Fine Print
ayap@theguidon.com
News on the bestowment of the prestigious National Artist Award typically passes by every three years peacefully, amiably and without much uproar. This year, however, witnesses the most controversial award-giving yet, with the honoring of Carlo J. Caparas and Cecile Guidote-Alvarez as National Artists for Visual Arts, Film and Theater, respectively.
Existing award recipients have currently renounced their titles, even going to the extent of holding a symbolic funeral service for the “death” of the National Artist Award.
As a student who has read Nick Joaquin, N.V.M. Gonzales, Virgilio Almario, Rolando Tinio and Jose Garcia Villa for Lit13 and Fil11, appreciated Amorsolo, Ang Kiukok, BenCab, Manansala, and Francisco for my major classes, and watched a play of Salvador Bernal’s design, I have great respect for the process by which these exemplary people were selected, and even greater respect for the cultural and artistic experts who have chosen them.
At this point in time, it is futile to blame single persons or organizations for their faults. It is more apt to criticize the very systems, rules and guidelines behind the National Artist Awards. What gave President Arroyo the very power to excessively meddle and override due process in the first place?
The guidelines of the awards specifically say that Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) or National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) officials and directors are prohibited from making the list, yet ironically, this year bestows upon Guidote-Alvarez, NCCA’s Executive Director, an award by presidential intervention. If this is the case, then there is no point in laying out provisions in the first place, when external authority could easily overrule them.
Aside from the presidential authority present in the National Artist Awards, some prizes of the awards prove to be just as suspicious. Cash prizes are perfectly understandable. On the other hand, monthly pensions and life insurance plans signify a sustained liability that would already seem like a “salary” to the artist and his work. However minor this may seem, this further diminishes the little integrity still left in this award.
The need for provision amendment is imperative. If we do not want this to happen again, a sure measure would be to organize a new committee to change the guidelines: a representative from the NCCA, the CCP, a veteran National Artist, professors of Fine Arts and maybe someone from the pop culture scene (in case people still clamor against the so-called “elitism” of these awards).
First on their list would be to remove all deciding powers from the President, then to clarify specifically all the required criteria for each boundary so that each nominee is sure to belong rightfully in their field/s of expertise. Lastly, they should revise the prizes so that they seem more like prizes, not salaries.
It is difficult to remove politics from national awards such as this. Once there is an assurance that the proper guidelines are set in stone, however, corruption will not pass its impenetrable walls. The National Artist Awards will finally reclaim its former integrity and honor.
