The Squabble For National Artist Awards Reeks Of Political Ignominy

This just a glaring example of how pathetic and crass Philippine politics is.

Recently another domestic controversy erupted over the choice of National Artist awardees.

The Political Process

The awards had supposedly been meant to be ``given to a Filipino who has been given the highest recognition for having made significant contributions to the development of Philippine arts,” according to the Inquirer. (emphasis added)

Who determines the winner? ``The selection committee is composed of representatives from the CCP and the National Commission for Culture and the Arts” says the Inquirer.

And what was the object of the controversy?

According to Manila Times’ Rome Jorge ``The recent inclusion by President Gloria Arroyo of four nominees who did not go through the painstaking selection process (as well as her omission of one candidate who did) has provoked public outrage as well as condemnation by the country’s most esteemed artists, many of them National Artists themselves.” (emphasis added)

So the CCP, NCCA and the eventually President selects the awardees.

And yet, the irony is that both parties (CCP and NCCA) in the screening committee are said to be politically colored but under opposing camps. Again from Mr. Jorge, ``More than just legacies of opposing regimes, the CCP and NCCA represent two divergent viewpoints on what Philippine arts ought to be. Their latest battleground is the National Artist Award—itself a relic of political manipulation of the arts.” (emphasis added)

The Apolitical Fantasy

Haven’t two quasi political parties along with a political President imply that POLITICS AND NOT OBJECTIVITY been the ultimate parameter for the reckoning?

How does one measure the “contribution to the development of the Philippine arts”? Because the CCP says so? Because the NCCA says so? Or because the President says so? Or because of a unanimous decision?

Isn’t art subject to the eyes of the beholder?

How can these so called representatives constitute as the national voice of the Filipinos when their aesthetic artistic palates or tastes are different from the rest of the society? Do their political positions or expertise entitle them to account for vox populi vox dei?

The reality is that politics and arts are two distinct animals.

Hence it is of no question to us, that since politics has been the principal determinant of the awards, there will always be “aggrieved” parties who think that they deserve such politically bestowed privileges but had been “manipulated” out of the race.

Ironically, the belief that the awards must be kept apolitical, but is in truth sustained and decided for by political forces, is thus nothing but another unalloyed fantasy.

Manny Pacquiao’s Lessons

In the field of sports, Manny Pacquiao does NOT need to be recognized by any political party/ies in order to be hailed a “National sportsman”.

His accomplishments have NOT just been breaking boxing world records, but most importantly his feat has been recognized by the MARKETPLACE.

That’s why he has been paid millions in currencies for appearances, for endorsements and advertisements and for the matches where he engages in.

As proof of the market’s generosity, even members of his family gets a share of the limelight by reportedly having their own ads or as guests in several TV programs, etc.!!!

In short, the market has accorded Mr. Pacquiao with the prestige of an international boxing legend more than just a national celebrity- award or no award from politicos.

In addition, he doesn’t require any blessings from politicos to become part of boxing history.

To the contrary, because of his overwhelming success, politicians have been all over him to generate political advertisement by mere association!

Thus, the accolade he receives transcends politics and subjectivism because his performance buttressed by the market has elevated him to such preeminent pedestal.

One may argue that Mr. Pacquiao maybe an extreme case, but nevertheless, you can’t achieve “significant contributions to the development of the arts” without the patronage of the public.

Ultimately, it is the artists’ contributions to the public that determines the level of “significance” to the society-a sine qua non! Even an art teacher would need pupils to ascertain his/her efficacy where success would mean higher wages or other perquisites.

Abolish The Farcical Awards

This brings us back to the issue of arts; if politics and not the markets determine the legacy of the so called “national artists” then the whole process is nothing but a sham.

Instead of advancing and fostering the cause of art, the inherent political process in the determination of the beneficiaries of the National Artist awards would only nurture political partisanship, factions, envy and rancor thereby defeating the very objective of its existence, as manifested by the recent disgraceful controversy.

Hence, given the above circumstances, the best option would be to abolish it.

Beer, Consumer Choice and Free Society: The American Model

A striking quote for Beer- "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"-Benjamin Franklin

Video from Reason TV,

Quoted from Reason TV

``In 1920, the National Prohibition Act destroyed the beer industry in the United States, putting some 1,500 breweries out of business. When the "noble experiment" was repealed in 1933, beer lovers rejoiced, and the beer industry staggered back to its feet. The industry had lost much of its diversity, however, and the emergence of national brands in the 1950s and 1960s led to industry consolidation and fewer choices for American beer drinkers. By 1980, there were less than 50 breweries in the U.S.

``By the 1980s, American beer had an international reputation as weak and watery as a case of Hamm's. Most breweries only produced American-style lagers, a light and inexpensive style of beer typically made with rice or corn adjuncts in addition to barley, hops, yeast and water.

``What American beer lovers didn’t know at the time was that a revolution was imminent. In 1979, a clerical error in the 21st Amendment was corrected, and for the first time in nearly 50 years it became legal to brew small batches of beer at home. Home brewers who had little interest in cutting costs or making beer with mass appeal began brewing big, flavorful beers in a wide range of styles. Many of these home brewers decided to turn their passion into small businesses, and microbreweries began popping up all over the country.

``Today, although mainstream beers still dominate the market, more than 14,00 breweries in the U.S. produce more styles of beer than anywhere else in the world, and American beers routinely dominate international beer competitions.

``So the next time you’re at your favorite brewpub, hold your glass up high and celebrate the American beer revolution."

Lesson: Industry liberalization promotes competition, which provides consumers with the best choices at the most reasonable prices, and societal satisfaction.

Unfortunately for the Philippines, the microbrewery industry is still at an infancy...I only know of two.

Hat Tip Mark Perry