Velázquez’s Las Meninas

Natalia Rivera

Recognized as a Baroque masterpiece, Diego Velázquez’s Las Meninas (1656)

is both an aesthetic and intellectual work that challenges Spanish preconceptions about
art as a lowly craft. Velázquez effectively combines refined technicalities and profound
representations to create a “court picture” (87) that effectively depicts the elevated
presence of the monarchs. Brown describes Velázquez’s use of Naturalism and
Illusionism as “a faithful counterfeit of reality” (88). Velázquez’s perfect reflection of
reality emphasizes his physical ability to create noble art or ipso facto. A seemingly
clear depiction of the Royal household, Las Meninas is an extremely ambiguous piece
that not only demonstrates Velázquez’s skill as a painter, but also the complexities of
his humanist intellectualism.

Measuring “ten and a half feet by nine feet wide” (96), the painting’s near life-
sized figures, along with its “spatial construction,” creates a sense of overwhelming
realism, emphasizing complexities, such as literary-like symbolism, that confuse the
viewer. Despite the ambiguities of Las Meninas, Brown indicates that all figures in the
painting, with the exception of one individual, have been identified (88). The ornately
dressed girl who is apparently in the “center” of the painting is La Infanta María
Margarita. Two meninas, or maids or honor, are attending the princess. The one on the
left, María Agustina Sarmiento, is kneeling down next to the princess, offering her what
appears to be a cup of water. The second one to the right of the princess is Isabel de
Velasco. On the far right, the viewer can see two dwarfs, identified as Mari Barbola
and her son Nicolás Pertusato, respectively. In the middle ground, behind Isabel de
Velasco and the dwarfs, stands Marcela de Ullo, the chaperone, next to an unidentified
bodyguard. Behind the figures in the foreground, there is a man in the open door,
identified as José de Nieto, the “aposentador of the Queen’s household” (88). The man
standing in front of the canvas, wearing courtly attire and holding a brush and a palette,
is Velázquez himself. Finally, the mirror located on the back wall, in between
Velázquez and La Infanta, reflects the figures of the monarchs Philip IV and Mariana of
Austria.

Significant objects and details worth noting include the aforementioned canvas on the
left-hand corner, the various paintings hung in the background and on the side walls, the
shadowing and dimness within the room, and the elegant attire of the figures. Along
with the specific aspects of the work, basic information pertaining to the work is widely
known, including the painter, the year the work was painted, and its purpose. As the
King’s preferred artist in the Spanish court, Velázquez was commissioned to paint
works representing the Royal Family with veneration and decorum. Velázquez’s
presence within the painting is an indication of his privileged position as a courtier.

Although the painting includes Velázquez’s self portrait, he is not the central
figure of the work. Initially, the viewer may consider the work a portrait of La Infanta,
since she is physically in the center of the foreground, surrounded by the entire Royal
Household. However, the majority of the figures are not directing their attention at the
princess; rather, most of the individuals, including La Infanta herself, are looking
outward. To whom or what the figures are directing their attention presents the first
ambiguity of the painting: Whether the physical manifestation of the Monarchs is a
“poetic” or “real” presence.

Brown, Foucault, and Schmitter concur that the characters within the painting
are looking at the actual or representation of the Monarchs, who are placed in some sort
of external space. The presence of the Monarchs is confirmed by the figures of
Velázquez and José de Nieto as members of the court. Also, the mirror’s reflection of
the Monarchs is another indication of their real or metaphorical presence. Brown
mentions the curtain reflected on the top of the mirror. He suggests that the Monarchs
are about to “enter” the depicted space to see Velázquez at work (91). The red curtain
has just risen, revealing the presence of the Monarchs, thus provoking the apparent shift
of attention. Some figures have just noticed the entrance of the Monarchs but have not
yet reacted. Brown claims that Isabel is beginning to curtsey, respectfully greeting the
King and Queen.

