Pison 55 1996), without delving into perhaps her most lasting contribution to Philippine dance—“neo-ethnic” choreography. Among all the choreographers I write about and mention in my research (i.e., Myra Beltran, Herbert Alvarez, Angel Lawengko-Baguilat, Ava Villanueva, Avel Bautista, Dwight Rodrigazo, and Noel Garrovillo), Agnes Locsin has the longest affiliation with the Cultural Center of the Philippines. The other choreographers and dancers were, at one point of their careers, part of Ballet Philippines, either as scholars, dancers, guest performers or participants in the company’s workshops. Locsin’s career as faculty and artistic director of Ballet Philippines stretched for a total of fourteen years, after which she decided in 1999 to move on to another phase of her life—returning to and creating works for the arguably oldest dance studio in Davao, her Mommy Carmen’s Locsin Dance Workshop, founded in 1947.2 And because Locsin has been one of the towering figures in modern dance in the Philippines3—together with Alice Reyes, Edna Vida, Denisa Reyes—she and her works have been featured in essays, reviews, and articles in the past decades. But Locsin’s relentless creative efforts and vision for dance—the latter, she humorously denies having—continue to make her a strong presence in Philippine dance. Choreographing in the South, she not only continues to mount shows that are critically acclaimed, both in Davao and Manila, but has likewise worked with other choreographers in her hometown as part of her efforts to widen choreographic vocabularies. If one is interested in looking at how dance is deeply enmeshed in the narrative of the Philippine nation, Locsin’s works would be a rich collection of choreographies to discuss. A listing of her creations reveals re-tellings of various cultural and historical aspects of the nation: Igorot (1988), Ismagol (1990), Bagobo (1990), Kulam (1991), Moslem (1991), and Moriones (1991), Hinilawod (1992), Encantada (1992), Babaylan (1993), Elias (1995), Ang Pagpatay kay Antonio Luna (2002). As expected, the more a work is entangled with history and culture, the more it becomes exposed to various assessments on matters of “authenticity,” “fetishism,” “orientalism,” exoticism, and a whole slew of various ISMs, all of which move around the realm of the “politically correct.” And Locsin’s choreographies have not been spared from censure. One of Locsin’s works that have been the subject of scathing reviews is Igorot (1988).4 To this and her other works have been attached the following caustic labels: “bastardization,” “exploitative,” “neoprimitive” and “cultural mining” (Locsin forthcoming, n.p.). Although