Vandalism vs. Art

The CCP (Cultural Center of the Philippines) is involved in a controversy with regards to the exhibit called “Kulo” that they have allowed to be exhibited in their gallery. This controversy revolves around the provocative and inflammatory works of Mideo Cruz that depict Christian religious symbols and figures, defaced with phallic objects. This defacement has caused violent reactions from both camps; Christians who are horrified at seeing sacred objects defiled and, on the other side, secularists whose lack of Faith leaves them, apparently, incapable of understanding how seriously this defacement hurts the Faithful. If the secularists do, in fact, want to hurt the faithful, they’ve done a good job. If they do indeed know that this is so hurtful then why should they call it art? Why don’t they just call it Cultural War? The Philippine Government, with taxpayer’s money and the trust of the 90% Christian electorate, should not sponsor cultural and religious warfare under the sheep’s clothing of “art”.

People who give their full support to CCP and the “Kulo” exhibit threatened to create more blasphemous pieces but, can those pieces be called art? Is that how they define art? If it is, then Philippine art has become a mediocrity that only uses shock value as its medium.

When you go to museums all over the world, admiring beautiful artworks, study the broad spectrum of religious themes. There are so many to choose from: Christian, Hebrew, Islamic, Hindu, Egyptian, American Indian and so many others. These themes span thousands of years of human Belief and Wonder. They include some of the most beautiful pieces of art in the world. Now, compare these fine works to the artistic attempts of secularists that aim, solely, to ferment public reaction by defacing religious themes, icons and artifacts. There is an inherent difference in the quality of these two artistic approaches.

Religious art is not always “easy” to look at. The themes are sometimes painful, such as the stoning of people, the Crusades, the Inquisition, even torture and martyrdom. These themes have historical perspective but the art came after these events; excluding depictions that are mythological in nature and/or those that foreshadow the end of the world.

Lately, Pop Culture artists have fused socio-political/religious commentary into their creations to incite and provoke a historical event. This seems to be the cart leading the horse.

Do religious and cultural provocateurs have such a restricted vocabulary and have so little bravery, self-respect and self-esteem that they cannot ply their trade and pronounce their ideas in the streets? Do they seek the solace and contemplative galleries that are built, sponsored and visited by the Culture that these “artists” target to “enlighten”?

The legislation and regulation of Free Speech is never, and will never be, unlimited, unrestricted and, otherwise, open-ended. This is because words and expressions have power and there is no legislative, religious or cultural entity that can stand and prosper without a satisfactory amount of decorum. This may be sad, this may be unfortunate, yet it is true. Anarchy and utopia simply don’t prosper.

Where the lines of decorum should be drawn is in heated debate, but let’s be clear: Let’s call it Debate, not Art.

We should all aspire to tolerance, even when we are deeply hurt. This controversy at CCP is not, and should not, be about freedom of speech and expression; this controversy should be focused on whether our government should be in the business of offering their museums and galleries as a soapbox for these cultural and religious battles. A government that takes freedom of speech and expression seriously should provide its constituents with policies and avenues of dissent. Art galleries should not be over-restricted, yet an accountable, well-educated and culturally-aware jury or committee should promote an open-dialogue with the community and its artists as to the use and exhibition of art, within its walls and environs.

Provocative Pop Culture art can, and has been, inspired, promoted, forged and tempered in the streets through human history. Some of these art forms have eventually become recognized as iconic new standards of art. The private sector and its galleries are the perfect, decent and rightful laboratories and nurseries for this type of artistic evolution. National galleries should be reserved for the finest examples of the People’s Arts.

With government-assured freedom of speech and expression, all disenfranchised artists should exercise their trade within the social and legal guidelines that the overwhelming majority of citizens support and legislate. Dissent should always be possible, while not unlimited in scope. The majority becomes the majority by simple means, its numerical advantage. This makes dissent historically difficult but it should not make it impossible.

The creative soul and artistic vision can be imperiled by manufacturing editorial artworks and installations. This is what I mean when I suggest this warning: It’s easy to start a fire; it’s easy to start a riot, it takes no skill, one simply provokes nature or human emotion and allows things to take their course. The conflagration and mob’s destructive forces are not artistic; they don’t come from art. They come as calculated and predictable results of revolutionary dissent. The question here is whether an artistic artifact or quasi/pseudo art object can withstand its tumultuous impact. Few works of malicious art survive unconsumed by the firestorm that they create. It is possible to shock people artistically and have the art, itself, survive as a reminder of a certain sort of emotional transition but this is rare. So here we have the current dilemma: Should graphic, provocative and probably inflammatory art be supported and promoted by the Philippine Government using taxpayers’ and donors’ money? I don’t think so. Street art is best left in the streets where it can be tempered and forged by the people who produce it, view it and comment on it. At this point, and only after this refining process, should it be entered into an appropriately juried process to be displayed in this national museum; a museum founded to support and display traditional Filipino arts, crafts and culture.