-
1
SeeFrontispiece:TheFlickerofFoucaultsLasMeninas
-
2
SeeFrontispiece
TheTruthinPainting
Whatofshoes?What,shoes?Whosearetheshoes?...whatsurplusvalueis
unleashedbytheannulmentoftheirusevalue:outsidethepicture,inside
thepicture,andthird,asapicture,ortoputitveryequivocally,intheir
paintingtruth
JacquesDerrida
Canwe,infact,locateatruthinpainting?Doespaintingshowusamoretruthful
pictureoftruth?LasMeninas,byDiegoVelzquez,isamultifaceted,oscillating
picturethatupendsthenotionofabinarycorrespondencetheoryoftruth,wheretit
isfortat,andthisstandsforthat.WhatisthetruthofVelzquezspaintingandwhy
isitsoelusive?
ThesearejustafewofthemanyquestionselicitedbyLasMeninaswhichhas
becomethesubjectofastaggeringliterature1byarthistoriansandphilosophers
oflanguage.TheBaroquepainterLucaGiordanogracedLasMeninaswiththe
monikerthetheologyofpainting,"andnotlongafterwards,SirThomasLawrence,a
19thcenturyEnglishportraitpainter,calledthework"thephilosophyofart."2Ithas
inspiredartistsincludingPabloPicasso,BostonpainterDomingoBarreres,and
-
3
Figure1PabloPicasso
videoperformanceartistEveSussman,yetafterthreecenturiesthepaintingstill
fascinatesus.EstrellaDeDiego,inheressay,RepresentingRepresentation,
suggeststhatLasMeninasismuchmorethanapainting.Ithasbecomeacultural
icon.Thepainting,sheoffers,representsus.Forsomeobscurereason,weas
partofWesternculturebelongthere,inthesurfaceofthepainting.Onecould
almostsayitisameanstomaterializeourculturalselves.3Andarthistorian
SvetlanaAlpersgoessofarastosuggestthatitissurelyoneofthegreatest
representationsofpictorialrepresentationinallofWesternpainting.4
Figure2DomingoBarreres
Andyetitcontinuestosidestepourabilitytofullyandsatisfactorilyexplainit.Not
thatmanyhaventtried.Thosewhohavetrainedananalyticaleyeonthis
monumentalworkhavearguedaboutitsmeaning,itsintendedaudience,whether
ornotitconstructsasubject,itsnarrativity,5itsorthogonals,6aboutpowerand
sovereignty,7thenatureofclassicalrepresentation,thelocationandnumberofits
centers,1theclaimtonobilityoftheartist,andtheparadoxthatisorisnotinherent
inthepainting,8andmuch,muchmore.Andwhileitistantalizingtojumpinandjoin
thefray,9Iwouldlikeinstead,tostepbackfromthisskirmish,mirroringthe
-
4
movementofthepaintedpainterhimselfandexaminethewaysinwhichMichel
Foucaulthasutilizedthisworktoillustrate,amongotherthings,theimbricationof
seeingandsaying.
LasMeninas,theopeningessayinFoucaultsTheOrderofThings,(1966/1972)
servesasagatewaytoFoucaultsarchaeologicalexplorationofepistemicstructures:
thewaysinwhichweorderourworld.Byinsistingthatwenotonlyreadhis
descriptionofthework,butthatwelookaswellatthereplicatedpaintingonthe
frontispieceofhisbook,heplacesusinthespottowardwhichthepaintingpoints.In
thismanner,Foucaultunderscoresthenecessityofaninherentoscillation,the
flickerpicturenatureofrepresentation.Thedancethattheartistdoesashechasss
awayfromandthentowardshiscanvasisemblematic,restoringashimmering
visibilitytowhathashistoricallybecomeaconstrained,immobiletableau.
Hisessay,LasMeninas,nowcanonicalinthestudyofthefieldofVisualCulture,
canbefoundincountlessanthologies;itsarrivalspurredaflurryofresponses,
primarilyfromarthistorians,whowereeagertoexplainwhyitwasthatFoucault
wasalmostcertainlymistakeninhisanalysisofVelzquezsmasterpiece.Foucault,
thephilosopher,wanderedbrazenlyintoanarthistoricalspaceandtreadnonetoo
lightlyonitspractices.10Becausehewasnotconstrictedbytheentrenchedmethods
ofthearthistorian,hisarcheologicalapproachwasconsideredgroundbreaking.11
-
5
InlookingatwhatLasMeninasrepresents,Foucaultarticulateswhatbecomes
visibleashedoesso.Althoughheseesthepaintingwedgedintheriftbetween
epistemes,bysimplyseeingandsaying,heisabletodislodgeencrustedpolaritiesor
whathehasreferredtoassomeoftheoldestoppositionsofouralphabetical
civilization:toshowandtoname;toshapeandtosay;toreproduceandto
articulate;toimitateandtosignify;tolookandtoread.12
Inthepagesthatfollow,Imsuggestingthatamongthemanywhohaveresponded
brilliantlytohisekphrasis13(adescriptionofaworkofartinwords),mosthave
missedtheimportance,forhim,ofthejuxtapositionofthediscursivespacesof
languageandpainting.14DigginguptheonetrueinterpretationofVelzquezs
monumentalportraitwasnotatallFoucaultsintention.Infactheisquiteclearthat
todosowouldresultinthedemiseoftheprecisespaceheisattemptingtoenliven.
Thedeathofinterpretationistobelievethattherearesigns,signsthatexist
primarily,originally,reallyascoherent,pertinent,andsystematicmarksThelifeof
interpretation,onthecontrary,istobelievethatthereareonlyinterpretations.15
Inanattempttokeepthelifeofinterpretationaliveandwell,Iamofferingseveral
observations:
LasMeninas,thepaintingandtheessayexemplifyanoscillationtowhich
Foucaultispointingandwhich,inhisperformativewritingbecomesvisible.
Weseeinthewayheissayingit,what,precisely,heissaying.
-
6
Thepaintedpainterhimselfisemblematicoftheceaselessmovement
Foucaultseesasinherentintheconstructionofwhatweknowtheflicker
picturenatureofrepresentationandwhichupendsthefamiliarCartesian
project.
Foucaultgivesuspaintingasadiscursivespace.
HistreatmentofLasMeninaspaintsaportraitofhismethods:thepractice
ofexcavatinginterstitialspaces,inthiscase,thegapsbetweentheseeable
andthesayable.
Readingtheessayandlookingatthepaintingofferthereader/viewerthe
experienceofafunctionalcalligram
FoucaultsvisionofVelazquezsmuchdisputedmirror,showsusnota
reversal,butinsteadarupture,andthusbecomesamodelforchangesin
epistemicstructures.
Byopeninghisbook,TheOrderofThings,bystrainingepistemologicalstratathrough
apainting,Foucaultdismantlescrumblingdisciplinarywallsandcontributestoan
idiomthat,bynotbeingstrictlyarthistorical,disruptsanddestabilizesourhabitual
point(s)ofview.16
SteppingBack
Thepainterisstandingalittlebackfromhiscanvas.17
Foucaultbeginshisessaywiththissentence,foregroundingtheimportanceofthe
painterwhoVelzquezhasinsertedintohisroyalportraitandatthesametime
callingourattentiontothefactthatattheverymomentthatisbeingimmortalized,
-
7
thepainterhasmoved.Hehastakenastepbackawayfromhiswork:theenormous
andenigmaticcanvasthatdominatestheleftsideofthepainting.Inthisstepback,
wefindakernelofthereflectiveandreflexivenatureofrepresentationtowhich
Foucaultisbothpointingandexemplifying.
Taggedtotheendofhisopeninggambit,wefindafootnote.Theonlynoteinthe
entirechapter,itsayssimply,SeeFrontispiece.Withthissmalladdendum,wesee
thatforFoucaultitwascriticalthatwe,hisreaders(andbyimplication,viewers),
haveafirsthandvisualexperienceofthepaintingaroundwhichhisopeningchapter
wasdrawn.
WemustassumethatFoucaultsdecisiontobeginTheOrderofThingswithLas
Meninasboththeessayandtheimagewascalculated,aswerehisinstructions
tolook.IfwetakeastepofourownbackandfliptotheForewordtotheEnglish
editionofTheOrderofThings,Foucaultcomesclean.
ThisforewordshouldperhapsbeheadedDirectionsforUse.NotbecauseI
feelthatthereadercannotbetrustedheisofcourse,freetomakewhathe
willofthebookhehasbeenkindenoughtoread.WhatrighthaveI,thento
suggestthatitshouldbeusedinonewayratherthananother?WhenIwas
writingitthereweremanythingsthatwerenotcleartomeSoIsaidto
-
8
myself:thisishowmyidealreaderwouldhaveapproachedmybook,ifmy
intentionshadbeenclearerandmyprojectmorereadytotakeform.18
InhisForewordFoucaultsintentisclear.Itisimportanttohimhowweapproachhis
work.AndintheparticularcaseofthefootnoteinLasMeninas,heissuggesting
thatwepartakeofhisthinkingbyreadinghiswordsandbylookingatthepainting
forourselves.Beforeweenterthearchaeologicalsite,weareofferedsomeadvice
astohowtoproceed,wheretostep,whattobecarefulof,andwhattobeonthe
lookoutfor.Heapologizesfortellingushowtoreadthis,butnonethelesshetellsus.
Secondly,wemightnoteintheparagraphabove,thatFoucaultmodelsamethodof
takinghisownstepback.Hereherevisitshisworkafteratemporalgap19across
whichheperhapshasaclearerviewandcanseethewayshemighthaveimproved
theearlierproject.Byacknowledgingalackofclarityorpreparedness,heunfixeshis
wordsandshowsthatbyemployinganarchaeologicalapproach,Frontiersare
redrawnandthingsusuallyfarapartarebroughtcloser,andviceversa;Allowing
forthefactthattherearequestionsthatevenstillremainunanswered,heinvitesus
toreadthisworkasanopensite.20
LastlyinthisForeword,Foucaultexplicitlydiscusseshismethodology.Hesuggests
thatduetothecomplexityofdiscourseingeneral,wewouldbenefitfroma
multiplicityofapproachesatmultiplelevels.However,hereheexcludesfromthese
-
9
valuedapproachesaphenomenologicalonehistoricalanalysisofscientific
discourseshould,inthelastresortbesubject,nottoatheoryoftheknowing
subject,butrathertoatheoryofdiscursivepractice.21Andwhilethismaybea
disguisedcriticismofMerleauPontysmethod,asGaryShapirosuggests,22itseems
tomethatspecificallyinthisessay,atleast,hisarchaeologyembodiesakindof
stratifiedphenomenology.Hesitswiththepainting,tracingwhathiseyehasfound
withhiswords,andallowstheunfoldingofthevisualandverbal,subjecttohis
theoryofdiscursivepractice.23Ifwebringthissamearchaeologicalattentiona
variationonclosereadingtohiswriting,itmaytellussomethingimportantabout
whatweknowandhowweknowit,whatwecanseeandhowwecansayit.
SeeFrontispiece
Whyuseapaintingofapainterpaintingapaintingtobeginlookingathowwemake
andthinkaboutorder?Byplacingthework,notasanillustration,embeddedwithin
thechapterinwhichitisexcavated,butasfrontispiecetotheentirebook,
Foucaultsuggeststhathisarchaeologicalapproachisnotlimitedtoexclusively
unearthingquestionsaboutthehistoryofscience,butmayinfactprovidean
armatureforananalysisthathasbroaderapplications.Andinthewidernethe
casts,Foucaulthascaughtpainting.Inthestrataoftheworkofartthepigment,
thetexture,thelight,theshapesareembeddedthelatentdiscourseofthe
painter;onecantrytorecapturethemurmurofhisintentions,whicharenot
transcribedintowords,butintolines,surfaces,andcolours;onecantrytouncover
theimplicitphilosophythatissupposedtoformhisviewoftheworld.24Here
-
10
Foucaultpointstotheartistthatphilosophizes,thepaintingthatconsequently
discloseswhatthepainterwasgiventothink.
