The Long Disputed Meaning Of Van Eyck's Painting (Waldemar Januszczak Documentary)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ธ.ค. 2020
- Subscribe and click the bell icon to get more arts content every week:
/ perspectivearts
New interpretations help answer the possible meanings and mysteries behind this painting. Experts explore whether van Eyck's painting symbolized a religious allegory, a disputed marriage or a simple wedding portrait.
Perspective is TH-cam's home for the arts. Come here to get your fill of great music, theatre, art and much, much more!
From Every Picture Tells A Story
Content licensed from DRG to Little Dot Studios.
Any queries, please contact us at:
perspective@littledotstudios.com
![[#SHORTS CLIP] ครูอึ้ง กรรมการอึ้ง ฮ่าๆ l ซานิเบาได้เบา l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qeBTuMJs4t0/mqdefault.jpg)
The memorial painting theory makes much sense. The picture always seemed dark, sad, cramped and unhappy to me. Now it makes sense why this never seemed like the depiction of a joyous event. Well done, well done.
I always thought Arnolfini himself looked ill and unhappy. If she and their child had died it makes more sense. The fidelity of the dog at their feet makes more sense as well.
@@constancemiller3753 Exactly. I had always considered his apparent unhappiness to be more so than was simply necessary for a rigid, unmoving face to make it easier for the painter to paint ... especially at a wedding (unless it was a forced one) ... had never thought much of illness, though, but that's there too ... had always been confused why the pregnancy was so featured if sex wasn't supposed to happen until _after_ the wedding ... but the death of his wife and child seems to be the clue that brings much of the painting together.
@@constancemiller3753 He looks ill and unhappy to me, also. He’s also not gazing at his wife, possibly because she really isn’t there-he seems lost in a sad reverie.
Yeah he looks unhappy, but....... I wouldn't want to have lived in 1400s
@@constancemiller3753 the dog is supposed to mean loyalty within renaissance paintings.
Arnolfini's shoes being off illustrating his commitment, also parallels the symbolism of the dog.
I can't find words to praise this brief but amazing documentary about such a famous masterpiece. I thought I knew everything about Arnolfini Marriage but I only skimmed over its profound symbolism. I'd have never imagined that Mrs Arnolfini died giving birth and this painting actually is a posthumous tribute of a husband to his late wife. Very poignant and Waldemar so brilliant as always.
The puppy at her feet is Loyal Even In Death.
Joseph, yes, he IS brilliant, I agree. Such a wonderful way of telling!
That's the first explanation of this painting that actually makes sense of the emotional context. I couldn't figure out why other explanations struck me as off, but at the end of the episode it finally clicked that the expression on Arnoldfini's face was grief and pain. Even the religious conviction that is holding him together cannot hide his sadness. His wife always seemed to somehow be portrayed in a stereotypical renaissance pose for women, but now that makes sense too: she looks like a holy Madonna, caring for her unborn child with divine grace.
Considering this interpretation, I don't think the title is wrong, though. "The Arnoldfini's marriage" seems perfect. He's pledging his eternal devotion to her, to remain married to her past her death. This is an intensely personal painting intended for one person.
Van Eyck was incredibly talented.
‘Arnoldfini’ 🤣😂😆
👏 yes👏
@@themarquis336 I'll be back, hopefully.
It was that religious conviction that probably stopped people from asking in public questions like "Why does God allow things like this (death in childbirth) to happen?" or "Why would a God that loves us bestow such misery and suffering upon us?"
Advancements in medicine and living standards in general mean that those questions are not asked as often these days and as people realise that God did not bring about those advancements then religion has become less relevant to people.
Vraag mij af of het om haar eerste man gaat ,zij houd hem een beker voor ,een MAAT BEKER ? Als men hoofdstuk Amos erbij haalt kan men het ene met een ander verbinden 🤔
Arnolfini’s raised right hand reminds me of the gesture of a priest making the sign of the cross as a blessing. ‘Go in peace’.
And to me, it looks like the palm is facing his wife's belly - that he is blessing the child she's carrying.
He looks like Reverend Runt from Barry Lyndon.
@@denisehill7769 but she isnt pregnant
@@luciadilazzaro2285 Maybe not, but the expectation (no pun intended!) was that this would be the normal course of events, alluded to in the statuette of St Margaret on the bedpost.
Waldemar becomes the Agatha Christie of art History, as he unravels the mystery behind this postmortem of a portrait. Personally, I'd always wondered at its joylessness as a painting and its somber tone. Brilliant Waldemar! You've proven once more, we shouldn't believe everything we read in Museum catalogues. Bravo!
Every video with Waldemar Januszczak is brilliant. The passion this guy has for art is so intoxicating!
I am brought to tears and I do not apologize for the emotion it produces.
This has to be among the best art channels on TH-cam. I find all your programmes very interesting, educational and entertaining to watch.
So true. I love this so much too!
Right!!!
Absolutely brilliant channel.
Among the best ?????
@@simonevans343 waarom dan 5 vraagtekens
It's also worth noting that the color used for the wife's dress is verdigris. This particular color was often used at the time but it was infamous for how it would end up fading with time. More than a couple of paintings from the time that used this color, unfortunately, show this faded shade instead of the one intended by the artist. Van Eyck actually had to sandwich the layers of this color with varnish in hopes that the color would stand the test of time (so far, it has!). Though, it could be argued, that knowing the risk of using this color, Van Eyck still decided to use it as a message that this image of life, of fecundity was bound to fade away eventually.
Agreed. The painting never looked like a "marriage" portrait. It's far too sombre. I also don't think they would've chosen to commemorate their marriage with her being so fully pregnant -- it would've been so scandalous. As a portrait of mourning, it makes much more sense. This new interpretation definitely answers many questions why the painting is so hauntingly moving.
@lambent "[C]ommemorate their marriage with her being so fully pregnant -- it would've been so scandalous."
Yes, the pregnancy at the wedding had always baffled me.
@@miyojewoltsnasonth2159 --A Commenter has posted that She was NOT "Pregnant" but rather, She was indeed holding up the very heavy cumbersome material of the long Gown Robes.✌
Op die ene schilderij heeft hij Roodhaar en een baard dus en bij deze heeft hij een hoed op zonder baard ,dus gelijk geschoren en geknipt bij die ene heeft hij geen hoed op maar wel rode baard 😂😂😂😂
Excellent point!
Interestingly his colors are kind of taken away, dark, giving him a strong contrast, while the wife is full of life in white, green warm colours and being pregnant. The new theory makes a lot more sense than a wedding.
He is in mourning.
She isn't pregnant.
@@louisacapell die is zelfs hoogzwanger want het kind zo te zien is al behoorlijk gedaald, volgens mij zegt hij ga maar liggen en wijst met zijn vingertje blijkbaar is zij de hele tijd ook misselijk geweest aangezien die beker ( voor overgeven 🤢🤮) 👈😅 en het werd een jongetje want dat weet ik weer wat het uiteindelijk is geworden 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I never noticed the burnt out candles. Genius.
@Kevin I had always noticed that the candles existed in the painting, but had never considered burning vs. burnt out.
I agree, genius.
I found a terrible problem in this episode: it is too short.
Episode;* it is too short
@@modofatakI found a terrible problem in this episode:
IT IS TOO SHORT
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
@@modofatakI found a very nice thing in this episode:
It is too short
@@modofataktoo bad its a great episode but:
It is too short
@@modofatak This is a really nice episode although:
It is too short
Thank you for addressing stolen pieces in museums. I remember seeing this double portrait as a child and thinking it looked so weird but I couldn't stop trying to figure it out. I agree with the school of thought that it's a portrait in memorandum of Mrs. Arnolfini and that's it. What looked strange to me then about her I know now was her being idealized as an angelic figure after her death.
He addresses it VERY badly as the painting was probably taken from French hands and NOT from the Spanish royal family (during the time of the British involvement in the peninsula war Spain had been conquered by France), because of the whole France forces the king of Spain and his son to abdicate and then Napoleon has himself and then his brother declared King of Spain. After the war was over, the Spanish Royal family got its throne back and had other things to worry about then missing paintings, the was had done a lot of damage.
