PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW 1

PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW 1

TEXTUAL STORIES:THE ART ASSOCIATIONOF THE PHILIPPINES (AAP)AND ITS SCHEMES OF ORGANIZATIONREUBEN RAMAS CAÑETE

Philippine Humanities ReviewVolume 16 Number 1, 2014, pp. 1-35ISSN-0031-7802©2014 University of the Philippines

CAÑETE2

Artworld institutions like the Art Association of thePhilippines (AAP), which was founded as a union ofFilipino visual artists based on the American ArtistsEquity model of specialized professional advancement,are by nature sites of the production of power throughritualized acts of legitimation and exchange with otherempowered members, like art collectors, and art dealers.This study focuses on a reading of the foundationaltexts of the AAP from 1948 to 1986, that defines andnarrates the scope of agential power that members ofthe AAP’s hierarchy, specifically its elected leadership,can exercise in the name of its membership. Theseagential powers are thus seen as avenues of politicalpossibilities in which the AAP can expand its influenceand prestige by “exchanging” its function as a producerof a r twor ld l eg i t imacy (v i a i t s Annua l Ar tCompetitions, for example) in return for symbolicrecognition from both state and private sector actors.Utilizing Benedict Anderson’s concept of an “imaginedcommunity,” the study establishes the conventions bywhich institutions in the artworld relate specifically to

TEXTUAL STORIES: THE ARTASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES(AAP) AND ITS SCHEMESOF ORGANIZATION

REUBEN RAMAS CAÑETEUniversity of the Philippines<[email protected]>


state organs and regulatory bodies that situate the AAPand o ther a r t s o rgan iza t ions w i th in a g r id o fintelligibility that allows the discourse of nation-edmodernity to be both constructed and imagined by itsconstituents. In addition, Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of“cultural capital” is also applied to establish the politicaleconomy of the artworld, and how the AAP delimitsits own field of symbolic production and exchangeusing such terms as “artist,” “patron,” and “boardmember” to signify a hieratic difference from other,less distinguished professions. Finally, the politics ofinclusion and exclusivity as AAP members, or officers,are analyzed as part of the productive capacity of theassociation to function institutionally via aestheticlegitimation, which the AAP uses as additional culturalcapital for the political and economic gains of itsmembership.

Keywords: AAP, imagined community, artworld, culturalcapital, symbolic production

ANY STUDY IN CONTEMPORARY PHILIPPINE ART HISTORY,especially as it regards to the formally educated, artworld-defined core of fine art objects produced, displayed and/or consumed within the national capital region, would notbe complete without the discussion of the impact that theArt Association of the Philippines (AAP) has made in thisfield. Founded in 1948, the AAP has made significantcontributions to this field especially in the period between1948 and 1987 as it is composed of the most significantpractitioners of this field, whose significance is again definedwithin the artworld1 parameters of fine art. That is to say,painters, sculptors, printmakers, mixed media artists, andothers that are defined by the artworld as constituting thef ie ld of prac t i t ioners in the f ine ar t s have lead ingpractitioners based mostly in Manila that have belonged, inone way or another, to the AAP, by vir tue of theirmembersh ip and the i r par t i c ipa t ion in i t s va r iousinstitutional activities.

CAÑETE4

This study focuses on the historical body of texts thatflesh out a crucial period (between 1948 and 1987) thatestablishes the legitimacy of this organization in the eyesof the state as well as its constituents and interlocutors—the institutional by-laws and norms of operations of theAAP. The significance of understanding this textual bodyin relation to art history is threefold. First, it establishes theconventions by which institutions in the artworld relatespecifically to state organs and regulatory bodies that situatethis and other organizations within a grid of intelligibilitythat allows the discourse of nation-ed modernity to be bothconstructed and imagined by its constituents, followingBened ic t Anderson’s content ion of an “ imag inedcommunity” (1983, 6-7). Simultaneously, this textualconstruction also delimits the imagined presence of thiscommunity to that of a specific subclass of citizens definedaccord ing to the i r p rofess ion : pa in te r s , scu lp tors ,printmakers, and other occupations that are specificallyendowed the term “artist,” and whose qualification of beingnamed as such relies as much on notions of social distinctionand taste, as outlined by Pierre Bourdieu in his notion of“cultural capital” (Bourdieu 1984, 283-285).

Nonethe les s , the content ion of th i s t ex tua lconstruction as auguring a set of activities that distinguishesand normalizes this organization as a site of habituationand specialist practice should also necessarily take intoconsideration the contention that such regulated andrepetitive practices as annual art competitions, Christmasparties, and even Board elections and the choosing of theAAP President is an example of an “invented tradition”(Hobsbawm in Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983, 1-5). Thisbody of “invented traditions” takes into consideration thenature of power as an exchange relationship between itsregula tors and i t s interpe l la tors. These regula tors/interpellators includes not only the state (symbolized by


the Philippine Security and Exchange Commission or SEC)versus the body of artists, but also the AAP Board membersversus their own constituents. In light of all the possiblenotions that al low us to understand the institutionalformation of artworld institutions, therefore, what needsto be asked is: what are the discourses that circumscribethe specific set of power relations between the state andits citizenry through the legal and juridical regulation ofsuch an artworld institution as the AAP, and in what waysdo these discourses form particular sets of practices thatanimate the AAP as the fulfillment of that discourse, bothin the eyes of the state and to the AAP’s own professionalconstituency?

In its first Corporate By-Laws, submitted to theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on 24 March1952, the general purposes of the AAP, its programs, plansof action, activity and general institutional template, wereconfigured and stated as follows:

To advance, fos te r and promote theinterests of those who work in the Fine Arts,including painters, sculptors, and graphic artists,to protect and secure the rights of such artists inthe i r profess iona l ac t iv i t i e s , to procureappropriate legislation upon which policies asshall secure united action of all members of thesaid profession for the common good, to preventand abolish abuses from which those comingunder the jurisdiction of the Association shall ormay suffer, to assist such persons in securing justand equ i t ab le cont rac t s , ag reements , andcompensation in their deal ings with personconnected directly or indirectly with the FineArts; to investigate the practices of such persons,and to take united action to abolish any unfair

CAÑETE6

dealings or abuses or other conditions which aredetrimental to members engaged in the saidprofession; to treat with persons whose activitiesaffect the members, concerning grievances,standard contractual relations and all relatedcollateral practices which affect the welfare ofthe members; to take such suitable action withregard to the unauthorized use of works of artas will protect the members in the practice oftheir professions; to combine and coordinate theactivities of the Association with the activitiesof o ther organ iza t ions whenever suchcombination or coordination shall be in the bestinterests of the members of the Association; andto enter into agreements for united action forthe common good with other associations ofartists or other persons whose cooperation shallbe deemed helpful; to do or to cause to be doneor refrain from doing, such acts or things, eitheras an Association or through individual members,as may be lawfully done, or as it or they maylawfully refrain from doing, which shal l beadvantageous to the members of the Association(AAP 1952b, 1).2

Note that in the declaration, the term “interests” ismentioned several times, both explicitly and implicitly, andis causally linked to those whom it serves, “those who workin the Fine Arts,” including (but apparently not limited to)“painters, sculptors, and graphic artists,” as related tospecifically productive and occupational life-concerns ofthese said patients (“to protect and secure the rights ofsuch artists in their professional activities…”). It alsoidentifies those whose interests it opposes, the invisibleagents who “abuse those coming under the jurisdiction ofthe Association”; whose efficacy the Association is to


neutral ize by “securing just and equitable contracts,agreements and compensation.” Its opponents also includeas those who engage in “the unauthorized use of works ofart,” pledging its unified protection of “the members inthe practice of their professions.”

The other crucial term in this document is “commongood,” which is here refunctioned as a term exclusivelyused to demarcate the status of members from those whoare nonmembers, if not anti-members. The status ofbeneficence imbues those who have been demarcated asworthy of membership to the AAP within an alreadyformed macrofield of institutional practice, the Philippineartist community. The document specifically outlines thoseparameters by which the conventionality of membershipis perfunctioned within the conditions of occupationaltrade, as substantiated under the rubric of “tak(ing) unitedaction to abolish any unfair dealings or abuses or otherconditions which are detrimental to members engaged inthe said profession” (ibid.).

By what manner then is the perfunctioning of the term“member” reified into an agentic position? Article IV,Section 1 of the 1986 AAP By-Laws provides the generalparameters:

Membership in the Assoc ia t ion i s open to thefollowing classes of persons:

• Artists in the graphic and plastic arts;

• Art collectors;

• Persons giving material support for the maintenanceof the Association, and those who are lovers ofthe fine arts (AAP 1986, 3).

CAÑETE8

Section 2b provides a more specific delineation ofsuch “classes” of members:

• Regular members are artists in the visual arts;

• Honorary members, who are art collectors dulyelected as such;

• Patron members, who are those who give substantialmaterial support or services for the maintenanceof the Associat ion and the furtherance of i tspurposes;

• Associate members, who are those persons whohelp support the Association by the payment ofdues, and include art lovers and interested infurthering the purposes of the Association; and

• Advisory Members (3-4).

In addition, Section 3 provides the mechanism of theaccessioning of members:

Regular, Patron and Honorary Membersshall be invited and elected to membership by amajority vote of the Board of Directors.

Associate Members shall be admitted tomembership upon the recommendation of theChairman of the Membership Committee, (and)approved by the President of the Association (4).

The mechanism for the production of the AAPmember, therefore, is facilitated via an elaborate systemof familiar relations that course throughout the fabric ofpersonhoods within the art institution: prospective membershad to be willing to pay for their membership dues, but


also had to be recommended as a member by a fellow member.This form of institutional closure is apparent as a matterof power discourse between the AAP officers concernedand the accessionary candidate, the latter being the subalternin relation to the dominant institution. What is interestingin this equation is the notion of democratic consensualityin the approval of such a membership. Membership is, afterall, a privilege, not a right. It is not automatically bestowedto any art practitioner in the Manila/Philippine artworldsystem. It is bestowed on those whom the members ofthe AAP Board finds “suitable” as worthy of such privilege.The t rad i t iona l def in i t ion of Regular Member as apractitioner of the Fine/high arts is indicative of this formof exclusivity. The presumption holds: if the members ofthe AAP Board, and its already accessioned members areeither practitioners or—even better—patrons of the higharts, it also goes to hold that this epistemic distinction holdfor subsequent accession of additional members.

Consequently, the public that constituted the AAP, atleast in i ts init ia l stages of (nonetheless inf luentia l )formation, were self-constituted as members of the art elite,taking as their referential parameter either the academicinstitutional affiliation of prospective member (at the timepractically cartelized by two schools of fine arts, Universityof the Philippines and University of Santo Tomas), or, incases when academic credentials are nonexistent, throughfavorable recommendations provided by a sufficientlyempowered AAP member or an AAP Board member asfriend, colleague, extended family member, or friend-of-a-friend. In this way, entry to the AAP membership ofpractitioners in the mass arts, such as advertising, poster arts,billboards, and industrial design was delayed substantially.It was not until the 1952 Annual that categories for themedia arts, such as poster design, was included.3 Of course,such an inclusion is also presumed upon the premise that

CAÑETE1 0

Advertising Arts was viewed by the Philippine artworldcommunity as a necessary mode of industrial manufacturethat provided for employment and income for many ofits economical ly strug gl ing ar t ists. Nevertheless, theprivileging of “fine arts” as an exclusionary term, alreadyover ly deter mined by academic dist inct ions such ascertificates and baccalaureate degrees that subsequentlylegitimated art industries, delimits specifically the natureof members into those who, after all, “work in the finearts,” to the detriment of those who do not (e.g., shoecobblers and s ignboard painters) . This her meneut icpractice—ranking production of artistic goods into classes,and subsequently determining social acceptability of itsproducers as members—still holds today. By such a strategy,the AAP includes as well as excludes the legitimacy of itsartistic population, constituted as an act of institutionalimposit ion, but which is fundamental ly premised onepistemological models of artistness, whose revision maybe envisaged, but also should such occur, would happenwithin an atmosphere of inst i tut ional refor matt ing ,according to those artist-agents within that see it as theirjoint interests for doing so.

