desperately seeking Velazquez

perspective and the annunciation

2005-05-07T21:36:00.000-07:00

Keith class: perspectives

Piero della Francesca ‘Ideal City’ – the vanishing point arrives at the handle of door – what is implied by this – dealing with infinity and a new concept of space (where is God) order, rationality and proportion – there is also an irrational aspect to perspective.

Francis Bacon ‘Triptych of Lucien Freud’ – three similar figures in a space – narrative undermined by imprisonment of figures – by cage and indefinable space (could be exterior or an interior – uncanny) the curved line also evokes the notion of a horizon – (curved globe0 as well as a wall.

Caged structures also confuse notion of inside-outside – also cage ‘splits’ head of viewer – the division of head has a complex function – also splits direction of eyes – split between seeing and being seen – gives interaction between 3 figures – different reading if you just look at bodies – it is then same figure giving 3 different looks – confuses viewer – the work destabilizes perspective – what is it concerned with – body outside perspective OR perspective is like a caged point of view – point of view invokes perspective [ref: to cinema] – OR is he capturing the split of perspective itself

Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446 ) – reminder of perspective in Renaissance diagrams of mirror-pointing experiment – joining the point of viewer and the painting - perspective is a western construct but it seems natural to us – perspective introduces a split to vision.

Bacon problematices perspective and light as well especially with ambiguity of shadows – shadow often takes on a substance like the body – confuses – the causal relation between body and shadow is broken – body not represented by shadow – also confuses layers of what is inside and outside

Piero della Francesca ‘Polyptych of St Anthony’ (1460-70) – the annunciation painting is first use of perspective – the mystery of the annunciation needed perspective – moment of divine revelation – between the angel and mary the perspectival corridor that reaches to infinity – beyond representation – [V. was trying to represent what was beyond representation in Las Meninas in the open door infinity point – a point of reflection on perspective and infinity - the incarnation of god and royalty death]

‘St Anthony’ tries to get the viewer to contemplate perspective – it produces the visibility of the space it opens up but is itself not visible – an invisible container – using it in a spiritual context – objects placed within it – just as the invisibility of god cannot be seen – but can see the space.

A modernist painting about painting – self-referential as is Las Meninas – wants you to look at the impossibility of perspective – this point of infinity can only be occupied by god – what is Las Meninas doing with this point – the corridor does not lead to a vanishing point but to an abstract image of marbled wall – figurative is taken to abstraction in 1470! – self-reflective of limits of representation – a history of abstract painting could include a blow-up of this corridor.

The angel can see mary through the obstructing column – as in Richter’s vision paintings (what both we see and what the angel sees) the painting is coming forward and going into at the same time – the paintings are presenting things to you – the vanishing point has replaced the presence of the alter

Gerhard Richter, "Annunciation after Titian" 1973 and others – Annunciation paintings beautiful especially the most abstract – the vanishing point could be a space where the artist loses control.

Ambrogio Lorenzetti. ‘Annunciation’ 1344 – Panofsky talks about this painting – first use of orthogonals in foreground tiles to establish vanishing point – introducing the mathematical concept of infinity – it also extends beyond frame with lines coming out – could reference in Las Meninas – this vision is restricted though with wall and column blocking visionary experience – [was the church not allowing this to be painted until now rather than a new revelation by artist]

[did modern art only happen because it was unstoppable whereas it did exist before but was not allowed to be made public – Turner cf cinema essay on introduction of camera – against Bazin concept of camera falling from heaven]

[is art not at all evolutionary but only a series of economic-social-political nodes ref: Foucault]

art has a certain function in society – a cult ritual value or an exhibition value.

molly and panofsky

2005-05-07T21:32:00.000-07:00

Article: Molly ‘Witnessing an Annunciation’

‘Las Meninas of course has served as the paradigmatic visual example of that process, [pictures reaching out to us] as the mirror in the back of the seventeenth-century paiting is – ritualistically, compulsively, playfully – burnished to reflect a narrative – about its own solicitation of the spectator’s gaze. This act of interpolation ……

[Las Meninas is self-referential]

‘Reversing the chronology, I want to use the picture to pose a reading of its subsequent historiographic reception’.

‘Yet the work can also effectively serve as a painted metaphor for the process of interpretation itself’

‘the pregnant moment’ of Annunciation [c.f. pregnant moment of Las Meninas]

some critics try to make the painting ‘confess’ [George Didi-Heiberman term] Panofsky is one of these ‘detective writers’.

Panofsky had three levels for reading a painting:
(1) pre-iconographic
(2) iconographic
(3) iconological

[The iconological is where you go ‘beyond the artist’ – an articulate edifice] this gives the ability of the writer to ‘see’ the painting in ways others can’t – ‘ambition’ to have present understanding encounter past cultural values – the empiricist mania for getting it right.

Manet

2005-05-07T18:44:00.000-07:00

Student (Sue ) tutorial notes:

Looking at Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe (1863) for Paris Salon – generally negative response – looking at Tucker book – attention from other artists e.g. Monet (very sweet) – industrial revolution – Paris also changing – social change – this was the year that the Salon refused half of the paintings – the Salon de Refuse was established. Dejeuner is large 208cm x 264 cm – not a standard sized canvas – taken from G’s pastoral painting which was same size canvas – some say that everything in the painting is out to shock the viewer.

Anne McCauly in ‘Sex and the Salon’ asks why was the nude a shock – a sign of social decadence – there was a moral change – fear of political anarchy triggered by this reality.

What is her gaze – is in a way a proto post-modern painting – a natural gaze.

