Homebound: women visual artists in nineteenth century Philippines 9789715424172, 9780715424179

Citation preview

HOMEBOUND

| BLANK PAGE |

Women Visual Artists in Nineteenth Century Philippines

Eloisa May P. Hernandez

| The University of the Philippines Press

| Diliman, Quezon City — | In cooperation with the

| National Commission for Culture and the Arts

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES PRESS | E. de los Santos St., UP Campus, Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Tel. No.: 9253243 / Telefax No.: 9282558 e-mail: [email protected] / [email protected] website: www.uppress.org

In cooperation with the National Commission for Culture and the Arts

© 2004 by Eloisa May P. Hernandez , |

All rights reserved. |

No copies can be made in part or in whole without prior | written permission from the author and the publisher.

First printing, 2004 | Second printing, 2005

This book has been made possible with the help of the following grants and institutions: Feliciano Belmonte Educational Grants, Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Development-UP Diliman, Local Faculty Fellowship-UP Diliman, and the Department of Art Studies of the University of the Philippines Diliman.

Edited by Aileen O. Salonga | Translated by Flaudette May V. Datuin Book Design by Veni L. Tlowa Titles and text set in Imprint MT Shadow and Garamond ISBN 971-542-417-1

Printed in the Philippines by Innovation Printshoppe, Inc. |

For all my students and teachers who continue to fuel my passion for teaching and learning

7 BLANK PAGE

oo ~~ CONTENTS List of Illustrations i

Foreword : ees Acknowledgment , _ Xili Timeline of Events Concerning Nineteenth Century

Women Visual Artists in the Philippines XV Introduction / A Look at Mainstream Art History: |

Responding to the Challenge 1

Chapter 1 / Boundaries: | Art, Home, History, and Women 9 Chapter 2 / Absences: .

Visual Arts in Nineteenth-Century Philippines 21 Chapter 3 / Presences:

Women Visual Artists in Nineteenth-Century Philippines 42

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions: 7 The Space of Women in the Works of Paz and Adelaida Paterno 78

Conclusion / Reclamations: |

Looking Forward to the Future Co 131

viii Homebound

Appendices )

Appendix 1: Selected Books on Philippine History 137 Appendix 2: Selected Books on Women’s History

in the Philippines | 140

| Arts History 141

Appendix 3: Selected Books on Philippine Visual

Appendix 4: Full text of Jose Zaragoza’s Article on

La. Srta. Pelagia Mendoza 144

References 147 _ Appendix 5: Full text of Article on Carmen Zaragoza 146

Index 155

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Pelagia Mendoza on the cover of La Llustracion Fihpina,

October 21, 1892 , fe

2. Pelagia Mendoza’s winning sculpture, Busto de Colon.

In La I/ustracion Filipina, October 21, 1892 © a 45 3. Carmen Zaragoza’s Cercanias de Manila (Around Manita).

~ In La Ilustracion Filipina, November 7, 1891 50 4. A drawing of Carmen Zaragoza receiving her prize | while Pelagia Mendoza, beside the Columbus sculpture, looks on. In La I/ustracion Fifipina, October 28, 1892 52 5. Paz Paterno. Szi// Life. 1884. 58 x 79 cm. Oil on canvas.

Private collection. With permission. , | 92 6. Paz Paterno. S“// Life with Bird. Undated. 56.5 x 78.5 cm. ,

With permission. 97 Oil on canvas. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Collection.

7. Paz Paterno. Fruzts and Basket. 1884. 56.5 x 78.5 cm. Oil on canvas. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Collection.

With permission. | ; 100

8. Paz Paterno. Fruzts and Flowers. 1885. 56.5 x 78.5 cm. | Oil on canvas. Bangko Sentral ng Piltpinas Collection.

With permission. - 102

X Homebound 9. Paz Paterno. River Scene with Steamboat. 1885. 28.5 x 49.5 cm. Oil on canvas. Bangko Sentral ng

Pilipinas Collection. With permission. 108 10. Paz Paterno. River Scene with Banca. 1885. 28.5 x 49.5 cm. - Oil on canvas. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Collection.

With permission. , 111

11. Adelaida Paterno. Paszg Raver Scene. 1896. 40.6 x 61 cm.

Oil on canvas. Private collection. Appears in-Art Philppines by Jaan Gatbonton. Reprinted with p ermission. 117

12. Adelaida Paterno. Country Scene. 1897. 33.9 x 45. 7 cm. Human hair on Chinese silk. Bangko Sentral neg Pilipinas

Collection. With permission. | Oo | 120

13. Adelaida Paterno. Rural Scene with Child. Undated.

33.9 x 45.7 cm. Human hair on Chinese silk. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Collection. With permission. 123 14. Adelaida Paterno. Vista de Manquina. 1897. 34 x 45.5 cm.

| Human hair on Chinese silk. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

| Collection. With permission. 125

omen have always been active in nurturing life. While this 7 ) v " nurturing was their main responsibility and preoccupation in the early times in the Philippines, women did many things other than taking care of babies and husbands. They helped secure food,

, transformed plant fiber into sleeping mats, wove that fiber into clothing, and worked clay into pots to add flavor to cooking. In the ‘coutse of time, women’s activities were narrowed down to the confines of their homes, and women were further socialized into

domesticated beings. ee

In the nineteenth century, women who had the opportunity to study were taught the rudiments of art through sewing, embroidery, drawing, and painting so they could take their place in their homes as fine wives. ‘It 1s probable that no one saw them as potential artists in their own

tight. So much so that when they accomplished beyond what was expected of them, these accomplishments went unnoticed. To this day, these accomplishments have remained largely unnoticed.

This situation intrigued Eloi Hernandez, one of our younger colleagues, who then decided to study two women artists in nineteenth century Philippines (Paz and Adelaida Paterno) to begin with for her

MA in Art History thesis. As the study progressed, the writer was delighted to discover a roster of worhen artists which led her to expand the scope of her study. What began as a project to document two artists became a history of many who could have remained buried in oblivion were it not for this inspired author’s mission of making women artists

visible in Philippine art history. : Xi

XU THomebound Given the limitation of recorded information about women artists, — this book attests to the fact that there were many women artists in the

nineteenth century albeit very little is known about them. Because of the limited resources, the amount of information gathered about the artists varies, but whatever information was uncovered remains as valuable as the others. This study is a gateway that will allow others to

pursue further knowledge about women’s lives at different points in time, thus providing the present with knowledge that will help in the

understanding of culture and society. , The chapter on the Paterno sisters provides the microcosmic data _ that gives a picture of their time and space. The author does this by

letting us experience space through their expressed images. These expressed images become the primary source of herstory and through it the space in which these women breathed and lived. | It was exciting to monitor the progress of this historical investigation

and more exciting to find women who quietly created works of art, using their creative energies in making their lives as aesthetic and meaningful as their ancestors before them. This opus 1s certainly a great contribution to the body of knowledge on Philippine women artists.

Brenda V. Fajardo, PhD

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Ts journey of writing this book has been a long and winding road.

I was joined by friends, family, teachers, and students who filled the journey with grace. I would like to mention and thank all of them. To very good friends who joined me in this long journey: Aileen Salonga (my editor who made sense whenever I did not), Tuni Balisi

(my photographer and magician), Marion, Malou, Bombi, Raphy, and Eric of Boon Prints (who helped with the colored pages), May

Datuin (for the translation and “positive” criticism), UP Press director Cristina Pantoja Hidalgo and Ruth Pison (who encouraged me to turn this into a book), and especially Brenda Fajardo, my thesis adviser, inspiration, and friend. Kind people who helped me during the trek: Che Navida, Blandi Alvarez, Gerry Lucena, Daki Fernando, Mrs. Grace Pelayo, Lulu Razote,

Reggie Murillo, Grace T.,, Jane, JT, Ka Ipe, Rodel, Nap, Veni Ilowa, Gerry Los Bafios, Raphy Cada, Armine Soberano, the UP Press staff, and all my Aantays at the CAL Dean’s Office (Ate Cora, Ate Eve, Ate - Au, Ate Tere, and Ate Cory). People who shared information and pointed me in the nght direction: Regalado Trota Jose, Jaime C. Laya, Fernando Zialcita, Nico de Lange Mallari, Michelle Mallari Olondriz, Irene Araneta, Jeannie Javelosa, Ma. Elena Paterno, Socorro Paterno, Amy Paterno, Pancy Paterno, Roberto Paterno, Frances Arespacochaga, Vergel Meneses, and the staff of Silay

Museum. |

Guiding lights— teachers and colleagues who taught, showed, _ pushed, pulled, criticized, encouraged, and provoked me along this

XIV Homebound pilgrimage: Bambi Moya Torrecampo, Tiya Fe Mangahas, Malou Camagay, Doc Nic Tiongson, Rosario Lapuz, Chari Lucero, Frances Morillo, Norma Respicio, Elenita Ordofiez, Marie Icagasi, Shine Canta,

Cecille de la Paz, Lynette Mirano, Alice Guillermo, Patrick Flores, Prospero Covar, Ramon Santos, and Ma’am Nieves Epistola (tf). My family who supported me in countless ways: Mommy, Dad, Liza, and Tita Chit. For my babies who made the trip bearable: Chryso, Cocoy,

and Dale. My two guardian angels protecting me from perils along the

road: Tita Jojo (}) and Lola Ruth (7). re For dear friends who always believed I could take on any journey

and make it: Nina, Lia, Eileen,Jo,and Ellen. ss For Aleya, for unselfishly sharing her mother with me. For Riya, thank you for more than ten years of friendship, love, inspiration, sacrifice, patience, tolerance, understanding, and support. _ And my favorites in life— my pangga Grace and pretty Sofie—

thank you for filling my life with love and immeasurable joy

, _ Timeline of Events Concerning Nineteenth Century = ,

| Women Visual Artists in the Philippines _ _

1826 | | |

Year | Events Concerning Nineteenth Century | Women Visual Artists ae

1821 Academia de Dibujo of Damian Domingo opens | |

July 20 Margarita Roxasisborn pho

: Real Sociedad Economica de Amigos del Pats’ Academia de Dibujo merges with Damian Domingo’s Academia de Dibujo”

1834 | Academia de Dibujo closes , - oO 1845 Gov. Gen. Narciso Claveria approves the opening of the Academia

de Dibujo y Pintura 1853 Corinta Ramirezis born =~ re Me 7 c. 1855 Emma Vidalisborn oe]

1861 , _ | ae c. 1860 - Granada Cabezudo isborn

September 17 Petrona Nakpil is born —— ; Oo , ae

1867 re June 9 Pelagia Mendoza isborn ee

1864 Eulalia Asuncionisborn = - oe

Lorenzo Rocha was appointed as director of Academia de Dibujo fo

November T aan Paz Paterno isborn - - 7 | | 1868 Clemencia Ramirez marries Lorenzo Guerrero ,

‘November 14° | Trinidad Paternoisborn ,

1869 a . pe ) ee : a May 27 Juana Zamoraisborn November 1 Margarita Roxas dies OO ,

Xvi Homebound Year Events Concerning Nineteenth Century

- ~Women Visual Artists | |

1875 Marina Dizon Santiago 1s born 1876

June 29 Carmen Zaragoza is born ,

1882 | 1883

1878 Flora de Filipinas is published, with one work by Emma Vidal _

May 21 Concepcion Paterno 1s born

1880

October 24 Adelaida Paterno 1s born

October Clemencia Ramirez poses for Lorenzo Guerrero’s Tercentenary

celebration of Santa Theresa ,

May 20 Clemencia Ramirez dies

1884 Paz Paterno paints the following: ° Still Life

° Still Life with Bird (undated but around this time)

¢ Fruits and Basket ,

1885 | Paz Paterno paints. | ¢ Fruits and Flowers

* Raver Scene with Banca , ° Raver Scene with Steamboat

° Portrait (Old Woman)

September 5 Juana Zamora marries PabloOcampo

1887 1887 Exposicion de Filipinas en Madrid: ¢ Granada Cabezudo Una Mestiza ¢ Students of Royal College of Santa Isabel and students of the

| Augustinians ; 1888 1888 Exposicion Universal en Barcelona: | ¢ Paz Longos Retrato de D. Alfonso XII, bordado al laustn

1889 Pelagia Mendoza is admitted to the Escuela de Dibujo y Pintura (the first woman student)

Consuelo Grande-Cuyugan is born

1890 Eulalia Asuncion dies

Timeline of Events. XVil Year Events Concerning Nineteenth Century Women Visual Artists , c. 1890 Trinidad Paterno paints Rural Scene with Water Carrier 1891

November 7 Cercanias de Manila by Carmen Zaragoza is published in _ La Ilastracion Filipina (LIF)

1892 Pelagia Mendoza: — completes painting course from Escuela de Dibujo y Pintura;

October 12 — wins a prize in Columbus Quadricentennial; , October 21 —an article about her, including her picture and her bust of Columbus, is published in LIF; —wins 2nd prize in Chicago Universal Exposition; — wins in Tercer Centenario de San Juan de la Cruz; — was awarded the Cruz de Merito Civil Carmen Zaragoza: — wins in LIF competition celebrating Columbus Quadricentennial for Dos Inteligenctas

October 14 — article about her winning the competition and her work Dos

Intehigencias 1s published in LIF

October 28 — drawing of Carmen Zaragoza and Pelagia Mendoza receiving the — prize is published in LIF

Petrona Nakpil de Bautista: , — wins a Diploma of Honor from Tercer Centenario de San Juan de la Cruz

| 1892 Chicago Universal Exposition: Pelagia Mendoza wins 2nd prize for her bust of Columbus

1892 or 1893 Pelagia Mendoza marries Crispulo Zamora | 1893 Carmen Zaragoza paints Portrait of Don Jose Zaragoza

1895 1895 Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila: | —twenty women enter the competition

Carmen Zaragoza: -, * two palisajes Petrona Nakpil de Baustista paints: * Woman on a Carabao ° Native Scene

* two oil paintings on palette ° The Sewer (andated)

XViti , Homebound Year Events Concerning Nineteenth Century Women Visual Artists

1896 Adelaida Paterno paints:

, * Pasig Raver Scene ° Orillas del Marne

Concepcion Paterno paints a paisaje

March 7 Carmen Zaragoza marries Gregorio Araneta

Celedonia Domingo Ongpin is born , 1897 Adelaida Paterno embroiders:

* Country Scene ,

° Rural Scene with Child (andated) ° Vista de Mariquina

1898 Pelagia Mendoza completes her studies in sculpture from Escuela de Dibujo y Pintura

1904 1904 St. Louis Universal Exposition: — Maria Infante del Rosario wins bronze medal for Two Mestizas — Victoria Sanchez earns an Honorable Mention for Estudio de

1914 , Cabeza

1909

December 16 Corinta Ramirez dies

August 25 Paz Paterno dies 1932

November 25 Trinidad Paterno dies

1943 ,

1934

Apxil 5 Concepcion Paterno dies 1939

March 12 Pelagia Mendoza dies

May 29 Juana Zamora dies

June 29 Carmen Zaragoza dies , 1948

| September 16 Petrona Nakpil de Bautista dies

Timeline of Events X1X Year Events Concerning Nineteenth Century Women Visual Artists

1962 ,

1950 Marina Dizon Santiago dies | |

November 2 Adelaida Paterno dies |

BLANK PAGE

INTRODUCTION

A LOOK AT MAINSTREAM ART HISTORY Responding to the Challenge

ocusing on Filipino women visual artists of the nineteenth century,

FB this book is part of a complex undertaking—that of reclaiming women visual artists from history’s erasures, concealments, and forgetting. This book’s central problem responds to Patrick D. Flores’s challenge in “Cracking the Canon, Repositioning the Other: Towards a Reterritorialization of Philippine Visual Arts” in which he asks: “The question now is this: Were there really no women visual artists during this time? If there had been, who were they? How many were they? But who teally knows?” (1990, 57). In this book, I will address this challenge by

presenting the answers to the following specific questions: 1) were there women visual artists in nineteenth-century Philippines? who were they and what were their works?’ where are their works now?; 2) how do I characterize the space in which women artists move 1n Philippine history, in art history,

_and in their works’; and 3) how is this space encoded in women’s works,

particularly in the works of Paz and Adelaida Paterno? Philippine art history has been silent about nineteenth-century women visual artists, and it is due to this silence that I am presenting their histories in this book. In responding to this problem, this book aims to rewrite the terms and content of mainstream art history. I have also come up with a list of more than fifty women visual artists, who

1,

2 | Homebound were active at that time, but who are rarely discussed—if at all—in Philippine history books and 1n mainstream art history books. Most of these women belonged to the z/ustrado* class. Though they belonged to

this class, they did not share the same privileges as their male counterparts. Many of them stopped painting the moment they married.

Others remained hidden behind the shadows of their male teachers and students, who are now considered the more visible agents in the canon of Philippine art: Lorenzo Guerrero, who was teacher to some of the young budding painters of that ttme, women included; Fabian dela Rosa, who was a student of his aunt Mariana dela Rosa; Simon Flores, the more famous brother of Celestina and Juanita Flores; and » Bonifacio Arevalo, who was Eulalia Asuncion’s student and nephew of her husband.

But more than just filling the gaps of history by listing down the names of these women, this book also offers an analysis of women’s space as site, which Cecilia de la Paz in “From Genre to Landscape: Siting/Sighting the Philippines” explains as “place as referential point, which can give us an idea where we are at a particular point in time,” (1998, 8), and the way through which the women visual artists of this period made use of their space. Thus, in this book, space 1s concetved not only as “location,” but also as “spatial order and social space” as Griselda Pollock explains in “Modernity and the Spaces of Femininity.”

Presenting a list of forgotten women artists 1s indeed important, but insufficient. Pollock writes: Historical recovery of women who were artists is a prime necessity because of the consistent obliteration of their activity in what passes

for art history. We have to refute the lies that there were no women , artists, or that the women artists who are admitted are second-rate and that the reason for their indifference lies in the all-pervasive

submission to an indelible femininity—always proposed as unquestionably a disability in making art. But alone historical recovery

is insufficient. (1988, 55) |

In excavating and writing about the women visual artists of nineteenth-century Philippines, I aim, not just to fill in the gaps, but

Introduction / A Look at Mainstream Art History 3 more importantly, to contribute to the remapping of the history of the visual arts in the Philippines. Women are not just token additions to an unchanged art history, but active agents, whose practices have the power

to transform the art-historical landscape. , In this book then, I will argue that the space of Filipino women visual artists in the nineteenth century was the home, a limited private domain to which they were bound, relegated, and confined. However, despite this confinement, the women visual artists of this period found the time and space for their art, and it was in their homes where they actively pursued this art. First, it was in the confines of their homes where they were trained to make art. Second, it was where they developed ; their art, specifically their bodegones and paisajes’-—gentres usually associated

with women. Third, they used their homes as referential point, as a perspective with which to see the world. And fourth and last, it was in

the home where they displayed their art. The key idea here is the empowerment that these women were able to achieve, even in the confinement of their homes, and now, even in the face of invisibility in

history and in art history. |

To support these claims, I will give particular attention to sisters Paz Paterno and Adelaida Paterno—therr lives, family, education, and art works. In analyzing the works of the Paterno sisters, I will focus on space as a category and Home as the primary space. It is evident in their

work that the home, while a space of confinement and invisibility, is also a space of resistance and empowerment. Thus, the title Homebound. The Paterno sisters and the other women. visual artists of this century were bound to their homes. However, their

homes did not bind them, for these women turned the boundaries of their homes—explored, developed, and celebrated their art in their homes. I myself am Homebound as | find myself returning to the home, their homes, to find their works. The home ts reclaimed and redefined—_ unbound. The first chapter of this book presents some basic assumptions on > which I have based many of my arguments and much of my analyses.

In this chapter, I explain the notion of art and art history upon which my analysis of the Filipino women visual artists of the nineteenth century

4 Homebound is grounded. Then, I define space as I use it in this book, and argue that the space occupied by Filipino women and women visual artists in the _ nineteenth century was primarily and specifically the Home and all that the home constitutes in both the literal and metaphorical levels. I end

the chapter with some observations about the space women have occupied in history and society, and accordingly, the space women visual artists have occupied in mainstream art history and criticism to establish

some generalities about the space that women—both as women and as artists—have occupied. The second chapter locates the women visual artists in the nineteenth . century within the context of Philippine history and art history, a history

in which the key players are men, particularly those of the ilustrado class, a history in which women are invisible and devalued. In my discussion, however, I show certain turning points in Philippine art history which are normally not seen as significant in mainstream books on Philippine art history, such as women’s entry into the colonial art

school with Pelagia Mendoza as the first female student and these women’s participation in the major competitions and expositions of the period. In this chapter I challenge the way women have been represented in the histories I have examined and reposition them as

active agents both of history and art.

The third chapter looks at the women visual artists of the nineteenth century in more detail. I discuss the women visual artists of the period to show how their works can actually be considered turning points that

run like a strong subtext to what art history presents as major turning points. Then, I offer some explanations for why these women visual artists remain invisible in mainstream works on Philippine history and att history despite their active participation in the art production of their time. The fourth chapter focuses on the lives and works of ilustrado sisters Paz Paterno and Adelaida Paterno. In this part, I present the Paternos’ family history, followed by the sisters’ individual biographies and their entry into the institutions of the art world, particularly the art expositions

of the day. It is in my analysis of their works that I use in particular detail the concept of space as first defined by Pollock and appropriated

Introduction / A Look at Mainstream Art I listory 5 by Datuin. In the Paterno sisters’ paisajes, bodegones, and their combinations, while I sense the narrowness of the Home as space, | also sense its potential to provide the space in and from which women can actively paint, study, and live their lives as active historical agents.

For instance, Adelaida’s embroidery, fashioned from her hair, 1s | significant, not only because of the material used and the complexity

of design, but also because, to me, it shows one of the earliest depictions—if not the first—of the space of women laborers. The last part of the book is the conclusion 1n which I suggest an agenda for writing and research, in the quest to further reclaim women’s voices from art history’s exclusions. The search for primary sources for this book is a difficult one. There

is a dearth of available published written materials about the women | visual artists in the nineteenth century. There is also a dearth of surviving works by women artists in the nineteenth century. Apparently, because these women and their works have been invisible and devalued, the works of women painters, embroiderers, and sculptors are often not

preserved and conserved.

For instance, in the case of the Paterno family, according to the Philippine National Archives, the records are closed to people outside of the family. However, I have had the opportunity to conduct interviews with some family members and view the family records that are in the possession of surviving descendants. I also viewed the art works of the Paterno sisters in the collection of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central

~ Bank of the Philippines), with the assistance of Ms. Frances Arespacochaga and Mr. Vergel Meneses. Dr. Jatme C. Laya was kind enough to let me into his private residence to view his collection of the Paterno sisters. I am also indebted to Dr. Jatme Laya and Ms. Jeannie Javelosa for the permission to use the photographs of several paintings. | The following people have also extended valuable help and time to this reseatch: Mrs. Socorro Paterno, Ms. Ma. Elena Paterno-Locsin, Ms. Amy Paterno, Ms. Pancy Paterno, and Mr. Roberto Paterno. It 1s partly because

of these opportunities and the fact that the Paterno sisters have the most number of extant works that I am focusing my analysis on their works.

6 [Tomebound The first and primary source for the art historian 1s the artwork—

its medium, technique, and the concepts and depictions of reality represented in the work. Providing the clues to this version of reality are visual elements such as line, color, texture, space, composition, and so on. Also subjected to scrutiny is the work’s iconography, 1n other wotds, the work’s meaning and symbol system within a particular context.

The artist’s styles of figuration and strategies for manipulating and mobilizing the available resources of the visual arts are also considered.

Biography and the artist’s social context are also sources of analysis, particularly on the ways they impact on the works. These elements— form, iconography, and biography—may not be evenly examined 1n my analysis, mainly because my focus is on space as /ocation, soctal order, and soctal space, terms that I explain in the first chapter of this book.

Much as I would like to include a wider variety of women visual artists in this work, the scope of this book is centered on the women of Manila, who actively produced works in the nineteenth century,

and does not include—except in passing—women in other places in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. This study is also lamited to women

of a particular class, mostly from the ilustrado class, to which the Paterno sisters belonged. Despite efforts to uncover information on the women of the working classes and their works, I was not able to find enough information on them.* There ts a possibility of the existence of artworks by women artists in Spain and Mexico, especially those sent as gifts for the monarchs and those sent for the expositions, but financial limitations hinder the search for these works. In the thirty-four books on Philippine history, history of Filipino women, and history of Philippine visual arts’ which I have consulted, women are in the periphery, buried, and forgotten. Women who painted, sculpted, and embroidered are invisible and non-entities in these histortes.

However, there are some valuable works that have helped in repositioning these women. First 1s the archival work of Regalado Trota Jose, who, to my knowledge, was the first to write articles on women 1n

the visual arts of the nineteenth century. In his essay “The Eyes of Carmelita” in the book 7030 K. Hidalgo published in 1986, he mentions

Introduction / A Look at Mainstream Art [story 7 Carmen Zatagoza, Pelagia Mendoza, and the women who participated in the 1895 Exposicion Regional de Manila. Second 1s the essay of Patrick D. Flores titled “Cracking the Canon, Repositioning the Other: Towards a Reterritortalization of Philippine Visual Arts” published in Diiman Remew in 1990, which has drawn particular attention to the problem of women’s exclusion 1n art history. This was followed by his essay “Birthing Women Artists” which appeared

in Swlyap Kutura of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts in 1996 in which he establishes the lineage of Filipina artists from the

Trota Jose. |

nineteenth century, drawing from the archival materials of Regalado ‘Third is the undergraduate thesis titled “Women Artists and Gender Issues in Nineteenth Century Philippines” of Art Studies major Raissa

Claire U. Rivera. An amended version of this thesis was published in Review of Women’s Studies of the UP Center for Women’s Studies in 1998.

Another important work, the fourth on my list, is Rosa Marie Magno Icagast’s essay titled “The Filipina as Artist and Art Subject in the 19th > Century Philippine Art” which also appeared in the Rewew of Women’s Studies of the UP Center for Women’s Studies in 1998. Fifth and last, and perhaps the most significant contribution to this

area of study, is Flaudette May Datuin’s body of work on women of the visual arts in the Philippines and Asia. She organized and curated a series of exhibits-conferences titled Women Imaging Women® in 1998-99, drawing from her research on women artists in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia. She also published Home Body Memory: Filipina Artists in the Visual Arts, 19th Century to the Present in 2002, a modified

version of her dissertation for a PhD in Philippine Studies. To date, it is the most comprehensive material on women artists of the Philippines. She also published The Spaces of Masculinity and Fenuninity in the Visual

Alrts in 2002. Among Datuin’s many essays is “Seeing (Women) Through,” which appeared in Perspectives on the Vargas Museum Collection: Minding the Modern in 2001. In these works, Datuin appropriates Griselda

Pollock’s use of space as category of analysis, and this appropriation is especially significant to me because this is the analysis that I follow in this book.

Q [lomebound This book then is my contribution to the preliminary efforts of

Jose, Flores, Rivera, Icagasi, and Datuin to map out, or more appropriately, remap Philippine art history.

Notes 1. Studies by Rivera (1998a, b) and Icagas1 (1998) indicate that there were

indeed women artists in the nineteenth century. I will discuss these women more fully in chapters 2 and 3. The book follows this track, while I add more

to their list. ,

2. “Educated class,” the ilustrado is elaborated in chapter 2. 3. For a detailed discussion of these terms, see chapter 2.

4. For information on the working women of Manila, see the work of Ma. Luisa Camagay.

5. My reading of these books ts discussed in chapter 1. A listing of all these books 1s in the appendix. 6. [had the opportunity to manage these exhibits-conferences.

BOUNDARIES Art, Home, History, and Women |

The presence of the male in this instance is sharply marked, unerring, and cannot be missed, while woman is absent, znvistble, and silent.’ (Flores 1990, 57)

Re-defining Art | | T his book’s context ts art history, a discipline which puts art in the context of culture, society, and history. Art history works on the following assumptions: first, art is a representation of reality and not its mirror ot reflection. Although there is a dominant thread that persists in construing art as mirror, following Plato and Anistotle’s concept of mimesis, I subscribe to the notion that art 1s not a copy of reality, life, ot “truth,” but a representation—a version of reality by a person (the artist). As representation, art is an artist’s interpretation, a process of sionification, of forming meanings. It is a way of seeing the world, one that goes through several layers of mediation, arising out of an artist’s context, and resulting from her creativity and her modes of processing reality.

