The Arnolfini Portrait, By Jan van Eyck
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лис 2019
- A close look at one of the most beautiful paintings in the world. It is filled with tantalising details that may, or may not, give us clues about the lives and times of this lovely couple. I will show you the painting and tell you the various theories about its meaning. And of course address the most important question: is she pregnant?
You can follow me on Instagram: / stories.of.art
Join me on Facebook: groups/Stori...
I well remember the first time I saw an image of this painting when I was quite young, in elementary school, in the 1970s. For some reason I was transfixed, but then it passed from memory until recently. I’ve now watched several programs about it, and yours is one of the best. I learned more details. Purely speculative, but for some reason I feel strongly that the theory that the young lady has passed away and is being shown posthumously just seems the most likely. I suspect she died in childbirth, but the way she is lifting her dress it is possible that she isn’t pregnant but posing in a manner of the time (and I have seen some other paintings from about the same period in which women appear to have large abdomens and possibly pregnant in context that is equally uncertain or unlikely. Thank you for the analysis. Whoever they were and whatever the circumstances, God knows, and I hope to one day.
This helped me so much to write the analysis of this painting for art college,THANK YOU
Cool! Will you let me know what grade you got?
I think Van Eyck was one of the three greatest painters. All the minute detail so perfectly considered and executed is awesome. A Van Eyck painting can keep you occupied in viewing and admiring for an hour. I always thought this portrait is a betrothal painting, perhaps when the two primary subjects were not even in the same country. I believed Van Eyck was called upon to be a witness to their contract. He wears his trademark red chapeau in the tiny mirrored figures, I believe. The swollen belly may be symbolic of fertility, especially as she rests her hand on her belly. That Arnolfini's wife died the year before the portrait was completed is powerful evidence that it is a painting in memoriam of a beloved wife and would also explain conveniently her rounded belly: A remembrance of a happier time. Still, I think that the preponderance of the evidence is that it is a betrothal , notarized in a sense in this magnificent painting. Thus, the artist states in Latin that he was present. The fact that no one is smiling is of the cultural norms of the time; only fools, bawds and drunks -- trivial people -- were depicted smiling in Northern paintings.
who are the other two greatest painters in your opinion?
Have you watched this installment in the series "A Stitch in Time"? I think the host makes a really good point, when she reconstructs this dress. It was a revelatory moment when she tried to walk in it, and could only bear the weight of the cloth, and move, by adopting this very stance. I would never have thought of the weight of the cloth and movement as the contributing factors to this stance. After that program it becomes obvious that one of the options is that she's not pregnant at all - she's just showing off the business (and consequent wealth) of the Arnolfinis: importing cloth. I really like her point that the green was expensive (because it had to be dyed twice, blue, and yellow), and that that odd purpley color of his cloak was also an expensive color, as well as the fabric being expensive for both outfits, and both are trimmed in fur. They are embodying their status, as well as their relationship to one another - whatever that is. I appreciate your reminder that they commissioned this for themselves. This was a private painting, a personal and domestic scene, with very personal symbols.
My question is, why is this taking place in the bedroom? It just seems tacky to have a wedding picture (if that's what it is) next to a bed. Is it that a bed was perhaps the most expensive piece of household furniture that a couple would buy? Or maybe the bed - if this is a tribute painting, which to me seems likely - would have been not for childbirth, but was instead her deathbed?
Thank you for this installment of your series, and for your point about the oranges, and the tree being an apple tree, indicating that it's fall, a warm fall day. Yet they're wearing these warm, heavy clothes - why? Perhaps because these show their wealth the best - ?
I saw that Stitch in Time episode as well. If i recall, they had a bit of a time trying to recreate the "bows" down the side of her dress. They got as close as possible to what the portrait shows, but i think they said it still wasn't exactly the same. Very difficult to recreate those designs!
Jan van Eyk was a show off. He was incredibly talented and loved to show it off. There are many examples of this in this painting. The mirror, the tiny glass paintings, the chandelier, the rich cloth….. these are very rich people as well. I do think that she is showing off the richness of her gown. A real masterpiece. You can never tire of gazing at it.
Well said!
That was such a clear (and clever!) analysis! This is a beautiful and very intriguing image - I do feel that the idea of being a tribute is most convincing. The gathering of the gown, the reference of the saint...plus the single candle have convinced me! There is blue underskirt showing which I think links her back to the motherhood of the Virgin Mary. I am always confused about the overshoes on the floor - perhaps this refers to life as a journey that continues after death for both of them. Who knows? But I love it anyway!
Nobody really knows about the shoes. If we want to find out what they mean (or if they have a meaning) we really want to compare them to similar paintings from the same period. Just like if you were trying to decipher a language or other code, you want to have many examples so you can figure out what is used in what context consistently. The problem is that we don't have anything to compare it to. But it is fun to wonder. I am so glad you enjoyed the video.
I once had an art history class and the teacher was adamant about the fact that the woman in this painting is not pregnant, but is holding up her gown as a sort of show of wealth - holding up the excess of fine textile would be a way of portraying their ability to afford such fine, expansive garments (while also keeping it from dragging on the floor). Would love to know what you think!
Yes, I agree. The fabric is expensive and having a lot of it is a show of wealth. also it accentuates her belly, which was the fashion, at least in art.
Yes also what the guide at the National Gallery explained!
Here’s a recreation of the gown. In fact it is so heavy that holding up the front to walk you get this effect.
ua-cam.com/video/-u2RM1odsf4/v-deo.html
I just found Carel Huydecoper ( same last name as the person who first bought a painting by Rembrandt in the 1630s!) and these are the best art history lectures I have ever been given. I've read art history textbooks, bought the Sister Wendy series, and watched lots of UA-cam videos on the subject. But Carel H always does a deeper dive in a way that invokes my trust in his analysis. After probably at least 10 encounters with the "Arnolfini Portrait," I've learned significantly more about the details and controversies. I am delighted to have many more of his videos to catch up on! Thank you, Carel!
You are most welcome! Unfortunately we don't have those Rembrandts anymore.
I don't know if others have talked about this: there is a video called "A stitch in time: Arnolfini, where they recreate the dress and they show the dress is super heavy and bulky. Maybe that's the reason she looks pregnant!
I heard about that. That is an interesting point. Thank you for bringing it up
I saw it. Wonderful programme, and series.
Ohhh super!!! I’m gonna look for that, thanks!!!
I think it is a tribute painting, because the atmosphere of the painting is sombre rather than solemn. At first earlier in the video I thought she was not pregnant at the time of the marriage and that the couple wanted to have a child, but now in this light I think that indeed both she and the child died during the birth. A fascinating and enlightening video about this painting. Thank you.
I am so glad you enjoyed it!
What an amazing video! It's funny how I started knowing ( I thought) a bit about this portrait, and by the end I realised I knew nothing! But maybe if it had been obvious, it wouldnt have intrigued generations. What is not in doubt is the tremendous skill and artistry of Van Eyck.
Thanks! He is amazing isn't he?
Charles Rae I have to agree with every word! I have seen it several times - I always spend time with it when I visit the National Gallery in London as it is one of my favourite paintings - and I will definitely see it differently next time.
I like and am leaning toward the idea that this painting is a memorial to a beloved wife....it would explain very much about this work if it is. We may never know for sure. But I'm thinking, because of the information you've provided, that it is indeed a beautiful remembrance. Excellent presentation! Thank you.
This is the work that opened my eyes to the "Northern Renaissance" and the first work I sought out at the National Gallery in London after studying Renaissance art! My eyes streamed tears standing there in front of it!!! Yes indeed an in memoriam painting of their marriage contract is exactly how the guide at the gallery explained it using a lot of evidence! Also that she is not pregnant but that it was the fashion of the day.
I am very much hoping that you will do more art of the Northern Renaissance. Have you ever been to Dijon and nearby Beaune in Burgundy, France??? I was in raptures at what I saw there, and would be ecstatic if you felt moved to do some videos of those famous works.
Good idea! I am working on one about Bosch at the moment. But I will definitely discuss some of the older ones soon
@@storiesofart OHHH GREAT GREAT GREAT!!! I wanted to ask you for Bosch too actually.
@@storiesofart have you seen the video of Nicole Rudolph on the construction of this kind of dress? She recriates Historicaly Accurate versions of disney carachters. She made a full series on the construction of this style of dress for Sleeping Beauty's Malleficent: ua-cam.com/video/NUP6XIJb8Fs/v-deo.html
And the "empty" shoes. How strange. Yet the message is so clear. Your videos are fantastic.
Well, his shoes are 'over shoes' you put them on over your regular ones when you go outside so you don't get dirt on your pretty ones. Hers could be the same thing except they are a little more fancy. there are many ideas going around about their meaning, but as we have nothing to compare them to, there really is no point. But perhaps one day we will find more clues and find out more
@@storiesofart I see. Thank You !!
Terrific commentary, which makes this painting 's story an enigma, beyond what others have interpreted. This is the first video I've watched where the tree outside was possibly identified as an apple tree. It makes sense. Also I agree and like the fact that the dog might be just a pet. Thank you for explaining that there were 2 Giovanni Arnolfinis in Bruge. Like you, I suspect that the wife in the painting was deceased. But it made me wonder, who posed in her place for the artist? I actually plan to make a sculpture based on this painting and your commentary gave me some new insights.
Thank You, so pleasurable to listen your presentation.
So interesting .
Thank You
I like the idea that this is a tribute painting. For me it makes some of the ideas fall into place. At first glance, the woman appears to be holding her hand on her pregnant belly - and who hasn't seen a heavily pregnant woman doing that, but on closer inspection, it can be seen that she is in fact raising her dress - perhaps to show that there is 'nothing to see here' i.e. the baby has already gone.
My 10 year old and I just stumbled on to you channel! Really enjoying your content!
Thanks! there is a lot more to come. Any subjects your 10 year old would like me to talk about?
@@storiesofart how thoughtful of you... I'll check with her and get back with you!
No promises, but who knows, perhaps I can help
@@storiesofart Of course! Appreciate it!
:-)
I doubt if it was summer because they're dressed to heavily for summer attire. This is a beautiful painting. Thanks for your analysis of it.
This is my favorite work of art. When I was four, I found the jewel tones, unusual headdress (looked like horns to me), and little dog, to be very interesting! I've been to the National Gallery in London twice to see it. I've read that more evidence for the "tribute" theory was that there were originally shutters on it as if the viewings were possible during select times. Also, that this was the first painting that oil paint was used (as it was only used on carts and the like at the time). Thank you for this lovely video!
Or, what is the real story about Van Eyck and oil paint? Ive heard so many things...quite frankly, Im confused. Is it that he used drying agents for the oil paint? Where there any other artists that painted in oil before Van Eyck?
Thank you. I am so glad you liked it!
Oil paint was used at least 50 years before the Arnolfini portrait. The trick was using linseed oil because it is one of only three oils (known at the time) that would dry over time. It was used extensively by painters who illuminated manuscripts. That was a popular and one of the most prized art forms. For painters, that was where the money was. Jan van Eyck worked on book illuminations before his first known painting (the Ghent Altarpiece). So he most likely knew the techniques from there. He did not invent it by any means, but he most certainly perfected it.
Stories Of Art Fascinating !!! Thank you so much!!
@@storiesofart Thank you for the linseed oil explanation. I never knew why that particular oil was used -- not olive oil!
So glad I found your channel!!
Me too!!
Fascinating take on the painting which I have seen twice. The theory that it is a memorial to his wife sheds an entirely new concept of the painting and one in which I would subscribe. I found the theory regarding holding up her dress in the hope of pregnancy very plausible and one that I have not encountered previously.
I would love hear one of any of your lectures.. This was a most informative lecture - wonder what Van Ecyk would think?
Thank you! Yes, I wonder what Van Eyck would think about all the fuss we now make of his work. I guess he would at least be flattered.
Thank you for your exceptional exploration of art, it is really enjoyable to listen to.
Connecting to the latest discoveries I think it might be a memorial for the wife, dead in childbirth; the dress, draped to give the impression of pregnancy, might a foreshadowing of what was to happen to her, but hasn't yet (in the picture timeline) as they are just getting married. So the painter portrayed what was supposed to be a joyful moment but with the knowledge of the tragedy to come.
Thanks! it is an appealing theory, isn't it?
@@storiesofart Also the mirror presumably shows Van Eyck painting and the other "witness" And the circular mirror vignettes shows the post crucifixion stories on the side of his wife. Perhaps another clue that she died in childbirth and the wish and belief that her soul would be resurrected in her post life.
@@storiesofart I have always been struck by the expression of pain on the man's face. I thought it was either grief over the loss of his wife...or indigestion.
Thank you for a very good summary. I believe the memorial theory is the strongest because van Eyck had extraordinary ability to record the actual, as opposed to an idealized, appearance of his subjects. The image of the man is clearly that of a specific individual, not the women. Being that she had been dead for some time and there was no recorded drawing or painting of her the artist (and patron?) may have logically chosen to present her as in an idealized way as opposed to a "realistic" but inaccurate way.
Dear Carel, since i saw Arnolfini portrait ( Instagram, UA-cam) and heard your detailed explanations , i fell in love with it. Today in London, i visited them, with the whole knowledge in my mind. I just couldn't take my eyes from that green dress and with so many details ,like scales... the combination with blue sleeves and it seems there was a whole blue dress underneath . Outstanding . The groom is so pale.. People commented about those 2 witnesses , you cant see'... but nobody said anything about Christ stations on the mirror circles so well explained by you. The fruits from the tree and the oranges weren't seen... Thank you so very much for your sharing knowledge . Flora Amiel
Very good analyst of the painting. Perhaps it is more of a tribute painting, but there has been a lot of time has passed since and so it becomes more difficult to sort out the truth. I think that the shoes also is a symbol of sincerity. The magnification of the image is also done well, where the viewer could see the details in the painting. Seen the painting in London and the details are amazing. The light is also superb casting shadows on the right .
You are absolutely right. You have to see this painting in person. There is so much about the colour and the jewel like warmth in it that cannot be captured in a photograph.
Thank you extremely interesting, my thoughts.... in memoriam
Thanks!
a tribute !!! thanks dor your talk about this painting
Glad you enjoyed it
Makes me miss art history classes. I think, overall, it reads as a kind of collective status symbol because of the selective inventory of the work and, in turn, the symbols chosen, whether they be iconic or banal, communicate the intentions of different meanings. Even the technique serves to communicate meaning. Look at all the reflection in the chandelier. The lit candle gets lost in its composition and makes the eye see the chandelier as reflecting the light coming through the window in a daytime context. It can also be seen from the 'distance' as being lighted or an evening view. The sun light reflecting on the window jamb seems to express a late afternoon time of day. What do the colors mean? Why is he wearing a hat complete with coat? His shoes, is he removing them or is he going; putting them on? The shoes in the back, are they hers and is she raising or lowering her garb to put the shoes on or take them off? Convex mirrors were typically hung in a room so the master of the house could see who is coming and going in and out of a room. is this mirror out of context or place? Are we the witnesses? Is the mirror frame under glass or is this the sheen of lacquer adding to the use of reflection as a metaphor? Their gazes are strange and indifferent to the viewer and one another. I don't see the hand holding reflected in the mirror...Very enjoyable to watch.
Thanks! and isn't it just a joy to contemplate on these things?
Enjoyed your erudite and well researched commentary!
Thank you very much!
I was not aware of the tribute theory until I watched this video. An interesting possibility. Thanks for this.
it is an intriguing possibility isn't it?
@@storiesofart Yes - and thanks for presenting a number of possibilities regarding this painting.
The folds of the garment under her left wrist that she has pulled up, the thickness of the material, show me that she has a normal sized waist, belly, and that for reason, she has gathered this luxurious material about her waist.
Amazing content
Please, keep them coming! Absolutely brilliant!!!
Thanks! I will
The X-rayed underdrawing is extremely detailed. It must have been for approval.
That may very well be.
...And anything to say about those shoes? I always thought she wwas pregnant but now I believe it was the style of clothing of the time, Thank you for your amazing presentation!
The shoes are just the shoes you wore over your regular shoes when you went outside. When you came home you took them off. So it indicates that they are both home.
Wow...thanks for sharing...love it!!!
Thanks for watching! And please share it with others!
I love ypur videos. Is like going to art school
Thank you so much!
Loved the discussion, makes my learning about it so enjoyable. Heard an explanation that it was fashionable for women to look pregnant back then(?)
Well, at least to emphasise their bellies. and at least in art. we don't know how they did it in daily life
wonderful presentation John
Many thanks!
I came across your channel by chance, but delighted that I have. I am by no means a connoisseur of art, however, your explanations are extremely interesting to follow, not too complicated and have allowed me to better admire these wonderful paintings. There are so many beautiful details which, without your help, I wouldn't have fully appreciated. The various theories are all interesting, but even if the saddest, the one that it is a memorial for the wife would seem feasible.
Wow, thanks! I really hope you will also like my next one. It will be about Caravaggio
Thank you. I go and visit these guys everytime I go to London and I explain it to my friends. Now I have way more knowledge about it. Yes I always thought she was dead. The expired candle looked obvious to me. Not sure if you spoke about the sandals. I may have to look at the video one more time.... Thanks again.
Thanks! Me too. I also visit them every time I am in London. Maybe we will run into each other next time. No I didn't talk about the sandals because we really don't know what they mean, if anything. I know there are lots of claims and theories out there, but I think none of the ones I heard are credible. The image is just to unique, it cannot be compared to others to determine what it might mean.
anyway, so glad you liked my video. Fee free to share it. My next one will be on the Ghent Altar and will hopefully be online one of these days
his helped me in my sophomore graduation exam. Thank you.
Glad I could help!
Great video.
Glad you enjoyed it
How can you skip over the elegance of the scenes leading up to the crucifixion of Christ ‘ the in depth detail of that is beyond. Talent
Thank you for a brilliant study and possible interpretations of this masterpiece. Very enriching. Knowing more about a painting only generates more love of it. Personally I favour the theory of the tribute to his deceased wife. But then again being that it still remains a mystery makes the painting even more captivating.
Thank you. And isn't it wonderful how a couple that lived 500 years ago still captures our imagination?
Thank you for a wonderful analysis of this beautiful painting. I noticed that there is a reflection in the mirror of the garden outside the window that is a different angle from the apple/cherry tree and what look like sunflowers. I don't recall any comments about this?
Very interesting. I think it is a tribute and that she is pregnant .
The uniformity of size and color suggests cherries to me.
could be
fantastic analysis. i really enjoyed it. i think she is holding up the fabric of her dress to show that they wish to have a baby...so not pregnant.
Thanks! Yes I think you are right.
The fruit on the sill has a recess at its core, indicating it's an apple. The three on the covered sideboard are apricots. He was very precise with color and botanical details, as you know. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and considerable effort.
Thanks! I had not considered apricots. I still think the fruit on the windowsill is an orange, I think it has a stalk sticking out. the shadow makes it look like a recess.
Thank you so very much for reviewing this magnificent painting! I noticed you mentioned that "none of the items on the painting are there by accident" and proceeded to explain each item in detail - again, thank you! ; yet you omitted mentioning the placement or significance of the prominent female (?) slippers by Mr. Arnolfini's feet. Can you elaborate? As you stated, this is a very intimate portrait, and I tend to believe that it was done as a memoriam to his beloved wife. Thanks again!
First o al, thank you for your kind words. Second, those slippers are actually shoes. those were worn over your regular shoes when you went outside. streets were dirty places so you wanted something sturdy, cheaper and washable to wear over your more delicate inside shoes. His outside shoes are right next to him. You would take them off when you were at home. So there is a good chance that the fact that they are not wearing them signifies nothing more than that they are in their own, now shared, home.
Love your series!
Q: If there was trade with Italians, and perspective had been discovered that year, why wouldn't Jan van Eyck have heard of it? I imagine it would have rocked all artists' world and that word of it would have spread.
Thanks!
Strangely, it didn't. Some artists, mostly in Florence started to use it. But it wasn't until the 1460's that the first explanation of it was published in a book. that was Res Pictura by Alberti. So it was mostly local knowledge that started to really spread much later.
What about the Mona Lisa? The river and the veins and the curls!
Of course, there are other videos about the Mona Lisa (which I haven't watched yet), but I think you do a good job.
Thanks! That is a good idea. I'll get on it , one of these days.
I think it is a tribute! Thank you so much for this incredible art experience! Quick question - why are there shoes in the bottom left corner… Thank you
Thanks! There are many theories about the shoes. Some people have seen all kinds of symbolism in them. The trouble is that we can't compare this painting to any other image from the same period. That means we can not 'translate' symbolism that easily. usually, symbolism is quite obvious (even if we don't fully understand it) there is no question that St. Margaret and the dragon in the background have a symbolic meaning, even if we can debate which one it is. We can say that because they are unusual objects to be placed in close proximity on the painting. The trouble with shoes is that they are not unusual. the shoes you see are the ones you would wear outside, to walk in the mud and muck of city streets with. They protect your good shoes. When you enter your house, you take those off and keep your good ones on. That is what he has done here. Hers are next to the bed as if she sat down to take them off. None of that is particularly strange to do in your own home. So, perhaps there is some sort of meaning, but for now I think we really can't tell. That is why I didn't talk about them in the video.
Thank you so much! I am so happy I discovered your Art Stories! You are an incredibly knowledgeable and an exceptional story teller! Thank you! ❤️❤️❤️👍
Thanks!
But as you mentioned “nothing is there by chance, it all means something” so the shoes have to represent something surely. Love your work ☺️
@@lindareid7279 The shoes look pretty clean , put there in memoriam
- MERCI -
You are welcome
Dave from UK here. That was really interesting. Best analysis i have seen. I have been eerily fascinated by this image since i was a kid (in my granddad's art book) and in particular his fairly scary features (the main guy not my granddad). I do see more death and doom and gloom of a funeral than say a marriage. Tribute to dead wife is good. it fits. For my part i have done a digital image on climate change where i borrowed these characters because in this era of the potential horrors of climate-change they fitted perfectly what i saw and needed to present in my image: a personification of the four seasons witnessing their own death or perhaps human-kind death both stood at a grave-side. I not saying Mr van Eyck painted his picture as a personification of the four seasons but i find my take on it as good as some i have heard. And the characters fitted my climate-change theme so i altered them and re-presented them in my image. But as for the original, I (as an adult and not a scared kid! lol) saw the mirror as the sun (the son of god story etched into it as a pun on sun/son) and the interesting theory that Jesus, is a personification of the Sun, which dies in Winter and is resurrected in Spring (hold that thought), saving us from the evil of cold and darkness. So if the story is an allegory misinterpreted as history, then to spell out that view might have got you in serious trouble so perhaps (where is Da Vinci code when i need it lol) one could convey that point in a painting. And possibly suggest a more nature-orientated form of worship hadnt been a bad idea after all? A pagan!!! (The recognition of the divine in nature is at the heart of Pagan belief. Pagans are deeply aware of the natural world and see the power of the divine in the ongoing cycle of life and death.) Hmm life and death cycle. That might explain the chandelier too? The cycle of life. Life as in burning candle then extinguished. Maybe? Perhaps? Soooooo the context, it might be argued, is set from the wall 'reflecting' inwards. The mirror is the sun. The chandelier a representation of the heavens and or the natural cycle of life and death. He believed in this heresy that he signed up literally on the wall. He was a member of a heretical society (?) and he was showing it to other members. Dan Brown sod off out of my head. lol. And yet .... . Soooo we continue inwards as directed by the reflection. The window shows fruit inside and out traditional signs of fertility and rebirth. hmmm accepting that St Margaret on the wall is also saint of fertility then the way the main lady is holding her tummy (like all pregnant mothers do) sort of adds up as confirmation that this pic is about death and rebirth. but maybe even more. He the main guy as my kid-like self will confirm is death-like and bony and scary and in half shadow and is in heavy winter garb whilst fruit outside is growing on trees. So I see him as a fading Winter (hes virtually waving farewell) I saw her as Spring (yes pregnant with . . . Summer) and the autumnal coloured dog completes the personification of the four seasons. in conclusion, a heretical painting symbolically ridiculing the Jesus Christianity story as a misunderstood allegory and encoding for us his signed-up secret-society belief that it should be seen as promoting a more nature-orientated belief as the old pagan worship of the heavens and seasons which the natural laws of life and death were clearly demonstrated. thats my take. just for fun. These guys work really well in my pic as the four seasons and oncoming death due to climate change. i will lock my doors and await hoards of shouting people with pitchforks and burning sticks. lol Cheers Dave love and peace xx
Dear Dave, I love it. Add a conspiracy and you might have a novel on your hands.
@@storiesofart Haha thanks Carel. It was half 'tongue-in-cheek' and half 'and-yet-maybe...'. Yes a novel 'The Arnolfini Code' lol. A horrific murder on page 1 set on a blood-red bed and witnessed by a famous artist stood in the hall and seen through the mirror and has to embed clues to the identity of the murderer via all his future paintings. Cliffhanging chapters as the hero teams up with a pretty girl chased by authorities and an assassin until they kill the bad guy in a twist at the end. Hmmm good repeatable plot format there, haha. Thanks again. Loving your vids.
The "little paintings" around the mirror are an interpretation of the Stations of the Cross. Starting at the bottom (6 o'clock position as it were) going clockwise: Last Supper, Betrayal in the garden by Judas, Judgment before Pilot, Scourging at the pillar, Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus carry his cross, the Crucifixion, Jesus entrusts Mary to John/death on the cross, Prepared for burial in the tomb, Resurrection, Ascension.
what about the use of the device named " camera obscura " , helping Van Eyck to do the perfect perspective of the candelabra ?
I think he would have used every means at his disposal, there is no shame in that. We wouldn't hesitate to use whatever we could think of to make what we want to make. why would it be different for him? It is a little early for a camera obscura though. I think it would have been a world's first. there is a possibility that he used a inverse mirror. Suppose you take a convex mirror, like the one in the background, but instead of the outside, you put a reflective surface on the inside. that could be used as a lens. So it is technically possible that he had that. But we don't know if he used it. there is no evidence for it, except for his uncanny precision. But then again, maybe he was just that good.
He couldn't have possibly drawn it on the spot? We have solved this problem of time. Check the disc from the mini-cam just inside the window. See?
This is not a painting of a wedding. The woman was already dead, having died in childbirth which is why she is depicted as pregnant, by the time this painting was created. That's why the candle is lit on his side and has burnt out on hers. Also, the pictures around the mirror show the Passion of Christ, Christ being alive on his side and dead on hers. Also, the dog is on her side and dogs were often depicted at gravesites, with the dog helping to "guide" the dead in the afterlife. Also there is a small wooden sculpture of St, Margaret, the patron saint of pregnancy, right behind the woman. This is a painting commemorating a woman who died in childbirth. And that's why these people look the way they do.
