "postmodernism" , which itself was not a new -ism, but a sign of disorder within all dominant schools of thought in the 20th century.

20th century modern art was equally affected. As part of modern thinking, whose foundations were reflected in linguistic philosophy, modern art developed its own specific language, known as 'visual language'. A visual language confined within this modernist discourse brought about a specific visual problem also. This was what Andre Bazin meant when he alluded to an autonomous aesthetic problem. Parallel to the complex and incomprehensible intricacies within science, modern art-works became esoteric.

Disorder within modern art led to a new development, known as 'contemporary art' (though its understanding is still shaky until now). Within this sphere, there was an attempt to tear down text, to free it from specific principles and to nurture more common and more open ways of reading, through semiotic and hermeneutic approaches, that were equally complex. Here, realistic painting—in addition to objects—was seen as a language with a common meaning. This language was readable thanks to similarities in perception and knowledge regarding signs and symbols.

In the face of a change as large as this, Bambang Sugiharto can be counted among those philosophers who tried to return to a way of thinking where thought was regarded as an attempt to understand reality. Philosophy isn't the only way of thinking applied to the understanding of reality. He has acted critically towards logocentric thoughts (the search for truth) because, in his opinion, the wealth of thought across the history of human civilization can never grasp reality in its entirety. Through this stance, he began to look at the question of metaphorical language that had until then remained at the fringes of the philosophical world due to of its inability to present sure and definite meanings.

Various thoughts on metaphorical language, in the evolution of philosophy, deem this language to have emerged from creative imagination, aesthetic experiences, sublime feelings, critical attitude, sensitivity, even mystical experiences. This language presents metaphor that do not appear as a proposition in a hunt for truth. In Bambang Sugiharto's analysis, metaphor searches for 'the ideal truth' which appears in the face of 'less than ideal' conditions present in reality. Ideal truth do not pretend to find absolute truth. Thus this truth exists in contention with other ideal truths. In addition to various schools of thought—including philosophy—metaphor can often be found in art-works.

Metaphors often emerge as oddities; they invite questions, as they tend to collide with various categories of understanding. However, it is exactly these oddities that allows metaphors to introduce various symptoms of reality that are less known or less understood. As such, these oddities inspire curiosity, which in turn stimulates the mind.

Metaphors are not knowledge about reality. Instead, they are the sources of knowledge about reality. As such, all metaphors require careful reading, even radical interpretation. Their meanings can only be clear after breaking them up, and translating them into literal language. This translation often leads to an awareness of a certain reality that was once incomprehensible. In Bambang Sugiharto's careful examination, metaphors retain a central position in human life, because metaphors stand as language's fundamental characters in marking reality. Metaphorical patterns of understanding occur in all schools of thought, including philosophy. The usage of literal language to describe reality, in the beginning, was an attempt to translate metaphorical language.

It is not immediately explicable to look at Chusin's realistic paintings as a kind of metaphorical language. This proposition becomes easier to accept if Chusin's works were symbolic, or displaying a kind of distortion, or even abstract. Chusin's realistic painting does not seem to offer up metaphors. Instead, his paintings seem to replicate reality.

On the other hand, we can use the fact that Chusin's realistic paintings reflect an attempt to understand reality as a foundation to read Chusin's works as metaphorical language. Chusin did not create new language. Like any other artists, his language of expression was adapted from various choices offered by the history of art. Chusin adapted the art of realistic painting—one that has developed and is widely used to reproduce reality—and turned it into metaphorical language. Chusin converted this language into metaphorical language.

This change was not Chusin's idea. Although he himself wasn't fully aware of it, Chusin has adapted these changes from the development of painting in China. This conversion happened at the beginning of the 20th century when realistic painting was inserted into the stream of traditional painting. The 'cultural translation' phenomenon can be found noted in the history of Chinese art but has never been examined closely, or presented as an aesthetic study, much less a thesis. This development collided with post-Second World War social realism, before becoming a meaningful discourse within the development of global art. After the Chinese Reformation in the early 1990s, this historical marker did not immediately gain its place as a school of thought. As such, the art of realistic painting which is still widely practised throughout China today has never been read properly. Realistic paintings are considered as outdated paintings, because they use a dead language (according to Andre Bazin).

Chusin's connection with the development of Chinese art involved more than just his Chinese ancestry. The development of Indonesian politics also played a part in creating the conditions that forced him into close proximity with various developments in China, because he was only fluent in Mandarin. The information he absorbed then were those communicated in Mandarin, including information surrounding the development of art which would later play a role in molding him.

