Investing in our national patrimony

Apart from the infectious vibrancy and energy of modern Shanghai, I could not help but be overwhelmingly inspired by the city’s very deliberate focus to preserve its heritage as a cosmopolitan city. From the lights in the neo-classical and art deco buildings on the Bund along the Huangpu River banks, to Xintiandi, a restored affluent district of Old Shanghai made into a shopping street mall, there is a clear message: that pride and respect for the past is as important as every other aspect of development.

Returning home to find ourselves embroiled in confusion about the GSIS purchase of Juan Luna’s "Parisian Life," I asked myself why we cannot seem to agree that it is vital for every nation to invest in its cultural heritage for the enjoyment and inspiration of its citizens.

We urgently need a national policy and legal framework to preserve and protect our cultural assets, our landmark buildings and districts, our natural sites for all to view and enjoy lest we waste our precious time and energy arguing over whether or not we should have them in the first place.

Perhaps the reason people are confused is because we have so little tangible evidence to give us the personal experience that heritage would benefit our lives. There are several important measures that need to be undertaken. Firstly, we need to pass the National Landmark Bill being advocated by the Heritage Conservation Society, as well as parallel municipal ordinances protecting heritage. Then, there are other programs that could quickly be implemented.

One, assuming we overcome institutional egos, is to design a plan to rationalize collections of artwork presently owned by the government in the country so that museums would have a clear focus to create differentiation between each other. Since each Museum has a little of everything this would mean that artwork, of certain periods or genre, would be put on loan to the institution specializing in that period with acknowledgement of its ownership. The government-owned collections to be rationalized would include those owned by the Central Bank, the National Museum, the former Museum of Philippine Art (MOPA) now with the CCP, the GSIS, Malacañang Museum, Intramuros Museum and others. Here is an attempt at a plan which I hope will not upset the curators:

The National Museum/National Art Gallery (to be located in the present Department of Tourism Building) – would house the pre-colonial period, the colonial period, and the masters including Hidalgo, Juan Luna up to Fabian de la Rosa, Fernando Amorsolo, Botong Francisco, when we shifted away from European inspired imagery.

The Metropolitan Museum/Central Bank Museum/GSIS Museum would house the Moderns including Fernando Zobel, Arturo Luz, Jose Joya, Anita Magsaysay Ho, Vicente Manansala, Cesar Legaspi, artists like Juvenal Sanso, Romeo Tabuena, Ang Kiukok, Bencab, up to present-day contemporary artists. The pre-Hispanic gold collection would remain in the museum as well.

The Malacañang Museum – would house the furniture of the period from the former Museo ng Buhay Pilipino, as well as be loaned pieces from the other museums on a rotation basis.

An Intramuros Museum – would house textile and other artifacts of the colonial period.

Another institution would house lithographs and important archival assets that depict the history of the Philippines and rationalize these collections so that municipal museums around the country would exhibit those of the history of their city.

The Cultural Center will not have a museum and will focus on the performing arts.

Once each museum becomes known for its niche permanent exhibits, private collectors may also become inspired to put their collections on loan to enhance the exhibitions. Because the exhibits would be curated from a very broad selection to show only the best, funding from aficionados of these periods would become more inclined to support the museum financially. Once the museums become viable, sustainable and world-class, it would be able to attract a broader audience – the Filipino people and tourist alike.

GSIS and its president Winston Garcia’s courageous decision to buy the Juan Luna is an investment in our national patrimony. More importantly (just as Jaime Laya and the Central Bank did in the 1970s), the GSIS, paid the ante for our right, as a people, to bring our important cultural assets outside the realm of private privilege for all to see and to enjoy. It is about time that we bring the collections outside of basement storages, government private offices, and our archives into public museum spaces for us to experience so we need no longer question whether investment in our heritage is important or not.

* * *

I would appreciate your comments at dorisho@attglobal.net.