Lines of Thought
Brushstrokes of a Nation: The Artistic Divide of 1950s–60s Indonesia
Between politically charged realism and symbolic humanism, artists shaped, and questioned the role of art in a young republic.
Prinvia Prichariel
Jul 7, 2025
In the years following Indonesia’s independence, a new artistic landscape began to take shape. The 1950s and 60s marked not only the emergence of Indonesian modern art, but also a deeper reckoning among artists about their role in a nation rebuilding itself. What should art stand for in a postcolonial country? Who was it meant to serve?
According to art curator Asikin Hasan, many works from this period reflect Indonesia’s early post-independence reality, far from idealized, and often focused on the lives of wong cilik, or the working-class poor. Where colonial-era paintings often leaned into the picturesque tropes of Mooi Indie, romanticizing tropical landscapes and village life, artists after 1945 began turning their attention to scenes of hardship, labor, and struggle.
Within this shift, two opposing artistic ideologies came to dominate the national conversation. On one side stood Socialist Realism, closely aligned with LEKRA (Lembaga Kebudayaan Rakyat), the cultural wing of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). On the other side were artists who championed a more liberal, humanist approach, many of whom later signed the Cultural Manifesto (Manifes Kebudayaan), advocating for artistic autonomy and freedom from political ideology.
Socialist Realist artists believed that art should serve the people. They focused on the lives of workers, farmers, and fishermen, the so-called backbone of the revolution. Influenced by Marxist thought, this view saw class struggle as central to society, and therefore central to art. The artist’s role, in this vision, was not to interpret freely but to advance revolutionary ideals. Art became a medium for mobilization.
One of the most compelling examples of this is Pengantin Revolusi (The Revolutionary Bride), a painting by Hendra Gunawan. Created between 1955 and 1957, the piece was first exhibited at Hotel Des Indes in Jakarta. In it, Gunawan captures not only the spirit of revolution but also the social realities of ethnic Chinese communities, as well as themes of injustice and exclusion. Cap Go Meh, a traditional Chinese celebration, appears alongside visual symbols of class struggle and solidarity. A bowed woman in the painting embodies the silent endurance of minority groups, particularly ethnic Chinese Indonesians, who were often marginalized during this time.
“Pengantin Revolusi” was painted by Hendra Gunawan starting in 1955, completed in 1957, and first exhibited at Hotel Des Indes in 1957.
Gunawan’s work shows how Socialist Realist art was not only politically charged, but deeply personal. Yet not all artists agreed with this direction. Some found the ideological expectations imposed by LEKRA stifling. As political pressure grew to align with revolutionary narratives, a number of artists chose instead to distance themselves from state and party-affiliated institutions.
This divergence led to the publication of the Cultural Manifesto in the early 1960s, signed by figures such as Goenawan Mohamad. While the signatories acknowledged the role of politics in life, they rejected the idea that all art should be reduced to political propaganda. “The Cultural Manifesto recognizes the importance of political struggle,” Goenawan wrote, “but rejects the notion that life can only be understood through a political lens.”
Artists in this camp embraced introspection and ambiguity. Their work explored themes that were emotional, symbolic, or spiritual, far from the overt social narratives of LEKRA. The result was a surge of styles including the intuitive, the surreal, and the abstract.
A notable example is Punakawan dan Pandawa Lima (The Clowns and the Five Pandawas), painted by Soedibio in 1973. Drawing on the Mahabharata, Soedibio reinterpreted the legendary tale through soft surrealist forms and a deeply personal lens. Unlike the art of the previous decade, his work avoids overt commentary on politics or the struggles of daily life. Instead, it explores Indonesian mythology and inner meaning, offering space for individual reflection rather than collective instruction.
“Punakawan dan Pandawa Lima” is a work by Soedibio from the year 1973.
In hindsight, both movements shaped the foundation of Indonesian modern art. While Socialist Realism sought to connect directly with the people and amplify their struggles, the humanist current emphasized the autonomy of artistic expression, resisting co-optation by the state.
Together, they illustrate the duality that still defines much of Indonesia’s cultural discourse: between collectivism and individualism, between ideology and freedom, between serving the public and staying true to the self.
