Santos 1

Szarena Joy F. Santos

Professor Theresa De Guzman
Arts 1 – C1
September 11, 2019

Art Defined in the Filipino Perspective

In each of their articles, both Guillermo and Stecker provided various definitions of art.
However, Guillermo provided definitions of art in a more direct way. Stecker, on the other hand,
had given so many definitions from different personalities, that one would have to delve deeper to
completely understand what he is trying to say. He had put so many definitions, some which
contradict each other, which resulted in some gaps in his essay. Stecker also stated numerous
definitions he did not agree with, which may cause confusion to the viewer. Guillermo was able
to supply the readers a more concrete way of defining art. It was clear to the readers what
definitions of art she supported and what she did not. In other words, her ideas are not disorderly
and are more cohesive and organized. In addition, she was able to relate these definitions into the
Filipino point of view which makes the readers position themselves in relation to how art is defined
in her essay, making them understand it more clearly.

In both articles, art is defined in relation to historical context. In his article, Stecker noted
Danto’s statement that art must be defined historically which all of them accepted (146-147).
Stecker also stated that art is defined in terms of historically evolving functions (150). Historical
functionalism, in Stecker’s view, defines art in a way that it has functions which can be identified
by the central artforms at a specific time. Guillermo also defined art in historical context with
relation to social context. In her essay, she defined art as a “signifying practice which is grounded
in society and history” (1). She also mentioned that art is profoundly imbricated on its socio-
historical context (Guillermo 3). However, history, for Guillermo, is a “constructed narration from
a particular point of view with its particular social concerns and interests” (4) which, in other cases,
result to contradicting histories. In the Philippines, accounts from when they are colonized are
different depending on who has written them. Like many other colonized nations, there is history
written by those who colonized and those who were colonized. So, there is a two sides of the coin
as to what really happened before, the perspective of an oppressor on one side and the oppressed
on the other. With this definition, she expanded on what Stecker said in his article that art is defined
in historical context and related it into also having a social context. She also provided a Filipino
point of view into the definition and how historical accounts may be different between the Western
perspective and the Filipino perspective.

Another thing mentioned in Stecker’s article is that Danto stated that art requires an
audience response to fill in what is missing (146). Stecker regarded this definition no different to
traditional simple functionalist definitions of art and provided no further explanation for it. On the
other hand, Guillermo expands this definition in her essay, stating that “the work of art as sign is
viewed in the dialogic situation of art and its viewer” (2). There is an existing exchange taking
place between the work and the viewer/listener. This is not only concerned with interpreting an
artwork’s ideologies and worldviews but also concerned with determining how these values apply
to the viewer’s social context as a whole. It is concerned with how the viewer interprets the artwork
and how it applies and enhances their lives.
 Santos 2

Guillermo and Stecker also challenged the representational view of art. The way of
thinking that art is defined as a representation or imitation of the world were hugely supported in
the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. This definition of art, as Stecker states, is already
abandoned now. Stecker presents photography and purely instrumental music as art that challenges
the mimetic ideal of painting (138). Guillermo amplifies this by declaring that “art is a human
construct and the result of process” (3). She explains this by disproving the representational view
of art, stating that art is not the natural reflection of the world and that it is not just a transparent
window to the world. Art as construct questions the notion of art as a spontaneous expression of
the artist’s subjectivity. This is supported by Guillermo’s claim that “human experience are shaped
by social institutions and ideological discourses” (3) which implies that work of artists are
influenced by how their society has constructed or molded them to be. This also implies that art
has its own mode of production. Each artwork has their process on how they were made. Guillermo
connects this, yet again, to art and its social context, declaring that it is also important to reconstruct
art in its original community and to consider the factors that contributed to its making such as the
conditions and problems that arose in its production (4).

The aesthetic definition of art is objected by both Guillermo and Stecker. Stecker refutes
art as an aesthetic by stating that some artworks are not intended to convey aesthetic experience
(143). Some artworks challenges even the thought of art as an aesthetic itself and creates it with
an objective to disturb the minds of the audience. Guillermo magnifies this by stating the concept
of aesthetics is different for each society (4). For example, what may be beautiful for the West may
not be beautiful for the tribes in the Philippines. When people recognize the variety of aesthetics,
they will be able to break away from the traditional notion of aesthetics that the West has instilled
in them. The colonization of the Philippines has resulted in the suppression of the sectors of
Philippine expression. When the Philippines were colonized, the Spaniards had infused the
Filipinos with the Western aesthetic, hence, failing to secure their own culture’s aesthetics. What
was originally aesthetic before for the Filipinos were displaced by the colonizers with their own
forms of aesthetic. Guillermo also stated how the patriarchy marginalized a large section of
women’s work by declaring what was high art and what was low art. These suppressed voices are
a reason why the aesthetic definition of art should be abandoned. Society should not be able to
govern what is aesthetically pleasing for one’s eyes or ears. By saying that art should be defined
by the aesthetic, the rights of these marginalized sectors to be recognized are set aside.

Guillermo further positions the Filipino point of view into the definition of art by declaring
that Filipinos need to assert and demand to a socio-historical ground from which they will act
towards external influences and interventions (5-6). It is necessary to discard the colonial
distinction between high and low arts to assume the Filipino perspective of art. It is when all forms
of art are considered to have their own standards of quality are we only able to privilege the
indigenous art of the people to the original Southeast Asian matrix. It is when we are freed from
the academic hierarchies are we only able to return to our pre-colonial roots.

In her essay, Guillermo was able to amplify what art is in a clearer way. She was also able
to define art in a Filipino perspective which contributed in making the readers more familiar,
enabling us to position ourselves in how she sees art. Furthermore, Guillermo was also able to
awaken the nationalistic sense of the readers, declaring the necessity for us to ponder and
recognize our very own socio-historical background and culture to be able to discover our roots.