InLasMeninaswefindapaintingthatstepsoutsideofitselftocommentonthe
practiceitexemplifies,whatwemightcallametapicture.25Whileweareallfamiliar
withthepracticeofextractingpictorialmetaphorsresidinginwhatwesay,the
flipsidewherewediscoveradiscourseonthenatureofrepresentationinhabitinga
pictureisastrangerspace.
Figure3ArtistDrawingaNudeinPerspectiveAlbrechtDrer
LasMeninasiscertainlynottheonlypaintingtophilosophizeaboutthenatureof
paintings.AquicksurveymightbringustoDrersetching,ArtistDrawingaNudein
Perspective,inwhichthe16thcenturyartistcritiquesthewondrousscienceafforded
bytheLucinda,agriddeddeviceusedtocreatetheillusionofpictorialdepth;toThe
TreacheryofImages,26Magrittesdidactic,showandtellefforttocommentonthe
natureofrepresentation,bothvisualandverbal,asseenthroughasurrealistlens;
Figure4TheTreacheryofImagesReneMagritte
toapopularNewYorkercartoondepictingEgyptianLifeClass,byAlain,inwhichthe
simplified,stylizedlookofanancientart,subjecttotheartstudentexperience,
Figure5EgyptianLifeClassAlain
-
11
isbeinglampooned.Althoughherewearejustskimmingthesurfaceofthesemeta
pictures,whichuponcloserexaminationhavemuchtoreveal,itisclearisthateach
imagemakesvisiblethediscursivecontextcoincidentwithitsepisteme.
Foucaulttellsusthatit(painting)isdiscursivepracticeembodiedintechniquesand
effects.2Transgressingtherigorthatwas,atthetimethisessaywaswritten,art
historicalpractice,hesuggeststhatitisnotaquestionofextractingthemeaningof
thepaintingbyexplainingwhatitisthatwesee,throughwhosehandsthepainting
haspassed,orinwhichhistoricaldocumentsitisreferredto.27Instead,whatwe
mightbeseekingiswhetherintheveryconstructionoftheworkwhereshape
meetsshapeandformsaborder,inthedepthsofthepictorialspace,inthetension
createdbylightandshadow,andintheintensityofthepalettethediscursive
practicesoftheperiodunderconsiderationcouldbethought,couldbeenunciated.
Itisinstructivethatinhisarticulationofhowdiscoursecanresideinthespaceofa
paintingorinthegestureofthepainterhimself,Foucaultbringsintoreliefanaural
metaphor.Healludestothemurmuringoftheartist,tothewaysinwhichthe
paintingcanname,canquestionorcanconsiderthediscursivepracticeitreveals.By
turnsheseespaintingassilentandspeaking,justasheuses,inhisdescriptionofLas
Meninas,languagethatshowsuswhatVelzquezhaspainted.
-
12
Wefindinhisshortcollectionofessays,ThisIsNotaPipe,afascinationwiththe
playoftheborderbetweenwhatpaintingsmaytellusandwhatpicturesourwords
maypaint.Inparticular,ashedustsoffshardsofthepaintingsofMagritte,Kleeand
Kandinsky,hisarticulationseesawsbetweensoundandsilence,betweenthevisible
andthesayable.
Letafigureresembleanobject(orsomeotherfigure),andthataloneis
enoughfortheretoslipintothepureplayofthepaintingstatementobvious,
banal,repeatedathousandtimesyetalmostalwayssilent.(Itislikean
infinitemurmurhaunting,enclosingthesilenceoffigures,inventingit,
masteringit,extricatingthesilencefromitself,andfinallyreversingitwithin
thedomainofthingsthatcanbenamed.)Whatyouseeisthat.28
(Emphasisadded)
Thesimplesparkofrecognition,seeingthethat,slidesthepaintingtoopposite
endoftheteetertotterandbackagain,renderingitpaintingstatement.Repeated,
butsilent.Againwesee/hearthemurmurthecontinuoussound,softbutinsistent,
tellingus,pointingtowards,naming,thethat.
WhenFoucaultdirectsusthen,inhisopeningfootnote,toSeeFrontispiece,heis
insuringthatinthereadingofhisessay,weareengagedinaprocessthatmirrors
-
13
thisteetertotter.Inthejuxtapositionoftheexperienceofreadingandthe
experienceoflooking,thedistinctionbecomesapparent.Weinsertourfingerinthe
pagewhereLasMeninas,thepainting,openshisbooklikeanengravedpediment
andweflipbackandforthbetweenhisdescriptionandwhatwecansee.Hiswords
notonlyshowusthepainting,butserveasaplaybill.Oneofthedelightsofthe
book.Youcankeepflippingbacktocheckoutwhathetellsushesees,precisely
whatheispointingoutforus,inordertomeasureitwithourowneyes.Whenhe
tellsusthataverticallinewhichdividesthecanvasinhalfpassesbetweenthe
Infantaseyes,weflipbacktothepaintingtoseeifthisisreallyso.Ahyes,lookat
thelightstreaminginfromthewindow!Thelittlegirlisdeadcenter!Nomatterhow
precisehisdescriptionmaybe,weneedtoseeitforourselves.Theseeingisalways
discretefromthesayingandalwaysconnectedtoit.
Buttherelationoflanguagetopaintingisaninfiniterelation.Itisnotthat
wordsareimperfect,orthat,whenconfrontedbythevisible,theyprove
insuperablyinadequate.Neithercanbereducedtotheothersterms:itisin
vainthatwesaywhatwesee;whatweseeneverresidesinwhatwesay.
