There are atleast three major issues that can fleshed out from the document, “Customs of the Tagalogs” written by Juan de Placencia in 1589, if we are to put socio-political context into the text – first, the issue of authorship; second, the discourse of power in colonial writing; and third, the logic of binarism or the Occident-Other dichotomy. These are interrelated threads that probably constitute major segments of colonial historical writing in the Philippines.
The authorial voice or authorship plays a pivotal role in putting meaning(s) to this colonial text. The author, Juan de Placencia was, in the first place, not a native Tagalog but a Franciscan missionary who first arrived in the Philippines in 1577. He was tasked by the King of Spain to document the customs and traditions of the colonized (“natives”) based on, arguably, his own observations and judgments. Such initiatives were an accustomed practice of the colonizer during the Age of Discovery to enhance their superiority over the colonized and validity of their so-called duties and legacies to the World. It is a common fact that during this era, the Spanish colonizers, spearheaded by missionaries, drew a wide variety of texts ranging from travel narratives and accounts of the colony to even sermons.
In this particular text, de Placencia tried to avoid discussing the “conflicting reports of the Indians” through an “informed observation” to obtain the “simple truth.” This “truth,” however, is debatable, and the manner of how he actually arrived to his reports is even more problematic. The text foregrounds two important figures: the observer (de Placencia) himself, with his own background, subjectivites and biases; and the observer’s subject (Tagalogs), seen as the “Other,” a metonymic amalgam of communal characteristics, local customs and traditions, etc. In colonial situations, the relationship of these figures – the colonizer and the colonized – flows in both but unequal directions; the former being the dominant, while the latter is the inferior one, or as Said put it, “a relationship of power, of domination, of varying degrees of a complex hegemony.” Seen from the center looking toward the culturally and politically inferior periphery, the colonizers find identity in its compelling position as the sophisticated dominating “self” versus the inferior dominated “Other.” The use of politically incorrect terms such as “Indians,” “tribal” and “natives,” and adjectives such as “amusing,” “foolish” and “absurd” in the text is just a manifestation of the conflicting Occident-Other paradigm.
Clearly serving immediate colonial interests, many portions of the narrative are problematic insofar as they posit the Tagalogs in such a way as to enhance the validity of the colonizer’s allegiances. Skewed preconception and biases thrive throughout the entire document. In de Placencia’s account on land ownership, for example, he said that “the lands were divided among the barangay and…no one belonging to another barangay would cultivate them unless after the purchase or inheritance.” However, “since the advent of the Spaniards, it is not so divided.” Such statement implies that the intervention of the colonizer has put order into the divisiveness. He also made a conclusion that Catholicism was able to expel primitive and evil belief systems of the Tagalogs regarding gods, burials and superstitions, saying that “all the Tagalogs not a trace of this is left; and that those who are now marrying do not even know what it is, thanks to the preaching of the holy gospel, which has banished it.” This claim undermines that the Tagalog population didn’t fully embrace Catholicism but appropriated it according to their indigenous religious practices. Generalized and essentialist claims were also made by de Placencia in his discussion of the local customs in “Laguna and tingues, and among the entire Tagalo race.” What constituted the Tagalo race in the first place? How did he come up with such a category? The people of Laguna were just a small member of the Tagalogs and referring them as the mirror of the entire Tagalo race is erroneous.
A large fraction of his accounts were also based on false comparisons, and not coupled with accurate information. He repetitively compared local traditions with Western paradigm/parameters. The Tagalog idol, lic-ha, for example, was matched up with Romans’ statue of deity of a dead man who was brave in war and endowed with special faculties. These two objects are evidently different in nature and don’t fall under the same category. Datos were also described as the equivalent of the European “nobles,” hence undermining the indigenous political systems. Worse, the ritualistic and superstitious beliefs of the Tagalogs were mocked by de Placencia, by coming up with various categories of devil-ish beliefs. The mangagauay and mangagayoma, for instance, were both regarded as “witches” who performed deceitful healing procedures, a judgement made by an outsider who knew nothing about the complexity of indigenous pysche. What he failed to realize is that in traditional cultures, these so-called “evil” practices were an integral part of Filipino folk beliefs; and the early Tagalogs, in reality, never considered them as acts of the devil. Needless to say, the application of Western parameters to local traditions has often proven fractious especially in classifying and describing local and colonial situations.
