The last time I checked it was 2011, and we were living in a democracy where the freedom of expression was a sacred right. It still isn’t the dark ages and fundamentalist clerics do not rule the land. Yet, it seems like it in the wake of the CCP “Kulo” controversy.
According to reports, artist Medio Cruz’s work “shows a wooden replica of the male genital protruding toward Jesus Christ’s face. The male genital replica is draped with the rosary hanging by the base and top of the replica. To a crucifix is attached a red male organ. A similar image of Christ where his eyes are darkened by black ink which appears to flow out from his eyes; a crucifix and cross draped with a pink stretched out condom; various religious images and pictures of Christ, Mary the Mother of Christ, Holy family, saints, and the rosary are all closely surrounded by and placed beside pictures of women who appear to be modeling for underwear or a skin product; a picture of Christ’s disciples surrounding a dark silhouette. Right in the facial expression is a drawing resembling Mickey Mouse; a seated statue of Christ where the tip of his nose is a red ball, above his head is an imposed pair of red ears ala Mickey Mouse”.
Yesterday, the government closed down the exhibit after bishops cried 'blasphemy!' And suddenly, everyone's an art critic. I'm pretty sure those who found it objectionable didn't even see the exhibit. So, wala silang karapatang manghusga. I have not seen it myself but judging from the pics I've seen, I thought it was a cool installation. It was buong-buo, hitik na hitik or full of rich kitsch. It's meant to mock the Pinoy's penchant for idolatry. It made its point well. Triumphant art it was.
The Kulo uproar is reminiscent of what happened in the late 1980s. Cinema's living legend Martin Scorsese adapted the Greek writer Nikos Kazantzakis The Last Temptation of Christ. It was an exercise in theology, not an episodic staging of one of the gospels. Christ was believed to be both god and man. Kazantzakis offered this treatise: what if his godly nature failed him on the cross? What if he refused his destiny and chose to embrace the simple pains and joys of a regular life?
Manoling Morato, then Censors chief, banned the film, and he even admitted that he did so without even seeing it. Knowing that Jesus had sex with Magdalene was enough cause for censorship, he said. Well, he should have. I thought it was inspiring, and made me understand Christ's divinity more. Christ was all flesh and blood when he roamed Israel. Christ as man struggled, questioned, was in constant anguish over his pre-ordained role as savior. Yet he conquered all that to fulfill that role. How could that be offensive?
As I've said again and again, any form of censorship is unacceptable in a free society like ours. It's downright baduy. I'm aware of its limits (libel, slander, risk to public safety, real and not imagine pornography, and all). Tumigil kayo, mga obispo kayo. Isn't it ironic that the herd of fundamentalists that stalk the billboard-ridden highways of the Metro and the halls of the Cultural Center are turning out to be very un-Christian in their ways? Idiocy, art illiteracy, prevarication and moral arrogance are exactly what Medeo Cruz's art was all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment