Seeing culture ruined as demolished old edifices
All thanks to exploiters guised as architecture and art appreciators
and an apathetic government that tolerates numerous demolitions
and an apathetic government that tolerates numerous demolitions
At first, this person is ought to say that being politically cultural makes one strange, and in making writeups covering both political and cultural matters, he sees the reality on how politics and culture are interconnected (or is it interdependent? Anyway, whatever.), especially those that affect people's lives, heritage, identity.
It may sound strange given its idealistic nature of connecting politics and the arts if not insisting that politics and culture has to be treated as separate entities; but, to think that the motive in making something as "for the people" or "for the country" with all its "nation building aspect", then why to deprive that art or any cultural act of its political significance?
Perhaps it boils down to the ages-old debate between art for the people vs. Art for art's sake. Of art as a political tool to enlighten vs. Art as a commercial product meant to sell. Such debates makes one notice what is the standard in which every art has to be observed: Is it its meaning? Its appeal to the people? Its saleability? Its profitability?
Ideally they would say all of it are standards that has to be observed, but reality shows that the debate continues if not trying to be mellowed by the current setting such as the present system taking advantage of art for their interests- of depoliticising art in order for marketability to take its place in spite of its political appeal as the picture of Ernesto Guevara in a T-shirt.
Ideally they would say all of it are standards that has to be observed, but reality shows that the debate continues if not trying to be mellowed by the current setting such as the present system taking advantage of art for their interests- of depoliticising art in order for marketability to take its place in spite of its political appeal as the picture of Ernesto Guevara in a T-shirt.
But still, that depoliticisation and marketisation of lives, communities, and cultures requires politics. In a reality wherein the market replaced the civic space, and government officials disregard order in favour of unbridled capitalism to take over community life, the process of depolitisation and marketisation involves state approval, all in the pretense of "economic" or even "cultural development" as the billboards hanging on walls and rooftops.
And one classical example is the typical building of a shopping mall that shaped the lives of those within the community. There it replaced the park, it even replaced the public market, almost even the church and the school as the shopping mall provided them the "needs" ranging from clothes to gadgets. See nothing strange though but as time goes by it turns out madly as more malls replacing what makes a community having its identity, again all thanks to a system that caters to interests, and frankly speaking, having a politicised and empowered populace means hindrance to their conception of development; hence, it has to destroy heritage ranging from equating keeping heritage to spending to those of describing old houses to ugliness so as to favour the consumerist kind of future.
Therefore, it is deemed "culturally political" if not "politically cultural". The demolishing a cultural edifice is a political act, so is building a mall in to take place of that antiquated edifice that has been fallen through the wrecking ball. Old communities has to be replaced with new ones with the blessing of the state, whose systemisation of sorts, whose perspective is commercialism has affected districts whose history is as embedded in its timeless edifices and well crafted structures.
And now in seeing demolished edifices like the old Philippine National bank at Escolta, and still facing demolition threats in case of PhilBanking and Veterans Bank buildings in Bonifacio Drive, this person sees that all after seeing Santa Ana Park or San Lazaro Hippodrome reduced into mere memories, will they demolish more out of commercial interests in the guise of "consumer taste" while ironically seeing the other setting up art fairs brought about by commercialists? Ayala is known for their "heritage" yet they demolish Santa Ana Park; Henry Sy's "Shoe Mart" has its own "Kultura Filipino" yet it had demolished decades-old San Lazaro Hippodrome for his mall. The irony is this: these people even yearn to imitate London or Paris whose heritage remains as rooted for years, while in this goddamn Metro Manila and the Philippines has care little to nothing about its surrounding, unless it is worth profitable as any other expensively-priced project.
But in spite of all these ruins and threats over old yet culturally sound edifices, there are still concerned architects and other heritage experts still expressed condemnation such as after the demolition of the iconic Philippine National Bank (PNB) building on Escolta street, dismissing Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada’s claim that it had to be torn down for being structurally "unsound";
Worse, to see those who "afforded to appreciate art" are the ones who use art as means to deflect from the truth such as poverty, the same entity who miseducate the common man with illusions, of canned "culture" devoid of substance, of value. When was the time they truly encourage artistry? No wonder Alcazaren stated that there will be new developments, as in commcercialised developments meant to replace a remarkable building; and in it might compromise the functional capacity of Manila’s Binondo district:
“The city, which owns the building and the lot, will probably sell it to the highest bidder; most probably a condo developer...This company would then maximize the opportunity by building a tower much taller than the PNB.”
Furthermore, Alcazaren said: “This will add yet another skyscraper in a district already unable to support such a high density [of tall buildings] because of inadequate transport, power, drainage, and sewage-treatment infrastructure,”.
But all in all, it's about commercialism versus culture, of profit versus heritage. Ironically, even capitalists themselves afforded to have a "joyride" on the idea of heritage only to distort it. Remember the Pre-War Admiral Apartments that end demolished and created an architectural kitsch in place of it? Remember the attempts to demolish El Hogar Filipino and creating an alibi such as building a tower to take place of it using the same feature? Or the Ayalas who, again afforded to claim themselves as preservers of heritage hath demolished an Art Deco like Sta. Ana Park in order for their Circuit Makati to take place?
It's easier to say "move on" after all these nonsense, be it it will always be culturally political knowing that with these truths why should it be deprived of its political value? Perhaps as sense of history and heritage has been replaced with whining and ceaseless wandering, the nuch obviously laid bullshits like having a country replacing the agora with the shopping centre makes one say that the current state of things, in spite of parroting various messages people easily to believe, seriously believes in nothing except interests, worse, not even in itself.
Worse, to see those who "afforded to appreciate art" are the ones who use art as means to deflect from the truth such as poverty, the same entity who miseducate the common man with illusions, of canned "culture" devoid of substance, of value. When was the time they truly encourage artistry? No wonder Alcazaren stated that there will be new developments, as in commcercialised developments meant to replace a remarkable building; and in it might compromise the functional capacity of Manila’s Binondo district:
“The city, which owns the building and the lot, will probably sell it to the highest bidder; most probably a condo developer...This company would then maximize the opportunity by building a tower much taller than the PNB.”
Furthermore, Alcazaren said: “This will add yet another skyscraper in a district already unable to support such a high density [of tall buildings] because of inadequate transport, power, drainage, and sewage-treatment infrastructure,”.
But all in all, it's about commercialism versus culture, of profit versus heritage. Ironically, even capitalists themselves afforded to have a "joyride" on the idea of heritage only to distort it. Remember the Pre-War Admiral Apartments that end demolished and created an architectural kitsch in place of it? Remember the attempts to demolish El Hogar Filipino and creating an alibi such as building a tower to take place of it using the same feature? Or the Ayalas who, again afforded to claim themselves as preservers of heritage hath demolished an Art Deco like Sta. Ana Park in order for their Circuit Makati to take place?
It's easier to say "move on" after all these nonsense, be it it will always be culturally political knowing that with these truths why should it be deprived of its political value? Perhaps as sense of history and heritage has been replaced with whining and ceaseless wandering, the nuch obviously laid bullshits like having a country replacing the agora with the shopping centre makes one say that the current state of things, in spite of parroting various messages people easily to believe, seriously believes in nothing except interests, worse, not even in itself.