Of artists and presidential awards

RECENT CONTROVERSIES embroiling the Aquino administration suggest amendments to laws. This might set some of our legislators more into the review of existing laws for weaknesses, gaps and contradictions.

The SC ruling on DAP seemed to have raised questions about the Administrative Code and its application to the process of the budget, which journalist Raissa Robles examined in detail as a source of the validity of DAP’s use of savings—sections 38 and 49 of which seemed to have evaded discussion in the SC ruling.

The other controversial issue had Senator Pia Cayetano speak out on the need for changing the criteria in the selection of those proposed for the National Artist Award. Criticism of the president’s veto of Nora Aunor made it to the front page for days as reports played up the reactions of those who were bent on having her given the honor this year.

When I first read about the PNoy’s decision and the vehement reactions to what was described as a presidential “snub,” all I could think of was the many artists who could also have been considered and never recognized or those who were recognized only posthumously. Are awards now part of entitlement of the gifted, of those whose art “has contributed to our sense of national pride?” Unfortunately, all selection processes limit the reach of the honor and recognition carried by awards. Those better informed about the nomination process for national artists have described a stringent and painstaking evaluation that moves through three levels.

But even the most careful selection cannot rule out completely subjective preferences. There will be years when there is quick agreement that is saved from the judges themselves grumbling about the resulting choices. Other years, the selection will be vulnerable to personal likes or dislikes, with much static downgrading the importance of the award.

Not all good works are recognized in time. Not all saints need be canonized by the Roman Catholic hierarchy to be presumed sanctified into the pearly gates. Nora Aunor may be deserving but this was not her year. End of story. I thought, in the grand scheme of our woes and worries, this was something we could let go. We have other bigger problems, more areas of injustice, more societal gaps that warrant public outrage.

What was disregarded in much of the earlier public reaction was the legislative basis for the president’s veto. Some who did not know enough about Nora Aunor’s body of work in Philippine cinema thought the PNoy’s should have just let it pass. Why get involved at all?

But as PDI’s Lito Zulueta followed up in his article, “It’s a presidential award, after all.” The veto was PNoy’s prerogative. If he has a role in the selection at all, then, his considerations cannot be dismissed.

Is PNoy, as national leader, wrong in wondering about the impact of the national award on the rest of society, primarily on the youth?

Pia Cayetano says that the law should be changed so that criteria will include consideration of these concerns. And I am sure that this conditionality would be accepted by the artistic community and the experts and critics who get very involved in this selection.

For one thing, it would force the consideration of morality, the standards of which may be cast in stone for some and vaguely scribbled for others. The lawmakers would be severely challenged by the need for language expressive of the point of the amendment.

I can see the point about art not being submitted to the external questions of character and social conduct. The classic profile of the true artist is that of an outsider, living according to the dictates only of the Muse, his or her endeavors as set apart from the norms of ordinary life. We should not look to artists for model behavior.

There should be an amendment to the law; as the difficulties are obvious in the practice of presidential prerogative. I believe a veto is more easy to understand than the post-process addition of those who were not proposed by the jurists.

Recall the provenance of this recognition in the age when the Marcoses reigned like royalty and whose decrees were hardly ever questioned except in quiet whispers or the hidden channels of underground communication. In the circles of then glittering culturati, Imelda and Ferdie’s proclamation of worth and honor was reason enough to celebrate. I would have to say, good riddance too to all that.

But now everyone is free to say anything, particularly the president’s participation in the process. Perhaps, for now, it would be best to remove this burden from what is already a difficult job. This may mean removing the ceremony from the presidential stage.

The choice would follow the logic: If you want the majesty of the president’s office, then perhaps there must be consideration of the incumbent’s views, which is what the law now provides. If this non-artistic view sticks in the craw, then one must do without the presidential approval.

Nothing could be worse, I think, than to have to face artistic umbrage, combined with the hysteria of the loyal fans of La Aunor.