Chusin was born in Bandung, in 1949, into a traditional Chinese family. In their daily interactions, they communicate in Mandarin and Sundanese. Chusin was sixth out of seven children. His father was a farmhand, working in a plantation in the mountainous region in the North of Bandung. His mother was a social worker, who played a role in introducing art to Chusin and his siblings. Chusin and three of his siblings exhibited an ability to paint since a very young age. In primary school, Chusin was already showing signs of being adept at realistic painting.

His received all his education from Chinese schools, with lessons taught in Mandarin. He entered primary school in 1955. Here, his teacher recognized his skill in realistic painting. Even then, he was already painting intensively, under the guidance of his older siblings. His realistic paintings were admired by many at school, as Chusin began to make portraits and accepted small 'commissions' for his works.

In 1966, his education was interrupted. At that time, he was a student at the Chiao Ching High School in Bandung. His school was closed down following a great, momentous shift in the Indonesian political landscape. In 1965, Sukarno's left-wing government was overthrown, replaced by a militaristic administration under Suharto. The new anti-Communist government cut all diplomatic ties with China and exercised a severe anti-China policy at home. In addition to closing and disallowing any Chinese schools, the use of Mandarin in public was also prohibited. The only Chinese newspaper in circulation was fully controlled by the military. [5]

This political change was very hard on the livelihoods of all Indonesians of Chinese descent. At that time, China was still Constitutionally claiming all people of Chinese ancestry around the world as its lawful citizens. As such, all Indonesian Chinese had dual nationalities: Chinese and Indonesian. A person of Chinese descent could become an Indonesian citizen by refusing their Chinese citizenship through a legal process. During the time when Indonesia still maintained a good relationship with China under Sukarno, having dual nationalities was not a problem. However, after severing diplomatic ties between Indonesia and China in 1965, a problem emerged. Chinese citizenship was not recognized in Indonesia, and those who did not legally refuse Chinese citizenship were not legally recognized as Indonesian citizens, even though they had lived in Indonesia for many generations. In face of this problem, Suharto's administration introduced 'stateless' passports, which itself led to confusion, creating problems when used for overseas travel as this sort of passport was not recognized anywhere in the world.

Chusin and his family were simple people living according to traditional Chinese ways (which was why he enrolled in a Chinese school). They did not understand the intricacies of the law, especially Citizenship Laws. Before 1965 they had two nationalities. After 1965, however, they were 'stateless', because the process of gaining an Indonesian citizenship was quite difficult and expensive . The family did not have enough money to attend to this matter of citizenship. As a 'stateless' person, Chusin lost any possibility of entering into any sort of educational institution. Holders of this passport were prohibited from entering into any school using Indonesian as the medium of instruction.

As a 'drop-out', Chusin, together with his siblings, attempted to follow on their father's footsteps as a farmhand. However, Chusin quit after several years. He told his family that he wanted to become a painter, and this announcement caused some tension in the family. He was seen as shirking his duties. In 1969, he left home, wandering searching for a way in as a painter. His ability to draw and paint sustained him. He sold enough drawings and paintings to cover his daily expenses as well as to collect more information about art.

At that time, Chusin was intensively studying the works and thoughts of Lee Man-Fong (1913-1988), a famous Indonesian-Chinese painter. Chusin saw this painter as one of the artists who revolutionize Chinese traditional painting. This revolution occurred when Lee Man-Fong—and a number of Chinese artists—introduced realistic painting into traditional painting. Even though Lee Man-Fong worked outside China, his efforts to combine realistic painting and traditional painting were recognized in China.

Chusin was correct in his observation. In 1956, Lee Man-Fong met with the painter Ch'i Pai-Shih in Beijing—he even painted a portrait of this Ch'i Pai-Shih, who was regarded as China's foremost painter. Ch'i Pai-Shih was also recognized as someone who revolutionized traditional painting. Here, Lee Man-Fong's realistic paintings received their widespread acknowledgment. [6]

Lee Man-Fong's paintings, though realistic in style, were not copies of reality in search of truth. According to Lee Man-Fong, his realistic paintings were derived from the transformation of a deeply observed reality. This observation required contemplation and honesty. Regarding a technique of painting he called 'rendering', he stated that in this technique, one must achieve a sophisticated level of skill in order to record the results gained from observing reality. [7]

Lee Man-Fong was born on the Chinese mainland, but grew up in Singapore. He followed his parents to Singapore in 1920. As an autodidact, he began to paint when he was very young. He moved to Indonesia—at that time, still a Dutch Colony—in 1937. In the beginning, he worked as an illustrator and graphic designer for a major printing house, Kolf & Co. [8] A few years later, he became a famous painter—at that time, now-famous names in the Indonesian art world were beginning to emerge: Soedjojono, Affandi, Basuki Abdullah, Hendra Gunawan, and Agus Djaya. Lee Man-Fong's realistic paintings—as well as Basuki Abdullah's—gained much acclaim. At that time, the art of realistic painting dominated the development of art throughout South East Asia.