,9,

Second, the artist is a creative agent. Artis a process of transforming

an idea, rendered into form through the creative competence and

10 I lomebound intervention of an artist. The artist has her own context, history, personality, and position, which are shaped by society. Conversely, the

artist also shapes her context, history, personality, and position. She does not exist in a vacuum, and 1s therefore not an autonomous genius

who exists in total freedom. The artist and her agency, or her creative will, are central to art history. However, at the same time, her creative will is limited by societal structures or institutions like the home, the church, the media, and the academe. She actively negotiates the tension between her own creative will and these structures, and is continuously struggling to move within at the same time that she tries to transcend the limits placed upon her by these structures. This 1s why the artist’s biography also exerts a profound impact on the artist’s vision, style,

aesthetics, themes, techniques, and creative process. Art is a | representation of the artist’s “subjective” viewpoint, which is almost always grounded 1n or influenced by the societal dictates and desires of the artist’s times.

Third, the audience’s perception of art is always subjective. The audience is neither objective nor passive, but an active participant in the

interpretation of art. Her interpretation is usually dependent upon her own perceptions and experiences. The two are ina dialectical relationship in which the audience is influenced by her perceptions and experiences

at the same time that she influences her perceptions and experiences based on the reading that she puts into works of art. Meanings can change, according to what a particular audience gives to the work in particular societies at particular periods in time. Fourth and last, art 1s a construct and not a universal given. The definitions of art and artistry emerge from a field of instituttons—the state, museums, galleries, schools, teachers, art critics, patrons, the press, reviewers, and critics. These institutions have the power to define certain

objects as “art” and certain people as “artists.” They set the terms of art, its meanings, and the ways by which these meanings are constructed. Audiences change through time, and so do art’s definitions, parameters, and meanings.

Given these assumptions, it is to be noted that there are certain stable practices and constructs that through time have acquired a

Chapter 1 / Boundarics 11 universal, and thus, “natural” status. The art world has always been

a wotld of men. Many of the institutions that dominate in the art world are directed by men or are biased toward men. Men comprise the majority of artists. In fact, the term “artists” refers to people who, according to Whitney Chadwick in Women, Art, and Society, are

“male and white” (1996, 8). Artists, who are women, are “women artists,” and not simply artists. The Western construct of art as “fine art” not only excludes the | production of women, but also allows for and encourages a hierarchy of values in art. The fine arts like painting and sculpture are privileged

and considered “legitimate,” while “crafts” like embroidery are not considered art. Within the fine arts, there 1s also a hierarchy according to themes and genre. Paisajes and bodegones mostly the subject matter

of women, occupy the lowest rung in the hierarchy, while historical painting occupies the highest position. In this book, based once again on the assumptions I have laid out, this hierarchy is questioned, and the definition of art 1s challenged. I argue that all forms—from painting, to embroidery, to bodegones and paisajes—are legitimate, because all of these are representations of an

artist’s versions of reality. , Re-mapping Space

This book revolves around the concept of space, which I examine on several levels. First, I present the space of women 1n history—which includes the following specific histories: Philippine history, women’s , history in the Philippines, and women’s history in the Philippine visual arts—to map out the existing landscape and establish the absence of women in these mainstream renderings of history. Second, I examine

and explain the space of women in the visual arts of the nineteenth century as a counter-text, a challenge to the absence that permeates the existing landscape. Third and last, I look at the representations of the

spaces of women in the nineteenth century in the works of Paz and Adelaida Paterno, which then leads me to conclude that the home was not just private space but artistic space for the women visual artists in

the nineteenth century. | ,

12 Homebound _ Space in this book then 1s construed differently. According to Griselda Pollock in her essay titled “Modernity and the Spaces of Femininity,’ one of the most important projects of feminist writers 1s the “deconstruction of the discourses and practices of art history itself” (1988, 55). One of these is the discourse and practice of space. Flaudette May Datuin has responded to this challenge by appropriating Pollock’s — -

notion of space in her analyses of works by Filipino artists, mostly women. For my part, I am following Pollock and Datuin in their concept of space as an approach with which to analyze the artworks of women

in the Philippines during the nineteenth century. Similar to Pollock’s definition of space, which is later appropriated by Datuin, space hete is

conceived as: |

1. locations, such as dining rooms, drawing rooms, bedrooms, balconies /

verandas, private gardens, park, theater; | 2. spatial order within works, which includes composition, delineation

of space, perspective, viewing position, experiential and phenomenological space;

3. social spaces, from which the representation and its reciprocal positionalities between viewer/spectator and artist/producer are

made. (Pollock 1988, 56-66)

In the nineteenth century, women’s roles in society were limited to

being mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, and/or aunts. Their main concern revolved around nurturing their family in the space, which is described by Maria Paz Mendoza-Guazon in The Development and Progress

of the Filipino Women, as “Kirche, Kuche, und Kinder (that is, church,: kitchen, and children) ...” (1928, 19). Mendoza-Guazon continues that, “A young girl was trained from childhood to obey, to keep quiet ... scarcely ever left her home and even there she was carefully guarded by

her parents and relatives...” (1928, 19-20). The woman was bound, confined to, and cosseted in the comfortable but limited spaces of her

home. |

On the other hand, Ma. Luisa Camagay writes in her book Working

Women of Manila in the 19th Century: | ,

Chapter 1 / Boundaries 130 | The Filipino women of the Spanish period had a mind of their own, assertive, active and enterprising. The idealized notion of the

Filipino women as coy, shy and retiring was an idea, which the Spaniards tried to impose on the Filipino women ... The emancipated

status of Filipino women in the 19th century was observed to be true not only among women of the laboring class but among the upper class as well. (1995, 119)

Despite Camagay’s view of women in the nineteenth century, my reading of the works by dlustrado women indicates that the space they occupied in their homes was indeed, narrow, confined, and limited. The home, at this point, is a category of space that refers to what Goodall calls the everyday world of routine and repetition ... where women perform their mundane and conflicting roles as wives, mothers, daughters,

and sisters .... Home also refers to an ensemble of material objects (house, its rooms, furniture), a spatial organization, a physical and social envelope. (Goodall 1996, 187)

However, the home can also be a site of resistance and empowerment. It 1s not always and necessarily a site of confinement | and limitation. Datuin explains this seeming paradox. Home ts often denigrated as the “domestic sphere” of women’s feminine and “private” lives, of tedium and housework—a primary

site of women’s subordination and brutalization, but also of empowerment and subversion. On the one hand, home ts a site of patriarchy, where mothers pass on patriarchal values to their daughters,

who willin turn pass them on to their daughters. On the other hand, home is “a room of one’s own,” a space where we find comfort, peace, security, and everyday forms of resistance. In the case of the 19th century women visual artists, their homes became the site of

| their creative endeavors. (Datuin 2002, 24) In the end, the concept of home as space is re-defined in the same way that space ts. So, while it is smportant to see the home according to

14 Homebound the restrictions and limitations of nineteenth century Philippines, it is

equally important to see what the women artists of the nineteenth century did to make it a useful and creative space for them.

Re-addressing Philippine History The history of the Philippines is a history of men. According to Camagay, “History has been quite unfair to women until recently. It is enough to go through the index of a history book and see how sadly women have been ignored in the narrative of a country’s past” (1995, 1). Camagay is quite right in this claim. For instance, in my analysis of fifteen biographies’ on “important” and “significant” Filipinos in history, it is evident that women are hardly mentioned. Except for Magdalena Avenir Manuel who co-authored with E. Arsenio Manuel the Dictionary of Philippine Biography Volume IV in 1995, fourteen out of the fifteen books were written by male writers and historians.

If women do get mentioned in history books such as these, it is often in connection with men, such as “Silang’s wife,” “Jose Rizal’s mother,” and “Johanna, beautiful wife of Humabon.” Women are not only peripheral, but also stereotyped according to how “beautiful” they are, as exemplified in Johanna’s description and in such phrases as

“Purmassuri, Moro Beauty.” |

- Women are also mentioned in connection with religion and education, two spheres that ate associated with women. According to Mendoza-Guazon, “A young woman could be a teacher, a nun, or a spinster” (1928, 19). Andif they are mentioned as artists, they are limited

to the performing arts, or those that are associated with women and their bodies—singing, dancing, or acting in film or theater. This is most

probably because the performing arts is the field closest to the more accepted roles of women as entertainers, a field that caters to a mostly male audience, the responsibility of which is to give pleasure and comfort to males. Very few women are mentioned in the fields of sculpture and

painting. oe

Due to the dearth of women in writings on Philippine history, several

women writers and researchers wrote about women and theit

Chapter 1 / Boundaries 15 roles in Philippine history. However, even in the four books’ on women in Philippine history written by women, which I have consulted, there is no mention of women embroideters, painters, and sculptors. Many of the women who appeared in these four books,

as I have also noted in the biographies, are listed under the field of

the performing arts. Another reason that can account for this categorization is that the visual arts of painting and embroidery, as they were practiced by women in the nineteenth century, were not considered “serious” endeavors, but as Encarnacion Alzona describes © in The Filipino Woman: Her Social, Economic, and Political Status, “a hobby

of convent-bred girls who liked to decorate their homes with the product of their artistic endeavors” (1934, 34). Sadly, this perception

continues up to the present time. © |

Indeed, Philippine history is a history of men. According to Thelma Kintanar, it is not only a history of men, it is “largely a history of the elite or tlustrados” (Kintanar 1995, ix). Thus, we can say that the history of the Philippines is largely a history of ilustrado men. Many of the women artists in the visual arts of the nineteenth

century were from the ilustrado class. As ilustrados they were privileged, but as women, they were marginalized. Pollock confirms

this relationship between the issues of class on the one hand and gender on the other: “Undoubtedly these exchanges are structured by relations of class but these are thoroughly captured within gender

and its power relations. Neither can be separated or ordered in a hierarchy. They are historical simultaneities and mutually inflecting” (1995, 54). The spaces that women and men occupy are differently

structured. Pollock continues that the difference is based on a “historical asymmetry—a difference socially, economically, subjectively between being a woman and being a man ... in the late

nineteenth century” (1988, 55). The separation and hierarchy of spaces occupied by women and men have nothing to do with anatomy, but according to the lines drawn by society. This condition was especially true in the nineteenth century. Aside from educational opportunities, women had fewer privileges compared to theit male counterparts. They seldom had the opportunity to travel

16 Homebound outside the confines of their domestic sphere—the home, where they performed their duties as nurturers of their husbands, brothers, and children. The women were also governed by very strict moral guidelines

such as the code of manners titled Urbana at Fehsa written by Padre

Modesto de Castro in 1858, which | admonishes women to steer clear of their windows, because they may otherwise expose themselves to the dangers of the “real world,” including its worldly desires, crimes, disorder, and injustices. If they

linger too much by their open windows, they will be perceived as immodestly exposing themselves, like a cluster of grapes for passersby

to pluck and partake. (Datuin 2002, 193) | So it is not a surprise that women visual artists during the nineteenth

century ate absent, silent, hidden, and missing from the space of Philippine history and the history of women in the Philippines.

Even in the history of the visual arts in the Philippines, women ate hardly mentioned as made obvious in the fifteen books* which I have consulted. Women artists do not enjoy the same visibility as

exclusion. |

their male counterparts. Flores posits a possible reason for this

Unlike their male peers who were able to cross over to the mainstream

of artistic production by training under European mentors, women attists were to remain locked in the confines of the home, dutifully playing the putatively natural roles of wife, mother, daughter, and sister. In other words, while Filipino male artists assimilated into the so-called art world through colonial tutelage, thus assuming the status

of “artist” in the Western sense, the Filipino women artists were excluded from it. They were not male, they were not artists. (Flores 1990, : 55-56)

The exclusion of women from various institutions of art during

| the nineteenth century virtually guaranteed the exclusion of women from Philippine art history. According to Flores, this exclusion of women from the visual arts is a result of the re-definition of art occasioned by colonization and made specific by the institution of

Chapter 1 / Boundaries 17 the Academia de Dibujo y Pintura, the premier art school during -

the Spanish colonization of the Philippines: “This colonial arrangement was supported by the academic institutions which prescribed, disseminated, and privileged the norms of European att, and with it the whole apparatus of patriarchy.” Flores gives as an example the fact that the academy was run by men like Damian Domingo and Agustin Saez. Flores also notes that only male artists

were recognized and celebrated: local mintaturists like Antonio Malantic, Simon Flores, and Mariano Asuncion; and international greats such as Juan Luna and Felix Resurreccion Hidalgo. Later on, during the American period, the male-dominated UP School of Fine Arts, with Rafael Enriquez serving as director for 17 years and Jose Maria Asuncion, Miguel Zaragoza, Joaquin Herrera, Vicente Francisco, Teodoro Buenaventura serving as professors, emerged as

one of the major focal points of Philippine art. It was also during this time that the locus of artistic activity shifted to the art movements

whose geneses were likewise attributed to maestros in the persons

of Fabian de la Rosa, Fernando Amorsolo, Jorge Pineda, and Dominador Castafieda. Later on, this de la Rosa-Amorsolo stranglehold would be challenged by Victorio Edades, Galo Ocampo, and Diosdado Lorenzo. In the contemporary setting, Philippine art is still very much a male-dominated territory. All National Artists for the visual arts ... are male. (1990, 56)

Even in educational materials at the University of the Philippines, the absence of women artists is stark. In Alice Guillermo’s chapter titled “Art and Culture in the Nineteenth Century” in the book Ang Sining sa Kasaysayang Pilipino, only Paz Paterno’s painting S#// Life is included. Eulalia Asuncion is also mentioned, but only in connection with her being a teacher to Bonifacio Arevalo, her husband’s nephew. In the textbook Art and Society of the UP Department of Art Studies, all of those mentioned in Guillermo’s article “Philippine Art in the Nineteenth Century” are men. Like Eulalia Asuncion, women are often mentioned in history in connection with their kinship ties to men. Mariana de la Rosa is known as the aunt and teacher of Fabian de la Rosa; Clemencia Ramirez as

18 Homebound | wife of Lorenzo Guerrero; and Pelagia Mendoza, the first female art student of the Escuela de Dibujo y Pintura, as wife of Crispulo Zamora.

In a biography of Lorenzo Guerrero by E. Arsenio Manuel, fifteen women are mentioned, but only as his students. The canon of major works is thus a canon of men, written 1n art history mostly by men. Except for Alice Coseteng’s article on Paz Paterno which appeared in .A Portfoho of 60 Philppine Art Masterpieces and Alice

Guillermo’s various articles on Philippine art and society, most of the writers, historians, and critics are men. It is probable that it never crossed

the minds of these writers that there actually were women artists. I do | not think that this disregard 1s intentional though. I surmise that these

writers ate simply working within constructs and parameters that “naturally” associate creativity in the visual arts with men. Another possible factor for women’s exclusion is women’s relegation and confinement to the space of the home—a private, enclosed and restricted

space of domesticity. And because this is the space of the mundane,

even the art produced by women in this domain is considered insignificant. As Norman Bryson points out in Looking at the Overlooked: Four Essays on Still Life Painting, the world of women is associated with the mundane,

ot what he terms as the domain of rhopography— the life of the table, of the household interior, of the basic creaturely acts of eating and drinking, of artifacts which surround the subject in her or his domestic space, of the everyday world of routine and repetition, at a level. of existence where events are ... but the smallscale, trivial, forgettable acts of bodily survival and self-maintenance. (1990, 14)

On the other hand, the world of men 1s the domain of megalography,

of “large-scale, momentous events of History” (1990, 14). This mundane world of women then has been deemed not worthy of study and documentation by mainstream art history.

Women are invisible, not because there are no female painters, sculptors, or embroiderers, but because their works are not valued and ate undocumented by institutions and people, who are mostly men, or

Chapter 1 / Boundaries : 19 in some cases, women, who subscribe to the dominant constructs of art. Most of these writers also write in formalist, connoisseurial terms, in accordance with the notion of art as fine arts, and the fine art/craft dichotomy. Linda Nochlin asks in her germinal essay, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” (1971, 145-77). According to Nochlin, men

have laid down the criteria for greatness, and such criteria necessarily exclude the productions of artists who are women. Also, women have been deprived of opportunities to produce and become artists, since the institutions of the art world automatically exclude or at least make it difficult for women to make it as artists. They have built-in limitations, particularly when it comes to technique, material, genre, theme, and

subject matter (1971, 145-58). In the Philippines in the nineteenth century, the only avenues of artistic expression open to women were those considered “feminine,” such as embroidery and the painting of bodegones, patsajes, and genre. As I have already made clear, these genres

have never really been seriously considered as art. Another reason 1s that women are conceived as themes and subjects of art, not creators. Women artists themselves are not properly seen as producers in their own right, but as objects of representation. Whitney Chadwick writes: The bizarre but all too common transformation of the woman

artist from a producer in her own right into a subject for representation forms a lettmotif in the history of art. Confounding

subject and object, 1t undermines the speaking position of the individual woman artist by generalizing her. Denied her individuality, she is displaced from being a producer and becomes instead a sign for male creativity. (1996, 21)

A passage from Griselda Pollock reinforces this argument. ‘Typically within art history they are denied the status of author/ creator. Their creative personality is never canonized or celebrated.

Moreover they have been the prey of ideological readings where without regard to history and difference, art historians and critics

20 Homebound have confidently proclaimed the meanings of the work by women, meanings, which always reduce back to merely stating that these are.

works by women. (1988, 83) | The existing landscape seems bleak. However, recent efforts by contemporary critics, mostly women, have challenged this scenario and

offered ways through which this problem can be re-addressed, remapped, and re-defined.

Notes 1. Unless otherwise specified, all italics in quoted materials are mine. _

2. For a list and description of the fifteen books on biographies in the

Philippines, see Appendix 1. | 3. For a list and description of the four books on women in the Philippines, see Appendix 2.

4. For a list and description of the fifteen books on Philippine visual arts, see Appendix 3.

ABSENCES Visual Arts in Nineteenth-Century Philippines

Have women simply been shunted into the so-called

: minor or decorative atts because these wete considered less demanding and were certainly less prestigious? (Harris and Nochlin 1976, 59)

Examining Art Education in the Nineteenth Century TS space of women in the visual arts of the nineteenth century

was nartow and limited. They had been initially denied entry into the Academia de Dibujo when it opened in 1821; this was the case until 1889. Women trained and studied art in their homes. Their expressions were limited to the embroidery and painting of bodegones, paisajes, and gente. Despite these limitations, several of these women crossed

the boundaries of their limited space in the home and joined art competitions and expositions on art. However, these women and their wotks have not been accorded recognition and value. The nineteenth century was a time of change in the Philippines. It was during this period when rapid changes in the economy were seen, starting from 1810 to 1815, during which the Philippines was at the tail end of its Galleon Trade with Mexico. This period saw the influx of 21

22 Homebound foreign business enterprises and the entry of the Philippines into the global economy in 1834. In her essay “Ang Sining at Kultura sa ika-19 Dantaon” (“Philippine Art in the 19th Century”), Alice Guillermo writes

that those who benefited from the entry of the Philippines into the global trade were former landowners, the prinapalia, and agents of foreign

business firms who were mostly Chinese. They would soon comprise the ilustrado class. When the Suez Canal opened in 1869, numerous sons of the ilustrados went to Spain for education (1991b, 37). Several schools also opened locally; they were mainly for tlustrado | men. According to Mendoza-Guazon, the colleges, seminaries, and vocational schools were for male students only (1928, 19). The University of Santo Tomas, established by the Dominicans in 1611 was exclusively

for men as well. Mendoza-Guazon adds that “a few young women of the best families tried to enroll in it, but the authorities would not let

them stay long” (1928, 19). — Art, on the other hand, was secularized. According to Guillermo, “as a response to the growing influence of the z/ustrado, the King of

Spain freed the artists from the monopoly and supervision of the Church. Art became secular, with the z/ustrados as new patrons” (1991b, 43). The scope of influence of the ilustrados broadened and included all branches of art—from architecture (the construction and interior design of the bahay na bato or house of stone which was the signature house of the ilustrado), to the visual arts (portraiture, letras y figuras or watercolor paintings of the names of the ilustrado made up of figures, to music (the formation of lessons in piano and

other instruments for their children), and to dance (like the baile and other Spanish dances). The ilustrados began to actively support the arts. Part of this secularization was a shift in the themes and subject matter of art. From being exclusively religious there was a shift to portraits, paisajes (landscapes), bodegones (still lifes), and

genre paintings (events from everyday life). | | In terms of formal education in the arts, we can see that there was

no space fot women in the visual arts. The friars were the first art teachers. According to Eladio Zamora, O.S.A., in his “Las Corporaciones

Religiosas en Filipinas”: “there the Augustinian fathers taught the

Chapter 2 / Absences | 23 orphans, in addition to their primary letters, painting, designing, sculpture, and modeling, printing, and binding ...” (1901, 362). Flores

listed fourteen priests who also painted (1998a, 144)..There is no information on women who painted or were taught to paint during the early years of the Spanish colonization. According to Flotes, the teaching of painting first became formalized

in 1785 when the University of Santo Tomas opened its School of Drawing and Painting during the term of Dr. Fr. Juan Amador, the University’s rector-chancellor. According to Galo Ocampo, there was the Estudios de Adorno in Ateneo de Manila, in the University of Santo Tomas and in Letran College (Flores 1998a, 148-49). Flores states that

the influence of the Academia de Bellas Artes in the University of Santo Tomas “was not far-reaching. For in spite its existence, the prevalent mode of teaching painting before 1821 was apprenticeship, and not academic training” (1998a, 151).

Flores also mentions Don Tomas Castro y Andrade as one of the art teachers of that time. Castro was a Spaniard born in Manila.

He had the title of Profesor de Arte and it is probable that he “assumed the role of mentor or teacher.” However, according to Flores, “art history is silent on who had studied with Castro and who enrolled or were allowed to enroll at the Academia de Bellas Artes, and how their productions were received by the public” (1998a, 151). It is most certain however that no women studied or were allowed entry into these schools. “The University of Santo Tomas, the highest institution of learning then, was closed to them” (Alzona 1934, 59). In 1821, Damian Domingo opened a private school in his house,

the Academia de Dibujo. On December 2, 1823, the Real Sociedad Economica de Amigos del Pais also opened its own Academia de Dibujo. In 1826, Real Sociedad requested Domingo to merge the two schools. On June 13, 1826, the Real Sociedad formally appointed Domingo as professor of the Academia. According to Carlos Quirino in “Damian Domingo: First Eminent Filipino Painter,” the Academia issued a diploma on March 5, 1827 which stated that the Academia

was open to all “regardless of whether be be Spaniard, mestizo or

24 Tomebound indio...” (1961, 82). This was received positively by Federico Espino,

who said in “Damian Domingo: the Master with a photographic eye,” that “the Soccedad’s school of painting was a liberal and generous

institution, effacing racial barriers in the name of the fine arts. The doots were thrown open to everyone showing a talent for painting...”

(1975, 20). Quirino believes that “the detail regarding entry of students regardless of race or color must have been inserted at the instance of Domingo ... who must have insisted that in the realm of art there could not be a color bar” (1961, 83). Also according to Luciano Santiago in “Damian Domingo and the First Philippine Art Academy (1821-1834),” “Domingo saw to it that its principle of racial equality would be observed in the institution he supervised” (1991, 276). Domingo’s effort to liberalize the entry into the Academia 1s laudable,

but his standard of equality was applicable only to males: “Regardless of whether /e be Spaniard, mestizo or indio,” but not “regardless” of the student’s gender. The issue was only about “race or color,” but not about gender. Most probably, Domingo did not even think of accepting female students to his Academia. After all, women’s “natural” place was in the home, and not the Academia. From the very start, women had no space in a formal art school. According to Flores, “Domingo ‘apparently’ died around 1832 at the presumed young age of thirty-seven from tuberculosis; although his will is dated 1834-35 ... Still reeling from the Master’s death and

‘due to lack of funds, the Academia ceased operations on May 16, 1834, two years after Domingo’s unfortunate and untimely demise” (1998a, 240-41).

On May 21, 1845, three members of Real Tribunal de Cometcio, Mariano Roxas y Ubaldo, Jose de Menchacatorre, and Juan Bautista Marcaida, petitioned Governor Narciso Claveria to establish an art academy in Manila. On June 10, 1845, the establishment of the Academia

de Dibujo y Pintura was approved by the said governor. According to Luciano Santiago 1n his article, “Philippine Academic Art: The Second Phase (1845-98),” the regulations on running the school were drafted and implemented on November 12, 1849.

Chapter 2 / Absences 25 , The lessons were free for all students; Spaniards and Europeans had to buy their own art materials but poor students and natives were to be given these materials free; the teaching system was based on that of the Academia de San Fernando; classes were to be held in

the evenings, from 7 to 9; should the number of native applicants

exceed 15, prospective students must be endorsed by the gobernadorcillo and the pastor of their town; and no corporeal punishment was allowed. (1989, 69)

If we are to study the rules of the said institution, it is safe to conjecture that it was impossible for women to study there—classes were held at night, a ttme when women should be “safe” in their homes, and they needed the endorsement of the gobernadorczllo (local

government official) or the pastors. It was difficult for women to secure such endorsements, especially since these people believed that the woman’s place was in the church and the home. Given these

limitations, it is clear that there was no space for women in the

Academia de Dibujo y Pintura. |

Thus, when the Academia de Dibujo y Pintura opened in 1845, and until 1889, all its students and teachers were male. It was not until the

directorship of Lorenzo Rocha e Icaza (b.1837-d.1898) that women finally gained entry into the Academia de Dibujo y Pintura. Rocha became its director in 1867; in 1889, he admitted the first female student,

Pelagia Mendoza, into the Escuela de Dibujo y Pintura (the new name

of the Academia) (Zaragoza 1892, 374). It was not known if there were other female students admitted along with Mendoza. The papers of the said school in the National Archives yielded no other information on whether or not there were other female students at that time. The

information on the entry of Pelagia Mendoza into the Escuela was found in an article about her written by Jose Zaragoza for La [/ustracion

| Fikpina on October 21, 1892. According to Flores, “another student, Carmen Zaragoza y Roxas ... excelled in painting” (1998a, 251).

| Filipinas who were interested in studying art in a formal art school waited for a long time for this opportunity. It took sixty-eight years before women were officially admitted as artists and as art students in formal art schools from the time the Academia de Dibujo was opened

26 Ilomebound _ by Domingo in 1821. Moreover, it took forty-four years before the first female art student was accepted from the time the Academia de Dibujo

, y Pintura opened in 1845. Scholarships for training in painting and sculpture in Spain were also limited to male students. According to Flores, eleven students were

selected as the first Philippine art scholars in Europe (1858-1898); they were all males (1998a, 384-85). This is not surprising because women seldom traveled outside the Philippines during that time. If they were not admitted to the Escuela in 1889, they had less chances of securing art education scholarships abroad.

Examining the Art Education of Women With the exclusion of women from formal art education, where

did the women learn to draw, paint, and embroider? It is safe to assuine that women were taught to paint, draw, and embroider in convents, schools, and beazerios (dormitory for young girls). According

to Alzona, “there were Filipino women painters, too. Painting was

taught in the convent schools, especially during the nineteenth century” (1934, 34). There were schools for women that included painting, drawing, and embroidery in their curricula. I list them here in chronological order. The first educational institution for women was the Seminary of Santa Potenciana (later known as Royal College of Santa Potenciana) established in 1589 by Governor Dasmarinas based on a royal order that states: Upon arriving at the Filipinas Islands you shall ascertain how and where, and with what endowment, a convent for the shelter of gitls may be founded, so both those who should come from here and those born there may live in it and so that they may live modestly,

and after being well instructed, may go out therefrom fo be married and bear children. (Mallat 1846, 45: 268)

According to Flores, Santa Potenciana taught their students “flower making and the other arts” (1998a, 144).

Chapter 2 / Absences : 27 Another institution was the School of Santa Isabel which was established in 1632 by the Confraternity of Santa Misericordia. In 1861, the Santa Isabel and the Royal College of Santa Potenciana were merged (Mas 1843, 45: 257). According to E. Arsenio Manuel in his Dzctonary

of Philippine Biographies, the art of drawing was taught in the said institution, and Lorenzo Guerrero was one of the teachers (1955, 1: 214).

In 1696, the Beatetio of Santa Catalina de Sena was established by Mother Francisca del Espiritu Santa. At first, the said institution was exclusive to Spanish women, but it subsequently admitted the “native women.” All students were taught to “read, write, reckon, and the work peculiar to their sex” (Zamora 1901, 46: 345). The Convent of San Ignacio opened in 1699 under the Society of Jesus. In this school, “Need/e-work ts taught from the farst stitches to the finest

embroidery ... Oil painting is also done in this institution, and we have a teacher of embroidery, who is an expert in this art, and whose work 1s

much applauded” (various sources in Blair and Robertson 45: 312). However, 1t is not stated who the first teachers of embroidery were. In 1719, four Filipinas established the Beaterio de San Sebastian de Calumpang. Here, “orphan girls are received and are taught reading, writing, the Christian doctrine, sewzng, etc.” (Mas 1843, 45: 259). The Beaterio of Santa Rita in Pasig opened in 1740. “Its primary object was ... to teach them reading, writing, Christian doctrine, sewing, embroidery, and other employments fitting for their sex” (Mas 1843, 45: 259).

Next was the Beaterio of Santa Rosa which was established 1n 1774 by Mother Paula de la Santisima Trinidad (Mas 1843, 45: 260). This was the vision of the said institution: “In the holy fear of God, they learned the doctrine and exercised themselves in the /abors peculiar to their sex, 0 order to later dedicate themselves to God and to the moral education of their sex, or to become married...” (Zamora 1901, 46: 344-45).

Then, on May 3 1868, the College of La Concordia or of the Immaculate Conception opened. The land on which it stood was donated to the sisters of charity by Margarita Roxas (various sources in Blair and Robertson 45: 309) who was one of Lorenzo Guerrero’s students in painting and drawing. According to E. Arsenio Manuel,

28 Homebound Guerrero taught drawing and painting in the said school (1955, 1: 214).

11). |

Soon enough, the Asylum of St. Vincent of Paul opened in 1885 in Paco, Manila. The students there were taught “Christian doctrine, reading, writing, Spanish grammar, and the four rules of arithmetic. They are also instructed in the work of their sex—sewing, embroidery, the making of artificial flowers, and some in housework, such as cleaning, cooking,

washing clothes, etc.” (various sources in Blair and Robertson 45: 310-

On February 15, 1864, the Municipal Girls’ School of Manila,

according to the Decree of the Superior Civil Government Approving the Regulations of the Municipal Girls’ School of Manila, was approved by Governor Echague. The required subjects in that institution were the following: “Christian doctrine, politeness, reading; writing, Castilian grammar, arithmetic, the decimal metric system, and the needlework suitable for their sex, such as sewing, darning, and cutting.’ The optional subjects were

“seography, general history, special history of Espana, elements of natural history, evzbroidery in white, with silks, corded silk, beads and gold, and

other tke needlework,” (Royal Decree 1864, 46: 120). Moreover, according

to the said document, the choice of subjects was the prerogative of the

parents, and not that of the students (Decree of the Superior Civil Government Approving the Regulations of the Municipal Girls’ School of Manila, Blair and Robertson 1864, 46). Then, in 1892, the Superior Normal School for Women Teachers

in Manila was established. Among the subjects taught here were calligraphy, needlework, music and singing, and fine arts (Royal Order 241 of

the Ministry of the Colonies Approving the Regulations for the Superior

Normal School for Women Teachers in Manila, Blair and Robertson 46: 168). According to Alzona, “the Superior Normal School for Women

Teachets might then be called the highest institution of learning for women in the Philippines” (1934, 32). According to Alzona, schools like the Santa Potenciana and Santa Catalina were “intended to shelter and educate Spanish girls. Later they

were opened to Filipino girls, but only the daughters of wealthy and influential Filipino families gained admission, which was regarded as a

Chapter 2 / Absences , , 29 privilege and distinction” (1934, 25-26). Mendoza-Guazon adds, “The |

girls of the less-fortunate class could not attend school. They helped their mothers to keep house and took care of the little brothers and sisters” (1928, 19).

Orphan girls also recetved support from the Augustinian fathers. According to Eladio Zamora, “more than three hundred Indian mestizo and Spanish girls received a fine education there, so much so that their work in embroidery, sewing, and the manufacture of artificial flowers, _ took the prize in the expositions at Madrid and Manila” (Zamora 1901,

46: 363). a ;

Aside from Lorenzo Guerrero, there is no mention of other teachers in drawing and painting in these educational institutions. It is interesting

to speculate on the identities of the other teachers, the possibility of women art teachers, and the specific lessons taught in painting, drawing,

and embroidery. More importantly, it is worth asking just what the repetition of phrases such as “labors peculiar to their sex,’ “employments

fitting for their sex,” and “work peculiar to their sex” mean. | _ The repetition of these phrases indicates that women were “naturally” meant to perform work related to domesticity—needlework, cleaning the house, laundry, and cooking. Mendoza-Guazon confirms

this: “A young woman did not need more than the rudiments of education’’(1928, 19); thus, the kind of education that the ilustrado women obtained from these exclusive schools and convents reinforced the belief that the “natural” space of ilustrado women in the nineteenth

century was her home.

The existence of the schools I have enumerated also indicates that there were indeed institutions for the education of women during the Spanish period. However, the critical question is: what kind of education

were they getting? In Alzona’s opinion, “it was true that women’s education was not neglected under the Spanish regime; but it was backward, narrow, and rudimentary in character, confining women to a restricted and barren intellectual life. It failed to satisfy the intellectually

curious and alert women” (1934, 59). Alzona claims that the purpose of educating women was “not to turn out learned women, but devout, chaste, modest and diligent women who would become good wives

30 [Ilomebound and mothers. The greater part of the girls’ ttme was devoted to religious practices, long prayers and frequent visits to the chapel...” (1934, 28).

Indeed, this was the kind of education that women obtained in the nineteenth century. Such education prepared them to perform their “ordained” roles as wives, mothers, and good Catholics in their home and in the Church. As the domain of the elite women of the nineteenth century, the home was not only the space in which they performed their assigned

| roles, but the home also became the space of and for their creativity. It was in their homes that they learned to paint and embroider. Some of them studied art inside their homes with private tutors hired by theur families, since most of these women, coming from the ilustrado class, had the financial means to support such education. Among those tutors who were commissioned to teach ilustrado women in their homes were Agustin Saez and Lorenzo Guerrero.

Examining the Art Forms Available to Women Since women of the nineteenth-century were not allowed access to formal art education, their artistic endeavors focused on the art forms

that were taught them in the schools for girls or in their homes. The women of this century did bodegones, paisajest genre, and embroidery.

The Bodegones The term bodegon (pl. bodegones) or still life (pl. still lifes) originates

from the term still-even (ca 1650). The term refers to painted flowers, fruits, vases, wines, breads, foods, and animals. According to William Jordan, these are “inanimate objects which are isolated ‘in composition , by themselves” (1985, 5). Still life is also referred to as nature morte in French and natura morta in Italian. In Spanish, it 1s referred to as “enxos de frutas, florero 0 ramilletro, or frutero. It is also called memento mori or vanitas.

According to Flores, the word vanitfas is used to refer to still life works which contemplate

the transience of life through the iconography of hourglasses, |

Chapter 2 / Absences 31 extinguished candles, soap bubbles, and skulls. The genre of still life

is said to occupy an inferior status in relation to the hierarchy of genres and 1s quite remote from the canonical legacy of historical painting in the academies. (1998b, 22) | The bodegones first emerged in the Philippines in drawings and paintings

of plants, trees, and flowers—also referred to as botanical drawings. According to Luciano Santiago in his article “The Painters of Flora de Filipinas: 1877-1883,” Fray Ignacio Mercado y Morales, O.S.A. was the

first botanist in the Philippines and was also the first who painted the bodegones 1n the country. Santiago adds that the friar wrote about botanical life and illustrated them in Lzbro de Medicinales de este Tverra y — ~ Declaraciones de las Virtudes de los Arboles y Plantas que estan en estas Islas

Filipinas (1993, 87). These first bodegones were followed by Juan de Cuellar in 1786 with the assistance of Jose Loden, Tomas Nazario, and | Miguel de los Reyes. According to Santiago, de Cueller “commissioned Tagalog painters to draw the range of flora and fauna in the archipelago

... Over the next century, they would appear unobtrusively in the background of portraits, genre pieces, landscapes and scenographic art”’

(1992, 26). In 1878, Fray Manuel Blanco commissioned Filipino and Spanish painters to paint and draw flowers and other plants for the book Fora de Pilipinas. Included in the list of those commissioned were Emma Vidal (the lone woman), Felix Martinez, Miguel Zaragoza, and

Lorenzo Guerreto. | The bodegones also became part of letras y figuras. We see in letras

y figuras the combination of several genres in the visual arts—genre, _ paisajes, bodegones, and portrait. One good example is the letras y figuras

of Andres Sanchez! painted by Jose Honorato Lozano. The bodegones in this work can be seen at the bottom of the frame, filled with fruits like a banana, chico, mango, atis, sampaloc, and guava. This cluster 1s

complemented by human figures and landscape in the uppet portion

of this watercolor painting. , |

Among those who painted bodegones in the nineteenth century , were Paz Paterno and her teacher, Lorenzo Guerrero. Aside from the botanical drawings for Flora de Fifpinas and the numerous letras y figuras,

it is Paterno’s bodegones that survive today. Among the women who

32 LTomebound competed in the 1895 Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila, six submitted bodegones. They were Paz Paterno, Mercedes Wiergo, Luciana

Garces, Ana Garcia Plana, Rafaella Callanta, and Concepcion Ortiz. , Although we do not know where their works are—if they survived at all—we can ascertain that a number of women did paint bodegones

during that time. |

According to Flores, “A review of Philippine art history reveals that women artists are customarily assigned the genre of still life as some sort of natural vocation as can be gleaned from the celebrated wotks of Paz Paterno in the 1900s” (1998b, 23). There are two possible

reasons for this phenomenon. One reason points to the fact that the bodegones wete considered a feminine art form. As Bryson puts it, “Throughout its history still life has been a genre regarded as appropriate

for women painters to work in...” (1990, 174). Another possibility 1s that because they did not study in the Academia, the bodegones became the art form available to women. As Harris and Nochlin put it, “because women could not study the human figure adequately or attend Academy

schools, they had to restrict themselves to the arts of portraiture and still life (1976, 41).

There are a number of women who excelled in the bodegones— from the nineteenth century to the present. ‘They include Paz Paterno, Araceli Lumcaco-Dans, and Norma Belleza. But because the bodegones

_ have never been considered “serious art” by critics, these women are relatively undervalued compared to their counterparts who paint the mote “setious” art forms like history painting and the nude. In cases when women are critically acclaimed, it is not because they are “ood,” but because they conform to the ideals of femininity. Harris and Nochlin State:

It is not surprising that some of the women who chose this specialty had distinguished careers and were more easily regarded as

the equal of their male peers than women porttraitists and history painters, but since the genre itself was held in low esteem by art theorists and the academies, a successful still-life painter could not expect to have the reputation accorded an artist successful with those reputedly higher forms. (1976, 32)

Chapter 2 / Absences 33 Women’s contribution to the art of the bodegones 1s not properly evaluated. It was Paz, for instance, who was probably one of the first to combine paisajes with bodegones in the Philippines. Yet, this technique has not been noted. Chadwick offers an explanation for this disregard: “Women wete, in fact, critical to the development of the floral still-life,

a genre highly esteemed in the seventeenth century but, by the nineteenth, dismissed as an inferior one ideally suited to the limited talents of women amateurs” (1996, 129). So given this shift 1n focus and despite the fact that women contributed to the development of the bodegones, it is not a surprise that in the previously discussed materials

on the history of visual arts in the Philippines, Paterno and her

contributions were not given space. | Because the art of the bodegones was undervalued and women were also undervalued, the combination of women and their bodegones

was deemed only “proper” and apt. Bryson states: From the beginning still life was systematically downgraded by

the defenders of the higher genres who in their theoretical work provided the rationale for the professional hierarchy of the genres,

with history painting, the exclusively male genre, at its apex. If still life could be regarded as an appropriate channel for female ’ talent, this was because it ranked as the lowest form of artistic life, of course below the painting of biblical, mythological and national subjects, but also below portraiture and landscape, even

below animal painting. (1990, 175)

Religion and history, the more valued themes in the visual arts, are

| deemed the domain of men. This is the public space of history, politics, and governance. While this space is considered the sphere of “great att,” the sphere of the everyday, the domestic, the mundane, and the private is assigned to women and their bodegones. The subject of the bodegones is the life of the table and the kitchen—spaces women

occupy. According to Bryson, “the still life of the women is the embodiment of everything that this system of political value refuses:

domesticity, routine, repair” (1990, 157). Bryson adds that “the opposition between megalography and still life, between the values of

+34 Homebound greatness, heroism, achievement, and the values which rhopography pits against them, certainly operates. Yet the opposition does not exist in a vacuum: it is overdetermined by another polarity, that of gender”

(1990, 157). ,

-Paisajes + Genre | The paisaje or landscape shows scenery of nature and the countryside. Genre, on the other hand, shows scenes of ordinary people doing their daily activities, including cooking, selling their wares, doing

the laundry, planting, and harvesting. The genre is often filled with movement of people in their communities. Paisaje and genre in the Philippines emerged out of the “pos de/ pais (or literally “types of the country”). The first tipos del pais is probably the Boxer Codex (ca 1590),

pictures of the natives from the different regions, drawn from and differentiated according to clothing ordinarily worn by the Visaya, Aeta, Cagayano, and Tagalog.

De la Paz presents a short but comprehensive history of genre

paintings in the Philippines. ,

In the 18th century engravings of a map of the Philippines by Nicolas de la Cruz Bagay for the Jesuit priest Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, we can see a glimpse of images of Filipinos and Chinese in their everyday life and work. Damian Domingo, who founded the Academia de Dibujo in the 19th century, also made an album of costumes serving secular needs to advertise the colony to the rest of Europe. With the freedom to paint secular subject matters, Jose Lozano created a style called /etras y figuras, which showed

interest in the different lifestyles of the people as they formed shapes of letters for the name of the person commissioning the wotk. In these paintings, we can see the artist’s relationship with

their environment, although serving only a secondary role as

decoration around the name of the patron. (1998, 9) | Landscape is also evident as background in unaturismo paintings by Justiniano Asuncion, such as the Romana Carillo. Miniatutismo is a

style of portrait painting which developed in nineteenth century

Chapter 2 / Absences 35 Philippine visual arts. The depiction of painstaking, minute details of the sitter’s clothing and accessories characterizes miniaturismo. They ate commonly considered status symbols for the newfound wealth of the ilustrados, because they show their expensive embroidered clothes and jewelry.

The painting of “pure” landscape was first seen in the works of those who first studied in the Academia de Dibujo y Pintura such as Felix Hidalgo, Felix Martinez, Teodoro Buenaventura, Fabian de la Rosa, Miguel Zaragoza, and Juan Luna who painted paisajes when he went to

Europe. In Western att history, the genre is aligned with the bodegones ot still life as a “low” and feminine art form. John Berger in Ways of Seeing

states, “the so-called ‘genre’ picture—the picture of ‘low life’-—was thought of as the opposite of the mythological picture. It was vulgar instead of noble.” Berger further explains. The purpose of the “genre” picture was to prove—either positively. or negatively—that virtue in this world was rewarded by social and financial success. Thus, those who could afford to buy these pictures ... had their own virtue confirmed. Such pictures were particularly popular with the newly arrived bourgeoisie who identified themselves

not with the characters painted but with the moral which the scene

illustrated. (1972, 103)

The combination of paisaje+genre became popular in the nineteenth century. Alden Lauzon in “Discussion — From Genre to Landscape: Siting/Sighting the Philippines” attributes this popularity to the emergence of the ilustrado class in the Philippines. According to Lauzon, “the bahay na bato they constructed paralleled the luxury of possessing paintings such as portraits, genres, landscapes to be hung as decorations in their house’s walls” (1998, 13). For Lauzon, “the material conditions of the 19th century afforded certain people,

notably the ilustrado class, to possess works of art (genre) that celebrated their differences from the ‘indolent’ indios” (1998, 14). For the ilustrado, as Berger notes in his own study of class issues in

the production and consumption of art, “it was the honest and

36 Homebound hardworking who prospered and that the good-for-nothings

deservedly had nothing” (1998, 103). ,

The elite’s preference for landscape is also linked to property. According to Berger, “the special relation between oil painting and property did play a certain role even in the development of landscape painting” (1972, 106). It is the elite who had the means to own property,

which is the subject of the landscapes they commissioned. Again, . according to Berger, “oil paintings often depict things. Things which in reality are buyable. To have a thing painted and put on a canvas 1s not unlike buying it and putting it in your house. If you buy a painting you buy also the look of the thing it represents” (1972, 83). Berger adds: “Oil painting, before it was anything else, was a celebration of private property. As an artform it derived from the principle that you are what you have” (1972, 139). Thus, the paisajes displayed in the ilustrados’ bahay na bato, became a symbol of the ilustrados’ status and wealth. Paz Paterno was one of those who painted paisajest+ genre 1n the

Philippines during the nineteenth century. Lauzon notes this

combination in two of Paterno’s landscape paintings. | In the late 19th century, there was an emergent type of landscape which not only included the usual elements of landscape (1e., the rendition of the sky and the horizon), but likewise incorporated genre scenes. For example, Felix Martinez’s The Pasig River (1897) depicts

lavanderas in the once pristine waters of the river while nipa huts dot the riverbank, and farther, trees, mountains merge with the vast sky. Earlier in 1885, Paz Paterno whose mentor was Martinez painted River Scene with Banca. In this work, we see familiar images: a mother and child wait at the river bank for the man riding in the fratl-looking banca. In the background, we see a vista of bamboo trees, the house, and the gentle sky. (1998, 13)

For De la Paz, the importance of Paterno’s work lies in the “painter's interest in the work that people do in a specific place and not merely as

decoration ... It is in this period that sensitivity toward rendering the physical or material environment signified focus on the lifestyle of the Filipinos and where he/she lives and works” (1998, 9).

Chapter 2 / Absences 37 Embroidery Embroidery, as it was first practiced in Europe in the twelfth century,

was not done by women alone. According to Chadwick, the division of labor according to sex is a modern invention, often manifested in attempts to identify female sexuality in activities like

needlework. Throughout much of the Middle Ages, although noblewomen did indeed embroider ... both men and women worked side by side in guild workshops and in workshops attached to noble households, monasteries, and convents. (1996, 63)

Harris and Nochlin note that embroidery started to be perceived as

women’s work in the thirteenth century when the production of many basic supplies was gradually removed from the home and what had been female domestic industries ... became , male trades. Brewing beer, making bread, and weaving, all female

, professions in the thirteenth century, had become male crafts throughout Europe by the sixteenth century. Women remained active

only in the carding and spinning of wool, silk, and linen ... dressmaking, ribbon making, and embroidery; and in domestic service

and nursing. (1976, 14) | |

Embroidery evolved, not only as patt of the work of women, but also as part of the work of elite women. Harris and Nochlin state: “Women who embroidered, like those involved in the manufacture of silk, were usually members of a higher social class than most male artists.

Documents of the tenth and eleventh centuries show that these women were often aristocrats; several were queens” (1976, 15). Largely because it became associated with women, embroidery has been considered a craft, which 1s distinct from the fine arts. Chadwick asserts that

the contemporary practice of distinguishing between the fine arts and the crafts originated in the reclassifying of painting, sculpture,

and architecture as liberal arts during the Renaissance. The general , exclusion of women from highly professionalized forms of art production like painting and sculpture and the involvement of large

38 Homebound — fumbers of women in craft production since the Renaissance have solidified a hierarchical ordering of the visual arts .... (1996, 43)

Further, Chadwick makes it clear that the “male” art of painting was elevated above the “female” art of

, embroidery... embroidery became the province of the woman amateur. Redefined as a domestic art requiring manual labor and collective activity rather than individual genius, mathematical reasoning, and divine inspiration, embroidery and needlework came to signify domesticity and “femininity.” (1996, 75)

For my part, I have included embroidery in this study, because it is the product of women’s creattvity. I believe that it is not “low” art and

is not less important than painting. Embroidery was one of the art forms through which Filipina visual artists of the nineteenth century made sense of their environment and represented their thoughts, ideas, and feelings about their society. I agree with Flores when he suggests that the separation of fine arts and crafts has serious consequences in the institutionalization of categories in Philippine art, since it subordinates the feminine and those creative forms which the canon considers to be non-formal, non-academic, non-spectalized, non-standardized, non-“intellectual,” unsophist-

icated, organic, biodegradable, necessary, communal, folk, and therefore not art. And these forms were mostly done, although not necessarily exclusively, by women. (1990, 58)

There are several accounts of how embroidery began as an art form in the Philippines and of when women’s interest in it began. According to some, embroidery was brought to the Philippines by the Europeans; thus, in a report consolidated by the US Department of Commerce in 1926, it 1s stated that, “embroidery was introduced into the Philippines by Catholic Church organizations long before the American occupation of the islands” (Department of Commerce and Industry 1964, 34). Accordingly, a report by the RP Department

of Commerce and Industry in 1964 states: “Embroidery was

Chapter 2 / Absences 39 introduced as needlecraft in the Philippines by Spanish, French, and

Belgian nuns, though records mention that the Dutch had earlier brought the art to their Oriental colonies in the fifteenth century”

(Department of Commerce and Industry 1964, 2). However, according to a study by Sandra Castro, embroidery was introduced » to the Philippines by the Chinese (1994, 94).

At first, embroidery was used by the Catholic Church for the garments of the saints in the altars and of the priests. Unfortunately, the women embroiderers are unknown and unnamed, as in the case of women embroiderers in Europe. Harris and Nochlin note that “most of the women who produced the great medieval church embroidery

and secular tapestries remain anonymous” (1976, 15). The nuns taught embroidery to elite women who studied in the convents and exclusive schools.’ According to Castro, “formal training in sewing and embroidery must have started as the Spanish missionaries established schools for girls in the country. Such a school was Santa Catalina... taught embroidery to their students. Similarly, municipal schools for girls then were required to dedicate two hours

to needlework per schoolday” (1994, 94). For Alzona, “the instructions in these boarding schools at the beginning consisted of

the teaching of the Christian doctrine, reading, writing, and needlework’ (1934, 27). Most of the embroidery produced by ilustrado

women were for the church. | oo

Embroidery was secularized when the ilustrados became patrons themselves. This was evident in the miniaturismo paintings in which intricate embroidery could be seen in the fineries worn by the sitters. Embroidery adorned their dresses, slippers, and even handkerchiefs. Alzona notes: “Their open-work embroidery was exquisite and generally

used to adorn the women’s camisas and the front of the men’s shirts,

which were made of either pifia cloth or canton linen” (1934, 38).

Embroidery proliferated outside the church and the convent. “Churchgoing Filipino housewives, fascinated by the beauty and elegance

of the embroidered church drapery and vestments, were soon learning the art from their convent-bred sisters. Embroidery quickly became popular and a trade was born” (1964, 2).

40 ’ — Homebound It is also very probable that young girls were taught the art of embroidery by their mothers, aunts, cousins, older siblings, and even by

their housekeepers and helperts. :

There were also embroidery shops and factories catering to the needs of the ilustrado. According to Luisa Camagay, bordaderas (women

embroiderers) emerged in the environs of Malate, Ermita, Paco, and Sta. Ana. Sadly, according to Camagay, the bordaderas themselves were

unable to afford their own products, because most of them were

underpaid (1995, 39-40). :

Many women became experts in the art of embroidery.

According to Camagay, “the embroidered materials were so fine and

exquisite that they were given as gifts to Queen Victoria and the Prince of Wales. A few embroidered products of the 19th century found their way to Spain” (1995, 38). Castro adds that “according to the Jesuit Pedro Murillo Velarde, in 1734, embroidery was one of

the handicrafts perfected by the Filipinos” (1994, 94). One proof of this skill and expertise was the prizes women won in international expositions. “Their work in embroidery, sewing, and the manufacture of artificial flowers, took the prize in the expositions at Madrid and Manila” (Zamora 1901, 46: 363). Embroidery was considered at first to be the ilustrados’ way of passing time and providing decorations for their homes, but it was also a serious soutce of earnings for women of the less-privileged classes in Malate and Ermita. There were also ilustrado women—the likes of Pacita Longos, Concha Paterno, and Adelaida Paterno—who made their

embroidery diligently and entered their embroidered works. in international competitions. In fact, the works of Adelaida and Concha

Paterno were classified under the be//as artes section of the 1895

Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila. , Paz Longos, Concha Paterno, and Adelaida Paterno used a peculiar

material for their embroidery—human hair. Hair was first used as a material for embroidery in China during the Tang Dynasty (AD 618907) when material other than silk was used for embroidery. In the case of Europe during the Victorian period, the use of hair for embroidery

also became popular. |

Chapter 2 / Absences 41 Embroidery using hair is also found in Silay Museum today—in table napkins and placemats. The subject matter 1s that of genre—people engaged in ordinary activities of planting, harvesting, cooking, children

playing, and the like. This is evidence that embroidery using hair was practiced in other parts of the Philippines, not only in Manila.

Notes |

1. This work may be found in Discovering Philippine Art in Spain, Department

of Foreten Affairs and National Centennial Commission, page 245. 2. These exclusive schools are discussed at the beginning of this chapter.

a -PRESENCES Women Visual Artists in Nineteenth-Century Philippines

Women artists existed in a conttadictory relationship to the prevailing middle-class ideals of femininity. They were caught between a social ideology that prohibited — the individual competition and public visibility necessary

for success in the atts, and the educational and social

- reform movements that made the nineteenth century the greatest period of female social progress in history. The qualities which defined the artist—independence,

| | self-reliance, competitiveness—belonged to a male , sphete of influence and action. Women who adopted _ these traits, who turned their backs on amateur artistic | accomplishments, accepted as beautifying ot morally

enlightening, or who rejected flowet painting in watetcolor for historical compositions in oil, risked being labeled as sexual deviants. (Berger 1972, 176-77)

Breaking Ground | | ,

| | 42 |

(— ontrary to what Philippine art history suggests, there were a number

of women artists in the nineteenth century. According to

Chapter 3 / Presences | 43 Emmanuel Torres in Kayamanan:/7 Paintings from the Central Bank Collection,

“women artists were not uncommon in those days” (1981, 60). Meanwhile, Santiago Pilar asserts in PAMANA: The Jorge B. Vargas Art Collection that, “there were many women icon painters and image carvers in the Spanish period.” He also asserts that women painters and sculptors “sank into oblivion, weighed down by marital and domestic duties. Yet willingly bearing their ‘double burdens’ they continued to paint privately,

producing significant works” (1992, 67). |

These claims suggest that, despite their lumited space in the visual arts of the nineteenth century, women did engage in artistic endeavors. In fact, these women attempted to transcend the space of the home by participating in such public events as competitions and expositions, events that were quite significant in that they provided a much needed

space for these Filipina visual artists. More than twenty women participated in these expositions, and some of them even won prizes. These competitions and expositions include the following: the 1887 Exposicion de Filipinas en Madrid, the 1888 Exposicion Universal de Barcelona, the 1892 Chicago Exposition, the 1895 Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila, and the 1904 St. Louis Universal Exposition.

