Isabella's Triptych In Capilla Real, Spain
‘The most important consideration about these paintings is that they resemble each other to a degree approaching bank notes’. Indeed, it is hard to elaborate why Isabella of Castile would commission an identical iconographic copy of her Fathers, King Juan II Miraflores Altarpiece. It is questionable to art historians, that are unable to answer to a full extent to why Isabella wanted a copy in her burial site in Capilla Real, Spain. The significant style of Rogier Van der Weyden, whose Triptych is reflective in allegory the story of the Virgin and Christ, perhaps appealed to Isabella’s catholic traits. Furthermore, for Isabella to commission a copy, one must question the role of the artist and their workshops to examine the Hispanic-Flemish
…show more content…
popularity of the 15th century. As described by Marray Pease, a copy of a bank note; contemporarily suggesting a likeness beyond the natural eye of the viewer. This essay will therefore allude to answer an unanswerable question, however, be suggestive of several reasons to why Isabella commissioned a copy of the Miraflores altarpiece.
Indeed, it is hard to distinguish the iconographies of both paintings as they are exact copies, and therefore have no inherent changes in composition or narrative.
However, one can describe the iconographies and compare this to the utilizing question to why Isabella may have seen the Miraflores altarpiece appealing in its prominent narrative of The Virgin and Christ. Firstly, the triptych that is now in New York (Metropolitan Museum) known as the ‘Granada-New York altarpiece’ was split around 1632. The singular panel of ‘Christ appealing to his Mother’ was separated from the other two panels. The two panels were used to fit the doors of King Phillip IV of Spain reliquary, in Capilla Real. Thus, in order to compare the Triptych painted by Rogier Van der Weyden, one must compare the overall iconography of the three equally sized panels, while juxtaposing it to the Granada- New York panel of ‘Christ appealing to his Mother’. Despite this, Weyden’s triptych made in approximately in 1440 consists of three equal panels all 71x43cm. It is clear that the striking equalisation consists of a further comparison of the Granada-New York panel, evident in size that the panel is 63.5 x38.1cm. Although Pease talks about the comparing of original vs the copy in terms of bank notes, clearly the dissimilar and minute size differences, cannot properly suggest the
original from the copy. The illusion in the Miraflores altarpiece is greatly examined. The detail and precision of the Arch way, in which Christ and the Virgin centre the arch to almost form a portal between the viewer and the painting. Although the arch is not suggestively inviting it does stand a prominence that ‘the real frame seemed like a continuation of the painted architectural framework…thus heightening the illusion’; relating to a Gothic architecture, similar to the style in Amiens cathedral’s west front portal, 1220/30. This created a huge link between the painted archivolts and tracery of which occurred in the seminal work of Jan van Eyck. This in comparison to both paintings does not change, although one can suggest the Granada-New York copy is executed less desirably to the transmediality of Van Eyck’s work. The dimension created between the viewer and the Virgin and Christ provides vital empathy of the narrative, rather than symbolic links to historical context. It is therefore rather evident why Isabella may have wanted a copy of Rogier Miraflores altarpiece. Although, respectively the Granada-New York copy is executed rather unlike Weyden usual naturalistic style, it does raise questions to the composition, stylization and context of the Tryptic; clearly appealing and stylish, arguing that Isabella perhaps wanted the composition to mean more than the artist’s prominence.
popularity of the 15th century. As described by Marray Pease, a copy of a bank note; contemporarily suggesting a likeness beyond the natural eye of the viewer. This essay will therefore allude to answer an unanswerable question, however, be suggestive of several reasons to why Isabella commissioned a copy of the Miraflores altarpiece.
Indeed, it is hard to distinguish the iconographies of both paintings as they are exact copies, and therefore have no inherent changes in composition or narrative.
However, one can describe the iconographies and compare this to the utilizing question to why Isabella may have seen the Miraflores altarpiece appealing in its prominent narrative of The Virgin and Christ. Firstly, the triptych that is now in New York (Metropolitan Museum) known as the ‘Granada-New York altarpiece’ was split around 1632. The singular panel of ‘Christ appealing to his Mother’ was separated from the other two panels. The two panels were used to fit the doors of King Phillip IV of Spain reliquary, in Capilla Real. Thus, in order to compare the Triptych painted by Rogier Van der Weyden, one must compare the overall iconography of the three equally sized panels, while juxtaposing it to the Granada- New York panel of ‘Christ appealing to his Mother’. Despite this, Weyden’s triptych made in approximately in 1440 consists of three equal panels all 71x43cm. It is clear that the striking equalisation consists of a further comparison of the Granada-New York panel, evident in size that the panel is 63.5 x38.1cm. Although Pease talks about the comparing of original vs the copy in terms of bank notes, clearly the dissimilar and minute size differences, cannot properly suggest the
original from the copy. The illusion in the Miraflores altarpiece is greatly examined. The detail and precision of the Arch way, in which Christ and the Virgin centre the arch to almost form a portal between the viewer and the painting. Although the arch is not suggestively inviting it does stand a prominence that ‘the real frame seemed like a continuation of the painted architectural framework…thus heightening the illusion’; relating to a Gothic architecture, similar to the style in Amiens cathedral’s west front portal, 1220/30. This created a huge link between the painted archivolts and tracery of which occurred in the seminal work of Jan van Eyck. This in comparison to both paintings does not change, although one can suggest the Granada-New York copy is executed less desirably to the transmediality of Van Eyck’s work. The dimension created between the viewer and the Virgin and Christ provides vital empathy of the narrative, rather than symbolic links to historical context. It is therefore rather evident why Isabella may have wanted a copy of Rogier Miraflores altarpiece. Although, respectively the Granada-New York copy is executed rather unlike Weyden usual naturalistic style, it does raise questions to the composition, stylization and context of the Tryptic; clearly appealing and stylish, arguing that Isabella perhaps wanted the composition to mean more than the artist’s prominence.