Hacendera, Yera, Andecha or Rozada are some of the traditional institutions that, in Spain, refer to the collective work carried out by the neighbours of one or several villages in order to achieve a good for the community. They are not the only ones, of course. They also exist in other countries and continents: Tequio, Ubuntu, Mutirâo or Allemende, for example. This year, documenta fifteen resorts to "something" similar both to imagine artistic practice and perhaps to re-dimension the task of cultural organisations. Thus, lumbung is the figure —or institution, rooted in the rural areas of Indonesia— chosen by ruangrupa, the artistic direction of the event, with the purpose of vindicating, proposing and discussing models whose bases contemplate associations or interdependencies that allow individuals to approach today's events, episodes or problems with a different view.

The following is an exchange of ideas and points of view with farid rakun, from ruangrupa. In our conversation, which took place last August, we discussed the ins and outs of the collective's curatorial project for the documenta fifteen in Kassel.

I

ALBERTO AGUILAR: We would like to start this conversation by suggesting that you take a look back at the trajectory of your collective. What significant transformations —in the intellectual, emotional or practical spheres— have you undergone from your founding in 2000 to the conception of lumbung. In other words, where you started from and where have you come from?

farid rakun: I’ll try to be short and precise. When we started in 2000, we were kind of young. We started because of a circle of friends, we were interested in things that were not given space, let’s say, so we created our own infrastructures. From projects we created different spaces for students, for video art, for curatorial studies even because back then we didn’t have a proper curatorial studies program, but we needed to curate our shows. And then we were one of a lot of other collectives, not only in Jakarta but also in other cities, or other places, not only in the city, but also in villages. So, then we made a network out of those collectives.

Around 2015-2016, we ganged up with other collectives based in Jakarta. That’s when we started to think about co-governing resources, understanding how to sell us as a bank of resources. We didn’t call it lumbung back then, but in 2016-2017, we started to call what we do, we experimented with, what in the end we called lumbung.

Up until now we started with renting houses, different houses. We moved around a couple of times. And we changed ourselves around 2015-2016. We moved together with other collectives to occupy a big space. Then, because of that, we streamlined a lot of things, not only the space itself but skills and people as well. Like accountants, for example, a communication person, all that kind of stuff. We joined forces so with other collectives we shared a lot. That was the seed of one, it was the seed of lumbung as we know it right now. Then the second, is the seed of what turned out to be Gudskul right now. With Serrum and Grafis Huru Hara we changed ourselves, we shifted our practice into an informal educational platform. That started at the end of 2018, around the same time when we started to think about documenta. Of course, it wasn’t an artistic direction, we were not chosen yet to be an artistic director, but the conversation began around the same time, at the end of 2018, let’s say. I hope that’s short enough but clear enough.

II

AA: From our point of view, the fact that you, ruangrupa, are entrusted with the artistic direction challenges the hegemonic ideas about the functioning of a cultural organization or institution as your collective puts the spotlight on rigorous partnership working, based on friendship, solidarity and community-centered, for instance. The question is, do you think that documenta fifteen is asking itself what the model of exchange and dialogue between the actors involved in the art and culture sector should be because it assumes that the mission or vision and strategies of the institutions are no longer sustainable or even exhausted?

FR: Thank you for this question. The substantive question is where we come from. From the get-go we were clear about this as well. We came from a specific background and history and biographies, where we didn’t have all those things. The understanding of museum, the understanding of institutions, and all that kind of stuff, that’s why we were never “alternative” in that sense. What we offered, or what we can do, is actually what we have been developing in the last, it became 22 years of our existence. We are not against, or we are not saying that it is not sustainable or that it has been exhausted, and that kind of stuff, because we didn’t know what institutional practice, what museum practice, how it is supposed to be. Because we didn’t have that, we didn’t have that knowledge when we started. What we knew is that it wasn’t available for us, so we developed our own ways of working.

I think when it became clear throughout the process that, like your reading in the first paragraph before the question for this one, then it became clear that museums in developed or historical, those places, those contexts where museums have been built for the last 200 years, what it has become, then of course it is different than where we are coming from, our way of working. To compare directly, apple-to-apple, is still in the making for us, in our heads. But, of course, it is different. What I’m trying to say is that is not a direct head-to-head against. It’s not antagonistic towards that.

What we can learn throughout this process of doing documenta 15, is like what we can learn from, and what we can do, and what we should not do, in institutional practice. Whether it is sustainable, there are certain things that we can say, that we are doing certain things because they are sustainable for us. It wasn’t done by the museums or by institutions because they come from a different understanding, of course, but whether they can learn from our way of working, whether they want to, whether they have to learn them, it’s up to them. What they can learn from us, the way we are working, of course, is up to them.

And then of course it’s always interesting to hear what they can learn from us, our way of working. Not us only in ruangrupa, but also people that we are collaborating with for documenta fifteen. 

There are a lot of things we can learn from this. Because it sustained itself up until what I said. It has sustained for 200 years, not without consequences, not without challenges. There are certain things that we wouldn’t do. For example, and this is from documenta, seeing Kassel in itself as a local, working with what is already there in Kassel. We learned from doing that it has been, and there were attempts to do so, but to have ruruHaus for two years. What we are trying to do still with ruruHaus is to have roots in Kassel, even when it’s not directly related or represented in the exhibition itself. There are artists that we are working with from Kassel, but a lot of them have their channels through ruruHaus itself.

III

AA: Should any cultural entity aspire to be radically egalitarian and democratic, knowing that as these will never cease to be a realization of that ideal, they will never achieve that goal?

And furthermore. As an alternative to the —shall we say— entrenched model that shapes the activity of existing institutions or organizations in the art complex, would practicing lumbung within them significantly alleviate the impossibility for every member of a community to have access to the material means, or to the symbolic production, or to the relational spaces that the former manage?

