He Arnolfini Portrait Is Part of Which Period in Art?

1434 painting past Jan van Eyck

The Arnolfini Portrait
Creative person	Jan van Eyck
Year	1434
Type	Oil on oak panel of 3 vertical boards
Dimensions	82.2 cm × 60 cm (32.4 in × 23.6 in); panel 84.v cm × 62.five cm (33.3 in × 24.6 in)
Location	National Gallery, London

The Arnolfini Portrait (or The Arnolfini Wedding , The Arnolfini Marriage , the Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife , or other titles) is a 1434 oil painting on oak panel by the Early on Netherlandish painter January van Eyck. It forms a total-length double portrait, believed to depict the Italian merchant Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his married woman, presumably in their residence at the Flemish city of Bruges.

Information technology is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western fine art, because of its beauty, circuitous iconography,^[1] geometric orthogonal perspective,^[2] and expansion of the moving-picture show space with the use of a mirror.^{[3] [iv]} According to Ernst Gombrich "in its own way it was as new and revolutionary every bit Donatello's or Masaccio'due south work in Italian republic. A simple corner of the real globe had suddenly been fixed on to a panel as if by magic... For the first fourth dimension in history the creative person became the perfect eye-witness in the truest sense of the term".^[5] The portrait has been considered past Erwin Panofsky and some other art historians equally a unique form of marriage contract, recorded as a painting.^[6] Signed and dated past van Eyck in 1434, information technology is, with the Ghent Altarpiece by the aforementioned artist and his brother Hubert, the oldest very famous console painting to have been executed in oils rather than in tempera. The painting was bought by the National Gallery in London in 1842.

Van Eyck used the technique of applying several layers of sparse translucent glazes to create a painting with an intensity of both tone and colour. The glowing colours also assistance to highlight the realism, and to bear witness the material wealth and opulence of Arnolfini's earth. Van Eyck took advantage of the longer drying fourth dimension of oil paint, compared to tempera, to blend colours by painting wet-in-wet to attain subtle variations in low-cal and shade to raise the illusion of three-dimensional forms. The moisture-in-moisture (wet-on-wet), technique, likewise known as alla prima, was highly utilized by Renaissance painters including Jan van Eyck.^[7] The medium of oil pigment besides permitted van Eyck to capture surface appearance and distinguish textures precisely. He also rendered the effects of both direct and diffuse light past showing the calorie-free from the window on the left reflected by diverse surfaces. Information technology has been suggested that he used a magnifying drinking glass in lodge to paint the minute details such as the private highlights on each of the bister beads hanging beside the mirror.

The illusionism of the painting was remarkable for its time, in part for the rendering of particular, only peculiarly for the apply of lite to evoke space in an interior, for "its utterly convincing depiction of a room, every bit well of the people who inhabit information technology".^[8] Any meaning is given to the scene and its details, and there has been much contend on this, according to Craig Harbison the painting "is the only fifteenth-century Northern panel to survive in which the creative person's contemporaries are shown engaged in some sort of action in a gimmicky interior. It is indeed tempting to telephone call this the first genre painting – a painting of everyday life – of modern times".

Description [edit]

In the typical Dutch style, this painting contains an incredible mastery of form, brushwork and colour to create intense details.

The painting is mostly in very good status, though with small losses of original paint and damages, which take more often than not been retouched. Infrared reflectograms of the painting show many small alterations, or pentimenti, in the underdrawing: to both faces, to the mirror, and to other elements.^[ix] The couple are shown in an upstairs room with a chest and a bed in information technology during early summertime every bit indicated by the fruit on the cherry tree outside the window. The room probably functioned equally a reception room, as it was the fashion in France and Burgundy where beds in reception rooms were used every bit seating, except, for case, when a mother with a new baby received visitors. The window has vi interior wooden shutters, but only the top opening has glass, with clear bulls-eye pieces set in blue, blood-red and green stained glass.^[9]

The two figures are very richly dressed; despite the season both their outer garments, his tabard and her clothes, are trimmed and fully lined with fur. The furs may exist the especially expensive sable for him and ermine or miniver for her. He wears a hat of plaited straw dyed black, as ofttimes worn in the summertime at the time. His tabard was more royal than it appears now (equally the pigments have faded over time) and may be intended to be silk velvet (another very expensive item). Underneath he wears a doublet of patterned fabric, probably silk damask. Her dress has elaborate dagging (cloth folded and sewn together, and then cut and frayed decoratively) on the sleeves, and a long train. Her blueish underdress is also trimmed with white fur.^[9]

