Jeffrey A.

Abarca BSMT T3

Mideo Cruz’s “Politeismo”-Trying to understand why art can offend, and why artists
should continue to be free

The controversy is not about an artwork being prurient or obscene but more about
blasphemy and sacrilege in a largely “Catholic” populace. Seeing the pictures, I was offended
specifically by the oversized crimson phallus placed on the crucifix, and the Jesus image with
eyes blackened dripping ink. The stretched condom hanging on one side of a crucifix was just
odious. Entering an individual’s creed could lead into a cataclysm, taking away our free will to
express our viewpoints through art. (Below is my honest perspective regarding the issue, but it
doesn’t mean I’m against any religion or so).

Humans have a moral responsibility to uplift, inspire, and edify other humans. I’m not going
to walk down the streets throwing fecal matter in people’s faces, but some artists think it is
fine-good, even-for them to essentially do just that 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 actions? Why do we need to restrict ourselves to portray our visions? To say that
art exists outside of morality is to say that it exists outside of humanity. I just do not simply
support his artwork because I myself is an artist too but because we cannot contain a bird in a
cage who wants to soar in the extent of its wings because we can’t fly, we may share the same
environment but if you can’t deal with it why not constricting somebody else’s vision just for
your belief not to be condemned.

Art’s duty is to be true to the artist’s vision. When it is this, it captures an honest and
valuable moment, it captures the reality, and it records 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. Artists do not
create his craft to be praised by narcissists and narrow-minded viewers, artists create to feed his
passion and for individuals who see the beauty in it.
Jeffrey A. Abarca BSMT T3

We cannot deny we were born already with a mark on our identity. From the day we are
born, one should continue all the practices, teachings stated by our religion and must defend it at
all costs. Religion already gave us a path we should take taking away our chance to find our own
path to have the transparency to seek our identity without any barriers. The way I see it, people
who believe in God see God as the origin of morality, and that morality descends through
religion to the mass of people. Since religions make claims about an “after life” for which there
is no “going around the bend” to clarify the claims... well, there is, but people never come back
to give a report… there is no way to verify whether they are just fabrications, such as the people
who never travel beyond the bend to verify the existence of danger. And so the community
grows of people who are now convinced there’s danger, and will then try to save others from
disaster. The religious moralizers bank on either people stopping whatever behaviour they are
condemning, or at least putting their foot on the break. We couldn’t deny the fact the religion
became the great influencer of what is good or bad. With that, we cannot unchain ourselves since
from the very start; it became our primary basis in deciding circumstances.

The first thing any dictator does is attempt to silence the artists especially if ones’ belief were
attacked. Art moves. It is generative, automatically anti status-quo. Whoever and whatever is in
charge always targets art, because change is the constant of art. Artists have an absolute freedom
of expression; they should have blanket freedom of expression, regardless of whatever it is. An
artist craft is like his/her soul which is a mere representation of his/her stand. Controversy with
religious symbols/figures is a bit more of a touchy subject. It shows how open-minded people
are; divinity is not actually concerned with the mortal ways of being, and people create their own
controversies over it. Art is art if one can’t accept the art and the artist itself then don’t beg for
respect because artist doesn’t create things in your favour they create because it’s their will.

It appears I’m on his side and yes I am guilty of it, but it doesn’t mean I am a rebel of my
own religion nor I am an atheist. But I am not a big fan of multiplicy of religions, that’s why it
always loses to an argument. Religion itself has so many weaknesses, it’s sort of fashion or trend
that if didn’t get the gist; you’ll face the consequences eradicating the essence of freedom of
expression. In the end, what’s the point of arguing with a person knowing he could get criticised?
Jeffrey A. Abarca BSMT T3

Is it for them to attest they only have the universal truth? Deal every issue with openness rather
than restricting yourself to state we didn’t choose to take from the very start.