Category: the arts

dolphy, kabaklaan, award!

caught a part of cecile guidote alvarez’s guesting on dzmm’s dos por dos.  she was explaining to anthony taberna and gerry baja that, contrary to popular notion, hindi niya inagawan si dolphy ng national artist award back in 2009 when gloria macapagal-arroyo named her for the award along with francisco manosa, jose “pitoy” moreno, and carlo caparas.  say niya, the ncca and ccp had long wanted to give dolphy the award — she didn’t say exactly when — but that there were objections from nick tiongson about dolphy’s body of work and portrayal of kabaklaan (or something like that, correct me if i heard wrong).  complicated na usapin, which should could have been addressed by that book on dolphy.  hmm.  lito zulueta is right, a new category created especially for dolphy, like Broadcast Arts, sounds good.  walang kabaklaan sa Buhay Artista at John en Marsha.

Why Dolphy can’t be National Artist any time soon
By Lito B. Zulueta

His vital signs may have improved, but comedian Dolphy remains at the intensive care unit of the Makati Medical Center, so calls for him to be proclaimed National Artist, while they may have abated in the meantime, are expected to continue. But the drawn-out selection process and other inconvenient realities may conspire to rule out any immediate proclamation.

President Aquino is under pressure to proclaim Dolphy and include him in the Order of National Artists. But he himself has pointed out he’s deferring to the selection process as formulated by the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) and National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), whose boards, sitting jointly, elect the awardees.

While nominations may be submitted by government and nongovernment cultural organizations, educational institutions and private foundations, nominees are subjected to an intensive screening process, in which the accomplishments and merits of the nominees are evaluated by the National Artist Award Secretariat and its Special Research Group happen before a two-part deliberation procedure.

The deliberation is undertaken by two different panels that compose the National Artist Council of Experts. The panels are composed of esteemed scholars, academicians, researchers, art critics and other knowledgeable individuals from the seven classical arts, as well as living National Artists.

(Disclosure: This writer was a member of the second panel during the National Artist selection process in 2003 and 2006.)

After the second deliberation, the experts finalize a short list of nominees and present it to the joint NCCA and CCP boards, which deliberate and make a vote. The final list is then submitted to the president of the Philippines for confirmation, proclamation and conferment.

“In this light, it can be readily seen that the selection of the National Artists is a long process which sometimes takes about two years,” the NCCA said in a statement. “That Mang Dolphy has not been awarded the recognition yet does not reflect on the government or the arts sector wanting or not wanting to do so.”

“For the moment, we understand that Mang Dolphy has been nominated and is now undergoing the process of evaluation—along with other noteworthy artists,” the NCCA added. “In the meantime, we continue to pray for his recovery and return to full health.”

Presidential prerogative

It is possible of course for the President to set aside the selection process, the National Artist arguably being a presidential award. The CCP and NCCA after all are under the Office of the President.

Although there’s another school of thought that maintains the award is not a presidential award, that it’s an award by the Republic and that the head of state is there merely to proclaim the names who have passed muster in the joint boards of the CCP and NCCA, history shows that a sitting president can add his own preference to the final list. President Fidel Ramos was the first to do this when he added a separate category in the awards and made historian Carlos Quirino, his Pangasinan province mate, National Artist for “Historical Literature” in 1997.

President Joseph Estrada followed Ramos’ example when he proclaimed the late Ernani Cuenco, who did the musical scores for his movies, National Artist for Music in 1999.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo followed suit when she made Alejandro Roces, her father’s education secretary, National Artist for Literature in 2003, and Mindanao artist Abdulmari Imao National Artist for the Visual Arts in 2006.

Perhaps because her term was the longest after Marcos’ and she had been able to tweak the CCP-NCCA list and add her own preferences twice, Arroyo might have been emboldened to drastically revise the list in 2009, a year before she stepped down from power, adding four names which didn’t pass the selection process—architect Francisco Mañosa, fashion designer José Moreno, theater artist Cecile Guidote-Alvarez and filmmaker and komiks novelist Carlo Caparas.

