+Nerdwriter1 Hi Evan. I just want you to know I wrote this video, along with Tina, about six months ago. And thought it would have been impossible for us to copy you, I find it flattering people thought we did. Additionally, if you really do want to see more Art Analysis on UA-cam... I have a bunch on my channel. I'd be overwhelmed if you checked it out. I'd love to hear what you think. --James Earle
Also, the viewer is seeing from the king's perspective. In a way, it's like a photograph, where the king can look at the painting and remember a specific moment in time from his own point of view.
It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle. The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror. But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas. There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
@@ManHeyuan Or the mirror image reflects what's in the canvas, which means Velazquez was actually painting them, and what we see happening is a millisecond instant while the monarchs were posing, at the same spot we are looking at this masterpiece.
@@MrFileFifty Nerdwriter focused on the calculated technical aspects of the painting. It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle. The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror. But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas. There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
I visited the Prado museum in 1999 and I remember this painting. It's so captivating because it makes you feel like you are part of the scene. The clever thing is that the reflection might be there to make it look like you are the King or Queen. when I visited the museum I also appreciated paintings by Goya because his canvases reflect the historical period with political and social troubles.
About the Las Meninas painting, I saw it in the 1970s. At that time, it was alone in a smallish room with a huge mirror facing it at an angle. It was a weird game to look at it in the mirror with yourself in the group of people. Was this the set-up when you saw it?
Another interpretation: The entire portrait is a mirror. The girl is the viewer looking at the mirror reflecting what is going on behind her, incl. the painter. Behind her there is a mirror reflecting the king & queen. But the king and queen is NOT seen in the mirror in front of her. The king and queen is either in front of the girl AND beyond the large mirror(beyond the reality of the portrait). OR they are idealised figments of the girl's reality which she asks the painter to include in the final portrait. Thus the entire painting is a reflection of the girl's ideal which does not reflect the famine at the time.
Juniper Jellybeans Also, with that interpretation, it makes more sense that the painter himself is there, he could have been painting the environment around him, idk if I explain myself
It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle. The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror. But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas. There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
The idea that someone would paint a painting that size knowing just how long it would take to finish is the most incredible thing to me. And with so many characters in it too. And a room that is drawn SO well. It DOES look like you can walk in it.
This magnificent painting is in my opinion a fabulous self portrait of Velasquez painting a hugh portrait of the King and Queen. He paints all the persons and the dog from memory, as he knows them well, in very studied positions and depicting real depth and atmosphere. No other painter did any work quite like this.
I saw this piece in person. It’s much larger than it seems on screen -not life size- however, it draws you in. You feel you are part of the scene, as if you were standing there with the painter and the royals. This and the Burial of The Count Orgaz by El Greco blew my mind away
To appreciate this phenomenal work live at El Prado has been truly a highlight of my life. To do while accompanying my mother who was visiting Europe for the first time and who provided lots of insight from all the books she’d read as a European history and art fanatic was just the icing on the cake for a profoundly treasured memory!
Absolutely true I was at the Prado yesterday and was shocked by how this painting makes you feel like you are in the same room as the people in the painting! when you look deeper you see interesting things like a mirror reflecting the king and queen... it’s great to see the thinking behind it :)
It’s so captivating because it makes you feel like you are part of the picture, part of the scene going on. The cleverness of putting himself in the painting Maika the the portrait of the king and queen is so clever and makes it so realistic, you feel like you are there. One of my favorite paintings of all time.
because of its value. the surrounding paintings that actually do hang on the wall have a much darker shade, whereas the mirror that reflects the royal parents is much much lighter. this tells us that it has to reflect light, so it probably is a mirror. a window at that wall wouldn't reflect as much light, as it's only made ot of glass and couldn't reflect such a clear image of the parents in that room.
It was unlikely a royal portrait of the King and Queen, given its relative size, and position on the wall, at that height. Just visit government offices to see where royal portraits are hung. There are strict guidelines on the use of royal arms, names and images in public. It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle. The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror. But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas. There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
Such photorealistic painting skill is such a lost art today (no pun intended). I can't even begin to think how they learn the skill before the internet age lol
I have seen this picture in the museum and i can say that when you enter the room and then see the it in front across all the big room, you can feel all about the perspective and how you could enter walking it. It is just marvelous to watch it irl, totally recomended if you like art
I saw the original picture at El Prado Museum in Madrid, and loved it. You can tell it’s very famous by the amount of people gathered in front of it all the time, and because staff are always vigilant that you’re not taking photos
It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle. The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror. But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas. There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
I think for me lines and perspective were important but also how the subjects were made to seem so simply human. You get the sense that the painter treasures the little girl and servants are depicted in an unusual level of detail doing everyday activities as well.
It also gives the viewer the temporary experience of being the monarch being painted. It's a moment in time, painted with realism. It's very clever and no wonder it's so studied.
I've never really been a big fan of Velazquez having seen many of his paintings but this one is by far and away his best one. It's amazing. I was particularly struck by its depth and perspective. Nothing does it justice than seeing it in person. The Prado along with the Bosch paintings make it worth the trip to see it.
In the 1970s there was a symposium where more than 100 museum directors attended, and the following story I heard directly from Philippe de Montebello. At one point, it was suggested that they played a game, a list of the ten works of art from other collections they would most want in their museum. In the end, the only painting cited in everyone's list, was Las Meninas.
What I think about the painting is that it is made as if the King and Queen were viewing it. The audience is supposed to imagine themselves as the royal couple, only then will the painting be complete. Everybody is staring at you because you are the King/Queen . The painter is drawing your portrait (which is reflected in the mirror) and has paused to study your features. It's such an intriguing painting because it blurs the boundary between reality and imagination. Its like time travelling which makes you live with the people who died hundreds of years ago.
I was once at the Metropolitan Museum in NY in the mid 1990s when I overheard a guide saying to a group standing in front of Velázquez' magnificent "Juan de Pareja" the following story: There was a reunion of museum directors at a museum in Europe (don't remember the date or place) with more than one hundred members, when someone had the idea to play a game, or to do a 'market research of sorts', and that was to ask each museum director to write a list of the ten artworks they most desired for their collections, provided they were from other museums and not their own. In the end, the only piece that made every list (except the Prado's director) was Velázquez 'Las Meninas'. If this doesn't speak volumes for the importance of this painting, nothing else will
I first learned about this painting in Spanish class in high school. I remember that the King and Queen were pissed when he did this. Personally, I think he was creative and bold when he did this. I don't hear a lot of painters who paint what is next to or behind them instead of in front of them
Saw this painting when on a trip to Spain, even without all this scholarly insight, the painting is beautiful and you can come to some of the same conclusions about its complexity. GG, Velasquez
An amazing piece of trivia is the fact that Velazques wanted to become a Knight, but he couldn't because of his profession (and because it was suspected that one of his grandparents was Jewish). He tried to convince the king Phillip the iv with this painting. The king in return was able to convince the church to allow him to name Diego a Knight, and thus 3 years after this painting was finished, velazques painted the "Cruz de Santiago", which is the chapter of Knights that he was named into. (it is rumored that the King himself painted that cross). Velazques knew very well the meaning of it and he wouldn't have dated to paint it without first obtaining it.
The little girl is La Infanta Margarita and she is the person most painted by Velazquez. Her mother, Mariana of Austria had an interesting story. Mariana was a Hapsburg and was bethrothed to one of Felipe's sons. While she was traveling to Spain the son died. So she gets to Spain and Felipe tells her "well, my wife just died and I need a wife." So they marry. Felipe was her uncle so Mariana became her own aunt by marriage. Made things confusing at Christmas, for sure.
I think.. i think you meant to say *"Mariana* tells him, "well, my fiancee/your son just died and i need a new husband" Which would make more sense, if not, then does that mean both the son and the wife of felipe died?
Wow, I loved this video!!! I don't have much exposure to classical art in my daily life. while in college I really enjoyed an art appreciation elective class I had. This reminds me of that. it amazes me how much meaning can be put into a painting, or can be read I to it.
For those who don't get why it's mind blowing: (1) Imagine the portrait is a mirror, you are the painter standing there with a brush. You look at the mirror and paint the scene on the canvas. Thus the portrait depicts it's own creation in real time. (2) Imagine you are the king/queen looking at the painter who is painting you. Your figures are reflected in the little mirror in the centre of the portrait. Therefore the portrait depicts the scene of the royal couple being painted. But in actuality this never happened. It is a false reality. NOTE: There are more interpretations.
That’s what I was thinking. In the modern age we have liberties, so to speak, equal to or beyond that of a 16th century king or queen. We get to dictate the art we consume and who is worthy of being recognized for their craft
The explanation of the video is very interesting, since it shows us that each of the ways in which the characters are found within the painting has a reason, the dimensions that exist with the objects and the most interesting thing is that the painter himself is found inside of the painting 
My girlfriend and now my wife got to see it at the Prado..in1998…we bought a copy in the gift shop and it has hung in every place we have lived in since..So many good memories..
I’ve always thought the composition of this piece is weird for how delicately put together it is. Say this is meant to be the king and queen having a portrait made, why is their daughter stood awkwardly by the painter in the middle of this empty room with her hand maids trying to serve her, why are the two dwarves (who I believe were jesters) also in the picture disturbing a dog in front of the king whilst a delicate and important painting is being made nearby?? And why is everyone bunched together by the window of this perceivably large room? The setting seems very unrealistic. I always got the impression that it was more like the backstage of a theatre production, where the girl is the star of the show rather than a portrait of a royal court.
The way it looks to me is that the viewer is in the place where the king and queen would be. The mirror is straight in front of you, reflecting you as the king and queen, and the artist stepped back to look at you as he is painting you. Since the painting doesn't look partially unfinished, it might be one of his final inspections of the reality before him, like he's just about done rendering it. Of course that is just one piece of the story told in the painting. I'd have to think about it a lot longer to come up with thoughts on the rest of it 😏
The painting itself is a reflection painted from a large mirror, or smaller ones arranged looking at themselves. I didn't know much about this masterpiece then, and I was only interested in Velazquez's technique by analyzing as much of his paintings I could in high definition, and of course to get a glimpse of the man behind the GENIUS. However, when I saw "Las Meninas" for the very first time, my eyes went directly to the face of the MASTER (painter), and he intentionally implies with his slightly distorted (more like slanted I would say) face in the whole composition that it is no doubt a face painted from a reflection, as it is the large canvas in the painting and the subjects as well. He paints the same painting in the painting that is painted and fixed on the wall of the Museo del Prado nowadays. Of course the paintings on the walls are done not as reflections, and the mirror in which the King and Queen appear, and so on. He deliberately painted some elements mirrored and some not, as I would do myself in my own illustrations. The paintings on the wall he could have painted by seeing them directly, yet, I think for the sake of the composition's unity, and for inspiration for the artist to capture his subjects precisely, many have posed for days or weeks (himself included) when he had done the foreground. The many deliberately planned elements combined in one composition of course baffles many people, and this was exactly his intention, yet it does not those who know "that one stroke of brush is never one stroke" and those that know (better than I) the rules of subjective and psychological creativity.
This is REAL art. We had to study this specific painting in Spanish class and we covered a lot of what was in this video. How can anyone think that a can of soup, a dot on a blank canvas, ect. (modern art) is worth anything in comparasion with this?
A lot of modern art relies on abstract concepts or the viewers' interactions with the piece rather than the beauty or complexity of the piece itself. In some ways modern art is pretty cool because it gets a lot more psychological and seeks to transcend visual perceptions, but it often comes off as too simple or ugly. And then some artists just don't put in any thought. It really helps to read the artist statement to see if a piece is actually good or not.
And see, I don't mind that. The thing that makes me angry (if that word works here) is that people don't really make more classical pieces anymore because it supposedly isn't fashionable anymore. That's why I enjoy going to deviatart ect. because that's the closest thing I see to current classical art, but unfortunately these amazing artists who put such thought and work into their pieces get almost completely looked over and almost all of the "famous" artists are these elitists who put out work that I see as having less intrinsic value. I like butterscotch, but I don't want to eat it all the time and I get sick of only butterscotch everywhere. That's kinda the point of what I was saying (but better worded)
When patronage disappeared, that´s when real art died. The artist needs the patron to tell him how to let his talent flow. Velázquez was so great because the king told him to be great. When they don´t have a boss they just create gibberish.
+Kara Crawford So happy you liked this one, and want more art history videos. I wrote this, and many more like it (I have four other TED ed videos), but I also have my own channel (AmorSciendi) that i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on. Thanks again!
i remember when this painting was in my history book and i spent the entire class analysing it, not really sure why... it's just so interesting in a strange way
Las Mininas is more accurately translated The Chaperones. Every level of rank who has the responsibility of chaperone is represented. We start in the foreground, the guard dog, a playmate, most likely a child of a courtier, the court fools as represented by the dwarves, next the personal attendant with the glass of water and girl standing opposite to her, followed by various tutors represented by the nun and man next to her, then far in the back shown in the doorway we have the keeper of keys the highest rank of servant in the court.Now heres the genius of Velasquez ,he shows the reflection of the King and Queen not only overseeing the entire scene, but looking out into the world of the observer hence watching over their kingdom chaperoning all who they survey! Brilliant.
Nerdwriter1 and Amor Sciendi are two great educators and lovers of art, they are different and provide unique perspectives. More analyses of art works of all types would be a good thing and TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) would be a good place to do it.
If we went back in time and ask him he would probably just be like " I thought putting the king and queen in a mirror would be cool." I like to speculate too, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
+al gore But whether a cigar is actually a cigar isn't important in art. Art is about interpretation. The artist's belief of what the work means hold no more bearing on a finished piece than the belief of any audience member. And no audience member's belief hold more bearing than that of any other audience member. The artists spent their entire time working on the piece in order to get their message across to the audience they envisioned. During that time, they had total control over the meaning of every aspect of the work, and built the work around those meanings. However, once they stopped working on it, and gave it over to the audience to view, they relinquished control. The artist's meanings sculpted the work, but they have no authority over the final interpretation. In short, audiences aren't speculating on what the artist meant. They are finding meaning.
+Jensaw101 but was this painted in a time where artists sought meaning beyond what they painted? I can see a painting of royalty being a symbol of nationalism and prestige, but that's about it.
+Jensaw101 to your point, the audience is trying to find meaning, that's what I'm saying. There isn't always a meaning behind something. sometimes a cigar is just that.
al gore Where we disagree is in what interpretations are meaningful or 'real.' It doesn't matter that the artist created a work without any intended meanings, the audience can still find meaning. That doesn't make the audience's interpretation wrong, fictional or otherwise meaningless.
Oh what a critical evaluation and analysis in context without passing any judgments with appropriate frame of reference and all these done with such brevity and beauty that even novices will start at least looking at paintings, if not appreciate or understand it, from a better perspective and perception. Actually this is how in depth analysis of literary texts, art, music and dance are also done. Two striking features of criticism One to confine to the inherent merits of the medium-music, dance or painting, language, subject- one may differ on taste, sensitive reactions, biased opinions[ either negative or positive] aesthetic appreciation of the work. Two evaluate in contextual perspective and try one's level best to get under the skin of or inside the skull of or into the arteries of the creator or producer of the work of art or music. Then one can feel the pulse of what is or what was there in the creator’s mind and heart. Then, the critic may proceed to further scrutinize it from other angles which the critic feels like, techniques, grammar, in comparison to other such artists or products etc.
Velasquez was a truly great painter, one of the best ever. But he is also an example of how a single artist's work and legacy can, (unintentionally of course), hold back and stagnate the work of generations of artists who come after him/her. I once heard a writer say that Shakespeare, as great as he was, was actually bad for English drama in one respect as his work became so dominant, it effectively stalled the further development of theater in Britain for centuries after his death. Velasquez's work created a similar situation. The painterly, tonal realism of his style was admired and obsessively imitated by generations of painters who came after him, especially in Britain where his work was idolized in the Georgian era by portrait painters like Gainsborough and Reynolds. In Australia, between the late 1800s and up until the early 1950s, there were hordes of tonal realist painters who were brought up to worship Velasquez like a God and who all thought they were carrying on his legacy. But they usually just imitated the surfaces of Velasquez's paintings, the free-brush, painterly tonal style, using it to churn out hundreds of drab grey-brown portraits. They were trying to just copy the style of Velasquez but they overlooked the substance, the things that truly made the Spaniard great- how he captured the character, emotions and personality of his subjects. My Dad went to art-school in Australia in the 1950s and he said that by then, teachers were no longer pushing Velasquez's work as the ultimate benchmark, it was now Cezanne who was the new idol for art students to revere and emulate.
I have always wondered whether our interpretations of old paintings, such as this one, really are exactly how the original artists had planned it to be interpreted. I mean, what if these artists just drew whatever came out of their minds and never really thought about the meaning of their paintings in such an elaborate way? Did these artists leave some kind of notes or diaries that contained clues or instructions for their paintings? I'm not trying to be skeptical, I am only curious. Please prove me wrong nicely, if ever.
I'm Spanish and an artist, and there is a cuple of mistakes. What my art of history teacher explain to us, is that the princess is entering that door, which is the principal point of light, to se their fathers, the royalty, being drawed in the studio of Velazquez. So the really interesting about the painting is that the viewer is whatching as the point of view of the kings, being drawed by velazquez, reflected on the mirror. Olso the boy who is kicking the poor dog, is Nicholas, and he isn't a dwarf. AND the more funny, is that Velazquez draw himself in the picture to show off that he was the artist of the court. As LOOK AT ME BITCHES, I'M THE MADAFAKA VELAZQUEZ. OH. and in the map, you really has eaten Portugal boys, it's like paint usa over Canada xDD Poor Portugal.
Diego also replicated the two paintings on the back wall which could have been mentioned! Peter Paul Ruebens "Ovid's Metamorphosis": Pallas and Arachne on the left and Apollo as victor over Pan on the right!
One interpretation I've heard is that the mirror's central positioning seems to align with where the viewers would be standing. Essentially, anyone looking at the painting could be looking at themselves as the monarchs, a radical upending of the social order at the time.
Great work, TED. UA-cam deserves more painting analysis.
We love you Evan! Your analysis on this painting was really spot on. I'm inclined to say you did a better job.
Loved your one a lot more though :3
And Ted's inspiration for this video is quite clear :P
Great work, +Nerdwriter1. The world deserve more people like you.
+Nerdwriter1 Everyone subscribe to this guy!
You will get videos like this... and videos that analyse Ren and Stimpy!
+Nerdwriter1 Hi Evan. I just want you to know I wrote this video, along with Tina, about six months ago. And thought it would have been impossible for us to copy you, I find it flattering people thought we did. Additionally, if you really do want to see more Art Analysis on UA-cam... I have a bunch on my channel. I'd be overwhelmed if you checked it out. I'd love to hear what you think. --James Earle
How can you be so smart Ted?
LOL
+Jye Woberts its not one guys YT Channel, there are hundreds of Artists, Teachers etc. behind this. ^^
I´m just saying if you didnt knew that.
+Jye Woberts not being cruz
Because he is Ted Mosby... *Wink* an archetect.
Why isn't there a Tracy Ed then Glitae?
Also, the viewer is seeing from the king's perspective. In a way, it's like a photograph, where the king can look at the painting and remember a specific moment in time from his own point of view.
Shawn Ravenfire
It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle.
The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror.
But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas.
There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
@@ManHeyuan Or the mirror image reflects what's in the canvas, which means Velazquez was actually painting them, and what we see happening is a millisecond instant while the monarchs were posing, at the same spot we are looking at this masterpiece.
Brilliance!
Actually based on the angle it’s way more likely that the mirror is reflecting the canvas not the onlooker
Didn't go into this video expecting much, but it was actually really interesting!
Watch Nerdwriter's interpretation of this painting. It's much better than this video.
Yeah, I thought the same thing too!
@@MrFileFifty
Nerdwriter focused on the calculated technical aspects of the painting.
It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle.
The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror.
But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas.
There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
I visited the Prado museum in 1999 and I remember this painting. It's so captivating because it makes you feel like you are part of the scene. The clever thing is that the reflection might be there to make it look like you are the King or Queen. when I visited the museum I also appreciated paintings by Goya because his canvases reflect the historical period with political and social troubles.
@Manu Crosetta - Even though I did a paper on this painting, I had no idea how big it is. Seeing it in person must be awe-striking!
About the Las Meninas painting, I saw it in the 1970s. At that time, it was alone in a smallish room with a huge mirror facing it at an angle. It was a weird game to look at it in the mirror with yourself in the group of people. Was this the set-up when you saw it?
@@MossyMozart - Yes, it is absolutely amazing.
Another interpretation: The entire portrait is a mirror. The girl is the viewer looking at the mirror reflecting what is going on behind her, incl. the painter. Behind her there is a mirror reflecting the king & queen. But the king and queen is NOT seen in the mirror in front of her. The king and queen is either in front of the girl AND beyond the large mirror(beyond the reality of the portrait). OR they are idealised figments of the girl's reality which she asks the painter to include in the final portrait. Thus the entire painting is a reflection of the girl's ideal which does not reflect the famine at the time.
Juniper Jellybeans Also, with that interpretation, it makes more sense that the painter himself is there, he could have been painting the environment around him, idk if I explain myself
It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle.
The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror.
But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas.
There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
@@ManHeyuan o
Same
The idea that someone would paint a painting that size knowing just how long it would take to finish is the most incredible thing to me. And with so many characters in it too. And a room that is drawn SO well. It DOES look like you can walk in it.
More of these painting analyses, please!
