I recently sat on the panel for the Huwag Matakot: an Aswang post-screening roundtable with @dakila_ph.

I’m sharing here my thoughts about this whole “art for art’s sake” thing, which was briefly brought up, and how it ultimately figures in today’s sociopolitical context.

First of all, it is important to point out that we are dealing with a narrative war. “War on drugs”, “war on COVID”, “war on terrorism” — even in the language that the state chooses to deploy, we see how issues are framed as though they demand a military and punitive response.

Within this framing, the strategy of the state has always been to dehumanize its arbitrarily defined enemies. Drug users are mindless beings, COVID victims from low-income families are “pasaway”, and communists, activists, and critics are “terrorists”.

A central feature of art is telling stories. With recent efforts to infiltrate NCCA, FDCP, and other similar institutions, the state knows this, the same way the Marcoses weaponized the arts to redefine their legacy and, to some extent, tide public opinion in their favor.

If art ever stands a chance at helping restore some sense of humanity back to those whom the state victimized, and instill radical empathy among the quiet fence-sitters, it has to make a hard-lined stance against fascism. It has to be, without a doubt, political.

Which brings me to the question, when is art ever political?

The simple answer to this is that art is always political. In many ways, art is a platform where artists have monopoly over what realities they choose to shed light on, and whose narratives they choose to privilege.

In this sense, art is political not only based on what it chooses to say, but also based on what it chooses to omit. Meaning, when it comes to artistic labor, artists ought to constantly ask themselves the question: who is my work really in service of?

Whereas “art for art’s sake” ends by simply telling stories because there is a good story to be told, and with the right set of skills, can be told beautifully, political art is about bridging the gap in how art can disrupt systems and affect actual, material survival.

Which is why I’m resigned to the idea that while we shouldn’t over-valorize art as though it alone can change the world, we also shouldn’t overburden it as though it is indeed out there to change the world.

Which brings me to my last point: the responsibility of the artist transcends beyond the page, the canvas, or the film roll, etc. The responsibility of the artist is still to participate in the larger political discourse. To organize, mobilize, and take it to the streets.

We can all create platforms where people can exhaust their grievances, but ultimately, what we do with those platforms and how we create material change for those whose narratives are featured in our artistic products is how we create real and lasting impact.

Otherwise, all we’re doing is thrusting artists into the realm of political consciousness and prestige, without actually disrupting the systems that oppress the very people that artists utilize in their own artistic practice.

TLDR; artists should take it to the streets!