This Masterpiece Has a Mystery No One Can Solve

WELCOME TO FINE ART EXPLAINED
This Painting is Called The Arnolfini Portrait By Jan Van Eyck.
The Arnolfini Portrait is both Mysterious and iconic. Jan van Eyck painted it in 1434, and it has sparked much speculation - more than half a millennium later, we are still left with many unanswered questions. However, even if we don't know the exact story behind this painting , we can investigate the intriguing elements that make it up.
What do you think about this painting,let us know in the comments section down below.
Don't Forget to Subscribe now with all Notifications on and Leave your Like, Thank you for watching!
#arthistory #art #classicart #fineart
For business inquiries, copyright matters or other inquiries please contact us.

[@horaciomillan4181]

One thing that always seemed suspicious to me against the argument that the woman is not pregnant (which I think that she obviously is) is that in the back is represented a saint who was the patron of pregnant women. If that is true, the lady would probably be about to give birth. On the other side, much of the interpretarion in paintings like this is uncertain and speculative, so we should be aware of any, it doesn’t matter the prestige of the interpreter. There’s a lot of ego involved, even on the case of the most important historians. We shouldn’t think they are gods and guardians of truth.

[@elizabethclaiborne6461]

She’s not pregnant. These Burgundian gowns are so enormous you had to bundle up yards of fabric to move, even just standing around one held up a huge bunch of it. Fabric was so expensive that this was high fashion for the wealthy. If it’s between money-power-fashion, and religion? Religion is only getting lip service. People don’t change. This isn’t my opinion, it’s been tested by reproducing these gowns after studying a lot of period images. The academics are in agreement. Try actually looking at her.

[@carlamendez6590]

Where is the patron Saint of pregnant women?

[@lindac6919]

I always thought it was a married couple anticipating their 2nd or 3rd child. A young couple, both proud of and humbled by their family and standing. You can see that they have nothing to hide; just look in the mirror. All is of the best quality; with no overt ostentation. I might send a pic like this to my in-laws and extended family. They could see how we live; they could show it to their friends; and it doesn't show too much, either.

[@jimbuxton2187]

I always thought she was obviously pregnant also. I love the details and complexities of the painting...how beautiful early art is. I also love the interpretation of hidden meanings in them...how delicious....layers of meaning and beauty everywhere you look....

[@joanthompson5606]

@@carlamendez6590 it's where the 2 hands cross, behind and almost hidden. 🤗

[@elizabethclaiborne6461]

Fabric was far more expensive than jewels in the period. These are not discreet clothes - black was difficult to dye and bizarrely expensive. You’re reading this painting in very modern terms. Black at that time was like a $10k Italian suit with a $150k watch. The green gown is ferociously expensive and lined in fur, it’s enough fabric to clothe several families. That gown is a Superyacht. The painting was completed at the date given. When was it started? Paintings take time, it’s likely the first wife but completed after her death. All that symbolism stuff is likely wrong, any symbols would be very different in the 15th century. It’s basicly all look how rich we are.

[@anncbower5564]

Exactly that.

[@carlabroderick5508]

You don’t realize that scholarship can determine what certain symbols meant at certain times? There are dates known for the first appearance in any document of most words in the Bible. That is how scholars know Moses did not write the early books.

[@lindac6919]

Those fabrics are to dye for! Really, they are fabulous. And I confess to have no guesses about his fur, looking at how they depict the coloring. I do think they stuffed it full of symbolism. I think they have some of it correct, but I'm sure some of my guesses are better than theirs! Especially if the symbol depicts brokers, merchants, or sales industries. Sales never change. Well, they always change, and they always stay the same.

[@hatjodelka]

The green gown is lined with squirrel fur. Red European Squirrels, that is, and just the white fur on the underside. How many hundreds of squirrels would that take? The green fabric is very fine wool too. The weight of it all!

[@petersdotter1]

We usually adorn our surroundings with mementos, family pictures, or a favorite painting, but those at that time displayed objects with symbolic significance understood by any of their peers. Each article had a special meaning: tradition, religion, wealth and power. Hundreds of years later, we don't recognize the references. Some say the wife was pregnant, and had already died before the painting was done, perhaps in childbirth. (Adding deceased people to family portrait was often done.) This could then be a commemoration, and not a contemporaneous "wedding" portrait.

[@rustystevenson5688]

I agree with this. His first wife died after a year of marriage. I believe that she died in childbirth and the baby too most likely. She has a very sad look on her face and is looking downward. I believe this was to commemorate her. Of course we also have no idea I’d she really owned that dress. The painter can paint whatever he wants to make the picture stand out and to commemorate the short life of this loved lady.

[@dixietenbroeck8717]

@@rustystevenson5688 *That makes a whole lot of sense,* especially as the *man's clothing is so dour* & funeral, even. *Good job!*

[@Peter4MedicalEnglish]

The teaser thumbnail has the bedstead lions circled, so I assumed this was the "mystery no one can solve" but I watched the video and the highlighted bedstead carving was not mentioned and I'm a bit unsure what the mystery was ... the identity of the woman, perhaps?

[@D4Disdain]

I suppose the mystery is that is the portrait of Vladmir PUTIN with a pregnant lady, in his previous life. Eh, eh, eh....

[@NSBarnett]

Yes, odd that! Circling it in the main picture for youtube, and then never mentioning it!! FINE ART NOT EXPLAINED, in this case! One of the comments says it isn't a lion but it's the patron saint of the pregnant. Maybe the mystery is why people choose to make videos for the internet when they actually know less than what is already out there. Money, possibly, or the love of it.

[@jillianmaloney3798]

I thot it was just me being gaslit 😹 or not paying close enough attention. Nope never mentioned!

[@F1Barry]

It has already been solved. The women died in childbirth and her husband commissioned the painting to show them together for the memory of her.

[@MsVanorak]

i wondered that. he makes the sign of benediction with his right hand and holds her hand with his left - her hand in marriage.

[@F1Barry]

@@MsVanorak There is lots of other signs as well. Look at the candles. Lit on the mans side. Out on the woman's side. Fruit on the window sill. Drawings on the mirror edges, on the woman's side drawings if death, on the man's side, drawings of living.

[@theresehopkins1581]

Excellent description.... we must remember that these painting were the photos of the time.... and, being paintings, there was always bias... I find the details very interesting..... the home & garden magazines of the era...

[@donitaforrest9064]

It's starkly obvious to me. A merchant is embarking on a long journey, he is wearing his understated travelling clothes. He may be gone for many months or even years, he expresses his tender feelings & concern for his beautiful young wife in parting, she is very pregnant and is soon to give birth, he will not be there for the child's arrival & it causes him some degree of anguish & consternation, he is leaving her well off with plenty to run the household while he is away. There is an unspoken trust between them, trust that she will remain faithful, trust that he will return to his young family. It appears the painter painted himself as the merchant.

[@burbex]

I’m more interested in the mirror in the background. It’s like an eye (the painter’s eye into a perfect) world, whereas what the painter sees is probably far different. Are there any differences between what’s shown in the scene and what’s shown in the mirror?

[@lindac6919]

I like the mirror. I can't see finely enough to discern differences. I assumed that it is as true as the artist could make it. I like to think that the mirror says "here's another lens into our world, we're hiding nothing."

[@jillianmaloney3798]

Me too. In the reflection you can see the other side of those two people, but then u also see two other figures. Which to me looked like another male & female as it appears one is wearing a gown. I took Art History in undergrad and this one I always wanted to know more. It’s burned into my memory bc I’ve always been really curious about camera obscuras and that reflection shown.

[@Ms.Laterholmes]

You do know instead of saying ask that is referred to us by its measurements. Thank you for your time and energy on a channel. That’s great.

[@wildman2012]

The X refers to 'by' as in "an 8 by 10 photograph"; ergo, 8x10.