Given the plethora of biases and to a great extent, inaccurate judgments and pretensions of the author, the text was clearly not written for local consumption, but for Western readers. Customs of the Tagalogs, just like any other colonial texts written during the Spanish colonial period, was intentionally made to provide an exoticize description of the Tagalog natives, clearly fed by politics and propaganda and operated with the Western-outsider's gaze, that would be appealing to them.
Reference: Sarder, Ziauddin. Orientalism. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1999.
>>>
by antibiotyx >>>
He's Barack Obama
Tuesday, June 23, 2009,11:53 PM
It's a bird! It's a plane! No, he's Barack Obama and he's come to save the day! ROTFL!
>>>
by antibiotyx >>>
Of Birth, Life and Death
Thursday, June 11, 2009,6:06 PM
One’s life began, flourished and ended with gold in pre-colonial Philippine societies. To celebrate life and fertility, for instance, our ancestors designed earrings and necklaces resembling an outline of an embryo. Gold ornaments were worn during rituals and special ceremonies to symbolize the social position of its bearer, while intricate funerary masks and orifice covers were made specifically to honor the dead.
Even before the Spanish colonial period, the Philippines, like its Asian neighbors, already had a rich tradition of gold jewelry-making.
It is in this diachronic, grand narrative – of birth, life and death – where the Ayala exhibit entitled Gold of Ancestors: Pre-Colonial Treasures in the Philippines revolves around. This exhibition, curated by Florina H. Capistrano-Baker, consists of more a thousand gold artifacts, which range from exquisite vessels to intricate ornaments excavated from different parts of the country, dating back to between the 10th and 13th centuries.
The presentation of texts, the arrangement of objects based on geography and historical time periods, even the over-all floor plan, follow some sort of linearity. Upon entering the exhibit, there’s a short widescreen video presentation for viewers as an overview of the entire collection and a preliminary background on the link between pre-colonial gold tradition in the Philippines to Austronesian Migrations and cultural exchange with other Asian countries. It also gives context to the shared regional affinities of the Austronesian speaking people that migrated out of pre-Sinitic southern China. In Mortals and Deities Adorned, visitors are then drawn to gold artifacts with rare anthromorphic images for honoring elite individuals and gods. At the center of the gallery is a wide array of objects signifiying the Journey to the Afterlife. Most of these archeological gold ornaments were excavated in Agusan del Norte in 1981 as part of the archeological project sponsored by Locsin Foundation.
Birth: Unearthing The Past and Analysis of Space
Yet despite the linearity, there are many underlying layers, both literal and metaphorical, to the exhibition. The title, in particular, suggests the notion of the pre-colonial “us.” It also attempts to outline the culture and belief systems of our Filipino ancestors based on archeological or material artifacts. Here, archeological interpretation within the grid of pre-colonial context and history becomes a necessary method of analysis for cultural mapping: a tool to illustrate cultural characteristics such as, among others, a sense of identity, the elements that make a community unique, beliefs and technologies.
Who and what were the Filipinos? What makes these so-called cultural treasures Filipino? What does the exhibit say about pre-colonial Filipino society, culture and identity? Can we really define identity or ethnicity from archaeological evidence? The exhibition gives light, if not entirely responds, to these questions.
In her curator’s note, Capistrano-Baker says the exhibit is a “celebration” of the “sophisticated cultures that existed in the Philippines before colonization.” The Ayala Museum also dubs it “the exhibit you’ve waited a thousand years to see.” No one would ever dare to disagree, perhaps, given the wealth of materials in the exhibit that is outstanding in terms of value, quantity and rarity, and even much more impressive than the BSP Gold Collection in the Metropolitan Museum. In fact, many of the artifacts are unique and are part of the Locsin collection, which has never before exposed to the viewing public.
