Is Poleteismo art?

There are two basic ways to tell if a work is art — the extrinsic and the intrinsic.

Let us look first at the extrinsic way.

When we feel something wrong with our body, we go to a medical doctor. We assume that the doctor, who studied medicine for years and has treated all kinds of diseases, will know what is wrong with us and will give us the proper treatment.

When something goes wrong with our computer, we go to a computer technician. We assume that the computer technician, with his or her vast experience, will be able to retrieve the files that we think have been lost forever.

When something goes wrong with our plumbing, we call a plumber. We assume that the plumber has solved similar plumbing problems before and we pay him or her a healthy sum for giving us a chance to take a shower again.

Similarly, when we want to know if something that claims to be art is really art, we go to experts who have studied art for years, have taken advanced academic degrees in art studies, and have seen hundreds of art pieces before.

One way to find out if “Poleteismo” by Mideo Cruz (no relation) is art, therefore, is to ask the art experts. Well, the art experts have spoken. The Department of Art Studies of the University of the Philippines Diliman has said categorically in a public statement that “The work in question is art.”

The appeal to authority, of course, may not seem like a good argument to people who claim that “de gustibus non est disputandum” or “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.” Well, then, if you claim that it is not art and I claim that it is, you can never convince me that it isn’t and I can never convince you that it is. That would be the end of all reason. To say that art is merely a matter of taste is to defy the classic definition of a human being as a rational animal.

Are there objective criteria for judging a work to be art or not? There are, because both Ateneo and UP used them when they first exhibited versions of the work. So did CCP in the beginning, until the board members lost their nerve when the public outcry became too loud.

But public outcry never determined whether something is art or not. There are numerous examples of great works of art that were not appreciated during the lifetimes of their creators.

Let us now look at the intrinsic way.

Critical theory has given us valuable lessons about how to interpret creative works. One of these lessons is that it is always possible to formulate different interpretations of a work.

One interpretation of “Poleteismo” is that Cruz is spitting on the crucifix, a key image of Catholic Christianity. Cruz is saying that images or representations of Jesus, such as the crucifix, betray the real Jesus. Cruz does this by placing a male genital organ instead of a nose on a representation of the face of Jesus.

This interpretation has led some Catholics to violate the law and to use violence: defacing the exhibit, attempting to set fire to the building, and hurling death threats against members of the CCP board. The violence, by the way, signals the beginning of a new age of religious intolerance. Previously, our religious debates were limited to television shows, pulpits, and classrooms.

There are, however, other ways of interpreting the work.

Here is a different interpretation. The male genital organ is used primarily for two biological purposes — to remove waste processed by the kidneys and to make babies. Removing waste through urine is crucial to the survival of a person; people that cannot urinate end up in a hospital. Making babies is crucial to the survival of the human race; if no one engages in sex, the biblical command to “go and multiply” would be violated.

By equating Jesus with urination and procreation, Cruz is echoing what his UST education doubtless taught him to believe, namely, that the Lord wants humans to respect nature and to respect the doctrine of the Catholic Church that intercourse is solely for procreation.

Here is another interpretation. Following “biblical hermeneutics” (a way of reading religious symbols from the point of view of the reader or audience), we could say that “Poleteismo” is really about us. We who are looking at the work read our own meanings into the male organ and into the face of Jesus. It is we that have ridiculed the face of Jesus, with our preoccupation with the male organ.

Our obsession with the RH bill, divorce, same-sex marriage, and other issues that are somehow related to sexual intercourse is a betrayal of the Christian message, which has to do with feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and helping the poor. By focusing our energies on the male genital organ, we (I am speaking as a male Catholic Christian) have been unfaithful to Jesus, who was extremely tolerant of sex offenders but was very angry at people that judged or hated other people.

In this last interpretation, Cruz is a champion of the Catholic Church, because he has reminded us that we should return to the teachings of Jesus. (To be continued)