There are many things about Van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait which are uncertain. Often referred to as the Arnolfini Marriage Portrait, it probably isn’t of a marriage, the woman is not pregnant, that isn’t their bedroom (despite the presence of a bed) and that probably isn’t even Giovanni Arnolfini either.
Although there as almost as many theories about the picture as there are art historians to study it, the Arnolfini Portrait remains – even in its mystery – a wonderful example of Northern Renaissance painting, painted in oils on panel in 1434. It is surprisingly small, as anyone will testify who has tried to view it in London’s National Gallery from behind a group of Italian students committing its image to their iPhones .
A comment that the picture might represent a ‘left-handed marriage’, one where the wife is of a lower social or financial class to the husband, led me to produce this deconstruction some years ago. My partner, Sarah, asked me to post it as it is one of her favourites, and she felt my blog would be lacking a certain art historical gravitas without it.
I was drawn to Arno’s big hat, the weird little dog and those wonderful (and expensive, in their day, like Birkenstocks now) house shoes. Mrs A seemed more like an innocent bystander or a commodity than an equal partner in the proceedings, the ‘little woman’ if you like. It seems somehow fitting for International Women’s Day to highlight this six hundred year old inequality. Just as in the original there are enigmas a-plenty, so too in my deconstruction: apples. There are no apples in the original, only oranges.
This one’s for you, Sarah.
Nice drawing, nice explanation!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much appreciated, Kate.
LikeLike
That’s both mysterious and magical: has quite altered the course of my previously dull afternoon! Ian x
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks, Ian!
LikeLike
Let’s see–a funny hat, a little dog, shoes, and yes gravitas-okay, I’m good! Jack Henry says: apples! I’m good! and on behalf of little dogs, Hubble says Grrarrific! I’m good!-
This is delightful Michael-Thank you for sharing it with us-
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks, and my best wishes to Hubble and Jack Henry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I never knew that interpretation about the painting was contested! Thanks for the lesson. Cool interpretation of the piece! Gravitas is highly overrated, by the way. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Teresa!
LikeLiked by 1 person
…nor are there quinces or most importantly figs. There are no figs.
Need I say more…..?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pretty miserable on thr fruit front in the Middle Ages, eh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marvellous. Yours and Van Eyck’s both…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks, Cid. Jan and I appreciate it!
LikeLike
This is cool… what an interesting take on this painting. Great sketch! And I agree… definitely a lot inequality in this scene. I did see it in London and was struck by how small it was. It’s such a famous piece I guess I expected it to be grand!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I always thought it would be near life-sized like Holbein’s Ambassadors a few rooms along. Glad you like it – many thanks, Charlie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So much fun! I’m especially drawn to the shoes, and also the way you’ve inserted a little piece of fancy paper into the clothing… it’s all wonderful! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks ever so much, Rebecca.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for this – it’s lovely. I’d forgotten how endearing those shes are. The thing everyone always talks about is the mirror and I think they miss so many other interesting details. It’s so nice to see some of them here through your eyes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks very much for your kind comment. You’re right about the mirror: it gets all the attention when there’s that brush too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whoops! Endearing shoes, not shes. An international day’s slip of the finger perhaps…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice details Michael, I love your written anaylsis. Is forgotten about this painting, it’s so good to revisit it again. And, those shoes!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Sharon. Those are great shoes, aren’t they?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your homage to the painting is fabulous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much appreciated, Laura, many thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love this 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brilliant, many thanks, Rosie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The hat is perfect…and “the little woman”…also just right! (K)
LikeLike
Thanks very much, Kerfe!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is so fun and weird in such a good way! Made my day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks,Cathe! I always aspire to weird in a good way!
LikeLike
I love the idea of a painting that is all about what isn’t. And Mr. A could be seen on the streets in my city today, I think, even with that hat. Love it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks, Claudia. By their nonsensical hats shall thee know them…
LikeLike
Yes. And if only by that…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m so glad you posted this Michael, it’s absolutely bloody brilliant , it’s made me smile and it will enhance my appreciation of the original!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha ha, many thanks Phil! Much appreciated.
LikeLike