Senator Loren Legarda: there is no such thing as ‘It can’t be done.’
If not for Senator Loren Legarda, the Philippines would still be the odd country out: looking enviably at countries from Germany and England to Mongolia and Maldives as they make grand statements about their art, culture and the temper of the times. It’s like a neighborhood of nations having a must-attend zeitgeist party, and the Philippines is stuck in bureaucratic hell somewhere.
In 2013, when Senator Legarda asked the DFA and the cultural agencies of government why the Philippines was not participating in the Venice Biennale, they said there were attempts but were not successful.
“And so I took it as a challenge,” says the senator, who stresses that there is no such thing as, “It can’t be done.”
She coordinated with the agencies concerned to find out what needed to be done. “And here we are now — we’ve just concluded our third consecutive participation and we are preparing for our fourth Philippine Pavilion. And who would have thought that only after two years, the Philippines, which may be a developing country but is rich with artistic talent, would be in the Arsenale, one of the main exhibition spaces of the Venice Biennale?”
PHILIPPINE STAR: What was your reaction when you visited the Philippine Pavilion?
SENATOR LOREN LEGARDA: I would have wanted to attend the vernissage of the Philippine Pavilion last May to personally witness the public’s reception on our pavilion, especially now that we are located in the Arsenale. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the vernissage due to an emergency eye laser procedure. But I was finally able to visit last June as soon as I recovered.
The first thing I noticed was the space. In the previous two years, the Philippine Pavilion was housed in the European Cultural Centre (Palazzo Mora) in Venice. This year, we were able to secure a spot in the Arsenale, one of the two main exhibition spaces of the Venice Biennale. The Philippines’ space in the Artiglierie was most impressive and easily accessible to visitors. The space itself was remarkable with the high ceilings and the strong stonewalls that held centuries of history.
When I saw the exhibition, I thought that the works of Lani Maestro and Manuel Ocampo fit well in our space. What impressed you most about the entire exhibition?
Before the exhibition was mounted, I was really interested how Yeyey would present the works of Manuel and Lani, whose art are worlds apart. Manuel’s paintings featured powerful, rather grotesque imagery and references, while Lani’s installations were stark, clean and streamlined, albeit intense and compelling.
I was actually amazed that the combination of the works resulted in a strong and balanced exhibition, conveying the spectrum of sentiments and memories related to the diaspora of Filipinos living abroad, both in the local and global contexts. And as I lingered in the exhibition, sitting on one of Lani’s benches, I realized that the works tried to communicate to me. Whether they be Manuel’s paintings or Lani’s installations, I could gradually grasp the exhibition’s message that it is impossible for us
to comprehend who we are without the painful hauntings of our history.
Yeyey Cruz’s curatorial approach centers on views brought forth by Jose Rizal. Architect Edson Cabalfin’s winning proposal for the Architecture Biennale next year references Nick Joaquin’s The Woman Who Had Two Navels. Is it important for future proposals (whether in art or architecture) to have historical, literary or cultural touchstones?
I have been part of the jury that deliberates on the curatorial proposals since the Philippines’ comeback to the Venice Biennale. One of the things that I, as well as my fellow jurors, look for in a curatorial proposal is its ability to converse to and maintain a dialogue with a global audience while also maintaining a Filipino identity. While the Venice Biennale is an international exposition, our national pavilion must be able to communicate the realities of our nation. Most, if not all, of the proposals we have reviewed during these deliberations have historical, literary or cultural touchstones as these help give a strong national identity to the curatorial proposal. Is everything — institution-wise, organization-wise — in place for the continuation of the project you have started?
I recognize it as a continuing challenge. Funding for the Philippine participation in the Venice Biennale is part of the NCCA’s budget, but until when can we guarantee that there will always be funding for this endeavor? This is the reason I filed in the Senate a proposed measure that seeks to institutionalize the Philippine participation in the international exhibitions of the Venice Biennale. It has already been approved in the committee level and I hope that it will be enacted before 2019 so that even beyond my term as senator, we will continue to participate in the Venice Biennale.
How art is given importance in the Philippines varies from one presidential administration to another. For you, how important is it in nation-building?
A lot of us, especially citizens of a developing nation, may seem detached from the ideas floated in artworks, but art is food for the soul — for which the aesthetic experience is an essential condition for its growth.
Many would ask: Why is it important to participate in the Venice Biennale? This is one way of conversing with other nations, it is an avenue to establish contact and share our culture with the world. Art is a form of cultural diplomacy, which is a soft opener to our political and economic initiatives with other nations.
Our participation in the Venice Biennale is only one among the many other projects we have initiated all through these years to mainstream arts and culture into the national development agenda.
We should encourage our arts to flourish. We need thinkers, visionaries and those that nurture the soul as much as we need workers, doctors, engineers and public servants.