Unthinkable

Around that time, there had evolved the belief that while a sitting president could add to the final list, s/he could not subtract from it. But Arroyo did the unthinkable. She not only broke ground by adding not one or two to the list, but four; she also dropped from the list Ramon Santos, who had been elected by the joint CCP-NCCA board as National Artist for Music along with the Tagalog novelist Lazaro Francisco, Federico Aguilar Alcuaz, and filmmaker Manuel Conde. Her act was contested and a court injunction was issued against her proclamation order. The awarding was not consummated. The case is pending in the Supreme Court.

Many are hoping that the high court would firmly settle the matter and clarify the nature of the National Artist Award. But the practice of presidential prerogative appears historically determined.

Established in 1972 by President Ferdinand Marcos through Proclamation No. 1001, the award was created in recognition of the achievements of Filipino artists who embody “the nation’s highest ideals in humanism and aesthetic expression.”

Back then, it was the CCP that solely screened the nominees although strictly speaking there was no nomination process (at least not the process that is implemented today by the National Artist Committee).

It was common belief that Imelda Marcos, who had styled herself patroness of the arts, freely decided whom to give the award. If there was really a selection process, the CCP functioned as an advisory board to Madame Marcos. Moreover, unlike these days when the awards are given every three years, there was no deadline back then. The award could be vested on anyone at any time, depending on the urgency of the moment, as when it was given to Vicente Manansala posthumously in 1982, and Carlos P. Romulo in his sickbed in 1984, a year before he died.

The history of the awards should indicate that President Aquino could give the award to Dolphy anytime he might wish to do so.

Moreover, Arroyo had established through an administration order the Malacañang Honors Committee on top of the National Artist Awards Committee and the joint CCP-NCCA board. As far as anyone knows, the order has not been rescinded. In fact, President Aquino gave Dolphy in 2010 the Grand Collar of the Order of the Golden Heart, one of the awards under the Honors Committee. But since Aquino has vowed to be the opposite of his predecessor, he’s expected to leave the matter to the National Artist Awards Committee and the CCP and NCCA.

Qualified?

But even if the selection process were to be fast-tracked, would Dolphy qualify as National Artist for Cinema?

Dolphy’s case has been compared with action star Fernando Poe Jr., who was declared National Artist for Cinema in 2006, after his death a year before. But Poe was elected to the Order of National Artists not only on the basis of his acting credentials, but also on the movies he had produced and directed. He was made a National Artist because he was both “Fernando Poe Jr.” the actor and “Ronwaldo Reyes” the producer-director.

A look at the roster of National Artists for Cinema would reveal that nearly all of the honorees are directors: Lamberto Avellana, Gerardo de Leon, Lino Brocka, Ishmael Bernal and Eddie Romero.

De Leon started as an actor but shifted to directing to become indisputably the only Filipino cinematic master.

Manuel Conde, who was elected by the CCP-NCCA boards in 2009 but whose proclamation remains pending in the Supreme Court as mentioned above, was an actor-director. Like Dolphy, Conde was a comedian who starred in several blockbusters, which he himself directed. But of course, he was best known for playing the title role, producing and directing “Genghis Khan,” the first Filipino movie to be shown in a major international film festival (in Venice, the world’s oldest movie festival, in 1952).

Therefore, an objective and fair evaluation of Dolphy’s merits as National Artist for Cinema will have to take into consideration whether they equal those earlier named to the award, all of whom were directors.

But even if Dolphy’s merits were to be based solely on his credentials as a comedian-actor, the rub here is that many of the films upon which his reputation as “King of Comedy” is founded are lost or in such an extreme state of disrepair as to be useless for viewing and appreciation.

Many of these movies he had produced himself under his production company, RVQ Productions. But unlike Fernando Poe Jr., who safely stored and preserved the movies he had produced and directed, Dolphy hasn’t really taken good care of his RVQ movies. Prints of his gender-bending movies, which were ahead of their time and should be considered classics now, such as “Facifica Falayfay” and “Fefita Fofonggay,” are in a poor state. As far as we know, none from the younger generations have seen these movies.

But considering that broadcast stations have libraries and there may still be prints of Dolphy’s work on television, especially on “Buhay Artista” and “John en Marsha,” then perhaps he may better qualify as National Artist for the Broadcast Arts. No one has yet been proclaimed for the category, and naming Dolphy for the award could provide it a good start.

Budget

Perhaps the most important consideration on Dolphy’s chances to become National Artist has largely remained unmentioned. It has to do with money.

Conferring the award does not only require strict screening of the nominees; it also presupposes that an audit has been made of the budget for the National Artist Award and a certification has been made that government can afford to pay the emoluments and benefits that go with the honor.

A living National Artist receives a state stipend of some P20,000 a month and is entitled to hospital and medical benefits amounting to P1 million a year. S/he can also apply for a grant of up to P1 million a year from the NCCA, which administers the National Endowment for Culture and the Arts (Nefca).

Since many of the living National Artists are advanced in age and they avail themselves especially of the health benefits that come with the award, the budget through the years has become tighter. This explains why there appears to have evolved a trend of conferring the award posthumously.

Some of the biggest names in the pantheon in fact received the award only after their deaths: Carlos “Botong” Francisco and Amado V. Hernandez in 1973; Gerry de Leon in 1982; and Lino Brocka and Rolando S. Tinio in 1997. This is so because it’s cheaper to give the award posthumously. The family of an artist proclaimed National Artist after his death would receive a one-shot payment of P100,000, nothing less and definitely nothing more.

In 2009, for example, while Arroyo concurred with the joint CCP-NCCA board in proclaiming as National Artists Conde, Francisco and Aguilar Alcuaz, all of whom were dead, she dropped Ramon Santos. It is presumed she needed to delete the composer and musicologist from the list since she had to add her own personal preferences—Alvarez, Caparas, Mañosa and Moreno—who are alive and whose stipends and benefits as National Artists would necessarily deplete further the finances of the awards.

Therefore, the overriding question is: Can government really afford to make Dolphy National Artist?

The first ever National Artist was painter Fernando Amorsolo and he was given the award four days after his death in 1972. It was as if Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos had rushed and created the award just to honor him belatedly. Such doleful, dolorous start set the trend, more or less, for the history of the National Artist Awards.

media & mideo, bishops & rape

there’s a real live rape-of-a-minor court case pala in the works against a parish priest of agusan del norte, who denies the allegations of course, and whom the diocese bishop has taken into his palace (yes, palace! frailocracy pa rin) in butuan city, instead of surrendering him to civil authorities.

i can’t believe that this is the first i’ve heard of it.  it would seem that after reporting the rape complaint by “leah” in early july (when i was hectic, proofreading, indexing, etc. and thus missed it), media dropped the matter completely until two or three days ago. (google it and you get either a july 2-7 item or an august 27-30.)

why did i hear nothing of it all through the mideo crucifixion (when i was paying attention na) — from pinky webb’s xxxpose to karen davila’s censhorship rants to ccp folding — when bishops ruled as though from on high and the inquirer justified vandalism?  all through those august weeks, i didn’t hear anyone in/through media bringing up the rape case, even if only to bring down the bishops a notch, level the playing field, even if only in a token way.

i wonder how much money went around to focus media’s attention on mideo and away from leah.  okay, okay, siguro naman hindi sila lahat nabibili.  pero siguro rin, yung mga hindi nabibili, wala namang balls.  how terrible.  the rape of leah, if true, and other such cases since the time of damaso, is prick power at work, mideo’s poleteismo verfiied and validated, how disgusting in many ways is this church that professes to embody christ.

samantala, in her tribune column, armida siguion-reyna rightly jeers at the holier-than-thou.

Where now are the sanctimonious? Where now are those who took offense with the “sacrilege” they insisted visual artist Cruz committed with the display of his works at the CCP? Butuan, Agusan, Diocese Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos, he who had led the call for President Benigno Aquino III’s resignation because of his appointing “kaklase” and “kaibigan” to government posts, how come there’s nothing from him, especially with the alleged rapist priest under his care?

Nothing, as in not even a peep.

worse, what’s with this priest:

In a radio interview, Fr. Raul Cabonce, the parish priest of Tubay, said “I categorically deny allegations of rape hurled against me… please check the background of the family of the victim first before judging me.”

