FREE ESSAY ON PANOFSKY'S VIEWS ON VAN EYCK

PANOFSKY'S VIEWS ON VAN EYCK

Panofsky's purpose in writing this article was to identify a painting discovered in
Brussels in 1815 (referred to as the "London portrait") as the portrait of Geovanni
Arnolfimi and his wife Jeanne de Cename, painted in 1434. Panofsky uses historical
documentation and iconography to prove his point. Because a painting's value can be
enhanced by its historical significance, it is important to discover its background.
Identifying a painting from several centuries ago is not easy. Because there is no
photocopy available, we must depend on physical descriptions provided by others for
recognition. Only paintings possessed by rich or historically significant people would be
described in inventories or letters saved over hundreds of years. Wars often brought
destruction and chaos, destroying historical documentation.
Panofsky traces the "provenance" of this picture to provide a logical argument that the
"London portrait" could be the Arnolfimi painting. He carefully documents the historical
journey of the Arnolfimi painting, providing a continuous list of ownership from Don
Diego de Guevara of Spain in the 1500's to Charles III in 1789. This careful
documentation is to prove that the Amolfimi painting was still listed as being in Madrid
in 1789. The timing of its disappearance and the subsequent discovery of the "London
portrait" in Brussels in 1815 could easily be attributed to the chaos caused by
Napoleon's conquering of Spain during the lost time period. 
Since written documentation is often used as proof of historical happenings, it is very
important that the content be interpreted correctly, within its historical context.
Because a language translation can easily twist the content's meaning, scholars usually
provide a quote in the language of its origin. In Panofsky's era, most research scholars
were fluent in German, French, and Latin. Today fluency in English is also essential.
Because the Art History discipline addresses a wide variety of objects from all over the
world, and from all known times, misinterpretations caused by language translation can be
a critical problem. As a student of Art History, I am depending on the author's
interpretation of the quotes documentation. I don't have to understand the non-English
text because the foreign quotes are explained in the context of the article. Foreign
quotes are provided as just additional proof to the arguments presented by the author.
Artists frequently use symbols to present an idea or concept to the audience. An icon is
an image whose association with a particular meaning is wide accepted. This symbol can
convey emotions associated with its meaning, to have symbolized a particular meaning.
Iconography provides a description of icons used throughout history. Iconology, the study
of iconography, can provide us with a better understanding of an art object by providing
its historical context. 
Panofsky points out that the writings of Varnewyck and Vermander are unreliable.
Vermander was trying to describe a painting he had never seen, depending on Varnewyck's
written accounts as his only source. Panofsky points out that Vermander not only had just
hearsay evidence, but also twisted the meaning of those written accounts in his attempt
to interpret them. Actually the first error Vermander committed was using Varnewyck as a
source to begin with. Varnewyck had also never seen the picture, and had used an unknown
source for his writing. Establishing a source as reliable and supported by other evidence
is very important for an art historian. 
Before the Council of Trent was held in 1583, the rule regarding matrimony dictated only
that two people accept each other to form a legal marriage. The Council of Trent added
the stulation that 2 witnesses and a priest were also required. This distinction is
important because the Van Eyck painting represented a marriage, and only two people are
in it. Because the marriage occurred before 1583, this was allowable.
Panofsky uses the anecdote about Willibald Pirckheimer's mother to support his argument
an undocumented wedding could lead to misunderstanding and problems. He talks about how
Willibald Pirckheimer's mother was secretly married to Sigmund Stromer, but was able to
abandon him for another man because the marriage or "joining of hands" had been done in
secret. 1 Pirckheimer, a wealthy citizen of Nuremberg, was a German humanist and book
collector. He often made his library available to scholars and his house a literary and
artistic center. It was Pirckheimer's great collection that fascinated Panofsky and he
was able to study about Pirckheimer's life.
The "London portrait has the inscription "Johannes de Eyck fuit hic. 1434" which is Latin
for "Jon van Eyck has been here". This inscription had been misinterpreted as "This was
Jan van Eyck", meaning that the portrait contained the figures of Van Eyck and his wife.
Since Van Eyck's child was baptized in June, 1434, he was probably married in 1433 at the
latest. Also this inscription is used to make this painting an actual marriage document,
with the artist as the signing witness.
Capturing two people standing side by side, portrayed full length in a richly furnished
room was not commonly done by 15th century artists. The allusion to Holbein's Ambassadors
was to compare the content of it to Van Eyck's painting. The marriage of David and Michal
also shows two people standing side by side, but had the bride's father and his courtier
in it as well. All of the scenes represent a ceremony-taking place without a priest, and
signified by the joining of hands. The author uses these allusions to show that two
people standing next to each other, joining hands was a common icon representing a
marriage ceremony.
Some symbols have been designed to represent a particular ritual or object. For instance,
a crown represents royalty, and can be used to convey the same attributes. Van Eyck used
commonly found object such as furnishings and room ornaments as symbols. In this painting
he uses these symbols to reinforce the matrimonial theme. The single candle in the
chandelier is used as a symbol of the "marriage candle given to the bride by the groom.
The scene-taking place in a bedroom instead of a sitting room suggests a "Nuptial
Chamber".
This work is important historically because it tells us so much about the people and
rituals of its time. Also Van Eyck presents us with an art object that symbolizes
matrimonial fidelity and religious faith in a simple, but original way. His use of such
materials as brass, velvet, wood and fur not only make the background more realistic, but
also are used as symbols to reinforce the painting's theme.
Panofsky carefully examined and explained the validity of his sources, document events by
tracing their chronological sequence, and used carefully constructed evidence to destroy
his opponents' (i.e., Vermander, Varnewyck etc.) arguments.
Bibliography
1. Found at www.encyclopedia.com