The Arnolfini Portrait (or The Arnolfini Wedding , The Arnolfini Marriage , Images Giovanni Arnolfini and His Wife , or other titles) are 1434 oil paintings on oak panel by early Dutch painter Jan van Eyck. It forms a complete double portrait, believed to depict Italian merchant Giovanni at Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife, probably in their home in the Flemish city of Bruges.
It is considered one of the most original and elaborate paintings in Western art, because of its beauty, complex iconography, orthogonal geometric perspective, and the expansion of the drawing space using a mirror. According to Ernst Gombrich "in his own way it is a new and revolutionary thing like Donatello or Masaccio's work in Italy.A simple corner of the real world is suddenly fixed on the panel as if by magic... For the first time in the history of the artist to be a witness perfect eyes in the true sense of the term ". This portrait has been considered by Erwin Panofsky and several other art historians as a unique form of marriage contract, recorded as a painting. Signed and dated by van Eyck in 1434, with Ghent Altarpiece by the same artist and his brother Hubert, the most famous oldest panel painting has been executed in oil rather than in tempera. The painting was purchased by the National Gallery in London in 1842.
Van Eyck used the technique of applying layer by layer a thin translucent glaze to create a painting with the intensity of tone and color. Shining colors also help highlight realism, and to show the material wealth and luxury of the Arnolfini world. Van Eyck takes advantage of longer oil paint drying times, compared to tempera, to blend colors with wet-in-wet paintings to achieve subtle variations in light and shadow to enhance the illusion of three-dimensional shapes. Oil paint media also allows van Eyck to capture the surface appearance and distinguish the texture appropriately. It also provides direct and diffuse light effects by showing light from the window on the left reflected by various surfaces. He had suggested that he used a magnifying glass to paint small details such as individual spotlights on each of the yellow beads hanging by the mirror.
The illusion of painting is remarkable for time, partly for the rendering of detail, but especially for the use of light to evoke space in the interior, for "a truly convincing portrayal of the room, as well as the people who inhabit me t". Whatever the meaning given to the scene and its details, and there is much debate about this, according to Craig Harbison, the painting "is the only surviving 15th century Northern panel in which its contemporaries are shown to be involved in some kind of action. contemporary, it is tempting to call it the first genre painting - a painting of everyday life - the modern age ".
Video Arnolfini Portrait
Description
The painting is generally in great shape, albeit with a small loss of original paint and damage, which has largely been fixed. The infrared reflectogram of the painting shows many small changes, or pentimenti, in underdrawing: for both face, to mirror, and other elements. The couple is shown upstairs with chests and beds in it during the early summer as shown by the fruit on the cherry tree outside the window. The room probably serves as a reception room, because it is fashion in France and Burgundy where the bed in the reception room is used as a seat, except, for example, when a mother with a new baby receives a guest. The window has six interior wooden windows, but only the top openings have glass, with clear blue, red and green cuts of the bull's eye.
Both figures were very richly dressed; Although the second season of their outerwear, tabard and dress, is trimmed and full of fur. The feathers may be a big tree that is expensive for her and a mink or miniver for her. He wears a black-colored straw hat, as it was often used in summer at the time. The tablet is more purple than it appears now (because the pigment has faded over time) and may be intended to be silk velvet (another very expensive item). Under it he wears a double-patterned material, probably a damask silk. Her dress has been complicated dagging (the fabric is folded and sewn together, then cut and frayed with trimmings) on the sleeves, and the long train. His blue top is also trimmed with white fur.
Although the plain gold necklace of women and the rings they both wear is the only visible jewelery, both clothes will be very expensive, and appreciated by contemporary performers. There may be an element of restraint in their clothing (especially men) that matches their merchant status - aristocratic portraits tend to show golden chains and more decorated fabrics, even though "the unfettered color of the man's clothing corresponds to that favored by Duke Phillip of Burgundy ".
