Talk:Arnolfini Portrait

message: The information in this article lists the size as 82.2 x 60 centimeters.  However, my copy of Janson's History of Art lists the size as 83.7 x 57 centimeters.  Can anyone verify either of these two sizes or even have completely different measurements.  If nobody responds, I will go to the National Gallery for information.
--Sophitus 11:30, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
I have checked the National Gallery's website and it confirms the size as 82.2 x 60 centimeters.  And because they actually own the painting, obviously my Janson is wrong.
--Sophitus 20:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
actually it is probably giving board size, not the image size - I have now added both (slightly different figures) per the NG to the template Johnbod 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: A substub by troll User:Haydes. It seems to be about a painting, and I'm listing it here because I'm unsure whether this deserves an article of its own. Maybe merge and redirect to Jan van Eyck? jni 13:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arnolfini Wedding]]

message: As an art historian, I find this a very good article. And my following remark is certainly not a quibble, but rather a thought told aloud. 
The author says: "The wife <...> holds herself in a way as if she is pregnant, as she is erroneously often assumed to be by viewers".
Indeed. 
And we (= art history graduates/undergraduates) have been told since day one that she is NOT.
But does her actual state really matter? 
Is it really a case of MODERN (mis)reading of 1430s fashion (as usually the argument goes)?  
I don't think so.
Isn't it more plausible that van Eyck himself deliberately set her up in a pose suggesting pregnancy (I am willing to bet that it suggested pregnancy to contemporary viewers as well - or we would see many more works of the era depicting such a peculiar pose)), to weave into the portrait some vital piece of information that was certainly known to those who commissioned the painting? Add the supposed depiction of the patron saint of childbirth and - voila!
So, the "naive" reading, typical of art history freshmen (and "lay" people), might be spot-on after all... once again. ;)
:You might be right, but in the absence of any published WP:RS to that effect (that I'm aware of), to say so in the article would be WP:OR. Johnbod 11:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone with eyes in his or her head can look at that portrait and see that the woman is supposed to be pregnant. It's a portrait of a young married couple expecting their first child. There is such a thing as too much interpretation. Sometimes it IS what it looks like. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And sometimes the apparently obvious can be interpreted in various ways. Here's what the National Gallery of London maintains: . JNW (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it can be interpreted various ways; by its very nature it is ambiguous. She is holding her heavy dress up and in front of her belly, which could conceivably conceal a pregnancy but at the same time there could be nothing special to conceal! It's really up to the imagination, since her stomach is entirely shrouded. Speaking with absolute certainty on this issue is nonsensical.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way her belly would stick out that far, not matter what dress she was wearing, unless she was pregnancy or had some other medical issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregnant... NOT! 

message: A point added to the article today, which I've removed for style & lack of refs. But it does seem to be the case. I can't see Campbell mentions this. Do any other sources comment? Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple's reflections in the mirror are not holding hands.  

message: 1. "There existed a friendship between Giovanni Arnolfini and Philip the Good who sent his court painter Jan van Eyck to portray Arnolfini Double"; is 'Arnolfini Double' this painting? The authority cited (which seems to be a Google Translate production) does not provide any evidence that van Eyck was sent by Philip to paint it.
2. The dog. "Unlike the couple, he looks out to meet the gaze of the viewer". How is it known that the dog is male?
3. What is the significance of the discarded footwear?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.7.72 (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Can we really be certain that the person being depicted is actually Arnolfini? To me, it appears that the man is in fact the painter himself, I am no art historian but given the similarities with the self portraits I am inclined to believe so. Styl. Sa. (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate in regards to the person being depicted