ARKIPEL

Misi “memperadabkan” yang dibawa bangsa Eropa melalui modernitas, pencerahan, rasionalitas, dan seterusnya, turut menggendong penaklukan terhadap teritori, hasil bumi, serta budaya. Premis dari misi ini adalah memosisikan peradaban yang mereka bawa sebagai lebih tinggi daripada peradaban lain. Segala yang berada di luar peradaban Barat harus diperadabkan. Segala yang berada di luar modernitas harus dimodernkan. Di sini, tradisi seolah disalip oleh kendaraan besar modernitas dan dipinggirkan ke jurang.

Di Indonesia, salah satu bentuk “memperadabkan” koloni oleh Belanda ialah membuka sekolah bagi pribumi. Hal ini memicu lahirnya kaum intelektual Indonesia, yang kemudian memperdebatkan arah kebudayaan bangsa. Ada yang meminggirkan tradisi ke jurang, ada yang menggabungkannya dengan modernitas, ada pula yang mengevolusi tradisi. Perdebatan ini dikenal sebagai Polemik Kebudayaan. Perdebatan antara Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana, Sanusi Pane, dan Ki Hajar Dewantara mengeksplorasi bagaimana sebuah bangsa seharusnya merespons banjir modernitas. Ia sekaligus menjadi pijakan dalam menanggapi krisis modernitas yang ditandai oleh Perang Dunia II.

Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana memandang tradisi sebagai hambatan. Baginya, tradisi yang statis dan sakral hanya akan menghalangi kemajuan. Ia meyakini bahwa kemajuan hanya mungkin dicapai melalui transformasi total menuju rasionalitas, akal sehat, dan dinamisme—fondasi budaya Barat. Di sisi lain, Sanusi Pane melihat modernitas dan tradisi sebagai dua entitas yang dapat disatukan. Melalui analogi Faust (Barat) dan Arjuna (Timur)—yang masing-masing mengutamakan materialisme dan akal di satu sisi, serta spiritualitas dan kolektivisme di sisi lain—Sanusi menekankan bahwa kemajuan sejati terletak pada keseimbangan fisik dan spiritual. Sementara itu, Ki Hajar Dewantara, dengan konsep Trikon, menawarkan sebuah “jalan ketiga” yang lentur dan adaptif. Kontinuitas mengajarkan agar tidak melupakan akar budaya, Konvergensi mengajak untuk berani mengadopsi hal-hal progresif dari luar, sementara Konsentrisitas menegaskan bahwa semua itu harus tetap berpusat pada kepribadian bangsa sendiri.

Namun, modernitas yang diagung-agungkan sebagai pembawa “peradaban”, kemajuan, dan pencerahan, ternyata menyimpan sisi kelam. Perang Dunia II menjadi penanda krusial kegagalan modernitas: kemajuan rasional dan teknologi yang dijanjikan justru berujung pada kehancuran massal. Holokaus, bom atom, dan gas beracun menunjukkan bagaimana rasionalitas dapat diterapkan secara brutal dan mekanis. Kegagalan ini tidak berhenti pada tahun 1945, melainkan terus bermutasi dalam bentuk Perang Dingin dan konflik-konflik kontemporer hingga hari ini. Tiga film dalam program ini menjadi medium untuk meninjau kembali posisi tradisi di tengah keangkuhan modernitas, krisis yang ditimbulkannya, serta kritik terhadapnya. Ketiganya, secara implisit, menunjukkan bagaimana masyarakat tradisional berhadapan dengan modernitas—bukan sebagai pilihan hitam-putih, melainkan sebagai sebuah proses penuh persimpangan dan kelok.

Dalam film Ghamar Taj karya Zarei Brother, subjek sentralnya adalah Ghamar, seorang perempuan yang menavigasi keluarganya yang nomaden di Iran. Ia tegas menolak kota dan tetap hidup dalam tradisi. “I was a nomad and will stay a nomad,” ujarnya kepada pembuat film dalam suatu adegan. Ketika suaminya, Ebrahim, sakit dan harus berobat ke kota, film ini hanya memperlihatkan Ghamar di gurun, menelepon anaknya di kota yang menemani Ebrahim. Kota juga diposisikan sebagai penyebab penyakit Ebrahim—sebelum mengunjunginya, ia tak pernah sakit. Bagi Ghamar, kota tidaklah seperti gurun dan padang rumput tempat ia menjalani kehidupan nomaden yang lebih bebas dan sehat. Film kedua, Wind Has No Tail karya Ivan Vlasov dan Nikita Stashkevich, secara observasional merekam keluarga nomaden Nenets. Nika, salah satu anak dalam keluarga ini, akan dikirim ke sekolah modern, meski berarti harus berpisah dari keluarga dan cara hidup tradisionalnya. Film ini menghadirkan keseharian mereka sebelum keberangkatan Nika: berburu dan memakan rusa mentah, anak-anak bermain di padang rumput, bentuk sekolah tradisional, kegiatan di rumah, mendongeng sebelum tidur, hingga lanskap-lanskap alam.

Dalam kedua film tersebut, modernitas sudah telanjur membanjiri peradaban yang mereka jalani, meminggirkan tradisi, bahkan melanggengkan watak yang meliyankan peradaban lain—seolah hanya modernitaslah yang benar dan ideal. Ghamar Taj, meski menolak kota, tetap harus ke kota untuk berobat, karena pengobatan “ideal” terletak di sana. Sementara itu, Wind Has No Tail memperlihatkan tunduknya tradisi pada paradigma modern: sekolah haruslah sekolah modern, meskipun mereka memiliki bentuk pendidikan sendiri. Bahkan kegiatan seperti memakan rusa mentah, yang dalam kerangka peradaban modern dianggap “barbar”, bagi mereka adalah cara hidup biasa. Dalam konteks ini, apakah “jalan ketiga” bagi tradisi—seperti yang dibayangkan Ki Hajar Dewantara—masih mungkin? Apakah ia bisa ada, ketika paradigma modernitas sudah lebih dulu menyalip dan meminggirkan tradisi? Mungkin film ketiga, Hadi the Hero, menawarkan jalan lain. Disutradarai Abbas Baloochi, film ini mengikuti Sadegh Rezai, seorang seniman yang memenuhi rumah dan gang di desanya di Iran dengan patung, relief, dan lukisan. Sadegh tidak pernah bersekolah seni, bahkan mengaku tidak bisa baca-tulis. Dalam paradigma modern, ia jelas belum memenuhi “kualifikasi”. Namun, karya seninya justru menjadi jalannya sendiri dalam peradaban: ia “menulis”, “membaca”, dan “bercerita” melalui patung, relief, dan lukisan. Karyanya adalah teks visual yang memuat kisah kuno, mitos lokal, dan sejarah personal.

Ketika pandangan umum menilai seni tidak sepenting membangun desa—berkebun, membangun jalan, atau mengurus irigasi—film ini justru menunjukkan bagaimana karya Sadegh juga ikut membangun desanya. Ketika seseorang menyinggung larangan patung setelah datangnya Islam, Sadegh memparalelkannya dengan larangan radio dan televisi di masa lalu—larangan yang kini tak lagi berlaku. Baginya, seni tidak bertentangan dengan keyakinan, melainkan bagian dari tradisi penceritaan. Patung-patungnya tidak disembah, melainkan berfungsi sebagai narasi visual yang berbeda dari berhala. Keangkuhan modernitas seharusnya tidak lagi diamini, terlebih setelah ia berkali-kali menunjukkan kegagalannya. Namun, modernitas telah telanjur membanjiri berbagai peradaban. Di samping kritik radikal terhadap meta-narasi modernitas, mungkin memang ada jalan lain: seperti yang dibayangkan Ki Hajar Dewantara, seperti yang ditunjukkan Hadi the Hero, atau bahkan jalan keempat, kelima, dan seterusnya.

The mission of “civilizing” that European nations brought through modernity, enlightenment, rationality, and so on, also entailed the conquest of territories, natural resources, and cultures. The premise of this mission was to position their own civilization as superior to all others. Everything outside of Western civilization had to be civilized. Everything outside of modernity had to be modernized. Here, tradition seems to be overtaken by the large vehicle of modernity and pushed to the side of a cliff.

In Indonesia, one form of the Dutch “civilizing” the colony was opening schools for the natives. This triggered the birth of Indonesian intellectuals, who then debated the direction of the nation’s culture. Some pushed tradition to the side of a cliff, others combined it with modernity, and still others sought to evolve it. This debate is known as the Cultural Polemic. The debate between Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana, Sanusi Pane, and Ki Hajar Dewantara explored how a nation should respond to the flood of modernity. It also became a foundation for responding to the crisis of modernity marked by World War II.

Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana viewed tradition as a hindrance. For him, a static and sacred tradition would only impede progress. He believed that progress could only be achieved through a total transformation toward rationality, common sense, and dynamism—the foundations of Western culture. On the other hand, Sanusi Pane saw modernity and tradition as two entities that could be unified. Through the analogy of Faust (West) and Arjuna (East)—who respectively prioritized materialism and reason on one side, and spirituality and collectivism on the other—Sanusi emphasized that true progress lies in the balance between physical and spiritual. Meanwhile, Ki Hajar Dewantara, with his Trikon concept, offered a flexible and adaptive “third way.” Continuity teaches not to forget cultural roots, Convergence encourages the boldness to adopt progressive ideas from outside, while Concentricity affirms that all of this must remain centered on the nation’s own identity.

