|
ARTH Courses |
Velázquez's Las Meninas

Velázquez's Las Meninas
has long captivated viewers by
its effect of naturalism.
Nineteenth century critics saw
it as anticipating the invention
of the camera with its effect of
capturing a "snapshot" of a
moment in time and space.
Contemporary critics have
emphasized the calculated
control Velázquez employed to
construct this effect of
naturalism. Rather than as a
snap-shot, a transparent window,
or a spotless mirror of the
world, Las Meninas is
today seen to be more about the
nature of painting, the artist's
control over representation, and
the status of Velázquez as a
court artist.
The control of Velázquez can
perhaps be best seen in the
effect of spontaneity and
relative informality of the
foreground group.
The Infanta Margarita, the daughter of the King and Queen of Spain, is
made the most central figure in
the foreground group by placing
her the closest to the center
axis of the painting but very
intentionally not on that axis.
She is placed just to the left
of center. At the same time the
light streaming in from the
window on the right falls on her
more than the surrounding
figures. The poses of the
figures around her with their
gestures call attention to their
defference to her authority at
the same time as acknowledging
the presence of the viewer.
Seven of the nine figures stare
outward. The effect of this,
rather than breaking the spell
of spontaneity, implicates the
viewer into the narrative of the
painting. We are made to be as
much a part of the composition
as any of the other figures in
the painting. We take on the
role of both the observer and
the observed. There is a
reciprocity between our looking
and that of the characters in
the painting. Without our
presence, their glances do not
make sense. The role we play in
this story is revealed by the
mirror image just over the
Infanta's right shoulder. Our
role as the King or Queen of
Spain explains the attention
paid to our presence by the
other figures. The relationship
of the Infanta to the royal
couple is visually asserted by
Velázquez by positioning her
closest to the mirror image on
the picture plane.
A comparison of Las
Meninas to a work like
Leonardo's Last Supper is
instructive. In the two diagrams
above the green lines define the
central axis of the back walls
of the rooms depicted in the
paintings. The red diagonal
lines define the center of the
paintings, and the vertical red
lines articulate the central
axes of the paintings. The blue
lines articulate the orthogonals
in the perspective systems. As
is well known all of these
converge in the case of
Leonardo's painting on the head
of Christ. In the Velázquez none
of these line up. Imagine how
the spontaneity and air of
informality of the painting
would have been lossed if
Velázquez had centered the head
of the Infanta in the middle of
the mirror in the background,
had the orthogonals converge on
her head, and had her head
appear on a line that marked
both the central axis of the
painting and the center of the
back wall of the room. In the
Leonardo we are a detached
observer taking the ideal point
of view. All the meaning of the
work is intelligible from this
single point of view. There is
no role for us to play within
the narrative of the Last
Supper. In Las Meninas
there is no ideal point of
view, but we are implicated in
the painting. As noted above we
take on the role of the King and
Queen of Spain.

The mirror on the back wall
with its reflected images of the
king and queen asserts the
artist's control over the
illusion. Clearly the mirror
does not reflect what is
directly in front of it. We do
not see the back of Velázquez or
any of the other figures in the
foreground of the composition.
The size of the reflection of
the king and queen and the
perfect cropping of the royal
couple in the frame of the
mirror are not consistent with
our position standing before the
image. The position of the
vanishing point of the
perspective system in
relationship to the mirror
indicates another inconsistency.
If the viewer is intended to
take on the literal point of
view of the King and Queen, the
vanishing point would have to be
directly in the center of the
mirror, but it is positioned to
the right of the mirror. From
that point of view the
reflection would not be of the
King and Queen, but it would be
more likely the reflection of
the image of the King and Queen
in the painting Velázquez works
on. Is this intentional on
Velázquez's part to leave the
viewer with the question of
whether the mirror reflects the
King and Queen or their image?
Or in other words in looking at
the reflection in the mirror are
we looking at the reflection of
art or nature?

