On the Spirit House of Practice: A Curatorial Reckoning with Art Schools, Cultural Literacy, and the Politics of Pedagogy
On the Spirit House of Practice: A Curatorial Reckoning with Art Schools, Cultural Literacy, and the Politics of Pedagogy
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™
May 2, 2026
Introduction
The following essay synthesizes and amplifies the premise articulated in the original reflection: that art schools are under existential pressure, that art and cultural education are urgent public goods, and that contemporary technological, institutional, and policy shifts risk hollowing out the imaginative and civic functions of artistic formation. This piece reads the original testimony as both a local ethnography of Philippine art education and a diagnostic for global conditions in which markets, metrics, and emergent technologies reconfigure what it means to teach, make, and sustain culture.
---
The Art School as Formative Institution
An art school is here treated not merely as a site of technical instruction but as a civic and epistemic formation. Historically, art schools have functioned as laboratories of perception, critique, and social imagination—places where students learn to see, to question, and to risk. When the author insists that an art school is “not a diploma factory” but “a well of souls” and “a spirit house,” they are insisting on a thick ontology of education: pedagogy that cultivates dispositions, ethical sensibilities, and modes of attention that cannot be reduced to employability metrics.
- Formation over transaction. The critique of students-as-customers and education-as-service names a shift from formation to transaction. This shift reorients institutional priorities toward throughput, compliance, and measurable outputs, and away from the slower, less quantifiable work of cultivating judgment and imagination.
- Risk and sanctuary. The art school’s value lies in its capacity to be a protected space for experimentation—where failure is pedagogical and critique is generative. Removing that sanctuary converts risk into liability and experimentation into commodified product development.
---
Institutional Pressures and the Erosion of Purpose
The reflection identifies concrete institutional dynamics that corrode the art school’s purpose: curricular compression, the sidelining of humanities and arts subjects, and the elevation of short-term employability as the primary metric of educational success. These are not merely administrative choices; they are cultural choices that shape what a nation can imagine for itself.
- Curriculum as cultural policy. When arts and humanities are excised or relegated to electives, the curriculum becomes a mechanism of cultural amnesia. Audience development, patronage, and the capacity to interpret cultural forms are cultivated through sustained exposure; removing that exposure impoverishes both creators and publics.
- Perverse incentives. Metrics and efficiency favor reproducible skills over critical capacities. Graduates may be technically competent yet culturally illiterate—able to execute but not to interrogate or innovate in ways that sustain a living cultural ecology.
---
Technology, Visual Literacy, and Cultural Recolonization
The essay’s most urgent theoretical claim concerns the intersection of art education and emergent technologies. The arrival of artificial intelligence and platformized image economies is not neutral: without robust visual literacy and cultural grounding, these systems can homogenize expression and enact a subtle form of recolonization.
- Algorithmic flattening. Machine-mediated production privileges patterns that scale. Absent critical pedagogy, students risk becoming consumers of globalized templates rather than producers of situated, nuanced expression.
- Ethics of creation. Teaching how to make is inseparable from teaching why and for whom one makes. Visual literacy must include ethical frameworks that interrogate authorship, provenance, and the socio-political effects of mediated images.
- Cultural sovereignty. The capacity to narrate one’s own stories resists the quiet erasure that can accompany technological standardization. Art education thus becomes a bulwark against cultural homogenization.
---
Policy, Autonomy, and Institutional Responsibility
Embedded in the reflection is a call for institutional leadership—most pointedly directed at the University of the Philippines—as a public university with autonomy and the capacity to model alternatives. This is a call for policy imagination that aligns educational structures with cultural stewardship.
- Public investment as infrastructure. Art schools and cultural programs should be recognized as infrastructure—not discretionary expenditures but foundational investments in national life and soft power.
- Participatory policy-making. The direction of arts policy must be informed by practitioners. When legislators or administrators lacking creative practice dictate cultural priorities, policy risks being myopic and instrumental.
