Mideo Cruz's piece "Poleteismo," which was shown at the Cultural Center of the

Philippines, has so inflamed public opinion that any criticism worth its weight must address
the burning topic of who is right and who is wrong. I hope that some room may be given for a
non-moral, non-legal, and non-aesthetic assessment of this debate as emblematic of our
society's structural and semantic transformations as it transitions to modernity. There are
people who believe Cruz has overstepped the bounds of his artistic liberties by depicting
Christian iconography in a disrespectful and contemptuous manner. On the other hand, some
argue that Cruz is fully within his constitutional rights as an artist to express himself as he
sees appropriate, and that the CCP should be commended for providing him with a platform
in line with its purpose to encourage art. Others believe that "Poleteismo" is substandard work
that relies on the shock impact to attract attention and hence does not deserve to be shown at
the CCP.

Meanwhile, Mideo's art, unlike Politeismo's, aims to provoke debate and reflection in
his audience, rather than revulsion. For example, pictures of Jesus Christ and Mother Mary
were displayed alongside condoms; plastic piggy banks were enclosed in a glass case where
statues are normally enshrined in churches; and crucifixes and rosaries were hung alongside
wooden phalluses. Mideo Cruz believes that Filipinos may achieve their goals through his
Politeismo.Unconsciously (or consciously), time has spawned a plethora of expressions of not
religious figures, but idolatrous idolatry as expressed in his adoration but of money, as in
consumerism; his great regard for politicians who he saw as a blessing; his adoration for
Hollywood celebrities; and similar to that Mideo argues that Filipinos "worship" these many
"gods." Days have an impact on his vision of reality and his ability to operate as a human.

Additionally, it is interpreted as an attempt to make a statement about the country's

socioeconomic concerns because the ludicrous juxtaposition of the things we love, adore,
revere, patronize, or dread represents this "polytheism," as he aptly labels it. The authority of
religion is questioned, if not totally superseded, by the fetishism of consumer commodities
and the cult of power and fame in this cultural collage of new and ancient icons. A piece like
this works to the degree that it can attract viewers into a protracted contemplation that, in the
finest art encounters, prompts the spectator to reassess his or her own sensibility. However,
the concept of "Poleteismo" is perhaps one of the most frequent in the art world. It's so
commonplace that the artist's toughest struggle is undoubtedly avoiding the clichés that hinder
intuition.

Also, what should have remained in the "holy" corridors of art galleries and museums,
where prior works of the same sort as Cruz's are typical fare, was dumped on a public
unaware of art's esoteric values by the media in an irresponsible manner. Before being
presented to the public, these sorts of works should be critically reviewed, analyzed, and
filtered by art critics, art historians, and academics. We can't blame the impacted religious
sectors for their vehement reactions. They were subjected to the harrowing experience of
having their sacred things desecrated, which is not unusual in the art industry.

Its reception is influenced by its manufacturing and circulation conditions because

analyzing the responses of critics of Politeismo and Mideo, a common and obvious
foundation could be discerned from their utterances. As a result, they judged the work and its
creator to be sacrilegious, disrespectful, and immoral. It's unethical and irresponsible. To put
it another way, the decisions taken by the critics must have had a certain point of view or
vantage point. Based on the comments listed above, one may conclude that the detractors are
correct are based on a classical viewpoint. The dualistic approach of reality is one of the
characteristics of this worldview that has to be stressed for this examination, among many
others. Furthermore, there is a division between what was once considered sacred and what is
now considered secular. What were the profanities? Because there is a schism, it involves
issues of the flesh. The temporal and the market place as profane aspects of this universe;
whereas those who concerns about the church, religion, and the sacredness of the hereafter, as
well as the spiritual as well as the ideal similarly, the spiritual (i.e., divine) is regarded in the
classical worldview. the operations of the church or religion, as well as afterlife worries) as
more vital, ideal, and occasionally considered as the sole true reality. (Mesa, 1995)

Mideo's art may be viewed as a type of societal critique as well as an act of

expression because if we examine the comments, we can see that they are defending their
position as artists, not Politeismo. That is, artists should be allowed to freely and creatively
express themselves without fear of restriction from any authority. As an artist, this attribute of
being free and creative allows them to reflect life and its makings in their art. This freedom of
expression, however, comes with a price and accountability. Although artists are initially free
to do as they choose, they cannot avoid the scrutiny of people who will later see their work.
As a result, the artists' freedom to express themselves is limited by the socio-cultural
frameworks that they must work within to satisfy. (Duchamp, 1957)

In conclusion, Mideo had been faithful to his vocation, as artists in the past and
present, both local and worldwide, had utilized their artworks to criticise society and its ideals,
in addition to aesthetics. To comprehend the dynamics of the reception-interpretation process,
the Perspectivism principle was used. It was also from on the Politeismo installation, this
viewpoint was that the perspectives and stances of each opposing viewpoint were better
appreciated. However, a fusion of horizons may be achieved, and a true dialogue can take
place, if and only if the beholders of opposing viewpoints are prepared to suspend their
judgements against one other and stand in the position where the other sees.

References:

David, R. (2011). When art irritates religion. Philippine Daily Inquirer. 10147

Duchamp, M. (1957). Session on the Creative Act, Convention of the American

Federation of Arts. Houston.

Fonseca, J. (2017). Conflict of Perspectives: Politeismo in the Eyes of the Beholder, San Beda
College, vol. 2.1

Mayo, R. (2011). Mideo Cruz’ “Poleteismo”: When Art is Condemned, The Essence of
Things by Art and Thought

Mesa, J. M. (1995). Can Marriage be a Way of Discipleship? In J. M. de Mesa,

Marriage as Discipleship (pp. 17-27). Quezon: East Asian Pastoral Institute.

Silverio, I. (2011). Artist Mideo Cruz wants to provoke critical thought, gets death threats
instead. Bulatlat: Journalism for the people, est. 2001.