on page 55 of the catalogue of Leon Gallery’s “MAGNIFICENT September Auction” (tomorrow, AIM Conference Center) is listed a painting attributed, and wrongfully, to Santiago Bose. read his daughter Lille’s blogpost: Is it Art, or is it Fart?
The truth is, it is nothing but funny, at least to me: what the f is wrong with these National Artists?
And I do mean both Carlo Caparas and Virgilio Almario, going at it on cable television, in an interview that both of them seemed unprepared for. Caparas falls back on meeting up with Almario “sa kanto,” at the same time that Almario screams in exasperation: “Sinipa rin ako sa gobyerno nung naging National Artist ako!”
I say: what a shame. To the National Artist award as an institution, and to the national discourse on culture, both. Because there was nothing intelligent or decent about that conversation, which had nothing to do with what it is that either of them are National Artists for. It has everything to do with how messed up we are about culture in this country, and how we are in over our heads most of the time.
That goes for these two National Artists, going all Round 1 on us on television.
The ghost of Gloria
The truth is, I also do not care for having (had) Caparas as National Artist; I don’t think he deserves it just yet, I do think there are other comics creators who deserve it ahead of him. And yet it is also true that the National Artist Award, as an institution, has always been put into question by the fact of presidents adding to the list of names that the NAA Jury submits to Malacañang.
Say, Fidel Ramos creating the category of Historical Literature to include Carlos Quirino in 1997, Joseph Estrada adding his friend and composer Ernani Cuenco Sr. in 2000, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo adding Alejandro Roces and Abdulmari Imao in 2006. And yes, GMA’s addition of four names to the NAA Jury’s original four: Caparas, Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, Pitoy Moreno and Francisco Mañosa in 2009.
Now it is said that the latter was utterly unacceptable because GMA also dared do what no president had done before: remove someone from the legitimate NAA Jury list, that is, Ramon Santos.
Had she not removed Santos from that list, would this case against those four additional names have been brought to court? If we are to believe National Artist for Literature Almario, the answer would be yes. Because that case was all about saving the NAA, asserting that it is an institution that no President can meddle with in the way GMA did.
Which is what way exactly? Apparently the way of adding four names unilaterally, and deciding against the list submitted to Malacañang by the NAA Jury. The Supreme Court decision in favor of Almario et al says:
“ manifest disregard of the rules, guidelines and processes of the NCCA and CCP was an arbitrary act that unduly favored respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Mañosa and Moreno,” and as such “The conferment of the Order of National Artists to said respondents was therefore made with grave abuse of discretion and should be set aside.”?
This of course begs the question: so four additional names is grave abuse of discretion, but an additional one, or two, isn’t?
Almario would say: nilakad ‘yon eh. Which is to ask, too: so the Ramos, Erap and GMA’s 2006 additions to the NAA Jury list weren’t “nilakad”?
At the very least, I expected that the SC’s nullification of GMA’s choices would also mean that Santos – the person she removed from the legitimate NAA Jury list – can finally be given the award he so deserves. But alas, he will not join the other National Artists for 2009 – Lazaro Francisco, Federico Aguilar Alcuaz and Manuel Conde – because according to the SC, “the President had the authority to alter or modify or nullify or set aside such recommendation or advice.”
In effect, while the SC has decided against GMA’s decision to include Caparas et al in that 2009 list, they respect her decision to exclude Santos.
Which is to say this: if the goal is to prove that the NAA is about a credible jury and process that decide on who deserves to be part of this elite roster of artists, then the continued exclusion of Santos is still about the ghost of Gloria hovering over this process.
Caparas’ bark, Almario’s bite
The notion that this SC decision now rids the National Artist Award of politics and politicking is naïve at best. There is nothing apolitical about the NAA, at all. For one thing, it is a government-conferred award; for another, its process is one that’s within the cultural institutions of the State. It is imbued as such with the questionable practices of government in general, and government’s notions of culture in particular.
On an even more superficial level, the NAA is actually embroiled in this glaring inconsistency: on the one hand the laws say the NAA Jury “shall advice the President on the conferment of the Order of National Artists,” which does give the President the opportunity to refuse the advice; on the other hand, the NCCA’s published guidelines for the Order of the National Artists state that “The list of awardees shall be submitted to the President of the Republic of the Philippines for confirmation, proclamation and conferral,” which presumes that the President will merely act on the advice of the NAA Jury.
