Reading The Aesthetic Philosophy of Javanese Architecture From the Philosophy of Semar: Just a Random Thought

“semar” and his significance in jawanese philosophy

Semar is one of several Javanese mythical characters that can be found in the Javanese version of Mahabarat. He is the incarnation of the highest god – Batara Guru. Paradoxically, this Sublime character incarnated in the form of a grotesque being instead of a picture perfect one. That is not the only paradox embedded in the character of Semar, he also hold the paradox of spiritual teacher and clown-servant, sacred and profane, wisdom and foolishness, masculine and feminine.

Siapakah yang bulat seperti nyiru itu, itulah Kyai Lurah Semar, ya Samar, Betara Ismaya. Ia bernama Semar, juga Samar, sebab Kyai Semar berkuncung seperti laki-laki, tetapi ia montok dengan buah dada besar seperti orang perempuan. Ia tak gagah tak rupawan, memang tak berupalah ia, akan tetapi sesungguhnya Kyai Lurah Semar itu Dewa yang menjelma, ia sebenarnya Hyang Ismaya, juga Hyang Asmarasanta, Dewa berujud manusia, di dunia merupakan pamong keturunanBrahma/Wisnu

(Suseno, Franz Magniz; 1984)[i]

Who is that person as round as the moon, that’s Kyai Semar, yes Samar, the lord Ismaya. He is named Semar, Samar (ambiguous). Hair style with a topknot like men, plumped with big breasts like a woman. He is neither handsome nor beautiful, he just doesn’t have the looks, but Kyai Semar is god incarnated, he actually is Lord Ismaya, Lord Asmarasanta, the highest god in the form of man, in the world he is a the servant of the descendants of Brahma/Vishnu.

These paradoxes are often seen as the ambiguity or the oddity of Semar, the true spiritual realm of the Javanese people, the realm that at its end would guide them to shape their physical realm, including their architecture.

 

Jawanese architecture seen and built trough the point of view of other

Through out the ages, the government that ruled over the people of java has contributed to the shaping of the environment, especially the architecture and the city, from the age of Hinduism to the age of postmodernism. Yet, the resistance of the Javanese way in acting towards their environment seen in how they transformed the formally planned city into a more organic places that’s fit to their transcription of the Javanese philosophy, a philosophy that is personified in the mythological character of Semar.

The resistance of this philosophy is also seen in how the character of Semar and its philosophy remains the center of the wayang performance from the age of Hinduism to this age of postmodernism. The philosophy of Semar is considered to be the highest source of wisdom/ judgment that is adaptable in any century.

The binnary of aesthetic in architecture

We often see our world of in binary system that tends to be unfair. This binary system is rooted back from the world of Plato, where he see the world as ambiguous and to “understand” that ambiguous world, instead of trying to comprehend with it he put the world into a system of dualism that is more logical. Derrida’s critique of Plato’s world is the emergence of a binary system which tends to destroy (in Derrida’sview) the true reality. This Platonic world limits something on one position, if not this, it means that it is the other. It closed the door to the things that are “both” this “and” that. This sometimes leads to the domination of one to the other.

The destruction of things caused by platonic dualism is clearly seen in the history of mankind where colonialism happens because of the colonialist saw the people apart from their kind is the “other”. The world could only be at peace if it stands on one rule, a perfect utopia. This was why the colonialist always shaped the place of the colony according to their own view, their own needs. Cities are built for their political interest to control “the other”, architectures are built according to their references. Architecture is also faced with a similar binary system, as in Wilson’s essay on the Ethics of Architecture[ii] that architecture is faced with a condition that requires a choosing between being ‘pure art’ or ‘pure pragmatism’. He finally took another way out by placing architecture as a ‘practical art’ which includes both. Then he put the task of architecture ethics  to determine the position of a work of architecture at a point on a three-dimensional space with cross axis x, y, z, which represents technology, function and form. This, at a glance, looks like an elimination of the binary position of architecture because we can put any architecture in any position within the three-dimensional world of thinking of technique, form and function.

What was once only consisted of two distinctions: fine art and ‘naïve’ functionalism, transformed to various combinations of the coordinates of practical art.  Apparently, it looked like it had solved the conflict of aesthetics, but the actual architecture is still hovering in the coordinate of opposition between purely aesthetic value of art and pragmatism, it was just extending the shades of gray. What was once a black/ white opposition transformed to black / dark gray / gray / light gray / white positions. Practically, if it is not the Art of a  palace, it must be the art of “others”, such as a house or hut, or perhaps a warehouse. The palace entitle to a more degree of freedom in expression because it is more of an art than a warehouse which has a higher degree in function and technique. A Monument has a greater artistic freedom more than the palace. It still is not possible for an architecture object to have a multi-realm world: both palace and hut, both simple and complex, both sacred and profane.

This binary position will always occur as long as the worldview in use is the occidental worldview that has an inclination to project the self to the world (empathy), than making an abstraction of the world. The first way of viewing the world always search for the absolute truth, The Sublime. Kant argued that aesthetic judgement determines not only the beautiful but also ‘the sublime’, which induces an emotion of awe before forms that ‘do violence to the imagination’ and whose nature is not just ‘without purpose’ but is positively opposed to any sense of purpose. That argument closed the door to the co-existence  of a multi-realm world, the presence of the sublime and the mortal, the sacred and the profane, the beauty and the grotesque, a concept that is not an unfamiliar to the eastern philosophy who always try to see the world trough abstraction.

Aesthetics of ugliness (Grotesque Aesthetic)

Aesthetics do not have to be something beautiful. This opinion about aesthetic appear in the western architecture in the age of Renaissance. The grotesque aesthetic of Rozenkrans (1853), says that what is bad is part of the aesthetics, just as pain is a part of biology, the evil part of ethics, the injustice of the law, and sin is part of the science of religion or theology. Ugliness is always relational to what is beautiful because it is not perfect without ugliness.

Ugliness most easily displayed in the poetry than the other arts. This inspires a question, if the architecture is also a part of art, as stated by Wilson, it is not possible to present architecture of these two things together without exclusivity or superiority.

This brings to a hypothesis of ‘semar’ as a theory of aesthetics in Javanese philosophy, where Semar with his ambiguity of all realms is a personification that held the ultimate value of judgment. It is a worthy aesthetic theory to scraped for architecture, realizing that the  traditional Javanese house has a special place where named peringgitan (puppetry) located between pendapa (front hall) and dalem (inner house), which is reserved for Javanese puppet show. This might be possible by identifying the archic matrix of the Semar philosophy. The Archic Matrix as mentioned in Watson’s “Architectonic of meaning” would identify the Perpectives and the Realities of the philosophy.

Semar: a multirealm being

The clown-servants that exist in Javanese version of Mahabarata appear as a playful interlude in the middle of the play. They are so relaxed and full of jokes. They are loyal servant pandawa. In fact this clown-servants has important roles in guiding the knights to their goals.

With an odd shape, such as women but men, stature fat and not handsome, not too personable. Semar plays a major role in controlling the Knights. He is their advisor if they are in trouble, a counselor when they are sad, a friend when they are lonely. Semar, in the Javanese Mahabarat is the one who actually holds a key role in the victory of the Pandavas. If Semar leave the Pandavas, they always loose.

This paradoxical character of Semar is also reflected to the surface of the puppet clearly. Semar evil character and kindness are well described by the figure of Semar itself. In the world of puppetry, the character of each character is portrayed through the physical features that exist on the puppet figure. Therefore, by only seeing it one can conclude that the physical character of each puppet character.

Semar is the picture of the presence of ‘sacred and profane’ the most naive and most perfect. Unlike Krishna who is very prudent with the ‘godliness’. Semar is really revealing a figure of foolishness, as well as figure of wisdom. He is one hundred percent of the profane and one hundred percent sacred.

References

Sindhunata, Menulis Wayang dengan Estetika “Semar”, Majalah Kebudayaan Umum ‘Basis’, Vol. XLIV, No. 3,  Maret 1995.Suseno, Franz Magnis, Etika Jawa: Sebuah Analisa Falsafi tntang Kebijaksanaan Hidup Jawa, Gramedia, 1984.

Watson, Walter, The Architectonic of Meaning: Foundation of the New Pluralism, University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Wilson, Colin St. John., Architectural Reflections: Studies in the philosophy and practice of architecture, Butterworth Architecture, Oxford, 1992.

Zoetmulder, P.J., Manunggaling Kawula Gusti, Gramedia, 1990

---

[i] Suseno, Franz Magnis, Etika Jawa: Sebuah Analisa Falsafi tntang Kebijaksanaan Hidup Jawa, Gramedia, 1984, h. 188.

---

[ii] Wilson, Colin St. John., Architectural Reflections: Studies in the philosophy and practice of architecture, Butterworth Architecture, Oxford, 1992.