Talk:Las Meninas/Archive 1

Perspectives
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)

Does 'The Velazquez Code' merit mention in both 'see also' and 'external links'?

JNW 11:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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


 * True - most of it is even worse Johnbod 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, not sure how to fix
"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)

Courtier
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)

Jose Nieto
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)

Interpretation
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)

"Perhaps the most destabilizing fact about Las Meninas is the presence of the artist as an object of the painting, rather than the non-present creator behind the canvas. We have moved from an inside-out perspective to an outside-in perspective.  The roles have been reversed.  The object is the subject and the subject is the object, and the viewer is both.  The viewer now looks back at the artist, not as a traditional self portrait, but as a member of a community of other viewers.  The artist has suddenly presented himself in both the eyes of his subject and his viewer.  The world has become fluid."


 * As may be seen, the fame and beauty of the painting provoke periodic flights of fancy, contributions of original research, which I have attempted to balance with a section drawing from a solid source, the catalogue raisonne of Lopez-Rey. JNW 05:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Podeis poner mas cuadros de Velazquez,por favor. [[Media:Example.ogg Ins Block quote Block quote ert non-formatted text here ]]

Frankly I'd leave it out on those grounds, even if is refed to Foucault etc. As JNW says, this is hardly original. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Prado
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)
 * It does come from the 1969 source. Shame, I liked the idea. Ceoil (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

King and Queen
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)
 * Agree. Ceoil (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don Jose Nieto
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)

"possibly a relation" says this JSTOR I'm having trouble connecting to. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sections
I think it might be better removing the 2= Painting, moving the 3=s up to 2=, and (either way) breaking up the very long description section into two or more 3= bits - figures, space, history & condition. Any thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree that a reorganisation is needed. Need to read it again before I comment on a proposed new structure.
 * Does anybody have a cite for the Foucault quote on Van Eyck? Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably the same as the rest - I think it was added by you here ? Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Repetitions
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)


 * 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)
 * Done. Please restore the Palomino sentence if you think it should stay. JNW (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I really like the new structure, its much clearer, and much easier to read. Ceoil (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Alt Lead
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"

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"

-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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Its definitely more coherent now. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To go back to Interpretation, I can add some more from Clarke, but do we have any thing earlier, back to the 19C? Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Citation
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)

No, added by Amandajm. Better ask her. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I've asked Amanda. Johnbod (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Vanishing point
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)
 * 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)

I'm done, I have nothing left to say about this painting. I'm interested to know what qp10pq will have to say, and I'm looking forward to the expected copyedit, but I'm dreaming about Philip IV at this stage and am going to walk away for a week or so. Ceoil (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it's worth creating a graphic myself, nor to I know who could do such a thing. If you look at the nutty Kabala ext link, there is a small image which places the vanishing point to the left of Nieto, half way between him and the door frame. If confirmed by a better source, that would be worth mentioning, & fit it with a point already made. The position is complicated by the painting being cut down at the sides - the Kabala site claims to know by how much by, which we may well know from inventories, but do we have a good ref? I'd tend to leave it or cut it (or move it to the composition section). It should link to perspective (graphical), despite being in a quote. I think that's enough. JNW? Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Will look at this when I have the chance. JNW (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I've added a bit, though a ext-link to a diagram would be handy. Johnbod (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I don't know what to make of this! Ceoil (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We have an ext link, which is enough I think. We do have Joel-Peter Witkin. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Canvas in the foreground
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)
 * Removed dubious claim. Ceoil (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Points