There were also those who earned recognition in the 1892 Quadrecentennial de Columbus and the Tercer Centenario de San Juan de la Cruz. Another space which was slightly open to women and their art was the publications of the time such as the La I/ustracion Fihpina

owned by the family of Carmen Zaragoza. | | The participation of women in these public spaces reveals that

Filipina visual artists of this time were indeed active in the visual arts. Yet, while they actively participated in spaces outside their homes, they ate hardly mentioned, if at all, in Philippine art history. At this point, I will present the women who I believe I have been able to “excavate” from oblivion. While this list is by no means an exhaustive one, it is more ot less a start, a preliminary effort in the long and arduous process of reclaiming the spaces that women artists occupied in the visual arts of the nineteenth century. The earliest known activity by a woman artist was actually in 1884

with the works of Paz Paterno. However, since she and her sister,

Aq [lomebound Adelaida Paterno, will be discussed in full in the next chapter, I will make very few references to her in this part of the book. This account then includes a biography of Pelagia Mendoza, the first female student at the Escuela de Dibujo y Pintura in 1889 and winner in a competition

held in 1892. Next is Carmen Zaragoza, first woman visual artist to have her work published in a pertodical in 1891, and winner in the same art competition in which Pelagia Mendoza won. After Pelagia Mendoza’s

and Carmen Zaragoza’s biographies and my summary of their achievements follows an account of women visual artists who joined international art expositions as early as 1887. This account will be followed by an account of the women who served as art teachers; and

by women artists who received private education from Lorenzo Guetrero, Simon Flores, and other male art teachers of that time. Last

on my list are the women who were active from the late nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth as mentioned 1n various citations.

Pelagia Mendoza y Gotianquin Pelagia Mendoza y Gotianquin was born on June 9, 1867 in Pateros,

| Seis a Rizal. Her parents were Venancio 84 se Mendoza and Evarista Gotianquin. UE Satine tusrig ot ENGI TS She was the second child in a family

Ls : te Be aed of five children. Pelagia Mendoza i bE eS heh Zaide in Great Filipinos in History: _An

oS ; ee ee Epic of Fikpino Greatness in War and

oe i *4 el. Peace, “‘since early childhood, she

ie oe ; ri. 2 ipa manifested a remarkable talent for art. we nn 2 Veta When she was yet a little girl she loved

aed : ee to sketch beautiful landscapes, to PyEEesOTE 7 , ASieeenoes handkerchiefs, model Ta Sra Telagaand MET i en. ; clay i.

1. Pelagia Mendoza on ‘the cover of La figurines of people, animals, birds, Hlustracion Filipina, October 21, 1892 and flowers” (1970, 340).

Chapter 3 / Presences . 45 Pelagia Mendoza is the first known woman sculptor in the Philippines. She studied modeling under D. Manuel Flores (Zaragoza

1892, 374). She was the first female student to be accepted at the Escuela de Dibujo y Pintura. Mendoza was twenty-two years old |

when Lorenzo Rocha, director of the Escuela, accepted her. According to Luciano Santiago, “far from being a male chauvinist,

he (Rocha) admitted and personally supervised the first female student at the academy, Pelagia Mendoza in 1889 (This made the | academy the only coeducational institution in the Philippines during the Spanish regime.)” (1989, 75). According to Alejandro Capitulo (1951) in his biography of Pelagia titled “Women in History: Dona

Pelagia Mendoza,” she completed her course in painting in 1892

and in sculpture in 1898.

Mendoza won fist prize in sculpture fora | 4 A

government, held on October 12, 1892 jah 3

or the governor general should do it. A Mimalicaenmeesan ts local paper, E/ Comercio, stated that the 2. Pelagia Mendoza’s winning sculpture, Busto de Colon. |n La /lustracion

honor belonged to her and not the Filipina, October 21, 1892 governor general. She did crown the bust, after which she was given

the medal for the prize by Governor General Eulogio Despujol y Dusoy himself. _ Upon winning the competition, she landed on the front page of La I/ustracion Filipina, a well-known periodical of that period, on October

21, 1892. Jose Zaragoza (under the pseudonym Z)* wrote an accompanying essay in the same issue. Here is an excerpt.

46 Homebound If her hands still model, not with indecision, but with a certain fear; if her work still lacks a greatness and energy in its modeling; zt zs not exactly because the artistic sentiments that her spirit are feminine; 1t1s because

she still has not conquered the deeper secrets of her art; 1tis because her hands, at modeling, stz// do not obey well the impulses of her sperit.

There ts still some doubt in our artists, and that doubt produces fear, fear that tries to conceal itself with mere than enough care, and this care gives naturally little spontaneity and with certain trifleness to the execution.’ (1892, 374)

What Jose Zaragoza wrote about Pelagia Mendoza may well be the very first biographical note about a woman artist in the Philippines. It is safe to say that her winning the competition marks the very first time a woman artist broke into and entered this public domain of art. I would

like to briefly comment on Jose Zaragoza’s article by asking a few questions: Just what did Jose Zaragoza mean by “greatness,” and what are his criteria for judging a work to be “great?” What 1s “feminine” about Pelagia Mendoza’s work? Perhaps it is “feminine” because it was done by a woman? Whitney Chadwick offers an insight into such a

description of works done by women. | Art history has never separated the question of artistic style from the inscription of sexual difference in representation. Discussions of style are consistently cast in terms of masculinity and femininity. Analyses of paintings are replete with references to “virile” handling

of form or “feminine” touch. (1996, 25) |

It is telling that in the very first essay on a woman artist, Pelagia Mendoza’s

work is immediately relegated as “feminine.” And just what could Zaragoza mean by “impulses of her spirit?” Do we take it to mean that

att is just an impulse of the spirit transferred into hand and later into canvas and stone? It seems that the “impulses” of Pelagia Mendoza’s spirit are also anchored into her being a woman in that women are also associated to impulsiveness in many cases.

Pelagia Mendoza’s bust of Columbus also reaped honors internationally. According to Pilar, she also won the second prize at the

1892 Chicago Universal Exposition for her bust of Columbus at the

Chapter 3 / Presences 47 Quadricentennial celebrations of the explorer (1992, 67). This honor

makes her the very first woman artist in the Philippines who was bestowed international recognition. In the same year, she also won a Diploma of Honor for her work done in connection to the art contest held for the celebration of the Tercentenary of Saint John of the Cross. According to Capitulo (1951), because of her achievements as a sculptor,

she was given the Cruz de Merito Crvil by Governor General Despujol. | This recognition suggests that, as early as 1892, Pelagia Mendoza was already making her mark in the field of sculpture.

Pelagia Mendoza was also recognized for her skill in painting. Capitulo notes that “even in the dainty art of the brush and the easel, she had won distinctions as prize winner in school contests. Her forte was in landscape painting. Her interest was not confined to sculpture and painting alone but also expressed itself in embroidery stitching, on exquisite handkerchiefs and furniture covers” (1951), According to E. Arsenio Manuel, Pelagia Mendoza married Crispulo

Zamora (b. June 10, 1871—d. October 11, 1922) on June 10, 1892 (1955, 1: 488).* They had seven children and sixteen grandchildren. Zamora was a silversmith and a classmate of Pelagia Mendoza at the Fscuela de Dibujo y Pintura. According to Capitulo (1951), Dona Mendoza’s marriage to Zamora got in the way of developing her “artistic abilities.” And most probably, because of her many chores as wife and

mother, she was unable to devote time to her att.

In a column written by Rod Dayao and Amante Paredes titled “Interesting Filipino Women” in the Manila Chronicle on May 19, 1958,

it is stated that “the couple started a business making religious medal and other ornaments.” For Capitulo (1951), the Crispulo Zamora and Sons, Inc., located at 423 Sales St., Quiapo, Manila, was “the foremost engraving house in the country.” Pelagia Mendoza did not submit a work for the 1895 Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila. According to Regalado Trota Jose, this _

was ptobably because she was busy attending to her many duties as a newlywed bride (1986, 61). But according to E. Arsenio Manuel, her husband joined and won a prize for his galvanoplated bust of Fr. Anaya,

a chanter at the Manila Cathedral (1955, 1: 488). |

48 | Homebound When her husband died on October 11, 1922, Pelagia Mendoza

, took over their business. She traveled to China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Indochina to study the processes and designs for carving in the said places (Zaide 1970, 343). Presumably, the business took her more and more away from her art. However, Capitulo (1951) notes that

she found time for her art, while she was tending to their store. She died on March 12, 1939, after two months of illness at the age of 72.

She was buried at the North Cemetery. |

Unfortunately, not one of Pelagia Mendoza’s works survives today. According to Raissa Claire U. Rivera in “Women Artists and Gender Issues in Nineteenth Century Philippines,” Pelagia Mendoza’s “works and personal records, mostly retained at the family home at Sta. Cruz, were destroyed by bombings...” during the Second World War (1998a,

36). Despite the loss of her works, Pelagia Mendoza y Gotianquin’s contribution to the visual arts, particularly for women in the visual arts of the nineteenth century, is significant. She demonstrated that, given

time and space, women could excel in the male-dominated fields of painting, sculpture, and even in the running of a business. However, according to Capitulo, “Dofia Pelagia, although a business woman herself, believed that a woman’s best profession is housekeeping. [Le woman, she said, will finally settle down for good with brass tacks pinned to the home” (1951).

Carmen Zaragoza y Roxas Carmen Zatagoza y Roxas was born on June 29, 1876 at San Sebastian St. (now R. Hidalgo), Quiapo, Manila. She was the eldest child

of Jose Zaragoza and Rosa Vicenta Roxas. She came from a family actively engaged in the arts. Her great uncles were Felix Rojas (the first licensed architect in the Philippines) and Felipe Rojas, brother of Felix, a well-known painter of paisaje. An aunt, Consuelo Roxas, was one of the students of Lorenzo Guerrero. Miguel Zaragoza, her father’s brother, was a well-known painter and writer. Her father, Jose, was the founder,

publisher, and editor of La I/ustracion Filipina, a local journal first published on November 7, 1891 and which lasted until February 28, 1895 (Jose 1986, 58).

Chapter 3 / Presences 49 It is not well established how Carmen Zaragoza learned to draw and paint, and under whose instruction. She might have learned from her great-uncles, aunts, and uncles. According to Flores, she studied at the Escuela de Dibujo y Pintura after 1889 (1998a, 251). She must have

also learned from Teodoro Buenaventura, Vicente Rivera y Mir, and Felix Martinez, who served as illustrators for La I/ustracion Fikpina, which

published several sketches of the leading artists of the period. (1986, 2).

According to Jose, “all of Carmen’s siblings know how to draw and contributed supplementary illustrations for the family newspaper” (1986,

58). However, it is now almost impossible to pinpoint these works’

attribution because the artists did not sign their illustrations and sometimes used aliases. According to Araneta, several other sketches in some issues of the magazine were signed

by such names as Miquiz, Tiquiz, Suyo, Tuyo, and Crayon. _ According to poet Francisco Zaragoza, these were pet names used

to hide the identity of the contributors, who were most likely

Zaragoza relatives. Since Jose Zaragoza solely owned the publication, he must have decided to exercise prudence and to desist from making the magazine appear like a family paper by

masking the names of the Zaragozas. Thus, the painter Miguel | Zatagoza attached his name “Mario” for his literary pieces. Jose

Zaragoza y Aranquizna used the initial “Z” for his own contributions. (1986, 2)

It is highly possible that Carmen Zaragoza did some of the

illustrations in La I/ustracion. Araneta adds: .

- Several sketches signed with what appear to be fictitious names are included 1n various issues of the magazine. These sketches bear a striking similarity to Lola Carmen’s 1892 award-winning “Dos Inteligenicas”’ [sec] and it 1s highly probable that Lola Carmen did those sketches. She had, after all, taken formal painting lessons, and

as the eldest in the family of six children, she must have taken it

upon herself to be her father’s helping hand in putting out La Tlustracion Filipina. (1986, 2) |

50 Homebound However, there is one work attributed to Carmen Zaragoza, the Cercanias de Manila (Around Manila), a landscape that appeared in La Tlustracion Filipina on November 7, 1891. She was only fifteen years

old when the said drawing was published. At this tender age, she

was the first Filipina ever to have her artwork published in a Philippine newspaper. As was already mentioned, her family owned the newspaper. This certainly made her entry into the public sphere relatively easier. On PET ER ee Ba sc OT ERE EF I aot yee ced ER ahh AEP A oom ab ee Og ROE oe oe ae ns ate PL A DS PR ED he Mal bes

eee ry Oe een ee aa are ale NY) CR eR RNG ta ACC apes it Cty Fee ime FPR ee a ae weet SME! wee on re Sey 4% cae mere PE Ry oe y Pe Sa or is ear a coki es < atta a Paaae On SEED es EC cs ES GST Oe «8 eS J a? VAEe ESE ER DI RO gE GON Set a eons 0 OE Se POSS EEE RG fae fa ee OBR Soa FE

tan hfe 3 3! eset eee ae AH OARS By oe fgkae yea sete > re: fen Se ye Ate ae see ae ey aces ie oe) SS" acto: a4 5 agai:

nent ek teen ownage ah eee Ses be, el ee eS ic oll a eae sa

Ty Reed Oe MOR gh Be A MAES aE onSELe 4 PT art, aA EIS REEDS 9,90WR SOU CTNE TR,vathea OM DREse 1, “ERCELN~7AS 08 OSS telnet OG Td Be Oe: |.tw SESGat oS 2 by e\ Vaee

Login: nee ¥ eee: rete aN poe Nani BEA Ny pes we Ie Bert OOS te dy Le RIESE SESS al GU Os Cen: af re Seaweeds et Aes oie METRES CAPT OES eer FLO, Oa ed Mat

Bye petted 8 PaaS OT Rs Mey alse Pacers gee Lay BS xe CORREO RTO ee hy ph GIwie SARS,| LOR ESRI ti tineeetkPlea alata | Hr RY Pin Ae erg : Da Newer yo gh nae ie of Coan eeeARB BAa;3 an : Reet Pig SioaePRES ote be a Yok 3 boo ct Fe ana ie at oe Jf SyVea ‘ a a 3 ay is eS. Ma 4ea ¥ ‘. ion ~ fe a a pre ae Saee eeNag DEKSSS aN ca Bont Geet aan 4, raed 4: PpeSy BENS is.Tag € wi UM SE a OUST EIS ER Re BE RE eG pas Ny a SEE ye NR Co REE BE ise 2 Seer rae vest woe > tay, va A a igen St: Me es RIA peg ERM ae My ers > aN ae Licked atl fe 2 SEO HS ae UM MagAT Bie Noa 86 Mae A RA RPE oanEft,RAE tee fa Nt REREN ren ay ene REEMA RT En EE Beltto) eAGiles Eo SORE 5AT Sol OR PE fottte Duitn Rede eige,Set} has Jie io seen 3EPaene: og. La rn ae:

Soe raw. ee oe ROT ok ALR ONC a as 3 Y a's Ft EY ay 084.0 he eon Laroen BFF PS sch mg Mot Oe 4 wet > ee _ < 1, SeEPA pA hoeSRC a ge > An GES, a.es re 7: Peete?LS Det UEC t a it ig Poy ae OR” Se age © bd | re seek dere, ge mg & SF RUS NP et Cr EE fe agi CFE oO TE RR aL. WL UE RGang® 8 Thee oh cea” Skate eA ih se Se Rep eer * pO a TS GEM inr 4 3 ae

44 ba eee ee Oe a eg LY VS og

Or 4g res ALS | | pa yee HRs So SESE eset eer i SOO. Mw hod dietinrds Sea wetoe! WE ae ts OS 2fa 2G aSUG pale Ss BRS eae ft NE tan Ee phd enn ed, a eS,a| an xi “Aigea ors “ ee baw GkBsete osnyretire eae RD RR

Bidet REDS SSR aro TE IER Se SE ES Pe ti be Macs cance SA BW Ce BOR BL eg te GE Etat ES Se CSCS OR ER OE Recta tod Oe TM HOY Nh \\ RY Wel pe

SY SOS EOI Rg ie got ee Stas Pie PN oN ee 5 ng Cas BN) ¥ Be GLP a he WE

say in Suing SORE RR RA RIN ans FESS sited Ss hotarcoed sas Yh Repoeacnte Ld Nt Ve Ba ee

eee ate ees nent eee RIILT EEA AVN en see aM ar Age a a Tecra IE ein Dy ASEAN RM gr RON Net at Cie, lg ONE m ern mae ea Brae he SSR SRG ee uA AAR a aeRO nsog Gate ENE ECON EL a ney O AW aI Or Boe et: BA eR RCN ECE : Rove Pape EM CRhe os PLN Pek tty ee Reed reptiny faseMUP ain guy 8 tte EEA ROR YE My AY ROE2% oe Boe ae meaty oe CLE TA BLE SREB DOUBry OTRAS IG cere feet etenv2°93 ar TONES BE cates teen varied le: A5"LeRe! Oem ts Kee, Rae ithe pe >TNSetnpeahy C.F Go ne MEO” ; XN 1LUN a ppt

SGT SIs aE, PEASE HOLS eee AOL E LS PAIR START URE re ALL Re ME BR ats eI EARS Fo LSE NIT SP EERE WRT re Cea EDULE SERS BEE POS anced 94 Ped Be PISA SS eee LS. ues: Ae ORG GAT OR

3. Carmen Zaragoza’s Cercanias de Manila (Around Manila). \n La Hustracion Filipina, November 7, 1891

’ di fA

In 1892, the La I/ustracion Filipina \aunched a competition in connection to the quadricentennial of Columbus’ discovery of America.

It came as a surprise that 1t was Carmen Zaragoza who won the competition for her work Dos Inteiigencias (Colon y ef P. Marchena en el convento de la Rabida), a pencil and charcoal drawing on paper. Accordin 3

to Jose, she signed the work CARMELITA (1986, 59). She was only sixteen at that time, and it is probable that she was the first Filipina

Chapter 3 / Presences 51 , visual artist who won 1n a competition in drawing and painting. To quell speculations and partly out of embarrassment, Don Jose Zaragoza took

pains to explain the process of the competition, particularly how his own daughter won the competition. In his article that appeared in La Tlustracion Filipina on October 14, 1892, he mentioned the work’s attributes: “vigor of the draftsmanship, as well as the high spirit and clarity of the composition, which invested the work with the seal of a master ... One could not wish for anything more ... to come up with a finished work on the subject which Carmen chose to depict would need many such serious preparatory studies” (Jose 1986, 59). As the title suggests, Dos Intehgencias (Colon y el P. Marchena en el convento

de la Rabida) 1s about a historical event. It is significant that a woman painted such a topic at that time, because as already mentioned, women of the nineteenth century mostly painted in the “feminine” art forms of paisajes, bodegones, and genre. Carmen Zaragoza’s work 1s, perhaps, the first historical painting done by a woman, and it even won a major

awatd—all these when the artist was only sixteen. | ~ In 1893, Carmen Zaragoza painted a portrait of her father titled Portrait of Don Jose Zaragoza and signed it with the words, A Papa. The

work is now in the Araneta family collection. In 1895, at the age of nineteen, she joined the Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila. According to Jose, she entered four paisajes and won a copper medal (1986, 61). It is not known if these works are extant and which of the

works won the copper medal. | |

In 1895, Carmen Zaragoza painted Landscape.° In this work, she combined genre and paisaje as compositional device. The work closely resembles one paisaje by Felix Martinez, Cercanias de Pandacan' (Around Pandacan). The composition of the works is similar, and it is apparent

that they depict the same scene. This 1s apparent in the details—the

tree behind the nipa hut, the hanging laundry beside the hut, the windows, and the pieces of wood in the foreground. The only difference is that Martinez’s was a “pure” landscape, while that of Zaragoza was combined with genre. There was also a difference in coloring: Zaragoza

used reds and oranges, while yellows and greens predominated in the Martinez painting. The time in both paintings appeared to be dusk, but

52 Homebound e»se

s. * e "« . . .

* es 3 e e e a e °

that of Zaragoza was darker, while that of Martinez depicted the light of dusk after a rain. Martinez’s use of color is quite impressionistic hile Zaragoza’s colors are more dull. Zaragoza’s rendition of forms is inez’s.These These diffteveal | thatthatalthough also more solid than Martinez’s. erences althoug Martinez mentored Zaragoza, the latter had developed a style distinct

whi ’s col dull. Z ” dit f

>

from her ro er teacner s. | teacher’ | eee°

s ° ° :°44.. ° .e s* ee»). e ee

* e e : e , eee°e

Perhaps, Carmen Zaragoza and Felix Martinez did paint the two paintings at the same time, while looking at the same landscape from the same point of view. Perhaps, this is part of Zaragoza’s painting lessons under Martinez. This is probably one of the rare occasions that

Zatagoza was able to go out of the house to paint a landscape. And this I speculate from the information that women of her status and het age, nineteen at this point, could not go out into the streets unaccompanied. In this case, Zaragoza was accompanied by her teacher. Such a practice is similar to what Harris and Nochlin describe in their account of women

s e Cd . e * . *

in Eur Op eC: \ ith ver Vy iy eae eeeSSP ageASEAN ae waeSeDae reSree COsoeiecage er ae EREaog nett ees ce neBr ead a ieTREE eee ae RAE eR

. cen ACS OES OS ASE See ese taterne® Pr anew ae ec

BRRMS aR CERN MS eS pS Oe ae ele a ee PO a Te eae eer ae few exXc ep tions, women Je fe NEES ENS SRN OPEE SRN MIs > ee PUGS Stree TM ha tae ee Sr eo RS Rees

, SEE BR trGty DER ie EnSdakeech gad Fugen 2 Rs St EUS le TO yet TE aleS Aea TV os CaNE a ES Bee hs EO did not even EE ste es ° e . tty y we al hecmraae 0 gre SS SEN a Cee ae gee A ee OL eT et a oy Tee eS aaa od Peg RNa SEEE SOE Pech Sige SSNS DAT SES gta Ue gee 1 GE Bs

TENT bee BeAe Ser tere SUSU eTelie edte ag, BSE TUR yp ys ter oR FP arAE ae a eeGB eet ee atyr eS ie am ec l anlascape d tin til BuePLRU Soe he MRO Zheng BE OP afl gaay un Po Hinge CRAG los Sige oeBANEee ee nage ON EZR eh Be

Serta Wey Oe bh eeSa. wee 4,TS ceoatbeet By ae iA2Ataa fate i any ae DOG SO ke SC iat SP Sng! wn Sfece Se Rott Rese peDOS SOE a SCR Te Test .*OeEe ea ta se ites, hd Ace bag SE Me. erent wig, Bees vt en ee Tae et rp we Sch: Peeheehee) Rak Soog TENE iN esas ay SyCON eb a SS teaSE Yrs See Bekthe EASE

BPH TRE So REA A ES SRE TET gh ed Ea 7B

identl t SLE GROSS OE RT Seay SIRES Ca tat[gies eo ER SSRN SE gee EA oe ee ES OeOo . whe as WAS OVECeN TYDCR TOC Sete ae EES LE eeCATR Tike NB ya

for women to oS i ee I Possible ERNIE. . eeSeas pe RE SEE Se ISeg OA Re oe aES yo ee fe1aSAS BE DeTeEO BR geal p ee a EN epi aes ‘oe Ty eR \ he See a ee JS Oo on S e Cc zy Pagal mgr Tigre agen NMEA SOFBER. 200 6) gagie. ae EDS 4. Ie yates, YE bee OE t 2Strip Nl Nae ato hoo OPM‘ Rea ee Sov eMa gs . . 2 SGN ote tpn” Ee age Mee RE ET ZO Neen OG l ieee Ren ee Me RE EET eee Fo AEE SEER aon ee Ne Es Sl eT pasta he + Peete OO a Ye be. * SD sha ree, Reyes. eee 3g SEN UPA ye

alone to collect theee rawA= ee ¢. RE e NE . Sar EE Oe aaa PenSRf soe ES SS EBS Age eS E UN Se Ba SF ive ; Wo ae

: ] ‘ Pethis BT eg ae Bs BURNS pee AON ONEee Seeee Bs material new genre fy PRR ES EE as ere Peles. oat BETTER Re AT te eek “4 ee Sr se SA Eg Pant a. ES pri Fe tae MEUM E Se. RLS TR ge Rot a I a SUS Gre PAS YS x ve ROSES ep CAE ys OF Sed

require (1 710, 29). hee ee eee he eee

Co RRR TERRES NN pees Ue AB Sc Ned 1a S00 te Gil i ne oe Da A a

AMong 7 > Heed OS EAI ecg UAE ineee COTES ORE GA OM LaragQozas BS eeTESS eeiisah an LARS RICAO81 CRS > SORES CTR Ae etcen RA NC 0 ke eg rg era | xt AF Sed SEER Ps lomo Ae CF we YAK SSD, 293; 3, Gt: : ca ai GR PEELS Sie DR Be eth SOLE ea aes cR A 6 et oT Rae Bet EL ae yo RCRA BSR BE oat SSS ER Secsy 2h, GSP Ta ee os Bede Bd ge be ge

GS VA th SiS ae ME Con ARRON YSN:Ee AcSS ER 24° NOMBRE Sis“iS nse ok Be RE ° See 2 RA eee oD ot a: Bes § 4 rs < SOSHIER PALLY Ft AE Sat va 6&8 -4!id

‘ h18 PWNS CECAE TS ee SS.NAIR ER SAE RANE pa intin{gs ano tnetr CS eee SBERAN ERONE ge GALS 2 LS SAE ce |SOA RS aS

. . . ° Ta OE WAR BPE he Let Pees ese e RARE Bian if KA ae tient bade: Be LER Oadby be aisaje titled Nafzve See at ties RUBE rer eine ne IN Id eee eee

. ; RO UNG RTL BE G8 OT wet ES TE ne LA wat ge EAE TED EB Be eSSA A Set Das EROS oe Ee a SEE eeeae: NERA aCERO i eee eee eerPSEBUCO PECs ORGIES Re eeER Serene Ne «nh eaeSERS PRS Sets Ca eS elt Lands cape (oul Ofl canvas) 1S eA OSPR ORR ETE STL OPSreray “Reed, Soe’ 3 er ye Re EEA mae tp WOES gor ofa yi al add eT we Setoa ri ee DAN Reece ee eee omnes enrages TIN tT wae stg sb ac Ee a ne pet paente IO i : : ae, eee as Dea Le gc SEI es CE OnE SC we RRNA IE PERT

dated 1895. It Lo is signed eeeau ao oe et POS NRPaes ane Na

e.e

as Carmelita, rcZaragozaand S eoNRE OeaSGe ana Ne ieee Ure Sp = Ra igs tats ROVE PROSeee eT

dated by the artist. It | - 2e whi

° 4. A drawing of Carmen Zaragoza receiving her prize while shows a woman carrying Pelagia Mendoza, beside the Columbus sculpture, looks on. In La Hustracion Filipina, October 28, 1892

Chapter 3 / Presences , 53 a bilao (flat, circular container) on her head and walking towards the viewer along the shores of a river on her left side. On the other side of

the shore of the river are a group of people and a nipa hut farther down the river. This painting is in the Araneta family collection and has

recently been restored. _

Carmen Zaragoza married Gregorio Araneta on March 7, 1896; they had fourteen children (Jose 1986, 62). Perhaps, like Pelagia Mendoza,

she had to set aside her painting to take care of her big family. Again, this is similar to what Harris and Nochlin describe as the “unfortunate

pattern among women artists ... in that her productivity declined markedly after her marriage” (1976, 137). Carmen Zaragoza expressed

her creativity in designing her home. Her daughter Margarita recalls that her mother tended to the myriad details of managing and decorating

their household— from the curtains to the furniture. Also, according to Jose, she designed an apartment on Juan Luna St., Tondo, Manila

(1986, 62). oe |

While she might have been able to get out of her home as a

single woman who was learning to paint, her matriage brought her back into its confines. She slowly lost her sight as her age advanced—

perhaps one of the saddest fates that can befall a painter. She died

on her sixty-seventh birthday on June 29, 1943 (Jose 1986, 62). | The Contributions of Pelagia Mendoza |

| and Carmen Zaragoza | : The important contributions of | Pelagia Mendoza and Carmen

‘Zaragoza are quite evident. Pelagia Mendoza’s entry into the Escuela de Dibujo y Pintura in 1889 marks the first time a woman

was admitted to the school. This entry into a male-dominated territory opened up a space for women in the public sphere and broadened their chances to acquire a formal education in art. Pelagia

Mendoza’s contribution to sculpture is significant, especially considering that the medium 1s physically demanding and 1s usually

reserved for men, and that she sculpted an important historical figure—Columbus. Also significant was the publication of an essay about Pelagia Mendoza’s life and works in La I/ustracion Filipina.