This magnificent painting is in my opinion a fabulous self portrait of Velasquez painting a hugh portrait of the King and Queen. He paints all the persons and the dog from memory, as he knows them well, in very studied positions and depicting real depth and atmosphere. No other painter did any work quite like this.
I saw this piece in person. It’s much larger than it seems on screen -not life size- however, it draws you in. You feel you are part of the scene, as if you were standing there with the painter and the royals. This and the Burial of The Count Orgaz by El Greco blew my mind away
Well what size screen do u have cuz I have a iPhone 6 sooooo I think the painting is really small 😂🤣🤣
@@gigihickman77 I haven't seen it irl but my Spanish teacher described it as real looking and it is life size irl
To appreciate this phenomenal work live at El Prado has been truly a highlight of my life. To do while accompanying my mother who was visiting Europe for the first time and who provided lots of insight from all the books she’d read as a European history and art fanatic was just the icing on the cake for a profoundly treasured memory!
Absolutely true I was at the Prado yesterday and was shocked by how this painting makes you feel like you are in the same room as the people in the painting! when you look deeper you see interesting things like a mirror reflecting the king and queen... it’s great to see the thinking behind it :)
It’s so captivating because it makes you feel like you are part of the picture, part of the scene going on. The cleverness of putting himself in the painting Maika the the portrait of the king and queen is so clever and makes it so realistic, you feel like you are there. One of my favorite paintings of all time.
This might be a really dumb question, but how do you know that's it's a mirror and not just a painting hanging on the wall?
I'd say it's a mirror because the texture seems faded with light
because of its value. the surrounding paintings that actually do hang on the wall have a much darker shade, whereas the mirror that reflects the royal parents is much much lighter. this tells us that it has to reflect light, so it probably is a mirror. a window at that wall wouldn't reflect as much light, as it's only made ot of glass and couldn't reflect such a clear image of the parents in that room.
It is a mirror, you can see the colour is very different from the actual paintings hanging around it.
It was unlikely a royal portrait of the King and Queen, given its relative size, and position on the wall, at that height.
Just visit government offices to see where royal portraits are hung.
There are strict guidelines on the use of royal arms, names and images in public.
It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle.
The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror.
But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas.
There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
In complete honesty we will never know for sure whether it's a painting or a mirror
painting analysis is so interesting, you are no longer just seeing it with the eye, but now it has a deeper meaning to the mind as well.
I actually saw this painting in person and it’s so beautiful and it feels almost real. It feels like you’re actually there.
Such photorealistic painting skill is such a lost art today (no pun intended).
I can't even begin to think how they learn the skill before the internet age lol
That form of art became obsolete with the introduction of photography. Hence Van Gogh, et. al
boy638 you should check out Rod Penner's works.
boy638 it's not lost, it's called hyperrealism now.
I think you don't know very much about painting to say something like that
Lol nah.
I have seen this picture in the museum and i can say that when you enter the room and then see the it in front across all the big room, you can feel all about the perspective and how you could enter walking it. It is just marvelous to watch it irl, totally recomended if you like art
I saw the original picture at El Prado Museum in Madrid, and loved it. You can tell it’s very famous by the amount of people gathered in front of it all the time, and because staff are always vigilant that you’re not taking photos
Thanks for bringing out the unexpected *depth* of this painting. What is 'off-canvas' is as important as what is on-canvas.
Nerdwriter did a UA-cam video analysis of this painting too. You should check him out
was about to say that
Prince Blake Yeah, this video reminded me of him
It is Diego Velazquez’s intent that the mirror image shows reflection from more than one possible angle.
The King and Queen could be directly in front of the mirror.
But, they could also be staring at the mirror reflection of their own portrait on the canvas.
There are deeper philosophical nuances to this painting titled, “Maids of honor”.
and the funny thing is, that both videos explore pretty different information!
I think for me lines and perspective were important but also how the subjects were made to seem so simply human. You get the sense that the painter treasures the little girl and servants are depicted in an unusual level of detail doing everyday activities as well.
It also gives the viewer the temporary experience of being the monarch being painted. It's a moment in time, painted with realism. It's very clever and no wonder it's so studied.
Okay, now I want to watch a full length documentary on this painting. That was fascinating!
I've never heard of this painting until this moment and I'm super impressed by it.
I've never really been a big fan of Velazquez having seen many of his paintings but this one is by far and away his best one. It's amazing. I was particularly struck by its depth and perspective. Nothing does it justice than seeing it in person. The Prado along with the Bosch paintings make it worth the trip to see it.
In the 1970s there was a symposium where more than 100 museum directors attended, and the following story I heard directly from Philippe de Montebello. At one point, it was suggested that they played a game, a list of the ten works of art from other collections they would most want in their museum. In the end, the only painting cited in everyone's list, was Las Meninas.
The power of Art never ceases to amaze me. Nice work, Ted-Ed.
What I think about the painting is that it is made as if the King and Queen were viewing it. The audience is supposed to imagine themselves as the royal couple, only then will the painting be complete. Everybody is staring at you because you are the King/Queen . The painter is drawing your portrait (which is reflected in the mirror) and has paused to study your features. It's such an intriguing painting because it blurs the boundary between reality and imagination. Its like time travelling which makes you live with the people who died hundreds of years ago.