Student (Nilata) tutorial notes:
Bar at the Folies-Bergere – ambiguity of the dialogue between illusion and reality – it is a mirror – and something is wrong – the position of the man – nothing matches in reflection – has to be place in cultural context – feminist approach – objectification of women – also different views of life – the mirror can be tilted to make sense of the picture – proto-cubist – agree that this is a painting of a new social world – that is a woman in the café is a different social class – Manet wanted two different ideologies of the girl – not directly looking at the customer cf. Dejeuner – so the front of the bar is a half transition between new and old – whereas the back could be the complete transition but cannot be shown – the prep sketch of Bar is more natural and radical – bottles are sign of mass consumption and roses nature. Passing of time – blurring of time – trapeze – death of painter – still life – moment of review – detached – stillness – lamenting – alienation of modern society. Edge of the canvas is the counter – actually quite photographic – an instant picture up close – photography was present at this time.

Keith talk on Goya’s Family of King Carlos IV (1800-1801)

Politically astute in getting around duty of paiting portrait – this is how you nare seen – through the mirror – takes on an artificiality – did not want to destabilize royalty – the family is all united and strong – son stepping forward – paints in mole/mark to ward off the evil eye – cf dwarfs in Las Meninas.

Eve Sussman: 89 Seconds at Alcazar

2005-04-23T00:20:00.000-07:00

sussman80frame
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

the mirror

2005-04-23T00:16:00.000-07:00

sussman89detail
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

sussman filming

2005-04-23T00:14:00.000-07:00

89secCrewWeb
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

a non-arguement with stoichita

2005-04-22T23:58:00.000-07:00

Victor J. Stocihata trans Anne-Marie Glasheen, ‘The self-aware image: an insight into early modern meta-painting’, Cambridge University Press, 1997, ‘Embrasures’, pp. 3-17.

An exercise in applying Stoichata’s interpretation (and words) of Pieter Aertson’s painting ‘Christ in the house of Mary and Martha’ to the painting of ‘Las meninas’ by Velazquez.

‘Las meninas’ can be seen as a theoretical object painting whose theme is painting therefore an in-depth analysis is imperative. ‘Las meninas’ is derived from the split-painting style of Pieter Aertson, which were considered so radical that some were destroyed by protestant iconoclasts.

Mirroring “Christ in the house’, ‘Las meninas’ also has two sources of light: from the side unseen windows and from the back doorway.

In “Christ in the house’ we can see inside the religious historical frame which forms a ‘living painting’. As we will explore later this ‘inside’ in ‘Las menias’ has been laid squarely in the middle-ground of the painting and is represented by the infanta and her attendants. The different styles (italianate for historical and Flemish for tromp l’oeil) have also become undifferentiated in ‘Las meninas’.

Acting as a tromp l’oeil the objects must be life size which is true of ‘Christ in the house’ and also in slightly magiyed form in ‘Las meninas’. A tromp l’oeil must also encroach into the spectator’s space as the table top does in ‘Christ’ and the empty floor space in ‘Las meninas’.. This reinforces the painting’s boundary and thus ‘presents’ to the viewer. Is ‘Las meninas’ also acting as a tromp l’oeil. In ‘Christ’ it is the right hand door piercing the surface of the painting whereas in “las meninas’ it could be said that the ‘startled’ gaze of the infanta and attendants is what pierces the surface in ‘Las meninas’.

The tromp l’oeil was usually hung in the kitchen to establish and strengthen the connection between the painting and its environment [one part of the three part conflict proposed by Stoichata]. This can be compared to the hanging of ‘Las meninas’ in the king’s private chamber to again connect the meaning and content of the paiting with the environment.

Aertson broke the rules of tromp l’oeil by not presenting the still-life objects in their entirety. Can this be transferred to ‘Las meninas’, maybe in the foggy representation of the king and queen, and to a lesser extent the unknown behind the opened back(front) doorway.

In ‘Christ’ the reading begins from the left of the painting. Can this be compared with ‘Las meninas’. Can the contentious skull at the back of the canvas in ‘Las meninas’ be compared with the inscription Luke X in ‘Christ’ and can the inscription above the fireplace be compared with the allegorical paintings hanging high in the walls of the artist’s studio, are they also an epigraph.

Is the language of gesture present in the conversation between Christ and Mary reflected in the gestures of either Velasquez and the doorman. Are they also acting as ‘commentators’ of the ‘historia’. The outside work; tromp l’oeil / Velasquez, mirror with king and queen and the doorman; can be regarded as ‘writing with objects’.

The outside profane elements of ‘Christ’ are the tromp l’oeil kitchen objects where in ‘Las meninas’ they have become the painter, the mirror with king and queen, and the doorman. The elements are anti-art or ‘other art’. Pieter (and Velasquez) have captured what was outside the frame, the profane, by using a ‘tracking’ shot with ‘camera’. The profane is the ‘fragment of spectator space’ that has been brought into the painting, this side (our side) of the painting. How does this compare with Foucault’s reading of the painting?

In ‘Christ’ the ‘outside art’ represents both itself and its ‘allegorization’. Is this also true in ‘Las meninas’?

Through a ‘three-part conflict’ the painting attempts to take the spectator through a ‘transsubstantiation’. This takes part in the ‘interworld’ space of the painting or the ‘intermediate’ space. This space has an unstable role as it provides the reality of the actual objects as well as the ‘reality’ of the painting. In ‘Christ’ this unstable intermediate space is the foreground (profane) still-life; the other parts of the three part conflict are the ‘space’ which is the kitchen where the food is the actual ‘reality’, and the ‘image’ in the background from the Gospel. It is in this space where the symbolism of the Eucharist is ‘disguised’.

In ‘Christ’ the symbolism is represented by the meat (flesh of Christ), the carnation (the re-incarnation of Christ), and the leaven (the transubstantiation). In ‘Las meninas’ this intermediate space could be represented by the outside profane elements of the painter, the mirror with king and queen, and the doorman. It is these elements that provide the unstable role that take the spectator through a ‘transsubstantiation’. In ‘Las meninas’ the disguised symbolism of the Eucharist is represented by the painter (the flesh of the Theology of Painting), image of the king and the queen (incarnation of royalty which will be ‘re-incarnated’ in the Infanta), the mirror (the transsubstantiation – always changing). The carnation in the leaven becomes the king & queen in the mirror.