Anditisinvainthatweattempttoshow,bytheuseofimages,metaphors,
orsimiles,whatwearesaying;29
Weflipforwardagaintoreadaboutthegreatvolutethatrunsaroundthe
perimeterofthestudio,30andwereturntothepaintingandtrace,forourselves,
-
14
thespiralthatsendsoureyefromonecornerofthepaintingtotheother:fromthe
pointofthebrushtotheeyesofthepainter,tothepaintingsandmirrorthathangin
shadowyrecessesofthehall,tothesilhouettedmaninthedoorway,whomaybe
enteringormaybeleaving,tothesidewallofthesalon,whichisrenderedinsucha
skewedperspectivethatallweareabletodiscernarehintsoftheframeshanging
there,tothefloodoflightfromthewindowatthefrontrightedgeofthepainting
illuminatingthesceneinthecanvasbeforeusandbyinference,passingthroughthe
boundaryofthatsurfaceandbrighteningthespaceinwhichthespectatormight
stand;glidingovertheentireentourageandacrosstothepaintingwhichconceals
itselffromusandreturnsustoourpainterspalette,wherewebeginagain.
Thisalternatelyreadingandlooking,flippingbacktotheVelzquezandforth,again
toFoucaultsdescription,suggeststheessayasfunctionalcalligram.Animage
Figure6CalligramAntInkyLaReve(http://inkylareve.deviantart.com/art/CalligramAnt41565962)
constructedentirelyoutofwords,acalligramoffersusboththeexperienceof
lookingandreading,butneveratpreciselythesamemoment.AsFoucaultnotes,It
lodgesstatementsinthespaceofashape,andmakesthetextsaywhatthedrawing
represents.31
Whenwetakeastepbackweseetheshape:theobjectformedbytheedges
createdwhenthisgroupofwordsisordered,atypographicalarrangement.When
-
15
weattempttoreadthetextthatcomprisestheimage,welosethesenseofthe
whole;weshiftintoatemporalmode,whereonewordfollowsthenextandweare
privytothemeaningofastringofwords,butthecoherencythatheldthepicture
togetherislost.
WhenwereadLasMeninasinthewayinwhichFoucaultwouldlikeusto,weslip
andslidefromoneendoftheseesawtotheother.Wereadhiswordsorwelookat
thepaintingbyVelzquez,butwecannotdobothatonce.InhisbookFoucault,
GillesDeleuzesuggeststhatthereisnotangiblebridgetraversingthespacebetween
seeingandsaying.
Ofcourse,thereisnolinkthatcouldmovefromthevisibletothestatement,
orfromthestatementtothevisible.Butthereisacontinualrelinkingwhich
takesplaceovertheirrationalbreakorthecrack.32
Thebreakorcrackorgapacrosswhichthisrelinkingoccurs,likeFoucaults
discontinuitiesorrupturesamongstrata,isaspaceconstitutiveofwhatitispossible
toseeandonethatthepainter,inhismovementtowardsandawayfromhiscanvas,
showsus.
AfterdescribingindetailwhatheseesinVelzquezmonumentalcanvas,Foucault
deignstonamethemembersoftheInfantaMargaritasentourage,theshadowy
-
16
manwhoiseithercomingorgoingintherecessesofthepainting,andnames
Velzquezasthepainterwesee.Buthejustasquicktopointoutthatthesenames
aremerelyanartifice.Hesuggeststhatwhiletheyenableustopointandsay,
Here,look,thereisyoungprincessMargarita!thatassoonaswedoso,weclose
downtheinfinitepossibilitiesinherentinthetaskofslippingfromseeingtosaying
andbackagain.
Butifonewishestokeeptherelationoflanguagetovisionopen,ifone
wishestotreattheirincompatibilityasastartingpointforspeechinsteadof
asanobstacletobeavoided,soastostayascloseaspossibletoboth,then
onemusterasethosepropernames,andpreservetheinfinityofthetask.33
Tostayascloseaspossibletoboth,weinhabittheplaceofthepainter,atthe
neutralcenterofoscillation.There,suspendedthen,overthearchaeological
crevassecreatedbytheirruptionsofentrenchedCartesiancorrespondences,is
whereFoucaulthasplacedusandtowherehewouldlikeustoturnourattentionas
wereadhisopeningessay.
IntheInbetween
Wereadon:
-
17
Thepainterisstandingalittlebackfromhiscanvas.Heisglancingathis
model;perhapsheisconsideringwhethertoaddsomefinishingtouch,
thoughitisalsopossiblethatthefirststrokehasnotyetbeenmade.The
armholdingthebrushisbenttotheleft,towardsthepalette;itis
motionless,foraninstant,betweencanvasandpaints.Theskilledhandis
suspendedinmidair,arrestedinraptattentiononthepaintersgaze;
andthegaze,inreturn,waitsuponthearrestedgesture.Betweenthe
finepointofthebrushandthesteelygaze,thesenseisabouttoyieldup
itsvolume.
Butnotwithoutasubtlesystemoffeints.34
WehavenotedthatFoucaultsfirstsentencepositsthepaintersoscillation.By
necessitythepaintermoves;andwhilewehavecaughthimhereinstillness,weare
awarethatthispointofsuspensionbetweenreifiedpolarizationsisartful,bracketed
byhismovementtowardsandawayfromhiswork.WeknowandFoucaults
languagepointstothisexplicitlythatheisinaninbetween.Inthisopening
paragraph,aselsewhere,webecomeawareofthelanguageofsuspensionthat
placesusalongwiththepainterattheneutralcentreofthisoscillation.35Perhaps,
Foucaultoffers,thepaintermightbeeithercomingorgoing.Hispaintingarm,his
brush,aresuspended,hisactivity,arrested.Thepaintersgazewaits,hishands
attentionrapt.Betweenbrushandeye,meaningispregnant.36
-
18
IfthepaintingLasMeninasisinfactarepresentationofrepresentation,thenitis
nottherepresentationofDescartes,norisitRortysmirrorofnature.Instead,Las
Meninasreflectstheflickerpicturenatureofrepresentation.Aboth/and
proposition,weareforcedtoinhabitthatgapbetweenwhatwecanseeandwhat,
momentarily,willbecomeinvisible.Nowthepainterisclearlyvisibleinthissnapshot
momentofpoisedaction,butFoucaultwarnsthatinthenextmoment,theartistwill
steptowardsthelargepaintingonwhichwhatispaintedisnotavailabletousand
hewillbecomehiddenbyit.Asthoughthepaintercouldnotatthesametimebe
seenonthepicturewhereheisrepresentedandalsoseethatuponwhichheis
representingsomething.Herulesatthethresholdofthosetwoincompatible
visibilities.37
Theartistrepresentedinthepaintinginturnrepresentslevelsofseeingandbeing
seen,shadesofvisibilitiesandinvisibilitiestowhichweareallsubject.Ashelooks
outofthecanvas,thedottedlineofhisvisionjoinsustohim,fluxesthespace
withinandwithouttheborderofthepainting.
