Foucault's reading of Las Meninas

To my own surprise, I really appreciated Foucault’s analysis of Las Meninas. I know little about art, about 17th century painting, or how to interpret it. Upon looking at this painting, I really only saw a room full of people, and had no idea how to see anything else or how there could be a possibility for me to confidently say what is really going on in the painting. Foucault’s reading of the painting definitely has me quite convinced, and much more comfortable and appreciative of the work.

A phrase used more than once by Foucault is ‘pure reciprocity’. I think that the discussion surrounding this phrase is intriguing. We contemplate the infinite relation of the painter and the spectator on page four. On page fourteen we consider the multi-functional mirror, which observes the scene that Diego is looking upon and is observed by us, the spectators, giving revelation to that which we would otherwise be left to speculate.

I enjoy how crucial ‘gaze’ is in Foucault’s reading of Las Meninas. His concept of gaze really aided my understanding and thought process. There are many characters with their own gaze. The first discussed is that of the represented Velazquez, which is described in deep detail. The visitor on the steps, Infanta Margarita, each of her entourage, even the mirror and its subjects all exude a gaze which can give the spectator direction and insight into that which first seemed invisible.

Foucault’s goes into great lengths discussing the surroundings of the painting, the front, back and sides of the room, and also that which is out of view. He spends much time on the large canvas, on the light that is flooding the room from the nearly invisible window, on the mirror on the back wall which so starkly shines out from the paintings that surround it, and on the open door and the figure and space which it reveals. I really found this focus interesting and useful. I would have never realized how useful paying such attention to the surrounding could be. Infanta Margarita is so bright and central to the painting; it was almost hard for me to see that anything else could compare to her figure in giving meaning to the painting.

One thing that did stir up some curiosity when I initially saw the painting was the dog. I found it peculiar and random, and was wondering about its purpose, although I felt unable and unequipped to begin speculation of what it might mean. Because of this curiosity, I was slightly disappointed at the only very brief mention of the animal on page fourteen. However, after dismissing my frustration at a lack of fuller discussion of the dog, I do find myself content and in agreement at Foucault’s brief explanation. It ties back into his important underlying notion of ‘gaze’. The dog does not offer us a gaze. The dog is not moving or looking at anything, so according to Foucault, it is only ‘an object to be seen’. I suppose one could argue against such a prominent and unique figure holding no real meaning in the painting, but I feel it fits well into Foucault’s very convincing reading of Las Meninas.