Jan van Eyck | The Arnolfini Portrait | NG186 | National Gallery, London £ other Make this a monthly donation [{"Amount":10.0000,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-06-21T09:56:01","DonorDisplayName":"Jane DALY","DonorLocalAmount":10.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"GBP","EstimatedTaxReclaim":2.5000,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"A national treasure that needs supporting"},{"Amount":8.3800,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-09-06T21:24:18","DonorDisplayName":"Andreas","DonorLocalAmount":10.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"EUR","EstimatedTaxReclaim":0.0000,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"It is great to visit for free such a prestigious museum.

It's a small sum of money but donated willingly, for culture and for young people"},{"Amount":2.0000,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-10-20T16:29:27","DonorDisplayName":"Joshua Beaumont Houghton Boston","DonorLocalAmount":2.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"GBP","EstimatedTaxReclaim":0.0000,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"Thank you for being you!"},{"Amount":20.0000,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-11-16T20:57:11","DonorDisplayName":"Irina ","DonorLocalAmount":20.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"GBP","EstimatedTaxReclaim":0.0000,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"One of my favourite museums.

Hope to visit again."},{"Amount":5.0000,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-11-17T08:56:35","DonorDisplayName":"Katja Leyendecker","DonorLocalAmount":5.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"GBP","EstimatedTaxReclaim":1.2500,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"I had a most wonderful 3 hours in the gallery's 1600s section!

Must return!"},{"Amount":10.0000,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-08-02T04:18:28","DonorDisplayName":"Suzanne Burke","DonorLocalAmount":10.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"GBP","EstimatedTaxReclaim":0.0000,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"Excellent online information for my students!"},{"Amount":20.0000,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-11-10T19:31:19","DonorDisplayName":"Kate English","DonorLocalAmount":20.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"GBP","EstimatedTaxReclaim":5.0000,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"What an amazing institution!

This is to say thank you for your daily guided tours and the free activities you run for children."},{"Amount":5.0000,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-08-19T23:36:01","DonorDisplayName":"Fangbin Liu","DonorLocalAmount":5.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"GBP","EstimatedTaxReclaim":0.0000,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"I like to donate because I love this great museum and the great masterpieces kept in it."},{"Amount":10.0000,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-11-15T16:27:55","DonorDisplayName":"Janet Scott","DonorLocalAmount":10.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"GBP","EstimatedTaxReclaim":2.5000,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"The wonderful National Gallery deserves all the support it can get."},{"Amount":2.0000,"CurrencyCode":"GBP","DonationDate":"2016-10-25T09:01:

14","DonorDisplayName":"Richard Roberts","DonorLocalAmount":2.0000,"DonorLocalCurrencyCode":"GBP","EstimatedTaxReclaim":0.5000,"ImageUrl":"","Message":"I hope this small contribution will allow you to continue your excellent work"}] The Arnolfini Portrait More paintings in this room This work is a portrait of Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife, but is not intended as a record of their wedding.

His wife is not pregnant, as is often thought, but holding up her full-skirted dress in the contemporary fashion. Arnolfini was a member of a merchant family from Lucca living in Bruges. The couple are shown in a well-appointed interior. The ornate Latin signature translates as 'Jan van Eyck was here 1434'. The similarity to modern graffiti is not accidental. Van Eyck often inscribed his pictures in a witty way. The mirror reflects two figures in the doorway. One may be the painter himself. Arnolfini raises his right hand as he faces them, perhaps as a greeting. Van Eyck was intensely interested in the effects of light: oil paint allowed him to depict it with great subtlety in this picture, notably on the gleaming brass chandelier.

Share this painting Arnolfini Portrait, Jan Van Eyck (1434) | Culture | The Guardian Arnolfini Portrait, Jan Van Eyck (1434) Saturday 15 April 2000 11.02 EDT First published on Saturday 15 April 2000 11.02 EDT · View the work online The portrait has become a subcultural activity, a kind of folk art. Visit the National Portrait Gallery and you will encounter the outsider art of the bourgeoisie. There are contemporary pictures here, but how many make it as art in the Tate Modern sense of the word? We don't go to the NPG for art; we go to look at faces. The labels on the pictures have the name of the sitter first, and then further down and smaller, that of the artist. Even though its patrons and fans may be brilliant and famous - recently unveiled subjects at the portrait gallery include Jonathan Miller, Lord Winston and Germaine Greer - when they sit for a painted portrait they are doing something primitive, ancient and magical: they are subjecting themselves to a process of mummification.

Giovanni Arnolfini, if that is his name, cannot possibly have been idealised by Jan Van Eyck. His watery, ill-looking face in Van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait (1434) in the National Gallery must be pretty much what Arnolfini looked like. This is a real face. The cleft chin, the heavy-lidded half-asleep eyes were painted again by Van Eyck several years later; there is no reason to think he made them up. The date - 1434 - is precise because Van Eyck painted it above the mirror at the back of the room, with the graffiti declaration "Jan Van Eyck was here". He was here more than half a millennium ago. And these two people, an Italian merchant resident in Bruges and his wife, stand before us. They are here, now. People said Van Eyck was an alchemist, and no wonder. There is some enchantment about this painting, the way it seems to act as a window on a real room. It has become more, not less, mysterious as art historians have attempted to establish its context.

There have been many classic interpretations, including an analysis by Erwin Panofsky arguing that it was painted as a legal document witnessing a marriage. It is now known all of these arguments were based on a misrecognition of the picture. It was always thought to be of the merchant Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini and his bride Giovanna Cenami. Recently, a document turned up showing they did not marry until 14 years after this picture was done. It is not them. Perhaps it is another member of the same merchant family, Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini, and his unnamed second wife. No one can be sure. This is a painting whose every detail seems to tell us something. Is the little dog an emblem of lust, signifying the couple's desire to have a baby in that big red bed, as the art historian Craig Harbison has argued? Or is it an image of Christian fidelity? Is the woman alluding to her desire to be pregnant by bunching her dress on her stomach? Or is it just that - as we can see in other paintings by him - Van Eyck liked to paint women with big stomachs? There is only one certainty. This looks like a real world, with real people.