This makes total sense. To me, this answers why he looks so sad. You can see pain in his eyes, but what does his raised hand mean? It reminds me of the hand gesture of a priest making the sign of the cross and saying "Go in peace". Is that true?
Yes, i think like you. I think this "gesta" is an hieratic one as the posture of both figures in the painting. Christ makes this gesture many times...go in peace. The priest in church makes this gesture "go in peace"...it's sad and at same time not - if you believe in life after death.
@@user-xn8zq1ro9z It is him blessing her.
Brilliant. From the beginning, I could see the sadness in the man's face. This is no wedding, and yeah, it's obvious that she's pregnant. Another thing that might have been pointed out: While the man is quite realistic-looking, the woman is more stylized. Her features resemble that of a generic character in so much Christian art of that era. The implication? That the painting of her was not done from a living model.
She most assuredly is not pregnant. She's holding up skirts made of yards and yards of fabric to show off wealth.
I suspected the same! Looking at other paintings this artist has done of the virgin Mary, I was like, "is that the Arnolfini wife?"
Yes! I have to reply to this year old comment just because that's exactly what I always thought! The man's face is such a skillful portrait that I could swear I've met that man. The woman always just looked to me like a generic representation of "female person"
@@Budrica I'm glad you agree.
It looks obvious but when you look more closely, you can see the folds below her belt go straight down, showing that her belly is flat. If she were pregnant, those folds would be forward.
He is still in his Mourning clothing. Very sad, but you see the love he had to make sure the painting was done by the best artist of his time. Excellent clip.
That was a Wow. The marriage vow I had heard. but what a revalation. The dog would symbolize faithfulness, but it could also represent a short life.. Well done.
This theory makes a lot of sense. I always found Mr. Arnolfini's features and stance to have been captured very realistically, whilst Mrs. Arnolfini looked comparatively rigid and static, her features very schematic and idealised. Now it makes sense. Mr Arnolfini was painted from life; his wife was not.
Yeah I think you’re right! I couldn’t put into words the vibe I was getting from her face, that’s it.
Waldemar Januszcek, we are so grateful you have given us these wonderful stories. We have been strictly quarantined since March 3. You make life far more pleasant and interesting. Thank you.
Waldemar is one of the best curators = knowledgeble, funny, and most important = always understandable, not like those brits who afraid to open their mouths. Thanks a bunch!
yup! your arguments are more than convincing. the pregnant part i always assumed but to put it into the context of her death --- now it all comes together. i often wondered why she was looking at her husband instead of greeting the guests coming thru the door. now i know! excellent! thanks for posting this and Marcus Carvalho is right - it is much too short!
Waldemar Januszczak is great. As an artist myself, I generally hate art critics talking about an artist's work. They spew a lot of B.S. Januszczak makes solid cases for his reviews.
I find this theory convincing - it explains the melancholy tone of the painting and makes it much more poignant and meaningful. This is a bereaved husband re-committing his marriage to his much loved departed wife.
The practical point I want to make is that as someone who had done a fair bit of bodywork, the NG's theory that Mrs Arnolfini isn't pregnant is absurd. The sway of her spine and her whole carriage make it clear that she is counterbalancing the weight of her protruding "bump". This reinforces Januszczak's point about the protective gesture of her left hand.
Sometimes academics get so caught up in their theories that they can't see what's right in front of their eyes...
What a gripping analysis. And in my view, quite possibly correct.
For me things just fell into place like a puzzle. I have a copy of this painting at home and never noticed that the chandelier behind Mrs Arnolfini did not have a candle burning but I alway noticed his sad and thoughtful face. It always seemed to me that he looked as though only his body was worldly but his spirit had long gone. Now I can relate to this painting in a different way, it has even more depth to me than before.
This is a brilliant bit of sleuthing, and I think you guys have hit the nail on the head.
I'll buy into that explanation.
