Their clothes are expensive and fashionable, but not flashy. The man wears a hat of plaited straw, and a dark tabard, probably of silk velvet, trimmed with brown fur. Under it is a black, possibly silk, doublet, with silver cuffs. His muddy pattens overshoes lie discarded on the floor.
The woman wears a fine green wool overdress with elaborate dagged sleeves and a long train which falls in thick folds around her feet. It is trimmed with a white fur, possibly ermine or squirrel belly. She is not pregnant, though she might look it: she is holding up her bulky gown in front of her, as ladies commonly did.
Her hair is caught up in fashionable but modest horns, held in red nets, and covered with an intricately folded veil. So who are the people in this intimate setting? They are clearly husband and wife, and for many years the painting was understood as representing a marriage ceremony, though not anymore. The Arnolfini were an extensive family of Italian merchants, with various members in Bruges at this period.
The most likely candidate is Giovanni di Nicolao di Arnolfini, known as Giannino or Jehannin, who would have been in his late thirties in The lady is probably his second wife, whose identity is unknown. They may have been friends of van Eyck — he painted another portrait of the man at an older age Staatliche Museen, Berlin. A large round mirror hangs right in the centre of the composition, its convex glass showing not just the compressed and contorted room but also two men coming in through a door behind us.
The first man seems to be raising his left arm and stepping down steps from the passage. Immediately above the mirror is a flamboyant signature: Johannes de Eyck fuit hic. Are the men in the mirror van Eyck himself and his servant, arriving on a visit? Technical analysis tell us much about how the picture was made. Infrared reflectography shows that the underdrawing was done in stages.
In the first one van Eyck sketched in the figures, the main pieces of furniture and the basic architecture of the room, but left out many of the objects for which the painting is now famous: the watchful terrier, the chandelier, the chair, the beads hanging on the wall and the discarded shoes. These were painted in at a late stage. In the initial underdrawing, Arnolfini had a larger face and even odder features. His feet were in a different position, his robe was shorter and his hat larger.
His wife originally looked up towards her husband and her features were lower, so her forehead seemed even higher. Arnolfini must have been a strange-looking man, and in the second underdrawing van Eyck improved his proportions and idealised his features.
Although it looks as if van Eyck has simply removed a wall, close examination reveals inconsistencies. The chandelier cannot fit into the space it seems to occupy; there is no sign of a fireplace; the bed is too short and the ornate convex mirror on the back wall seems impossibly large. Look closely and you can see an astonishing level of detail. Scholarship does not seem to think that she is pregnant although she does immediately appear that way, but rather that she was lifting a great deal of heavy, pleated cloth in order to show off her expensive blue underskirt.
Of course, this could be a mistake and the cloth could have been simply intended to draw attention to her waist; there is after all, no mistaking the obvious bed behind her, symbolically decked out entirely in red — an inarguable signifier of love, and passion.
The little dog at her feet demonstrates her fidelity to her husband a classic artistic motif and one notably used by Madame de Pompadour in the 18 th century; several of her portraits as the official chief mistress of King Louis XV of France include a small black dog Figures 4 and 5 and her covered head expresses that she is a married woman — only the young, the royal, or the immoral would wear their hair loose and uncovered.
Her downwards gaze also shows her submission and meek obedience to the man holding her hand. This was the fifteenth-century after all; women were the property of their nearest male relation, and the thought of them doing anything other than concerning themselves with the wellbeing of their house and their family was nothing short of outrageous.
However, there are several curious notes which make this work of realism stand out as particularly interesting. First and foremost, the mirror on the back wall — which, incidentally, could be a work of imagination, as it is significantly larger than mirrors could actually be made to be at this point — which has already been addressed, but not noted for its spectacularly high detailing.
This theory of course would negate that of it being a commemorative portrait of the wife — but because of the absence of any concrete evidence proving either explanation one way or the other, neither can be proven or disproven.
However, this ambiguity rather adds to the charm of this painting and demands that viewers look more closely at the beautiful, detailed workmanship in order to dig out their own ideas and theories about the work from independent visual analysis.
Its charm lies in the stories and ideas which it inspires in the minds of those who look at it, into it, and dig beneath its surface; an absence of knowledge only adds to its beauty. We and our partners use cookies to better understand your needs, improve performance and provide you with personalised content and advertisements. Oranges represent fecundity in art, as does the red bed. There is a figure on the finial of St. Margaret, the patron saint of pregnancy and childbirth, while the cherry tree outside the window is a symbol of love.
Again, was this an accurate representation of the couple, a hope for the future, another allusion to Mary, or merely a fashionable dress? Why does it look more like, say, a signature on a piece of paper than a signed piece of artwork? And who are the figures reflected in the mirror? Is one the artist himself? Are they witnesses? And, if so, are they witnessing an actual marriage? Giovanni and Costanza were married in ; why wait eight years to have a portrait of your marriage depicted?
We also know that Costanza died—possibly during childbirth—by
0コメント