The interior of the room has another wealth sign; Brass chandelier is large and complicated by contemporary standards, and will be very expensive. It will probably have a mechanism with pulleys and chains on it, to lower it to manage the candle (probably removed from painting due to lack of space). The convex mirror on the back, in a wooden frame with a The Passion scene painted behind a glass, is displayed larger than such mirrors can actually be made on this date - another silent departure from realism by van Eyck. Also there is no sign of a fireplace (including in the mirror), or wherever it is unclear to put it down. Even the oranges placed casually on the left are a sign of wealth; they are very expensive in Burgundy, and probably one of the items handled by Arnolfini. Signs of further luxury are elaborate hammocks and carvings on chairs and benches on the back wall (on the right, partially hidden beside the bed), as well as a small Oriental carpet on the floor beside the bed; many owners of such expensive things place it on the table, as they still do in the Netherlands.
The view in the mirror showed two numbers inside the door that the couple faced. The second figure, wearing red, is apparently an artist, though, unlike Velázquez at Las Meninas, he does not seem to paint. Scholars have made this assumption based on the appearance of figures who wear red head dresses in some other van Eyck works (eg, Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) And a figure in the background of Madonna with Rolin Chancellor). Dogs are the earliest form of this breed now known as the Brussels griffon.
The painting was signed, written and dated on the wall above the mirror: " Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434 " ("Jan van Eyck is here 1434"). It looked like it was painted with a capital letters on the wall, as was done with other proverbs and phrases in this period. Another surviving van Eyck signature was painted in trompe l'oeil on the wooden frame of his painting, so it looked like it was carved in wood.
Maps Arnolfini Portrait
Subject identity
In their book published in 1857, Crowe and Cavalcaselle were the first to associate a double portrait with early inventory of Margaret in Austria in the early 16th century. They suggested that the painting showed a portrait of Giovanni (in Arrigo) Arnolfini and his wife. Four years later James Weale published a book in which he agreed with this analysis and identified Giovanni's wife as Jeanne (or Giovanna) Cenami. For the next century most art historians accepted that the painting was a double portrait of Giovanni at Arrigo Arnolfini and his wife Jeanne Cenami but the discovery of probability in 1997 determined that they married in 1447, thirteen years after the date on the painting and six years after van Eyck's death.
It is now believed that the subject was Giovanni at Arrigo or his cousin, Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini, and a wife of one of them. This was the first wife of Giovanni in the undocumented Arrigo or second wife of Giovanni at Nicolao, or, according to a recent proposal, Giovanni's first wife in Nicolao, Costanza Trenta, who had died probably during childbirth in February 1433. In the latter case , this will make the painting partly an unusual memorial portrait, showing one live person and one dead person. Details like the candle sucked on top of the woman, the scene after Christ's death on her round background, and his black outfit, supports this view. Both Giovanni at Arrigo and Giovanni at Nicolao Arnolfini are Italian merchants, originally from Lucca, but residents in Bruges at least since 1419. The man in this painting is the subject of further portraits by van Eyck at GemÃÆ'¤ldegalerie, Berlin, which leads to speculation he is an artist friend.
Scientic debate
In 1934 Erwin Panofsky published an article titled Arnolfini Portrait "Jan van Eyck at Burlington Magazine, on the grounds that the intricate signature on the back wall, and other factors, indicates that it painted as legal notes of couples' marriage events, complete with witnesses and signatures of witnesses Panofsky also argues that many details of domestic goods in the painting each have a veiled symbolism attached to their appearance, while Panofsky claims that the paintings that make up such a the marriage certificate was not accepted by all art historians, his analysis of the symbolic functions of the details was widely agreed upon, and has been applied to many other Early Dutch paintings, especially a number of depictions.Emunciation is set in very detailed interiors, a tradition that Arnolfini Portrait and MÃÆ' Â © rode Altarpiece by Robert Campin representing the beginning (in terms of works that are still alive at least).
Since then, there have been many scientific arguments among art historians on that occasion. Edwin Hall considers that the painting depicts engagement, not marriage. Margaret D. Carroll argues that the painting is a portrait of a married couple who are also offensive to the husband's grant from the legal authorities to his wife. Carroll also proposed that the portrait was intended to assert the good character of Giovanni Arnolfini as a merchant and prospective Burgundian court member. He argues that the painting depicts the couple, is married, now inaugurated the next legal arrangement, the mandate, in which the husband "hands over" to his wife the legal authority to do his own business or on his behalf (similar to the power of the lawyer). The claim is not that the painting has any legal force, but van Eyck plays on the image of the legal contract as pictorial pride. While two figures in the mirror can be considered as witnesses of taking oaths, the artist himself provides (intelligent) authentication with a notary signature on the wall.
Jan Baptist Bedaux rather agrees with Panofsky that this is a portrait of a marriage contract in his 1986 article "The reality of symbols: the question of hidden symbolism in Arnolfini's Portrait of Jan van Eyck." However, he disagreed with Panofsky's idea of ​​items in paintings that have hidden meanings. Bedaux argues, "if the symbols were disguised in such a way that they did not clash with the facts understood at the time... there would be no way to prove that the painter actually meant such symbolism." He also suspects that if these disguised symbols are a normal part of the marriage ritual, one can not say for certain whether they are part of a "veiled symbolism" or merely a social reality.
Craig Harbison takes the middle path between Panofsky and Bedaux in their debates on "hidden symbolism" and realism. Harbison argues that "Jan van Eyck is there as a storyteller... [who] can certainly understand that, in the context of people's lives, objects can have many associations", and that there are many possible goals for portraiture and that way can be interpreted. He argues that these portraits can not be fully interpreted until the experts accept the idea that objects can have many associations. Harbison urges the idea that one needs to do a multivalent reading of the painting that includes a reference to the secular and sexual context of the Burgundian court, as well as religious references and the sacrament for marriage.
Lorne Campbell at the National Gallery Catalog no longer has to search for a special meaning in the painting: "... there seems to be no reason to believe that the portrait has significant narrative content, only blazing candles and strange signatures that inculcate speculation." He suggested that double portraits are very likely made to commemorate marriage, but not legal records and cite miniature examples of manuscripts that show the same intricate inscriptions on the walls as a normal form of decoration at the time. Another portrait in the National Gallery by van Eyck, Portrait of a Man (Leal Souvenir) , has a legalistic signature form.
Margaret Koster's new suggestion, discussed above and below, that the portrait is a warning, from a wife who has died for a year or more, will replace these theories. Art historian Maximiliaan Martens argues that the painting was intended as a gift to the Arnolfini family in Italy. It has a purpose to show the prosperity and wealth of the couple described. He feels this might explain the peculiarities in painting, for example why do couples stand in typical winter clothes while cherry trees in fruit outside, and why the phrase " Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434 " is shown so much in the middle of the painting. Herman Colenbrander has proposed that the painting may illustrate the old habits of a German husband who promised a gift to his wife the morning after their wedding night. He also suggested that the painting might be a gift from the artist to his friend.
In 2016, French physician Jean-Philippe Postel, in his book L'Affaire Arnolfini, agrees with Koster that the woman is dead, but he suggests that he appear to him as a ghost, asking him to pray for his soul.
Interpretation and symbolism
Figures and marriages
It is estimated that the couple is married because of female headdresses. An unmarried woman will bow her hair, according to Margaret Carroll. The two-point placement shows the conventional view of marriage and the gender role of the fifteenth century - the woman standing by the bed and deep into the room, a symbol of her role as a house keeper and establishing her in a domestic role, while Giovanni stood by the open window, the symbol of his role in the outside world. Arnolfini looked directly at the audience, his wife looked at obedient to her husband. His hands were lifted vertically, representing his muscular command post, while his hands held a lower, more horizontal, and more obedient position. However, her gaze on her husband can also show her equality because she does not look down to the floor when the lower class women will. They are part of the life of the Burgundian court and in that system he is equal, not his subordinate.
