{"id":10901,"date":"2021-11-25T14:08:12","date_gmt":"2021-11-25T07:08:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/?p=10901"},"modified":"2021-11-25T16:03:40","modified_gmt":"2021-11-25T09:03:40","slug":"candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/","title":{"rendered":"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship"},"content":{"rendered":"[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637824201313{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]\n

Landscape and Authorship\u00a0<\/b><\/strong>
\nLanskap dan Kepengarangan<\/em><\/h1>\n

Host: Dhuha Ramadhani<\/strong><\/p>\n

December 5th – December 11th, 2021 | festival.arkipel.org
\nMonday, December 6th, 2021 | 19:30 | Forum Lenteng<\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637819640437{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Semenjak dari negeri asalnya, hingga tiba di tanah Hindia Belanda, filem selamanya terpengaruh oleh lanskap ekonomi, sosial, budaya, dan politik di mana ia berpijak. Ragam aliran estetika sinema dunia lahir atas respons akan tiap-tiap perubahan yang terjadi. Untuk sebagian besarnya, apa yang dibekukan dalam filem dapat memengaruhi balik lanskap yang mahaluas itu. Kelahiran estetika itu hanya dimungkinkan oleh kepekaan dan kesadaran yang dimiliki para pembuat filem pada lanskap\u2014termasuk lanskap sebagai ruang fisik\u2014serta perubahannya.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Dalam sejarah seni lukis modern Eropa, kehadiran landscape paintings<\/em> (dan self-portraits<\/em>) bahkan mampu menggoyahkan kemapanan aliran seni lukis klasik. Hal ini terjadi karena kehadiran lanskap seperti mengungkapkan ketidakpastian makna. Hal mana, dalam aliran klasik, kepastian atau ketunggalan makna dan kesamaan cara pandang akan alam dan kenyataan ialah sesuatu yang diupayakan dan dijaga. Penjagaan itu didorong, umumnya, karena proses melukis dilatari oleh motif-motif keagamaan dan ketokohan. Lukisan lanskap\u2014lanskap sebagai subjek dalam dirinya sendiri\u2014memberikan perhatian lebih pada keambiguan makna dan juga perspektif yang dimiliki oleh si seniman dan spektatornya. Atas hal itu, aksi \u201cmelihat\u201d, baik oleh seniman, patron, dan spektatornya, kemudian menjadi sesuatu yang problematis; tidak ada narasi tunggal atas berbagai hal.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Dalam aliran seni lukis klasik, keambiguan yang mungkin dimiliki oleh lanskap ini direduksi sedemikian rupa, lanskap dihadirkan semata sebagai gambar latar belakang; agar tokoh, aksi, atau peristiwa (umumnya berasal dari kisah-kisah dalam alkitab, mitologi, dan sejarah) menjadi lebih menonjol. Keagungan tokoh tertentu, misalnya, dengan segera dicerap sebagai makna tunggal yang diterima para spektator. Dalam filem arus utama yang populer, kepastian semacam ini dijaga ketat oleh tirani naratif. Pesan atau makna apa yang akan diterima penonton nantinya selalu diusahakan sama. Sebab, kejelasan cerita\u2014yang dibangun dari kesinambungan shot, terutama dialognya, dalam urutan yang deskriptif\u2014adalah salah satu esensi dari upaya pemenuhan kepuasan penonton sehingga mereka akan kembali menonton filem. Saat ditayangkan di bioskop, filem-filem sejenis ini menjadi komoditas siap konsumsi; penonton tinggal diam untuk terhibur, hanyut ke dalam ilusi dan terlepas dari realitas sehari-harinya.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ilusi dimulai ketika cahaya jatuh. Di atas layar putih seketika penonton melihat moleknya gambar-gambar pantai, pegunungan, hutan, kota, aktivitas manusia dan\/atau hewan, atau apa pun yang sebelumnya sudah direkam. Kita, penonton, lalu berada di udara, di bawah air, atau di atas permukaan, mungkin juga di dalam kendaraan, di dalam sebuah bangunan, atau di dalam sebuah peristiwa besar. Kita mulai mengenal lanskap dari ambilan-ambilan gambar ini. Tokoh diperkenalkan, tubuhnya masuk menginterupsi lanskap-lanskap yang kita lihat sebelumnya. Ia mulai bergerak, atau berbicara. Sedemikian pentingnya apa yang ingin dibicarakan sang tokoh membuat segala kemungkinan yang dapat mengganggunya perlahan dihilangkan.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Bentuk shot diubah, boomer didekatkan. Kita diarahkan untuk melihat lebih cermat tindak-tanduk sang tokoh\u2014atau para tokoh; ia terlihat lebih \u201cbesar\u201d, terdengar lebih \u201clantang\u201d. Lensa diganti, perlahan-lahan atau seketika, lanskap \u201cdisamarkan\u201d, riuh rendahnya \u201cdikecilkan\u201d. Sesekali lanskap kembali tanpa kehadiran sang tokoh sebagai helaan napas di antara dialog-dialog yang harus segera diucapkan agar kita, penontonnya, tidak tersesat\u2014tidak keluar dari cerita yang ingin sutradara sampaikan. Filem selesai, kita lupa di mana dan konteks sosial atau politik apa yang membuat peristiwa yang lewat itu bisa berlangsung. Namun, kita dapat mengingat persis cerita di dalamnya. Lanskap tak pernah bermakna apa-apa selain sebagai latar, kekaosan atau keindahannya menjadi aksesoris.