The Metropolitan Museum of Manila

Paulino 1

The MetropolitanMuseum of Manila

by Roberto G. Paulino

This essay constructs a partial history of the MetropolitanMuseum of Manila (MMM;henceforth, MET). Its narrative is informed by, among other contexts, the relations of the tenant MET with its neighborCulturalCenter of the Philippines (CCP) and lessorBangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). It considers such cartographic position as symptomatic of the power relations among institutions and between individuals. Such relations—e.g., of domination, resistance and negotiation—impregnates the struggle of the MET for space and place in Philippine art history.

Conception

In a memorandum to the CCP President dated 15 September 1976, then First Lady Imelda R. Marcos instructed the opening of a Metropolitan Museum of Art by October 1976.

According to Mrs. Marcos—chairperson of the CCP Board of Trustees—the Museum was to be organized by and attached to the CCP “for legal and administrative support.” However, it was to be “managed by a Museum Director acting under the authority of the Board of Trustees and the CCP President.”[1]

In the same memo, Mrs. Marcos—likewise governor of the Metropolitan Manila Commission—specified that the Museum was to be located at the Armed Forces Museum of the Central Bank[2] in Roxas Boulevard. She declared that the Museum was to be “assisted in every way possible by the Central Bank of the Philippines with regards building repairs and maintenance, services and utilities, and the full use of the premises rent-free.”[3]

Thus was born the MET in 1976 as a brainchild of Mrs. Marcos, a division of the CCP, and a subsidy of the Central Bank.

Progenies

It seems, though, that the MET was conceived as part of a tandem.[4]

On one hand, the MET was originally a fine arts museum for “non-Philippine”[5] art. It was proffered “to broaden our people’s awareness of the cultures of the world and to provide them with the opportunity of viewing international art in original form.”[6]

Complementary to this, the ContemporaryArt Museum of the Philippines (CAMP)—another CCP division founded in October 1976—was a venue for “Philippine” visual arts.[7] [CAMP was later renamed Museum of the Philippine Art (MOPA) in 1977.]

Propagation

A proliferation of museums, in fact, characterized the 1970s: the Museum of Philippine Costumes was created also in 1976; the CCPMuseum was earlier inaugurated in 1971; the CentralBankMoneyMuseum was opened in 1974; and an Intramuros Administration museum was inaugurated in 1979, just to cite some.[8] In addition, the DesignCenterPhilippines(DAP) was created in 1973. All were located at or within the periphery of the CulturalCenter complex.

This “drastic change” wherein “museums virtually sprouted in many places” was then attributed to the “encouragement and support of the First Lady, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos.”[9] The MET was reportedly “part of the cultural development program” of Mrs. Marcos who was further credited for taking “the decisive step to expand further the traditional role of the museum by encouraging active support and participation of the private sector in the Government’s effort to accelerate the delivery of cultural services to the people.”[10]

Pro-pa-ganda!

Such “mushrooming of cultural institutions”[11] was concurrent—if not complicit—with the so-called construction boom of the 1970s. Between 1972 and 1977, the Bagong Lipunan (“New Society”) of President Ferdinand E. Marcos claimed to have invested over P19 billion in infrastructures.[12] In addition, tourism and international promotions instantiated beautification programs.[13]

To wit: the 10,000-seat arena Folk Arts Theater was devised in a mere 77 days to host the 1974 Miss Universe Pageant. “Designer hospitals” such as the Philippine Heart Center for Asia, the LungCenter, KidneyCenter, EyeCenter, and theLungsod ng Kabataan or Children’s Hospital were erected. White concrete walls, among others, were constructed to conceal squatter communities living along the highways.

Styled as the “City of Man,” Manila was promoted as a “ConventionCity.” The 1976 International Monetary Fund-World Bank Conference held October 1976 in Manila gave rise to the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) and the Philippine Center for International Trade and Expositions (PHILCITE). It also served as impetus for fast-tracking as many as 18 luxury hotels.[14]

Although the “Conference itself was not a cultural gathering but an economic one, as we all know,” it was engineered with happenings. The Kulay ng Anyo ng Lahi public art project was launched in conjunction with the Manila Arts Festival—which in turn coincided with the conference. Works of contemporary Filipino painters were reproduced large scale in the exterior walls of buildings and even water tanks. The NationalMuseum displayed Egyptian and Chinese antiquities.[15] The CCP Museum Department organized an exhibit of Philippine contemporary art at the former Elk’s Club building appropriated from the Manila government.[16] And at the former ArmyForcesMuseum, the MET mounted its inaugural exhibit from 04 October 1976 to 06 November 1976.[17]

The Private as Privileged and Confidential

Three years after its establishment, the MET was incorporated into a foundation known as the Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation, Inc. (MMMFI). The latter was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on 24 September 1979. This officially changed the status of the MET to “an independent, private, non-sectarian, non-political and non-profit cultural foundation.”[18]

