Sometimes the concrete form and skill of a work of art stand in a non-arbitrary or non-contingent relationship with the social circumstances of its facture. I hypothesise that this form and such skill was used by Diego Velázquez for artistically, socially and politically subversive purposes. In particular, I show how Velázquez used painting techniques to undermine the constitutional theory—or fiction—of the reigning monarch as mystically having two bodies: one ʻpublic’, sacred and immortal—even deified—, representing and incarnating the commonwealth, one ʻprivate’ and one mortal, capable of naturalist portraiture. In Hall XII at the Madrid Prado there hangs on your right as you exit a rather small bust portrait of the Iberian Habsburg monarch, Philip IV. It was painted in about 1653, during a pivotal period that saw a general climatic, economic, social, cultural, religious and political crisis and powerful intellectual developments that still characterise Western societies. The picture contains two essentially naturalistic motifs which can be seen from two different vantage points: a bust of a middle-aged man (ʻMotif I’) and, obliquely ʻat a glance’, a skull (ʻMotif II’). Both serve to subvert the constitutional fiction of the King’s Two Bodies: Motif I invites the beholder to approach closer to admire and work out the artist’s already at the time famously ʻloose’ technique, the use of manchas or borrones. The motif will then dissolve and show itself to be artifice which requires the beholder’s cooperation to make it look like the King. It suggests that the Monarchy similarly is an arti-fact that is manu-factured by artists in cooperation with the subjects. Motif II is in effect a vanitas, underlining the mortal and therefore human and transient nature of the monarch, and by implication of the monarchy itself. With the ambition of satisfying the Popperian test of hypothesis falsification, I have proceeded on the basis of the time-hallowed method of the connoisseur of looking closely at works of art in situ and, broadly understood, Wölfflin’s and Panofsky’s theoretical models, together with fundamentals of human psychology and physiology of perception and cognition, assuming an interaction of innate Gestalten and historically and culturally contingent habitus. I interpret my findings in the context of 17C Iberia, including intellectual contributions like that of Pacheco, Carducci, Castiglioni and Gracián. I rely on the rich historical literature on the period and on Philip IV and Velázquez (and their relationship). I make some comparisons between Velázquez, his fellow court-painters Hans Holbein, jr, and Anthony van Dyck, and an artist far from the courts but so close to Velázquez in technique and maybe personal convictions, Frans Hals. My hypothesis relies on three fundamental auxiliary claims—wagered against falsification—to support the claim that Velázquez was a subversive and to give the context for the subversiveness of the portrait of Philip IV: (1) Velázquez did have the practical freedom to produce this subversive royal portrait; (2) it is likely that he used that freedom for this purpose; and (3) he actively manipulated vision and visuality. I at least make likely all three claims. On the basis of Velázquez’s œuvre more generally—especially in his portraits of the marginalised—I show that he had a significant degree of freedom and that he consistently worked towards artistic, social and even political subversion (though not necessarily revolution) using his deep knowledge of vision, visuality and optics—science at the cutting edge in the 17C. As he appears to have suffered from the stain (mancha) of deficient limpieza de sangre, Velázquez’s own person and career—culminating in a knighthood—amounted in itself to social and political subversion. It is appropriate to characterise the technically resourceful Velázquez-the-painter as ingenioso. In fact, as the clever and skilled painter’s hidalguía was almost certainly proved with dissembling and falsified evidence, the mancha of his artisan antecedents—and possibly also of Jewish ancestry—makes him a true ingenioso hidalgo de la mancha. / A veces, la forma y la habilidad concretas de una obra de arte guardan una relación no arbitraria ni contingente con las circunstancias sociales de su realización. Mi hipótesis es que esa forma y esa habilidad fueron utilizadas por Diego Velázquez con fines artísticas, sociales y políticamente subversivos. En particular, muestro cómo Velázquez utilizó las técnicas pictóricas para socavar la teoría —o ficción— constitucional del monarca reinante como poseedor místico de dos cuerpos: uno «público», sagrado e inmortal —incluso divinizado—, que representa y encarna la mancomunidad, otro «privado» y mortal, susceptible de retrato naturalista.   En la sala XII del Museo del Prado de Madrid, a la salida, cuelga a la derecha un retrato de busto bastante pequeño del monarca ibérico de los Austrias, Felipe IV. Fue pintado hacia 1653, durante un periodo crucial en el que se produjo una crisis general climática, económica, social, cultural, religiosa y política, así como una poderosa evolución intelectual que aún caracteriza a las sociedades occidentales. El cuadro contiene dos motivos esencialmente naturalistas que pueden contemplarse desde dos puntos de vista diferentes: el busto de un hombre de mediana edad («Motivo I») y, de forma oblicua «en un vistazo», una calavera («Motivo II»). Ambos sirven para subvertir la ficción constitucional de los Dos Cuerpos del Rey: El Motivo I invita al espectador a acercarse para admirar y elaborar la ya entonces famosa técnica «suelta» del artista, el uso de manchas o borrones. El motivo se disolverá entonces y se mostrará como un artificio que requiere la cooperación del espectador para que se parezca al Rey. Sugiere que la Monarquía también es un arti-ficio fabri-cado por artistas en cooperación con los súbditos. El Motivo II es, en efecto, una vanitas, que subraya la naturaleza mortal y, por tanto, humana y transitoria del monarca y, por implicación, de la propia monarquía.  Con la ambición de satisfacer la prueba popperiana de falsación de hipótesis, he procedido basándome en el método consagrado por el tiempo del conocedor de observar de cerca las obras de arte in situ y, en sentido amplio, en los modelos teóricos de Wölfflin y Panofsky, junto con los fundamentos de la psicología humana y la fisiología de la percepción y la cognición, asumiendo una interacción de Gestalten innatas y habitus históricas y culturalmente contingentes. Interpreto mis hallazgos en el contexto de la Iberia del siglo XVII, incluyendo aportaciones intelectuales como las de Pacheco, Carducho, Castiglioni y Gracián. Me baso en la rica literatura histórica sobre el periodo y sobre Felipe IV y Velázquez (y su relación). Hago algunas comparaciones entre Velázquez, sus pares artistas de la corte Hans Holbein, jr, y Anthony van Dyck, y un artista alejado de la corte pero tan cercano a Velázquez en técnica y quizá en convicciones personales, Frans Hals.   Mi hipótesis se basa en tres afirmaciones auxiliares fundamentales —puestas en contra de la falsificación— para apoyar la afirmación de que Velázquez era un subversivo y para dar el contexto de la subversividad del retrato de Felipe IV: (1) Velázquez tenía la libertad práctica para producir este retrato real subversivo; (2) es probable que utilizara esa libertad para este fin; y (3) manipuló activamente la visión y la visualidad. Yo, al menos, hago probables las tres afirmaciones. Sobre la base de la obra de Velázquez en general —especialmente en sus retratos de marginados— demuestro que tenía un grado significativo de libertad y que trabajó constantemente en pro de la subversión artística, social e incluso política (aunque no necesariamente de la revolución) utilizando sus profundos conocimientos de la visión, la visualidad y la óptica, ciencia de vanguardia en el siglo XVII. Como parece haber sufrido la mancha de sangre carente de limpieza, la persona y la carrera de Velázquez —que culminó con el título de caballero— constituyeron en sí mismas una subversión social y política. Resulta apropiado calificar de ingenioso al pintor Velázquez, técnicamente ingenioso. De hecho, como la hidalguía del hábil e ingenioso pintor se probó casi con toda seguridad con pruebas disimuladas y falsificadas, la mancha de sus antecedentes artesanos —y posiblemente también de ascendencia judía— le convierte en un verdadero ingenioso hidalgo de la mancha.

Anne-Louis Girodet Trioson's Portrait of C.[itizen] Jean-Baptiste Belley, ex-representative of the Colonies, is evidence of the changing ideological situation during the French Revolution. Girodet was one of the most learned and accomplished students of Jacques-Louis David who strove to surpass his teacher in two ways: 1) by painting David's Neoclassical style so well that his handling surpasses that of his master, and 2) by choosing subject matter never before explored by David. Girodet accomplishes both within this work. The Neoclassical handling of the image has been achieved with amazing clarity, and the central figure of an identified black man had never been displayed in the Salon previously. The work was without precedent and without progeny. It successfully transcends the boundaries of portraiture into the highest tier of the Academic hierarchy: History Painting. Lacking in the existing scholarship of this portrait as history painting is that the work is successful in fulfilling a didactic and moralizing function, bearing significance to the general public. Scholars have hitherto ignored the striking visual similarities between this and Grand Tour portraits of Englishmen earlier in the century. This portrait of Belley calls into question accepted post-colonial readings by not adhering to a strict Orientalist interpretation. His hybrid nature nullifies readings that he is merely a black man posed as a French one. Belley cannot be seen as simply African, nor Haitian, nor French, nor military man, nor politician; each of these aspects of his being add up to his individual identity. It was because of Belley's race that he was chosen for this portrait; his complex nature creates a dramatic painting relevant to varied members of the general public, his status as a black man allows for a politically relevant subject worthy of history painting, and the choice of Girodet's model of Grand Tour portraiture with its connotations of education, travel and social status—when applied to a black man—make this a revolutionary painting unparalleled in history.

Employing the research approach known as portraiture, this study investigated the varying ways in which three secondary English language arts teachers at a visual and performing arts high school conceptualized and designed multimodal literacy learning. Also studied were the ways in which their students responded to these designs; and in keeping with portraiture, attention went to the changes in the researcher's own understandings. This multi-case study and cross-case analysis built on prior multimodal literacy research in secondary education, but unlike previous studies, gave major attention to how teachers' conceptualization of multimodality and their own roles related to the designs that they produced. Since the school emphasized arts as well as academics, particular attention went to teachers' conceptions of, and designs for, arts-related multimodalities. Data for the portraits came from observations, teacher and student interviews, artifacts, and a researcher journal. Recursive analysis focused on repetitive refrains, resonant metaphors, and emergent themes, which provided data for "painting" the teachers' portraits in prose. Findings show the connections among teachers' beliefs, values, and the multimodal designs, which included images, movement, sound, classroom displays, and room arrangements. The three teachers took dramatically different approaches to multimodal designs as they created their productions of English language arts. Differences across teachers were related to their conceptions of multimodal design (i.e., for social activism, for expression, for edification) and to their conceptions of their roles as multimodal literacy designers (i.e., challenger, facilitator, channel). Students' responses to, and participation in, the multimodal activities also varied across classroom and teacher. The concluding discussion addresses the relation of arts integration to multimodal literacy education, the value of students' transmodal activity, and connections between multimodality and portraiture. The study illustrates the potential of portraiture for studies of multimodality as well as the potential of using multiple modes to "paint" portraits. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.