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Tirani naratif semacam ini berhasil bertahan setidaknya selama seratus tahun terakhir. Guna \u201cmempertahankan\u201d kekuasaannya, industri perfileman mulai membangun star system dan studio-studio besar. Akhirnya, kedigdayaan tirani naratif juga berpengaruh ke ranah penulisan kritik filem. Sebagian penulis kritik filem, kemudian, menjadi salah satu agen dalam kebertahanan sirkulasi komoditas filem-filem tersebut; kritiknya berfokus pada bagaimana narasi dalam filem dibangun. Energi penulisan kritik tersedot pada aspek-aspek konten, drama, makna, dan signifikansi sosial filemnya. Estetika, secara langsung maupun tidak, seperti dikesampingkan\u2014kekonkretan filem (kualitas bahasa visual dan bentuk, mungkin juga lanskapnya) tidak selalu menjadi pokok pembahasan. Namun, dalam hal naratif, kualitasnya tetap terjaga. Model industri semacam ini, dengan tirani naratifnya, lantas memegang pengaruh yang sangat besar terhadap wacana perfileman. Ekses-eksesnya turut tiba di Indonesia.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Pencarian akan estetika seni rupa Indonesia telah memiliki sejarah yang sangat panjang semenjak orang-orang pribumi di Hindia Belanda mulai belajar melukis menggunakan cat minyak di atas kanvas. Perihal kemolekan lanskap, jika menengok ke sejarah seni rupa di Indonesia, kita telah mengenal istilah Mooi Indie. Mooi Indie dikritik Sudjojono pada 1939, baginya jenis lukisan lanskap macam ini hanya dibuat untuk menghibur mata orang asing yang jemu dengan kondisi di negaranya. Kritiknya mengingatkan kita pada gagasan tentang aksi \u201cmelihat\u201d sebagai sesuatu yang problematis dalam sejarah landscape paintings di Eropa. Mooi Indie hanya mengangkat keindahan lanskap alam dan mengeksotisasi manusia di Hindia Belanda sembari mengabaikan sama sekali realitas sosial masyarakatnya. Meniadakan fakta bahwa di balik kemolekan lanskap itu terdapatlah masyarakat terjajah. Setelahnya, realisme gencar dianjurkan sebagai pendekatan dalam seni lukis. Ia adalah jenis isme yang memiliki karakter menyajikan kenyataan sosial dan mengandung nilai perjuangan; dapat itu perjuangan untuk kemanusiaan, pula pendidikan.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Semangat realisme hadirlah jua dalam filem-filem Indonesia. Para sutradara di masa awal kemerdekaan mengangkat tema-tema identitas kebangsaan dalam filemnya. Penguatan pada aspek naratif dipilih oleh sebab model ini dianggap \u201cmenjanjikan\u201d kemudahan dalam upaya untuk menyampaikan apa-apa yang diyakini sebagai kenyataan sosial yang sebenarnya. Aspek lanskap, seakan terkutuk, hanya menjadi latar pada sebagian banyak filem Indonesia. Sesekali lanskap memang berkaitan dengan narasi, di waktu yang lain ia kembali berperan sebagai aksesoris dalam keseluruhan filem. Ini terjadi baik di filem dengan tema nasional maupun lokal.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Kecenderungan ini sebetulnya sudah ada sejak hadirnya filem bersuara (talkies), para penonton di Hindia Belanda lebih menyukai filem cerita. Akibatnya, impor filem-filem cerita, sejak saat itu hingga kini, selalu mendominasi bioskop-bioskop. Lanskap terus menerus menjadi latar dalam kedigdayaan tirani naratif dalam filem-filem Indonesia.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Dalam aspek naratif dan gaya pembuatannya, filem-filem dari India, Cina, Hong Kong, Malaya, Eropa, Jepang, Rusia, dan lain-lain terutama Hollywood, terus menjadi rujukan bagi pelaku industri filem kita. Dominasi pengaruhnya pada estetika dan cerita bergantung pada situasi-situasi politiknya; katakanlah pada masa penjajahan Belanda, pendudukan jepang, Orde Lama, Perang Dingin, Orde Baru, juga Reformasi. Di antara fluktuasi politik itu terselip masa-masa kejayaan monopoli distribusi filem, euforia kebebasan, suburnya radikalisme, juga perubahan tren dalam kultur populer terkontemporer. Guna mengamankan posisinya, secara ekonomi, sosial, dan politik, sebagian besar pelaku industri filem berusaha beradaptasi dengan situasi sosial-politik sezamannya. Sehingga, sampai hari ini, tidak pernah ada estetika filem yang bisa disebut sebagai estetika filem Indonesia. Perubahan sistem ekonomi, sosial, budaya, dan politik sepanjang sejarah Indonesia tidak pernah melahirkan estetika filem apa-apa.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Situasi ini tidak hanya terjadi pada kelompok industri, kecenderungan serupa telahlah merasuk dalam sebagian besar filem-filem independen, mahasiswa, dan komunitas\u2014kelompok yang dianggap paling berjasa dalam kebangkitan filem Indonesia pasca Reformasi. Ketidak-selesaian penggarapan narasi, mise-en-sc\u00e8ne, dan modus storytelling dengan mudahnya bisa dijumpai dalam filem-filem dari kelompok ini. Tirani naratif tidak bekerja utuh pada kedua kelompok ini, hanya ekses-eksesnya saja. Maka, filem-filemnya terasa selalu setengah-setengah.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Atas Mooi Indie yang menempatkan lanskap (fisik) dalam posisi terpenting, kritik estetika Sudjojono menyasar pada lepasnya konteks sosial-politik dari lanskap tropis yang elok itu. Maka, estetika realisme dianjurkannya. Ia pun mulai melukis subjek-subjek manusia atau peristiwa dalam kondisi yang tidak diindah-indahkan, yang sebagaimana adanya. Kelahiran estetika seni rupa Indonesia mulai menjadi diskursus yang dibicarakan dan dipraktikkan. Atas filem, kritik estetika agaknya tidak sedemikian bergairah. Filem Indonesia sempat mengalami krisis karena penonton lebih tertarik menonton filem Hollywood yang dianggap lebih berkualitas. Para produser mengeluhkan lesunya antusiasme penonton pada filem Indonesia akibat monopoli distribusi filem Hollywood. Kemudian, pada tahun 1993, Rosihan Anwar (Ketua Komisi Sosial Budaya Dewan Film Nasional saat itu) menganjurkan para produser untuk memproduksi filem-filem back to basic sebagai solusinya. Demi mendapatkan penonton, maka formula yang menghibur, seperti komedi yang dibumbui dengan seks, dijunjung. Drama\u2014baik itu dalam filem dengan tema komedi, horor, seks, kekerasan, atau kombinasinya\u2014dibuat tidak rumit namun sensasional agar siap konsumsi, mudah dan cepat untuk dicerna penonton agar laku di pasaran. Ini merupakan versi terburuk dari ekses tirani naratif. Nyatanya, formula ini gagal untuk meningkatkan antusiasme penonton sebab produksi filem Indonesia berhenti sama sekali. Masyarakat Indonesia pun hanya menonton filem Hollywood saat tidak sedang berada di rumah untuk menonton sinetron lokal maupun sinetron impor.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Sejak produksi Loetoeng Kasaroeng<\/em> (1926) di masa Hindia Belanda, Darah dan Doa<\/em> (1950) di masa awal kemerdekaan, berdirinya Akademi Sinematografi di Jakarta pada 1971, dan krisis perfileman di tahun 1990an, pencarian akan estetika filem Indonesia tidak pernah benar-benar dilakukan. Agaknya, anjuran back to basic adalah periode terakhir produksi filem yang menjadi cerminan filem Indonesia sebelum akhirnya mati (suri). Tidak ada lagi kesempatan bagi hasrat kepengarangan. Kita makin menjauh dari upaya perumusan estetika filem Indonesia. Setelah itu, satu-satunya referensi hanyalah estetika filem Hollywood.
\nSejak dibuat pada tahun 2016, program Candrawala telah menetapkan fokusnya pada pembacaan akan fenomena visual terkontemporer dari produksi gambar bergerak di Indonesia. Candrawala mencoba membuka kemungkinan penemuan bahasa yang paling sesuai pada ranah yang difokuskannya, sembari mengartikan posisi temuan itu dalam kosmos sinema kawasan maupun global (Zikri, 2016). Dalam sebagian besar filem Indonesia yang diterima ARKIPEL tahun ini, ekses tirani naratif masih menampakkan dirinya. Meskipun demikian, beberapa filem yang terpilih dalam program Candrawala tahun ini justru menampakkan fenomena yang berbeda. Di dalam filem-filem tersebut, kemunculan lanskap sebagai bahasa utama lebih signifikan ketimbang narasi; sesuatu yang umumnya dibengkalaikan dalam proses produksi maupun diskursus sinema kita.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Lanskap jelaslah menyimpan sejarah dari segala fluktuasi politik yang terjadi di sebuah lokasi. Jika kita masih berhasrat mencari estetika filem Indonesia, kembali ke lanskapnya adalah pilihan yang masuk akal. Kompilasi filem dalam kuratorial ini memperlihatkan bagaimana lanskap (secara fisik maupun konsep) telah mengguncang posisi kepengarangan dalam filem. Hal ini dimungkinkan ketika teknologi filem dan berbagai kosakata dalam kelengkapan pengetahuan tentangnya sudah dimiliki oleh masyarakat di berbagai lanskap. Lanskap yang dipakai semata sebagai latar cerita filem ternyata memiliki kemampuan untuk berbicara balik pada filem. Kemampuan ini membuat lanskap dan filem memiliki hubungan yang saling mempertanyakan; apa itu kenyataan filem dan apa itu kenyataan lanskap. Pada akhirnya, lanskap dapat benar-benar menaklukan kepengarangan. Atau lebih tepatnya, lanskap membunuh kepengarangan. Sutradara yang menyadari potensi lanskap sebagai bahasa estetika filem tinggal melakukan analisis atasnya; mengintervensinya dengan meletakkan kamera lalu menyusun rekamannya. Dengan itu, menghasilkan sebuah filem tentang lanskap yang membicarakan dirinya sendiri dapatlah dilakukan. Jika Barthes pernah mengatakan bahwa kelahiran penoton harus dibayar dengan kematian sang pengarang, agaknya hari ini kepengarangan harus rela dibunuh sekali lagi demi kelahiran estetika filem Indonesia.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637819907299{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]From the land of its origin to its arrival in the Dutch East Indies, film has always been influenced by the economic, social, cultural and political landscape on which it stood. The diverse aesthetics of world cinema were born in response to the changes that occur over the time. For the most part, what is frozen in films can, in turn, affect the immense landscape. This aesthetic can only be born through the filmmaker\u2019s sensitivity and awareness of the landscape \u2014 including the landscape as a physical space \u2014 and its changes.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the history of European modern painting, landscape paintings (and self-portraits) shook the establishment of the classical painting school. The presence of such a landscape reveals an uncertainty of meaning. While in the classical school, the certainty or unity of meaning and the same perspective on nature and reality is sought and maintained. This gatekeeping was encouraged, in general, because the painting process was motivated by religious motives and figures. Landscape painting \u2014 the landscape as a subject in itself \u2014 pays close attention to the ambiguity of meaning and perspective, both from the artist and the spectator. Therefore, the act of “seeing”, both by the artist, the patron, and the spectator becomes problematic; no single narrative can be derived from many things.<\/span><\/p>\n

In classical painting, the landscape\u2019s ambiguity is reduced in such a way to a background image; so that characters, actions, or events (generally derived from stories in the Bible, mythology, and history) become more prominent. The greatness of a certain figure, for example, is immediately perceived as the singular meaning to be accepted by the spectator. Popular mainstream films gatekeep this kind of certainty by the tyranny of narrative. The audience is directed to receive the same message or meaning. This is because the clarity of the story \u2014built from the continuity of the shots, especially the dialogues, in a descriptive sequence \u2014 is essential to satisfy the audience, to keep them coming back. When shown in theaters, this kind of film becomes a readily consumed commodity; the audience remainst in their seat to be entertained, to be drifted into illusions and detached from their daily reality.<\/span><\/p>\n

As the light falls, this illusion begins. On the white screen, the audience instantly sees the alluring pictures of beaches, mountains, forests, cities, human and \/ or animal activities, or whatever has been previously recorded. We, the audience, are then in the air, under water, or above the surface, perhaps in a vehicle, in a building, or at a major event. We are getting to know the landscape from these image shots. Characters are introduced, their bodies interrupt the landscapes we saw earlier. They began to move or speak. They speak of things of such importance, that possible nuisances to their appearance were slowly pushed back.<\/span><\/p>\n

The shot changes, the boomer went closer. We are directed to look more closely at the actions of the character \u2014 or characters; they look “bigger” and sound “louder”. The lens changes, slowly or suddenly, the landscape \u201cblurs\u201d, the noise \u201cturns down\u201d. Every now and then the landscape returns without the presence of the character as a sigh between the dialogues that must be spoken immediately so that we, the audience, do not get lost \u2014 so that we do not spiral out of the story the director wants to tell. The film ends, and we have forgotten where and what social or political context made the passing events possible. However, we can remember exactly the story in it. Landscapes never mean anything other than as a background, its chaos or beauty becomes mere accessories.<\/span><\/p>\n

This kind of narrative tyranny has survived for at least the last hundred years. In order to “maintain” its power, the film industry began building star systems and large studios. Finally, the power of this narrative tyranny influences the realm of film criticism writing. Some of the film critics become one of the agents in sustaining the commodity circulation of these films; their critique focuses on the narrative construction in the film. The critic\u2019s energy is sucked into explaining the films\u2019 content, dramatic aspects, meaning, and social significance. The aesthetic, directly or indirectly, seems to be sidelined \u2014 the concreteness of the film (the quality of visual language and form, and perhaps the landscape) does not always become the subject of discussion. However, in terms of narrative, the quality of criticism is maintained. This industrial model, headed by the narrative tyranny, has a profound influence on the film discourse. Its excesses have also arrived in Indonesia.<\/span><\/p>\n

The search for Indonesia\u2019s visual aesthetic has a long and winding history since the people of the Dutch East Indies started to learn oil painting on canvas. Regarding the allure of the landscape, looking back at the history of visual arts in Indonesia, we are familiar with the term Mooi Indie. Mooi Indie was criticized by Sudjojono in 1939, he argued that this type of landscape painting was only made to entertain the eyes of foreigners who had grown weary of the conditions in their country. His criticism reminds us of the problematic notion in the act of “seeing” throughout the history of landscape paintings in Europe. Mooi Indie only highlighted the beauty of the natural landscape and exoticized the people in the Dutch East Indies while completely ignoring their social reality. It negated the colonized society behind the visceral landscape. After that, realism was largely campaigned to be used as an approach to painting. This type of -ism has the character to present social realities and contain the values of struggle; whether it is a struggle for humanity, as well as education.<\/span><\/p>\n

The spirit of realism is also present in Indonesian films. The directors in the early days of independence raised the themes of national identity in their films. They emphasized the narrative strength as a storytelling model that conveniently delivers what is believed to be the true social reality. The landscape aspect, as if it were cursed, remains as a backdrop for many Indonesian films. Occasionally, landscape does relate to narrative, at other times it merely plays its role an accessory throughout the entire film. This happens in both films with national and local themes.<\/span><\/p>\n

This tendency has existed since the rise of talkies, and the audience in the Dutch East Indies preferred narrative-driven fictional films. As a result, imports of these films, until now, have always dominated cinemas. Landscape continues to be the backdrop for the tyrannical superiority of the narrative in Indonesian films.<\/span><\/p>\n

In terms of their narrative and production style, films from India, China, Hong Kong, Malaya, Europe, Japan, Russia, and others, especially Hollywood, continued as references for the figures in our film industry. Its dominating influence on aesthetics and stories depends on the political situation; say during the Dutch colonial period, the Japanese occupation, the Old Order, the Cold War, the New Order, also the Reformation. Among these political fluctuations there are also events of the heyday of monopoly of film distribution, the euphoria of freedom, the proliferation of radicalism, as well as changing trends in contemporary popular culture. In order to secure their economic, social, and political position, most of the film industry key figures try to adapt to the socio-political situation of their contemporaries. Thus, to this day, there has never been a film aesthetic that can be stated as the Indonesian film aesthetic. Tumultuous changes in the economic, social, cultural, and political systems throughout Indonesia’s history have never produced any film aesthetics.<\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond the industrial producers, a similar trend has penetrated most independent films, students, and communities \u2014 groups that are considered to be most instrumental in the revival of Indonesian films after the Reformation. The unfinished work in the narrative, mise-en-sc\u00e8ne, and storytelling can easily be found in the films of this group. Narrative tyranny does not work intact in these two groups, only its excesses. This results in their half-baked works.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding Mooi Indie that placed the (physical) landscape as the main focus, Sudjojono’s aesthetic criticism aimed at the detachment of the socio-political context from the beautiful tropical landscape. He proposed realism as an aesthetic approach. He also began to paint human subjects or events in an unsavory state, as they are. The birth Indonesia\u2019s visual art aesthetic as a discourse became widely spread and practiced. While in the side of films, the aesthetic criticism is not as lively. Indonesian films went through a crisis because the audience were more interested in watching Hollywood films, which were considered of higher quality. Producers complained about the audience\u2019s indifference for Indonesian films due to the monopoly on Hollywood film distribution. Then, in 1993, Rosihan Anwar (Chairman of the Socio-Cultural Commission of the National Film Council at that time) suggested the producers to go back to basic. In order to gain an audience, they upheld the entertaining formulas, such as comedy spiced with sex. Drama \u2014 whether the theme is comedy, horror, sex, violence, or any combination thereof \u2014 is made uncomplicated but sensational to be readily consumed, easy and fast for the audience to digest, in order to generate hype in the market. This is the worst version of the excesses of the narrative tyranny. In fact, this formula failed to increase audience\u2019s enthusiasm because Indonesian film production stopped completely. This leaves the audience with Hollywood films to see, that is, when they are not at home to watch local and imported soap operas.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since the production of Loetoeng Kasaroeng<\/em> (1926) in the Dutch East Indies era, The Long March<\/em> (1950) in the early days of independence, the establishment of Akademi Sinematografi in Jakarta in 1971, and the film crisis in the 1990s, the search for Indonesian film aesthetic has never really been carried out. It seems that the back to basic recommendation is the last period of film production which reflects the Indonesian film before their apparent death. There is no more room for the desire for authorship. We are moving away from the effort to formulate Indonesian film aesthetics. After that, the only aim that remains is the Hollywood film aesthetics.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since its creation in 2016, the Candrawala program has focused on reading the contemporary visual phenomena of the motion picture production in Indonesia. Candrawala tries to open up the possibility of finding the language most suitable for the realm it focuses on, while interpreting the position of these findings within the cosmic of regional and global cinema (Zikri, 2016). In most of the Indonesian film received by ARKIPEL this year, the excesses of narrative tyranny is still apparent. Even so, the selected films in this year’s Candrawala program proved a different phenomenon. In these films, the emergence of landscape as the main language is more significant than narrative; something that is generally neglected in the production process and our cinematic discourse.<\/span><\/p>\n

The landscape conceives the history of all the political fluctuations that once had happened in it. If we still have the desire to further search for Indonesian film aesthetic, returning to the landscape is a sensible choice. The films compiled in this curatorial shows how landscapes (physically and conceptually) have shaken the position of authorship in these films. This becomes possible when film technology and the various vocabulary in the totality of its knowledge are owned by people in various landscapes. When used as a narrative setting, landscape apparently has the ability to speak back to the film. This ability can further question the relationship between the landscape and the film; what is film reality, and what is landscape reality? Ultimately, landcapes can truly conquer authorship. Or rather, landscapes kill authorship. A director who realizes the potential of the landscape as the aesthetic language of film, only has to analyze it; to intervene it by putting the camera down and compose its footages. Through this realization, it is possible to create a film about a landscape that only speaks of itself. If Barthes ever said that the birth of the audience must be paid for by the death of the author, it seems that today\u2019s authorship must be willing to be killed once again for the birth of Indonesian film aesthetic.
\n<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Film List” color=”black” border_width=”3″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_tta_tabs style=”modern” spacing=”2″ active_section=”1″][vc_tta_section title=”FILMWORK” tab_id=”1637819978801-76f85e64-390b”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_single_image image=”10932″ img_size=”full”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637820412436{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]\n

Katarsis Yang Tak Kunjung Selesai<\/b><\/h2>\n

Filmmaker <\/em>Riski Rianda<\/strong> (Indonesia)
\n<\/span>International Title<\/em> The Catharsis<\/b>
\n<\/strong>Country of Production<\/em>\u00a0 Indonesia
\n<\/strong>Language<\/em> –
\n<\/strong>Subtitle<\/em>\u00a0 –<\/strong><\/p>\n

19 min 31 sec, stereo, digital, 16:9, color, 2020<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637820443328{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Sejumlah lanskap diinterupsi oleh tubuh telanjang seorang anonim. Dalam beberapa tangkapan kamera, tubuh ini berjalan menjauhi bingkai. Sementara dalam tangkapan yang lain, ia tidak hadir sama sekali. Tangkapan-tangkapan panjangnya memberikan ruang bagi kita untuk memperhatikan lebih detail, atau turut mengalami lanskap yang direkam kameranya.\u00a0<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637820460074{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]A number of landscapes are interrupted by the naked body of an anonymous person. In some camera shots, this body is walking away from the frame. While in another shot, the body is not present at all. The long shots leave room for us to pay attention to more details, or to experience the landscapes that the camera captures.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”FILMMAKER” tab_id=”1637503076686-c189603b-0340″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/6″][vc_single_image image=”10933″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637822753620{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Riski Rianda<\/strong><\/em> (Kuala Lumpur, 1997) kembali ke Indonesia ketika berumur 5 tahun dan menetap hingga kini. Mulai membuat filem pendek sejak tahun 2017 lewat komunitas filem di Yogyakarta. Turut mengembangkan komunitas filem di Yogyakarta bernama Ruang Gelap. Pada awal 2021 memproduseri sebuah filem pendek produksi Ruang Gelap yang membicarakan tentang Penghayat Kepercayaan.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637822782661{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Riski Rianda<\/strong> <\/em>(Kuala Lumpur, 1997) returned to Indonesia when he was 5 years old and has been staying there hitherto. Started making short films since 2017 through a film community in Yogyakarta. Participated in developing a film community in Yogyakarta called Ruang Gelap. In early 2021, he produced a short film from Ruang Gelap production discussing about Penghayat Kepercayaan<\/em> (roughly translated as Believers).<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_tta_section][\/vc_tta_tabs][vc_tta_tabs style=”modern” spacing=”2″ active_section=”1″][vc_tta_section title=”FILMWORK” tab_id=”1637819987068-28310080-e730″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_single_image image=”10934″ img_size=”full”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823222047{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]\n

Di Pinggir Kali Citarum\u00a0<\/b><\/h2>\n

Filmmaker <\/em>Ali Satri Efendi<\/strong> (Indonesia)
\n<\/span>International Title<\/em> Citarum<\/b>
\n<\/strong>Country of Production<\/em>\u00a0 Indonesia
\n<\/strong>Language<\/em> –
\n<\/strong>Subtitle<\/em>\u00a0 –<\/strong><\/p>\n