- Curricular integrity. Resisting the reduction of arts and humanities to electives requires advocacy at multiple levels: university governance, national education policy, and public discourse about the value of culture.
---
Conclusion and Call to Action
The original reflection culminates in an uncompromising ethical stance: art education is essential to the future of culture, and its defense is a civic duty. To translate this conviction into practice requires coordinated action across pedagogy, institutional governance, and public policy.
- Re-center formation. Reassert the art school’s role as a site of imaginative and ethical formation rather than a vocational pipeline.
- Invest in cultural infrastructure. Treat art schools as long-term investments that yield civic, economic, and diplomatic returns.
- Teach visual literacy and ethics. Integrate critical media pedagogy into curricula so that students can navigate and shape technological regimes rather than be shaped by them.
- Insist on practitioner-led policy. Ensure that artists and cultural workers have substantive roles in policy formation and institutional leadership.
The reflection is both a lament and a manifesto. It names a crisis and offers a direction: to defend the profession, to defend the school, and to defend the cultural future of the nation. The stakes are not merely institutional; they are existential. If art is allowed to become optional, the nation risks losing the capacity to imagine itself. The remedy is not nostalgia but a renewed, strategic commitment to education that cultivates minds, hearts, and publics capable of sustaining a living culture.
---
Curatorial Frame
The curatorial frame that follows is written from the vantage of a practitioner-gatekeeper: an artist who has taken up the administrative mantle, a cultural worker who moves between studio, classroom, and policy fora, and a dean who has listened to the provincial pulse of art education. It is a frame that insists on the art school as a spirit house—a locus where imagination is consecrated, where risk is ritualized, and where publics are apprenticed to the labor of seeing. This is not a nostalgic plea for an imagined golden age; it is a strategic, sometimes irritable, and occasionally comic argument for why the art school must be defended, reimagined, and resourced in the face of managerialism, technological flattening, and policy myopia.
The anecdote that opens this frame is small and, I hope, telling. In two weeks of travel—Cebu and Iloilo—conversations began in the customary way: introductions, coffee, the polite exchange of institutional names. They ended in the way that matters: with students showing work in dim studios, with exhausted faculty confessing the compromises they make to keep programs alive, with cultural workers sketching policy proposals on napkins. One head of department, a woman with paint under her fingernails and a ledger of grant rejections, laughed and said, “We teach patience here—because patience is what the state gives us.” The laugh was a defense mechanism and a diagnosis. It is the kind of line that curators and deans remember because it names the absurdity of expecting art to flourish under austerity and metrics.
The art school as formation. The first claim of this frame is simple: art education is formation, not service. Formation names a temporality—slow, recursive, and often non-linear. It names a pedagogy that values failure as method, that privileges critique over compliance, and that cultivates modes of attention that resist the speed of market logic. John Dewey’s insistence that art is experience remains instructive here: art education is not merely the transmission of technique but the cultivation of perceptual habits that make democratic life possible.^1 When an institution treats students as customers, it substitutes transactional satisfaction for the harder work of forming citizens who can imagine alternatives. The curatorial task, then, is to insist on pedagogies that are irreducible to employability metrics.
The art school as sanctuary and provocation. A second claim: the art school must be both sanctuary and provocation. Sanctuary in the sense that it provides a protected space for experimentation; provocation in the sense that it trains students to confront social forms and to make visible what is otherwise occluded. This duality is not paradoxical but generative. The studio is where one learns to risk, and the critique room is where one learns to be accountable. The curator’s role is to hold these tensions in view: to program exhibitions that valorize process as much as product, to commission works that foreground pedagogy as practice, and to insist that institutional evaluation systems reward risk-taking rather than risk-avoidance.
