Talk:Arts in the Philippines/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Expansion

I hope somebody with sufficient knowledge on this topic would care to expound this stub. The development of Filipino art from indigenous to contemporary is one topic that could focused on.

Can somebody please link to Philippine Painting, if there is one? I'd love to help write one if it doesn't exist. (Hpetwe 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

MGA 2nd year NG WESLEYAN WAG NA KAUNG UMASA SA WIKIPEDIA... WALANG PHILIPPINE ARTS DITO... -JERIEL MANUEL -JONAS C. MANUEL -CRISS deem

Should this irrelevant and frankly shortsighted comment be deleted? I think I will soon. But they do make a good point. It's a shame that such an important article would be so stubby and essay-y. -- Alternativity (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Art of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Art of the Philippines

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Art of the Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Woods2006":

  • From Bulul: Damon L. Woods (2006). The Philippines: a global studies handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 201. ISBN 1-85109-675-2.
  • From History of the Philippines: Woods, Damon L. (2006). The Philippines: A Global Studies Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 44. ISBN 978-1-85109-675-6.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

To be Done with a type of Philippine art history

Disclaimer: What I'm about to add is a critique of these kinds of articles and bodies of knowledge. I'll just leave this here for contributors, and the Wikicrats to see.

For past readers: We are approaching the end to this series. So before we go on interrogating art criticism in the Philippines, we will be looking at something whose criticism is perhaps more sinister than art critiques: art history.

This one is going to be a little bit different. Contrary to previous topics (art and the artist), we won't be calling for a general abolition-transformation of the subject matter: art history. History is an integral part of human society. Fredric Jameson says however, that History with a capital H, is only accessible to us in textual form—histories. Hence, what we will be calling on, is the active struggle agianst particular histories.

So with that in mind, we would like to focus on a particular history of Philippine art, and that would be Wikipedia's article Art of the Philippines. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_the_Philippines)


01: The farce of Encyclopedias

Let's backtrack to Michel Foucault, and his concepts of discourse as field-operation of statements, and regimes of truth. (Check the link for his essay Truth and Power: https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/jbell/foucaulttruthpower.pdf ).

What I would like to emphasize is that to say that Encyclopedia's have a farce, this is not necessarily to question the objectivity of the facts; although, the validity of Wikipedia's contents are already a known debate, especially in the academe. What we are trying to point out here, in congruence to Foucualt, is that the more sinister politics of truth is not in dispelling illusions, but in the construction of truth itself.

This is the farce of encyclopedias as compendium of knowledge, without being (made) aware as to the discourse these texts are constructed around. These histories present themselves as History—a "fact-based" front.

These bodies of knowledge production-distribution are usually not (made) overt in displaying the political-ideological biases of these texts. Unlike critical papers, encyclopedia's always seem to have this "non-evaluatory position of its subject matter. They're always "just telling you how it is." Even if the academe or will always warn people in reading Wikipedia information, people and even myself would still go to it for general information.

But that is the problem with history, or with narratives in general. They are all very much ideological. And we feel this as that knee-jerk reaction we get when declarative statements that present themselves as fact, contradicts with out world view. That's the time we will call the piece biased, propaganda, or even fake.

In the art world, the ideology of art histories manifest themselves primarily in its structure and content.

By structure we look at the flow of the article: Does it operate chronologically? What story does it tell? Does it tell the history of art in a cause and effect manner? Does it primarily put individual artists as geniuses, or does it analyze art history from a more macro-social perspective?

In content, we look at the most obvious to the more critical eyes—the choice of the author/s as to what constitutes art, in this case Philippine art. I would say that looking at art histories this way, is somewhat parallel to how we see art criticism through the space of an art exhibit, albeit textually in this case. (Again, we are thrown into the confusing mess that is the turfing of art criticism, curatorship, and art history).

In Wikipedia's case, the "curatorship" is much more complicated. Wikipedia props itself up as an open and free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It initially banked on what Angelo Suarez in his essay Salvaging the Author: The Social Turn in Philippine Poetry (http://www.highchair.com.ph/issue15/15_salvagingtheauthor.htm) as a "faux anarcho-utopian vision of becoming a repository of purely user-generated content."

