The 90,000 Kaning Tutong wins Art Fair Philippines 2020

The “Kaning tutong” art is a literal kaning tutong which is pulled out from a pot then priced
expensively which is Php 90,000. Once art is placed in art institution it normally increases
its value because it is being exhibit through audiences that might be interested and wanted
to buy it for satisfaction thus increasing their desire to own it – without minding its price.
Arts’ value depends on its impact to one’s culture, epistemology, societal impact, personal
being and religion. The problem here is art institution tends to complicate value
assignment because not only about the intrinsic value of art is being paid off but also its
price has an inclusion of capitalism; artworks do have a need of maintenance to preserve
its form. Another thing is an artwork cannot have more than one original copy so it means a
specific artwork can be owned by one person only, so if more than one person wants the
artwork the value of the artwork will increase; and the highest bidder will be the one to
have it. Personally, a simple kaning tutong is not worth to spend thousands because many
people could obtain “tutong” from their homes so what is the point of buying such
expensive artwork – if I could just scrape my pot and put some meaning into it by
modifying little details. Art institutions complicate such appropriation due to the issue of
copyright; but still embraces this idea. These institutions are deemed to be a national
collection of artworks that could specifically impact society and culture so it means that
they could collate artworks that somewhat affect the society just like the burnt rice artwork
which reflects people adaptation to the ever-changing world. Given the context of artwork,
I think that it could really be a hit for people who really are into artworks that reflects the
nature of a person. Even though the artwork is from a pre-existing object which is readily
available from peoples’ home still it could have an impact once you add details that
magnifies and triggers other views from a different perspective. It is excellent how the
artist relates of how the burnt rice and the small people in it the concept of civilization and
adaptation. The artwork does not just give the reflection but also it also makes the audience
to believe that not all artworks must be from a non-existing object but a pre-existing idea
from a human mind. The artwork circulates through installation of it in an Art Fair which
could give it a high intensity of admiration since it was on a fair, its audience tend to listen
into it by knowing its meaning behind it. Its value is somewhat defined since it is installed
in an art fair because it is a platform wherein artist can sell their art piece.

Angelo Suarez & Costantino Zicarelli‟s Criticism Is Hard Work (2007)

In terms of institutional context, the artwork was able to fulfill its objective because it was
able to reflect how does criticism, the commentary, impacts the making of an artwork, the
wrestling match itself. The objective of the work was to use a specific scene to somewhat
juxtapose the difference of that scene if it were influenced by criticism which is in the form
of commentating and how would it be if there is no such. On the other hand, in terms of the
subjects used in the performance, I think it was not able to fulfill its goal. The fact that the
artists used children below 12 years old is a drawback for me because it is a point wherein
these subjects undergo transition from being a child into pre-teenage life, so it means they
are somewhat rebellious in their own manner. Due to this reason, I think they are not fit to
be subjects if especially the aim of the work is to define how criticism will affect ones’ work
because what adults’ comments on children it will naturally affects its actions; sometimes
making worse situations happen. The usage of children as subjects complicates the nature
of work because to some extent it is a conflict with the rationale of the art. The artist wants
to show criticism (commentating) affect the art (wrestling) but looking into it what happen
is just it is like an unstoppable fight between those children because a good commentating
does not just criticize the fight, but it explains what is happening, so I think the form of
commentating is not actually a pure critique. Another thing is street children spend their
time literally at the streets, so it is natural for them to fight with or without critiques from
other person, so I think the fact that they agree to be a part of this is due to the incentive
offer to them i.e., free food of their choice. The artists complicate the nature of work due to
leaving behind the ethicality for works, although they were able to attain the objective in a
technical context but still the ethical issue of the art is not given attention to it. The
institution also complicates the nature of work because they romanticize abuse for the sake
of “artwork”. For me, If I would evaluate this artwork, I would say that it captures my
interest because it is unusual that wrestling could be a form of an art just by adding
meaning behind it. But what been bothering me is the subject why do the artists use a
minor less than 12 years old wherein they tend to still think of this as a small child fight
without them knowing they are being tested and observed. I would appreciate it best if the
wrestling is performed by an adult to make it more effective on how would comments
affect their action since artworks that are greatly criticized are from adults’ ideas.

Bonifacio Flag sold for Php9.3M

Nation building is obtained through our national identity; one of our national identity is our
own arts. Art institutions make such artwork known to the public which help every citizen
to be informed what those arts mean to our nation and its past. Once these artworks are
known to the public, Filipinos could appreciate history and it could induce more
conversations about it. Once it is on trend, deep secrets of the past might be now known to
fully understand our identity. Auctioning of Bonifacio flag makes is triggers different
approach about the Philippine history example is the idea that Bonifacio could be the first
president of the country. It could also counter-text the fact that Jose Rizal is our national
hero because the appearance of memorabilia from the revolution is a great evidence why
Bonifacio could be deemed as the national hero – an idea that still undergo numerous
debates. The auctioning not only counter-texts the nation’s myth but also it also serves as
evidence that it is better if these artworks where own by private art institutions than
government institutions. Such memorabilia are different from art objects that are made by
national artists because these mementos are direct evidence of the past and the nations
documents while the arts made by these artists are the reflection of their nationalism.

These artworks made me known to different issues in the field of arts such as its value,
critique, and nationalism. I can say from what I have read the monetary value of a specific
art could not match the true value of an art because one will never know its true value
unless you are into it and you really want to know more about it. An art is would be at its
best when it had the greatest number of criticisms because I think these critiques not just
fueled up the artwork, but I think it also makes it more popular since people look in
different point of view. Once it is looked into different perspective an art would mean so
much. Our national identity is reflected in our artwork, but the sustainment of the identity
is supported by the evidence of the past which means that if we own such document it
could meant that our identity really exists.