16 mins, stereo, 16:9, color, 2019<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823382097{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Sebuah tatapan subjektif teredam oleh kerja observasi yang sabar. Filem ini bergerak perlahan mengikuti kerja seorang petani, pembuat batu bata, sekaligus penyedia jasa penyebrangan motor dan orang yang melintasi kali. Di Pinggir Kali Citarum<\/em> setidaknya menangkap sejumlah sistem yang berjalan beriringan; sistem waktu dan kerja, sistem ‘tata kelola’ oleh warga, dan sistem alam. Tanpa dialog, filem ini memaknai ulang makna ‘bencana alam’ melalui rekaman interaksi antara subjek-subjek lokal dengan lanskap di sekitarnya.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823412931{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]A patient observation reduces a subjective gaze. This film moves slowly following the work of a farmer, brickmaker, as well as a service provider for motorbikes and people crossing the river. Di Pinggir Kali Citarum<\/em> has recorded at least several systems that go hand in hand; systems of time and work, systems of ‘governance’ by citizens, and systems of nature. Without dialogue, this film reinterprets the meaning of ‘natural disaster’ through recording interactions between local subjects and the surrounding landscape.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”FILMMAKER” tab_id=”1637819987270-0dee722b-23b3″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/6″][vc_single_image image=”10789″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823486303{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]\u00a0Ali Satri Efendi<\/strong><\/em>, lahir di Karawang dan tinggal di Bekasi. Ia bekerja sebagai dosen dan rutin membuat filem pendek, minimal satu buah setiap tahunnya. Filem pendek eksperimentalnya, Gelombang Longitudinal, <\/em>terpilih dalam program Candrawala ARKIPEL 2016. Puisi dan cerpennya telah dimuat di berbagai antologi dan media.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823522722{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Ali<\/strong> Satri Efendi<\/strong><\/em>, born in Karawang and lives in Bekasi. He works as a lecturer and routinely makes at least one short film each year. His experimental short film Gelombang Longitudinal<\/em> was selected in Candrawala program at 2016 ARKIPEL. His poems and short stories were published in various anthologies and media.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_tta_section][\/vc_tta_tabs][vc_tta_tabs style=”modern” spacing=”2″ active_section=”1″][vc_tta_section title=”FILMWORK” tab_id=”1637820003140-03da7b0f-cb11″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_single_image image=”10937″ img_size=”full”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823781845{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]\n

Anak Merak<\/b><\/h2>\n

Filmmaker <\/em>Saleksa Srengenge<\/strong> (Indonesia)
\n<\/span>International Title<\/em> Anak Merak<\/b>
\n<\/strong>Country of Production<\/em>\u00a0 Indonesia
\n<\/strong>Language<\/em> Indonesian, Madurese, Javanese
\n<\/strong>Subtitle<\/em>\u00a0 English<\/strong><\/p>\n

59 min 29 sec, stereo, 16:9, color, 2019<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823902060{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Kamera memperkenalkan dirinya sebagai sang asing; menatap dengan sedemikian berjarak. Perlahan ia mendekat, masuk ke seluk-beluk ruang, masih secara diam-diam. Hingga akhirnya ia berbaur, tatapan sang asing kemudian ditatap balik oleh subjek-subjek yang ia tatap, lantas dipermainkan. Anak Merak di permulaannya menampilkan diri sebagaimana dokumenter televisi yang mampir ke sebuah lokasi, merekamnya secara satu arah. Namun, perlahan, sutradara melepaskan kontrolnya, bahkan menjadikan subjek di lokasi mengontrol balik bagaimana filem ini berjalan. Melalui permainan, perjalanan subjek di dalamnya tak sekadar perjalanan mencapai akhir atau memenangkan permainan, namun juga perjalanan membongkar kerja kamera. Sebuah pembongkaran yang mengimajinasikan pertanyaan tentang bagaimana jika lanskap dibiarkan berbicara balik?<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823920826{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]The camera introduces itself as stranger, gazing from a distance. Slowly it comes closer, into the intricacies of the space, still quietly. Until finally, it mingles, then its subjects gaze back to this stranger’s gaze and play with it. At first, Anak Merak presents itself as a television documentary that comes around to a location, recording it in one direction. However, slowly, the director relinquished the control, even allowing the subjects to control how the film proceeds. Through the game, the subject’s journey in the film is not just to reach the end or win the game, but to dismantle the camera work. A dismantling that imagines the question of what if landscapes were allowed to talk back?<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”FILMMAKER” tab_id=”1637820003807-63f7df6f-f943″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/6″][vc_single_image image=”10939″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823861844{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Saleksa Srengenge<\/strong><\/em> (Malang, 1996) menamatkan studinya di jurusan Televisi dan Film, Universitas Jember. Karya-karyanya berfokus pada pembuatan filem dokumenter mengenai alam liar dan sosial.\u00a0<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823880755{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Saleksa Srengenge<\/strong><\/em> (Malang, 1996) completed his studies majoring in Television and Film at the University of Jember. His works focus on documentary filmmaking about wildlife and social issues.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_tta_section][\/vc_tta_tabs][vc_tta_tabs style=”modern” spacing=”2″ active_section=”1″][vc_tta_section title=”FILMWORK” tab_id=”1637819999930-a4b43057-43ac”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_single_image image=”10897″ img_size=”full”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637783275477{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]\n

Diary of Cattle<\/b><\/h2>\n

Filmmaker <\/em>Lidia Afrilita, David Darmadi<\/strong> (Indonesia)
\n<\/span>International Title<\/em> Diary of Cattle<\/b>
\n<\/strong>Country of Production<\/em>\u00a0 Indonesia
\n<\/strong>Language<\/em> Minangkabau
\n<\/strong>Subtitle<\/em>\u00a0 English<\/strong><\/p>\n

