Van Eyck, The Arnolfini Portrait

Jan Van Eyck, The Arnolfini Portrait, tempera and oil on wood, 1434 (National Gallery, London). Speakers: Dr. Beth Harris, Dr. Steven Zucker. Created by Beth Harris and Steven Zucker.
Learn more about why the woman looks pregnant (spoiler: she isn't): smarthistory.o...

[@Guigley]

I think Van Eyck is one of the greatest painters who ever lived for the simple reason that his body of work demonstrates how far one can take their artistic medium. It's almost scary how realistic his work is, yet you are always aware you are looking at a painting and not a photograph.

[@Sasha0927]

One of my immediate impressions was how amazing it is he managed to do a detailed mirror of figures at a distance. How talented do you need to be to show objects remembered, reversed, and proportioned JUST to have a small, decorative mirror?! One-haired brush moves, for sure. 😎 Also, oranges are one of the most adorable humble-brags I've ever seen: "Sorry for flexing on y'all like this, but.. 🍊🍊🍊" lol

[@antigen4]

what i've always LOVED about this painting is that such painstaking effort has been made to capture detail, accuracy etc and yet there are seemingly gross distortions applied to the body's proportions ...

[@bev9708]

This video opened my eyes to Van Eyck and the Northern Renaissance and I have been making special trips to seek out all the works in Europe that you have highlighted in your videos, including this one, and it has been one of the greatest joys. I stood in tears in front of this one, I was so blown away!!! All thanks to you Beth and Steven 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@SOUNDsculptures]

Fantastic little video, thank you. I just cannot get over the light in this. The window - both the real window and the reflected one in the mirror - are so incredibly captivating, I cannot stop looking at it and the little glimpse of a fruitful season beyond. It's at once both alluring and playful. Simply stunning.

[@DipityS]

Thank you for pointing out the roundals size - I had no idea they were so tiny. That’s simply amazingly skilled painting.

[@MCM4PR3Z]

1434! Compare this to the other paintings of that period. Incredible! 200 years ahead of his time and even when it would be 200 years younger, he would still be the best painter. The big signature in the middle is there for a reason.

[@josefelipemartinezdomingue9488]

Que hermosa pintura, nunca me había dado cuenta de tantos detalles que tiene la pintura, gracias por ese video, esta muy bueno.

[@italmia]

mystic painting. I meditated 20 years on this piece of art. Fascinating. It's a tool, a way to find light. Guess how? (rosary and brush, in and out work, male and female) beauty, love and unity. find it?

[@ObjectiveZoomer]

What the fuck are you trying to say?

[@tigermoth61]

It is an amazing painting, the fact that their shoes are off, and there are people in the room with them is significant of some kind of serious ceremony, it could even be a bedding ceremony, where guests witnessed their marital union. I thought at first, she was pregnant, but no, it is the way she is holding her gown.

without being too categorical about this, I think the clothes are there for a good reason that may not be more than one thing : Weather. Bruges is cold, wet and windy the whole year except maybe plain summer. I know weather changed a lot but it is still very "northy" there. You need to protect yourself and of course any excuse is good to use very rich fur coat.

[@frankjamesbonarrigo7162]

underrated master. Up there with DaVinci

[@johntechwriter]

Analyses of this work always get hung up on the details and miss the main point: Despite the formality of composition and the seriousness of the subjects' faces required at the time of its creation, what strikes the viewer instantly is the understated yet intimate bond between the man and wife. The work may have been commissioned as a wedding portrait, or as a visual contract, but what the painter's genius could not help but communicate also was the deep love between the man and woman. That love has endured through the centuries and continues to cast a spell on all who view this great masterpiece.

[@duantorruellas716]

Well said .

[@caligulalonghbottom2629]

bollocks. they didnt stand there and pose for him, he likely took a sketch of their faces and used mannequins or other models for the posing...

[@goobi3780]

There’s something so eerie and unsettling about this oil painting to me. Especially when you look closer at the mirror behind them and notice the differences between what we see in the foreground and in the reflection. The possible memorial explanation makes this even more uncanny.

[@hsmd4533]

Can you elaborate? Mi don’t see a difference between the reflection and the foreground.

[@Adeliegentoo]

Citrus ripens in December, when fur-lined clothing would be very welcome in Northern Europe. So maybe the contrast between the fruit and the clothing isn't significant after all.

[@ΑθανάσιοςΚΥΡΙΑΚΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ-θ7γ]

I just love your channel!!! Keep up the good work 🤩❣️☺️💞

[@martinweiss3054]

Also just realized- I believe this painting inspired Velazquez’s Las Meninas! (mirror, dog)

[@vulgarpotato]

For the captions at 1:29 she says "always seems to me". Because right now it just says [unintelligible]

[@Michelle-nh2lj]

this is literally one of my favorite pieces and it's just because of the different theories

[@sawahtb]

Something I missed in trying to understand the painting is the mirror. We take mirrors for granted in the 20th Century, they're everywhere now. Back then a mirror was extremely rare and expensive, especially one of such quality that you could see reflections of people standing far away. It's magical, the "mirror mirror on the wall".