54 Homebound This is probably the first time that an article was published on a woman artist in the visual arts. Carmen Zaragoza’s painting titled Dos Intehgencias: Colon _y el P. Marchena en el convento de la Rabida is groundbreaking because it marks

one of the first times, if not the first time, that a woman—who was sixteen years old at that ttme—painted a historical painting, an art genre

traditionally associated with male painters of that period. This work demonstrates that she did not limit herself to painting paisajes and bodegones—gentes considered “feminine.” The publication of works by Carmen Zaragoza in La I/ustracion Fikpina from 1891 to 1895 is important because her works broke away

from the private confines of the home. Although we do not have information on whether or not she was paid for her drawings (it is probable that she was not because the publication was owned by her family), it is safe to suggest that she regularly contributed drawings to this publication, which shows that she was able to enter and participate actively in the public sphere. .

Pelagia Mendoza and Carmen Zaragoza each won a competition in 1892, the first time for women. They demonstrated that women can indeed paint and sculpt well, as well as, if not better than, men. Mote importantly however, they had also found the space for women to bolt out of the confines of their domesticity and make a difference outside the home. Despite these gains, it is also evident that Zaragoza and Mendoza stopped painting after they married. In the words of

Harris and Nochlin, the obvious conclusion that we can arrive at

is that women’s “domestic responsibilities interrupted (their) artistic career, [and] although such a course of events was by no means inevitable ... (they were) inactive after (their) marriage” (1976, 141).

Although it is clear that Pelagia Mendoza and Carmen Zaragoza were mostly bound and confined in the protected space of the home, in which they learned, produced, and displayed their art, it is also clear that they had exerted efforts in extending this space and moving on to

publications. | |

the public sphere of the academe, expositions, competitions, and

Chapter 3 / Presences , 55 Women in Competitions and Expositions | — Women’s participation in expositions 1s a good indication of women’s

entry into the public domain of art. This shows that these women painted

and tried to test the waters of the public domains of art as artists who

made their mark in international competitions. | | 1887 Exposicion de Filipinas en Madrid The first known international event in which women patticipated

was the 1887 Exposicion de Filipinas en Madrid. According to a catalogue of the said exposition, several students from the Royal College

of Santa Isabel in Manila sent embroidered works such as camisas (women upper undergarments), panuelos (kerchiefs), zapaiz/as (slippers),

and the like (Hernandez 1887, 80). Zamora notes that the educational institution of the Augustinian fathers taught orphan girls “so much so that their work in embroidery, sewing, and the manufacture of artificial flowers, Look the prize in the expositions at Madnd and Manila” (1901, 46: 363).

Granada Cabezudo (b. ca 1860—d. ca. 1900) is the only identified Filipina who exhibited at the 1887 Exposicion de Filipinas en Madrid. According to Santiago Pilar in Dascovering Philippine Artin Spain, Granada

studied painting under Agustin Saez, then director of the Academia de | Dibujo y Pintura (1998, 247). However, she did not study painting formally at the said Academia, since women were not accepted as art students during that time. Thus, it is most probable that she learned to paint from Saez at her home. Pilar adds that Granada Cabezudo painted a portrait, Una mestiza, 1n 1887, when she was a little over twenty years old. The woman in the portrait wears a black veil and holds a bible, an indication that the sitter is literate and religious. She appears to be on her way to church, judging from her finery and the rosary around her neck. In the background is a paisaje, including the nipa huts and the

surrounding foliage. This painting is a combination of portrait and © paisaje. It was painted according to the miniaturismo mode—a style associated with the works of Justiniano Asuncion, Antonio Malantic, and Simon Flores y de la Rosa. As can be seen in Granada Cabezudo’s painting, the basic characteristic of this style 1s the intricate and minute

56 Homebound rendering of the details of the dress and accessories. However, unlike the paintings of Asuncion and Flores, which are mostly set within the house, the work of Granada Cabezudo 1s set out in the street and shows

a landscape. Perhaps this movement out of the house is indicative of how women were beginning to bolt out of the confines and boundaries of their homes in the nineteenth century. According to Santiago Pilar, the Una Mestiza 1s owned by the Museo

del Prado and was lent to the Ayuntamiento de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (1998, 247). Barring future discoveries, it is probable that Granada Cabezudo is the only nineteenth century woman who ts known to have a work in a museum outside the Philippines. Also based on my

research, Granada Cabezudo together with the female students from the Royal College of Santa Isabel and the Augustinians were the first Filipinas who exhibited their works in an international exposition.

1888 Exposicion Universal de Barcelona

Paz Longos seems to be only women who joined in the 1888 Exposicion Universal de Barcelona. She entered an embroidery that used hair as material—a portrait, Refrato de D. Alfonso XII, bordado al

lausin (1888, 248). She was a student of Lorenzo Guerrero. This not only demonstrates the value of embroidery but also indicates that there

wete other women aside from Adelaida Paterno who used hair as material. Perhaps, women were taught to work in this medium 1n the exclusive schools for girls.

Paz Longos’s subject is an important person of that time— Don Alfonso XII. This is an indication that nineteenth-century Filipina

portraiture. |

visual artists tried to venture into challenging subject matter such as

1892 Chicago Universal Exposition According to Santiago Pilar, the bust of Columbus by Pelagia Mendoza won second prize at the 1892 Chicago Universal Exposition (1992, 67). This is the first ttme a female sculptor won in an international competition. Pelagia Mendoza ts discussed in detail in the beginning of this chapter.

Chapter 3 / Presences | | 57 1895 Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila Twenty women are known to have entered this exposition. Overall, they submitted forty-three art works. Paz Paterno submitted the most number of works with six entries. According to Jose, five of these women won “copper medals” and four received “honorable mention” awards (1986, 60). Unfortunately, except for Carmen Zatagoza’s copper medal, the other women winners are not known. Petrona Nakpil de Bautista ts the only one about whom there 1s an available biographical sketch. The Paterno sisters whose works will be discussed extensively in Chapter 4 follow. Finally, there are the other artists and their works as they appeared in the catalogue of the exposition and whose biographical sketches are

not available. , ¢ Petrona Nakpil de Bautista a.k.a Ana Capili — three’ |

Patsaye | two oil on palette

Petrona Nakpil de Bautista was born on September 17, 1861

(information from Michelle Mallari Olondriz). She used the pseudonym Ana Capili for the submitted works in the said exposition. She married Ariston Bautista, and was the sister of Julio Nakpil, who married Gregoria de Jesus, widow of Andres

Bonifacio. According to Santiago Pilar, Petrona Nakpil de Bautista won the Diploma of Honor in an art competition held on the occasion of the Tercentenary of Saint John of the Cross

| in 1892 (1992, 67). The house of Petrona Nakpil de Bautista and her husband is now a museum known as the Nakpil House on Ariston Bautista Street in Quiapo. Petrona Nakpil de Bautista has five extant works all in the possession of her descendants. One is a big oil on wood painting of a woman ona carabao signed ANA KAPILI and dated 1895. She also has a genre painting, The Sewer, that depicts a woman sewing inside a room. It is unsigned and undated. Her landscape, Native Scene, shows a nipa hut (presumably the famuly’s platenia

ot shop for making silverworks) by the river. It is signed as Petrona Nakpil de Bautista and dated June 10, 1895. She has

58 | Homebound two oil paintings on palette: one shows ink bottles and another depicts a dragonfly. Both are signed as ANA KAPILI and dated 1895.’ There is a possibility that she entered some of these works at the 1895 exposition. She passed away on September 16, 1948

(Olondriz 2001). |

¢ Paz Paterno — six Bodegon — oil on canvas, (Dofia Trinidad P. Devera)" Bodegon — oil on canvas, (Don Feliciano P. Ignacio) Bodegon — oil on canvas, (Don Antonio Paterno) Bodegon — oil on canvas, (Leodora de Vera) Patsajge — oil on canvas, (Don Martano Molo)

Paterno) |

Orillas del Pasig — oil on canvas, (Don Maximino M.A.

¢ Adelaida Paterno — one

Patsaje — embroidered silk | |

* Concha Paterno — one Casa Filipina paisaje — embroidered silk

¢ Maria Infante del Rosario — three Dustracciones fiterarias — oil on canvas

| Desastres de un ciclon paisaje — oil on canvas

— —- Paisaje — oil on canvas | * Concepcion J. de Montilla — two

two pencil drawings — (Don Agustin J. de Montilla) ¢ Patricia Reyes and her students — one Imagen de Santa Barbara — painted on oil, surrounded by.

artificial flowers |

| ¢ Magdalena Sebastian — two two Pazsaze

Chapter 3 / Presences 59 ¢ Mercedes Wiergo — two two Estudio de Flores— oil on canvas (Don Enrique Fernandez)

¢ Luciana Garces — two

two Mesa revuelta— oil on canvas | | ¢ Ana Garcia Plana — four Bodegon — oil on canvas three Copzas de oleografias — oil on canvas

¢ Josefa Majo — one | El Vapor D. Juan despues del incendio — oil on marine board

¢ Concepcion Ortiz — five

three Frutero — oil on canvas | | Copia al oleo de una oleo grafia

Copia al id. De un grabado

¢ Olimpia S. Terran de Abella — one Patsaje, gouche en cabritilla

¢ Rafaella Callanta — one

Frutero — oil on canvas : ¢ Fermina David — one Patsayje formado con plantas secas — rade trom dried plants |

¢ Carmen Zaragoza — four | | Dos Paisajes — o1l on canvas (Don Manuel Roxas)

two Pazsaje — oil on canvas | The status and whereabouts of these forty-three works are not known today. There are extant works by Paz Santa Paterno, Adelaida Paterno, Concha Paterno, Petrona Nakpil de Bautista, and Carmen Zaragoza, but it cannot be established if these extant works are the

60 , Homebound same ones entered in the expositions. It is also noticeable that not one sculptor entered the exposition, not even Pelagia Mendoza. Also significant is the work by Fermina David, which is made out of dried plants. This may be the first time that an artist ventured into mixed media—which is being used by most contemporary artists today—and the first time an artist produced a work out of local

materials from the immediate environment for a painting. Unfortunately, the actual visual evidence 1s not available for viewing,

inspection, and study. |

Patricia Reyes’s entry also deserves attention—a work done together with her students. Many questions arise from this work. Was the work entered in the exposition a collaborative work? Who were the student-

collaborators? Was Reyes the first female art teacher in the history of

| the visual arts in the Philippines? Did she teach in a convent or beaterio” or also ftom her home? Did she earn her living by teaching art? I ask this last question because unlike Mariana dela Rosa and Eulalia Asuncion,

who ate said to have taught their relatives perhaps for free, it is not known if Reyes taught under the same circumstances. | It must also be stressed that people other than the artists themselves

entered the works into the competitions. For instance, it was Don Enrique Fernandez who submitted the work of Mercedes Wiergo; Don Agustin J. de Montilla who submitted the work of Concepcion J. De

Montilla; and it was Paz’ relatives who submitted her works. One possibility is that the said works were given as gifts and/or sold/ commissioned (e.g. the work of Mercedes Wiergo owned by Don Fernandez), and it was the recipients /collectors who erttered them into the competitions. Others were submitted by close relatives and largely

male supporters, like husbands and fathers. Aside from the Paterno sisters (Paz, Adelaida, and Concha), Ana Capili (Petrona Nakpil de Bautista), Maria Infante del Rosario, and Carmen Zaragoza, there 1s no

other available information on the other women who joined the said

expositions. In the field of embroidery, the folowing women submitted theur works, and it is unfortunate that no information about these women 1s

available.

Chapter 3 / Presences | 61 ¢ Leonor Flores of Sta. Cruz Manila Un cuadro con un ramo de flores bordado en seda

¢ Miguela Flores of Sta. Cruz, Manila

de colores | |

Un cuadro con la imagen de la Santissima Trinidad, bordado en seda

¢ Patricia Araneta Un cuadro con alpabeto en letras de adorno, por ta exposttora

| ~ 1904 St. Louis Universal Exposition Two women artists joined this particular exposition—Maria Infante

del Rosario, who, according to Santiago Pilar, was “posthumously awatded a Bronze Medal for Two Mestizas at the St. Louis Universal Exposition” in 1904 (1992, 67). She also participated in the 1895 _ Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila. The other 1s Victoria Sanchez from Balamban, Cebu. According to Santiago Pilar, she won

honorable mention for her Estudio de Cabeza in the 1904 St. Louis Universal Exposicion (1992, 67).

Women Artists as Art Teachers | Besides Patricia Reyes, there are also three known women artists who taught art during this time. Eulalia Asuncion was born in 1864. She was

from a “family of jewelers and goldsmiths and was herself a skilled goldsmith and photographer” (Manuel and Manuel 1986, 3: 76). She is the first woman photographer mentioned in Philippine art history. She married the sculptor Jose Arevalo and is known as Bonifacio Arevalo’s

first teacher in woodcarving; Bonifacio Arevalo was her husband’s nephew. I found her hidden within the biography of Bonifacio Arevalo who was a well-known sculptor of that time. According to E. Arsenio Manuel, “it was his uncle’s wife, Eulalia Asuncion, who taught him the first lessons in woodcarving ...” (1955, 1: 60). Itis safe to suggest that Eulalia, who was mentioned tn art history as Bonifacio Arevalo’s teacher, also sculpted and carved. She passed away in 1890.

62 Homebound Then there was Mariana dela Rosa, aunt of the well-known painter

Fabian de la Rosa. I found her hidden within the biography of her more famous nephew. According to E. Arsenio Manuel, it was Mariana dela Rosa who first taught her nephew how to paint. “When barely ten years of age, he (Fabian) was beginning to make sketches of landscapes, houses, trees, etc., under the instruction of his aunt, Mrs. Mariana de la Rosa, a noted artist during her time” (1970, 2: 162). However, there are no known surviving works of Mariana de la Rosa. We know her today only

because she was mentioned in art history as the aunt and art teacher of Fabian de la Rosa. Third and last in this category was Emilia [Ibanez del Valle who was “once an instructor of Fernando Amorsolo at the UP School of Fine Arts” (Edades 1943, 59). Her work, Landscape, 1s in the UP Jorge Vargas Museum (Pilar 1992, 146).

Women Artists and Private Education Women of this time also received private education apart from the education they received in school. Lorenzo Guerrero (b. November 4, 1835—d. April 8, 1904) was a well-known painter in the nineteenth

century who taught the children of the ilustrado families. He gave drawing lessons at the Santa Isabel and La Concordia," exclusive schools | for girls. According to E. Arsenio Manuel, his students included: Pacita Paterno, Asuncion Zamora (later to become Mrs. Maximino Paterno), Consuelo Roxas, Juanita Zamora (who was later married to Pablo Ocampo), Pacita Longos, Margarita Roxas (later to become Mrs. Andres Soriano), Maria Icaza (who was married to a Velasco), Micaela Rosales (later to become Mrs. Marcaida), Pilar Lontok, Antera Pantoja, Clara and Arsenia Tambunting, Consuelo Hasanas, Corinta

and Clemencia Ramirez, sisters, the latter becoming his wife afterwards. (1955, 1: 214)

Many of Lorenzo Guerrero’s students were related; in fact, some of them were siblings (Tambunting, Ramirez, and Zamora) and cousins (Paz Paterno, Juana Zamora, and Asuncion Zamora). Lorenzo Guerrero

possibly taught his own female relattves such as his sister, Clarita

Chapter 3 / Presences 63 Guerrero, and his daughter, Aracelt Guerrero. What follows ate short biographical sketches of these women who studied with him and their

relationships with each other. |

Paz Longos, as I have already established earlier, was the lone woman who had a work entered in the 1888 Exposicion Universal de Barcelona.

According to Fernando Zialcita, she was better known as a fashion designer, and was the designer of the clothes of Julia Nakpul, Zialcita’s aunt. Zialcita gave the clothes Paz Longos designed to the University of Hawaii. Clemencia Ramirez, who died on May 20, 1883, was the daughter

of Cayetano Ramirez and Marcela Zamora. She was the sister of Corinta Ramirez. She married Lorenzo Guerrero in 1868. She was also one of Lorenzo Guerrero’s students in painting and drawing. I

found her hidden within the biography of her son, Manuel S. Guerrero. The article states that “his mother was a lover and practitioner of the arts in several of its forms” (Manuel 1970, 2: 218). Talso found her hidden within the biography of her husband. According to E. Arsenio Manuel, she was Lorenzo Guerrero’s model for his painting La Transverberacton de Santa Teresa de Jesus, which won a gold medal in the Tercentenary Celebration of Santa Theresain October

1882. Manuel also states that of Mrs. Guerrero, she had similar artistic tastes. She loved books and liked reading; she cultivated the fine arts too. She sang; she painted, although only Christian Slaves in Turkey, most probably a copy, seems

to have remained of her paintings. Several used to hang in the Marikina Church before this was burned. Some of her embroidery work reached the court of King Alfonso XII of Spain, according to

, tradition. (1955, 1: 216-17) However, thete 1s no information on the status and whereabouts of these paintings.

Born in Ermita in 1853, Corinta Ramirez was the daughter of Cayetano Ramirez and Marcela Zamora. She 1s the sister of Clemencia

Ramirez. She studied at the Escuela Municipal in Intramuros and in one of those exclusive colleges for girls. She founded another exclusive

64 Homebound school for girls, the Colegio de Nuestra Senora de Guia on Calle Real,

where students were given lessons in painting, piano, singing, and embroidery. According to E. Arsenio Manuel, the school closed in 1898

because she left Ermita to join a revolutionary camp. She died on December 16, 1909 (Manuel and Manuel 1986, 3: 443). Known for her portrait of Queen Isabel II, Micaela Rosales married a certain Marcaida. She was active in the visual arts and was well-known

for her works. According to Alzona, “some women painters gained public recognition such as Micaela Rosales, whose masterpiece was a painting of Queen Isabel IT’ (1934, 34). Unfortunately, the whereabouts

of Micaela Rosales’s works are unknown, and it is also not known if any of these works survived. Consuelo Roxas was the only child of Felipe Roxas and Raymunda Chuidian. Felipe Roxas was a well-known painter and studied at the Academia de Dibujo. According to Regalado Jose, he taught painting from his atelier at 84 San Jacinto St. (now T. Pinpin), Binondo (1986, 27). Itis most probable that he also taught his daughter. But according to Regalado Jose, Consuelo Roxas took lessons under another private practitioner, Lorenzo Guerrero (1986, 28). Some of Felipe Roxas’s works

wete bequeathed to her, but, together with her own works, their whereabouts are not known today. Consuelo Roxas was Carmen Zatragoza’s aunt. Margarita Roxas was born on July 20, 1826. She was the eldest child

of Domingo Roxas and Marta Saturnina Ubaldo. She came from a wealthy family—her father was the owner of Casa Roxas and many other properties. According to E. Arsenio Manuel, her father was an “opulent creole” (1986, 3: 470). Margarita Roxas was also known to have excelled in business. She founded the Colegio de la Concordia, where Lorenzo Guerrero taught drawing and painting in 1868. She married Antonio de Ayala'* and passed away on November 1, 1869 (Manuel 1955, 1: 85-86).

Juana “Juanita” Zamora was born on May 27, 1869 and was the second child of Martina Paterno and Mariano Zamora. She was the first cousin of Paz and Adelaida Paterno. She married Pablo Ocampo, a well-known politician and secretary of the Congress of Malolos on

Chapter 3 / Presences 65 September 5, 1885 (Manuel 1955, 1: 294). She passed away on May 29,

1943 (Paterno family tree). , |

Asuncion Zamora was the younger sister of Juana Zamora. She was the fourth child of Martina Paterno and Mariano Zamora. She married her first cousin, Maximino Paterno, brother of Paz and Adelaida as shown in the Paterno family tree. We can see from this information

Lorenzo Guerrero. |

that several women from the Paterno clan studied painting under Unfortunately, more information has to be gathered on the other students of Lorenzo Guerrero: Pilar Lontok, Antera Pantoja, Clara

Tambunting, Arsenia Tambunting, Consuelo Hasanas, and Marta Icaza.

It is probable that the women mentioned produced some art works while they were studying under him. However, their works cannot be found today. Thus, questions remain unanswered. Where are their works now? Are these works with theic families? Did they sell these paintings and/or give them away as gifts to friends and relatives? Are their works

with private collectors now? Are they still in good condition? Or were: | they lost in the bombings during the war as in the case of Pelagia

thetr works? , | |

Mendoza? What were the subject matters, materials, and styles used in

It is also not known what Lorenzo Guertero’s teaching processes and strategies were. Did he just let his students copy his works and his style? Or did he give them room for experimentation, room to find their own pictorial language? Because he gave these women private lessons, the space of their art education and art production was tn their homes. It is probable that they did not get their lessons from the convents ot beaterios. — In addition to the previously mentioned women students of Lorenzo

Guerrero, his daughter and sister were mentioned in passing in the biography of Manuel Guerrero found in the E. Arsenio Manuel’s

Dictionary of Philippine Biographies. | | Araceli Guerrero was the daughter of Clemencia Ramirez and Lorenzo Guerrero. According to a biographical account on her younger

brother, Manuel Guerrero, Araceli was “appreciative of the arts, ‘ptacticing them in a number of forms” (Manuel 1970, 2: 218). She

66 Homebound probably learned her craft from her father. When Lorenzo Guerrero © died in 1904, she took charge of keeping and preserving the documents related to his artistic legacy. She never married (Manuel 1955, 1: 217). Clarita Guerrero was the daughter of Leon Jorge Guerrero and Clara Leogardo. According to the biographical account of her nephew Manuel Guerrero (son of Clemencia Ramirez and Lorenzo Guerrero), Clarita was “appreciative of the arts, practicing them in a number of forms” (Manuel 1970, 2: 218). Manuel Guerrero’s mother died at an eatly age, leaving him under the care of his aunt, Clarita Guerrero. Perhaps Clarita Guerrero learned painting from her brother Lorenzo Guerrero. Besides these women who received art instruction from Lorenzo Guerrero, there were other women who studied with other well-known artists like Simon Flores y de la Rosa, Ramon Martinez, Fabian de la Rosa, and Fernando Amorsolo. One of these was Celestina Flores y Dela Rosa. She was the sister of Simon Flores, who is said to have taught her to draw. According to the essay “In Search of Simon Flores” by Emmanuel Torres, “he (Simon Flores) was keeping close watch on his frail beautiful sister Celestina, whom he persuaded to move out of

Paco to live with him and Simplicia in Bacolor ... He taught the artistically inclined Celestina drawing lessons” (1975, 40). Another sister

of Simon Flores y de la Rosa, Juanita Flores y de la Rosa, is known to

have produced outstanding works in embroidery. According to Emmanuel Torres, “Juanita ... did beautiful embroidery work ...” (1975, 18). Perhaps she learned the art of embroidery from her cousin Mariana de la Rosa. ©

Consuelo Grande-Cuyugan was born on R. Hidalgo St. in Manila in 1889. She was a niece of Felix Resureccion Hidalgo. She completed her elementary and high school education at the Santa Isabel College. | According to Victorio Edades, “the artists learned all that she knows about painting from the late Don Fabian de la Rosa” (1943, 30). One of her works, Moonht Night, 1918, is in the U.P. Vargas Museum. Maria Roxas was born in the 1890s to the Roxas family of Marilao,

Bulacan. She was a student of Fabian de la Rosa and/or Fernando Amorsolo. According to Dr. Jaime C. Laya, “she was an accomplished

Chapter 3 / Presences 67 artist who painted for pleasure. Her works are mainly in the possession

of her relatives and the ones I have seen ate landscapes and flower gardens” (2001). She died in the 1960s.

| Celedonia “Dont” Domingo Ongpin-Villacorta was born in 1896 and was the granddaughter of Damian Domingo. She studied painting under Ramon Martinez. One of her works, Bodegon, a pastel drawing, 1s

in the National Museum collection.

Women in Various Citations | Several women were also cited in various publications. Martina Dizon

Santiago was born in 1875. Well-known as a Katipunera, Marina also studied painting. According to her biography, “aside from approving her academic studies, her father also encouraged her to study music, painting, and modeling.” She passed away in 1950 (De Guzman 1967, 74). Emma Vidal (b. circa 1855) is on this list of nineteenth century women in the Philippines, even if she was a Spaniard, because she was the lone woman—Flipina or Spanish—whose work is included in the Flora de Filipinas by Fray Manuel Blanco. Perhaps, Emma Vidal 1s telated—as sister or daughter—to Domingo Vidal y Soler, the editor of Flora. Nieves Villasenor was mentioned in Flores’s Painting History: Revisions in Philippine Colonial Art: “Incidentally, Salud Empremiado, also

| a descendant, identified a certain Nieves Villasefior. A sister of Ysmael,

Nieves was supposed to be a painter, too” (1998a, 296). Ysmael Villasenor was a sculptor and painter who did a monument of Jose

Rizal in Lucban, Quezon. _ | Exploring the Efforts of Women } Information on the more than fifty women listed above is admittedly

very sketchy. While there is more information on Pelagia Mendoza, Carmen Zaragoza, Paz Paterno, and Adelaida Paterno, others are known only by name, and almost nothing else is known about them. This listing,

however, is a preliminary step toward a more in-depth reseatch on women artists in the nineteenth century and a clear challenge against

the existing art historical map in the country. . | |

68 Homebound It was indeed difficult to be a woman visual artist in nineteenthcentury Philippines. First, women were discriminated against as colonial subjects, as indios; and second, discriminated against as women. During that ttme, women were considered the property of men. Third, as artists,

they occupied a male-dominated sphere. And fourth, as women ilustrados, their spaces and movements were limited by the rules and regulations of their social status. Datuin describes this situation as “multilayered invisibility.” According to Datuin, “women in the arts are many

times marginalized, because of their race and their history as colonial subjects and of their positions in the class structure” (2002, 77-78). In her article “Women Artists and Gender Issues in Nineteenth Century Philippines” which appeared 1n the Center for Women Studies journal,’ Raissa Claire U. Rivera contends that women artists ate invisible

because of the following reasons.

¢ The definition of art excluded the artistic production of women such as embroidering, textile, baskets, home decor, etc. What women produced, no matter how artistic, were viewed as mere “crafts” because they were useful for meeting day-to-day needs of people such as handwoven blankets or baskets, and cannot be called art because of the view that art should only be for art’s sake.

¢ Artworks produced by anonymous artists were attributed to men. Studies show, however, that some of these works were women’s, considering the fact that women in atelier subsumed their works to men’s, and it was the institutionalized practice of male artists in the past to leave the finishing touches to an artwork to women

as a matter of course, considering the social construction of , women as men’s appendages and helpers. ¢ Lower class women artists could not possibly be discovered and written about since there was no conscious effort to look for them. Until lately, the elitist, metropolitan, hispanized bias prevented the search for women in the lower class, rural

areas and the hinterlands even if “crafts” were to be considered “art.”

Chapter 3 / Presences 69 ¢ Women artists themselves as exemplified by documented ones discussed in this paper did not privilege their role as artist as their male counterparts did. What the women considered more

important were that of dutiful daughters, devoted wives, nurturing mothers, and efficient homemakers. Because of the

| preference for these roles the women could not have the time

| for improving their artistry. , ¢ The works of women wete not considered as valuable as men’s, and therefore, not exhibited in public (which was the only way

- to gain recognition), presented for safekeeping (many were destroyed during World War II), and written about (except for women attists of the upper classes with very influential families).

(1998b, 96-97) |

Rosa Marie Icagasi, in “The Filipina as an Artist and Art Subject in 19th Century Philippine Art,” claims that Filipina artists suffered

century. oo |

three kinds of discrimination in the visual arts of the nineteenth

¢ Discrimination arising from the definition of art — the artistic endeavors in which the F ilipina was engaged, like pottery, textile weaving, mat weaving, embroidery, were not considered art

because the products had a utilitarian function. | © Discrimination in the categorization of paintings — still lifes and landscapes, which the Filipina artist favored, were considered less important than historical or allegorical paintings.