In 1946, Lee Man-Fong received a scholarship to study the art of realistic painting in the Netherlands, where he stayed with his family for six years. When he returned to Indonesia, Lee Man-Fong fixed his views regarding realist art, which he called 'Oriental Realistic Art'. At that time, Lee Man-Fong became a close acquaintance of President Sukarno, who was an avid art collector. In 1962, Lee Man-Fong was appointed as curator of the art collection housed in the Presidential Palace. In 1967, two years after the fall of President Sukarno in 1965, Lee Man-Fong moved to Singapore with his family. The Singaporean government granted him a permanent resident status. [9]

Lee Man-Fong's views, formed between 1920-1930, retained a connection with the development of art in China at the beginning of the 20th century, combining realistic painting with traditional painting. Now, following China's cultural and political reformation, discussions have begun on this phenomenal development as part of China's art development.

Like Japanese and Korean traditional painting, Chinese traditional painting is known for its tendency to build realistic images—not symbolic, and undistorted. The basis of this view is similar to the concept of representation as found in philosophy. This phenomenon is reflected in the philosophical views of the Ming Dynasty in the 17th century. It was Gu Yanwu who stated that a painting's most important task was to reproduce the appearance of an object in reality, made through contemplation.

Of course, a realistic image in Chinese traditional painting of the time differs from images found European realistic painting. One of the differences lies in the lack of illumination in the construction of realistic image. The formation of this realistic image is made by putting pressure on a pen or a brush, creating brush strokes of various thickness and depth.

Gu Yangwu's statement demonstrates how difficult the process of creating realistic paintings was. First, an artists must properly recognize reality through contemplation and not just through rational observation. Secondly, an artist must conduct repetitive experimentation in order to achieve an ability to paint something that can properly record the results of the aforementioned contemplation.

After three centuries of development, traditional art presenting realistic images underwent a decline at the beginning of the 20th century. Painters no longer employed contemplative process—one that requires a long time to perform—to create. Artists took a short cut by copying paintings made by the Masters. The images produced were almost identical (thanks to their ability to accurately copy). However, the paintings they produced showed only surface beauty, because they lacked contemplation. In this manneristic development, there was almost no innovation to be found. The paintings' subject matters rarely deviated from the repetitive images of mountains, old people, riverside trees, and bamboo grove.

In the face of this decline, a group of Chinese painters and intellectuals felt the need to try to restore the quality of (traditional) art. So, one of the undertaking that they saw as a suitable means to arrest this decline was to adapt the style of realistic painting that was developing in Europe. Due to its complex techniques and high level of precision demanded, they deemed it impossible for anyone to employ short cuts to create an art like this.

Realist painting entered China in the 19th century with modern thinking during the Qing Dynasty—the modernization of China began during this period. Thus, it was from this moment on, that the art of realistic painting was taught in China. However, this branch of art was not readily linked to art itself, and the output was not considered as work of art. At that time, realistic painting and pictures were used to complete various documentations. This happened before the introduction of photography. Only since the early 20th century did artists consider the art of realistic painting as worth examining, elevated to a bona fide art discourse, in a time when traditional art suffered its decline.

In 1918, two influential painters of the Shanghai Academy of Art, Xu Beihong and Liu Haishu, confirmed the idea of incorporating realistic art into traditional art. They published tracts regarding the need for art reformation in China. Xu Beihong was a painter who was competent in conducting discussion on this subject. He had studied realistic painting in France. As such, he was able to elucidate upon the details of a merge between the principles of realistic and traditional art. In addition, he was also able to critically view the differences which remained in both.

Xu Beihong thought that the methods and techniques of painting realistically within this particular branch of art, as he envisioned, should not be limited to a direct replication of reality as in Western realistic paintings. Eyes were not the most essential tool to achieve accuracy and precision in recording reality. Contemplation was.