Aertson had the realization of the role, power and language of the image and its impact. Velasquez has appropriated and further developed this for both his own power and the status of art.

Christ in the house of Martha and Mary - Pieter Aertsen

2005-04-14T21:31:00.000-07:00

aertsen mariaand martha
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

Supper at Emmaus

2005-04-14T21:20:00.000-07:00

velazquez_emmaus-1
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

Kitchen Scene with Christ in the House of Martha and Mary

2005-04-14T21:18:00.000-07:00

velazquez_martha-1
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

Christ in the house of Martha and Mary - Joachim Beuckelaer

2005-04-14T21:01:00.000-07:00

beuckelaerchristinthehouse
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

beyond the frame

2005-04-14T20:49:00.000-07:00

recent approaches to art and film arht6927 week 5, april 4, class notes.

las meninas – concept of the mirror – question of what is the image – is it just a mechanical copy reproduction or something more – the present – is it a reflection or something more – ‘painting is more than the copying’ – to reach the status of cult – a certain quality of ‘presence’ that is what distinguishes it – or ‘aura’ re: walter benjamen.

cezanne: peaches still life; means of representation to go beyond representation – distinction between ‘presentation’ and ‘representation’ – move out of the bounds of ‘representation’ to move towards a ‘presence’ – cezanne tilts picture plane and table so that it is ‘presented’ to you as a gift – as though you are seeing it for the first time – fresh – cezanne trying to break free of painting – to bring objects forward into the space of the spectator – paradoxical – the cloth overflowing off the table and the painting is offering – it is not a one to one transaction as the artist does not expect anything back – we are seeing something familiar with new eyes.

velazquez – waterseller of seville - he breaks out of the picture plane with jug in viewer’s space – water droplets are being offered to you – something in excess or something extra is being exchanged – the old man passing on the wisdom – [v passing on wisdom of painting in meninas] – beyond the limits of ‘representation’ to a form of ‘presentation’

also a religious dimension by v – christ on the cross – is the black a background – almost a luminous black that glows white – a disappearance of the ‘support’ (surface) of the painting a magical trompe l'oeil appears – becomes a apparition not a ‘representation’ [the man in the door?] – the cross supports christ and the painting itself – creating a flowing image breaking the bounds of painting

las meninas is like no other genre – not a standard portrait of the royal family – is different from his other paintings – conventions are not followed – king is forced to mirror in background – does not have the purpose of a portrait – so this painting has to show the ‘presence’ of the king – how? – what is a portrait? – raises the idea of the image having the power of ‘presence’ – going behind the scenes – is there something ‘behind’ the king – more than the king – the emperor without clothes

kitchen maid in ‘supper at emmaus’ – poses similar questions to meninas – you first think this painting is mistitled because of major event happening in background [could this be like meninas] cf royal couple in background in meninas – to understand this painting the spanish church regarded the supper like the an early version of the mass – the moment of the eucharist – the body of Christ – the bread is Christ – play between ‘representation’ and ‘presentation’ – the painter paints a moment of presence of ‘representation’ by magnifying the present girl – how to represent the revelation of the disciples eyes in a painting – the opening of their eyes – seeing something for the first time – the servant seems blind to the event and the bowls and the implements – everyday objects which have been given a heightened sense by the painter – the ordinary into the extraordinary – bringing in opposites – how do you bring this about – also with light as well as subject matter – taps into Hispanic smears towards black moors to heighten difference – ‘revelation of seeing these objects for the first time – ‘a miraculous presence’ - a transubstantiation – the body is the Christ – servant = disciple = spectator – blindness – or pausing at the recognition of the revelation [compare with meninas with the ‘startled’ look of the subject in the prescience of the king – is this a transubstantiation]

can trace this back to pieter aertsen in 1552 with ‘christ in the house of martha and mary’ [see meninas argument] – re; victor j stocihata in book ‘self-aware image’ – this is an invented still life – a split painting – a new way of painting an image – nearly completely taken up by still life – there are two openings which are not fully dominating – this is ‘framing’ which was very new and significant - also with v – before photography [cf eisenstein] [but in meninas we cannot se what is happening in the next room !!! only light] – a living painting has been inserted in the painting – confusing the boundary between fiction and non-fiction – an illusion of the door (on right) opening is rhyming with movement in left in background – tiles used to show perspective – we tend to move into this space and are drawn in as opposed to aggressive movement of right door forward - a framed reality of another painting – still life was not a genre at this time - a radical inclusion for this time – what is in the background is what a painting should be – what is in the foreground was not understood at that time to constitute a painting – [v wants these hierarchies of painting to come together in meninas] – still life paintings were usually done on the other side of a painting – making the invisible now visible – this carries a religious theme – the unseen becomes seen (revelations) {as in meninas] the two sides of the painting become one [the spectator, artist and king in meninas] [tao] as in meninas the two sides of the canvas as one

history painting is being displaced by still life painting [in meninas what is being displaced?] – the reverse not normally exposed to view there might be an underlying truth – still life is a reminder of death - the ephemeral nature of beauty [tao] – decaying buds [impermanence] ephemeral sometimes a skull – they are brining together extremes of life and death – split [can a critique be written from a buddhist/eastern perspective cf. ross gibson – v in meninas is a split painting trying to present the two sides of the canvas at once – what we see could be the painting – some people can see a skulls head on the back of the painting – a reminder of death – an ageing king about to die – with power of the infanta – passing from one generation to the next – what is it a portrait of – a portrait of immortality – a metaphysic portrait !!

the play between the visible and the invisible – the divine makes an instant appearance [in meninas the startled look] back to ‘house of mary’ foreground is what was not a painting but background is painting [also being played out is not representation and representation cf meninas] the trompe l'oeil is being ‘presented’ to you – if you were watching a film there has been a backtracking shot from ‘history’ into an out of the frame present – echoes of framing

in las meninas the outside of the painting is making up the frame – the painting references the frame – a modern work leading to mondrian – painting being about the frame of representation – how do you break free of this as an artist – no longer confined by the frame – in ‘christ in the house of martha and mary’ the carnation and the leg of lamb link foreground and background.

