Upper register - mention that the original arched ceiling was repainted w/ timber planks - Pacht? can't remember
Upper register - have read but can't remember where re the two interior panels, also read somewhere re the view from the window - find
Lower register - "The use of grisaille gives the illusion of sculpture, and implies that these are cult representations of the two saints, before which the donors kneel, gazing into the distance with their hands clasped together, in rapt veneration. - "plus 2nd last pg of pacht" - find the page number
Angels - figure out what is sourced and what isn't sourced. Trim a little? or something
Adam & Eve > move to "History" section the info that the panels were offensive and replaced?
is each painting on a separate panel? How was this thing put together?
Lunettes & upper tier: Zechariah & angel = 162 x 69.1; Erythraean sybil, view of city = 204.8 x 33; Cumaean sybil & wall niche = 204.5 x 32.3; Micah and Mary = 161.5 x 69.6
Lower tier: Jodocus = 145.7 x 51; St John the Baptist = 146 x 51.8; St. John the Evangelist = 146.4 x 52.6; Elisabeth Borluut = 145.8 x 50.7
Open view 375 x 520
Central panel > Virgin Mary = 166.8 x 72.3; God the father = 210.5 x 80; John the Baptist 162.2 x 72; Adoration of the Lamb 134.3 x 237.5 (one single piece??)
Upper left shutter: Sacrifice of Cain and Abel (half-lunette) and Adam = 204.3 x 33.2; Angels singing = 161.7 x 69.3
Lower left shutter: Righteous Judges (copy) 145 x 51; Warriors of Christ = 146.2 x 51.4
Upper right shutter: Slaying of Abel (half lunette) & Eve = 204.3 x 32.3; Angels Playing musical instruments = 161.1 x 69.3
Lower right shutter: St Christopher w/ Pilgrims 146.5 x 52.8; Hermits = 146.4 x 51.2
Missing 1st page of altarpiece chptr (p. 119) - background, etc.
altarpiece = "most powerful and complex of all works of Early Netherlandish painting"
Attribution difficult, still unresolved by scholarship, "difficulties remain to be overcome", needs patience
What we do know: it's signed and dated - date = yr of completion; inscription gives credit to Hubert. Unknown is when H. began it, which is his, which is Jan's, who planned & designed the panels
Answers to above questions required to give attribution to H. who died "as early as 1426" - a decade later than the Limbourg brothers. "Highly likely" that H. initiated the altarpiece the ars nova" > he deserves credit.
The Adoration of the Lamb "must be Hubert plus Jan" > but separating Jan's work from Hubert's has resisted scholar's efforts
"It has been clear for some time now that all attempts to draw actual lines of demarcation-Hubert here, Jan there-are doomed to failure"... (to page 120 mid-sentence)
Reunification of panels in 1920 showed differences in preservation and "'some of the restorations had been tantamount to partial repaintings". 120
After WWII to Brussels & full restoration. Examined, damaged varnishes removed, & also some partial repaintings removed. [very detailed - interesting, but necessary?] 120
Van Eyck's varnishes = "part of the final colour effect" > those that were destroyed in earlier restorations destroyed the colors > i.e. singing angel's mantle "the green of the brocade has turned flat and dull" but the organ playing angel brocade "retains all its splendour" 121
X-ray showed that the flooring in front of God the Father [note that Pacht calls him God the Father] was originally "alternating light and dark tiles" unlike the dark tiles seen today. The current tiles painted painted over a thin layer of silver leaf. 121
X-ray shows no crown in first layer of painting > possibly added during the 1550 restoration > but Pacht thinks it's too similar to Chancellor Rolin and has to be Eyckian. 121
In 1458 mystery play performed in Ghent for Philip which was a re-enactment of the panel > shows a crown at god's feet. Pacht certain the crown in the tableau vivant had to be in the painting at that time. 122
Disagreement re the Utrecht Cathedral - also attributed by some to 1550 restoration (restorer = Jan van Scorel) but Pacht thinks similarity to Rolin too close so must be Eyckian 122
Aureole beneath the dove identified as a later addition - prob the 1550 restoration - but now restored to original state 122-123
Gabriel and Mary originally painted in traceried arches & not under the current shallow ceiling > possibly intended as grissaille > these changes made before c. 1432 123
Deesis
Deesis: God's inscription = REX REGUM ET DOMINUS DOMINATIUM ("King of Kings and Lord of Lords") > in pearls; Mary reads a book, crowned (flowers & stars); St. John Baptist, mantle, hair shirt (camel's hair), open book, open hand, "in act of speaking his famous words Ecce agnus Dei (Behold the Lamb of God) 124
Angels Singing > inscription = MELOS DEO LAUS ("Music in Praise of God"); "Angels Playing Musical Instrument" > inscription = LAUDATE EUM IN CORDIS ET ORGANO (Praise him with stringed instruments and organs) 124
Adam & Eve > after the fall b/c covering themselves 124
Lamb panel > inscription on "red antependium of the the altar" = ECCE AGNUS DEI QUI TOLLIT PECCATA MUNDI (Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world) & JESUS VIA VERITAS VITA (Jesus, the way, the truth, and the life) > from St. John's. 124
Altar: angels form a ring, "display instruments of Christ's Passion"; lamb's blood flows into a chalice on the alter 126
Fountain: Inscription on fountain = HIC EST FONS AQUE VITE PROCENDENS DE SEDE DEI + AGNI (This is the fountain of the water of life, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb) > fountain of life is "watered by the blood of the Lamb" 124
Fountain: at bottom edge of the panel = Fountain of Life 124
Fountain of Life ringed by semicircle of figures: apostles left, prophets right. Two groups "processions of figures have crowded to a halt" > Church representatives right; left = figures from Judaism and heathens who have foretold coming of Christ. Two more processions toward the background, "smaller in scale", left = male Bishops and Confessors; right = female virgins - all w/ palm fronds = martyrs 126
Left wing panels = unidentified mounted figures. Frame inscription for left = CHRISTI MILITES (Warriors of Christ) & right = IUSTI IUDGES (Righteous Judges) on far left 126
Right wings = HEREMETI SANCTI (Hermit saints), & SANCTI PEREGRINE (Pilgrim saints) against rocks, forest, "far distance" 126
Deesis
Unusual for Mary to be reading in a deesis scene > Pacht thinks Mary is an adaptation of the Master of Flemalle's Virgin Annuciate 129
Crown at God's feet (Pacht says God not christ) is meant as a transition to the lamb panel > he says the crown may symbolizes emblem of power that humans below flock toward to pay homage (???) 129-130
Iconographically the two tiers of the altarpiece complement each other & the predella hellscene would have fit as the "the subterranean realm below the paradisal landscape ... and this made it necessary to round off the whole with a celestial culmination above." 132
According to Pacht the piece has a setting "unique in the whole of Netherlandish painting" - multilevel structure could have been used as a set piece for tableau vivant. 132
Madrid Fountain of Life > see fig. 79 page 133
Adam & Eve = personification of fall of man which made the redemption necessary [note. cp here] 135
Perspective wrong, doesn't work as an Ars nova > A & E viewed from below & lamb scene viewed from above > discrepency. Shift from a "worm's-eye view to a bird's-eye view". 136
Landscape is panoramic and requires viewer to look into the distance as well as near > shifting viewpoint 136
"diamond arrangement" > [too technical?] 137
Lamb = centerpiece is in the mid-ground; figures in the foreground turn backs to the viewers > viewer has to look beyond the foreground to get to the central motif of the panel 138
Crowd scenes on the flanking panels w/ differing perspectives 138
Shutters are 10 cm higher than center panel w/ no explanation [this is too technical imo] 138
Long mantles of the virgins on the Lamb panel give the impression they glide onto the meadow 141