Against curricular amputation. The third claim is a policy critique: the incremental removal of arts and humanities from core curricula is not a neutral economizing measure; it is a cultural amputation. When art appreciation, movement, and ethics are excised or relegated to electives, we produce a populace that is technically literate but culturally anaemic. Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of cultural capital is instructive: cultural competence is not merely aesthetic taste; it is a set of dispositions that enable participation in civic life.^2 A nation that underinvests in cultural formation will find its creative industries law an empty shell—talent without context, production without audience, spectacle without meaning.
Technology as colonizer and collaborator. The fourth claim addresses the technological conjuncture. Artificial intelligence and platform economies are not neutral tools; they are infrastructures that shape what counts as image, authorship, and value. Hito Steyerl’s notion of the “poor image” and Nicholas Mirzoeff’s work on visual culture remind us that images circulate in regimes of compression and attention that privilege reproducibility over situatedness.^3 Without visual literacy and ethical formation, students risk becoming fluent in the language of global templates while losing the capacity to narrate local nuance. The curatorial response is twofold: to integrate critical media literacy into studio practice and to curate exhibitions that make visible the political economies of image production.
Institutional autonomy and public responsibility. The fifth claim is institutional: public universities with autonomy—such as the University of the Philippines in the Philippine context—have a duty to lead. Autonomy is not an excuse for insularity; it is a responsibility to model alternative governance, to incubate practice-based learning, and to place artists and cultural workers at the center of policy formation. The curator-dean must resist the imposition of managerial metrics that flatten pedagogical aims and must advocate for funding models that treat art schools as infrastructure rather than discretionary spending.
Audience development as pedagogy. The sixth claim reframes audience development as an educational project. Patronage and public appreciation are not spontaneous; they are cultivated through exposure, critical pedagogy, and community engagement. If we relegate arts exposure to the privileged few, we reproduce the very inequalities that cultural policy claims to remedy. The curatorial imperative is to design programs that are pedagogically oriented toward publics: community co-curation, school partnerships, and exhibitions that invite interpretive labor rather than passive consumption.
Anecdote as evidence, humor as tactic. Humor is not incidental to this frame. The dean’s willingness to “go to war” for the arts is both hyperbolic and strategic. It signals the stakes and the affective labor of advocacy. Anecdotes—students who sleep in studios, faculty who teach unpaid—are not mere pathos; they are data points that reveal structural neglect. The curator must translate these lived realities into institutional narratives that compel funders, policymakers, and publics to act.
Curatorial ethics and the politics of selection. Finally, the frame insists on curatorial ethics: selection is not neutral. Choosing which works to exhibit, which voices to amplify, and which pedagogies to institutionalize are political acts. Curators must be accountable to the communities they represent and to the pedagogical aims they espouse. This requires reflexivity, transparency, and a willingness to cede authority to practitioners and publics.
Disconfirming the alternative on its merits and premise. The dominant alternative to this frame is managerialism: the belief that education should be optimized for efficiency, that students are customers, and that curricula should be compressed to prioritize immediate employability. On its face, managerialism promises measurable outcomes and fiscal prudence. Yet on closer inspection its premises are brittle. It assumes that cultural value is reducible to market value; it presumes that short-term employability trumps long-term civic formation; it treats pedagogy as a service rather than a public good. These assumptions fail on empirical and ethical grounds. Empirically, creative economies require culturally literate producers and audiences; a workforce that can execute but not think cannot sustain innovation. Ethically, managerialism erodes the public mission of universities and abdicates responsibility for cultural stewardship. Thus, the curatorial frame disconfirms managerialism not by rhetorical flourish but by demonstrating that its premises—market primacy, metric sovereignty, and curricular minimalism—are inadequate to the task of sustaining a living culture.
In sum, this curatorial frame argues for a re-centering of the art school as a site of formation, sanctuary, and provocation; for policy that treats cultural education as infrastructure; for pedagogy that integrates critical media literacy; and for curatorial practice that is ethically accountable. It is a plea, a strategy, and a provocation: defend the spirit house, or watch the nation lose its stories.