Insteadofastablegaze,onethat
totalizesandboundswhatitisthatwesee,Foucaultoffersusaceaseless
exchange,oneinwhichsubjectandobject,thespectatorandthemodel,reverse
theirrolestoinfinity.38EventhisendlessmovementtowhichFoucaultpoints,
oscillatesbetweenitselfandthestill,monolithicbackoftheunseencanvas.
-
19
Straddlingtheseesawofthesedichotomousextremes,asimpleshiftofweight,a
changeoffocus,upendstheintrinsicopposition.
Therearethustwocentresaroundwhichthepicturemaybeorganized,
accordingtowhethertheflutteringattentionofthespectatordecidesto
settleinthisplaceorthat.39
Employinghisownseriesoffeints,Foucaultlaysthefiguresofacrossandthatofan
arcatopthesurfacethatVelzquezpainted,articulatingmovingcenters.BothLeo
SteinberginhisessayVelzquezsLasMeninas,andAmySchmitters,inheressay
PicturingPower:RepresentationandLasMeninas,locate(atleast)threecentersin
thepainting:acompositionalcenter,ageographicalcenter,andacenterdescribed
bythevanishingpoint.Thedispersaloftheselocalesdecentersthepainting,and
throwsthevieweroffcenteraswell.40Theflutterofourmovementfromcenterto
center,reinforcestheshimmeringnatureofwhatweseeandtransformsastagnant
tropethatofthetotalizinggazethathasforcenturiescometostandforthevisual
paradigm.Thedesignationofmultiplecentersconnotesfluctuationandresultsin
thesiteofFoucaultsarchaeologyremainingopen.
Thepaintedartistpondershiswork:Isitalmostcomplete?Isitjustanunder
painting?Theanswerstothesequestionseludeus.Wecantknowpreciselywhat
theartistisseeingorthinking,butwedoknowthathismovingawayfromtheclose
-
20
workofhisbrushstrokebespeakstheneedforalargerview.Wehaveallseenthe
paintersteppingbackfromherwork.Whensheworksupclosetothecanvas,she
isimmersedinaworldofcolorpatchesandmarkmaking,amicroworld.Butasshe
stepsback,asmearoftitaniumwhitebecomesthebrilliantlightreflectedontherim
ofateacup.ThepracticeofthepainterparallelsFoucaultsarchaeologicalprocess.
Inordertoseeanepistemicstructureitisnecessarytohaveperspective,tostep
awayfromit.41
Bysteppingback,thepaintercreatesthedistancenecessarytosee.Hisretreat
createsagap.Andyet.Nomatterhowmanypacesbackwardsshetakes,theartist
canneverstepoutoftheexperiencethathasledhertothismoment.Velzquezs
painterexemplifiesthisnotion.Hemaystepawayfromthelargeunseencanvas,
movebackwardsinthecavernoushallinwhichhepaints,buthecanneverstepout
ofthepaintinginwhichheisrepresented.Hestands,instead,onthethresholdof
incompatiblevisibilities.
Westepbackinordertosee.Butwecannevercompletelystepoutofwhatweare
givenbyourexperience,bytheerainwhichwelivetosee.Inthesamewaythat
thepainting,LasMeninasisliterallyboundbyitsframededges,we,spectatorsin
ourlivesandtimesareboundbywhatisilluminatedforus,bywhatishasbeen
madeseeable.Weturnawayfromwhatishiddenbyourworlds,byourtimesin
muchthesamewaythateachmemberoftheInfantasentourageisturnedtoward
-
21
thelighttowardwhatishappeninginfrontofthem.[T]owardsthebright
invisibilityborderingthecanvas,towardsthatbalconyoflightwheretheireyescan
gazeatthosewhoaregazingbackatthem,andnottowardsthatdarkrecesswhich
marksthefarendoftheroominwhichtheyarerepresented.Itistowardthese
darkrecessesthatFoucault,asphilosopherandhistorian,hasturnedhisattention,
andintheprocessofdoingso,hasmadevisible.
VelzquezsMirror
FoucaultpainstakinglyguidesusthroughVelzquezscourtlyspace,pointingtowhat
wecanseetheartist,thelight,thepaintingsontherearwalls,theyounggirland
hercourtiersandtowhatwecantthelargecanvasinthepaintingweseeonly
itsback,itsframe,itssupportingstructure.Wecantseewhoorwhatisthesubject
ofthisgrandwork.Hesuggeststhatwenoticewhatislitandwhatisinshadow,that
wefollowthedirectionsofthegazesofthoseportrayedinthistableau,andmost
importantly,thatwebecomeawareofaslenderlineofreciprocalvisibility[which]
embracesawholecomplexnetworkofuncertainties,exchangeandfeints.42This
complexnetworkthatFoucaulttracesinthepaintingisreminiscentofsaccades,the
brisk,discontinuousmovementsoftheeye,withoutwhichwecouldonlystare
blindly.Andaswefollowhiseyemovementsweareabletoseetheeffectsofthe
aimofhisseeing.AsJohnRajchmanhasnotedinhisessay,FoucaultsArtof
Seeing,
-
22
SeeingisimportantinFoucaultsworkasphilosopherandhistorianinthis
sense:asanartoftryingtoseewhatisunthoughtinourseeing,andtoopen
asyetunseenwaysofseeing.43
Followingthespiralofhiswords,Foucaultshowsuswhathadbeenunthought,with
regardtothepainting,LasMeninas,andthenatureofrepresentationitrepresents.
JustasLasMeninasstraddledthethresholdbetweenthe16thcenturyandthe
classicalage,LasMeninas,theessay,opensacaromingandreiterativespacein
whichmodernismslidesintopostmodernismandourunderstandingofthenature
ofrepresentationisbeginningtoflicker.
