IN SOLIDARITY with Neo-Angono Artists Collective, the artists of TutoK express their indignation at the censorship of the mural on the History of Press Freedom, commissioned by the National Press Club (NPC), and ironically defaced and revised shortly after the same mural was installed and transferred to the NPC’s custody. The mural unveiled on October 26 on the 55th anniversary of the NPC was changed without the artists’ consent.
Our initial reaction was of lament. This act would be deemed unexpected of an institution representing a profession that we hold in high esteem. In the interest of social responsibility, artists, like writers and journalists, are practitioners of creative craft in the service of truth and the pursuit of justice.
As the mural aptly means to depict, the history of the struggle for press freedom is not the struggle of press and media people alone, but the struggle of a nation seeking freedom from imperialist and fascist bondage.
Sadly, what should have been a pictorial vista affirming NPC’s place in history in unity with past and more recent heroes and martyrs for freedom’s cause has been besmirched, defaced and censored by the NPC leadership itself with its smug and misinformed claim — that since it commissioned and paid for the mural, it has the absolute right as owner to change it and ultimately decide its fate. The NPC leadership is in effect saying that it’s nobody else’s business because it’s their property.
Two fallacies come to surface in the NPC leadership’s feeble defense. First, it denies that it committed censorship, and insists on calling it an act of alteration. Was it just pure whim on their part to authorize the painting over of the International Federation of Journalists’ statement on behalf of press freedom against the implementation of the anti-terror law? Why erase the news on abduction of Jonas Burgos? Why did it try to disguise or change names and personages integral to the artist’s depiction of past and progressive crises on the right to free expression?
The NPC leadership conveniently denies that the so-called alterations — hurriedly implemented right before the launch graced by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and right after an ocular inspection by the Presidential Security Group — are connected to the said events. NPC president Roy Mabasa insists that no one influenced their decision.
Indeed, there is no censorship in the Philippines. Authorities lash against criticism in the most furtive ways; there will always be minions to do the dirty work. If we are besieged by extra-judicial killings and abductions at large, NPC’s current leadership has enacted the killing and abduction of the constitutional right to freedom of expression by hiring other artists to deface the work of the Neo-Angono artists.
The next fallacy manifests itself in the NPC leadership’s invocation of its authority, presented in news reports as expressions of magnanimity. NPC director Joel Sy Egco asserts that: 1) the alterations are not permanent and will not harm the artwork; and 2) the alterations were not meant to offend and therefore the artists have not been harmed. These statements would have us believe that the issue is simply a contractual dispute between Neo-Angono and the NPC.
Who owns the mural and who gets to control what it should speak of eventually, and for all posterity? This is the reductive question posited by NPC in its defense. The answer is clearly stated in the Intellectual Property Code (IPC) of the Philippines. What applies to writers and other authors and creators of original works clearly applies to Neo-Angono. The collective and its artist members alone have the right to revise the artwork as a whole or by parts, unless the artists themselves elect to disclaim or assign that right to others in writing.
The law applies even if the artwork has been bought or paid for by an owner. It therefore follows that the owner of an artwork is expected to act as custodian of the artist’s right and is committed to protect the original integrity of the artwork once the artist or artists declare it has already been created and done. The sum of 900,000 pesos for an 8 by 32-foot mural becomes even paltrier, given the NPC leadership’s reckless notion that the amount paid entitles them to violate the law.
Chapter X, Sec. 193.3, under the Law on Copyright in the IPC states that the author of a work has the right to:
“To object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, his work which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation”
These and other rights are guaranteed and binding under laws on copyright, and need not be declared in contracts and registrations. The Philippines is a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and is therefore bound to the rule that the artist’s moral and economic rights to his work is automatically in force upon creation, locally and internationally, even without being asserted and declared, and will continue to be applied up to fifty years after the creator’s demise.
Having clearly violated the rights of the Neo-Angono Artists Collective, the NPC leadership must account for a larger moral affront in the public realm: that of being complicit in the gagging of free expression and the distortion of an expressed facet of our own history. Claiming not to take sides does not give NPC the license to silence and censor what is meant to be expressed. Otherwise, it should not have commissioned a mural on the history of press freedom and should have opted for something safe and decorative to grace the wall of its Headline Restaurant.
The NPC as a senior organization of journalists should be the bastion of ethical practice and the protection of universal human rights. The freedom of the press is staked not on its practitioners alone but on the freedom of everyone, and it only follows that it entails great responsibility.
Neo-Angono Artist Collective’s assertion that it stands firm, that it will not back down, that it will not agree to any change in what its artists have painstakingly researched and expressed is already a declaration of responsibility. We artists and citizens look in askance as to when the current leadership of National Press Club will take a similar act of responsibility.
