“KULÔ", a group art exhibition at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) Main Gallery was shut down 10 days prior to the scheduled close date due to a controversial work on display that sparked a storm of public protest. "Poleteismo", by Filipino artist Mideo Cruz, is a piece of artwork with three walls entirely covered with various of images and papers of popular culture and Christian religious figures and symbols. On one wall hangs a life-size crucifix decorated with scapulars and rosaries, as well as a protruding male genital.
With the Filipino population of 94 million being predominantly Roman Catholic, the work even received criticism from Presiden Benigno S. Aquino III, who called the artwork offensive to the country's Christian majority. While he respected the freedom of expression, the president said, that freedom is not absolute. The CCP board comment that this case would "continue to act as catalyst for free expression of Filipino artists."
The question: Is the freedom of expression equivocal when a society's majority does not agree with the expressed thought? Since the Catholic majority dislikes Poleteismo so much, is the shut-down of the controversial exhibition the right choice? Yet, is it right to ignore the law of the freedom of expression due to how much every one dislikes the thought?
The Areas of Knowledge of this issue involves The Arts, Ethics, and Social Sciences. In The Arts, there is the issue of artist's intention vs. the response of the spectators. Cruz describes that his artwork expresses the "culture of idolatry," and the male genitals on the crucifix is to symbolize the worship of power by society, and how men continues to wield their power against women. Yet, most viewers gets disgusted and offended and do not see the message. Cruz himself said before, his objective for Poleteismo is to provoke thought, however the work provoked rage and hate before any thinking occurs. In fact, the exhibition closed with the main reason of receiving hate mails, threats, and vandalism. In this case, is the intention of the artist and his message more important, or how people feel about what they see more important? To connect back to the question, what if many people feel the same?
In Ethics, the case concerns with the idea of the Freedom of Expression and the relation between theory and practice. Article 4 of the Bill of Rights of the Philippines stated that free expression belonged to the people. Yet, as mentioned earlier, the President of the nation himself feels that the freedom is not absolute after seeing Poleteismo. This is a perfect example of what we ought to do and yet are unable to do it. The majority is bounded by their religious beliefs, which is why they cannot accept free expression of ideas against their beliefs. This raises the question of whether or not free expression is just an ideal that mankind cannot follow or something that is absolute, despite all circumstances.
In Social Sciences, this concerns with the questioning majority rule. In this case, the majority are the offended Catholics. Taking into the two aforementioned Areas of Knowledge into concern, the question is if the majority hates something and cannot follow the ideal of free expression, can we say that it is natural that it shouldn't exist in public? Why would the President want to lean towards what the majority thinks? Is something wrong when everybody, or almost everybody, thinks it is wrong? In turn, how powerful are the thoughts of the minority? If one person stands up for the free expression, what justifies that all should drop their beliefs and follow that idea?
The Ways of Knowing of this issue involves Perception and Emotion. In Perception, it concerns with perception under individual or cultural influence. When Christians see a sordid erect male genital next to the pure and dignified cross, they know the they are offended. They know that this is wrong. In the case of the Philippines, a big group of Christians perceive it that way. However, there are the minorities of artists that are in the same professional area as Cruz and those that are not Catholics that think otherwise. People see it as right, people see it as wrong.
In Emotion, the case concerns with the feelings of the offended. Religion, particularly Christianity in this case, is something really personal and spiritual. It is very close to the heart. This is why when they see something that seems to insult their belief, they will react with no tolerance. In other words, people will take this offense to a personal level. This is why people hate. This is why a couple attempted to burn down Cruz's artwork. It is a force that cannot be controlled, despite all reasons and ideals. Again, tying back to the question, if a big group of people feel that way, the combined force is far too great to oppose to. This arises the idea of siding with emotions and gut feelings instead of reason. It is possible to say that free expression can remain as an absolute, but due to the human nature of being overruled by emotion, it cannot be helped that the ideal cannot be followed. Yet, we can also say there will be nothing wrong to ignore such emotional forces and follow the ideal.
Looking at this case overall in the area of Ethics and Social Sciences, it can be repeated and concluded that because of different perceptions and feelings people have on an expressed thought, the ideal of the freedom of expression cannot be followed. The moral is there, but humanity lacks the ability to comply with it. This is why the offended Catholic majority wins. United emotions, gut feelings, and personal belief is a force that crushes all rules that humans set up for themselves. By the reason of stirring to much emotions and unrest, the freedom of expression is questionable. It cannot be helped that the majority is bound to be Catholics that feel insulted, and Cruz should have been aware of that. Seeing it in this way, it is fitting that the exhibit closed, because the majority are weak humans that live by emotions, it is natural for the freedom of expression to be ignored.
However, this argument can be easily objected by the mere fact that "rules are still rules" and that free expression is law after all. If the society is free, despite all struggles of the reactions, the expressed thought is protected under the freedom of expression. Many people can hate the idea all they want, but it does not change the fact that this idea can be expressed. Emotions are emotions, and they cannot be the reason why something shouldn't be expressed. Being the majority means nothing, because at the end of the day, they are only individuals with similar strong feelings that should not affect the law in any way. Seeing it in this way, it is wrong for the exhibit to be closed due to hate, as Cruz's work should be protected by the established Filipino law. Yet, this will depend how one's values on emotions and reasonable morals and which one is in power of the individual.
In my own opinion, I believe that despite the great emotions of opposing views of a majority, when the law and morals justifies freedom of expression, it is inevitably there to stay, no matter what.
Looking at the real-life-issue, as a Christian myself, indeed, Poleteismo is extremely offensive and disturbs me greatly. I get angry and frustrated at how anyone could create something this vulgar. I do indeed feel the same as the protesting Catholics. However, I would not protest. Bounded by law, nobody has the right to claim that the art exhibition is wrong. People do have the right to dislike something, but the right to make it wrong to everyone else does not come with that. Not matter how emotional they are, humans have to learn to comply with the fact that not everything will go the way they want. The protesting Catholics only make societal pressure, but they don't make sense or morals. Things that are absolute by law should remain absolute in all circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment