“The world is bigger than Europe. It is very important we hear from other parts of the world about the world,” said Ute Meta Bauer, one of the members of the selection committee for documenta fifteen, at Goethe Institute Jakarta, in 2019. This idea has shown some associations with what was later presented in the Lumbung process, through different Majelises. Yet, this effort is not without challenges. Long before the opening started, an accusation began from a WordPress blog proclaiming itself as the “Alliance against Anti-Semitism Kassel,” with the tagline, “There Is No Anti-Zionism Without Anti-Semitism.” Some artists and artistic teams were therefore being accused of anti-Semitism.2 The main culmination of this polemical critique was during the opening, when Taring Padi’s work, entitled People’s Justice, contained images of the Mossad and the CIA, which were considered to have been involved in the historical processes where the artwork had originated, especially in relation to the context of violence and the dictatorship in Indonesia (1965-1998).
A different meaning in the artwork, however, emerged when it was located in the context of Germany, with its dark history of the Holocaust. The atrocities conducted by Adolf Hitler against the Jews decades ago were driven by the idea of German superiority, and this antisemitic ideology has left a deep guilt within the German people. It later left a moral imperative prescribing that the state of Israel should not be criticized. The polemic continued and was welcomed by politicians and even debated in Parliament. This then made the artists feel that documenta fifteen had been instrumentalized as a political playground. The tensions continued, with the framing by the Germany mainstream media that documenta fifteen carried the same ideology that had prevailed during Hitler’s time, by purveying antisemitic overtones.
What is missing from the narrative is, however, the complexity of the Lumbung practices and also the issues faced by the world communities, which have become narrowed down to just the Israel and Palestine conflict being fraught with anti-Semitism. Seeing this simplification, I am reminded of Stuart Hall’s proposition that there is always a reduction in every representation. In this case, it is important to examine whose voices are heard, whose voices are excluded, and who may be empowered or disempowered by a certain story. For a moment, my mind was reminded too of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, when she eloquently explained the dangers of a single story:
Reflecting on the polemic, I went back through the story notes from the assemblies and saw the discrepancy between what was told in single stories and what had happened during the public reception process. At this point, I also realized the role of harvesting. Besides helping to see the history of progress, it also bears witness to what is being talked about, what knowledge exists. Harvesting is not only preventing knowledge from disappearing, but becomes a way to listen to multiple voices and views other than mainstream and authoritative institutional voices.