Indonesian Batik Translation: A Case Study

Juhri Selamet,1 University of Colorado Boulder, USA

Abstract: This case study centers on Javanese–Indonesian batik, an art form recognized by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a masterpiece of human heritage in 2009, and the
cultural diversity delineated in its diverse patterns, symbolizing Indonesia’s historically complex religious views,
cultures, and ethnic identities. While batik has a global reputation, it is also under attack. Today, simplified formats are
designed and applied commercially, and batik patterns are used without reference either to meaning, or mode of
production, jeopardizing batik’s cultural identity. Therefore, this project investigates alternative materials and more
minimalist forms of batik, to consider batik’s future role and the forms it might take. By combining original forms with
new formats and media, this project, first, serves as a way to recontextualize local culture within new frameworks. And
second, it seeks to develop a hybrid praxis that prompts dialogue to support cultural continuance of the batik tradition.

Keywords: Alternative Materials, Batik, Cultural Identity, Heritage, Indonesia, Javanese, UNESCO

Introduction

B atik’s roots are ancient (Hann 2014). In-as-much as it is found everywhere, in most cases
it is a difficult prospect to trace it. However, classical reports indicate that batik existed in
Japan, China, Thailand, and India. Some scholars argue that it originated from India
before being brought to Egypt (Hitchcock and Nuryanti 2000). In Indonesia, the existence of
batik is inseparable from the long history of batik origins and its presence in other countries
(Cokki 2017).
Originally localized, batik stretched out across Indonesia and remains present in most
Indonesian communities and over eighteen Indonesia provinces. Today, batik is used to maintain
and preserve Indonesia’s cultural heritage. By building solidarity among Indonesians, it allows
them to retain their culture (Hitchcock and Nuryanti 2000). Batik, therefore, has gained a
reputation as a tool for strengthening cultural heritage and nation-building. While Indonesian
society consists of a broad number of different ethnic groups, their shared correspondence to
batik provides a common visual language symbol to which each group can feel a sense of
belonging (Hann 2014). This sense of belonging plays a significant role in providing cultural
continuity while making a notable contribution to the country’s economy.
Yet while batik has a global reputation, it is also under attack. Today, simplified formats are
designed and applied commercially, and patterns are used without reference either to meaning, or
mode of production, jeopardizing batik’s cultural identity. Indrayana, Karju, and Yustana (2016)
studied using toys to create new batik motifs to establish the economic value for the producers of
batik without explicit reference from the meaning of batik patterns. Therefore, this case study
project investigates alternative materials and more minimalist forms of batik, to reflect on batik’s
future role and the forms it might take. It contains six window installations that incorporate three
traditional batik patterns alongside my contemporary design translation of those patterns as well
as a book form experiment.

Batik Development in Indonesia

By definition, batik is a method (originally used in Java) of producing colored designs on textiles
by dyeing them, having first applied wax to the parts to be left undyed (Stevenson 2010). Further,
the origin of the word batik is from the late nineteenth century; in Javanese (a local Indonesian
language), it means “painted.” The first known use of batik was in 1830 (Merriam-Webster n.d.)

1
Corresponding Author: Juhri Selamet, 1511 University Ave, Boulder, CO 80302, Department of Advertising, Public
Relations and Media Design, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 80302, USA. email:
[email protected]
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VISUAL DESIGN

The history of batik in Indonesia started from the development of the Majapahit kingdom
and the kingdom afterward (Zinaida 2013). However, before the nineteenth century, there are
only a few historical sources of batik production; thereafter, from this era batik began developing
as a modern business activity (Sekimoto 2003). The earliest known written reference to batik is
almost certainly in a Dutch bill of lading of 1641. It is connected to a shipment from Batavia in
Java to Bengkulu on the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia (Kerloque and Sosrowardoyo 2004).
By the eighteenth century, in Java island, Indonesia, batik had become a central element in the
dress of court for the royal family at Keraton Solo and Yogyakarta (Stephenson 1993). In 1811,
the British Lieutenant Governor of Java, Sir Stamford Raffles, and Sultan Hamengkubuwono II
of Yogyakarta stated, “His Highness engages not to prohibit to any class of his subjects the use
of any particular article or wearing-apparel, ornament or luxury, except the cloth called parang
Roosa and Sawat, which time immemorial have been appropriated to the Royal person”
(Kerloque and Sosrowardoyo 2004, 20).
Furthermore, the oldest traditional batik technique in Indonesia is called batik tulis (written
batik), in which batik is drawn on cloth using only the tjanting. Tjanting is a tool for putting hot
wax onto cloth before it is dyed so that the area will not be colored (Merriam-Webster n.d.).
After finishing the waxing, the cloth is dipped in three to four times. The whole process of batik
tulis production may take up to a year for a piece of cloth measuring 43 inches by 98 inches.
In September 2009, Indonesia nominated Indonesian batik for inscription on the
Representative List of the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Batik satisfies the
criteria for inscription on the Representative List as follows: “Indonesian Batik has a rich
symbolism related to social status, local community, nature, history and cultural heritage;
provides Indonesian people with a sense of identity and continuity as an essential component of
their life from birth to death, and continues to evolve without losing its traditional meaning”
(UNESCO n.d.). After the nomination, on October 2, 2009, in Abu Dhabi-UEA, batik was named
as a Masterpiece of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity to protect the art as an icon,
symbol, and cultural representative of Indonesia (UNESCO n.d.; Tresnadi and Sachari 2015).

From Traditional to Contemporary Batik Motifs and Meanings

Batik is one of the most meaningful forms of art in Indonesia, so the clothes have come to be
seen as symbolic of many of the values held most dear by the culture that produces them
(Kerloque and Sosrowardoyo 2004). The symbolism, techniques, and culture that surround the
silk garments and hand-dyed cotton permeate the lives of Indonesians. As earlier indicated, batik
has various symbolic meanings, which makes batik patterns as expressive visual form, especially
among the Javanese (Hann 2014). Cultural meaning is usually communicated orally, but here it is
expressed in textiles using colors and motifs. With this, the Javanese are able to give actual
significance to cloth. Batik symbolism developed by culture, in the end, gives the fabric visual
communication skills (Hitchcock and Nuryanti 2000).
According to the Javanese culture, symbolic meanings remain essential. Despite that, not all
people within the community adhere to or even understand the symbolism and meanings of batik
designs. With modernity, batik terms are swiftly disappearing. Javanese traditional culture
mostly corresponded to the living systems through batik’s visual appearances and representation
(Hann 2014). The visual aesthetics are primarily seen in various forms, including colorization
and geometrical shapes, as reflected in Javanese cultural artifacts. For instance, the Parang as a
batik pattern was mainly arranged using diagonal lines, thus becoming a symbol for continuity as
the designs interpret them in various ways. There are presumptions that the word Parang means
“steep slopes” according to the Javanese culture, thus denoting the struggles of life (McCabe
2013)
Furthermore, in-as-much as most Indonesian communities continue to use batik, it remains
evident that trends are currently shifting from traditional to contemporary batik patterns. The
shifting batik process mostly comes with various changes in their designs (McCabe 2013).
2
 SELAMET: INDONESIAN BATIK TRANSLATION: A CASE STUDY

REFERENCES

Australian Museum. 2011. “The Batik Process - Australian Museum.” https://australianmuseum

.net.au/the-batik-process.
Cokki, Cokki. 2017. “Likelihood Model on Batik Advertising: Comparative Study on High
Involvement and Low Involvement.” International Journal of Economic Perspectives;
Famagusta 11 (1): 1524–34.
Elliott, Inger McCabe, and Brian Brake. 2010. Batik: Fabled Cloth of Java. Clarendon, VT:
Tuttle Publishing.
Kasim, Anita Ahmad, Retantyo Wardoyo, and Agus Harjoko. 2017. “Batik Classification with
Artificial Neural Network Based on Texture-Shape Feature of Main Ornament.”
International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications 9 (6): 55.
Kawulich, Barbara B. 2005. “Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method.” Forum:
Qualitative Social Research 6 (2): 38–60
Merriam-Webster. n.d. “Batik | Definition of Batik by Merriam-Webster.” Accessed December
17, 2017. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/batik.
Nurhaida, Ida, Hong Wei, Remmy A. M. Zen, Ruli Manurung, and Aniati M. Arymurthy.
2016.“Texture Fusion for Batik Motif Retrieval System.” International Journal of
Electrical and Computer Engineering 6 (6): 3174.
Hann, Michael. 2014. Symbol, Pattern and Symmetry: The Cultural Significance of Structure.
New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
Hitchcock, Michael, and Wiendu Nuryanti. 2000. Building on Batik: The Globalization of a Craft
Community. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
Indrayana, Bagus, Karju Karju, and Prima Yustana. 2016 “Indonesian Traditional Toys and the
Development of Batik Motifs.” Journal of Arts and Humanities 5 (6): 26–36.
Kerlogue, Fiona, and Tara Sosrowardoyo. 2004. Batik: Design, Style, & History. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Sekimoto, Teruo. 2003. “Batik as a Commodity and a Cultural Object.” Globalization in
Southeast Asia: Local, National, and Transnational Perspectives, edited by Yamashita
Shinji and Eades J.S., 111-25. Brooklyn, NY: Berghahn Books
Stevenson, Angus. 2010. Oxford dictionary of english. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Stephenson, Nina. 1993. the past, present, and future of javanese batik: A bibliographic essay.
Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America 12 (3): 107-
13.
Tresnadi, Chandra, and Agus Sachari. 2015. “Identification of Values of Ornaments in
Indonesian Batik in Visual Content of Nitiki Game.” Journal of Arts and Humanities 4
(8): 25–39.
UNESCO. n.d. “Decision of the Intergovernmental Committee: 4.COM 13.44 - Intangible
Heritage - Culture Sector - UNESCO.” Accessed December 17, 2017.
https://ich.unesco.org/en/decisions/4.COM/13.44.
Zinaida, Rahma. 2013. “Batik: Global Market Penetration through New Media.” In, 1–6.
National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
http://eprints.binadarma.ac.id/2113/