In 1930, a group of painters, Kang Youwei, Lang Qichao, and Cai Yuanpe, who had studied abroad, confirmed Xu Beihong's and Liu Haishu's treatise. Together, they formed the New Culture Movement, stating that the adaptation of Western realist art was needed to develop rational thought and the understanding of modern scientific knowledge. This movement began a reformation in traditional art in China, as well as becoming the sign of the emergence of modern art in China.

The concepts and thoughts underpinning realistic painting faced a challenge when Lu Shun, a famous literary figure, introduced Marxist art in 1928. Its aesthetic principles were further eroded when the Chinese Communist Party began promoting social realism in 1930. In the Chinese mainland, the number of artists who continued the realistic art reformation and concepts dwindled. We could go so far as to say that since 1950s, only the techniques of realistic painting were still in use. In 1964, Mao Zedong issued his official mandate for the development of art in China to be based on social realism.

During the Cultural Revolution between 1966 and 1976, Xu Beihong's and Liu Haishu's views were derided. All thoughts and principles of art—together with all intellectual thought—that did not abide by the official stance were systematically destroyed.

With his knowledge of Lee Man-Fong and of the development of art in China, Chusin cemented his belief in realistic art, something he practiced from a young age. With this conviction, in 1970, he joined Barli Art Hall established by the artist, Barli Sasmitawinata. This studio conducted informal education, using realistic painting—known as academism—as the basis of art instruction.

Barli Sasmitawinata (1921-2007) was Indonesia's foremost realistic painter, who studied painting under Luigi Nobili, an Italian artist residing in Indonesia. Barli was amongst a group of Indonesian artists who pioneered the emergence of Indonesian art during the colonial era in 1930s. In 1935, he founded an art movement in Bandung, together with Affandi and Hendra Gunawan. Following the Indonesian declaration of independence, Barli received a scholarship to study at the Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten (the Royal Academy of Art), in Amsterdam, from 1951 to 1957. [11]

Upon his return to Bandung he should, in theory, become an artist competent enough to compile the art education curriculum there. However, his belief that academism should be the basis of art education placed him in the fringes. At the end of the 1950s, art education in Bandung was beset by modernism that viewed realistic art as an outdated language of expression. Barli then established his own studio, putting into practice the form of art instruction as he himself envisioned. [12]

At Barli Art Hall, Chusin found plenty of information about the art of realistic painting as was commonly understood then. Through theoretical instruction, he began to also understand the position of this branch of art in art history—a historical time line that showed [and was dominated with] art development in Europe and the United States, but was universally believed as the basis of world art development. However, Chusin only stayed at the studio for six months, and still in 1970, he returned to his wandering ways, which included an extended stay in Bali. Only in 1978 did he return to Barli Art Center, this time staying for two years.

A long and winding journey did not immediately lead to Chusin's realistic paintings. In the 1980s, he was producing mostly realistic drawings. For instance, he utilized his talents to produce illustrated t-shirts with his close friend, Fong-Fong. At that time, illustrated t-shirts were popular, and t-shirts bearing his realistic drawings actually sold quite well. His livelihood benefited from it, and in 1982 he married Fong-Fong. In the same year, the couple managed to shed their 'stateless' status, and through a difficult bureaucratic process finally became Indonesian citizens.

Between 1982-1985, Chusin tried to make realistic sculptures. He created a number of hyper-realistic wax sculptures following plans for a wax sculpture museum meant for Taman Mini Indonesia Indah (Beautiful Indonesia in Miniature Park), Jakarta. This plan did not come to fruition, but one of his sculptures nevertheless gained public attention. It was the wax sculpture of Vice President Adam Malik, exhibited in the Adam Malik Art Museum. Tempo, a foremost news magazine, reviewed this sculpture as an excellent work.

In 1987 Chusin moved to Bali with Fong-Fong and continued their business producing t-shirts illustrated with his realistic drawings. As before, his products sold well and he was able to live off it well enough. Moving to Bali was a conscious choice, as he felt that he found the right condition to start his artistic career. Thus, it was in Bali that he began to develop his realistic paintings. In 1991, he met Andy Yustana of Andy Gallery in Jakarta, at the time he was hosting his solo exhibition at the Balai Budaya (Cultural Hall), Jakarta. This meeting further strengthened his conviction to become a professional painter, selling paintings for a living. From then on, Chusin gradually left his shirt-making business.

