Archival governance in Indonesia is formally regulated through Law No. 43 of 2009 on Archives, which establishes the legal framework for the creation, management, preservation, and use of archives across governmental and non-governmental institutions. The law positions archives as an essential component of administrative accountability, institutional memory, and national cultural heritage. Through the National Archival System (Sistem Kearsipan Nasional/SKN) coordinated by the National Archives of Indonesia (Arsip Nasional Republik Indonesia/ANRI), archival management is expected to follow standardized principles and procedures that ensure the authenticity, reliability, integrity, and accessibility of records over time ( Dewi, 2025).

Underlying this regulatory framework is a particular understanding of archives that has long shaped archival theory and practice. Modern archival administration largely developed through the records life cycle model, which conceptualises records as moving through a series of sequential stages from creation and active use to semi-active storage and eventual destruction or permanent preservation ( Franks, 2013). Within this model, archives are expected to emerge from stable administrative processes governed by clearly defined institutional responsibilities and standardised procedures. Archival activities such as appraisal, classification, description, retention scheduling, and preservation are consequently organised according to predetermined organisational structures and regulatory requirements ( Franks, 2013; Williams, 2006).

The life cycle approach has significantly influenced archival legislation and professional practice in many countries, including Indonesia. As illustrated in Figure 1, the model conceptualises records as passing through a sequence of identifiable stages, from creation and active use to maintenance and final disposition, each associated with praticular managerial responsibilities ( Franks, 2013). Law No. 43 of 2009 implicitly assumes that institutions possess relatively stable organisational structures, formal administrative systems, and sufficient resources to implement standard archival procedures. The legal framework further assumes that records are systematically created through routine institutional activities and can therefore be managed through uniform principles of provenance, original order, and administrative control ( Sumrahyadi, 2009).

Such assumptions have proven highly effective within the institutional contexts for which they were developed. Formal archival governance supports administrative accountability, preserves the evidential and contextual relationships between records, and facilitates long-term access to documentary heritage for legal, administrative, and historical prposes. In Indonesia, archival institutions such as the National Archives of the Republic of Indonesia play a central role in preserving collective memory and providing access to records of enduring value. The formal archival framework therefore performs essential governance and cultural functions by ensuring the continuity, authenticity, and long-term accessibility of archival materials ( Cook, 2013).

However, the growing diversification of archival practices across different social and cultural contexts raises questions regarding the universal applicability of these formal assumptions. Recent developments in archival studies have increasingly challenged the idea that archives are exclusively administrative products managed through linear institutional processes. Scholars have argued that archives are socially constructed entities shaped by political, cultural, technological, and community-specific practices ( Derrida & Prenowitz, 1995). Rather than viewing archival systems as neutral administrative mechanisms, contemporary archival theory recognises that archival practices emerge through negotiations between institutional objectives, available resources, local knowledge, and changing social contexts ( Frings-Hessami, 2022).

This shift has encouraged greater attention to archival practices that develop outside formal state archival systems. Community archives, independent archives, indigenous archives, activist archives, and artist-led archives demonstrate that archival activities frequently arise from practical needs and collective initiatives rather than legal mandates ( Flinn, 2011; Matlala & Maphoto, 2020; Wardani, 2019). These practices often prioritise community values, cultural identity, social relationships, and local forms of knowledge production over bureaucratic standardisation. Their existence suggests that archival governance cannot be understood solely through regulatory frameworks but must also consider the diverse institutional environments in which archival practices are embedded.

The Indonesian context presents a particularly important case for examining this issue. While archival governance is formally regulated through a comprehensive legal framework, numerous cultural institutions have developed archival practices that operate beyond direct regulatory implementation ( Mariana et al., 2014). These institutions continue to create, preserve, and mobilise archives for various purposes despite differing organisational structures, resource capacities, and institutional priorities. Rather than simply representing failures of compliance, such practices may reflect alternative archival rationalities shaped by the specific conditions under which institutions operate.

This raises an important question for archival studies. If formal archival governance is built upon assumptions of stable institutions, standard administrative procedures, and relatively uniform archival processes, how should archival practices be understood in institutional contexts where these assumptions do not readily apply? Addressing this question requires moving beyond legal frameworks alone and examining how archives are actually created, organised, and maintained within particular social and cultural settings. Indonesian art institutions provide one such context.

