Jan van Eyck, The Ghent Altarpiece (2 of 2)

Jan van Eyck, Ghent Altarpiece (open), completed 1432, oil on wood, 11’ 5” x 7’ 6” (Saint Bavo Cathedral, Ghent, Belgium). Speakers: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris. Created by Beth Harris and Steven Zucker.

[@jurgenhoth8750]

Gloriously beautiful painting! .... and a great explanation. Thank you.

[@peroz1000]

How can anyone possibly dislike this?

[@tiwitiwi6202]

the details are mind blowing!

[@marciasmith5010]

Such beauty and exquisite details! Viewing this makes me miss my time as a student of medieval iconology. Thanks for the post.

[@leanhquoc3109]

this is crazily sick good

[@blinkdoge]

They don't mention the final 4 panels including the missing one...?

[@smarthistory-art-history]

Have you seen the related essay: smarthistory.org/van-eyck-the-ghent-altarpiece/ ?

[@blinkdoge]

Smarthistory. art, history, conversation. I have now, thanks

[@nelsonx5326]

Just subscribed.

[@stefaand7181]

The missing panel might return very soon. Its said a rich family in Gent has it in its possession so now after 80 years it might return they are investigating the new news. But its very likely its true. They also said its been restaurated recently so its in superior condition.

[@annadziewulska4733]

I wept as I watched the beautiful restoration in Ghent Museum prior to it being shown in the Ghent Church ...worth visiting ...

[@TheViciousVendetta]

At around 4:14, I think the word is "ermine", used to refer to a stoat in its winter fur, commonly used to line robes or clothing. Source: I'm reading Venus in Furs; it's also the animal in Leonardo's "Lady with an Ermine".

[@TheViciousVendetta]

In case someone's using the CC like I am.

[@winterdesert1]

+katakatakara Yes. Look up Louis XIV of France!

[@frankgryspeerdt]

winterdesert

[@MichaelAChang]

The masterpiece can be viewed in breathtaking Gigapixel detail on a collaborative website between Canada and and the Netherlands: closertovaneyck.kikirpa.be/#home/sub=altarpiece

[@winterdesert1]

+MichaelAChang Amazing link. I'm going to keep this forever.

[@CantBeHammy]

Is eve pregnant?

[@biologicalexuberance4636]

Yes, from a retired OB-GYN: the linea nigra from her umbilicus to pubis is a definitive sign of pregnancy.

[@romcallis]

The restoration of the lamb was a travesty. It now has a two dimensional look whereas a real lambs eyes are off to the side. How could they do this to one of the greatest pieces of art?

[@tier2599]

The two dimensional look you mentioned is Van Eyck’s true painting of the lamb - the more ‘realistic’ version is the restoration from the 1500s. It’s usually taken as an implication that the lamb is a symbol of Christ, as it almost looks humanoid.

[@Aljonakras]

Isn't it the deesis with Jesus in the middle? Why God the Father? In earlier artworks God the Father was depicted with Jesus at his right, not John the Baptist.. Why was mideival God terrifying as opposed to mercyful? Where does it appear? How does the facial expression of God bear to the humanist tradition? A few decades later another humanist Michelangelo painted both the Christ and God the Father in a much more redoubtable manner. It seems that humanistic and humane are slightly different things, in the context of Renaissance, at least. Please, somebody familiar with the topic, explain...

[@LlywellynOBrien]

I agree that they overstate the 'new' view of God, one can read very mercy-focused works about God right through the centuries before the Renaissance. Even Aquinas's rather austere theological works have little in common with the view of God described here.

[@domenomahen9542]

Why would an almighty god that created everything have such a weak and powerless form that is the human body? Don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with the painting, I love Van Eyck. I'm just talking about the christian depiction of god which makes no sense to me. And why would a god have to wear clothes? Is he like cold or shy or something? xD Can someone explain this to me?

[@smarthistory-art-history]

This is such an important question. I think that one of the most useful ways of understanding this issue, particularly in the the case of van Eyck's work, is to remember that these images, despite their plausibility, remarkable detail, high naturalism and finish are not meant to be seen as photographic documents but rather function symbolically and should not be taken literally. Clothing, for example, forms a visual language that we all speak and it was used in part for this reason. Of course there are many other issues at work too but this, I believe, is central.

[@domenomahen9542]

Thank you for the answer. You guys are awesome. Your videos help me pass art history exams a lot :D

[@fododude]

I'm no expert but I don't think that bird is a pelican.

[@PaulHinderer]

Agree - the bird depicted is a peregrine not a pelican