F ina l l y, the conf i r mat ion of membersh ip wasconsummated upon both textual and material premises, theformer through completion of requirements of status, andthe latter upon payment ofthe annual membership dues,which in 1952 amounted to ten pesos. The specifyingdelineation of exchange value (membership in exchangefor payment of financial dues) is, in fact, one that has oftenbeen contentious. In Sect ion 6 of the By-Laws, thefollowing exhortation is pronounced upon the body ofinstitutional practice by the matrix of institutional authority:


The membership fee and first year’s duessha l l be pa id before a person e l ec ted tomembership shall be qualified as a member, andif he shall not pay the same within thirty daysafter notification of election, he shall be deemedto have declined election and his name dropped.

As subsequently noted by Purita Kalaw-Ledesma, thepayment of dues was an institutional innovation imposedupon the fabric of the AAP’s constitution by C.M. Hoskins,an American real estate entrepreneur and influential AAPBoard member whose chi ldhood interest in art was“frustrated by parental objection” (Kalaw-Ledesma andGuerrero 1974, 10). Apparently, it was Hoskins who, in1949, had institutionalized the textual existence of the AAPvia his “meddling” in the AAP’s administrative setup. Amongthese interventionary practices included:

...compell(ing) all the members to pay theirdues. This brought a howl from the artists, butthey had no choice save to comply, for expulsionwas the price of delinquency. Some membersdropped out, and for a while I feared that theassociation would flounder. But Hoskins assuredme—”don’t worry; they’ll come back becausethey need the AAP. (10)

An interesting feature in the 1952 By-Laws is a single,pregnant line in Section 6 concerning the dues of Honoraryand Patron Members, to which we can circumscribeHoskin’s relation as businessman / AAP officer with theAAP artist-members: “Honorary and Patron members arenot subject to the payment of fees and dues as such”(emphasis mine). If Hoskins, as comparatively wealthypatron and AAP officer, does not pay fees and dues, andthe artist-members who are comparatively poor do, then

CAÑETE1 2

what is the catch? It seems that such a relation implies thatof total dependency on members to the institutionalpowers, which under Hoskins conflates across multiple linesof signification: as (Westerner) patron/capitalist, as (Anglo-Saxon) privileged and elite, and as (white) artworld superior.The reproduction of colonialist discourse is here verytempting, for the “project of modernity,” to borrow NestorGarcia Canclini’s argument,4 is here conflated with theinstitutional interests of the elite (here multiply intersectingwi th the overde te r mina t ion of Hosk ins a s wh i te/businessman/AAP off icer) , producing in i ts stead amultiplication or hybridity of modern along with colonial-feudalist conditions. The reproduction of this discourse ispremised at the very act in which the patron circumscribeshis/her power over the artist: in the preference and purchaseof works of art within a market system, especially onegripped with the starvation conditions of post-Liberationreconstruction. The “howls of protest,” circumscribedunder the rubric of unequal power relations, no longerseems so self-serving, though the author contends that theproduction of dissent is precisely at the point in which theactivation of agency is negated by the production ofcounter-agency massively reformed under the conditionsof the political spaces of permissibility. Metaphoricallyspeaking, peasants simply do not roll over and play deadwhile the overlord demanding tribute from them does notpay taxes to his king. They revolt in any way they can.

Nonetheless, it is to Hoskins that Ledesma also relatesthe very formational devices by which the AAP hasinstitutionalized its practices:

On the matter of exhibitions, Hoskins laiddown equally stringent regulations. He decreedthat all paintings which came in late—even justfive minutes late—would be disqualified. Once


more , a fu ror ensued , but the po in t wasmade…never again would we entertain tardyentries.

Hoskins was instrumental in incorporatingthe association, and getting official lawyers forthe AAP (the late Claro M. Recto and ClaudioTeehankee…). He also insisted that we acquirean auditor (Sycip, Gorres and Velayo, who formany years donated their services...)

The Association learned many things fromHoskins. He brought us down to earth and taughtus how to run the AAP l ike a bus inesscorporation…

Through his initiative, the AAP began todeposit its money in a bank. Our employees weretaught how to draw up vouchers , and ourmembers learned how not to price their paintingstoo steeply in anticipation of a price reduction.We also began putting up a catalogue of pricesfor the paintings...He insisted that artists pay 30%commission on sale of their works, a practicewhich has become standard procedure.

Hoskins served the AAP from 1949 to1955, and in the years which fol lowed…hecontinued to advise us on administrative matters.

…He…left the AAP an…important legacy:discipline and organization, a solid foundationwithout which it would not have survived thoseyears. (10)

CAÑETE1 4

“Discipline” and “organization”: two terms that is asloaded as any in the production of institutional discourse.As Foucault would see it, the practice of discipline isformulated equally by the institutionalization of monocularknowledge, and the imposition of invisible forms of powerwithin the equational relat ions of permissibi l i ty andpunishment. Taking Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon as hismodel, Foucault’s analysis problematizes the notion of the“al l -seeing” as for ms of dominat ion, displacing thenecessity of physical punishment through the modality ofuncounterable omni-surveillance. What Foucault does nottake into account, argues Madan Sarup (1983, 66-84), isthe origin of the strategy, and its tactics—especially in thedevelopment of a strategy of resistance and impliedcounter-surveillance. Here, it is important to deconstructthe premise of sur vei l lance as for ms of monocularimpositionary power that delineates and distinguishes thosewho manipulate and impose it, and to those who, uponentering the pre-ordained system of relat ions, eitherconforms to its massive force, or works in invisible orconcealed strategies to undermine or transfer its locus.Surveillance, after all, is only as effective as its efficiency inpolicing the social and psychic realms of dissent. If such adissent exists between and among each agent in a fieldconfigured as a collective, then its operational premise ofomnisc i ence a l so c rumbles due to the cons tantbombardment and transfer of devices of institutionalpower between such agents in a condition of convention.Such also hold in the structuralization of the organization/institution. If the premise of its construct is based on thepositionalities of power, and of its trade in relations ofinterests, then it also holds that the normally static systemof organizational dispositions are always configured withinlines of transverse force-relations: AAP officers, after all,are elected by their art ist-peers, and their continuedadministration of organizational policies—not to mention


their continued distinction as officers of the AAP—isultimately dependent on the accrual of communal intereststhat benefit its member-voters, measured in both tactical(short-term) and strategic (long-term) gains.

Such a re l a t ion i s , a s a mat te r o f course ,countervalenced by the notions of membership/officershipdiscipline, sometimes circumscribed under the rubric of“responsibility.” Not only are members expected to retaintheir membership through the regular annual payment ofdues; such were also activated via the discursive practicesby which the members are bound by oath to the stricturesof disciplinary rules by which the AAP protects its (own/common) in te res t s , the v io l a t ion of wh ich werecorrespondent to a system of punishment.