Thank you very much for the answer ! The use of optical devices doesn't diminish in any way the qualitity of the painting and the painter. This knowledge was, of course, kept in secret by the alteliers, but it's good for us normal human beings know that these painters had technical help along with their own talents. It seems like art historians are a little bit embarrassed in toch this kind of subject and I simply don't understand why.
that is so true. It is almost as if we are offended by it. But that doesn't make sense. For some reason it is also not done to suggest that Vermeer used a camera obscura, when in his case that was perfectly feasible. Still, the truth is, we can only speculate, since we have no proof.
David Hockney has written on this: "Secret Knowlege".
In een museum lukt het mij niet vaak zo gedetailleerd een schilderij te zien. Prachtig verhaal. Heeft de kleur groen van de jurk van de vrouw ook nog een bepaalde betekenis?
Niet dat we weten
I recently saw this video regarding viewing the “under drawing” with infrared. The dog was added afterwards because it wasn’t included in the initial drawing. Here is the link:
ua-cam.com/video/GsjKKvbVsOs/v-deo.html
I think she was portrayed as being pregnant...the bunching of material held by her hand might have been the style of the times, but as the material falls and drapes, it seems to bulge out more than it should. I think she died in child birth, the child also, and he raises his hand in blessing for his late wife and lost child...a sign of love and loss
thanks for that. Perhaps you are right.
I think its a tribute to the woman he wanted to marry. Is there any relevance in the fact that the wedding rings is not over her knuckle where a ring should be when it is seated correctly on a finger, almost suggesting the marriage could never be completed because she died. I love this painting so much and saw it in the gallery in London some years ago. it was wonderful to see it for real
That is a good observation. You know I had not noticed that? But the trouble is that we can't say if it is a wedding ring. There are two of them after all.
I don't know how you do it, but you actually follow the paintings I have just recently learned something new about :D
Ad. Her pregnancy, I don't think she's pregnant. Even if she was, I don't think they would have wanted to show that in a wedding painting. Actually quite recently they made a copy of her dress in London and they've found out that it was very heavy - it's woolen. That should explain her spiral backed posture. But because she holds the dress this way and because of the drapery is so exagerrated, it may seem they want to show that they want to have kids. :) Like some kind of a forecast :)))
I didn't know they made a copy of the dress. yes it must be heavy, and come to think about it, also pretty hard to move around in. Good to know, Thanks!
@@storiesofart I don't have a source, my art history teacher told me that, so I hope it's true :)
I am going to look for it. I am really curious
@@storiesofart I found an article from June: www.artuk.org/discover/stories/fashion-reconstructed-the-dress-in-van-eycks-arnolfini-portrait#
Cool, Thanks!
Someone said...(explaining art like you do) that it used to be costum to place a dog at a deceised persons feet ..to acompany them to the afterlife... judging by your story..that might fit this scenario of her dying during pregnancy ( childbirth)
I wonder if the fruit in the background could also be a tribute to the fruit( a child) of their love/ marriage maybe?? .picked..before it had the chance to fullfill the repoductive chain of life?? The fruit on the tree...symbolising the child that grew in her..still has the potential to reproduce...and the picked orange...the breaking of the chain? Does the apple and orange combined in this painting ...possibly symbolise the nationality of the 2 joined together in this marriage?? Italian ( orange) and the apple..that could be grown in a much more northern country...the place they lifed?
Just letting my mind go free... to ask some questions...nothing of any meaning probably!!
What do you think of the theory that the precision of the rendering of the Chandelier is evidence that the painter had some sort of an optical device, like a camera obscura to aid him?
I think he would have used every technology he could get his hands on to make his life easier. It is very early for a camera obscura though. There is a possibility of using a convex mirror. Basically a mirror like the one you see in the background. If the inside of such a mirror is reflective, you can use it to precisely project an image on a surface and then trace it. All of this is not impossible for him to do, but impossible for us to prove. And there is always the (more likely) possibility that he was just a very, very good painter and just drew it.
The shoes! They are both barefoot and we can see their shoes. Does it mean anything?
Good one! We don't really know. the shoes you see are outer shoes. people would wear those over their normal shoes when they went outside. streets were often not paved and really muddy and dirty. The fact that they have taken them off shows us that they are at home (as opposed to some public building like a courthouse or city hall) I think they emphasise the intimacy of the setting
For another perspective on this masterpiece, see "Revisiting Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini 'Wedding' Portrait" www.mmkamhi.com/2020/11/17/arnolfini-portrait/.
Tribute to his late wife that died at childbirth, this explains the simulation of pregnancy with the gathering and holding of the dress over her stomach and I believe the candle is for her soul, like the ones in church you light up after prayer. in my opinion hahaha
"Well when you say no one is happy.. It makes me think.
I think that the dog does seem to have a happy facial expression. It's just a posthuman observation where the consciousness of the dog does seem to intrigue me....🧐
You are so right. Thank you, that made me smile.
I really like the idea that it commemorates a wife who had died the previous year. The candle fits well with this. I read somewhere another interpretation, that green is the colour sign for Mary Magdalene as blue is often used for Mary the mother of Jesus. So this is a depiction of the divine masculine and divine feminine, exemplified by Christ and Sophia, or Mary Magdalene. These are Gnostic ideas, not orthodox Christian ones, which would explain why Christ has none of the traditional pictorial references of Jesus. Then "Jan van Eyck was here" could mean that he had affiliation with Gnosticism, and the candle a lament for the going underground of Gnosticism. If this is so, he has carefully placed references to the orthodox story of the passion round the mirror, as if to deflect potential criticism (and worse). Thank you for the video.
