Talk:Las Meninas/Archive 1

message: There are at least three perspectives or eyelines in Las Meninas. The top right roof edge finds it's vanishing point on a horizontal line passing through the eyes of the figure on the back stairs.  The paintings hanging on the right side wall find their vanishing point upon a lower horizontal that passes just below the elbow of the back stairs figure. The lights on the roof have their vanishing point very low in the composition - on a line running through the dog's eyes.
So while the composition appears to be from a single point of view it is geometrically a composite of at least three points of view. The "seams" which might otherwise separate these point of views are "hidden" in shadow and soft focus. 
The mirror on the back wall is said by some to reflect the canvas rather than "our" point of view. Indeed the three identified viewpoints would all map the source of the mirror image to the canvas - albeit, to different locations on such. 
It is interesting to note that Joel Snyder's criticque of Foucault, which relys (in part) on a strict geometrical analysis of Las Meninas, nevrtheless fails to register this mutiplicity of strictly *geometrical* viewpoints. 
Carl Looper
10 February 2006
carllooper@hotmail.com
I'll bet you anything Oscar Wilde was thinking about this picture when he wrote The Birthday of the Infanta. --Bluejay Young 12:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say it doesn't merit mention at all: the threshold for works of fiction for articles that are not about that author or the work itself is very high. For anyone who wants to form their own opinion http://www.bms.ed.ac.uk/services/webspace/bsdb/PDF/BSDBnewsSum06web.pdf is the link. It leads to some sort of biology newsletter that includes the short story. I honestly didn't read the short story before removing: something like this requires that a very clear case be made for its inclusion. And, given the addition of two links to the same article, I strongly suspect some sort of vanity issue and/or linkspam going on here. - Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perspectives

message: Despite the  template, it looks to me like very little of this comes from the 1911 EB. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1911? 

message: "This was in the Spanish royal collection in Madrid throughout Velasquez's time as court painter (now National , London)" makes no sense, but a quick glance at the history only shows an earlier, also inaccurate statement "…(now National Gallery, London)". Does someone know what's going on here? - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism, not sure how to fix 

message: The courtier standing in the doorway behind the rest of the scene occupies a unique position in the painting. He is analogous to any real person viewing the painting, because he is also a spectator. However, unlike an observer from the real world who occupies a space adjacent or congruent to the seated royal figures, he is not involved in the scene in any way, and could not be viewed by Velazquez, the painter and creator of the scene. As such, the courtier occupies an ontologically difficult space. Although he is depicted, he is less involved in the scene than the real world observer.
(Originally added by Tethros to article) JNW 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Courtier

message: I've reverted the paragraph re: Jose Nieto's metaphysical presence. I suspect it is an 'original' hypothesis, and needs a cite for source. Please re-install, with a valid source.
I have added just the facts of his name and position in the court. I think that his presence in the open doorway is one of spacial significance: the mirror reflection of the king and queen implies space in front of the assemblage, on our plane, and the open doorway and courtier on the stairs implies space in the opposite direction. In terms of the two-dimensional space, the juxtaposition of dark and light shapes is drop-dead well composed. However, unless I find these ideas confirmed in the published literature, they will stay here, on the talk page. JNW 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jose Nieto

message: I have removed the following passage, which is repetitious and reads like original research; please see WP:V and WP:NOR. Citing the self-portrait as the most destabilizing fact is subjective. Though not in the same ambiguous context, painters of the Renaissance also included self-portraits among group presentations. If there is indeed a published source for this, like Foucault, please re-install. JNW 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation

message: I'm dubious about this bit: A marble plaque has been fixed to the wall of the room where the painting hangs, bearing the inscription La obra culminante del arte universal (The culminating work of universal art'). To emphasise the illusionistic intention of the picture, the museum has fixed a mirror to a side wall in which one can view the painting and, in the words of the 20 century art critic Jon Manchip White, "receive an uncanny sense of its reality—that mysterious, ....
- I saw it in October & didn't notice either - it is currently not near a side wall as such, being in the octagon at the end of the long gallery. If this comes from the next ref, dated 1969, the painting has moved rooms at least once since then.  Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does come from the 1969 source. Shame, I liked the idea. Ceoil (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prado 

