The words "tradition" and "modernization" are not easy to define. What are the positive and negative effects of change? Is change inevitable for dance and for Indonesia as a whole? If dance is indeed a constantly changing art form, what then can be considered "traditional"? It seems that "tradition" has different meanings depending on what point of view you take. Is the Western definition of tradition different than the Indonesian definition of tradition? In a sense, "tradition" is a term highly contradictory to the idea of a constantly changing dance. However, it makes sense to regard "tradition" in a much looser fashion; perhaps we can even define it by who the dance is being performed for.

Dance is the sophisticated manner by which a society expresses change; therefore, the "tradition" of dance is apt to change in the same way. Placing "modernity" in this context, it can again be viewed as for whom and for what reasons the dance is performed. Judith Becker writes:

. . . the basic concept of the word modern when applied to the arts has to do with a changed relationship between the performer/composer and the audience. In all traditional arts there exists a kind of understanding between the artist and audience as to the purpose of the art form, a shared set of assumptions . . .

Tourism was first introduced to Indonesia in 1908, but it was not until President Suharto's New Order government encouraged Western interest that the tourist industry boomed. As a result, the government was faced with the task of defining, and thus limiting, what would be accessible to tourists. ". . . arts have become means to other ends, being nowadays expected to foster the development of tourism in Indonesia and to contribute to the development of the national culture" (Picard, p. 47). With the influx of tourists bringing Western technology and ideals, Indonesia struggles to maintain its own culture. Of course, dance is a main attraction for the tourist industry. When dance begins to cater to tourism, how possible is it for Indonesia to preserve the original meaning and understanding between performer and audience? This introduces a new job-market to performers and, at the same time, offers dance in an entirely new light. Tourism, a major item in the Indonesian economy, has brought about other, not so artful updatings of traditional materials. Tourist performances take place everywhere, and in fact account for the only regular employment many classical artists can get (Siegel: Shadows, p. 264). When the performers (also the preservers) of dance become dependent on tourism, to what extent does tradition get altered to fit the needs of outsiders? How much tradition can be broken to fit modernization? The very fact that dances are being performed for tourists makes dance a commodity. Yet, at the same time, it is ridiculous to claim that tourist-oriented performances have lost all artistic qualities; perhaps the difference between dance as an "industry" and dance as an "expression of the people" lies in how personal the dance is. However, we must realize that for Indonesia tourism is inevitable; therefore it is also inevitable that dance will change, though not as a sole result of tourism. As the ultimate expression of change and development, perhaps it is only right that dance alters in this age of tourism. While perhaps past "traditions" are being forgotten, new "traditions" are being created. Marcia Siegel is right in saying that "traditional art cannot remain static. Performance is not a museum, even when it strives to preserve the past" (Siegel: Shadows, p. 628).

The challenge that Indonesia faces, largely as a consequence of tourism, is to develop and "keep up with the times" and to, at the same time, remain traditional. The balance between modernity and tradition is difficult to discover, especially in the realm of dance where there is not a static state with which to begin. However, it is important to remember that change is not caused by the tourist industry alone. Indonesia is entirely capable of making its own decisions; the Western-oriented tourist industry is not a towering power looming over the fate of Indonesia and its arts. "Bali has fascinated researchers throughout the 20th century, perhaps because it is a place where art and life, ritual and theatre, consciousness and psychic detachment are inextricably entwined" (Siegel: Liminality, p. 84). It is incredibly easy to say that tourism is an evil, forced upon destitute third world countries; this is, in my opinion, both ignorant and arrogant. In short, and perhaps most dramatically stated, the traditions of Bali will prosper in direct proportion to the success of the tourist industry. Far from destroying, ruining, or "spoiling" the culture of Bali, I am arguing here that the advent and increase of tourists is likely to foster the arts: dance, music, architecture, carving and painting (McKean, p. 1). It is in fact true that tourism does provide opportunities for creative exploration, not to mention just plain old money and employment for the performers. However, this is not to say that the tourist industry is not problematic: the challenge is to take "advantage of the appeal of their cultural traditions to foreign visitors without sacrificing their own values on the altar of monetary profit" (Picard, p. 37). While this is a difficult stage for the Indonesia people, they "seem to be coping with the tourist invasion . . . they are taking what they want, but they are not allowing themselves to any the less Balinese" (Forge, p. 5-6). It is not tourism itself that does damage; it is what both the touree and tourist do with tourism that will bring about either destruction or improvement. Tourism is ethnic relations -- it is the responsibility of both tourist and touree to come to an understanding of one another.

Owning Modernity
The Ambiguity of Tradition
Shaping Images of "Us" and "Other": National Geographic and Mass Media
Shopping For Culture & Bringing It Home
Bibliographic Materials on Tourism