What kind of mess is this? What is it “about”? There are so many people. Which of them is the subject?
Answer: Las Meninas—The Maids of Honor—is what an artist does who is obliged to paint a royal portrait and who entertains himself with what is NOT the royal portrait.
Velazquez squirmed at the canvas each time a royal sitter, dressed up for the occasion, walked into his studio for another portrait. Painting routine portraits of the members of the royal family had become a cruel duty. He put off painting them and they took him months to finish. He didn’t dislike painting portraits but he disliked being ordered to paint the same subject over and over again. That he tried at all to say something new about the model was proof of his discipline and his honesty.
But more and more the model’s clothes became the real subject of the picture, or the model’s toys, or the furniture in the room, or the clock on the mantel. By the time he painted Las Meninas, one of his last paintings, this everything-else-but-the-royal-sitter had become almost funny. The room itself became the subject. Plus all the people attendant on the Infanta, including her maids of honor, the buffon and the dwarf woman, the chief butler, the sleepy dog. Plus, in the mirror, the King and Queen. Plus himself, Velazquez, full-length, and his easel.
The dark, tall-ceilinged, musty room in the old palace was his prison—the situation he had gotten himself into, for good and for bad. The picture was an anthology of the subjects of all the paintings he had every made. Las Meninas wasn’t only his self-portrait, it was his circumstances, his autobiography.
What kind of mess indeed. That was my thought when I looked at this painting. I can imagine the torture of having to paint another overindulged royal child in the same manner again and again.
Have you seen it in Madrid, Peggi? It’s a huge painting that fills a whole wall, and when you walk into the room where it is exhibited, it is as though you are walking into the picture and confronting all those strange people. There’s nothing like this painting anywhere. Like all really original things it requires some surrender on the part of the viewer, some suspension of his prejudices, some getting used to.
I see it recently, in a movie about Goya’s time – the new king of Spain (one of the numerous brothers of Napoleon) was passing them in revue, in order to choose what to send to Napoleon… He saw Le Jardin des délices de Bosch but said it was too bizarre for Napoleon’s taste… Not very much of a taste, altogether…
Hi Danu!
Spaniards didn’t like him at the time–they called him Pepe (for José) the Bottle because he drank a lot. But afterwards historians gave him high points for his kingship here. José I. I don’t know who WOULD want the Meninas–such a strange, cheerless picture. Would you? They say it was Goya who rediscovered Velazquez, whose reputation had fallen off for a century. Goya copied many of his things in the Prado. But of course his copies look Goyesque.
I like Meninas. In my opinion it is a story about infanta’s inner
world. She is smiling because she put toghether the parallel stories of the people from her life. The painter is a witness of her universe so he has to be “in the picture” in order to prove that her “maya” is real.
That’s an original idea, Visalon. I can’t think of another work where Velazquez painted the “interior world” of his sitters though. You would call this “The Infanta’s Universe” I guess. Sounds a bit too modern but it works, I must say. What is her “maya”? Do you mean “maja”?
100 swallows,
My English is not good enough, but I would try to answer to you in few words. After I had read your post I saw again the painting and I was
impressed by infanta’s smile. I “understood” that all that universe- the room, the dog, etc, including the relationship between people/ objects-, was a relection of her inner and Velazquez was so genial to discover and be able to paint this amaizing fact so strange for those years and places. When I wrote “maya”, I meant Maya= Illusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)
Thank you,
c
Hi, carmen! Glad to meet you on my good friend swallows blog! Even if, just like a poet that you are, you put poetry in a painting which is, essentially “illusion” made with paints on a rectangular surface…
You poets! you are great with words but you do attribute too much ’sense” to things which aren’t for us painters more than design, composition and color problems… I was just reading about Nicholas de Stael who was reproaching Goya exactly this: too much literature in his great paintings, too much anecdote… A painting (and Velasquez paintings are some of the greatest ever…) should be autonomous, good without any anecdote (which is something extra, in the worst case…) just like a good poetry should be good without any illustration, just with words…
Danu,
Glad to meett you, too & happy to discover that you are not embarrassed to let your friend know that we are friends:)
c.
Thanks for trying hard to explain, visalon. It is a striking interpretation and I think I will remember it when I look at las Meninas again. I looked up maya. Are you into Hindu mythology? I’m not.
All the mitologies are really important for me.
I “hope” to discover the difference between the illusion and the truth, and Hindu symbols are very important for me, despite of the fact that I could not understand very well the Hinduism Philosophy.
The most important and touchy element in this painting, to me, is the dog and the girl at the right corner. I think about how much time it takes to accomplish this painting… Sometimes years huh… And at the end, the painter can just capture a scene, just one second from life. He paints just the moment before the dog get disturbed and turned his head to the girl… He is just capable of this.
may be Velasquez was feeling like he was condemned to be a painter sometimes…
I prefer Tintoreto’s “Paradise”,Dux Palace,Venice.I love this website congratulations 100swallows.
Is it the best? Maybe.
But is it liked best?
No.
i agre
is greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttt
The subject, the dtailing, the colour combination, didn’t apeal me much. An ordinery painting.
Sharad: An ordinary painting it is not. Show me another like it. Perhaps if you saw it in the Prado you would like it better. It is as big as the wall and has greater depth than most paintings so that you feel you are looking right into that room of his at those people, who look back. Those sober colors take some getting used to, I know.
Really pretty painting, made the moment forever…
Hey…love your posts..thanks for the insights…I happen to be an aspiring artist..started late as usual..lol…but find your take on art fascinating…was wondering if you could do like a piece on renaissance art?
iirinsade: Thanks. I’m glad you like the blog. Basically it is about famous individuals and their works rather than movements or periods in art history. But a broader view is sometimes useful and I might yet write one.
great…yep glad you’re writing about this..especially in such a reflective manner..sometimes its difficult to make sense out of the rigmarole the art critics can spin. this is refreshing and quite enlightening.
I never comment on blogs, but your awsome content have forced me to to leave some positive feedback