Oil painting techniques in fifteenth-century Flemish and French portraiture

Portraiture: Van Eyck, Van Der Weyden and Fouquet

Jan van Eyck, (1390-1441), has been touted as the pioneer of Dutch fine painting and the preeminent orchestrator of the oil painting technique; although some argue that he did not invent it but rather tested the possibilities of not allowing one color to totally dry prior to another application. One of van Eyck's most notable works is the work completed at the St. Bavo's Cathedral in Ghent (Pacht, 2000).

Rogier van der Weyden or Rogier de le Pasture (1399 or 1400-1464), another 15th century world-renowned artist, reportedly surpassed van Eyck in popularity even though they both were considered exceptional Flemish Dutch artisans. Van der Weyden has been regarded as the "most influential Northern painter of the 15th century (Campbell, 2004). One of van der Weyden's most notable works is The "Magdalen Reading" and has been described by Campbell as "one of the great masterpieces of fifteenth century art and among Rogier's most important early works" (Campbell, 1988).

Jean Fouquet (1420-1481) was a highly regarded 15th century French painter, has been described as a preeminent artist with manuscript illumination and panel painting. He was also described as the inventor of miniature portrait (Synder, 1985). One of the artists' most prolific works was "Melum diptych."

Although all three famous artists' works have been recognized for their individual qualities and stylistic nature, all three have made a significant impact on contemporary art in the area of portraiture. Comparing some of the most significant work of van Eyck, van der Weyden and Fouquet will offer insight as to the importance of portraiture in their time and its impact on modern day art.

Jan van Eyck

Panofsky, in his book, "Early Netherlandish Painting" describes van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait as iconic in the interpretation and suggested yet disguised symbolism. The work is said to have created a great deal of interest amongst scholars from the 15th century to modern day. The double portrait and the optical qualities displayed were described by Panofsky as "a concord of form, space, light and color which even he was never to surpass" (Panofsky, 1971, p. 203). However, not all of van Eyck's work was described so prolifically. van Eyck's other interior scenes, "The Annuciation of the Ghent Altarpiece (1426-1432), the Dresden Triptych (1431-1432), the Ince Hall Madonna (1433), the Rolin Madonna (1433-1444), the Madonna of Canon van der Paele (1436), and the Lucca Madonna (1437)" (Panofsky 1971; Baldass, 1952) in chronological order purported by Panofsky and also by Baldass, are all described as never reaching the heights or depths of the Arnolfini Portrait.

The aforementioned additional works reportedly represent the two-point perspective that is innate to van Eyck's heritage as learned from the Boucicaut Master (Panofsky, 1971). Panofsky goes on to describe van Eyck's portrait style as more along the lines of a "system of two vanishing areas centered at the two foci of an ellipse" and because of that his perspective is referred to as elliptical (p. 166). The four vanishing points described in the Arnolfini Portrait are described as the ceiling or upper orthogonals convergence in the area of the upper edge of the mirror with the lower or floor orthogonals converging in the area of the couple's hands.

The propensity toward forward movement within the piece provides heightened presence with subtle comparisons to the figure "Madonna in the Church," with a desired need to cause subject domination, somehow seeming to dwarf the surroundings. Although the Arnolfini Portrait provides the optics most closely associated with the wide angle lens vs. The fish eye lens so frequently used today, the picture represents characters with tremendous depth and that his use of the convex mirror, earmarked in this piece, may have precipitated the development of a consistent mathematical theory of application and perspective not referred to as the elliptical perspective (Carleton, 1982).

Ward, in his article, "Disguised Symbolism as Enactive Symbolism in van Eyck's Paintings" speaks to the view that concealed or disguised symbolism being a widely accepted fundamental feature of Netherlandish paintings in the 15th century for a significant amount of time subsequent to Panofsky's work, "Early Netherlandish Painting" (Panofsky, 1953). However, by 1988 there is said to have been scholarly disrepute as Barbara Lane would write in her work, "Sacred vs. Profane in Early Netherlandish Painting," "most writers would probably agree that early Netherlandish painters made no effort to 'disguise' this symbolism, which was perfectly apparent to educated viewers (p. 154). This was evidence of the growing rejection of the thesis posited by Panofsky as many argued the information purported was without a comprehensive analysis of the value or implication with neither Panofsky nor his supporters offered.

Ward attempts to provide greater analysis of the functionality of symbolic disguise that accounts for the complexities that van Eyck's work has come to be known for. Ward argues that the visual effect and means represented by symbols were designed by the artist to be as indistinguishable and inseparable as possible and that these disguising symbols were intentional and part of a deliberate strategy to create a spiritually revelatory experience (Ward, 1994). Panofsky's language is regarded as conflictual and suggested the disparity credited by the symbols was resolved with replacement by traditional symbols with analogous objects more suitable to the context depicted; with the purpose of the disguise being "reconciliation of symbolic meaning and naturalism, not intentional concealment from the viewer" (Ward, p. 11).

Scholars have continued to challenge these notions with a representative group arguing the possibility of disguised symbolism being questioned in totality; others arguing the symbols were relevant to 15th century viewers but not to modern day viewers, and even other scholars arguing that most 15th century viewers lacked acquaintance with church doctrine subtleties and as such they were unfamiliar with the subtleties as well (Hitchcock 1976). The complexities of van Eyck's work as been regarded as the "inventions of modern scholars out of tune with fifteenth century Netherlandish experience (Ward, 1994).