Thanks for your comment. I had never heard of the ideas of Gnosticism in relation to Van Eyck, but who knows. There is still a lot to be discovered about Jan van Eyck and his time.
I think this is could be flattering painting of Countess Jacquline of Hainaut and Frank Borselle they got married in the Spring of 1434.
The cherry tree outside suggest it was spring,Jan van Eyck would of painted this by memory obviously. So it would never be a true likeness.
Jan van Eyck was the court painter of Philip the good and before was court painter ofJohn of Bavaria Jacqulines uncle.
Philip the Good allowed this marriage on the instruction Countess Jaquline would relinquish all her lands to him.
So maybe he needed proof of this and his entitlement , so the painting and the signature would of provided this.
Other things of note is that Jacquline's other paintings show her with rings on same fingers.
The top of the Chandalier looks like a Tau cross, both of them were members of the St Anthony order.The blue and white clothing could be the House of Wittlesbach this arnofini guy could be a lawyer and she is swearing a oath.The only connection to a dog is Jacqulines father died of a mysterious dog bite. She is wearing the gold bracelets does that mean she is more important?
LOVE HOW YOU POINTED TO ME DETAILS OTHERS HAD NOT. LOVE TOO YOUR VOICE. JUST WISH YOU WOULD CHECK YOUR SCRIPTURE BEFORE QUOTING .. BE THAT AS IT MAY, YOU'RE QUITE GOOD!
Thanks
I was wondering how the painting ended up in the National Gallery of London, since it was made for Italians who lived in Bruges?
It was simply sold at some point. We think it was in a Portugese collection in the 16th century, but it changed owner a number of times until it eventually came to London.
Because it was sold.
I just found out that the National Gallery bought it from a man called James Hay in 1842 for 600 pounds
18:41 not Purgatory , He descended to LIMBVS PATREM. The Limbo of the fathers. Which is the edge of hell, but not the hell of the damned.
van Eyck was a brilliant painter and the look on this man's face tells you everything you need to know. He is obviously sad as he remembers his dead wife. His look is haunted. Also check out his hands and feet. This is no marriage portrait for sure.
what are the dimensions of the painting?
82 x 60 cm
@@storiesofart thank you
I think she is pregnant. For me, this is clearly not a "wedding picture", but the statement that there is a legally valid marriage between them. Her being pregnant means that they consumated the marriage and that she is fulfilling her marital duties of giving him children. By the way: what you call oranges kind of look like peaches to me. Whatever they are, they are not only a show of wealth, I think they are showing that he is a merchant, and probably the one who is importing these.
I have never heard that dogs represent fidelity but dogs are renown for being loyal and I think that Arnolfini may be proclaiming his loyalty or his constancy toward his wife. He seems to be saying that he loves and honors his wife who, was probably dead when the portraits were painted. I'm not sure that sexual fidelity counted for much during the time the portraits were painted.
But are they not already proclaiming their constancy by the act of holding hands and him promising or swearing? Could be that the dog is just their dog and considered part of the family. And it livens up the lower part of the painting.
Just coming a bit new to this world of northern rennaisance art and how fascinating it is! I am very much convinced by the theory that Mrs Arnolfini is in fact dead at the time of painting and died in childbirth. The rest of the symbols then seem to fit quite nicely. A lit candle over the living, extinguished over the dead. The scenes from the passion are live ones on his side, those of death on her side. The open window and life on his side. The removal of shoes I gather could represent standing on holy ground, perhaps a symbol of the sanctity of his marriage, and the sacrifice through death in childbirth compared to the death of Christ shown right over the mirror, the centre of the painting. Or perhaps they show an onging faithfulness to his dead wife, that he will not venture forth for new "fruits"! I don't buy this hitching up of clothing idea - the women is self-evidently pregnant in this painting!
There is just so much to wonder about, isn't there? Have you seen my other video's on Van Eyck?
@@storiesofart I've seen the on on the Ghent Alarpiece, which was terrific. Are there more Van Eyck videos?
yes, I made one about the Virgin and Child and Canon van der Paele
@@storiesofart Many thanks, I'll check it out!
Perhaps that is a cherry tree outside the window. Since cherries and oranges are not of the same season - as the video points out -- the husband is represented by the oranges inside the home, while the season of his wife (the cherries) has passed.
There has been discussion to weather this is not a wedding picture at all but a Portrait of a dead wife. It is believed it was painted after she died. Everything in the picture shows of an affluent couple.
true. Didn't I explain that in the video?
It is not a wedding.
To analyze it better is to juxtapose it against the historical millieu and the time period it belonged to...
Well, that is the trouble here. We know that weddings were very often informal affairs. It was rare to have even a priest present in the 15th century.
Marriage has always been a sacrament for catholics and something you would expect being celebrated either by a priest or by a bishop and in a church setting, not in their home with clogs around them. The scene depicts a married couple, not the wedding itself in my opinion. Pregnant wife or not pregnant? This is obviously not the most important question: what we see is a wife who could be pregnant or would become pregnant: she shows her wide womb, probably the most distinguishing mark for female beauty in the Renaissance. The Arnolfini wife is offering her comb to her spouse, who is still alive (burning candle) and mourning (burning candle) about the unexpected death of his bride. The dog clearly stands for faithfulness and devotion even beyond life. As to their facial expression: why would you expect smiles on a Renaissance painting? Wasn't smile an attribute for madmen or lunatics in that time?
