40INTRODUCTIONthe technology of power is a regularizing representational force inscrib-
ing the sovereignty of man and the resistance of the animal, right on
the liminal materiality of the animal skin, as defined by operations of
surveillance, regulation, classification, and consumption.
I am aware that Foucault may not initially appear to be an obvious
choice for a human/animal studies perspective for two reasons. The first
is related entirely to Foucault’s treatment of animals in his philosophical
project, and it constitutes the main reason why he is not particularly
popular in this field. It is indeed true that when animals figure in his
work, they do so as the prisoner, the mad, and the patient—they consti-
tute embodied metaphors of irrationality that largely contribute to the
definition and emergence of modern man.^79 This treatment of animals
and Foucault’s lack of interest in a human/animal context have recently
become the focus of criticism from some human/animal studies schol-
ars.^80 Most notably, Paola Cavalieri has been highly critical of Foucault’s
lack of engagement with a nonanthropocentric conception of animality,
and in her essay “A Missed Opportunity: Humanism, Anti-Humanism
and the Animal Question,” she directly challenged Foucault’s “amnesia”
regarding the nonhuman and his lack of focus on early scientific animal
experimentation in the classical age.^81
The second reason why Foucault may not seem an obvious choice for
this type of analysis lies in the fragmentary nature of his work on art. Un-
like other continental thinkers such as Derrida, Deleuze, and Merleau-
Ponty, Foucault never developed a cohesive and consistent approach to
painting or art in general.^82 He planned to gather his texts on art in a
book provisionally titled Le Noir et la Couleur, which was never com-
pleted and whose chapters were unfortunately lost.^83 Most notably, as is
well known, his approach to the image has generated controversy in art
history circles. Foucault’s analysis of Velasquez’s Las Meninas, featured in
the opening of The Order of Things, has attracted much criticism for its
avoidance of traditional art historical approaches.^84 In his reading, Fou-
cault entirely disregards the classical art historical analytical apparatus:
the biographical account, the attention to technical virtuosity, and the
importance of influences and precursors, and he is not concerned with
questions of genre, style, and iconography. Neither is Foucault interested in
the sociohistorical relations responsible for the painting’s appearance in the