Arnolfini Portrait an Iconographic Debate

Arnolfini Portrait

-How does the author identify symbolism? What symbols does he find the most evocative? Of the author's interpretations, which symbols do you find most plausible?

*Panofsky focuses on symbols which relate to the marriage sacrament:

*the joined hands of the couple

*the raised hand of the man

*the presence of a witness (van Eyck) who has signed his work accordingly

*the dog (as an image of marital fidelity)

*the religious icon of St. Margaret (invoked in childbirth)

*the room itself, with discarded shoes

*the single lit candle burning in the chandelier.

*Panofsky is interested in the way that the symbolism in the Arnolfini portrait disguises itself as realism: he identifies the result, for the viewer, as a "transfigured reality," where the transfiguration is perhaps indicative of the sacramental nature of what is depicted.

*Bedeaux never quotes the phrase "transfigured reality" but fixates instead on the notion of "disguised symbolism," which he thinks was a bad influence on subsequent scholarship.

*From the examples Bedeaux cites of scholars quibbling over minor issues in Panofsky's description -- such as whether the use of bride's left hand indicates a morganatic marriage, in which children born to the couple would not be considered legitimate heirs to the estate -- Bedaux seems correct that Panofsky's methods here are easily misapplied.

*Yet Bedaux then proceeds to locate symbolism in every object that Panofsky ignored -- the brush on the wall, the depiction of Christ on the mirror -- in a thoroughly-documented but not very persuasive set of syllogisms which links Christ's crucifixion to the institution of marriage, the wound on Christ's side to the sacrament of marriage, and mirrors to Christ.

-How is Panofsky's approach to art history different from what we have been doing in lecture and section? Is there something inherently attractive about approaching art history as a search for hidden or disguised meaning?

*Panofsky's goal in his essay was not to go hunting symbolism where none existed (as Bedaux more or less accuses him of doing) but to address certain peculiarities of the painting: it is the first portrait of its kind in history, and certain oddities (like the solitary lit candle during daylight) certainly beg for explanation.

*Of course the temptation to reduce all art to mere allegory is something that needs to be resisted.

*Bedaux is right that an interpreter should not confuse a profane picture with an altarpiece.

*But I do think Panofsky is persuasive that the particularities of the Catholic marriage sacrament do, in fact, make this a profane picture that has much in common with an altarpiece.

-Can and should the written text carry more weight than its visual counterpart? How does iconography help or hinder art historical study?

*Bedaux clearly has spent too much time with written text but gives very little sense of an aesthetic response to the painting, or a real curiosity about its uniqueness as the first portrait of its kind.