But with the rapid expansion of the platform, people have observed the rise of "wikicrats." The bureaucracy began to form with its content administrators, who are almost the final arbiters of the site's content. Bots are now in place to regularly check on hot articles, and some people would say that the creation of these articles, especially hotly contested ones, are subject to consensus building through online shouting matches. It is not only Wikipedia's bureaucracy and operation, that would cast doubt on its anarcho-utopian, seemingly class-less means of knowledge production. Just looking at a wiki article's talk section, we could already see which WikiProjects have an interest in producing such knowledge. Some can range from a collaborative effort of users, and others are under institutional funding.


02: Nativism serving colonialism

So what are we looking at in wiki's Art of the Philippines?

A quick glance at the article's contents will already give us an idea.

It's mostly a listing of different art forms notable in the Philippines. But it's a little bit more sinister than that. It branches of into traditional (pre-colonial) and non-traditional art. And it's basis for what is traditional art, is any field that can garner one a GAMABA award. Non-traditional arts can be nominated for a National Artist award. Actually, all the art and artists mentioned in this article are those already state-sponsored or state acknowledged. Most of the new artists, regardless of politics even, are not listed. It's a glorification of the dying and the dead in museums.

A great deal of the article is focused on said traditional/pre-colonial art, here constituted as "functional art." The writing is both historical and archaeological in style, but mostly documentary and not evaluative; (again with these whole non-evaluatory evalutations.)

As with all this great fanfare for "traditional," or the "Filipino" is of course the obsession with the pre-colonial past, again what is mostly gone now. While at the surface, this kind of knowledge production and preference seems harmless, and even nationalist, we would like to note how so many nativist nationalisms without analyzing the present have ended up serving the interests of the rulling class and their foreign masters.

Remember Marcos and his whole nativist modernism in the arts? Remember how the first peoples to actually write about our people were always foreigners? The Ming Chinese? Spaniards? Americans? And even the Japanese?

It's even funny how there is a section on Filipino art outside the Philippines. Does it talk about Filipino artists abroad? Nope. It talks about artifacts like the Balanggiga bells, copies of the Doctrina Chrisitana, Boxer codex, and the Golden Tara. And guess where these are all housed (except for the Balanggiga bells now)? In good ol' Uncle Sam's country. And just to nail the point of how sinister knowledge production this is, a few clicks on the article's production reveals that is one of the many pages regarding Philippine culture which is being reviewed by the University of Illinois at Chicago, under its course of Introduction to Filipino American Studies.


Isn't it messed up that the people managing the several wiki pages on our culture, are being run by the blatant nativist identity politics of a colonial hegemon propagating our problematic state's narrative of art history?


03: A history of epistemic violence

Since pre-colonial times, we have already stated that the Philippines was moslty articulated by foreigners. And like any international relation, knowledge production is not merely out of its sake. Knowledge is power. And knowing how the different Philippine groups were, was to the advantage of these foreigners when it came to trade, making deals, or conquest. On a more ideological level, the articulation of the Filipino experience by foreigners has always had the effect of propagating views that are distorted and coincide with this foreign and colonial vantage point. One recalls Morga's Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, and how Rizal anotated it in his counter-hegemonic national-building program.

It is no secret that the Philippine studies programs today, especially the ones abroad, are noted for their archival researches without clear analysis (check Damian Woods and his Barangay studies), pandering on identity politics, as well as foreign relations structured on current (let's say problematic) legalities. It has always been a site of struggle for imperialist and nationalist sentiments, aware or not aware; each claiming to be for the nation in their own way.

For sure, we don't see as much the discourse of "savagery" or indio-ness today as much as back then, (not to say it hasn't taken on new forms in exoticizing discourses). But that is precisely the veil in which the new colonial discourse of our inferiority normalizes itself; that it is no longer the discourse of then. However, looking again at Wikipedia's article, there is always this discourse that "we got this from another country" with tints of inferiority.