Although the woman'due south plain golden necklace and the rings that both wear are the only jewellery visible, both outfits would take been enormously expensive, and appreciated every bit such by a gimmicky viewer. There may exist an element of restraint in their clothes (especially the human) conforming their merchant condition – portraits of aristocrats tend to show gold bondage and more than decorated cloth,^[9] although "the restrained colours of the human's wear correspond to those favoured by Duke Phillip of Burgundy".^[10]

Particular showing the female field of study and convex mirror

The interior of the room has other signs of wealth; the brass chandelier is large and elaborate by contemporary standards, and would have been very expensive. Information technology would probably have had a mechanism with caster and chains above, to lower it for managing the candles (mayhap omitted from the painting for lack of room). The convex mirror at the back, in a wooden frame with scenes of The Passion painted behind glass, is shown larger than such mirrors could really be made at this engagement – another discreet departure from realism by van Eyck. At that place is as well no sign of a fireplace (including in the mirror), nor anywhere obvious to put one. Fifty-fifty the oranges casually placed to the left are a sign of wealth; they were very expensive in Burgundy, and may take been one of the items dealt in by Arnolfini. Further signs of luxury are the elaborate bed-hangings and the carvings on the chair and demote against the back wall (to the right, partly hidden by the bed), too the small Oriental rug on the floor by the bed; many owners of such expensive objects placed them on tables, equally they still do in the netherlands.^{[9] [10]} There existed a friendship between Giovanni Arnolfini and Philip the Adept who sent his court painter Jan van Eyck to portray Arnolfini Double. The relation possibly began with a tapestry social club including the images of Notre Dame Cathedral in return of a good payment.^[seven]

The view in the mirror shows two figures only inside the door that the couple are facing. The 2nd figure, wearing red, is presumably the creative person although, different Velázquez in Las Meninas, he does non seem to be painting. Scholars have made this assumption based on the advent of figures wearing ruby-red caput-dresses in some other van Eyck works (east.chiliad., the Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) and the figure in the groundwork of the Madonna with Chancellor Rolin). The dog is an early course of the breed now known as the Brussels griffon.^[nine]

The painting is signed, inscribed and dated on the wall above the mirror: "Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434" ("January van Eyck was here 1434"). The inscription looks as if information technology were painted in big letters on the wall, as was washed with proverbs and other phrases at this period. Other surviving van Eyck signatures are painted in trompe-50'œil on the wooden frame of his paintings, so that they appear to have been carved in the woods.^{[9] [eleven]}

Identity of subjects [edit]

In their book published in 1857, Crowe and Cavalcaselle were the offset to link the double portrait with the early 16th century inventories of Margaret of Austria. They suggested that the painting showed portraits of Giovanni [di Arrigo] Arnolfini and his wife.^[12] 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.^[thirteen] For the adjacent century most fine art historians accepted that the painting was a double portrait of Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini and his wife Jeanne Cenami merely a chance discovery published in 1997 established that they were married in 1447, xiii years later on the appointment on the painting and half-dozen years after van Eyck'southward death.^[xiv]

Information technology is at present believed that the subject is either Giovanni di Arrigo or his cousin, Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini, and a wife of either 1 of them. This is either an undocumented first wife of Giovanni di Arrigo or a second wife of Giovanni di Nicolao, or, according to a contempo proposal, Giovanni di Nicolao's kickoff wife Costanza Trenta, who had died perhaps in childbirth by February 1433.^[15] In the latter case, this would make the painting partly an unusual memorial portrait, showing ane living and one dead person. Details such as the snuffed candle above the woman, the scenes later Christ'south decease on her side of the groundwork roundel, and the black garb of the human, support this view.^[15] Both Giovanni di Arrigo and Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini were Italian merchants, originally from Lucca, but resident in Bruges since at least 1419.^[11] The homo in this painting is the bailiwick of a further portrait by van Eyck in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, leading to speculation he was a friend of the artist.^[16]

Scholarly fence [edit]

Charles the Assuming surprising David Aubert, a miniature with an unusual variant of the presentation portrait, probably alluding to Alexander the Groovy, who surprised one of his artists in similar fashion. The rear wall seems to refer to the Arnolfini Portrait of forty years earlier, containing many of the same objects similar the convex mirror and in particular the painted inscription on the wall. Loyset Liédet, before 1472.