The use of space, the curatorial practices employed, and visibly the capital/money spent on designing the state-of-the-art gallery, are, for lack of a better term, spectacular. The objects are not just arranged and displayed in traditional manner, on the wall and glass compartment; there are also exhibits on the glass flooring that recreates a grave site. To highlight the jewelry, bright lights are strategically placed in darkened rooms. There are drawers with magnifiying lens for a more detailed view of the objects, making you appreciate the intricacy of pre-colonial gold artifacts even more and realize how talented goldsmiths and craftsmen our ancestors were.
The wide collection of artifacts is also juxtaposed with interactive touch-screen computers and high-tech video screens with sensors to provide visitors with background about the artifacts and where they were excavated. Each gold artifact is labeled properly with pertinent information such as type, place of origin, date, diameter and category number.
By using these curatorial techniques and making the space as interactive as possible, the curator is able to present more connected objects in an engaging manner within the limited physical space available, while balancing the leisure and learning component.
Life: Pre-Colonial Philippines and The Asian Connection
Within the realm of both scientific and interpretative approaches in archeology, Gold of Ancestors attempts to “reconstruct the past” and gives its visitors a glimpse of the long-lost evidence of our ancestors’ rich gold tradition which is then connected, as presented in the exhibit panels, poster boards and video presentation, to culture, aesthetic sensibilities, wisdom systems and other facets of pre-colonial Philippine societies.
In cultural objects such as gold, the meanings are made manifest by human activity and the interaction between individuals in society. By means of looking into these tangible treasures, one can articulate the past, the life of ancient Filipinos, their articulation of wealth and power, concept of beauty and the supernatural and many others. The exhibit seems to evoke that virtually all cultures in pre-colonial Philippines, from the mountainous part of Ifugao to the coastal plains of Agusan del Norte, used gold to indicate wealth and status, demarcate ritual space, or imply ceremonial function. Gold jewelry, as seen in the collection, were used by our ancestors to adorn nearly every part of the body.
To understand the genealogy and roots of “our” culture, the exhibit illuminates the necessity of going back in time. Artifacts can provide a link with the immemorial past.
Jewelry-making and mining in the Philippines began around 1000 BC. Ancient Filipinos worked and designed gold and other precious metal which were handed down from antiquity and inherited from their ancestors. According to Felipe de Leon, Jr., professor of Art Studies at the University of the Philippines, jewelry making in Cebu, and other areas in the Philippines, could be one of the oldest in the world. The craftsmanship and artistry of early goldsmiths, he says, rival the finest that have come out of ancient jewelry centers like Bactria, India, and the Middle East, and Majapahit, Indonesia.
The pieces of archeological evidence in the exhibition highlights that gold indeed brought the early Filipinos in contact with other cultures in Asia. For comparison and contrast, gold ornaments from India, Indonesia, China and Thailand are juxtaposed with gold artifacts excavated from all over the country. In terms of iconography, form and design, the so-called cultural connection and regional affinities between the Philippines and its Asian neighbors can be read in pre-colonial gold jewelry. In the Mortals and Deities Adorned section, for example, one can find a kinnari vessel, a half-bird, half-female creature. According to the poster board, this gold artifact has clear reference to Hindu mythology. An opulent gold thread excavated from Surigao, which weighs almost 4 kilos, is believed to be very similar with Upavita, a traditional sacred thread from Hinduism and a symbol of belonging to the Brahmin caste, which is draped around the neck and connected to the wrist. A number of gold ornaments in the collection also depict the composite bird-like creature known as the garuda, which is related to gold examples from Indonesian.
In most traditional cultures, the head is said to be the “locus of power.” This cultural phenonemon is articulated in the exhibition. Intricate diadems, for example, depict the social and economic status of the dead person. Gold cord weights, used in headbands, had pellets inside them to proclaim the arrival of someone with high rank in society.
