jowjitsu

[jowjitsu]

Uso pa ba ang Harana?

When we talk about “Aura” specifically how Walter Benjamin coined, we mostly appropriate it to artworks such as paintings, architecture, and any other kind of traditional artwork; wherein, one feels the aura if an artwork through experiencing the artwork itself first handedly, whereas it slowly fades away as this specific artwork is being massively and mechanically reproduced in order for the masses to experience it. To give example, the Spolarium, we experience a certain kind of aura seeing the Spolarium itself in the Museum, compared to seeing it as a png file from google. 

Now when it comes to dating/courtship, we certainly progressed(?) in a certain way where it is easier and accessible to do such without the hassle of meeting the person face-to-face, especially during the time of pandemic. However, what comes into my mind is that this occurrence is in fact an effect of mechanically reproducing the act of courting, not saying that we massively reproduce a certain kind of courtship that we then all copy, but in a way that the art of courting someone loses its original aura as it becomes more digitally performed.

For example:

The picture portrays a traditional way of courting done by the older generations of Filipinos, known as “Harana”, in this specific instance, the courter -- mostly males in this generation -- is performing a love song that the courter dedicates to the courtee, and with the help of their companions, they then set an ambiance of a romantic aura that is mostly felt by both the courtee and courter as a way for them to create some kind of connection that could probably start some kind of relationship that the courter is seeking to have. What happens next mostly depend on what they build and what they will soon agree upon. 

It is a lovely kind of experience that most old couples brag upon their descendants as something that they will never feel, especially in this generation of easy access to dating, and the online dating phenomenon. 

Compare it to how serenading work in our generation:

While it is lovely and “nakakakilig” to experience being serenated upon by a person who puts an effort on picking a song that reminds them of us and  making their notes more pleasing to the ear as a way for them to show how they feel towards us, while it is notably heartwarming to be part of this courtship, it is undoubtedly underwhelming in comparison to harana, or when it is done personally. 

In online harana, we may hear the emotions to the voices, and feel the thought behind all of it, it is still easy to say that there is little - to - no preparations behind it (specially if you are talented at singing), whereas compared to traditional Harana, the courter is always faced with doubt and fear through the act of facing the courtee and trying to perform what he prepared for days under the pressure of being judged upon personally. 

In online dating, if you fail, you can always run away from embarrassment, wherein in harana, if you embarass yourself, it sticks with you forever. With that being said, there are a lot to consider when a person tries to court their crushes personally, which then makes the stakes a bit more riskier to take, wherein therefore, makes it more genuine and felt compared to its modern day/online version of it. 

The Aura of the art of Harana is felt deeply and strikes deeper when done in a traditional way. Online dating is less riskier but less genuine.

[jowjitsu]

The Bruce Lee phenomenon

From the previous blogs that I wrote here, I’ve talked about the dangers of things being romanticized, specifically the act of Love; the example that I gave is how infamous movies such as The Notebook is blurring the difference between toxic obsession and what a healthy relationship is. Plato specifically talked about this topic in a way that he strictly demonize art in an extreme way, wherein he expresses the dangers of art imitating reality in a more romantic way, where truth is farther from what it really was.

In this topic, I would like to discuss to what I call “The Bruce Lee phenomenon”; Bruce Lee could easily be seen as the most famous martial artist/actor that popularized the Kung fu flick in the 80′s and have influenced how action and fighting choreography should be done in such a way that it expresses violence in a more pleasing and artistic method. Such happenings resulted on the upsurge of consumption to Martial Arts, he literally made Martial Arts as a trend that people started believing that if one trains like Bruce, one can become Bruce.

People started training Martial Arts, these people wants to achieve the bad assery aura that Bruce poses. With the MA industry’s boom in the 80′s, some businessmen tried to capitalize this trend that they started creating their own businesses about it. Some were legit, while some were like this:

A bogus kind of Martial arts, that feeds upon total beginners in believing they can achieve superhuman like abilities if such a person consume the kind of “special training” that these business(con)men are trying to offer. With how violence are being more romanticized by the movies, our very natural understanding of what violence -- specifically fighting -- is is starting to get blurry, and the consequences of doing it are being forgotten by the people. The danger of having a delusion that you can fight is not only limited to its intrinsic consequences that it brings, if one is having a false sense of security that they can in fact fight while ignoring the variety of human biological nature that everyone has (where some are naturally stronger than the other); the consequences of thinking that I can beat this 6′10 guy who weighs around 250 lbs even if I am merely a lanky and a small Asian dude and just by touching a “pressure point” I can therefore knock him out, is in fact a dangerous mentality that everyone can have; it is a false sense of security that results on arrogance, that can perhaps result on major injuries -- even death.