Foucault provides a different approach to the Monarchs: The painting is a

representation of their entrance rather than a depiction of their actual presence. He
suggests that the viewers of the painting are the (invisible) spectators (4). He notes that
the mirror is not reflecting physical objects within the vicinity. The mirror is “cutting
through” any kind of direct representation of objects or people in the room. Foucault’s
explanation of the mirror refers to the notion of the “metaphorical mirror,” not
necessarily a reflection of real space but rather an indirect literary device representing
the Monarchs. Since the mirror is not meant to be literal, “there is no distortion of
perspective” (8). Foucault’s description of Velazquez’s mirror suggests a different
purpose from that of Van Eyck’s as seen in the Arnolfini Portrait (1483). Van Eyck’s
concave mirror represents a near-perfect reflection of the objects and persons present in
the space. Velázquez was certainly influenced by Van Eyck’s painting, which “hung in
the Royal palace” (Brown, 99). Velázquez, however, utilized a style similar to that of
Titian in his mirror: Softer brushstrokes and less detail. Foucault’s claim would
suggest that Velázquez’s mirror was a “self-reflexive exemplification of representation,
a representation of a representation itself” (257), demonstrating a profound, intellectual
signification that Van Eyck’s excessively precise mirror lacked.

Schmitter challenges Foucault’s interpretation of the representational mirror, or

use of perspectival structure. She claims that Foucalt’s argument is incomplete because
the “orthogonals simply fail to focus a single point” (259). Alternatively, the mirror, as
a compositional device, suggests that it is “placed at the focal point of various
compositional devices” (259). In other words, the notion that the Monarchs are
metaphorically or realistically represented can change depending on the viewer’s
perspective.
Las Meninas has three specific centers: La Infanta at the center of the foreground, the
vanishing point right above Nieto’s elbow (as a pictorial device), and the mirror (as a
compositional device). Depending on which center the viewer chooses to focus, views
on the Monarchs’ presence shift. La Infanta, for example, can be interpreted as a
physical manifestation of the Monarchs. Although the Monarchs may not be physically
present, La Infanta serves as a representation of their constant presence. The reflection
in the mirror presents various plausible explanations. As Foucault claims, the reflection
is a metaphorical mirror, suggesting that the Monarchs have an almost spiritual, God-
like presence. The mirror might reflect the Monarch’s central position in front of the
characters, as viewers. A central positioning could also suggest that the Monarchs are
posing for an official portrait while they are observed by the characters. The mirror
may correspond to the direction of the vanishing point, suggesting that the mirror is
reflecting the canvas and an unfinished portrait of the Monarchs. Also the vanishing
point, which emphasizes the open door, suggests that the Monarchs are about to leave
the space, which could explain the presence of Nieto, the aposentador, and the
attentiveness of the figures. Despite various indications that the Monarchs are present,
Velázquez chooses to remove them from the internal space of the painting, further
complicating the viewer’s efforts to comprehend the work.

As Brown indicates, Velázquez’s reasons for “removing” the Monarchs physically

assert a sense of decorum and demonstrate “deference to their exalted station” (92).
Essentially, Velázquez juxtaposes realism with literary poeticism to create a sense of
royal omnipotence, demonstrating his loyal service to the King and also displaying his
skill as an artistically talented intellectual. Las Meninas is representative of
Velázquez’s struggle to obtain recognition from the Spanish court. Brown mentions
that “by 1636, Velázquez’s aspirations to a knighthood were an open secret” (103). He
also suggests that Velázquez’s inclusion of Rubens’ paintings in the workshop of Las
Meninas pays tribute to the influential artist who was granted knighthood (104).
Velázquez’s decision to allude to Rubens serves as a subtle criticism of Spanish views
regarding art. The complexities of his piece reinforce the notion of “painting as a
liberal art” rather than an unrecognized craft. An earlier depiction of this Velázquez’s
view is exhibited in The Spinners (1644-1648), which alludes to the tale of Arachne.
Again, Velázquez glorifies the skill of painting, depicting the artist as an almost divine
being, blessed with the graciousness of a greater spirit and, therefore, capable of
creating profound works beyond the simple imitation. Specifically in Las Meninas, the
indirect presence of Philip IV alludes to the “relationship between Alexander the Great
and Apelles” (93). Alexander frequently visited Apelles and granted him privileges for
his service. This allusion serves as the basis of Velázquez’s argument: Painting should
be viewed as a noble art, a respectable representation of elevated intellectualism.

Bibliography

Brown, Jonathan. "On the Meaning of Las Meninas." Images and Ideas in Seventeenth-
Century Spanish Painting. Princeton Essay on the Arts. 87-110.

Foucault, Michel. “Las Meninas.” The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human
Sciences. New York: Vintage Books. 3-16

Schmitter, Amy M. "Picturing Power: Representation and Las Meninas." The Journal
of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 54.3 (Summer, 2006): 255-268.