---
Curatorial Narrative Critique
The curatorial narrative that follows is a critique in practice: it reads a hypothetical exhibition program—“Metrics & Muses: Art Education in the Age of Efficiency”—and uses it as a foil to demonstrate the stakes of the earlier frame. Imagine a program designed by a well-meaning university office: streamlined modules, industry partnerships, micro-credentials, and a capstone portfolio judged by corporate partners. The brochure is glossy; the KPIs are neat. The narrative asks: what is gained, and what is lost?
Surface gains, subterranean losses. On the surface, the program promises alignment with industry, faster time-to-hire, and measurable outcomes. These are real benefits for some students. Yet the curatorial critique insists on the subterranean losses: the erosion of critical time, the narrowing of risk-tolerant spaces, and the commodification of creative labor. The studio becomes a training ground for market-ready outputs rather than a laboratory for speculative thought. The critique is not anti-employment; it is anti-reduction: employment is necessary but not sufficient for cultural vitality.
The tyranny of the capstone. The capstone portfolio, judged by corporate partners, becomes a symbol of the program’s priorities. Portfolios optimized for market consumption privilege polish over process, reproducibility over experimentation. The curatorial response is to reimagine assessment: include process-based documentation, reflective journals, community-engaged projects, and public-facing critiques. Assessment should measure capacity for criticality, not merely market-readiness.
Industry partnerships as double-edged swords. Partnerships with industry can provide resources and pathways. Yet they can also steer curricula toward immediate utility and away from public goods. The curator must negotiate these partnerships with ethical clarity: accept support that expands pedagogical possibilities, refuse conditionalities that narrow inquiry, and insist on co-governance with practitioners.
The invisibility of audience formation. The program’s metrics may track graduate employment but not audience development. The curatorial critique insists that exhibitions are pedagogical devices: they teach publics how to look, how to interpret, and how to value. A program that neglects public pedagogy produces graduates who operate in a cultural vacuum. Curators must design exhibitions that foreground interpretive labor—labels that teach, programs that invite dialogue, and outreach that builds sustained relationships with schools and communities.
Technology as pedagogy, not panacea. The program’s digital modules promise scalability. Yet the critique warns against treating technology as a panacea. Digital tools can amplify pedagogy but cannot substitute for embodied practice, mentorship, and critique. Visual literacy must be taught in relation to materiality, context, and ethics. The curator’s role is to design hybrid programs that integrate digital fluency with critical reflection.
Anecdotal counterpoints. The critique is grounded in anecdotes: a student who learned to weld in a provincial workshop and later used that skill to build community infrastructure; a faculty member who turned a failed grant into a public program that taught elders to tell stories through portraiture. These stories demonstrate that value is not always captured by KPIs; it is often emergent, relational, and slow.
Curatorial interventions. What would a curatorial intervention look like? First, programmatic exhibitions that foreground pedagogy: process shows, community co-curations, and exhibitions that include pedagogical apparatus—workbooks, workshops, and public critiques. Second, residencies that pair students with cultural workers in non-urban contexts, thereby decentralizing cultural production. Third, assessment reforms that value reflexivity and public engagement. Fourth, funding models that treat art schools as infrastructure: multi-year commitments, endowments for practice-based learning, and public-private partnerships with clear ethical guardrails.
Humor and irony as critical tools. The critique uses humor and irony to puncture managerial solemnity. Imagine a KPI dashboard for “imagination per capita” with a red alert: “Imagination below threshold.” The joke is a critique: metrics can quantify many things, but they cannot capture the qualitative transformations that art education effects. Humor becomes a pedagogical tactic: it disarms defensiveness and opens space for reflection.
Conclusion of the critique. The curatorial narrative critique concludes that managerial programs can be useful but must be embedded within a broader pedagogical ethic that values formation, public pedagogy, and cultural stewardship. Curators, deans, and cultural workers must collaborate to design programs that resist the tyranny of metrics while harnessing resources for sustained pedagogical work.
