One of the most noteworthy northern European writers of the Renaissance was the Flemish painter, Jan van Eyck. Although there are few records about his early life and rise to greatness, the Van Eyck family was well regarded within the Burgundian Netherlands which allowed historians to surmise that he was born in the 1380s. After years of travelling through various northern courts and gaining esteem, Jan van Eyck painted perhaps his most famous work, The Arnolfini Double Portrait. This work has been the subject of a great deal of critical analysis as a piece of Renaissance art. Some historians have found that the work is demonstrative of artistic and social ideals that were both ahead of its time and touted the line of controversy. However, taking into account the painting’s patronage, symbolism and artistic style it becomes clear that The Arnolfini Double Portrait is an exemplar of the Renaissance era artistic conventions and is not as difficult to parse as some critics would believe. In order to discuss the painting in its entirety, it is necessary to explore the context of the painting’s creation.
The symbolism in The Arnolfini Double Portrait is the most important aspect to consider when examining the painting. It is the key to defining the painting’s purpose and goal, as well as a necessary means of providing an in-depth stylistic criticism of the work. The first symbol worth exploring in this painting relates back to the purpose of the work. Most critics believe that this work depicts the wedding of a wealthy individual, and the symbolism certainly supports this interpretation of the work. Both of the painter’s subjects are dressed in clothes made from dyed fabrics, and are lined with furs. These are not the clothes of paupers, and certainly not those of the clergy; the only other class that would have been afforded such materials at this time. While this could also be indicative of an aristocratic couple, Sarah Buchholz surmises “Although the woman’s plain gold necklace and the plain rings both wear are the only jewelry visible, both outfits would have been enormously expensive, and appreciated as such by a contemporary viewer. But especially in the case of the man, there may be an element of restraint in their clothes befitting their merchant status – portraits of aristocrats tend to show gold chains and more decorated cloth”. Obviously, this lends itself to the interpretation that this painting does portray Arnolfini who was a wealthy trader and was depicted as such in the work.
One of the minor, yet easily overlooked, symbols within this painting is the small dog. It may appear to be an extraneous detail at first, since most ladies of prominence had a lapdog that they took with them, as was the fashion of the time. Since Arnolfini was a merchant, he would have been keenly aware of the latest fashions in clothing and society, therefore it is highly likely that the pet was an actual presence within the home of the Arnolfini family. Now, the symbolism related to dogs is simple but is generally understood to be two different things. First, the dog represents loyalty in this picture. Since the dog is facing towards the woman, with its back to the man, the faithfulness can be interpreted as being from the man to his wife. That is to say that the man has dedicated himself to the wife, and their relationship. Another wholesome representation of the dog that is generally understood is that the dog is the symbol of fidelity and love in the marriage. This relates back to the concept of children, where a noble man could not afford to be made a cuckold, lest the child be abandoned or worse. Another interpretation of the dog is that it is a representation of lust within the marriage. Certainly, this lust would be that felt by Giovanni’s towards his new wife. However, it is important to realize that this lust is not the sin-worthy feeling that it is related to in modern times, although the connection with sexuality is undeniable. The lust would be carnal by nature, but would be borne out of a desire to start a family with one’s new wife. Contrary to popular belief, sexual relations were not frowned upon by the church or any others, as long as they occurred within the confines of a marriage; which the painting seems to infer as the case.
Another important symbol in the work that often puts Jan van Eyck at odds with interpreters of his work is the hand holding in the picture. While this if often simply attributed to the wedding ceremony that is being captured by the painting, others choose to believe that there is more involved in this simple action. One of the opponents of the notion that this gesture is supportive of the marriage interpretation believes that “The visual representation of husband and wife (including gestures and iconography) is instead a more generalized image of marriage that reflects the importance of fertility and defined sexual roles for men and women.” While this is a valid opinion, there is substantial evidence to show that this work is a specific lens through which to view the atypical marriage of two individuals from the upper class. According to Sarah Bucholz, “her gaze at her husband can also show her equality to him because she is not looking down at the floor as lower class women would. They are part of the Burgundian court life and in that system she is his equal not his subordinate”. This seems to be the more preferable interpretation of the painting by those who want to view Jan van Eyck as an artist who was ahead of his time. However, it is important to consider that modern interpretations of gender equality are not necessarily applicable to the fifteenth century contemporaries.
There is a further interpretation of this scene that suggests that this is not a marriage contract, but a business contract. Since these two sitters are classified as equal to one another rather than a disparate couple, there is a possibility that “the painting deploys the imagery of a contract between an already married couple giving the wife the authority to act on her husband’s behalf in business dealings”. This is further supported by the fact that Arnolfini’s wife is already wearing a hair covering which was a requirement of women in fifteenth century society.
