I.

Three Interpretation of Parisian Life that is presented in Xiao Time

GSIS Museum Director Eric Zerrudo suggests that there is three possible
interpretation of the work.
The first interpretation is literal, the woman was a courtesan who caught the eye
of the three Filipino patriots while they were discussing affairs regarding their homeland
in the cafe. It is interesting to note that the men in the painting are Jose Rizal (back view),
Juan Luna (centre) and Ariston Bautista-Lin. It captures a fleeting moment preserved up
to now with two of his closest friends during a casual evening in a cafe. The three men in
the left side while Luna paints are Jose Rizal, Ariston Lim and himself. Rizal is shown
with his back half - turned, Luna sits jauntily in the centre while Ariston Lim sits closest
to the lady. It shows that the painting's season is springtime, suggested by the pale
lavender of the woman's dress and the flowers on her hat. Certainly, this is a moment of
happiness and contentment to the three gentlemen. Set in the far left corner of the
painting, they are obviously shadowed by an outstanding figure of a lady. Luna is known
as an unwearied painter of women. He is said to have been paying prostitutes to use them
as subjects for his painting, sometimes nude. Compared to ordinary and educated ladies,
these ask just a cheap price of "talent" fee.

The second interpretation is biographical, the painting hints at Luna’s family

problems. At the time when Parisian Life was painted, in 1892, Juan Luna's personal life
was in a bad state. Luna was struggling with personal tragedies–the death of his infant
daughter and his suspicion his wife was having an affair with a French doctor. The half-
empty beer mug in the table in front of the woman and the coat on the sofa may be
suggestive symbolism. He got engaged with the murder of his wife and in-laws and was
imprisoned. The woman symbolized his wife and the painting depicted his solace.

Zerrudo’s third speculation (based from the UP Fine Arts) on the painting is that
the woman in the painting may be intended to represent the Philippines, her form
suggesting a mirror image of the Philippine archipelago. The way she was seated seems
like the inverted islands of the country (with the arm representing Palawan). That lady is
our motherland, the Philippines. She was wearing pink and white to symbolize the purity
of the country, but her suggestive seating position depicts abuse from its colonizers. It’s a
black turtleneck, which people believed to be a rope pulling the woman up. She was
being hung, and for experts, it symbolized the lack of freedom of the country then. The
experts also believed that the woman was with someone (maybe a Spaniard) because of
the appearance of the mug and the cap in the painting. And her face is not happy in her
position at that moment but trying not to let it show. The painted illustration captured the
gathering of three significant personas and heroes in Philippine History having a
discussion about the Philippines. Were Kawit, Cavite, the site of the birth of the 1898
Philippine independence is exact on the lady’s womb, site of birth. What appears to be
artistic flaws in the painting–the dark neck of the woman and the awkward placement of
her head against a window joint which seems to project out of her head–may have been
purposely done to symbolize the state of the Philippines at that time. If you look closely,
the shape of the woman is like the shape of the mirror image of the map of the
Philippines. The edge of her dress is just about the shape of Sulu, the waist is situated on
the shortest part of the Philippines starting from Infanta, Quezon until San Antonio,
Zambales. Palawan is angled at the arm of the woman. The mountain ranges that separate
Surigao from Agusan and Davao is exact to the dark fold of the lady’s gown. Kawit,
Cavite, the site of the birth of the 1898 Philippine independence is exact on the lady’s
womb, site of birth. The site of the declaration of the 1899 Constitution Malolos, Bulacan
is exact on the navel of the lady. The constitution accordingly is the bloodline of the
nation. Cebu on the other hand covers the knee of the lady and it was pointed out that
Cebu was the site of the first Christianization in the country. In the larger context of
history, Parisian Life is therefore also a significant work, capturing the last gathering of
great Filipinos on the eve of momentous events.

