Vol. 13, No. 2, Christophera Ratnasari Lucius et al.

Contents>> Vol. 13, No. 2

A Study on Indonesian Sociopolitical Design Objects within the Framework of Gesamtkunstwerk

Christophera Ratnasari Lucius,* Imam Santosa,** Widjaja Martokusumo,*** and Adhi Nugraha†

*Doctoral Program in Visual Art and Design, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
Corresponding author’s e-mail: 37019008[at]mahasiswa.itb.ac.id
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6527-3543
**Design and Visual Culture Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
e-mails: imamz[at]itb.ac.id; imamz.santosa[at]gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1241-6893
***Architectural Design Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
e-mail: wmart[at]itb.ac.id
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1756-5916
†Human and Industrial Product Design Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
e-mail: adhinugrahadesign[at]gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6052-9221

DOI: 10.20495/seas.13.2_287

Introduction

The main purpose of this study is to prove the role of the Gesamtkunstwerk idea (TGKWI) in the design of two projects in Indonesia. The development of the two projects was initiated by the government of the Republic of Indonesia in order to present the face of Indonesia on the international stage. The first project is the Indonesian Legislative Building Complex, which was designed by the architect Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo and built in 1965, during the administration of Soekarno, the first president of the Republic of Indonesia. The second is the interior and objects of the Electricity and New Energy Museum, designed by Widagdo and built in 1995, during the rule of Soeharto, the second president of Indonesia.

According to the principles of Gesamtkunstwerk,¹⁾ attempts are made to combine art forms or designs along with other features. Fátima Pombo (2014) described the creation of an atmosphere of well-being and fruitful space, literally and metaphorically, as a total work of art in the productions of the Belgian interior designer Jules Wabbes. Anatoli Tsampa (2017) demonstrated a transmedial, global, total work of art through a synthesis of media, mythical/archetypal subject matter, social relevance, and philosophical concerns. Steven Brown and Ellen Dissanayake (2018) highlighted speech sounds, singing voices, instrumental music, and dance as the main features of Gesamtkunstwerk, which can be found in the aesthetic practice of artwork as a whole as well as in religious ceremonies. Studies proving the implementation of TGKWI focus on the perspective of unifying various types of art, designs, or features. This is the definition of Gesamtkunstwerk: the amalgamation of various art forms, without any one form dominating (Neumann 1951, 4) but rather all forms making use of one another (Koepnick 2017, 277).

Éric Michaud (2019) described an understanding of the origins of TGKWI from Wilhelm Richard Wagner with two variations. Wagner’s essay on the Gesamtkunstwerk aesthetic aimed to achieve gemeinsame Kunstwerk der Zukunft, which translates as “future collective artwork” as well as “future communal artwork.” The first is a perspective that emphasizes the collective realization of work by the community, while the second emphasizes work realized for the people (Michaud 2019, 2).

Previously, two different ways of understanding total design were explained by Mark Wigley (1998). Wigley’s explanation of architectural control is relevant to the two perspectives in understanding the meaning of total design: the first is the implosion of design, in which design is focused inward on a single intense point; while the second is the explosion of design, in which the design expands outward to touch every possible point in the world (Wigley 1998, 1).

This study agrees with the two perspectives for understanding TGKWI as proposed by Michaud and Wigley. A review of the theoretical framework explains these two perspectives in more detail. According to Wigley and Michaud, TGKWI must be implemented in design objects through “two perspectives from opposite directions”²⁾ at the same time. The first is the implosion of design (Wigley 1998, 1) or future collective artworks (Michaud 2019, 3), which is relevant to Wagner’s TGKWI. The second is the explosion of design (Wigley 1998, 1) or future communal artworks (Michaud 2019, 2), which is relevant to the Bauhaus TGKWI.

The results achieved by the practical implementation of TGKWI through these “two perspectives from opposite directions” will be demonstrated in two design case studies in Jakarta, Indonesia. The first is the Indonesian Legislative Building Complex, and the second is the Electricity and New Energy Museum. An analysis of design objects that encompass sociopolitical values reveals the role of TGKWI in realizing the vision of two Indonesian presidents to present the character of the Indonesian nation. It is important to note that the mention of “two perspectives from opposite directions” is not intended to provide a new definition of TGKWI but merely to reveal the role of TGKWI ideas in the architectural and design objects in the case studies.

