Dimas Suro saw independence did not stop at Indonesia having a status of being liberated from colonialism. Politically, Indonesia stood as an independent nation with power to determine its relations with other countries. The issue was related to the community experience. “If we talked about Indonesian independence, we are free to work for anybody. We are free to do anything,” said Dimas.

Freedom, he argued, still faced the most basic needs. For some communities, the question about independence could be very simple – “could we still eat tomorrow or not?” Independence was also related to freedom to lead one’s life as long as it did not infringe on other people’s rights. Choices such as food, music, faith, and how to live one’s life were parts of freedom that people had to enjoy.

Wahyu looked at the issue from another perspective. People had tasted the independence from colonialism. The subsequent task was to ensure that the significance of such independence was truly present in daily life. “Independence is still far away and has to be fought on daily basis,” he said. Wahyu argued that each citizen had their own way of attaining that independence. Some people used their political right, some people expressed their criticism, and some other people used art. He gave an example of a musician who express an idea through song. For Wahyu, art could be a medium to fight for freedom and to express issues which community felt.

Persoalan muncul ketika keberanian berbicara mulai dibayangi ketakutan. Masyarakat bisa berpikir berulang kali sebelum menyampaikan kritik karena khawatir terhadap konsekuensi yang mungkin muncul.

Pembicaraan kemudian bergerak pada kondisi kebebasan sipil dan ruang ekspresi masyarakat. Dimas Suro menyinggung pengalaman berbagai kelompok masyarakat dalam menghadapi situasi sosial-politik yang berkembang, termasuk pengalaman kegiatan seni yang tidak selalu berlangsung tanpa kekhawatiran.

Bagi Wahyu, pekerja seni juga menghadapi pertanyaan serupa. Apakah mereka masih memiliki kebebasan untuk menyampaikan kritik? Menurutnya perkembangan teknologi sebenarnya membuka peluang besar. Gagasan dapat disebarkan lebih cepat melalui media sosial. Informasi juga dapat diakses dengan lebih luas. Pada saat bersamaan, ruang digital memiliki persoalan sendiri karena kehidupan masyarakat semakin dipengaruhi algoritma. Masyarakat dapat terus-menerus disuguhi jenis informasi tertentu tanpa sepenuhnya menyadari bagaimana informasi tersebut membentuk cara pandang mereka.

The problem ensued when the confidence to speak was under the shadow of fear. Communities could think and think many times before they decided to express criticism because they feared the repercussions which might follow.

The discussion then moved to the issue of civic liberty and space for community expression. Dimas Suro touched on the experience of community groups in dealing with socio-political development, including art experience which happened under the spectre of fear.

For Wahyu, artworks faced similar issue. Did they have the freedom to express criticism? He argued that technological development opened ample opportunities. Ideas could spread quickly through social media. Information could be accessed more broadly. At the same time, the digital space had its own issues because people’s life was increasingly affected by algorithm. Communities could be constantly inundated with certain information without fully realising how such information shaped their views.

In such situation, art still had a place for resistance. “The more authoritarian, the more vicious a regime is, the more intense repression is against artists,” said Dimas Suro. Art, he argued, not only talked about beauty. It could be a medium to read social situation, express criticism, and express anxieties that would otherwise be difficult to come out in formal situation. The historical experience showed that the fight for Indonesian independence also involved artists and community groups who were often situated at the periphery of historical narrative. Dimas talked about the involvement of workers and artists in Indonesia’s struggle for independence.

He told a story of Mbah Ponco Pangrawit from Solo who had experience in the struggle for independence and in art, and who was then detained in Boven Digul before he sailed to Australia. Under limited circumstances, art remained in use as medium for consolidation and diplomacy. That story showed that a struggle did not always proceed through formal political space. Art and culture could also be part of community movement.

That experience was relevant for the new generation today. The issues might change. If the previous generation faced colonialism head-on, the present generation faced corruption, inequality, oligarchy, environmental destruction, conflicts about living spaces, and different forms of injustices.

Wahyu said that social change always needed courage to question what was usually considered settled.

Dimas Suro added that communities needed to maintain vigilance. The momentum for change might be present when the issue people faced reached a certain point. “Each of us has the obligation to maintain that fire,” he highlighted. That fire did not need to be present in the form of a struggle. There were education, organisations, communities, social movements, art, culture, and young people’s confidence to express opinions.

The discussion continued with the life of indigenous communities, of peasants, of fishermen, and environmental defenders. The State often used terms such as development and sovereignty when they implemented policies. On the other hand, communities still faced issues when they fought for their land and living spaces. The question about independence became more concrete: who had the rights to determine how a space was used?

Wahyu argued that the issue was related to the tendency to impose a common standard. The diverse ways of living could be marginalised when one standard applied to all. The same issue was evident in urban life. Solo, for example, experienced aesthetic growth as a city. There were murals and artworks in public spaces. There were creative projects involving artists. For Wahyu, such development still necessitated critical review. Artists should not just be treated as workers who finished orders. “in the case of city projects, artists became anonymous,” he said.

Artists’ names were often not displayed after their works entered the public spaces. There was also view that works displayed in public spaces were public properties. That begged the question about intellectual property right and the position of artists. If artworks were the product of artists’ ideas, endeavours, experience, and anxieties, how far would the artists’ identity and rights be respected?

For Wahyu, the characters of artworks were different from other works. Artists necessitated a different space. "It would be more exciting when there were diversity in artists’ work. The more the difference, the more they represent certain ideas,” he said. Artworks could be a reflection of a city. When mural only talked about aesthetics, the city showed its beautiful face. And when the city walls contained criticisms and anxieties, there were other stories people wanted to express.

Wahyu mentioned a number of works by Young Surakarta, which featured the life of city dwellers, porters, children’s ideals, and life on narrow alleys. Suh stories showed that a city was not simply streets, buildings, and well-designed public spaces. There were humans living in it. For that reason, it was not enough to measure art spaces from the presence of galleries or art exhibition building. What was more important was whether the spaces were accessible to the communities and allowed ideas to spring up.

The discussion about the city then moved back to the original question – what kind of city was truly independent? The answer might not lie simply in physical development. An independent city needed spaces for people to express views, arts, living spaces, and freedom to be free without fear.

For the two resource-people, maintaining idealism in an exhausting socio-political situation necessitated independence and courage. Wahyu argued that economic independence was one critical foundation, particularly for art workers who faced unstable work condition. The ability to secure/maintain economic space could help someone maintain such independence in expressing views. Meanwhile, Dimas Suro reminded of the importance of keeping knowledge, networks, and courage to move.

Independence, in the discussion during NGOPHI, was not relegated to a story that ended on 17 August 1945. It was a long process that is happening at home, in the villages, in art spaces, on the streets, in workplaces, in digital spaces, and in political spaces.

Celebrating independence meant asking oneself, whether each person was free to decide on their own life, to express opinions, to maintain their life spaces, and to be heard and to express their anxieties?

The question might not have a simple answer. And for that reason, independence necessitated discussion, confidence and courage, and daily struggle. (Ast)