Gombrich adds that it is these artists who ultimately find a place in history, because the works that they created, and that were rejected in their time, are the same ones enjoying popularity today. The same is true in the applied arts. Fashion and design may have adopted shapes that puzzled earlier generations, but now find themselves in vogue.
What does this mean for the arts in an economically and politically challenged country, like the Philippines, where the vagaries of the market are more acute?
Perhaps, it would not be too farfetched to assert that many Filipinos produce works of art to fill a present demand. They do so not knowing that by pandering to certain notions of taste they are in fact consigning the arts to a rarefied atmosphere of expensive accoutrements created solely for wealthy individuals.
Conversely, it would appear that fewer Filipino artists today take the risk of venturing into new areas and avenues of creative expression, being unsure of the public’s response to their works, a curious development, indeed, for a country not wanting in a tradition of cultural avant-gardism. The case of the painters Manansala and Ocampo, who were derided early in their career, but are celebrated as today’s modern masters, is proof of this.
Even as Gombrich says that supply creates, changes and shapes demand, what is apparent in the Philippine situation in relation to the arts is, in fact, quite the reverse: That the few who have the resources use their economic clout to dictate demand. By yielding to the tastes of collectors and patrons, Filipino artists find themselves in a disadvantaged, if not impotent, position. Clearly, this results in an atmosphere that stifles creativity.
How then can the roles be reversed? How can Filipino artists take on the role of tastemakers, rather than be ruled by the vicissitudes of patronage?
The answer, it would seem, lies in education. Not art education in its present state, but in a more proactive training program that is involved in and informed about the functions of art.
Outside of the idealized, bourgeois vision of art for art’s sake, there is a need to awaken, first, an awareness of the technical necessity of art. In the face of innovation, herein lies the opportunity to empower Filipino artists by arming them with the tools necessary to produce works that will create society’s future demands. In other words, by recognizing that technology empowers art, movements of need can be shaped by artists today.
Second, and in a much larger sense, art also has what can be called a social function, which may be approached from the perspective of the "image." Filipinos need to appreciate that the ideal way to create form is to be aware of its function within a given milieu. For an impoverished country, therefore, it must follow that art cannot simply appropriate the image of the luxurious objet d’art, the rare painting or sculpture available only to a select few, without running the risk of being irrelevant within the larger context of the society that produces it.
For art to play any significant part in the life of a developing nation, the image that art needs to cultivate therefore must be one that can be apprehended by those who could benefit the most from it, touching individuals in ways that will awaken their senses to the full experience of life.
Taste is developed through exposure that is mitigated by an appreciation of present circumstance. Indeed, what is called for by the Philippine situation is a popularization of art, not in the sense of it taking the road of ignorance or vulgarity, but rather, of it intoning a position that informs and empowers.
Collective and idealistic as this may sound, a certain inspiration may, indeed, be derived from these passages in light of the state of the arts in the Philippines. What is palpable here again is the concept of the image, the ideal that must form in the minds of Filipino artists. It is only by awakening to this image and espousing it that their works find true meaning.
Gombrich theorizes that, for so long, a diagnostic approach had been applied to art in society – accepting it as simply a reflection of a people’s way of life – so much so that its intrinsic ability to awe and inspire retreats to the background. To change this, he suggests a radical paradigm shift. Instead of viewing art as one would look at a mirror, he instead advocates a more pharmacological or prescriptive attitude so that art may be able to actualize its potential and fulfill its role as catalyst.
It is at this point that education, in awakening Filipinos to the technical and social function of art, assumes an important role by pointing the way towards the image of a progressive, "virtuous society." Recognizing the essential malleability of taste, it becomes the task of education to enlighten, mould and expand the awareness of Filipinos to their history, culture, and to the innovations that are presently available to them, empowering them to look back sans nostalgia, while at the same time looking forward, in the process opening up the supply that creates demand.