 * 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)
 * ✅. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note D still repeats matter in the text - I would just drop the note.
 * Agree, I'll do this. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've done it, but not renumbered - see B below. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Caught it. Not the easiest to use template. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ All ok now Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "In Foucault's eyes, Las Meninas exhibits the first signs of a new episteme in European art, a mid-point between the two “great discontinuities” in art history; the classical age, and the modern age: "Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us ... representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form."—Foucault 2002, 18" really needs some expansion I think.
 * I need to develop this, I'm looking at some other sources at the moment. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would keep "The elusiveness of Las Meninas, according to the writer Dawson Carr, "suggests that art, and life, are an illusion". This idea of illusion was popular in Spain during the seventeenth-century, and was based on the earlier thought that temporal truth is not skin deep, and that human existence is just a semblance of a greater reality." but it needs a little bit of expansion & linking if possible.
 * Can you restore. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know enough about the area! Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note B belongs in the main text in my view.
 * Agree, I'll do this. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * " the then-new genre of "collective painting"; " is now unreferenced, but is anyway I think wrong, as it seems to mean collaborative painting, which Teniers did a lot of, but V not. (Ghits mostly refer to primary schools, but .... there is this. This was hardly new by 1656 anyway, nor was court painters acting as curators & buyers, which Vasari, Van Dyck and Rubens had all done - but this could be said. Johnbod (talk 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅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)
 * 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)
 * No, its clear now. I'm just a little frazzled. Forget it. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅Cut Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Picasso image doesn't work now - I can't see why not! Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ok now Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review
This is an absorbing and ambitious article; I really enjoyed reading it and thinking about the painting.


 * ✅ Technicalities: the alphabetical notes miss out [d] and don't all match the point in the article. I tend to prefer the substantive notes to be in with the footnotes, since the alphabetical ones don't reshuffle after an edit (so if someone edits one out, they're wrecked). I also prefer the "Further reading" books to be listed with the main bibliography (I like that word rather than "sources"), and also all the full references from the notes, leaving the notes consistently shortened and everything traceable to the bibliography. I find this neater; but, more important, when I'm searching for bibliographies on Google, the Wikipedia bibliographies often come up, if they're named that way. That's useful. And they're most useful if they're full and good. These comments are all a matter of personal opinion, of course; just thought I'd throw them in. (By the way, the actual listing is rather inconsistent, with some ISBNs missing, some publisher locations missing, there is even an ISMB. I can sort this out when I do a copyedit, if you like.) qp10qp (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Notes ok now at least. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I retitled as 'bibliography', and merged with 'further reading'. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Notes are integrated with the citations, biblio tidyed. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ For me, the opening paragraph is a bit OTT, and it rather tells the reader what to think. For me, it would be steadier if the picture were described first, as in the second paragraph. Claims could be placed at the end of the lead, at which juncture the reader wouldn't feel so clobbered over the head with importance.
 * Moved up from there in response to comment by Awadewit I think! The trouble is, describing this picture is a lengthy business. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've played around with the lead, but to may need to be tightened. Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * May be this is a little vague, if anyone could rephrase: "The work's composition, its spatial structuring, and it's positioning of the portrayed figures lend to a highly unusual representational impact".
 * Re "a lengthy business"; There is so much going on the painting requires a long opening section, I think. It would be difficult to cut. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ acting in a naturalistic manner. Will this mean anything to the reader? And is it true? "Naturalistic" is in some ways a technical term, and it applies to the art work itself rather than to those it depicts. It doesn't mean the same as "natural", obviously; and though, in a way, it could be said that these people are acting in a natural way, how natural is it to all stand facing one way in stylised poses?
 * changed - see below Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ ten identifiable figures. This is perhaps awkward; later it says that the picture has nine figures, eleven if you include the king and queen, so I presume the point is that the guard is not identifiable by name. Mightn't it be more transparent to simply give the number the way it is given in the main article? I confess I immediately counted the figures, thinking there might be some murky, difficult-to-see figure in the shadows and not knowing that the images in the mirror counted. Then when I went through the characters you list, there were indeed ten, but the bodyguard is included and not the chap on the stairs. (By the way, later in the article, the dog is referred to as a figure!)
 * True - I don't think we need a number here. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * changed - see below Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ The royal couple also occupy the space where the viewer would stand. This strikes me as difficult, particularly at this stage before all the theories have been presented. At the least "occupy" is not quite the word, in my opinion.
 * changed - see below Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ holds open a curtain at a doorway that leads to a corridor. I'm seeing a doorway that leads to a set of steps. There may be another doorway leading to a corridor at the back, but the guy is three steps down, and so it can't be the curtain to that. Or can it?
 * changed - see below Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Both this backlight and the open doorway reveal space in the direction opposite to that implied by the royal couple's reflection. I don't quite follow this; unless it just means that a door next to a mirror will lead in the opposite direction to that seen in the mirror, which is true not only in paintings. How does it "lure "our eyes inescapably into the depths"?
 * changed - see below Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nieto is visible only to the king and queen, who share the viewer's perspective, and not by any of the figures in the foreground. Once again, this seems to me a simple point made strange. He is actually visible to all of them if they cared to look at him; all this means is that the front figures are not looking at him. The viewer sees all and those involved in the picture don't, as in many paintings.