[@tekannon7803]

The chandelier would be impossible to draw free-hand. This painting was made using a lens; David Hockney proved it. The background carving of what looks to be a sphinx-like creature was planned to look like it was positioned in their hands. The reason escapes me, but the symbolism of a sphynx or life coming out of the ashes might have been the meaning of why Van Eyck had them holding hands and the small figurine directly behind their hands. Was this a depiction of someone's long-dead wife coming back to life? What the figure represents should be on the list of things to investigate. Van Eyck's attention to detail leaves one breathless; he is one of the great masters...

[@polygonalmasonary]

Its just a full figure portrait painting of a man and a woman, most likely a commission. There is no 'Hidden' symbolisms. I heard critics discuss modern paintings only to be rebuked by the actual artist for being to complicated and thinking far too deeply about the picture. Art critique boarders on Paranoia sometimes.

[@kathyshannon3871]

For another very interesting interpretation of this painting watch Perspective with Waldemar Januszczak, available on youtube.

[@susanross1651]

I have always loved this painting.

[@williamschlenger1518]

As an artist,I'm amazed at the details & colors.

[@anncbower5564]

Women's headwear in the medieval period in this portrait is really not her shown as horn but there are accruements stitched onto a headband that which is draped with wimple. The hair is hidden away brushed into a low bun in the back or braided pinned up in the back. That was the style women wore their wimple in those days.

[@lindac6919]

Yeah, I'm glad we don't wear the wimple. I probably would have been banned to the nunnery for not keeping my hair under control...or shaving it off in exasperation!

[@RiverJames1]

Jan is pronounced “yawn” and the x in between the measurements uses the word “by”

[@2adamast]

closer to "an" from I-an

[@pohkeee]

Why no mentions of the statues? A griffin above her hand? A saint on top of the bed post?

[@bevconklin5172]

To make green, the ingredients were deadly!! Yep, good idea to add the dog👍

[@donitaforrest9064]

The highlighted carving on the sideboard, could be 'the good samaritan' or Saint Christopher. Some safeguard for travellers.

[@ladyjane9980]

Jan is pronounced, 'Yan'

[@christinerobinson9372]

There is no way that the squirrel perched on the wife's hand is not symbolic of something, so that blows the theory that there are no messages to be read in the painting. Who are the people reflected in the mirror, with their backs turned? And one looking back and obviously saying something. His expression is not celebratory. I that they are mourners who stopped to convey their condolences over the death of the wife, and are now leaving. The man facing into the room is giving a last condolence. Everything in the painting is a message. The husband holding his wife's hand is acknowledging the baby as his own, showing that he has lost both wife and child, if she was indeed pregnant. Can we say for sure that she was not pregnant? She did die in childbirth. I agree with eliazbethclaiborne6461 that the painting could have been begun before she died.

[@joh8491]

I found this very informative, but can we please dispense with music as a backdrop to absolutely everything ?

[@rightwingreactionary]

Great video! What's the name of the piece playing throughout the video?

[@AndrewVelonis]

You really need to sharpen up your editing. There are a lot of redundancies and you only seem to be rattling off facts and figures rather than telling a story.

[@Mar--Mar]

Plus throwing in lots of other paintings and pictures is distracting and creates a fragmented effect.

[@grandidea2085]

Those sure don’t look like oranges to me.

[@MsBizzyGurl]

The portrait is of a man missing the life he missed due to his wife's death. Candle lit above him, out over her.

[@stella1160]

The 'oranges' by the window are peaches.

[@craigathonian]

An enjoyable presentation. The only big stumble was your pronouncification of "X" @ 0:57. It should be read and pronounced, 82 by 60 centimeters.

In fact, many people make the mistake of thinking that the woman is pregnant, because they don't know that at the time, the ideal posture for a woman was an S shape (head bent forward, chest pushed back & belly also forward)

[@Mindsi]

Still prefer the ‘ ambassadors’ I mean where did that skull idea come from?

[@laurareutter6928]

I suggest you slow down the narration. It sounds like you are trying to rush through a script, rather than explaining something to viewers.