Van Eyck may have gone to Italy on pilgrimage for Philip sometime between 1426 and 1428 - scholars who accept this are Meiss, Dhanens, Brand Philip & others (in the note) 369
He may have been influenced by a Florentine fresco painted c. 1252 - the Annunciation at SS. Annunzione - believed "to have miraculous properties in regard to marriage and childbirth". Painter fell asleep & when he woke the Madonna's face had been painted > miraculously by an angel > this became a great pilgrimage site 369
Copying that fresco and its derivatives - i.e Monaco's Annunciation - may have hoped to infuse his work the power to "aid childless couples" - i.e the Vydts [She says Duke & Duchess of Burgundy, but prob not Isabella - but Philip's earlier wife Bonne of Artois who died childless] 369
Original no longer exists & the extant painting was executed c. mid-14 cent. Gabriel stands to the left; holy dove above sends rays of light down to Mary seated reading (Isaiah). She looks up and her "words retrace the diagonal path of the light rays, and are written backwards, mirror-fashion, emphasizing their return movement towards God. 370
Childbearing iconography led frequent copying of the scene in church frescoes 370-71
Jacobe di Cione painted one w/ the upside down mirrored lettering St. Niccolo church in Calenzone 373
Early "copies" were extremely faithful to the first 13th c. fresco whereas by the 15th cent. painters began to take more liberties with the "copying" and the iconography & by 1425 began modifying the iconography (ie Fra Angelico) 373
Van Eyck's Annunciation is classified w/ the "newer" modified copies of the Florentine fresco 374
3 features in the Ghent annunciation indicate that he saw the Florentine paintings: 1., panels between Gabriel and Mary; 2., upside down writing; 3, "shaped patch of light rays visible on the wall behind the Virgin" 374
Monaco's Salimbeni Annunciation -itself is a "copy" of the SS. Annunziata icon - has these similarities w/ Jan's = Gabriel's colored wings, lilies, space between Gabriel and Mary (the purpose of which scholars have debated) 375
Eternal liturgy celebrated at the small altar in the center of the pasture; Lamb = Christ offering his own blood. Angels hold the instruments of the passion. 97
Inscription from Apocalypse on edge of marble basin = Here is the source of the water of life, springing forth from the throne of God and from the Lamb 97
12 streams of water flow into the basin - 2 from two angels holding vials of water & 10 from bronze dragons on centre column > may equal 12 fruits of the Holy Spirit 97 [note: I can't see this; we need a higher res pic; jets of water visible here
Vertical axis shows "triple testimonies of the Spirit" > water & blood cited in Epistle of St. (1 John 5) 97
In opposition to the old testament prophets (& representating opposition of synagogue and church) are the new testament apostles (barefoot), standing behind are figures representing hierarchy of church > popes, bishops, deacons [note: list is cp] - dressed in red vestments symbolizes martyrs. 97
Two of the clergy are recognizable: Bishop Livinus, 2nd patron saint of Ghent; and deacon of Augustinian church connected to the Borluut family. 97
3 popes = western schism > Martin V (in profile), antipope Alexander V in the middle, Gregory XII behind. The schism was strongly disputed in Ghent (lots about this) 97
entering as through a gap in the bushes 2 more groups. Left hand group = confessors, popes, cardinals, abbots and monks (monks dressed in blue). 100
entering from the right are saints, St. Agnes in front, St. Barbara, St. Catherine etc, all w/ attributes. Adorned in flowered crowns, waving palms = palm Sunday 103
Riders on far right panel = worldly functionaries = warriors of Christ and Just Judges in the world. On left panel = hermits who have withdrawn from the world and pilgrims > important in medieval society 103
Adoration of the Lamb: Dhanens says according to a mid-15th century literary interpretation the crowd = 8 Beatitudes; poor in spirit (apostles); meek (angels); righteous (prophets); merciful (patriarchs); pure (female saints); peacemakers (confessors); those persecuted (martyrs); and those who mourn (probably a scene on the predella now lost) 104
Central panel = Christ in Glory, ruler of the world, name woven into the brocaded background > IHESUS XPS (Latin/Greek form of Jesus Christ). Pelican & grapes symbolize eucharist. 106
Triple tiara = head of church, kingship (shown by the scepter he holds) & shown by the inscriptions on his robe (King of kings and lord of lords) 106
Front view, motionless, "hieratic position as of Byzantine and Romanesque art. 106
Text on arched throne above = This is God all-powerful in his divine majesty./ The supreme, the best because of his loving kindness./The most open-handed provider, because of his measureless generosity. The figure is depicted with his hand raised in blessing. 106
Mary dressed as a bride. Inscriptions above her head on arched throne = She is more beautiful than the sun and the army of the stars; compared to the light she is superior. She is truly the reflection of eternal light and a spotless mirror of God. 106 - 108
St John's green mantle completes the "Gothic harmony of blue and red colors". 108
Book is an unusual attribute for St John; index finger pointing toward Christ is his "usual gesture". 108
18 books in all the panels (???) = a sense of pious learning 108
Singing angels dressed in copes "appropriate to liturgical status" > carved lecturn. "One can easily see by their singing who is the soprano, who the alto, who the tenor and who the bass" 108
Right side = organist w/ others waiting their turn. Instruments = organ, small, harp & viol. Reflection of Ghent as "center of music in the Middle Ages" 108
Adam & Eve painted as part of the "iconographic program" > their sin = reason for the redemption. 108
Very different from the other panels and Dhanens says always believed to have been painted by Jan. According to her: "We can see them as perfect examples of Renaissance work" 111
Spatial construction of A & E panels different than the others w/out decorative backgrounds; instead the figures are in 3 dimensional niches. A & E are seemingly surrounded by space while the other figures appear to be pressed against the background > they are the most realistic of all the panels. 111
4 central panels taken to the Louvre by French Republic > returned to Ghent > churchwardens sold to an English timber merchant > he sold to Prussia > panels displayed in Berlin & restored after Treaty of Versailles
At the time of the French revolution Adam & Eve removed, maybe b/c of Emperor Joseph incident, stored, sold in 1861 to Brussels Museum. Replaced w/ "decent" Adam & Eve dressed in "hair tunics" > [do we have an img. of these?]
1865 Ghent had 4 original central panels, copies of 6 wings, dressed A & E, Berlin had 6 original wings and copies of the other panels (copier = Coxcie/ Victor Lagye (new A & E) [can't see page numbers]
Where the Master of the Hours of Turin tends to exaggerate the available space, Jan van Eyck–in interiors, especially–gives his figures far too little of it: the figures dominate the visual field and the pictorial format looks as if it had made to measure to fit them. In his Madonnas right down to the mid 1430s, Mary seems to fit into her throne room as if it were a carrying case. (203-204)
"An interior for Jan van Eyck, is a space lit from elsewhere-from outside the pictorial field...- by a source of directional light." The Turin hours give no information re the direction of the light...."This contrast by two distinct kinds of interior illusion might be exemplified by a comparison ... between" St. John and Arnolfini .... "but it is more important to clarify the distinction between the two artists' church interiors. This because the very scholar who saw the relation between Jan and the Master of the Hours of Turin most clearly - Hulin de Loo - attributed one of these two works, the Madonna in a Church to the Turin Master and not to Jan."