Luckily such phenomenon and mystical attribution to fighting were slowly faded away by the rise of combat sports (Mixed Martial Arts, Boxing, Kickboxing); and its mass reproduction, people became more aware of how violent a fight can be, and how dangerous it is to the both participants.

I mean, look at that elbow.

While it certainly brought to light how grotesques a fight can be, combat sports is still in fact an imitation to reality. Even with it simulates as close to reality as it can be legally, it is still a simulation of what is true. A real fight isn’t fought with preparations beforehand, it is not overviewed by a referee and a ringside doctor, there are no coaches that helps you, no gloves to protect the hand and the faces, no restrictions on what you can do, and no telling when to stop and when the violence is really done.

Look how different MMA from what real violence is:

There is no telling how much one can suffer from the consequences that one put themselves in the danger of harming the other and being harmed at the same time.

There is a reason why we never condone violence, and there is a reason why we shame it. No, the movies are wrong, while having the ability to defend yourself makes you more assured and secured as a person, it still is not enough to protect you fully from what may come in a violent altercation. People are not as weak as how Bruce Lee movies portray, nor they are as durable as how these entertainment shows show.

While we may enjoy art as much as we can, and portray some kind of truth behind it, we must always take note as to why Plato stands against it; although art is not as bad as how Plato portrays it to be, we should always get reminded that art is not reality, and in reality there are no filters that the artists themselves put in their respective artworks.

[jowjitsu]

Life after “death”

Man is shot dead after wounding wife of the Philippine president

This is a digital copy from The New York times that I got from: “https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/08/archives/man-is-shot-dead-after-wounding-wife-of-the-philippine-president.html”

To summarize the article, what happened was there was a failed assassination attempt to the wife of the former President Ferdinand Marcos, mainly related to the controversial actions done by the late president, it may be an act of revenge or perhaps done out of different political interest, I lack knowledge regarding the full issue of the situation. However, I chose this article, to mainly discuss the “what if’s” of this situation.

The issue of Life after death, is a topic that is mainly handled by religion and belief, it’s such a mind boggling situation that we may or may not actually experience mainly due to its 50/50 probability of existence (or the after existence). However, the topic at hand, is neither confined in the cage of belief, nor does it only signifies the mystery of our own existence outside this physical realm that we are living in. 

There is life after death and there is birth after an end, not an existence afterwards, but an idea, a driving force, a spirit.

The death of a person, gives birth to an idea, a symbol that which spurts emotion out of those that are influenced by that individual. An existence that is decided upon by those who echoes their life to other people and to themselves. It may be to teach them how to live better, how to be grateful to those that are currently living with them, or philosophically it can also be an idea on how to love life. 

But the life after death, that is echoed by the person’s followers, and the spirit of the situation itself, results on a birth of an ideology. A certain lens that propagates movement to the people, a driving force that is maximized by propaganda and the madness that drives people to sought for something they thought they ought to have.

A martyrdom is more likely to occur, than a life in heavens with the gods that resides in it.

Historically, this has happened a lot of times. The death of Marat is an example, Joan D’Arc, Ninoy Aquino, and many others.

What interest me is the what if in this story.

The Marcoses, and their power, even after the death of the dictator, is still felt in this day. Their propaganda is powerful that it results on revision of history and the upsurge of die hard followers. The ousting of Ferdinand Marcos himself, is somewhat seen as an act of martyrdom, for the followers, symbolizes betrayal of the country’s “goodness” for the sake of other’s greed especially those who are hungry for power and the oligarchs who want to take opportunity with the current situation of the country. In a way some idiots even compared it to Luna’s death through Aguinaldo’s command; an event where we lost what could possibly the country’s greatest leader.