¢ Discrimination in family roles — the nineteenth century Filipina was burdened with raising a big family (many had more than

| ten children). Thus she had no time to nurture her talent, only het talented (as well as untalented) offspring. (1998, 116-18) —

While I agree with the points made by Rivera and Icagasi, I also offer some observations based on my own analysis of the lives and works of women artists in nineteenth-century Manila. Let me start with the space that these women occupied which quite apparently was the

70 Homebound home. It was within the space of the home that women were trained, produced, displayed, and possibly taught art. The subject matter of their works was also drawn from the immediate space in the home. For these women artists, the home became the starting point; perhaps, it was also the endpoint. Women artists were homebound. This assignment of home as women’s space signals other limitations that are intimately bound with each other.

First of these hmitations 1s the fact that women painted mostly

paisajes and bodegones. As Icagasi suggests, women’s form of expression were limited to the “feminine” and therefore “lower” arts of paisajes and bodegones. It 1s also possible that these art forms

were about themes and subjects closest to the home, which were also the two art forms that their teachers taught them. It is hard to imagine a woman artist of that time in a nude life class, in which they would have not only painted from a live model, but also studied anatomy as a prerequisite for the “higher” art forms, like historical

paintings. Although artists like Carmen Zaragoza and Clemencia Ramirez painted historical and religious subjects, they comptise a minority. Women artists like Granada Cabezudo, Micaela Rosales, and Paz Paterno also painted portraits. But of the three known portraits by women, the subjects are women. None of them painted portraits of men, and none ever painted nudes, due perhaps to the norms of propriety to which they were bound. Second, while it 1s probable that their parents and relatives were supportive of their art activities, it can also be suggested that perhaps they were encouraged and urged to study how to paint, sculpt, draw, and embroider, and learn other skills 1n art in keeping with their status as women. It is also probable that their parents supported their endeavors

in art because this talent made them more marriageable and attractive

to prospective suitors. In their study of women artists, Harris and Nochlin conclude as much: “We can also guess that it was good business

to promote women artists while they were young and attractive; their gifts seemed even more astonishing and they attracted not only clients

but also suitors” (1976, 42). Even the education of women in the nineteenth century was part of their preparation for their future roles

Chapter 3 / Presences | 71 as mothers and wiyes, as can be gleamed from the curricula of the schools mentioned in chapter 2. , Third, it is to be noted that most women of this period started their

att careers early. Carmen Zaragoza won a prize at the tender age of sixteen. Paz Paterno painted all her works when she was around seventeen to eighteen years old. Adelaida Paterno worked on her three

embroidery pieces at the age of seventeen. Harris and Nochlin, commenting on the age group of the women artists they have examined

in their study, state: ,

One intriguing characteristic shared by many of the women represented here has not been commented on previously, namely | their precocity. For a surprisingly large percentage of these artists, we have evidence of professional activity before the age of twenty. (1976, 41)

While this precocity is something to be celebrated, their training 1n att at an early age can also be seen as a preparation for married life. This can mean that these women were taught early by their mothers, aunts, and older sisters inside the home to prepare them for their future roles as mothers, aunts, and sisters who would also teach these things to their female relatives. Fourth, that most women stopped painting as soon as they married suggests that indeed their early preparation in the arts might well have been an unconscious strategy designed to raise their value in the marriage market and a preparation for married life. It just seems a little bit ironic

that while these women were trained early in the arts, once they got married, they apparently stopped producing art. Examples of these women ate Pelagia Mendoza, Carmen Zaragoza, Clemencia RamitezGuerrero, and Margarita Roxas de Ayala. Harris and Nochlin also note this pattern in the case of the women artists included in their book— that when women artists marry, they stop producing art. It appears that

such an observation can also be applied to the case of women visual artists 1n nineteenth-century Philippines. Harris and Nochlin add that this phenomenon 1s due to the fact that women had to fulfill many

tasks as wives and mothers, “when marriage and its concomitant

72 Homebound domestic duties so often meant the end of even the most promising careers” (1976, 57). The result then, they note, which I find to be true also in the case of the women visual artists included in this book, is that the woman’s “domestic responsibilities interrupted her artistic career, although such a course of events was by no means inevitable” (1976, 141).

Fifth, because thetr space has been so defined, most women artists

in the visual arts of the nineteenth century are seen as hobbyists or Sunday painters, and not as artists. It is assumed that women create art only to pass the time. Harris and Nochlin present such a stereotype: “The dabbling female dilettante is with us still, and every woman artist who works at home has experienced the frustration of being dismissed as one” (1976, 41). Even history writers like Alzona labored under this assumption: “There were Filipino women painters, too. Painting was taught in the convent schools, especially during the nineteenth century, and it became a /obby of convent-bred girls...” (1934, 34). According to Torres in Kayamanan: 77 Paintings from the Central Bank Collection, embroidery, playing the harp, pianoforte, or singing are artistic pastimes

of every girl in the family (1981, 64). }

Women’s art is thus seen and classified in mainstream art history as , decorative arts. According to Alzona, convent-bred girls liked to decorate | their homes with the product of their artistic endeavors (1934, 34). It 1s

perhaps because of this perception that no real effort was made in gathering and conserving the works of these women artists. Today then, aside from a few works by Paz Paterno (7), Adelaida Paterno (4), Carmen Zaragoza (4), Emilia del Valle (1) and Granada Cabezudo (1), almost no work by women artists of the nineteenth century exists today.

In fact, the artworks of nineteenth-century Filipina visual artists

ate hardly represented in the major collections of the Philippine government. Their works are not found in the National Museum nor in the Cultural Center of the Philippines. Except for the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, which has five works by Paz Paterno and four by Adelaida Paterno, women’s works of that period are nonexistent in mainstream and official public collections. Most of them are kept in the homes of their relatives. Uhere are still existing works by Carmen Zaragoza 1n the

Chapter 3 / Presences 73 safekeeping of her relatives (PAGREL collection). There are also works

by Petrona Nakpil de Bautista, kept in the homes of her descendants. Unfortunately, no works by Paz and Adelaida Paterno remain with their

relatives.

| We have no recourse except to speculate about the whereabouts of their works, if they exist at all. Some of them, like those by Pelagia Mendoza, may have been destroyed by war and other events. Also, women’s works are less likely to be preserved precisely because they are

not considered serious works of art, but “merely” decoration and hobbies. Where is the painting of Reyna Isabel IT by Micaela Rosales? | the paintings of the Ramirez sisters? the works entered into the 1895 Exposicion, among others? the winning entry by Petrona Nakpil de Bautista in the Tercer Centenario de San Juan de la Cruzr Sixth, most of them are written about in relation to established male names. Most of them are known as wives (e.g., Pelagia Mendoza, who is referred to by E. Arsenio Manuel as wife of Crispulo Zamora), daughters or sisters (e.g., Paz and Adelaida to Pedro Paterno and Celestina and Juanita Flores to Simon Flores), and aunts (e.g., Mariana de la Rosa

to nephew Fabian de la Rosa). It is also very probable that some of the works by women were even attributed to their more famous male kin. In Chadwick’s analysis, she observes such attribution to be a common occurrence: “Since women were not credited with artistic genius, an art history committed to proving male genius can only subsume women’s contributions under those of men” (1996, 20). Even now, these women artists need the patronage of influential

men. In the case of Paz Paterno, it was Dr. Jaime C. Laya, former

governor of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank of the Philippines) and former minister of the then Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports (MECS), who was primarily responsible for her rise from obscurity. Paz Paterno’s name emerged in Philippine-art history only when Emmanuel Torres wrote about her in Kayamanan: 77 Paintings from the Central Bank Collection 11 1981. It was during the term of Dr. Laya as BSP governor that Paz’s works were collected and written about | by Torres. When Dr. Laya became minister of MECS, A Portfoho of 60 Philippine_Art Masterpieces (1986) was published, and it included the S7/

74 Homebound Life of Paz Paterno. It is evident then that nineteenth century Filipina visual artists, like Paz, become known through the support of influential men in the art world like Dr. Laya. Seventh and last, most Filipina artists in the nineteenth century are known as teachers and not as creators themselves. Some examples are Martana de la Rosa (as teacher of her nephew Fabian de la Rosa), Eulalia

Asuncion (as teacher of Bonifacio Arevalo), Corinta Ramirez, and Patricia Reyes. Perhaps because they had not sold their works and were

never commissioned, they earned their living by teaching art. Harris and Nochlin validate this conclusion: “It was possible for women artists

of more modest talents to support themselves, for example by giving drawing lessons, either privately or to groups of students in convent schools” (1976, 41). It is also safe to suggest that they were accepted more easily as teachers, because this was one of the professions closely associated with women then. In Harris and Nochlin, they also note that “the existence of female drawing teachers depended on another social development, namely the widespread acceptance of the idea that a welleducated young lady should know how to draw and paint” (1976, 41). But we should also ask how they influenced their students (Fabian de la Rosa, Bonifacio Arevalo, etc). Indeed, how would the visual arts in the

Philippines have turned out if they had not taught those who are now considered major artists of the Philippine canonp The limitations above spring from and go back to the dominant belief that the woman’s space 1s the home and allits associations. Given these limitations, let me now explain how these women’s status as ilustrados factor into their identities as artists. It is striking that almost all women artists in the nineteenth century came from ilustrado families, families who were well-known and wealthy. Going by their surnames, they came from privileged families; in fact, these families are considered privileged to this day: Paterno, Tambunting, Roxas, Soriano, Zamora, and Zaragoza. lhis does not mean that there were no sculptors, painters,

and embroiderers among the women of the working class. Ma. Luisa Camagay’s study shows that there were indeed bordaderas (women embroiderers) from the working classes in the nineteenth century in

Manila. Unfortunately, not one of them is known, and there is no

Chapter 3 / Presences 75 information about them. Perhaps they did not sign their embroidery, unlike Adelaida who signed her embroidered landscape; thus, these other

women remain unknown. _ Another reason that can help explain to the anonymity of women attists coming from the working classes is the fact that they belonged to the working class, and as such, their works had even less value: these artists were women, and they were poor women. It is sionificant to consider socioeconomic status at this point, because it is probable that the ilustrado women attists got as far as they did because they belonged

to the ilustrado class. |

Because they belonged to the ilustrado class, almost all the known women visual artists of the nineteenth century had the chance to study

and train in art. Most of them learned from private tutors, such as Lorenzo Guerrero and Agustin Saez, who taught them 1n their homes. Others studied painting and drawing 1n convents or beaterios. It is also probable that some of them learned from relatives, like parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, nephews, and cousins. Their chance to obtain art education

may very well be directly related to their ilustrado origin—in their capacity to finance their studies and in terms of connection. It is probable

that because these women lived comfortable lives, they were able to engage in art. Yet, this supposition does not mean in any way that it was -

easy for ilustrado women to engage in art; it was just easier for them compared to women artists in the working classes. Perhaps, what made the ilustrado women’s involvement in art particularly striking was that they were able to live and work within the stereotypical notions and social expectations about women; in the process, they were able to turn these notions and expectations around.

These women did not consider art a business or commercial enterprise. Except for Carmen Zaragoza and Pelagia Mendoza who probably won cash prizes for their winning works in 1892, there is no

proof that women earned money through their art. There is no information about whether or not they sold their works or were commissioned. It is most probable that they painted for themselves and for their families. Their status as ilustrado limited them from actively and directly conducting business and from selling thetr works, simply

76 Homebound because it was not their place to do so. Or perhaps it was demeaning, given their status, or perhaps they really did not need the income. For instance, Paz and Adelaida Paterno’s works remained with them while they were alive. They were only sold after several decades, most of them after the death of Adelaida. Chadwick relates a similar experience, that of Sofonisba Angutssola, one of the first known women artists 1n

Europe: — |

_ Angutssola’s social status prohibited her from selling work, and her paintings circulated within elevated social circles in which they were given as gifts. Thus the first woman painter to achieve fame and

respect did so within a set of constraints that removed her from competing for commissions with her male contemporaries and that

79) OO ,

effectively placed her within a critical category of her own. (1996,

Thus, these women visual artists were 1n some kind of a double

bind. On the one hand, because of their social standing, they had education in art, produced art, and to an extent, recetved recognition for their art. On the other hand, they were women, and as women, they were mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, and aunts first; their art would have to come last or not at all. It is therefore even mote commendable that, despite this double bind, these women pressed on and te-defined the space allotted to them. From this new perspective, it is evident that the home can bea legitimate space of and for art education, production, exhibition, consumption, and collection.

Notes | | 1. Another woman artist, Carmen Zaragoza, won tn the same competition. She will be discussed later. 2. For the full Spanish text, please see Appendix 4. 3. Translated by Marilyn Canta. 4. According to Zaide, they married in 1893. 5. For the full Spanish text, see Appendix 5. | 6. This work may be seen in Regalado Trota Jose’s 1030 R. Hidalgo, page S1.

Chapter 3 / Presences 77 7. This work may be seen in the Department of Foreign Affairs and National Centennial Commission’s Dascovering Philippine Artin Spain, page 239.

8. Number of entries. 9. 1am indebted to Nico de Lange Mallar and Michelle Mallar1 Olondriz for the opportunity to view these works. 10. Name of the person who submitted the artworks.

11. La Concordia was owned by Margarita Roxas, one of Lorenzo Guerrero’s students. — 12. Not Andres Soriano as mentioned by E. Arsenio Manuel in a biography of Lorenzo Guerrero. 13. An amended version of her unpublished undergraduate thesis with — the same title. |

RECONSTRUCTIONS © The Space of Women in the Works of Paz and Adelaida Paterno

The Paternos of Quiapo were among the premier families of the second half of the 19th century who patronized artists. (Torres 1981, 60)

The Paternos of Quiapo were one of the most distinguished families of Manila in the middle of the 19th century. They were noted as patrons of the arts.

, (Coseteng 1986, 45) Contextualizing Paz and Adelaida Paterno W/ hat life kinddid of Paz family the Paternos come from? What kindtheir of _ anddid Adelaida Paterno have? Who were forebears? In what business did their family engage? How did they get interested in the arts? Did they have other siblings who also engaged in

| the arts? Who were theyr In addressing these questions, this chapter presents a glimpse of

the history of one of the most established ilustrado famulies 1n nineteenth-century Manila: the Paternos. This will be followed by a biography of Paz and Adelaida Paterno, particularly their education 78

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions 79 and status. In the process, I will analyze the spaces in which they moved: family, home, society, and art world. Their works will also be analyzed

as representations of these spaces. , Brief History of the Paterno Family’

The Paterno family was among the most well-known families in nineteenth-century Philippines. According to their family tree, the , Paternos descended from Ming Mong Lo, a Chinese businessman. He had five children, one of whom was Paterno Molo y Agustin. According to John Foreman in The Phikppine Islands: In the early decades of the last century a Chinaman, called Molo, carried on a prosperous trade in the Calle del Rosario, in the Manila district of Binondo. His Philippine wife, whose family name was Yamson, carried in her veins the “blue blood,” as we should say in Hurope, of Luzonia. She was the direct descendant of the Great

| Maguinoo, or Prince of Luzon, a title hereditary, according to tradition. (1906, 411)

Paterno Molo y Agustin Paterno Molo y Agustin was born in 1786. He is an important figure

in the history of Philippine visual arts. His portrait was painted by , Severino Flavier Pablo of Paco in 1836—the earliest known portrait of an ilustrado. According to Santiago Pilar in his short biography of Pablo in the Encyclopaedia of Philippine Art, Sining Biswal, “Pablo’s earliest sioned

and dated work, 1836, is the portrait of Don Paterno Molo y Agustin, 1786-1835, which the painter might have started while the sitter was still alive or which he might have painted from a miniature, after the subject’s demise” (1994b, 4: 382). Don Paterno passed away in 1835. _ Justiniano Asuncion also painted Don Paterno’s portrait. In the essay “The Loving Eye for Detail,” Pilar states: Understandably then the earliest known portrait painted by Capitan

Ting was dated in the 1850s. The sitter was probably the most influential senor of his district, Don Paterno Molo y Agustin,

80 Homebound businessman-proprietor of a chain of merchant boats that brought divers goods to as far as Aparri. It was actually Don Paterno’s first name which was later adopted by his socially prominent and affluent descendants as their family name. When he posed for this portrait,

Don Paterno was in the twilight of his life and his son, the equally prestigious Don Maximo or Capitan Memo was already overseeing his business for him. (1975, 20)

Maximo Molo Agustin Paterno y Yamzon Paterno Molo y Agustin had nine children. One of them was Maximo Molo Agustin Paterno y Yamzon (Capitan Memo), his sixth child, born in 1830. He was the one who took over his aging father’s business. Maximo Molo Agustin Paterno y Yamzon was born on May 29, 1830. Much of the information on the Paternos, particularly on Maximo Molo Agustin Paterno, comes from John Foreman’s book. According

to Foreman, he derived the information from the narration of Don Pedro A. Paterno, son of Maximo Molo Agustin Paterno himself. Foreman writes: Averse to indolent pleasure during his father’s lifetime, Maximino, with his own scant but independent resources, started active life with a canoe and a barge, conveying goods as far as Corregidor Island to secure the first dealings with the ships entering the port. In this traffic

, he made money so fast that he opened an office, and subsequently a store of his own, in the Escolta. His transactions attained large proportions, and by the time this kind of trade in the bay became obsolete, he was already one of the most respected middlemen operating between the foreign houses and provincial producers. His Christian name was abbreviated to Maximo; and so proverbial were his placidity and solicitude for others that his friends affectionately

nicknamed him Paterno (paternal), which henceforth became the adopted cognomen of the family. His unbounded generosity won for him the admiration of all his race, who graciously recognized him as their Maguinoo. (1906, 411)

Don Maximo Paterno y Yamzon also had his portrait painted by Severino Flavier Pablo. The said portrait was signed and dated 1852. In the 1870s,

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions 81 Justiniano Asuncion painted a portrait of Capitan Memo’s third wife, Dona ‘Teodora, and his third child, Dolores. In 1871, Maximo Paterno joined the Secret Society of Reformers, which held its meetings 1n Santa Cruz. Because of this, in 1872, he

writes: , | |

was exiled to Ladrone Islands, on charges that he was part of the rebellion in Cavite. He returned from exile after ten years. Foreman

Sympathetic in the ambitions and in the distress of his own people, he was, nevertheless, always loyal to Spanish authority; but whether his fortune awakened Spanish cupidity, or his influence with the masses excited the friars’ jealousy, the fact is that in 1872 he was banished to the Ladrone Islands, accused of having taken part in the rising of Cavite. Ten years afterwards he was again in Manila, where

I had the pleasure of his acquaintance.... (1906, 411-12) | Based on the Paterno family tree made by Antonio Paterno, Capitan

Memo died on July 25, 1900* at the age of seventy. According to Foreman, “on his decease ... he left considerable wealth” (1906, 412). In a personal interview, Mrs. Socorro Paterno said that “this branch (of the family) was very rich.” The wealth came from the coffee trade in Batangas. Lore has it that Maximo was so wealthy that he had to use a spade for his gold, and that he ate out of gold plates in Lipa where he was said to have the largest landholdings. Many people owed him and

paid their debts by forfeiting their lands. | The Children of Maximo Molo Agustin Paterno -Maximo Molo Agustin Paterno had fourteen children. Of these, only one was with his first wife, Valeriana Pineda, who died at an eatly age. With his second wife, Carmina Devera Ignacio, he had nine children, including Paz, Dolores, Pedro Paterno, and Trinidad. Carmina died on December 4, 1868. Maximo married his third wife,

Teodora Devera Ignacio, Carmina’s sister. They had four.children, | one of whom was Adelaida Paterno, his youngest child. Teodora died on September 24, 1902. Aside from Paz and Adelaida, Maximo

82 Homebound had other children who were also inclined towards the arts: Dolores Paterno, Trinidad Paterno, Pedro Alejandro Paterno, and Concepcion —

(Concha) Paterno. |

Dolores Paterno , |

Dolores Paterno, born on March 10, 1854, was the third child (second child with the second wife Carmina Devera Ignacio). She is a known composer, having composed La Flor de Manila (Sampaguita). She

also had a portrait done by Justintano Asuncion. Dolores died at the age of twenty-seven on July 3, 1881.

Pedro Alejandro Paterno Pedro Alejandro Paterno is probably the most well-known of the children of Maximo Paterno. He was Maximo’s fifth child (the fourth with his second wife Carmina Devera Ignacio). He was born in Santa

Cruz, Manila on February 27, 1857. According to Foreman, “His Excellency Don Pedro Alejandro Paterno belongs to the class of Filipinos—the Chinese half-caste—tremarkable in this colony for that comparative intellectual activity of which Don Pedro himself is one of

the brightest ling examples” (1906, 411). According to Coseteng, “Pedro, the elder son of Maximo, and the more well-known member of the family, was identified with the local literati and artists being a writer himself and art collector as well” (1986, 45). Emmanuel Torres

describes him as , a friend of the leading artists and writers of his time, he was a jack-

of-all-arts: pioneering collector of art and antiques, journalist, librettist, poet and fictionist ... He also proved to be a cunning _ politician who adroitly maneuvered staying in the good graces of the Spanish, U.S., and Revolutionary authorities during the most turbulent

period of our history. (1981, 60) . Pedro Alejandro Paterno was a renowned writer and politician. He married a Spanish aristocrat, Luisa Pifieyro, in 1890. He studied at the Ateneo Municipal de Manila and the Universidad de Salamanca in Spain.

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions 83 He also studied law at the Universidad Central de Madrid. He founded the following newspapers—La Republica Filipina, E/ Liberal, La Patria, ‘and La.Asamblea—and published several poems (e.g., Sampaguitas y Poesias |

Varias) in 1880, the first literary work a Filipino published in Spanish. His novel, Ninay, written in 1885, was also the first novel in Spanish _ written by a Filipino. He also wrote a libretto titled Sandugong Panaginip

1911.

(literally _A Dream of Blood). |

Pedro Alejandro Paterno arranged the historic Pact of Biak-na-Bato in 1897. He was also a member of the Propaganda Movement in Spain, was elected into the National Assembly in 1907, and died on March 11,

Trinidad Paterno-Gabriel

Trinidad Paterno-Gabriel was born on November 14, 1868, the tenth

child of Maximo Paterno (the ninth with his second wife Carmina Devera Ignacio). She married Claudio Gabriel and they had four children (Vicente Gabriel, Antonio, Jose Maria, and Carmen). She passed away

on November 25, 1932 at the age of 64. | Trinidad Paterno-Gabriel has one known extant work—a

collection. | | |

circular embroidery using human hair titled Rural Scene with Water Carner

| made circa 1890s. It is now in the Bangko Sentral ng. Pilipinas Concepcion “Concha” Paterno-Padilla Concepcion (Concha) Paterno-Padilla was the twelfth child of Maximo Paterno (the second with his third wife). She was born on May 21, 1878. She was one of the women who joined the 1895 Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila, in which she exhibited a paisaje done in embroidery. It is possible that she might have taught her youngest sister, Adelaida, the art of embroidery. According to E. Arsenio Manuel, she also studied music with Victorino Carrion and participated in the

of 57. _ | -

ensayos musicales (musical rehearsals) (1970, 2: 117). She married a certain

Padilla, but they had no children. She died on April 5, 1934 at the age

84 Homebound One of Concepcion Paterno-Padilla’s works survives in a private collection. It is a paisaje in watercolor, dated November 1896, and signed Concha. The work shows a river in the middle of the frame, dividing the

frame into two. On the left is a line of trees. On the shore, somewhere on the left, is a figure of a person. On the right half stands a nipa hut. It would seem that she was very close to the river shore when she painted this scene.

It is apparent that the children of Don Maximo engaged in the various atts. Pedro is a famous writer; his four daughters, Paz, Adelaida, Trinidad, and Concha practiced embroidery and painting. Dolores is an

important composer. It is clear that Don Maximo encouraged and supported his children’s artistic inclinations.

Most of Don Maximo’s children never married. Of his fourteen children, only four are known to have married legally. Dolores, Paz, and

Adelaida remained single. Perhaps, during that time, as MendozaGuazon notes, “a young woman could be a teacher, a nun, ora spinster. The last two were the most attractive, because chastity ... was highly ptized and praised according to the teachings of the time” (1928, 19).

However, the decision of the three sisters not to marry also suggests that this may be their way of resisting the ordained roles of women as wives and mothers.

The Sisters Paz Santa Paterno and Adelaida Paterno Paz Santa Paterno Except the fact she came from the ilustrado class, being a daughter of Maximo Molo Paterno by a second marriage, little is known about ~

the life of Paz Paterno. (1986, 45) | Paz Santa Paterno was born on November 1, 1867 in Santa Cruz, Manila. She was the ninth of Don Maximo Polo Paterno’s children (the eighth with his second wife). According to Emmanuel Torres, “Paz appears to be the brightest of several sisters with artistic gifts, children of ilustrado parents...” (1981, 5); and Alice Coseteng writes, “the highborn Paz must have been thrown early in life among the company of

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions 85 her equally gifted stepbrother and sisters*: Pedro, Dolores, and Adela (daughter of Don Maximo by a third marriage). These circumstances must have encouraged Paz to take up seriously an art career” (1986,

45). a —

Paz studied painting with a private tutor, Lorenzo Guertero.

According to the Dictionary of Philippine Biography by E. Arsenio Manuel,

“at the same time Guerrero was giving drawing lessons ... in the homes of students, most of whom were girls, daughters of prominent Manila

families, both from the Spanish community and the Filipino middle and upper class. Of the latter are remembered Pacita Paterno...” (1955,

214). According to Torres, Paz was an “emotionally intense woman of | frail health. Paz developed her skill for painting and\ drawing from no less than three leading painters of the time: Lorenzo Guerrero, Felix Martinez, and Teodoro Buenaventura. From Guerrero she learned how

adds: , oO |

to paint bodegones ot still-lifes of Philippine fruits” (1981, 60). Coseteng

Paterno developed het skills under some of the most eminent painters

and teachers of the period. There was Lorenzo Guerrero whose influence pervades her still life; Felix Martinez, who was one of the

leading illustrators of the time; and Teodoro Buenaventura, who taught her landscape painting and portraiture. (1986, 46)

She did not undergo formal training at the Academia de Dibujo y Pintura, because at that time, the Academia was still not open to women.

According to her grandchild, Esperanza Paterno, the Paterno women were not educated formally, unlike their brothers. The women had their lessons at home, while their brothers went abroad to study. In Paz’s case, it might have been a necessity for her to stay home due to her frail

health. |

_ In 1884, when she was seventeen, Paz painted the S#// Life and

Fruits and Basket. These two ate the earliest known extant art works of a_ woman visual artist in the Philippines. In 1885, she painted Fruzts and Flowers, Raver Scene nith Banca, and River Scene with Steamboat. Another work, St// Life with Bird, is undated, but it is probable that it was also painted around the same period. Her works were not limited to paisajes

86 Flomebound and bodegones. She also painted a portrait of a woman, which is now in a private collection. She appears to be the most prolific of the women

I encountered in this study. In the span of two years, she produced seven works, and we do not know if she painted more. All her works are in oil and canvas, an expensive medium, which I surmise, her wealthy businessman father could easily provide. Based on the exposition catalogue, Paz exhibited works 1n the 1895

Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila, including a paisaje, four bodegones, and another paisaje entitled Orillas del Pasig. According to Raissa Claire U. Rivera, the Regional Exposition was also participated in by other women artists. Paz Paterno, a member of the Paterno clan known for its patronage of artists had the most entries sent by her friends and relatives to the same exposition, six paintings altogether, all either still lifes or landscapes. (1998a, 31)

How did Paz live as an indio, an unmarried woman, an ilustrado, and a painter? Was she able to get out into the streets to paint? Where and how did she secure her materials? Did she-sell her works? In the catalogue of the exposition, it is stated that it was her relattves—her brothers, uncles, and aunts—who submitted her works to the exhibition, and not she herself. How did her works get into their hands? Were they

oifts from the painter? Were these paintings her extant works that are now in the Bangko Sentral collectionr

Paz had tuberculosis and it is not known exactly when she contracted the illness. She lived 1n their house at Sta. Ana, Herran to recuperate. According to Ma. Elena Paterno-Locsin, the said house was burned during the Japanese period. According to other relatives,

she probably painted her paisajes from this house. She must have been forced to stop painting because of her illness, which according to her descendants, was partly caused by her painting. Amy Paterno states: She was “not eating, not taking care of herself” (2001). Her tuberculosis might have also been worsened by the chemical fumes of her oil paints. She died unmarried at the age of forty-seven on August 25, 1914.