Las Meninas

2005-04-14T20:15:00.000-07:00

Velazquez.infanta.600pix
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

the metaphysic of tao

2005-04-14T18:04:00.000-07:00

Victor J. Stocihata and Anna Maria Coderich, Goya: The Last Carnival, Reaktion Books, 1999, ‘The King’s Family’, pp. 244-263.

Compared to other portraits goya had done of the family this portrait has been done with great forbearance – maximum intensity of light on the king – minimum on goya – hierarchical analysis shows that subtlety of the mise-en-scene ir remarkable – [it can be said that meninas is extremely ingenious but drawn from previous innovation – can add to other example the dwarf counter-figure established in 1632 with the painting ‘prince altazar carlos with a dwarf’]

(mise-en-scene) that ‘focused on the interaction of dualities’ (why not? it is all dual) ‘art history has failed to produce an answer – also theory of ‘truth’ played by dwarfs – also could as an ‘object of deflection’ where bad luck is transferred to the dwarf and good luck transferred to the other – protects the other from hostile eyes so that the other can enjoy his peace – ‘this metaphysic of transfers and reversals’ pp.252-255.

‘a motif that was fundamental to the history of the notion of kingship, that of the dual nature of the king’ pp. 259.

[in meninas the king is coming to the end of his life – trading cards or astral cards – to interpret the future]

‘goya’s clever game of transference and doubling was the only way he could unite the ideological realism of the enlightment with the expiatory function of the ancient figures of reversal’ – ‘a dynamic body that is declaring its regenerative ability, its vitality and its viability’.

[a painting that is declaring its transcendent ability, its metaphysics and its Tao]

bob's seminar

2005-03-23T07:18:00.000-08:00

Desperately seeking Velázquez

Luca Giordano, Italian painter (1632-1705)
When asked ‘What do you think of it [Las Meninas]?’ by Charles II in 1690s
Giordano replied: Theology of Painting’
(Brown 1986 pp. 260 citing Palomino 1724 in Harris 1982)

Antonio Palomino, Spanish painter and art historian (1653-1726)
In reference to the statement by Giordano , Palomino stated:

‘Just as theology is superior to all other branches of knowledge, so is this picture the greatest example of painting….There is no praise too high for the taste and skill of this work; for it is truth, not painting’
(Brown 1986 pp.260 citing Palomino 1724 in Harris 1982).

Karl Justi, German art historian (1832-1912)
Justi, according to Brown, gave an ‘Impressionistic’ reading of Las Meninas, believing that Las Meninas was ‘objective observation … without distortion’ and ‘devoid of transcendental meaning’, to Brown a ‘faithful counterfeit of reality’.
(Justi 1888 in Brown 1978 pp.88)

Charles de Tolnay, Hungarian art historian (1899-1958)
‘The painting is one of the earliest self-portraits of an artist where the subjective spiritual process of creation is emphasised rather than the objective execution which, however, is not hidden’.

Brown’s (1978) interprets de Tonay’s reading of Las Meninas as ‘an allegory of artistic creation’ where ‘he revealed the possibility of Las Meninas as an intellectual as well as a technical masterpiece’.
(de Tolnay 1949 in Brown 1978 pp.89)

Ramiro de Moya, Spanish architect (?-?)
de Moya believed that all meaning in the painting could be traced back to perspective, that the reflection of the king and queen is a reflection of the other side of the canvas seen in the painting and that in fact Velasquez must have had a dummy made up of himself so that he could realistically paint the scene.
(de Moya 1961 in Brown 1978 pp.89)

Kenneth Clark, British art historian (1903-1983)
Clark (1960) saw Las Meninas as a complex set of relationships and definitely not a painting to be taken literally:

‘Everything falls into place like a theorem in Euclid, and wherever we look the whole complex of relations is maintained … That he has chosen to present this selection as a normal optical impression may have misled his contemporaries, but should not mislead us’.

And disempowers Velazquez of knowingly being able to invent a new genre.

‘But must we suppose that Velasquez was unconscious of what he was doing when he so drastically reversed the accepted scale of values?’

Jonathan Brown, English art historian (1939- )
Brown (1978) takes the painting literally, where the infanta has come to see Velasquez painting and has asked for a drink of water. Just after this the king and queen arrive (reflected in the mirror) and all present are interrupted. For Brown it is this ‘presence of the monarch’ or the ‘royal epiphany’ as well as the presence of the artist that gives the basic meaning of the painting. He reject Kahr’s (1975) premise that it ‘was created from the artist’s imagination’. Later, Brown (1986) disputes Foucault’s reading of the importance of the spectator.

Michel Foucault, French philosopher (1926-1984)
For Foucault (1970, 1989) this is a painting about ‘the representation of representation’, a painting about painting.

‘A point to which, even though it is invisible, we, the spectators, can easily assign an object, since it is we, ourselves who are at the point … representation--whether in the service of pleasure or of knowledge--was posited as a form of repetition: the theatre of life or the mirror of nature’

Matthew Collings, British art historian and artist (? - ?)
Collings (2003) sees Velazquez as constructing himself as an artist breaking free of church rule who ‘stretched conventions not attacked them’ and an ‘expert in manipulating his environment in order to advance his power in it’ – and that ‘he only exists in connection to others – he is a cipher’. In relation to Las Meninas describes Velasquez as the figure ‘that invented it all’. (painted over 18 months) and that the perspective is ‘isn’t bound to any rules at all’.

Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt, art historian (? - ?)
In ‘An Interpretative Primer’ Stratton-Pruitt (2003) summarises:

‘Recent scholarship, however, generally accepts that the mirror reflects a double portrait of the king and queen on which Velazquez is at work…. Fictive mirror, fictive royal portrait – all far from the nineteenth-century reading of Las Meninas as a magnificent exemplar of realism’.