This is in fact false, but knowing that this is happening up until today, just shows their power and ability to revise history and what is true for their own means.

What concerns me, is what if Imelda was actually killed in that situation, while many people -- like us -- will likely celebrate such event, mainly because we are aware of the inhumane acts that she committed, recognizing their power to fool people, it is scary that this act of rebellion and revenge to the evil that is done by the Marcoses may even turn the favors for them. The death of Imelda may give birth to the ideology that Ferdinand Marcos want to create, a nightmare that could have been; a dystopian past and present, and our chains from such dictatorship may even be unescapable if such event occurred.

Ironically, we are taught that our life after death is decided upon the judgement of a being, a god, that serves as the jurist to the goodness of our actions. This is far from truth, what births after an end, is an idea; it is not the person himself that primarily decide it, but those who interpret it, and those who bastardize the image of that person by their own means.

[jowjitsu]

Digital reproduction

Image by Haneen Z (https://www.artstation.com/haneenz)

By its very nature, artwork has always been reproducible, an artist that is skilled enough can reproduce and copy a certain artwork in its most perfect and identical form, or maybe perhaps the artist himself could do it too. Mechanical reproduction is what concerned Walter Benjamin himself. This, made it possible for mass production to occur, wherein artworks themselves are being reproduced again and again to the public sphere; this therein causes for artwork to be reproduced easily to which Benjamin concerns himself in this particular issue by saying that in the process of reproduction, the artwork is slowly losing their “aura” to which artworks’ authenticity and uniqueness slowly diminish as its production also increases. A reproduction of an artwork certainly lacks the authenticity, for a mere reproduction is unable to replicate the conditions of which the artist themselves used in making the artwork itself.

What I like to put focus on this specific blog is how reproduction in this internet and digital era has tripled (I made this statistics up, but you get the message) in reproduction. Look at what I’ve used as the display picture of this message, it only took almost 15 seconds only for me to copy this artwork and use it by my own means. The problem with digital artwork and its normalcy of its availability to be reproduced is the feeling of its authenticity is mainly disregarded or unfelt by most people; while it does not take a trained mind to appreciate the original artwork, with digital artwork, as something that is intangible, most people then lacked appreciation of the original one, and sees it similarly as those copied versions of it.

While many solutions have arise to solve such problem, such as the emergence of NFT’s, where artwork are sold through the cryptocurrency ETH, in a way that it sees the artwork as an asset to which other people could trade with another asset or with cryptocurrencies, to which it imbed itself with an address the same way it does to Bitcoins and ETHERIUM and other cryptocurrencies (Address of the coins and the wallet are needed in trading crypto assets). In this way it legitimizes ownership of it either by the person who brought it, or the original artist themselves. However, embedding an artwork with an address, and seeing it as an asset, does it really solve the issue at hand? While physical artworks’ aura could be felt when personally seen, with digital artwork on the other hand, even if its ownership is legitimized by NFT or crypto, does its aura engages the art to the owner himself, or does this only entails luxury and ability to purchase artwork at such high prices?

[jowjitsu]

The Notebook (2004)

I usually start my blogs with quotes or statements to somewhat give an idea of what I am trying to portray with this post that I am sharing, but thinking about it, it kind of makes me a bit pretentious on some sense that it may or may not just give a poor imitation of the whole form or image that I am trying to share with the post’s message. It can perhaps leave just a limiting representation of what I am trying to say. So I avoid doing that for this time.

Now, to begin... I particularly chose this movie “The Notebook” since it is one of the most influential romantic movies from the past decade, that even up to this point, I honestly believe that people still refer to this as somewhat their pure representation of what a perfect romance is, and some still feel these butterflies just from hearing some lines from the movie. From this thought alone, one can see how amazing of an artwork it is, how it was able to make people feel strong emotions that it left a lingering attachments to the fictional events that the characters has experienced, and also the ideas that the movie has ingrained to them. With this however, I really find it problematic and somewhat also dangerous. The movie was great, don’t get me wrong; the story was well written, Ryan Gosling was amazing, the lines were delivered well, and as I have said, it really makes the viewers feel something.

