Category Archive for: kultura

The problems of the sectors of arts and culture in this country are multifarious, and there is no doubt that any of us cultural workers who are at the bottom of the totem pole can only believe in the possibilities of change, and look forward to it, too. Many of us try and work towards that change, but if cultural work is your bread and butter – and you’re not one of the lucky ones who comes from privilege to begin with – then you have no choice but to compromise along the way, work with institutions and hope to change these, be critical of the ways in which our creative freedoms (usually all we have) are disrespected or abused.

But as I’ve said before: President Duterte appointing the un-credentialed and inexperienced, incompetent and incredible, into positions of cultural power do nothing for our psyches, even less for our morale, and absolutely nothing for the conditions of our labor.

Installing someone like Nick Lizaso into the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), for no reason other than that you know him personally, and denying completely the right of the sector to decide for itself who it might want as leader – that is not any kind of change, President Duterte. (more…)

Torre de Manila: a review

Because our short memory as nation is becoming legendary, and these days the manufactured noise is enough to distract us from what happened just yesterday, it seems important to review Torre de Manila, now that DMCI is going to get away with continuing its construction, as the Supreme Court has found that “The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; the petitioners (Knights of Rizal) have no standing to sue; and they (petitioners) stand to suffer no injury. Furthermore, the court also found that there is no law that prohibits the construction of the challenged Torre de Manila.”

Congrats DMCI! (more…)

The idea of an art biennial in Manila is reason enough to get excited about the London Biennale’s Manila Pollination. The dominant mainstream market-oriented gallery system and the annual celebratory art fairs in Manila have generally meant a lack in critical rigour and artistic vision – two elements that art goers hope a biennale can make up for.

Founder (in 1998) and co-curator of the London Biennale Filipino artist David Medalla says in the curatorial note that this biennale is about ‘challenging and transforming the notion of the art world “biennale” as a large state or corporate-sponsored event… by throwing open borders and encouraging a more intimate and community-based dialogue between the artists and audiences’. Originally only based in London, this alternative biennale has evolved to include various communities in other countries through what are called “pollinations” in places like Rio de Jainero, Berlin, Belgium, and Rome. This is the first Manila Pollination of this scale, as opposed to an obscure exhibit or two in the past. (more…)

The mapping of art and nations through a biennale is a foregone conclusion when it is both premise and project, specifically in the case of the Singapore Biennale, the past two editions of which (2011 and 2013) were heavily contextualized in or concerned with the championing of Southeast Asian (SEA) art and artists – no matter the requisite works chosen from across Asia and beyond. The task, conscious or unconscious, is that of representation.

One imagines this could be a burden for any curatorial team. After all, (re)presenting SEA at this point is more complex than just mouthing post-colonial clichés. It demands of us a nuanced, critical stance that engages with the more difficult questions about ourselves, beyond what we have been made to believe as (post-)colonial subjects. It is a complicated conversation that needs to be had if we are to move forward as a region, which might also be why it’s easier to avoid it altogether.

Sadly, this is what the Singapore Biennale’s 2016 edition did: fall back on the platitudes and banalities that present SEA as a region that is built upon discourses on identity and independence, history and geography. It went for the easy, evading the challenge of representing SEA in all its complexity and contradiction.  (more…)

Once again, Malacañang’s spokespersons had it wrong, commenting on the Madam Secretary episode before they even saw it, putting it into question for whatever it was that they were told it contained: a fictional Philippine President who’s punched in the face by the fictional US Secretary of State, for having made a sexual advance at her.

That image, of a Philippine President, nose bleeding from the punch made the rounds, and of course the President’s propagandists and his spokespersons went on overdrive defending him. But that’s the thing with fiction: you can’t even prove it was President Duterte they were talking about.

In fact, to an extent, it wasn’t at all about him or this fictional President. It’s about how America deals and engages with the Philippines. And that’s always an important conversation to have. (more…)