This series of corresponding interpellations betweenmembers and their duties are distributed throughout the1952 AAP By-Law’s text. Primary among these were theconditions that governed membership dues. Section 6,Paragraph 2 says as much:

Annual dues shall become payable on thefirst of March of each year, and if the same shallremain unpaid after the s ixteenth of Apri lfollowing, the member in arrears shall becomeautomat ica l l y de l inquent , suspended f rommembership privileges, and during such periodshall cease to be a member in good standing (AAP1952b, 2).

Another set of expectations circumscribes the dutiesof particular officers and board directors in the exerciseof their functions. In the case of inattendance to boardmeetings, where institutional policy is debated and decidedupon, Section 7 outlines the conditions and corresponding

CAÑETE1 6

penalty pointedly : “Absence from three consecut ivemeetings of the Board operates as the resignation of adirector, unless such absence is excused by the Board.”Incidentally, the significance of the Board’s duties compelsthe production of substitutes that could “fill in” the possiblevacancies, as indicatory in the Section’s last sentence: “Avacancy in the Board may be fi l led by the remainingdirectors.” Also, the stipulated number of the Board as awhole is not allowed, so says Sections 7 and 9, to go belowthe absolute minimum of six (constituting the minimumBoard quorum out of the maximal eleven), the occurrenceof which immediately results in activating the emergencymechan i sm of a Spec i a l Genera l Meet ing of themembership to fill the vacancies.

The duty of electoral manifestation is imposed onevery regular member via secret balloting, the specificdelineation of which is that such members may only voteindividually; cumulative voting not being permitted. Aseparate and elaborate scheme of elections is herebyperfunctioned within the very tense rubric of leadershipcarnivalization as acts of intentional mono-closure: theregular member, presumably voting in his/her best interests,shall vote for a Board director, eleven of whom shall beconstituted, and who among themselves will vote theofficers, each of these actions intended as a personal/individual decision.

Another set of duties/powers awaits those personswho, hav ing reached the c r uc i a l pos i t iona l i t y o forganizational officers, are now perforced to fulfill theirrespective duties. Let us sum each according to the 1952By-Laws.


Designation and duties of AAP Officers

• President: presides at meetings of the Board, andis the chief executive officer of the Association,and as such enforces all order and resolutions ofthe Board. It is the duty of the President to presentto the annual general meeting a report of theoperations and activities of the Association for thepreceding year.

• Vice-President: performs such duties as may bedelegated to them by the President, and in the orderof succession fixed by the Board discharges theduties of the President in the absence, incapacity ordisqualification of the latter.

• Secretary: gives notice of all meetings of the Boardand of members; conducts the correspondence andkeeps all records not pertaining to the office of theTreasurer, including minutes of meetings; keeps aroster of all members, with their addresses; andperforms such other duties as may be prescribedby the Board.

• Treasurer: has general charge of the books andaccounts of the Association. He (She) collects thedues of members and all other accounts owing tothe Association, and is required to deposit the sameintact in the bank or banks designated by the Board.Under the direction and authority of the Board theTreasurer disburses the funds of the Association,or with the approval of the officer or committeecha i r man author ized by the Board to incurexpenditures. It is the duty of the Treasurer to keepal l accounts of the Associat ion, including aninventory of all property belonging thereto, and to

CAÑETE1 8

submit an annual report to the members after theclose of each fiscal year, and such interim report asthe Board may prescribe. The books of accountof the Treasurer are open to inspection at all timesby the members of the Board, and to audit by suchperson or committee as the Board or members byvote may select. All funds received by the Treasurerfor a special purpose shall be recorded in theaccounts as such, and may not be disbursed exceptfor the purposes for which received.

• Historian: keeps a cumulative record of importantevents connected with the Association, including aregister of winners of art awards, a scrap book ofclippings, copies of art catalogues, invitations andpublications, and all other material which maybecome of historical interest in relation to artdevelopment in the Philippines. The Historian is ex-officio Librarian of the Association, unless theBoard creates the separate office of Librarian. (3-4)

A more serious set of actions and implications governthose members in the area of discipline. Several sectionsof the 1952 By-Laws, in fact, dedicate themselves to thispremise. The activating circumstance is here defined by theBy-Laws as violations of its own laws, the rules andregulations promulgated by the Board, or (and this passageis crucial): “for any cause which is deemed to reflectdiscredit upon the Association, or for professional conductdeemed unethical or irregular. The corresponding (counter)mechanism is also outlined.”

System of Expelling AAP Members

• The Board of Directors causes an investigation tobe made of the charges against the member to the


ex tent i t deems necessa r y, and to obta in i fpracticable the defense of the member charged.

• The Board of Direc tors , meet ing in caucus ,suspends or expels the “erring” member by a two-thirds vote;

• The suspended or expelled member has the rightto appeal to the General or Special General Meetingof Regular Members, whose decision is final. Thesuspended and expelled member may attend themeetings here mentioned, but shall not be consideredas of good s tand ing for the purposes ofdetermining quorum or voting purposes until aftersuch suspended or expelled member is restored tothe privileges of members by resolution of theregular members convened by such Annual orSpecial General Meeting. (6)

Hence, a dynamic strategy of co-valenced and co-oppository agencies are enfleshed in this system thatadvocates processual transparency, as well as hierarchicalverticality, of relations between members/officers as co-agents in the general institutional framework—and commoninterests—of the AAP.

Implicated in this institutional practice is the matrixof production between fields of capital, primarily thesymbolic, the economic, and the aesthetic. Jose Tence Ruizenfleshes for us this matrix as artworld practices conflatedwith the establishment of a socio-political art communerenewed at every processed disposition. Investigating theinitial premise of the AAP’s articulation, Ruiz notes:

The revelations we have gathered reveal anessential characteristic of the AAP which needsto be appreciated: that the AAP was put together

CAÑETE2 0

in the sp i r i t of convent ion. I t was not anorganization dedicated to the advancement of aspecific school of thought or action, but rather,to a not ion of inc lus ion (emphas i s mine )community building and consolidation, as it were.It intended to pursue activities relevant to thewelfare (emphasis mine) of a sector with particularinclinations and skills. (Ruiz in Cañete 1999, 111-112)

This contention arose from Ledesma’s account of theorigins of the AAP:

Excluding those who came and went (likeHugo Yonzon Jr. and his classmates), there werethirteen charter members—Diosdado Lorenzo,(Antonio) Dumlao, Ramon Peralta Jr., NemesioFaustino, Severino Fabie…Virginia Flor Agbayani,Emi l io Agu i l a r Cruz , Cand ido Alcanta ra ,Dominador Cas tañeda , Francesco Mont i ,Alfredo Pestaño, Fermin Sanchez, and myself.