Now, my problem is not with the movie itself, but what the movie is trying to portray. I know for a fact that movies need to be somewhat “more” from our very mundane experience of reality, it’s a very basic knowledge, it is done so that people will love it, and people will want to consume such artwork. However, with its nature of trying to imitate or portray a reality that is almost identical to us, it gives us this imprecise ideas of the things that are also then very complicated enough for us to even grasp and fully understand through our own reality alone. Romance or Love for example, while we just portray this very form of love in our lives, and represent an imperfect idea of what it is, and to further blur its notion by romanticizing it further, we then became much more remote from what love really is.

Plato described Love in itself is not beautiful, and since it lacks beauty itself, love then is then the act of acquisition or pursuit for true beauty. When a person is in love, that person perceives the another as someone that possesses a greater or more clearer form of beauty, this person’s earthly representation of beauty, reminds the lover the true form of universal beauty. 

Now, in the film, we see that Noah, perceives a form of beauty from Allie, wherein, through this notion of love, seeks to acquire it by any means necessary. Sounds romantic, isn’t it? Noah, with this “chase” mentality, was further expressed through his means and actions of trying to enforce a relationship between him and Allie, he even threatened to kill himself and did other very questionable things that seems to be romantic in a sense related to the setting of the movie itself. All for the name of love as other people say.

The problem here is that the movie presented a very distorted understanding of what love is, and what truly is beauty. From what has been aforementioned, it might seem that Noah is within the act of love, in acquiring the beauty that Allie has; but, what Noah sees from Allie is neither true beauty, and nor his act of acquisition can be called love but obsession. Noah only perceives the earthly imitation of beauty from Allie, he fails to see her beauty in a form of what Allie truly is, but only sees it from what he believes to be the true image of Allie. They barely knew each other and have set expectations that further harm both of them, it also shows why neither of them constantly agreed with each other. Blinded by this, he practically forces Allie to be with him in a form of obsession, rather than true form of mutual love, he never took a “no” for an answer. Even 15 years after, he constantly obsessed with an image of Allie and does not seem to get over it (sounds like a creep to me to be honest).

From his constant letters and toxic enforcement of interactions between the two, Noah’s expression of love is very earthly and brutish that he fails to consider what Allie wants outside from his toxic obsession towards her.

Despite how the story tells what their relationships are, it is still portrayed to be romantic and pure, that regardless of how problematic it was, all was just done in the name of love that both have for each other, even if it shows how one was manipulated or forced to have one for the other.

It is very different from our boring romances that we experience from our daily lives, so in return, due to how this artwork imitates or gave a portrayal what a fulfilling love is, people tend to have this image that the idea of love should then be a form of obsession that one possesses to then acquire the other’s love towards them. It then brings dangerous notion of relationships that further harm themselves and the people around them.

The movie replaces our own attempt to know what love and beauty is, with their very own imitated and far more imperfect one. It replaces the mundane idea but very fulfilling idea of what love is, with a toxic roller coaster ride of obsession that is thoughted to be love’s true form.

[jowjitsu]

In a society where the end of all things is to amass wealth, and value is decided on how much it sells, the oppressor stays as the oppressor and the oppressed remains the oppressed as they follow the rest.

Why is everything white?

Why does the color “white” sell? Why does this color seems to have more value than the other ones? Why is white music considered to be noble and more sophisticated, while black music is seen to be something that comes from the slums? (Or “Squammy” as how Filipino Gen Z defines it). Why is Jesus white?

Oppression played a big role of how value is seen and decided. The struggles of colors against white, and the oppression brought by it has been commodified. It is done in a sense where one color dominates the other, and those who are born with certain color are forced to either rebel or attempt to change who they are.

The color white was always seen to be the purest, the cleanest, and the color of goodness itself. Some may even dare to say that it is the color of God.

If you’re not white, you’re lesser.

It is a commodity decided upon the oppressors to have its value to its highest. Through the way of religion, historical revisionism, and capitalism itself, whiteness fetishism occurred. Historical account (or in this case revisionism) such as stories that fetishizes white men as heroes essentially paved the way for whiteness to be more valued than the other. Stories that tell that “The white men saved the Indians from their savagery”, “The white men created jobs for the black people”, “The white men save The Philippines from the Spaniards”, and how white people eventually introduced countries to a whole new technological and cultural revolution dismisses the cruelty that they have done and the intent on why they did such thing -- to colonize and cultural hegemony.