Her summary of contemporary thought leads us to a 21stC future of scholars searching, for ‘truth is found behind appearances’ somewhere in the darkness and illusion of 17thC Spanish painting and culture.

Constructions and Illusions – an argument for invention

Jan van Eyck's The Arnolfini Portrait (1434) and Las Meninas (1656) are linked through the use of mirrors, the positioning of the dog and the entry of light from the side window. (pp. 60, Vergara 2002) There was no mirror in the detailed inventory of the galleria (pp. 140 Stratton-Pruitt 2003)

Rubens was 'asked' to include his portrait in Adoration of the Magi (1609 & 1628-29) the only picture in the collection to do this, due to his status as a gentleman. (pp 66, Vergara 2002)

Critically influenced by Flemish artists such as Joachim whose genre bodegones paintings placed crucial scenes in the background which was ‘a movement from allegory to reality’. (pp 52, Vergara 2002)

Located outside the painting are three figures, three elements of the process of representation: 1) the object represented, the King and Queen; 2) the subject representing, the painter; 3) the subject viewing the representation, the spectator. These are all reflected in the painting: 1) the King and Queen in the mirror; 2) the painter in front of the canvas; 3) the man in the doorway. (Protevi, 2005)

Las Meninas is so convincing, the illusion so real that the viewer becomes the painter of a scene that never actually took place - in a way the mirror is central to this final deception (like the bell tower in Vertigo)

Selected Bibliography (with primary sources)

Brown, Jonathan. Images and Ideas in Seventeenth-Century Spanish Painting, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1978

Brown, Jonathan. Velázquez, painter and courtier, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986

Clark, Kenneth. Looking at Pictures, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
New York, 1960

Collings, Matthew. ‘Velázquez Self’, in Matt’s Old Masters, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003

Foucault, Michel. The order of things : an archaeology of the human sciences (translated from the French) Routledge, London, 1989.

Harris, Enriqueta. Velázquez, Oxford, 1982

Justi, Karl. Velázquez und sein Jahrhundert, Bonn, 1988

Khar, Madlyn. ‘Velázquez and Las Meninas’, in Art Bulletin 57, 1975

Moya, Ramiro de. ‘El trazado regulador y la perspectiva en Las Meninas’, in Arquitectura, 3, 1961

Protevi, John. Order of Things I, 2202 on http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/fai/Faculty/Professors/Protevi/Foucault/OT_I.html

Stratton-Pruitt, Suzanne L. ‘Velázquez’s Las Meninas An Interpretative Primer’, in Velazquez’s Las Meninas, ed., Suzann L. Stratton-Pruitt, Cambridge University Prss, 2003

Tolnay, Charles de. ‘Velázquez’ Las Hilanderas and Las Meninas (An Interpretation)’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 35, 1949

Vergara, Alexander. ‘Velázquez and the North’, in The Cambridge companion to Velázquez, Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt (ed) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge:New York, 2002

please show us to the door

2005-03-23T05:06:00.000-08:00

recent approaches to art and film arht 6927 week 3, march 23, class notes.

las meninas – figured prominently in1970s film theory in regard to one aspect of the paiting being about the future for the king and the queen (being replaced by the infanta) – the king could not look too old as he is the king – the image is very fragile in the mirror and could suddenly go (replaced by mirror) – v’s claim for the nobility of painting and claim for a ‘liberal’ art and not a craft – the cross may have been painted by the later on as a mark of success as paiting being a liberal art.

the painting was not hanging in a museum – it was painted for the private space of the king – the king is the one who is included – argument that is only for the king but could also be the elite as well.

talk by anthony on las meninas – the instability of representation – drawn into picture – comparison with stella and bridgette riley – the door well lit at the background gives you a way out – this is the door to immortality and eternity – we are looking at the final death fading mirror – state of the Hapsburgs – are they coming to an end – the infanta is lit like an angel from the window on the right – depends on whose eyes you are looking through what story will be told – [inclusiveness] to raise the status of art and himself – other paitings in background represent victory of art – rubens and titian were both knighted by spanish kings – [the mirror is a pure construction – how is the king going to face the fact of being painted – as he is old – the conflict between real and representation subtly introduces him] – whose eyes – all eyes – it’s what you can’t see that keeps you engaged – profoundly prophetic – remnants of past glory – comes down to how the viewer sees it – v is like a feminist who has to work doubly hard for recognition as an artist in spain.

ok - you can all be in the painting with me

2005-03-17T05:08:00.000-08:00

Collins, Matthew Velazquez Self pp. 127-174 in Matt’s Old Masters, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2003.

no-one really knows what this painting is about as nothing was ever written by vv – the painting is a ‘high example of the baroque naturalistic’ – baroque painting has lots of movement – the painting is so real the viewer feels they can step into it – into the empty space at the foreground. spanish painter luca giordano calls las meninas ‘the theology of painting’ – foucault wants you to look at it’s ‘self-connectedness’ – it’s ‘perpetual question’! Is v’s self-portrait ironic, vain or ‘intense self-redgarding’ – the painting’s ‘relaxed atmosphere makes it more believable – l.m. was painted in stages over an 18 month period – what is he painting – he also gives presence to the king and queen not only by their mirror reflection bout also through the people l.m. acknowledging their presence with a ‘rustle’ of mevement [this solves the problem for v of the reluctance of the king to be painted ageing] – is v constructing himself as an artist breaking free of church rule unlike artists today re: saatchi and the turner prize - v’s master pachecho was a leading figure of the ‘academy’ and was an advocate of art as a noble cause – this would have influenced v – pachecho was an art theorist who eventually wrote on v – v was so good that he even gave bodegones a higher status – he stretched conventions not attacked them e.g. painting key scenes and people in background – v won competition amongst other court painters and rose rapidly to top – v was ‘expert in manipulating his environment in order to advance his power in it’ – in this regards he is not interested in exploring himself in his self-portraits as was rembrandt – v ‘shows himself in relation to everything else, as if he only exists in connection to others – he is a cipher’ – he treats his other characters in the same way – is v acting in the dwarf’s role – v had obsession with being knighted as can be seen in pope innocent x (1650) although he does perfectly capture the malevolence [did he know would appreciate this] [in l.m. you are not sure what is happening or where everyone everything ids happening because l.m. is ia complete construction in v’s mind for v’s purpose (like the bell tower in vertigo) it is as real as it is not real – it is about the power of the painter to manipulate painting for his own purpose – it is said that this is a painting about the art of painting – if it also contains the purpose of the artist it truly is – v even had to manipulate the king’s own fear of being painted (old) by constructing a device to accommodate this (the mirror ref: van eyck) thus again showing his power i.e. the only artist powerful enough to paint the king – this is a painting of power and inclusion and connectedness].

