The right to be free is one of our three natural rights, the other two being the right to life and property. Natural means innate or inherent. Following this line, the individual is born already in possession of the aforementioned rights. I am writing this blog entry amidst the controversy hounding Mideo Cruz’s art exhibit at the CCP. In my Political Science and Ethics classes, one of the most interesting topics that I discuss is the concept of freedom. I remind my students though, that this concept must not be interpreted too literally. Being free means the ability to do the things that we desire to do. The question is are we practicing this right rightly? Was it right for Cruz to have mounted an exhibited which defaced religious (Catholic) images? CCP officials barked about artistic freedom. Are they hiding behind this cloak to justify such exhibit?
I am not claiming to be a very religious or devout Catholic. But Cruz’s exhibit somehow made me raise an eyebrow and ask myself what got into his head. Our Spanish conquistadores of before introduced to the natives religious images, as their way of introducing Christianity to the islands. They were even used as presents to rajas or datus. On a personal perspective, such images should not be venerated since they are just symbols – they are not our actual “God”. But nonetheless, such objects should be accorded the respect due them as symbols of faith. They should not be tampered with.
Religious tolerance is a long forgotten virtue. History tells us that religious intolerance paved the way for conflicts and wars between countries. Pakistan used to be a part of the Indian subcontinent, until the people on the Pakistan side who were Muslims clamored to be separated from India which was dominated by Hindus. Read in between the lines and you will figure out what caused this separation. Religious tolerance should be revived in order for people to respect each other’s faith. Cruz’s exhibit clearly did not show any respect to the religion which was the object of his so called “artistic freedom”. Art is supposed to exalt, and not to insult or mock something. Philippine society is still a conservative and traditional one. Hence, Cruz’s exhibit will not thrive and prosper in this societal configuration. This is not to mention the interweaving of church and governmental authority, despite the constitution’s emphasis on the separation of church and state. The freedom to do things ends when we are already stepping on other people’s toes. The practice of our rights ends when we are already infringing on the rights of others. I emphasize to my students that our freedom is not total or absolute, for freedom has limitations. Art is not bounded by strict rules, I believe, for it is used as an avenue for self-expression. But in the absence of strict rules, we have our moral compass which will remind us of what is good and what is not. The concept of freedom cannot justify all our actions. Artistic freedom cannot justify Cruz’s “Kulo” exhibit, for it trampled on the religious sentiments of many Filipinos. Let us not forget that the Philippines is predominantly Christian, something that the CCP officials failed to chew on and digest cerebrally.
Art is subjective. It is a matter of taste. For Cruz and the CCP, the exhibit is an art. The others do not think so unfortunately. Art is supposed to give us aesthetic pleasure. It is supposed to enlighten us visually and stir our emotions positively. Thus, anything that disturbs the core of our being us is not art, but junk.
No comments:
Post a Comment