As ornament, gold jewelry became a symbol of beauty and was capable of conferring prestige. In the exhibit, there is a set of gold chastity covers with intricate repousse patterns, apparently made and worn to announce a woman’s virginity. Females who wore these prestigious chastities were hailed and perceived by society as “pure and beautiful,” giving us a hint that our ancestors already gave utmost value and prestige to female’s purity even before the advent of Christianity. The gold exhibition also provides evidence of pre-Christian idea of the supernatural based on the wide array of pectorals, earrings and anklets devoted to mythical gods and deities. Apparently, ancient Filipinos cherished gold jewelry because they believed it possessed powerful and mystic qualities. Gold was not only used for decorative purposes, but, more notably, for the articulation and attainment of power, wealth, long life and success.
The exhibition also suggests that early Filipinos were not inactive receivers of foreign cultures but also active transmitters and synthethizers of them. While some of the gold ornaments appear to have Muslim or Hindu influences in them, one can still see the Filipino-ness in the designs. For example, the Surigao gold thread, though has lineage from Hinduism, looks like a women (banig) clothe.
Death: Lackluster Intentions and Other Issues
Gold of Ancestors is apparently in line with the Ayala Museum’s thrust of “re-collecting the past, re-presenting the future.” By mounting this kind of exhibition and making it available for public viewing, the Museum boasts that Filipinos, who may have not even be aware that these heritage objects ever existed, will finally have the chance to view them up close. It is also their way to “protect and promote the Philippines’ cultural and historical legacy, giving Filipinos a reason to be proud of their heritage—and giving the world a clear picture of who Filipinos really are, and what they can be.”
The big question is: to whom does the exhibition want to create a cultural or intellectual dialogue? Why do we need to reconstruct the past and for whose benefit and at what cost? Who are the Filipinos they want to address?
Given the high cost of entrance fee and the way the gallery is designed, the venue, clearly, caters only to elite few, bourgeois and petite-bourgeois audience. The Museum, despite its gesture to open its doors to ‘unaware’ Filipinos, seems unsuccesful in bridging the gap and disconnect between them and the public, only perpetuating the ever-problematic public perception of museums or galleries as exclusive and alienating spaces that are beyond their understanding.
It is an exhibit on heritage bereft of the majority.
Similar to other privately-owned collections in the country, Gold of Ancestors is an acknowledgment of the economic and political power inherent in museum and gallery exhibition practices in the Philippines, which draw on the prestige of cultural capital, membership and social class. These gold artifacts, after all, are still overvalued market objects and private properties that are owned and can only be possessed and inherited by the moneyed.
Ownership is control. The exhibit is not a simple display of the relics of the past nor is it plainly about “national patrimony,” it satisfies the needs of elite industry players (such as Ayala, Capistrano-Baker, the Locsin family) who validate and position themselves as “vanguards” of Filipino culture and “promoters of national identity” in the arts and culture community.
But if there’s anything the exhibition teaches us, setting aside its elite orientation, it is the importance of preserving these tangible cultural heritage and the possibility of reinterpreting and reinventing them. In a country where Western flavors appear to be evident in today’s jewelry-making practices, the exhibition, one way or another, edifies that Filipino artists and jewelry makers need not be fixated with looking outward to foreign shores for inspiration.
The Ayala Museum is also successful on the level of tangible heritage conservation. The curator and participating collectors’ efforts and initiatives to catalogue, document, protect and preserve these important cultural resources, which can be used as for further cultural studies and archeological interpretation, are worthy of note.
The cultural mapping part of it, however, is a totally different story. Though the exhibit connects the pre-colonial Filipino gold tradition to neighboring Asian and Southeast Asian cultures, it fails to relate it to indigenous Filipino societies today. This aspect of cultural mapping seems to be lacking in the collection, which is very significant to further understand our own culture, rethink history even better and promote creativity and development in the future. For while it is possible to reconstruct the past based on archeological evidence, it should not be the end of things; what is even more essential is to connect it to the present and to traditional people living today. That way the past gives birth to the new.