"At first sight it might even be believed that the two works show the same church interior, except that the scene of the Requeim Mass, with its tiny figures, is replaced in the panel painting by a gigantic Madonna who looms as high as the triforium." .... "The setting for Requiem Mass is the choir of a cathedral, the crossing of which is still uncompleted. Within the choir the unbroken perspectival recession of the arches leads the eye to the polygonal apse. In the Madonna in the Church we see first the nave, then the crossing, and only then, looking through and over the rood screen, the choir. The perspectival construction is only apparently coherent: in reality, the relationship between the parts of the building is not shown in full. We see first into the nave; then, under the pointed crossing arch, into the north transept and choir; and at the chancel arch our view is divided again-or rather it continues only above the barrier of the rood screen. The transition from foreground to background is ingeniously masked by the figure of the Madonna herself, who obscures the crossing pier; the middle ground is practically eliminated and our eye crosses over it without our becoming aware of it." 204
"In terms of formal structure the view through the near crossing arch has the same value and the same function as the distant view through the arcade in Chancellor Rolin except that in the Madonna the distant view is not of outdoor space." ... "In the Madonna in the Church we see nothing of the exterior whatsoever; what is before us is a visually incomplete object, a section of a cathedral with its perspectival recession shown in a discontinuous fashion" 204
Berlin panel prob part of a diptych 205
Pacht sees the painting as a late work by Jan 205
Size equals Mary as the Church & Mary in the Chuch 205
[Note: reread pp. 30-1 pdf re scale & light] > & more here.
In the Madonna "all the lighting effects are achieved through color" 204
Contrast w/ interior & exterior and "dimness of the interior" created w/ color and similar to technique used in Arnolifini 205
Eventful and mysterious history - gives detailed history b/c reflects 19th "conditions and attitudes remarkably well" 316
In 1851 Laborde (?) mentions a van Eyck altarpiece in a village near Nantes, "painted on wood, very well preserved, still in it's original frame" 316
copy existed at that time in Antwerp museum 316
1855 Laborde mentions a Hubert and Jan Virgin and Child in a church - dimensions w/out frame = 43 cm x 25 cm. Note: dimensions different than in the aricle - why? Belonged to a Monsieur Nau who may have bought it for 50 frances from the housekeeper of a "former French diplomat named Francois Cacault" > may have brought this painting from Italy 361
Sometime between 1860 and 1869 collector Suermondt in Aachen bought a Virgin in the Church, not mentioned in his 1860 catalogue but described in a 1869 article (by W. Burger) > he says the painting came from Nantes, so is probably the same one Laborde wrote about earlier 361
Suermondt collection purchased by Berlin museum May 1874 > 219 paintings including Virgin in the Church 361
Paintings stolen March 1877 > reported in the press and became worldwide story > March 26 painting returned w/out frame > person returning claimed to have bought it for "17.5 silver groschen" 323
Museum's archive notes describe the painting as 43cm x 25cm > same as Labord's description in 1855 323
Berlin museum catalogue of 1875 attributes the piece to a van Eyck imitator (not considered good enough to have been painted by Jan); 1883 catalogue thought the original lost and Berlin painting a copy; 1904 catalogue again attributes to Jan 323
The painting - like the Milan-Turin Hours - attributed to Jan, Hubert, Hulin de Loo, and others. Also some have attributed to an early Jan painting (his youth) as early as 1410. Long list of possible dates: Baldass says 1425, Panofsky - 1430; Snijder says after St. Barbara. Note: try to find Snijder 323
Current frame is "too narrow" and "very clumsy". The arching is reminiscent of the panels from the Ghent altarpiece - designed by Hubert 323
Prob part of a diptych - she suggests two possible wings: the 1499 one w/ kneeling abbot Christian de Hondt (Antwerp nos. 255-256) and one in Rome attributed to Gossaert w/ a landscape & donor 325
Panofsky says maybe not a diptych but Dhanens thinks the virgin's gaze goes "beyond the composition as she were looking at someone on another panel, a donor or perhaps even St. Luke, painting her picture" 325
Oblique view of the church "unusual for Jan, who prefers a frontal view of his building" - she speculates the architecture may have extended to the other, lost, panel - something like the Master of Flemalle's Annunciation or "school of van der Weyden" Marriage of the Virgin 325
"The Church is entirely Gothic and the vaulting can be seen; it is on a basilican plan with a transept and a raised choir, which shows later stylistic features than the nave" 325
Agrees that Mary is symbol of the church, "herself the church", and thus oversized > church is a "structural envelope for the standing figure of the Virgin ... the architectonic shapes repeat those of her own form ... the vaults protect her ... the rounded top of the panel conforms to the inclination of her head under its heavy crown" 325
Possible models for the church - thus far unsuccesfully identified by historians = Ghent, Saint-Denis, Dijon, Liege, Cologne. Possibly a collage from multiple churches. The "church interior itself is one of the most frequently imitated fifteenth-century compositions. It is found in the Milan-Turin Hours & van der Weyden's Seven Sacraments 328
Inscription on Mary's > "some letter, probably from the passage of Wisdom 7:29 "Hec est speciosior sole". Same inscription on van der Paele frame, Dresden frame, & Mary's throne on the Ghent p. 390
Believed it was painted before the Annuciation 179
Top of church & left side window (cloister?) bathed in natural light - recesses bathed in candlelight 179
Empty church, light, rapt Virgin = "sense of mystery" 179
Two burning candles flank statue of Mary > candles symbolize incarnation 181 [Note: more on the candlelight somewhere > find]
The painting is the earliest document "we possess, apart from the building themselves, of the actual appearance of the interior of a Gothic cathedral" 181
Blum, Shirley Neilson. "Hans Memling's Annunciation With Angelic Attendants. Metropolitan Museum Journal The Metropolitan Museum of Art Volume 27 1992 43-58
Text on the frame "confirmed the meaning of the painted sunbeam". Text on frame = 1st verse of a Nativity hymn. 46
Hymn is a complement to the sunlight 46
"Fully explicated by Millard Meiss" > 5th verse compares Mary to a glass w/ light flowing through w/ out breaking it. Holy spirit flows through her w/out breaking her chastity 46
Hymn reflected the popularly held belief of Mary's purity > before, during & after the birth 47
She says Meiss interprets light-filled flask (?) & window as incarnation 47 (re-read Meiss!!)