The symbolism behind the couple's actions has also been debated among scholars. Many point to this movement as evidence of the painting's purpose. Is this a marriage contract or something else? Panofsky interpreted the gesture as a fide, Latin act for "marriage vow". He calls the representation of the pair "i Qui desponsari videbantur per fidem " which means, "who contract their marriage with the marriage vow". The man took her right hand with his left hand which was the basis of the controversy. Some scholars such as Jan Baptist Bedaux and Peter Schabacker argue that if this painting does indeed show a wedding ceremony, then the use of the left hand shows that the marriage is morganic rather than clandestine. Marriage is said to be morganic if a man marries a woman of an unequal rank. However, the subject was initially considered by most experts to be represented in this painting, Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami, having the same status and rank in the court system, so the theory would not apply. On the opposite side of the debate are scholars like Margaret Carroll. He suggested that the painting spread the image of a contract between a married couple giving the wife the authority to act on her husband's behalf in business dealings. Carroll identifies Arnolfini's right hand as an oath-making movement known as "levare fidem", and he goes hand in hand with his wife as a gesture of approval known as "fidesist guidance ."
Although many viewers consider the wife to be pregnant, this is not believed to be so. Art historians show many paintings of virgins of virgins dressed in a similar manner, and believe that this appearance is perfect for women's clothing at the time. Fashion will be important for Arnolfini, especially as he is a fabric trader. The more a cloth a person wore, the richer he assumed. Another indication that the woman was not pregnant was that Giovanna Cenami (identification of women according to most of the previous scholars) died without children, as did Costanza Trenta (possibly identification according to recent archival evidence); whether a hypothetical failed pregnancy will be left recorded in the portrait is questionable, even if it is Constanza Trenta, as Koster proposed, and he died in childbirth, then oblique references to pregnancy gain strength. Moreover, the beauty embodied in contemporary women's portraits and clothing rests in the first place with a high appraisal of women's ability to give birth to children. Harbison maintains his movement is only an indication of the extreme desire of the couple shown for fertility and heredity.
There is a finely carved figure on the bedpost, perhaps from Saint Margaret, the patron saint of pregnancy and birth, called to help women in labor and to cure infertility, or perhaps represent Saint Martha, the protector of the housewife. From the bedpost hanging brush, symbolic of domestic duty. Subsequently, stone crystal brushes and stone beads (popular engagement gifts of the bridegroom) appear together on either side of the mirror may also allude to the double Christian commandment of ora et labora (prayer and work). According to Jan Baptist Bedaux, brooms can also symbolize the chastity of the proverb; it "wipes the dirt".
Mirror
The small medals mounted on the convex mirror frame behind the room show the small scenes of the Passion of Christ and can represent God's promise of salvation for the numbers reflected on the convex surface of the mirror. Continuing the Memorial theory, all the scenes on the wife's side are about the death and resurrection of Christ. Those who are on the side of the husband are worried about the life of Christ. The mirror itself can represent the eyes of God who observe the marriage vows. The immaculate mirror is also an established symbol of Mary, referring to the pure concepts and holiness of Holy Virgin. The mirror reflects two figures in the doorway, one of which may be the painter himself. In Panofsky's controversial view, the numbers proved that two witnesses were required to make the law of marriage present, and Van Eyck's signature on the wall acted as a form of actual documentation of an event in which he himself was present.
According to one writer, "This painting is often referenced for its immaculate depiction of non-Euclidean geometry", referring to the image in a convex mirror. Assuming the mirror is round, the distortion has been illustrated correctly, except the far left portion of the window frame, the edge of the table and the end of the dress.
Other objects
Small dogs symbolize loyalty (fido), loyalty, or can be seen as a symbol of lust, signifying the desire of the couple to have children. Unlike the couple, he looks out to stare at the viewer's gaze. Dogs can also be dog laps, a gift from husband to wife. Many rich women in court have dogs as laps as friends. So dogs can reflect the wealth of their spouses and their positions in life together.
The woman's green dress symbolizes hope, perhaps the hope of being a mother. His white hat can show purity, but may indicate he's married. Behind the couple, the wedding curtain has been opened; the red curtain may offend the physical act of love between married couples.
The single candle in the front left holder of the six-pronged chandelier may be a candle used in traditional Flemish customs. Lit in full daylight, like a sanctuary lamp in a church, it may offend the presence of the Holy Spirit or the ever-present eye of God. As an alternative, Margaret Koster argues that the painting is a memorial portrait, because the single candle burning on Giovanni's side contrasts with the charred candle whose candlestick can only be seen on the side of his wife, generating a common literary metaphor: he lives on, he dies.