Another area of symbolism that speaks to the purpose and possible reason behind the commissioning of the painting is in the expensive chandelier which hangs over the scene. The intricacy of the design once more shows the wealth of the merchant couple and provides another means for Van Eyck to inject his color blending, light techniques into the painting. Yet, the symbolism of this chandelier is troubling. After all, from the seven available candles, there is only one that remains lit. Fire has long been a symbol of life and vitality, and the burning candle on Giovanni’s side shows that he is vigorous and lively. This is reflected in the red bedding that is seen throughout the bedroom, as well as the red shows by the bed. There is energy within Giovanni, specifically a lustful energy. This obviously cannot be ignored; the obvious symbolism is that there is hope for some sort of procreation. After all, Harbison says “her gesture is merely an indication of the extreme desire of the couple shown for fertility and progeny”
Yet, the other side of the chandelier does not reflect this liveliness. There is a nub of wax, but the wick is spent and the fire has died. One of the troubling implications of this lack of fire is that the wife may not be able to reproduce. Even more attention is drawn to this by the way that she has drawn up her dress into her hands for the painting. It gives the illusion that she is pregnant, despite the large amount of material she has grasped proving otherwise. While the inability to reproduce was troublesome for any couple, for a member of the noble class to be unable to produce a child was terrible. Every father not only desired, but was required to have a son or male heir to his property. Otherwise, his family name could fade and all of the wealth that he had accumulated would be passed to a distant relative. While this is a disconcerting view of the painting, there is another that is, perhaps, just as terrible.
Since flames are a symbol of vitality and life, the absence of the flame would seem to indicate, among other things, death. This changes the overall interpretation of the painting if Arnolfini’s wife is actually dead rather than standing beside him. This would no longer be a piece that was commissioned to celebrate their union; it would simply be a memorial piece to mourn a wife who has passed on. Simply and eloquently “the single lit candle on Giovanni’s side contrasts with the burnt-out candle whose wax stub can just be seen on his wife’s side. In a metaphor commonly used in literature, he lives on, she is dead. Given this interpretation of the painting, the significance of the mirror behind the painting’s subjects increases.
The mirror in the background of the painting is one of the most controversial topics when it comes to the discussion of the work. First and foremost, it represents the amazing ability of Jan van Eyck to paint in small spaces accurately. The mirror reflects the picture accurately towards the viewer, but seems problematic. This unusual reflection stems from the fact that the mirror is flat, but acts as though it was convex; effectively dispersing the lines of sight towards the edges of the room. A popular and appropriate interpretation of the shape of the mirror’s reflection is that it matches the optical manifestation of an eyeball. All of the images held within the painting, even those that are not perceived by viewing the rest of scene, are drawn to the center of this eyeball. However, this eyeball is not just indicative of a simple viewer. “The mirror itself may represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding. A clear mirror was also an
important symbol of the Virgin Mary, referring to the immaculate conception and its associated spiritual purity”. This seems to be a strong possibility based upon the other imagery associated with the mirror. The wooden enclosure which surrounds the mirror depicts ten moments from the life of Jesus Christ. Here, the viewer sees the life, crucifixion, and death of Jesus as an inevitable cycle and a standard held to humanity. This ideal is reflected in marriage that is depicted in the work. The husband and wife can be viewed at any one of the stages that is present on the wheel of life and death. They can be a newly-wed couple, a couple devastated by the inability to have a child, or the wife’s presence can simple be a memoriam to her marriage.
When taking into account all of the work’s symbolism, art historians and critics are forced to choose sides with this work. The iconography is difficult to understand at best; and unusually morbid at worst. Given the fact that the painting is often misconstrued as being demonstrative of a bastardization of Realism jumping towards Modernism, the symbolism is usually taken to have the most severe meanings. For example, the interpretation of the work as a memorial to Giovanni Arnolfini’s wife can be made to fit within the confines of the work’s symbolism and iconography, but would be a rather severe departure from the conventions of fifteenth century painting. Another mistake that critics make when viewing paintings of Arnolfini’s contemporaries is the view that marriage was all about inequality. In the aforementioned quotes, it is revealed that men and women of class were equals in Burgundian society; making this painting more than a marriage of common interest, but also love. Fault after fault has been shown to lie with the logic of those who contend that Jan Van Eyck is anything but an exception to his time period rather than an individual seeking to break the bounds of his social order.
In the end, Jan Van Eyck generally conformed to the conventions of his time; though he was by no means an average painter. Jan van Eyck’s technique was unusual and profound, but it was not the sole exception to painting technique for a northern European Renaissance painter. Oil blends to effuse texture and light; these had been taught and mastered by several of Jan Van Eycks contemporaries. The question of the commission, while interesting and though provoking can never be fully resolved unless some additional payment papers or historical document comes to light. The other important quality of this painting that shows it embodies rather than admonishes the styles of the time is the painting’s symbolism. The colors, candles, hand holding, and objects of wealth and life around the room seem to suggest that this couple is on the verge of living a great life. In terms of the mirror’s depiction of Christ and the eye of God, they are at the start of a marriage that has been blessed. All of these objects point to the fact that this work adheres to conventions as a whole; acknowledging and gently dismissing the conclusion that this work was a quelled departure from the Renaissance tradition.