Afterpagesofdescriptionwearrivefinallyatapivotaldetailofthepainting:the
smallmirrorcenteredonthebackwallofthegreathallinwhichallofthisactivityis
takingplace.Ofalltherepresentationsrepresentedinthepicturethisistheonly
onevisible;butnooneislookingatit.44
Notthepainter,nooneinthehall.Only
thoseofuswhostandoutsideofthepainting,inthespotdesignatedforviewingthe
entirescene,arecompelledtoattendtothisreflection.Ourownintimate
experiencewithmirrorssuggeststhatthemirrorwillrepresentanexactdoubleof
whatwesee,butinreverseandfromthebackside.YetVelzquezsmirrorreflects
nothingofwhatwemightexpect.Notthebackofthepainterstandinginfrontofit,
northelittlegirlandherentourage.
-
23
Wehaveinthispeculiarmetaphoricmirror,45nottheperfectduplication,albeit,in
reversal,butabreak,arupturewithreality,thatmirrorsFoucaultsmodelfor
changesinepistemicstructures.Thismirrorbreakswithourexpectationsofwhatit
shouldreflectandshowsussomethingentirelyother.
Insteadofsurroundingvisibleobjects,thismirrorcutsstraightthroughthe
wholefieldoftherepresentation,ignoringallitmightapprehendwithinthat
field,andrestoresvisibilitytothatwhichresidesoutsideallview.[Emphasis
added]46
Notonlydoesthemirrorcutthroughthepaintingandlandoutsidetheboundaries
ofthegivenpictorialspace,butthepaintersgazeoutwardstowardthespacein
which,ifitwerepossible,hismodel,thespectator,andtheartist,Velazquez,co
existconfrontsthatessentialvoidatwhichFoucaultisattemptingtopoint.Weare
toldbyFoucaultandothersthatinVelzquezsmirrorweseethereflectionsofKing
PhilipIVandhiswife,Mariana.Itistheywhoareimprobablyreflectedinthismirror,
anditistheywhoareoccupyingoneofthemultiplecentersofthiscanvas,andwe
imagine,thattheyarethesubjectsofthepaintingthatwecannotsee,theobjectof
thegazeofthispaintedpainter,andtheentiregroupofcourtiers.
inthedepthsofthemirrortherecouldalsoappearthereoughttoappearthe
anonymousfaceofthepasserbyandthatofVelzquez.Forthefunctionofthat
-
24
reflectionistodrawintotheinteriorofthepicturewhatisintimatelyforeigntoit:
thegazewhichhasorganizeditandthegazeforwhichitisdisplayed.47[Emphasis
added]
Themirrorbringsourattentionbacktothespotthatwe,theviewer,andVelzquezco
inhabit.Thismirror,unlikeRortysmimeticmirrorofnature,directsustothefactofour
owncomplicityinwhatwebehold;itshowsusourselvesasviewer,andatthesametimeit
remindsusthatwestandwhereVelzquezstood,conceivedofandexecutedthisimage;
paintedapaintinginwhichheisconsideringthecomplexconstructofrepresentation.
Thismirror,then,whichbringstomindwhatisnotseen,isalsoaperfectmetaphorfor
Foucaulthimself.ItisFoucaultwhohasattemptedtorestorevisibilitytotheinsane,tothe
imprisoned,totheill,tothehomosexualtothoseonthemarginswhoformanyreasons
areinvisibletous.ItisFoucaultwhodrawsintotheinteriorwhatisoutside,whatisforeign
toit.Itisnotthatthemarginalizedaretrulyinvisible.Ratheritisthestructureswithin
whichtheyexistandthediscoursesthatdefinethem,muchlikethepaintingspacedefined
byitsframededgesandcrisscrossinggazes,thatkeepthemfrombeingseen,except,
perhapsreflectedinthemirroroftheirmarginalization.Foucault,likeVelzquezsmirror,
directsustoseethem,standingastheydo,outsideofourepistemicpicture.
FoucaultconcludeshisessaywithaparagraphthatalludestoVelzquezspaintingasthe
representationofClassicalrepresentation.
-
25
Andindeed,representationundertakestorepresentitselfhereinallitselements,
withitsimages,theeyestowhichitisoffered,thefacesitmakesvisible,the
gesturesthatcallitintobeing.Butthereisanessentialvoid:thenecessary
disappearanceofthatwhichisitsfoundationofthepersonitresemblesandthe
personinwhoseeyesitisonlyaresemblance.Thisverysubjecthasbeenelided.48
Thesubjecttowhichtheentireimagecompositionallyisdirected,isnotthere.
Foucaultpositsthisimageanditsmyriadgazestoarticulatetheabsenceofmanas
asubjectpriortomodernity.Andyet,inthispainting,onecanthelpbutnoticethat
allelementsleadusbacktoourselves,standingoutsidethepainting,lookingin.
Withoutourgaze,withoutourperspectivethereisnoonetoponderwhatsubject
wemightseeifwecouldpeeraroundthecornerofthepaintingportrayed.Nor
wouldtherebeanyonetopuzzlethemeaningofthismetapicture.Weareboth,as
Derridamightsuggest,necessarytoandimpossibleinthatpictorialspace.
Conclusion
TowardstheendofTheOrderofThings,FoucaultreturnstoLasMeninasonelast
timetoarticulatethebreakbetweenwhathehasidentifiedasaClassicalnotionof
representationandthearrivalofthemodernsubject.Foucaultshowsusabreakin
ourmodesofunderstandingbypointingtothewayinwhichVelzquezspainting
articulatesacomplexalteringintheorderofthingsandconsequentlythemoment
-
26
whenablurryfluctuationgavewaytothesharpdivisionsofatraditionallydualist
approach.