This isn't even a racial discourse, as we could speculate that perhaps Filipino Americans were writing these articles. The discourse is colonial, in more up to date terms, imperialist, or the cultural hegemony of a globally expanding and exploitative capitalist power. Lenin's question still stands on this issue: who stands to gain? Not exactly us, I would say. Despite our so called independence in 1946, every common Filipino knows in his body what the textbooks deny, that colonialism and its effects are not yet over in this country. Post-colonial does not mean "after colonialism." We are now in a period that entails an "improved" set of colonial relations.

And if these colonial relations still pervade, then the nation-building project of Rizal the critic against Morga the historian is still not finished. This struggle in Philippine studies (should) also (consciously) translate in the field of art.

In light of the aforementioned "crisis of art criticism" to this epistemic warfare, who's discourse is more decisive: the art historian and his subtle attack masquerading as unbiased fact, or the art critic and his (supposedly) analytic prowess?

But learning from history, it is not only through the pen and cultural warfare that the counter-hegemon wins. After all, was it the writing of a few highly educated ilustrados who decisively pushed Spain out, or an entire mass of island-wide armed rebellions? This is not to say that art has no role in social change, but it is not the most decisive of the people's weapons.

What is clear to us is that struggle against colonialism in all fields continues even to spaces like the academe or Wikipedia. The call of the 20th century reverberates across the Philippines, and all oppressed peoples: down with imperialism!

-Yari

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What constitutes art? Please provide sources

What constitutes "art of the Philippines" here? The introduction didn't even provide criteria as to what can be included here as art. No wonder almost anything can be added here, from archeological artifacts to even Filipino cuisine itself being presented as "art". Before adding new sections, please provide sources that the topic you're about to add is actually considered as "art of the Philippines". Stricnina (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a strong convention on WP that "art" (and "artist") refer only to visual art. Other stuff (literature, performance arts) goes to "Arts of ..." or "Culture of...". There is Culture of the Philippines (but not Arts in the Philippines). Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Johnbod, thank you for the response. Is it then safe to say that archeological artifacts, culinary arts and martial arts can't be included here as they do not belong to the visual art category? Or is it better that we change the name of the article? Stricnina (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the lead should be changed to clarify the definition, then literature, dance, culinary arts and martial arts be re/moved - much can go to Culture of the Philippines. The pottery & weaving are fine, though there is rather a lot of the first, probably duplicating the main article. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Doesn't the section on "branches" define the branches and sub-branches of art? It lists Martial Arts as a subset of "Other artistic expressions of traditional culture," for example. That source is from the National Commission for Culture and the Arts - you don't get much more definitive than that. I think it should serve as basis for re-organizing the article branch by branch, followed by a section on the History of Philippine Art (which should be short, and have a redirect to its own article) and then any major thematic discourses, such as Religeon in Philippine Art (or Philippine Religious Art) or Protest Art in the Philippines (or Protest in Philippine Art).... each of which should be relatively short and have a redirect to their own article. - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Those lists deserve their section, but in general & for the rest of the article we should maintain the distinction between art and arts, to be consistent with other countries. Or rename the article to Arts in/of the Philippines. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Following NCCA's standard for art form sections

After editing this article's overloaded sections (Museums & Pottery), I've noticed that this article's sectioning needs some major fixing. I propose we follow the standard made by the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, where one section is for Traditional Arts while the other is for Non-traditional Arts, where each will have their respective sub-sections to create a well-segmented page. Also, the "Notable Filipino Artists" section needs to be removed as there is already an entire page dedicated for it. We can just add it in the See Also section. Additionally, the "Filipino Art Housed Outside the Philippines" section needs to be removed as well, as information about that will be included in the sub-sections under Traditional and Non-traditional Arts. Lastly, the "Museums" section will be made into the "Conservation of the Arts" section, as to also add the importance of conservation institutions other than museums, such as libraries and other archives. Any other proposals so we can start cleaning up this article? PCommission (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We can afterwards rename the article into "Arts of the Philippines" to conform with other pages. PCommission (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If you are going to keep non-visual art, then it should be renamed "Arts of the Philippines" straightaway. Art of the Philippines should ONLY be about the visual arts. But the best solution is usually to have both. See the previous section, bearing in mind you already have Culture of the Philippines. Personally, I'd move 4 Performing arts, 4.1 Dance, 4.2 Theater, 5 Martial arts, 6 Culinary art to Culture of the Philippines and keep this as "Art". That is consistent with most major countries. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I've already renamed the article to Arts in the Philippines. I agree that the word "art" should only be about the visual arts, as per entries on Chinese art, Japanese art, Thai art, French art, English art, and so on. With this, I propose the creation of a "Filipino art" page, as to satisfy all sides of the discussion from this section and the previous one. I'm currently researching on the topic for the creation of the said page in the future. Thank you for your input. PCommission (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