References:
“Session 2: Cultural Mapping Principles” http://cms.unescobkk.org/index.php?id=4933 Tan, Michael. “Gold.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. May 30, 2008.
de Leon, Felipe M. Jr. “The Creative Living Presence Within: The Participation of Filipino.” October 6, 2003. http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/articles-on-c-n-a/article.php?i=69&subcat=13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayala_Museum
Zafra, Jessica. “Going For The Gold.” Newsweek. May 5, 2008. http://www.newsweek.com/id/134270
>>>
by antibiotyx >>>
Bat For Lashes
Monday, June 1, 2009,1:49 PM
I'm currently in love with Natasha Khan a.k.a "Bat for Lashes."
Below is the video to her current single 'Daniel' taken from her forthcoming "Two Suns." It was directed by Johan Renck and filmed in Sweden.
>>>
by antibiotyx >>>
Tanghalan at Kaayusan
Saturday, May 30, 2009,6:20 PM
Ang teatro, tulad ng iba pang istruktura o espasyo, ay obhetong sosyal. Sa semyotikong lapit, mababasa sa harap/likod, sentro/gilid, at labas/loob ng entablado, ang mga malay at hindi malay na manipestasyon ng kapangyarihan at pagpapanatili ng kaayusan o status quo.
Dahil isang “buhay” na espasyo, ang kahulugan nito ay lagi’t laging nakabatay sa relasyon at interaksyon na nagaganap sa kuwadrado nitong espasyo.
* * *
Bilang bahagi ng pagdiriwang ng kauna-unahang Sarsuwela Festival, itinanghal kamakailan ng Barasoain Kalinangan Foundation, Inc. (BKFI), isang grupong panteatro mula sa bayan ng Malolos, Bulacan, ang dulang Walang Sugat sa University Theater. Hango ito sa orihinal na libretong isinulat ni Severino Reyes at orihinal na komposisyon ni Fulgencio Tolentino. Idinirehe ang dula ni Armando P. Sta. Ana at nilapatan ng areglo ng musika at orkrestasyon ni Prop. Chino Toledo.
Isa lamang ang Walang Sugat sa marami pang dula at programa tulad ng eksibit, film showing, paligsahan at kumperensya na isinagawa sa buong buwan ng Pebrero sa pangunguna ng Opisina para sa mga Inisyatiba sa Kultura at Sining (OICA), ang pangunahing departmento ng UP na naatasang “mag-organisa at sumuporta sa iba’t ibang pansining at pangkulturang gawain sa pamantasan” at “i-promote ang UP bilang isang sentrong pangkultura ng Pilipinas.” Masasabing nakaangkla rin ang buong pagdiriwang, batay na rin sa tema nito, sa misyon ng Kolehiyo ng Arte at Literatura (KAL) na “maitaguyod ang malikhain, mapanuri, at mapagbagong kalinangan na may oryentasyong makabayan at makatao; at maglingkod ukol sa mithiing Filipino sa pamamagitan ng...malikhaing gawain, at ugnayang bayan..” Higit pa lalong napapanahon ang pagdaraos ng ganitong klaseng festival noong Pebrero dahil ipinagdiriwang din ang Pambansang Buwan ng Sining (National Arts Month).
Sa ganang ito, tila pumoposisyon ang akademya, hindi lamang bilang espasyong pang-akademiko, kundi lunsaran at kabahagi ng isang mahalaga at “pambansang” hangarin: ang itampok at ipagdiwang kung ano ang sining-Pilipino at buhayin ang isang naghihingalong tradisyon. Pumapasok din dito ang nosyon ng UP bilang isang “institusyon” na may makabuluhang responsibilidad at papel sa mamamayan at lipunang kanyang ginagalawan.
Sa panahong post-kolonyal kung kailan nilalangyo tayo ng mga banyagang pananaw at kulturang popular, tila may (romantikong) pangangailangang bungkalin at bumalik sa nakaraan. Ano ngayon ang silbi ng pagtatanghal ng isang dulang latak ng kolonyalismo sa isang elitista/de-kahong teatro na mapapanood sa halagang P75 sa loob ng akademya? Ano ang nais nitong patunayan o ituro sa mga manonood – sa mga estudyante at mamamayan?
***
Malinaw na hindi maihihiwalay ang Walang Sugat sa kasaysayan ng tradisyong pantreatro sa Pilipinas, maging ang impluwensya ng “romantisismo” sa kamalayang Pilipino, laluna kung aspeto ng lengguwahe at tema ang pag-uusapan. Ang dulang ito ay isang makabuluhan at konkretong manipestasyon kung paano na-indigenize ng mga Pilipino ang zarzuwela, na isang tradisyong panteatrong hindi katutubo sa ating kultura.
Mahalagang tandaan na malaki ang kaibhan ng anyo ng Sarsuwelang Pilipino sa Zarswuelang Espanyol. Nang una itong ipinakilala sa Pilipinas ng Kastilang direktor na si Alejandro Cubero at akres na si Elisea Raguer noong 1880, pawang mga zarswelang nakasulat sa Kastila lamang noon ang itinatanghal. Ngunit nang malaon, partikular sa pagtatapos ng ika-19 na siglo, nagsimulang sumulat at magtanghal ng mga dulang nasa bernakular tulad ng Tagalog, Pampangeno, Pangasinense at Ilonggo. Ito, ayon kay Doreen Fernandez, ang hudyat ng kapanganakan ng sarsuwela.
Bukod sa paggamit ng bernakular, ang Pilipinisasyon ng zarsuwela ay higit lalong makikita sa tema nito, kung saan masasalamin pa ang kolonyal na karanasan at sensibilidad ng mga Pilipino. Malaki ang paralelismo ng paksa at balangkas ng Walang Sugat sa sinaunang dulang sarsuwelang bernakular, na tipikal na umiinog sa buhay at isyu sa loob ng tahanan (domestic life), gayun din ang samu’t saring komplikasyon sa pag-ibig na nakapusod sa kaibhan ng paniniwala o katayuan sa buhay, na hinahaluan ng patriyotikong mithiin para sa bayan. Ang malaking bahagi ng tagpo sa dula, halimbawa, ay naganap sa loob ng tahanan bago lumabas sa mas malawak na espasyo ng lipunan. Ang mga isyu ng pangunahing karakter naman ay nakaangkla sa tensyon sa pagitan ng anak at magulang; ng inaapi at nang-aapi. Hindi na nakapagtataka ang ganitong hubog ng dula dahil unang itong itinanghal noong Hunyo 14, 1902.
Dahil isang sarsuwela, lugmok ang dula ng romantisismo. Ang kabuuang tema ay umiinog sa gasgas na linyang “Love conquers all” o “Pag-ibig na hahamakin ang lahat, masunod ka lamang.” Kung susuriin, masasabing malaki ang naging impluwensya ng tradisyong Shakespearean sa pag-aakda ng panulaan, partikular sa representasyon at paghubog sa karakter ng mga pangunahing tauhan bilang sentimental at martir na nilalang. Si Julia ay tila personipikasyon ng Pilipinang Juliet. Sa isang dramatikong tagpo ng pag-iisa, halimbawa, may pag-usal ang dalaga na mas nanaisin pa niyang magpatiwakal na lamang kesa mapangasawa si Miguel.
Ayon kay Ruby Gamboa-Alcantara, “nag-ugat ang romantisismo sa kamalayang Pilipino noong 1800 nang mamalasak ang panitikang halaw sa itinapon ng kulturang Europeo na metrical romances.” Ngunit sa paglipas ng panahon, ang kaisipang ito ay tuluyan namang na-indigenize ng mga Pilipino. Kaiba sa tradisyong Europeo, ang “romantisismo estilong Pilipino” ay may “mga katangiang malayo sa katotohanan... eskapismong matatawag, o kung katotohanan man ay eksaherado naman...sobrang pagbibigay-kaganapan sa mga detalye ng kalikasan, patriotismong pilit, Katolisismong bulag, at kung anu-ano pa.” Mahihinuha ang ganitong mga kaisipan sa dulang Walang Sugat.
Iniluwal, kung gayon, ang dula ng isang lipunan sa kanyang partikular na kasaysayan, karanasan at kultura. Na bagama’t nag-ugat ang sarsuwela sa isang banyagang tradisyon, inangkop naman ito ng mga Pilipino ayon sa kanyang sariling kamalayan, sensibilidad at panlasa. Na ang sarsuwela ay tradisyong Pilipino na marapat angkinin at panatilihin sa kasalukuyan at susunod pang salinhali. Ilan lamang ito, marahil, sa mga aral na na nais ipabatid, kung hindi man hayagang binigyang-diin, ng produksyon sa kontemporaryong manonood.
***
Ngunit hindi simpleng pagpapanatili lamang ng isang tradisyong naghihingalo ang pagtatanghal ng Walang Sugat. Sa mas malalimang pagtingin, maraming lebel o manipestasyon ng pagpapanatili ng kaayusan o status quo na mahihinuha dito. Una, sa mismong kuwento. Ikalawa, sa hubog ng espasyo. Ikatlo, sa kaisipan at pananaw na nais nitong panatilihin. Ikaapat, sa pagpapanatili sa poder o kapangyarihan ng mga tao o institusyon na nasa likod ng produksyon.
Bilang anyong pandrama, may sinusunod na balangkas ang dulang Walang Sugat. Ang kabuuang naratibo ng dula ay tila proseso lamang ng pagbalik sa pinagmulan kapag malapit nang marating ang wakas ng pagsulong-pagbalik o ng pagtaas-pagbaba mula sa temang romantikong pag-ibig tungo sa makabuluhang kamalayang panlipunan. Nagsimula ang kuwento sa marubdob na pag-ibig (sa kasitahan at sa Inang Bayan) at natapos din sa pag-ibig. Sa kabila ng mga ligalig at pagtakas sa realidad o eskapismo (hal: nang mamundok si Tenyong o nang piliin ni Julia na pakasalan si Miguel nang akalain nitong patay na ang binata), ang tatsulukang pag-ibig ay magwawakas pa rin sa kasal at pagsasama nang maligaya hanggang sa wakas. Sa bandang huli, bumabalik pa rin ang kaayusan.
Ikalawa, nakaangkla pa sa romantikong nitong porma, masisipat din sa dula ang sinusunod na dekorum o istandard ng paggalaw ng mga nagsipagganap at manonood. Bilang mga artista sa entablado, inaasahan silang umawit, umarte at sumayaw ayon sa karakter na kanilang ginagampanan, maaring bilang bida o kontrabida; panguhaning tauhan o ekstra. Dahil isang dulang panteatro, eksaherado ang galaw at manerismo ng mga aktor. Samantala, ang mga manonood ay inaasahang sumunod sa patakaran at etiketa sa loob ng teatro, na nakaangkla naman sa mismong kalikasan ng espasyo. Dahil sa pag-ayon sa dekorum, gayun din ang romantiko at elitistang anyo ng teatro kung saan may linyang naghahati sa pagitan ng manonood at artista, napapanatili ang kaayusan sa tanghalan.