Method

This study on the implementation of the TGKWI idea in two designs in Indonesia uses qualitative methods through historical research, case studies, and narrative inquiry.

Since the focus of this study is TGKWI, that is discussed at the outset. Based on the description by Wigley (1998) and Michaud (2019), historical research through a review of the literature provides “two perspectives from opposite directions” to understand the implementation of TGKWI. On the one hand is the idea of the origin of Gesamtkunstwerk based on Wagner’s perspective; on the other is the idea of modern Gesamtkunstwerk based on the perspective of the Bauhaus School. “Two perspectives from opposite directions” for understanding TGKWI becomes the analytical tool for the case studies of the two design artifacts in Indonesia.

The first step in this analysis is an overview of Soejoedi’s and Widagdo’s German educational background, to highlight the influence of Bauhaus ideas on their designs.³⁾ This is followed by a brief description of the role of the Indonesian government in the development planning of the two case studies and Soejoedi’s and Widagdo’s involvement in their respective designs.

In design discipline research, design objects function as reported evidence and are used to interpret arguments (Biggs 2002, 20). Objects that are instructional works are called artifacts, because they display the structure of actions within cognitive frames (O. F. Smith 2007, 5). Soejoedi’s architectural work being analyzed here is the Indonesian Legislative Building Complex (TILBC), which was built in 1965. This was the first major project in Indonesia that demonstrated the technological capabilities of Indonesian experts at the time (Budi et al. 1995, 22). Widagdo’s interior work being analyzed is the Electricity and New Energy Museum (TEANEM), which was inaugurated in 1995. The first modern science museum in Indonesia, this is located in Taman Mini Indonesia Indah (Beautiful Indonesia Miniature Park; BIMP), which houses projects that provide educational value (Suradi et al. 1989, 11).

Robert Yin has stated that the case study approach requires direct observation of the object along with interviews with associated sources and the designer (Yin 2018, 43). Therefore, observations were made at TEANEM in April 2022; these focused on the design and arrangement of displays of museum objects. Data collection and documentation were done through photography, video shooting, archive collections from the museum, and 1995 photos owned by Widagdo. Observations at TILBC were made in July 2022; these focused on observing architectural forms, spatial interior arrangements, and works of art found throughout the TILBC area. Data collection and documentation were done through photography, video shooting, and archive collections from the Indonesian Legislative Museum.

The limited literature on Soejoedi’s architectural design concept and Widagdo’s interior design concept requires a narrative case study approach. This inquiry focuses on the meaning obtained from exploring the experiences and perspectives of the informants (Kim 2016, 215). Data and information on Soejoedi were obtained by interviewing his assistant, the architect Yuswadi Saliya.⁴⁾ Data and information on Widagdo’s designer were obtained through direct interviews with him. The interviews with the two informants were open and guided by questions on the implementation of TGKWI in the two case studies.

Theoretical Framework: The Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk

According to Wigley (1998) and Michaud (2019), the definition of Gesamtkunstwerk denotes two different perspectives of the Gesamtkunstwerk idea (TGKWI), which in this study are referred to as “two perspectives from opposite directions.” The first is Wagner’s perspective, which is generally taken to be the origin of Gesamtkunstwerk. The second is Gesamtkunstwerk according to the Bauhaus, which is generally viewed as the modern version of Gesamtkunstwerk.

The German composer Wagner (1813–83) became a major figure in TGKWI both musically and spiritually during the Romantic era (Tsampa 2017, 20). According to Alfred Neumann (1951, 2), the word “Gesamtkunstwerk” is defined only in Wagner’s (1850) aesthetic essay Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft (The artwork of the future).⁵⁾ TGKWI according to Wagner means resynthesizing forms of art that are historically separate, such as dance, music, and poetry. Wagner’s TGKWI means a work unit in which all parts are integrated evenly (Neumann 1951, 224), mutually utilize one another (Koepnick 2017, 277), and create a completely new meaning (Kultennann 1995, 165). Wagner’s TGKWI became a model for experiments involving various genres and composite media in Modernism (Koepnick 2017, 274).