I was once at the Metropolitan Museum in NY in the mid 1990s when I overheard a guide saying to a group standing in front of Velázquez' magnificent "Juan de Pareja" the following story: There was a reunion of museum directors at a museum in Europe (don't remember the date or place) with more than one hundred members, when someone had the idea to play a game, or to do a 'market research of sorts', and that was to ask each museum director to write a list of the ten artworks they most desired for their collections, provided they were from other museums and not their own. In the end, the only piece that made every list (except the Prado's director) was Velázquez 'Las Meninas'. If this doesn't speak volumes for the importance of this painting, nothing else will
I didn't even care about the painting until you mention it. Thanks for always showing me cool stuff!
I first learned about this painting in Spanish class in high school. I remember that the King and Queen were pissed when he did this. Personally, I think he was creative and bold when he did this. I don't hear a lot of painters who paint what is next to or behind them instead of in front of them
Saw this painting when on a trip to Spain, even without all this scholarly insight, the painting is beautiful and you can come to some of the same conclusions about its complexity. GG, Velasquez
Great review of a fantastic, incredible, legendary painting.
I never thought about it.
This TED showed me the new perspective of art.
Far from a simple craft... Worth a thousand words with many theories as to it's meaning.
Namaste.
Wow UA-cam knows me to well, my history teacher showed us this painting and I always wondered why I liked it so much
An amazing piece of trivia is the fact that Velazques wanted to become a Knight, but he couldn't because of his profession (and because it was suspected that one of his grandparents was Jewish). He tried to convince the king Phillip the iv with this painting. The king in return was able to convince the church to allow him to name Diego a Knight, and thus 3 years after this painting was finished, velazques painted the "Cruz de Santiago", which is the chapter of Knights that he was named into. (it is rumored that the King himself painted that cross). Velazques knew very well the meaning of it and he wouldn't have dated to paint it without first obtaining it.
The little girl is La Infanta Margarita and she is the person most painted by Velazquez.
Her mother, Mariana of Austria had an interesting story. Mariana was a Hapsburg and was bethrothed to one of Felipe's sons. While she was traveling to Spain the son died.
So she gets to Spain and Felipe tells her "well, my wife just died and I need a wife."
So they marry. Felipe was her uncle so Mariana became her own aunt by marriage.
Made things confusing at Christmas, for sure.
I think.. i think you meant to say *"Mariana* tells him, "well, my fiancee/your son just died and i need a new husband"
Which would make more sense, if not, then does that mean both the son and the wife of felipe died?
@@aur9035 Yes, son and wife died. Meaning both Mariana and Felipe needed a spouse.
@@yeildo1492 then if she was betrothed to felipe's *son,* doesnt that mean she became her own mother in law instead of aunt?
@@yeildo1492 but wow the royal antics of the post medieval europe is wild
@@aur9035 From one perspective. But marrying her uncle means that she is her own aunt too.
Do more videos like this I love them ahhh
That painting is stunning.
This is why I love Ted-Ed so much !!!
You did a better job in explaining its fascination than Nerdwriter managed in twice the time. Thank you very much.
I see how the one starring out could be a dwarf... but the one teasing the dog just looks like a child to me.
He is a dwarf. He is a well known and documented assistent -and probably a jester too- called Nicolás Pertusato.
Was thinking the same
Wow, I loved this video!!! I don't have much exposure to classical art in my daily life. while in college I really enjoyed an art appreciation elective class I had. This reminds me of that. it amazes me how much meaning can be put into a painting, or can be read I to it.
The world needs more art like this
This video is far better than Nerdwriter's, because it provides it's content quickly, simply and without any pretentiousness.
I still like nerdwriter1's better
This... is brilliant. I never thought art could be so deep O_O
i always felt there was something special about this painting...!
Paintings especially good ones are quite captivating but this one is a whole another world
Beautiful depiction and beautiful painting.
For those who don't get why it's mind blowing:
(1) Imagine the portrait is a mirror, you are the painter standing there with a brush. You look at the mirror and paint the scene on the canvas. Thus the portrait depicts it's own creation in real time. (2) Imagine you are the king/queen looking at the painter who is painting you. Your figures are reflected in the little mirror in the centre of the portrait. Therefore the portrait depicts the scene of the royal couple being painted. But in actuality this never happened. It is a false reality. NOTE: There are more interpretations.
The reflection might be there to make it look like you are the king
So this is made for trump?
+Geli Mari make America great again
That’s what I was thinking. In the modern age we have liberties, so to speak, equal to or beyond that of a 16th century king or queen. We get to dictate the art we consume and who is worthy of being recognized for their craft
@@gie8256 About 300 years late...
The explanation of the video is very interesting, since it shows us that each of the ways in which the characters are found within the painting has a reason, the dimensions that exist with the objects and the most interesting thing is that the painter himself is found inside of the painting

I love that the artist included a self portrait.
My girlfriend and now my wife got to see it at the Prado..in1998…we bought a copy in the gift shop and it has hung in every place we have lived in since..So many good memories..
riddles and paintings are my favorite so far
This is so much better than the other analysis on UA-cam
I've seen this in person
It really seems to elongate the room where it's placed, and it's very big and detailes
I love listening to analyses of great art.
I’ve always thought the composition of this piece is weird for how delicately put together it is. Say this is meant to be the king and queen having a portrait made, why is their daughter stood awkwardly by the painter in the middle of this empty room with her hand maids trying to serve her, why are the two dwarves (who I believe were jesters) also in the picture disturbing a dog in front of the king whilst a delicate and important painting is being made nearby?? And why is everyone bunched together by the window of this perceivably large room? The setting seems very unrealistic. I always got the impression that it was more like the backstage of a theatre production, where the girl is the star of the show rather than a portrait of a royal court.
Wow. I would love to see more videos analyzing art such as this!
+K So happy you liked it. I wrote this one and I have a bunch more like it on my channel.
+Amor Sciendi Ahhh perfect! Subscribed. Thank you for doing what you do.
Awesome. I'm flattered.
The rabbit hole never ends the more you think about it.
I love the way they analyze it
These videos are just the same they all turn out with smart answers
Siempre va a tener algo misterioso esta pintura.
The way it looks to me is that the viewer is in the place where the king and queen would be. The mirror is straight in front of you, reflecting you as the king and queen, and the artist stepped back to look at you as he is painting you. Since the painting doesn't look partially unfinished, it might be one of his final inspections of the reality before him, like he's just about done rendering it. Of course that is just one piece of the story told in the painting. I'd have to think about it a lot longer to come up with thoughts on the rest of it 😏
The painting itself is a reflection painted from a large mirror, or smaller ones arranged looking at themselves. I didn't know much about this masterpiece then, and I was only interested in Velazquez's technique by analyzing as much of his paintings I could in high definition, and of course to get a glimpse of the man behind the GENIUS. However, when I saw "Las Meninas" for the very first time, my eyes went directly to the face of the MASTER (painter), and he intentionally implies with his slightly distorted (more like slanted I would say) face in the whole composition that it is no doubt a face painted from a reflection, as it is the large canvas in the painting and the subjects as well. He paints the same painting in the painting that is painted and fixed on the wall of the Museo del Prado nowadays. Of course the paintings on the walls are done not as reflections, and the mirror in which the King and Queen appear, and so on. He deliberately painted some elements mirrored and some not, as I would do myself in my own illustrations. The paintings on the wall he could have painted by seeing them directly, yet, I think for the sake of the composition's unity, and for inspiration for the artist to capture his subjects precisely, many have posed for days or weeks (himself included) when he had done the foreground. The many deliberately planned elements combined in one composition of course baffles many people, and this was exactly his intention, yet it does not those who know "that one stroke of brush is never one stroke" and those that know (better than I) the rules of subjective and psychological creativity.
This is REAL art. We had to study this specific painting in Spanish class and we covered a lot of what was in this video.
How can anyone think that a can of soup, a dot on a blank canvas, ect. (modern art) is worth anything in comparasion with this?
A lot of modern art relies on abstract concepts or the viewers' interactions with the piece rather than the beauty or complexity of the piece itself. In some ways modern art is pretty cool because it gets a lot more psychological and seeks to transcend visual perceptions, but it often comes off as too simple or ugly. And then some artists just don't put in any thought. It really helps to read the artist statement to see if a piece is actually good or not.
And see, I don't mind that. The thing that makes me angry (if that word works here) is that people don't really make more classical pieces anymore because it supposedly isn't fashionable anymore. That's why I enjoy going to deviatart ect. because that's the closest thing I see to current classical art, but unfortunately these amazing artists who put such thought and work into their pieces get almost completely looked over and almost all of the "famous" artists are these elitists who put out work that I see as having less intrinsic value.
I like butterscotch, but I don't want to eat it all the time and I get sick of only butterscotch everywhere.
That's kinda the point of what I was saying (but better worded)
Crick1952
Gotcha. I'm currently planning to go into the art field, so I'll have to keep that in mind. :)
Window4503
Oh cool! Best of success, its a tough world but I hope you do well in it and stay true to what you want to express, no matter the form.
When patronage disappeared, that´s when real art died. The artist needs the patron to tell him how to let his talent flow. Velázquez was so great because the king told him to be great. When they don´t have a boss they just create gibberish.
Please do more art videos! :) It would be amazing to learn about different time periods!
+Kara Crawford So happy you liked this one, and want more art history videos. I wrote this, and many more like it (I have four other TED ed videos), but I also have my own channel (AmorSciendi) that i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on. Thanks again!
Thank you for this analysis - very informative and great content for ESL discussion!
I feel as though I'm looking through the eyes of the king and queen
i remember when this painting was in my history book and i spent the entire class analysing it, not really sure why... it's just so interesting in a strange way
The Baroque era was so genius we are still sitting here over 300 years later analyzing the works along the likes of Velasquez and Bach.
Do more of these art videos pls💯😍
Personally I think the painting is the POV of the king and queen being painted and their reflection appearing directly across on the mirror
Now please, do a video explaining the beauty and the complexity of a blank canvas (modern art).
or someone vomiting
+Thomas clueso Huebner or a load of fur coats on the back of chairs...
... You clearly aren't an artist.
ua-cam.com/video/9aGRHOpMRUg/v-deo.html
Las Mininas is more accurately translated The Chaperones. Every level of rank who has the responsibility of chaperone is represented. We start in the foreground, the guard dog, a playmate, most likely a child of a courtier, the court fools as represented by the dwarves, next the personal attendant with the glass of water and girl standing opposite to her, followed by various tutors represented by the nun and man next to her, then far in the back shown in the doorway we have the keeper of keys the highest rank of servant in the court.Now heres the genius of Velasquez ,he shows the reflection of the King and Queen not only overseeing the entire scene, but looking out into the world of the observer hence watching over their kingdom chaperoning all who they survey! Brilliant.
Nerdwriter1 and Amor Sciendi are two great educators and lovers of art, they are different and provide unique perspectives. More analyses of art works of all types would be a good thing and TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) would be a good place to do it.
If we went back in time and ask him he would probably just be like " I thought putting the king and queen in a mirror would be cool." I like to speculate too, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
More like, oh those people. Yeah I accidentally spilled some paint and didn't know what to do with it so I painted some random people.
+al gore But whether a cigar is actually a cigar isn't important in art. Art is about interpretation. The artist's belief of what the work means hold no more bearing on a finished piece than the belief of any audience member. And no audience member's belief hold more bearing than that of any other audience member.
The artists spent their entire time working on the piece in order to get their message across to the audience they envisioned. During that time, they had total control over the meaning of every aspect of the work, and built the work around those meanings.
However, once they stopped working on it, and gave it over to the audience to view, they relinquished control. The artist's meanings sculpted the work, but they have no authority over the final interpretation.
In short, audiences aren't speculating on what the artist meant. They are finding meaning.
+Jensaw101 but was this painted in a time where artists sought meaning beyond what they painted? I can see a painting of royalty being a symbol of nationalism and prestige, but that's about it.
+Jensaw101 to your point, the audience is trying to find meaning, that's what I'm saying. There isn't always a meaning behind something. sometimes a cigar is just that.
al gore
Where we disagree is in what interpretations are meaningful or 'real.' It doesn't matter that the artist created a work without any intended meanings, the audience can still find meaning.
That doesn't make the audience's interpretation wrong, fictional or otherwise meaningless.
Saw this painting in prado museum in 2009......jaw dropping is not the word
I wish I had this during my art history class!
Oh what a critical evaluation and analysis in context without passing any judgments with appropriate frame of reference and all these done with such brevity and beauty that even novices will start at least looking at paintings, if not appreciate or understand it, from a better perspective and perception.
Actually this is how in depth analysis of literary texts, art, music and dance are also done.
Two striking features of criticism
One to confine to the inherent merits of the medium-music, dance or painting, language, subject- one may differ on taste, sensitive reactions, biased opinions[ either negative or positive] aesthetic appreciation of the work.
Two evaluate in contextual perspective and try one's level best to get under the skin of or inside the skull of or into the arteries of the creator or producer of the work of art or music.
Then one can feel the pulse of what is or what was there in the creator’s mind and heart.
Then, the critic may proceed to further scrutinize it from other angles which the critic feels like, techniques, grammar, in comparison to other such artists or products etc.
Velasquez was a truly great painter, one of the best ever. But he is also an example of how a single artist's work and legacy can, (unintentionally of course), hold back and stagnate the work of generations of artists who come after him/her. I once heard a writer say that Shakespeare, as great as he was, was actually bad for English drama in one respect as his work became so dominant, it effectively stalled the further development of theater in Britain for centuries after his death. Velasquez's work created a similar situation. The painterly, tonal realism of his style was admired and obsessively imitated by generations of painters who came after him, especially in Britain where his work was idolized in the Georgian era by portrait painters like Gainsborough and Reynolds. In Australia, between the late 1800s and up until the early 1950s, there were hordes of tonal realist painters who were brought up to worship Velasquez like a God and who all thought they were carrying on his legacy. But they usually just imitated the surfaces of Velasquez's paintings, the free-brush, painterly tonal style, using it to churn out hundreds of drab grey-brown portraits. They were trying to just copy the style of Velasquez but they overlooked the substance, the things that truly made the Spaniard great- how he captured the character, emotions and personality of his subjects. My Dad went to art-school in Australia in the 1950s and he said that by then, teachers were no longer pushing Velasquez's work as the ultimate benchmark, it was now Cezanne who was the new idol for art students to revere and emulate.
I have always wondered whether our interpretations of old paintings, such as this one, really are exactly how the original artists had planned it to be interpreted. I mean, what if these artists just drew whatever came out of their minds and never really thought about the meaning of their paintings in such an elaborate way? Did these artists leave some kind of notes or diaries that contained clues or instructions for their paintings? I'm not trying to be skeptical, I am only curious. Please prove me wrong nicely, if ever.
I'd like to read some of their diaries now. That'd be cool.
the dog should be the center of the piece
you know the one that's glowing
Omg I learned this during AP Art HIST and man this video provides much more details!
I was just amazed by the dress of the princess
I'm Spanish and an artist, and there is a cuple of mistakes. What my art of history teacher explain to us, is that the princess is entering that door, which is the principal point of light, to se their fathers, the royalty, being drawed in the studio of Velazquez. So the really interesting about the painting is that the viewer is whatching as the point of view of the kings, being drawed by velazquez, reflected on the mirror. Olso the boy who is kicking the poor dog, is Nicholas, and he isn't a dwarf. AND the more funny, is that Velazquez draw himself in the picture to show off that he was the artist of the court. As LOOK AT ME BITCHES, I'M THE MADAFAKA VELAZQUEZ.
OH. and in the map, you really has eaten Portugal boys, it's like paint usa over Canada xDD Poor Portugal.
Nice to know. It opens my eyes for this painting.
And there you have it! 🤔🧐🥸😄
I love it when they talk about art
Diego also replicated the two paintings on the back wall which could have been mentioned! Peter Paul Ruebens "Ovid's Metamorphosis": Pallas and Arachne on the left and Apollo as victor over Pan on the right!
One interpretation I've heard is that the mirror's central positioning seems to align with where the viewers would be standing. Essentially, anyone looking at the painting could be looking at themselves as the monarchs, a radical upending of the social order at the time.
Literally just discussed "Las Meninas" yesterday in Art History II. Wow.
Fascinating!!! Thank you !
WOW. Just WOW.
Great work TEd Ed . You deserve more
I've gazed into this painting many times but had never minded the painter much
Tuve la oportunidad de ver ese cuadro de cerca y es enooorme. ❤❤❤