This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 506.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
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)
What in the world does "most unique" mean?
I believe it refers to the fact that this painting is unusual, practically alone in western art history, with regard to its themes, symbols, design, and complexity. -- Sophitus 05:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
"Most unique" makes no sense; something is unique or it is not. Such nonsensical overstatement leads a reader to wonder if the writer knows what he is talking about.
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. ;)
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)
The Scholarly Debate section discusses 2 things: does the painting depict a marriage contract and is Panofsky right about this disguised symbolism?
But the article doesn't summarize that symbolism or even name the objects in question:
″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. . .
Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434 (Jan 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 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."[20] 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.[20]
Craig Harbison takes the middle ground between Panofsky and Bedaux in their debate about "disguised symbolism" and realism.″
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)
Given @
Johnbod's recent revert of my suggestion for the second paragraph in the lead section, I wanted to bring the conversation here to discuss edits for the following sentence: It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art, because of its beauty, complex iconography, geometric orthogonal perspective, and expansion of the picture space with the use of a mirror.
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts! Ppt91 talk 21:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Does the ref actually say what you are now claiming?for "one of the most recognized works of Early Netherlandish art" the reference used would be "The best-known Netherlandish fifteenth-century painting is probably the celebrated Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck." (Carol M. Richardson Locating Renaissance Art. United Kingdom: Yale University Press, 2007, p. 66). I am not married to it by any means, but it is much more specific even though it changed the meaning of the original sentence.
It also seems less interesting to me.the current phrasing about it "most original and complex" has no reference, so I am open to alternatives that would be informative
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)
"The hennin (French: hennin /ˈhɛnɪn/;[1] possibly from Flemish Dutch: henninck meaning cock or rooster)[N 1] was a headdress in the shape of a cone, steeple, or truncated cone worn in the Late Middle Ages by European women of the nobility.[2] They were most common in Burgundy and France,[citation needed] but also elsewhere, especially at the English courts,[3] and in Northern Europe,[citation needed] Hungary and Poland. They were little seen in Italy." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Styl. Sa. (
talk •
contribs)
18:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 506.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
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)
What in the world does "most unique" mean?
I believe it refers to the fact that this painting is unusual, practically alone in western art history, with regard to its themes, symbols, design, and complexity. -- Sophitus 05:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
"Most unique" makes no sense; something is unique or it is not. Such nonsensical overstatement leads a reader to wonder if the writer knows what he is talking about.
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. ;)
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)
The Scholarly Debate section discusses 2 things: does the painting depict a marriage contract and is Panofsky right about this disguised symbolism?
But the article doesn't summarize that symbolism or even name the objects in question:
″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. . .
Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434 (Jan 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 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."[20] 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.[20]
Craig Harbison takes the middle ground between Panofsky and Bedaux in their debate about "disguised symbolism" and realism.″
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)
Given @
Johnbod's recent revert of my suggestion for the second paragraph in the lead section, I wanted to bring the conversation here to discuss edits for the following sentence: It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art, because of its beauty, complex iconography, geometric orthogonal perspective, and expansion of the picture space with the use of a mirror.
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts! Ppt91 talk 21:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Does the ref actually say what you are now claiming?for "one of the most recognized works of Early Netherlandish art" the reference used would be "The best-known Netherlandish fifteenth-century painting is probably the celebrated Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck." (Carol M. Richardson Locating Renaissance Art. United Kingdom: Yale University Press, 2007, p. 66). I am not married to it by any means, but it is much more specific even though it changed the meaning of the original sentence.
It also seems less interesting to me.the current phrasing about it "most original and complex" has no reference, so I am open to alternatives that would be informative
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)
"The hennin (French: hennin /ˈhɛnɪn/;[1] possibly from Flemish Dutch: henninck meaning cock or rooster)[N 1] was a headdress in the shape of a cone, steeple, or truncated cone worn in the Late Middle Ages by European women of the nobility.[2] They were most common in Burgundy and France,[citation needed] but also elsewhere, especially at the English courts,[3] and in Northern Europe,[citation needed] Hungary and Poland. They were little seen in Italy." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Styl. Sa. (
talk •
contribs)
18:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)