Asif,inthatvacantspacetowardswhichVelzquezswholepaintingwas
directed,butwhichitwasneverthelessreflectingonlyinthechance
presenceofamirror,andasthoughbystealth,allthefigureswhose
alternation,reciprocalexclusion,interweaving,andflutteringoneimagined
(themodel,thepainter,theking,thespectator)suddenlystoppedtheir
imperceptibledance,immobilizedintoonesubstantialfigure,anddemanded
thattheentirespaceoftherepresentationshouldatlastberelatedtoone
corporealgaze.49
WhenwejoinFoucaultinsteppingbackfromtheimageofLasMeninas,wemeet
himatthemetalevelwhereheispointingatapaintingthatpointsatpainting.Here
heshowsusthatVelzquezsmirrorrevealsthemomentintimewhentheinherent
motionsofourseeingwerecapturedandimprisonedinasovereignpointofview.
Duringtheenlightenedperiodthatfollowed,welosttheinterweavingand
flutteringofimaginationandwerelockedintoaunivocal,rigidgaze.Itonlywhenwe
embracetheemblematicdanceoftheartistasshestepsawayfromandback
towardshercanvas,thatwecanrestoreashimmeringvisibilitytowhathadbecome
aconstrained,immobiletableau.
-
27
FoucaultbeganhisexaminationofLasMeninaswithanoscillation,amovingtoand
frowhichultimatelyundoesthehardedgesofourblackandwhitecategoriesof
insideandoutside,viewerandsubject,centerandmargins.JohnRajchmanreminds
usthatthewordevidence,isderivedfromtheLatin,videre,tosee.50Weseek
evidenceasproofofwhatisreallytrue.ButitisFoucaultsparticularfocusthat
bringshimtolookatwhatweconsidertobeselfevident;whatisalmosttoo
obvioustoevenconsider.Examininghowwesee(orhaveseen)madnessor
delinquencyoroursexualityormedicineorthewaysinwhichweorderour
thoughts,heaskswhyitisthatweseethesethingsintheseparticularways.Heasks
whatisitthatmakestheseconceptsvisibleinthewaysinwhichtheyarevisible.He
asksustolookagain.
WhydoesitmatterhowweseeLasMeninasorwhatwesayaboutit?Itmattersnot
becauseweareaimingtofindtheonetruecorrectrepresentation,theclear
reflectioninthemirrorofnaturethatRortyfoundsoproblematic.Throughthe
oscillationofFoucaultsperformativeessay,wediscoverinsteadtheflickering
functionofthecalligramandtheexcavationofthediscursivespaceofpainting.In
thisinterstitialspace,ourlookingandseeingisinextricablylinkedtoourknowing
andouracting.Itisforthisreasonthatthenotionoftransformingourintrinsicways
ofseeingisnotafrivolousmatter.Ifwecanchangethewaywesee,wecan,as
Foucaultsuggests,freeourvisionfromthedominantwayoflookingatthings,51
shatteringwhathadformerlyseemedsimplyselfevident.BydoingsoLasMeninas,
-
28
thepaintingandLasMeninas,theessaypointustowardthepossibilityof
ultimatelyopeningupofthesiteofrepresentation.
-
29
TableofFigures
Figure1PabloPicasso 3Figure2DomingoBarreres
3Figure3AlbrechtDurer 10Figure4TheTreacheryofImagesReneMagritte
10Figure5EgyptianLifeClassAlain(TheNewYorker1955)
10Figure6InkyLaReve(http://inkylareve.deviantart.com/art/CalligramAnt
41565962) 14
Endnotes
1Snyder,JoelandCohen,Ted,ReflexionsonLasMeninas:ParadoxLost,CriticalInquiry,Vol.7,No.2(Winter,1980),pp.429447,TheUniversityofChicagoPress.2HonourandFleming(1982),AWorldHistoryofArt.London:Macmillan,p.447.3DeDiego,E.2003,"RepresentingRepresentation:ReadingLasMeninasAgain"inVelazquez'sLasMeninas,ed.S.L.StrattonPruitt,CambridgeUniversityPress.4Alpers,S.1983,"InterpretationwithoutRepresentation,or,theViewingofLasMeninas",Representations,Vol.1.5Biberman,E.2006,"OnNarrativityintheVisualField:APsychoanalyticViewofVelazquez'sLasMeninas",Narrative,Vol.14,No.3,October2006,pp.237253.
6 See
Snyder,JoelandCohen,Ted1980,"ReflexionsonLasMeninas:ParadoxLost",CriticalInquiry,vol.7,No.2(Winter),pp.429430447,
Snyder,J.1985,"LasMeninasandTheMirrorofthePrince",CriticalInquiry,Vol.11,No.4,pp.539,
and
Schmitter,A.M.1996,"PicturingPower:RepresentationandLasMeninas",TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,Vol.54,No.Summer,1996,pp.225268.
7
Schmitter,A.M.1996,"PicturingPower:RepresentationandLasMeninas",TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,Vol.54,No.Summer,1996,pp.225268.and
Steinberg,L.1981,"Velazquez'sLasMeninas",October,Vol.19,No.Winter.
-
30
8
Searle,J.R.1980,"LasMeninasandTheParadoxesofPictorialRepresentation",CriticalInquiry,Vol.6,No.Spring.
9LikeKennethClark,whowrote,[One]cannotlookforlongatLasMeninaswithoutwantingtofindouthowitisdone.(SeeClark,Kenneth,1960,LookingatPictures,London:JohnMurray),IlongtodiagramthesetupinwhichVelzquezmusthavestoodtoactuallypaintthispaintingofhimselfdidheuseamirror?Wheredidheplaceit?theInfantaandherentouragedidtheyposeforhim?Theymusthavedone!theAlcazar,thekingandqueen!