Caparas is holding on to the fact that his awarding was borne of a presidential prerogative, that he is mere recipient of an award that GMA had the right to give him; Almario insists – and the Supreme Court agrees – that this was not merely about the president’s prerogative, as it was about disregarding the process and rules of the NAA itself.
Given how they are holding onto two very different sets of rules, on that fateful morning when Caparas and Almario treated us to round one of this bout, it was clear how half the time they were shadow boxing, throwing punches in the air, not really hitting each other.
Unless of course we are to consider Caparas hitting the NAA as institution, given articulations that were in many instances en pointe, to which Almario responded without the critical backbone we would know him to have.
Say, when Caparas asks the rhetorical questions: “Ano ba ang nakahihigit? Yung prerogative ng Presidente o reklamo ng maliit na grupo? <…> “Gaano karaming National Artists ang nanggaling sa grupo nila, sa barkada nila? ‘Yan ang maling proseso, na halos lahat ng nagiging Pambansang Alagad ng Sining galing sa hanay nila.”
The right response would’ve been for Almario to talk about this presidential prerogative versus the process of choosing the National Artist for any given year. The right response would’ve been to talk about patronage politics, how it can only play a part in the NAA process which Almario holds sacred, and how it might be disavowed, too, by this process of selection.
But all Almario could talk about was how the proclamation of Caparas was an act that messes with this process: “Parang binababoy nila yung buong proseso. Para bang ngayon, kung masusunod yung kanilang ginawa parang walang kwenta na yung maghirap ka sa deliberation. Pumunta ka lang sa Malacañang, maglakad doon at pwede ka nang maging National Artist. That is not honorable, I think.”
I’d throw in the question of why it might be held honorable that Santos’ exclusion by GMA be respected, but not her inclusion of Caparas etal., but that might be to rain on Almario’s parade, having won this case and all. Then again, the critique of patronage and barkadahan is a valid one for all of local culture, and it would’ve been great to hear Almario talking about how NAA deliberations are affected if not informed by it, but how institutions like this one persist and survive because these have a function because these have value.
Instead all he says is, “Mina-malign niya lahat ng National Artists dahil lang sa sa kanyang sama ng loob. Bakit di n’ya patunayan na magkakabarkada lahat kung ‘di kinuyog siya ng lehitimong artist at manunulat?”
It was clear by Almario’s tone that he was beyond all these, he was beyond this discussion and wasn’t really quite giving it the time of day, even as he agreed to be part of this very public bout. This might also be why Caparas could go on and on about how Almario was just envious of him, and how this is about who and whose works are more popular, on a national scale.
Almario dismisses these and says that the case wasn’t about Caparas’ body of work, as it was about the way in which he was given the award. And yet, in the the 2009 speech he wrote on Caparas and his assertions about popular literature, Almario asserted that the idea of writing “to entertain the masses” is the most “despicable purpose of writing <…> as filthy and as evil-smelling as the capitalist motive of profiting from anything sold.”
(“Aliwin ang masa”? Ito ang isang karima-rimarim na hangarin sa pagsulat. Kasindumi at kasimbahò ng motibong kapitalista na pagkakitahan ang anumang ibenta.”)
Isn’t Almario already drawing the line here, between popular literature and culture, and the literary and cultural establishment? Isn’t it that when Almario says there’s such a thing as “legitimate artists and writers” he is in fact also saying that there are artists like Caparas, and then there are artists like him and the other National Artists?
This kind of distancing is exactly all that Caparas needs to throw some punches that actually hit Almario, the NAA, and the cultural establishment. Because after he takes on the questions of patronage and the discrimination against popular culture, Caparas goes on to question Almario’s role as a member of government vis a vis his being National Artist, hitting at the cultural establishment’s rarely discussed dysfunction. That is, what happens to our notion of the artist – of the National Artist – when artists and cultural workers themselves become government employees that police culture, and who will have their hands tied when it comes to speaking about the more critical political issues of the day?
What is a nation when artists, declared National and otherwise, are indebted to, and colored by, the prevailing discourse of government?
Caparas says of Almario: “Tingnan mo, alagad ka ng sining naglilingkod ka sa gobyerno. Isipin mo, kung alagad ka ng sining dapat may kalayaan ka, na walang sumasakop sa iyo.”
