2 thoughts on “A cleaned Velázquez at the Met

  1. Jillian Domenech

    When I looked at the painting before the cleaning you could really tell the difference because there were recdish-brown spots all over the painting. You can’t really see the red in the background which looks like a red box. The gold in the painting that is on his wardrobe still shows. There is a lot of dirty parts on the painting that make an illusion of where parts of Phillip IV’s body parts are aligned. His left hand moves when you see the difference from the clean to the dirty part of the painting. The painting is very dull when it is dirty and important parts of the painting are covered by oil which makes one of his eyes disappearing. The last thing that I really noticed in this painting is that when you look at the dirty picture he looks smaller because the dirt covers up half of his body.

    Reply
  2. aparrish

    The difference after the restoration of this painting is incredible. The work itself was in horrible condition, half of Philip IV’s face was covered, and his entire figure was splotched with debris. I feel as though an intense cleaning of a painting in that bad of condition would be nerve wracking, as you don’t really know what exactly lies under the layers of filth. As Michael Gallagher said in response, “It was a mystery really what the true condition of the picture was.” It is neat that they could, just by cleaning it, determine the degree of Velazquez’s involvement.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Jillian Domenech Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *