Blog #3

In Michel Foucault’s analysis of Las Meninas, the analytical observation I found most interesting was his interpretation of what was the center reference point. I tend to agree with his “X” theory. It is easy to see an “X” formation from the painter’s eyes down to the dog’s back and from the male courtier’s eyes down to the bottom of the canvas. These two lines intersect at the eyes of the Infanta. I seemed to be more drawn by the “X” shape than the “vast curve” which is later described.

I also enjoyed Foucalt’s argument that the people’s names that are shown in the mirror are not important. It is obvious that the two people in the mirror are King Philip IV and his wife, Mariana. But he explains that if you want to “keep the relation of language to vision open,” and “treat their incompatibility as a starting-point for speech instead of as an obstacle to be avoided, so as to stay as close as possible to both, then one must erase those proper names and preserve the infinity of the task” (9). It is easy to see that the people in the mirror are important because everyone is focused on them. However, the names are not necessary and Foucalt wants to analyze the visual relationships in the painting without historical facts.

I thought it was very interesting that Foucalt described this painting in vast detail, but left out any information of art-historical investigation. Subject matter was not explored nor was any “contingent” factors like the artist’s biography, relationship with the patrons, or any social context. Instead, he focuses on what is specifically going on in the painting. He highlights the visual relationships between the painter on the left, the subject-model, and the viewer. Foucalt explains this reciprocity viewing relationship, “A mere confrontation, eyes catching one another’s glance, direct looks superimposing themselves upon one another as they cross. And yet this slender line of reciprocal visibility embraces a whole complex network of uncertainties, exchanges, and feints” (4). At first glance at this painting I did not think of this reciprocal relationship. However, it is very evident after studying the painting and after reading this analysis.

I think Foucalt is trying to explain that this painting contains a new way of thinking in European art. It is a middle point between the old Classical style and the new modern style. He explains this idea in the final paragraph, “Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were, of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us….and representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form” (16). Foucalt is hypothesizing that this painting could be the cross over between how art was and what it can will be.