Enrico Nathanielle P.

Castro

BSCS - 1

Block - 1

8/26/2020

Position Paper on Poleteismo

Art has indeed changed its flavour and style from time to time as it proves to be constantly
adapting its norm. One classical example is the installation work piece made by Mideo Cruz entitled
“Poleteismo”, from a group exhibition called “Kulo” which struck a controversy into the minds of
critiques, art enthusiasts, and the Roman Catholic church all over the Philippines in August 17, 2011. The
work, a shrine-like installation of found media images, religious iconography and objects, critiques the
god-like personas of celebrities in Philippine society. The most controversial items include a crucifix with
a large red phallus attached, another crucifix covered with a pink condom, and a statue of Jesus Christ
wearing Mickey Mouse ears.

In an overview, Roman Catholics comprise almost 80% of the total religious congregations in the
Philippines. It is of no wonder therefore that the institution plays a huge influence in society. From a
typical Filipino household, families devote themselves to renowned saints, to Mother Mary, and other
religious symbols. Having any opposition regarding to it is considered a taboo. Thus any attack and
desecration is indeed sacrilegious to people’s beliefs. This provides the basis that somehow as a Catholic,
one can understand from this viewpoint that the “Poleteismo” is offensive as it undermines their faith and
dedication. It flaunts on destabilizing the values of respect which is a norm in society.

Columnist Isagani Cruz of Philippine Star stated that the “Poleteismo” isn’t an art’s evaluative
definition as an actual piece. Although it may be present in an art gallery, he states that it contains mere
expressions lacking creativity. From the piece itself, it can be deduced that explicit and slanderous content
is present. Thus in his conclusion, he noted that “it is protected by the freedom of expression provision of
the Constitution but the CCP (where it was first unveiled) should not have exhibited it in the first place.
There were literally hundreds of creative pieces that CCP could have exhibited; to choose this particular
one betrayed a lack of discretion and foresight on the part of the CCP board.”

On the other hand, Mideo Cruz is indeed within his constitutional rights when it comes to his
expression of ideals and creativity as a person. It can be seen that he poured his passion wholeheartedly
for it and I can say it was brave for him how he presented it to the art gallery and the general public
knowing that a backlash was looming. The thing that bothers is the fact that if your goal is to impact
people with your art and convey a message, it would have been better done without trying to demean an
institution. This is in parallel with the saying the end does not justify the means.

However it may be; I advocate the fact that the ability to express one’s self is considered a part of
art, although there may be conflicting differences when it comes to interpreting the actual work. Thus
even if religion plays a part in most of the society’s aspect today, it is still within the constitutional rights
of artists to show and express their emotions with a certain level of respectability and sensitivity without
trampling on the rights of other institutions. This is the highest form of expression, a work of art.