Foucault initially talks about the painter portrayed in the painting. This painter appears to be painting a picture of the viewer of the painting. Foucault goes into much more detail with a sort of paradoxical rant about viewing the invisible, yet this is interesting because of the idea that we are looking at a fictitious painter who is painting something that is invisible. Foucault goes on to talk about the mirror that is present, and glowing in the center of the painting. It is thought that in this mirror, King Philip IV and his wife are portrayed. This is thought to potentially be the subject for the painted painter.
All of the information in this essay is very interesting and thought provoking. I look at the painting in an entirely different way after reading the essay, different from my first glance at the painting, when I thought I had seen everything.
I agree with you that essay was interesting, but I thought that Foucault dragged a lot of his explanation out and could have been a little more concise in certain areas. I think that sometimes the overuse of words distracts from what he was trying to say.
ReplyDelete