who let focault in!

2005-03-17T04:27:00.000-08:00

Sturken, Marita. Spectator, power, and knowledge pp. 72-108 in Sturken, Marita & Cartwright, lisa. Practises of looking: an introduction to visual culture, oxford university press, 2001.

‘the world of images that we interact with on a daily basis is caught up in the power relations of the societies in which we live’.

looking turns to gaze when us a spectator shift from reception to address - where it is the image that ‘constructs certain responses from an idealized viewer – whereas reception is about the ways in which actual viewers respond’.
psychoanalytic theory is good for examining these desires and pleasures - since 1970s there has been spectatorship theory. here the ideal viewer is offered the ideal subject position by the film. uses concepts of interpellation, semiotics and codes ref: christian metz (french 70s) & jean-louis baudry.
the concept of unconsciousness is crucial to these theories i.e. getting in touch with hidden desires, fears etc. ref: freud & lucan. people/viewers become ‘subjects’ with idealized constructions of who they are.
‘the roles of desire in creating subjects’ (lacan) examines lacan’s ‘mirror stage’ and ‘alienation’ – these concepts help us realise the power of images and the power we give images – the viewer is identifying with the ‘cinematic apparatus’.
these ‘interventions in questions of desire and image’ introduced by feminist theory ‘led to a focus on the gaze’ – when you gaze you look with ‘desire’ and eagerness’ ref: laura mulvey’s essay on ‘visual pleasure and narrative cinema’ – introduced the male gaze, scopophilia, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism (psychoanalytic paradigms) for ‘male viewing pleasure ref: hitchcock’s rear window – jeff is both empowered and emasculated by his predicament – also ref: ‘peeping tom’ (1960) that deals with sadism.
this idea of gaze relates to the historical tradition of most pictures of women being painted by men for men – i.e. it is the man’s desires that are being acted out, not women’s. john berger stated that ‘men act, women appear’ – the woman’s body is turned towards the male viewer and the woman’s head and ‘gaze’ is turned towards a mirror (ref: vel) ‘there is a split in seeing the image as oneself and also as an ideal’.
mulvey revised her theories to accommodate for modern trends (1981). now have to take into account gender, sexuality, race, cultural theory – can even change original films to make new film where gaze has shifted ref: video artist cecilia barriga ‘meeting of the two queens (1991) and etang inyang badass supermama (1996). a new ground breaking work to examine feminist theory especially in regards to pornography was linda williams ‘hard core’ (1989).
‘contemporary visual culture involves not only a highly complex array of images and spectators but also gazes’.
michel focault also highlighted the role of the ‘institutional gaze’ – a discourse of power – ‘discourse is a body of knowledge that both defines and limits what can be said about something’ –
[what is the discourse in las meninas – is it dominance and subordination – is v challenging the discourse of the church state – is the king supporting this]
‘systems are in place that encourage us to self-regulate without any active threat of punishment’ – ref: the panopticon with the unseen gaze.
[relate this v and the inquisition at the time – is there a deterioration of the church’s self-regulation – down to the ‘seen’ inquistion and then on to the behaviour of people like v who are ignoring and challenging this power – again supported by the king – what coding is happening in v’s painting in regards to race, gender, dwarfs or anything]

‘throughout the history of representation and language binary oppositions, such as man/woman, masculine/feminine, culture/nature, white/black have been used to organise meaning’ – this representation is very reductive and as derrida argues ‘all binary oppositions are encoded with values and concepts of power, superiority and worth’ – i.e. unmarked and marked – the norm and the other.

wake up jeff

2005-03-16T22:43:00.000-08:00

recent approaches to art and film arht 6927 week 2, march 16, class notes.

michael chion’s ‘the fourth side’ is referenced for impossibility of foreclosure (psychoanalytic). the exclusion is the fourth side – jeff’s side of the apartment and courtyard. Also used in theatre as the fourth wall [what is the fourth wall in las meninas?]

those people on the fourth side can also see what jeff is seeing – can other people se lisa being attacked. this invisibility of the fourth side relates to jeff’s immobility – we do not follow lisa in her freedom outside the room. hitchcock is interested in this immobility – the frozen moment of fear. viewing also grips you in a tactile way ref: walter benjamin article – cinematic image is holistic – hitting you in a physical way – the ‘shock effect’ ref: blockbuster movies. also the movements that occur across the divide e.g. lisa crosses to thornhill and thornhill crossing to jeff’s apartment. is there substitution taking place? what happens when cross this divide. is lisa moving into a space of desire – a transformation takes place – she is walking from the audience up into the film – into danger and into another lisa from what jeff knows – relationship changes – he see her anew – he desires her – the masquerade, the show. are they willing – lisa is the only one who takes notice of the music. lisa shines in the light and higher – the soundness of the woman – high heels of freedom and glamour – the tools of each others trade – jeff (the lens) can’t see that the tools are not totally necessary but lisa can. lisa is still fulfilling his gaze – she chooses to be part of his gaze.