The founding members of the foundation were prominent government officials and businessmen: First Lady Mrs. Marcos, chairperson; Mr. Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Sr., acting president; Central Bank governor Gregorio S. Licaros, Sr., treasurer; Ambassador Jose Soriano; Roman Cruz, Jr.; Alfonso Yuchengco; and Lucio Tan. It had a capital fund of P12.7 million.[19]

Its official objectives were threefold:

(1) To promote, develop and enhance the cultural awareness of the general public through the presentation of various works of art;

(2) To disseminate and exchange museum information with the general public;

(3) To promote and/or undertake studies of research that will in any manner achieve the primary purpose of this foundation.[20]

The agenda for the privatization of the MET has been tenuous. According to a later MET self-profile, the foundation simply “was created to carry on the tasks of its earlier namesake.”[21] In another account, the incorporation of the museum into a foundation was “to try and drum up support from the private sector.”[22] It appears,however, that the dichotomy between private and public spheres had not always been mutually exclusive:

. . . In the case of the Metropolitan, this meant going back to the rationale behind the establishment of the Foundation: at once private but still partly government-related.

It is a structure similar to the CulturalCenter of the Philippines. Or to the new Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas whose Monetary Board is composed of people from the private sector with nominees from the government sector. That was the reason former first lady Imelda Marcos was chairperson of Metropolitan. [23]

It has been suspected that such scheme legitimized contributions to the projects of Mrs. Marcos:

. . . The MMM was created as a “private” foundation by Imelda Marcos. The [sic, That] was back in 1979, when she was still First Lady and nobody could say “no” to her. Those were the happy days when she was still the country’s most important patron of the arts—plus designer clothes, jewelry and shoes. Dozens upon dozens of foundations were formed during her time, precisely because this scheme was the only way for government institutions to justify “donations” to her projects.[24]

Seizing the Armed Forces Museum

Even after its privatization, the MET continued to hold office at the Central Bank complex as stated in the former’s Articles of Incorporationas well asits By-Laws.[25] According to a later MET manuscript dated September 1986: “The Central Bank provides the building rent-free for the use of the MetropolitanMuseum per initial agreement with the CulturalCenter.” Also, “[t]he Central Bank is in charge of all major repairs on the airconditioning system, architectural defects such as leaks on roofs and walls. All major electrical repairs are shouldered by the Bank.” On the other hand, “[t]he Museum takes care of minor plumbing and electrical repairs, the construction of walls and partitions (wooden) for exhibition purposes and painting of interior.”[26]

Nevertheless, the MET “was shocked to discover in 1986 that it lacked documents protecting space arrangements and utility subsidies arranged presumably by art patron Imelda Marcos.”[27] A legalizing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) did not seem to exist. It simply appeared that “[d]uring [Arturo] Luz’s time [as director from 1976 to1986], the rent and utilities were completely subsidized by the Central Bank, probably because of Mrs. Marcos’ influence.”[28]

Luz Connections

Visual artist Arturo Luz was appointed director of the MET in 1976. He was then, also, owner-director of the LuzGallery,[29] among others. “In the seventies . . . [Luz] actually became the de facto Art Czar when he took over several positions.”[30] He simultaneously held the following titles: executive director, DCP (1973-1987); director, MET (1976-1986); and director, MOPA (1977-1985).

Although it seems it was Mrs. Marcos who appointed him in all three positions and that he was “put in charge, rather reluctantly,”[31] Luz denied that she interfered in his programs.[32] He also maintained that “for 10 years I brought major, foreign exhibitions to the Metropolitan at no cost to the government!”[33]

From October 1976 to August 1986, the MET mounted 109 exhibitions. (They accepted 76 exhibits of which 33 were later reshown.) The first 23 were held when the MET was still under the CCP administration (1976-1979). In the MET’s classification of exhibits by source or origin, the most numerous shows came from the United States and the former GermanFederalRepublic with 17 each. France and the former USSR followed with five each. Hence, majority of the shows accepted then (62 of 76 or 82%) were of North American and European origin. There were only seven shows from Asia (including two from the Philippines), four from South America and three from Australia and New Zealand. Paintings and photographs were the most numerous artforms displayed.[34]

A highlight for Luz was the 1982 exhibition on Paul Klee. “More than just a curatorial coup, the show was an emotional encounter. To his country Luz finally succeeded in introducing the works of Klee.”[35]

Conferring Culture

Recounting his first four years as a gallery owner, Luz once wrote:

Actually, my principal reason was simply to provide art with the setting and importance it deserves. Bad paintings deserve obscurity, but paintings that deserve to be shown must be shown well. Surprisingly, virtually all other galleries in Manila ignor [sic, ignore] this obvious truth.