In 1934 Erwin Panofsky published an commodity entitled January van Eyck's 'Arnolfini' Portrait in the Burlington Magazine, arguing that the elaborate signature on the back wall, and other factors, showed that information technology was painted as a legal record of the occasion of the marriage of the couple, consummate with witnesses and a witness signature.^[17] Panofsky too argues that the many details of domestic items in the painting each take a bearded symbolism attached to their appearance. While Panofsky's merits that the painting formed a kind of certificate of marriage is not accepted past all art historians, his analysis of the symbolic part of the details is broadly agreed, and has been applied to many other Early Netherlandish paintings, especially a number of depictions of the Proclamation fix in richly detailed interiors, a tradition for which the Arnolfini Portrait and the Mérode Altarpiece by Robert Campin represent the start (in terms of surviving works at least).^[18]

Since then, there has been considerable scholarly argument among art historians on the occasion represented. Edwin Hall considers that the painting depicts a betrothal, not a marriage. Margaret D. Carroll argues that the painting is a portrait of a married couple that alludes also to the husband'south grant of legal authorisation to his married woman.^[19] Carroll also proposes that the portrait was meant to affirm Giovanni Arnolfini'south skillful character as a merchant and aspiring fellow member of the Burgundian court. She argues that the painting depicts a couple, already married, now formalizing a subsequent legal arrangement, a mandate, past which the husband "hands over" to his wife the legal authority to carry business on her ain or his behalf (similar to a ability of attorney). The merits is not that the painting had any legal force, but that van Eyck played upon the imagery of legal contract as a pictorial conceit. While the ii figures in the mirror could be thought of equally witnesses to the oath-taking, the creative person himself provides (witty) authentication with his notarial signature on the wall.^[twenty]

Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434 (January van Eyck was here. 1434).

Jan Baptist Bedaux agrees somewhat with Panofsky that this is a marriage contract portrait in his 1986 article "The reality of symbols: the question of bearded symbolism in January van Eyck'south Arnolfini Portrait." Notwithstanding, he disagrees with Panofsky's thought of items in the portrait having subconscious meanings. Bedaux argues, "if the symbols are disguised to such an extent that they do not clash with reality every bit conceived at the fourth dimension ... there volition be no means of proving that the painter really intended such symbolism."^[21] He likewise conjectures that if these disguised symbols were normal parts of the marriage ritual, then one could not say for certain whether the items were office of a "disguised symbolism" or just social reality.^[21]

Craig Harbison takes the middle footing between Panofsky and Bedaux in their debate nearly "bearded symbolism" and realism. Harbison argues that "January van Eyck is there every bit storyteller ... [who] must have been able to understand that, within the context of people'south lives, objects could take multiple associations", and that there are many possible purposes for the portrait and ways it tin can be interpreted.^[22] He maintains that this portrait cannot be fully interpreted until scholars accept the notion that objects tin can have multiple associations. Harbison urges the notion that one needs to conduct a multivalent reading of the painting that includes references to the secular and sexual context of the Burgundian court, as well as religious and sacramental references to wedlock.

Lorne Campbell in the National Gallery Catalogue sees no need to find a special meaning in the painting: "... at that place seems footling reason to believe that the portrait has whatsoever pregnant narrative content. Merely the unnecessary lighted candle and the strange signature provoke speculation."^[23] He suggests that the double portrait was very perchance fabricated to commemorate a marriage, just not a legal record and cites examples of miniatures from manuscripts showing similarly elaborate inscriptions on walls every bit a normal form of decoration at the fourth dimension. Another portrait in the National Gallery by van Eyck, Portrait of a Man (Leal Souvenir), has a legalistic course of signature.^[11]

Margaret Koster's new proposition, discussed above and below, that the portrait is a memorial one, of a wife already dead for a year or so, would displace these theories. Art historian Maximiliaan Martens has suggested that the painting was meant as a gift for the Arnolfini family in Italia. It had the purpose of showing the prosperity and wealth of the couple depicted. He feels this might explicate oddities in the painting, for example why the couple are standing in typical winter clothing while a scarlet tree is in fruit exterior, and why the phrase "Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434" is featured so large in the centre of the painting. Herman Colenbrander has proposed that the painting may describe an one-time German custom of a husband promising a souvenir to his bride on the morning subsequently their wedding night. He has likewise suggested that the painting may have been a present from the artist to his friend.^[24]

In 2016, French physician Jean-Philippe Postel, in his book 50'Affaire Arnolfini, agreed with Koster that the woman is dead, but he suggested that she is appearing to the man as a spectre, request him to pray for her soul.^[25]

Interpretation and symbolism [edit]

Figures and wedlock [edit]

Information technology is idea that the couple are already married because of the woman's headdress. A non-married woman would have her hair down, according to Margaret Carroll.^[26] The placement of the two figures suggests conventional 15th century views of spousal relationship and gender roles – the woman stands near the bed and well into the room, symbolic of her role as the caretaker of the business firm and solidifying her in a domestic office, whereas Giovanni stands near the open up window, symbolic of his role in the outside world. Arnolfini looks direct out at the viewer; his wife gazes obediently at her married man. His hand is vertically raised, representing his commanding position of authority, whilst she has her paw in a lower, horizontal, more submissive pose. However, her gaze at her husband can also evidence her equality to him because she is not looking downward at the floor as lower-class women would. They are role of the Burgundian court life and in that system she is his equal, not his lowly subordinate.^[27]

Detail showing the couple'southward joined hands.

The symbolism behind the action of the couple's joined easily has also been debated amongst scholars. Many indicate to this gesture every bit proof of the painting's purpose. Is information technology a union contract or something else? Panofsky interprets the gesture as an human activity of fides, Latin for "marital oath". He calls the representation of the couple "qui desponsari videbantur per fidem" which means, "who were contracting their marriage by marital oath".^[28] The man is grasping the woman's right hand with his left, which is the basis for the controversy. Some scholars like Jan Baptist Bedaux and Peter Schabacker debate that if this painting does prove a spousal relationship ceremony, then the use of the left hand points to the marriage beingness morganatic and not clandestine. A marriage is said to be morganatic if a man marries a woman of unequal rank.^[29] Nonetheless, the subjects originally idea by most scholars to be represented in this painting, Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami, were of equal status and rank in the ladylike arrangement, so the theory would not concur true.^[29] On the opposite side of the debate are scholars like Margaret Carroll. She suggests that the painting deploys the imagery of a contract between an already married couple giving the wife the authorization to act on her married man'south behalf in business dealings.^[30] Carroll identifies Arnolfini'due south raised right hand as a gesture of adjuration-taking known as "fidem levare", and his joining hands with his wife equally a gesture of consent known as "fides manualis".^[31]

Although many viewers assume the wife to be pregnant, this is not believed to be so. Art historians point to numerous paintings of female virgin saints similarly dressed, and believe that this await was stylish for women's dresses at the fourth dimension.^[32] Way would have been important to Arnolfini, specially since he was a cloth merchant. The more fabric a person wore, the more wealthy he or she was assumed to be. Some other indication that the adult female is not significant is that Giovanna Cenami (the identification of the woman according to most earlier scholars) died childless,^[33] equally did Costanza Trenta (a possible identification according to recent archival show);^[fifteen] whether a hypothetical unsuccessful pregnancy would take been left recorded in a portrait is questionable, although if it is indeed Constanza Trenta, every bit Koster proposed, and she died in childbirth, and then the oblique reference to pregnancy gains forcefulness. Moreover, the beauty ideal embodied in gimmicky female portraits and clothing rest in the first place on the high valuation on the ability of women to behave children. Harbison maintains her gesture is merely an indication of the extreme desire of the couple shown for fertility and progeny.^[34]

There is a carved figure as a finial on the bedpost, probably of Saint Margaret, patron saint of pregnancy and childbirth,^[35] who was invoked to assist women in labor and to cure infertility, or possibly representing Saint Martha, the patroness of housewives.^[36] From the bedpost hangs a brush, symbolic of domestic duties. Furthermore, the brush and the rock crystal prayer-beads (a popular engagement present from the future benedict) actualization together on either side of the mirror may also insinuate to the dual Christian injunctions ora et labora (pray and work). According to Jan Baptist Bedaux, the broom could also symbolize proverbial guiltlessness; it "sweeps out impurities".^{[37] [38]}

Mirror [edit]

The pocket-size medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room bear witness tiny scenes from the Passion of Christ and may correspond God's hope of salvation for the figures reflected on the mirror's convex surface. Furthering the Memorial theory, all the scenes on the wife's side are of Christ's decease and resurrection. Those on the husband's side concern Christ'south life. The mirror itself may represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding ceremony. A spotless mirror was as well an established symbol of Mary, referring to the Holy Virgin's immaculate formulation and purity.^[35] The mirror reflects 2 figures in the doorway, 1 of whom may be the painter himself. In Panofsky's controversial view, the figures are shown to prove that the two witnesses required to make a wedding legal were present, and Van Eyck'south signature on the wall acts equally some form of actual documentation of an event at which he was himself present.