Ikatlo, malinaw na may kaisipan o pananaw na gustong panatilihin ang produksyon. Operatib na termino dito ang nosyon ng “tradisyon” bilang pamanang yamang kultural na kailangang panatilihin sa orihinal nitong porma. Dahil pagbuhay ito sa naghihingalong tradisyon, mahalagang sumunod sa nakasayanang anyo. Maliban sa paggamit ng makabagong teknolohiya (hal. projector, musika, atbp.), matingkad ang naging pagyakap ng produksyon sa klasikong tradisyon ng sarsuwelang Tagalog – mula sa pag-angkop nito ng orihinal na libreto, paggamit ng awit at sayaw, hanggang sa pagpili ng kostyum. Tipikal sa tradisyunal na tipo at tema ng sarsuwela, umiikot ang kuwento ng dula sa romantikong pag-iibigan ng magkasintahan kung saan ang mga tugmaang prosa ay sinasalita at inaawit.
Higit sa lahat, ang pagdaraos ng ganitong klaseng dula ay pagpapanatili ng poder at kapangyarihan ng mga taong nasa harap at likod nito. Tulad ng iba pang inimbentong festival sa bansa, hindi maisasakatuparan ang ganitong pagtatanghal kung walang natanggap na suporta mula sa mga institusyon, indibidwal man o kagawaran, ng pamahalaan at lipunan. Isang state-sponsored na produksyon (o pondong mula sa kaban ng bayan) ang Walang Sugat, kaya’t mahihinuha rin dito ang papel o korelasyon ng sining at pulitika; ng pamahalaan at publiko, at kung anong mga klaseng mga programang pansining o pangkultural ang binibigyang-halaga sa kasalukuyan.
Mula sa isang namamayaning sistema o network (artworld) at sa kooperasyon ng iilang miyembrong nagpapagalaw nito, kabilang na ang UP bilang lunsaran/ahensya ng produsyon, nabigyang kahulugan at kahalagahan ang sining ng sarsuwela. Hindi na nakapagtatakang naglaan ang NCCA ng malaking pondo para sa produksyon dahil si Virgilio Almario, bilang Pambansang Alagad ng Sining, Dekano ng KAL at kasapi ng Board ng NCCA, ay siya ring tagapamanihala ng ng Board of Trustees ng BFKI. Pinondohan din ang dula ni Sen. Edgardo Angara, na dating pangulo ng UP.
***
Sa kabuuan, maituturing na simboliko para sa akademya ang pagdaraos ng kauna-unahang Sarsuwela Festival. Ang mga dulang itinanghal dito, kabilang ang Walang Sugat, ay tinitingnan bilang simbolo ng ating identidad, pagka-bansa o pagka-Pilipino o salamin ng ating kolonyal na karanasan. Sa pamamagitan ng paglalaan ng espasyo para sa pagtatanghal ng isang naghihingalong tradisyon, makakahikayat umano ito ng panibagong interes sa mga estudyante at publiko. Ani ng mga organizer:
“…Sarsuwela Festival 2009 aspires to provide a comprehensive understanding and a deepen sense of appreciation of the sarsuwela form. It also hopes to generate a heightened enthusiasm and commitment of the...general public to sarsuwela and other Philippine performance traditions.”
Ngunit, kung tutuusin, ang ganitong (makabayan/romantikong) mithiin ay malayo sa reyalidad. Batbat kasi ng kabalintunaan ang mismong lunsaran ng pagtatanghal. Sa pagpapalabas ng dula sa isang de-kahong espasyo sa loob ng UP na may karampatang bayad, hindi naman talaga nito naisakatuparan na pagsilbihan ang publiko na nais nitong kausapin. Hindi rin nalalayo ang pagdadala ng isang grupong panteatro mula sa Malolos sa tanghalan ng UP sa malaon na at problematikong decentralization program ng pamahalaan na ilagay sa sentro (siyudad) ang mga sining mula sa gilid (probinsya) – isang pormulasyon na parating may pangangailangang dalhin ang isang naghihingalong sining sa kalunsuran upang buhayin ito sa halip na palakasin ang praktika nito sa lokalidad.
Sanggunian:
Markus, Thomas. Buildings and Powers. Routledge, 1993.
Fernandez, Doreen. Palabas: essays on Philippine theater history. Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1996, pg. 14.