Whoa! This was a marvelous explanation. I even got a little teary-eyed at the end. Now that I get this background info, the tinge of sadness that always hung over this painting has been cleverly contextualized. It also explains why Mr. Arnolfini is clad in all black, and why his face is so weird and impassive, like he's just finished crying and is trying to repress his anguish. He's in mourning. Incredible. I'll never see this painting the same way again. It's like the "Chaconne" of painting now.
Except he's not in black. That gown is a brownish plum velvet, lined in brown fur. His hat is black though.
That's as precise as history of art can get!
This marvellous interpretation gives the painting the spiritual and intellectual depth it radiates as the ominious mood that has something surreal about it for many viewers.
Colorwise the woman and the bed are the most lively elements and shapes of the painting. In comparison the man and his surroundings sink into shadowy half-life...or oblivion. So what is real on the level of meaning is his longing, grief and devotion to his deceased wife.
Ja sorry is mij even ontschoten ( zeker als men iemand zo lief hebt gehad en zij is er niet meer dan is het gemis heel groot maar zeker niet goed om dan een relatie aan te gaan als jouw vrouw te veel verdrietige herinnering oproept van gemis ,ja W dat zou ik moeten accepteren ook al doet het pijn want de eerste kan niet vervangen worden door de tweede als de eerste in gedachten nog leeft 😕
It was not a perception, it was a fact: until well in to the 20th century pregnancyand giving birth was fatal for loads of women.
@Valerie Mac Fair @Noeraldin Kabam I'm chuckling because I kind of agree with both of you.
Well done, Waldy-another intiguing episode. My “fave” so far!🌹
Imagine my delight when I found this video was only posted last week! What a thrilling revisit to this amazing portrait and its true, heartbreaking story. After musing last night and this morning I think I see further clues to support the theory put forth... Many thanks to Mr. J for his narration and collaboration with the other critics and historians featured here, and to the Perspective team for producing this excellent video.
First of all, it is preposterous that scholarship would take the position that Mrs. Arolfini is NOT pregnant. The hand on the belly with the palm down is enough for me to go on. Add the astute observation of the similitudes to scenes of The Annunciation, and I think the body of scholarship has terribly missed the mark by calling this a "wedding..." Read on.
Further clues, of which there are too many to see and/or number, and in no type of sequence, that the posthumous theory is right... That Lady Arolfini is dead, and I would add that she lost twins.
(1) mud on Mr. Arolfini's shoes, from a recent visit to a site with fresh dug dirt.
(2) *** Lady Arolfini's shoes. This is the smoking gun that I think the video missed. The shoes, having been removed for prayer, point away from life, toward God, and are red in color. Red shoes symbolize human sacrifice. The Arolfinis might have known they were having twins, which would have increased the risk of the pregnancy and commanded prayer for the health, or salvation, of mother and children.
(3) the Oranges. One remains on the windowsill, "in the light," yet it is moldering. The three ripe oranges have fallen, representing the mother and twins.
(4) Mrs. Arolfini wears 2 gold rings
(5) Mr. Arolfini is dressed in funeral garb whereas Mrs. Arolfini wears bright green clothing indicating new life.
(6) the dog is the only one looking at whoever is in the mirror; to me this is showing animals' natural awareness and no fear of God. The dog also symbolizes loyalty, Mr. Arolfini's betrothal to his wife.
Now, my speculations about the mirror and the expressions and postures of the subjects.
(A) it is not the artist in the mirror. It would have been duplicitous for him to paint himself in and also sign the painting so ostentatiously. I believe it is God and the Devil reckoning the fate of the subjects, the Arolfinis. God stands forward, wearing cerulean blue, symbolizing heaven. He has come now to take Mrs. Arolfini. The devil stands behind, waiting to take Mr. Arolfini to hell, later.
(B) Mrs. Arolfini gazes at her "husband" with a look of judgment. He is responsible for this. Her face is pure white and fully lit, marble like, indicating a clear conscious but also death.
(C) Mr. Arolfini wears a look of doom. He cannot bear to look at whoever is standing in the door, nor at his "wife." His face is half cast in shadow, showing that he is half living in darkness. He is making the sign of the cross at his "wife," while also bearing her away with his left hand to whomever has come (and is shown in the mirror).
