Talk:Arnolfini Portrait

Size

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)

Arnolfini Wedding

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)

• Keep, it was a requested article, and it's a famous painting, so it really should be on cleanup or something, not here. Adam Bishop 16:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Clean up and expand - It was a requested article after all... ClockworkTroll 17:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and list on cleanup, but make sure that Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami are redirects, and not the substubs that Haydes wants to keep them as. RickK 19:50, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep valid topic. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 23:59, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Joyous 01:23, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, clean up and expand this stub by the Renaissance Painting Bandit. Antandrus 01:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There, I tried to make it a bit more respectable. 01:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That is much better than the original that looked like a typical troll pile to me. After some reading, I concur this is a valid topic and therefore change my initial vote to keep. If there is a process for de-listing items from VFD before lag time runs out, I support doing that and listing this article on cleanup instead. I like RickK's suggestion and hope others will help keep any further Haydes' substubs at bay. jni 08:10, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Now Anthony DiPierro has taken it upon himself to revert the redirection and make the substubs on the husband and wife in the painting into non-notable stubs and doesn't even bother to put a stub notice on the pages. If the two articles about the people are not kept as redirects, I intend to list THEM on VfD. RickK 22:53, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • I only did it with the article on Arnolfini, which is more interesting than the article on the portrait. Go ahead and list it on VfD. No one will support you, because the Arnolfini page is perfectly fine. anthony (see warning) 02:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Now that you've made it more than a two sentence substub, I guess it's worth keeping, though he isn't really notable. RickK 21:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
            • It's worth keeping, but he's not notable? That's contradictory. anthony (see warning) 22:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I added the pic (already existed at Jan van Eyck and somehow not added already). Remarkable how the existence of a pic makes me immediately think an article is not ripe for deletion. Tempshill 20:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I recall reading something about how this painting served as a sort of painted marriage certificate, which is interesting—I'll see if I can dig up that article. —No-One Jones ^(m) 22:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • That would be a very useful addition. RickK 22:49, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • The description of that is in the reference I've added to the Arnolfini biography. "Panofsky didn't just see this painting as a portrait of a married couple. He saw it as a marriage certificate." anthony (see warning) 21:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a no brainer. Incredibly notable. Gamaliel 08:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. — Bill 17:49, 11 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.

Pregnant... NOT!

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)

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)

And sometimes the apparently obvious can be interpreted in various ways. Here's what the National Gallery of London maintains: [1]. JNW (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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 Athens^Talk 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Maybe she's just fat, and being fat was a sign of wealth, as it meant you could afford a lot of rich food, and thus was not considered to be a negative. Jersey Jan (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that yes, I do have eyes in my head. Two at the last count. But the article says: "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." The article has an entire paragraph discussing the possible pudding club. We just have to report what art critics say. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Art historians - the critics we can usually ignore! Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, go on then. But I still wonder what dear Brian would have said. Not to mention Ken. I see that Cornelia Parker says that she might even have been dead already. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That is covered in the article (Koster 2003). Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Blimey, pregnant and dead. No wonder she looks fed up. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Couple's reflections in the mirror are not holding hands.

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)

"Disguised symbolism" is alluded to but not elaborated

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.″

Questions

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)

1) No, there isn't; 2) It probably isn't; 3) Pattens were generally worn oudoors, and taken off inside. Otherwise they contribute to the virtuoso naturalism of the work. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead edits

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.

• As for the "most original and complex paintings in Western art", that sounds very ambiguous, doesn't really inform the reader about anything specific, and is not supported by any of the currently cited sources. Is there opposition to the "one of the most recognized works of Early Netherlandish art"? It is not a huge improvement, but historically accurate and can be sourced to Carol M. Richardson Locating Renaissance Art. United Kingdom: Yale University Press, 2007, p. 66. I am happy to discuss alternatives.
• The use of "beauty" does not serve any educational purpose here and is purely subjective; it is also, understandably so, not discussed in any of the sources currently cited to the sentence. I do think that the term should be removed entirely.
• Regarding "complex iconography", I think it's accurate, though I wonder whether "equivocal" would also be a good addition considering current sources cited
• The way "geometric orthogonal perspective" is used now seems to simplify the debates about the use of perspective in the cited sources; perhaps describing it as "inventive" or something along those lines would fit better (see currently cited article John L. Ward, "On the Mathematics of the Perspective of the Arnolfini Portrait and Similar Works of Jan van Eyck" The Art Bulletin, Dec., 1983, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 680-686)
• Same with the use of mirror; the article above goes into great detail about the use of mirror; if we are to simplify it, I think it should be cited to a different, perhaps less scholary source.
• I also believe it would be great to mention the intricate detail of the work as another reason for its popularity, a statement supported by several of the above sources.

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts! Ppt91^talk 21:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Of the two bits you changed, the first changed the content significantly, but left the ref exactly the same. Does the ref actually say what you are now claiming? It also seems less interesting to me. I don't mind the 2nd bit, about the mirror. "complex iconography" = "intricate detail" here - an odd term to use of a painting, i'd have thought. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 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
• as for "complex iconography" = "intricate detail" here -- unsure what you mean by this as I am not equating them and the second one is a new suggestion; why is "intricate detail" an odd term to describe a painting? This is directly connected to the possibilities afforded by oil paint and mentioned even in some of the sources currently cited. It can also be "minute detail" if that sounds better.

Tbh, your response feels quite curt and not very cordial given my genuine effort to have a constructive conversation and improve content.

Ppt91^talk 22:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

So your edit summary of "some lead edits to remove ambiguous language and puffery" was cordial, and a "genuine effort to have a constructive conversation"? Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod An edit summary is not directed at anyone in particular. Is that what upset you in the first place? You reverted, so I brought it here to clarify any confusions and explain my reasoning to find a satisfactory solution. How is that not a genuine effort to build WP:CONS? It's fine if you're unhappy with my suggestions, but this isn't a very productive editorial conduct. I hope we can find a way to work together to improve the content of the article. Ppt91^talk 23:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Debate in regards to the person being depicted

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)

Incorrect assertion

The section Identity of subjects currently includes "Details such as the snuffed candle above the woman . . .". However, inspection shows that there is no such snuffed candle – the lit candle on Giovanni's side is the only one in the chandelier, all the other holders are empty. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The source says: "Koster 2003. Also see Giovanni Arnolfini for a fuller discussion of the issue." But I'm not sure there is any fuller discussion there. The source is used in three separate places. The page numbers given are "pp. 3–14". What exactly is "this issue"? The relevant text, in Koster (2003), seems to be this:

"An observant viewer of the Double portrait will discern the remains of a burnt-out candle in the front right sconce. This was recently pointed out by Campbell, but has hot as a rule been noticed by scholars. (75) If one takes the view that the portrait of Signora Arnolfini is posthumous, then the lit candle as opposed to the burned-out one refers to the couple, the lit candle on the side of the living, the extinguished one on the side of the deceased. I do not believe it is sufficient to call the single lit candle 'nothing more than good bourgeois thriftiness.'"

So yes, a small trace of wax shows the remains of a burnt-out candle, but not a snuffed out one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)