---
Expanded Summative
This expanded summative synthesizes the frame and critique into actionable propositions for practitioners, institutions, and policymakers. It is a compact manifesto with pragmatic steps, each grounded in the earlier arguments.
1. Re-center formation in institutional mission. Universities must explicitly state that art education is a public good and a formative practice. Mission statements should commit to pedagogies that prioritize critical thinking, ethical creation, and cultural literacy. This is not rhetorical flourish; it should be reflected in governance, budgeting, and evaluation.
2. Protect curricular space for arts and humanities. Resist the compression of curricula that sidelines arts and humanities. Core requirements should include visual literacy, movement, art appreciation, and ethics. These are not electives but foundational competencies for civic life.
3. Reform assessment. Move beyond portfolios judged solely by market partners. Include process documentation, reflective practice, community-engaged outcomes, and peer critique. Assessment rubrics should value risk-taking, ethical reflection, and public engagement.
4. Invest in cultural infrastructure. Treat art schools as infrastructure: stable funding, studio spaces, equipment, and multi-year program support. Infrastructure includes human resources—tenure-track positions for practice-based faculty, fair compensation for adjuncts, and professional development for cultural workers.
5. Integrate critical media literacy. Embed visual literacy and critical media studies into studio curricula. Teach students to interrogate algorithms, platforms, and the political economies of image circulation. This is essential to resist technological recolonization.
6. Design public pedagogy. Curatorial programs should be pedagogical: exhibitions that teach, residencies that decentralize, and outreach that builds audiences. Audience development must be a curricular objective, not an afterthought.
7. Negotiate industry partnerships ethically. Accept resources from industry but insist on co-governance, curricular autonomy, and ethical clauses that prevent curricular capture. Partnerships should expand pedagogical possibilities, not narrow them.
8. Decentralize cultural production. Support provincial and regional art schools as nodes of cultural vitality. Funding and programming should not be Manila-centric; cultural policy must recognize the generative potential of regional practices.
9. Elevate practitioner-led policy. Ensure that artists and cultural workers have substantive roles in policy formation. Policy that affects practice must be informed by practitioners’ lived knowledge.
10. Cultivate intergenerational publics. Design programs that connect students with elders, community leaders, and non-academic publics. Cultural literacy is intergenerational; it is transmitted through relationships, not only through syllabi.
11. Use humor and narrative to persuade. Advocacy for the arts must be rigorous and rhetorically nimble. Use anecdote, humor, and narrative to make the case to policymakers and publics who may be skeptical.
12. Prepare for technological futures ethically. Anticipate the effects of AI and platform economies by teaching ethical frameworks for creation, questions of authorship, and strategies for cultural sovereignty.
Implementation roadmap
- Short term (1–2 years): Revise mission statements; pilot process-based assessment; launch community co-curation projects; secure multi-year funding for a studio refurbishment.
- Medium term (3–5 years): Institutionalize visual literacy across programs; establish regional residency networks; negotiate ethical partnership frameworks with industry.
- Long term (5+ years): Build endowments for practice-based faculty; influence national education policy to restore arts and humanities in core curricula; create a national cultural infrastructure fund.
Risks and mitigations. The primary risk is co-optation: well-intentioned reforms may be captured by managerial logics. Mitigation requires transparency, practitioner governance, and public accountability. Another risk is resource scarcity; mitigation requires coalition-building across universities, cultural institutions, and civil society.
A final anecdote and a plea. Return to the dean who laughed about patience. The laugh concealed a plea: “Help us make patience productive.” The plea is for allies—policymakers who understand that investment in art schools is investment in civic imagination; funders who see cultural infrastructure as strategic; and publics who will learn to look. The curatorial and institutional task is to translate that patience into policy, pedagogy, and practice.
---
Footnotes
1. John Dewey, Art as Experience (New York: Minton, Balch & Company, 1934).
2. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984).
3. Hito Steyerl, “In Defense of the Poor Image,” e-flux Journal 10 (2009); Nicholas Mirzoeff, How to See the World (New York: Pelican, 2015).
4. Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos (New York: Continuum, 1970).
5. Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (London: Zed Books, 1999).
6. John Howkins, The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas (London: Penguin, 2001).
7. David Throsby, The Economics of Cultural Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
8. bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom (New York: Routledge, 1994).
9. Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken Books, 1968).
10. Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” Aspen 5–6 (1967).
---
Bibliography
Barthes, Roland. 1967. “The Death of the Author.” Aspen 5–6.
Benjamin, Walter. 1968. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Illuminations, edited by Hannah Arendt, translated by Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken Books.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dewey, John. 1934. Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum.
hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Howkins, John. 2001. The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. London: Penguin.
Mirzoeff, Nicholas. 2015. How to See the World. New York: Pelican.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.
Steyerl, Hito. 2009. “In Defense of the Poor Image.” e-flux Journal 10.
Throsby, David. 2001. The Economics of Cultural Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
---
*** credit to the owners of the photo & articles otherwise cited
If you like my any of my concept research, writing explorations, art works and/or simple writings please support me by sending me a coffee treat at my paypal amielgeraldroldan.paypal.me or GXI 09053027965. Much appreciate and thank you in advance.
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™'s connection to the Asian Cultural Council (ACC) serves as a defining pillar of his professional journey, most recently celebrated through the launch of the ACC Global Alumni Network.As a 2003 Starr Foundation Grantee, Roldan participated in a transformative ten-month fellowship in the United States. This opportunity allowed him to observe contemporary art movements, engage with an international community of artists and curators, and develop a new body of work that bridges local and global perspectives.Featured Work: Bridges Beyond Borders His featured work, Bridges Beyond Borders: ACC's Global Cultural Collaboration, has been chosen as the visual identity for the newly launched ACC Global Alumni Network.Symbol of Connection: The piece represents a private collaborative space designed to unite over 6,000 ACC alumni across various disciplines and regions.Artistic Vision: The work embodies the ACC's core mission of advancing international dialogue and cultural exchange to foster a more harmonious world.Legacy of Excellence: By serving as the face of this initiative, Roldan's art highlights the enduring impact of the ACC fellowship on his career and his role in the global artistic community.Just featured at https://www.pressenza.com/2026/01/the-asian-cultural-council-global-alumni-network-amiel-gerald-a-roldan/
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ curatorial writing practice exemplifies this path: transforming grief into infrastructure, evidence into agency, and memory into resistance. As the Philippines enters a new economic decade, such work is not peripheral—it is foundational.
I'm trying to complement my writings with helpful inputs and prompts. Bear with me as I am treating this blog as repositories and drafts.
Please comment and tag if you like my compilations visit www.amielroldan.blogspot.com or www.amielroldan.wordpress.com
and comments at
amiel_roldan@outlook.com
amielgeraldroldan@gmail.com
A multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, and writing. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical art collaboration.
Recent show at ILOMOCA
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android
Asian Cultural Council Alumni Global Networkhttps://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philanthropy while working for institutions simultaneously early on.
The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™ is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/voluntary services entity and aims to remain so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.
LanguageLoginCreate connection,Value conversation.For youWho we areMeet the teamICM cultureHow to applyStoriesContact usLanguageManage your cookie preferencesPrivacy & Cookie PoliciesTerms of useGlobal code of conduct & ethicsAll rights reserved Amiel Gerald Roldan® 2026***Disclaimer:This work is my original writing unless otherwise cited; any errors or omissions are my responsibility. The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization or institution.Furthermore, the commentary reflects my personal interpretation of publicly available data and is offered as fair comment on matters of public interest. It does not allege criminal liability or wrongdoing by any individual.
Comments