Jean Fouquet

According to Pacht in his 1953 article "Jean Fouquet: A Study of His Style" posits that there have been rare instances in which clearer light on the significantly radical changes in the "position of the creative artist at the end of the middle ages than the part now played by the individual in the cultural relations between different countries" (p. 85). He argues that the work of the artist during that time was merely an exponent of s particular tradition that was common to productions of his native country and had been that way for centuries. However, beginning in the 15th century, Pacht goes on to say, artists were able to "exert considerable influence" internationally and still manage to bring the artistic milieus closer together. Fouquet is said to have benefited from this newfound artistic fame, and was the first French artist, as a personality, that was well-known outside of his own country and recognized as an international figure. However, Pacht posits, international recognition failed to garner influence of any artistic movement in other countries (Pacht,

1953).

French artistic stylings had been taken up in many countries including Germany, Italy, Spain and England around 1400; however more progressive movements in Flanders and Florence abated the spread. Fouquet was not able to stem the time of this drifting from classical French style. This adrift is said to have been impacted by artists such as Masaccio and van Eyck forcing French artistry further into the background and was regarded as a conservative country.

Fouquet was the first French artist to be widely accepted in Italy and is said to have brought France in touch with Italian Renaissance; helping the country to move from a gothic to Latin country. Fouquet is said to have been influenced by the Florentines of early Renaissance and van Eyck in Flanders; quickly adopting the Italian style shortly after learning the van Eyckian style. However, even though the styles he adopted where vastly different, his work seems to work one continuous and unbroken developmental line. This ability to seamlessly integrate dichotomous styles is what has given Fouquet is distinction (Pacht, 1953, p.86).

As with van der Weyden, Fouquet's work and life are scarcely documented and as such, the validity of his work cannot be significantly expounded on says Pachet. Fouquet created a series of miniature paintings that according to art historians helped to bridge the gap between French stylings of the 1430's and his work after 1450. Durrieu, in attempting to ascribe the origin of Fouquets' work has significantly criticized several of the miniatures maintaining they were of 'inferior quality'. Pacht, however, attributes the level of quality to Fouquets' physical age and level of artistic maturity.

Fouquet's artistic style as described by Pacht reportedly is in keeping with old figure types; using the traditional form and vocabulary of composition as the generations that preceded him; however, the artist is said to see these traditions in a new and different way. Learning from the Flemish, the artist has mastered the skills of atmosphere and light; which involves a "delicate transformation of the old subject matter" (Pacht, 1953, p. 88). Some saw Fouquet's work as a disintegration of the old because it so closely mirrored much that had taken place before. However, Fouquet's work fused forms, compressed figures, and changed faces. His style is described as less forceful and aggressive than his predecessors; offering a more delicate treatment of tonality as opposed to sharp contours. In his later work, Pacht maintains that the artists; swift modeling stands in stark contrast to the composition and compactness that presented as stable in his earlier works.

Fouquet is said to have learned a great deal from Fra Angelico who worked for then Pope Eugenius (1445-1449), and Massaccio, regarding the new spatial conception and new classical treatment of the human form. Jacopo Bellini from Venice reportedly taught the artist the use of perspective in compositions involving crowds. Theory was not reported to be the artists' strong suit, as he pictures are recorded as rarely conforming to any scientific methodology. This is reportedly played out in his paintings where there isn't a single form that coincides with the picture plane in any material way; while at the same time, nothing is disorderly or accidental.

Pachet poses the question, "are we not deceiving ourselves and do we not se the art of the past through our modern eyes and therefore necessarily distorted?" (p. 93). To address this question, he posits, there is a look for modern day evidence and Fouquet provides such evidence. Fouquet is said to have been the master of encapsulating single episodic movement within mass movement; leaving not a picture of an isolated event or a swift change in action, but rather a lasting large impression of full-scale action and movement.

Conclusion

It is clear that all three artists, van Eyck, van der Weyden and Fouquet, each in their own way made a significant mark in the 15th century in portraiture. What is also clear is how each artist's contribution to the artistic community has impacted modern day interpretations of art both in comparison, contrast, and composition in portraiture specifically and art in general. Van Eyck, of the three, is most documented both in art history and in the scholarly literature. His work has been distinguished by disguised symbolism and has provided much fodder for scholarly discourse as to the relevance of concealed symbolism. This discourse continues today; with some taking the position that modern day perspectives cannot relate to 15th century symbolism.

Van der Weyden, although frequently compared to van Eyck made his mark in the masterful use of text in his portraits. His life and work were not documented to the depth and breadth of van Eyck however, his skill set and influence seems undeniable. Van der Weyden is most noted for his skillful use of written biblical text in his paintings that reflect religiosity and art in the same spatial context. His work was representative of the relationships that exist between text and image to which may somehow refer to as document coding, symbolism, illustration, embodiment, fulfillment of a contract or documented cultural conditions.

Fouquet, was reportedly a student of many great artisans of his time including van Eyck, but managed to distinguish himself by incorporating varied styles in a seamless and indistinguishable manner. Fouquet has been touted as the master of the miniature portrait; maximizing perspective in crowd composition, light, and the delicate transformation of tradition into a new medium designated as his own.