Fr. Raul Cabonce in an interview on Bombo Radyo Butuan on Tuesday alleged the sisters of the victim were all victims of rape and that people of Las Nieves town, where used to be parish priest before transferring to Tubay, knew the background of the victim’s family.

the sisters of the victim were all rape victims… therefore, what?  they are not to be believed?  they deserve to be raped?  hey, lord bishops, methinks this priest might not only need help sublimating his libido, he could use some gender consciousness & sex education too :(

inquirer, blasphemy, sodomy

i leave it to radikalchick to respond to the world-class self-centered bigoted douchebag (in the words of carlos celdran) and his ilk who insist on their narrow shallow fallow takes on mideo’s art and censorship and the ccp.  but this letter to the editor from ernie lapuz of sto. tomas, batangas, calling out the inquirer on its “tunnel vision” and disconnect with reality, deserves to be shared and taken to heart (and mind).

WHEN ART SERVES AS A MIRROR FOR NATION TO SEE ITS REALITY

A fictitious literary character, Dorian Gray, kept a special portrait of himself. Dorian never aged a day and remained handsome through time. His portrait aged instead of him, and with every detestable sin he committed his portrait became more and more hideous.

“Poleteismo,” by Mideo M. Cruz, is a hideous portrait or artwork. It is so hideous and disgusting that it is being bashed over TV, radio, newspapers, and in the streets. And it’s quite understandable why people are angry, but this anger may have given even the Inquirer a bit of tunnel vision when its editorial on the artwork said, “If all this does not constitute sacrilege, blasphemy, or attack on religion, we don’t know what does.” Come on, surely the Inquirer knows of worse things than “Poleteismo” that constitute blasphemy and sacrilege. The paper writes about it every day. For instance, it has written about an absurd game show host who promotes mendicancy while idiotizing and exploiting the poor by making them salivate over thousand-peso hand-outs while he earns millions for himself. Doesn’t he make Christ look like Mickey Mouse or a clown every time he makes fun of the poor and declaring “All I want to do is help the poor”?

This paper writes about the abuses of the government and the Church. Can’t it feel in its hearts and guts that to call a cheating and utterly corrupt former president, her “First Plunderer” and their cohorts “devout Catholics” is more disgusting than a diseased male organ stuck on a crucifix? And when “Princes of the Church,” filthy rich “Evangelists,” “Ministers” and “Anointed Sons of God” ask and even demand favors (SUVs, a new superhighway along their vast prime property, special appointments, etc.) from government in exchange for their “constant support” of leaders who “steal from the poor,” they actually prostitute religion. Translate this reality into artwork and we may behold a full cathedral ceiling mural of Jesus Christ being held down by “most reverend” clergymen while being sodomized by hordes of “honorable” political leaders. Such an utterly sacrilegious, blasphemous, disgusting, offensive and hideous cathedral artwork will surely be despised, condemned and vanished.

Now what about the reality that is faithfully reflected in that virtual cathedral artwork? Do we see our reality as perfectly normal, acceptable or even handsome as Dorian, or should I say Juan? What kind of infernal gall have we in condemning people who hold up a mirror to us to show us bluntly the true state and configuration of our nation? “Poleteismo” is a reflection of the reality of Juan de la Cruz. And I thank God for the art that serves as our mirror. We can’t banish our collective ugliness reflected in the mirror by bashing that mirror. Surely, God’s mysterious ways are at work here as He Himself is holding that mirror to us. Art as a mirror reveals that it is us who actually commit the sacrilege. It is the reality of our nation, government, churches and ourselves that we need to reform.

—ERNIE LAPUZ
nitelites@rocketmail.com
Biga, Sto Tomas, Batangas

media & mideo
The real immaturity
The morality police came to town (with a lynching mob)

Iconoclasm in art / failure of nerve

By Elmer Ordonez

Senator Edgardo Angara may well have put the “Kulo” controversy to rest by not recommending sanctions against the CCP board. All possible sides were heard at last Tuesday’s Senate probe presided over by the former UP president. Enlightened and benighted views and questions were entertained. Angara seemed satisfied that the CCP board promised to review their procedures for exhibits.

