CULTURE
Culture and the Arts is Everybody’s Business

The challenge that artists and cultural workers should face is very basic: the concretization of nationalist culture through the arts, and the appreciation (by artists and the public) of the role of artists in cultural transformation. 

BY JULIE L. PO

Bulatlat

(Editor’s Note: The author is the secretary-general of the Concerned Artists of the Philippines. She was requested by Bulatlat to write this year-ender piece on culture.)

“Artista lang” (Just an artist), people are wont to say. Still, even in the political scene, artists hogged the limelight. 

Year 2004 started busy for artists as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), King of Philippine Movies, announced his plan to vie for presidency.  His friends in show business were quick to support him, forming the group Mga Artista Para kay FPJ (Artists for FPJ).  Among the lead organizers were National Artist for Cinema, filmmaker and writer Eddie Romero, filmmakers Joel Lamangan, Carlitos Siguion-Reyna, and Mel Chionglo; and writer Bibeth Orteza.

Artist-supporters of presidential candidate Eddie Villanueva formed Bangon Artista. While other candidates in the national and local levels solicited the endorsement of artists as volunteers or garnered artists’ commitments as business contracts.

Not a few sneered at the candidacy of FPJ (“Baduy!”). Yet FPJ proved to be the candidate to beat by the incumbent, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. “Artista lang” proved to be “Artista kasi” (Because he is an artist).

The artists behind FPJ are no ordinary artists capitalizing on their popularity. They know of arts and culture better than those with so-called “high culture” taste.

In a statement, they declared that, “culture is not simply enlightenment and sophistication through education and exposure to the arts… We maintain that culture is the sum definition of the customs, practices and social behavior of a particular people, identifying the particular place, class, or time to which they belong, as well as their efforts to alleviate their condition.”

They further said, “There is imperative need to develop a genuine national culture responsive to the contemporary needs of the Filipino people. But the development of a genuine national culture can only be fostered by genuine love of country.” 

Battling globalization

In October this year, the same group of artists, but now together with the others of different political loyalties, organized themselves to save the film industry which is on the verge of collapse. They formed the Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Pelikulang Pilipino (NMPP or United Filipino Film Workers), and categorically criticized globalization or trade liberalization as a main factor in the dwindling number of local movie productions.

Rightly so, with the 400 films that were rated by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), only 50 were local productions. A good quality local movie would need a budget of P15-P20 million (roughly US$268,000 to US$357,000 at US$1=P56). Hollywood films’ top 10 for 2004 have a production budget of US$50-$150 million, grossing as much as US$120-$400 million per film. In 2002, Hollywood movies world market share amounted to $63 billion or 68.7 percent of the total.

The music industry could not be far from this debacle. The Philippine music market is worth about US$30 million a year. This figure includes productions of local and foreign artists. Globally, as of 2002, 75 percent or over $32 billion of the global music market is controlled by five companies. The consolidation process continues this year as two pairs of companies announced merger plans. If both mergers go through, three companies will control 75 percent of the global market.

The devotional adherence of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration to globalization is a given.  The damage wrought by globalization on the country’s economic indicators is glaring.  But the damage by the imbalance of trade and opportunities in cultural products, while quantifiable in terms of sales and income figures, goes way beyond the numbers. 

Artistic products (and productions) elicit emotional and intellectual responses that are potent agents to the formation of a people’s culture. This is the difference between an ordinary commodity of trade and a product with cultural content.

Ignorance or manipulation?

The 2004 budget for culture and the arts reflects how President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo prioritizes this aspect of national concern. For the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), the overall coordinating and policymaking government body that systematizes and streamlines national efforts in promoting culture and arts, the budget for 2004 was P18 million. 

On the other hand, the administration, in recognition of “tourism 's contribution to world peace, cultural enrichment, and socio-economic development” (ibid.) endowed the Department of Tourism (DoT) a hefty P824 million. For 2005, DoT has an allocation of P137 million more, while the NCCA will receive a budgetary increase of P1.4 million.