A very modern form of TGKWI appears in the Bauhaus School⁶⁾ (M. W. Smith 2007, 48; Roberts 2011, 159; Trimingham 2016, 95; Munch 2021, 9). The manifesto for the founding of the Bauhaus School in 1919⁷⁾ was an invitation from the architect Walter Gropius (1883–1969) to the members of the Bauhaus to create a Gesamtkunstwerk cathedral that could restore a divided society (Michaud 2019, 7). Gropius repeatedly tried to find forms of shared ideas through activities such as collaboration, coordination, collectives, and integration. In the Bauhaus School, Gesamtkunstwerk was developed by the painter Lázló Moholy-Nagy (1895–1946) into the idea of Gesamtwerk, namely, the synthesis of moments in life to form total life (Moholy-Nagy 1927). Through the idea of Gesamtwerk, humans explore their senses to find alternative forms of future space and become the media that adapt to the nature of modern society (Koepnick 2017, 283).

The term “Gesamtkunstwerk” is generally accepted in German as well as in English through several translations,⁸⁾ one of which is “synthesis of the arts.” Since this translation underlines the word “synthesis,” which describes the unifying connection of different elements, this translation of Gesamtkunstwerk is relevant to the present study. “Synthesis” comes from the Greek word sýnthesis, which means various forms of knowledge put together to form complete knowledge (Machauer 2009, 14). Based on this philosophical view, on the one hand synthesis is understood as a unifying activity and on the other as the whole gained through it (Machauer 2009, 14).

This basic understanding of the word “synthesis” is relevant to Wigley and Michaud’s explanation of the two perspectives for understanding TGKWI. According to Wigley (1998, 1), the perspective of the architect who organizes various forms points to Wagner Gesamtkunstwerk while the perspective of the architect who designs all objects points to Bauhaus Gesamtkunstwerk. According to Michaud (2019, 1), the second perspective—Bauhaus Gesamtkunstwerk—is a reworking of the first in the Bauhaus School program. The two TGKWI perspectives are connected, and they must be implemented together for a design object to be regarded as a Gesamtkunstwerk object.

According to Wagner’s perspective, namely, the collation of different art forms to produce a single meaning, a Gesamtkunstwerk design object does not show the dominance of one design form. Wagner’s TGKWI, as manifested in architecture, is the focusing of design inward on a single intense point (Wigley 1998, 1). Wigley calls this the implosion of design, which takes over a space, subjecting every detail, every surface, to an overarching vision. Meanwhile, Michaud has defined Wagner’s TGKWI as the collective work of art of the future (Michaud 2019, 3). Michaud’s definition makes a Gesamtkunstwerk object the embodiment of a collective work of art or communal work. Based on this description, a design object resulting from a synthesis of various scientific disciplines implements Wagner’s TGKWI if the object can provide a new design meaning for the benefit of human life.

The second perspective on Gesamtkunstwerk design refers to the Bauhaus idea of being able to meet universal human needs. Bauhaus TGKWI is defined by Wigley as the expansion of design to touch every possible point in the world (Wigley 1998, 1). Wigley called this the explosion of design, the ability of an architect to design everything from teaspoon-sized objects to urban planning. Meanwhile, Michaud defines Bauhaus TGKWI as the communal work of art of the future (Michaud 2019, 3). Michaud’s definition provides an understanding of a Gesamtkunstwerk object as fulfilling the needs of the public in a homogeneous manner. Based on this description, a design object is considered to implement Bauhaus TGKWI if the new meaning given by the object can satisfy the broadest possible needs of human life.

A design object implements TGKWI practically, because the object is a synthesis of various scientific disciplines that satisfy universal human needs. This is in line with the perspective of the Bauhaus School, which is oriented toward the synthesis of all aspects of life (Michaud 2019, 10). Referring also to Bauhaus, the practical implementation of TGKWI includes more modern forms of media, namely, architecture, interior design, product design, media design, and others. TGKWI provides an aesthetic laboratory for the reintegration of the auditory, visual, and tactile senses, in which modern subjects can explore different artistic settings (Koepnick 2017, 278).

Indonesian Legislative Building Complex: Implementation of the Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk by Architect Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo

Soejoedi (1928–81), the architect of TILBC,⁹⁾ was a pioneer of modern architecture in Indonesia and set up architecture schools in the nation’s big cities. He was an outstanding representative of a German education, with his work being formalistic, measurable, and well defined (Yuswadi 2003, 111). In Soejoedi’s artistic approach, form, function, and material came together in geometric compositions (Bagoes 2013, 181). Soejoedi used two types of aesthetic inspiration to immerse himself in design matters, namely, the harmonization of small and large universe targets (Budi 2011, 44). His aesthetic inspiration came from his interest in Indonesian vernacular architecture along with his experience in Europe.

Soejoedi graduated from Technische Universität (TU) Berlin in 1960. He returned to Indonesia in 1961 and became the head of the Department of Architecture at the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB). He laid the foundation for an architectural education that emphasized the exploration of modern technology in construction and building materials (Bagoes 2013, 181). Soejoedi’s final project at TU Berlin, which was exhibited in the Department of Architecture at ITB, reflected a mix of Indonesian and Prussian traditions (Yuswadi 2012, 110). The Western ideas in Soejoedi’s architectural design were the result of his educational and apprenticeship experiences in Europe in 1954–61.¹⁰⁾

Soejoedi won an architectural design competition for his TILBC project. TILBC was originally set up as a political venue to complement the sports complex that was built in 1962 for the the Fourth Asian Games in Jakarta (Budi et al. 1995, 17). Through a Presidential Decree dated March 8, 1965, President Soekarno (1901–70), the first president of the Republic of Indonesia, assigned Minister of Public Works and Energy Soeprajogi to carry out the construction of a project for political activities, namely, the Conference of the New Emerging Forces (Conefo).¹¹⁾ The Conefo project had to be completed before the commemoration of the Proclamation of Independence of the Republic of Indonesia on August 17, 1966. The groundbreaking of the first pillar of the Conefo project was carried out on April 19, 1965, coinciding with the Celebration of the Decade of the Asian-African Conference in Jakarta (Budi 2011, 65).

The Conefo project is one of the monumental projects built by President Soekarno after the proclamation of Indonesian independence in 1945. “Monumental project” was the term used by President Soekarno to celebrate the independence of the Indonesian nation through architectural works (Yuke 2023). This term encapsulates the ideas of glory and immortality embodied in the unity of architecture, art, and science. Through the 1961–69 Pola Pembangunan Nasional Semesta Berencana (Planned universal national development pattern) policy, President Soekarno prioritized the construction of monumental projects for developing the personality of the Indonesian nation (Bambang 2023).

The Conefo project consisted of several buildings complete with interior and landscaped design areas, all approved by President Soekarno, who had given certain design specifications: the buildings had to reflect Indonesian personality traits, and they had to display the excellence of Indonesian design through their grandeur and ability to respond to modern challenges (Budi et al. 1995, 20). The time constraints for implementing the Conefo project development were overcome by mobilizing resources from various government departments and agencies, private companies, as well as young workers and students from various universities in Indonesia. The Conefo project, which was developed by Wahono, chairman of the Indonesian Legislature, was touted as implementing a spirit of togetherness (Budi et al. 1995, xvi). The collaborative work between technical and non-technical personnel transformed the project into a field laboratory that produced technical and management cadres for the future implementation of modern development in Indonesia. The Conefo project was the first large-scale building project in the country (Budi et al. 1995, 22). However, a change in the political situation disrupted the allocation of the facilities. Since May 1968, Conefo has been the official place of work and trials of Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia (People’s Consultative Assembly and People’s Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia) (Budi et al. 1995, 61).

Soejoedi was appointed by the Indonesian government to be the head of the Engineering Planning and Supervision Team. He designed four separate facilities¹²⁾ for the Conefo political venue: the Nusantara Building as the main conference building, the Nusantara III Building as the secretariat building, the Nusantara IV Building as the banquet hall, and the Nusantara V Building as the auditorium (Fig. 1). The separation of venues was based also on time considerations, so that construction could be carried out simultaneously by different contractors (Budi et al. 1995, 23).

 

 

The description below shows how Soejoedi implemented the TGKWI idea to realize President Soekarno’s mandate. Referring to the “two perspectives from opposite directions” of Wagner and Bauhaus, where design objects are a synthesis of various scientific disciplines that give new meaning and fulfill universal human needs, TGKWI was implemented in the fields of architecture, interiors, and landscape design. The change in the designation of facilities from the Conefo project to TILBC in 1968 had no effect on the function of each building. Therefore, the analysis of this case study is carried out along two tracks: as the Conefo project as well as TILBC.

Soejoedi designed the main conference building or Nusantara Building as the main building in the Conefo project. This was based on the major activities carried out at the building, namely, meetings for making important decisions. On the first floor are five meeting rooms—called wacanasabha rooms—with different seating capacities. On the second floor is the main conference room, with a capacity of around 1,700 seats, which is called Grahasabha Paripurna. In keeping with President Soekarno’s stipulations, Soejoedi designed the Nusantara Building to display the personality of the Indonesian nation. Its embodiment in TILBC is the values that must be fulfilled in the sessions of the Indonesian Legislative Body as a representative of the Indonesian people.

The Nusantara Building is the venue for sessions of the People’s Consultative Assembly and the People’s Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia. It has a domed roof with two parts, with the edges raised and truncated at a point (Fig. 2a). The two-part shape of the roof was the result of experiments by Soejoedi and his assistant Nurpontjo, and the construction was approved by Sutami (Budi et al. 1995, 43). Saliya (author interview, 2022) stated that there are several interpretations of this form, but the most appropriate is the “yes or no” opinion symbol. The symbolism of the two opinions shows that there are two attitudes that must be chosen by the representatives of the Indonesian people for making decisions in the Indonesian Legislative Body sessions.

 

 

In the Commission II Meeting Room is a mural titled Kesaksian (Testimony), by the painter Ahmad Sadeli (1924–87). This mural is made of wall paint and mixed medium (Fig. 2b). The composition is not intended to express any particular illustration or symbol. In the middle of the mural is a dominant black spot that is similar to the shape of an eye. Black spots are a manifestation of eyes that look attentively even though the person does not show himself (DPR RI 1990, 15). The mural is seen as symbolizing the presence of an invisible supervisor, so that the people’s representatives can be held accountable to the Indonesian nation for their decisions.

In the Commission V Meeting Room there is a relief titled Gotong Royong (Mutual cooperation), which is the work of the sculptor and painter But Muchtar (1930–93). This relief is made of copperplate material using a welding technique (Fig. 2c). Gotong Royong shows a group of people holding hands (DPR RI 1990, 19). The human reliefs are of different heights and sizes, while the sun shape reflects the brightness of life. The work is seen as a symbol of the need for cooperation to achieve the ideals of the Indonesian state. This collaboration must be carried out by all levels of Indonesian society regardless of differences based on ethnicity, religion, and race and relations between groups.

President Soekarno’s stipulations also covered the exterior layout of the Conefo project (Budi et al. 1995, 18). The person responsible for designing the outer area was Slamet Wirasondjaja (1935–2016), assisted by Soelarto, Soemardjan, Wahyudi, and Zaini, who supported the monumentality of Soejoedi’s architectural works. The placement of the four buildings in this wide open space gives the impression of monumental architecture. The dominant horizontal planes and lines of the four structures can reduce the monumental impression of the Conefo project requested by President Soekarno. Slamet Wirasondjaja presented monumental axes in his landscape design to strengthen the monumental impression (Budi et al. 1995, 47). He realized the monumental axes through hard and soft landscape designs (Fig. 3a): the former by a row of fountains at the front of the Nusantara Building, and the latter in the form of green elements at the back of the building. The design of other exterior elements was guided by the monumental axes.

 

 

On the monumental axis in the front of the Nusantara Building is a statue of an aesthetic element that is also the work of the sculptor and painter But Muchtar. This statue is made of an iron frame construction covered with copper sheets and embedded in a concrete foundation (Fig. 3c). The statue is a spatial amplifier to achieve the architectural unity of the four masses in TILBC (DPR RI 1990, 14). The sculptural aesthetic elements are the supporting elements, reinforcing elements, and limiting elements of the entire TILBC design. The aesthetic elements of the statue represent the hopes of the Indonesian people in the past, present, and future. The value of spatial penetration is derived from the shape of the statue, which has volume and space that is not dense.

