Employing Griselda Pollock's notion of differencing the canon, this chapter analyses two key eras in Indonesian art history, namely, the period of intense nationalist activity around the time of Indonesian independence (1940s-1950s), and at the time the radical movement Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru Indonesia (Indonesian New Art Movement, 1970s-1980s) emerged. The chapter presents a re-reading of the canons through an analysis of the structural nature of canon-making and its selective version of the past. By differencing the canon, this chapter does not simply replace the masculine canon with a feminine version; instead, it aims to difference it using an active re-reading and reworking “of that which is visible and authorised in the spaces of representation” (Pollock 1999: 8).

These two periods are generally accepted by Indonesian scholars as the formative periods of Indonesian art history (Soemantri, Supangkat et al. 1998; Hasan 2001; Adi and Bujono 2012; Hasan, Malna et al. 2012). The first part of this chapter focuses on the figure S. Sudjojono – regarded as the founding father of Indonesian modern art. I will analyse Sudjojono’s writings and discuss his iconic painting Di Depan Kelambu Terbuka (In front of the open mosquito net, 1939, oil on canvas) as an example of how Indonesian modern art has been shaped by the masculine gaze as well as a masculine nationalist response to colonialism.

The second part of the chapter will analyse another canon, namely, the Gerakan Seni Rupa Baru Indonesia (henceforth GSRB) that emerged from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s. The movement, spearheaded by 11 young Indonesian artists from three different cities in Java, was inspired by experimental arts from the West; from Fluxus to Pop Art. Most scholars agreed that this movement was the catalyst for a change in direction in Indonesian modern art towards experimentation and socially conscious art production. The section on GSRB discusses how, even within this most progressive group, the turn towards experimental arts not only neglected gender issues, but also strengthened gender stereotypes.

I argue that the active re-reading of these canons will illuminate the margins and tease out the in-between spaces in the canons. These elements have been rendered almost unrepresentable by the existing modes of hegemonic discourses, and thus the gendered nature of the canons have been normalized and accepted as tradition.