 * ✅ Nieto is shown paused with his right knee bent and his feet on different steps; a pose suggestive of movement. Well, a pause is suggestive to me of pausing. He's pausing before he moves on, yes.
 * changed - see below Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Though the royal couple are ostensibly the models for the composition, and thus the painting's subjects, they do not appear directly on the canvas. I think this could be clearer; all the people in the picture are models and subjects for the composition. This presumably refers to the composition the artist in the painting is working on; but the king and queen do appear on the canvas, albeit in reflected form. I feel the description needs sharpening here to prevent a confusion between the painting itself and the depicted painting (I know its difficult).
 * changed. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of the nine figures depicted, five are looking directly at the royal couple. Only the king and queen's reflection, and the glances turned toward them, affirm their presence outside the painting's pictorial space. Again, there seems to be an assumption here that only the nine unreflected figures count as being depicted; yet the passage goes on to talk about the king and queen, as if they do count here. The second sentence does not seem to me to follow logically from the first, which seemed to be about the other nine figures. qp10qp (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed, but still iffy - I'm not sure the canvas is too large myself.
 * That's what I thought. I've seen some pretty whopping portraits. And they didn't paint to the edge of the canvas. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I clarified this as "unusually large for a portrait by Velázquez". At least it is presented as the openion of 'Other writers' and not as a statement of fact. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ The art historian H. W. Janson suggested that the image of the king and queen is a reflection from Velázquez's canvas, the front of which is obscured to the viewer. This theory is supported by the fact that the depicted canvas is too large for a portrait, and is about the same size as Las Meninas. If I read this right, Janson is suggesting that the artist is painting a portrait of the king and queen; in which case that would not be supported by the fact that the canvas is too large for a portrait.
 * changed see above. Still needs work I think. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done some work on the Janson stuff. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The seventh zone is located in the depth of the mirror on the rear wall, and, like all mirror images, functions in two directions, so that it seems to project the painting itself outward into the space of the viewer. Is this true? If the viewer is thought to be in the position of the king and queen then the viewer is relatively close to the frontal plane of the picture, as is shown by where some of the figures are looking. It is those gazes which project the painting into the space of the viewer and not the distant mirror reflection. The closer a mirror is to the viewer, the greater the sense of illusion. And since the painter does not try to create an illusion of further depth behind the king and queen in the mirror, I do not feel that the space inside the mirror represents the final seventh; it is the bright passageway that represents the final frame surely, a real space focused to the vanishing point. qp10qp (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - the doorway is surely more of a focal point than the mirror? Not changed. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We badly need a ref for such a precise analysis, which definitely does fall down at the rear of the picture. I'm convinced, the more I look at it, that Velázquez has deliberately opaqued the mirror to prevent any further illusion of depth. Without that precaution, the king and queen might appear to be observing through a hatch. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've a bad feeling that most of that sevenths paragraph might need to go. I've located the idea of sevenths to Clark, but unfortunately, his analysis is totally different from what we have in the second paragraph of that section. He says that the meninas and the dwarves form a triangle, with the base one seventh from the foot of the picture and the apex four sevenths. That makes sense. But on that reckoning, as far as I can see, the man on the stair is only slightly above the apex and so can't possibly be at six. The sevenths must be divisions of the surface of the picture, not of the depth as well; and divisions five, six, and seven will take us up into the top half of the painting. Looking at the analysis we have in the article, it holds up as far in as the guard and the chaperone, but the gap behind them is significantly wider than the other gaps, while the gaps for the back wall, the man on the stair and the couple in the mirror are very close together. In other words, the grid is not even—and a grid that's not even is no grid at all. qp10qp (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One could remove the "sevenths" word when discussing the depth, as they are certainly not equal, and a grid should not be implied. I might have a go. It might not be worth keeping afterwards. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, that's a clever solution. Your edit means that the paragraph is now a pure description and does not need a source. I didn't think of that. Smart work. qp10qp (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just did some reinstating of material before I found this, so I'm afraid you may not agree with it.
 * seventh The seven layers of the pick are not "sevenths". They must be seen more in the nature of layers, or seven "flats" on a theatrical stage. The distance between them can be of varying size, but they serve to create depth. Ths layering was typically used in landscape. It is far less common in an interior scene, which might typcally be three or four layers but rarely as complex as this. I dn't think the word "several" says it at all. It doesn't indicate just how complex the scene is. Amandajm (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Although they can only be seen in the mirror reflection, their distant image occupies a central position in the canvas, both in terms of composition and content. A central position, fine. A central position in terms of composition and content?
 * changed to "composition and social hierarchy", which I think is the point. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Las Meninas has three focal points: the Infanta Margarita, the self-portrait, and the half-length reflected images of Philip IV and Queen Mariana. But these three focal points are all on the left-hand side of the canvas, whereas the perspective lines lead to the right and to the figure in the doorway. Velásquez made sure that the focal points were not all on one side of the painting.


 * The 'three focal points' observation currently stands alone and appears to be a piece of original research, but it comes from Lopez-Rey, which I originally included with cite. It has since been separated from related content, the reference lost. Someone can wade back through the history and find it. JNW (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved this next to the other Lopez-Rey material, and hopefully it is covered by the same refs. It was misplaced before, but now it seems less problematic because the article talks about other foci there. All the same, the dots aren't quite joined up in that paragraph. That whole technical section is a little loose, with various terms being bandied about rather imprecisely and not followed up. I've at least knocked it into some semblance of order, linking disparate comments with transitional phrases. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Three focal points relates directly to the quote by Clark which is about focal points. Both Clark and Lopez-Rey need citing. Amandajm (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Depth and dimension are rendered by the use of linear perspective, by the over-lapping of the layers of shapes and particularly, as observed by Clark, through chiaroscuro, the contrast of light and shade. But in the quotation that preceded this, Clark was talking about tone, which is not the same thing as chiaroscuro.


 * Addressed (see comment above). qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tone/chiaroscuro. What nonsense. What is chiaroscuro if it isn't tone? Tone within a painting has several forms and a great artist like Velazquez combines them.


 * 1) Tone is the pattern of light and dark areas on the flat painted surface, one of the significant factors in creating focal points.
 * 2) Tone is the modelling of forms using light and dark (chiaroscruro) creating solidity and depth.
 * 3) Tone is the simulation of "actual" lght and shadow within a painting, which may be utilised to create surface pattern, and focal points and depth and solidity.
 * This is what Velazquez has achieved so brilliantly. This is what Kenneth Clark is on about.
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ The twentieth-century French philosopher and cultural critic Michel Foucault observed that the light from the window illuminates both the studio foreground and the unrepresented area in front of it, in which the king, queen, and viewer are presumed to be situated. Surely we don't need Foucault to tell us this.
 * tend to agree. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now just refed to F in note - his intro moved down to his main spiel. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ it has been debated whether we are excluded from the scene, with the ruling couple in our place, or if we are standing beside the royal couple, or seeing through their eyes. Lending weight to the latter idea are the gazes of three of the figures—Velázquez, the Infanta, and Maribarbola—who appear to be looking directly at the viewer rather than to our left where the royal couple would be standing. But they are looking to the left. You can see the whites of the girl's eyes to the right. However, it is a quirk of optics that the eyes of such figures will follow you round the room. The viewers have the freedom to stand to the left, right, or middle and the figures will still be looking at them. But this does not contradict a position for the king and queen that can be deduced from their reflection in the mirror. There is less to this point than meets the eye! qp10qp (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * tend to agree - why would they be at our left. Alternatives 1 & 3 are the same surely? Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They are. I've smoothed this all over to make it more sensible, I hope. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Logically, the space in front of Las Meninas can be occupied only by one of two individuals (or groups): the artist, who actually stood in front of the canvas when he painted it and could therefore be reflected in a mirror represented on the canvas, or, the viewer who, in effect, displaces the artist when he or she steps up to the painting to view it. But the article has already explained to us that the king and queen may also occupy this space. And it seems to me that the exchangeability of the artist and viewer applies to all paintings, particularly those that use perspective. The point about the artist being reflected in a mirror represented in the canvas (by the canvas?) is rather awkwardly dropped in here. It is a part of a complex and, I would say, different theory (he would stand in front of his canvas whether he was painting directly or from a mirror).


