In Indonesia, the newly born Indonesian Graphic design Association is continuously campaigning about how the Graphic Design should carry Indonesian identity, i.e. that Graphic design should have "nationalism". This is an idea which I feel a bit irrelevant, speaking about identity without first trying to study the Indonesian general characteristic in perceiving visual language.
Hypothetically I think the Asians, particularly the Indonesian. perceived visual language differently than the westerner. Even though the world is going global, the Indonesians somehow still carry their archetypal signs and language in their consciousness. This assumption came to me as a graphic design teacher who always found a repeated problems of my students every semester. These problems are related to difficulties in figuring out relevance in their projects, how to relate their idea into tangible work, from semiotic concepts into project elaborations. They all have the same tendency that the art of design is not about creative communications but more about intuitive decorating, and aesthetic is reduced to the perception decorations. So every 3rd or 4th semester I still always found students intuitively decorating their works instead of elaborating relevant visual languages. I would like to understand these tendencies as I remember that I once had the same tendency when I started to study design. This tendency is not only carried by students, but also most civilians who have no graphic design education, and people who peddle on the streets decorate their booths and their carriages. This decorating tendency are not legible according to the western communication design syllabus, but if we look further into the root and history of the Indonesian culture maybe this particular tendency deserve more than a second look.
What is the relevance of intuitive decorations in general to the visual language of the Indonesians? And how different is the Asian's perception to the western's mind in terms of visual language? those are the main questions I will try to answer in this venture. Hypothetically I believe that local verbal language is an inherent aspect to any visual language, yet I will need to validate that later on.
Relation to graphic design curricula
These last few years the European and American design schools are upgrading their old post-war education syllabus. the same syllabus being altered is indeed the same syllabus that has been adopted and applied here in Indonesia and I think is also applied in all Asian country regardless of their relevance to the way Indonesian/Asian culture perceive visual as language.
Although it is true that the western academic discourse of graphic design and semiology were forged with strong relevance to global industry interest, but still, there are significant points that can be explored in terms of reviewing the paradigm at some different perspectives.
The fathers of Visual Communication art and design start to review over the method of how to educate their artist and designers, such review could revitalize the present syllabus, which seems to lag in relevance with the present-day culture. I think it will be most irrelevant to us the Indonesian and any other Asian country--in which this field of study is adopted-- to still keep the old syllabus without updating the proper studies for local cultural relevance to it. But the fundamental question is how are we going to develop our present curriculum into something that is more relevant to the country and the culture? This research will at least have started an attempt to answer that.
