Why is Ferdinand Cacnio’s UP sculpture controversial?
RECENTLY, Filipinos — artists or not — have weighed in on sculptor Ferdinand Cacnio’s bronze outdoor installation of a floating Barbie Doll-like lady in a supine position — arms outstretched — supported only by her hair. The sculpture is perched just outside the theater of University of the Philippines Diliman, and is visible to early morning joggers at the academic oval.
After Mr. Cacnio posted a picture of the finished cantilevered sculpture — called UPlift — on Facebook, a gallery owner who happens to be a frequent visitor to Europe pointed out its similarity to Elisabet Stienstra’s sculpture Virgins of Apeldoorn.
All hell broke loose online, with Mr. Cacnio on the receiving end of the sort of vitriol usually reserved for unfortunate souls who make political comments and are trolled by supporters of the other camp.
Mr. Cacnio responded — also on social media, “Before today, I had never seen nor heard of Ms. Stienstra or her work. Hindi ko s’ya kilala ( I don’t know her). We’ve never been to Netherlands. I was not inspired by her, I did not model my work after hers. I am not guilty of plagiarizing or copying her work...”
Since the controversy blew up two weeks ago, the sculpture has become a favored backdrop for selfies.
CACNIO’S SUPPORTERS
Mr. Cacnio seems to have attracted as many supporters as detractors, although the support of some also comes with questions on how the sculpture found its way onto the campus.
In a Facebook post, artist Imelda Cajipe- Endaya noted that, “Re: plagiarism, I would give him the benefit of the doubt; there are many artistic efforts in gravity-defying portrayal of human beings.”
“It is the role of artists to make sense of the world and find meaning in ordinary and common things,” explained artist and art conservator June Dalisay during an interview in her home in UP Campus. “The (works) of Cacnio are well-done, well-made decorative pieces. ( UPlift) is an engineering feat. But who made the proposal? Who approved it? UP should have studied the proposal; at dumaan sa committee (It should have passed through a committee).”
Ms. Cajipe- Endaya agrees with Ms. Dalisay on that point, and added another layer of complication, “There is need to clarify whether UPlift is officially meant to be a female counterpart of the Oblation. Articles cite that it developed from a call of UP during its past centennial celebration for art to publish in an expensive coffee table book of drawings of nude women. In that landmark occasion, why did the UP at all choose nudes as subject, and not a more fitting theme — whether nude or clothed — like women in their strengths, as partners with men and other genders, in nation-building?”
According to the university’s Facebook page, UPlift “was designed to embody the university motto ‘Aspiring for Honor and Excellence.’”
Some clarification of the statue’s provenance comes from the Gancayco Law office — Mr. Cacnio is a client — which stated on its Web page ( www. gancaycolaw. ph) that, “The UPlift is a project of the UP Class of 1985 Council which started in the year 2010 — the year of the batch’s Silver Jubilee. ( It) is a large version of Cacnio’s 2007 Levitation nudes. The UPlift used GBA senior partner, Atty. Dorothea Balasbas- Gancayco as the statue’s face model.”
Ms. Gancayco also released a statement — “Integrity of Sculptor Ferdinand Cacnio & UPlift” — on June 29 (available on her Facebook) page explaining that she is an officer of the council of the UP Class of 1985 (as well as the UP Law Class of 1985). “The officers of the Council had several meetings on what project we wanted to undertake as a batch,” she wrote, and that they decided, “to donate a large version of Cacnio’s 2007 Levitation nudes...” This project and a study of Cacnio’s sculpture were presented at the 2010 UP Homecoming.
The search for the perfect spot and sponsors for the seven- foot statue took seven years.
In a phone interview — Mr. Cacnio and his family are in the US on a long- planned vacation — the artist said that the original plan was to have the statue face the Bahay ng Alumni, but the Washington Sycip Garden of Native Trees was already in that spot. A spot across the Carillon was also suggested, but it couldn’t be done “kasi hindi pwedeng brass on brass ( you cannot have brass on brass),” Mr. Cacnio explained.