The relief on the east facade of the Nusantara IV Building is titled Batu-batu Pembangunan (Development stone). The relief, made of lightweight concrete, is 63 meters long and 5 meters wide (Fig. 3b). Batu-batu Pembangunan is in the original form of a traditional jaja pattern arrangement from Bali, which was made as an offering to God (DPR RI 1990, 15). This pattern, which consists of shapes in a geometric arrangement, describes various aspects of Indonesian people’s lives that together build the future of the nation.

President Soekarno required the greatness of Indonesian engineering design to be displayed in the Conefo project (Budi et al. 1995, 20). This demanded an architectural form that displayed technological advances, new constructions, and new building materials that were able to meet the challenges of the times.

The domed roof of the Nusantara Building consists of two parts whose ends are raised, with the truncated parts meeting at a point. The roof arc structure, with one meeting point, plunges below the ground surface to ensure its load is distributed evenly (Fig. 4a). The shape of the roof is the result of an experiment to make a pure dome-shaped roof mock-up. Experiments through unplanned manual work led to the decision to produce an architectural work, along with its technological completion. The roof shape of the Nusantara Building meets the requirement to respond to the challenges of the times through the use of new construction and new building materials.

 

 

The design of the Nusantara III Building or secretariat building, with a total of nine floors, has an outer area as a receiving room for the sports venue complex, which lies to the east of the TILBC area. The sun visor material installed on the western facade of the building reinforces the impression of a positive outdoor space design presented by the Nusantara III Building (Fig. 4b), as does the use of new building materials for the Nusantara IV Building or banquet hall. The Nusantara IV Building is in the International Style, namely, a simple and modern volume-over-mass architectural form (Fig. 4c).

The architectural design analysis and design objects explain how Soejoedi implemented TGKWI in the Conefo or TILBC project design. The synthesis between architecture and various design objects in the design of the Nusantara Building produces a new meaning for the activities carried out by the Legislature, which represents the expectations of the Indonesian people. The new meaning is that decisions on Indonesia’s future are based on the character of the Indonesian nation. The Nusantara Building may be viewed by the national and international public as a symbol of the Indonesian nation’s character. In this context, the design of the outer spaces strengthens the symbolism of the Nusantara Building. Thus, TILBC is viewed by the Indonesian people as representing them and by the international community as representing the character of the Indonesian nation.

The above analysis explains how Soejoedi implemented TGKWI to achieve excellence in design works by Indonesian technicians. Experiments with materials produced new architectural forms that adapted to technological developments. Soejoedi’s demand for modern technology in the selection of materials for the Conefo project resulted in an International Style development that may be compared with modern buildings in the Western world.

Electricity and New Energy Museum: Implementation of the Idea of Gesamtkunstwerk by Designer Widagdo

Widagdo (b. May 1, 1934) was the interior designer as well as exhibition designer at the Electricity and New Energy Museum (TEANEM). His works emphasize honest, geometric, functional forms and detailed processing (Agus and Yan 2002, 77). Widagdo’s works have triggered the growth of interior design services in Indonesia. His interior design of the Indonesian Pavilion at the 1970 Osaka Expo was the starting point for the recognition of Indonesian interior designers (HDII 2004, 12). Widagdo was one of the founders of the Indonesian interior designers association¹³⁾ in 1983 and the Indonesian Design Center in 1995 (Widagdo 2011, 224).

He graduated from the Staatliche Akademie der Bildende Künste Stuttgart in 1964. After his return to Indonesia, Widagdo taught at the Bandung Institute of Technology’s Department of Fine Arts from 1966 until he retired in 2004. He said (author interview, 2022) that two of his lecturers at Stuttgart were students from the Bauhaus School: Hannes Neuner (1906–78)¹⁴⁾ was a Bauhaus student in 1929 who taught the Basic Course and selected Widagdo to join his class; Herbert Hirche (1910–2002)¹⁵⁾ was a Bauhaus student in 1930 who taught interior architecture. Widagdo explained that Hirche’s teaching method was not instructional in nature but left design decisions to the subjectivity of his students.

As mentioned earlier, TEANEM is located in the BIMP¹⁶⁾ area, Kramat Jati, DKI Jakarta 13560. BIMP was built under President Soeharto (1921–2008), the second president of the Republic of Indonesia, and was inaugurated on April 20, 1975. It is a modern ethnographic garden constructed by the Indonesian government in an effort to advance the Indonesian state (Yulia 2016, 121). BIMP is designed to reflect the diversity of Indonesia’s population and represent Pancasila, the five principles laid down by the state for political and social order, the philosophy of the Indonesian state (Hitchcock 2005, 45). BIMP is a permanent and modern tool for introducing Indonesia to other nations, so that the outside world ostensibly has a correct understanding of the country (Suradi et al. 1989, 9).