10DeDiego,E.2003,"RepresentingRepresentation:ReadingLasMeninasAgain"inVelazquez'sLasMeninas,ed.S.L.StrattonPruitt,CambridgeUniversityPress.11Gresle,Y.2006,"Foucault'sLasMeninasandarthistoricalmethods",JournalofLiteraryStudies,p.1.12Foucault,M.1982,ThisIsNotaPipe,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,p.121.13Mitchell,W.J.T.1994,PictureTheory,TheUniversityofChicagoPress,p.152,andShapiro,G.2003,ArchaeologiesofVision:FoucaultandNietzscheonSeeingandSaying,TheUniversityofChicagoPress,p.247.14OnenotableexceptiontothisisShapiro,G.2003,ArchaeologiesofVision:FoucaultandNietzscheonSeeingandSaying,TheUniversityofChicagoPress.ShapirodigsdeeplyintoFoucaultsessay,examiningimplicitreferencestoMerleauPonty,phenomenology,andhiswritingonthepaintingofCezanne.15Foucault,M.1982,ThisIsNotaPipe,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.16Bryson,N.(ed.)1988,Calligram:EssaysinNewArtHistoryfromFrance,CambridgeUniversityPress,p.xiv.17Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.3.18Ibid.,p.6.19LesMotsetleschoseswaspublishedin1966;theEnglishedition,TheOrderofThings,in1970.20Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.xii.21Ibid.,p.iv.22Shapiro,G.2003,ArchaeologiesofVision:FoucaultandNietzscheonSeeingandSaying,TheUniversityofChicagoPress,p.217.
-
31
23Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.xiv.
24
Foucault,M.1972,TheArchaeologyofKnowledge&theDiscourseonLanguage,Pantheon,p.193.
25SeeMitchell,W.J.T.1994,PictureTheory,TheUniversityofChicagoPress.26Notincidentally,FoucaulthasalsowrittenatreatiseonthisandotherpaintingsbyMagritte,KleeandKandinsky,Foucault,M.1982,ThisIsNotaPipe,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.27Foucault,M.1972,TheArchaeologyofKnowledge&theDiscourseonLanguage,Pantheon.28Foucault,M.1982,ThisIsNotaPipe,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,p.34.
29 Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.9.
30
Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.15.
31Foucault,M.1982,ThisIsNotaPipe,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,p.21.32Deleuze,G.1988,Foucault,UniversityofMinnesotaPress,p.65.33Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.9.34Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.335Ibid.36DeDiego,E.2003,"RepresentingRepresentation:ReadingLasMeninasAgain"inVelazquez'sLasMeninas,ed.S.L.StrattonPruitt,CambridgeUniversityPress,p.150.37Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.4.38Ibid.,p.5.39Ibid.,p.13.40Schmitter,A.M.1996,"PicturingPower:RepresentationandLasMeninas",TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,Vol.54,No.Summer,1996,p.263,andSteinberg,L.1981,"Velazquez'sLasMeninas",October,Vol.19,No.Winter.41Spivak,G.C.1974,"Translator'sPreface"inOfGrammatologyTheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,BaltimoreandLondon.
-
32
42Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.4.43Rajchman,J.1988,"Foucault'sArtofSeeing",October,Vol.44.44Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.4.45ClearlythemirrorpaintedbyVelzquezwasnotintendedtoreflectasmirrorsdo.TheargumentsofSnyder,J.1985,"LasMeninasandTheMirrorofthePrince",CriticalInquiry,Vol.11,No.4,withregardstoanglesofreflectionandanglesofincidencenotwithstanding,evenifthemirrorwerereflectingthepaintinguponwhichVelzquezspainterisworking,itcannotbypassthepainterhimself,whoclearlystandsinthelineoffire.46Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork,p.8.47Ibid.,p.15.48Ibid.,p.16.49Ibid.,p.312.50Rajchman,J.1988,"Foucault'sArtofSeeing",October,Vol.44,p.93.
51
Levin,D.M.1999,SitesofVision:TheDiscursiveConstructionofSightintheHistoryofPhilosophy,TheMITPress,p.17
Bibliography
Alpers,S.1983,"InterpretationwithoutRepresentation,or,theViewingofLasMeninas",Representations,vol.1,no.Feb.pp.3042.
Biberman,E.2006,"OnNarrativityintheVisualField:APsychoanalyticViewofVelazquez'sLasMeninas",Narrative,vol.14,no.No.3,October2006,pp.237253.
Bryson,N.(ed.)1988,Calligram:EssaysinNewArtHistoryfromFrance,CambridgeUniversityPress.
DeDiego,E.2003,"RepresentingRepresentation:ReadingLasMeninasAgain"inVelazquez'sLasMeninas,ed.S.L.StrattonPruitt,CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.150169.
Deleuze,G.1988,Foucault,UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
-
33
Derrida,J.1987,TheTruthinPainting,ChicagoUniversityPress.
Foucault,M.1982,ThisIsNotaPipe,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Foucault,M.1972,TheArchaeologyofKnowledge&theDiscourseonLanguage,Pantheon.
Foucault,M.1970,"LasMeninas"inTheOrderofThingsPantheon,pp.317.
Foucault,M.1970,TheOrderofThings,RandomHouse,NewYork.
Gresle,Y.2006,"Foucault'sLasMeninasandarthistoricalmethods",JournalofLiteraryStudies.
Honour,H.F.,andFleming,John1982,AWorldHistoryofArt,Macmillan.
Levin,D.M.1999,SitesofVision:TheDiscursiveConstructionofSightintheHistoryofPhilosophy,TheMITPress.
Mitchell,W.J.T.1994,PictureTheory,TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
Rajchman,J.1988,"Foucault'sArtofSeeing",October,Vol.44.
Schmitter,A.M.1996,"PicturingPower:RepresentationandLasMeninas",TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,Vol.54,No.Summer,pp.225268.
Searle,J.R.1980,"LasMeninasandTheParadoxesofPictorialRepresentation",CriticalInquiry,Vol.6,No.Spring,pp.477488.
Shapiro,G.2003,ArchaeologiesofVision:FoucaultandNietzscheonSeeingandSaying,TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
Snyder,J.1985,"LasMeninasandTheMirrorofthePrince",CriticalInquiry,Vol.11,No.4.
Snyder,JoelandCohen,Ted1980,"ReflexionsonLasMeninas:ParadoxLost",CriticalInquiry,vol.7,no.No.2(Winter),pp.429430447.
Spivak,G.C.1974,"Translator'sPreface"inOfGrammatologyTheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,BaltimoreandLondon,pp.ixlxxxvii.
Steinberg,L.1981,"Velazquez'sLasMeninas",October,Vol.19,No.Winter.