The story depicted in this painting is a pregnancy out of wedlock, and Mr. Arolfini's grief at having to bear the consequences of his actions for the rest of life, until he is taken to hell. A true masterpiece by Van Eyck with untold symbols. I only hope that the painting (and humanity) survives another 500 years to continue to ponder it. Thank you for reading.
I thought the same about the two figures in the mirror.
I have just done some reading and in renaissance symbolism God wears blue and Jesus wears red. So it's more positive than you were thinking. :)
@@nineteenfortyeight6762 Twitter emoi zijn twee stukjes draad een rood en een blauw die met elkaar verknoopt zijn 🪢🪢🪢🪢🪢🪢🪢 🪢
This particular video blew my mind, because I had an art history teacher determined to only believe that this was a marriage contract. Very good!
The perspectives you have brought to this are so fascinating to ponder. One can never look at this painting the same way again. Really appreciate all that you bring to this channel.
WOW, that is the best explanation yet-I wonder why so many experts don’t see that. Now I can’t unsee it.
I feel I need to congratulate myself, when Waldemar said something at the beginning - and I'll have to go back to find out what is was - my mind thought, this is a husband's painting of his wife who died in childbirth.
A lesson in art history too and its relationship with mores of the times and theories contorted to fit present day culture.
Wlademar is just the best. Thank you so much for these series.
Thank you for debunking the ‘she’s not pregnant, it’s just the drape of the dress’ hypothesis. Surely any woman who has carried a child would agree that the woman is pregnant. Your evaluation of the scene seems spot on and provides a much better context for his vacant stare and dark surroundings.
To be fair, the person who painted it was never pregnant, so that particular experience shouldn't count for much here. Also, I wouldn't dismiss the hard work of specialists at the NG as myths ready to be debunked (personally I find his gotcha atittude a tad annoying - his interpretation is no more than that, but he seems to believe otherwise). As with most things in the distant past, we probably will never know for sure. Acknowledging that truth makes for far more interesting conversations about art and history.
I'm a fashion historian and have made a few dresses of this time period. Most of the dresses of the period make you look pregnant as they are tight over the bust and loose over the waist. This was for practical reasons, as women were pregnant more often and the cost of fabric was so expensive it was impractical to have a wardrobe specificly for when you were pregnant. Women of the sister's class have dresses that pooled onto the floor around their feet (some as much as 6 inches past the wears feet!) So to be able to get around a woman would have to hold up the front of her skirts, like the sitter was doing. The portrait also was painted during what Historians refer to as "The Little Ice Age" where it was rarely above freezing for much of the year. In order to stay warm people wore many layers of wool. This woman would not have been doing any labor, probably rarely walking, so she would require more layers to stay warm. From what I am able to see and know to be worn at the time she would be wearing a linen shift, a supportive kirtle made of linen buckram. A woolen kirtle (probably red, believed to promote the health of "delicate" ladies), woolen or silk hoes (socks) tied under the knee with a ribbon or garter, a blue wool kirtle either entirely lined or edged with white fur, and the green woolen overgown which appear to be fully lined in white fur. That is not getting into any of her Headwear. This would be VERY heavy. I can tell you from wearing something similar, your stance changes. The fact that she is holding up her skirt in her arms is going to make it look even more "pregnant". The skirt is very heavy and she would have to move her hips forward and upper body back to support the weight of the skirts in her arms unless she would want to rely on her arm strength entirely. This woman would have likely had very little strength due to her status and her family being able to pay staff to do most task for her. So holding up her skirts would be incredibly difficult and very heavy for what she would be accustomed to.
@@nelleidle6610 I agree. Looking at the waist... there is a belt about her waist, &...the material, is Flat hanging down from under the belt... Not starting to curve out!
I believe also, that "maybe", she could have been holding up the front of the skirt to show... that not only were they wealthy enough for such LONG sleeve trimmed in all that fur, BUT.... also the INSIDE of Her SKIRT lined in it! Left pooled down on the floor... we wouldn't see that.
Also, I believe the painting was finished, AFTER she died.
Divide the painting in Half.....
HIS Side: signs of LIFE/Living things..... Light; fresh living fruit; 1 Lit Candle (in the chandelier above them); the little pictures around the mirror on his side... show the Life of Jesus.
HER Side: Darker, NO Lit candle (as if saying... HER Life, no longer shown. The pictures around the mirror on Her side are of Jesus, Death. The Bed: most say it was also a "sign" of "wealth "....."that they put them even in their living rooms to show they could afford it". But... I think It TOO was another sign of her death; The DOG @ her Feet... another sign of death, as they were (thought) too "guide the deceased". There is something sad in the demeanor. And it was Not uncommon to do pictures of those that had died.
(Your thoughts?)
@@nelleidle6610 yes!! This guy is giving a less educated opinion. He doesn't understand fashion history. He's plain old wrong.
Everything in this painting screams wealth wealth wealth. Extravagant dress showing off lining. All the things in the home.
This whole show is silly.
Ooohhh look, there's a bed ! Just like the other painting, ooohhh look,there's a candle by the bed!
No dude, that's just how homes were set up then. Most would look like that.
I have a stove in my kitchen , and I'd wager so do LOTS of women. This means nothing.
@@louisacapell lol... I'm really NOT impressed w/this guy... He talks TOO FAST....his "presentations just seems a bit "disorderly"(?).
I get nothing from watching him, except confused & tired. lol
Brilliant. The painting, the analysis, and the series. I’ll watch it over and over. And, in contrast to what I was taught - of course she’s pregnant.
I have to say it again: I'm impressed by how good this channel and the narrator are. Bloody good stuff! I love it!
Such a wonderful program. And what a sad story. You made me cry a little bit.
Excellent story and well done to Waldemar and the production team. Fantastic job! As an artist I'm for the first time inspired by the middle age art!
One of the things that has always struck me about his painting is the paleness of the husband's unsmiling face, with his eyes partly closed and partly downcast, and the darkness of his clothing: gray, brown, black. He looks almost lifeless--depressed--a figure of mourning.
Hij heeft moeite met toegeven wat liefde Eigelijk voor hem kan betekenen,dat houdt in zich niet kwetsbaar opstellen geen volledige controle meer hebben over zijn leven, wat een logische conclusie is want je deelt jouw leven met iemand ( helft maar dat geldt net zo voor die ander ook de helft dat maakt als het goed is een heel mens ( eenheid ) ja en veel daarvan zul je moeten schipperen ,op zich is dat geen probleem als men beseft dat het om het schip gaat waar zij beiden op zitten en heel aan willen komen 🙏
Mr. Arnolfini is rocking that awesome hat.
Very interesting presentation & analysis! I think the posthumous portrait after her death due to childbirth has a great deal of validity.
Wow! Well considered and well researched and respectful and sensitive presentation Mr. Januszczak! Fine work. Thank you!
wow best interpretation i've heard. i might start liking it now. i haven't liked it because 1 how can a man have that kind of expression at a wedding (even if it's not a romantic marriage), and 2 even worse the dog's head does not look anatomically correct - i can't bear to look at it, no matter how fantastic the 3d rendering of the candle chandelier.
A very, very good documentary! Waldemar's always are, but this one, wow!
Your theory explains everything! I always thought that the bride looked idealised. She looks like an angel. Not like a real woman. I think that Van Eyck never met the bride in real life. So he painted an angel. Compare it with angels on his other paintings. On the contrary Arnolfini himself looks like a real person. Thanks!!
Wonderful explication of a wonderful painting. So glad I stayed.
Stay ,had al een stok gevonden bij het Hemelrijk en meegenomen naar huis om het een fijne wandelstok van te maken Eigelijk zo een als Waldemar had ( ja er bestaat ook een hemelrijk op aarde ( Drenthe ook waar de hunebedden zijn 🥰 echt waar
This guy is great. He makes it all fascinating and dramatic, which it is, of course.
I love the mysterious art and their artists - could we have an episode about Hieronymus Bosch?!
They made an episode on Bosch!!!
@@timclemons8719 omg! did they?! I'll search through their history, thank you so much! Bosch's pieces have really fascinated me!
@@mkrowenp Me, too.
the shirt on Waldemar ....