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions 87 Coseteng’s account nicely and appropriately sums up Paz Paterno’s

works: “Paz Paterno’s surviving works ... show strength, sensitivity, and a high degree of craftsmanship.” Coseteng, tracing the influences

on her works, continues: | Undoubtedly, Paterno’s work was influenced by the European tradition, unavoidably inherited from her mentors and from her own cultural milieu. However, the artist’s imaginative approach at composition and her sensitivity in handling color and light have given her paintings a quaintness and originality all their own ...

The world of Paz Paterno 1s a strange well-ordered world. The apparent serene elegance on the surface masks the tension which seems to lie underneath. A wild, sensual streak, for example, 1s subtly suggested in the Szz// Life. The bodegon or still life tradition

of Zubaran and Chardin might have exerted its influence in the work of Paterno. But the evocative quality of her painting recalls

the mysticism of Durer, as well as the romanticism of Henrt Rousseau. (1986, 46-48)

Coseteng did not elaborate on the said “influence” of Zubaran, Chardin, Durer, and Rousseau on Paz Paterno’s works. Perhaps Coseteng’s criticism of Paz’s works is an example of what Harris and

138). | |

Nochlin describe as “a commonplace of art history that artists are influenced by other artists and a commonplace of criticism of women artists that they are dismissed as without interest once the influence of their male contemporaries has been identified in their work” (1976,

Why did she stop painting? Was it largely because of her illness?

What did she do during the last eleven years of her life, after the Exposicion? Did she teach her younger sister, Adelaida, to paint? Considering her skill, I believe it is safe to speculate that she would have completed more contributions to Philippine visual arts had she had mote time. According to Torres: That the painting career of Paz Paterno spanned a relatively short period—tless than a decade—is one of the more enigmatic aspects of her personal life. How much encouragement Paz received from a

88 | Homebound male-dominated society is a matter of no small interest to women’s libbers as well as to men looking into the status of gifted women in

those days. (1981, 62) |

Similarly, Coseteng writes: “Unfortunately, Paz died relatively young at 47, and her career, it seems, did not span more than a decade” (1986, 45-46). But she expresses her admiration for Paz: “What 1s significant,

however, is the fact that this concededly frail woman, by submitting herself to the rigorous discipline of her art, was able to break through

the barriers of convention and to make herself felt in the maledominated world of art” (1986, 48). Known for her paisajes and bodegones, Paz is the most prominent woman artist of the nineteenth century. According to Torres, “Paz Paterno [is] one of the first Fulepino women artists of note” (1981, 5).

Adelaida Paterno

Adelaida Paterno was the youngest child of Don Maximo Molo Agustin Paterno with Teodora Devera Ignacio, his third wife. Adelaida was born on October 24, 1880 and 1s fondly called “Tiya Adela” by her

nieces. According to Torres, “from Maximo Molo Paterno’s third marriage issued another daughter with an artistic bent, Adelaida (Adela), who excelled in needlework” (1981, 64).

| Adelaida lived on J.P. Laurel St. (formerly Aviles St.), almost in front of the Malacafiang Palace. According to Mrs. Socorro Paterno, this house

is.a virtual “gallery of portraits” of the Paterno siblings, painted by such renowned painters as Justiniano Asuncion and Felix Resureccion Hidalgo. All the siblings have full-sized portraits, proof of the Paterno family’s wealth and status. That time, it was the ilustrados who emerged as patrons of an increasingly secularized art world. They were the only ones who could afford to commission portraits by established painters

of the period. |

The catalogue of the 1895 Exposicion Regional de Filipinas en Manila reveals that Adelaida submitted an embroidered paisaje for the exposition. However, the whereabouts and status of this embroidered. work ate not known. In 1897, when she was seventeen, she produced

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions © . 89 three embroideries: Country Scene, Rural Scene with Child, and Vista de Manquina. She was inclined not only toward painting and embroidery,

but also music. According to E. Arsenio Manuel, she studied music under Victorino Carrion and even appeared in ensayos musicales (musical

rehearsals) (1970, 2: 117). oe

Like her older sister Paz, Adelaida never married, perhaps her implicit

and unconscious challenge to the convention that it was women’s obligation to marry and have children. In her advanced years, she was cated for by her niece (an orphan who was a distant relative), Pacita

Ventura, who married Carlo Rivera, a lawyer and professor at the University of Santo Tomas. Before Adela’s death, Carlo Rivera drafted her will stating that Pacita Ventura was the formet’s sole heir. According to Socorro Paterno, her Tiya Adela died a very wealthy woman. Among the things she bequeathed to Pacita Ventura were the portraits of the Paterno siblings painted by Justiniano Asuncion and Severino Pablo, as well as the works she and her sister Paz made. Esperanza Paterno, a niece who lived in Adelaida’s house, remembers her as “very shy, Spanish, very simple.” Though she does not remember

seeing her paint or embroider, she does remember seeing the three embroidery works using human hair on silk hanging in her aunt’s bedroom. Adelaida did not teach Esperanza to paint and embroider. Adelaida died on November 2, 1962 at the age of 82. She was the last

to die among her siblings. , ,

Engaging the Works of Paz and Adelaida Paterno |

, _ The Works of Paz Paterno The six works of Paz Paterno that I will discuss are cast in the naturalistic style. She makes an attempt to accurately transcribe or “copy”

the surface appearance of things. On the other hand, her works also tend to idealize nature; for instance, the fruits and other objects in her

paintings are purged of imperfections. | Her combination of paisajes and bodegones, in Svi// Life with Bird, is

very interesting. Jose Honorato Lozano combined genre, portrait, bodegones, and paisajes in his letras y figuras. Perhaps Paz was familiar

90 Homebound with this combination of the different genres for his letras y figuras. Admittedly, her combination of paisajes and bodegones 1s unusual in Philippine visual arts, but several European women painters like Judith

Leyster also employed this combination. , Paz Paterno’s bodegones+paisajes are replete with fruits and

landscapes; her canvases are lush and tense in a manner which can be described as horror vacui, or fear of empty spaces. However, more than horror vacui, what I see is a narrow and confined space, which I believe is representation of her own social space. While the works are set within a “natural” space or landscape, I can still discern this space as a private and personal one, which probably depicts the artist’s private garden. Fven if they are set in an exterior space, the primary impression I get is the interior space of the home and its immediate surroundings. Paz also painted “pure” bodegones set on top of the table or table still life-—Frwits and Basket and Fruits and Flowers. Set in the interior of a

home, these bodegones are more loosely composed, less confining, and less heavy on the eyes. The Fruits and Basket and Fruits and Flowers can also be considered banquet pieces, b/oempotten, or breakfast pieces, which Harris and Nochlin describe as “more or less luxurious displays of food,

drink, and table settings” (1976, 131). | Comparing Fruits and Basket and Fruits and Flowers (table still life)

to Stl Life and Swill Life with Bird (bodegones+paisajes), I see that the table still lifes are more simple and more relaxed in composition; they offer plenty of breathing space. The bodegones+paisajes are darker, heavier, aggressive, and more dramatic in their impact. It is

possible that in her bodegones+paisajes, Paz intended to exhibit her technical skill, by focusing on idealized rendering of details. In her “pure” bodegones, she was perhaps already calmer and mote confident, considering that she was depicting a space she knew best—

the interior of her home. | ,

In Paz’s four bodegones, from the Sa// Life, Siil/ Lafe nith Bird, to the Fruits and Basket and Fruits and Flowers, the space moves from exterior to interior, from the garden towards the table. In her Rzver Scene with Banca and Kzver Scene with Steamboat, she combines paisaje with genre. It appears

that these two works were painted from her veranda or her window.

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions | 91 These two works reveal her limited social space and her limited line of vision. The painting of paisaje is problematic for women, because, as Harris and Nochlin suggest, “it was evidently not possible for women to go on sketching trips and long scenic journeys alone to collect the raw material this new genre required” (1976, 29). Paz was limited not only by her social station as woman from the elite. At that time, she was also of frail health and suffering from tuberculosis. These limitations

ate apparent in her paisajes. | | |

On the one hand, Paz can be considered “conventional,” particularly | in her use of the conventional genres and subjects of her time. On the other hand, in combining several strategies that were available to her

and other women artists of the nineteenth century (e.g., bodegones+ paisajes and paisajes+genre), she showed a predisposition towards experimentation. In the process, she challenged the hierarchy — of themes in the visual arts—a hierarchy in which bodegones and pazsajes are devalued and history paintings and religious paintings privileged.

If one is to examine the literature on Paz Paterno and her works, it is evident that most—if not all—remarks and comments are framed by formalist analysis. These works also describe her art as “feminine,” but without clarifying what they meant by the term. I aim to respond not only to her individual works, but also to the existing literature on each one in the hope of turning criticism of her works to a new direction.

Paz Paterno s Bodegones | , © Still Life. 1884. 58 x 79 cm. Oil on canvas. Oo Perhaps Paz Paterno’s most well known work is S“// Life, which she

painted at the age of seventeen. Many art historians and critics have written about this work. Emmanuel Torres was the first to write about it in his book Kayamanan: 77 Paintings from the Central Bank Collection published in 1981. Itis in this publication where the work of Paz Paterno

first appeared. Torres’s essay describes the work in formalist terms, as

exemplified in the following passage: The fruits of the season piled invitingly in ... The result isa picturesque plenitude of cornucopia-baroque proportions which

()") I | oe } fLOMCDOUNC F e a &: ; :#-2 4 a;insta Po sd Sse. Shaka Eris 4 aJ”.-'‘og : hie 7% # * aoe is Pa ] 7 tat: = “4 ne te ) Joo ae we Me Cg ae. St ay

AZzie, hi, oe Ree eed3 me is a ies ae =egas beie P . ™baBa

Bi ae bs. : 'Rs ‘ 4 ae a Soll ¥ ia - "7. .“ye » allaip.Ses ies »Aoes a " : iy be é is 4 ay

u Re geek Fs eat, a ; é ee ; ! Se, ae . ae . B2. a an ie nm > : = oS 3. ee oe a aT* ae a; al : , % Es Verge ge eae Rese ‘ oS 2 ae a Besse P4-ia5 F3Page! SS % : Prag? ‘ R z ie x ‘ F [ie Fs : ais so aNc as -. tie ages 7eS se Hees say : = 3 oh :?bs:7wa. .*)= Bs F a Pe Bs:j a: zie~Fse eet= 4 oi o* ; ee TY % es sit cae po! aa ) beec ssPe _ - : P 5 Eras) i, or #3 oy *: pais aor:Sg, ,2 eteiii _3:' Fea‘“a -SS : x Mg * se = ‘oa Satan Ps . r, ° a i pas 2 3: «a he rh, io ‘eo . ‘ ar .Pits ; rs z =" Tp) ire ig 9 B ‘ a , ne * ae a Ni, & Bi ag, ee ~.rt=a ry : : ™ e323 =Yiww

og 4 Sa ’= ’cs‘Bx. 3 Se ."sa es :=; fhés‘=

; * r>_ a = tte ii Ss fe Was: “ais, c ‘aa|~~ 8 aeTea ; .ae sila = sal © :5 = et ae. -— ‘— is .s. ‘.yo iis. Rt ; : a ; oe 7 = , -Bee 4 =a e te Ma te I . ey: : Re me Bs or : % ; oO Pa a ial 2 Cee 4 . 3 ve . ~ 4 os iaee @ te . 7 ¥ A = ‘.ee{$hescg4: =; ee>:ey¥ *%=;.eLidcors> CoMN ane F aes 5a a gt eS 2 " ry SE coe toreeeiaaSI Rk Ay

- v sl

‘ge ‘ % ab)

ety teed eS ag ES, Rt iil Ps va € Be 5 Pa

c. PM, z a2 2 : : * F fae) 24*f*en ae «ee _— —— , fo) — 4:ae". :: a, Noss ee > see ws ie Saige mat a < as eis. » , Vea aaes: :— ‘ “Wee: * as ee: 2a ay — . ns =—-P st « ——. 7 “ 7 > —— _ ; 4 > g: x S Sa is .— : :atms ek sae B7. he et oe ma 4 . _— Py 5 re . = = iy r = ee DS ae i jails é ; : er $ eS °; Ss : ; : at m4 . a = ’ a “TF. “ a _> Teg a ne Se pen Fe: $8 = ig ; om pS Bs cee tx prghi a = #8 * % a . lap) — ia Peete ae s 4 en 5 ee 'iid Sat 2Y oe 2 “%, : Bs y 3 ‘i ‘ ho 5 Bet A SE fee ; ee F a . : ‘ > io eas “Se 4 ha q Ste eS s ; ’,, ,.“i . 7 seat soa See eee j = 2 5 x ng “F

pod Te te ae Sie ie | Ls 7% 2" oe -/ | LoD uJ SF 2 2, Ha ; . - . Bi $

ee ES) ;a> ‘ :‘LS rene ee ae 3 52s = {;bh ¥Se ees: Si np i eer a Se ‘ ;'y/is‘a.:CO tak iy : eS Fae oe “ 3 in he ie ate Be ae a 3 Se ena saison 1 ak tS SS ta a c= rath peat! Cee 2 Sonne = . ae Ba) a? | > he. wa: . 4 pe) D WAIN ,oe >|.sel ay Sighs & RS Sees aet e7 bd Se = aa ee ; ert. s ta oe Wy ifife Le BS bees 23a oat. ma ‘ os * om, tt we . RS oat. = ks ¥. ct A hu = 7 5 + = ae hess >} ‘ |ae 3 itt Sif SclSS aa a i oe ers ; “Soba eae rs ? 4 a ae Sart, RBS SS ‘Tae Vid ae Aa +S ee ee Pee S23 tee = tn 1 aS Ss : - ee F Pisce Re = ~~

ihe ii ye > 5 es heey *bs * ge Benet caooO ;a a nl aa Sir csRN Ue Oh ceca ites! eSOe tafe: hid sone: 3ives rs PEA SA 8 ERS NS = 3h: See Be: ; Ni a a My.) esd Wah ayy tigen yO ak Ses io Gay Map Maa Mk eve, LR Oi tee ee Sea Ss 3 es * ; es AMY ah es. Ty ee ee ease ee e4 D a‘il Siintete Ts a has Be es. Sa S eamacstiaiey AS aS ¥ oF, ~ Bhs er tee esse ‘ ee eg ) eae : A No) iEge Tie) Cares Toa age: Sa“eee 3) au oe Sareea sepean =)re iaN a Tae. Raia Saat‘ssasin Oem N 41 H 9° es PINGS Seg . an meee hxae&Fe —_ Bs, ae-thS, >Byae ee t J JTn Tee Se =e Vina elage v3 ap ORES =" i pe See SESE Li Spe kt tesa fet $250 : -aai,| ao | Renewed ut“ih ;SS,a“Nae . zine grESE hacen) Chlsh iat eM > oy, MR BES reer hee at Sees eae ee = 2a eee

, ot, AO ate Pa antic he tend i? la ae Ren ¥ ‘yh ng te coe aye es Er. e 2. ~ Ss, & res.

fers Lach aes feearpa Ue .teo ¥ae: 3a ? Raeeeiiess Rate Se 3Lo

as ehoT SERS i t. pe rienee rt SAA £onat)ieJ Bot 4% ~ The Fruits and Flowers is similar to Fruits and

.102 “y ‘ > Homebound ‘ 2 — Be fa, i1th; iyaac ae & rg Be. & be Sil oe. “ae xs5. my _ area 25 fs, x aes te Pa Nei ye. a at fe . @ oe rr £ 2 . * a = 7 SoeNe aa — sl oF & = O id . 0 ;|=2*=aScag we Be ® ,> & 5 oe — CCU Bs Se

a.

Say.

Pg

z ihe

we

0 . aes én i = Bee a ee i. Pe a

;6. 4asi ie 1i*Reece Saseo Bee} : aep) — yah iF ae ko >SMES Peos =; ee :eni,guy a¥ Pa: a)oyaaeae «ets Ee acai Si 2S Fe _”

Ditco gt ae ny marea URLPoe Rl ebSs CMH a os .a @ e_ ee' ee ee- gk

©: a3ae ™ oegaa @;eae ity. ee rc “i aie i eee ees eee Re, : eBy aes: +, éoe ha te iit% soe , ipte eae ' 7w= epict oe-— PRe? ail Wee é y : - ve 4 = 4 == Poe a - ii RS KS 3

~~ a> ,Pi *J foe : : Po es ;Se eeiy? Bohee=Ss oO % a3fe a=%y .% -be =. Eseh BS ‘ee oe QO ei ey Sead a se ae ati ; ye eS Fi a ae r. ; Seg be (—) ;J aj ak me ae ex ee eae w “ se ws val eS ee : a ee ee aa

4 ee ory | 3

Oe. ms roe ee ae * aaa % pi =eSAy aBote . Rye: eS Ce ia bee ie sis RRR Pie, oe ae C ie Pet a Be sy et ee By, ges i. e .* i x A a ee ee ': —_— — Bs 9 * cee Prs % F 2 be 2 gis SESE cee er pee ee eB ae "ae # bs *% RSS the Pc hn inpriiea are pee paes: Sa © te | oo ae . + ie ee “" * ae LS, ae SS ;sis 5_~ See Sa FisEe LO POR GER Re ae Sao eSSe we ee :i ' ial cS peat 6 st 3 i ees a = re. Oe A, wi: . ® ir & é Beeas BeBe:’ GipoeoaopeaFES ce” een eS Re : Bis = Re ecm ROyetaees3 See re al (a eS Ge te

: . : Bis a ag te aig .eee

ei: sieht "ed: ae e3gh ager =e ae O s :“a 8Og gat Ee aall ialoul : 2S ae eee ieEee ee Bes. af ye = SR aBee a : “Sse _ “: 27 ee = a . 4 5. =e a “S « aa lo a= jee ary * , ee ec3) “ = :— ce ” j hyaeee_SS%. GS Fass

a *oc ee SS 5Stages = BeSe ehBs LOs =;f‘=.aSR POP ~ Poe, ace” ae ies = “ee ee Bho ’ ee © on SSS ae Sak aes pcan — r=::P3 we Be hae ; Reais = ee 4 ss ‘3 4 = fe vas eae : x, E ae aeos3 F _— 4 eee Ss =e Pr. % > mete, < ae a ae — -£:F:Shalyetss 3 ce # yaaa oa LO e 2 ee eee eS ee ESLO neteeBia pieeeomaierme ie ry ce

a4 See SSS Ss ee yFZ aSg Fae eetCaS eae: it Boeo eee a {esCO a pes 2Meee Pa 2 =ie eee “aa CO

. aS ae pak: nN oe ae ® re. * .. 3 ago ee Rec “a BR ey qBatis isoOo -&Bs i.ee we Mes: ee eee Sereas (asve

if°ee A ds Fone > Sas Pe ss Ee % :ee o 3ee e. =a es ee ngaie Bis=aea.4 ee ae SS ~-

i ig ee Be i. % a - ™, Se ae ee i ~D 8 Mette

4a BsSs pt > eo ee ie a. 2 2a . a* == Dd “lee = Be © ae Y ee.

2

‘ car

ae2— oie

“eee Bat: Se5 ®

-— ee See Z aS N oe

; ? pgs eas | aes i RG

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions 103 Basket. Both are about rendering of fruits on the table. Rivera has a short description of this work: “Fruits and Flowers” painted the following year shows a gteat mastery, -

though its mood is contrasting, being more realist than romantic. ‘ Instead of butterflies fluttering over the fruits, we find flies drawn as delicately as the flower petals, giving a touch of wit as well as realism to this painting. The light is depicted as filtered through

pressed glass windows. (1998a, 32-33) :

_ There are more objects in this work than in Fruits and Basket. There are melons, guavas with stems, cashews, duhats, camachiles, grapes, a cluster of flowers in a vase, and a sliced melon on a small

| platter, ready for eating. Yellow is the predominant color, with touches of red (macopa) and wine (the color of grape). The fruits are ripe and freshly picked, with some of them still attached to their

stem. However, the “perfect” condition of the fruit is a little offset by flies, shown feeding at some of the fruits. The crystal vase 1s filled with flowers—gumamela, santan, rose, and yellow bell. This scene

. is set against a background of a floral surface, which may be perceived as a painting, tapestry, or carpet. Like Fruzts and Basket, Fruits and | Flowers is set within the home, on top of the table. It is very possible

| that the artist used the same table when she painted the two

_ bodegones, judging from the similar cloth. |

When compared to Fruits and Basket, this work’s composition is more complex. There are more objects within the painting. The floral

background competes with the melon and flowers for focus. The

division of the background points our line of sight to the melon, | presumably the work’s main focus. But even if the composition is less focused, this work is more relaxed when compared to the artist’s paisajes-bodegones.

| The seemingly random composition appears staged, like in Paz’s other works. Even the sliced melon appears contrived. Moreover, like other bodegones by the artist, the details are photographically rendered.

However, unlike in her other works, she included in this one a “naturalistic” detail—that of flies feasting on the cashew on the table

104 THomebound and the melon slice. Perhaps rather than showing the fruit and flowers at their peaks, the artist is showing that they are about to deteriorate. The flies signify the short life span, not only of fruits and flowers, but other organisms. In this work, the artist makes use of what Chadwick calls ““vanitas and other kinds of moralizing representation as signs of the fleeting nature of life” (1996, 132). After I looked at Paz’s bodegones, it seemed apparent that there

was a connection between the artist’s station in life and her bodegones. According to John Berger, oil paintings, particularly the

bodegones, are }

simple demonstrations of what gold or money could buy. Merchandise became the actual subject-matter of works of art ... Here the edible is made visible. Such a painting is a demonstration

of more than the virtuosity of the artist. It confirms the ownet’s wealth and the habitual style of living. (1972, 93)

But unlike commissioned works, Paz’s works were her property and her

family’s; at least, that was the case until the 1980s. Perhaps then the artist exemplifies what John Berger asserts about the still life: “The oil

painting showed what its owner was already enjoying among his possessions and his way of life. It consolidated his own sense of his own value ... The paintings embellished the interior 1n which he actually lived” (1972, 142). The bodegones affirm the status and wealth of Paz

Paterno’s family. _ | It is also significant that three of Paz’s bodegones are currently

displayed in dining rooms. The S7#// Life now graces the dining area of a private collector; the Fruits and Basket and Fruits and Flowers are in the

Executive Lounge of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. As I have mentioned, the bodegones are a symbol of the wealth and status of the attist and her family, and that seems to be true even today in relation to the works’ present owners. Flores explains: “The patrons ... wish to supplement the abundance of their own tables with representations of it in actual tables. In this light, we take note of how objects in still life spill into viewer’s space and invite those who look to participate in the ‘feasting, as it were” (1998b, 24).

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions , , : 105 Paz Paterno’s Paisajes+Genre . A combination of paisajes and genre appears in Paz Paterno’s paisajes, titled Raver Scene with Banca and Kuver Scene with Steamboat. These

works depict the Pasig River and its environs, the area where the artist erew up. Perhaps, this is what she saw from her vantage point at the window, maybe in front or behind her home in Sta. Ana.

Emmanuel Torres writes admiringly of Paz’s paisajes. | Her landscapes deserve more attention since they display greater craftsmanship. Here her mentor was Felx Martinez, whose influence on these rustic river scenes of 1855 1s unmistakable. It is the same Pasig river

Martinez painted more than a decade later, but more pellucid, bluer, and flows deeper into darker-green, lush countryside. (1981, 62)

However, Torres still harps on Felix Martinez’s influence on Paz Paterno’s

paisaje, and even compares the two by stating that his works are “more pellucid, bluer, and flows deeper into darker-green, lush countryside.” Martinez painted Pasig River in 1897, some twelve years after Paterno

painted hers, so to speak of his influence seems a bit inappropriate. Torres also did not elaborate on what exactly were Martinez’s influences

on Paterno’s works. Like many other accounts on women artists, that of Torres assumes the influence of a male master, a “natural” course of events that needed no substantiation. Aside from emphasizing the influence, Torres also embellishes his account with romanticized description of Paz’s works: Hovering over the pastoral serenity of both landscapes are birds in flisht, drawn with utmost de/cacy, like the wzspiest of Mozartian flute notes. Vhe wonder of it is that both are far from being feminine—they have a structural strength worthy of being hung beside Martinex’s masterpiece

of 1897—and are decidedly not the work of a wishy-washy Sunday

painter. (1981, 62) _ Perhaps Torres intends to recognize Paz; however, in doing so, he seems to have placed other women artists in an unfair and denigrated position.

Who ate the “wishy-washy Sunday painters” he is referring to? Is he

106 Homebound referring to women painters? Is Paz different from these women/Sunday painters because her works have “structural strengthe” Does this mean that most women’s works lack “structural strengthe” Moreover, he does

not define the word “feminine,” leading me to assume that his use of the term refers to the stereotypes—graceful, charming, romantic, and peaceful. Thus, by describing Paz’s paisajes as “far from being feminine,” Torres assumes that necessarily a woman’s art is “feminine.” By praising Paz because she is “far from being feminine,” he is implying that anything “feminine” is not worthy of being hung beside a master’s masterpieces. And what does he mean by “structural strength?” Why 1s it that because

of the works’ “structural strength,’ they are no longer feminine? What if we turn the tables and describe Martinez’s work (which Torres calls a “masterpiece’’) as “worthy to be hung beside the paisaje

| of Paterno?” Is it possible that it was Martinez who followed in his student’s footsteps and was the one influenced by Paterno? Why 1s this suggestion unthinkable? It is unthinkable, because it 1s “natural” that it is the male masters who teach and influence; the women are taught and

influenced.

Let us now turn to what Alice Coseteng has written about Paz’s

paisaje. According to Coseteng, the Pasig River landscapes of Paterno show her technical proficiency as well as her intuitive sense of looking at, analyzing, and rendering nature.

Her colors ate handled in the same simple, direct way. There 1s vividness and clarity. But it is in the dedcacy of her execution, the soft, deft brushstrokes, and the blending of hues, tonalities, and light where Paz is more expressive.

These river scenes are painted with freshness and a cool pastoral serenity evocative of a lost tropical paradise that can no longer be recaptured. (1986, 46)

In this passage, Coseteng centers on style and use of color, in other words, Paz’s technical skill and “intuitive sense.” While this description

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions | 107 is better than Torres’s, I take issue with Coseteng’s use of the terms “delicate” and “soft” to describe Paz’ works. These words only reinforce

the stereotypes of femaleness and femininity which are traditionally

and “naturally” ascribed to women. Let me now move on to the

individual works. 2

© River Scene with Steamboat. 1885. 28.5 x 49.5 cm. Oil on canvas.

There are several accounts of River Scene with Steamboat by Paz Paterno. The one by Torres, for instance, focuses on a listing of what the painting depicts: —

62)

A similar bamboo fence forms a lively visual device in the other river scene. It points to a sailboat full of passengers. A tubby steamboat chugging closely by gently serves as contrast to the river’s curve ... A third boat without a sail appears a little higher up the river, partially obscured by the shadowy bank behind the frail bamboo fence. (1981,

Alice Coseteng in A Portfolio of 60 Philippine Art Masterpieces also focuses on the formal elements such as the perspective of the work: ... In “River Scene with Steamboat,” the landscape is seen from a higher and farther ground. Thus, the pictorial space is freer, more aerial and panoramic. It is this approach which underlines the essential strength of Paz Paterno’s paintings.

Similarly the long, curved shore line and the tree tops which follow the same curvilinear pattern are strategically used to draw attention to the shape and “action” of the ponderous steamboat.

(1986, 46) a

Raissa Claire U. Rivera writes in a similar formalist and descriptive

mode, not totally different from Torres and Coseteng. | The scene with a steamboat is busier and uses brighter colors. The steamboat is defined as the focal point by convergence. The shoreline encircles it and the banana trees and small boat subtly point to it.