Artists are slapped a 10 percent VAT in the exercise of their profession and a 20 percent withholding tax for every contract.  Artistic and cultural productions have to pay 10 percent VAT plus 15-30 percent amusement tax on ticket sales.

Seemingly to commensurate, the anti-piracy Optical Media Bill was enacted to ensure the protection of the rights of artists to their creations.  At first glance, this seems advantageous. In fact, not a few artists laud this move. 

But artists and the public should view this matter in the wider context of globalization. Rich countries have the advantage over poor countries, even in culture (thereby influence).  Adapting an anti-piracy bill without laws that promote and protect local artists and productions and without artistic and cultural support from the government will put artists deeper into the pit.

The imbalance of trade and opportunities described earlier presents the objective conditions of the global commerce on cultural products. If artists concentrate on asserting the protection of their rights through the implementation of more stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws, the efforts are actually spent MORE on protecting the giant media conglomerates—simply because they dominate the market.

Moreover, actors do not have IPRs on their audiovisual performances. Hence, IPR laws do not appropriate the profits garnered from the implementation of the law to the actors and other creators; it just collects more profits for the producers or capitalists.

Privatizing culture

The government views culture and arts activities as service oriented rather than financially beneficial.  It thereby leaves this sector to fend for itself; to solicit support from the corporate sector, just like the other service oriented departments like health, education, and social welfare.  

Corporate support of the arts and culture sector gives corporations control of these aspects of society.  Artists are made to feel economically insecure and inhibited if creations are criticisms directed on corporations.  Works that promote values and work ethics that are investor friendly thus become the epitome of excellence.

The Macapagal-Arroyo administration’s incoherence regarding arts culture is not due to its ignorance on this matter, it is just keeping in line with its main economic thrust of globalization.  As early as 2002, at the National Conference on Culture and the Arts, Macapagal-Arroyo bared her perspective when she advised artists to "make culture available” and “attractive to the masses."  This statement is proof that, for the president, the people are “markets,” not anymore citizens. Artists booed her, of course. 

There is hope

FPJ lost in his bid for presidency. It was not because he was an “artista lang.” In fact, the artists behind him could have been his best assets; the trapos (derogatory term for traditional politicians), his worst. It was due more on anomalous election conduct and returns.

As 2004 was ending, FPJ bid his last. On Dec. 14, he died of brain haemorrhage.

Thousands of his fans and supporters grieve and mourn his death. Many flock to his wake to express adulation to their idol and candidate; as well as to express rage over the questionable election results.  This show of support should not be dismissed as “stupidity” of the masses. 

FPJ was an actor who portrayed the protector of the oppressed; a leader who was selfless and compassionate. His characters possessed powers who subdued greedy antagonists reigning through deceit and harassment. The multitude of his fans and supporters speaks well of the hopes of the masses.

FPJs artistic roles vis a vis reality show how valuable artists are to society.  Artistic and cultural productions should present hope. But equally important is presenting how “hope” can be translated to reality.

Hope in collective actions

The challenge that artists and cultural workers should face is very basic: the concretization of nationalist culture through the arts, and the appreciation (by artists and the public) of the role of artists in cultural transformation.  Several grassroots, progressive, mainstream and/or alternative groups are presently actively answering this challenge.

Moreover, it is important for the people to recognize that “culture, the arts and media are weapons of imperialist aggression.  Thus, resistance in the sphere of culture is indispensable. Maximizing the use of creative arts and media for education and information; concern and involvement in creative productions; encouragement, support, and engagement in people’s culture endeavors are key ingredients for liberation.”

There is hope in collective actions. Matters regarding arts and culture are not the concern only of artists, it is as much the public’s. Bulatlat

BACK TO TOP ■  PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION  ■   COMMENT

© 2004 Bulatlat ■  Alipato Publications

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.