As for The Philippines’ context, if you’re more white, you’re valued more. If you act like a white, looked white, and dressed like a white -- you’re the epitome of beauty. In PH, whitening soap are the essentials, they sell more and are always in demand. Celebrities are the most whitest compared to the average person, while tan people are discriminated and bullied. If you speak conyo or have a white accent, you’re seen to be more intelligent and articulate than most people. White men are seen to be more “guapo” than your average chinito guy from next door. White men are seen to be sexier and more adept in sex, than your casual “Kuya” from work. If it’s not white-like, it will never sell.

It’s the color that makes money, and companies take advantage of it. Having the desire to gain more wealth, they will feed this fetishization and the story of this color will continue.

The more people who wants to be white, the more the companies that take advantage of this issue sells, which means that they will market it more, and the more fetishization of it occurrs the more people will want it.

No matter how much preaches the twitter wokes do, when they themselves participate in this sick story, (notice how most political people in the twittersphere are those who use filters that makes them more white, acts more white, and affirms the Filipino language through white philosophy (Filipinx for example )) nothing will change. It will never cease if the system itself is very self sufficient. It cages the people to remain unfree unless people starts to rebel and revolt against this narrative that the elites force us to participate in to.

A bird who likes to be caged, even if they have the power to open the cage, will still remain inside the cage.

“Rebellion cannot exist without a strange form of love.” - Albert Camus, The Rebel

Muhammad Ali was different, he decided to be different. (I guess he’s just built diff.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  ) Muhammad Ali was a symbol, a person that rose above the value that society decided for him, he created his own. For he knows his own color and he LOVED it.

Living in a white man’s world, Muhammad Ali, even as a young kid, expressed his curiosity and discontent to a world that clearly favors a group of people that -- for no reason at all -- share huge amount of hatred towards them. He constantly sought for his very own footing in this world, especially as a black man. Facing a extreme racism, even in his own town, he and his community was always seen as the “lesser man” than their white counterparts, they were banned and forbidden to attend some events, restricted to go to other places, and stripped of their rights as human beings, mainly because they were black; even Muhammad Ali, as someone who represented their country and won the Olympics, he was not allowed to eat at a certain restaurants for the stupid reason that “they do not serve blacks”.

Muhammad Ali is most notably known due to his boxing achievements, they praise his skill and dancer-like gracefulness inside a ring where viciousness dominate, many saw his existence as a gift to the sport that revolutionized how it is played. However, not all saw how it really meant for Ali, boxing for him served as his way to rebel, his own revolution against the oppression that him and his community has and had been continuously experiencing even up until now. He used boxing to show what a black man can do, he used boxing to put him in a place where his voice can be heard, he used boxing to permanently delete his slave name “Cassius Clay”, and he used boxing to prove his worth as a human being.

In a white man’s world, where value is decided by a white man, a black man stood up and and through the most vicious and poetic way, he fought this madness.

Muhammad Ali dealt with this unfree world by being absolutely free that his own very existence is an act of rebellion. (An edited Albert Camus quote)

[jowjitsu]

The struggle of the ordinary

Les Miserables (2012)

Do you hear the people sing? Singing a song of angry men? It is the music of a people Who will not be slaves again!

Les Miserables, did not use the revolution as its main plot, although the setting occurred around it, the film engrossed itself on a story of a man struggling to create his own narrative despite the titles that was forced upon him by the people and the authority. Although in this discussion, I would mainly focus on the revolution itself and the struggles of the people to overthrow the authoritarian monarchy that centralized the power for themselves -- the nobles, the main plot of this film also portrays a very interesting message that incorporate itself to the very essence of what I am trying to say.

It is a clear interpretation, dissecting from the movie’s setting, that the film took place in France and within the middle of the historical French revolution itself. This said revolution is one of the events in history where it truly caused a paradigm shift in the essence of good governance and the equalization of the standing between the masses and with those in power. In this particular event, the French people showed discontent to the centuries-old political setting of the absolute-monarchy. The masses, through the act of bloody revolution, caused an upheaval to uproot these old centralization of power and redesigned their landscape in an act to birth democracy in their country.