We decided that the organization would beknown as the Philippine Art Association, but AbeCr uz…obser ved tha t i t s in i t i a l s wereunpoetic…He suggested the Art Association ofthe Philippines, or AAP, and thus it has beenknown ever since.

…We met regularly during the succeedingweeks, and each time the ranks of observers andinterested parties swelled…

…we were now prepared to wr i te theconstitution of the AAP. An invaluable assist inthis direction came from Lily Harmon (Mrs. Joseph


Hirshor n)…We inv i ted her to one of ourmeetings, and in her talk, she emphasized thepractical aspects of painting and sculpture. Hermain argument was that for an association ofartists to succeed, it must eschew the purelycultural and take note of the living problems ofthe artist (emphasis mine) i.e., it must promotethe financial side. In carrying out its purpose, theassociation in addit ion must not embrace adoctrine or favor a particular group or schoolof thought.

…Later…Mrs. Hirshorn sent us a copy ofthe const i tut ion of the Ar t is t ’s Equity, anAmerican organization familiar with the problemsconfronting artists and art groups in the UnitedStates.

The i r cons t i tu t ion was soph i s t i ca ted ,socialistic and comprehensive. One look at it andwe felt practically everything we needed was here.Soon after, we drafted our own constitution, andit was one heavily influenced by Equity’s. Themembership in the association was open to artistsin the graphic and plastic arts, art collectors,persons g iv ing mater i a l suppor t for themaintenance of the association and those whowere lovers of the fine arts…

The stage was set for our first public activity,a retrospective exhibit of the works of Fabiande la Rosa, a homage to our old professor…

…After the de la Rosa exhibit, the AAPpursued a two-pronged program by offeringincentives to artists seeking means to improve

CAÑETE2 2

the quality of art. On the priority list was acompetition (emphasis mine) which was soon tobe an annual affair. At stake were several prizes,including a f irst prize…donated by AndresSoriano Sr., an art enthusiast. The donation wasmade possible by Dumlao, a Soriano employee.At the same time, the association’s secretary,Peralta, an Ilocano who knew President Quirino,requested the Apo to inaugurate the show (oneof the drawings exhibited was a pencil sketchof the Filipino flag by the President…)

The competition was held at the NationalMuseum on Herran…Museum Direc torQuisumbing, one of our advisers, drummed uppublic interest for the affair…

…The board of jurors was a balanced one,inc luding (Fernando) Amorsolo, (Victor io)Edades , E . Agu i l a r Cruz and FrancescoMonti…Amorsolo, the idol of the conservatives,listed four moderns in his lineup of the first six;this was a measure of his fairness. It took thejudges about two hours to dec ide on thewinners…(Kalaw-Ledesma and Guerrero 1974,8-14)

Several points are of interest in this account. Firstly,it was through the activating agency of Kalaw-Ledesmawho, in her monologue on the AAP’s origins, admitted thatthe association came into its own through her own searchfor “artistic happiness,” that jump-started the productionof a communal art institutional space which she felt to bepreviously “absent”—or rather, deformed, due to theexegetical conditions of postwar basic survival (8). Hence,


the conflation: Purita Kalaw-Ledesma and AAP must alwaysbe reconsidered in the equated concerns of formativepractices, life concerns, and (unelucidated) positionings ina period of extreme flux and uncertainty. Secondly, althoughthe (feminine?) space opened for the AAP was courtesy ofKalaw-Ledesma, the AAP’s capital benefit lay primarily inthe empower ment of a pub l ic of producers whoseintentions for production are circumscribed within themarket-oriented system of display and valorization. Hence,the possibility of competitive rivalry and interpersonalbrinkmanship existed from its very genesis, although this isoccluded by the necessity of joint protection provided bymutual protection of industrial/professional interests.Thirdly, the oft-repeated admonition that, in its formationalyears, the AAP has been projected as inclusive rather thanexclusive allows the institutional term to be refunctionedacross the entire art market, as divided into stylistic andpersonalistic factions, the Moderns and the Conservativesbeing the more dominant in this period. By presenting theAAP as a space that “balanced” competing ideological/stylistic interests within the nascent membership—as provenby the founding board’s initial decision to honor Fabiandela Rosa (a revered idol among the Conservatives) with aretrospect ive, and the inc lus ion of “Conservat ives”Fernando Amorsolo and Francesco Monti as jurors in the1948 Annual; as well as accepting Modernists into the AAP’smembership, and including Modernist jurors in the 1948Annual (in the person of Victorio C. Edades and E. AguilarCruz), Kalaw-Ledesma can claim to have negated thefissionary tendency of the membership from splitting theAAP (as Philippine art community?) apart. Indeed, it wouldnot be until 1955 (under the presidency of Dr. GregorioG. Lim) that such a cataclysmic separation between thecompeting schools of thought within the AAP would occur.Lastly, by harking to a totalist reworking of the institution’sidentity as an all-encompassing union of artists, via the

CAÑETE2 4

constitutional supplements provided by Hirshorn, Kalaw-Ledesma’s dream of providing a modernist frameworkwithin which artists could empower themselves as fullyrealized semi-autonomous modules within the Manilaartworld, with similar social privileges and rights as thetraditionally elite art collectors, would be fulfilled, givingthose whom she sympathized with the same potentialchances of material and social success that she currentlyenjoyed. This transference of modern art unionist discoursefrom imperial center to postcolonial periphery, followingCanclini’s argument, is analyzed on the premise that itoperates on the notion of hybridity, of the unevenness ofits operation. For its initial effort and its subsequent effectswere as unexpected as they were hybrid: the AAP, indeed,became a dominant art institution, but it did not becomethe all-encompassing Artists Equity that its founders dreamt.Instead, it was formatted as an organization with an optional(meaning voluntary, hence potential) membership programfor the visual art ist . This divergence from total izingmodernity could not be readily explained, as its membershipbase by then had already spread beyond several schools(both of the academic and stylistic definitions), and by theearly 1950s, had already encompassed members from asfar apart as Ilocos (Ricarte Puruganan) and Cebu (MartinoAbellana).

