Diego Velasquez' "Las Meninas"

Instead of the hidden canvas being reflected in the mirror, it is their 'actual' imagery being reflected. It has been pointed out, however, that had the royal couple been standing where we, as spectator, are standing, then their actual image in the mirror would have been much, much smaller; they would have seemed to be standing a full two lengths of the room away from where they/we stand. However, they would have been so small as to be unrecognizable, and it was presumably for this reason that Velázquez, subverting true perspective, portrayed them in the mirror the way he did.


Call me Ishmael...

"... much, much smaller;"

I don't understand this assertion. The Royal Couple's image in the mirror is already smaller than the Chamberlain standing on the steps outside the room. And the Chamberlain is already "much, much smaller" than the occupants in the room.

Is there an optical and mathematical analysis of the perspectives in this painting? I am intrigued.

And i agree with the Wikipedia quote from Hugh Honour and John Fleming, "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."








_____________

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

Well, maybe "much, much smaller" is overstating the case. I may be wrong, and this isn't an argument I'm prepared to go to the stake defending, but since the back wall of the chamber we are in is a full five window bays to the rear of where "we" are located, "our" reflection in the mirror would be situated a full ten window bays back. Jose Nieto, standing in the doorway, is placed on the steps comeing down into an ante-chamber, somewhat behind the rear wall of our room, but not very far behind. And the royal couple, while a tad smaller than him, don't seem very much further back, as they would surely need to be if they were ten bays back from the picture plane.

Here's a reconstruction of the room by John Moffitt, who thinks the reflection is a reflection of what is on the canvas rather than a reflection of the actual royal couple:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Meninas#/media/File:Las_Meninas_Aufsicht_und_Aufriss.jpg

And here's another reconstruction of the room (only five windows here as opposed to Moffitt's six...)

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Image-Library/Exempla/velasquzSm.jpg

And the notion that the royal couple are "spectators" is illustrated in this reconstruction:

http://www.razonypalabra.org.mx/anteriores/n55/imgs/meninas2.jpg


Call me Ishmael...

Ignorance is bliss.

The links showing the dimensions of the chamber were surely too much information for the casual rubbernecker.

I don't think, presumably, Diego expected his audience to know what the chamber's dimensions were. He certainly didn't paint it like it was that deeeeeeep.

I will try to expunge this chamber info from my mind as best as I can. In this case, ignorance is bliss.








___________

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

I don't think, presumably, Diego expected his audience to know what the chamber's dimensions were. He certainly didn't paint it like it was that deeeeeeep. Well he does seem to flatten the perspective. Nevertheless he did paint those five window bays very precisely, however subtly, and they would "read" as belonging to a long room. At the same time the figure of Jose Nieto and the reflection in the mirror pull in quite the other direction. Which is actually an interesting correlative of how we see space.


Call me Ishmael...