arnolfini
An essay written by a renowned art historian, Erwin Panofsky, discusses the controversyover a famous painting. The disputation was over the identification of the two people portrayedin the painting. The painting was a portrait thought to be Giovanni Arnofili and his wife, and theartist was Jan van Eyck. Panofsky wrote this essay to prove that this painting found in 1815,which he refers to as the "London portrait", is identical to a picture which was once acquired byQueen Mary of Hungary, among others. The "Hapsburg painting", referring to the one owned bythe Queen, was lost in 1789. In my essay, I will show the proof given by Panofsky that the two By tracing the provenance of the paintings, Panofsky validates his theory that the two mayvery well be just one. The theory that the two paintings are but one has been named the"Orthodox Theory". Since the Hapsburg painting was lost in 1789 and the London portraitwasn't discovered until 1815, it is more than possible that the two paintings are the same. Thegap in time between the loss of one and discovery of the other painting is thought by Panofsky
Van Eyck's use of symbols, not only in Arnolfini but in all his religious works, is importantby showing iconography, or reading of symbols in a painting. Panofsky, being a commendable art historian, questionedVermander's reliability. Also, by researchingVermander's information, he found that his source was Marcus van Vaernewyck, a man whohimself had never even seen the painting, nor ever spoke of it before in any of his other writings. The description of the Hapsburg painting given by Vermander was almost exact to that ofVaernewyck's except for a slight change which made it obvious that Vermander had altered itadding his own words of a painting he'd never seen. One of which is Cesare Ripa, whose namewas a pseudonym for Giovanni Campani. All that was needed was the mutual consent by words and actions. I believe he used a lot of quotes in otherlanguages to make sure he made no mistake in translating them. Panofsky compared these paintings to show that thiscomposition is not uncommon in the iconography in pictures of marriage. The story showed that without witnesses, marriages oftentended to end in tragedy due to lack of proof. Thisinterpretation made the people in the London painting Johannes and his wife, not Arnolfini. This goes to show that for an arthistorian to be as renowned as Panofsky, you must learn many languages and be able to doubtinformation that seems to be true until you personally have proven through multiple sources that itis in fact true. These symbols are so subtle that the common personmay not realize they stand for something far beyond what they are. It was known that vanEyck's first born was baptized before the creation of the painting, so it could not be him gettingmarried. Bydoing so, van Eyck was not only an artist, but he also acted as a witness of the marriage. This could openup entire new meanings for paintings that use iconography.
Common topics in this essay:
Italy Panofsky,
Orthodox Theory,
Queen Mary's,
Van Eyck's,
Eyck Johannes,
Council Trent,
Vermander Vermander,
Willibald Pirckheimer,
Theory Hapsburg,
David Michal,
van eyck,
johannes van,
johannes van eyck,
hapsburg painting,
orthodox theory,
van eyck's,
london painting,
art historian,
read johannes,
marriage van eyck's,
third person,
painting painting,
inscription read johannes,
read johannes van,
|
Acceptance Essays