Nevertheless, the task that confronts us at this point isthe transposition of power relations during the genesis ofinstitutional practices, as well as its transpositions acrosshistorical time and process. The conditions of the late 1940sand early 1950s are quite different from those of thelate1980s and the 1990s only in the sense that the givens ofsociety, aesthetics, and intellectual thought had shiftedradically from the either-or modality of Conservative-Modern to the more uncer ta in re l a t ions be tweenRepresenta t ive and Nonrepresentat ive. Equal ly, the


reproducibility of the relations of power within the matrixof institutional practice is foregrounded and continuouslyarticulated, and debated. It concerns most of the otherimplications that are coursed through Kalaw-Ledesma’snarrative. One is the notion of institutional closure throughself-identification among members as a social grouping,distinct and differentiated from nonmembers through theiraffiliation with institutional discourses: participation inelections; adherence to and manipulation of rules ofmembersh ip ; and , engagement of the dev ices o finstitutional symbolic production, such as art exhibitionsand competitions. A further condition for the productionof problematics that cuts through the epistemic fog like atracer bullet is the incessant attempt at transforming therules of institutional play.

One such attempt in 12 December 1986 led to thefailed revision of the 1952 by-laws by the administrationand membership under AAP President Eduardo Castrillo.Constituting themselves as an assembly in Angono, Rizal,during the so-called First National AAP Convention, 46members of the AAP voted to have certain sectionsinserted, or revise old provisions from the 1952 By-Laws.Some were as subtly nuanced as a change in nomenclature:from “those who work in the Fine Arts” (AAP 1952, Section2: 1) to “those who work in the visual arts” (AAP 1986, 1).Others were more dramatic. The 1986 amended by-lawsincorporate an entirely new section (Section 3) devoted to“Offices,” where previously the 1952 by-laws were silent:

(a) Principal Office. The principal office ofthe Association shall be located at such places inMetro Manila as the Board of Directors mayfrom time to time designate.

(b) Other Office(s). The Association maya l so have branch of f i ces , chapte r s or

CAÑETE2 6

correspondent offices at such places, either withinor without the Phil ippines, as the Board ofDirectors may from time to time designate. (AAP1986, Article 3: 2)

This is seen to be a direct result of the decision arrivedat during the Conference and subsequently implementedduring Castrillo’s remaining term from 1986 to 1990, toestablish regional and international chapters of the AAP inan attempt to further “democratize the AAP” by introducingpolicy-making and implementation at the local level.

Complementary to this decision was the expansionof the number of Board directors of the Association fromeleven in 19525 to fifteen in 1986.6 Also, whereas the 1952By-Laws were specific in the delineation of participatoryquasi-bureaucratic functions through the formation ofdistinct committees,7 the 1986 revised By-Laws weresignificantly silent on the nature of the committees to beassigned (AAP 1986, Article 8, Section 8). The above-mentioned sections are enlightening in what they both say,and what they do not say. T he 1952 By-Lawscomprehensively covers the practical/practisanal nature ofthe AAP’s articulation as art institution with a social focusof taking care of its members through the assignment ofparticular tasks, which are implied to be semi-permanent,if not perpetual. Complicit to these are also the forms ofsurveillance and imposition of rules that are deployed bythe Association in furtherance of its best interests. Thesedelineated/differentiated tasks were as follows:

Job Descriptions of AAP Committees

• …the selection and physical preparation of theplace and hanging and lighting facil it ies of allexhibitions conducted by the Association; the


control, admission, and accomodation (sic) of thoseattending such exhibitions; the hanging and displayof art works admitted for exhibit; and the custodyof all exhibits and of the exhibition hall and itscontents (Exhibition Committee).

• …to pass on all art works submitted for entry atall exhibition conducted by the Association, and torefuse admission of such works as are clearlyunsuitable for reason of lack of artistic merit orbecause same is considered improper for publicexhibition. Appeals from the decisions of…thecommittee may be made to the President, whosedecision is final.

It is also the duty of…the committee to prepareand submit to the Board before each exhibitionconducted by the Association panels of names fromwhich it recommends that committees of awardshall be selected by the President, said panel beingsubject to approval and amendment by the Board(Selection Committee).

• …to make recommendations to the Board onapplications for Regular and Patron members, andto approve the admission of Associate members.The...committee is also charged with promoting theincrease of membersh ip of the Assoc ia t ion(Membership Committee).

• …to obtain adequate and favorable publicity forthe activities of the Association and its members.The preparation and publication of an Associationperiodical may be delegated by the President to thisCommittee (Publicity Committee).

CAÑETE2 8

• …to prepare for the consideration of the Boardprograms for cultural meetings, art education,lectures, seminars, and good fellowship gathers, andwith managing the same (Program Committee).

• …to procure donations of prizes to be awarded atexh ib i t ions conducted by the Assoc ia t ion(Donations Committee).

• …to pass on and make awards in connection withcompeti t ive art exhibit ions conducted by theAssoc ia t ion . The number and ass ignment ofcommittees of judges, and the bases on whichjudgements (sic) are to be determined may beprescribed by the Board. The identity of membersappointed by the President to (the)...committee maynot be disclosed until after the committee has madeits awards (Committee of Judges).