However, modernity, while glorified as the bringer of “civilization,” progress, and enlightenment, proved to have a dark side. World War II was a crucial marker of the failure of modernity: the promised rational and technological progress actually led to mass destruction. The Holocaust, atomic bombs, and poison gas demonstrated how rationality can be applied brutally and mechanically. This failure did not end in 1945, but continued to mutate, manifesting in the form of the Cold War and contemporary conflicts to this day. The three films in this program serve as a medium to re-examine the position of tradition amid the arrogance of modernity, the crises it has created, and the critiques against it. Implicitly, the three films show how traditional societies confront modernity—not as a black-and-white choice, but as a process full of intersections and winding turns.

In the film Ghamar Taj by the Zarei Brothers, the central subject is Ghamar, a woman navigating her nomadic family in Iran. She firmly rejects the city and chooses to remain rooted in tradition. “I was a nomad and will stay a nomad,” she tells the filmmaker in one scene. When her husband, Ebrahim, falls ill and must seek medical treatment in the city, the film only shows Ghamar in the desert, calling her child who is with Ebrahim in the city. The city is also positioned as the cause of Ebrahim’s illness—before visiting it, he was never sick. For Ghamar, the city is not like the desert and pastures where she lives a freer and healthier nomadic life. The second film, Wind Has No Tail by Ivan Vlasov and Nikita Stashkevich, observantly records a nomadic Nenets family. Nika, one of the children in the family, is about to be sent to a modern school, even though it means being separated from her family and traditional way of life. The film captures their daily life before Nika’s departure: hunting and eating raw reindeer, children playing in the pastures, their traditional form of schooling, activities at home, storytelling before bed, and the natural landscapes.

In both films, modernity has already flooded the civilizations they inhabit, pushing tradition to the side and even perpetuating the attitude of “othering” different civilizations—as if only modernity is correct and ideal. Although she rejects the city, Ghamar Taj still has to go there for treatment, because “ideal” medicine is found there. Meanwhile, Wind Has No Tail shows tradition submitting to the modern paradigm: a school must be a modern school, even though they have their own form of education. Even activities like eating raw reindeer, which are considered “barbaric” within the framework of modern civilization, are just a normal way of life for them. In this context, is a “third way” for tradition—as envisioned by Ki Hajar Dewantara—still possible? Can it exist when the paradigm of modernity has already overtaken and marginalized tradition? Perhaps the third film, Hadi the Hero, offers another way. Directed by Abbas Baloochi, the film follows Sadegh Rezai, an artist who fills his home and the alleys of his village in Iran with sculptures, reliefs, and paintings. Sadegh never attended art school and even admits he is illiterate. Within the modern paradigm, he clearly doesn’t meet the “qualifications.” However, his artwork becomes his own way within civilization: he “writes,” “reads,” and “tells stories” through his sculptures, reliefs, and paintings. His work is a visual text that contains ancient tales, local myths, and personal history.

While general opinion may hold that art is not as important as developing a village—gardening, building roads, or managing irrigation—this film shows how Sadegh’s work also contributes to his village’s development. When someone brings up the prohibition of sculptures after the arrival of Islam, Sadegh draws a parallel with the past prohibitions on radios and television—prohibitions that are no longer in effect. For him, art does not contradict his faith; rather, it is part of a storytelling tradition. His sculptures are not worshipped, but instead function as a visual narrative distinct from idols. The arrogance of modernity should no longer be accepted, especially after it has repeatedly shown its failures. Yet, modernity has already flooded various civilizations. Besides radical critiques against the meta-narrative of modernity, perhaps there is another way: like the one envisioned by Ki Hajar Dewantara, as shown in Hadi the Hero, or even a fourth, fifth, and so on.

Adi Osman (lahir 1994, Padang) merupakan seorang penulis, kurator, dan pembuat filem. Ia pernah terlibat sebagai direktur artistik di Andalas Film Festival 2017-2018, kurator di Sumbar Film Festival 2018, kurator program regional Jogja-NETPAC Asian Film Festival 2020, dan kurator Jakarta Content Week 2022-2023. Saat ini ia aktif di Milisifilem Collective dan Garak.id

Adi Osman (b. 1994, Padang) is a writer, curator, and filmmaker. He was involved as artistic director in Andalas Film Festival 2017-2018, as a curator in Sumbar Film Festival 2018, curator for regional program of Jogja-NETPAC Asian Film Festival 2020, and curator for Jakarta Content Week 2022-2023. He is currently active in Milisifilem Collective and Garak.id