AESTHETIC DIVIDES?: Cultural workers’ art at ILOMOCA

1 of 14

By John Anthony S. Estolloso

IN HIS introduction to ‘The Story of Art’, E.H. Gombrich opined that ‘there is no such thing as art; there are only artists.’ For him, the artistic process of the creator far outweighs the output itself. But when we speak of an artist, in the most conventional sense of the word, we usually refer to those who produce works of recognized aesthetic value, even if this is anchored to the changing tastes of the times.

And then, there are those who work in what could be considered as peripheries: the interstices of culture, heritage, and pedagogy that come to play in the curation of art.

But is there indeed an aesthetic separation between the academic and the creative? ILOMOCA’s current exhibit provides a venue where this proposition becomes a provocative exploration of what goes beyond the display on the gallery walls. With the title ‘Cultural Workers: NOT CREATIVE?’, the exhibit interrogates the position of cultural workers as artistic creators, bringing them from the margin of oft unappreciated praxis of curation, pedagogy, research, and conservation and onto the spotlight of the conversation about contested spaces in art.

Curated by Les Amacio, Rhaz Oriente, and Moreen Austria, the exhibit becomes a simulacrum of the role of cultural workers in art production. The ‘cast’ comes from a miscellany of various disciplines and expertise. There are museum and gallery curators, directors, and coordinators. An art technician and professor. A graphic designer and an art writer. An exhibition preparator. A heritage researcher. Altogether, a rather motley ensemble from the academe and the established institutions of art; but further examination of the artworks themselves – and how these are displayed – reveal insights rarely recognized in conventional art shows. What surfaces in the collection can be considered as an aesthetic reconfiguration of sorts, where there is a ‘detachment of the artistry from the curation,’ or as what Dave Lock writes on the exhibit notes, the creation of a new visual language for the artworks.

Of course, aesthetic influences cannot be dismissed. For instance, the minimalist bent on the modern is palpable. Les Amacio’s geometric figurations of blues, reds, grays, whites, and blacks cut to the style of Mondrian or Malevich contrast Ross Almendras’ misty, monochrome charcoals punctuated by a persistent single red dot. The works of Rhaz Oriente and Ricky Francisco blur the lines between painting and assemblage. The abstract and the surreal are discernible in Julio Jose Austria’s sharp contrasts of lights and shadows, RA Tijng’s oils dotted with squiggles of impasto, and Benj Pore’s pastiches of complementary colors arranged in nebulous geometric placements.

Glimpses of the human condition and lived experiences find their way through the exhibit. Jumjum Ouano’s serigraphs of people and animals set on backgrounds of vibrant patterns easily stand out for the viewer to peruse. On a demurer scale, Dave Lock’s doodles in acrylic and pen-and-ink explore the best and the bestial in humanity. Moreen Austria’s sculptural creations of fiberglass, brass, and resin encased in boxes of wood and mirrors resonate with pensive intimacy even as Ivy Marie Apa’s juxtapositions of sacred imagery with materialist icons become allegories of popular trends and pedantic commentaries on social issues. Eric John Eigner’s photographs arrayed to the symmetry (or the lack of it) of the picturesque albeit minute shots of architectural icons drowned in the immense white panel reinforce the idea that these are indeed landscapes you wouldn’t otherwise see.

Then there is Les Amacio’s installation Human(s) are Fragile Too: a serried row of balikbayan boxes precariously suspended by thin nylon threads, each one tightly secured by packing tape and box straps, the latter’s black color sharply contrasting the white cardboard surface of the cartons. While these boxes are established metaphors of the toil of our OFWs and the brain drain in this country, they also conversely hint on working conditions and the unlikely outcome these sometimes entail. As if to echo darkly Gloc9’s rhetorical question, the installation proposes something else beneath the neat mundanity of its display: ‘Gugutumin, sasaktan, malalagay sa peligro, uuwing nasa kahon, ni wala man lang testigo?’

* * * * *

The day after the vernissage, a spirited discussion paneled by Les Amacio, Ricky Francisco, Dave Lock, and Rhaz Oriente on the nature of curation further delved into the role of the curator, researcher, and conservator in art, and to what extent does the gallery become a contested space for meaning between artist and preparator. In all appearances, much is lost, transmuted, or reconfigured in what meets the viewer’s eye in an exhibition. Then again, between artwork and curation, which impresses itself easily to the audience? And to what reflective depth would the ordinary art appreciator go beyond what is visible to the eye?

One audience member contended that cultural work is inherently artistic – but as to whether it falls beneath the conventional understanding of what comprises the displayed artistic seemed to be an ensuing bone of contention. But that would be the subject of another article.

(The writer is a language and literature teacher in one of the private schools in the city.)