User talk:Tethros

Las Meninas

Hi Tethros, thanks for inviting my comment. I'll tell you why I disagree with other statements in the paragraph:

Unlike the presumed reflection of the king and queen, the courtier does not literally hold a position analagous to that of the viewer--indeed, he may be looking over V's shoulder at the painting, or he may be looking at us. But then, several of the principal figures are looking at either us or the implied position of the king and queen.
Given his placement, it is true that he can not be seen by V.; however, neither can the other courtiers standing in the shadows directly behind the painter.
It is not true that 'he is not involved in the scene in any way'--if he were not, he would be beneath our notice. Better to say that the implication is that he is the most distant observer, and would be viewing the backs of nearly everyone's heads.

As a painter, I tend to believe he was painted in for compositional purposes, and maybe as an appropriate reference to his position at court. As a writer, I think the supposition offered in this paragraph is neither solid nor important enough to hold such a central place in the essay.

In short, he is a most arresting footnote to the image, but not of the import implied here. I'd be interested in your comments, and the possibility that you have historical literature that supports your theories. JNW 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has since occurred to me (having gotten up, cleared my head, and met a friend for drinks), that the last point is the one that matters--the paragraph sounds like original research to me, and needs a credible source to back it up. JNW 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]