The key to the picture is the mirror on the wall. A mirror is something you look in to comb your hair, to see how you look. It is a portrait machine. This is a convex mirror, which just happens to look like a camera lens. It takes in the whole room, the backs of the man and woman, and two small figures coming in through the door - the people the little dog is looking at and Arnolfini seems to be weakly saluting. Us. The mirror, so significantly placed between the couple, is an image of what this painting claims to be: a true reflection. This is what Van Eyck promises his sitters centuries before the invention of photography, in this painting which is an advert for his art. Your face, your wife's face, your dog's face, caught as truly as when you look in the mirror before going out to sell some fine Italian silks: Jan Van Eyck can record these for you. The artist and Arnolfini were courtiers of the Burgundian duke, Philip the Good, but how many of us know anything about Philip the Good? This affluent couple have got what the pharaohs thought they could achieve through mummification.

They are preserved, along with their dog, their fine clothes, and their oranges. The meaning of this painting is that wealth - the wealth to hire Van Eyck - can purchase immortality, even if no one will be quite sure what your name was. · The Arnolfini Portrait is at the National Gallery, London WC2 (0171-306 0055). Jan Van Eyck's Arnolfini Wedding Portait Art Home | ARTH Courses | ARTH 200 Assignments | ARTH 214 Assignments Jan Van Eyck's Arnolfini "Wedding" Portrait "...[M]eaning is neither found nor given, but that it takes shape arbitrarily, and that it is dependent upon associations and circumstances that scholars, artists, and viewers all bring to their engagement with paintings. It is not constructed by any one of them alone, although each of us is responsible for the orchestration of our own responses..." (Linda Seidel, Jan Van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait: Stories of an Icon, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 14).

Seidel reminds us in the quotation above that we should not understand our role as a passive one in which we simply reflect the "found" or "given" meaning of a work of art. Instead we need to take an active stance in relationship to the work and make or construct our own understanding of the meaning of a work of art. Seidel describes the role of the art historian as a narrator or story teller. This will be the stance I want us take in considering one of the major examples of Northern Renaissance art, Jan van Eyck's so-called Arnolfini Wedding Portrait. In preparation for our class discussion, I want you to begin to create your own story about the painting. Consider the following gallery of details and try to explain how they fit into your story. Ordinance with the Seal of Duke Philip the Good, June 20, 1434. Stadsarchief, Bruges. Politieke Charters, no. 987. The following excerpt is from Gardner's Art Through the Ages (pp. 576-578).

It gives you a standard textbook account of the painting: The intersection of the secular and religious in Flemish painting also surfaces in Jan van Eyck's double portrait Giovanni Arnolfini and His Bride. Van Eyck depicts the Lucca financier (who had established himself in Bruges as an agent of the Medici family) and his betrothed in a Flemish bedchamber that is simultaneously mundane and charged with the spiritual. As in the Mérode Altarpiece , almost every object portrayed conveys the event's sanctity, specifically, the holiness of matrimony. Arnolfini and his bride, Giovanna Cenami, hand in hand, take the marriage vows. The cast-aside clogs indicate this event is taking place on holy ground. The little dog symbolizes fidelity (the common canine name Fido originated from the Latin fido, "to trust"). Behind the pair, the curtains of the marriage bed have been opened. The bedpost's finial (crowning ornament) is a tiny statue of Saint Margaret , patron saint of childbirth. From the finial hangs a whisk broom, symbolic of domestic care.

The oranges on the chest below the window may refer to fertility, and the all-seeing eye of God seems to be referred to twice. It is symbolized once by the single candle burning in the left rear holder of the ornate chandelier and again by the mirror , where viewers see the entire room reflected. The small medallions set into the mirror's frame show tiny scenes from the Passion of Christ and represent God's ever-present promise of salvation for the figures reflected on the mirror's convex surface. Van Eyck enhanced the documentary nature of this painting by exquisitely painting each object. He carefully distinguished textures and depicted the light from the window on the left reflecting off various surfaces. The artist augmented the scene's credibility by including the convex mirror, because viewers can see not only the principals, Arnolfini and his wife, but also two persons who look into the room through the door. One of these must be the artist himself, as the florid inscription above the mirror, "Johannes de Eyck fuit hic, " announces he was present. The picture's purpose, then, seems to have been to record and sanctify this marriage.

Although this has been the traditional interpretation of this image, some scholars recently have taken issue with this reading, suggesting that Arnolfini is conferring legal privileges on his wife to conduct business in his absence. Despite the lingering questions about the precise purpose of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Bride, the painting provides viewers today with great insight into both van Eyck's remarkable skill and Flemish life in the fifteenth century. Characters: An early sixteenth century inventory record apparently referring to the London painting identifies the man in the painting as: "Arnoult-fin." This appears to be a French version of the Italian name Arnolfini. There were several members of this family from Lucca in northern Europe during this period. In cities like Paris and Bruges there were colonies of Italian merchant families during this period. These families were actively engaged in the cloth industry and other luxury materials catering to the needs of the nobility of northern Europe. Many of these families also became involved with banking. Antonius Sanderus in the seventeenth century provides us with a view of the so-called Bourse or financial neighborhood in Bruges.

The dominant buildings identified in the illustration are the Domus Florentinorum and the Domus Genuensium, or the Florentine and Genoese houses. The account records of northern European princes have frequent entries recording loans given by these Italian merchants to help support the need for liquid capital to support the princely households. The Arnolfini referred to in the inventory is most likely Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini who was born in Lucca about 1400. He appears to have settled in Bruges by 1421. An entry in the Bruges Archives for July 1 of that year records that Giovanni made a large sale of silks and hats. By at least 1423, Giovanni was engaged in transactions with the duke. There was a large payment that year from the duke for a series of six tapestries with scenes of Notre Dame. These were intended as a present to the Pope. There is a record from 1446 listing a loan by Giovanni to Philip the Good. Perhaps in exchange for the loan, Philip gave Giovanni the right to collect tariffs on goods imported from England that entered through Gravelines for a period of six years.

