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 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 [...]