BIMP showcases the culture of each region of Indonesia. A glimpse of Indonesian culture is displayed in the provincial administrative area, which is equipped with arts, educational, and recreational facilities. BIMP’s target market is the domestic community, and its purpose in attracting visitors is to increase their sense of national pride while adding scientific treasures. BIMP is a counterbalance to Indonesia’s economic development and is directed at the development of projects in the mental-spiritual field (Suradi et al. 1989, 11).

Parmanto, the coordinating officer for development at the Electricity and New Energy Museum when the observation was carried out in April 2022, stated that TEANEM was the first modern science museum in Indonesia (author interview, 2022). TEANEM is one of 18 museums in the BIMP region. As an educational tool complementing BIMP, TEANEM has the duty of being a science ambassador with the goal of building an energy-efficient Indonesian society. For more than 25 years, TEANEM has been active in developing scientific understanding of electrical energy among the Indonesian people. The TEANEM development concept was designed in 1990 by Minister of Mines and Energy Ginanjar Kartasasmita, on the thirtieth anniversary of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the hundredth anniversary of Indonesia’s Electricity Day. Exhibition objects as tangible objects are used by museums to represent certain intangible concepts (Wood and Latham 2014, 42). Based on this idea, TEANEM presents a collection of objects that show the development of science and technology with regard to electrical and renewable energy, as well as information on its various applications in everyday life.

TEANEM occupies two hectares, with a total building area of 6,500 square meters. The architecture consists of four building masses depicting the shape of an atom with one proton surrounded by three electrons. The Electricity Pavilion, designed to illustrate the atomic arrangement of protons, is the central building and is surrounded by three other buildings: the New Energy Pavilion, the Fossil Energy Pavilion, and the Conventional Energy Pavilion (Fig. 5). Parmanto stated that the construction of the TEANEM development was directed toward the future, so the Electricity Pavilion and the New Energy Pavilion were built first (author interview, 2022). Based on the April 2022 observations of the research team, the TEANEM development includes the two buildings.

 

 

The basic concept behind the TEANEM design is to provide a comprehensive demonstration of electrical energy (LAPI-ITB 1993, 1) that can provide a correct understanding of the theory and basic principles of electricity, convey an overview of the production and distribution of electrical energy, and show the use of electricity for industrial purposes and daily household needs. A comprehensive demonstration of science and technology with regard to electrical energy requires the simultaneous involvement of several disciplines. The best strategy is to have interdisciplinary teams, thus increasing the possibility of multidimensional decision making (Pekarik et al. 2014, 18). For this reason, TEANEM formed a team of experts from the fields of electricity, physics, education, visual communication design, display product design, and museum interior design (LAPI-ITB 1993, 3). The team designed objects that could be displayed in the museum to explain the principles of electrical energy. The objects embody a synthesis of concepts from various scientific disciplines and provide a new experience when visiting TEANEM.

The description below shows how Widagdo implemented the idea of Gesamtkunstwerk to realize President Soeharto’s mandate. Referring to the “two perspectives from opposite directions” of TGKWI from Wagner and Bauhaus, where design objects embody a synthesis of various scientific disciplines in order to satisfy universal human needs, the implementation of TGKWI in designing the interior and museum objects of TEANEM are described below.

The main purpose of a visit to TEANEM is to learn about scientific and technological developments in the rapidly progressing field of electrical and renewable energy. This information is shared by each museum object through educational methods that are informative but not analytical, popular but not scientifically deep, and recreational but do not demand reasoning (LAPI-ITB 1993, 2).

TEANEM shares information on the science and technology of potential sources of geothermal energy and their use in everyday life (Fig. 6). Decisions on display objects and visitor experiences are made by a team of experts in electricity, education, product design, visual communication design, and interior design.