What we would like to stress is that we need to value this painting, our heritage. It
is clear Juan Luna’s “Parisian Life” not only serves “as a window to the past but as a
reflection of our real worth as a nation.” This painting should put more expose to us
Filipino, especially to the young ones. Because it’s an eye-opener, making us realize that
the Parisian Life is a national treasure, and for us to move forward as a nation, it is vital
that we back ourselves up with the riches of our past. We agreed that “Hindi nakakain
ang painting” (Painting cannot solve hunger.) but it's not only food that keeps us alive.
We also need our souls to be full and enriched, so we can live life to the fullest. And this
is what the "Parisian Life" is for - to help solve the puzzle of our nationhood and keep the
fire of the Filipino soul. People should not ask the worth of “Parisian Life” but to ask
what is our worth as a people to deserve a historically valuable artwork.

2. Is there any depiction that is clearly exaggeration? Can you say that as a form of bias?

It is clear Juan Luna’s “Parisian Life” not only serves “as a window to the past,
but as a reflection of our real worth as a nation.”Some feature of Parisian Life painting is
exaggerated like the perfected face of the lady and also her waistline. Obviously the lady
does not resemble Paz. The soft features of the woman are far from Paz’s rigid and firm
profile. Juan Luna imagined a more beautiful Paz, a perfect Paz in his mind he changes
some feature to satisfy his perfect imagination. Also, anatomically it is impossible to
have 12 inches waistline. The painting is strongly in favor of the artist, Juan Luna he can
paint what he wanted to paint even if it is too exaggerated in the eyes of the viewers.

The interpretations only strengthened the idea that the artist was really a genius
par excellence. He was able to convey multitude of messages in a very limited space and
in an otherwise simple subject. One of the exaggeration that we noticed is the second
interpretation about his suspicion in his wife. It may be a warning for Paz, remember that
it was only months after the work was finished and given to Bautista-Lin that the bloody
event happened. Possibly, Luna tried to restrain himself by communicating, albeit
symbolically but Luna’s friend wasnt able to grasp the message and just dismissed the
painting as an ordinary painting. Let just focus on some visual elements of the painting
tha could prove this point. As what mentioned above, the lady does not resemble Paz
which would have been hard for Lin to crack the cryptic code in the painting to prevent
the crime that was hapened. Among other assumptions, it stated “that the woman has a
dark neck, the woman was placed with her head in a window joint resulting to having the
effect of a sort of ‘antenna jutting out’ of the head. The dark neck and the window joint
line showed that as if the woman was being strangled, conveying the message that the
lady was under stress.” He perhaps expected them to discover the hidden message in the
work. Obviously, Lin and Rizal failed to read his mind; his psyche, hence the tragedy. It
is bias on the part of Juan Luna because he already created an adulterous monster out of
his wife even there’s no concrete evidence which point to the adulterous relationship of
Paz. His jealousy was so strong that reason could no longer permeate.

Another exaggeration is found in the last interpretation which Fine Arts students
hypothesized that the lady is the mirror image of the Philippine archipelago. This
theorizing went to the ridiculous extent of assigning various parts of the lady’s body as a
representation of provinces or groups of provinces. Imagine her 12-inch waistline as “the
distance between Infanta, Quezon and San Antonio, Zambales” and “the site of the birth
of 1898 Philippine Independence, Kawit Cavite, is exact on the lady’s womb, site of a
woman’s birthing.” It is strongly in favor of Philippines, realizing how creative Juan
Luna is able to show his Filipinism and his longing for the Philippines to be independent
through his paintings. He is trying to awake the Filipinos consciousness, to stand up for
ourselves to fight for our right.

Furthermore, the lady is our motherland, the Philippines. She was wearing pink
and white to symbolize the purity of the country, but her suggestive seating position
depicts abuse from its colonizers. It’s black turtleneck, which people believed to be a
rope pulling the woman up. She was being hung, and for experts, it symbolized the lack
of freedom of the country then. It is strongly against Spaniards, it exposed the Philippines
in a disturbed state during the Spanish Revolution in 1892 through the uncomfortable
position and a rope pulling the woman up. The coat and hat at the couch symbolizes
Western lifestyle particularly identifying the people of Spain. While the levels of beers in
the table were also interpreted on how the Spaniards take advantage of the country, and
the newspaper pointing the back of the woman tells how the Philippines was inspired by
the French Revolution.