 * Smoothed all this over and cut some. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ The mirror on the back wall imitates what is not there. I don't think a mirror can imitate. A mirror can reflect what you are not looking at, certainly.
 * changed to "indicates" Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Taking rather the opposite view, Jonathan Miller asks:"What are we to make of the blurred features of the royal couple? It is unlikely that it has anything to do with the optical imperfection of the mirror, which would, in reality, have displayed a focused image of the King and Queen." To me, this is not the opposite view of what went before.
 * Opposite to "it projects onto the canvas the perfect double of the king and queen positioned in front of the painting..." from previous quote. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * but maybe still needs clarifying, or "opposite" cut. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "opposite" cut Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ This idea of illusion was popular in Spain during the seventeenth-century, and was based on the earlier thought that temporal truth is not skin deep, and that human existence is just a semblance of a greater reality. In what sense were these views an earlier thought? That thought had produced the art of illusion long before, I would say. This seems to me expressed rather flimsily and requires philosophical and religious context.
 * Rejigged, without later bit. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Professional now; much better. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I find the Foucault stuff too extended and overquoted. Dare I say it, his views could be reduced to a sentence or two to the article's benefit. For me his quoted comment could be applied to any self-portrait. And his conclusion at the end of the section seems to be steeped in historical context, despite our being told earlier that he didn't look at the painting that way.
 * I suspect we need either more or less of F. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of going in there with the loppers. There's still plenty of Foucault, but no longer the overkill. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ In the early Christ in the House of Martha and Mary of 1618,[e] Christ and his companions are seen only through a serving hatch to a room behind, according to the National Gallery. They are clear that this is the intention... I presume "they" is the National Gallery. I think the reference needs to be sharper here.
 * Done, though sentence now long Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please ignore any of my comments, of course. I'll have a go at some copyediting tomorrow. qp10qp (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these good points. I've boldly made a number of changes on these points, doubtless opening a fresh batch of worm-cans. I suspect we still make the same-ish points too many times over the mirror/k&q/viewer issues. We actually need a bit more on the "snapshot" quality - the dwarf kicking the dog, the maid in movement, and the contrast bwetween the static & moving elements. V, like Nieto, is paused; the Infanta seems to be posing, part parodied by the dwarf.  The painting plays with degrees of keeping still, something of a necessary nuisance for the posing couple one imagines, but easy for the dog.  Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've cut some of the repetition of the mirror and viewer stuff: there's still plenty left. I agree with you about what is needed: the article seems biased towards modern ways of seeing and doesn't really look at this painting for what is, a brilliant old master, or place it in its cultural and art-historical context (an old-fashioned approach, I know). We have an illustration of the sublime brushwork but no text on it. Certain other things are missing, I suspect: for example, mention of the late paintings of Velázquez that were burnt (might balance the assumption that his productivity went down because of his duties). Also an analysis of the pentimenti, which might indicate that far from a brilliant postmodern jeu, the complexities of the perspective might have been due to late changes for pictorial effect. Anyone who has painted knows that however you start off with planned perspective, you usually end up fudging it to make things look right. People who want neat perspective diagrams should know that strict perspective is monocular and therefore never satisfying to a realistic artist; and I don't think we could make the lines join up on this painting (for this reason I've removed the precision about the vanishing point because I don't think we can go much further than saying it (or they) is in the door area) in a month of Sundays. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I think between us, we've made some good edits today. qp10qp (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, many thanks - good tightening-up! Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just read the whole thing through again, and I'm sure it's an FA. I'll give my support at the FAC after it's run for a bit. qp10qp (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I just read it again having not looked at the article for two day. Its significantly improved. Very nice work. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Key by numbers