Thank you Waldemar Januszak, finally Mr Arnolfinis gesture and facial expression make sense. They were weird for a wedding.. very touching explanation and makes us recognise (again) so sharply how desensitised and fast lived we have become.. to commemorate her so elaborately after her demise.
The Memorial painting explanation makes sense to me as there is so much symbolism in this painting. Thank you.
Just found this channel and I have always loved Jan Van Eyck's work and this one in particular has always stayed with me for some reason. Seeing and hearing the new details of it as I too have loved how he did the mirror in the back of the room and the scenes around it and how it seems to show the viewer in the mirror, now adds even more to the scene portrayed here. I always thought it was both dark and light, and almost unsettling. Based upon the history at the time it makes perfect sense to me that she is indeed dead and this is her final scene as both a happy and sad time for her husband and their families. Van Eyck is indeed a genius for creating this and still keeping us guessing years later.
Same! This one really sticks out as I am still mesmerized by the mirror & his skill since first seeing it. Unsettling is a good word, it really kinda haunts me!
You can tell by the treatment of the wife that the painting is all about her. Thank you so much for the beautiful and sad picture.
This painting has long fascinated me. Thank you for your explanation of it.
By virtue of their creation paintings are always more than the image itself. So many stories to be discovered. This story is so deeply moving. And the story continues to unfold as so eloquently told. I've watched many of the Perspective documentaries, they've all been extremely informative and interesting. But this video is transformative, a story hidden by passing centuries and a lack of intellectual curiosity. Human frailty, human endurance, an unconsidered mystery. Great sleuthing.
Excellent short documentary. Excellent explanation. Yep, it does feel like it is mistery solved to me. I have this painting and its meaning as an open question since the first documentary I saw almost 30 years ago. This explanation is settled to me. Thank you. Did I say I am impressed by this channel? Well, I truly am.
Waldemar excellent as usual
👍
She is thinking I wish I had central heating, hot and cold running water, a refrigerator, and a washing machine. He is thinking we cannot afford it.
Amazingly accurate explanation of a painting. I do agree, and also, a noticeable gesture of Arnolfini hand : a salute to his wife.
Brilliant episode, logic explanation. I'm from Van Eyck's birth town and I could only wish more of his paintings had landed in the National Gallery. They would get so much more attention 🙂! Now you've made me curious. Another great Flemish painter, Pieter Brueghel, was born in this area.
I believe it to be a commemoration painting as well. The wife is indeed pregnant, and he perhaps lost them both. Always enjoy Mr. Januszak's views and videos. Thank you.
This is a very convincing argument for me because the moment I layed eyes on it I was struck that it was an incredibly ominous looking painting, full of grief. It upset me to look at it. It's just so obvious that something is very off. It screams it. The chap is in complete mourning.
What a brilliant mini-documentary.
Wow! How insightful is this?!
Aaaargghhh! I can't believe I walked past the National Gallery last Summer I didn't know one of my favourite works of art was right there
@...apple Same. I walked past it many times and only went in the 5th or 6th time I was in London. I thought "portrait gallery" meant there would mostly be paintings of prime ministers I knew nothing about ... and was so happily surprised when I came across one of my own likewise favourite paintings.
@@miyojewoltsnasonth2159 I'm heading straight back there when things are more normal :)
Could it be that the painting was commissioned and worked on while Mrs Arnolfini was alive and completed after her death . . . ?
It's certainly a possibility. Such a sad story :(
Another documentary (forgot which) made a note of how angelic and ideal the woman's face is, almost like a porcelain doll. In other words, it does not look as unique as others in Van Eyck's portraits. This is another reason to believe that she had died and therefore her face is idealised as opposed to sketched while she was alive.
What a fascinating story. The theory that this is a memorial makes so much sense that I am sure that it is the right one. I found the explanation of the symbolism in the paintings to be quite fascinating as well. Thank you so much for sharing this.
Merry Christmas and all it's blessings to you.
Thank you for this brilliant interpretation - most like the accurate reading of the message of a grieving husband who lost his beloved wife in childbirth.
Thank you for bringing art to life for us.
Wow! I was wondering the whole time why he looked so sad.
Oh! Now I know why I've been quite fond of Arnolfini and his bride! I like it. MAKE IT LONGER! 😇
One of my favorite TH-cam channels
I expect Velazquez saw this painting and thought a lot about and admired the idea of that mirror reflection. I never knew before that this painting was in the Spanish Royal collection, where he could have seen it.
A wonderful painting, so much detail to be enjoyed up close. Also worth looking at the self portrait hanging next to it in the National Gallery.
This is way I think it's a portrait in memory of Mrs. Arnolfini. Mr. Arnolfini is in front of the window and has the light from the candelabra above him but it's Mrs. Arnolfini without the candelabra, somewhat blocked by her husband in front of the window, and is standing further in the room yet she has the most light shone upon her. I think it's to signify ascension. It's a celebration of their marriage which Jan van Eyke witnesses and her death which he also may have witnessed. He was there...
I've never known this version of this painting. I loved it. Thanks from São Paulo, Brazil.
Seen so many docs on this Painting, but this is just BRILLIANT
Excellent analysis. I have listened in classroom lectures about this painting but none so probing and evocative.
Wow! Fascinating!!
This beautiful painting really stops you in your tracks and make you stare at it and wonder. It says something about a marriage, yet the grim and sad expression of the groom contradicts the supposedly joyous occasion and that makes me wonder why. Some reviews mention the reflection in the mirror, the slippers etc but your more detailed and interesting explanation poke the curiosity out of me and knowing now what you've so far theorize , I'll have to look at it from a different perspective and truly appreciate this work of art for what it is in that period. Your investigative explanation of this famous painting by Jan van Eyck is quite incredible.
Thank you for your VIDEO lectures. I LOVE how you intelligently present THEORIES, IDEAS, nuanced details, pointed in-depth questions and more. You SUPPORT your conclusions and offer different points of view in a mature, adult, enthralling, engaging, intelligent style. You don't rant, whine, complain, accuse, insult and your delivery isn't bombastic or sensationalized as if you are gossiping. I find your communication skills yo be EXCELLENT. Thank you for posting!!!!! 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
This has been one of my favorite paintings since I studied Art History in school nearly 50 years ago, and I love now it even more. The face of Arnolfini has always haunted me and now I see why that might have been so. Thank you for a beautiful critique.
WOW...this feels to be true. Thank you for sharing!
As an artist,I am amazed that he could paint like this with no conveniences like lights,water,heat,etc.
They painted in the day time, hence the numerous windows in houses of that region, Van Eyck was a very wealthy artist and had several servants that provided him with clean water from the well or nearby public fontains, and of course, houses were heated with chimneys...
Why would he have no light water or heat??
Where Waldemar goes, I go.
Thank you for all the wonderful art education videos. They mean so much to me.
Fantastic deduction - suddenly it all makes sense.
This guy is an art expert and knows what he’s talking about more than the museum directors.
I just discovered this wonderful channel! Thank you so much for all this beautiful work and perspective. You're never too old to learn about beauty.
Amazing clarity. Thank you.
This is so fascinating. As for wiping out the furry creatures, there was a mini ice age going on at the time, and you will see a lot of fur in many paintings during this time.
Amazing! Thank you so much!
Beautiful, passionate, investigative... Thank you.
fabulous, wonderful, your programs are very captivating. You make art so interesting and fun!
I love the painting and that was a great explanation of its mysteries .
Waldemar is top curator and sleuth. And narrator! Love the mystique.
Absolutely, fascinating painting!
I am so happy I have come across your fascinating channel! I am going to do my long overdue "homework" during Christmas and learn about various works of art :-) Thank you!
Brilliant!
Despite all that is going on in this picture, Mrs. Arnolfini is definitely the focus of the painting. Her husband, glum and largely obscured among dark hues while his pregnant wife, with a delicate smile, extends love and caring to both husband and child, stands out in bright light and color.
I’m convinced. This great work is finally and properly understood.
Excellent and persuasive. Thank you.
Thank you, for such an insightful exploration of this masterpiece….