The increasing significance of archives within the arts has become a prominent feature of contemporary cultural practice. Over the past several decades, archives have moved beyond their conventional role as repositories of historical documents and have become active components of artistic production, curatorial practice, and institutional development. This phenomenon, often described as the archival turn, reflects a growing interest among artists, curators, and cultural organisations in documenting, revisiting, and reinterpreting historical materials as part of contemporary artistic and cultural processes ( Callahan, 2022; Simon, 2002).

Within this broader context, art institutions occupy a distinctive archival environment. Unlike many administrative organisations, art institutions produce and accumulate records through creative, collaborative, and project-based activities that rarely follow standard bureaucratic routines. Their archival materials include not only administrative documents but also exhibition catalogues, artists’ sketches, correspondence, contracts, installation plans, photographs, audiovisual recordings, digital files, publicity materials, ephemera, and various forms of artistic documentation ( Duranti & Franks, 2015). These materials collectively record the intellectual, creative, and organisational histories of artistic practice.

Archival records within art institutions perform multiple functions. They preserve institutional memory, support exhibition planning, facilitate research, document artistic processes, protect intellectual property, and contribute to the long-term preservation of cultural heritage ( Astuti & Lawanda, 2025). Archives also play an increasingly important role in establishing the provenance and authenticity of artworks. Information concerning the creation, exhibition history, ownership, restoration, and circulation of artworks provides critical evidence for scholars, collectors, museums, galleries, and artists themselves ( Susanto, 2015). Consequently, archival practices have become integral to the broader ecology of artistic production and cultural preservation.

The distinctive nature of artistic records has led archival scholars to recognise that art archives differ from conventional administrative archives. Artistic records often emerge through highly individual and collaborative creative processes that generate complex documentary relationships extending across multiple projects, media, and institutional contexts. Their creation is rarely governed solely by formal administrative requirements. Instead, artistic records are frequently shaped by the working practices of artists, curators, producers, and cultural workers, reflecting the dynamic and evolving nature of artistic production itself ( Duranti & Franks, 2015).

These characteristics are particularly relevant within the Indonesian art ecosystem. Many art institutions in Indonesia have emerged through independent cultural initiatives rather than formal governmental structures. Their organisational forms vary considerably, encompassing artist-run spaces, cultural foundations, community-based organisations, and independent art centres. Institutional histories are often closely connected to the personal trajectories of founders, artists, and cultural practitioners whose individual commitments significantly influence organisational development.

Within such environments, archival activities frequently develop alongside artistic and organisational needs rather than through explicit legal obligations. Documentation practices may originate from the necessity to manage exhibitions, preserve artistic legacies, maintain relationships with artists and collaborators, support publications, or record institutional histories. As institutions evolve, archival practices similarly adapt to changing artistic programmes, available technologies, financial resources, and organisational capacities ( Astuti & Lawanda, 2026).

The diversity of Indonesian art institutions further contributes to the diversity of archival practices. Differences in institutional missions, artistic orientations, funding structures, staffing arrangements, and material resources create varying approaches to documentation and recordkeeping. Rather than following a single standardised archival model, institutions often develop practical solutions that respond to their own organisational circumstances and cultural priorities.

Existing studies have acknowledged the growing importance of archives within contemporary art and cultural heritage institutions. Research has explored the archival turn in contemporary art, the emergence of artist archives, the preservation of artistic records, and the role of archives in constructing cultural memory ( Iacovino, 2015; Mazin, 2022; Taylor, 2003). However, comparatively limited attention has been paid to how art institutions themselves develop archival practices within contexts where formal archival assumptions may not readily correspond to institutional realities.

The Indonesian case offers an opportunity to examine this issue more closely. Art institutions operate within a national environment where archival governance is formally regulated, yet their archival practices emerge through organisational histories, artistic agendas, and practical constraints that differ substantially from the assumptions underlying formal archival systems. Understanding how these institutions build and sustain archival practices therefore provides an important perspective for contemporary archival studies. Rather than asking whether art institutions comply with formal archival models, this study investigates how archival practices are developed, negotiated, and maintained within the specific institutional contexts of Indonesian art organisations.

