Logic in thinking about art

In mathematics or logic classes, students are often asked to draw circles, sometimes called Venn diagrams (named after the British philosopher John Venn).

Otherwise known as sets, these circles are self-contained. The items in each circle belong to that circle, but may also belong to other circles. If some or all items belong to another circle, the circles are said to intersect or to infringe on each other.

Venn diagrams are very useful in visualizing thought. Before Venn, it was customary to think in terms of syllogisms. Because syllogisms depend primarily on words and ideas, rather than images, they are harder to work with. Many people make simple mistakes with syllogisms such as, “When it rains, I use an umbrella; I use an umbrella; therefore, it must be raining.” (The mistake, of course, is that I may be using the umbrella because the sun is too hot.)

With Venn diagrams, such confusion is avoided. When we have a circle or set containing all human beings and another set containing everything mortal, we can easily see that the set of all human beings is completely within the set of everything mortal. “Everyone is mortal,” therefore, is easy to see, instead of just think about. Seeing is always easier than thinking.

The implications are then also easy to see. If Juan is inside the set of human beings, he is obviously also inside the set of mortals. Instead of saying that “All human beings are mortal; Juan is a human being; therefore, Juan is mortal,” we need not say anything. All we have to do is look at the Venn diagrams and we know that Juan will die some day.

Now, there is a set of objects that are called “expressions.” There are many sets inside this set, such as the set of novels, the set of symphonies, the set of films, and the set of dances. Inside this set of expressions is the set of all things that are in art galleries or museums. Within the set of all things that are in art galleries or museums are three smaller circles - the set of things considered good art, the set of things considered bad art, and the set of things not considered art.

The confusion about “Poleteismo” by Mideo Cruz starts with the lack of logic on the part of many that have argued about it.

Article III, Section 4, of our Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, provides that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

Raul C. Pangalangan, former Dean of the College of Law of the University of the Philippines, has explained what the freedom of expression is by quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes’s “not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

This constitutional provision applies to the set of expressions. Since the small sets of good art, bad art, and non-art are all inside the set of all things that are in art galleries or museums, that is in turn inside the set of expressions, then it does not matter if “Poleteismo” is good art or bad art or even if it is not art at all. As long as it is in an art gallery or museum, it is protected by the Constitution.

The officials of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), therefore, violated the Constitution by censoring the work. This is one reason that, on Facebook, I called on everybody in the CCP board to resign. As a government entity using public funds, CCP should uphold rather than violate the Constitution. Neither did President Aquino, if press reports are to be believed that he personally intervened in the affair, have any business asking CCP to withdraw the exhibit.

The fanatical religious groups that objected to the work, on the other hand, did not violate the Constitution, because they did not censor the work, but merely raised a stink about it. We all have the right to raise a stink about anything we hate, because we enjoy the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Of course, what a few of these fanatics did was criminal, such as defacing the work, attempting to set fire to the exhibit, or sending death threats to the CCP board members.

As Shakespeare would have put it, “A plague o’ both your houses!”

Now comes the question that concerns primarily art critics: is “Poleteismo” good art or bad art or non-art? (To be continued)

TEACHING TIP OF THE WEEK: Here is something about defining words in an English class. This comes from a 2006 article by Jennifer Yun and Marely Cervantes in “The Internet TESL Journal”:

“Teaching about words is as important as teaching words. Combine direct word instruction with word-learning strategies. Take advantage of the students’ knowledge of their native language knowledge (cognates, etymology). Show the strategies that native English speakers use when learning new words (using roots and affixes, word associations, mnemonic devices). Consider that learners need to be exposed to a word at least seven times before they can use it.”