All’s well that ends well? Here’s my take on the issue:

Weeks of pressure from the Church clergy/ partisans including Palace intervention compelled the CCP board to pull out the entire “Kulo” exhibit, not just the controversial installation “Polytheism” of Mideo Cruz.

CCP chair Emily Abrera said the board did not “cave in” to the pressure but a decision was reached, by referendum, to withdraw the exhibit before its expiry today. Against the closure were Abrera, Florangel Braid, and Carol Espiritu while a majority of six including CCP president Raul Sunico were for closure for reasons of “public safety.”

The exhibit had already been shown at Ateneo and UP Diliman and no problem arose from viewers. The exhibit was to commemorate the 150th birth anniversary of Rizal by alumni artists of Rizal’s alma mater, the University of Santo Tomas, celebrating its 400th year of its founding. Historically, the UST’s school of fine arts under the late National Artist Victorio Edades was a pioneer in modernist art while the University of the Philippines was still following the classical style with Fernando Amorsolo and Guillermo Tolentino as leading lights. Edades’ 1928 exhibit triggered a running debate between the moderns and the conservatives.

At the about the same time Jose Garcia Villa was suspended from the UP for his “obscene” poem “Man-Songs” by a committee led by traditional poet Dean Jorge Bocobo who must have thought Villa’s modernist work was “bad writing.”

The advent of modern art or “the shock of the new” came rather late in the Philippines. Mideo Cruz’s installation would have been in its element during the time of “Dadaism” in Europe. Edades’ works were modern in style but were they infused with “ideology and politics” like Picasso’s anti-fascist “Guernica?” Edades’ “The Builders” had a proletarian touch; his students were more into depicting Filipino history and identity like the murals of Carlos “Botong” Francisco.

“Dadaism” itself (with Marcel Duchamp as a favorite example with his “Fountain,” a urinal hanging from his installation) was a protest against the senselessness of the First World War and against bourgeois art. He did not expect the public would tolerate his “shock art.” Just as the academe in Loyola and Diliman did not create a big fuss over Cruz’s work. Thanks to a TV camera man who showed shots to the bishops when the trouble began.

“Kulo” or revolutionary ferment was obviously inspired by Rizal’s iconoclasm in the last decades of the 19th century when Rizal and the Propagandists produced incendiary literature that would lead to the 1896-1898 Revolution that ended Spanish colonial/monastic rule. Rizal and Marcelo del Pilar were particularly scathing in their anti-friar writings. The two novels of Rizal to this day are taught in some schools expurgating or sanitizing passages considered offensive to the Church.

Constantino Tejero of Inquirer thinks Cruz’s “Polytheism” is expressive of “racial memory embedded in the subconscious”— a virtual history of church and colonial abuses up to the present. Lito Zulueta also of Inquirer consigns Cruz’s work to iconoclastic art. Iconoclasm has a long history of idol-smashing (literally and figuratively) in religion, politics, culture and art. The Church itself destroyed images and icons carried by its forces deemed responsible for their defeat in battle.

In Rizal’s time the theocratic state responded to his “blasphemous” and “heretical” novels by banning them and ultimately having him shot by firing squad. Today, if some defenders of the faith have their way, they would perhaps have the offending artist burned at stake like Joan of Arc, and those responsible in the CCP for approving the exhibit, charged in court and made to resign.

Those who find Cruz’s work offensive have the right to protest or to picket the exhibit but do they have the right to resort to vandalism or arson? The latter act conjures images of book-burning, and history is replete with examples of this kind of censorship in totalitarian and supposedly democratic societies. The Church provides the faithful with an index of approved books bearing the phrase “nihil obstat” or nothing objectionable. “Prior restraint” cannot be imposed in a pluralistic society.

The UP Arts studies department statement provides the aesthetic and intellectual justification for engaging controversial art works in discussion rather than banning them. It says: “While there are contending interpretations of an image presented by art, the ethical course of action is to process the contentions and that is what art ensures: a process of communicative action. The closure of an exhibition only achieves the closure of democratic, informed and thoughtful engagement.”

The CCP board may still redeem itself by standing their ground against the recrudescence of obscurantism and repression. They will not be alone.

eaordonez2000@yahoo.com