This study employs a qualitative case study approach to examine how archival practices are developed and sustained within Indonesian art institutions. A qualitative case study was chosen because the research seeks to understand archival practices as socially embedded institutional processes shaped by organisational histories, artistic activities, and everyday interactions rather than as isolated technical procedures. Instead of assessing the extent to which art institutions comply with formal archival standards, this study investigates how archival practices emerge, evolve, and acquire legitimacy within particular cultural and organisational contexts.

Qualitative case studies are particularly suitable for examining complex institutional phenomena that cannot easily be separated from the settings in which they occur ( Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In art institutions, archival practices are closely intertwined with artistic production, institutional memory, organisational development, and cultural heritage preservation. Understanding these relationships requires close engagement with institutional actors, everyday routines, and documentary practices.

Three Indonesian art institutions were selected as research sites: Padepokan Seni Bagong Kussudiardja (PSBK), Selasar Sunaryo Art Space (SSAS), and Studio Kalahan. The selection was purposive rather than representative. These institutions were chosen because they actively maintain archival materials as part of their organisational activities while exhibiting distinct institutional histories, artistic orientations, organisational structures, and resource capacities. Their diversity provides an opportunity to examine how archival practices develop under different organisational conditions while remaining within the broader ecosystem of Indonesian art institutions.

Although differing in scale and organisational background, the three institutions share several characteristics. First, all are independent cultural organisations that developed outside the formal state archival system. Second, archival activities form an integral component of their institutional operations, although these activities vary considerably in terms of organisation and implementation. Third, each institution has accumulated substantial documentary materials related to artistic production, institutional development, and cultural activities over extended periods. Finally, archival practices in all three institutions have evolved alongside changing organisational needs rather than through direct implementation of formal archival regulations.

Data were collected through multiple qualitative methods to obtain a comprehensive understanding of archival practices. Semi-structured interviews constituted the primary source of empirical data ( Brinkmann, 2020). Interviews were conducted with individuals directly involved in archival activities and institutional management, including founders, directors, archivists, documentation staff, programme managers, and other personnel responsible for maintaining institutional records. The interviews explored participants’ understandings of archives, the historical development of archival practices within their institutions, everyday archival activities, organisational challenges, and the perceived functions of archives in artistic and institutional contexts.

Interview data were complemented by participant observation and direct observations of archival activities within the institutions. These observations enabled the researcher to examine how archival work was carried out in practice, including the organisation of archival materials, documentation routines, interactions among staff members, and the everyday use of archives in institutional activities. Observational data were particularly important for understanding aspects of archival practice that might not be fully articulated during interviews but become visible through routine organisational processes ( Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Documentary materials provided an additional source of evidence for the study. Institutional records, archival collections, publications, exhibition materials, and other relevant documentary sources were examined to reconstruct the development of archival practices and to contextualise interview and observational findings. Rather than serving as independent units of analysis, these materials were used to corroborate empirical observations and support data triangulation across the three case studies.

The analytical strategy adopted in this study combines thematic analysis with within-case and cross-case comparison. Interview materials, observational evidence, and documentary sources were examined to identify recurring patterns within each institution and to explore similarities and differences across the three cases. Rather than organising the findings around individual institutional narratives, the analysis focused on common processes that shaped the development of archival practices across different organisational contexts. Through this comparative analytical process, three interconnected themes emerged: individual initiative, artistic practice as archival logic, and practical adaptation to resource constraints. These themes subsequently informed the interpretation of the empirical findings through the lens of institutional bricolage ( Cleaver, 2003). This analytical approach enabled the study to move beyond institutional description and develop a broader understanding of archival governance in Indonesian art institutions.

The empirical findings of this study indicate that archival practices within Indonesian art institutions develop through organisational processes that differ substantially from the assumptions commonly associated with formal archival governance. Rather than emerging from predetermined archival structures, archival practices are assembled through the interaction of institutional actors, artistic activities, and practical responses to changing organisational conditions. Across the three institutions examined in this study, these processes consistently appeared in different forms while serving similar organisational functions. To highlight these common patterns, the findings are organised around three interrelated themes: archiving as individual initiative, artistic practice as archival logic, and resource constraints and practical adaptation. The broader implications of these findings for archival governance are subsequently discussed through the perspective of institutional bricolage.

Taken together, the findings of this study suggest that archival practices in Indonesian art institutions are sustained through interconnected processes of individual initiative, artistic practice, and practical adaptation to organisational circumstances. Rather than representing isolated organisational characteristics, these processes collectively demonstrate how archival governance is assembled and negotiated through everyday institutional life. The empirical patterns identified across the three institutions indicate that archival development is not the result of implementing predetermined organisational models but emerges through continuous interactions between institutional actors, creative activities, available resources, and changing organisational priorities.

This dynamic is usefully understood through the concept of institutional bricolage. Rather than assuming that institutions are designed according to fixed organisational blueprints, institutional bricolage conceptualises institutional arrangements as practical accomplishments assembled through the creative recombination of existing resources, accumulated experiences, social relationships, and inherited cultural practices ( Cleaver, 2012). Institutional development is therefore not a linear process of implementing ideal models but an ongoing process of negotiation and adaptation through which actors respond to changing circumstances while drawing upon available opportunities and established routines. The archival practices observed within Indonesian art institutions reflect precisely such processes. Individual commitments, artistic traditions, collaborative networks, project-based initiatives, external partnerships, and organisational experiences are continually combined and reorganised to sustain archival activities over time.

Viewed from this perspective, the findings also contribute to broader discussions within archival studies. Rather than treating archives primarily as technical systems for managing records, the empirical evidence suggests that archival practices are socially embedded institutional processes. Archives are not simply produced by institutions as administrative by-products; they actively participate in the construction and maintenance of institutional identities, artistic legacies, and cultural memories. Their forms and functions emerge through ongoing interactions between organisational actors, creative practices, material conditions, and institutional histories ( Gilliland & Caswell, 2016). Archival work therefore extends beyond technical administration to become an integral component of institutional and cultural life.

An important implication of this interpretation concerns the relationship between artistic practice and archival development. The findings indicate that artistic activities do not merely generate archival materials but shape the logics through which archival value itself is produced. Decisions concerning what should be documented, preserved, activated, exhibited, or revisited are closely connected to artistic processes and institutional missions ( Callahan, 2022). Artistic practices influence archival priorities by determining which materials acquire long-term significance and how they continue to support future creative activities, historical interpretation, and organisational continuity. Archival practices within art institutions therefore cannot be understood independently from the creative environments in which they are embedded.

This relationship also contributes to a more fluid understanding of archival materials and archival infrastructures. Conventional archival frameworks often distinguish clearly between archives, library collections, museum objects, documentation, and reference materials according to established professional categories. The empirical findings suggest that such boundaries become considerably more flexible within art institutions. Exhibition catalogues, audiovisual recordings, artists’ sketches, correspondence, production files, photographs, institutional publications, press materials, and artistic objects themselves may coexist within interconnected systems of institutional memory ( Mckemmish, 2001). Similarly, archival technologies and organisational tools are selected according to their capacity to support institutional needs rather than according to predetermined technical ideals. The use of evolving documentation systems and relatively simple organisational technologies should therefore not necessarily be interpreted as evidence of insufficient professionalisation but as practical responses to particular institutional circumstances ( Anderson, 2017; Gilliland, 2023).

These observations invite a broader reconsideration of archival governance. The findings should not be interpreted as rejecting the value of formal archival systems or established archival standards. Formal archival governance continues to perform essential functions for public administration, legal accountability, and the preservation of documentary heritage. Systematic archival arrangements remain indispensable within many institutional contexts. However, the empirical evidence presented here suggests that the assumptions underlying formal archival governance cannot fully account for the diversity of archival practices that emerge across different organisational environments. Independent art institutions operate under conditions characterised by evolving artistic agendas, project-based activities, changing resource availability, and flexible organisational structures that differ substantially from the relatively stable administrative settings commonly assumed by formal archival models.

The empirical evidence therefore suggests that archival governance is best understood as a plural rather than singular phenomenon ( Anderson, 2017). Formal regulatory systems represent one important pathway through which archival practices are organised and sustained, but they do not exhaust the range of legitimate institutional arrangements through which archives may develop. The experiences of Indonesian art institutions demonstrate that sustainable archival practices may also emerge through alternative organisational pathways shaped by artistic production, institutional histories, collaborative relationships, and practical adaptations to available resources. Institutional bricolage helps explain how these diverse elements are assembled into coherent archival practices capable of preserving and activating significant cultural records over time.

This perspective may be particularly relevant for cultural institutions operating within the Global South, where financial uncertainty, project-based organisational structures, limited infrastructures, and flexible labour arrangements are often characteristic institutional conditions rather than exceptional circumstances ( Connell, 2020). Archival practices that emerge under such conditions should not automatically be evaluated according to standards developed for fundamentally different organisational environments. Instead, greater analytical attention may be directed towards understanding how institutions mobilise existing resources and social relationships to construct sustainable archival arrangements that correspond to their own cultural and organisational realities ( De Koning & Cleaver, 2012).

Ultimately, this study suggests that the significance of archival practices in Indonesian art institutions lies not in their divergence from formal archival governance but in their capacity to sustain artistic legacies, organisational memories, and cultural knowledge through ongoing institutional work. Rather than viewing these practices as incomplete implementations of established archival models, they may be understood as legitimate forms of archival governance assembled through processes of institutional bricolage. Recognising this plurality expands contemporary understandings of archival governance and highlights the diverse institutional pathways through which archives are continually created, maintained, and reimagined across different cultural settings.

This article examined how archival practices are developed and sustained within Indonesian art institutions operating beyond the organisational assumptions commonly associated with formal archival governance. Using qualitative case studies of Padepokan Seni Bagong Kussudiardja, Selasar Sunaryo Art Space, and Studio Kalahan, the study sought to understand how archives are created, maintained, and mobilised within institutional settings where artistic production, organisational histories, and changing resource conditions shape everyday archival work.

The findings demonstrate that archival practices in Indonesian art institutions emerge through interconnected processes rather than through the direct implementation of formal archival models. First, archival development is driven by the initiatives of institutional actors whose accumulated experiences, contextual knowledge, and long-term commitments transform artistic and organisational memories into enduring institutional resources. Second, artistic practices themselves function as archival logics, influencing what materials are documented, preserved, and activated within institutional life. Third, archival sustainability depends upon the practical adaptation and mobilisation of available resources, collaborative networks, and organisational opportunities rather than upon the existence of ideal archival infrastructures. Together, these processes reveal archival work as an evolving institutional practice embedded within the everyday realities of cultural organisations.

By interpreting these findings through the perspective of institutional bricolage, this article contributes to broader discussions of archival governance. Rather than viewing archival practices in Indonesian art institutions as incomplete implementations of formal archival standards, the study argues that they represent legitimate forms of institutional practice assembled through the interaction of inherited artistic values, social relationships, accumulated experiences, and practical adaptations to changing organisational circumstances. Institutional bricolage therefore provides a useful framework for understanding how archival practices acquire continuity, legitimacy, and resilience within cultural institutions whose organisational conditions differ from those assumed by conventional archival models.

The findings also contribute to ongoing debates concerning the relationship between archives and cultural practice. Within the institutions examined, archives are not merely administrative by-products requiring technical management but active components of artistic ecosystems through which cultural knowledge, institutional identities, and artistic legacies are continually produced, negotiated, and transmitted across generations. Archival practices therefore perform cultural as well as administrative functions, linking the preservation of the past with the continuing production of artistic and institutional life.

More broadly, this study suggests that archival governance may be understood as a plural rather than singular phenomenon. Formal regulatory frameworks remain essential for many archival contexts, particularly within stable administrative environments. However, the experiences of Indonesian art institutions demonstrate that sustainable archival practices may also emerge through alternative institutional pathways shaped by local histories, cultural commitments, and organisational realities. Recognising this plurality does not diminish the value of formal archival governance; rather, it expands contemporary understandings of how archives are built and sustained across different institutional settings.

Ultimately, this article argues that the significance of archival practices in Indonesian art institutions lies not simply in their divergence from formal regulatory models but in their capacity to preserve and activate artistic and cultural memory through ongoing institutional work. Rather than treating these practices as exceptions to established archival principles, they may be understood as legitimate forms of archival governance through which cultural institutions negotiate continuity, identity, and change across generations. In doing so, the study highlights the value of institutional bricolage for archival studies and invites greater attention to the diverse cultural contexts in which archives are continually created, maintained, and reimagined.

This study involved qualitative interviews with adult participants from Indonesian art institutions. According to the applicable institutional framework governing humanities and social science research at the authors’ institution, formal ethics committee approval was not required for this type of minimal-risk qualitative interview study.

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. Participants were informed that the interviews would be used for academic research and publication and consented to the attribution of their names, professional roles, and institutional affiliations in the published work.