 Click here to get a closeup of this painting. |
Painted by Jan van Eyck, 1434. This is one of the earliest examples of oil painting. Pay special attention to the mirror and the writing above the mirror. Also notice the harmony of the color schemes used. The red bed compliments the green dress, but also receeds in space due to its lack of contrast, detail, and overall tint. The Purple is complimentary to the yellows found in the chandeleer and room surrounding Giovanni Arnolfini. The oranges on the window sill complement the blue parts of the dress. There is a harmony and balance between different parts of the room and figures in it. The dog symbolizes loyalty and the shoes being removed signifies that the event taking place is sacred. Giovanni Arnolfini raises his right hand as if in a court of law. These are just a few things that I noticed about this painting. Questions: Is the bride pregnant? What manner of person is Giovanni? His bride? What is in the mirror and why does "Johannes van Eyck fuit hic" appear above the mirror? Does this painting say anything about the nature of the roll of an artist in the world? |
September 12, 2009
Giovanni Arnolfini and his Bride
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I wonder if the mirror and "grafiti" don't speak to the vanity--or recognition of vanity--on the part of the artist. It must be said that this painting immortalizes not the subjects, but the "showing-off" of the artist in his ability and craftiness.
I agree with Peter. That, and she's totally preggers.
But even in a close up, I have a hard time seeing what's in the mirror. It looks like two figures to me, but I'm not sure. So beyond PK's thoughts, I don't know what to make of the mirror.
Are you positive that she is pregnant? Take a closer look.
Look in the mirror, how many figures do you see? Why would you have the artist's name above the mirror? Why is the mirror even in the painting? What is interesting about the vanishing point (i.e. eye level) and the mirror?
What kind of ceremony is this? Is this a ceremony or mere legality? What would support it?
I tend to disagree with Peter and Josh.
So what you're suggesting yet pedantically rhetorical and peevishly silent about is that you think this is a mockery of a wedding ceremony where the artist is the witness. They are so distant to eachother and also images of the passion (suffering, etc) surround the entire image. It is painful for the artist to represent such mockery without displaying the vanity of it all via the mirror. He's still arrogant because he is too elevated to just do his damn job and stop thinking the couple isn't romantic enough. There you go, he thinks he's better "endowed" with ST skill! I fervently rebuke Lord Bloch for his taste in pornographic art.
Also the dude is having an affair with the woman in blue found in the mirror. Happy now?
To PLK (in the most serious of tones, because I'm taking his post seriously, because he's not joking or funny): I know that this is A Draught of Vintage, but that doesn't mean that you have to post on here every time you get "a beaker full of the warm south."
Firstly, you said, "you think this is a mockery of a wedding ceremony where the artist is the witness." If by the word mockery you mean representation, then yes it is a mockery, but it's no mock. It's very serious and also very pious.
Then you had a sentence which I don't really understand: "They are so distant to eachother and also images of the passion (suffering, etc) surround the entire image." Ok so you've noticed the images of the passion around the mirror. Is it unreasonable to think that the artist is trying to establish a connection between the way of the cross and the married life? Vocation is a treacherous road, but ultimately lead to salvation...something to that effect. Perhaps that is a better explanation than the vanity of the artist.
Moreover, the "woman in blue" is traditionally thought to be the priest or minister (some argue Judge since it is unclear whether this is a marriage or a legal betrothal only). And the red part in the mirror is at eye level and thus obviously Van Eyck himself. Furthermore, you can google 'Van Eyck Self Portrait' and you will see that Van Eyck wears a red turban.
There is a lot of ST in the room (emphasis given to the rolled up bedding and oranges in juxtaposition to the chandelier and dog). So as for ST, I'll give you that, but as far as I can reasonably assess this is a pretty sweet painting about marriage and artist as witness to the world.
If that's pornographic art, then call me a sicko.
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Peter.
And besides, my interpretation can differ from yours.
Heretic! (apologies to our commencement speaker for calling people heretic)
Someone I read once pointed out that in certain eras, women pretty much dressed like the were pregnant all the time. Comfortable and kept the men guessing, one supposes.
About the artist's roll in the world, I would like to think that it is made of white bread and doused in butter.
Post a Comment