Fra Filippo Lippi's portrait of a woman with a man at a casement

Fra Filippo Lippi's Portrait of a Woman with a Man at a Casement

The purpose of the present paper is to discuss a very interesting piece of art, namely, Fra Filippo Lippi's "Portrait of a woman with a man at a Casement." We will begin by the analysis of the formal qualities of the painting such as the composition, the color, line, texture, proportion, balance, contrast and rhythm. We will then discuss how the work fits a certain stylistic category. We will demonstrate that the painting reflects the social and cultural trends of the period in which it was created.

" the paintings of Filippo Lippi are frequently characterised by two features: an interest in minimising the divide between world and image and the presence of humour, both bodily and representational. Although these two aspects of Lippi's art might initially seem unconnected, this paper suggests that both can be associated with the use of scientific perspective. Lippi's spatial concerns can be understood as a reaction to the distancing of the iconic image that accompanied the invention of perspective."

"The "Portrait of a woman with a man at a casement" dates from around 1440-1444. It is made with tempera on wood by a Florentine artist, Fra Filippo Lippi. The painting is 64,1 x 41,9 cm. Avery interesting detail is the inscription on the cuff of the woman, reading the word "lealta" which is Italian for loyalty. The painting is part of the Marquand Collection and is to be found at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it was given as a gift by Henry G. Marquand in 1889."

The painting depicts two figures, the one of a woman and of a man. The dominating central figure is the one of the woman. We see her profile as she looks to the left. Her hands are crossed in a graceful manner. She has blonde hair and her figure is lit by what seems to be natural light. In fact, it is safe to say that her face is the most luminous spot in the entire painting. The woman is dressed in red and she wears a lot of jewelry: rings, a brooch, a necklace and a hat which was typical for the society of those times -- which is embroidered with pearls.

The sleeves are cut open and we can see a beautiful under dress. We realize that the woman must be very rich and we assume that she was part of an aristocratic family from Florence. Her look is completely captured by something in front of her that the viewer can not see or she is having a moment of powerful introspection.

In the second frame of the painting we see the figure of a man. We actually see his face, his hands and a small part of his chest. He is also wearing red. He has a red hat and he is wearing a ring on his finger. His figure faces the opposite direction and just like in the case of the woman, he is either interested in something that the viewer can not see or he is also introspective.

The figure of the man is half the one of the woman and is also situated beneath hers. Both of them have prominent noses, delicate hands and thin lips. She is inside the house and dominating the entire construction, while he is outside and only parts of his body are visible through a window. A third frame reveals either a panting or a further window.

Judging by the coat of arms under the hands of the man, by the manner in which the characters are dressed and by the period in which the painting was created, "it is assumed that they are Ranieri Scolari and Angiola di Bernardo Sapiti, who married in 1436. The sumptuous manner in which the woman is dressed (the fur lining, the pearls, the loops of gold which adorn her sleeves) and the word spelled on the drapery on her wrist "loyalty" suggests that she is a bride. Therefore the man ought to be the groom. The gardens and the buildings in the background ought to be the possessions of the couple."

It is interesting to analyze under the circumstances the symbolic value of their physical positioning. The fact is that they are separated (he is outside, she is inside) and that they looks do not meet. The direction of their looks suggests that she is looking towards the past, while he is looking towards the future. In this case this may be a metaphor. Since they are newly wed, his look into the future can be nothing but a vision of her or at least a vision which includes her. The question which remains open is why is she gazing into the past? Are they supposed to be symbols of two different life perspectives, one valuing the past and the other one valuing the future? Should the viewer understand that since their eyes do not meet, nor will they spiritually- regardless of their official union? Reading between the lines, is there a critique to the institution of marriage which often brings together people united by various interests, but not by love?

We nevertheless take into account the period when the painting was created. We are speaking about the early Renaissance in Italy when the portrait was beginning to impose itself as a genre of its own. Beforehand, portraits were included in bigger compositions, including a variety of elements. These compositions were most often representations of religious themes. Therefore, the figures which they depicted also had to do with the themes of religion and/or spirituality. The social and cultural changes which brought about Renaissance allowed painters to portray people outside the above mentioned spheres. People with various social statuses had their faces immortalized by painters and this was really turning into an art (or better said, art was broadening its borders). However, we must underline the fact that the painting under discussion is quite unusual and innovative for the period in which it was created.

