AEP Lucia Hartini assignment!

1. (a) Describe the use of space, colour and brushwork.

In this painting, “Srikandi”, Lucia Hartini separates the painting into foreground, middle ground and background. In the foreground, we see a huge woman who bears great likeness to the artist herself, taking up more than half of the canvas, standing in a warrior stance and draped with blue cloth. This central positioning of the woman emphasizes that she is the main subject matter and makes her the first thing viewers will see as they view the painting. In the middle ground, are zigzagging walls that lead into the distance, providing depth to the painting and leading the viewer’s eyes to the background. In it, are turbulent clouds and a bright moon, creating a sort of contradiction as the clouds seem very violent as compared to the calmness the moon provides. This highlights that unsettling tone of the painting as possibly intended by Lucia Hartini. Another use of space in this painting is how Lucia Hartini splits her painting into two parts: the sky and the straight wall, and the eyes and the zigzagged wall, with herself in the middle separating the two. Previously in “Spying Eyes” (1989), we see that both walls are zigzagged and the composition is rather haphazard with the eyes all over the place, the artist shrunk and cuddled up in a fetal position and the sky shrouded with dark turbulent clouds. It is safe to assume that the brick walls are symbolic of the odds in Lucia Hartini’s life and in “Srikandi”, we see that one of the walls (the wall behind her) is straight, as though she has already straightened out half of the odds in her life, and is now facing the rest. This is highlighted by the sky as instead of being shrouded with dark turbulent clouds as in “Spying Eyes”, there is now a bright moon rising out of it, lighting the sky up with hope. Lucia Hartini wished to depict herself as a brave, strong warrior woman which she did so by painting herself facing her adversities (the eyes and the remaining zigzagged wall) with determination.

In “Srikandi”, Lucia Hartini uses earthly tones for the skin of the woman, possibly to contrast the woman as natural as compared to the unnatural setting she is in. She also primarily uses only blues and oranges in the painting – complementary colours. Her use of complementary colours to contrast the earthly toned walls and skin with the rich blue cloth and clouds boldens and brightens the entire painting and makes the warrior woman stand out even more, as well as making the painting one that exudes confidence and has a bold story to tell.

As for brushwork, Lucia Hartini has executed her brushstrokes carefully and smoothly, making them nearly invisible to the human eye. This makes the work extremely realistic, despite its unrealistic composition and subject matter. The seemingly absent brushstrokes also lets the viewers subconsciously forget this aspect of painting and concentrate on the symbolic subject matter and composition instead.

1. (b) Comment on the influences behind this work.

Firstly, the unrealistic composition and subject matter show influences from Surrealism. Surrealism is based on the irrational combination of unrelated objects and contrasting forms derived from the depths of imagination or the dream world, or a fusing of the dream world with reality to bewilder the viewer. Lucia Hartini lived in a culture where a straightforward, critical or confessional discourse is not acceptable and thus turned to Surrealism to encase symbolic messages within.

Secondly, she was possibly most influenced by Srikandi, the archetypical “Warrior Woman” of South East Asian legends for this painting. She depicted herself as Srikandi, dressed in the blue cloth worn by members of the women’s armies who historically protected the Sultans of feudal Java. Lucia Hartini painted herself as Srikandi, repelling the critical and doubting eyes of society which had rendered many of its women prisoners of tradition.

Thirdly, would be the culture are lived in. In the Indonesia that she lived in, the status of a woman always depends on the male and she is always regarded inferior to the man, an object of the man’s orders and admonition. Because of this, Indonesian women and prisoners of tradition, having to inherit society’s expectations of them to play the role of a mother, caring for children and not having the rights to express themselves freely, always fearing society’s critical and doubtful eyes. This could arguably have influenced Lucia Hartini’s obsession with spying eyes, and subsequently, her wish to have the power to stare back at the eyes and defy them, symbolic of her having enough confidence to stand up for her own rights against societal norms.

A valid interpretation of an artwork is dependent on an understanding of the artist’s intent and the context in which it was created.

Interpreting artwork is not only the livelihood of art critiques but also an unavoidable process which happens every time anyone sees an artwork. A person need not be an art critique to interpret a work, thus the nature of interpretations taking on many forms. Although everyone believes that their interpretation is correct, I personally believe that a valid interpretation of an artwork is dependent on an understanding of the artist’s intent and the context in which it was created.

The artist’s intent is, possibly, the most important aspect to take into consideration in order to make a valid interpretation of his or her work. In order to even create a work, an artist will almost always have a purpose in making the work. Be it as a response to an issue or as an avenue of expression, understanding the purpose of the work is possibly the most important step one needs to take in order to make a valid interpretation. An example would be Olympia by Manet. When it was exhibited in the Paris Salon of 1865, it caused an uproar. Critiques all over deemed it as “vulgar” and “immoral”, even going to the extent of saying that if the painting were not destroyed, it is only because it is well-protected. I feel that these interpretations, although made with good basis, were not valid interpretations. Manet meant for this painting to simply show the truth. This work, known to some as Manet’s “masterpiece”, was so violently slammed in its time due to the simple reason of interpreters not understanding the artist’s intent.

Context is also extremely important in interpreting a work, such as in the case of Lucia Hartini. Her painting of “Srikandi”, is full of symbols which any art critique can easily link with courage, barricades, freedom and defiance, but without truly understanding the context in which the painting was painted, the interpretation of “a courageous woman breaking out of barricades and seeking freedom” will never be complete. This painting was painted by Lucia Hartini in her Indonesian society which was extremely male-dominant. Female artists such as her suffer in both art school and society as they are looked upon with a critical eye and their works are not recognized. Her influences for this work were not only the society she lived in, but also of her longing to break free of societal norms and in the process, discover herself. Understanding her context to paint this painting, we can then form a valid interpretation that she is depicting herself as Srikandi, fighting back against the critical judgement and norms of society.

Therefore it can be said that understanding the intent and context of an artist is crucial in forming a valid interpretation of the artwork.