This lucrative privilege was renewed for another six years. In 1461, Giovanni became a councillor and chamberlain to the duke, and he was knighted in 1462. Louis XI of France appointed Arnolfini a councillor and Governor of Finance of Normandy. Giovanni died in 1472 and was buried in the chapel of the Lucchese merchants at the Augustinian church in Bruges, where he and his wife had endowed daily and anniversary masses in their name. Giovanni married Giovanna Cenami the daughter of one of the most prominent Lucchese families established in northern Europe. Giovanna's grandmother was the niece of Dino Rapondi who along with his three brothers were close financial advisors and bankers for the Dukes Philip the Bold, John the Fearless, and Philip the Good of Burgundy at the end of the fourteenth century and the beginning of the fifteenth century. In 1432 when the last of the four Rapondi brothers died, Philip the Good had a special mass sung for them.

Marriage alliances like that between the Cenami and Rapondi families were not private but public matters with the futures of the families' businesses inextricably linked. For Giovanni Arnolfini marrying into such a prominent family as the Cenamis was undoubtedly a significant boost to his financial fortunes. Unfortunately, we do not know which year they were married. So while not certain, the identification of the couple as Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami seems likely. We know that the couple died childless. We should be cautious not to assume that they never had any children since they perhaps had children that predeceased them. At the same time there is no evidence that they did have children. We do have records of Giovanni having an extra-marital affair. In 1470, thus late in Giovanni's life, a woman took him to court to have returned to her jewelry he had given her. She also sought a pension and several houses that she had been promised. An important part of our discussion about the Arnolfini portrait will be the idea of the unseen presence. Here this master of illusionistic representation calls attention to what cannot be shown directly, and that is God.

There is probably also another unseen presence, and that is Philip the Good. It is unlikely that Arnolfinis or the Cenamis approached Jan van Eyck directly to paint the double portrait. Since Jan van Eyck was the court painter for Philip the Good, the Arnolfinis or the Cenamis would have at least needed the duke's permission to have van Eyck to do the painting. Jan's signature documents his role as witness to the event, and as a member of the ducal court, van Eyck was likely serving as the duke's representative. Thus his signature carries with it both personal and ducal sanction. Jean Wilson has taken this another step and understood the painting as a gift of Philip the Good to the couple (Painting in Bruges at the Close of the Middle Ages, p. 64). The painting can be seen to attest to the Arnolfini's membership in the household of the duke. A Wedding Portrait? While most scholars agree that the painting depicts Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami, Erwin Panofsky's assumption that the painting is a wedding portrait has been called into question.

Compare the Arnolfini painting to the following works: Right panel of Rogier van der Weyden's Altarpiece of the Seven Sacraments , painted for Jean Chevrot. Master of the Tiburtine Sibyl, Scenes from the Life of the Virgin. Marriage of the Virgin is in the foreground. Whether this is a wedding portrait or not it is important to see the painting in the context of the social and institutional attitudes towards marriage. Consult the excerpts from Dale Kent's essay " Women in Renaissance Florence ." While not dealing with the Netherlands, the article is still relevant. Remember that the Arnolfinis and Cenamis come from Lucca which is very close to Florence. Is she or isn't she? I have never taught the Arnolfini Portrait without a student asking the question whether she is pregnant. Compare the dress worn by Giovanna Cenami to that worn by St. Catherine on the right wing of the Dresden triptych: National Gallery London This title has traditionally been given to this painting because it was thought to be a form of ``wedding certificate'' for Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami, who married in Bruges in 1434.

He was an Italian merchant, she the daughter of an Italian merchant. Their grave, youthful faces both have a lovely responsability that is typical of van Eyck. Van Eyck's art reached perhaps its greatest triumph in the painting of portraits. One of his most famous portraits is The betrothal of the Arnolfini , which represents an Italian merchant, Giovanni Arnolfini, who had come to the Netherlands on business, with his bride Jeanne de Chenany. In its own way it was as new and as revolutionary as Donatello's or Masaccio's work in Italy. A simple corner of the real world had suddenly been fixed on to a panel as if by magic. Here it all was - the carpet and the slippers, the rosary on the wall, the little brush beside the bed, and the fruit on the window-sill. It is as if we could pay a visit to the Arnolfini in their house. The picture probably represents a solemn moment in their lives - their betrothal. The young woman has just put her right hand into Arnolfini's left and he is about to put his own right hand into hers as a solemn token of their union.

Probably the painter was asked to record this important moment as a witness, just as a notary might be asked to declare that he has been present at a similar solemn act. This would explain why the master has put his name in a prominent position on the picture with the Latin words 'Johannes de eyck fuit hic' (Jan van Eyck was here). In the mirror at the back of the room we see the whole scene reflected from behind, and there, so it seems, we also see the image of the painter and witness. We do not know whether it was the Italian merchant or the northern artist who conceived the idea of making this use of the new kind of painting, which may be compared to the legal use of a photograph, properly endorsed by a witness. But whoever it was that originated this idea, he had certainly been quick to understand the tremendous possibilities which lay in Van Eyck's new way of painting. For the first time in history the artist became the perfect eye-witness in the truest sense of the term. Symbolic candle The solitary flame burning in bright daylight can be interpreted as the bridall candle, or God's all-seeing eye, or simply as a devotional candle.

Another symbol is St Margaret (the patron saint of women in childbirth), whose image is carved on the high chairback. An elaborate signature As today, marriages in 15th-century Flanders could take place privately rather than in church. Van Eyck's Latin signature, in the Gothic calligraphy used for legal documents, reads: ``Jan van Eyck was present'', and has been interpreted by some as an indication that the artist himself served as a witness. Convex mirror Arnolfini Portrait - 必应 Sign in Arnolfini Portrait The Arnolfini Portrait is an oil painting on oak panel dated 1434 by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It is also known as The Arnolfini Wedding, The Arnolfini Marriage, The Arnolfini Double Portrait or the Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife, among other titles. The painting is a small full-length double portrait, which is believed to represent the Italian merchant Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and possibly his wife, presumably in their home in the Flemish city of Bruges. It is considered one of the more original and complex paintings in Western art because of the iconography, the unusual geometric orth ...