message: I think it might be better to drop any lingering uncertainty that the figures in the mirror are indeed the K&Q. At least since the painting was cleaned in 1984 this has been pretty unarguable - I don't see any theories as to who else they might be. I haven't checked the refs but I would be surprised if any expressing uncertainty are dated after the cleaning. Johnbod (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Ceoil (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King and Queen 

message: Can someone furnish a source for the claim that Don Jose Nieto Velazquez was related to the painter? I can not find any such reference, and vaguely recall reading something to the contrary. Sans cite, this will end up with a 'fact' tag. JNW (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don Jose Nieto

message: We (partly my fault) have now got repeated info, & a slight contradiction. From "Influence":
The painting was first inventoried at the Royal Palace of Madrid under the title "The family picture". In 1692, the Neapolitan painter Luca Giordano (1634—1726) became one of the few allowed to view paintings held in Philip IV's private apartments, where he saw and was greatly impressed by Las Meninas. Giordano described the work as the "theology of painting",[31] and was inspired to paint A Homage to Velázquez, today in the National Gallery, London.[51] The painter and art theorist Antonio Palomino published a biography of Velázquez in 1724, which included discussions of the Spanish artist's works, including Las Meninas.[52] By the early eighteenth century....
From History and condition:
"The painting was described in the earliest inventories as La Familia—"the family".[23] A detailed description of the painting, to which we owe the identification of several of the figures, was published by the Vasari of the Spanish Golden Age, Antonio Palomino, in 1724.[24]"
From lead:"The seventeenth-century painter Luca Giordano said of Las Meninas that it represents the "theology of painting"....
- Do these matter? Which should be cut/merged, if any? Could someone get a 3rd view on the original Family title (I suspect Levey's "La Familia" is right). Personally I would be inclined to cut the inventory bit from Influence, either leave both Giordano's or cut the lead, and leave Palomino in twice - but his 1724 work was not just a bio of V, it was a "lives of the (Spanish) Artists": "El Parnaso español pintoresco laureado, is a mine of important biographical material relating to Spanish artists, which, notwithstanding its uneven style, has procured for the author the honor of being called the Spanish Vasari." says our EB 1911 article. maybe that needs clarifying.  Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will cut the 'inventory' passage from the Influence section, and might cut the Palomino reference  from Influence as well. I do think Giordano's remark can stay in both places; it's good, worth mentioning in the lead and expanding upon under Influence. JNW (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please restore the Palomino sentence if you think it should stay. JNW (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetitions

message: :The lead is still a little weak, but I think we are ready to start responding to Awadewit's notes. Ceoil (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those are mostly dealt with, or the article has moved on. Note d) now repeats text still in the article (where I think it should be, myself). I've added another note, but in view of this, not in sequence. Personally I think note b) should be in the main text - pace Foucault, the painting was certainly painted not with "the viewer" in mind, but a particular small set of viewers, or a viewer.  The lead is better now, but does need tightening - the Searle quote is perhaps not right here, & the (justified) peacocky first para needs a bit of rewording.  The Miller quote I think works well with the Foucault one (in the "light" section), removing one of Awa's points.  Generally I think it is looking very good.    Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree . I think most bases are covered, though the intraparation section is still a little top heavy with Foucault. After this last tightening up is finished, its time to get the copy editors in. Ceoil (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Old:
Las Meninas (also known as The Maids of Honour, or The Family of Philip IV) is a 1656 painting by the Spanish baroque artist Diego Velázquez (1599–1660), housed in the Museo del Prado in Madrid.  It is one of the most important and famous paintings in Western art history, and a classic of the Spanish Golden Age. The seventeenth-century painter Luca Giordano said of Las Meninas that it represents the "theology of painting", while Sir Thomas Lawrence wrote that the work incarnates "the philosophy of art".  More recently, it has been described as "Velázquez's supreme achievement, a highly self-conscious, calculated demonstration of what painting could achieve and perhaps the most searching comment ever made on the possibilities of the easel painting"Honour, Fleming (1982), p. 447. 
is this better:
Las Meninas, Spanish for The Maids of Honour, is a painting of 1656 by the leading artist of the Spanish Golden Age Diego Velázquez (1599–1660), in the Museo del Prado in Madrid.  It has long been recognised as one of the most important paintings in Western art history; the Baroque painter Luca Giordano said that it represents the "theology of painting", while Sir Thomas Lawrence wrote that the work incarnates "the philosophy of art".  More recently, it has been described as "Velázquez's supreme achievement, a highly self-conscious, calculated demonstration of what painting could achieve and perhaps the most searching comment ever made on the possibilities of the easel painting"Honour, Fleming (1982), p. 447. 
-I doubt if the alternative English titles have been used in the last 50 years, & there are issues with describing V as baroque, unlike Luca fa presto.  Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2nd is much better, but I would keep the alt titles - The maids was being used until the late 1960s, eg in White. Anyhow, feel free to make the change. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Substituted - I tried versions of "and also known as" but it cluttered up the sentence, so I reinstated full five thingies & left it at that - I think that's enough? Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its definitely more coherent now. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can look, but Lawrence was one of relatively few foreign artists to make it to Madrid - a bit off the beaten track in those days. The "Britain & V" book in the refs would have more I'm sure.  Raphael Mengs late C18th Madrid court artist wrote on V, and Richard Ford (writer) was probably the leading English-language C19 writer, unless you like Washington Irving. They should be online. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ford (highly amusing - all on gutenberg - had a long passage, but no pithy quote, I decided in the end. Sir David Wilkie (artist) also wrote on it after a visit in 1827-8 - not seen. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt Lead 

message: Do ye know what the para The added complexity of this picture is that the division of sevenths is applied was sourced to. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. The article has been so busy for the last week its hard to keep track of who added what. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked Amanda. Johnbod (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmph! the said Amanda has used this info when describing this painting, for the last 45 years! The suspicion is that it comes from a wee Scotsman by the name of Hughie Dolan who kept a bottle of Teacher's in the back of the press in the art store room and whose other favourite subject was Charles Rennie Macintosh. It may be someone's original research, but its Hughie's, not mine! What do you want me to do about it? Amandajm (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's definatly discussed in one of the sources used; I've seen it at some stage in the last few weeks, but can't remember which where. Maybe in White. I'll go digging.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceoil (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: From the peer review:
*The former living quarters of Baltasar Carlos,[6] the high-ceilinged room is presented, in the words of Silvio Gaggi, as "a simple box that could be divided into a perspective grid with a single vanishing point" - Has to be explained - picture of this, maybe? Awadewit | talk
:Do you mean a detail of the roof, or a graph showing the grid lines? Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A graph showing the grid lines. Awadewit | talk
As a non art educated person, I think this would really help people understand the grid concept, and would open up a lot of the discussions on the page. Does such a thing exist? Does anyone know how to put it together? Ceoil (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Will look at this when I have the chance. JNW (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Johnbod as to not requiring a graphic of the perspective. If someone wants to create such an illustration, it would be an interesting elaboration, but I don't view it as necessity. JNW (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: ARTstor has just the illustration you're looking for, but it would be copyright. "Las Meninas (Maids of Honor): Ref.: perspectival analysis". Ear Mite (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it look like? Single vp as described above? - "to the left of Nieto, half way between him and the door frame". Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, a single vp is shown about halfway up the door, and horizontally as you suggest. I considered making a diagram with the convergence lines overlaid as in the Artstor diagram, but, as suggested above, it's not that interesting. Ear Mite (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a bit, though a ext-link to a diagram would be handy. Johnbod (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like the vanishing point is discussed by Steinberg, but I don't have JSTOR access. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the top section on this page, which claims there actually 3 vp's - this would not be uncommon, as many artists (like van Eyck) manipulate perspective for effect. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We have an ext link, which is enough I think. We do have Joel-Peter Witkin. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanishing point

