Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on jan van eyck paintings
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on jan van eyck paintings
Iconography is defined as the study of various subject matters and conventional symbols in works of art (Cothran, Stokstad 1141). In art history, iconography is used to study the interpretation of the artwork such as the composition and the artistic style of the piece. Iconography used regarding the interpretation of Jan van Eyck’s Double Portriat of Giovanni Arnolfini and His Wife includes the debate as to whether or not the artwork represents a wedding or a double portrait. The piece shows a man and women holding hands and with their shoes off indicating a sacred event is taking place. A single candle is lit on the chandelier representing the presents of God. Through iconography analysis, these details indicate that the artwork is portraying
The Ghent Altarpiece painted in completeness by Jan and Hubert van Eyck in 1432. This altarpiece is filled with symbolism. One of the most important pieces of the altar is the Deity Enthroned, which represents the Lord in Christianity. The painting covered with symbols and words. The artists portrays many signs with different meanings from the deity’s clothes to the background.
Surprisingly, fifty years later, artist John Sloan happen to meet all the qualifications Baudelaire has designed for Monsieur G— making urban life observations and drawing from memory. Sloan adopts and employs Baudelaire’s idea of urban watching and further expands it for an American audience. Born and raised in Philadelphia, John Sloan first begun his art career as a newspaper illustrator. After years of working, he developed his own artistic style and started making paintings and etchings. When he moved from Philadelphia to New York, he has found that city life scenes of great interest that he then started observing and making etchings for scenes of modern life. He was well-known and celebrated as the founder of the Ashcan School and was most celebrated for this urban genre scenes. (Lobel, Chapter1)
Arnolfini Double Portrait was painted in 1434, by Jan van Eyck; who hard already gained attention and admiration through earlier works, such as the Ghent Altarpiece. The subject of Arnolfini Double Portrait, also known as The Arnolfini Portrait, is the italian merchant Giovanni Di Nicolao Arnolfini and his first wife inside of a room filled with objects teeming with symbolism. The depth is divided into a familiar three layers, a foreground, which is composed of a dog and a pair of sandals; a middle ground which features the two main subjects of the painting; and background, which contains the rest of the objects in the painting. The painting is symmetrical and the vanishing point is not far from the center of the painting along the horizontal. The paining is filled with symbolism and items meant to portray the subjects' distinguished lifestyle. Although, what some of the objects actually symbolize can be interpreted in slightly varying ways. To begin, many of the ob...
The artists of the Baroque had a remarkably different style than artists of the Renaissance due to their different approach to form, space, and composition. This extreme differentiation in style resulted in a very different treatment of narrative. Perhaps this drastic stylistic difference between the Renaissance and Baroque in their treatment of form, space, and composition and how these characteristics effect the narrative of a painting cannot be seen more than in comparing Perugino’s Christ Delivering the Keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter from the Early Renaissance to Caravaggio’s Conversion of St. Paul from the Baroque.Perugino was one of the greatest masters of the Early Renaissance whose style ischaracterized by the Renaissance ideals of purity, simplicity, and exceptional symmetry of composition. His approach to form in Christ Delivering the Keys of the Kingdom to St.Peter was very linear. He outlined all the figures with a black line giving them a sense of stability, permanence, and power in their environment, but restricting the figures’ sense of movement. In fact, the figures seem to not move at all, but rather are merely locked at a specific moment in time by their rigid outline. Perugino’s approach to the figures’themselves is extremely humanistic and classical. He shines light on the figures in a clear, even way, keeping with the rational and uncluttered meaning of the work. His figures are all locked in a contrapposto pose engaging in intellectual conversation with their neighbor, giving a strong sense of classical rationality. The figures are repeated over and over such as this to convey a rational response and to show the viewer clarity. Perugino’s approach to space was also very rational and simple. He organizes space along three simple planes: foreground, middle ground, and background. Christ and Saint Peter occupy the center foreground and solemn choruses of saints and citizens occupy the rest of the foreground. The middle distance is filled with miscellaneous figures, which complement the front group, emphasizing its density and order, by their scattered arrangement. Buildings from the Renaissance and triumphal arches from Roman antiquity occupy the background, reinforcing the overall classical message to the
The ability to create a picture of The Annunciation in one’s mind is a key factor in understanding the analysis of the work. Francisco de Zurbaran approaches the painting with a naturalistic style. The painting features a room in which a woman – like angel is seen at the left kneeling on the ground before the Virgin Mary. The figure of Mary is placed between a chair and a small wooden table draped with a green cloth. Mary disregards an open Bible on the table, as she appears solemn while staring at the floor. Floating above the two main figures in the upper left side of the painting are cherubs resting on a bed of clouds. They happily gaze down at Mary with eyes from Heaven.
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 prominence, 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, artistic style, and function, 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.
1.Van Gogh attended a boarding school in Zevenbergen from when he was ten to twelve.
Years ago, Sister Mary Corita Kent, a celebrated artist and educator of the 1960’s and 1970’s stated, “A painting is a symbol for the universe. Inside it, each piece relates to the other. Each piece is only answerable to the rest of that little world. So, probably in the total universe, there is that kind of total harmony, but we get only little tastes of it” (Lewis "Quotes from Women Artists"). Nowadays, a painting is not the main form of art humans appreciate. In fact, literature of all sorts can be considered a different form of art and often found in literature are symbols. A "symbol" is an object, person or action which represents an abstract idea (Warren “English 102”). In literature, a symbol or set of symbols can have a wide range of meanings. For example, color is a universal symbol; some may say it is a general symbol for life. However, each color separately can symbolize something different depending on the context. Analyzing five piece of literature for symbolism, one will be able to gain a deeper understating of symbols.
The most well respected example of this is found in the Arnolfini Wedding. The subject of this portrait is Mr. Arnolfini and his wife. In the artwork, Mr. Arnolfini is holding his wife’s right hand with his left, symbolising a left handed marriage. Indicating that Mr. Arnolfini is of a higher social class than his bride to be. Also, to reinforce the scene of holy matrimony, their shoes are removed indicating a holy place, and a small pet dog is pictured, alluding to loyalty in marriage. Furthermore, the Arnolfini’s display deeply held Catholic views, portrayed by rosary beads in the corner, a chair depicting Saint Margaret and the dragon, and the mirror in the background revealing the story of the passion of the Christ. Jan Van Eyck, through his use of symbolism, narrated the lives of others in his
The analysis of a work of art can help the viewer, and the reader of the analysis for that matter, to better understand the relationships of the physical elements of the piece. This kind of analysis can then lead the viewer or reader on the pathway of comprising a richer understanding and appreciation of the mood created through the physical criteria of form. Analyzing two works that both embody a few common characteristics can help one to understand more thoroughly not only each of the two pieces independently, but the two together, comparatively. The two pieces in discussion here are comparable in very few categories of elements, however can be analyzed in comparison to each other. A Japanese woodblock print entitled Kusano Kanpei at Totsuka and a tempera panel painting from Italy called Madonna and Child and Crucifixion are the two highly distinctive, yet surprisingly similar pieces. Although these two works range in time period, process, visual form, and individual style, they can be compared through their few common aspects; each of the two pieces is recognizably stylized to it's own highly specific time period, and both of the works create, through form, an intimate space between the piece's images and the viewer.
Léal Souvenir is a 1432 oil-on-oak panel portrait by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. The panel was purchased in 1857 by the National Gallery, London, where it is on permanent display. The sitter has not been identified, but his individualistic features suggest a historical person rather than the hypothetical ideal usual in contemporary northern Renaissance portraiture. The portrait contains three layers of painted inscriptions, each rendered to look as if chiseled into stone. The first inscription is in a form of Greek and seems to spell "TYΜ.ωΘΕΟC", which has not been satisfactorily interpreted but has inspired some to title the work Timotheus. The middle lettering reads in French Leal Souvenir ("Loyal Memory") and indicates
Perspective is based on Jesus in this painting due to his outward “radiant glow of divine light” (1) extending to the other people in the painting. The main focus is on Jesus and the rest of the figures are diffused in an outward fashion from Jesus himself. The artist himself expresses an emphasis on individualism by implementing himself within the painting by appearing “twice in the Last Judgement: in the flayed skin which Saint Bartholomew is carrying in his left hand, and the figure… who is looking encouragingly at those rising from their graves” (2). This is an action that only a Renaissance painter would do, which is displaying individuality through a self-portrait because of the possibility of being judged for selfishness. Light and shadowing is prominent within the art which is shown in the painting when the lighter, more brighter colors are focused in the middle and then fade into darker tones while moving outward into the
Jan van Eyck painted Giovanni Arnolfini and His Bride. He painted this piece with oil on wood in 1434. The painting was thought to be of a couple taking vows because they are holding hands. The couples clothing provides the audience with the suggestion that the couple is wealthy. The women is wearing a plain necklace. The woman shows an apparent bulge. This bulge could be from a pregnancy or the woman is just holding up her full-skirted dress in the contemporary fashon. The more clothing a person wore the richer they were. In addition, the house suggest that the couple is wealthy. There is a chandelier and room decorations. There is two candles in the chandelier. One is lit while the other is burnt out.
You can also see the man with his left hand not grasping the ladies hand, but supporting it which represents his oath to her. Another is the removal of the shoes suggesting sanctity. As you may have noticed there is a small terrier beside the couple, he serves as not only a pet, but as a symbol of fidelity and due to its rare breed he shows the wealth they must have to own him. In any marriage you need a witness and at first it seems as if there is not one, but looking close enough into the mirror behind them in the reflection you can see someone. Van Eyck is shown in this reflection and is indeed the couples witness and above the mirror is an inscription on the wall the translates to “Jan Van Eyck was here, 1434”. The mirror is absolutely spotless showing purity and the prayer beads of Saint Margaret represent a protection the women will have in childbirth. If the audience were to look at the window seal they would be able to see an orange thats shows innocence and wealth. These are some of the many easily spotted hidden meanings shown in Van Eyck’s portrait, but some take a more experienced eye to
The 15th century saw a number of new varieties of headdresses. Instead of being broad, headdresses tended to be high, occasionally extremely high. Around 1410, the horned headdress came into fashion. Pictured to the right is Margarete van Eyck, wearing a horned headdress with a ruffled veil called a kruseler. Her red down is lined in grey fur, and this painting is from 1439, painted by Jan van Eyck. (National Gallery, London) The horned headdress had a wirelike structure like the horns of a cow on which the veil was placed. This style was followed by the heart shaped headdress, the shape of which can be explained by its name. Both styles were an attempt to use the veil as a decorative attraction, which was the opposite of its original purpose.