The Great Pretenders (The Senator)

By Jonathan Shih

Have you ever pretended you knew something? A fact in history perhaps? The details of someone’s story, his life’s work, his legacy? Have you conveyed to someone, I know this, I knew that? Is there a chance we don’t know what we presume we know?

When reading your favorite newspaper, have you ever wondered if the information your reading is true? Is it reliable? Are the writers honest in their journalism? It better be, or else we would be reading false words, and we would be grossly misinformed. But was there an instance, wherein you felt you were reading false information? 

An article was written by Philippine Senator Blas Ople in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on June 30 and July 7, 2002, in it, Senator Ople wrote about Leonardo da Vinci and in honor of his contemporary and friend, a certain cartoonist turned ’artist’. (Actually, I wrote this in my journal on July 11, 2002, as a reaction to the Senator’s article, with the intention of submitting it to the PDI for possible publication, which I never did)

This is concerning your article of June 30 and July 7, 2002. Can I correct you on the fact that the Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci was painted in c.1495 to 1497, which can still be found in it’s original location, in the Santa Maria Delle Grazie (refectory of the Monastery) and not “around 1500” and not in another place as you have written. Leonardo’s birthplace was not Florence as you so claim, but in the town of Vinci, located 45 km. from Florence. Hence his name which means no more than “Leonardo from Vinci”. Because it was customary in Italy during the time of Leonardo for a person’s surname to be connected to his ancestry, his place of birth or his profession. And he lived in Milan not for 10 years as Senator Ople wrote, but 17 years. From 1482 until 1499 (when the French invaded). 

Also he worked at the court of Duke Ludovico Sforza and not Count as Senator Ople stated, and he was recommended primarily as a musician, a player on the lyre, not a lute as the Senator stated (please look for the meaning of these two instruments). He was at the Court of the Sforza as a painter, and as a court Engineer, he only did schemes for various projects. Yes, he did play the lyre masterfully, but in the realm of sculpture, Leonardo never erected any (the Senator wrote Leonardo is a master Sculptor), he almost did however, for a project of a huge equestrian statue to Ludovico Sforza’s father. 

But it is now known only in preliminary drawings and there is no mention in the history books of him serving in the Italian Civil Wars, as a Military Engineer, “a genius in the art of fortifications” (as written again by the Senator), as a engineer, he left us only construction sketches of his engineering genius. It is very difficult to say whether such equipment  could  have been built, given the resources available at that time. Also he didn't designed the spire on Milan Cathedral (as the Senator wrote otherwise again). He did designs yes, on his famous notebooks, but the actual spire on the cathedral was not designed by him.   

The Senator wrote, “The whole world is still waiting for the definitive biography of Leonardo da Vinci.” Can I ask, how did you know the whole world is waiting? As you said yourself  (I’m referring to the Senator), Leonardo’s life is a mystery. Let’s leave it at that, even though little is known of his early life, his contribution to Art, isn’t. He left us his real legacy - his paintings. Although few, they are the greatest in the history of Art. 

It is what an artist does that’s important rather than what his life was like. Because it is in an artist’s, a true artist’s work that speaks for him. If Leonardo really said it or not, your correct when you wrote that painting is the most difficult, the most intellectually demanding and the most complex of all the Arts. The Impressionist painter Pierre Auguste Renoir once observed that, “painting isn’t just daydreaming, it is primarily a manual skill, and one has to be a good workman.” Painting is a craft as well as an Art - and a difficult craft to master at that.

In the second part of the Senator’s article, he wrote that he sees in a certain cartoonist turned painter the attributes of a Renaissance Artist in the tradition of the Florentine Masters. I doubt it if that ‘artist’ can copy and duplicate the painting techniques used by Leonardo for his famous paintings like the Mona Lisa or the Fresco technique used for the Last Supper. In fact even if you gather the greatest painters alive today. They won’t even get close to duplicating what Leonardo did in painting his famous paintings.  

Can anyone ask this certain cartoonist turned painter why his subject matter and technique of rendering his ’paintings’ remained virtually the same since he started his so called ’artistic career’? Or maybe I can answer that, based on my understanding of painting. Maybe the cartoonist turned painter can’t paint or draw in the same manner as the Renaissance artists or at least in a naturalistic manner. Can anyone ask him if he knew an instance when he painted a subject in the technique of the Renaissance masters? Quite frankly, he never abandoned his being a cartoonist in rendering his ’paintings’, for the very simple reason that he cannot draw or paint realistically. He has trapped himself in his ‘style' and he is being championed by the Senator as having the attributes of a Renaissance Artist. Quite a bold statement. 

The techniques employed by the Great masters takes years to finish and quite frankly, not a simple thing to accomplish. You can’t imagine what the Great Masters have to do and endure to execute their paintings. Quite honestly, many ‘artists’ in this so called ‘artistic country’, have trapped themselves with their so called ‘art styles’. 

My letter abruptly stopped here, for some reason, I wasn’t able to finish it.  

Does the dear Senator have any idea what he was talking, or in this case, writing about? Over 90 percent of what he wrote about the Great Leonardo da Vinci was inaccurate. If someone, let’s say, was interested in Art and was aspiring to be an artist, read the Senator’s article and was inspired by the Senator’s words, and believed every statement he wrote. Isn’t it probable that that person would be misinformed? Worst yet, if he or she indeed pursued a career in Art, and he referred to the article of the Senator as his basis for his knowledge of Leonardo da Vinci, and then someone would ask him something regarding Leonardo, would that be misinforming the recipient as well?  

There is an English adage that says, “Little knowledge is dangerous.”  And very true it is, a little folly in part of someone can be very dangerous. Whether it be in deeds or in words or information.

In the case of information, a deadly chain reaction would occur, each one misinforming the other, and the chain could only be broken when someone with the correct knowledge of that information redirects them to the truth. 

The written word is a powerful tool, as the famous adage states, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” 

I'm not declaring that I know more than Senator Ople. He’s a Senator. A lawmaker of the land and one of the highest positions in the country, but in the realm of Art and the Art of painting, I would have to disagree with what he wrote.

Have you been misinformed lately? Or maybe you didn’t know that what your reading or listening to, is it inaccurate? Or maybe you didn’t mind? You might say, it’s just trivial, It won’t affect me or my present mental or psychological state of mind. 

So, your just going to sit in a corner, and never venture outside of the box? Just be quiet and let the world pass by? Anyway, it’s just words on a page right?

OUTSPOKEN ‘ARTISTS'

By Jonathan Shih

        I wrote this article in my journal dated 20 March 1999, with the intention of submitting it to The Philippine Daily Inquirer for possible publication, but didn't have it published.

        As I was going over the March 15 issue of your paper. An article caught my eye. The article is concerning the book of a certain Dr. Eleuterio ’Teyet’ Pascual. In which he wrote about the recent discovery of Juan Luna’s lost drawings. In his book, Dr. Pascual declared the discovery of at least one thousand of Juan Luna’s drawings and sketches. I’m not a Juan Luna fan but I continued reading the article until something else caught my attention. The so-called loud allegations of outspoken ‘Artists’’, especially a certain Mauro Malang Santos, caught the attention of my eye.  

        Mr. Santos declared to prove that the Luna drawings are authentic because presumably, he believes the drawings are fake, that it was drawn by a forger. He then commented, “it’s impossible for an artist to produce 1,000 drawings.” Such a brave statement coming from someone who has a somewhat shallow perspective of Art. Let’s assume without a reason of a doubt that the Luna drawings are truly fake but such a statement is ludicrous. 

        Let me explain. It was customary in the time of Juan Luna, which was I presume, in the late nineteenth century, to make preparatory drawings for a painting (before the advent of modernism in Art, painters ever since followed the old time tested tradition of painting a picture, by making preparatory drawings for a painting, especially in Oil Painting). These drawings are used as a way to prepare the final painting before executing it. To find the right composition, for anatomical corrections, for the final layout, and for minute details. 

        Supposing Juan Luna produced just 50 finished paintings (which is doubtful) in his lifetime. Supposing he made a minimum of 20 preparatory drawings for each painting. What would be the total? Twenty times fifty would amount to 1,000 drawings! That is just twenty drawings per painting, and I doubt if Juan Luna made only 20 drawings per painting. With his stature as a painter and the customary painting process that every painter in his time uses. 

       The great Expressionist artist Vincent van Gogh once said, “Drawing sketches is like planting seeds in order to get pictures later.”

       The great Neoclassical Painter J.A.D. Ingres said, “Drawing is the true test of Art.”

      Going back to Mr. Santos’ comment of the impossibility for an artist to produce 1,000 drawings. Would had it been better for Mr. Santos to say, “it’s impossible for Juan Luna to produce 1,000 drawings.”  

      Wouldn’t that be more closer to reality? 

      The resounding reality is this, the Spanish artist Pablo Picasso (1881-1973), one of the most productive and innovative artists in Art history, in one of the most recent inventories of his oeuvre, has produced around 15,000 paintings, more than 660 sculptures, countless drawings, and graphic work.

       Go back and read again, it says ‘countless drawings’. Can you imagine the word countless? It means that it’s so numerous, no one can possibly catalog and list them all. Now, is Pablo Picasso an Artist? Of course, he is, a resounding yes. Look in any reference to Modern Art and you will surely find his name. Not to mention in any Art History book in general. Did Picasso produce 1,000 drawings? The word to describe it was ’countless’.  

       Is it impossible then for an artist, any artist, to produce 1,000 drawings? As Mr. Santos ignorantly asked.

       In fact, Picasso is not the only Great Artist in the history of Art to produce over 1,000 drawings in their lifetime. A perfect example would be the Great Renaissance Artist, the Uomo Universale himself, Leonardo da Vinci. His famous notebooks comprise nearly 6,000 pages containing countless drawings and sketches.

       Now, going back again to the impossibility for an artist to produce 1,000 drawings quote. Does Mr. Santos have a clue of what he was saying? Does he have a minuscule of an idea of what he had commented? What was he thinking? Or was he really thinking? In his own little fantasy world, he literally rewrote Art history with his comment. He practically called all the Art historians who ever lived, stupid.  

      Does this indicate without a reason of a doubt that, based on Mr. Santos’ comment on the Luna drawings, he has, at 70, not produced at least a thousand drawings? Does this also indicate, that Mr. Santos doesn’t make preparatory drawings for his so-called ‘works of Art’? 

      In another statement coming again from him, wherein he was most bothered by the Luna drawings being allegedly signed. He asked in confidence, “Who signs drawings?” and “nobody really buys drawings, not even today.” Who signs drawings, Mr. Santos asks in awe? I have Art books that contain reproductions of drawings by the Old and Modern Masters that are signed by those artists? Who signs drawings then? The Old and Modern Masters, that’s who. The greatest artists who ever lived. 

      "And nobody buys drawings, not even today?" Is he honestly sure? 

       Now how come in my same Artbooks again, I find the drawings with captions at the bottom of the page, indicating the locations wherein one can find those famous drawings.  An example of a caption reads - In the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Who buys drawings then? Only the most famous and greatest Museums and Galleries in the world.

      Now, how did these famous and greatest Museums and Galleries in the world acquire those drawings for their Art collection? Is it possible they were bought? Either from another museum or gallery or from a former owner of those drawings. Well, without a doubt, they surely did. 

      I will ask Mr. Santos, does anybody buy drawings, even today? The answer is another resounding yes.

      Can I ask Mr. Santos, how do Art historians know a drawing was created by let’s say, Leonardo da Vinci? How can they attribute any drawing to any artist? The most acceptable way would be the artist’s signature on the drawing or painting.

      Wouldn’t it be better again if Mr. Santos said, “Juan Luna rarely signs his drawings” or “Juan Luna’s drawings are seldom bought?” Wouldn’t that be closer to reality again?