According to ane writer "The painting is oftentimes referenced for its immaculate depiction of non-Euclidean geometry",^[39] referring to the image on the convex mirror. Assuming a spherical mirror, the baloney has been correctly portrayed, except for the leftmost office of the window frame, the near edge of the table and the hem of the apparel.^[40]

Other objects [edit]

The little dog may symbolize fidelity (fido), loyalty,^[35] or alternatively animalism, signifying the couple'south desire to accept a child.^[41] Unlike the couple, he looks out to meet the gaze of the viewer.^[42] The canis familiaris could exist simply a lap dog, a gift from husband to wife. Many wealthy women in the court had lap dogs as companions, reflecting the wealth of the couple and their position in courtly life.^[43] The dog appears to be a Griffon terrier, or perchance a Bolognese domestic dog.^[44]

The green of the adult female'south dress symbolizes hope, peradventure the promise of condign a female parent. Its intense brightness likewise indicates wealth, since dyeing fabric such a shade was hard and expensive.^[45] Her white cap could signify purity or her status as married. Behind the pair, the curtains of the matrimony bed take been opened; the blood-red curtains might insinuate to the concrete human action of love.

The single candle in the left-front end holder of the ornate six-branched chandelier is perchance the candle used in traditional Flemish wedlock community.^[35] Lit in full daylight, like the sanctuary lamp in a church, the candle may allude to the presence of the Holy Ghost or the ever-present eye of God. Alternatively, Margaret Koster posits that the painting is a memorial portrait, as the unmarried lit candle on Giovanni'due south side contrasts with the burnt-out candle whose wax stub tin just exist seen on his wife's side, in a visual play on a common metaphor: he lives on, she is expressionless.^[46]

The cherries present on the tree exterior the window may symbolize love. The oranges which prevarication on the window sill and chest may symbolize the purity and innocence that reigned in the Garden of Eden before the Fall of Man.^[35] They were uncommon and a sign of wealth in the Netherlands, but in Italy were a symbol of fecundity in marriage.^[47] More simply, the fruit could be a sign of the couple's wealth, since oranges were very expensive imports.

In January 2018 the woman'south dress was the subject of the BBC Iv plan A Stitch in Time with fashion historian Amber Butchart.^[48]

Provenance [edit]

The provenance of the painting begins in 1434 when information technology was dated by van Eyck and presumably endemic by the sitter(s). At some point before 1516 it came into the possession of Don Diego de Guevara (d. Brussels 1520), a Spanish career courtier of the Habsburgs (himself the subject of a fine portrait by Michael Sittow in the National Gallery of Fine art). He lived most of his life in kingdom of the netherlands, and may have known the Arnolfinis in their afterwards years.^[49]

Past 1516 he had given the portrait to Margaret of Republic of austria, Habsburg Regent of holland, when information technology shows up as the first item in an inventory of her paintings, made in her presence at Mechelen. The particular says (in French): "a large picture which is chosen Hernoul le Fin with his married woman in a sleeping room, which was given to Madame past Don Diego, whose arms are on the encompass of the said picture; done past the painter Johannes." A notation in the margin says "It is necessary to put on a lock to close it: which Madame has ordered to be washed." In a 1523–4 Mechelen inventory, a similar clarification is given, although this fourth dimension the proper noun of the field of study is given equally "Arnoult Fin".^[49]

In 1530 the painting was inherited by Margaret's niece Mary of Hungary, who in 1556 went to live in Spain. Information technology is clearly described in an inventory taken after her expiry in 1558, when information technology was inherited by Philip II of Spain. A painting of two of his young daughters, Infantas Isabella Clara Eugenia and Catalina Micaela of Spain (Prado), deputed by Philip clearly copies the pose of the figures. In 1599 a High german visitor saw information technology in the Alcazar Palace in Madrid. At present it had verses from Ovid painted on the frame: "See that y'all hope: what impairment is at that place in promises? In promises anyone tin can be rich." It is very likely that Velázquez knew the painting, which may have influenced his Las Meninas, which shows a room in the same palace.^[49] In 1700 the painting appeared in an inventory after the decease of Carlos Two with shutters and the verses from Ovid.

The painting survived the burn in the Alcazar which destroyed some of the Castilian royal collection, and by 1794 had been moved to the "Palacio Nuevo", the present Royal Palace of Madrid. In 1816 the painting was in London, in the possession of Colonel James Hay, a Scottish soldier. He claimed that after he was seriously wounded at the Battle of Waterloo the previous year, the painting hung in the room where he convalesced in Brussels. He fell in love with it, and persuaded the owner to sell. More than relevant to the real facts is no doubt Hay'southward presence at the Boxing of Vitoria (1813) in Spain, where a large coach loaded by Male monarch Joseph Bonaparte with easily portable artworks from the purple collections was showtime plundered by British troops, before what was left was recovered by their commanders and returned to the Spanish.

Hay offered the painting to the Prince Regent, subsequently George IV of the Uk, via Sir Thomas Lawrence. The Prince had it on approval for two years at Carlton House before eventually returning information technology in 1818. Around 1828, Hay gave it to a friend to look later on, not seeing it or the friend for the next thirteen years, until he arranged for it to exist included in a public exhibition in 1841. It was bought the post-obit year (1842) past the recently formed National Gallery, London for £600, as inventory number 186, where it remains. Past and so the shutters had gone, along with the original frame.^[49]

Notes [edit]

1. ^ Ward, John. "Bearded Symbolism as Enactive Symbolism in Van Eyck's Paintings". Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 15, No. 29 (1994), pp. 9–53
2. ^ Elkins, John, "On the Arnolfini Portrait and the Lucca Madonna: Did Jan van Eyck Have a Perspectival Organisation?". The Fine art Bulletin, Vol. 73, No. ane (March 1991), pp. 53–62
3. ^ Ward, John L. "On the Mathematics of the Perspective of the "Arnolfini Portrait" and similar works of Jan van Eyck", Art Message, Vol. 65, No. four (1983) p.680
4. ^ Seidel, Linda. "Jan van Eyck'south Arnolfini Portrait": Business organisation equally Usual?". Critical Enquiry, Vol. 16, No. i (Autumn, 1989), pp. 54–86
5. ^ Gombrich, E.H., The Story of Art, p. 180, Phaidon, 13th edn. 1982. ISBN 0-7148-1841-0
6. ^ Harbison, Craig. "Sexuality and Social Continuing in Arnolfini'due south Double Portrait". Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Summertime, 1990), pp. 249–291
7. ^ ^{a b} "The Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck". Articonog.
8. ^ Dunkerton, Jill, et al., Giotto to Dürer: Early Renaissance Painting in the National Gallery, folio 258. National Gallery Publications, 1991. ISBN 0-300-05070-4
9. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Campbell 1998, 186–191 for all this department, except equally otherwise indicated.
10. ^ ^{a b} Harbison 1991, 37
11. ^ ^{a b c} Campbell 1998, 174–211
12. ^ Hall 1994, 4; Crowe and Cavalcaselle 1857, 65–66
13. ^ Weale 1861, 27–28; Campbell 1998, 193
14. ^ Campbell 1998, 195
15. ^ ^{a b c} Koster 2003. Also encounter Giovanni Arnolfini for a fuller discussion of the issue
16. ^ See the Giovanni Arnolfini article for the portrait.
17. ^ Panofsky 1934
18. ^ Harbison 1991, 36–39
19. ^ Carroll 1993
20. ^ Carroll 2008, thirteen–15
21. ^ ^{a b} Bedaux 1986, v
22. ^ Harbison 1990, 288–289
23. ^ Campbell 1998, 200
24. ^ Colenbrander 2005
25. ^ Postel 2016
26. ^ Carroll 1993, 101
27. ^ Harbison 1990, 282
28. ^ Panofsky 1970, 8
29. ^ ^{a b} Bedaux 1986, viii–9
30. ^ Carroll 2008, 12–xv
31. ^ Carroll 2008, 18
32. ^ Hall 1994, 105–106
33. ^ Harbison 1990, 267
34. ^ Harbison 1990, 265
35. ^ ^{a b c d e} Panofsky 1953, 202–203
36. ^ Harbison 1991, 36–37
37. ^ Bedaux 1986, 19
38. ^ Harbison 1991, 36
39. ^ Levin 2002, 55
40. ^ A. Criminisi, 1000. Kempz and Due south. B. Kang (2004). Reflections of Reality in Jan van Eyck and Robert Campin. Historical Methods 37(3).
41. ^ every bit the fine art historian Craig Harbison has argued
42. ^ Harbison 1991, 33–34
43. ^ Harbison 1990, 270
44. ^ Panofsky, Erwin (March 1934). "January van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait". The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs. 64 (372): 118 – via JSTOR.
45. ^ St. Clair, Kassia (2016). The Undercover Lives of Colour. London: John Murray. p. 214. ISBN9781473630819. OCLC 936144129.
46. ^ Koster
47. ^ The orange flower remains the traditional flower for a bride to article of clothing in her hair.
48. ^ "BBC Four - A Stitch in Time, Series ane, Arnolfini". BBC.
49. ^ ^{a b c d} Campbell 1998, 175–178 for all this section