He began receiving his recognition when his works were included in a series of exhibitions for realistic art, framed within the concept of photo-realism. Chusin did use photographs as a basis of creating his realistic paintings. However, he did not pick his photographs from, say, a magazine. He used his own photographs.

Photo-realism, which developed in Indonesia since the middle of 1970s, has its share of similarities and differences when compared to photo-realism that emerged elsewhere in the global art sphere. Its emergence demonstrated a local phenomenon stemming from a change in the Indonesian political climate, from a 'closed-door' policy under left-wing administration, to an 'open-door' policy under an economic-driven administration. This led to a culture shock. It was a great change, from a condition where there were no American films, advertising billboards, well-designed magazine, to a condition where people were almost overwhelmed by a tide of advertisement, multinational companies’ products , life-style magazines, and a wealth of information on communication revolution. In the midst of all this, a number of painters utilized realistic painting to capture these surprising signs of change—photos lifted off lifestyle magazines, logos of various industrial products, billboards and neon signs. These artists have coincidentally celebrated pop culture, and their works seem to display texts. [13]

This change was also abetted by the sale of cheap pocket cameras, coupled by quick photo processing shops. Here, another phenomenon of photo-realism emerged. A number of artists began using cameras to record their surrounding realities, and the photographs they took were used as a basis to create realistic paintings. These paintings show reality as observed in society—a social commentary—affected by social change. This tendency was evident in the works of Dede Eri Supria, Ivan Sagita, Koeboe Sarawan, Agus Kamal, Alm. Rachmat Subani, and Chusin. [14]

Coming into the 21st century, Chusin began to exhibit alone. The precision demonstrated by his realistic paintings has further developed, so much so that his paintings can no longer be perceived through the framework of photo-realism alone. In his creative process, photographs only serve as references. The assembly of realistic images on his canvas will always go further than the photographs he used at the start of his painting. He usually employs a number of photographs for a painting. When he painted Pasar Kintamani, he used tens of them.

Once formed, Chusin's realistic paintings look more like drawings, rather than paintings. His realistic paintings do not demonstrate true academism as found in works by Lee Man-Fong and Barli Sasmitawinata. Chusin's realistic paintings resemble pictures, relying upon the construction of color nuances on single layers. As such, his paintings often seem almost flat. In comparison, academist paintings are constructed out of paints, heaped on top of one another, to create layers. This type of realistic painting technique will always give a sense of thickness.

His painting method, similar to drawing techniques, allow Chusin's realistic paintings to become a language that is closer to the 'body' than to the mind. This language is quite perceptive in recording feeling, emotion, anxiety, joy, happiness, and other mental conditions. Painting and drawing, are essentials for Chusin. Thus, he does not always create paintings to make statements. For him, drawing is a way to chase away tiredness and exhaustion, even to alleviate a psychological burden.

Through constant and repetitive work, he has become intimately familiar with the link between the pictures he created and the various feelings and emotions he felt. Through this kind of work, he has indirectly explored various ways to discover a language of expression that can record subtle things hidden within the realm of feeling. When viewed as an attempt to seek language, his work can be compared to Xu Beihong's views on languages of expression; views reiterated by Lee Man-Fong as well.

Outside the question of Chusin's realistic paintings, the understanding of this language of expression—in any form—are common understandings in Indonesia. Professional artists, even art observers and the art-appreciating public believe in this understanding. However, it is not widely perceived that such understanding may be problematic, especially in relation to art discourses that form the foundation of art development.

This understanding is closely related to aesthetic thought we know as the 'philosophy of beauty'—part of a wider sphere of philosophy. This school of thought questions the happiness derived through the sensations produced when encountering beauty. In art discourses, this tenet, developed in the 19th century, is detached from the current development of art. Thus, art works demonstrating its influences are seen works made outside art discourses.

This question was well-hidden and not immediately apparent. It became the start of a misunderstanding in reading art works developing outside Europe and the United States, largely because it was never fully discussed. However, controversial art theorist Arthur C. Danto touched upon it—he is well-known for issuing the statement "the end of art", and he followed it with a book, After The End of Art.[15]

Danto acknowledges that aesthetic principles of the 19th century cannot be immediately exported to our current era (his opinion here is ambiguous). Current development of art hinges upon a discourse which predominantly examines 'results of expressions' (art works), and which has reduced the allegedly speculative examination on the subject of feeling—the intricacies of an experience gained from encountering beauty. Art discourses today, is a collection of examinations on the 'results of expression'. This indicates an evolution of art that relies upon its own discourses, freeing itself from philosophy.

