The painting at
first glance seems to be a simple scene of a day in the life at the 17th
Century court of Philip IV of Spain, however, the longer you look at it, the
more questions arise.
The painting is
a deliberate puzzle and one that cannot be solved as in The Da Vinci Code. There are no hidden clues, no information
hidden in history, and no right answers.
The painter, Diego Velazquez, knew exactly what he was doing: he wanted to confuse the viewer, and he has succeeded in doing so for over three
centuries.
At the center of
the scene is the five year-old Infanta Margarita, the eldest daughter of King
Philip IV of Spain. On each side of her
are her Maids of Honor, of whom one is kneeling and offering her a jug of water
while the other curtseys. The
masterpiece is named Las Meninas, (The Maids of Honor), and it is the most
famous of all Spanish paintings. A later
artist, Luca Giordano, famously said the painting shows the “theology of
painting”.
The longer you
looks at the painting, the more you notice incongruities: To the Infanta’s right, is the artist
himself, shown painting on a very large canvas.
But, what is he painting?
The artist—like almost everyone else in the painting—is looking directly
at you. Has he been interrupted while
painting a portrait of the Infanta? Or
is he painting a portrait of the King and Queen, and we are seeing him from the
King's point of view?
Is that a large
mirror at the back of the room and has Velazquez depicted himself in the act of
creating this painting? He is
working on an enormous canvas, and Las Meninas is the only painting of that
size he ever created, but is the subject matter the Infanta, or the artist, or
the royal parents?
Artists did not
normally include themselves in royal portraits, and as the court-appointed
portraitist, it would have been inconceivable for Velazquez to have done so
without the prior consent of the king. A
few years ago, the BBC referred to the artist's appearing in this painting as
"the first photobombing"—some 175 years before the invention of
photography!
The artist is
holding a palette of the raw paint that he uses to create the image of the
palette and the paint itself. This is
the kind of anachronism we would expect in the surrealism of Magritte, but it
is astounding in a 17th century royal portrait—or does this truly qualify as a
portrait?
On the far wall
is a ghostly image of the king and queen together. Is this a mirror showing the reflection of
the monarchs as they sit for their portrait?
At this point in history, monarchs were rarely depicted together in
portraits. Velazquez was the royal
portrait artist, yet this small ghostly image is the only painting he ever did
of the royal couple together. Or is the
slightly obscured image a window through which the monarchs are looking into
the room where the portrait is being done?
One possible
explanation is that the painting shows the world through the king’s eyes—what
he sees as he sits for his portrait.
Could it be that this is what the painting meant to Philip, since he
hung the painting in his private study for the rest of his life?
Without a doubt,
the painting does give us a glimpse of a dying empire. The Habsburg rule of Spain was quickly coming
to an end that was a mostly self-inflicted death. Fearful of dividing the family wealth, the
Habsburgs had been inbreeding for centuries.
Whereas today, marriage between cousins is frowned upon, within the
royal family of Spain, it would have been an improvement. Philip IV married his niece, effectively
making the Infanta Margarita her own cousin.
(And her father was her great uncle, her grandfather was her
great-grandfather, her grandmother was her aunt, and so forth.)
If you engage in
this kind of inbreeding, it is not very long before you produce offspring who
sit quietly in the corner all day and lick their own eyebrows—which is exactly
what happened in this case. The
Infanta’s brother/cousin, Charles II (after only sixteen generations of
inbreeding) was a complete physical and mental wreck who would accomplish
nothing more than preside over the funeral of an empire murdered by his
father/uncle. The family tree of Charles
II shows one ancestor, Joanna the Mad, fourteen times.
Philip IV was a
walking monument to superstition and indecision. Though he had inherited a vast empire upon
which the sun never set, he had also inherited a religious war against an
increasingly Protestant Europe—a war that was impossible to win even as it
consumed the empire’s remaining resources.
While a strong monarch might have salvaged the situation and saved at
least part of the empire, Philip spent long periods in the family mausoleum,
wracked in religious guilt for his 32 illegitimate children, his
military defeats, and his failure to change the downward spiral of his empire.
Spain lost
territories one by one, even while the increasingly strong British Navy robbed
the treasure ships coming from the New World.
Portugal and Holland split off, Caribbean islands were lost, and Spain
was too exhausted militarily to recover her lost possessions. Perennially bankrupt, Spain kept raising
taxes to fund a lost war to the point of economic collapse.
If you look
carefully at the artist, you will note he wears the Cross of the Order of
Santiago on his left breast. This was an
honor added to the painting after Velazquez died (according to legend by
the hand of the king, himself). While
Velazquez had applied for the honor before he died, the background
investigation had not yet concluded.
Testimony was taken from 148 witnesses who testified that the artist was
qualified to be a hidalgo, since he had never worked a day in his life for
pay. It is not hard to imagine the
fall of a country that honors the idle over the industrious.
By the time this
painting was done, the royal residence could no longer come up with the cash to
purchase enough firewood to last the winter.
Even Velazquez was forced to withhold part of the pay of his staff to
cover his bills.
And as Habsburg
Spain slowly collapsed, protocol and ceremony at court actually increased. When all else is lost, there is always
comfort in pointless ritual. Look back
at that painting and notice how the two maids are kneeling and bowing—a
necessity when anything was presented to a member of the royal family. The infanta is standing proudly, displaying
no emotion. Her father was known to
smile only twice at court in his entire lifetime.
The two dwarves
to the Infanta’s left were part of a large contingent of court “monsters”, who
were more numerous at the Spanish court than at other European Royal
courts. While exempt from the rules of
court protocol, their presence at court was both to amuse and to give everyone
who saw them a feeling of superiority.
It is not by accident that they are included with the mastiff.
The painting has
fascinated generations of artists, each of whom created his own version of the
masterpiece. Goya, Degas, Manet, Max
Lieberman, Franz von Stuck, and Salvador Dali recreated the painting in their
own styles. There is even a recreation
of the painting in a sculpture garden that will allow you to "walk through
the painting". In 1957, Pablo Picasso
became so obsessed with the painting that he recreated it fifty-eight
times in less than five months!
There is even a
second version of this painting in England, on display at the Kingston Lacy
Estate. This smaller version was done by
either Velasquez himself, or by his son-in-law and successor, Juan Bautista
Martinez del Mazo. Some historians
believe that this painting is the original, a model (technically a modelleto) to be used for the
finished piece, and that the larger version (10.5 feet by 9 feet), on display
today at the Prado in Madrid, is the copy.
In the rear of
the painting, above the door and the images of the kIng and queen, are two
paintings, done by del Mazo. If the
Dorset copy of the painting was done by the son-in-law, then Mazo copied
Velazquez’s copy of Mazo’s paintings.
(And this is beginning to sound like something by Dr. Seuss.)
After centuries
of careful research and study, today we believe we know the name of everyone in
the picture. The guard, the
Lady-in-Waiting, the Maids-of-Honor, even the two dwarves. We know the name and rank of everyone in the
painting, except the dog. It is amazing
that we know so much about a painting where the artist was deliberately
enigmatic.
I confess to
being fascinated by this painting, but I’m not exactly sure why. It is either what the painting tells me, or
what the mysteries buried within it do not tell me.
Painters are a little weird. I think it's the paint fumes.
ReplyDelete