How does philippines arts shape influence and impact your views and perspective in our present issues? Key answers

Answers this ! How does Philippine arts shape influence and impact your views and perspective in our present issues? 112.198.87.214 (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).== Five Classics of Modern Philippine Art ==

The history of Modern Philippine art is marked by the conflict between the rules and views of the Academy and the innovative methods of the Modernists. The Academic style was established during the Spanish colonial period and followed the rules of the Spanish, Italian and French Academies. When they first arrived in the Philippines in the early 16th century the Spaniards did so with the primary intention of spreading the Catholic faith. As a result religious art and the creation of icons were strongly encouraged. By late 19th century Neo-Classicism and Realism became the norm.

A turning point was the emergence of the “13 Modernists” group which included artists who had received their education abroad where they had come in contact with various new and experimental styles. They argued that the official art was too photographic and relied too much on the exactness of representation which led to rigidness and lack of originality. The Academy stroke back by framing the Modernists as charlatans who made shocking and controversial artworks to mask “their lack of skills”.

Below are five representative pieces of the 20th century art of the Philippines, a period which on social level saw the demise of the Spanish rule and the arrival of the Americans and on cultural level witnessed intense artistic exchanges with the West.


["Las Damas Romanas" by Juan Luna]

Las Damas Romanas (literally, "The Roman Dames"), also known as The Roman Maidens, The Roman Women,[1] or The Roman Ladies,is an oil on canvas painted by Juan Luna in the style of the Neo-Classicism, one of the most famous Filipino painters of the Spanish period in the Philippines. It was painted by Luna when he was a student of the school of painting in the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando (Royal Academy of Fine Arts of San Fernando) in Madrid, Spain in 1877. Alejo Valera, a Spanish painting teacher, took Luna as an apprentice and brought him to Rome where Luna created Las Damas Romanas in 1882. Skilled in the style of the Academy he was the first Filipino painter to win international recognition in Europe and the US. Luna spent six years in Rome from 1878 to 1884.


“Houseboats in a River” by Fabian de la Rosa

The art of Fabian de la Rosa is considered to reflect the transition from Spanish rule to American occupation. Subdued landscapes and genre paintings with Impressionistic influence became the art of choice in the era of uncertainty and broken hopes.


“Planting Rice” by Fernando Amorsolo

The arrival of the Americans lead to a new wave of nationalism in Philippine society which is best reflected in the art of Fernando Amorsolo. The art of the period focused on traditional folk scenes as an embodiment of the imagined sense of nationhood. Traditional customs, pastimes and occupations are among the most recognizable motifs employed. In hindsight some historians have criticized Amorsolo for painting an idealized version of what life was like in those times while others have argued that his paintings reflected the people’s desire to escape from a complicated reality into simplicity.


“Interaction” by Victorio Edades 

History names Victorio Edades as “the father” of Modern Philippine art. Schooled in the US upon his return he introduced an entirely new way of thinking about art. He argued that art can be more than representation of reality, it can be representation of reality as seen through the mind and emotions of the artist.


“The Musicians” by Vicente Manansala

One of the first Abstractionists on the Philippine art scene Vicente Manansala is also credited with bridging the gap between the city and the suburbs, between the rural and cosmopolitan ways of life. His paintings depict a nation in transition, an allusion to the new culture brought by the Americans. Manansala together with Fabian de la Rosa are among the best-selling Philippine artists in the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eycor (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ejraya22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Breeturtle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arts_in_the_Philippines/Archive_1&oldid=1169368438"