In the development of modern art in the 20th century, the problems examined through 'results of expressions' (art works) were those surrounding a specific visual language, sharply distinguished from literal language employed in philosophy—it was here that a reality-replicating visual language, like those found in philosophy, was deemed to be dead. The expressions in art no longer dwelled in representation, the central concept of philosophy.

Danto is one of the theorists who critically viewed this development of modern art in the 20th century—leading to his statement: the end of art. Danto returned to philosophy—his views are expressed within the sphere of 'the philosophy of art' (one of various theories of art). He returned to representation with a radical summary. Part of his argument, based on his observations, is how the line separating reality and representation had become obscured. Danto is known as a theorist who examined the use of objects/things as media of expression (in art). For him, made objects lifted from reality are indeed reality. He points at Andy Warhol, who presented an unadulterated packaging —Brillo Box (1964). In his opinion, this piece is as an example of 'representation'.

However, in reexamining representational properties, Danto mentioned 'mental language' that should be seen through an in-depth analysis from various angles; and 'aboutness', the relationship between description and reality. Both terms are mentioned in his discussion of George Santayana's observations, in his famous book The Sense of Beauty—a classic text on the philosophy of art, which discusses 19th century aesthetics. [16]

Both terms as propounded by Danto, act as the possibility that could link art discourses with the understanding of art outside Europe and the United States. Bambang Sugiharto's views may be used to strengthen both terms and this possibilty. In this way, mental language is comparable to metaphorical language according to Bambang Sugiharto, maintaining a connection with mental conditions—psychological phenomenon, mystical experience, and the flare of feeling—and is also connected to causative logical thought (aboutness). From this comparison, the possibility appearing from these two Dantonian terms can be opened slightly wider. In mediating these two understandings, we can read Chusin's realist paintings not only as text.

In Chusin's realistic paintings, the connection between mental condition and language of their expressions is most evident in his attempts to develop a subtle language by drastically paring down the color spectrum. This attempt is not just an artistic phenomenon, even though it produces linguistic innovation. There is an 'aboutness' in this artistic development. The idea in this linguistic plasticity stemmed from Chusin's anxiety, in the face of various violent issues of May 1998; mob rapes and gang rapes on women of Chinese-descent in Indonesia during the social upheaval on the days leading up to the fall of General Suharto's 32-years militaristic regime. Though the mass media had signaled on these issues for many months, the exact incidents were never fully uncovered. However, several local and international women's communities had facilitated the release of various testimonies from various victims. The information were lucid enough to show that these issues were not imaginary events. Seen through discourses of sexual attitudes, this phenomenon is also easy to recognize.

Historically, mob rape and gang rape have cropped up many times as examples of war crimes (from Genghis Khan to the Vietnam War), as part of ethnic disputes (as exemplified in the Pakistani-Bangladeshi tension), as well as a medium of racial hatred (e.g. being part of the Ku Klux Klan rituals). Discourses in sexual attitudes show how desecration of the female body has always been performed as attack on a society's mental fortitude. [17] The social upheaval of May 1998 had undeniably attacked the Chinese community in Indonesia, as the result of a protracted racial tension during the reign of Suharto.

Chusin created two paintings on the theme of this incident: Disharmony (1999) and The Float and The Might (2002). In Disharmony, anxiety makes his painting appear unusual. This painting, for instance, telegraphs violence through clear signs, together with a sentimental sadness symbolized by the appearance of a rose. On the other hand, The Float and The Might, as a reflection of a contemplative process, no longer shows signs common to the May 1998 incident. Chusin has stated that in the end he holds no opinion regarding this incident. Parallel with these paintings, he created a series of nude paintings with chromatic colors, later known as the 'white on white' series. These paintings build a sublime impression.

In his Bali-themed paintings, we can almost immediately grasp the aboutness within it, being Chusin's attempts to portray Balinese urban life—easily apparent through various clearly-presented signs. However, an inquiry into his works will have lost its depth if we stop at text alone (a common, erroneous terminus), because a deeper message lies hidden inside the fabrication of Chusin's language of expression.

Looking closely, we can surmise that the subjects in his paintings—whether singularly (the woman in traditional costume) or collectively (the people in the market)—are not depicted head on (frontally). In the language of photography, none of the subjects are facing the camera, as though the images are snippets of 'stolen moments'. However, Chusin did not stop at here. He closed in on these 'stolen moments' using his mastery in painting realistically. The resulting images are not the same as 'stolen pictures' taken from a distance using tele lenses.

