PageRank Tool The current mood of upoytao at upoytao Add to Technorati Favorites Blog Directory & Search engine Best blogs on the Web: all about WWW Blog Flux Pinger - reliable ping service. Use JavaScript to scramble your email from spiders and spammers. Button Creator for free - make 80x15 and 88x31 in seconds Blog Directory

lunar phases
Locations of visitors to this page Free Web Site Counters
Free Web Site Counters
View My Stats
  • Subscribe

  • Defiled, defiled, defiled...

    So what is my take on the angono collectives' case versus NPC?

    A good lot of their statements have been talked about at length at ANC but mostly on the side of NPC.

    the problem here is I just can't seem to stick the right pieces together and determine what really happened. But for the record I would like to quote the statement made by an angono collective member.

    “We worked on this for two months. And we gave them three weeks to look at the production process before the unveiling, as spelled out in the contract. They failed. They can’t just ask us to go there on short notice,” Gappi said.

    If this is true then certainly it took a lot of time for NPC to study carefully the artwork and if they don't agree to the standards then perhaps they could've done something about it and not just deface anything or change the artists interpretation.

    "Likened to a commissioned speech"

    A statement made by the NPC representatives are as such that they compare the art to a speech commisioned for a certain speaker and all the rights for the writers has to be waved.

    For one I don't see the comparison between a speech and a picture. You see words are symbols but a picture is a replica/interpretation of a period, action, situation, feeling.

    An art is different from the written word for a written word may create images in the mind while an artwork would look for words to describe what the person sees.

    they are entirely two different worlds and cannot be compared to each other. But being a commissioned work is a big enough reason to do something to the painting in case it did defied certain terms in their contract, nonetheless to make it as a reason to completely defile an artwork is what I would subjectively define as an abomination for the artists rights.

    There is a catch here though, I have never seen the contract between the two groups but by virtue of elimination that if indeed the artists gave license for NPC to change its work then perhaps they will never cry censorship or the like.

    Like for example what is too leftist for a tattoo sporting the old alibata letter K used by the katipunan on the arm of a character in the painting merit changing it to a heart with a cupids' arrow?

    or whats' too leftist with having a lot of people congregate in a certain place that according to NPC interprets having a rally of some sorts, I mean who gave them the license to interpret it and defile it if not just to give it back to the makers of the mural? Tell me? Does it make sense at all? Even ferrari for goodness sake gets' their cars back if something is changed in it.

    In my opinion if you don't like what you ordered then give it back as it is, and don't you ever change it or do something bad at it.

    Or else be like the moron of a club they really are.
    just imagine how many journalist are being killed every year. tsk tsk