the whole set is framed – is she looking at the audience first when she first kisses jeff – is the magazine photo part of the masquerade – first image is negative photo – maybe balanced with the ‘weight of beauty’ of the magazine covers. lisa put on the ring as though becoming the dead wife – also an affirmation of woman’s intuition and maybe a in joke as a future wife.

point of view – broken at least four times – when jeff is asleep – is the film like a dream [does jeff ‘wake up’ at the eand of the movie - second time when thornhill goes out with woman – plus with death of dog – camera moves out of the window into the courtyard – becomes totally objective (crucial scene different from the subjectiveness of the rest of the film) – why? – is he making a comment on society. one you see the whole courtyard (except the fourth side) – is this to confront the audience with this message – this exclusion of the fourth side is fundamental to theatre. the last one is when jeff falls outside the window and you do finally see the fourth side and the falling of jeff.[hitch built vertigo around the tower shot – zooms in and up at the same time thus creating a moment of stillness.

with sounds – hear sound of street behind for first time - plus sound of thornhill approaching – flash bulbs – tools of trade – the bulbs are being used to …desires. the falling is into another psychological space which is public and exposed and he become into the picture. he realizes his own desires – thornhill has no idea of what jeff wants – jeff is trying to delay and blind. jeff is in the picture finally – the controlling man stops being controlled.

vertigo – extension of feminist debate – jeff suffers as does man in vertigo – lisa doesn’t play into voyeurism. lacan – where the object looks back at you as in the hoeltzer painting of skull.

lacan is so scary!

2005-03-16T02:47:00.000-08:00

Miran Bozovic, ‘The Man Behind His Own Retina’, in Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Lacan (But Were Afraid To Ask Hitchcock), ed., Slavoj Zizek, Verso, 1992.

transformation of self from spectator (chrysalis) to mature imago (butterfly). this transformation can only take place by throwing yourself into the picture i.e. becoming part of the scene. jeff has had to be shocked out of his passivity into activity.

lacanian critique of voyeurism: ‘you want to see? well, take a look at your own gaze’. this must be true for the theatre audience as well – [who do we identify with and is the experience different if you are watching it with your partner] – whose gaze are you aware of. is it a gaze of desire i.e. something that is unattainable. what does the cigarette butt designate in rear window? ss any of this transferable to velazquez?

falling into the artwork

2005-03-15T17:46:00.000-08:00

rearwindowposter
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

Bozovic, Miran. The man behind his own retina, in Everything you always wanted to know about Lacan (but were afraid to as Hitchcock), ed. Slavo Zizeck, Verso, 1992

transformation of self from spectator (chrysalis) to mature imago (butterfly). this transformation can only take place by throwing yourself into the picture i.e. becoming part of the scene [this is what the mirror does in las meninas]. jeff has to be shocked out his passivity into activity.
lacanian critique of voyeurism; ‘you want to see? well, take a look – take a look at your own gaze’. [point of view shots & mirror]
this must be true for the theatre audience as well – [who do we identify with and is the experience different if you are watching it with your own partner – yes]. whose gaze are you aware of? is it a gaze of desire i.e. something that is unattainable [what is it in las meninas that makes you aware of a gaze – the mirror- c.f. with cigarette butt?]
[but what happens when you fall into the artwork – a unity of touch or sight – a satori – or a permanent change of no longer just looking]

point of view

2005-03-15T16:50:00.000-08:00

rearwindowsmallstill
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

recent approaches to art and film arht 6927 week 1, march 9, class notes.

alfred hitchcock – rear window.
spectatorship – opening sequence three blinds open up – greenwich villiage courtyard – ends with same effect. beyond windows lies space that is both stage and screen – who operates blinds (putting hitchcock in charge).
lisa will also raise and lower curtains (a show – a revelation) by hand (not like mechanical opening sequence. jeff does not lift them – it has to be the camera announcing its autonomy and importance in the film. how is the camera being used and positioned? in particular whose view are we seeing and relationship between camera and viewer.
film is acknowledged – its condition as construction and as a fiction – a film about itself – it is self-reflecting and acknowledging its own artifice. a classic modernist artwork – also a film about framing – multiple frames.
entering the fictional world. what happens at the moment when the cinema wll dissolves and you pass into it. the canvas is a window to see through – a perspective.
the joining of theatre and cinema – in opening as in curtain at the theatre and cinema – a curtain within a curtain. this self-reflect aspect continues – multi windows are a series of movie screens – jeff looks at each of these.
the set had 7 apartment buildings and built with forcing of perspective for depth – each apartment was individually wired [and set only had four time zones] to be controlled from central location (behind jeff by hitchcock) actors directed by h from jeff’s apartment.
this film is about the nature of acting – actors seem to enter into films in the film – asking about acting. jeff occupies a space which identifies the viewer (a stand in for or a spectator in general). you are in cinema chair and jeff in wheelchair.
there is a moment where jeff wants to act and can’t (just like us) – poses an ethical question.
a film about spectatorship. jeff looking at a large screen and mini screens (a peep show with miss lonely hearts, struggling composer, fire escape comedy and mysterious film noir murder which is the one that he ultimately is interested in).
relationship between two spaces – inside and outside the window. how do they relate? how does hitchcock make them relate Is the outside a mirror of the inside? (that is jeff’s desire). what does jeff want and desire? what characterizes this special kind of looking?
the interior acts as a space for the playing out of the drama between jeff and lisa and is compared with the murder being played out (look at the camera techniques). theatre and cinema act as metaphors for reading the film – examine this. lisa refers to herself as a spectacle or a coming attraction – a façade and a masquerade.
issues of femininity – lisa says ‘show is over for tonight’ and closes blind – what is being played out – she is the spectacle [in a way I think this is competitive, with lisa having to overcome, or join, the other spectacle that jeff is psychologically displacing himself in]. lisa call to attention the relationship between the murder and the interior drama. lisa is a construction as a spectacle [i think her own construction thus making it a truly feminist character even though hitchcock might not personally feel comfortable with this new phenomenon of ‘park avenue women that are more like men’.] this directs attention back to the interior. has been feminist theory around lisa (laura mulvey) which states that hitchcock negates the woman’s view as a spectator – a passive image of voyeurism and puts jeff in fantasy voyeur of audience – that she has no control over scene. this has been argued against – jeff is also passive. tanya moletski argues that rear window has something to say about the female spectator – lisa and jeff are both staring out the window.
point of view shots very important – look that way then camera reverses [like mirror] to look at spectators looking – we are taken up by the camera [caught looking and now been a gaze?]
what issues do these point of view shots raise?
could use these in your essay.