Yes, Marriage was a sacrament, but there were no rules of how to get married. In most, if not every, Northern European city there were special courts for marital disputes. the key question was often whether two people were married or not. That is precisely because most people did not celebrate their wedding in a church. A famous, although much later, example is Rembrandt who was 'accused' of being married to his housekeeper. The fact is that up to the early 19th century there was no codified way to celebrate marriage. Rich people often did it publicly to show everybody that two families were now linked, but these two were not so rich that that would have mattered to many people. As for smiles, There are examples of demure smiles or people showing some emotion on paintings, but very open smiles are hard to paint without making the sitter look like a madman
This Arnolfini mystery is addictive🙂 However touching the tribute theory is, I subscribe to the theory that 1) this is 2nd Mrs.Arnolfini, pretty much alive at the time of being portrayed and 2) she wasn't an expecting mother at that moment.
An argument not in favor of a memorial portrait is that he married (his only documented first wife) Constanza Trenta in 1426 and by 1433 she passed away childless (Wikipedia). According to that time views, as the painting implies, a good wife should be a fertile one, so, even if Mr.Arnolfini deeply loved and genuinely missed his first wife, the society should have viewed her as a defective commodity and their marriage as an unlucky one, fruitless, which had failed to produce children for seven years. It's fair to assume, at least by modern standards (but I have no idea of theirs), it would have been mockery of her memory to portray her as a mother-to-be if her track record in that field was poor by that time standards.
As for an apparent pregnancy, I subscribe to an explanation in an online academic lecture from East Tennessee State University, that van Eyck depicted with a similar protruding tummy a virgin saint St Catherine, as well as Eve from Ghent Altarpiece, that it was a way to render a female virtue, value or beauty - to underscore her prospective fertility. Evidently the painter was aware of Mr. Arnolfini's having had no issue, so as his good wishes to the newlyweds he depicted many objects which apparently back then were seen as fertility and material prosperity symbols. If they were good friends, perhaps this painting was a wedding gift, I think this would excuse the artist's cheeky self-promotional signature in the middle of the painting (along with his being a witness).
Thanks for your thoughts! I agree she was not pregnant in the picture. especially if this is a wedding portrait. That would make this a shotgun wedding. I haven't heard the lecture you mention, but I agree that at the time many virgin saints, including Mary holding her child, are depicted with protruding bellies. It was, as you say, the beauty standard. Only in the case of Eve I might think that she was portrayed pregnant. One of her sons is right above her and it might be a reference to the pain of labour that was her penalty. In that case the beauty standard and the iconography symply coincided.
I am also not completely sold on the memorial theory, but I love the fact that we are still looking for explanations, especially when it is done in a thoughtful manner.
I am so glad you find this story addictive too.
@@storiesofart Thank you for the answer! I went on 'Arnolfini portrait' and Jan van Eyck UA-cam binge-watching, that 7 years old US university lecture is on UA-cam as well (it also covers some aspects of the painter's biography in detail, to think of it, adding to the Arnolfini mystery, probably the painter was a kind of a Cinderella man for his time, I guess the social hierarchy back then must have been very rigid, but he went from an artisan to a diplomat close to the duke).
It's a great point about Eve's possible pregnancy. Regarding the Arnolfini lady I have read an essay postulating that that times' norms perceived it to be rather gross or bad manners to explicitly depict such an aspect of female reproductive physiology as pregnancy when it came to honorable ladies (not sure how it applies to Eve. Despite her sin she was still everyone's great great great etc. grandma basically. But it's a bit disrespectful to normally depict our forefathers (if they were to be respected) naked and maybe a misogynistic religious society back then was keen to warn and prophylactically reprimand all the sin-prone daughters of Eve...). As for the Arnolfini portrait, the addictive 'Mona-Lisa-ness' (sorry for anachronistic comparison) of this painting is evidently in its openness to be interpreted in many, even opposite ways!
confused now. do not agree on dogs. dogs can be seen on sculptures representing dead people, they accompany the dead. dogs were not chosen by chance. in the examples you gave, you see hunting dogs in a scene of hunter's banquet, bastard dogs f-king in popular scenes. Dogs were chosen according to their use, value, social level & awareness. Every thing is a symbol. but it's the painter who put the dog here, at this front position, very alive.
I think the Arnolfinis are not here. I think the couple portrayed here are flemish, not italian. But I loved your explanation and your analysis i very complete and interesting.
Yes, that is another possibility. Still, brilliant painting, isn't it?
@@storiesofart Wonderful. This painting composition is as brilliant as the Velázquez's Las meninas. Daring, complex and wonderfully painted.
4:00 WTF?? are you serious???? hahaha, so it's pretty much the same now days. but I don't really believe that at those times when Christianity already was there people didn't have to go to church to solemnize their wedding.
No, it is true. there was no legal obligation to register anything anywhere. many people did though.
Is it possible that there was a convention that a woman’s belly should appear large to show fecundity? This would not be relevant if the painting was a tribute to a dead wife.
There definitely was an ideal of beauty where women had a bit of a bulging belly. there are several cases of virgin saints depicted with a protruding belly
So disarming to have a painting explained by a guy wearing just a t-shirt ánd who can properly promounce "Jan van Eyck"
Please speak louder next time
I'll try