One might wonder why both the characters are portrayed with their profiles. The explanation is to be found in the trend of the early Italian Renaissance to use the profile as a standard transmitted throughout time from antiquity. This particular standard limited the freedom of the painter, who did not have the possibility to develop the personality of the character, nor the meaning of the painting through body language or through various facial expressions. Judging from this perspective, we understand that Lippi had limited means in order to convey the message he desired in this painting. Since the body language and the expressions on the faces can not give the viewer the clues which he needs in order to decipher the meaning of the painting, he must appeal to all the other available elements such as the dress, the colors, the details, the position in space. " While some of Lippi's contemporaries incorporated this distancing into their works, Lippi, for personal and devotional reasons, resisted this solution. Instead, using introductory steps and other compositional devices, he tried to de-emphasise the boundary marked by the physical picture plane."

In order to convey a message about a person's personality and his interior state, the painter had at his disposal symbols and iconography. We therefore understand the power of suggestion that all the available elements have. Nothing is there by chance, everything is chosen carefully. For example, we notice that the woman has pale skin, and this might be interpreted as a sign of purity and virtue. The rich clothes denote that she is part of a rich and powerful family. In addition we understand that she is part of some kind of ceremony or important event. The word "loyalty" suggests that this important event is a marriage ceremony.

The woman has blonde hair and although we can not see her face entirely, that which we can see suggests that she is beautiful. At this point, it is worth underlining that in the times of the early Renaissance, the physical beauty was associated with the internal one. Therefore, the beautiful woman dressed in red is also a virtuous woman and a person of great spiritual standard. The blonde hair and the pale skin color, just like the tall forehead (a symbol of beauty and elegance at that time) are symbols of virtue.

Such wedding portraits were beginning to impose themselves in that period. We know that they were usually commissioned by rich families in which the marriages were arranged. The purpose of the painting was also a pragmatic one, in the sense that it revealed the aspect of one partner to the other one. The spouses had never seen each other and one of the families actually commissioned Lippi in order to portray the lady, so that her future husband might know how she looks like. His gaze directed towards the future can therefore be explained. He has a vision of his future wife, after having seen her portrait. The future bride is a virtuous woman, with beautiful physical attributes, coming from an equally wealthy family.

Moving on with the analysis of the symbols, we must underline the importance of their position in space. She is inside and he is outside. The inside of the house is a symbol of the private space, while the outside is the symbol of the public space. Residing in these spaces, the characters become symbols of them. We notice a blunt dichotomy in terms of gender definition. The man belongs to the public sphere, where the decisions are taken. The woman belongs to the private one, where she passively obeys the husband. The painter shows that the social role of the woman was that of a home maker. The role of the man is a lot more complex, as he stands outside, but gazes inside. Reading between the lines we understand that he is a decision maker in both the spaces where he finds himself.

In fact, analyzing the body posture, we realize that the woman is very still and in a submissive type of pose. She attends quietly. Her destiny has been decided for her. She is beautiful and virtuous, but in the end she is a well adorned object that the man is to posses and control according to his own wish. The fact that she takes up most of the space in the painting suggests that the painter wished to render the idea of how beautiful and important she is- in a way that would persuade the future husband that she is a good arrangement. The fancy dress and the jewels are a sign of her social status and they are there in order for him to see them. It was customary during the Renaissance times for a woman to be seen as the property of her husband after marriage, together with all of her belongings. Lippi makes sure that the future husband will understand exactly what type of possession he will acquire. The shadow of the man's face on the wall underlines the realism of the scene.

Another interpretation that was given to the painting focuses on the religious sphere. "Is it possible that the man's placement was inspired by a passage from the Song of Solomon (2:9) interpreted as an allegory of the marriage of Christ and Mary, or the Church: "Behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, showing himself through the lattice"?

From this perspective, the woman is no longer an incarnation of the typical spouse in an arranged marriage, but the very symbol of spirituality. The man on the other hand is the incarnation of God on the earth. Him being outside suggests his double dimension, both spiritual and human. The fact that their looks do not meet signifies that their union has been established by some other superior instance. In addition, it suggests that the union is not made at a human level (that of the eyes), but in the superior area of the spirit. The richness of the woman is associated with the richness that the Church as an institution might have. We know however that the richness of the man (Christ) is bigger, because it is not from this world. The attributes of virtuosity and pure spirit are necessary in order for the future groom to accept his bride.

Regardless of the interpretation key that we adopt, the painting remains one of the most beautiful created by Lippi. Referring to his style, some argue that "his pictures show the naivete of a strong, rich nature, redundant in lively and somewhat whimsical observation. He approaches religious art from its human side, and is not pietistic though true to a phase of Catholic devotion. He was perhaps the greatest colorist and technical adept of his time, with good draftsmanship. As a naturalist, he had less vulgar realism than some of his contemporaries, and with much genuine episodic animation, including semi-humorous incidents and low characters."