kultura

art on fire!

Not literally of course. Though it’s entirely possible that had the venue allowed it at least one of the 10 Most Exciting Young Artists chosen by Inquirer Lifestyle and Nokia would’ve used fire as a real live element, or burned down an artwork altogether. Which of course defeats the purpose of selling art, but then again, that doesn’t seem to be the point for many of the works here.

Winner Jumalon’s “Shady Tree”, an installation of a life-size resin sculpture of a fallen tree trunk seems simple enough, except that the tree’s crown is created by a bunch of framed black and white photographs spread sporadically on the floor, including one frame placed on the panel saved for Jumalon’s work.

Buen Calubayan’s “My Virgin Mama” meanwhile seems like a traditional looking Virgin Mary from afar, but up-close it becomes apparent that it’s a merging of the faces of the latter and Jesus Christ. Across it is stated, “Diyos dapat ito kaya lang maling medium talaga ang painting e”.  This canvas is submerged in water – which on opening night also had one live fish floating, and pieces of toothpick that Calubayan himself had thrown in for some good “Art is no God!” measure. Not far from this installation is a bottle filled with crumpled canvas in white liquid: trashed art it is!

Art buyers must have asked: how do we even begin to imagine owning this work? But maybe here lies the fire of much of the work in this exhibit: it’s an “Up Yours!” to anyone who expected easier art. There is happily none of that here.

Kiri Dalena’s three installations include “Found Figure 2”, a terra cotta sculpture of a pregnant woman on a tub of water and lilies, alongside a wooden bed filled with the same. Not far from this installation is a digital video loop entitled “Floodwaters”, of how waters rose in Pakil Laguna. These three pieces are a haunting paean to the flood’s aftermath, an imagination of what it is that remains true, without exoticizing the bodies it has rendered defenseless.

Mark Salvatus’ “Crowd”, a mixed media installation of steel birds in various forms of flight and fluorescent lights, is a statement on migration with disregard for destination. It is placed on the floor by an unpainted wooden wall that screams “Cultural Production” in huge black letters, a statement as well on the kind of copying that goes on in the kinds of cultural products we create, even when our main products are our people.

Farley del Rosario’s “Bridged” is a daring take on how communication just might be our downfall. Two miniature clay figures speak through tin cans tied by one string in front of del Rosario’s canvas, in which is his standard figure, surrounded by miniature versions of itself. All of them are bound by the lines that symbolize communication, but instead of tin cans these lines connect mouths and ears in various dimensions and colors. The seeming mess of lines and thoughts, and the way they are intertwined isn’t at all a simplistic view of bridging communication. We are already bridged because we cannot remove ourselves from this mess, this noise, these conversations.

Dina Gadia’s “Bad Art for Bad People” is a rendering of a woman in a leopard print bikini riding and about to slay a tiger. This was obviously a statement on the notions of popular art as bad art, and of bad art being for bad people. It is as well a statement on how what is bad is really intertwined with stereotypical judgments of women, and what she cannot be.

Lindslee’s abstract works stand out not just because it is amidst realism, but because its three dimensional aspect is crazy creative. “Paradox” and “Under Appreciated” appear on two sides of the same wall, bound together by two triangular beams, that seem to protrude from both works. The geometric lines and shapes of the works, its bright crazy colors, vis a vis blank spaces of white and gray, are strangely familiar in their being forgotten. Or just mis-/un-understood.

But the most fire and daring here comes from curator Jay Pacena and his vision for the exhibit. Pacena’s installations on the first floor of the exhibit area become more interesting after opening night, as the square beams in various sizes and positions seem to be installed into the floor, growing out of and into each other. These shapes are used as well on the panels reserved for each artwork, with protrusions of smaller beams unsystematically placed on its sides.

The installation of the 10 artists’ works are interactive and connected, obviously not in terms of form or content, but in terms of an energy that allows for the eyes to travel across various artworks at any given time, from any given standpoint. The panels are spaced apart, allowing for a line of vision to a piece of art by someone else’s hands. So  you stand by Jumalon’s work and see Gadia’s, Lindslee’s, Kawayan de Guia’s, and Dalena’s; you stand between Clairlyn Uy’s two panels, and see del Rosario’s clay installation, and a wee bit of Lindslee.

The possibilities of seeing things differently become endless, the experience of art as interactive happens beyond the artworks and into the curator’s head: what he imagines about this exhibit, where he wants to take you. Having done so much here, it would be most interesting – and exciting! – to see, what it is Pacena and these 10 artists can do with fire.

kultura

brecht notwithstanding

The risk any theater adaptation takes is the fact of intertextuality. One person will enter the theater with no knowledge whatsoever of the theatrical context(s) of the play she is about to see. That person may be seated next to a theater scholar, adept in drama theories and well read on dramatic texts. At the back row are audience members who are just there for the ride, with no real interest in theater, but are there because one of the lead actors is good looking – or they’re related to him.

Unlike the spectatorship of cinema, where formulas become the standard of enjoyment or non-enjoyment, in theater many other things inform appreciation. There is the drama as written text, the text as executed onstage, and every other process that exists in between: the actors’ performances, the sounds of the stage, production design, extraneous elements of (in)formality and propriety, the communal audience experience, audience expectation.

Here lies the success and the failure of any theater adaptation such as Tanghalang Pilipino’s Madonna Brava ng Mindanao. Based on German playwright Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage and her children (written 1939, staged 1941), Don Pagusara’s adaptation had way too much going against it: Brecht’s original defined the epic drama, spanning at it does 12 years, and using as it does a 30-year war as context.  (more…)

kultura

kawayan de guia: no compromises

a version of this was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 26 2009.

