Visual Gaslighting

Visual Gaslighting

"We are living in the world of oddballs".

Our society now is increasingly embracing situations or individuals who are peculiar, eccentric, and anyone can just tailor a script from heaven knows where and make it a gospel truth.

It suggests a shift away from strict conformity, highlighting a world where the unique, bizarre, or untraditional behaviors and ideas are increasingly accepted and tolerated.

In the DDS multiverse ... for instance, in VP Sara's impeachment hearing ... anything that will help the cause ... bahala na kung makakatulong talaga or hindi.

After Ramil Madriaga was introduced via the House of Representatives impeachment process, there was no letup; everyone from the aggrieved camp wanted to question his credibility and pin him down - that he was not credible, for crying out loud.

Remember Paolo Marcoleta… after his HOR colleagues struck out everything he said from the record … that Madriaga was not credible ... nakita pa siyang lumapit kay Ramil Madriaga, kung ano ang pumasok sa isip niya at pinaplano niya, siya lang ang nakaalam.

Mabuti na lang, inilayo na siya ng mga NBI at baka ano pang isip batang laro in the likes of Barzuela and Leviste ang kanyang gagawin. Well ... enough of him.

Well, what do you know? The latest "scandal" threatening to bring down the house isn't about the ₱805 billion or the mysterious "Mary Grace Piattos."

No, we are currently locked in a life-or-death struggle over the tale of Two Senoritas.

Duterte defenders have pounced on a painting behind the Vice President, screaming "Liar!" at Ramil Madriaga because Davao artist Tanya Gaisano Lee claimed the artwork as hers.

It was the perfect "Gotcha" moment—if you happen to be legally blind.

The satire here is that the "investigative experts" on social media have apparently skipped the part of their kindergarten where you learn to "Spot the Difference."

In one corner: Tanya’s work—tight, geometric, intricate, and very "Davao Chic."

In the other corner: The scholar’s painting—broader patterns, different hair rendering, and a sleeve design that wouldn't even pass as a knock-off at a night market.

To call these the same painting is like looking at a poodle and a wolf and saying, "Look, they both have four legs and fur, so the wolf must be a deep-fake poodle!"

When a photo surfaced of Madriaga’s scholar actually holding her version of the painting, the Dutertes' narrative didn't just leak—it capsized.

It turns out Madriaga didn't hallucinate a scholar in Laguna; he just happened to commission a painting of a woman in a baro't saya, which—shocker!—is a popular subject in Filipino art.

But in the world of Narrative Sabotage, facts are just annoying speed bumps.

The goal wasn't to be accurate; it was to be viral. So these what we are going to do.

-Find an image that looks vaguely similar.

-Ignore the textile patterns and brushstrokes.

-Scream "FALSE!" until the algorithm picks it up.

Let’s be honest: reading a sworn affidavit line-by-line is hard. It requires brain cells, patience, and a lack of bias.

But getting angry at a painting? That’s easy! That’s a snackable, 15-second "Fact Check" that you can consume while waiting for your Starbucks.

The defenders latched onto the painting because it was a Visual Smear Campaign.

They hoped that by proving Madriaga "lied" about a piece of wall decor, the public would assume he also lied about the bagman duties, the confidential funds, and everything else.

It’s the "Small Crack" theory: if you can't find a hole in the ship, just draw one with a Sharpie and tell everyone to start bailing water.

The real comedy here isn't that Madriaga might have a different taste in art; it’s that the people accusing him of deception are the ones using the wrong painting to "prove" his dishonesty.

It’s like a prosecutor trying to convict a man of stealing a car by showing the jury a picture of a bicycle.

If the paintings are different—and even a casual glance at the torso composition says they are—then the "scandal" isn't Madriaga's credibility.

The scandal is the Intellectual Dishonesty of the people who tried to frame a false contradiction.

In 2026, being a witness in an impeachment hearing means you don't just need a lawyer; you need an Art Historian.

The Duterte camp’s desperation is showing. When you have to resort to "Pattern Analysis" and "Sleeve Comparison" to discredit a witness because his actual testimony is too uncomfortable to face, you aren't looking for the truth—you’re just looking for a better scriptwriter.

The Moral of the Story: Before you try to assassinate someone’s character using a painting, make sure you aren't holding the wrong canvas.

Otherwise, the only person you’re painting as a liar is yourself.