(展开) ogonal perspective, the use of the mirror to reflect the space, and that the portrait is considered unique by some art historians as the record of a marriage contract in the form of a painting. According to Ernst Gombrich "in its own way it was as new and revolutionary as Donatello's or Masaccio's work in Italy. A simple corner of the real world had suddenly been fixed on to a panel as if by magic ... For the first time in history the artist became the perfect eye-witness in the truest sense of the term". Signed and dated by van Eyck in 1434, it is, with the Ghent Altarpiece by the same artist and his brother Hubert, the oldest very famous panel 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 layer after layer of thin translucent glazes to create a painting with an intensity of both tone and colour. The glowing colours also help to highlight the realism, and to show the material wealth and opulence of Arnolfini's world.

Van Eyck took advantage of the longer drying time of oil paint, compared to tempera, to blend colours by painting wet-in-wet to achieve subtle variations in light and shade to heighten the illusion of three-dimensional forms. The medium of oil paint also permitted van Eyck to capture surface appearance and distinguish textures precisely. He also rendered the effects of both direct and diffuse light by showing the light from the window on the left reflected by various surfaces. It has been suggested that he used a magnifying glass in order to paint the minute details such as the individual highlights on each of the amber beads hanging beside the mirror. The illusionism of the painting was remarkable for its time, in part for the rendering of detail, but particularly for the use of light to evoke space in an interior, for "its utterly convincing depiction of a room, as well of the people who inhabit it". Whatever meaning is given to the scene and its details, and there has been much debate on this, according to Craig Harbison the painting "is the only fifteenth-century Northern panel to survive in which the artist's contemporaries are shown engaged in some sort of action in a contemporary interior.

It is indeed tempting to call this the first genre painting – a painting of everyday life – of modern times". Arnolfini Portrait Description The painting is generally in very good condition, though with small losses of original paint and damages, which have mostly 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. The couple are shown in an upstairs room with a chest and a bed in it during early summer as indicated by the fruit on the cherry tree outside the window. The room probably functioned as a reception room, as it was the fashion in France and Burgundy where beds in reception rooms were used as seating, except, for example, when a mother with a new baby received visitors. The window has six interior wooden shutters, but only the top opening has glass, with clear bulls-eye pieces set in blue, red and green stained glass. The two figures are very richly dressed; despite the season both their outer garments, his tabard and her dress, are trimmed and fully lined with fur. The furs may be the especially expensive sable for him and ermine or miniver for her.

He wears a hat of plaited straw dyed black, as often worn in the summer at the time. His tabard was more purple than it appears now (as 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 material, probably silk damask. Her dress has elaborate dagging (cloth folded and sewn together, then cut and frayed decoratively) on the sleeves, and a long train. Her blue underdress is also trimmed with white fur. Although the woman's plain gold necklace and the rings that both wear are the only jewellery visible, both outfits would have been enormously expensive, and appreciated as such by a contemporary viewer. There may be an element of restraint in their clothes (especially the man) befitting their merchant status – portraits of aristocrats tend to show gold chains and more decorated cloth, although "the restrained colours of the man's clothing correspond to those favoured by Duke Phillip of Burgundy". 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.

It would probably have had a mechanism with pulley and chains above, to lower it for managing the candles (possibly 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 actually be made at this date – another discreet departure from realism by van Eyck. There is also no sign of a fireplace (including in the mirror), nor anywhere obvious to put one. Even the oranges casually placed to the left are a sign of wealth; they were very expensive in Burgundy, and may have 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 bench against the back wall (to the right, partly hidden by the bed), also the small Oriental carpet on the floor by the bed; many owners of such expensive objects placed them on tables, as they still do in the Netherlands. The view in the mirror shows two figures just inside the door that the couple are facing. The second figure, wearing red, is presumably the artist although, unlike Velázquez in Las Meninas, he does not seem to be painting.

Scholars have made this assumption based on the appearance of figures wearing red head-dresses in some other van Eyck works (e.g., the Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) and the figure in the background of the Madonna with Chancellor Rolin). The dog is an early form of the breed now known as the Brussels griffon. The painting is signed, inscribed and dated on the wall above the mirror: "Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434" ("Jan van Eyck was here 1434"). The inscription looks as if it were painted in large letters on the wall, as was done with proverbs and other phrases at this period. Other surviving van Eyck signatures are painted in trompe l'oeil on the wooden frame of his paintings, so that they appear to have been carved in the wood. Arnolfini Portrait Identity of subjects In their book published in 1857, Crowe and Cavalcaselle were the first 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.

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 di Arrigo Arnolfini and his wife Jeanne Cenami but a chance discovery in 1997 established that they were 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 is either Giovanni di Arrigo or his cousin, Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini, and an unknown wife of either one 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 recent proposal, Giovanni di Nicolao's first wife Costanza Trenta, who had died by February 1433. In the latter case, this would make the painting partly an unusual memorial portrait, showing one living and one dead person. Both Giovanni di Arrigo and Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini were Italian merchants, originally from Lucca, but resident in Bruges since at least 1419.

The man in this painting is the subject of a further portrait by van Eyck in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, leading to speculation he was a friend of the artist. Arnolfini Portrait Scholarly debate In 1934 Erwin Panofsky published an article entitled Jan van Eyck's 'Arnolfini' Portrait in the Burlington Magazine, arguing that the elaborate signature on the back wall, and other factors, showed that it was painted as a legal record of the occasion of the marriage of the couple, complete with witnesses and a witness signature. Panofsky also argues that the many details of domestic items in the painting each have a disguised symbolism attached to their appearance. While Panofsky's claim that the painting formed a kind of certificate of marriage is not accepted by all art historians, his analysis of the symbolic function of the details is broadly agreed, and has been applied to many other Early Netherlandish paintings, especially a number of depictions of the Annunciation set 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).

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's grant of legal authority to his wife. Carroll also proposes that the portrait was meant to affirm Giovanni Arnolfini's good character as a merchant and aspiring member of the Burgundian court. She argues that the painting depicts a couple, already married, now formalizing a subsequent legal arrangement, a mandate, by which the husband "hands over" to his wife the legal authority to conduct business on her own or his behalf (similar to a power of attorney). The claim 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 two figures in the mirror could be thought of as witnesses to the oath-taking, the artist himself provides (witty) authentication with his notarial signature on the wall.

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 disguised symbolism in Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait." However, he disagrees with Panofsky's idea of items in the portrait having hidden meanings. Bedaux argues, "if the symbols are disguised to such an extent that they do not clash with reality as conceived at the time ... there will be no means of proving that the painter actually intended such symbolism." He also conjectures that if these disguised symbols were normal parts of the marriage ritual, then one could not say for sure whether the items were part of a "disguised symbolism" or just social reality. Craig Harbison takes the middle ground between Panofsky and Bedaux in their debate about "disguised symbolism" and realism. Harbison argues that "Jan van Eyck is there as storyteller ... [who] must have been able to understand that, within the context of people's lives, objects could have multiple associations", and that there are many possible purposes for the portrait and ways it can be interpreted.

He maintains that this portrait cannot be fully interpreted until scholars accept the notion that objects 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 marriage. Lorne Campbell in the National Gallery Catalogue sees no need to find a special meaning in the painting: "... there seems little reason to believe that the portrait has any significant narrative content. Only the unnecessary lighted candle and the strange signature provoke speculation." He suggests that the double portrait was very possibly made to commemorate a marriage, but not a legal record and cites examples of miniatures from manuscripts showing similarly elaborate inscriptions on 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 form of signature. Margaret Koster's new suggestion, 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 Italy.

It had the purpose of showing the prosperity and wealth of the couple depicted. He feels this might explain oddities in the painting, for example why the couple are standing in typical winter clothing while a cherry tree is in fruit outside, 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 depict an old German custom of a husband promising a gift to his bride on the morning after their wedding night. He has also suggested that the painting may have been a present from the artist to his friend. Figures and marriage It is thought that the couple is already married because of the woman's headdress. A non-married woman would have her hair down, according to Margaret Carroll. The placement of the two figures suggests conventional 15th century views of marriage and gender roles – the woman stands near the bed and well into the room, symbolic of her role as the caretaker of the house, whereas Giovanni stands near the open window, symbolic of his role in the outside world. Arnolfini looks directly out at the viewer, his wife gazes obediently at her husband.

His hand is vertically raised, representing his commanding position of authority, whilst she has her hand in a lower, horizontal, more submissive pose. However, her gaze at her husband can also show her equality to him because she is not looking down at the floor as lower class women would. They are part of the Burgundian court life and in that system she is his equal, not his subordinate. The symbolism behind the action of the couple's joined hands has also been debated among scholars. Many point to this gesture as proof of the painting's purpose. Is it a marriage contract or something else? Panofsky interprets the gesture as an act 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". 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 argue that if this painting does show a marriage ceremony, then the use of the left hand points to the marriage being morganatic and not clandestine.

A marriage is said to be morganatic if a man marries a woman of unequal rank. However, the subjects originally thought by most scholars to be represented in this painting, Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami, were of equal status and rank in the courtly system, so the theory would not hold true. 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 authority to act on her husband's behalf in business dealings. Carroll identifies Arnolfini's raised right hand as a gesture of oath-taking known as "fidem levare", and his joining hands with his wife as a gesture of consent known as "fides manualis". 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 look was fashionable for women's dresses at the time. Fashion would have been important to Arnolfini, especially since he was a cloth merchant. The more cloth a person wore, the more wealthy he or she was assumed to be.

Another indication that the woman is not pregnant is that Giovanna Cenami (the identification of the woman according to most earlier scholars) died childless, as did Costanza Trenta (a possible identification according to recent archival evidence); whether a hypothetical unsuccessful pregnancy would have been left recorded in a portrait is questionable. As mentioned above, some viewers have argued that the woman in the portrait is already pregnant, thus the protruding belly. Harbison, however, maintains her gesture is merely an indication of the extreme desire of the couple shown for fertility and progeny. There is a carved figure as a finial on the bedpost, probably of Saint Margaret, patron saint of pregnancy and childbirth, who was invoked to assist women in labor and to cure infertility, or possibly representing Saint Martha, the patroness of housewives. 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 bridegroom) appearing together on either side of the mirror may also allude to the dual Christian injunctions ora et labora (pray and work).

According to Jan Baptist Bedaux, the broom could also symbolize proverbial chastity; it "sweeps out impurities". Mirror The small medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room show tiny scenes from the Passion of Christ and may represent God's promise 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 death and resurrection. Those on the husband's side concern Christ's life. The mirror itself may represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding. A spotless mirror was also an established symbol of Mary, referring to the Holy Virgin's immaculate conception and purity. The mirror reflects two figures in the doorway, one 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's signature on the wall acts as some form of actual documentation of an event at which he was himself present. According to one author "The painting is often referenced for its immaculate depiction of non-Euclidean geometry", referring to the image on the convex mirror.

Assuming a spherical mirror, the distortion has been correctly portrayed, except for the leftmost part of the window frame, the near edge of the table and the hem of the dress. Other objects The little dog symbolizes loyalty, or can be seen as an emblem of lust, signifying the couple's desire to have a child. Unlike the couple, he looks out to meet the gaze of the viewer. The dog could also be simply a lap dog, a gift from husband to wife. Many wealthy women in the court had lap dogs as companions. So, the dog could reflect the wealth of the couple and their position in courtly life. The green of the woman's dress symbolizes hope, possibly the hope of becoming a mother. Her white cap could signify purity, but probably signifies her being married. Behind the pair, the curtains of the marriage bed have been opened; the red curtains might allude to the physical act of love between the married couple. The single candle in the left-front holder of the ornate six-branched chandelier is possibly the candle used in traditional Flemish marriage customs.

