One Saturday morning, I met with my cousin to fulfill a promise of helping her for a requirement in one of her classes in the university. I was concentrating on the work when out of the blue, she asked me “Nico, anong stand mo doon sa gawa ni Mideo? Na-offend ka ba?” She posed the question in such a manner that I knew right away the answer she was expecting. Well, her expectation was right.
Just when debates over the controversial RH Bill are intensely searing their way up in the public spheres, here comes another polemic issue that, just as expected, stirred up contentions under the national spotlight. These contentions sprang from religious beliefs, but are nonetheless supported by legal mandates. Catholic groups have cited Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code to argue that this is an issue of upholding public morals and societal order.
Here is a backgrounder: Last June, the Cultural Center of the Philippines launched an art exhibit entitled Kulo, wherein one of the displays, a work called “Poletiesmo” done by a certain artist named Mideo Cruz, suffered the “hot seat” from offended Catholics and many other Christian denominations across the country due to its sacrilegious portrayals of the Lord and our Lady.
I grinned at my cousin’s asking, as if to give her a hint that her guess was right. “Honestly, oo. Na-offend ako.” To some people, especially artists, the work was merely one’s expression of artistic views and a pure exercise of freedom of expression; thus, it wasn’t really blasphemy for them. It seems that their view of the matter is that they are not the villains in the story but the victims. They argued that the closing down of the exhibit in CCP was a violation of their freedom of expression. And the old debate on freedom of expression versus censorship was again brought to life. However, one national artist by the name of F. Sionil Jose requested that artists should “stop claiming freedom of expression all the time when they are criticized”. But that debate is for another time.
To us Catholics, on the other hand, the art work was a pure disgrace of our Faith, of our Lord and the Blessed Mother and more so, of our being Filipinos.
We cannot simply dismiss the art work as just a personal expression of art. Its being an art is even contentious, in that, as National Artist F. Sionil Cruz puts it, it “lacks the use of imagination, craftsmanship and originality.”
Contrary to the mission-vision of the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Cruz’ art does not “nurture and promote artistic excellence” when it lacked craftsmanship and originality. Where is excellence in mere copies? It does not “nurture and promote Filipino aesthetics and identity and a positive cultural values towards a humanistic global society” when all it brought was uproar, anger and division among the people. I cannot claim mastery of CCP’s definition of a “humanistic global society” but perhaps, it is safe to infer that this humanistic society is one where mutual respect is promoted. And certainly, respect is lacking in the exhibit of Cruz’ art. Yes, it made the people respond and react. Yes, it awakened impassioned spirits. Yes, it triggered intellectual debate. And yes, it certainly put art on the spotlight. But it did all those at the expense of offending Filipino Catholics, and perhaps even Catholics from other countries. Looking at online discussions, it is not surprising that even some non-believers are against the exhibit. For this is more than just an issue of protecting the freedom of artists from censorship or from pressure of powerful religious views. It is also more than an issue of religious rights violated by the abuse of democracy. It is more than an issue of what art is and what art is for. Rather, this is a fight for respect.
According to Cruz, it was his way of twitching the mind and that his work’s prime objective was to mirror the Filipino society. He even said that if we look at his work and close our eyes, there’s more to see than what is perceived by the naked eye. On this, I beg to disagree. For nowhere in his work did I find anything significant to our society except, perhaps, the growing immorality in the country (and his “art” attests to this).
Is it a Filipino value to bash other people’s religion or their beliefs? Does disrespect form part of our distinct Filipino culture and identity? I don’t think so. Yet, how come the CCP, a national institution mandated by the law to showcase the best of Philippine culture, allowed for its installation? This is yet to be answered and is something for which the CCP should be held seriously liable.
From the view of the Church, what the artist did was a grave misconduct against God and a stern insult against the Catholic faithful. If you identify yourself with any organization or group, (perhaps you are a supporter of an intellectual politician, a member of a celebrity fans’ club, a child of a father), would you not feel offended when the image of that person you put in a pedestal is stained, mocked and dishonored? Now, how much more would you react if it were your God who is being dishonored?
Indeed, it is so much pain for a Catholic to see the images of his Lord, of his life and all—desecrated, mocked and dishonored. But it is also agonizing for a Catholic to see his fellow human being blinded by worldly convictions and beliefs. It may be true that in some parts of the world, some priests have fathered a child, some priests are enjoying a hearty meal, and it may be true as well that some lay Catholics engage in pre-marital sex, some slave at work for their desire for more money, some engage in under the table transactions to rise to higher power, but these does not make Catholicism imperfect. It’s the people who are imperfect. It does not make the belief wrong. It does not make the Lord less of a God. And so whatever emotion the art provoked on its audience, it does not make the art serve the society or its common good.
If Mideo Cruz thinks that his art would tell us Catholics of our imperfections and all that we lack as Catholics, Christians and Filipinos, he may be correct. But we don’t need to invent cruel images to reflect the negative side of humanity; for if there’s anything that would remind Catholics of human imperfection, I believe it is ultimately captured in none other than the Cross. The cross is enough to remind us of our wretchedness and frailties. And, only such symbol can powerfully turn these infirmities into a pure and lively faith.
Undeniably, Cruz’ work was a complete assault on our Faith. But never did he realize that such work of his own has much more to impact on his being. For no matter how much we debate whether it’s art or not, one thing will always be certain: the work of an artist reflects the artist. With this said, isn’t it so much of a pity for somebody to represent himself in so bad a work? Do we not deserve to give ourselves a much better image? The logic is simple: What we create is what we are, and, what we think we are is a great accountability to the One who created us. Isn’t it so much a shame then to represent ourselves into something God is not? This we must consider as our battleground for life. That is, to mirror God in all our endeavors, in our lives, in our very being.
- Nico Lorenz Panlican


