Here is the list of THE World's Greatest Paintings, undeniably.So, why isn't a Filipino artist included in the list? Say Juan Luna?Mona Lisa by Leonardo da VinciMadonna Litta by Leonardo da VinciThe Sistine Madonna by Sanzio RaphaelThe Last Supper by Leonardo da VinciCreation of Adam by MichelangeloBirth of Venus by Sandro BotticelliLiberty Leading the People by DelacroixArnolfini marriage by Jan van EyckBallerina by Edgar DegasBlack Square by Kasimir MalevichThe Japanese Bridge by MonetThe Persistence of Memory by Salvadore DaliFlight of a Bee by Salvadore DaliSunflowers by Vincent van GoghVitruvian Man by Leonardo da VinciDeath Of Marat by Jacques-Louis DavidShip of Fools by Hieronymus BoschTower of Babel by Pieter Brueghel the ElderIcon of the Trinity by Andrei RublevUnion of Earth and Water by Peter Paul RubensView of Toledo bu El GrecoMoulin de la Galette by Auguste RenoirVenus of Urbino by TitianReturn of the Prodigal Son by RembrandtCrucifixion by Salvador DaliThe Kiss by Gustav KlimtHaywain Hieronymus BoschPenitent Mary Magdalen by TitianMassacre of the Innocents by BrueghelSacrifice of Isaac by CaravaggioAmerican Gothic by Grant WoodThe Starry Night by Vincent van GoghOlympia by MonetSchool of Athens by RaphaelTriumph of Galatea by RaphaelNoli Me Tangere by Fra AngelicoComposition VIII by KadinskyReclining Nude by ModiglianiColossus by GoyaThe Third of May by GoyaTahitian Women by Paul GauguinThe Nude Maja by GoyaLes Demoiselles d'Avignon by Pablo PicassoThe Promenade by Marc ChagallBacchus and Ariadne by TitianGuernica by PicassoGirl with a Pearl Earring by Jan VermeerThe Great Wave by HokusaiDon Quixote by Pablo PicassoThe Old Guitarist by PicassoThe Son of Man by Rene MagritteThe Joy of Life by Henri MatisseCarnival of Harlequins by Joan MiroMarilyn Monroe Andy WarholThe Virgin of Chancellor Rolin by van EyckBurial of St. Lucy by CaravaggioThe Scream by Edvard MunchTenth Wave by Ivan AivazovskyThe Broken Column by Frida KahloVirgin of the Lilies by William BouguereauThe Crucifixion of St. Peter by CaravaggioPortrait of Henry VIII by HolbeinDanae by RembrantAutumn Rhythm by Jackson PollockVenus at Her Mirror by Diego Velazquez
In the Philippine Daily Inquirer, there’s 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 an article, short essay or short story. Which ever is a person’s fancy. And honestly, before, I regularly read it. Especially when we had the daily at our doorstep everyday. But as time passed, my mom had it stopped, maybe for financial reasons. So, we only buy the paper every Saturday or Sunday.
In those times that I was regularly reading the column, there was an article that I will always remember. Your 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 somewhere in Metro Manila. I figured he’s working as a Inbetweener, or a ‘background artist’ (these are Animation terms). In the article, he tells of his excursion one weekend to a museum in Manila (I believe it was the so called National Museum of the Philippines). I remember vaguely that he confessed that it was his first time to visit the museum. And 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 never visited the museum). So that, anyone entering the museum would see the painting firsthand. And he also told of his being awe struck by the painting because of it’s 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 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. And 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 it’s 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. And 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. And 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 greatest paintings in the world’, 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. And 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 greatest paintings in the world’, is nothing but ignorance to the facts about Art and Art History on his part. And 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?
I wrote this article in my journal dated 20 March 1999, with the intention again of submitting it to the Philippine Daily Inquirer for possible publication. But apparently, again, it didn’t got off the writing table. And again I’m writing it here in my blog. And again, as always, better late than never.
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 my attentive eye.
Mr. Santos says to prove that the Luna drawings are authentic because presumably, he believes the drawings are fake. And was drawn by a forger. And then he 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 paintings (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. And 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! And 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.”
And the great Neoclassical Artist 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?
And 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 catalogue and list them all. Now, isn’t 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 produced 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 comprises 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 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 Art books 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 persons of shallow perceptions on Art and Art history are saying remarks that undermine the very essence of what it is to a true artist. 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 a true artist is called upon this earth to do. Because he is a true artist.
