For the most part, the trouble I see with the whole Mideo Cruz controversy is that people fail to make the distinction between artistic & religious bias.<\/p>\n
When the issue first started, it was simple enough; people were up in arms because Cruz’s work was blasphemous, and therefore “offended” their religious sensibilities. It got much more complicated because any<\/em> person who actually uses their brain would know that while having those sentiments is understandable, it’s simply not enough<\/em> to overthrow one’s constitutional right<\/strong> to express them self. <\/p>\n So what did those “offended” people do to “re-legitimize” their concern? They tried arguing “objectively” (for lack of a better term) – specifically attacking the “quality” of the art. Their point was now basically this: the art was not art at all, or mediocre art at best; thus had no place in the CCP. As one comment would eloquently put it: <\/p>\n The CCP is the art gallery par excellence<\/em> of this nation, and so we have come to expect that only established artists; those who have built their reputations over decades of public acclaim and acceptance by their fellow artists; deserve to be exhibited there.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And that is a perfectly reasonable claim to make. I agree with it 100%<\/p>\n But what people don’t see is that we’ve already been misdirected from the real<\/strong> issue.<\/p>\n The real issue is that it garnered enough controversy to compel it to be taken down – and it begs the question of what forces were really at play. Again, going back to my earlier statements. Was it really because of the artworks “quality” – or simply because people were offended?<\/p>\n The answer to this question, IMHO, is very important because the implications of this event sets a precedent… wether it’s a bad or good thing remains to be seen. I honestly think it was really more of religious backlash instead of actually thinking the work was “inartistic.”<\/p>\n To explain my point, let me ask a question.<\/p>\n If that “offensive” collage had not contained religious imagery. Would people react to it this aggressively? More specifically, would it have compelled people\/artists alike to lobby for the exhibit to be closed down?<\/p>\n I honestly don’t think so. I dare say that even if the work was<\/strong> mediocre, and even if the general population was in solidarity that it was not “art,” I think we’d simply be stating our disappointment in the CCP for displaying the work. But I don’t think we’d demand it be taken down. Which is as it should be!<\/strong><\/p>\n Because while it’s very well possible for an “artist” to hide behind the guise of expression to justify posting “mediocre” works, It’s also equally possible for anyone to criticize a work in the guise of “artistic objectivity” when they’re really only after it just because it offends them.<\/p>\n You? Me? Some other prolific artist? Art experts?<\/p>\n Art is a form of expression just like music is. You can try to put a “standard” all you want but at the end of the day, that standard means shit to anyone who is moved by the material.<\/p>\n The trouble I see with trying to put a “standard” on art is that it’s impossible because of art’s subjective nature. What makes art, art anyways? Furthermore what makes good<\/em> art? Some people have tried quantifying that – and sure, let’s indulge them. Lets even throw in the supposed “standard” of the CCP being the zenith of Philippine art.<\/p>\n Talking about Cruz’s “blasphemous” work(s), let’s assume that it really wasn’t about simply being offended by it; that it was<\/em> “mediocre” work. That, even if it was art, it wasn’t art that was up to CCP standards. <\/p>\n Let’s objectively break it down. What makes it mediocre? Because the art in question merely an ugly collage anyone could do? Because the “materials” used are simply taken from existing works (items, or articles, pictures?) Does that mean we should exclude any<\/em> form of mixed media from the CCP henceforth? Because the implication is that everything should be original and never rehashed\/re-used.<\/p>\n Or what about abstract works? What decides if they’re good? The complexity? Or because anyone could make a simple abstract drawing? Does that mean we should never allow any form of abstraction as well because we lack the means to quantifiably “judge” the quality of such works? Would any work that utilizes impressionism be considered of less quality than a realistic painting\/sculpture?<\/p>\n To digress from the visual arts a bit, we’e performed<\/em> in the CCP – but we’re no Madrigal Singers – does that mean that in order to maintain the CCP’s “standards” that people should’ve reprimanded the place for letting a bunch of hacks like us perform in it? Who gets to perform in it, then? Only the best of the best?<\/p>\n Going back, it seems that if we “standardize” such a thing, we’re essentially allowing only one type of art in the CCP – realism\/naturalism<\/strong> because that’s pretty much the only discipline of the visual arts that can<\/strong> be quantifiably measured: by the technical accuracy. And now you see why I think it’s foolish to make an argument of deciding what makes art, “art” – the implications will be tremendous – and a lot<\/em> of people will<\/em> be called hypocrites if we go down that road.<\/p>\n Art has always been a subjective thing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And yes, beauty can be seen in the most absurd and depraved subject matter. The question is if it appeals to us or not. Sadly, Cruz’s work does not appeal to us – but it doesn’t make it any less of an “artwork” in the strictest sense of the word.<\/p>\n If you don’t like a work of art, then simply don’t like it – there’s no need to do anything about it. I’m pretty sure that not every work in the Louvre<\/em> appeals to everyone universally. Some works of art you’ll appreciate more than the others – and some you may even hate for whatever reason. And that’s fine. But for the works you don’t like (or hate) do you see yourself approaching the curator compelling him to take the works down? Of course not! <\/p>\n Why is that? And the answer is pretty obvious right? Because while it may be ugly, it probably doesn’t “offend” – and we then come full circle. The issue I see is not necessarily because of the quality of the work – but simply because it offended people – and sadly, no matter how “objectively” lousy the work is, being “offended” by it is not a good enough reason to trample on another person’s freedom to express themselves. 1 <\/sup><\/a>It’s not like anyone’s being forced to see the work, or is being physically hurt by it<\/span><\/span>\n
Real Issue?<\/h1>\n
Who Gets to decide what makes Art “Art”?<\/h1>\n
An Exercise in Futility<\/h2>\n
Bottomline<\/h1>\n