 

 

TEANEM also uses a team of experts to share knowledge about the potential sources of solar energy and its use in everyday life: electricity experts weigh in on the potential conversion of solar energy into electrical energy; education experts formulate informative, recreational, and popular ways to educate visitors about the use of solar energy sources; product designers design models of solar energy sources; and visual communication designers put information into a two-dimensional display so that visitors’ attention is focused on information about potential solar energy sources. The interior designer combines the inputs from the various experts to devise a display object for TEANEM (Fig. 7).

 

 

Knowledge about the electric power system is conveyed to visitors through displays showing the generation, high-voltage transmission, and medium-voltage distribution of electrical energy (LAPI-ITB 1993, 6). The expert team’s input was realized by the interior designer as follows: The knowledge object is a compilation of data on a map of the electric power system in Indonesia which displays power plants in two-dimensional media, high-voltage transmission information, and information on the consumption of electricity in Indonesia (Fig. 8). The object provides information on where electrical energy is produced, where it comes from, and where it is used. Visitors gain knowledge through direct interaction with objects, such as lights that can be turned on in the animated map of the electric power system. This TEANEM object is equipped with several other elements to support knowledge about the production and distribution of electrical energy in Indonesia.

 

 

Technology for the production and distribution of electrical energy is also demonstrated in the form of artificial objects. Such TEANEM objects provide information about the location of power plants, which must be far from the load center, where problems are caused by differences in geographical conditions. From such museum objects, visitors learn that hydroelectric power plants are always located far from consumers, while electric steam power plants are located far from cities in order to avoid dust pollution. The model object displays are focused primarily on details of the substation, based on the application of the theory of converting electrical energy into electricity through a transformer.

The analysis of some of the teaching aids above explains the way in which Widagdo implemented TGKWI in designing objects for TEANEM. With reference to the “two perspectives from opposite directions,” on the one hand the definition of TGKWI is a synthesis of knowledge from experts in the fields of electricity, education, product design, visual communication design, and interior design who gave birth to new meanings of objects containing knowledge about electrical and renewable energy. On the other hand, the understanding of TGKWI through informative, recreational, and popular methods in the form of objects at TEANEM gives Indonesians knowledge of electrical and renewable energy, which can help them use such energy wisely.

Conclusion

It is very possible that when Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo designed the architecture of TILBC and Widagdo designed objects for TEANEM, they did not announce that they had implemented TGKWI. However, since the design projects incorporate cross-disciplines, it is certain that the two case studies can be referred to as TGKWI. This is because the synthesis of various disciplines has been identified as the implementation of TGKWI. This practice is, of course, an outcome of Soejoedi’s and Widagdo’s German educational background, where the idea of modern Gesamtkunstwerk is synonymous with Bauhaus.

TILBC is a Gesamtkunstwerk design object. Its synthesis is presented through its architectural form, its various types of artwork that complement the inside and outside of the building, as well as its landscape arrangement. The synthesis gives architecture a new meaning to express the noble values of the Indonesian nation, which are represented by the various activities of Indonesians around the world.

All the museum objects in TEANEM are Gesamtkunstwerk design objects. Each museum object is a synthesis of interdisciplinary knowledge, a realization of concepts from electricity, physics, education, visual communication, display design, and interior museum design. This synthesis is aimed at ensuring that knowledge about the use of electrical energy resonates with all types of visitors, that it raises awareness and concern such that Indonesia becomes known for its energy efficiency.

The above analysis of the architectural design of TILBC and the interior design and museum objects of TEANEM has shown the role of TGKWI in presenting the face of the nation that two presidents of the Republic of Indonesia wanted to convey on the world stage. TILBC displays the political policies that affect the lives of Indonesian people and the ability of Indonesian experts to master modern technology, while TEANEM displays the mastery and utilization of electrical energy science and technology by Indonesians.

Within this framework, it has been underlined that TGKWI must be implemented with “two perspectives from opposite directions.” TGKWI according to Wagner’s definition aims at giving new meaning to design objects through the synthesis of various scientific disciplines. However, as a design object that is owned by the public, its new meaning must also be provided to the public; this aspect refers to TGKWI according to the Bauhaus definition. Implementing two TGKWIs simultaneously allows for a surprising number of meanings in design objects. This study offers ideas for various experiments with TGKWI through the many design forms or features available.

Accepted: August 17, 2023

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Widagdo and Yuswadi Saliya for sharing their expertise on various aspects of Bauhaus ideas.