ALMIRA A.

SANTOS
BSED FILIPINO 1-D

OUTPUT #2

POLETEISMO BY MIDEO CRUZ

The point of contention is an installation work by Mideo Cruz entitled

“Poleteismo,” part of a group exhibition “Kulô” at the Main Gallery of
the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) launched last June 17
(until August 21) on the occasion of CCP’s celebration of Jose Rizal’s
150th birthday. It is participated by artists from the University of Sto.
Tomas (now celebrating its 400th year), who, like Rizal, were products
of the same institution.

The curators and organizers of “Kulô” wanted works that are “direct or
indirect representations, portrayals and recollections of Rizal as
explored through traditional mediums, multimedia installations and
graphic design in the hope to contribute to the discourses of the pen
and the sword, and of education and revolution— topics that
continue to implicate Filipino artists and thinkers... a gathering of ideas
and ideologies, principles and disciplines, and past and present
dialogues….”

The furor began when a shocked woman allegedly reported the

installation work of Cruz to a late-night television documentary usually
known to expose crimes and other illegal activities. The said work
combines religious and pop culture images and objects that included
Catholic icons such as that of Christ, the Virgin and other “sacred”
figures alongside pop icons such as Britney Spears, Obama, election
posters of local politicians and other common everyday materials such
as, traffic signs, Chinese calendars, elementary educational materials,
health center pamphlets – everything we see around us. But what
stood out among this cacophony of imagery was the apparent
defacement of most of the religious objects and pictures where
cartoon characters, animals, the condom, the male organ and sexy
pin-up girls were utilized on symbols of Catholic worship.

The television crew, knowing that this artwork will elicit a strong
reaction immediately showed what appears to be a disturbing video of
the installation to retired Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz,
who was naturally outraged, branded the work as an outright
disrespect towards “God and Christianity.”

“The ones who did those things are sick but they are not only sick,
what they did was also sickening,” said Archbishop Cruz, who related
the controversies to the issues regarding the reproductive health bill
and same-sex marriage.

“No one in his right mind with the proper value system would even
think of doing such things. I wonder if those who did those
desecrations would allow me to do those things to them,” he said.

“Those responsible for this should better see a good psychiatrist, take
their medicines so they’ll become normal, especially as their human
sexuality is concerned,” he added.

This shocking news was deliciously picked up by primetime news

(including reactions from the general public) and the dailies and
suddenly went viral on the internet. Distressed Catholics began
calling the artist names and cursed him to high heavens. Online
debates ensued which triggered a man and woman to sneak into the
CCP premises to vandalize Cruz’ work. Death threats were
purportedly received by the artist.

In the meantime organized Christian groups denounced the exhibition

and said the work “ridiculed and mocked our Christian faith” and wrote
a formal complaint to the CCP President, Dr. Raul Sunico and
demanded that the said work be brought down for “being offensive to
religion”, an act punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
The Concerned Artists of the Philippines on the other hand, rallied
behind the artist and CCP and conjured Article 3 Section 4 of the 1987
Constitution on Freedom of Expression.

In response to the heated controversy, the CCP decided to hold a

public forum where all concerned were invited “to set the points of
analysis and study with the aim of promoting exchange, and more
importantly, the commitment for tolerance in both areas of art and
religious practice.”

Conducted at the Main Gallery of the CCP last August 5, the forum,
dubbed as “DAKDAKAN: KULÔ” was fully jam-packed where heated
and emotional exchanges were witnessed between the religious
groups, including a number of white robed foreign priests against their
jean-clad “opponents” – young artists, art educators and students of
philosophy.

This is the first time in the history of the Cultural Center where an art
exhibition had generated so much controversy that involved the public.
Who then is Mideo Cruz whose work has spawned the ire of the
Catholic public and why is his art this way?