References [edit]

• Bedaux, Jan Baptist, "The reality of symbols: the question of bearded symbolism in Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini portrait", Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Fine art, book 16, issue 1, pages five–28, 1986, JSTOR
• Campbell, Lorne, The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Paintings, London: National Gallery, 1998, ISBN 0-300-07701-7
• Carroll, Margaret D., "In the proper noun of God and turn a profit: January van Eyck's Arnolfini portrait", Representations, volume 44, pages 96–132, Autumn 1993, JSTOR
• Carroll, Margaret D., Painting and Politics in Northern Europe: Van Eyck, Bruegel, Rubens, and their Contemporaries, Academy Park, PA: Pennsylvania Land University Press, 2008, ISBN 0-271-02954-four
• Colenbrander, Herman Th., "'In promises anyone tin be rich!' Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini double portrait: a 'Morgengave'", Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, volume 68, outcome 3, pages 413–424, 2005, JSTOR
• Crowe, Joseph A. and Cavalcaselle, Giovanni B., The Early Flemish Painters: Notices of their Lives and Works, London: John Murray, 1857
• Hall, Edwin, The Arnolfini Betrothal: Medieval Union and the Enigma of Van Eyck's Double Portrait, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994, ISBN 0-520-08251-6. The text is also available from the California Digital Library.
• Harbison, Craig, "Sexuality and social continuing in Jan van Eyck'south Arnolfini double portrait", Renaissance Quarterly, volume 43, issue ii, pages 249–291, Summer 1990, JSTOR
• Harbison, Craig, Jan van Eyck, The Play of Realism, Reaktion Books, London, 1991, ISBN 0-948462-18-iii
• Koster, Margaret L., "The Arnolfini double portrait: a simple solution", Apollo, volume 158, event 499, pages 3–xiv, September 2003
• Levin, Janna, How the Universe Got Its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space, Random House 2002 ISBN ane-4000-3272-5
• Panofsky, Erwin, "Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait", The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, volume 64, issue 372, pages 117–119 + 122–127, March 1934, JSTOR
• Panofsky, Erwin, Early Netherlandish Painting, its Origins and Character (Volume 1), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953
• Panofsky, Erwin, "Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini portrait", in Creighton, Gilbert, Renaissance Art, New York: Harper and Row, pages ane–20, 1970
• Postel, Jean-Philippe, 50'Affaire Arnolfini, Arles: Actes Sud, 2016
• Weale, Westward.H. James, Notes sur Jean van Eyck, London: Barthès and Lowell, 1861 (In French)

Farther reading [edit]

External video
Van Eyck's Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife, Smarthistory

• Hicks, Carola, Girl in a Dark-green Gown: The History and Mystery of the Arnolfini Portrait, London: Random House, 2011, ISBN 0-7011-8337-3
• Ridderbos, Bernhard, in Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Enquiry, eds. Bernhard Ridderbos, Henk Th. van Veen, Anne van Buren, pp. 59–77, 2005 (second edn), Getty/Amsterdam University Printing, ISBN 9053566147 9789053566145, google books
• Seidel, Linda, "'January van Eyck'southward Portrait': business concern as usual?", Critical Inquiry, volume 16, result one, pages 54–86, Autumn 1989, JSTOR

External links [edit]

• The Arnolfini Portrait on the National Gallery website
• Mystery of the Wedlock – Open University program
• Erwin Panofsky and The Arnolfini Portrait
• Blog essay on theories effectually the painting by John Haber
• Printing interview with art historian Craig Harbison

reyespeireggived.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait

Share this post