• …as the occasion demands, (such other committees)which may be deemed appropriate (Invitations/Rules/Finance/other Committees). (AAP 1952b, 4-5)

These as s ignment of t a sks dove ta i l s w i th theAssociation’s already emergent practice (in the early 1950s)of aesthetic and material production in the form of theart competition, alongside its practice of institutionalstrengthening by interlinking either with art practitionersor others wishing to acquire symbolic capital with the AAPthrough the aeg i s o f regu la r/honorary/pat ronmembership. These practices are seen as energizing demandfrom a still nascent art patronage system that was justrecover ing f rom war t ime devas ta t ion through theproduction of public relations, art events, and the activeencouragement to patronize the hereto-functionary AAPart market—perhaps the only one large enough in the early


1950s to catch the regular collective interest of the Manilaart public. Again, Ruiz narrows down some of thesestrategies within a relational matrix that that circumscribesthe relations between AAP and the various agents andpublics of the Manila-centered Philippine artworld withinthe milieu of postwar regeneration:

The period of reconstruction after theSecond World War saw the AAP come togetherfrom what seemed an impulse to re-live therelatively peaceful pre-war days. Its first activitywas dedicated to a retrospect ive of a thenunderrated Fabian de la Rosa, followed by thefirst Annual in July, 1948. The Annual wouldcontinue to be the AAP’s legacy, providing acentral event, a citywide, even national fiesta ifyou will, for all the factions then extant in thestatic visual arts to attend and stake their claimsto cur rency, relevance, even dominance. Byhaving styles itself as a disinterested super-body,the AAP developed clout in purveying taste tothe bourgeoisie and managed to stand witnessto a development in the practice. It cannot claimto be the main stimulus of movements, butnevertheless acted as a barometer of where themore engaging segments of the sector wereheaded. (Ruiz in Cañete 1999, 114)

By contrast, the handling of this practisanal strategyby the mid-1980s have given way to a more uncertain status,with the AAP institutional practice in decline despite thephenomenal growth of the Manila art market in theintervening forty years since the mid-1940s. An index ofthis decline shows in the text concerning the assignment ofcommittees in the revised 1986 By-Laws (Article 8, Section8), as being:

CAÑETE3 0

The Board of Directors or the Presidentmay appo in t such commit tees , whosemembership may or may not be members of theAssociation, and confer it with such power andfunction as may be desirable for the interests ofthe Association. (emphasis mine)

Not only is this passage highly contentious (whatcommittees and the nature of its work, after all, could beneeded in order to satisfy the desirable interests of theAssociation?), but also that the inclusion of nonmembersto committees—that are highly influential bodies whichfoster exclusion, valorization, and symbolic fetishization—is also highly irregular to the common interests of the AAPmembers , a s the commit tees a re opened up tointerventionary practices by nonmembers, or even anti-members.

Other questions dwell as well. Looking at the 1986document, one is struck by the multiplication/fragmentationof institutional authority from the self-enclosure of theAAP’s body in to the a l i en Others, a s seen in theappointments of persons within the power matrix of theAAP. Article 8, Section 7 is particularly open to this tendency:

The Board of Directors may appoint suchother officers or agents as the business of theAssociation may require, including one or moreassistant treasurers and one or more assistantsecretaries, each of whom shall hold office andhave such authority and perform such duties as theBoard of Directors may from t ime to t imedetermine. (emphasis mine) (AAP 1986, 12)

To impose such a condition upon the core of thequasi-bureaucracy’s mechanism is to question the nature ofthe central competency of the roles of such offices, even


when one takes into account the possibility that suchconventions were agreed upon using the chapter conceptin mind—hence, a devolution of administrative functionsfrom “national” to “local.” The results not only fragmentthe bureaucracy into competing mini-centers of an alreadytenuous institutional practice; it also produces anachronisticconditions of feudalist power-relations between and acrossthe body of membership/officership as a matter of thedefense of immediate (read: local) interests: If one isconstituted, at the basic level of regional distinctions, thenits bodies of practice, its corpus of distinction, and itsmatr ix of pract ice a lso separate and dist inct ify intoregional/parochialist boundaries. Considering that thesources of institutional power are webbed into distinctzones of suburban i s t a r t i s t i c consumpt ion (e.g. ,Metropolitan Manila), the net result is that some chapterswil l always benefit more from their specific areas ofgeographic delimitation, with an already-formed criticalcore of circulators and consumers, than others (e.g., EasternSamar , Aurora , and Batanes) . The rat ionale for theformation of the charter specifically, then, was inherentlypolitical and short-term: The attempt to satisfy the criticsof “central ist- imperia l ist” (specif ical ly anti-Manilan)discourse in favor of the “dispersalist-regionalist” one. Thatthis utterance occurred at the height of macro-politicalreversals during the f i rst year of Corazon Aquino’sadministration (explicitly announced not only in the grandecarnivale that was the People Power Movement, but also inthe petits-carnivales of the OIC replacements across everycity and municipality from April to July 1986) bespoke aparadigmatic affiliation, let alone an activation of suchagencies similar to the macro-political ones in the pursuitof political influence—hence, power—in a still potent(though quasi-humbled) center. Still, there was the gazingpresence of the (undoubtedly Panopticist) AAP Presidencyon the body of the AAP, as much as there was still the

CAÑETE3 2

irrevocably monocular gaze of Malacañang at the corpusof the nation, and this resolution of forces into chaptersand center only heightened the sense of interlinked-nessand interdependency between marginal and centra l :Politically symbolic for all but dispensatory to only one, atthe expense of the accessionary others.

Another subtle subtext is also here reminded: Theproduction of a revisionary/revisionist AAP by-lawsoccurred simultaneously with the production—also at themacro-political level—of the same at the core of nationalconstitut ional law. The perfunctory abolit ion of theMarcosian 1973 Constitution and its immediate replacementwi th the med ia l l y co-va lenced Cory i s t FreedomConstitution in April 1986; and the brief but intensepo lemics in the product ion in the Cons t i tu t iona lCommission of what would eventually be enfleshed as the1987 Constitution between June to November 1986, allindicated a more-than-casual/coincidental relationship. Ifanything, the relationship was causal and inferential. As theconstitutional fabric of the nation was torn apart, reclothed,pruned of its totalitarian chain-mail, and refashioned withhand-me-down accessor ies ( the re turn , say, of thebicameralist if structurally inefficient form of legislatureabolished by Marcos in 1973), so was the legal skeleton ofthe AAP fractured, dismembered, and recomposed into aFrankensteinian parody of the phallic art confederacy.

The supreme irony in this affair is that, despite the1986 By-Law’s pretended legitimacy—only ninety AAPmembers affixed their signatures on the revised By-Lawsat the Angono Convention, versus an initial estimate of733 members in the AAP roster from 1982 to 1990, andits on-the-surface-legality, as can be ascertained in theundated legal certificate submitted to the SEC—its attemptto “reorganize” and “renew” the AAP’s legal structure allcame to naught. No seals of approval or notarization


originating from the SEC accepting these revisions couldbe found in these documents, and a search at the SECrecords in Mandaluyong City indicates that there are nosuch files, which either means that these documents werenever filed with the SEC, or if they were, were misplaced,and not acted upon.88 Hence, the 1986 revised By-Lawsare not in legal effect. Thus, by 1987 the AAP still had tofollow the 1952 By-Laws, in all its originary—if somewhatanachronistic—glory.