Mideo M. Cruz is a performance, media and visual artist who has

exhibited extensively in the art centers of Asia, Europe and the US
since 1996. He is a recipient of the Ateneo de Manila Art Awards in
2006 and the Cultural Center of the Philippines’ Thirteen Artists
Awards in 2003. He has received numerous prestigious international
art grants and has participated in various major art events abroad.

In “Poleteismo”, the artist Cruz tackled the subject of idolatry – what

present society would usually deem as heroes – adored, admired or
worshipped. According to the exhibition notes, the work “speaks of
idolatry and the deconstruction of neo-deities. Two main points of the
installation are the relic (cross) and the poon or the image of Christ
which represents our cultural past (being 400 years under Spain and
several years in Hollywood), and the transformation of the deity from
the Greco-Roman statuette to an epitome of neo-liberal economy
respectively. Basically, all the pieces reflect to neo-deities that are
everywhere, but we are in denial that these exist and are actually
happening.”

The work is not new. Elements of it have been exhibited by the artist
in numerous occasions in the past, the earliest was at the UP Vargas
Museum way back in 2002. This was followed by a show called
Santong Pinagpasasaan at Kulay Diwa Art Galleries in 2005; then in
2007 it was shown at the Ateneo de Manila and the University of the
Philippines including images of it shown in the music video Anghel Sa
Lupa . Why then, despite having been actually shown in several
exhibitions in the past, it never got the attention of the public the same
way as it does now?

Cruz is a provocateur who has always used art to generate a strong

reaction from his audience. A performance show once found him lying
on a slab, covered in blood with a gigantic rosary hung across his
neck. An exhibition catalogue once described Cruz’s work as
“distinguished for his provocative multi-disciplinary interventions
straddling the irreverent, the blasphemous, and the subversive”.

Artist/writer Philip Paraan decribes Cruz as “one unrelenting artist-

activist, a facile generator of anxiety and debate and is skilled in the
production of excitingly intellectual images and forms within the
unorthodox as seen in his art practice teeming with imitable social and
political commentary. “

What Cruz has done in “Poleteismo” is an obvious attempt to shock.

In art shock value is the “potential of an image, text or other form of
communication to provoke disgust, shock, anger, fear, or similar
negative emotions.”

Throughout the history of art, there have been artists who deliberately
attempted to shake the status quo, to provoke a strong reaction, to
challenge the establishment. At times they manage to capture the
public attention, but sometimes they have been known to resort to the
manipulation of events and circumstances in order to produce their
desired results --- all for the purpose of finding ways to be heard or
maybe gain some spotlight amidst the highly competitive art world.

It is not a remote idea that the “shocked” woman who supposedly

called the television network about Cruz’ work may have been part of
the grand scheme of Mideo’s art just to generate a strong public
reaction. Who knows? But there are other pressing issues at hand
regarding institutions that may have assisted in creating and furthering
this debacle that has spurned hatred and has put CCP -- a
respectable institution known for its dedication towards artistic quality
-- on the spot. The media that immediately sought the opinion of
priests have wittingly started the furor that may perhaps generate
competitive ratings.
It is widely known that art exhibits, especially contemporary in nature,
are mostly catered by members of the art community who know what
they are in for. Why then has Cruz’ 10-year old work just recently
been exposed to the public?

What should have been kept within the “sacred” halls of art galleries
and museums, where previous works of the same nature as Cruz’ are
a common fare, was irresponsibly laid by media on a public innocent
of art’s esoteric ideals. These types of works should first be critically
examined, interpreted and filtered by art critics, art historians and
academicians before it is served to the public.

We cannot blame the harsh reactions of the religious sectors affected.