      Now, going back to the nobody buys drawings quote. Mr. Santos again in his little fantasy world, literally rewrote Art history with his comment. And practically called the most famous and greatest Museums and Galleries in the world who bought and now own those drawings, stupid.

      But we don’t need to worry. Mr. Santos said it in his little own private fantasy dream world. Where everything that goes inside his puny brain, can become reality. For we are living in reality here. 

      My concern right now has nothing anymore to do with Juan Luna’s drawings being allegedly fake. But my concern at the moment is that certain individuals with shallow perceptions are saying things that undermine our intelligence. Of what it is to create paintings and drawings, not for the fame and stature, not for the money and prestige. But for the sheer conviction that that is what an artist is called upon this earth to do because he is an Artist.

ONE FINE DAY INDEED

By Jonathan Shih

In the 90s, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper in the Philippines, has a column that comes out every Tuesday, Thursday or Saturday, if I‘m not mistaken. It’s called Young Blood, wherein anybody who is in the 20 something and younger age bracket can submit a article, short essay or short story. Whichever is a person’s fancy and honestly, before, I read it regularly, when we had the daily at our doorstep every day. 

As time passed, my mom had it stopped, maybe for financial reasons. So, we only buy the paper every Saturday or Sunday. In those days that I was regularly reading the column, there was an article that I will always remember. You might be thinking, maybe it’s because the article was good, or it made me cry, or it inspired me, or it made an impact on my life since then or just plain great, but that was not the case. I couldn’t forget it because it chronicled another case of the Filipino’s misconceptions and interpretations concerning Art, Art History and Artists (with all due respect to my countrymen). 

The article, which was entitled One Fine Day, was written by a certain ’artist’, who works in a Animation Studio located in Makati CIty. I figured he’s working as a In-betweener, or a ‘background artist’ (these are Animation terms). In the article, he tells of his excursion one weekend to the National Museum in Manila. I remember vaguely that he confessed that it was his first time to visit the museum.

He also confessed that it was worth the visit going to the museum. You may ask me why what was it worth it? Well, he wrote that it was worth the visit for the reason that, in his own words, he was able to see and be in front of, “one of the world’s greatest masterpieces”. The painting that he was referring to was the so called Spolarium by Juan Luna, a contemporary of the Philippines’ National Hero, Jose Rizal. The painting depicts a chamber or prison cell where prisoners are being tortured and dragged across the floor with spectators in the background.

I confess that I don’t know the exact representation of the painting because frankly, I don’t look at Filipino ’artists’ paintings or any other ’artwork’ (with all due respect again to my countrymen).  The mentioned painting is displayed in the main entrance hall of the museum (this information was only told to me by a colleague, for I confess, I’ve never visited the museum).  So, anyone entering the museum would see the painting first hand. And he also told of his being awe struck by the painting because of its huge size (by my calculations, the painting would be at least 10x20 feet in dimension). The frames used as according to my trustee colleague are like huge logs of wood made into frames. And instead of ropes to hang the painting, the museum used huge chains. 

Let’s again repeat the writer’s statement about the painting, he said, it was, according to him, “one of the world’s greatest masterpieces”. 

Quite a intelligent statement, if it were true that it’s indeed “one of the world’s greatest masterpieces”. How can I say that? You might ask. Isn’t Juan Luna one of the pillars of  Philippine ‘Art’? One of the Master ‘Artists’’ of the Philippines? He even won a prize for painting for the Spolarium, according to my colleague. So in conjunction, his paintings should be considered one of the greatest in the world? Well, I wish it were true, but unfortunately it’s not. My reason? If it’s indeed “one of the world’s greatest masterpieces”. Why isn’t it in any of the Art History books that you can easily and conveniently buy in a bookstore? 

Even the ‘artist’ who painted it is not in the Art History books. You may ask again, how am I certain that it’s not in the Art History books? Well, since the early 90’s, when I was still studying Fine Arts. I started collecting Art books. Every spare change I have, it goes into the purchase of an Art book. When I go out of the house, I would go directly to National Bookstore or Goodwill Bookstore to search for a book. I would always delight at the sight of the numerous Art books in display. There I would select a book that I would eventually purchase. I would select it for the price, which should be reasonable and not so expensive. I would also select a book for its content. The top criterion would be the Artist named after the book. 