The depiction of the people in the scene, less than a centimeter

iyr4 n|c

108 [ lomebound

: = = aae 6.-_ . par

fe: Be) :“!£. = ;ed=aoe @

= ) =“= $ ie 3 eto Fp)

C

Berg as c

©

O

# ars SS

=, 7.ea Ge: a ‘@))

yi os = oe ae : D er Ee aes 3 ga ‘4 a me («C«;w >.: eoims 3¥ A |=.¥as .~mi

:oa i O 5 _ | c el ee:z g ia J * OR : aj ;ok 7 es - %PER: Be: Ww es ;

eae 3 a3 i4e) :S S st - tie Se s ‘ ‘Se oe

.3= B‘tag © ee. 7 a % ae. = >: eoa*: eee ge Y a hl PES eee | Y ay ae . “3 S so oll = he Oo (aes = ‘ae“oy ee ho (qe) fey, QO ai = = Oo | 00

sy Mg i geee5 SHE he, c ~ = € ri 3Pee oi .SS 4 : =aake ro x °— qe gee = bY ee oe°°7#"SS ei, = :Pee. 2 3 “a i é a aCUE * C: + © tee ————

ll N

na=Se. - = qwe falSe Rt.ep! si :

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions ~ 109 high, is impressive. Paz was able to show the infinitesimal boatman in the act of steering with a bamboo pole and even sketched 1n the womens tapis, their baskets and hats. (1998a, 33)

This painting depicts three boats filled with figures: one big and white steamboat; one sailboat; and one long boat with small red banners. It is not clear if the boats are about to dock or sail. The Pasig River 1s

clean. The water is clear with the clouds reflected on its surface. It is evident that the river was one of the major means of transportation in the nineteenth century. On the right side, a piece of land juts out and appears to be more elevated than the nearby shore. The land on the right is filled with trees and green grass. This area is bound by a fence _ that leads one’s line of sight to the sailboat. There is a dilapidated fence surrounding the shore. On the other side, one sees a white bahay na -bato surrounded by a lush cluster of trees. At the end of the shore 1s a nipa hut. The roof of another house behind the trees is also visible. This is a small-scale paisaje, but itis full of activity. There are figures walking on the shore: a male in white and two figures behind him. There is also a female figure in red /apzs (a native wrap-around skirt) in front of the bahay kubo. There are four to five white birds flying by the shore

and three in the air. The figures are small but also very detailed. What this depiction seems to suggest is the contrast between the stately and orderly bahay na bato and the more lowly nipa hut that are situated on

the right side of the frame, as well as the contrast between and the juxtaposition of two spaces—that of nature (river, tree, sky) and

structure (house, fence). |

Only one-third of the space is filled with land and river; and twothirds of it is “empty” space, occupied by the expanse of blue sky. Coseteng sees the pictorial space as “freer, more aerial and panoramic” (1986, 46). This landscape 1s presumed to have been painted from the artist’s veranda or window, a space which is limited and confined. The boat signifies mobility and travel, perhaps also signifying the artist’s longing to go beyond her narrow confines. Does this also signify her desire to escape her immobility? Her desire to escape from her homer The river in this scene 1s calm but static; it does not seem to lead to any specific place or direction. In fact, it looks landlocked. It seems that this

110 Llomebound is what the artist sees from her limited line of vision from her window;

she does not seem to see what lies beyond. I am not alone 1n this observation. Datuin observes in her letter to Paz: On the other hand, in your paintings of river scenes, the ripples of water stay close to shore, and the boats are always shown as having always arrived, never going somewhere, just stuck in the now and the here. This 1s probably why it is difficult for me to identify with the stillness of your compositions, and the landlocked boundaries

of your frames. But might this not be a signifier of your own immobility, and your inability to explore horizons beyond what you can see from your sheltered window and narrow field of vision?” (2002, 213-14)

© Raver Scene with Banca. 1885. 28.5 x 49.5 cm. Oil on canvas.

Emmanuel Torres describes this patsaje in the following terms. The one with the river in the foreground sliced by a frail-looking banca loaded with zacate and a woman and child on the green bank must surely count among the freshest views of rural Arcadia ever painted in this country. Although it is forenoon, there 1s a remarkable

lack of glare on the sunny sky and clear water. The brushwork on the edges of the bamboo trees shows the mentors touch. The delicate trickle of yellow to indicate the bamboo fence behind walking woman

and child balances delicately with the thicker strip of rich brown earth at the river’s edge: two gentle diagonal lines broken by the larger bamboo clump at the right are nicely contrasted by the curved banca. (1981, 62)

Instead of writing about what he “sees” 1n Paz Paterno’s work, Torres

still belabors Felix Martinez’s influence on Paz. , This is what Coseteng says about the work. Her resourcefulness is apparent in how she grasps a point of view 1n

laying out her perspective and in organizing pictorial space. For example, in “River Scene with Banca,” the painter seems to be painting from a position across the rivet, which is conveniently foreshortened, and the riverbank elevated at practically eye level.

' fie a ee aed4. / Reconstructions 111 Chapter

«Ss gee = — ot ee ae 2. ~ . Sees = e % 7S ~ ig a SE a PQ os4s gal ey: a. ts a ae ; 24 se ’yeSim Ses‘: ie £ae a4 =——. |+ay ps&| ' “es Sos. = BS SS SSBY aan OE StS eae oo 55RE ee9 >. alte: -— ee , — = oo ee GE ¥ = Sa 2 se;ae *% Saad s< % # E € ae =. Sa = yh Lae ; tie, @ : .

5 Se

i a. : |i\So +ts =- 2=ee : .ek and =: i. ; =:. a=aes ae Peas ty Yr DE eit Be BS et Oe, Soe . : 2 en

Ye \ (aS ="; = = 22 3 Cc

4 7 - a. > : be : aS Ee “Y 4.foe »ye i2 7¥>‘ :2 a.;ee =;7ie Ser. Efe. :%, ,4.\& = = :a ~» Ps ' PES oa ‘a ay , = = en aie ey 2 ~S ae = en — > ‘ a os :BS = Siete >a3 .~S‘3 et “=F 4 5 =a :¥_aé_oh, ey. Ws < 4 Se = . = fae 2a4— §® Was £7 : = ba - = R Ry oe

iF; 22 5a3 —— — “i —— CF ~,*‘+e De ~b .a— ar Cy cae wo ~» ee - .. 3ES se~~ rae a : ate = oe _- 25 :>hg & tae

— i. % - BE oy: re +

7aoe _ wa : a $i:pilio=. ae S 5 oa 3 . $3 . bry aoe aad

’ : Bis. : _ ee, ee N

i: :-EE ie 4 < .x aaa = ; aieae .‘a=Oo. N =a ©

2.“a "> , os 2 : 8» 2 aN 2» ~ sre: S) ®%

rs es :< 5 - cats Se = ae =el ~ oA =, Yon a 7 ay . ==) fe , po Ps iv @® “4 wR 7 © Le > x : ae i eS Sag

& sie*e oT :ft+” AS 7 sy =

118 Lomebound > Perhaps due to Adelaida’s lack of training in anatomy, she chose to paint her figures in a way that she would avoid detailing the face and other anatomical details. Was this why she painted the woman with her

back to us? oe

The contrast between houses and classes on opposite ends of the shores is also apparent—smooth, white, and stately on one side; rough and simple on the other. The contrast between nature (sky, river, and tree) and structure (house and boat) 1s also apparent. In terms of space, Adelaida seems to be a more intimate participant

in the scene, compared, for instance, to her sister Paz’s rendering of space in the paintings she did eleven years before her. Unlike Paz, she not only was able to get out of their house; she was also able to cross to

the shore. Perhaps the bahay na bato on the opposite of the shore depicted in the painting was their own house, which she saw from the shore. In Pasig River Scene, 1t appears that Adelaida wants the viewers to locate themselves at the very spot where she painted the scene. This is similar to the principle of compression desctibed by Pollock: “‘t is as if

the place from which the painter worked is made part of the scene creating a compression or immediacy in the foreground spaces. This locates the viewer in that same place, establishing a notional relation between

the viewer and the woman defining the foreground ...” (1988, 63). As I have mentioned, Felix Martinez taught Paz Paterno how to

paint paisajes. Martinez has one paisaje—The Pasig Raver, which Emmanuel Torres describes as follows:

The cool deep greens of the trees and the rich browns of the riverbanks and nipa roofs stand out sharply against a summery sky suffused with late-morning mist. Textural details, tonal contrasts, and luminous atmosphere are handled with consummate skill. The white

rowboat at left bank and the casco at right point to the means of | transportation common in Manila during the waning days of Spanish empire. An interesting architectural contrast is provided by the middleclass country house at left and the proletarian nipa huts.at right. The Pasig River in 1897 by which the two women are washing clothes has

never been clearer. (1981, 56) |

Chapter 4 / Reconstructions 119 Like the works of Paz and Adelaida Paterno, Felix Martinez also combined the paisaje with genre in his work. Two tapis-wearing women are shown doing their laundry on the shore. Behind them are the Pasig

River, houses on the shore, and a mountain landscape in the distance. Compared to the works of Paz and Adelaida Paterno, Felix Martinez apparently gave mote attention to the women’s figures, complete with anatomical details, indicating his training in anatomy. Perhaps, the sketchy

details of fioures by the women artists are due to their lack of formal training in anatomy. It must be noted that neither of them trained in the Academia, and even if Paz trained under Felix Martinez, perhaps the master was unable to transfer his skills in anatomical rendition in a

way that that formal training could. | It must also be noted that the sisters painted their works on the Pasig River earlier than Felix Martinez, whose work is dated 1897, twelve -yeats after Paz Paterno painted River Scene with Banca and Rever Scene with Steamboat, and a year after Adelaida painted Pasig River Scene. So it cannot

be said that Paz and Adelaida Paterno merely copied from Felix Martinez. In fact, itis possible that he was the one inspired by the sisters’ paintings

and not the other way around. Se |

Adelaida Paterno’ Embroidery a | © Country Scene. 1897. 33.9 x 45. 7 cm. Human hair on Chinese

This embroidered work is also entitled Rural Scene with Vendor Country Scene exemplifies embroidery using human hair on Chinese silk

made during the nineteenth century. It is possible that Adelaida used her own hair for this work. The artist’s dedication to detail, in this example

of paisaje and genre, is obvious. It was Emmanuel Torres who first

wrote about Country Scene: OS 7 i Adelaida knew precisely how to make that needle work to produce uncanny effects. Looking at this Marikina scene from a distance, one would swear what he was seeing was an etching or a line drawing in pen and the

——-blackest of india inks! Vaking a harder and closer look, however, what

he slowly discovers to his amazement is, in fact, strands of human

120

: j so

Homebound »

7 me Sg : 2 : te 3 " * : &oF, Sgn See 33 ’ 7 Ps .rte. i a¥Be eel o¢ ~~ ie

r paige

. Siok a Gi ee ae = . f re “ ow : bs ; auAM en. ' : _ ‘ ip. es a eee ae Res. st oe 5 Ny > ; : : ae aire Wn gn ; @® gs oe ses! “ PY 4 < . oe ney TOS SS, ne ea , 2 e os Se rtm ef 0% Neng Svea a} y ng eee ees BS Be iy ze ; . AZ fae Ge eg 3Osyan als ;E38 !ios io Gar pe te" inte es c : 8 % “* 5 : Se . B at Py pe re 4s Sal Re ‘ % SRK E, : : : nis . a Lt hee Brae apes? :« OO Ghee poate ae tye> . Je 5 Sete ee ~ a4 e.i 4Es pens ms : = tS Cr! Es rv>.; 3Ree ae ‘ee a. _Fe Kage sbes r.SS y> s ou. ‘. hae uF :.3° “ETI “ ‘ 7* ne. | : _ i. oe, ,AER APegSsGoTee rPeg3 "Cebasa) ave ,“+.ite;-e/;b; —_ * ore) ‘ ote 3S Shans a as .oy - >sane nae g -aa "Se ** -petite A “Ris teat" ~y ‘‘cee .=e $wEyx Pky hated oeyy . free ‘? oF oO Rs‘ oS a aie, aa sih iS SE ee, . Aes:.ey Sg oO Cc ;{. tae Dae4c Bete eee FS

ee Bie 5reais ; aes yOWe ome St : 2c am =” >‘ :ss : ‘‘' r+t ry:——

tee ME AS Ne eee ref 8a , + eos ‘ 2. 6% 2 i ; “a ; 4 ae ne he ey ee ih gap td heb x : s . » ee eee “os Fe ft eed . Ca eose *5 Wee (td, eee eo bt Sete, ke ee a : aears fat * he e “;:, F := Rt ei. na yFac : pipe . = : Pople AES eePass oe pa ay tbs ., aZ-ae ok ear on bee ie fbes ket Sy ; .rte? ~ars,-eae % , , noon Ee aryeased xsaeMies 3SAM sa 6© eon Re ay ate Thin we i;tha 2:SS Rs aa ; ->Sy. aesin=— Aged en ie Ni ge tS yos,. ahs . re fash Ss ten => tee iG & es Q , «Ce Bas aoStLe” Pip Bae a he i. hk “as . ~ Bek ™ A - Vay: isos en SEO* Sokeye st — Seine eee ye3+hee“sts sfPal ‘ feby 3 re ah ie aa es an righ 3 ed Rests ste Soe): eas xoe~he. ADS at ee ee Bette aE ME Taf tie oSvmSe” ae: sae: dae oa! Tht5i?ars Fibs? ow eer taea ~ Mas oS-% i Stat ae"re SS RAL ae ae porte . ee POET pte eer aChia a ae pit ;+i

-—— | a4>ae 4‘ te paweBren dg’ Se&SRahoegh'e | eh aitSebi eee7Cribs DM pool

pater 8 Sees = aoe 2 chin a Pe ay pee. ae age aries = : o. Eee ae es _ Cc : ¢. ARE 8 foFfPees Pee out 3akwas Agi 7at gsta Se Se Pe$7 ser :Sade 2. pas a:-ee F. ps wie eeen agta! oy: eestim mentee abe ay ieNae AP eiSS +s sap Ses = OT can AES tine, ye > ge . ;. a“Be toe. etme fRy BES hae Lat We beeen . Dae wae 2a 5 , es, = a if PRA ae f . ow pats yy SSR aye xt e Yo re : Wiese te bee. z Brae ’ _ Pra, = ee , ak . "* 4 as > oe i = ex. % _— pm aie. Rios NGO aA er % ee, eee ; a Pais, Si «Sern ; Reet Bon Se ea : aeeee ages -Bee = Gare Veg be s jek 4 a 44 * “eg” = *# ter Te . 3 et His BY ¥ on ~ee = 7 ve — - ce se ‘eg e i. hoe ¢ °. 3 at oe)

hy te Steen *, ee he - bs a Ae 7 . ts Se . is eas: ~ eae Me ts a * Reg ae ‘- alle’ gone Baetae esc oe—— ‘ ee : ves iisVer eeto> Sowes Se oer? aesi Bee ae ea3. 7fsv4i44"y ’See ar erty - :a.ek ——s ~ ~SE, hn. aa -° | eee ’ ag. ee oeeeaeSe=ShoFly Sa Te I SHES “7 4eee SSTREE A 2 aS er SS ee(oe. asie. Dpoe aney ere veeeSeats A aSsche! * 6 Nan. oh eee eaea Of agaeSee Aas eae ae iz eg oF ee eee | ~ “ees TT Bae linn Dae pe RES > = Se 4 a. Se & Saetic oy ry

eal Ope = Soe ROY BeeNS ee iee a erog, deen) deine Seeag RSs. Oe Bae= Bee ee 52 éeer PeeSe eeee eeae > FF ar ~i, wes ; - -Ly a oe sheet Fietee ete. ee : isSSBreePoe 3eal ion * ig22 i! AT “se a#4 4: F2 cOo Bd spec «-A.{ AG preos Soars 22 Ee ‘ See Pes ot aart. < 4a +%te is>“es ‘3he >ae ew |ne Oe 4% Si ~— .18 _Saee re. ~i.e ae~aleeee iad ont}ote akt:——«£ afs =Ree ieces. oe biome ee : yc ee te Sees 4 S55 ley ei Sh Fe “ees * PS Ret SOY Gs ~~ Mae Sire 2 TER ae ae an hat ae thie: i nen no Rag Sy yee fie aginan p SEAL _* gee ee Pte gt as \ _| peer ae ior i eae Sh wees Caseate GPs, ate ha F apemmerions =) seater Seeee ratthhr. & ae 7Fs s ae Setaner eatoes” Spa ee! 2 ,4 se) Sage? vik ae gts eo ; =ee DIA Sins Se Xi re: xSt aeauSe oat ts rae Ste Lees ayCR Sine Ma aarbd DEY > * § ee eeehe——— Re aeaao ah oe=.eet ee eS Re Om, om —

eon g ori fu RN th ees eg SS ie Bey Sa’ og Se WAG eee Pee 44 Se ie A. \ pet >. fie ae: % ar a REM ee _ LS eee Ree r ee Sea ann ed ae Bk. = 4 3 eee Sen tes pas Fy eat i re - D ag! =

F Neeyee hapaks Pepe$e eee£etPORE Se ee on Stee ale - oben A, Dar:gene Smae Peee aanee es se Geese gimmegee es =See x Timea. Oeree ee eum ae) PhS nate See ~-3ae=) Gale 5-5 Deh Jaea BRS one’EG Laeoh nceRigita B SOs65 >elf ae at iohm *. Be” » Ne “pee ete ‘ -+ “Gat Sa te 7Bee ee lt ME cE reey et ae t ee"a+ = 9"Sta Ege Sea SR Cee a Tae xaee£5 ;RKO e235 aime oy ae een hide, “iisg ae i ei tae at ee =< : ‘Face SS ae | eae ee crten oe. Fe be = ae or ele Ee ae ae, > 2 Pew Nv + Seen — . ae > ee on." . eee ee . yh Deeg aa. os oe Sei %Me gentaoe osfe Sod Seeo3ee oo So Oe.sor ork PS OS ey YraNs sara 5 eeoe ‘ ee-ey fe. | ie $43 Bt: Shak ae ip Sess Ea £3. ; >Sd SA. “o" Gale Se? 4 ees A_es SSoe =. s. erty c. ~ aBeene) 2ceieees eete —. -ieSa Tae. LO eee. ern Oo Gee Mec 5 ae oy fAee Ts i 34 -auy BE =:a Sr nilap, Re ‘eo P3 vea.| Sees =Shy i der: ¢Fs, ae tS” wg - ies *co»Axe wt gay .SPX caeame 2=o eater ade Rage elue RRS as aBy. .

27 I EM Lie Sosa S| cals") 9s a ose ye a SUE Soe O

x at a potest .c, ? fe :OFS oo 4, < traah ~~ s*wh ts‘ me % sS hy“Ss at. , + bee cg co 235 et aia 2 2 -lal “a -he ‘= ? 7aS pee . ‘=iSa. ‘ ©oon = aes if=e a +}, a cease oe NE iY peer ‘abesee“f2dah CVnfry. TV hae Pa oe=" aceon ee SR id ee Figo ial ried pe a” Ye eat i? ed = Fea -9 °npeonseaten —_— Ree gemen) rebate” ES AEA

ae “ie tA %, ~~ ate Beers eee ee - M™ ‘2 ee gh aoe ftoe +y FR ~.See Se“A 4aSeg ies= vy “ape 2 Mae

erie, \ oea?) OShh’ ennORE ff) * ry i Veeuod ~ : ierae ; “es SS hee, St ep eS See ——) sere 3 “oe? a o,ee OS, NS econ BUTE | Virte’, TBA et eee ie a -; tor Bape pee ete. fap) awtee ke ~ * Rt se Weabe LATA fh vy ' “ a a bs 5 ey ee rs West Seite Se Apaaers oe ++. nat eer |©wat P‘al ,Fy;7 }“iu -- .~;ind ey ae: aeee (ates et tia © Sere ON Ue oa? :MS os Ay Se ea*So;, Pe rea Bea ™ ai& Ge ~. 4a ‘CU ies is ah: Sie es aeeee DS Bete eres . ee2) ee~ Sed syiag -NL tetS > ates. Skee wet soeo9) Pay ay - ~ry =iSee a a ta deat 2a 4-2Sone ea ea; mye a, 4¢a™ P| as.2 oY -See % ;Ciena rs See we oP /eS»A« v}.“ >id&7.' a__ ;ee.-4‘~fheSiu =.4 Gt Skae ae See,

a)7‘ae T7 ee ,oS Sap Sea iy‘QZ PoSS Be e.~ ees ‘io a>¢Se .~~ Fias ?7“ey Paine *: ,Rae haRR Csa~iyale, , Sage ee Ss y 1 Pewey 2 .a;‘RS. ‘ < wa ane ry . ihren, t See neeee 1 Nemes a . : - ae oee y. =: = et te. bee pec sy vg es ee = iia

Foe ~ ent . "a. *A a, fey i4ASS ae ee sade eee EP Say oeey SP cS elAa rae ee ae a ee oo.) Aine) vs xCr >xiMeise 4) ae Bicep) aag ®. .“A-asf:' ke —_da" =Sy ey ea aeee -ng “as - ,— “ !gEe a~ “Bes eeLP; -~~ 7 “a—as Ge > 3" -ae Fes. . -eZ ;* ‘.re ie AP &S EE, fie Oe 4 attet n 7 >. i ~_* eae a ~ ™ d ¥ ies . = er, — :> *y : a Mate Pt : ; ae gy oe im vem nal S ;‘~Pa ak : ps ie ‘ hes : - 6S saree. -aee) ->=tire ‘ bane vy— aDCer / -X . aS >_bai be 4;

;>.

oo Site NS RS 3) ’me

o2\ 2S :,‘ag erry — “< +.“ 4 : ‘ : ; ahd sity is “a Set aT LS feos He Pe a © +. . f : a ax + ow ;ryweet gt : . , ; ; ‘ ini hk 21 : oO : ;sig >Hay+yJif;sz2.Gerreey ny _xP 2| Aer, kgs , =7 :Seepee ip ": *o4Stee :a= | eo wn : ,Sue ws ig: . 4. / Reconstructions 2io *hapter c ie) ” ane

®

aeeanee om, ah ; Ste. ic S hi : : = ie ceesae : oO ’; ne7 ae4 ee ; -Re‘ *:i 25 aka hesSi aGiao _. a.

enaeae SB So aR Sete ER hae5=en ® SES Se ny ee eeas tatnSa Bi age ee eee ,rp st Pacers. : ie Sols meos . :: es > =”oO — oNe ee. RL we. og , ae | : : Phe Soca — SI eae Se or oS ap eae ee a ee > O Seales \ Se 7aN a?Pe: a aeMi B stom” 2 jae. ne a72" :Rs,

ee OP aS ee i ‘ = :"— aa | Reet a

§ eetSey asa to te Bh 3 ; ‘” os boe otaoo ee pe Se, es :Be 5 aosP; dRet eee), News =.4=ia—_ ENAR *a e +Yue Sey Yeas ; esee eee z} : :t?, *cs = aex Shas =Oe Se 25 oO) ee" . ex ee ts ef SS Ist oe awa, * Wy 5 2 = sks Sees Se Se mona . mG Ss ee US UR ise) het oi SA ERO : ‘ eM ots Sh ee. . =

She’. Aya he esfeCots Be =—— eS ie seat bee +e. a LS ne ee‘= SS = eopies ce. Pet aesFe, 2 ee imThin * nbn -, = ww se 5SS $25ee F255

et eomaees tt§thes Ae c AS. a rca > ae WP. Re ® ep. I ) ey ek Ue sd ” aOe ie” TAA ~~ =P 2) stee ae ve F 7 “a é : : ar pa ory pede a BY : eS OD VWORYs oe . Fy ies OF BAS Geos Baek! { .'# NOE ge EB ERP Ba ins is A PCc =

= Oeee 5Bes Been ee Ne aneee tk neha weegi:s* :Bre :g2 a =ts s x ee Ly Rg BS ee I a ee * «dO 7 ee ae a , % x é y x sits Sey ee te Pile te ate Shek Bit “a : > = :® — ee se. tet wee WE el et 2 4S * — Wm Fe ee tL: OU ea Been ae ) : =”a ke Oe: ee a. I, SP 3 : eigen 9a Ses nes ss ea ee ~? = Pee (Pee eae be eget fee fe he en ge % SBP ae ee: = GRABa3Sos edie Se ROGeae of Maa ed biRa 2 =ord * i 2.€2 a &a — ;afbest "i er 4eet |teoe Me aeae: oh tanh : “3 a.;3S See’ iCat Uy thae Pie 5A .:—-= .— 7ae a‘. Ege =Se OS ee ee ee Be a~~ — 2 sSB ~—SS SS== xt°)= ie i ‘va: fee Wo) . es ee> :soba ;= SS = ear 7Ss -Se oe Ce eo Beet —

Se Re & VePal Staet Aeon eee ft=> :*a.= a5 as Maes i : 2 5 Sa = ee Ce tee! Se ie— a;ee AY Se ba >atts re eh Es PORES 3tat oteh:eS 2, ang, — :a:: =,TES 2 Ws Ssa4 Pr ce == ae tses RP 5s ae =z2aoe ,ES $2 voy amen. ~aelePie ‘ ws pe =>> e r~y3tsAne A> re. oo: fe ee te ae der =ss =, SRS ee =~ a tte,A) Bowe Sy is gene at ae i TEES ae ‘osi:nal oem-¥%boeee eet Ae RE?Bas 3 i > ae ees Of a % s N o| s|/ 82] P20 SS), Fl sSe] Ss , fsAi;&S |] 8 &*S & los| 18 as

ei |‘SSS] {$3 3 og BS =&

| 8SS| i2elalg |e ON oN aeON—nN—

ol fedste de (oe)

138 Homebound es x ae 2 a q SS) 7) OQ. 3 & zp cB) 4 NG sO ae) +3 Ccou oO e& o) ae) Ob oO a Os ye .n Ay , 8 vQ ¢ OG A

i) S = i+]

eee

3 v& SeSeals BS6 ¥w Soa &gg ‘dE8rRE GO ,48 Be a3 = y || gs av °F Eo = Oo © of = =O] gE a “OBC s bo 3 Et ¢ »ag Y ge Cc onO. :© wedBoo ba| 5"oS oabbs om! = g gon. 3 ao 3 sc 33 aN eo) Rem n GS ve Oo wo ML) ms nH non BOW Q Zs SM an rs Om wy N Oe 6 fous v8 9a3 og =6S o)S281] mS v4 SA §8 S352 8 zs 5 a a omm®) waar ao GC 2 SB ra on €O 4x YO Ogaag©aAp 3>E tei & ZU So4£4858 AReul a 5 Ns ay aS plAe S op©Baar| 6 . ‘Bp © gS meagcay. § Sg She) he 5 984 ee] ¢ 8 v8 Se g© Sugeta |S |YSPE)

oe S86 SFO sadL |Z Z>aHBel ais] ZZ sae] Z

Ne} e qlfo)=S o- No ~

e

| og | Ss = ax .S|as) x v ie ae) . oO OG oy G Oo ) a aa wn & 2 st go oS gs 2en8|CY |32ao mm 28om oSp ao a) D ay SATO O eal oe assa

Tw GS

x

S > XY S N S

5 5 | ab ae oO ss j “ Os 3 c « e o € S ag 5 68 g 58 ny A Pu 58@ 5 eg ge oo 5 2 gars4 ae ac a Bg SgX 2& G8

© : ~ if Ss a (o) | 5 © s : ee = : NX 7 Ra = ae} i: xe$: ie7| 'S) a8om 7 z iy Se vy | a: “£ s 3Z aSs

25}ia! Sop rl | g 4 Z ee 3 Go ue

D NX 3 8 : ana > 8 me 5 § °f: &§ Fe | » 2 0) oe s gs § | , rE _ a5 rs BS ; 3 "9 = (1) 8 Y a ros Y

&

Qu Ss a : ; ; YU

2;=2Vis ™ S S > a E =SRS 8 8 x se Sw = § 3 9 S 8 SSH 8 $8 a 3 sisQs S Sage e| Ss i 5 S NaS SSs & 2 Mo” o GU ws se Oo] Up oU 8 an Oo fo) oS O