Les Miserables, even if the revolution was not its main essence of a plot, really did a great job of representing it, from the scenes of camaraderie and brotherhood between people fighting for the same cause, the tragedies of loss, and the sweet victory brought upon these sacrifices. The movie presents a more of a “from the ground” point of view of these characters struggling against the status quo.

One of the most memorable part of the film is the scene where the revolution is just starting to take place, when the nobles are parading themselves in the city -- to which it indicates that they will be the main focus of that setting -- the masses then started to chant and sing to what they call “the song of angry men”, that is revealed to be titled as “Do you hear the people sing?”. In this act of rebellion, the focus is then shift from the nobility to the masses themselves, to the “lower” men, to the ordinary people. This was not magically given, and similar to history, it was taken through force, but instead of pure brutish act, it was rather mixed with gracefulness brought upon the iconic lyrics of the said song.

This song, even though it was mainly introduced through this movie within the context of a representation of the French revolution, it was very impactful that several countries adapted it. It was used as the anthem of the people that are currently in a struggle against bad governance with an intent of monopolizing power and controlling the masses; most notably, it was sang by the Hong Kong protestors amidst battling a losing battle against China’s colonial attempt to their country. I remember seeing students chanting this song in the middle of being forced to sing the Chinese national anthem. It was a very powerful moment that even with threats to their own lives, these people’s purpose never dwindled down, and this is expressed elegantly through their commitment on their reason in a way of using this particular song as a declaration of their vows for achieving democracy.

Additionally, with the current happenings in The Philippines, the Filipinos started to adapt the song, and Filipino translations of “Do you hear the people sing?” started to rise, that several years later it was then adapted by notorious people -- even celebrities -- wherein they made videos of themselves singing this song as a protest to the current administration of Duterte -- wherein they coined it as an act of reviving dictatorship in the country.

Las Meninas as interpreted by Michel Foucault tells the same story.

Velazquez painting of Las Meninas is a clear indicator of how brilliant he is. Its mystery brought thinkers from several centuries into debating and refuting each other in the act of deciphering what the painting truly sends. However, Michel Foucault’s interpretation was rather unconventional, from his lenses, the painting represents an usurpation of the nobility’s power as the main subject of a portrait. To give context, portraits of nobilities of this specific era are mainly focused on the nobles only, they are the subject themselves and the artwork will always be centralized to them. 

By giving a bit of a philosophical interpretation of the figures within the artwork on how these characters acted and how the setting was represented, he concluded that even if this a painting that mainly should have represented the King and the Queen at that time, there is a problematic lack of focal point within this artwork. He argued that the nobles themselves are not present inside of it, and they were seen as a mere reflection of a mirror not an actual “piece” let alone be the central piece of the painting. This then tells us that there will be a lack of a main “subject” within the artwork. Foucault then interpreted this act as a chance that gave the viewer to notice to the unnoticeable part of the painting. To which he means, that there is a decentralization of focus from the supposed subjects of the painting -- which are the nobles -- and shifted it to the other figures which tells and reveals the unsaid stories of this artwork. It is an act of revolt that gave ordinary men, or figures in this context, the power to tell its own narrative without being overwhelmed by centralization.

Whether by force, or through a song, or through a message of an artwork, the Man, whether considered to be ordinary by some, will always fight for his right to tell a story, and it is also our right to listen to them, as they listen to us. Even if one man, a noble, tries to silence the story of the masses it will never be as powerful as the voice of the people, for it is the voice of God himself.

[jowjitsu]

“Menstrual Period in Political History” (2005) by Danny Sillada Pagyanig ng sining sa ating buong pagkatao

“Menstrual Period”, parang nakakabastos bilang lalaki na gagamitin ko itong karanasan na mga babae lamang ang nakakaramdam; kaya, isang diskresyon, ang ideyang ihahambing ko dito ay naka ayon lang sa mga pahayag na lumabas sa bibig ng artista, pati na rin sa aking limitadong kaalaman na halos lahat ay nakuha ko lang din galing sa mga pahayag ng mga babae mismo; isasama ko na lang din kung paano ito tignan ng ating kultura na ayon sa panahong ito ay ginawa.

Maituturing na isa ito sa pinakakontrobersyal na sining ni Danny Sillada, at tulad ng inaasahan, napakadaming pumuna at naging kritiko ng kanyang mga gawain; sa karagdagan, inihantulad pa ni Constantino Tejero na isa itong “embarassment” at hindi niya kaya itong pagbigyan ng seryosong pananaw bilang kapwang artista. Higit pa rito, dumating sa punto noong taong 2006, sa research paper nina Marlowe Uy at Katrina Kalaw ng University of Asia and Pacific, sinasabing naging resulta ito ng “sexual repression”, na naranasan ni Sillada noong siya isang seminarista pa lamang, higit naman niyang itinanggi ang kasabihang ito. Ipinaliwanag ni Sillada na isa lamang itong “rechanneling of primal desire into a higher metaphysical form of desire”. Sa sining ni Sillada, makikita na ang vagina ay nakaukit sa isang metamorphic rock, habang ang kulay naman ay naihahalintulad sa Philippine flag. Isa sa mga kapansin pansing aspeto ng pinta ay ang regla, na kung saan nagbunga ng napakadaming kontrobersya, at dito na na rin mismo ibinubunga ni Sillada ang mensaheng gusto niyang ipakita. Pinapahayag ni Sillada -- sa pamamaraang satirical -- ang paulit ulit na klima ng krisis at korapsyon sa pulitiko ng bansa; parang isang menstrual period, paikot ikot o “cyclical” na lang kumbaga ang mga pangyayari. Naihahambing ang klima sa isang regla na, sa kadahilanang puros sakit at dumi lamang ang nareresulta ng mga pangyayari, nawawalan ng pagkakataong makabunga ng panibagong kapanahunan ng pulitiko sa bansa. Pinagbibigyang diin dito ni Sillada ang hindi matapos tapos na pakikipag agawan sa kapangyarihan ng iba’t ibang katauhan o grupo na nagiging rason at bumubunga sa krisis na hanggang ngayon, kung kailan ilang taon na ang nakalipas, ay kasalukuyan parin nating nararanasan.

Ang sining, ay hindi lang nababase sa entertainment value na naibibigay nito sa atin. Habang nakakamangha at nakakawili sa mata ang mga ito, isa sa mga pangunahing layunin ng sining ay ang yanigin at gisingin tayo sa ating mga komportableng kalagayan. Ninanais nito, pati na rin ng artista, na maipakita sa atin ang parte ng mundong tayo’y nabubulag, maipadamdam sa atin bilang tao ang karanasang ating nakikita ngunit napipiringan dahil ng ating pribelehiyong makaranas ng kaginhawaan. Ang pinta ni Sillada ay nakakainis at nakakadiri, grotesque kung tutukuyin. Nakakailang tignan, at nakakabastos ang kanyang paghambing hindi lamang sa bansa, pati na rin sa mismong kababaihan; ngunit, higit sa lahat ng ito, tagumpay ito sa pagyanig sa kalusukuyang karamdaman ng tao. Katulad sa Fresco ni Lorenzetti na kung saan sukdulan ang kanyang paghambing sa epekto ng good governance at bad governance, na nakakatakot at nakakagambala sa mga tao ang maaring mangyari kapag ang mga birtud ay ipinagwalang bahala at nagresulta sa bad governance, habang nakakapagbigay ginhawa naman doon sa kasalungatan nito; nagagawa din ng sining ni Sillada -- katulad nito -- na magbigay dating at epekto sa pananaw at pagkatao ng mga tagamasid. Ang persepsyon natin ay minsan nalilimitahan kung ano lamang ang ating kayang maranasan. Sa mga karanasang ito, dito tayo kumukuha ng pagkakaintindi natin sa mundo pati sa mga pangyayari dito, binubuo rito ang ating pangsariling reyalidad. Trabaho ng sining palawakin ito, layunin ng sining ipakita sa atin ang mga bagay na minsan lumalagpas na sa kakayahan ng ating paningin at pag intindi, at kakayahan ng sining yanigin at abalahin ang reyalidad na komportable tayong ranasin araw araw.