[@djcoffman6505]

I concur, she is obviously pregnant and appears to be approximately 8 months along. Could this be a portrait of his first wife who died in childbirth-a very common occurrence.

[@pandakicker1]

As a polytheist, I find it humorous that you displayed a painting of Greek polytheist philosophers at the mention of religious importance. xD My copy of The Republic by Plato has a print of that glorious painting inside the cover.

[@2adamast]

Polytheist christians considered Plato a saint

[@derricklester9210]

Jan Van Eyck was Here 1434 that is a classic

[@mylesjordan9970]

The finial on the chair back looks like others in the painting. Mystery solved! New mystery-is that Prokofiev playing in the background?

[@jennybertenshaw7694]

I have seen this painting ,and indeed it is intriguing Very stagey I love the author Deborah Moggach's fantasy interpretation woven into her book 'Tulip Fever' The idea that the artist fell in love with the wife whilst painting the portrait..I t does lend credence as to why ? Van Eyck signed the painting so elaborately, and in such a prominent place? Not only was he 'here' but he 'took' what was here..from the rather weak and pompous looking bridegroom. I love this idea At a time when women were bartered

[@FluffyTurtles]

The music is too loud, seems as if you are trying to talk over the music. The music is distracting and annoying. Would prefer your narration only.

[@Mercuriana79]

I will solve it for you .... It's a MASTER-PIECE, so for every masterpiece out ther the mistery is allways the same

[@bigjj1109]

Excellent review of the painting I have seen his Adoration of the Lamb he is a truly amazing artist of course this was robbed from Spain during the peninsular war hence it's in London!

[@2adamast]

Spain complaining about robbing?

[@toriblocker3238]

Robbed?

[@bigjj1109]

Looted by Britain's peninsular army don't get indignant about historical fact

[@marianmcclements2825]

The background music is so annoying and unnecessary. Had to turn off as it just took over the narrative which was interesting.

[@michaelrae9599]

First name is pronounced Yahn

[@annsidbrant7616]

What is the little wooden gnome or demon doing above the couple's hands? Its scowling expression seems like a foreboding, as if it is saying that this union will not last long. If the woman in the picture is Arnolfini's first wife, then she died a year after their wedding, most likely in the aftermath of childbirth. The dangers of childbirth killed so many women before the medical profession had understood how to deal with it. And if the woman in the painting died of childbirth, then perhaps she is indeed pregnant i Jan Van Eyck's portrait.

[@dlschgo]

His hand is raised because he is making a pact with God to spent a little more time with his recently deceased wife.

[@mademoiselledusfonctionell1609]

The oranges look like peaches.

[@marinemom2361]

Very informative and to the point. I enjoyed it very much. Thank you.

[@Mindsi]

Stange left hand little finger, on the female unsung - looks bent maybe a lute player?

[@spacey118]

She’s meant to symbolize Mother Earth and blessing travels. The orange is for scurvy

[@marjakeizer9580]

The husband on the portrait reminds me of Vladimir Putin.

[@elizabeth_777]

It was a welcome portrait that hung in the foyer to welcome guests at a manor. Was she a midwife? Possibly for aristocracy?

[@paulhayward4383]

It looks like a fur hat

[@timotheelegrincheux2204]

The man looks like a thinner Vladimir Putin.

[@yveeriksson7437]

Extremely annoying "background" music

[@lindac6919]

I had seen pictures of this painting - I had assumed they were an established married couple expecting their 2nd or 3rd or 4th child. I think it's really, really good odds to bet that ANY married woman in any painted portrait prior to 1600 was in SOME STAGE of pregnancy.

[@azabujuban-hito-dake]

Its interesting to see that the bride's already heavily pregnant. Must've been quite a scandal back then !

[@gloriamontgomery6900]

@@filmbuff000 Right. Apparently her luxurious gown would have been fur lined. She is holding her gown up, basically doubling the thickness and creating bulk around her midsection.

[@D4Disdain]

The portrait of Vladimir PUTIN with his pregnant lady in a previous life.