Van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait | National Gallery

This close look at van Eyck’s jewel-like masterpiece of 1434 considers the intrigue and wonder it sparked when it first went on show at the National Gallery in 1843.
Subscribe to be the first to know about all our new videos: bit.ly/1HrNTFd
Like the National Gallery on Facebook: / thenationalgallery
Follow the National Gallery on Twitter: / nationalgallery
Follow the National Gallery on Instagram: / national_gallery
Help keep the museum accessible for everyone by supporting us here:
www.nationalga...
The National Gallery houses the national collection of paintings in the Western European tradition from the 13th to the 19th centuries. The museum is free of charge and open 361 days per year, daily between 10.00 am - 6.00 pm and on Fridays between 10.00 am - 9.00 pm.
Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DN
www.nationalga...

[@gunnarthorsen]

Records show that Mrs. Arnolfini died the year BEFORE van Eyck created this painting. It's a MEMORIAL commissioned by Mr. Arnolfini to the memory of his deceased wife. These kinds of pantings were common. A 16th century portrait of the family of Sir Thomas More, for example, depicts his then wife, Alice, and his deceased, former wife too. In the above painting, Mr. Arnolfini stands by an open window looking out onto the world of the living. She stands before a bed, a symbol of sleep and repose. He almost stands underneath a lit candle, a symbol of the living. She almost stands under a candle stub that has gone out, a symbol of death. The mirror in the background is surrounded by scenes of the life of Christ. Those on the left side, where Mr. Arnolfini stands, depict His life and miracles. Those on the right side, behind Mrs., Arnolfini depict His passion and death. It took the National Gallery a long time to disagree with the long held belief that Mrs. Arnolfini isn't pregnant in this painting. Maybe in another 100 years it will agree that the painting commemorates her death.

[@diletant9232]

This is very informative. Thank you for sharing. This also explains why they both look so sad.

[@LaLaurinda]

This is my FAVORITE painting

[@1234serenna]

I have an assignment due for this painting, would you like to share any ideas on this painting I can use? Like detail, what could these mean in symbolism, or just any thoughts in general! I’ll be checking back to this comment in a couple hrs or days!

[@flonomcflooneyloo7573]

A few things left out of the analysis. Symbolism of the dog (faithfulness in marriage), the shoes being removed by both, the single lit candle (representing the Deity). The Latin inscription was thought to have been added later. Good video; thanks.

[@johntechwriter]

I believe the subject loved his little Belgian stable dog - a smousje, ancestor to today's Brussels Griffon - enough to immortalize it in his marriage portrait.

[@rockygrispen7134]

Nice to see the painting in real life a few years ago. I come from the birth place of Van Eyck: Maaseik (Belgium)

[@mindreader]

A compelling and moving description of this painting. Thank you.

[@luaevablue]

Beautifully narrated!

[@abelisraelcruzayuso4682]

Couldn’t say it better!

[@Rubicon1954]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the couple are not holding hands in the mirror reflection? The mirror portion is small and a little bit blurred on the computer screen, so I am not sure if I'm seeing it correctly. However if they are not holding hands in the reflection, that would be significant because in a painting this detailed and full of symbolism, it is unlikely that the painter would have "forgotten" this small detail.

[@richardcardoza1895]

A truly beautiful piece

[@rogersaxon7671]

... wonderful journey of colour, light, and texture from a canvas. Thank you!

[@heydecember2875]

What's super cool is that it is actually painted on pine.

[@tamerebel]

This was a great summary, I read a whole book about this painting and you still managed to mention things that were unknown to me.

[@life_lab_chronicles]

weirdforces the name of the book?

[@LeeHill66]

Incredible detail!

[@BjornarFrantzen]

Absolutely brilliant

[@Emilia-os2vw]

I'm always intrigued how painters from this period were geniuses in depicting details and textures yet the humans in those paintings always look wonky. How does this happen?

[@tedkoppel13]

Six months late, but a few things here (I'm not an expert, but I did a module of Northern Renaissance art and have a few books on the subject, so I can at least take a stab, but obviously a pinch of salt is needed): 1. Probably first and foremost, this sort of realistic-looking painting was still relatively new and in its infancy. Jan van Eyck is coming out of a period where people were painted more as representations of humans and not literal depictions, if that makes sense. You can see the vestiges of that here. The people almost look real but a lot is wrong. The woman's hand clutching the dress should have her elbow sticking out from the fabric, but it doesn't, and her right is much too short (they both are, but it's particularly noticeable when she's almost holding her arm almost straight out). The hands are strangely elongated. The bodies of both people, but her in particular, are indistinct under their clothes. Painting people in correct anatomical detail would come later and required more development of technique. 2. Regarding technique, they didn't mention it but the most famous thing about Jan van Eyck is his oil glazing. He painted the light parts of paintings first and then glazed over them and then repeated the process with new darker colours, glazing over those as needed repeatedly until the painting it finished. The light colours show through as a sort of glow, and things like fabric and glass get a very realistic, three dimensional quality because translucent objects can have layers of colour like we actually see them. The textures in the painting are exceptionally tactile and real, and that's the reason. The problem with this technique is once you've laid a foundation, you're stuck with what you did. You can't make changes because you'll get the glow where you don't want it. It results in a fairly stiff, formal composition because Jan can't really improvise organically. (Also, less relevant to your question, but it's incredibly painstaking.) 3. As mentioned above, it's fairly recently (2003) theorised that the woman in this painting had died in 1833, the year before this was painted and so he didn't have anyone to draw from. There are other KZbin videos on this theory, so I won't belabour the point, but her face in particular is pretty generic and if he didn't have anyone to draw from, that would explain it.

[@rossto862]

@@tedkoppel13 It was painted in 1434. Very informative though.

[@tedkoppel13]

@@rossto862 lol, what a typo. Yeah, she died in 1433. No idea why i wrote that. I’ll leave it so your comment makes sense.

[@Emilia-os2vw]

@@tedkoppel13 thank you for the fascinating reply. You gave me so many ideas for further research. And yes, everything makes perfect sense. An impressive commentary, thanks!!

[@VelvetMetrolink]

"Shamrock Tea" by Ciaran Carson has a plot which revolves gorgeously around this painting. Highly recommended.

[@Thornhillnana]

Wonderful. Concise share.

[@MalakaPetros]

Beautiful and informative, thanks!!

[@iniohos2]

It's a very nice painting, indeed. I think it would fit nicely in my living room. I wonder, National Gallery, what is your asking price? I would be very much interested in buying it.

[@justinthyme3396]

The Dog is NOT refleted in the mirror,

[@heydecember2875]

an "x-ray" of the painting was taken and it showed that Van Eyck barely even sketched the dog out, and you can see the paneling going through the head of the dog. Perhaps it was a rushed addition and he simply forgot it in the mirror?

[@Jab195815]

I wanted to know more about the mirror.

[@njgrandma3519]

I love the little dog! Is Mr. Arnolfini's hand raised in blessing?

[@Shahrzaaad]

❤❤❤

[@RocLobo358]

I love the quintessential early mid 15th c. French style Chandelier. It would have been seen as very contemporary. You can almost always date the things by the sharp holly leaf pattern. I wish I could get one. as for mr. Arnolfini, I always wondered why he had no muscle tone.

[@martavdz4972]

The skill of painting people exactly what they looked like still wasn't fully developed. So it might be lack of realism on the artist's part. Or, it might simply mean that he, as a merchant, wasn't doing anything physical. Or, he might be ill.

[@romulusbuta9318]

It seems like , becouse the scens with Christ from woman's side reprezents Christ dead, it seems that she was allready death at the time van Eyck painted this . Also, the candle up in the chandelliere , place on her side is not lightening ! So, this it seems like a comemorative portrait of her , ordered by her's still liveing husband !

[@diletant9232]

Please take away this absolutely unnecessary music. It obscures the explanation and does not add anything. It would be also logical to show the painting in its entity BEFORE or at the very FIRST minutes of the talk and not briefly at the LAST seconds of it. It feels very strange when the painting is presented in fragments while the whole painting is shown only at the end of the video.

[@Aramanth]

The open window should be reflected on the opposite side of the mirror. Not the same side. Other than this little trivial minutia, the painting still is *very beautifully and technically crafted.* A balancing act of people & objects flanking the mirror which like an cculus ⚪ reflects not only the figures but also the natural light coming through that window. Mesmeric.

[@Jay-tm9kj]

Mirrors don't reverse left to right, they reverse front to back.

[@alxthatonedude]

but how much is it worth?

[@MrMsSihrus]

this is one of the paintings hanging on the walls in Resident Evil remastered

[@whatamesscollectivearchive6339]

interesting

[@tanya_happyrich]

what are the dimensions of the original painting?

[@beatotheelder6170]

A year later, here’s your answer: 33” x 22.5” or 83.8 x 57.2 cm!

[@tanya_happyrich]

@@beatotheelder6170 better later than never 😁

[@priestleyharker4046]

Why does everyone this guy paint look like Putin?

[@tintinismybelgian]

Because Putin is a Time-Traveller.

[@diletant9232]

Do you speak English at all? It is hard to decipher your gibberish.

[@pavelborisov515]

Mr Putin looks weird in this picture

[@soccergamer4555]

Hectic

[@lagoulou]

I still think she looks pregnant...that is a lot of cloth she’s holding...but it still bulges out too much. Perhaps she died in child birth?

[@martavdz4972]

Actually, it was the 15th century fashion to look pregnant all the time, as weird as it sounds today. The fashionable look was fragile, feminine, sort of elongated (hence the tall medieval hats), with flowing garments, but with a bulky torso. Women puffed out their bellies. The fashionable silhouette looked like an archery bow or the letter C - head, shoulders and feet to the back, torso to the front.

[@trillianmcmillian2660]

i still dont know anything about the painting. except she isn’t pregnant

[@Artflix]

I put a few days ago a quiz about this work, which, in addition to testing the knowledge, also presents some curiosities. ;) See when you can: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2O9aXmhj8aHepo

[@gauriblomeyer1835]

I have a completely different opinion, not held by our western society. The man symbolizes death. Death is according to Indian Spirituality a being, one of the first four beings created by our Mahashakti or Mother of God. It’s a being which will on the picture lead the woman to her determined destination. She will only loose her body where as her eternal soul will enjoy heavenly peace until the time comes to be reborn again. Death is a being, once created and performing his work so long until the time comes when we all transform to an eternal physical body. Study the works Sri Aurobindo and the Mother and you will agree. In this picture the man keeps in his face a hidden purpose which he does not reveal, the purpose to lead the woman to her final moment on earth.

[@martavdz4972]

It's perfectly possible to interpret it like this - what's great about art is that it makes you think. But since this was Middle Ages and there was very little cultural exchange between Belgium and India in those days, it can't have been the artist's intention. He probably had no idea that such beings even existed.

[@unrealnews]

Hear me out: This painting is about a meeting with the devil. Jan has been to the place where the merchant has been because he has been at that meeting place where the refusal of what is earthly and domestic brings the kind of cultivation of skill and ability that brings power, wealth, or ability. There is an inherent regret involved with this trade, but on the other side of the trade the soul necessary to mourn the loss properly has been twisted. What would be expressed through words or deeds is instead expressed through purchases. And yes, there are two people in the mirror. When the devil comes to you, he comes in disguise. It’s only through this eye of God (effectively hindsight) that the careful viewer gains access.