Subaltern Voice and Counter-aesthetic

According to Spivak (1988), the term subaltern in post-colonial theory refers to a marginalized person, one who exists within the dyad of the oppressor and the oppressed. This person is so marginalized that they do not even have a voice. In her inquiry Can the Subaltern Speak?, Spivak’s answer is no, but this requires a nuanced understanding. The subaltern cannot speak in a meaningful way within the structures of power that dominate their lives. They are oppressed by colonialism, capitalism, patriarchy, and other hierarchical systems. The subaltern are the masses who are socially, politically, and geographically excluded from the hierarchy of power. These power structures not only silence the subaltern but also prevent them from having a voice that is truly their own, as their speech is often mediated by the dominant culture.

The oppressors construct their own truth to benefit themselves, similar to the earlier discussion of myths. They justify oppression by presenting no alternative to the naturalized scenario. This knowledge is not innocent; truth is weaponized.

Coming from a Filipino middle-class background, I wouldn’t claim to perfectly represent the subaltern. However, if I could help in recovering their voice, I would. My aim as an artist would be to stop the oppressors from mediating and influencing the subaltern’s voice. As an artist, I possess the knowledge and ability to bypass the limitations set by the hegemony through the use of images. My work could act as a form of speech or myth to counterbalance the prevailing unfairness. Disrupting the naturalized myth shifts the power relations.

In the essay of another post-colonial theorist, Blier (1998) introduces the concept of the counter-aesthetic. She uses the example of Bocio figures created for commoners, which often display deliberate messiness or disorder, in contrast to the more refined figures made for royalty. This aesthetic choice reflects the social and psychological turmoil of their creators, offering a direct challenge to the idea of a universal standard of beauty. It underscores how art can reflect specific social conditions and the lived experiences of the subaltern.

Roque, K. (2024). Planting Rice [Drawing]. Photo by Anima Art Space.

In my drawing Planting Rice, I create a counter-aesthetic by subverting the romanticized image of rural life. The image is disrupted by the inclusion of rogue army officers artificially added to the background. The narrative now shifts to the farming community (the subaltern), who are experiencing the militarization of their land. It is important to note that the original intended audience for Amorsolo’s Planting Rice paintings were American tourists during the American colonial period. The beautiful and idealized farming life that the Americans wanted to see is subverted by the juxtaposition of images of violence. It is much closer to the reality the farmers are experiencing. If the subaltern could speak, they would demand an end to the abuse and call for the military to stay away from the land they till.

References:

Blier, S. (1998). Vodun Art, Social History and the Slave Trade.The Visual Culture Reader (p.323). Routledge.

Spivak, G. (1988). Can the Subaltern speak? Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. University of Illinois Press.