I shall begin this blog by stating this: I had been looking for a bit of clarity concerning Velasquez’s painting, Las Meninas; however, I only found an abundance of confusion. The painting I am referring to can be viewed in the blog before this one. Anyway, to give the above mentioned comment context—this is why I have been having a bad day, which seems to be a direct result of reading Michel Foucault’s preface, and chapter on Les Meninas, in The Order Of Things. I do not dislike the French philosopher, but I do wish his explanation of the painting had not been so complex. Let me first summarize some of the issues he addresses in the preface of his work, before moving on to his actual theories about the painting, which has manifested a bad day.
Trust me; mythology is relevant to this discussion.
Preface: In Foucault’s preface to the Order Of Things, he begins his discussion of the subject matter of his book, by discussing the motivation for it, which was apparently inspired by a piece, by the Argentinean author, Jorge Luis Borges: “As I read the passage…all the familiar landmarks of my thought—our thought, the thought that bears the stamp of our age and our geography—breaking up all ordered surfaces and all the planes with which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and continue long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between Same and Other”. To add further context to this quote, what he is specifically referring to, is Borges description of a Chinese encyclopedia, which seems completely absurd to a westerners classification of things. Yet, he makes the point that the absurdity, or rather, the marvel of the structure, does not lie in culture differences, but rather in natural methods of categorization—the juxtaposing of objects in an invisible space, exists in all cultures. The invisible, unthinkable space, he is referring to is “the non-place of language”. Yet within in this non-place categories would not even exist if “this classification…had…not insinuated itself from the empty space, the interstitial blanks separating all these entities from one another...(even) the mere act of enumeration that heaps all together has a power of enchantment all its own.” Sorry, the flow of that sentence was a little off. Anyway, further in the preface, Foucault in a more important statement claims—pertaining to this discussion of classification, that, “in every culture, between the use of what one might call the ordering codes and reflections upon order itself, there is pure the experience of order and modes of being.” Hmm…that’s rather interesting, and sounds familiar. Perhaps this is because we have been discussing these subjects all semester. Let’s reflect for a moment on Dr. Sexson’s article: Myth: The Way We Are or the Way We Were. Isn’t this also a study of how one categorizes existence so it makes sense, does this article not analyze both extremes—the scientific, and the fantastic—and demonstrate fluently that both fundamentally rely on an invisible plain were order is crucial for existence. For example, science needs the juxtaposition of myth: the way we were, in order for it to be science, the way we are. Sorry, this is turning into a digression that needs more explanation latter. Let me move on to Las Meninas before this day gets worse.
Las Meninas: In his discussion of the painting Las Meninas, I think Foucault is trying to make the point that: when one looks at the painting, they are the invisible subject, on the invisible palate, in the left hand corner of the painting, that the artist—a self portrait—is painting. Sorry, this sentence makes sense—I hope—if you actually look at the paining in my previous blog. Also, what I think Foucault is trying to say about Velasquez’s painting is that it is a visual representation of this blank space, order. How it accomplishes this feat is by creating a forever moveable category—we the gazers, as we pass by—in a time without limit. Think about it, the palate forever remains blank, yet the subject doesn’t, and classifications only become more complex in this vertical, possibly horizontal line of order. Let’s review, the painting is stationary, yet its subject matter isn’t—ordering is stationary. This becomes even more interesting, because this sentiment seems to be the primary theme of the painting, yet we are duped. One should motion their glance to the brightly lit mirror, which seems to render the immediate subjects of Velasquez’s painting—the little girl and the dwarf, invisible as well. So not only are we the subjects invisible they are as well. I know what you are thinking: WTF, LOL. However, we can still make out the faint reflection of two subjects in the mirror—so maybe there is a subject. I give up—I think Foucault states that this painting is all just trickery.
What a horrible day in the middle.
No comments:
Post a Comment