Round 1 goes to Caparas.
googling dolphy and the national artist award, i found a lot of endorsements from showbiz peeps and politicians and fans, but not what i was looking for: a professional assessment of dolphy’s body of work by one who is eminently informed and credible in the entertainment arts and on filipino culture.
i wished ishmael bernal were alive so i could ask him, and then, again, he never worked with dolphy. but thinking ishma led me to thinking peque gallaga whom i met in 1980, around the time of ishma’s manila by night, for which he did the production design. just two years later peque was off on his own, astounding us with oro plata mata, scandalizing us with scorpio nights, scaring us with shake, rattle, and roll, going on to break new ground as director and writer and production designer in every genre, including digital and regional cinema, over the last three decades, deserving every international and local award he’s received, especially urian’s lifetime achievement award, and being dubbed “the compleat cinema artist.” AND he has worked with dolphy.
serendipitously enough, peque had phoned me some weeks ago just to say how much he loved revolutionary routes. i was touched and kilig, of course, but more to the point, it gave me the nerve to message him privately on facebook (kahit pa he’s busy working on three movie scripts na iba-ibang genre) and ask what his take is on the national artist issue.
do you think dolphy deserves it?
Peque: Well, I go by the belief that an artist changes perceptions of the people around him… the way they look at the world, at their country and at themselves. Dolphy, as well as Fernando Poe did that. It helped define us as a people. So yes, I strongly believe Dolphy deserves it.
may i quote you in a blog post i’m writing? baka you’d care to elaborate on “helped define us as a people”…
Peque: Yes, you can quote me. Elaborating on “helped define us as a people” will be a super blogging task on my part because it will need all sorts of references and examples. But, like in John & Marsha… Dolphy simply went beyond the ’50s accepted norms of what fathers, Filipino males and macho-hood [are about] that our audiences expected from our male stars. Dolphy changed the stereotype and the cliche. That was effective on a national scale, ergo National Artist.
re tiongson’s issue with dolphy’s portrayal of gays, i suppose it may have worked against many gays na binugbog o nilubog sa drum ng tubig ng mga tatay nilang macho, thanks or no thanks to dolphy. but parang ang labo to judge his worthiness based on that.
Peque: Exactly. Dolphy was playing an elaborate game of mirrors. Most of his audience were aware that he had one of the biggest dicks in the industry and that he was a 100% “tunay na lalake” in the kanto scale of machoness — so his doing gays (that were usually quite understanding and quite truthful, meaning they didn’t resort to huge stereotypical mugging) was in a way the more subversive road towards acceptance by Pinoy society at large, without preaching, sermonizing, or the expected Brocka political agenda movie. As a matter of fact, I think that his weakest gay portrayal was precisely in Tatay Kong Nanay because there was that Brockanian lesson-to-be-learned quality.
Dolphy made it okay, no-big-deal, to cross-dress and play gay; so much so that people like Joey de Leon, Michael V, Ogie, and even Vic Sotto weren’t scared to do “faggotry” and serious “faggotry” at that. There was even that show where all of the male hosts from Anjo Yllana all the way up just came on dressed and acting like girls without camping it up, very much like Monty Python, and without having to ever explain why they were doing it in the first place. And you have to understand that they weren’t observing Gay Pride Week or any kind of cause. They just did it because. As in because! That’s a game-changing thing in the heterosexual world. Something that Nick Tiongson would hardly understand. The guy was sooo wrong about his “crusades” that I actually boycotted the CCP all the years that he was the head of it. The guy simply belongs in the academe, sheltered away from the grim realities of Pinoy zeitgeist.
and what about the notion that dolphy didn’t do slapstick….
Peque: I directed Dolphy twice, once in a comedy/fantasy and another in a TV special, straight drama, and he won best actor for it. He instinctively delivered the ‘life submerged within the text’ just like any Chekhovian would.
Of course he was slapstick, but in the great tradition of slapstick which is, after all, a legitimate form of comedy. He was up there with Chaplin and Harold Lloyd. He had the lightest touch, he was deft and precise, and his timing was impeccable. His mugging was in line with accepted Pinoy Comedia dell’Arte levels of Pugo and Tugo, and he would never take the mugging to exasperating lengths unlike comedians like Chiquito, Palito and Babalu whose mugging was not only their whole point of the comedy, but would take that mugging to wearying lengths. Dolphy had a certain class and sophistication which he never used as a weapon. I learned more about physical comedy in the two months I worked with him than I did in my Improvisation classes. I was totally humbled.
wonderful! suddenly i’m rethinking my blogpost. a peque on dolphy piece instead…
Peque: I would love to be quoted on Dolphy. The guy is a master and truly, truly an artist… but he never acts as if he was an Artist (pronounced Artiste) with a capital A.
so there! peque should have been on that panel. he would have demolished any and all objections. wagi sana si dolphy.
on facebook yesterday, dr. isagani cruz posted this status and link re nick tiongson‘s objection to dolphy’s portrayal of gay roles:
I was there, but could not reveal this due to confidentiality. Ex-CCP top official opposed Dolphy’s National Artist Award, says Guidote-Alvarez
which generated this exchange between danny arao and joel david in the comment thread.