The positioning of the
vanishing point (red dot)
indicates that the horizon line
(green line) of the perspective
system would be consistent with
the reflected image of the King
and Queen. This clearly places
the constructed viewer below the
figure of Velázquez standing at
his easel. This lower point of
view is also indicated by the
positioning of the standing
figures of Doña Marcela and the
guardadamas lower on the
picture plane than the figure of
Velázquez. If Velázquez had
designed the painting to create
the illusion of the King and
Queen standing in the space of
the represented chamber the
horizon line would need to have
been higher on the picture
plane, and the heads of the
standing figures would appear
along this common horizon line.
A possible explanation would be
that Velázquez would have been
aware that the bottom of the
painting could not have been
placed at the level of the floor
of the room housing Las
Meninas, but that the
painting was designed to be hung
so that the bottom of the frame
was slightly up the wall. By
placing the horizon line lower
on the picture plane than the
standing figures in the
painting, Velázquez was
adjusting for this inconsistency
and creating the illusion that
the horizon line of the painting
is consistent with the actual
eye-level of the King standing
in front of the painting in the
pieza del despacho.
What explains the
"naturalism" of the painting
with its effect of spontaneity
and relative informality? It
will be argued here that the
painting's "naturalism" needs to
be understood in the context of
Velázquez's identity as a court
painter and member of the court
of Philip IV. Las Meninas
can be connected to a tradition
of images of princes and the
structure of European courts
that goes back at least to the
fourteenth century court of
Charles V of France. A Bible
historiale made for Charles
V has a famous frontispiece
showing Jean Vaudetar presenting
the book to Charles V.
I have argued
elsewhere
that the innovative aspects of
this miniature including the
attention to the individualized
portraits of Charles V and
Vaudetar and the emphasis on the
illusion of space can be related
to the period's greater emphasis
placed on the differentiation
between the public and private
worlds of the king. The relative
informality of the king's dress
and the close spatial
relationship between Vaudetar
and Charles V is likely a
reflection of the King's chamber
as the center of the politics
and patronage of the court. The
relationship between the prince
and his court was a personal one
and not an institutional one.
The king could appoint and
dismiss at his own pleasure. On
the death of the monarch, the
court would be disbanded. Power
at court was judged by the
degree of intimacy the courtier
had with the king. While this
miniature is today one of the
most famous monuments of
fourteenth century French
manuscript illumination, the
book it comes from one was
designed for the personal use of
Charles V. The Bible manuscript
was intended for the private
library of Charles V adjacent to
his personal chambers in the
newly re-designed
Louvre.
It is signiificant as documented
by the facing dedicatory
inscription that this miniature
was done by "iohannes de Brugis
pictor regis"

Velázquez represents himself
standing at his easel. He holds
in his left hand his palette and
a brush in his right. In his
belt is the key to the King's
chamber. According to Palomino,
Philip IV had given Velázquez a
key to his chamber, a much
sought after privilege by the
members of the nobility at
court. On his blouse appears the
red cross of the Order of
Santiago. Palomino says this was
added after Velázquez's death by
order of Philip IV if not as
tradition has it by the king
himself. He is thus represented
with the trappings of his
position as court artist.
Accounts of Velázquez's life
emphasize the close relationship
between the artist and Philip
IV. This includes the account of
Pacheco, Velázquez's
father-in-law, who observed that
Velázquez was treated with
"incredible liberality and
affability by this great
monarch, who continually visited
him almost every day to see him
paint in the workshop that he
had in the King's gallery."
Pacheco records that the king
even had a key to Velázquez's
studio. Palomino elaborates on
the historical context of this
relationship between monarch and
artist by observing "as
Alexander did with Apelles,
often going to see him paint,
honoring him with such singular
favor, as Pliny tells in his
Natural History (lib. 31,
cap. 10), and as Charles V with
Titian...." Philip IV honored
his painter's position at court
by appointing Velázquez to a
succession of increasingly
important court posts. He was
first appointed to the office of
Ayuda de la Guardarropa.
In 1643, Velázquez was appointed
to the position of Ayuda de
Cámara in 1643. In 1653
Velázquez was appointed
Apostentador Mayor, a
position at the pinnacle of the
palace hierarchy.
In 1666, the year after the
death of Philip IV, Las
Meninas is listed in the
so-called pieza del despacho,
a room in the Alcázar in
Madrid that was designed for the
personal use of the king. It was
thus a painting not designed for
public display like its large
size might suggest, but intended
for the private use of the king.
Today Las Meninas easily
ranks among the most famous
works of Western Art, but its
location in the Alcázar
indicates that only a very few
people would be allowed to see
it.
The painting needs to be
understood within the carefully
structured world of royal
courts. As royal power increased
greater emphasis was placed on
the differentiation between the
public and private worlds of the
monarchs. During the fourteenth
century palace design
distinguished between the more
public world of the grand hall
and the more private world of
the king's chamber. The chamber
itself became divided up to
distinguish between the space of
the presence chamber where the
monarch could greet foreign
ambassadors and the king's
bedchamber which was accessible
to only the highest members of
the court. By the sixteenth
century, the process continued
with the creation of an inner
sanctum within the chamber, the
privy chamber. In the world of
the court your relative
importance was directly
reflected by which chamber you
were appointed to. This is well
reflected in the succession of
positions that Velázquez held.
Velázquez's first appointment
was as Ayuda de la
Guardarropa. The
Guardarroppa was what was
designated as the guard or
watching chamber in Tudor palace
design. Its function was to
serve as the chamber for the
guards protecting the boundary
between the public world of the
court from the world of the
royal chambers beyond.
Velázquez's next appointment to
the position of Ayuda de
Cámara. This refers to what
in the Tudor court was
designated at the "presence
chamber." This would be the
formal audience hall for the
monarch who would be positioned
under the cloth of estate and
would greet ambassadors. This
chamber would also be used for
formal dining.
Palomino in his account of
Las Meninas identifies the
paintings on the walls as
stories from Ovid's
Metamorphoses by Rubens.
Only the two large paintings
have been identified with oil
sketches by Rubens. The one on
the left is Minerva Punishing
Arachne, while the one on
the right is Apollo's Victory
over Marsyas. Both of these
subjects deal with the themes of
the divine source of the arts
and human rivalry with the Gods
|