Jan Van Eyck's Arnolfini Wedding Essay

Interpretations of Van Eyck’s Arnolfini Wedding Portrait

The “Arnolfini Wedding Portrait” by Jan Van Eyck is a painting believed to be a portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his wife in a room, presumably in their home in the Flemish city of Bruges. It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western Art History. There has been much debate on this painting. Two scholars’ in particular have two very different interpretations of the “Arnolfini Wedding Portrait.” Erwin Panofsky wrote an article in The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs titled, “Jan Van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait.” He argues that the elaborate signature on the back wall, and other factors, showed that it was painted as a legal document recording a marriage. Panofsky states that the description "a small panel on which was depicted the wedding of a man and a woman who were married by Fides" must be read in the sense of "married by law", or "lawfully married". Panofsky then goes on to investigate what constituted a
lawful marriage in those days. He concludes that marriage is a matter of mutual consent between man and wife expressed by words or actions and that, before the Council of Trent, this could take place without witnesses.
He draws attention to the fact that Van Eyck, being an exceptional artist, did not follow tradition: "Van Eyck took the liberty of joining the right hand of the bride with the left of the bridegroom, contrary to ritual and
contrary, also, to all other representations of a marriage ceremony. Panofsky draws attention to the following elements in the painting. First, the inscription above the mirror ("Johannes de Eyck fuit hic"), introduces the painter as witness of the marriage (neither bride nor groom having relatives in Bruges). Then Panofsky turns towards the composition of the painting and compares it with other representations of marriage ceremonies. Note that Panofsky does not use many images, just a couple and when he has to account for the differences between the images (right and left hand, instead of the joining of the right hands; there is not a person marrying the two depicted; there is no ring being put on the finger of the bride), Panofsky has to lean on "the originality of the painter". The second scholar, Linda Seidel, wrote an article titled, “Jan Van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait: Business as Usual?” She argues the portrait portrays the economics involved in marriage that represents business as usual. Linda Seidel, is clear and wide-ranging, she patiently eats away at Panofsky from another direction. She chooses not to insist on the historian's priority as judge of the facts. Rather, she draws on criticism and contemporary philosophy, especially on post-structuralism, to ask what an act of interpretation involves. For Seidel as for Panofsky, the portrait serves as a witness—but not a legally necessary witness.
The painting supplements the claims of a public ceremony. It tells us what marriage, love, painting, and even witnessing can mean. And it holds out that meaning for someone far from the source, like Arnolfini or Panofsky so far from home. They see above all the social functioning of a marriage. Seidel shows how images work to authenticate a woman's virtue, her dowry, and her acceptance of a husband's wishes. She finds, for example, other paintings with eager witnesses to a pregnant woman—religious scenes of the Virgin. As a mother, Giovanna will have a tough act to
follow. The author that I feel presents the most compelling argument is Linda Seidel. In her lucid analysis, Linda Seidel considers the famous double portrait as social record, legal document, material object and poetic fiction. Her study represents a distinct mode of inquiry and situates the painting within a different discursive tradition. In this way, Seidel explores a variety of historical practices - marital, economic and artisanal, to cite only a few - to illuminate the portrait’s painted narrative. Among the issues Seidel contemplates are the painting’s status as authenticating sign, the significance of the female subject, and the painting’s ‘after-life’ as touchstone for later artists and writers. This painting, I believe, has sustained scholarly interest and scrutiny for so many decades because of the passion behind this painting. It is a work of art that has so much symbolism and an interesting back story. It has much detail to it also, that one can not help but want to study this beautiful painting over and over.