The cherry that is on the tree outside the window may symbolize love. The oranges on the windowsill and the chest may symbolize the purity and innocence that prevailed in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. They are rare and a sign of wealth in the Netherlands, but in Italy is a symbol of fecundity in marriage. Fruit can be simpler to sign the wealth of the couple because imported oranges are very expensive. It could be a sign of fertility too.
Provenance
The known origin of the painting is that in 1434 it was dated by van Eyck and probably owned by a nanny. At some undetermined point before 1516 it belonged to Don Diego de Guevara (d. Brussels 1520), a Spanish career commander of Habsburg (himself a portrait subject both by Michael Sittow at the National Gallery of Art). He lived most of his life in the Netherlands, and may have known Arnolfinis in their last years.
In 1516 he had given the portrait to Margaret of Austria, the Habsburg Regent of the Netherlands, when it emerged as the first item in his painting inventory, made before him in Mechelen. Item says (in French): "a big picture called Hernoul le Fin with his wife in a room, given to Madame by Don Diego, whose hand is on the cover of the picture, performed by the painter Johannes." A margin note says, "Needs a lock to shut it down: what Madame ordered to do." In Mechelen 1523-4 inventory, a similar description is given, although this time the subject name is given as "Arnoult Fin".
In 1530 the painting was inherited by Margaret's nephew Mary of Hungary, who in 1556 went to live in Spain. This is clearly illustrated in the inventory taken after his death in 1558, when inherited by Philip II of Spain. A painting of his two young daughters, "Infantas Isabella Clara Eugenia and Catalina Micaela of Spain" (Prado), commissioned by Philip clearly imitates the pose of the characters. In 1599 a German visitor saw him at the Alcazar Palace in Madrid. Now there are verses from Ovid that are depicted in the frame: "See that you promise: what harm is there in promises? With the promise of anyone can become rich." Very likely Velázquez knows the painting, which may have affected his Las Meninas, which shows a room in the same palace. In 1700 the painting appeared in inventory after the death of Carlos II with shutters and verses from Ovid,
The Alcazar was rebuilt in the eighteenth century as the Royal Palace of Madrid, but the painting remained in the royal collection, and in 1794 it was moved to "Palacio Nuevo". In 1816 the painting was in London, belonging to Colonel James Hay, a Scottish soldier. He claims that after he was seriously injured at the Battle of Waterloo the previous year, the painting hung in the room where he recovered in Brussels. He fell in love with her, and persuaded the owner to sell. More relevant to the real facts no doubt of Hay's presence at the Battle of Vitoria (1813) in Spain, where a great coach was loaded by King Joseph Bonaparte with easy portable artworks from a collection of Spanish empires first looted by British troops, before what the Left has found by their commander and back to Spain.
Hay offers the painting to Prince Regent, then George IV of England, through Sir Thomas Lawrence. The Prince had been approved for two years at Carlton House before finally returning him in 1818. Around 1828, Hay gave it to a friend to be looked after, not to see him or a friend for the next thirteen years, until he arranged it for inclusion in a public exhibition in 1841. Purchased the following year (1842) by the newly formed National Gallery, London for £ 600, as inventory number 186, where it remains. The window shutters have disappeared, along with the original frame.
Note
References
Further reading
- Hicks, Carola, Girl in the Green Gown: History and Mystery of Arnolfini Portrait , London: Random House, 2011, ISBNÃ, 0-7011-8337-3
- Seidel, Linda, "'Jan van Eyck' portrait: business as usual?", Critical Questions , volume 16, issue 1, pages 54-86, Autumn 1989, JSTOR
External links
- The Arnolfini Portrait on the National Gallery website
- Mystery of Marriage - Open University Program
- Erwin Panofsky and The Arnolfini Portrait
- Blog essays on the theory around John Haber's paintings
- Press interview with art historian Craig Harbison
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments