Something was pointed out in a paper by an Universitas Indonesia archaeologist, Agus Aris Munandar, (2008). Carvings on 8th-10th century CE Javanese temples show:

1. Some parts of the panel’s field are left empty
2. Lack of perspective. In accord with Indian view, space is perceived vertically, in which there is some kind of hierarchy.

On the other hand, 13th-15th century CE Javanese temples show differences, among which are:

1. No more empty field. Each panel is fully adorned with figures or ornaments.
2. There is an evidence of the use of perspective. Space is no longer perceived in accord with some sort of vertically ordered hierarchy. Space is instead perceived horizontally, where depth of vision on each carved panel depends on the distance of the represented objects relative to the viewers.

What is intriguing in the archaeologist’ paper is that a shift of spatial perception occurred in Java when a shift from Indian paradigm to Javanese paradigm also took place.

It is a shift that brought Java back to its pre-Hindu paradigm. From the stupas of Borobudur to the stepped structure of Sukuh temple. That is to say, from Indian influence to the “pre-historical” Java. We already know about this shift.

What we need to investigate further in relation to this shift is the shift of spatial perception. The archaeologist’ paper already touches upon this issue. I think there is something implied in the paper regarding this shift.

By having perspective, Javanese perception of space depends on real experience of a viewer upon seeing things. I think there is something a bit similar between Javanese perspective with that of Brunelleschi. What is entailed by Renaissance’s perspective is experience. It is about how we (as anthropos) perceive things around us, in order to enable us to get information to be discerned, so that we can make our judgment. The Javanese perspective also represents what we experience. It supposedly does not represent what is idealized in the realm of idea. It represents what is experienced in this world.

Yet one should be careful in comparing Javanese perspective with that of Brunelleschi. The perspective of Brunelleschi, as we know, came out of the anthropocentist context of the Renaissance. Yes, Brunelleschi’s perspective represents what is visually experienced. Yet it simultaneously implies what is ideal. The importance of perspective in the Renaissance is due to its true nature. It represents what is true. But we should recall that “true” hereby is not detached from the sense of “true” in the Classical aesthetics triad of the good-the beautiful-the true. It implies something transcendental, something ideal.

The same might not be applicable to Javanese sense on perspective. When Javanese perspective represents what is experienced, it simply represents what is really experienced (or what is supposedly experienced, in the case of perspective on carvings narrating some legends).

As said above, there is a difference between Javanese view and that of the West. Javanese view does not necessitate the dichotomy between the ideal and the real, between the sacred and the profane, between the transcendental and the corporeal. As such, if Javanese perspective really simply represents worldly experience of perceiving in a space, it is not a short coming. It is simply how it is. Semar’s fart says this: there is no privileging the sacred/ideal over the profane/real, or vice versa. Both are already present together at once as they have been. When it comes to how one perceives space, the aforementioned shift from Indian paradigm to Javanese paradigm seems to be an act of knitting the sacred with the profane.