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's posits that the painting is a memorial portrait, the single lit candle on Giovanni's side contrasts with the burnt-out candle whose wax stub can just be seen on his wife's side. In a metaphor commonly used in literature; he lives on, she is dead. The cherries present on the tree outside the window may symbolize love. The oranges which lie on the window sill and chest may symbolize the purity and innocence that reigned in the Garden of Eden before the Fall of Man. They were uncommon and a sign of wealth in the Netherlands, but in Italy were a symbol of fecundity in marriage. The fruit could more simply be a sign of the couple's wealth since oranges were very expensive imports. It could be a sign of fertility as well. Arnolfini Portrait Provenance The known provenance of the painting is that in 1434 it was dated by van Eyck and presumably owned by the sitters.

At some undetermined 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 Art). He lived most of his life in the Netherlands, and may have known the Arnolfinis in their later years. By 1516 he had given the portrait to Margaret of Austria, Habsburg Regent of the Netherlands, when it shows up as the first item in an inventory of her paintings, made in her presence at Mechelen. The item says (in French): "a large picture which is called Hernoul le Fin with his wife in a chamber, which was given to Madame by Don Diego, whose arms are on the cover of the said picture; done by the painter Johannes." A note in the margin says "It is necessary to put on a lock to close it: which Madame has ordered to be done." In a 1523–4 Mechelen inventory, a similar description is given, although this time the name of the subject is given as "Arnoult Fin".

In 1530 the painting was inherited by Margaret's niece Mary of Hungary, who in 1556 went to live in Spain. It is clearly described in an inventory taken after her death in 1558, when it 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), commissioned by Philip clearly copies the pose of the figures. In 1599 a German visitor saw it in the Alcazar Palace in Madrid. Now it had verses from Ovid painted on the frame: "See that you promise: what harm is there in promises? In promises anyone 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. In 1700 the painting appeared in an inventory after the death of Carlos II. It was still in the palace, with shutters and the verses from Ovid, and by 1794 had been moved to the Palacio Nuevo in 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 relevant to the real facts is no doubt Hay's presence at the Battle of Vitoria (1813) in Spain, where a large coach loaded by King Joseph Bonaparte with easily portable artworks from the Spanish royal collections was first 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, later George IV of England, via Sir Thomas Lawrence. The Prince had it on approval for two years at Carlton House before eventually returning it in 1818. Around c. 1828, Hay gave it to a friend to look after, not seeing it or the friend for the next thirteen years, until he arranged for it to be included in a public exhibition in 1841.

It was bought the following year (1842) by the recently formed National Gallery, London for £600, as inventory number 186, where it remains. The shutters have gone, along with the original frame. Arnolfini Portrait Notes ^ Stockstad Cothren ^ Ward, John. "Disguised Symbolism as Enactive Symbolism in Van Eyck's Paintings". Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 15, No. 29 (1994), pp. 9–53 ^ Elkins, John, "On the Arnolfini Portrait and the Lucca Madonna: Did Jan van Eyck Have a Perspectival System?". The Art Bulletin, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Mar., 1991), pp. 53–62 ^ Ward, John L. "On the Mathematics of the Perspective of the "Arnolfini Portrait" and similar works of Jan van Eyck", Art Bulletin, Vol. 65, No. 4 (1983) p.680 ^ Seidel, Linda. "Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait": Business as Usual?". Critical Inquiry, Vol.

16, No. 1 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 54–86 ^ Harbison, Craig. "Sexuality and Social Standing in Arnolfini's Double Portrait". Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), pp. 249–291 ^ Gombrich, E.H., The Story of Art, p. 180, Phaidon, 13th edn. 1982. ISBN 0-7148-1841-0 ^ Dunkerton, Jill, et al., Giotto to Dürer: Early Renaissance Painting in the National Gallery, page 258. National Gallery Publications, 1991. ISBN 0-300-05070-4 ^ Harbison, 1991, 33 (a claim that might not be agreed by everyone) ^ a b c d e f g Campbell 1998, 186–191 for all this section, except as otherwise indicated.

^ a b Harbison 1991, 37 ^ a b c Campbell 1998, 174–211 ^ Hall 1994, 4; Crowe and Cavalcaselle 1857, 65–66 ^ Weale 1861, 27–28; Campbell 1998, 193 ^ Campbell 1998, 195 ^ a b Koster 2003. Also see Giovanni Arnolfini for a fuller discussion of the issue ^ See the Giovanni Arnolfini article for the portrait.

^ Panofsky 1934 Bedaux, Jan Baptist, "The reality of symbols: the question of disguised symbolism in Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini portrait", Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, volume 16, issue 1, pages 5–28, 1986, JSTOR Campbell, Lorne, The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Paintings, London: National Gallery, 1998, ISBN 0-300-07701-7 Carroll, Margaret D., "In the name of God and profit: Jan 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, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008, ISBN 0-271-02954-4 Colenbrander, Herman Th., "'In promises anyone can be rich!' Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini double portrait

: a 'Morgengave'", Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, volume 68, issue 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 Marriage 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 standing in Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini double portrait", Renaissance Quarterly, volume 43, issue 2, pages 249–291, Summer 1990, JSTOR Harbison, Craig, Jan van Eyck, The Play of Realism, Reaktion Books, London, 1991, ISBN 0-948462-18-3 Koster, Margaret L., "The Arnolfini double portrait: a simple solution", Apollo, volume 158, issue 499, pages 3–14, September 2003 Levin, Janna, How the Universe Got Its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space, Random House 2002 ISBN 1-4000-3272-5 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 1–20, 1970 Weale, W.H.

James, Notes sur Jean van Eyck, London: Barthès and Lowell, 1861 (In French) Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife (1434) Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife (1434) by Jan van EYCK "The Arnolfini Marriage" is a name that has been given to this untitled double portrait by Jan van Eyck, now in the National Gallery, London. It is one of the greatest celebrations of human mutuality. Like Rembrandt's "Jewish Bride", this painting reveals to us the inner meaning of a true marriage. Giovanni Arnolfini, a prosperous Italian banker who had settled in Bruges, and his wife Giovanna Cenami, stand side by side in the bridal chamber, facing towards the viewer. The husband is holding out his wife's hand. The painting has the half-light of a room only partially lit by windows. The space is filled with filtered daylight from the side. Although the cherry trees in the garden are heavy with ripe fruit, we do not have the impression that it is summer outside, because the two figures are wearing layered clothing lined with fur, and their heads are covered.

