The Arnolfini Wedding
THE ARNOLFINI PORTRAIT
Jan van Eyck 1434
THE NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
I first saw this painting on a school trip. We went up to London a lot, it’s only about 30 miles from my old school to the centre where all the galleries and museums are. We’d meet at some silly hour at the school gates, pile onto a coach and zip up the M4. I may be misty eyed but I’m sure it was always sunny when we hit London.
I can still just about remember that buzz of excitement as we went along Embankment knowing we were nearly there. Before dropping us off the coach would pass Big Ben and Cleopatra’s Needle, at least that’s how I remember it. We’d do a bit of a tour; a few galleries and museums and Covent garden too, very ambitious. The National Gallery is a ridiculously flamboyant building on Trafalgar Square, we’d often have our pack lunches sitting by the fountains or nudged up next to a lion. By the end of the day we’d all be absolutely wiped out, feet throbbing, dirt up our noses. The coach crawled back down the M4 in the golden hour and by the time we arrived home it was dusk.
These trips were usually a bit boring. We’d be given a clipboard with some sort of tick list pop quiz on it, the pen dangling from a bit of string. There’d be this feeling of being rushed as well and I'd find myself in the gift shop far too early for my liking buying up postcards of the Pre-Raphaelites and Heironymous Bosch.
I’ve always loved art galleries and museums, I’ve spent whole days wandering about them soaking in all the incredible works. My Dad lived in London so it was a bit of a “days out with Dad” kind of activity. As a teen I’d go up with friends on the train to shop in the markets, hang out, go to gigs and I’d usually find a way to squeeze in a bit of time at one of those big, glorious buildings.
But this time it was a bit different, we had a guide. We went from significant painting to important sculpture to glass boxes filled with antiques and taxidermy. Then we all stood in a semi circle around a tiny painting, just 82x60cm, like a jewel, all deep rich colours in a beautifully carved wooden frame. Our guide started to tell us about it, and unlike the others it really caught my imagination. I was so fascinated by the details, the symbolism of all the things. Much of that has been discounted since the 80’s when I went, a lot more information about the work has been found in the intervening years. The fact that this 587 year old painting still holds such fascination among scholars and art lovers alike is amazing.
I was also slightly beguiled by the fact we share a last name, sort of, though the spelling is different. I have often wondered if my name derives from his, Eyck/Icke, but doing research on it is, as you can imagine, quite difficult.
The symbolism has been much discussed in academia and the art world. The National Gallery acquired it in 1843, a young Queen Victoria on the throne. Over the years the ideas about what this painting means have changed and changed, and on my visit I think the information was still very much in line with those older Victorian values - a strangely prudish era. It was thought this was some kind of rushed wedding to legitimise an assumed unborn baby, but medieval historians have dismissed those notions. The style, weight and sheer volume of the dress informs the way she’s holding it gathered up against her body. It was very fashionable among people of note at the time. The fur lined, expensive fabrics, the green and purple dyes in the cloth, the gold embroidery and opulent bed all show us that these people are very well to do in Bruges.
The stained glass windows were a new and expensive technology at the time, and the oranges were very pricey, both showing their wealth and status. But not too brash, they are merchants, not nobility. It’s possible they traded in oranges and expensive fabrics. The little dog could be a symbol of loyalty, lust or just a lap dog. There are so many elements in the painting hinting at the secrets within, and they've been argued a lot down the centuries.
The identity of the subjects has been argued too. In 1857 Crowe and Cavalcaselle thought it was Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini and his wife Giovanna Cenami and this held for over a 100 years until in 1997 when it was discovered that they were married 13 years after the date on the painting and 6 years after van Eyck’s death. So the supposition now is that it’s likely to be Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and possibly his second wife Costanza Trenta. Some of the symbolism may bear this out.
The idea that the snuffed candle on her side denotes her death, the statue of St Margaret, patron saint of childbirth may intimate that she died while giving birth, and the grotesques also symbolise her departure. The mirror has the passion and death of Christ, showing his death on her side. The red shoes tucked by the bench may also be a signifier in this. This may in fact be a memorial portrait, quite unusual of it’s time. But I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see this information change again in my lifetime and beyond. Even the name of the painting has changed several times. Wouldn’t it be amazing to go back in time and ask van Eyck what it all really means.
What fascinated me at the time was the perceived truth of the meaning, but what fascinates me now is how many times that truth has changed and how many people are still trying to work it out!
But my mind was lit that day, the meaning of art brought to life for me. I think for a long time I’d been looking at these amazing paintings through a gauze of some kind. Dreamy romantic ideas about them, placing myself in the frame sometimes, escapism and beauty. That guide woke up the part of my brain that wants to know more, know why. I don’t remember anything else from that day, I can’t remember if the guide was male or female, if they told us about any other works of art, nothing. I just remember standing in front of that little painting; glowing, radiant and full of little details. It made me really see art. It made me want to BE art! I was transported into the painting, the textures of the fur and velvet, her soft hand in his, the tang of the oranges, the yap of the dog, the shine off the brass chandelier, the grain in the wood of the shoes, the smell of the candle burning, the feeling that I could be one of the people reflected in the mirror. I wanted to touch it so badly!
And then after this beautiful 20 minutes or so with this incredible work of art, we moved on to something else. The spell was broken a bit but the seeds had very much been planted.
Sources:
The National Gallery website
Wikipedia
Dr Janina Ramirez talking with Amber Butchart - Art Detective (podcast)
Amber Butchart - A Stitch In Time - on the Arnolfini dress - BBC
Artmejo - website
School trips in the 80’s
Written by Vonalina Cake
My name is Von, I’ve lived in Bristol since 1992 and I’ve lived a lot of lives since then.
Fashion
