What does it entail an artist to represent the nation? If you are following the debate, we have newly selected National Artists. Two of them are being disputed: one is Carlo Caparas and the other is Cecille Guidote-Alvarez. Caparas is to be conferred the title for Visual Arts (he did not draw those komiks stories for which he is being recognized) and for Film (when in fact he is notorious for making those bad massacre films).
Cecille Guidote-Alvarez is technically bestowing the title on her, because she is the Executive Director of National Commission for Culture and the Arts, which is part of the Secretariat of the selection. The other aspect of this cultural incest is that Guidote-Alvarez claims that her name was not endorsed by the joint committee, which to her and her supporter, removes the crisis of delicadeza or personal decency. And yet, Guidote-Alvarez is the Presidential Adviser on Culture and Arts. This creates a scenario where the president and the new National Artist for Theater are deep in conversation. The president leans to Guidote-Alvarez and the latter whispers to her a name. It is the latter's name.
A group of artists has already protested and vow to make more protests. The case, according to some sources, is being taken to the Supreme Court. The whole fiasco has turned into a moral and aesthetic chaos. Insults are being hurled at the artists newly selected, and waiting for ordination, from the existing National Artists.
Caparas is getting the most attention because, while you may not like Guidote-Alvarez, her case is arguable. You can debate with another person about her artistry and, for that matter, her cultural advocacy. For those in theater and related domains, you may remember Alvarez for merging the compelling space of the street with the magic of the stage and studied performance.
There is nothing to argue for Caparas. Here is an argument, a list of his massacre films:
The Myrna Diones Story (Lord, Have Mercy!); The Cecilia Masagca Story: Antipolo Massacre (Jesus Save Us!); Lipa Arandia Massacre (Lord, Deliver Us From Evil); The Maggie de la Riva Story (God...Why Me?); The Marita Gonzaga Rape Slay (In God We Trust); and, The Annabelle Huggins Story - Ruben Ablaza Tragedy (Mea Culpa). Those pleas in the parenthesis are not parenthetical notes from this writer but are really part of the movie titles. Bad taste is not enough to frame the utter low grade of these films and other things.
I had a talk with Dr. Patrick Flores, an art scholar and critic. He was part of the committee for the selection of the National Artist. Amidst the chaos and anger, he gives this opinion: "In any selection as delicate as this, process is all. If it is corrupted by power, the award loses its moral force and is rendered meaningless as a representation of art."
Art being contentious, a procedure is no more a rigor than a protection.
It cannot be denied, too, that the search itself is contentious and problematic. The search for the National Artist assumes many things. One heavy assumption is that there is a clear sense of a nation and that those who are conferred the name are those "who have helped build a Filipino sense of nationhood through the content and form of their works." Caparas has a problem because I don't think there is a community out there who want their "nationhood" represented by the works of this man.
Caparas cannot be made an example of this argument because he does not merit an attention. It is his selection that is causing an argument. We are caught in our frustration over the present problems of selection that we forget the age-old issues about this system of national artistry.
Why is it that only Manila-based artists seem to be selected as National Artists? With the exception of the Angono artists led by Botong Francisco, do the peripheries count themselves out? Shall Pilipino and English be the only language for those who are declared National Artists? Can a theater artist toiling in the rural communities ever get the title? Or, shall the Gawad Manlilikha ng Bayan or the National Living Treasures Award be the excuse for this system that glorifies the central?
I f one looks at this award of Manlilikha, it smacks of the old binary regarding folk arts and non-folk arts. The requirement about the "Manlilikha" as being an inhabitant of an indigenous/traditional cultural community reminds us that we are still caught in the puzzle of who we are. Remove the word "indigenous" (for aren't we all indigenous as Filipinos) and we have in the hinterlands, away from Manila, individuals who might as well be the artist for the nation that we can have.