Kawayan de Guia is clear about his art. It’s his way of talking to the world, engaging it in dialogue, transcending its limits. It’s his upbringing, his lifeblood, his provincial context that is Baguio. It’s his grounding in history, his way of telling stories, his political stance.

Speaking this concretely and categorically about his art, Kawayan just might be the more uncompromising of our contemporary young artists. To explain one’s art may after all be seen as violent to one’s works, if not the end to one’s career: isn’t the appeal of art precisely its lack of clear reason?

But Kawayan tells it otherwise. The human condition is central to his work, cutting across the tragic and comic towards the boastful, highlighting the notions of progress and development as falsities, bringing to the fore the need to see a bigger picture. To Kawayan, the structures that abound in our world are but perspectives that need to be broken down into pieces, if only to take discussions to another place, that’s anywhere but here. (more…)

komentaryo

the eyes have it? patricia evangelista votes!

I have personally taken to ignoring Patricia Evangelista. now that she has gone up the ladder of media empire ABS-CBN as creator and producer of Storyline (which does romanticize tragedy in its writing, camerawork, conceptualization), there seems to be no stopping this girl. yes, even when half the time what she does in her Philippine Daily Inquirer opinion column is rehash what it is that has come out in her TV show. signs of these media times? there’s is no explanation for cheap thrills. or notions of credibility.

but it is precisely because she is in these positions of “credibility” that sometimesit is just difficult to ignore Patricia, lest she be under the illusion that she’s getting away with saying things that limn over the bigger issues of the day, as she passes her opinions off as political and correct and valid. at the very least, she passes them off as well-informed and well thought out, when really, they are far from it.

in her last column “Chiz Escudero 2010” Patricia spent most of her space rehashing what Chiz Escudero said at his press con announcing his defection from NPC, then she summarized it by saying that all Chiz did was to say that “a man running for president must not belong to a party, because to belong to a party is to give up independence of action”.

that this conclusion glosses over the other things that Chiz did say at the press con in relation to being freed from party politics is just so un-journalistic, and goodness, just downright uncritical.  this is a grave simplification of what it is that went on in that press con, an unacceptable display of an inability to see beyond one’s own biases – one that is for Noynoy Aquino (which we will get to in a bit).

so in the process of dissing Chiz, Patricia reveals that she can’t even respond to the more important things that he had raised: a brave stance versus contractualization and the oil deregulation law, versus the oligarchy’s ways of demeaning the jobs of those in the lower rungs of government service, versus the pork barrel, versus corrupt government officials. this is more than any of the presidentiables have dared say about their platform, about what it is that ails current politics, about what is all wrong here. an intelligent and critical reading of what went on at that press con would’ve meant looking not just at what Chiz announced, but at what else he did say.

and then Patricia reveals her simplistic analysis of Chiz’s defection: that since Chiz said that he has never been dictated upon by the NPC, this defection is meaningless. really now. to say that he has never been dictated by his party, doesn’t mean that there has never been any pressure to go with the party’s political flow and flaws. that Chiz has remained as part of the opposition despite NPC politics is a good thing, not a bad thing. that he now decided that he wants out, out of Danding country, out of party politics, is a good thing.

that in the process Chiz reveals the evils that exist in, the limitations of being part of, a party like the NPC is a fantastic thing.

was this all about him? absolutely. is it possibly about us too, as an electorate intelligently looking for options and wanting change? absolutely.

does Patricia know this? obviously not. in the end, she only revealed herself to be part of the youth who are closet-conservatives, unable to see the value of revolt, the importance of an ability to rebel, to break through the boxes that define who we are. these members of the middle to upper class youth are the scariest kind because they imagine themselves as intelligent voters, they imagine themselves critical, and the future of the nation. and yet when they are faced with the choice between revolt and compromise, change and the status quo, they will weigh things according to their own personal stakes: will i be able to keep my job, will i be able to keep my friends, will i be able to keep my reputation? and in the end they will choose the happy comforts of their old lives, stay where they are, blindly criticize those who shout based on the mere fact that they are shouting.

Patricia ends her tirade againstChiz’s defection from the NPC with

Mostly, I write this because, very frankly, I cannot trust a man whose mouth says one thing, and his eyes another.

now frankly, I wonder what it is that’s in Chiz’s eyes. or in Noynoy’s for that matter – he who is obviously Patricia’s candidate because, as she says, Chiz’s decision to defect is sold as

another touchstone of national change on the heels of Noynoy Aquino’s rise as the nation’s moral, if less articulate choice.

in the guise of being objective, i.e., acknowledging how Chiz’s defection is being seen, Patricia only reveals her own biases: that Noynoy is only a “less articulate” choice, and nothing else.

I wonder if she realizes that in the process of assessing Noynoy as such she has put her foot in her mouth, proving to us all that she has yet to even assess Noynoy as her candidate, over and above what he says.

oh, but wait, maybe that is the point: Noynoy has yet to have anything to say. At the rate the Aquino campaign is going, we’re hearing more of Kris. or is Patricia happy enough listening to her? and pray tell, what do Kris’ eyes tell her? and while she’s at it, since when were people’s eyes the reason for endorsing a candidate? this is not naiveté. this is carelessness. and irresponsibility.

go for it young media practitioner. there’s nowhere to go but up.

kultura

the young and the giddy

a version of this was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s Arts and Books section, October 26 2009.

She was obviously overwhelmed silly by the fact that she was chosen as one of ten most exciting young artists. Which is no surprise really. Dina Gadia is the youngest of the group at 23, and just might have more going for her other than her age: she has a clear sense of what it is that interests her, where her art must lie, and what it is she can do without – or must necessarily rebel against. (more…)