Danilo Arao Thanks for sharing, sir. I was surprised [by] this “disclosure.” It sets a bad precedent. Future deliberations could be compromised as supposedly confidential matters could be disclosed in the future.
Joel David Actually transparency should be part of the process. It’s a recognition with the designation “national.” All this secrecy can be regarded as a large part of the reason for the dagdag-bawas scandal that resulted in Carlo Caparas’s “selection.”
Danilo Arao Hi, Joel. Yes, transparency is absolutely necessary and I think even minutes of the meeting could be made public. But specific comments, especially those deemed inconsequential, should be made confidential or off-the-record. In our own college, we don’t publicly disclose those nominated for Gawad Plaridel. We only announce the winners so that we don’t unnecessarily embarrass those who did not get it (and I think they’re equally deserving if evaluated by a different set of judges)…
Joel David I really must differ. The Gawad Plaridel is an award given by an institution that doesn’t claim to be public, although it is. So its process should be open to members of the public if any member is interested. Both institutions (UP and NCCA) use public funds. GP doesn’t need to “publicize” its process because the public isn’t interested. But at this point, there is interest in the National Artist awards.
Danilo Arao Yes, I see where you’re coming from and that’s also a valid point. But I think our difference of opinion has to do with transparency. It may be absolutely necessary but it’s not necessarily absolute, if you get my drift. At any rate, this deserves further discussion and it may be imperative for NCCA to review its rules and selection processes.
Joel David Here’s my point. If I were in an NA decision-making process, I would also object to the idea of Dolphy being declared a winner. That’s my personal, subjective position. But I would not want to hide in any confidentiality arrangement. It’s not a national security issue. If I wouldn’t want to be embarrassed by taking that position, I’d just recuse myself from participating. Simple as pie.
Danilo Arao Quick rejoinder: The issue here is not Dolphy but Guidote-Alvarez breaching the confidentiality agreement. Is it ethical and professional for her to do so? Did she break the trust given to her by her peers who participated in the selection process? (In the context of the controversy surrounding the selection of NAs in 2009, we should also consider the fact that her controversial selection as NA is pending in the Supreme Court, alongside that of Carlo J. Caparas.
Joel David It’s disturbing to even think that just because Cecile may have been a dagdag-bawas beneficiary, her credibility has been compromised. That’s not how a democracy works. If one day GMA claims to have evidence of wrongdoing by Pnoy, it’s in everyone’s interest to check her claim before judging her motives. As to a prior agreement by the NA committee to observe confidentiality – that’s an arrangement that could have worked given a few assumptions: that collegiality existed among the members, and that they’d be careful enough with the process so that no controversy will arise. In short, it’s purely for their benefit, not the interested public’s. Once that implicit agreement is ruptured, then all bets are off.
i agree with joel david re transparency but not regarding his objection to dolphy being declared a national artist. like direk peque gallaga, whose thoughts i’ll be sharing in my next post, i think dolphy deserves it, and deserved it 10 years ago.
i get where danny arao is coming from. until the rule on confidentiality is dropped, there can be no condoning guidote-alvarez’s disclosure. however, her controversial selection as NA in 2009 does not render what she disclosed in-credible. and now that it’s out in the open, there is no ignoring or pooh-poohing the information. tiongson’s “comment” cannot be rated “inconsequential,” considering that it cost dolphy the national artist award.
if the selection process had been transparent, and the minutes of meetings made public, nothing off-the-record, would tiongson have dared, or gotten away with it? would someone not have dared in turn, nay, been obliged, to take up the cudgels for dolphy? tiongson’s position is defensible but only on the level of gay portrayals. no matter how “violent” or impassioned tiongson’s disapproval, surely there were even more powerful arguments in favor of dolphy. it’s not as if kabaklaan were all that dolphy’s body of work is about.
confidentiality is elitist, and it sucks. public deliberations would be highly educational and raise discourse and consciousness on what it takes to be a national artist.
also, what does it take ba to be a panelist in such deliberations. kailangan ba talaga ng sangkatutak na academic credentials? baka dapat meron ding psychological screening to determine kung may hang-ups about this or that. time for the ncca and ccp to level up.