[@harveerbrar6298]

What a outstanding painter ..... wowwwwww

[@blancaalvarado2258]

excellent explanation on all the art work that i have seen so far thanks to clarified some of the points in hart history.

[@Nieosoba]

very interesting, all the symbols, the mirror... thank you.

[@danthiel8623]

Oil painting was started in the Netherlands if I recall correctly

[@fran6b]

I can't help myself but to see in that portrait a reinterpretation of an annunciation.

[@Tsumami__]

Also am I the only one who’s wondered if it’s two people or three in the mirror reflection ? It looks like there’s a third head lower than the one on the left.

[@wtfsherlock5447]

I that's van eyk himself. The painter himself? haha

[@lawsongray63]

One thing to consider, look at the guy's right hand. It is raised as if he is saying wedding vows. Also, there are 2 people in the mirror. Possibly a priest, and someone wearing a red turban/hat, possibly painting the scene in front of them

[@bnkundwa]

Lovely painting!

[@1_percent_upgrade]

The golden sunlight falling on each (small) circle surrounding the mirror in the middle of the room represents the weather outside.

[@koksalceylan9032]

The painting is more about,what Van Eyck's talent and Giniousity. Hé whanted to show what hé Able to creat. Hé was a Great painter.

[@ruairimasun1073]

it's been years since I first saw this painting and it still terrifies me

[@olgabai3111]

loved this analysis. thank you.

[@vgovger4373]

What's the deal with those shoes anyway, what happens to your toes, do they fall off the edge of those pointed parts?

[@caligulalonghbottom2629]

they were elongated...plus they were overshoes, you would put them on with your shoes on. its meant to protect the shoes, which were not hard soled and often made of expensive fabrics.

[@marcosanchez2261]

excellent video!

[@Tsumami__]

It’s not her dress that’s always made me believe she’s pregnant, it’s the way her hand rests on her belly. And could the fruit in a scene with winter clothing not also be symbolic of a tree bearing fruit, much like women bear children? I still think she’s pregnant. Lol

[@thedativecase9733]

Yes we studied this painting in detail when I did A level Art with Art History at secondary school. We went through all the details and theories about the possible meanings of the painting, and nearly the whole class agreed we thought she was pregnant.

[@ina268]

Fascinating mystery! The theory of a commemorative double portrait commissioned after the lady had gone sounds so poignant... Then he is like Orpheus bringing back and leading his Eurydice from the land of no return by the miracle of art (ars longa, vita brevis? but I guess for their highly religious time it was out of question). As far as I understand it would be offensive to portray such a modest dutiful lady from a family of good standing as being physically pregnant. Still cannot help but think what if she untimely died during childbirth? I don't get it because it was obviously the last thing on the painter's mind to depict her unfavourably and still I believe even 600 years ago a baby bump hint masked by her holding her long wealthy dress wouldn't have been missed by onlookers. Unrelated, but my own simplistic theory is that the painter envisioned wax museums' sculptures back then.

[@smarthistory-art-history]

We have a terrific essay about this: smarthistory.org/arnolfini-pregnancy/

[@ina268]

@@smarthistory-art-history Thank you, a terrific read indeed! If this appearance of an expectant mother is a typical for its time symbolical depiction of prospective fertility as a virtue of a good wife of a wealthy citizen then it is somewhat questioning the theory that the lady had already passed away before the portrait was commissioned. (Unless they had a child/children which survived their poor mother. Then why these children aren't depicted? For a widower grieving for his wife their children should be dear, on the other hand if she died during childbirth he could probably perceive as if the children "killed" her and don't like them). If she had died childless then this prospective fertility symbolism, as per modern moral standards, would be like salt on his wounds.

[@smarthistory-art-history]

I think we are going to be asking these questions for a long time yet. If you like paintings with unresolved questions, have a look at our new essay and our not very new video on Giorgione's The Tempest, smarthistory.org/giorgione-the-tempest/

[@ina268]

@@smarthistory-art-history Thank you for the suggestion, art riddles are amazing!

[@michaelhealy1590]

Always tell it like it is.

[@MrsOliva]

Имеются ли в мире художественные школы/заведения, где учат именно в таком, строго старом стиле ?

[@selenamarino4194]

Are we certain she is not pregnant? Despite this being the style of the time, it appears she has a protective hand on her belly.

[@smarthistory-art-history]

We have an essay that focuses on this issue on smarthistory.org

[@lustbread3147]

Look at the metal plate thing at the center. It has a reflection!?

[@smarthistory-art-history]

Watch the video and find out.

[@ЛидияГромова-ч6ц]

It's a mirror

[@lamaza12]

Better Than a canon camera

[@dalumoon776]

I think she was pregnant.. Look at her hand on the bump! It's a typical sweet maternal touch!

[@smarthistory-art-history]

Actually, she isn't pregnant, read how we know this, in our short essay: smarthistory.org/arnolfini-pregnancy/

[@m-bronte]

wow!

[@deandrajohnathan3448]

Can we for a moment look at the mirror? The couple, while their hands are joined by the viewer's eyes, are not joined by hands in the image in the mirror. How interesting.

[@smarthistory-art-history]

It is an interesting possibility but I'm not sure this is entirely clear. The mirror is quite small and the scale of the reflected hands within the mirror would be vanishingly small. If you look in the mirror there is a painted diagonal blue projection that may the blue sleeve of the woman and a similar black projection that may be the man's sleeve. It may be that at their proper, nearly microscopic scale, the shadowed backs of the hands would be nearly impossible to either paint or to see. Have a look here: flic.kr/p/27UGqes

[@deandrajohnathan3448]

Oh! Thank you for that clearer image as upon further magnification I can actually see the sleeves extended outwards toward each other. What a fascinating painting! Honestly one of my personal favorites now as I am currently learning Renaissance Art. I was not expecting a response so thank you very much for the clarification.

[@smarthistory-art-history]

What a treat to be studying the Renaissance! Glad the photo was helpful.

[@WhoisWorthy]

My take and I know nothing, but like to speculate...he is introducing her to friends or family as his maybe wife to be. He holds his hand up to in a way silence or to stress his firm stand of what he is about to tell the people he is talking to because they are shocked or disapproving. Lol. Just my take. Thus the missing hand holding in the mirror symbolizing either their lack of knowledge of the relationship or disapproval.

[@Cds2488]

The dude looks creepy as hell

[@karllieck9064]

"It rubs the lotion on the skin or it gets the hose again"

[@johnlister463]

It seems to me that Mr Arnolfini is not looking at us the viewer but neither is he looking at his wife

[@rebeccagutierrez1960]

I doubt it was a wedding portrait.

[@sj4632]

That dog is cute

[@deemcg7860]

What also gives me the message that this couple were among the wealthy of their time, is what looks like 3 strands of pearls just casually hanging on a nail in the wall by that mirror. Even today rich folks don't just hang up their pearls on a wall LOL...

[@mckennagrace1754]

dee mcg those are rosary beads to represent religious commitment/ holy matrimony/

[@gabvsd5934]

I really thought she is pregnant!!

[@adamocali6097]

meraviglia

[@arelwenelf]

Wouldn't it make sense they're wearing winter clothes? Oranges ripen in the winter.

[@omegastar19]

Taylor Larkin-West Because fruit in renaissance and baroque painting was usually an artificial selection and representation that is not based on actual presence. Often, painters would paint fruit baskets that held lots of different types of fruit that in real life did not ripen in the same seasons.

[@fododude]

The trees outside the window have fruit. It's not winter out there.

[@caligulalonghbottom2629]

@@fododude Also the oranges could be from Persia imported couldnt they...regardless of the time of year I'd imagine.

[@vgovger4373]

Looks like a Vermeer.

[@smarthistory-art-history]

It was painted more than 200 years before Vermeer became an artist..

[@vgovger4373]

@@smarthistory-art-history ....interesting that Pen and Teller are not trying to figure out how this was done to?

[@Juliana-Bub]

It doesn't look anything like a Vermeer...

[@vgovger4373]

@@Juliana-Bub yes it does. This is even the same angular view of the room with a window on the left side. Also has the impossible subtleties in the back wall of shade and value which cannot be perceived by the naked eye.

[@Juliana-Bub]

@@vgovger4373 I can tell that you know nothing about art.

[@duantorruellas716]

She looks pregnant to me , in fact she looks like mary and he looks like Joseph , represented here in a modern setting. Thus the modern style of the dress that reinforces it. This is my take on this masterpiece.

[@smarthistory-art-history]

To learn why she looks pregnant but isn't, see Smarthistory's short essay on the issue: smarthistory.org/arnolfini-pregnancy/

[@caligulalonghbottom2629]

she isnt pregnant, shes holding up the voluminous folds of her gown...it was way longer than she was tall...its to represent her wealth, the fact she wouldnt have to move around because with that gown...she really couldnt and also the overuse of expensive fabric...probably a very expensive wool.

[@armansanti9168]

✌✌✌👍👍👍

[@Lilstinker63]

The woman looks pregnant

[@smarthistory-art-history]

Learn more about that here: smarthistory.org/arnolfini-pregnancy/

[@c_turtle]

Just because the National Gallery says it is not so does not make it true.

[@donvuelta-morales3571]

I learned this as "Portrait of the Vladimir Putin and Alina Kabaeva."

[@dayanmarquina6257]

the dog

[@lindacozad8826]

"The woman on the right"? Are you kidding?

[@jdasign]

what's wrong with specificity?

[@marian.g.6754]

¡MARAVILLOSO!