Here's a first try. Tyrenius (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. It fulfils the criterion of being clear. No need to try to rival Velasquez's artistry. It does the job nicely. Bung it in! I'd recommend a caption that refers the reader to the text, where the numbers can be used in bold, in brackets, with the first such usage appropriately explained. --Dweller (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done - looks fine to me, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, it adds some historical focus, someone commented that this painting is like a snapshot before there was photography. Modernist (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Added a cite to the 'snapshot' statement in lead. If anyone thinks this can be better situated, or if my cite needs editing for consistency with article, please jump in. JNW (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would be a great addition. Nice work, Tyrenius. Ceoil (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It counts to ten, while the article, last time i read, counts to eleven (spinal tap anyone?). Should the mirror be 7 and 8? Ceoil (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * State any changes required and I'll make them. Numbering could be in the order that the people are mentioned in text, if preferred. If so, make a list as 3 -> 1 (ie change 3 to 1) and so on. Tyrenius (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Text sequence (pretty stable now) would be ideal, which would be: NEW/OLD: 1/3, 2/2, 3/4, 4/5, 5/6, 6/9 7/10 8/8, 9/1, 10/7 (11/7 too, if there is room). I think having two numbers for the mirror will look crowded, maybe the caption can explain the total count.  Thanks for this. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think the numbers in the text need to be bold, to help differentiate them from footnotes. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to do that, but bolding just numbers doesn't seem to work normally. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold not recommended in text per MOS. I think it would be more usual to have the number after the person's name, so instead of:
 * She is attended by two ladies-in-waiting, or meninas: (4) Dona Isabel de Velasco, who is poised to curtsy to the princess, and (2) Dona María Agustina Sarmiento de Sotomayor,

It would read:
 * She is attended by two ladies-in-waiting, or meninas: Dona Isabel de Velasco (4), who is poised to curtsy to the princess, and Dona María Agustina Sarmiento de Sotomayor (2),

This reads more easily to me. The larger typeface and round bracket differentiates from footnotes, plus the fact there is a picture with big numbers on gives a clue! Tyrenius (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with above suggestions re: placement of numbers after names, and having numbers correlate to positions in text. JNW (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Key by numbers revision 1
Revised numbers, other tweaks? Tyrenius (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Exactly. JNW (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, will tweak.Tyrenius (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I expect that's me! Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Revision Image:Velazquez-Meninas-key2.jpg. Tyrenius (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 10 and 11 swapped. New image file: Image:Velazquez-Meninas-key3.jpg. Tyrenius (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated, & previous versions cleared above. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead
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)
 * Let it be, - the nature of is too scientific, and depiction is redundant. Modernist (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Provenance
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)

Title or description
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)
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion. JNW (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Unclaimedomain.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)