The questions that are to be begged as a result ofthese actions are: What were the polemics involved in thereconf igura t ion of the AAP? What were the fe l tinadequacies of interest that the AAP could no longeraccommodate, that a l lowed for this “revolut ionary”situation of revising the AAP By-Laws to occur as a matterof conventional agreement between members? What wasthe s t a te o f the e l ec tora te tha t dec ided upon th i sfragmentation? And finally, what was won, and lost, in theattempt at such a reconfiguration?

References

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined communities: Reflections on the originsand spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Art Association of the Philippines Incorporated (AAP). 1952a. Articlesof Incorporation.

__. 1952b. By-Laws of the Art Association of the Philippines. AAPBulletin, Vol. XI, No. 3.

__. 1986. Amended By-laws.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment ofTaste. Trans. Richard Nice. London: Routledge Classics.

Canclini, Nestor Garcia. 1995. Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Enteringand Leaving Modernity. Trans. Christopher Chiappari and SilviaLopez. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

CAÑETE3 4

Danto, Arthur. 1964. “The Artworld.” The Journal of Philosophy 61(19):571-584.

Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish. London: Penguin Books.

Hobsbawm, Eric. 1983. Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In Theinvention of tradition, eds. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-14.

Notes

1 As def ined by Arthur Danto (1964) , the artworld refers to a set oftheoretical assumptions that precludes the practice of naming a theoryof art within a pre-realized grid of art theorems, and is so interpellatedbased on an a priori position based on the self-realization of the nameras agent of the institutional field of art. Hence, any theory of art, co-existing among numerous other theories of art, is equally justified foras long as any namer of the art theory can justify their existence as amember of an artworld.

2 An interesting subtextual uncertainty is injected in the cover letter ofthe said documents, exhumed from the SEC archives. Dated March 26,1952, and written by then assistant for Securities & Corporation DivisionDionisio Guevara, and addressed to Mr. Vicente G. Javier (presumablythe corporate counsel of the AAP), i t informs the AAP to “send arepresentat ive to th is Commiss ion at your ear l ies t convenience forconference. . .Pending compliance herewith, action on said papers wil lbe held in abeyance.” No subsequent documentation appears that castsfurther light on this tantalizing document, which at first glance seemsto cast some uncertainty on the legality of the AAP’s 1952 registrationwith SEC.

3 The category Poster Art was included within the context of the AAP’s2nd Watercolor Exhibition, held on 15 September 1952 at the Chamberof Commerce Showroom. The f irst prize for Poster was won by thelate National Artist J. Elizalde Navarro for his work “Mindanao,” whichwas shown at the 1998 “GINTO: 50 Years of the AAP” retrospectiveexhibit ion. Interest ingly, other categories of the non-tradit ional finearts were a lso offered, such as Calendar and Greet ing Cards. Therewere also other tradit ional categories , such as Paint ing and GraphicArts, of which the Painting Category already shows an indication ofepistemic entropy through i ts dist inct ion between Conservat ive andModern.

4 In his essay “Utopias and the Market,” Canclini outlines four key projectsof modernity: the emancipating project, which is “ the secularizat ionof cultural fields, the self-expressive and self-regulated production ofsymbolic goods, and their development in autonomous markets;” the


expansive project, which is “the tendency of modernity that seeks toextend the knowledge and possession of nature, and the production,circulation, and consumption of goods;” the renovating project, whichis composed of two frequently complementing aspects , “the pursuitof constant improvement and innovation proper to a relation to natureand society that is liberated from all sacred prescription over how theworld must be,”and “the need to continually reformulate the signs ofd i s t i nc t ion tha t mas s consumpt ion wea r s away ; ” and f ina l l y thedemocratizing project, that “trusts in education, the diffusion of art,and specia l ized knowledge to achieve rat ional and moral evolut ion“(Canclini 1995, 12-13).These projects are seen as mutually reinforcingand massively deployed across society in order to achieve its aims atthe soonest available moment. As is often the case, these projects ofmodern i ty are a imed a t underdeve loped—and of ten postcolonia l—nations so as to accelerate the pace of modernization, and rationalizethe international distribution of goods, services, and labor that typifiesmodern t ransnat iona l economies of the mid- la te 20th Century thatreplaced the imperial system of metropoles-and-colonies of the late-19th Century. That Canclini uses these projects of modernity to critiquethe r e l a t i onsh ip be tween l abor , c ap i t a l , and consumpt ion in theunderdeveloped South of Latin America comes back to remind us thatthese projects are intuited using a Western-centered vision of historyand economy, that does not take into account political, economic, andsocial discrepancies of local societies, and the resiliency of traditionalcultures to resist modernization. For additional insights, see Canclini1995, 12-65.

5 AAP 1952a, 3. In addition, Sections 13-18 of the 1952 By-Laws specifythat a t leas t f ive of the e leven e lected Board Members a t l a rge beelected as officers, constituting at least the following: President, Vice-President (of which more than one can in fact be elected) , Secretary,Treasurer, and Historian. The six or so remaining Board Members arethen designated as “Directors.”

6 AAP 1986, 7. The relevant number is found in Article 7, Section 1,. InArticle 8, Section 1, the pertinent section reads: “The officers of theassociation shall be a President, a First Vice-President, a Second Vice-President, a Treasurer, a Secretary, and such other officers as may beappointed by the Board of Directors, each of whom shal l have suchauthority and perform such duties as the Board may from time to timedetermine .”

7 AAP 1952b, 4-5 . Sect ion 20 s ta tes that the fo l lowing are s tandingcommittees : Exhibi t ion, Se lect ion, Membership, Publ ic i ty, Prog ram,Donations, on Judges, and Special Committees which the President mayappoint “as the occasion demands.”

8 These are based upon Lay-Ann Orlina’s account of the Association’sattempt to clarify its legal status through inquiries with the SEC between1998 to late 1999.

PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW 1

Documents

Transcript of PHILIPPINE HUMANITIES REVIEW 1