Mattias Furland
Las Meninas by Diego Velazquez. A painting was created in 1656. But a painting with an
objective that seems to be less obvious than expected. A bright light shines into the scene
giving us focal points. Yet, in the background, other light sources, such as an open doorway and
a mirror, give us a sense that there is more than meets the eye. The gazes of some of the
figures lead towards us, the viewer. Are we a part of the painting? Are we in the room with the
subjects or are we the subjects? Where would the subjects in the ‘mirror’ be situated if it is a
mirror? To what extent are we viewing this art piece through the perspective of the figures in the
mirror? With all sorts of discussion, this painting was chosen to be discussed by Michel Foucault
in the first chapter of his book, The Order of Things1.
Foucault focuses on the idea of the present and the absent. In the Book, The Order of
Things there is a strong focus on separating what we can see, what we can not see, what the
figures can see, and what the figures can not see. For example, the painter within the painting is
working on a painting. This painting is unknown to us and we can only assume what is being
painted as we cannot see the subject or the painting. However, looking at the back of the room,
The mirror may be showing us the unknown subject of the painting while also adding a layer of
complexity to the piece. With the interplay of the importance of focus and the views of the
subjects in the painting, we are guided towards answers that use these ideas in understanding
the painting.
Foucault talks about the focus on the subjects and their importance. A focus on ideas of
what makes up a painting of royalty, and the idea that this painting rejects such notions. The use
of the mirror to point out the “main subjects” being King Philip IV and Queen Mariana being only
visible from the mirror. In addition to the location seemingly being a chamber of sorts rather than
a room of royalty. Painting of royalty would typically emphasize the ideas of royalty such as
wealth and the importance of a monarch. Yet in this painting, the monarch is not the main focus,
but only visible through a mirror rather than alongside the other subjects in the room. The
subjects in focus are those who support the monarch, such as the painter and the attendants of
the infanta. The Infanta is positioned in the centre of the painting. With the attendants helping
the infanta, the importance is then shifted to the idea of hierarchy persisting. With the king and
queen not being the main focus, the next potential candidate becomes the main focus. This
1
Foucault, Michel. “Las Meninas.” Essay. In The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human
Sciences, 2nd; revised ed., 3–18. New York: Routledge, 2018.
Mattias Furland
could indicate shifting ideas regarding political views, as the intervention of new perspectives
arrives.
When we look at the eyes of the subjects, we notice that many eyes seem to be focused
on us, the viewer. Some are focused on the infanta, others looking off to the side. However the
painter isn’t looking directly at us, but at his subject. Could his subject be us? Are we a part of
the painting or are we just viewing it through the eyes of the subject of the painting? With the
mirror in the back positioned seemingly in the middle of the room, the reflection could be us as
well as the monarchs. If we were viewing this scene through the eyes of the king or queen, it
would be understandable for the infanta’s gaze to be directed at us. As we gaze back at the
infanta it would be as if we are looking at the “future.” The Painter may look at the other person
or the surrounding subject matter as he decides his composition. Such decisions could indicate
the concept of our future as the Infanta would be a prominent figure as time continues, directing
us into this focus from old to new. As the mirror is but a reflection of reality, we only see the
reflection of the current monarchs, while the Infanta is visible as a living subject.
Foucault’s analysis of the painting gives us perspective on his views, the importance of
what is visible, and how to think with the creator’s intent in mind. Instead of creating an
understanding contextually given the historical context of this time, he focuses on the
information present within the painting and how the artist may want us to view the painting.
Challenging traditional ideas and providing commentary on the ideas of perception and the role
of the spectator in the painting.