FR: This is what we are trying to do since we were given the artistic direction. We are trying to see documenta as a bank of those resources. From the space, from the symbolic production, from material means, which means also financial means and all that kind of stuff. Then how, that is the core of what we are trying to do. It’s risky for both. It’s risky for us, it’s risky for documenta itself.

In fact, what is experienced is the result of the above. What we can come up with together: also with documenta and our collaborators. Because this imagination isn’t just from ruangrupa’s imagination. This journey is exactly what we are trying to see, whether it is possible to clash these two different operating systems. That is how we are seeing it. We understand what you are saying, how you put it much better than how we can put it even when we try. It’s like this ideal may be impossible, but at least we try. How to see what can it result in.

For example, ruangrupa has been trying, this is before documenta even, ruangrupa has been trying to resist being an institution because of where we are coming from to begin with, because we are coming from the bottom up, but we cannot lie that we have become something different after 15, 18, 20 years of something. Then people have treated us differently as well, especially in our own contexts, so we resisted becoming an institution for a while. But we have to be honest as well that we have become, for lack of a better word, people have considered us to be an institution in ourselves, as ruangrupa. 

That’s why for example, Gudskul came about because the original idea was for ruangrupa to slowly take the background and Gudskul become something else. And it is an educational platform, so it became much easier for us to deal with this institutionalization when we become a school or an educational platform. Then of course we become an institution, but then it’s a question of what type of institution. But then with documenta, the question becomes bigger. Then how can we use this institution, or practice this institutional framework differently. As you said, museum and institutions see what we are trying to do.

It’s still coming back to what I’ve said before: it’s still going to be interesting in the future, I don’t think it’s going to be in this year because it needs time, the learning, the reflection and all that kind of stuff. People are starting to understand. People are trying to understand deeper what we are trying to do with documenta fifteen after the half-time, after the 50 days. Reflection started to come up, in media writings, articles, people talking to us, like you. Attempts started not exactly after the opening, but it needs time. It needs one and a half months, whatever. To put it into practice it takes a little bit longer even, but that’s why we are thinking of lumbung longer than documenta fifteen, longer than 100 days.

IV

AA: You propose a way of devising and producing whose artistic and economic dimensions are based on the collective, on communal exchange and on equitable allocation, among other ruangrupa principles. In other words, on gathering resources in order to redistribute them and be socially just. What strategies do you design and propose to achieve collective management of decision-making —regarding narrative, programming, the creation of audiences, for example— and thus be politically just?

FR: What we can try this time, with the constraints of time, constraints of budget, constraints of what documenta has as habits of prohibition, we are playing with that. COVID is big as well, that kind of constraint with what we are trying to do. We had to change a lot the process because of pandemics. What we have been trying to do is that: decision-making, how to manage and how to co-govern resources through strategies like majelis or assemblies, and mini-majelis or mini-assemblies, also majelis akbar or mega assemblies —not without challenges. Then this is also the artists, for example, our collaborators were not used to being in this type of processes, so it was all new for us, let alone for those who came in the end in Documenta, as an exhibition, visitors, audience, a lot of new things. We realized that.

Then, what we can say as well, and full disclaimer, this is not the only way of doing things. There are a lot of ways of organizing. A lot of people have attempted the act of organizing itself, the art of organizing itself, there are many ways of doing things. This is our way, this is what we could come up with for this time, but it has been kind of useful. Not only like what you are trying to put in the question —politically just— , much more addressing the usual power relations in exhibition-making, for example, between institutions, artistic direction, curators, artists, staff members, workers for the institutions.

We are trying to make it much more ground-up or much more horizontal, but, of course, this is not what we can say. This is lumbung-documenta friendship, this is not the full-fledged friendship, because of a lot of those things. Which is great, because of the learning. It pushes a lot of learning processes and then we learn a lot from that. Not only what we have done but also how to do things differently in the future. Like still calling lumbung members ‘members’, for example, ruangrupa doesn’t have membership. It is much more realistic and pragmatic this way. 

And then what type of an exhibition that we can do, calling ourselves artistic direction, calling these people that we are still working with curatorial team. And also I think by making this, we don’t have these relations with artists. We didn’t start with scenography, putting artists in spaces. But it took a longer time for us to have artists decide by themselves where they want to be in relation to the type of work that they are trying to stage in documenta fifteen. It takes so much longer than the usual curatorial process, and also artists are talking to other artists, with mini-majlis, for example and Majlis Akbar. They know each other so much better and what they can do together in relation to what they are doing in Kassel. This type of work previous to the opening of an exhibition has been proven to us. At least for us it has been very fruitful. Because the exhibition didn’t end in the opening, then a lot of things can be done and communications between ourselves, affinities, solidarities and all that kind of stuff is so much easier to achieve compared to our past experiences of being in group shows, biennials, etc. 

The type of communication and solidarity and decision-making after the opening of an exhibition, we have started the leg work way, way before the exhibition started. That one I think is very, very... we didn’t know this before, we didn’t do it preemptively to face certain things, challenges that come afterwards, but because of that it is so much easier to get to consensus.

You will find the rest of our Conversation HERE!

farid rakun is part of ruangrupa, collective responsible for the artistic direction of documenta fifteen. He holds a degree in architecture from Universitas Indonesia and a master's degree in architecture from Cranbrook Academy of Art. As an instigator, he has permeated various institutions: Centre Pompidou, La Biennale di Venezia, MMCA Seoul, Sharjah Biennial, São Paulo Biennial, Harun Farocki Institut, Dutch Art Institute (DAI), Creative Time, Haute école d'art et de design (HEAD) de Genève, and basis voor actuele kunst (BAK).

HOME