They were confronted with a raw experience of having their objects of
worship defiled, again not uncommon in the art world. What the priests
should have been concerned about instead was not the merits or
demerit of Cruz’ art, for they are not qualified to do so, but to ask why
has someone like Cruz intentionally and publicly declared his
irreverence for such icons of worship that have been revered by his
society for the last 500 years -- considering he was educated in a
Catholic institution.
Jungian psychologist Erich Neumann wrote, “But let us be careful!
We are speaking of ourselves. If this art is degenerate, we too are
degenerate, for innumerable individuals are suffering the same
collapse of the cultural canon, the same alienation, the same
loneliness – the rising blackness with its shadow and devouring
dragon. The disintegration and dissonance of this art are our own; to
understand them is to understand ourselves.”
ALMIRA A. SANTOS
BSED FILIPINO 1-D

OUTPUT #2

MY PERSONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT POLITEISMO

Politeismo is actually a 3-wall canvass installation entirely covered with
various images and papers. The images of Mary, Joseph and Jesus are
one of the pictures in the installation. The controversy is about the pictures
of Jesus Christ and Mary alongside of condoms, plastic piggy banks
enclosed in a glass case where statues of saints are usually placed,
crucifixes and rosaries hanged side by side with wooden phalluses. The
critiques viewed it s an immoral art, the reason why this artwork earned a
lot of bad impressions. Personally, I think the controversy is about both the
art of Mideo and the reactions of his critiques. The role of art in society is to
reflect the beautiful, or to express what is pleasing to the eyes.
Sometimes, art’s role is to reveal the gnawing and painful realities of life,
which causes its viewers to change their own perspective in life.

If I were to judge the work of Mr. Mideo Cruz, at first I would feel confused
a little disappointment, disrespectful, and at the same time curious, as to
why the work of Mr. Cruz has been that way. I know that in the field of art,
we cannot please the audience. We have different kinds of view about
anything that is why some people would like your art like others won’t.
From what I learned, in the meaning of your artwork you must see to it that
what you want to tell the audience about your artwork they must see
without being confused. Art enhances our critical thinking. It teaches how to
make our own judgement. The audience is free to make their own
conclusions and interpretation about the images. Yes in art you have the
freedom of expression but you must still think of what others will think of
your artwork. You must balance what your artwork want to say to how the
audience will view your work.
JESSA MAE REYES
BSED FILIPINO 1-D
 POLITEISMO BY MIDEO CRUZ

The point of contention is an installation work by Mideo Cruz entitled

“Politeismo,” part of a group exhibition “Kulô” at the Main Gallery of the
Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) launched last June 17 (until August
21) on the occasion of CCP’s celebration of Jose Rizal’s 150th birthday. It is
participated by artists from the University of Sto. Tomas (now celebrating its
400th year), who, like Rizal, were products of the same institution.

The curators and organizers of “Kulô” wanted works that are “direct or
indirect representations, portrayals and recollections of Rizal as explored
through traditional mediums, multimedia installations and graphic design in
the hope to contribute to the discourses of the pen and the sword, and of
education and revolution— topics that continue to implicate Filipino artists
and thinkers... a gathering of ideas and ideologies, principles and disciplines,
and past and present dialogues….”

The furor began when a shocked woman allegedly reported the installation
work of Cruz to a late-night television documentary usually known to expose
crimes and other illegal activities. The said work combines religious and pop
culture images and objects that included Catholic icons such as that of
Christ, the Virgin and other “sacred” figures alongside pop icons such as
Britney Spears, Obama, election posters of local politicians and other
common everyday materials such as, traffic signs, Chinese calendars,
elementary educational materials, health center pamphlets – everything we
see around us. But what stood out among this cacophony of imagery was
the apparent defacement of most of the religious objects and pictures
where cartoon characters, animals, the condom, the male organ and sexy
pin-up girls were utilized on symbols of Catholic worship.

The television crew, knowing that this artwork will elicit a strong reaction
immediately showed what appears to be a disturbing video of the
installation to retired Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz, who was
naturally outraged, branded the work as an outright disrespect towards
“God and Christianity.”

“The ones who did those things are sick but they are not only sick, what they
did was also sickening,” said Archbishop Cruz, who related the controversies
to the issues regarding the reproductive health bill and same-sex marriage.