In these images, we can see Chusin's attempt in presenting subjects who are 'not camera conscious' and as such, these subjects do not show a certain image or other interests. Chusin stated that he had not wished to create a poster with a message. He did not want his paintings to show a certain opinion and that he wanted to avoid a conspiracy between him, as the artist, and his subjects, in trying to convey a certain message. He yearned for honesty within himself as well as in the subjects of his paintings. The imageries we see, then, contain traces of his anxious contemplation, because it had not been easy for him to reach some sort of conclusion.

Chusin was attracted to Bali because it showed him an artistic culture—this was what enticed him to move to Bali in the first place. However, he has difficulty in fixing his opinion about Bali (itself). He was drawn to Balinese tradition, but he was also able to look critically at the opinions advocating the need to conserve tradition. He has captured Bali's social change, and this is evident in various objects in his paintings—plastic bags, sun-dried preserved fish, motorcycles, trucks, scales, and money. However, his three paintings on the theme of Kintamani Market reflect his feelings on the revitalization project of traditional markets into modern markets as described within the government's development plan. He thought this was rather regretful.

He said that even after more than 20 yeas in Bali, he felt as though he would never discover the real Balinese tradition. This rather confusing view actually has some basis of truth. Currently, there is a development in global art discourse which is reexamining our understanding of ethnicity. It started with the anxiety of the curators of ethnographic museums in Europe and the United States. They felt as if these museums were mired in colonial perception. Out of this, they began to question the results of ethnological and anthropological studies on the societies populating ex-colonial areas. These studies tend to seek out the uniqueness and authenticity while often overlooking social change as affected by modernization—these studies led to the opinion advocating the importance of the conservation of traditions. Treatises issued as a result of these studies became dominant and trusted. These views—containing colonial perceptions—were used by various tradition-bound people to understand their own tradition. Bali is one of those societies, and this reality blurred what was once a real Balinese tradition. [18]

Out of all Chusin's Bali-themed paintings, several pieces must be excepted: Gadis Puri I (1991), Sight (1994), Gadis Puri II (1994), and, Innocent (1996). These paintings depict a young girl in Balinese costume (the same model for all four paintings). Her pose in three of four paintings are frontal, taken from the front. Indeed, she stares into the camera, conscious of its presence. In the development of his paintings since 2006, this seemingly unusual phenomenon became clear. Chusin chose frontal poses when the subjects of his paintings are children. This is evident, especially in 2006 onwards, when images of children dominated his output.

It would seem as though Chusin had a change in attitude when faced with children. He seemed to have discarded his non-opinionated stance. In most of his paintings, he did not attempt to record emotions. Instead he tried to seek for a basic character. However, in his paintings with children as subjects, he tried to record their emotions. Indeed, he had a hard time controlling his emotions when painting. This time, it seemed as though he was trying to meld his subjectivity and that of the subject of his paintings. He wasn't too concerned with whether his paintings would turn out to be posters or not. However, his paintings strengthened the perceptions on children's basic impulses—their curiosity, their joy, their indifference, embarrassment, excitement, and their sense of wonder—various nuances that cannot be readily witnessed in photographs and reality.

This emotional phenomenon strengthened any drawn dimensions within Chusin's paintings. Lines and hatchings in these pictures became more complicated. In a number of his paintings—such as, Kids of Kintamani I, II (2010), Street Boy (2010), Kuta (2011)—these lines (combined with colors from a spectrum of primary colors) build comical imageries that clearly show his wish to display narration. The children, representing an 'aboutness' to his paintings, have influenced Chusin's mental condition as well as his chosen language of expression, all of presented as an artistic endeavor. This shows the translation process of mental language.

Although an understanding of Chusin's realistic paintings can be explained, there still exists a distance between this understanding and the accepted art discourses that has so far formed the basis of the development of global art in general. We need further discussions, even debates, if we are to close this distance. However, the opportunity to such meeting of minds is not yet open, though it can never be 'closed', something we have already witnessed in the art development of thirty years ago.

It stems with the difficulty to build a conviction on how illogical it is to demand that Chusin's works—and those of many artists working outside Europe ans the United States—to be construed based on the general art discourses prevailing in global art today. The understanding of Chusin's paintings demonstrates how it will be an error to read his realistic paintings as efforts to replicate reality (as indicated by commonly-understood realistic art discourse within the history of art). This reading will further lose its path when the act of copying reality is connected to representation and its tension with language within the philosophical sphere.