More obvious though less popular is my notion that galleries have to be dictatorial in matters of taste and quality.. . . The point is that galleries have certain functions and responsibilities other than to make profit. . . . Above all, it should mold taste and exercise a certain degree of critical judgment. It must continually seek and show only what is tasteful; meaningful and genuine. Only then can it fulfill its most basic and most significant function.[36]

Such sensibilities have since been offered to account for the artistic integrity of the LuzGallery,[37] a reputation likewise later appropriated by the MET.[38]

However, these sensibilities also seem to assume a concept of culture as something urbane—i.e., referring to “a desirable quality we can acquire by attending a sufficient number of plays and concerts and visiting art museums and galleries.”[39] The museum is seen as a conferrer of “high” culture[40] and a signifier of civilization. Hence, when the Central Bank reportedly planned to evict the MET in 1993, Luz remarked, “If you close the Metropolitan now, we might as well go back to the barbaric ‘50s.”[41]

Arts of the State as State of the Arts

The discourse thus far is consistent with the notion that “polices implemented by the Marcos administration were especially crucial to the directions taken by Philippine contemporary art in the 1970s through the early 1980s.”[42] Others have further argued that the CCP and the MOPA engendered programs valorizing the so-called “high arts” and the modernist dictum.[43] Hence, privileged members of this art world more than partially defined the arts of the period.

The altruistic role of Mrs. Marcos in Philippine art, moreover, has been contested, if not rewritten, especially since the February 1986 EDSA Revolution. Revisionist histories problematized the nature and publics (read, audience) of her patronage. A few initial post-EDSA accounts on the MET plainly excluded her from the historical discourse.[44] Some contended the 1970s as a “glorious time . . . when patronage flourished” but remained silent on her interventions.[45] Others diagnosed the state-sponsored building spree as a symptom of Mrs. Marcos’s edifice complex. Moreover, her beautification projects and “civilizing museum rituals” were unmasked as part of a national agenda for trade, tourism and diplomacy. Strategies of imag(in)ing a flourishing and united New Society to the international community were laid bare.[46]

Similarly, the museum audience—also referred to as ‘people’ in the 1976 CCP memo creating the MET—was revealed not as a homogenous Filipino mass but a dominant minority with rarefied definitions of art. (In the CCP and MOPA, “[p]rograms and activities excluded the general public whose needs and experiences differed from the preferences of the privileged elite they espoused. Hence, education programs further enhanced the hierarchy among the arts and the audiences.”[47]) Hegemonic social institutions were engaged to project and naturalize state ideology. Philippine art, like Filipino identity and nation, was essentialized and (mis)represented as sharing a common culture, repressing differences in class, gender, ethnicity, religion, among others.[48]

‘Art for All’

In September 1986, seven months into the Aquino administration that toppled the Marcos regime, the MET acquired a new board of trustees. The latter “voted to expand the Museum’s role to incorporate Philippine art, . . .”[49] It was envisioned that effective January 1988, there will always be an exhibit of Philippine art within the MET at any one time.[50] Cognizant of the elitist reputation of museums in general, the MET adopted the motto ‘Art for All’ to embody a more populist thrust.[51]

The museum objectives were revised accordingly:

(1) To encourage the appreciation of aesthetics as practical applicable discipline for stimulating environmental awareness, civics, cultural curiosity and appreciation of beauty in everyday life;

(2) To expand museum viewership;

(3) To acquire for Philippine viewers art references from around the world and thereby uplift aesthetic standards in the country; and

(4) To upgrade professional museum services and administration.[52]

The First National Juan Luna / Felix Resurrección Hidalgo Commemorative Exhibit held June 1988 inaugurated the new Philippine art program of the MET. The exhibit featured the MET’s “bilingual, didactic approach” wherein art was used in teaching cultural values, among others.[53] Instructional materials such as signages, guide notes, teacher’s museum assistants and, occasionally, monographs, were written in both Filipino and English.

In 1988, the visitor traffic reached 188,409. This figure was a 500% increase from the annual average of 37,261 from 1977-1986. Seventy percent of the visitors were students, a complete reversalto the 1977 profile.[54]

Paradign Shift: From White Cube to Brown Banig

Mrs. Felice Sta. Maria, MET president from 1986-1993, developed the conceptual framework “Banig [Mat] Level Approach.” It was an attempt to contextualize—to “Philippinize”—the western museum model. The latter had been likened to a white cube marked by white walls, academic labels, fluid space, and strict silence. However, it was again averred:

For Philippine museums, adherence to the Western museum paradigm led to an isolationist image, incomprehensible texts, and ineffective programs—a total museological dysfunction. . . . It dampened the raison d’être of museums as cultural and educational institutions for the general public.[55]

In its place, the MET experimented with “non-conventional variables . . . to establish the profile and psyche of the Filipino museum audience.” For instance,

Because of the Filipino’s affinity with colours, the white walls were occasionally turned pink. The academic labels were formulated into poetic thought pockets, trite but high impact. The fluid space had to be filled with more materials to satiate the Filipino’s erratic attention span. Strict silence suddenly gave into piped-in music from the classics to modern harmony with exhibition theme.[56]

Purportedly,

When Luz was director, the museum was “like a picture frame.” There were no curatorial impositions placed on the pre-packaged exhibits although Luz’s team was selective about which shows were chosen. However, Felice felt it was the museum’s responsibility to create exhibits which could communicate to the viewer—it was unfair to put the burden of understanding art on a public which didn’t have the tools to grasp it in the first place.”[57]