“No one in his right mind with the proper value system would even think of
doing such things. I wonder if those who did those desecrations would allow
me to do those things to them,” he said.

“Those responsible for this should better see a good psychiatrist, take their
medicines so they’ll become normal, especially as their human sexuality is
concerned,” he added.

This shocking news was deliciously picked up by primetime news (including

reactions from the general public) and the dailies and suddenly went viral on
the internet. Distressed Catholics began calling the artist names and cursed
him to high heavens. Online debates ensued which triggered a man and
woman to sneak into the CCP premises to vandalize Cruz’ work. Death
threats were purportedly received by the artist.

In the meantime organized Christian groups denounced the exhibition and

said the work “ridiculed and mocked our Christian faith” and wrote a formal
complaint to the CCP President, Dr. Raul Sunico and demanded that the said
work be brought down for “being offensive to religion”, an act punishable by
the Revised Penal Code.

The Concerned Artists of the Philippines on the other hand, rallied behind
the artist and CCP and conjured Article 3 Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution
on Freedom of Expression.

In response to the heated controversy, the CCP decided to hold a public

forum where all concerned were invited “to set the points of analysis and
study with the aim of promoting exchange, and more importantly, the
commitment for tolerance in both areas of art and religious practice.”

Conducted at the Main Gallery of the CCP last August 5, the forum, dubbed
as “DAKDAKAN: KULÔ” was fully jam-packed where heated and emotional
exchanges were witnessed between the religious groups, including a
number of white robed foreign priests against their jean-clad “opponents” –
young artists, art educators and students of philosophy.

This is the first time in the history of the Cultural Center where an art
exhibition had generated so much controversy that involved the public. Who
then is Mideo Cruz whose work has spawned the ire of the Catholic public
and why is his art this way?

Mideo M. Cruz is a performance, media and visual artist who has exhibited
extensively in the art centers of Asia, Europe and the US since 1996. He is a
recipient of the Ateneo de Manila Art Awards in 2006 and the Cultural
Center of the Philippines’ Thirteen Artists Awards in 2003. He has received
numerous prestigious international art grants and has participated in various
major art events abroad.

In “Poleteismo”, the artist Cruz tackled the subject of idolatry – what

present society would usually deem as heroes – adored, admired or
worshipped. According to the exhibition notes, the work “speaks of idolatry
and the deconstruction of neo-deities. Two main points of the installation
are the relic (cross) and the poon or the image of Christ which represents
our cultural past (being 400 years under Spain and several years in
Hollywood), and the transformation of the deity from the Greco-Roman
statuette to an epitome of neo-liberal economy respectively. Basically, all
the pieces reflect to neo-deities that are everywhere, but we are in denial
that these exist and are actually happening.”

The work is not new. Elements of it have been exhibited by the artist in
numerous occasions in the past, the earliest was at the UP Vargas Museum
way back in 2002. This was followed by a show called Santong
Pinagpasasaan at Kulay Diwa Art Galleries in 2005; then in 2007 it was
shown at the Ateneo de Manila and the University of the Philippines
including images of it shown in the music video Anghel Sa Lupa . Why then,
despite having been actually shown in several exhibitions in the past, it
never got the attention of the public the same way as it does now?

Cruz is a provocateur who has always used art to generate a strong

reaction from his audience. A performance show once found him lying on a
slab, covered in blood with a gigantic rosary hung across his neck. An
exhibition catalogue once described Cruz’s work as “distinguished for his
provocative multi-disciplinary interventions straddling the irreverent, the
blasphemous, and the subversive”.

Artist/writer Philip Paraan decribes Cruz as “one unrelenting artist-activist, a

facile generator of anxiety and debate and is skilled in the production of
excitingly intellectual images and forms within the unorthodox as seen in his
art practice teeming with imitable social and political commentary. “

What Cruz has done in “Poleteismo” is an obvious attempt to shock. In art

shock value is the “potential of an image, text or other form of
communication to provoke disgust, shock, anger, fear, or similar negative
emotions.”

