East vs West Philippine Art in search of Identity
East vs West
Philippine Art in search of Identity
By Cesare A.X. Syjuco
Published in: The Manila Times, July 04, 1987
THAT would-be Lord Jim of the local art trade, Pinaglabanan Galleries’ portly proprietor Michael Adams, spewed hot lava for months on end when Dr. Rodolfo Paras-Perez sought to underscore the importance of local “indigenous” artworks by organizing a separate category for paintings of that persuasion in the landmark exhibit “Three Faces of Philippine Art” — shown in Munich and Bonn in the summer of 1985. The very outspoken Adams, a British national who has long been critical of the local art world’s alleged “parochial mentality”, spared no effort in exposing what he felt was a tragic lapse in Dr. Perez’s curatorial judgment. Adams questioned the deliberate emphasis placed by the Harvard-educated Perez on what some people had justifiably called “Neo-Ethnic Art” — in favor of paintings and prints more clearly situated in the immediate context of the contemporary international mainstream.
The exhibit in question eventually went on to elicit an outpouring of enthusiastic praise from the Germans, who showed enormous interest in the very category that had provoked Adams’ outcry. Perez later wrote in a published article that “Filipino artists need not play patintero” with the major art capitals of the world just to gain their share of recognition. The indefatigable Adams, on the other hand, stepped up his own efforts by coaxing a sympathetic sector of the artistic community into a mold he thought to be infinitely more delectable to western audiences, and is even now in the process of organizing a selection of local figurative painters for an exhibit he has arranged to have unveiled in West Berlin early next year.
While only one humorous episode in the ongoing tug-of-war between inward-and outward-looking proponents of a new and more vital chapter in our contemporary art history, the much-ballyhooed case of Adams vs. Perez characterizes the intense rivalry between camps that is quickly polarizing our small artistic population. The proverbial chasm that separates East and West — and in this case, the “homegrown” from the “foreign-derived” — has never been as widely nor as fiercely contested as now, rivaling in significance that memorable confrontation between the “modernists” and the “conservatives” in an earlier era.
The argument for indigenous artforms is clear enough. Apart from the pride-in-self they can undoubtedly cultivate in a people still enamored with a foreign culture situated almost pathetically beyond its grasp, the focus of our creative energies on stylistic concerns that are our own by birthright seems altogether more meaningful in the light of recent developments that have taken shape within the larger scope of our collective national interests. Present-day realities not only warrant our artists’ all-out participation in the developmental process, but virtually dictate the need for viable alternatives to western precepts by force of circumstance. For instance, prevailing economic conditions have rendered traditional art materials beyond the reach of most Filipino artists, and it would indeed be ironic for our committed painters to celebrate their newfound liberational attitude in imported oils and canvas that cost more than the average Filipino laborer earns in a month.
There are other realities, equally as convincing. Artworks utilizing native materials like husk, twigs, fabric and handmade paper, have recently dominated local art competitions, and have likewise fared well in contests abroad. It has been suggested that while western inspirational sources have become exhausted by centuries of tireless reworking, our vast cultural reserves offer a wealth of material literally begging to be tapped. To be sure, the gaze of western art through the years has repeatedly been turned on the Third World in an obvious attempt to broaden its own dwindling base — a sure sign, we are told, of impending cultural bankruptcy.
Motivated by a mutual interest in local indigenous references, a number of well-known Filipino artists have come together in recent weeks to assess the potential of this emerging trend, and to discuss possible ways of harnessing the generous store of creative energy it has unearthed. The recently-formed “study group” is as yet unnamed, and, thus far, has only a very broad definition of immediate objectives to guide its way. Nevertheless, its Sunday afternoon meetings at Kulay-Diwa Galleries in Sucat, Paranaque, have been regularly visited by the likes of leading young abstractionist Lao Lianben, veteran conceptual artist Alan Rivera, Havana Biennale winner Lani Maestro, Metrobank awardee Roberto Feleo, Hiraya Gallery curator Bobi Valenzuela, Indonesian-trained scholar Yuan Mo’O, and CCP’s bright new hope Judy Freya Sibayan, among others.
This informal gathering seeks, in effect, to collaborate closely in investigating local visual idioms through communal interaction, workshop dynamics, panel discussions, and the sharing of research material and individual findings. Eventually, a resource center for “Philippine and Asian-Pacific studies in the visual arts” is envisioned by some of its participants — to be fuelled in part by a series of comprehensive exhibitions beginning November of this year.
Interested parties can call Kulay-Diwa Galleries (827-7735 or 872-777) for more information. While almost certainly a solid step in the right direction, the group’s efforts can only benefit from the active participation of other talents of diverse inclinations. It is good to remember that artists in the developed countries of the world have the whole of western part to contend with, and can at best elaborate on what has already been done before them. The Filipino artist, on the other hand, can opt to define himself within the context of two worlds simultaneously — and that clearly represents a choice beyond either/or.
* * *
Cesare A.X. Syjuco, “East vs West Philippine Art in search of Identity” (page 1 of 1), The Manila Times, July 04, 1987
