This master theme concerns the content of the image, the viewers’ interpretations of what they saw. The master theme is divided into two themes based around the content of the viewers’ interpretations. These are Families and Social Structures and
Juxtapositions and Tensions.
Families and Social Structures
William describes the sense of family he experiences looking at the painting:
And this could be the father perhaps and he’s you know commissioned to make this this port… group… this group portrait of his family…. Um there is something about status about it and a real sense of that… of um… that these are people from a certain point in history, background and a certain status and placing that through painting (2,3)
William uses the term “through painting” to describe how he feels art is used to convey meaning. The word through has a double meaning here. It can be understood in the sense of use as a tool and also to mean to channel or pass through. This is a useful way to help us think about a special thickness that the interpretations presented by the viewers possess as they give accounts of the narrative and metaphorical content of the image.
There are indeed a litany of throughs in William’s description. A multitude of boundaries are crossed and communications passed. The status of the family in the image has been channelled through time using the tool of paint. It has also passed through the canvas physically. The boundary between painter and viewer has been passed through, as has the boundary between the world of the image and that of the viewer. Ideas, narratives and metaphors are transmitted both using paint and via paint.
166
William’s interpretation locates a family within their wider social context. He identifies a father figure and the social class and historical context of his household. He extends the narrative he has created for the family, backwards to into the before the painting was created, imagining “he’s you know commissioned to make this this port… group… this
group portrait of his family…..”. Here, characters exist beyond the boundary of the
painting physically and temporally, passing through time and through the canvas, whilst the painting is used as a tool to permanently document their status and place it in the annals of history. William’s description is multi-layered. It takes into account multiple temporalities and social positions, both inside and outside the image. This gives his interpretation a special thickness, one which is present too in the other viewers’ accounts.
When considering the content of the interpretations, issues of social status were flagged as key by William and this was true for the majority of the other viewers. In the first theme, the impact of The Gaze between viewer and character was discussed. Looks within the painting were also perceived as meaningful. Viewers interpreted a story of family relations, intimated interpersonally but embedded in a story of wider social significance. Here Gwen also interprets one of the characters in the image to be a father:
Again I think father figure looking wistfully back so you do feel there’s this sort of maybe change happening in how the family is perceived and what the family is erm slightly moving away from the former court sort of aristocrat scene to a more bourgeois family (5,35)
For Gwen like William, it is the figure in the doorway at the back of the room. She describes this figure as “looking wistfully back” as though he is leaving the setting somewhat mournfully. Gwen expands this metaphorically, to represent the leaving behind of an old mode of familial life and the introduction of a new regime.
There are layers of interpretative work that Gwen is doing here. She is conceptualising a narrative about the people in the room and imagining how they relate to one another. She talks about the father ‘figure’, not 100% sure of each person’s role. She is also thinking about the physical mechanics of the situation, the character is leaving the room rather than entering it. In this way, she is taking a two-dimensional, flat representation of figures and not only orienting them in three-dimensional space but giving them momentum and temporal dynamism. In addition to this, Gwen is imagining the
167
may be related to, in terms of wider society. In Gwen’s interpretation, there is a social metaphor delivered through the familial narrative.
Like William, Gwen is imagining and managing many concepts at once. From the private emotional feelings of the father character and the physical direction of his movement on a flat canvas, all the way through to a higher-order social allegory. Her interpretation is rich and thick with apprehensions and ideas and these are manipulated simultaneously and interactively. Oliver’s account related considerations of developing family structure too:
It’s capturing a moment in the erm how do you say – sort of generation or evolution of their family and they could be wealthy, you know, landowners, to monarchy to whoever. So there’s something they they’re trying to say about the new generation I reckon – moving forward. (9,18)
Oliver also recounts an impression of momentum and change. Whereas Gwen saw a departure, Oliver sees an advance. His interpretation is of generation and evolution. He sees the image as a description of the role of the family in relation to wider society and the progression of a family in social standing. The new generation is new not only by age but by the way they relate to the world and society around them.
Not all interpretations of social significance were so oblique. For Jay, the painting suggested a direct comment by Velazquez upon the status of the Spanish Royals at that time.
Placing the dog so centrally as well. You know, from a modern perspective it almost does feel like a satirical comment. The King and Queen at the back in a a mirror – the dog even in front of the Infanta… and … you know I’m not saying position expresses rank but somehow you feel that that should be more somehow more in the background to express prominence and precedence but it’s not… (7,35)
Jay sees the image as a piece of critical observation about the Spanish Monarchy, much like today’s political cartoons. He interprets the positioning of certain figures relative to others as a form of mockery. The dog is at the front of the image usurping the princess, whilst the King and Queen are a mere reflection in the background. He simultaneously recognises the hierarchical roles of characters in the image, as they would have been at
168
the time of the painting, and that he is viewing it from a particular point in time. The interplay between these perspectives, his own modern lens, and the content of the image created historically, and in addition, his awareness of these, overlap seamlessly without disrupting his viewing.
Jay’s interpretation is not without nuance. Rather than relying solely the physical position of the figures which appears too overt “I’m not saying position expresses rank” he also perceives a tone or sense of, from the image “but somehow you feel.” as though some other part of the image, or part of the experience of looking at the image, has contributed to this interpretation. Importantly this is not one that is explicitly visible on the canvas. This type of responding reoccurred in other viewers’ interpretations though the subjects and content varied. As William suggests:
I mean kids from this this era from a family that obviously has land and property erm have children so highly dressed almost like ornaments there’s a real ornamental feel about them (6,19)
William describes the children in the image as having an ornamental feel about them. He expresses the notion that they are on display. Primacy is given to expressing their decorative nature and their appearance rather than their identities or potential as human beings. He relates this sense to the family’s wealth, ownership and property, as though the children too are objects to be possessed. They are “highly dressed” to be presented as symbols of this same wealth.
William uses the term “feel”, in his description. The children are elegantly dressed but there is something additional which gives him a sense of their ornamental nature. Like the elements which Jay could identify as meaningful only from a sense of, there is also something, or things, in the painting which give William a ‘sense of’. And again these things are not clearly identifiable. The image is not directly descriptive of everything that the viewer comes to understand from it. Oliver also describes a ‘feel’ he infers from the painting:
There is er a painting of a couple in the background so some reference to historic relations of the scene I guess. Er the little girl is being dressed or gotten ready for something perhaps her um what would then be a kind of christening or something. um there’s a rather uglier [laughs] kind of
169 daughter or relation looking at me possibly saying ‘it could
have been me’…
Er there’s also a guy in the back in a dark dress or suit or clothing rather, again there’s some kind of symbolism erm so there’s some preparations going on I’m not entirely sure what but it’s important and it's important the moment is captured so yes (1,24)
Oliver interprets a family transition deliberately set within historical reference points. He identifies personal narratives and inner monologues of characters embedded in their wider social context. The ‘little girl’ in his reading is being prepared for some kind of ceremonial observation of a rite of passage, or a conversion from one period in life to the next. Her sister is jealous and communicating this to Oliver with an intimacy discussed in the previous theme The Gaze. It is a personal communication and is an interpretation of her inner thoughts.
On a more public level, Oliver interprets the possibility that this transition is significant for the family beyond the immediacy of their personal relationships. The ‘historic relations’ of the scene are referenced along with the potential importance of the moment being captured for posterity.
In this extract the temporality that Oliver is concurrently imagining is complex. The direct communicative look he is receiving from the “ugly” sister is perceived to be occurring in the present moment for both the character and himself. Oliver is somehow reconciling the idea that they ostensibly exist at different times and yet are
communicating in the now. Oliver also references history as relative to the time of the image when he discusses the painting within the painting. Seemingly, so accepted as vital is the world of the image, that referencing multiple time-points on multiple timelines, happens naturally as part of the interpretation.
It is also interesting that Oliver can recognise elements of the image to be symbolic and important without knowing exactly what they symbolise. Elements of painting can be felt to carry meaning, even when the viewer does not know what that meaning is. What is not readily visible may still be a strongly percepted component of the image. This is something also suggested by Beth:
So it’s all set out to look wealthy and um well cared for and precious to the point of a child being particularly a girl
170 child in those terms, being um a commodity. Um because
she’d have to be married off to someone else, with wealth and power. (1,35)
In Beth’s description, the children have more than an ornamental feel. She imagines the girl child in the centre of the image as regarded as a valuable item to be transacted via marriage, owned by her parents and sold “off to someone else”. The painting in Beth’s description begins to sound like an advertisement displaying the attributes of the child and her background and upbringing. Beth here is imagining the motivation behind the composition of the image before its creation, for a desired outcome scheduled after the events it portrays.
She is also interpreting a double meaning to the image itself. First, of a child beautifully dressed to show her reputable upbringing and background. The wealth of her family and her potential as a wife for a rich or high-class husband. Second, an image demonstrating objectification and ownership, captivity within opulence. These meanings are
counteractive so not both explicitly depicted. For Beth to interpret the two, some elements must be inferred, intuited or felt. Again, the image must in some way be understood to contain elements which are not directly visible.
Understandings of non-depicted elements, senses of, intuitions, tones. The ability of viewers to identify symbolism in the image, where they do not know what is
symbolised, or importance when they do not know what specifically is important, suggests some special type of interpretable components are perceived as the viewers engage with the image. These interminglings of sensed and understood provide texture and richness to the engagements, fleshing out what is suggested by any concept of singularly visual input. The image as engaged with by the viewer contains some almost primal sensuous contours, those aspects which convey what viewers intuit and sense, but cannot explicitly see.
In interacting with the image, features and properties assumed to circumscribe our everyday environment become altered. Rather than employing magic realism, as per written fiction, where the fantastic or mythical are interwoven with everyday life, here viewers’ experiences suggest what we might call a ‘flexible naturalism’. Within the special thickness of their interpretations, layering and interweaving of time, place, locations in space and different contextual worlds occurs. During such experiences the natural attitude is unchallenged, nothing strange occurs but its laws nevertheless are altered. We can move between incompatible places and different ‘realities’ and time
171
becomes no longer strictly chronological. We can see through walls and look behind objects.
Oliver, for example, did not describe any narratives involving time travel yet he did feel he communicated with the characters in the image, and that the world in the historical painting was brought to life. Indeed, interpretations incorporated a fluid temporality and viewers simultaneous considered multiple time-points on multiple timelines. This is not perceived as irregular but was instead incorporated into the interpretations with ease. Gwen described a man turning to look back at a room from a doorway at the back of the image. She did not specifically or explicitly see the image as erecting to form a three- dimensional structure to allow this to occur, the surface she was looking at remained flat, and yet the figure was able to look back through space.
Contradictions and juxtapositions have not gone undiscussed in the preceding themes. Here again the need to describe tensions occurs. We see how an act we often take for granted, that we create dimensional space and time in viewing paintings, is actually a complex imaginative act. And by the exploration of what this involves we find viewers accepting contradictions involving the world around them and how they relate to it. When we view art, naturalism is magically altered. Time works differently, space works differently. Our relationship with what we assume about the qualities of the world changes. The horizon of how we are in the world is different but the same.
Juxtapositions and Tensions
Much of the viewers’ interpretations were directed towards the portrayal of the two central female characters, the Infanta Margaret Theresa and Maria Bárbola one of the two members of the court entourage with Dwarfism. Margaret Theresa is the blonde figure in the white dress and Maria, brunette, stands second from the right in green. Viewers interpreted the adjacent portrayal of these two figures as meaningful. This theme therefore begins with an exploration of the interpretations of this dyad and is introduced by Jay:
By putting these in direct juxtaposition he’s asking us ‘which do you prefer?’ And why? And what does that say about you? (10,20)
Jay saw the pairing of Margaret Theresa and Maria as a provocative question directed from the artist toward the viewer. We get the sense that, in Jay’s interpretation, that Velazquez is using painting as a means to communicate, to provoke, to speak through.
172
Jay seems to feel Velazquez’ eye is critical. In his interpretation, the artist is challenging the viewer to think about which of two figures they find more appealing and what they might represent.
Jay suggests Velazquez is making a point about the power of appearance to prejudice judgement. Or as a provocation regarding one's inner responses to the visual aspects of disability. The viewer is encouraged, as Jay perceives it, to question their reaction should they recognise the contrast they are being shown. There is a somewhat entrapping flavour to this exercise. The viewer is being encouraged not only to recognise a contrast in the image but by doing so, to acknowledge a contradiction in themselves. If the viewer understands the painter's point, he has implicated himself in its meaning.
This is a tension Kitty also alludes to:
Um but they’ve got this front and centre [indicates Maria] um or maybe that’s completely my projection and it was totally fine um erm and I suppose there’s, it’s awful really it sort of brings out your own er sort of er prejudice but there’s something disturbing about the perfect finery dress with the face which is not really very fair but its jarring for some reason um
That’s probably why it’s a bit challenging that’s probably why I find it difficult because she got just as much right to sit there as this girl [Margaret Theresa]
Int: Yeah
You know of course she does! (5,3)
Kitty also identifies meaning surrounding the Margaret Maria pairing. For her, the depiction is a source of disquiet and disconcertion. Although she examines the figures relative to one another, the contrasts she perceives are not limited to those found between the two characters.
Kitty struggles with the depiction of the character was dwarfism in “the perfect finery
dress”. She describes this as “jarring” suggesting a clash or conflict, one of appearances
or benefaction. She also feels that Maria is placed unusually centrally in contradiction with the accepted normalcy of the times. Looking at the image we might question how
173
centrally Maria is actually placed and consider how this might relate to the strength of Kitty’s feeling.
Kitty draws a comparison between Maria and Margaret Theresa and their rights to their positions. She explains that intellectually she advocates both are just as deserving. This provokes a further sense of contradiction and discomfort as Kitty’s instinctive response was to feel disturbed by the placement of a woman with dwarfism in a position