– TutoK (via e-mail)
Loading ...
November 30th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
i support the changes done by the supposed patron of the mural. if am buying specifically a commodity from a vendor’s right hand i would like to get what i have paid for and not just anything from his left hand. hideous!
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 am
This is an excellent commentary to the current state of press freedom in RP. NPC must set example and lead courageously protecting its mission.
Suffice to say, If Roy Mabasa and Joel Sy Edgo has balls, they need bigger sets to play the game they are in.
and acts courageously in determining
November 14th, 2007 at 9:50 am
as an appreciator of art, and a literature major, i would just lke to say that the changes done to the said mural is really unrespectful to the part of the original artist/s of that work of art. it clearly shows that we Filipino’s are loosing respect for our fellowmen, and this is really a thing that we should reflect on. Although this is not merely a question of respect but this is one of the foundations of unity and peace in a community, if we are loosing respect, then what will happen to the future of the Filipino’s? Will we always be like these people who disregards other people?
November 12th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
” IN SOLIDARITY with Neo-Angono Artists Collective, the artists of TutoK express their indignation at the censorship of the mural on the History of Press Freedom, commissioned by the National Press Club (NPC), and ironically defaced and revised shortly after the same mural was installed and transferred to the NPC’s custody. The mural unveiled on October 26 on the 55th anniversary of the NPC was changed without the artists’ consent.” quoted from Inquirer’s.
===
One cannot imagime how far flung the disastrious consequences of a society’s ACT OF condoning a liar and a cheater to squat in Malacanang. She surrounds herself with people who are susceptible to the same infectious desease she brought with her to the executive branch of the country’s government. Not even knowing the consequences of their actions, the NPC, the National Press Club, have now elevated themselves from a level as condoners to as violators of their countrymen’s right to freedom of speech and expression. This right is at the core and heart of the country’s constitution. The members of this club must be exposed and be attacked as to who they really are: A MENACE TO FILIPINOS’ FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Dear Ms. Evangelista,
As you said commissioning work requires meeting of the minds. But you must admit the artists themselves used the opportunity to paint their partisan politics in an edifice that should espouse impartiality. I must say I sympathize with the NPC, because they were clear when they required the NAAC to be politically impartial in their art.
Then again a deviant view like mine in a sea of knee-jerk overdone david-and-goliath allusions could be wrong. Then again, all sides of reason result in the social exclusion or branding of those who beg to differ.
Tet Gallardo
November 11th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I believe in press freedom and artistic expression, but let us put this in REAL perspective: the transaction is a “COMMERCIAL” exchange where the NAAC got paid for Php900T to finish the artwork. NPC is the client and they held rights for the theme and the way they want their mural done – it is not consequential whether they want something profound, hideous, ugly, deep, safe or some other esoteric mumbo jumbo type of theme for the mural.
I would understand if NAAC did this for “free” or made this “Art” as a donation and NPC made some alterations.
NPC can burn the mural if they want to and NAAC doesn’t have any legal rights to whatever NPC does to the material after it was delivered – the fact that NAAC did not show up for a meeting to discuss changes is already unprofessional. If NAAC wanted to retain creative “control” over the material, they should have made arrangements for some legal agreements prior to executing the work. As it is, NPC was very particular about their request that the theme be made APOLITICAL – e.g. “politically neutral”, instead the mural showed all the current slogans in all of the hastily organized street protest by every other POLITICALLY inclined ex-president, organization, party, individual, president-wanna-be etc. It would have cost NPC much less than Php900T by easily getting all the placards and putting up a collage and passed it off as a mural.
With all of the issues facing the country I am sure that PGMA and the NPC have much bigger and more serious issues to attend to rather than react to a group that is using the same MEDIA to gain leverage to promote a political agenda. It seems that taking potshots at the president is the current rage.
Here’s a challenge – why not return the 900T and ask for the mural to be returned to NAAC? I am sure they can find a buyer who can display it in the next street protest, last time I checked Lim already allowed protesters to use Mendiola. Honestly though, NPC should charge NAAC for media and advertising charges as this story has gotten more than its fair share of free exposure. As it is, NPC owns the mural. Period. Exclamation Point.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:13 am
To the artist: Well, All I can say is these idiots have every right to alter your work because they pay for it. Gloria Arroyo, With her cronies just didn’t realize that you’re going to paint the truth in your painting. After they saw the truth on it, Of course they have every right to change it without your knowledge. After all they already pay for it. This is one of the problem in the Philippines they’re surpress the truth because that is the only way they can protect they stolen power. This is worse than Martial law. If I were you, Paint the same painting somewhere else I’m pretty sure there is lots of people appreciate your work. Especially if your painting paint the truth.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
i, as artist and activist, support the cause of the neo-angono artists collective.
i read the papers late. i learned there was a fuming tit-for-tat between the collective and NPC director joel sy egco.
i personally know richard gappi.
and i also know jose joel m. sy egco. he used to be my grade school bestfriend. then, we knew very well the artists’ cause. i just wondered what’s got in to his mind berating the collective as “artists of the lowest kind”.
for joel, i guess he has to know that there is no such thing as art for art’s sake. the collective’s concept of press freedom in the mural interpreted the artists’ world today. the artist answers the question of “for whom” should art serve.
listening to the PSG’s comments and berating the collective prove sy egco’s partiality.
so damn sorry, man!
November 8th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
National Press Club and media organizations shld. do some soul-searching, if they know the meaning of the word. We had several (unfortunate) chance to be their guests and we were disgusted to meet the so-called journalists wielding what ought to be “mightier than the sword”.There’s much gloom & doom stories, arrogance, bickering, pessimism among themselves and senseless beating of deadlines, never mind accuracy and fairness, just so news could come out fast. If you would just literally see the faces of many so-called columnists, you’d wonder if you’re staring ‘trapos’, only that they write trash and not talk (trash). It was not the respectable journalism thought us in high school by equally respectable teachers. Maybe these teachers lied to us and moreso fooled our classmates lured into the world of reporters and writers. ‘Self-regulating’ bodies like the media/press are not doing their part nor are they regulating one another: they are just as hypocrite as the very government and companies they write about. The way they compete with one another (think: ratings, readership, revenues) show the 3R’s of Philippine media. Not much different from 3G’s of politics.They are part of the society’s problem and God made us all to wallow in this same s*?t together. No wonder the not-so-free Singaporean media accused Phil. media as “very free but lacking in quality.” Well, journalism is just another profession i guess and not nobler than the next: bottomline is to have some means to feed one’s family. At least in this argument we are in agreement and can’t blame journalists exclusively….
November 8th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
well said.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I sent this to all possible opinions/comments venue:
I was shocked by the actions and reactions of NPC particularly on the altering of some parts of the mural without the consent of the original artists. Of all people, the members of the press should be the one who would understand the meaning, uphold and even fight for the freedom of expression which is very much interconnected and interrelated with freedom of speech and of the press. But from what NPC had done, their idea of freedom has an exclusivity clause. It seems like ONLY the press is entitled to that right. Clearly, NPC violated the very concept of the freedom rights.
I was appalled , more so, when I watched the argument between the presidents of the NPC and the Neo-Angono Artists Collective in a morning tv show. By insistent contention that it was a contract deal, the NPC President seemed to regard the mural painting as a commodity implying if you buy and own something you can basically do whatever and anything you want to them. It was not a commercial toilet paper, it was an artwork they were commissioning. . The difference of a merchandise and an art is the artist. The artist has more say on his artwork than anybody else. If the artists of Angono and NPC cannot come in terms, the deal is off and there is no mural. Let PGMA unveil a white wall. The saying “for art’s sake” is not a lame word in the art world. Artwork is sacred to artist. Imagine, altering some part of the Sistine Chapel? No wonder Angono artists howled. It is not just a moral issue, it is the basic issue.
And what is the relevance of asking if the painters of the group are left-leaning or not?
The facilitator of the tv show is noticeably partial to the NPC side. He is a member of the press and I cannot help wondering if he was also a member of NPC. I hope not. Artists express themselves through art , they don’t blabber to explain themselves and earn their living like a commentator. Unless, of course, if their freedom of expressions are curtailed like changing part of their artwork. Maybe, NPC should make more time to know their artists before awarding the contract. Or maybe, NPC should commission the commercial signage artists, instead. They are much cheaper and more manageable to work with (translation: they will do whatever you ask for the money).
November 7th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
What the NPC did to the mural shows the highest form of disrespect for art and artists. They should now call the National Press Club- National Suppress Club. So what if Pres. Arroyo is criticized in the mural. She is used to criticism.
There is still hope for the NPC to rectify their mistake, restore the original design on the mural.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I am all for freedom of the press, but does that mean I have to espouse leftist ideas? I am sorry to disagree with this bandwagon of opinion but can there be not a painting depicting press freedom without leftist overtones?
November 7th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
[...] the artists of TutoK have issued a statement in solidarity with Neo-Angono Artists Collective in Vox Populi. By Joey Alarilla Feedbacks on this entry via RSS 2.0 Please leave a Comment or [...]