CRAIG HARBISON
Certainly he was the greatest living art historian at that time, if not of the century. But on the other hand I think we also realised and the way he made us feel was that we were apprentices we were we were to be trained to become the next generation of what he had represented.

 

EVELYN WELCH
Across a wide range of different disciplines. The humanities and the sciences, from the late 19th century through the 20th century, there's been an assumption that if you study the detail the minutiae, you will find the big answer. So Panofsky is one of many scholars going down this route.

Freud, looking for detail in people's dreams. If you like Sherlock Holmes as a detective always getting that clue which enables the discovery of the murderer, scientists who, if they can just explore the minutiae of a particular problem will come up with the answer.

So what Panofsky is doing makes perfect sense within the wider academic context of his time.

CRAIG HARBISON
The goal was to sensitise yourself - at least that's what I felt the goal was - to sensitise yourself to look, to observe, to put together the pieces of the puzzle in such a way that voilà, it was obvious what the answer was, and that's that was the sort of miracle of sitting there beside him was when we struggled and we struggled and then Panofsky would say: "But there's the key!".

NARRATOR
Panofsky had presented the world with answers to the Arnolfini puzzle, explaining every detail of the painting, but science was digging deeper to reveal every brush stroke.

Infra-red photographs offered glimpses into Van Eyck's mind - peeling away layers of the painting to unveil earlier working versions, before Arnolfini's right hand had moved, before his head had been altered, his gaze re-directed.

But the scientific investigations also uncovered some bigger surprises that questioned the very essence of the painting.

EVELYN WELCH
Science was supposed to give us ever-greater insight into the workings of both Jan Van Eyck and the creation of this picture. In fact, what it's lead to is a set of new problems.

What the recent investigations undertaken by the National Gallery in London have shown, is that all of these so-called significant details, the discarded shoes, the dog etc., were in fact painted probably, after the composition was designed.

NARRATOR
Fine lines behind Arnolfini and his wife reveal detailed drawings, plotting the positions of the main figures. But very few so called 'under drawings' can be found on any of the objects that Panofsky claimed were the keys to understanding the painting.

 

EVELYN WELCH
So this inevitably raises new kinds of questions. Why are these objects in this picture? Do they contribute significantly to the meaning of the picture? Or are there other approaches that we can use to find a new solution.

 

 

 
NARRATOR
Panofsky had tried to make art history scientific, but real science had undermined his theory. Perhaps the answers weren't in the details at all. Historians began to take a broader view, looking at the wider social context that surrounded works of art. And they were coming up with some radically different interpretations.

 

CRAIG HARBISON
When Panofsky looked at the oranges on the windowsill and chest he saw fruit, which reminded him of the fruit of paradise.

 

And what he said was: "This was then a sign that this was a new perfect union, new perfect marriage of this couple", which had a kind of return to paradise element - a religious sort of fervour to it.

Actually though, objects like that can be interpreted from a much more sort of social contemporary point of view. Oranges we take for granted of course, but they were incredibly costly - a sign of great wealth, of great prestige. To have oranges lying around on your chest at home would have indicated that you had money to burn.

EVELYN WELCH
The garment that the woman is wearing is extraordinary, lavish in terms of the sheer quantity of cloth. Very very expensive fabric. If you look underneath it's clearly lined, probably with white ermine. This is fantastically expensive. Now she may never have owned a garment like this - it's a bit like, borrowing a designer dress to go to open a film today. But it's how her husband wants her to be seen. It's not about what they owned as much about what they would like to be seen to own.

NARRATOR
But if Arnolfini and his wife were pretending, how can we accept anything in the painting as real?

Are we in a bedroom? A bed would have been an expensive status symbol to be shown off to visitors, not hidden in a private chamber. But did they really own one?

And although the woman looks pregnant, it's more likely that she's simply exaggerating a fashionable round bellied look.

It's even possible that the entire room and its contents are no more than the creation of Van Eyck's imagination - the whole painting a game played between patron and artist.

EVELYN WELCH
There must have been some meaning for the original owner of this picture. There must have been some understanding between the artist and the patron who commissioned it. We may never be able to find out what that precise meaning was.

NARRATOR
But that doesn't stop historians from trying. Could it be a betrothal ceremony - a promise to link two families by marriage? Could it be a moment before a marriage is consummated? Or even an exorcism to encourage fertility? Social theory seemed to be able to prove any new idea - no matter how wild.

For CRAIG HARBISON there had to be a middle way where Panofsky's ideas could be combined with an investigation of Renaissance society to continue the search for a meaning.

  < previous   next > Page 3 of 4