Preview glossary Index The Arnolfini Marriage. Jan Van Eyck. 1434. National Gallery, London. Also known as The Arnolfini Wedding, The Arnolfini Double Portrait or the Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife. THE ARNOLFINI MARRIAGE (JAN VAN EYCK) The first bond of society is marriage. Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE), Roman writer, scholar, statesman The Arnolfini Marriage by Jan Van Eyck is one of the masterpieces of Western art. Throughout this double portrait, Van Eyck employs a complex iconography to express medieval ideas on sex, procreation, domestic life, wealth, status and gender roles within the context of marriage. Medieval marriages were usually arranged unions in which parties of similar social status married to secure a certain standard of living. This was accomplished through the wedding contract, which formally created the union and combined the money, inheritance and property of the couple. Unlike modern marriages, love-based matches during this time were rare. To a large extent marriage was a communal matter not a private one and while medieval society tolerated marital separation, divorce was not available.

Though ostensibly a portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his wife, it is not clear which wife is the subject of the painting. Some historians argue that it is a portrait of Arnolfini and his first wife, Constanza Trenta, who was already deceased by 1434. This view has some compelling support within the iconography of the painting. For instance, in the candelabra over the couple, there are two candles. Directly over Arnolfini, the candle burns. The candle directly over the bride, however, is extinguished. As a result, some art historians believe that this is a memorial portrait, depicting the living alongside the dead, with the flame that still burns over the living Arnolfini and the expired flame over the deceased Constanza. The remaining symbolism in the piece is not inconsistent with this interpretation. There is an another interpretation. Under that theory, Van Eyck has painted Arnolfini with an unnamed second wife and the portrait serves as a highly original wedding contract. The single most compelling symbol for this interpretation is the convex mirror on the back wall.

A close examination reveals not only the back of the bride and groom but two other men as well, one of whom is Van Eyck. Seen this way, the two partially revealed observers are the legal witnesses to the actual second marriage of Arnolfini. The signature of Van Eyck directly over the mirror -- Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434 (Jan Van Eyck was here 1434) -- can support this theory: that the wedding was a factual event and Van Eyck was present. There is also another dimension to the mirror. The ornate frame encircling the glass has a series of ten medallions, each one depicting scenes from the Passion of Christ. This juxtaposing of the wedding participants within the circle of the life of Christ creates a larger symbol, one which comments on the intimate ties between medieval society, marriage and faith. Some further examples of symbolism contained in this painting include: the dog at the feet of the couple represents both fidelity and lust; clogs were a traditional bridal gift and this discarded pair creates a link to the Biblical tradition of standing barefoot on holy ground; the solitary candle burning in the chandelier represents both the traditional bridal candle and the all-seeing eye of God.

WebMuseum: Eyck, Jan van: The Arnolfini Marriage These pages were developed by the staff of WebMuseum KET Distance Learning is grateful for their wonderful work and their permission to mirror the site. Eyck, Jan van The Arnolfini Marriage The Marriage of Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami; 1434 (130 Kb); Oil on wood, 81.8 x 59.7 cm (32 1/4 x 23 1/2 in); National Gallery, London This title has traditionally been given to this painting because it was thought to be a form of ``wedding certificate'' for Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami, who married in Bruges in 1434. He was an Italian merchant, she the daughter of an Italian merchant. Their grave, youthful faces both have a lovely responsability that is typical of van Eyck. Van Eyck's art reached perhaps its greatest triumph in the painting of portraits.

One of his most famous portraits is The betrothal of the Arnolfini , which represents an Italian merchant, Giovanni Arnolfini, who had come to the Netherlands on business, with his bride Jeanne de Chenany. In its own way it was as new and as revolutionary as Donatello's or Masaccio's work in Italy. A simple corner of the real world had suddenly been fixed on to a panel as if by magic. Here it all was - the carpet and the slippers, the rosary on the wall, the little brush beside the bed, and the fruit on the window-sill. It is as if we could pay a visit to the Arnolfini in their house. The picture probably represents a solemn moment in their lives - their betrothal. The young woman has just put her right hand into Arnolfini's left and he is about to put his own right hand into hers as a solemn token of their union. Probably the painter was asked to record this important moment as a witness, just as a notary might be asked to declare that he has been present at a similar solemn act.

This would explain why the master has put his name in a prominent position on the picture with the Latin words 'Johannes de eyck fuit hic' (Jan van Eyck was here). In the mirror at the back of the room we see the whole scene reflected from behind, and there, so it seems, we also see the image of the painter and witness. We do not know whether it was the Italian merchant or the northern artist who conceived the idea of making this use of the new kind of painting, which may be compared to the legal use of a photograph, properly endorsed by a witness. But whoever it was that originated this idea, he had certainly been quick to understand the tremendous possibilities which lay in Van Eyck's new way of painting. For the first time in history the artist became the perfect eye-witness in the truest sense of the term. From top to bottom: Symbolic candle The solitary flame burning in bright daylight can be interpreted as the bridall candle, or God's all-seeing eye, or simply as a devotional candle. Another symbol is St Margaret (the patron saint of women in childbirth), whose image is carved on the high chairback.

An elaborate signature As today, marriages in 15th-century Flanders could take place privately rather than in church. Van Eyck's Latin signature, in the Gothic calligraphy used for legal documents, reads: ``Jan van Eyck was present'', and has been interpreted by some as an indication that the artist himself served as a witness. Convex mirror The Arnolfini Marriage 1434; detail: the ornate mirror on the back wall The mirror is painted with almost miraculous skill. Its carved frame is inset with ten miniature medallions depicting scenes from the life of Christ. Yet more remarkable is the mirror's reflection, which includes van Eyck's own tiny self-portrait, accompanied by another man who may have been the official witness to the ceremony. Symbol of faithfulness Almost every detail can be interpreted as a symbol. The companion dog is seen as a symbol of faithfulness and love. The fruits on the window ledge probably stand for fertility and our fall from Paradise. Even the discarded shoes are not thought to be incidental, but to signify the sanctity of marriage.

