On 21st October 2017 I participated in the second installment of the art-writing workshops organized by VIVA Excon. It was facilitated by Ms. Lisa Ito, currently with the UP Diliman CFA and teaching art history and theory. Our groups was a good mix of artists, writers, and professionals from the field health and medicine (one was an ophthalmologist, another a nurse).
The workshop part had us attending a "re-enacted" version of the opening of the Sugidanon Ta, Hampang Ta exhibit of the Fine Arts department of the University of San Agustin. From there, we were supposed to write about it -- we were not given a specific "style" to writing art (review, feature article, etc), and I came up with something more academic than expected. But this exercise is quite inspiring to the point that I've made further research on the matter and is planning to make a full blown paper for this.
here is the product:
----------
The participatory process as means to art-making
“Sigudanon ‘Ta, Hampang ‘Ta” is an “attempt to adapt the
concept of combining verbal literature and visual narratives,” according to the
project description. The material was based on Dr. Alicia Magos’ published
research on the Panay Bukidnon’s oral literature, the Suguidanon. This project
was USA-FA’s initiative to infuse a research-based art practice and potentially
establishing the FA students and faculty’s roles as scholars ‘by conducting
researches along with collaborators.” For this project, I am assuming that the
collaborators consist of the community of IPs who owns this intangible
heritage, and the experts (in the name of Dr. Alice Magos) from where the
materials were largely based on. Additionally, the information says that “the
project discusses the critical aspect of Panay Bukidnon’s community life that
offers insight in the heritage of Panayanon heartlands…and that it will explore
the contemporary ideas with tradition and culture, transforming the intangible
custom into intangible works of art.”
Thirteen artists produced collaborative works of seven 5
x 4 feet paintings, giving life to the seven multi-layered world of Suguidanon.
Each artwork was meant be an independent visual narrative with themes
reflecting the richness of the culture and tradition of the Panay Bukidnons. Each
of the seven canvas were the artists’ own rendition of what they imagined the
characters and the settings would have looked like. It is unclear as to how far
they are allowed to produce their own rendition or if they were required to
constantly consult with the experts in the process.
During the artists talk, one of the project proponents
mentioned that the artists’ depiction of the characters were subjected to
validation. Dr. Magos was invited to the opening and was particularly asked to
critic each of the pieces. Dr. Magos’ comments mostly focused on the
anachronism and cultural misrepresentation. In particular, the “costume” of Paiburong
(and his brother) was more Southern Philippines than Panay Bukidnon;
Bulawanon’s daughters were not supposed to have “bangs” (or any contemporary
hairstyle for that matter) considering the period they are in; or that
Makabagting’s nose ring was more African than Filipino. Much of these could
have been prevented if the artists employed the participatory process from the
project inception up to the production of their final work.
Participatory processes are methods commonly used in the
field of Planning. Planning, on the other hand, is process which facilitates
the achievement of a certain goal or objective. Participatory planning is known
to be one of the more effective methods or processes of planning. In this
particular case, representation and participation of the different sectors,
fields and expertise forms an integral part of the process. Representation is
imperative because planners usually deal with projects that are meant to serve the
public, and what better way to ensure that projects are responsive to the
public’s needs than to include the public in the planning process. It often
goes by the name citizen participation, community participation, public
involvement, etc., and it is meant to provide private groups or individuals an
avenue to influence public decisions. It has been considered an important part
of a democratic decision-making process. In cases where an IP community has a
special stake in a certain project, employment of this process is all the more
essential.
This is not to confuse participatory processes in
art-making with participatory art, where although participation of the audience
is necessary, such participation happens only at the end, when the piece of
work is finally viewed by the public. Participatory process in a making of a
project (i.e. art involving a community) requires engagement of stakeholders from
the inception until the time the output or artwork is finally opened to the
public.
“Sugidanon ‘Ta, Hampang ‘Ta,” project takes an already
existing “body of work”, and translates it into another form that is more
accessible for public consumption. I believe that in translation, it is
important that the meanings are not lost during the process. Therefore more
effort could have been devoted in what in planning process would be called analysis
phase -- researching, profiling, and environmental scoping. This phase helps
the proponent get the feel of the project he is working on. The analysis phase is
where the engagement with the community would have begun, including engagement
with the experts and analysis of the readings (secondary data), which are
essential in coming up with the “alternatives” for what material, form, and
style, etc., to produce. This does not benefit the proponent alone as participatory
research enhances also the people’s/IP community’s awareness of their rights
and strengthen their role in the mass production of their intangible heritage.
The outputs can be viewed two ways: as a final product
where the artists failed to use to his advantage the methods of scoping and
profiling to better equip himself with ideas, and use these ideas to develop
the project that is the canvass; or we can view it as that the exhibition is not
the end but a phase of the design process, where the initial draft of the
output is presented and openly critiqued by everyone – experts, IP members, art
enthusiasts, cultural workers, etc. during the exhibition, and the iterative process
is employed to come up with a more coherent final output. However, considering
that the monitoring component of the planning process is not at work here, it
seems best to assume that we are dealing with the former. This is not to
discount the efforts of the artists and the faculty, after all community
projects, even planning itself, is a never-ending work in progress.
jerilee cameña
22 October 2017
References:
Dawn Chatty,
Stephan Baas, Anja Fleig. 2003. Participatory Processes towards Co-Management
of Natural Resources in Pastoral Areas of the Middle East. . Available online
via UN-FAO: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad424e/ad424e03.htm
Tikare, S., et
al. 2001. Organizing Participatory Processes in the PRSP. Available online: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPCENG/1143240-1116506251485/20508873/Organizing+Partcipatory+Processes.pdf
Parker, Bob.
2002. Planning Analysis: The Theory of Citizen Participation. http://pages.uoregon.edu/rgp/PPPM613/class10theory.htm
Change the World. 2005. Participatory Processes Methods.
Website: http://world-changers.org/participatory-process-methods#guidelines
