Sofia Lorreine T.

Alegado Cultural Appropriation

BAS-LT-1A Prof. Rolando Defeo

“Salubong” by Dante Hipolito

Hyper-realist painter and visual artist Dante Hipolito, sometimes known as "The
Smile Painter," is highly recognized. 1959 saw the birth of Hipolito in San Andres, Manila. The
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines hired Hipolito to paint "Salubong," a present for
the head of the Roman Church, during the papal visit to the Philippines. This painting became a
dispute, it was supposed to show the culture of Filipino, people expected it to look like the
classic face of Filipinos and not the face of riches and celebrities. According to Michael Beltran,
chair of Kabataang Artista para sa Tunay na Kalayaan (KARATULA), "the artwork contradicts
the concept of realism as it conveys nothing about the submerged reality of the nation's
agricultural workers." Hipolito clarified, however, that the artwork was also a present for his
wife, a follower of famous people. "Mundo ko ito, e. Ito, nag-e-exist ito sa utak ko lang na
inilabas ko...Kaso, na-misinterpret ng tao," said Hipolito.

This is an art of expression of an artist’s mind but somehow offended a certain group
of peole. I think the problem here is about the difference of on how they took the painting. The
artist painted that considering his personal preferences but since he used symbols of Filipinos
such as the fruits, the farm, the carabao, their clothes, he used these symbolisms that’s why
people took it differently. It’s the same as wanting to wear a face mask upside down because it’s
more comfortable for you but it downgrades its effects when it comes to protection.
 Dante Hipolito used the “trademarks” of the Philippines and changed the social
construct it carries. Arts like this are indeed prone to cultural appropriation as they seem to look
down on other people. They seem to be offensive in a way that “why would you alter the face of
the country? Are you ashamed of your fellowmen?” we cannot stop this argument to barge in
especially in Dante’s case where the art will be gifted to an important person such as the Pope to
a religious country. Maybe he lacked at sensitivity on that part.

Looking and understanding both sides makes me think deeper, it is hard to take a side
since they point have a point, one for the representation of not just a group of people but a whole
country and the other is the freedom of the artist to express his ideas on his canvas. In the end,
whoever it is, we must not resort to hate. We must not hate the art, the artist, the culture, or even
the critics; we must have an open mind and understand what’s within. Art is something that
should be a comfort or a jar of emotions and not a thing that would light up a fire to destroy what
must be united in the first place.