CCP and Poleteismo

What is my stand about the controversy?

First, the board members of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) should not have approved the exhibit entitled “Kulo,” which includes “Poleteismo.”

The decision to show or not to show something within the CCP building is entirely theirs. That decision is not based only on purely aesthetic considerations. That decision is based on many factors, such as how much money they have, how much money they will make, and how much time and effort a show will take.

That decision is also based on how the public will react to what they show. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art has no problem showing a reproduction of Marcel Duchamp’s classic “Fountain” (which is a urinal), because it is San Francisco. La Mama Experimental Theatre Club in New York City had completely nude actresses walking around the audience in a famous production of “The Trojan Women,” but that was New York. Both art pieces cannot be shown in Manila, for the simple reason that we Filipinos in general have unfortunately not had the kind of art education that we deserve.

“Kulo” was clearly too sophisticated for the general Filipino audience. That is proven by the controversy itself. Even the rich and famous who should know better because they have had the chance to visit the largest museums in the world reacted as though they had never travelled. Because they were miseducated, a number of Catholics understandably could not even distinguish between Church and State, art and religion, protest and violence.

Second, the CCP should not have closed down “Kulo.” Two wrongs do not make a right. It was wrong to show it, and it was wrong to close it. As a government body, the CCP should have upheld the constitutional provision on freedom of expression.

Lino Brocka, who was the object of censorship all his short life, included the provision on freedom of expression. The constitutions of other free countries simply protect freedom of speech, not freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is meant especially and explicitly to protect creative works, which “Poleteismo” clearly was.

The vexing question remains, is “Poleteismo” art?

From extrinsic evidence or based on authority, it is art. The professors in the Department of Art Studies of the University of the Philippines say so, and they know better than any of us what art is all about.

From intrinsic evidence or based on art theory, it is art. It admits of various interpretations, including some that are the exact opposite of the generally accepted one that it is blasphemous. One of the distinguishing characteristics of an artwork is that it can be interpreted in many ways. This is taught even to schoolchildren, when literature is first introduced to them. We can read a scientific sentence only in one way, but we can read a line of poetry any number of ways.

That would have been that, but because one National Artist says that “Poleteismo” is not art and another National Artist says that it is, we have to dig deeper into the use of the word “art.”

Is “Poleteismo” art or is it not? Yes, it is, and no, it isn’t.

The operational meaning of the word is simple: art is what is in an art gallery. When we go into a moviehouse, we watch a movie. When we go into a fastfood restaurant, we eat food. When we go into an art gallery, what we see is art. Because “Poleteismo” was shown in an art gallery in the CCP, it is art.

There is, however, a different way to use the word “art.”

Suppose I find a canvas lying around, accidentally spill paint on it, have it framed, then hang the frame on the wall in my office. I can’t draw to save my life, I am partially color-blind, I have never used a paint brush, I hate smudges of paint on my fingers, and I am clueless about composition and other elements of art, not to mention that the whole thing was just an accident. What is the thing that is on my wall?

Anyone who walks in will call it a painting. If it is not a painting, it would not have a name. If it is not a painting, what is it? Similarly, if Poleteismo is not art, then what is it? What noun shall we use to name it?

There is, nevertheless, an evaluative definition of “art.” When I tell visitors to my office that what I have on my wall is not a painting, but just a frame with a canvas with paint that I spilled on it, they can legitimately ask me, then what is it? I will say that, whatever it is, it is not a painting. It is not art.

There is one way out of this dilemma. (To be continued)

TEACHING TIP OF THE WEEK: Teachers of Art Appreciation should take up “Poleteismo” in their classes. If they have no opinion about it, they should not be teaching art appreciation.

SOMETHING TO LISTEN TO: Radyo Balintataw features “Super Fancy Machine,” a modern fairy tale serial based on “The Kingdom of Insects,” by Wang Ling, a distinguished Chinese playwright. The novela is being broadcast this week from 9 to 9:30 p.m. on DZRH and will end on Monday.