it's all in the mirror

2005-03-15T15:45:00.000-08:00

janvaneyckthearnolfiniportrait
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

Vergara, Alexander. Velazquez and the North pp. 48-67 in The Cambridge companion to Velazquez Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt (ed) Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2002.

the north was netherlands, flanders and germany. spanish and european art in general from the 15th c had been influenced by italian renaissance which had 'found its model in ancient greece and rome and aimed at creating an idealized vision of .. beauty and proportion defined by the ancients'.
the other major artistic influence was from the north which had 'created a more intimate and less monumental art' which recognized feelings and reality of vision. This flemish style was seen by michelangelo as a bit effeminate and sloppy. new techniques in oil painting and the use of 3/4 views in portraiture were adopted by the south however.
the 'intense immediacy and uncompromising realism' of v's portraits were critically influenced by flemish artists such as pieter kemperer as were the genre bodegones paintings, especially in the placement of crucial scenes in the background. a movement from allegory to reality. v was also very interested in other artists for their connections as much as their technique, as with mor's closeness to the spanish monarchy and van dyke's portrayals of the habsburg monarchy.
v's style is much more natural and 'we are convinced not through rhetoric but by the natural ease of the sitter', though he is inspired by van dyke's 'meticulous exactiveness and vivid portrayal'. jan van eyck's the arnolfini portrait (1434) and v's las meninas (1656) are linked through the use of mirrors, the positioning of the dog and the entry of light from the side window. the mirror 'serves to bring into the experience of viewing the picture an awareness of the area that lies between the canvas and the onlooker'.
[re: inclusiveness - the picture allows everybody to participate in an equal capacity, even the 'shy' king and queen, as well as v himself, thus allowing both a self-portrait of v - a portrait of the infanta - a sensitive inclusion of the patrons who commissioned the painting - and in the most brilliant manner the viewer him/her self! - the painting is so convincing, the illusion so real that the viewer becomes the painter of a scene that never actually took place - in a way the mirror is central to this final deception : see fernando marias argument in suzanne stratton-pruitt essay velazquez las meninas: an interpretive primer.]
another significant influence is rubens' nine month visit, especially in regards to technique, in particular 'the direction of light grounds, a freer technique and more transparent paint layers' 'reality is a shimmering effect that adds vibrancy to the final picture'.
rubens was also a large inspiration for v in realizing that a painter could attain the status of aristocracy. rubens was 'asked' to include his portrait in adoration of the magi (1609 & 1628-29) the only picture in the collection to do this, due to his status as a gentleman. as opposed to v who was allowed to include his portrait, with v aspiring to the same status for himself. V was placing himself alongside royalty [and at the same time acknowledging royalty].

Velazquez and Italy

2005-02-27T02:17:00.000-08:00

the forge of vulcan
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

Brown, Jonathan. Velazquez and Italy pp.-47 in The Cambridge companion to VelÃ¡zquez Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt (ed) Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2002.

v goes to italy on a number of short trips around 1630. v is already an established painter with his own agenda in theory and practise and is not duly influenced by the italianate style due to his age, experience and short stays. v has been exposed to a considerable amount of Italian art already and had already moved past Italianate formalism and dramatic composition to the more dynamic style of Spanish naturalism. It is obvious in 'forge of vulcan', on of the four artworks accomplished while in italy, that his 'intensely observed reality' still dominates. the other Italian works include the other historical work 'tunic of joseph' as well as the two plein-air 'gardens of villa medici' landscape paintings, an oeuvre that was first being experimented on, at the same time, by claude lorrain and joachim sandrart. v's trip to to italy was 'a revelation that did not lead to conversion'. to v the classicism of roman art was too restrictive and for him 'painting was an art of inferfence based on an understanding of the captivity of light and colour to stimulate the eye and mind and to exploit their potential for changing the changing aspects of appearance 'just as he was determined to deconconstruct the classicists, so he deconstructed the colourists'.

Becoming an Artist in Seventeenth-Century Spain

2005-02-26T04:10:00.000-08:00

the waterseller of seville
Originally uploaded by bobpercival.

Veliz, Zahira. Becoming an Artist in Seventeenth-Century Spain pp. 11-29 in The Cambridge companion to VelÃ¡zquez Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt (ed) Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Examines the historical and philosophical context of the artist's world as well as the materials and techniques the artist was expected to master. At this point in time the 'purpose of visual art was to instruct the mind and elevate the spirit'.
V was brought up in a time of technical and philosophical instruction dominated by guilds and master/apprenticeship relationship as well as the morals and restrictions of the Spanish inquisition. He was apprenticed with his father-in-law master painter and art theorist Francisco Pacheco. The everyday practise of drawing on a 'ground' from collections of drawings and etchings was subverted or circumpassed by V with practise of drawing from nature and real life models and painting straight onto the canvas without complex cartoons. V used a restricted palette which relied more on the mastery of light and dark rather than the brilliance and lustre of a vast colour palette. V subverted the hierarchy of painting by placing still-life above historical content as is most obvious in The Waterseller where the pot threatening to upstage any human action or form where 'intensely observed reality' is the major concern.
This shift in seeing and inspired artistic brushstrokes can be compared with the literary shift from highly formulated language to a 'taste for wit and agility of mind'.

Start of Blog

2005-02-26T03:52:00.000-08:00

start