Arnolfini Portrait, Jan Van Eyck: Interpretation, Analysis Social Status The Arnolfini Portrait provides a clear pictorial record of the rank and social status of the subjects. The woman's robe is trimmed with ermine fur and consists of an inordinate amount of fabric. A personal maid would have been needed to accompany the woman, to hold the garment off the ground. The man is dressed in a plaited straw cap and a velvet cloak, lined with fur. These clothes place the couple among the wealthy citizens of Bruges, though not yet in the top rank. The somewhat restricted size of the chamber, the wooden clogs on the floor worn to protect against street dirt, and the absence of ostentatious gold jewellery, all indicate bourgeois rather than noble status. Nonetheless, the stained glass window, chandelier, ornate mirror and oriental carpet, as well as the groom's well-manicured hands and the expensive oranges on the side dresser, are visible indicators of significant wealth. Marriage Contract The convex mirror on the centre of the rear wall, which is exquisitely decorated with miniature medallions illustrating the Crucifixion and other stories from the Passion of Christ, reveals more details of the room.

Two visitors standing in the open doorway are visible behind the viewer, as is another window along with the wooden beams of the ceiling. Two centuries later, Velazquez would imitate Van Eyck's mirror in his famous masterpiece called Las Meninas (1656, Prado). In line with the mirror, in the centre of the picture, we see the couple holding hands: at least the man rather formally holds the limp hand of his wife in the palm of his own. The formality of the pose is also illustrated by the man's raised hand - suggesting he is taking an oath - as well as the arranged robe of the woman. Now we understand the significance of the two people in the doorway: they are witnesses to the marriage of Arnolfini and his wife. But there is more to this wedding than meets the eye. Union of Unequals? To begin with, Arnolfini does not take his wife's hand in his right hand, but in his left.

This appears to symbolize what was called a "left-handed marriage" - a union of unequals, in which the woman was obliged to forfeit all the usual rights of property and inheritance: a procedure not unlike that of a modern day morganatic marriage entered into by a European royal Prince and a commoner. Thus it is probable that the two witnesses are present to validate the financial contract drawn up at the time of such a marriage. They were not necessary for the marriage ceremony itself: in 15th century Bruges, neither priest nor witnesses were needed. A couple could marry themselves, and then confirm the arrangement by attending communion together, the next morning. This is also partially confirmed by the odd sight of a single candle burning in the chandelier: the candle symbolizes the ubiquitous Christ whose invisible presence is witness to the marriage vows. Of course, if the couple are in fact Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife Giovanna Cenami, there is no question of it being a marriage between unequals, as Giovanna was equally well connected.

But in 1997 it was established that their marriage did not take place until 1447 - some thirteen years after the date of the painting, and six years after Jan Van Eyck's death. However, his brother Michele appears to have made such a marriage in Bruges, around the time of the painting. Other art historians think the painting might represent the wedding of Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his first wife Costanza Trenta. Fertility The woman in the picture is not pregnant: her bulge merely illustrates the contemporary fashion for voluminous robes. Fertility is however alluded to by the wooden carving on the back of a chair, visible underneath the chandelier. The carving, which overlooks the marriage bed, represents St Margaret, the patron saint of childbirth, signalling a wish for a healthy family. To ensure a successful marriage, a dog in included at the couple's feet. This is a symbolic reference to faithfulness. Complex Symbolism As this simple guide to the Arnolfini Portrait indicates, the iconography and symbolism of this painting is almost endless, and highly complicated.

The wooden clogs, for instance, may also be a reference to the quote in the Book of Exodus: "Put off the shoes from thy feet..." signalling the sacred nature of the event occurring in the chamber. The prominence and the unusual form of the signature ("Jan van Eyck was here", instead of the normal "Jan van Eyck did this") is merely one of many unclear elements in the painting. What is clear, however, is that Van Eyck has created a work with considerable religious significance, although one located in an apparently secular situation. Like his other masterpieces, the Arnolfini Portrait had a huge impact on other Northern Renaissance artists as well as Old Masters across southern Europe. Provenance It appears that the Arnolfini Portrait fell into English hands during the Napoleonic Wars. Taken to London it was offered to the Crown, who declined it, before eventually being purchased in 1842, for £600, by the then recently-formed National Gallery . Current estimates suggest that the work would be worth well over £100 million if ever sent for auction.

Portrait painting by Jan van Eyck, The Arnolfini Portrait Portrait painting by Jan van Eyck, The Arnolfini Portrait, LeadArt oil painting do reproduction of it in museum quality on linen: Arnolfini Portrait (1434) - Oil on panel, 82 x 59.5 cm, National Gallery, London The Arnolfini Portrait is an oil painting on oak panel dated 1434 by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It is also known as The Arnolfini Wedding, The Arnolfini Marriage, The Arnolfini Double Portrait or the Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife. This painting is believed to be a portrait of the Italian merchant Giovanni Arnolfini and his wife, presumably in their home in the Flemish city of Bruges. It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art history. Both signed and dated by Van Eyck in 1434, it is, with the Ghent Altarpiece by the same artist and his brother Hubert, the oldest very famous panel painting to have been executed in oils rather than in tempera.

The painting was bought by the National Gallery in London in 1842. The illusionism of the painting was remarkable for its time, in part for the rendering of detail, but particularly for the use of light to evoke space in an interior, for "its utterly convincing depiction of a room, as well of the people who inhabit it". If you have any comment about this portrait painting, welcome to send us by email: leadartportrait@gmail.com , and we will add them here. Your are here

Question: 'The Arnolfini Marriage' is a famous 1434 painting by whom?
Answer: Jan Van Eyck