17 min 31 sec, <\/span>stereo, digital, color<\/span>, 2019<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823947322{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Filem ini mengikuti kegiatan sapi-sapi ternak semenjak pagi hingga malam hari di tempat pembuangan akhir sampah. Kamera terasa begitu akrab dengan jadwal dan rute harian sapi-sapi dalam kesehariannya. Filem ini tidak hendak mempersonifikasi sapi-sapi, kegiatan sapi-sapi ini direkam begitu saja tanpa intervensi berarti. Hasilnya, Lidia dan David Darmadi berhasil mementangkan persoalan yang lebih luas menyangkut limbah konsumsi, kerja, dan persoalan lingkungan. Filem ditutup apik dengan berita kematian.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637823965317{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]This film follows the activities of cattle from morning to night at the landfill. The camera seems to be very familiar with the daily schedules and routes of the cows. This film does not want to personify the cows, the activities of these cows are simply recorded without any meaningful intervention. As a result, Lidia and David Darmadi succeeded in solving broader issues concerning consumption waste, work, and environmental issues. The film ends nicely with an obituary.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”FILMMAKER” tab_id=”1637820000512-9df57bb6-3365″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/6″][vc_single_image image=”10899″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637783414320{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Lidia Afrilita<\/strong><\/em> adalah seorang pecinta filem dokumenter, bahasa, dan pendidikan. Dia lulus dari jurusan Linguistik dan merupakan seorang guru bahasa. Saat ini, ia mengelola sebuah pusat belajar di pedesaan di Jambi. Filem-filemnya telah diputar di berbagai festival.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637783434499{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Lidia Afrilita<\/strong><\/em> is a documentary, language, and education enthusiast. She has a Linguistics background and is a language teacher as well. She currently runs a learning center in a rural area in Jambi. Her films have been screened in many festivals.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/6″][vc_single_image image=”10898″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637783673374{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]David Darmadi<\/strong><\/em> (Padang, 1987) adalah pembuat filem yang saat ini tinggal di Sumatera. Dia lulus dari program Televisi dan Film di ISI Padangpanjang. Karya-karyanya telah diputar di berbagai festival.<\/span><\/p>\n

Saat ini, keduanya tengah mengelola Ingatan Visual; sebuah inisiatif yang merekam kehidupan sehari-hari masyarakat di Sumatera Barat.
\n<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637783734379{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]David Darmadi<\/strong> <\/em>(Padang, 1987) is a filmmaker currently based in Sumatera. He graduated from Television and Film program in Indonesia Institute of The Arts of Padangpanjang (ISI Padangpanjang). His works have been screened at numerous festivals.<\/span><\/p>\n