message: The article states that Velazquez is standing before a large "easel" which takes up one third of the painting!? Regardless of whether this is cited, it is plainly, and measurably not true. 
Firstly, the "easel" (canvas) doesn't take up anything like a third. 
Secondly, Velazquez is standing a long way behind that canvas which is to the very front of the painting. If that is the painting that he is working on, then we must presume that he has stepped a long way back, in order to view the entire composition (which is a reasonable possibility). However, he can't really be described as "standing before" it. 
The canvas upon which the artist is working may be that large one, but it might in fact be a different one entirely, screened from our view as suggested by Michel Foucault. 
Amandajm (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed dubious claim. Ceoil (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canvas in the foreground

message: *The paintings on the back wall are discussed twice - at the end of "Court of Philip IV" and the end of "subject matter" - I think these should be merged to the second.
:Agree; do you want to perform the merge. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, I'll do this. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I've done it, but not renumbered - see B below. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caught it. Not the easiest to use template. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  All ok now Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I need to develop this, I'm looking at some other sources at the moment. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you restore. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know enough about the area! Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, I'll do this. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an interesting para in white's book about how Philip was famously morose, and that V was one of the few he was close to. He was at pains to not smile or laugh in public, and to be fair a lot of his loved ones died young. I'll swap the current content for note b with this aside sometime tomorrow (dont have the book to hand). Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll collapse/remove this bit, but it is in the history.   
*"Although they were later lost, the Van Eyck painting had folding doors with a painted inscription from Ovid on their outside." Im not sure what that means, or why it is relevant. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Meaning is clear enough surely; I thought the Ovid link might have relevance enough to mention, but it is probably too tenuous. See details at the article. Can be cut. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its clear now. I'm just a little frazzled. Forget it. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok now Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points 

message: Revised numbers, other tweaks? Tyrenius (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to use the new image and revise the text, but noticed that meninas numbers 2 and 3 are reversed in this image, in relation to text. JNW (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean number 3 person is mentioned in text before number 2 person, hence their numbers should be swapped in the image? Tyrenius (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. JNW (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will tweak.Tyrenius (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry I expect that's me!  Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Revision :Image:Velazquez-Meninas-key2.jpg. Tyrenius (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Renumbered. 10 & 11 could be swopped, but I don't think its vital. Or just switch it on the file & I'll update. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beat me to it, Johnbod. And thank you, Tyrenius. Good efforts to coordinate everyone's input. Now back to semi-retirement...for a few minutes. JNW (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 and 11 swapped. New image file: :Image:Velazquez-Meninas-key3.jpg. Tyrenius (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Updated, & previous versions cleared above. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Key by numbers revision 1

message: Is it more correct to reword the opening para as "The work's complex and enigmatic composition raises many questions about nature of reality and illusion", or, "the depction of reality and illusion", or is it ok as it stands. Ceoil (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it be, - the nature of  is too scientific, and depiction is redundant. Modernist (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I thought too; v diffuculy to sum this painting up in a few sentences; its easy to get lost in adjectives. Ceoil (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Added some to 'Provenance'. A dozen pardons if the format for my footnotes needs to be corrected. Article looks very good. Now back to semi-retirement. JNW (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Provenance

message: Re:
:A 1794 inventory reverted to the earlier description, that of The Family of Philip IV, and the title was repeated in the inventory records of 1814.
The passage states it was a title (albeit also a description, but not merely a description), so I think it would be better stated as:
:A 1794 inventory reverted to the earlier title of The Family of Philip IV, which was repeated in the inventory records of 1814.
Tyrenius (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the suggestion. JNW (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title or description