Pop, or is Carlos J. Caparas an Artist?

Pop. Kitsch. In tagalog, masa, bakya, baduy. And when these words are said, it is always accompanied by a derisive tone, as if talking about something distateful, something offensive. And for some, pop, or popular is something unacceptable. Never mind if the vast majority love it- music, movies, literature. If it is branded as pop, then it tolls its own cultural demise as something insignificant.

Popular culture, also known as mass culture or kitsch (German for mass or common), is generally looked down upon as vulgar, shallow, and worthless. Popular culture is often characterized as exploitative and is created solely for profit. Popular culture is described as a cancerous growth on high culture that takes advantage of fully matured cultural tradition, extracting its riches and putting nothing back. Popular culture is proscribed controlling powers onto the passive susceptibility of the ignorant masses, to which decisions lie between consumption or no consumption. Popular culture integrates the masses in a form of debased high culture.*

Now the discussion over the validity of pop art, and or even the discussion on the definition of what makes art is taken to another dimension. Carlos J. Caparas, director of kitschy, campy movies with bad acting, writer of komiks, among others has just been proclaimed National Artist. According to the wikipedia feature on him, Caparas is is a Filipino comic strip creator/writer-turned director and producer, who is best known for creating Filipino superheroes and comic book characters such as Panday, Bakekang, Totoy Bato, Joaquin Bordado,Kamagong, Kamandag, Angela Markado, and Tasya Fantasya Gagambino, Ang huling lalaki ng baluarte, Pieta and Ang Babaeng Hinugot Sa Aking Tadyang and amongst others. He is also known as a director of numerous movies dealing with massacre such as Kuratong Baleleng and The Cory Quirino Kidnap: NBI Files. Quite a body of work.

I am sure there are cries of dismay and disgust at this unexpected turn of events. I asked a friend if Caparas' art- pop art, at the very least - is finally given legitimacy now that he is honored with such a title. He said, "Pop art is even too good to refer to his works. They have just demeaned the erstwhile lofty awards. And previous honorees will have less pride for their trophies!" He is not alone in his opinion, and certainly there is credence in his statement.

However, without going into the discussion on the development of the concept of "culture," and all that discussion on high culture versus low culture, I make the following observation:

Popular culture remains an integral part of society, and though suspicion may be justly cast upon it, popular culture as a possible description of society cannot altogether be dismissed. Popular culture becomes the resource available in constructing meaning, identity and habitable space, especially in a consumer society. Through pop culture, we sense the identity of the “faceless, nameless mass,” its soul even.

It may not suit the finer tastes of the cultured, perhaps. It may even be a sensory affront to some, but since when has it been the elitists' and the select few's responsibility to dictate the way one thinks, or appreciates art, no matter how pedestrian? Such arrogant imperialism should not only be subverted, or coopted, but radically opposed. The popular culture reflects the identity of the people, and to deny it is to deny their own personhood.

My question: Is there a universally recognized standard for art? Are the class-based judgments of quality universal as standard set of aesthetic criteria?

Admittedly, Caparas' work fails to make the grade when the finer aesthetical sensibilities are applied. But there is no denying too the mass appeal of his work, or even how his work has been ingrained in the popular imagination. Granted, the National Artist Award might be a huge step (deserving, or undeserving), and i am sure this will fodder for many discussions, but shouldn't we at least redefine once more our criteria or how we derive it?

Just asking :-)

*See Roxanne Howdle, Is High Culture Superior to Mass Culture: If So, Why?, internet; available from www.essaybank.co.uk/ search.cgi?LinkOrwne=roxanne_howdle; internet; accessed 28 August 2002. See also Colin MacCabe, The Eloquence of the Vulgar: Cinema and the Politics of Culture (London, England: British Film Institute, 1999); Jean Baudrillard, “A Conjuration of Imbeciles,” internet; available from www.uta.edu/english/apt/collab/texts/conjuration.htm; accessed 20 September 2002.

Photo Credits: http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dpanday%2Bfpj%26rs%3D1%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=144&h=114&imgurl=i34.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd149%2Fishelu%2Fpandaylogo.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freewebs.com%2Fpinoytv%2Fchaka.htm&size=11k&name=pandaylogo+jpg&p=panday+fpj&oid=767416ddb5f0dd6c&fr2=tab-web&no=16&tt=22&sigr=11980m6s4&sigi=11ln9mtah&sigb=1311cip5l