Currently, both are managing the Ingatan Visual; an initiative documenting the daily life of people in West Sumatera.<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_tta_section][\/vc_tta_tabs][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”About the Host” color=”black” border_width=”2″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/6″][vc_single_image image=”10941″ img_size=”full”][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637824063775{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Dhuha Ramadhani<\/strong> <\/em>adalah seniman dan kurator filem. Selama 5 tahun terakhir bekerja dengan sebuah organisasi yang berfokus pada ranah seni, filem, dan jurnalisme warga. Dia pernah menjadi pengurus Forum Lenteng dan anggota Milisifilem Collective. Seorang sarjana Kriminologi dari Universitas Indonesia yang berfokus pada kajian jurnalistik kriminologi.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”5\/12″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1637824079733{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]Dhuha Ramadhani<\/strong><\/em> is an artist and film curator. Over the past 5 years working with an organization that focuses on the arts, film, and citizen journalism. He was a member of Forum Lenteng and Milisifilem Collective. A Bachelor of Criminology from the University of Indonesia who focuses on the study of criminology journalism.<\/span>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the discourse of ethnographic film, representing the subjects living in the periphery will bring forth the experimentation of cinema aesthetics. The experimentation is in parallel with the paradigm shifts in social science and ethics that follow it. The aesthetic explorations, which range from a dramatic construction with the romantic style of Flaherty up to how to perceive anthropological facts with the style of Sensory Ethnography Lab films, contribute to the discourse on the development of this genre. The latest tendency of this cinema is indeed observational and participatory. But these observation and participation bear their own problems.In representing peripheral subjects, especially those who are far or less exposed to media technology, there is a temptation to treat them as a “discovery\u201d. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10947,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Lanskap dan Kepengarangan","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[551,347],"tags":[552,303,548],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nCandrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship — ARKIPEL<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In the discourse of ethnographic film, representing the subjects living in the periphery will bring forth the experimentation of cinema aesthetics. The experimentation is in parallel with the paradigm shifts in social science and ethics that follow it. The aesthetic explorations, which range from a dramatic construction with the romantic style of Flaherty up to how to perceive anthropological facts with the style of Sensory Ethnography Lab films, contribute to the discourse on the development of this genre. The latest tendency of this cinema is indeed observational and participatory. But these observation and participation bear their own problems.In representing peripheral subjects, especially those who are far or less exposed to media technology, there is a temptation to treat them as a "discovery\u201d.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship — ARKIPEL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the discourse of ethnographic film, representing the subjects living in the periphery will bring forth the experimentation of cinema aesthetics. The experimentation is in parallel with the paradigm shifts in social science and ethics that follow it. The aesthetic explorations, which range from a dramatic construction with the romantic style of Flaherty up to how to perceive anthropological facts with the style of Sensory Ethnography Lab films, contribute to the discourse on the development of this genre. The latest tendency of this cinema is indeed observational and participatory. But these observation and participation bear their own problems.In representing peripheral subjects, especially those who are far or less exposed to media technology, there is a temptation to treat them as a "discovery\u201d.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ARKIPEL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/arkipel.festival\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"http:\/\/facebook.com\/arkipel.festival\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-11-25T07:08:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-11-25T09:03:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1-1024x576.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"576\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arkipel\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@http:\/\/twitter.com\/arkipel\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@arkipel\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arkipel\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Arkipel\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/person\/c2984da36a56e09e4b5184bafce4abef\"},\"headline\":\"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-11-25T07:08:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-11-25T09:03:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/\"},\"wordCount\":5918,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1\",\"keywords\":[\"2021\",\"Candrawala\",\"Twilight Zone\"],\"articleSection\":[\"ARKIPEL 2021 - Twilight Zone\",\"Candrawala\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/\",\"name\":\"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship — ARKIPEL\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-11-25T07:08:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-11-25T09:03:40+00:00\",\"description\":\"In the discourse of ethnographic film, representing the subjects living in the periphery will bring forth the experimentation of cinema aesthetics. The experimentation is in parallel with the paradigm shifts in social science and ethics that follow it. The aesthetic explorations, which range from a dramatic construction with the romantic style of Flaherty up to how to perceive anthropological facts with the style of Sensory Ethnography Lab films, contribute to the discourse on the development of this genre. The latest tendency of this cinema is indeed observational and participatory. But these observation and participation bear their own problems.In representing peripheral subjects, especially those who are far or less exposed to media technology, there is a temptation to treat them as a \\\"discovery\u201d.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/\",\"name\":\"ARKIPEL\",\"description\":\"Jakarta International Documentary and Experimental Film Festival\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Arkipel\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/logo_arkipel-full-black.jpg?fit=901%2C351&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/logo_arkipel-full-black.jpg?fit=901%2C351&ssl=1\",\"width\":901,\"height\":351,\"caption\":\"Arkipel\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/arkipel.festival\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/arkipel\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/arkipel\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCr6MA0fZypBs9tHpfNa3vVQ\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/person\/c2984da36a56e09e4b5184bafce4abef\",\"name\":\"Arkipel\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6031ef1fe83cef04c2da0d3bd7eb664c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6031ef1fe83cef04c2da0d3bd7eb664c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arkipel\"},\"description\":\"ARKIPEL - Jakarta International Documentary & Experimental Film Festival, held in Indonesia by Forum Lenteng. This festival is a open space of cinema and media discourse in general, especially documentary and experimental film genre.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/arkipel.org\/\",\"http:\/\/facebook.com\/arkipel.festival\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/http:\/\/twitter.com\/arkipel\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/people\/arkipel\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship — ARKIPEL","description":"In the discourse of ethnographic film, representing the subjects living in the periphery will bring forth the experimentation of cinema aesthetics. The experimentation is in parallel with the paradigm shifts in social science and ethics that follow it. The aesthetic explorations, which range from a dramatic construction with the romantic style of Flaherty up to how to perceive anthropological facts with the style of Sensory Ethnography Lab films, contribute to the discourse on the development of this genre. The latest tendency of this cinema is indeed observational and participatory. But these observation and participation bear their own problems.In representing peripheral subjects, especially those who are far or less exposed to media technology, there is a temptation to treat them as a \"discovery\u201d.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship — ARKIPEL","og_description":"In the discourse of ethnographic film, representing the subjects living in the periphery will bring forth the experimentation of cinema aesthetics. The experimentation is in parallel with the paradigm shifts in social science and ethics that follow it. The aesthetic explorations, which range from a dramatic construction with the romantic style of Flaherty up to how to perceive anthropological facts with the style of Sensory Ethnography Lab films, contribute to the discourse on the development of this genre. The latest tendency of this cinema is indeed observational and participatory. But these observation and participation bear their own problems.In representing peripheral subjects, especially those who are far or less exposed to media technology, there is a temptation to treat them as a \"discovery\u201d.","og_url":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/","og_site_name":"ARKIPEL","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/arkipel.festival\/","article_author":"http:\/\/facebook.com\/arkipel.festival","article_published_time":"2021-11-25T07:08:12+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-11-25T09:03:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":576,"url":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1-1024x576.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Arkipel","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@http:\/\/twitter.com\/arkipel","twitter_site":"@arkipel","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arkipel","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/"},"author":{"name":"Arkipel","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/person\/c2984da36a56e09e4b5184bafce4abef"},"headline":"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship","datePublished":"2021-11-25T07:08:12+00:00","dateModified":"2021-11-25T09:03:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/"},"wordCount":5918,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1","keywords":["2021","Candrawala","Twilight Zone"],"articleSection":["ARKIPEL 2021 - Twilight Zone","Candrawala"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/","url":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/","name":"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship — ARKIPEL","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1","datePublished":"2021-11-25T07:08:12+00:00","dateModified":"2021-11-25T09:03:40+00:00","description":"In the discourse of ethnographic film, representing the subjects living in the periphery will bring forth the experimentation of cinema aesthetics. The experimentation is in parallel with the paradigm shifts in social science and ethics that follow it. The aesthetic explorations, which range from a dramatic construction with the romantic style of Flaherty up to how to perceive anthropological facts with the style of Sensory Ethnography Lab films, contribute to the discourse on the development of this genre. The latest tendency of this cinema is indeed observational and participatory. But these observation and participation bear their own problems.In representing peripheral subjects, especially those who are far or less exposed to media technology, there is a temptation to treat them as a \"discovery\u201d.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1","width":1920,"height":1080},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/candrawala-2021-landscape-and-authorship\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Candrawala \u2013 local landscape of now: Landscape and Authorship"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/","name":"ARKIPEL","description":"Jakarta International Documentary and Experimental Film Festival","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#organization","name":"Arkipel","url":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/logo_arkipel-full-black.jpg?fit=901%2C351&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/logo_arkipel-full-black.jpg?fit=901%2C351&ssl=1","width":901,"height":351,"caption":"Arkipel"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/arkipel.festival\/","https:\/\/x.com\/arkipel","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/arkipel\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCr6MA0fZypBs9tHpfNa3vVQ"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/person\/c2984da36a56e09e4b5184bafce4abef","name":"Arkipel","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6031ef1fe83cef04c2da0d3bd7eb664c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6031ef1fe83cef04c2da0d3bd7eb664c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arkipel"},"description":"ARKIPEL - Jakarta International Documentary & Experimental Film Festival, held in Indonesia by Forum Lenteng. This festival is a open space of cinema and media discourse in general, especially documentary and experimental film genre.","sameAs":["http:\/\/arkipel.org\/","http:\/\/facebook.com\/arkipel.festival","https:\/\/x.com\/http:\/\/twitter.com\/arkipel"],"url":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/people\/arkipel\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/arkipel.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/candrawla-1.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=1","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3vpmt-2PP","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10901"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10901\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10947"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arkipel.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}