COPYRIGHTS
In her post, Ms. Gancayco noted that Mr. Cacnio is a graduate of Civil Engineering, and is a dancer. Just like so many of Cacnio’s works, UPlift, “is all about balancing and defying gravity... the sculpture rests on just a single point, and yet magically remains suspended on air.”
As for the allegation that the artist “copied” or “plagiarized” the work of Ms. Stientra, she pointed out that “The fact that such a huge body does not fall to the ground has left people in awe and wonder. Yes, they are both reclining, but how they were constructed and designed structurally are very different.”
She quoted her classmate and fellow lawyer Bong Somera: “Under the law on copyright, there can be no copyright on the idea of a woman levitating with her dropped hair as in the post. There is no copyright in an idea. The work is still an original..”
A lawyer and educator on Intellectual Property Law herself, Ms. Gancayco further clarified, “An idea cannot be the subject of a copyright. Elisabet’s, Andrew Devries’ ( 2009) and Ferdie’s works are all about a floating man or woman... Just like the idea of a mother and child, or the idea of trees, as [a] theme for paintings, no artist can say that the idea is hers or his. If we allow an idea to be claimed by particular artists, then thousands upon thousands of artists all over the world will be guilty of plagiarism or copying. Creativity will be stunted.”
WOMAN AS OBJECT
Sought for comment, UP VicePresident for Public Affairs Jose Y. Dalisay, Jr. issued this statement, “Any debate or discussion about public art is good for the arts, whether people like the artwork or not. It puts art in the public consciousness, and makes us think about what art is and what it should do. I don’t know the artist personally, but I’ve read his statement and have also read testimonials to his good character, so it might be best to take him at his word.
“The work was donated and received in good faith. We can act on the accusations of plagiarism only if a formal complaint is filed. But matters of artistic judgment and intellectual provenance are probably best resolved by the artists themselves, or by a court of law, or ultimately by the court of public opinion. Incidentally there have been many statues of naked men with arms outstretched from ancient times, but that never seems to have been an issue with the Oblation.
“From what I’ve heard and read, what seems to be drawing fire here isn’t so much the issue of possible plagiarism but the politics of female representation. Again, however we feel individually about the work, it’s good that these issues are being publicly debated.”
Cacnio’s daughter Bianca, a UP student, defended her father against his detractors, saying on Facebook: “( My dad) chose to have her suspended in air, to symbolize enlightenment. She’s levitating, and uplifted. She’s rising towards the heavens, to honor and excellence, naked as we all are, in the eyes of God.
“Her hair... rooted to the ground, to our country, symbolizing our roots as well,” she wrote.
Artist and art conservator June Dalisay pointed out to this writer that, “UP is the center of progressive thinking. Women have contributed much to UP, long before martial law. The time has come to present women in a different light. So many brothers and fathers are being killed. Who takes on the responsibility of taking care of families? Women carry half the weight of the world!”
Yet, describing the statue she said: “It’s as if a woman’s waiting for a customer. The supine position can never be a position of dignity. It is a submissive pose. You have no strength ( as opposed to the crouching position). You are open to attacks. Try it! Even if you study martial arts... At the end of the day, women lie down from sheer exhaustion... Can’t a woman be honored through a statue in upright position?”
So, in addition to the other issues, there is the concern of the imaging of woman as an object.
As Ms. Cajipe- Endaya said: “If Cacnio’s work 10 years in the making for a public institution is indeed official, it should have been reviewed and approved by an academic, critical body, and if woman is a theme, the university should have consulted its Center for Women Studies. Otherwise Cacnio’s work can be displayed as temporary exhibition like there have been many around the campus. The university, in putting up permanent public art, must be truly principled and responsible in exemplifying the ideals and principles that it teaches.”