Throughout the history of art, there have been artists who deliberately
attempted to shake the status quo, to provoke a strong reaction, to
challenge the establishment. At times they manage to capture the public
attention, but sometimes they have been known to resort to the
manipulation of events and circumstances in order to produce their desired
results --- all for the purpose of finding ways to be heard or maybe gain
some spotlight amidst the highly competitive art world.

It is not a remote idea that the “shocked” woman who supposedly called the
television network about Cruz’ work may have been part of the grand
scheme of Mideo’s art just to generate a strong public reaction. Who
knows? But there are other pressing issues at hand regarding institutions
that may have assisted in creating and furthering this debacle that has
spurned hatred and has put CCP -- a respectable institution known for its
dedication towards artistic quality -- on the spot. The media that
immediately sought the opinion of priests have wittingly started the furor
that may perhaps generate competitive ratings.
It is widely known that art exhibits, especially contemporary in nature, are
mostly catered by members of the art community who know what they are
in for. Why then has Cruz’ 10-year old work just recently been exposed to
the public?

What should have been kept within the “sacred” halls of art galleries and
museums, where previous works of the same nature as Cruz’ are a common
fare, was irresponsibly laid by media on a public innocent of art’s esoteric
ideals. These types of works should first be critically examined, interpreted
and filtered by art critics, art historians and academicians before it is served
to the public.

We cannot blame the harsh reactions of the religious sectors affected. They
were confronted with a raw experience of having their objects of worship
defiled, again not uncommon in the art world. What the priests should have
been concerned about instead was not the merits or demerit of Cruz’ art, for
they are not qualified to do so, but to ask why has someone like Cruz
intentionally and publicly declared his irreverence for such icons of worship
that have been revered by his society for the last 500 years -- considering
he was educated in a Catholic institution.

Jungian psychologist Erich Neumann wrote, “But let us be careful! We are

speaking of ourselves. If this art is degenerate, we too are degenerate, for
innumerable individuals are suffering the same collapse of the cultural
canon, the same alienation, the same loneliness – the rising blackness with
its shadow and devouring dragon. The disintegration and dissonance of this
art are our own; to understand them is to understand ourselves.” ●
JESSA MAE REYES
BSED FILIPINO 1-D

Output #2

MY PERSONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT POLITEISMO

The controversy is not about an artwork that prurient or obscene but

more about blasphemy and sacrilege in a largely Catholic populace. Seeing the
picture I was offended specially by the oversized crimson phallus placed on the
crucifix, and the Jesus image with eye blackened dripping ink. The stretched
condom hanging on one side was just obvious. Entering the individual’s creed
could lead into a cataclysm, taking away our free will do express our viewpoint
through through art.
Human have a moral responsibility to uplift, empire, and edify other
humans . I’m not going to walk Dow the streets throwing focal matter in people’s
face but some artists think it is fine-good even for them to essentially do that just
with their works. Why do some think that morality ends where art begins? Why is
all suddenly permissible so long as we put the art stamp on our action? Why do
we need to restrict ourselves to portray our visions? To say that art exists outside
of morality is to say that exists outside of morality.
Art’s duty is tto be true to the artist vision. When it is this, it capture
honest and valuable moment, it capture the reality, and its record the artist’s
human experience. Society does have a duty to art. It must protect art and pass it
on future generations. It should encourage artists to express their truth so that
new culture grows from past culture and the human experience continues to be
recorded. It should be accessible to all. A better question is Does the artist have a
duty to society? And I would say: the artist indeed is duty bound to create and
reveal personal truth. Not to pander to an audience, but primarily for himself.
Artist do not create his craft to be praised by narcissist and narrow minded
viewers, artists create to feed his passion and for individuals who see the beauty
in it.