As stated by Bambang Sugiharto, the question of representation, the literal language and text, relies on the centuries of philosophical development in the Western world. Compare this with the understanding in Indonesia, emerging only in 1993, together with the din surrounding post-modernism—prior to this, such questions were discussed only within the closed confines of philosophical scholarship. In 1993, it was evident in various discussions, that many thinkers were struggling to find an understanding on 'representation'. Although they did study various references—often done suddenly and hastily—and most thinkers has gone to create abbreviated definitions for practical purposes, they could not avoid the emergence of various, and often-opposing, definitions of 'representation'. Whatever they did, it would be impossible to understand the question of representation in post-modernism without first understanding its history.

Looking at this condition, it is almost impossible to hope that Indonesian artists, who must have retained a distance with the world of philosophy, can fully understand this question. This is despite the fact that to find the basis of thought in one's expressions, that person will need to be able to understand how mastery over such an inquiry requires more than just understanding and thought. Understanding and thought, in artistic expressions, are connected to consciousness and conviction, all of which requires further examination.

In the midst of this impossibility, Bambang Sugiharto's view on metaphorical language seems to make more sense, despite its ties with (Western-oriented) philosophy, because his views returned to the basis of thought, and are reminiscent to the fundamental symptoms found in human's existence. Mediating his thoughts with those of Arthur Danto, we are left with a possibility to close the gap between the understanding of non-Western art and global art in general. This mediation pointed out the view of 19th century aesthetics, though ensconced within the philosophical sphere, have elaborated on experiencing beauty as being one of the symptoms that may help explain fundamental symptoms in human existence. From fundamental similarities, various differences in the development of global art may be understood more easily—Chusin, and the "marriage" of realistic painting in China at the beginning of the 20th century, may serve as its example.

[1] American Comics. Nicky Wright. Prion Books Ltd. London. 2000. Pp. 2-3
[2] In What is Cinema? Andre Bazin. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1967. Pp. 9-16.
[3] The Body / Body Problem. Arthur C Danto. University of California Press. Berkeley. 2001. Pg. 12.
[4] In Postmodernisme: Tantangan bagi Filsafat [Postmodernism: a Challenge for Philosophy]. Ignatius Bambang Sugiharto. Kanisius. Yogyakarta. 1996. This book comprehensively discusses the background in the dissonance surrounding post-modernism—itself a term that has never been universally accepted. However, this book does not stop at explaining what post-modernism is. In this book, we can also find Bambang Sugiharto's vision on metaphorical language, a theory born out of his thoughts and experiences.
[5] This ended with the fall of General Suharto in 1998. Subsequent civilian presidences (the late Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Sukarnoputri) lifted various laws and regulations that are descriminative to those of Chinese-descent.
[6] “Lee Man-Fong, Oil Painting Made Oriental” K. C. Low. In The Oil Painting of Lee Man-Fong. K. C. Low (ed). Art Book. Co. Taipei. 1984. Pg. 9.
[7] “My Views on Painting.” Lee Man-Fong. Opcit. Pg. 11.
[8] “The Artist Lee Man-Fong”. Leong San. Opcit. Pg. 12.
[9] Ibid. Pg. 13.
[10] “Art Journey on Realism in China in 20th Century.” Position Paper. Cao Tai, curator of Guangdong Museum in the seminar “Realism in Asia.” National Museum of Contemporary Art. Seoul. Korea. July 2007.
[11] Titik Sambung—Barli Dalam Wacana Seni Lukis Indonesia. [Connecting Point—Barli in the Indonesian Art Discourse] Jim Supangkat. Etnobook. Jakarta 1996. Pp. 48-49.
[12] Ibid. Pp. 52-53.
[13] “Painstaking Realism in Indonesian Contemporary Painting” Curatorial Introduction. Jim Supangkat. Catalog of the Exhibition The Mutataion. The Japan Foundation Forum. Tokyo. August 1997.
[14] Ibid.
[15] The Body / Body Problem. Ibid. Pp. 1-18.
[16] Op cit. Pp. 20-21.
[17] Bizarre Sex. Roy Eskapa. Grafton. London. 1987. Pp. 169-182.
[18] “Ethnicity Now”. Curatorial Introduction. Jim Supangkat. Catalog of the Exhibition Ethnicity Now. National Gallery. Jakarta. December 2010.

Jim Supangkat |Curator

back to top ^