You name it, I have it, (well almost). Books about the Renaissance and the Old Masters, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Rubens, Delacroix, Bruegel, Bosch. Impressionism, Expressionism, Surrealism, Pop Art, Modern Art, The Modern Masters. Not to mention Art Instructional books on Old Master techniques, painting, drawing, sculpture, printmaking, photography, art & crafts, anatomy, Art history and Dictionaries of Art and Artists. Now, what am I getting at? I’ve scanned and viewed each and every one of my Art books, although not actually reading every single page of each one but I’m certain the Spolarium is not in any of the books. Indeed, it’s not in the Art Books of another colleague of mine, wherein he has more books than me. I envied him on one particular book, titled The Story of Art, a huge book, maybe almost two thousand pages and quite heavy. There contains the history of Art since the dawn of man to the present age. 

He told me, he didn’t find Juan Luna’s name or his painting, the Spolarium, in his book or any single Filipino ‘artist’ who ever lived. So, what does this humble piece of information mean? That the Spolarium  is not “one of the world’s greatest masterpieces”, according to our dear excursionist in the museum. I’m sorry but I have to disagree with his statement, which was born out of ignorance of the truth. Anyone who read that article would have been misinformed to the real facts concerning Art and Art History. As the English adage again states, ’Little knowledge is dangerous.’  The sad fact is, we are living in reality here. 

To the dear excursionist in the museum,  the sad reality is that his presumption that in his heart and mind, that the Spolarium is “one of the world’s greatest masterpieces”, is nothing but ignorance to the facts about Art and Art History on his part. Another sad reality is, that anyone who read that article of his would be swallowed up with him in ignorance unless someone speaks the truth. Can we accept to ourselves to live in ignorance for the rest of our lives? Are we to just believe and agree to every word and sentence that is fed to us in everything that we read and listen to?  

Art Mission Statement

By Jonathan Shih

      Art and the art of painting, in particular, is a universal language that has no boundaries. Art is a vehicle for exploring the subconscious realms of the mind and penetrating the metaphysical dimensions of our psyche. Art can be a shelter from the deadlines and bustles of everyday life. 

      A sanctuary of harmony and beauty that transcends normal understanding and can enrich our lives. Art is a bridge that connects us to the past and is a window to the future. In the whole of mankind’s story, artists have been a part of that rich heritage. 

      Amidst the wars and tribulations that plagued mankind throughout history, the Artist has kept the faith in continuing the legacy of Art, but Art is not a refuge in a physical sense, rather a spiritual refuge, where one’s soul and mind can be invigorated and renewed. 

      The artist’s mission then is to interpret the world around him, to express his emotions from his soul. Art has become not merely a decoration, but an avenue for expression. A language of the spirit. In this sense Art, has an elevation comparable to religion. In so as religion draws us closer to the Almighty, Art draws us in union with the Divine creation, nature itself, and in conjunction, the nature of man. 

       In this post-modern era, man has forgotten his roots in the natural world and his beginnings from the Divine Creator. For the Almighty has bestowed upon the few, the gift of creative powers. Like God himself, the artist has to arrange his work in order for it to reflect the beauty of Divine Creation. 

       Art has survived the ages, and indeed, with it, the Artist. Through the darkest times, the true artist has persevered with a conviction and dignity like no other. Remaining faithful to his ideals and belief in himself and in his God-given creative gifts. A powerful force inspired from the Divine Creator Himself. 

       A true artist then, is a prophet, a visionary who has been given divine insight. Is there something else that’s as compelling and influential as Artistic creation? 

       As Charles Baudelaire once said, “ A good painting, faithful and equal to the dream that gave birth to it, must be created like the world. Just as the creation we see is the result of several creations, of which earlier ones were always made more complete by the next, so a painting if handled harmoniously, consists of a series of superimposed pictures, where each layer gives more reality to the dream and makes it rise another step toward perfection.”