In the religious pictures datable after 1436 - the Virgin and Child in Frankfurt, the Dresden triptych, and the Virgin and Child with a Fountain and St Barbara in Antwerp - there are only vestigial traces of the kind of dynamic symbolic interaction described here. The smaller size of the works and Van Eyck's assessment of the patron and his interests many have had something to do with this. Given the difficulty of contriving new disguised symbols to express essentially the same concept with very similar subject matter, Van Eyck may also have decided that he had exhausted the most interesting possibilities and that the whole method was in danger of becoming a formula. Or he may have discovered that the disguises worked only too well and that much of his carefully planned symbolism went unappreciated by patrons or by viewers. – Ward, page 13
Dhanens
In 1958-59 frame cleaned > "Als ich can" found then. The cleaning and the dating was important b/c until the work was considered an early work, 1420s or so, and the re-dating made scholars reassess dating based on stylistic considerations. 242
Cleaning also revealed arms in upper corners - first believed to be Genoese Giustiniani family but found during the cleaning not to have been part of the original painting > traces of an older coat of arms found but not identifiable > possibly those of the donor 242
Documents place Catherine, wife of Michel Burlamacchi, receiving taxes from cloth weavers in Wervik in the same month JvE received stipend from Wervik tax receipts, suggesting a connection. 245
Might have been a gift from wife to husband to have with him during his travels 245
At some point came into the possession of the merchant Giustiniani family > Dhanens thinks maybe mid to late 15th cent. [Note: this is iffy and needs to be attributed] 246
*Not certain it was portable altarpiece owned by Emperor Charles V, but definitely owned by Charles I of England. The royal collection dispersed and Eberhard Jabach of Paris bought it. He died 1695 > the next year sold in Cologne and described in a cataloge (have the description if necessary). Probably bought by Prince Elector of Saxony whose catalogues attribute it to Durer. Revival of interest in Flemish primitives > reassessed and attributed to Hubert and then Jan - mid 1800s. 246
According the Dhanens "This tiny and precious triptych is the most charming, delicate and appealing work by Jan van Eyck that has survived." 246
As small as Ghent is large > "opposite end of the spectrum" by scale and by the "charm and grace" of the characters 246
Virgin = coquette; St. Michael = "youthful distinction"; St Catherine = "ravishing modesty"; donor = "modest amiability" 246
Church = small basical > central panel shows nave & columns, "glimpses" of aisles; side panels show "conjunction of aisles and narrow transepts" 246
Behind throne in the apse are windows. Aisle vaults visible; central nave not. East (???) windows cut off by composition (like Rolin) 246-7
Columns multicolored marble (pink, red, purple). "Immediately above the capitals and supported on wall consoles are sculptures of the twelve apostles, each under a small Gothic baldachin." 248
Throne = central motif for Lucca Virgin, Van der Paele but in Dresden placement differs - farther in the background & higher, doesn't extent to the top edge of panel. Evolution of the throne in the 3 paintings > JvE integrates into space better w/ each successive painting. In the Dresden the throne "somehow enlarges this space", & sources of light illuminating the throne increase in each painting w/ the Dresden "the light becomes more and more complex". 248
Cords suspending the canopy shown & imitated in later copies & miniatures. 248
Throne decorated w/ copper statuettes > pelican & phoenix in front /back = Isaac & David & Goliath 248
Donor's hair cut "in the Burgundian fashion" 248
Donor's gown is like Arnolfini's w/ red hood 249
According to Dhanens his hands suggest wonder instead of prayer 249
Capital on pillar above St. Michaels head shows military scene "Weale believed to be an interpretation of the Hippolytus sarcophagus in Pisa" > Dhanens agrees b/c donor's Italian origin would support that scene 249
Catherine's dress "abundantly trimmed with ermine" 250
Pendant on golden chain hanging from her neck 250
Her attributes of sword and wheel 250
Crown reminscent of Chancelor Rolin 250
Inscriptions on the frame allude to light and are reflected in the painting. Light on the arches, walls, columns, details [note, inscriptions on another page] 251
Statues in exterior panels "illuminated from the left" 251
Dhanens says "simulation of real sculptures is a brilliant success, and the artist has succeeded in imparting a sense of life to the supposed statues. 251
Pacht
*Sacra conversazione > originated in Italy, second half of 14th cent; donor shown w/ patron saint, same size as deity, virgin, etc. In Netherlandish painting early sacra conversazione only showed nobility: "It was only the Italian precedent that induced artists to bring mortals face to face with the Divine; and, initially, at least, this privilege was reserved for mortals of exalted rank." Donor kneel, divinity enthroned. 81
Master of Flemalle tended to set the divinity in a domestic setting; van Eyck in a church: Van der Paele, Lucca, and he makes the divine overly large in a small space to set the hierarchy compared to mortals. 82
Dresden = a new stylistic phase w/ "greater spatial depth" & Madonna appears smaller than in the earlier Marian apparitions. Space itself is larger - the size of the canopy extends back, the carpet doesn't meet the frame, all giving impression of depth, height, space 83
Panels = aisles and too show greater sense of space. Patron saints placed nearer to the center to be more something (he uses word isocephalous???) w/ madonna 83
Saints appear small in the side panels > "less solid than the massive figures in the Paele Madonna. It was this Gothic daintiness that led many scholars ... to place this among Jan van Eyck's early work" > in 1437 a "back-to-Gothic movement" noticeable in Werl Altarpiece w/ a tendency toward intimacy [his word is intimate] 83
Child's position similar to van der Paele seated on lap w/ flexed legs, but he's not twisted here, > creates depth 84
Red is a color that advances > her red robe makes her appear larger than she really is spatially > he uses the large amount of red in the marian apparitions to give the impression of larger size 84
The frames of the triptych are heavily inscribed with lettering and phrases in Latin, which serve a dual purpose. They are decorative but also function to set the context for the significance of the imagery, similar to the function of margins in medieval manuscripts. Pieces such as this were usually commissioned for private devotion, and van Eyck would have expected the viewer to contemplate text and imagery in unison.[1] The Child Christ holds a banderole adorned with a phrase from the Gospel of Matthew (11:29), DISCITE A ME, QUIA MITIS SUM ET HUMILIS CORDE ("Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in Heart").[2] The central panels frame inscriptions are fragments from the Book of Wisdom, books 7:26 and 7:29. (Dhanens)[a 1] The lettering around St. Michael's frame, in part, reads HIC EST ARCHANGELUS PRINCEPS MIKICI(A)E ANGELORUM ("This is Michael the Archangel, leader of the angelic hosts").[3] The frame of St. Catherine's wing is lined with the words VIRGO PRIDENS ANELAVIT AD SEDEM SIDEREA ("The prudent virgin has longed for the starry throne…").[3]
Streeton
Because the piece was meant to be portable the heavy frame also functioned to protect it during travel. (Streeton)
Two frames - for inner and outer panels. Inner is wood w/ gilt inscriptions, outer is faux marble [this is all repetition] > in 1844 marbled outer frame covered w/ ebony to protect it which was removed in 1959. (Streeton)
Frame meant to protect the piece during travel & made with recessed moldings, made from a single piece of wood for stability. Outer frame paint damaged & overpainted w/ "fauz turtle shell design" sometime in the 16th or 17th centuries.
Jaspering?
Furthermore, in order that the Annunciation on the Dresden exterior wings could withstand bumps and movement, the upper and lower moldings of the wing frames for both inner and outer images were constructed in a single piece, with deep recesses on both sides.58 The semi-integral frame could thus bear much more weight and stress. The paint on the exterior frames was apparently damaged while they were fulfilling their original protective function, because in the sixteenth or seventeenth century a faux turtle-shell design, imitating the then-fashionable veneer, replaced the earlier scheme of jaspered paint.59 The book format can thus be thought of as serving an important function, protecting the images within during transport, while the frame would lend additional stability to the panels. Like the jaspered sides and reverse found on van Eyck’s Saint Barbara, the Portrait of Margaret van Eyck and other contemporary works, the jaspering was meant to be seen, but its speckled appearance also camouflaged wear and tear.
^The lettering on the central panel reads: HAEC EST SPECIOSIOR SOLE ET SUPER OMNEM DISPOSTITIONEM STELLARUM LUCI COMPARATA INVENITUR PRIOR. CANDOR EST ENIM LUCIS AETERNAE ET SPECULUM SINE MACULA DEI MAIESTATIS ECT. EGO QUASI VITIS FRUCTIVICAVI SUAVITATEM ODORIS ET FLORES MEI FRUCTIS HONORIS ET HONESTATIS. ECO MATER PULCHARAE DILECTIONIS ET TIMORIS ET MAGNITUDINES ET SANCTAE SPEI.
van Eyck's work tends toward Realist philosophy & he incorporated symbolism to support religious truths 599
Early 15th c painting developed to make symbols "more believable" 601
Ward
15th c. Netherlandish art characterized by "embedded" symbols > embedded = "relatively small, in the background, or in the shadow" 11
v.E used embedded symbols/iconography 12
Ward believes v.E intentionally disguised symbols/iconography to delay recognition for the viewer "initially to overlook, and eventually to discover" the symbols 12
the spiritual world exists in the material world 12
Ward believes the symbolism v. pervasive & the work must be studied again and again to see it 12
v.E "invites" viewer to find even more symbols & a hence a deeper meaning 13
i.e demon carved above bride's wrist in Arnolfini portrait > which Ward can't decipher 24
v.E painted symbols/iconography that showed "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth" 26
Card. Rol. > carvings of Adam/Eva = man's fall & christ the redeemer 31
Symbols are interwoven and invite viewer to search for deeper meaning 32
v.E uses symbols to "enact the fundamental Christian doctrines" and the paintings seem "come alive" and viewer achieves state of "heightened consciousness" 36
Nicholas of Cusa believed too much emphasis on the eucharist & not enough on christ; in the paintings v.E shows the reality behind the eucharist & symbolize the meaning of mass 91
Early Netherlandish art is characterized by the use of symbolism and iconography, often embedded in the work in such a way to be rendered "relatively small, in the background, or in the shadow".[1] Art historian John Ward explains that van Eyck frequently used symbolism and iconography, often embedded or disguised, to show that the spiritual world exists in the material world. Ward believes van Eyck’s use of symbolism is pervasive to the point that a piece of work must be studied over and over with each viewing showing an yet undiscovered symbol, added for the viewer "initially to overlook, and eventually to discover", delaying recognition for the viewer.[2] By “inviting” the viewer to search for iconography, the painter brings a multi-layered experience to the viewer and with it a deeper meaning of the painting with symbols that are interwoven and force the viewer to search for deeper meaning.[3] Much of the iconography consisted of symbols that showed "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth", [4] and fundamental Christian doctrines such as carvings of Adam and Eve embedded in paintings showing man’s fall juxtaposed with Christ the Redeemer.[5]Nicholas of Cusa believed at the time too much emphasis was given the the symbol of the eucharist and van Eyck shows in his paintings the reality behind the eucharist and the meaning of mass,[6] and the art made the symbols of the eucharist more believable.[7]
brainstorming
Iconography of the great deesis > vestments > it's a mass
The known works of the first generation of Early Netherlandish painters are often characterised by rich and complex iconography with many details having symbolic meaning. According to the art historian John Ward, van Eyck employed these elements to highlight what he saw as the co-existence of the spiritual and material worlds. He often subtly embedded iconographical features into his paintings as "relatively small, in the background, or in the shadow" details.[8] The significance of van Eyck's iconographical elements was often so densely and intricately layered that a single work often had to be viewed multiple times before even the most obvious meaning became apparent. According to Ward, they were commonly positioned "initially to overlook and eventually to discovered".[9] Burroughs writes of the Last Judgement panel, "each of it's several scenes requires attention for itself alone."[10] By forcing the viewer to search for the meaning of the iconography, van Eyck brings a multi-layered experience to the viewer and rewards him with a deeper meaning of the painting and its interwoven symbols.[11]
Much of van Eyck's iconography consisted of symbols conveying "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth", [12] and this is especially apparent in the Deësis portion of the right hand panel, which includes images of fundamental Christian doctrines such as the carvings on the bench of the fall of man.[13][14] Art historian Craig Harbison explains that at that time Nicholas of Cusa believed too much emphasis was given to the ritual of the eucharist and van Eyck shows in his paintings the reality behind the ritual and by showing the images of the body of Christ, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the accompanying symbols, made Mass more meaningful.[15][16] For example, van Eyck repeats iconography associated with the crucifixion in the Last Judgement panel with the two angels on either side of Christ bearing symbols of the crucifixion. The left hand angel holds a lance and crown of thorns, the angel on the right a sponge and nails.[17][18]
Nicholas of Cusa believed too much emphasis on the eucharist & not enough on christ; in the paintings v.E shows the reality behind the eucharist & symbolize the meaning of mass 91
"These paintings, then, gave the spectators a new way of understanding the Mass...With the help of these images, the sacramental metaphor was made more believable, more real, more true, for van Eyck's patron. p. 92
The known works of the first generation of Early Netherlandish painters are often characterised by rich and complex iconography with many details having symbolic meaning. According to the art historian John Ward, van Eyck employed these elements to highlight what he saw as the co-existence of the spiritual and material worlds. He often subtly embedded iconographical features into his paintings as "relatively small, in the background, or in the shadow" details.[8] The significance of van Eyck's iconographical elements was often so densely and intricately layered that a single work often had to be viewed multiple times before even the most obvious meaning became apparent. According to Ward, they were commonly positioned "initially to overlook and eventually to discovered".[19] Burroughs writes of the Last Judgement panel, "each of it's several scenes requires attention for itself alone."[20] By forcing the viewer to search for the meaning of the iconography, van Eyck brings a multi-layered experience to the viewer and rewards him with a deeper meaning of the painting and its interwoven symbols.[21]
Much of van Eyck's iconography consisted of symbols conveying "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth", [22] and fundamental Christian doctrines such as carvings of Adam and Eve embedded in paintings showing the fall of man juxtaposed with Christ the Redeemer.[23][24] Art historian Craig Harbison explains that at that time Nicholas of Cusa believed too much emphasis was given to the ritual of the eucharist and van Eyck shows in his paintings the reality behind the ritual and by showing the images of the body of Christ, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the accompanying symbols, made Mass more meaningful.[25] and that juxtaposing symbolism against realism, "both reality and symbol became more believable".[26]. For example, van Eyck repeats iconography associated with the crucifixion in the Last Judgement panel with the two angels on either side of Christ bearing symbols of the crucifixion. The left hand angel holds a lance and crown of thorns, the angel on the right a sponge and nails.[17][18]
The Ward quote seems off; "be overlooked" and "be discovered" perhaps? Or just "discover" at the end?
I don't think listing some examples of the iconography would be synthesis - the first paragraph in the section has established that it is intentional - but I wouldn't start with "For example" which connects it back to a specific claim.
I still don't get how a symbol "becomes more believable". I know this is a direct quote from Harbison but it isn't a very good one. I suppose he means that the symbols become better associated with the elements of reality they are supposed to represent, but that's not what he says. The use of "reality" is difficult here too, as the crucifixion story is largely allegorical and the Last Judgement panel is a vision of the Apocalypse and no more real than the symbols. I'd be inclined to drop the last part of that sentence: Harbison has made his point. Yomanganitalk 11:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Busy today and tomorrow but might get some work done here tomorrow night. I agree about dropping that part of the sentence. I have to re-check the Ward quote - Ceoil thought it was off too. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
You also need to differentiate between the two Harbison sources in the refs. On another note I keep seeing Murasaki popping up on my watchlist and though the argument is now too long to read it seems from the initial flurries to be over the lead image being anachronistic. Here's a couple of alternatives that we don't seem to have on WP: [6][7] I don't know who the first one is by or if it's PD (a Japanese speaker might be able to recognise the gagoin) but the second one is Hiroshige. Ignore them if the argument has moved on, they've already come up, or you can't be bothered. Yomanganitalk 06:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I know I have to fix the Harbison sources in mainspace - haven't had time. Thanks so much for these Murasaki images - the first I've seen and never could find to determine whether it's PD so didn't bother to upload, the second would be fine to use. Do you by chance remember where you found them? Truthkeeper (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Copying in the full Ward quote here so as to decide how much to use because it's very a long sentence:
The short answers to these questions advanced here [how far to look for symbols] is that van Eyck had a specific purpose for symbolic disguise: to delay rather than to prevent recognition; that he wanted any viewer who made a sustained effort to contemplate his pictures and who combined a general familiarity with the Christian doctrine of salvation with some knowledge of traditional symbolic imagery initially to overlook, and eventually to discover, much of the symbolism; and that, given the complexity of symbolic relationships in Van Eyck's pictures and strong evidence of his desire to create works in which, as Panofsky wrote, "all reality is saturated with meaning,"16 overinterpretation is less of a danger than overlooking some of Van Eyck's devices to create a reality in which the spiritual can be glimpsed through the material.[27]
Lane, Barbara G,The Altar and the Altarpiece, Sacramental Themes in Early Netherlandish Painting, Harper & Row, 1984, ISBN0064301338 - is short & good on this area. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
van Eyck's work tends toward Realist philosophy & he incorporated symbolism to support religious truths 599
Early 15th c painting developed to make symbols "more believable" 601
Ward
15th c. Netherlandish art characterized by "embedded" symbols > embedded = "relatively small, in the background, or in the shadow" 11
v.E used embedded symbols/iconography 12
Ward believes v.E intentionally disguised symbols/iconography to delay recognition for the viewer "initially to overlook, and eventually to discover" the symbols 12
the spiritual world exists in the material world 12
Ward believes the symbolism v. pervasive & the work must be studied again and again to see it 12
v.E "invites" viewer to find even more symbols & a hence a deeper meaning 13
i.e demon carved above bride's wrist in Arnolfini portrait > which Ward can't decipher 24
v.E painted symbols/iconography that showed "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth" 26
Card. Rol. > carvings of Adam/Eva = man's fall & christ the redeemer 31
Symbols are interwoven and invite viewer to search for deeper meaning 32
v.E uses symbols to "enact the fundamental Christian doctrines" and the paintings seem "come alive" and viewer achieves state of "heightened consciousness" 36
Nicholas of Cusa believed too much emphasis on the eucharist & not enough on christ; in the paintings v.E shows the reality behind the eucharist & symbolize the meaning of mass 91
Nicholas of Cusa believed too much emphasis on the eucharist & not enough on christ; in the paintings v.E shows the reality behind the eucharist & symbolize the meaning of mass 91
"These paintings, then, gave the spectators a new way of understanding the Mass...With the help of these images, the sacramental metaphor was made more believable, more real, more true, for van Eyck's patron. p. 92
van Eyck's work tends toward Realist philosophy & he incorporated symbolism to support religious truths 599
Early 15th c painting developed to make symbols "more believable" 601
Ward
Copying in the full Ward quote here so as to decide how much to use because it's very a long sentence:
The short answers to these questions advanced here [how far to look for symbols] is that van Eyck had a specific purpose for symbolic disguise: to delay rather than to prevent recognition; that he wanted any viewer who made a sustained effort to contemplate his pictures and who combined a general familiarity with the Christian doctrine of salvation with some knowledge of traditional symbolic imagery initially to overlook, and eventually to discover, much of the symbolism; and that, given the complexity of symbolic relationships in Van Eyck's pictures and strong evidence of his desire to create works in which, as Panofsky wrote, "all reality is saturated with meaning,"16 overinterpretation is less of a danger than overlooking some of Van Eyck's devices to create a reality in which the spiritual can be glimpsed through the material.[28]
15th c. Netherlandish art characterized by "embedded" symbols > embedded = "relatively small, in the background, or in the shadow" 11
v.E used embedded symbols/iconography 12
Ward believes v.E intentionally disguised symbols/iconography to delay recognition for the viewer "initially to overlook, and eventually to discover" the symbols 12
the spiritual world exists in the material world 12
Ward believes the symbolism v. pervasive & the work must be studied again and again to see it 12
v.E "invites" viewer to find even more symbols & a hence a deeper meaning 13
i.e demon carved above bride's wrist in Arnolfini portrait > which Ward can't decipher 24
v.E painted symbols/iconography that showed "the promised passage from sin and death to salvation and rebirth" 26
Card. Rol. > carvings of Adam/Eva = man's fall & christ the redeemer 31
Symbols are interwoven and invite viewer to search for deeper meaning 32
v.E uses symbols to "enact the fundamental Christian doctrines" and the paintings seem "come alive" and viewer achieves state of "heightened consciousness" 36
Nicholas of Cusa believed too much emphasis on the eucharist & not enough on christ; in the paintings v.E shows the reality behind the eucharist & symbolize the meaning of mass 91
"These paintings, then, gave the spectators a new way of understanding the Mass...With the help of these images, the sacramental metaphor was made more believable, more real, more true, for van Eyck's patrons". p. 92
Charney (??)
Angels' mulitcolored wings = peacocks and parrots. In Catholic iconography the peacock symbolizes resurrection and the multi-colored parrot = Mary and immaculate conception. 20
Dhanens
Ghent altarpiece had a Hell scene in the predella, now lost, "obliterated by incompetent painters" because it was done in watercolor. p. 69
Ghent altarpiece iconography > sources = scriptures, church, theologians, Rupertus of Duetz (perhaps). Dhanens says Hubert was familiar with earlier medieval symbols to be found in mosaics, wall paintings, etc,. and that he favored "symbolic forms more characteristic of Romanesque and Byzantine art". p. 9
Pächt
the concept of rendering a crowd scene emerged in Italy & was known & used in the Duke of Berry's book workshops by 1400 191
crucifixions w/ crowds typically consisted of "two-tiered composition that was particularly suited to the filling of tall, narrow pictorial formats." 191
New York crucifixion = steep slope rendered in perspective similar to a tapestry. Artist separated "emotive group around Mary from the hostile crowd" - emotive group is closest to the viewer. Magdalene has her "head thrown back" gazing up to the execution / back against the viewer 191
Next is a pair of standing figure, backs to the the viewer, then mounted men, they "form a ring around the cross", closest mounted men seen from the rear, farther up the slope seen from the front. Above is Jerusalem, a river valley, a mountain range. The crosses rise high into the sky. 191
"It is the whole world in one painting, an Orbis Pictus". 191
Judgment = multiple narrative in "superimposed layers" - Heaven to Hell in a single space 192
Deeis above/ Michael is the divide between the two. Michael "officiates not as the weigher of souls but as the vanquisher of all evil". 192
Death = largest figure. Batwinged skeleton, bony arms & legs parallel to wings, arches above hell [CP here] 192
Death = protagonist in the painting 192
Archangel = victory over death but "the viewer finds it hard to believe that this youthful warrior can ever prevail against his monstrous adversary" 192
Punishments of wicked = more convincing than the rewards of the virtuous [a little close to the source here] 192
Hell more detail than heaven > w/ a "whole fauna of zoomorphic fiends" it's a "bestiary of hell" derived from medieval monsters. Made real & natural = more terrifying than any hell seen before 192
On death's wings are written CHAOS MAGNUM (Great Chaos)/ UMBRA MORTIS (the Shadow of Death) 194
Middle ground = resurrection & earth. Fires here but no fires in hell 194/195
"In heaven itself, all is sweetness, gentleness and order" > clergy are shown on the left, laity to the right - segregated by angels 195
Note: Pacht thinks more Hubert than Jan, & definitely the artist of from the Milan/Turin hours. Refers throughout as "the artist" the "van Eyckian artist" > won't attribute to either brother
Some repetition in lead - 1st para mentions that the top of the judgement painted by followers/workshop members > repeated in last para
"Art historian Erwin Panofsky believed the Crucifixion and Last Judgement panels were intended as a diptych rather than a triptych" > this seems to come out of nowhere >> suggest dumping this unless it's absolutely necessary > striking b/c prob okay
"In 1983, Belting and Eichberger suggested c. 1430 based on the narrative character of the works; a style defined by a "birds-eye view" perspective and horizon, densely packed figures and, especially, a pictorial narrative that moves logically across the areas of the image.[29] Belting and Eichberger believe this style was employed during the early panel works, but was largely abandoned by the 1430s.[30]" >somewhere I read that this had to do with "tapestry/wallpaper" style b/c he was also painting wall murals and designing tapestries during these years. >> Pacht 191
"Bryson Burroughs, writing for the Metropolitan at the time of their acquisition in 1933, attributed the works to Hubert, at time still often credited works now usually assigned to Jan." >> awk
Re Pacht and heaven (this all he says about heaven): "In heaven itself all is sweetness, gentleness and order. Neatly segregated, and escorted by angels, the clergy on the left and the laity on the right proceed to their eternal bliss." > page number???
Two Panofsky sources? 1964 and 1969 - or are these the same?
Re-read Labuda and Burroughs re narrative & perspective
"In the Last Judgement the damned<!--and the saved, unless everyone is damned--> are placed in the lower mid-ground while the saints and angels are positioned higher in the upper foreground." > rewrite; damned in hell; damned & saved in middle, the rest in heaven. How does Borchert describe it?
Van Eyck was a central influence on Petrus Christus and the younger painter is known to have studied the panels while they were still in van Eyck's workshop.[31]<!--any more detail on this? When, how do we know?-->
Reread sources re sybils - read somewhere that the one on the right might be the donor (?) try to find that
Donors: according to the Met website a possible donor is as follows: "Some writers have plausibly suggested that this individual may be the man elegantly dressed in an ermine-trimmed coat and extravagant hat who is shown at the right beneath the cross in the Crucifixion."
How bitterly our painter hated those who surrounded the crosses, all but the centurion who recognizes the divinity of Christ, the brutal, impassive soldiers to whom the occasion is just something in the day's work, those who regard with satisfaction the execution as a triumph of law and order, the idle onlookers with their carelessness or their amused curiosity, those who have come to the Crucifixion as to a spectacle! [32]
Dunkerton, Jill. Giotto to Dürer: early Renaissance painting in The National Gallery. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991 ISBN978-030-0050-820
Koch, Robert. "The Getty 'Annunciation' by Dieric Bouts". The Burlington Magazine, The Burlington Magazine, Volume 130, No. 1024, July 1988.
Leonard, Mark, et. al. Dieric Bouts's 'Annunciation'. Materials and Techniques: A Summary. The Burlington Magazine, Volume 130, No. 1024, July 1988.
van der Weyden
Crispin, Philip. "Scandal, Malice and the Bazoche". in Harper, April, Proctor, Caroline (eds). Medieval Sexuality: A Casebook. New York: Routledge, 2008. ISBN0-415-97831-6 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
Giotto presented frontally, Leo relegated to background 78
Books of Hours follow Giotto's pose, hands stretched out, gaze toward the vision, stigmata descending along rays of light, setting = woodland. 79
JvE rejects "theatrical pose" showing Francis in profile, silently praying/meditating, seemingly unaware of Christ. 79
Also unusual is JvE's failure to depict wounds on Francis' side, and the rays of light, deemed "essential features of the iconography". 79
Infrared shows that in the Turin underdrawing Francis wore sandals so the feet wounds, too, would have been concealed. 79
This doesn't make sense > re-read source: "Jan layers and juxtaposes symbolism to represent the ecclesiastical and mundane,<ref name = "Snyder82">Snyder (1997), 82</ref> apparent here by the positioning of Francis' hands, which split the pictorial space in half." Find the bit about the hands...
Much about landscape & tying JvE to a mystical type Francis naturalism worldview w/ examples of how he handles landscapes in other paintings. Come back to this. 79-83
Leo, an "image of sloth in monastic life", is on Francis' right. Francis stares past the vision, seemingly unaffected. 83
Snyder claims this is typical of JvE; Canon van der Paele, Chanc. Rolin, figures in the Ghent seem unaffected by visions. Rather, Snyder says, in van Eyck's world, they are "informed" by visions, and that a vision is better depicted with subtlety; for JvE mysticism cannot be shown theatrically. 83
Snyder says this subtle rendition is more accurate b/c we are told that Francis' reaction to the vision was to meditate on its meaning > which JvE shows here. 83
Snyder poses the question whether JvE meant to show Francis meditating on the vision before the stigmata appeared, (which explains the missing pieces of iconography) and for whatever reason (patron's wishes?) later added the stigmata? 84
Snyder questions where JvE, who would have known of the usual theatrical rendering, found the model for the meditative Francis and suggests a model could well have been an episode JvE was well aware of, Christ praying in the garden of Gesthsmane > which is in the Turin hours. 84
Friars in the foreground, rocks on the right, landscape in the distance, "crystalline light", "transparency in the city", "tiny figures" reminiscent of illuminated mss 16
Water gushing from the rocks at Leo's feet [this is hard to see - crop maybe?] 16
"Visual elements, the quality of the technical execution, the range of color in relation to its luminosity, all attest to the work's authenticity." 19
Restoration revealed that once there had been an inscription on the rock to the right of the seraph-Christ, but is now completely obliterated 19
The flora is similar to the Ghent > can be considered iconographic element. These are probably Italian; explanation (via Charles Sterling) that JvE may have gone to Jerusalem for Philip > mountains = alps & same mountains as crucifixion (come back to re-read this) 19 <would like to expand this>
Anselme's Adorne's pilgrimage brought him through Italy where he was welcomed at many courts, & possibly the smaller version was at that time shown around. Definitely motifs from it showed up in Italian art around then. Spatigati writes, "Anselme was warmly received at the various Italian courts, both as a representative of the Duke of Burgundy and as an eminent member of the Adorno family". She speculates he brought the small version w/ him. 22
Spatigati dates it to around 1430 - based on the light, the way the clothing drapes, and JvE's travels. He was back in Bruges by then and working. 20
St Francis is a portrait - comparisons to Rolin 22
Two oak panels, 1.1 cm; joined vertically in the center w/ a band underneath to protect the join. Unknown if the band is on front & reverse on of what material: parchment, cloth or paper. Reverse is painted in red marbleized paint; worn. [cp. here] 22
Museum bought it without its original frame 23
1952 restoration: Cleaning revealed damage to St Francis' tonsure was damaged, Leo's cowl, and vegetation between the two figures; these areas had undergone repainting at some previous time, documented w/ photographs 23
Tech analysis unusual for so early included x-radiograph & microchemical examination of a sample, plus many photographs of the figures, the area where the inscription was discovered to have been; Leo's foot which previous restorations had corrected. 23
1970 restoration: cracking of paint, continued loss of paint on St Francis' tonsure. Paint from previous restorations was flaking; original paint along the vertical join cracking dangerously. Paint was fixed (we should have an article for this; photographs are "fixed"); painting cleaned; St Francis head repaired/repainted. 23
1982 restoration: cracking continued & revealed w/ raking light technology; modern paint/varnish was yellowing, so more radical approach taken 23
Carefully, under ultraviolet light, all the restorations were removed (v technical in terms of ingredients used for removals, etc)., 24
Removal revealed previous repainting to upper left vegetation and St Francis tonsure - it was all removed (his hairstyle changed) - and in the process the mountains were revealed, birds of prey emerged. More about St Francis hair & Brother Leo's foot. Apparently Leo's left & right feet got confused in previous restorations?? (re-read) 24
Parchment measures 12.9 cm x 15.2 cm; image is 12.4 cm x 14.6 cm; (panels are confusing) 29
Painted on parchment glued to wood. Five pieces of wood - one under the image to which the parchment is glued; four pieces frame type pieces (top, bottom, left, right) - these may have been added (when?) 30
A lot about nails. 30
Joins were filled, covered w/ brown paint over earlier red paint 30
Tree rings >>(skipping this; we've covered it) 31
Parchment is 1 mm compared to 0.1 to 0.2 thickness of mss pages. Unusual. Possibly chosen as a good support [cp] 31
Tech exam reveals that hair side of parchment painted & prep may have been too rub w/ "glass-containing bread" hence the pieces of glass found 31
Thin insoluble layer of primer over the very thick parchment; prob to prepare the surface; primer has only flaked in areas where the paint flaked; ie. Francis' head 31
Wooden side pieces were primed in thick layer of lead white that overlaps the parchment along the edges 31
Colors, strokes, techniques (come back to this; v interesting) 32-3
*Small sample taken from seraph's wing shows pure ultramarine, "medium to deep blue color". 32
V little underdrawing visible except on Francis' robe 32
Stigmata are red organic lake; beard is stippled w/ brown and blue 32
Robe has a grayish brown base layer, w/ a 2nd overlayer of brown-black, done in v fine strokes under magnification. 33
Leo's robe is similar w/ rust colors laid over the grey base layer 33
Greenery = grasses and flowers in the foreground [cp here]; shrubbery in the midground and trees in the background 33
Shrubbery painted w/ a copper-resinate green that has darkened to brown 33
A copper resinate glaze in the foreground has darkened too (to brown) 33
Mountains = ultramarine & white & the sky too 33
Painted w/ magnification; details not visible w/out magnification 34
Image surrounded w/ "casually" applied red/orange (red lake) but technical analysis shows the borders had a differing periods different treatments: bottom edge and sides shows gold leaf residue applied over a cream primer; gold extends into the image area 34
More layers over the gold on the bottom, left, right borders: first is orange-red, 2nd red-lake (marbleizing?); white, gray, and top layer is again red >> prob each layer done at a different time 35
Top layer has gold laid over the sky, red glaze, Prussian blue (only found after 1750s), orange-red. 35
Roger Fry restoration after Johnson bought the painting. Documented in 1926 Burlington mag (looked, couldn't find on Jstor). Fry removed extensive overpainting and wrote: "When it came to me the panel was considerably larger at the top, and dull opaque sky concealed the join where the extra piece had been added on to satisfy some owner who did not appreciate the compressed composition of the original. The sky had been enlivened…with a crowd of small white-cloud like forms suggesting the presence of a cohort of angels." 36
Butler restoration began in 1989, "ongoing for several years during the course of the research project" (no date) 36
1st, tech analysis, then cleaning under Stereo microscope. Removed old varnish that had turned brown, old filler containing Viridian (not available until 1859) carefully removed from around border. 36
Removed overpainting in Leo's robe revealing original paint & three dimensional form, from the mountains and Francis' head, revealing his tonsure. Removing overpaint from upper right rocks revealed an X scratched into the original paint [cp]37
Removals "revealed the paint to be in amazingly good condition". 37
Comparison >> The "near identical design" is evident when the paintings are projected against each other; almost perfect match in proportion of individual parts of the composition but slightly out of register. Transferred?? 38
Luber, Katherine. "Catalogue of Exhibition". Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 91, No. 386/387, Recognizing Van Eyck (Spring, 1998), pp. 38-48
Both panels associated w/ JvE (or at least his workshop) via tech. ev. Phila panel via the wood (we mention this; same tree as Arnolfini and Lannoy); Turin via the underdrawing. More on this. 38-39
Reconstruction of red border in Phila version highlights its similarities w/ illuminated mss, esp. Turin-Milan Hours. The red-lake, vermillion border highlighted image as if looking through an illusionistic window into the landscape. See also Christ in the Garden, and window in Rolin. 39
Phila version is better preserved w/ better tonalities. Luber says the earthy colors/tones is similar to background of JvE's Wash Annunciation (where background is suppressed and contrasts with color in the figures' clothing), and that in St Francis he may have been experimenting. More noticeable in Phila version w/ "intensely saturated colors playing against the overall warm brown tonality of the painting, giving it a lustrous jewel-like quality." 39
Prob dated to 1430-32 based on his travels, the nature of the landscape painting and the relationship w/ Milan-Turin hours. 39
Luber, Katherine. "Recognizing Van Eyck: Magical Realism in Landscape Painting'". Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin, Volume 91, No. 386/387, Spring 1988.
JvE's lowered horizons & open vistas were his hallmark & he "wed the enameled jewel-like tones attainable only with oil paints to the close observation of local details to achieve a new way to see and portray the realms of the earth." 7
Prob spent much of his career perfecting landscape compositions, culminating w/ St Barbara and Chancellor Rolin which represent the "climax of the artist's career-long engagement with the problem of how to represent in two dimensions the illusion of space and extensive vistas." 7
How the landscape is rendered can solve problem of contested JvE attributions - esp. early work, such as the two St Francises. 8
Much about Rolin 8-9
Turin-Milan Hours shows he (?) "easily mastered the illusion of depicting receding space of the flat, smooth, reflective surface of water" - but receding space took longer to master 11
Christ in the Garden of Gethesmane shows effort to unite foreground w/ distant landscape - solution = fence w/ heads peeking over, so that compositionally "the middle ground is indicated by a void in space, invisible to the viewer, but creating the illusion of an unseen space receding into the background." 12
Same technique in St Francis - rocks = middle ground (similar to the fence) - & "divide the foreground from the background". 12
Gethesmane underdrawing similar to other JvE paintings helps w/ att. [come back to this] 13
Ghent landscapes match Turin-Milan hours miniatures & St Francis - side wings especially where the "horizon lines are lowered and large barriers - some of trees, some of rocky cliffs - block the view on one side of the composition." 17
St Christopher panel is v similar to St Francis where JvE "dramatically lowered the horizon line on the right side of the composition, achieving a sense of spatial recession also found in the two Saint Francis paintings." 17
St Christopher = hermit saint; Saint Francis = hermit saint. Luber mentions significance of subject/composition. Also hermit saints panels show a progression in technique, "a more sophisticated solution" 17
St Christopher/hermit saints panel prob painted at same time as Saint Francis 18
Ghent and St Francis have tiny flower carpeting foreground 19
JvE's distinctive hallmarks were widely copied & included rock formations, grassy foregrounds w/ flowers & rivers w/ reflecting water. 20
Water: "The artistry involved in the depiction of the reflective surface of the water must have been specifically associated with the genius of Jan van Eyck … The rocky cliff must have been a leitmotif for van Eyckian painters; it provided a new way to move the composition from foreground to background." 20
Attributions are difficult and scholars unsure whether landscape innovations JvE's inventions alone, or whether either Hubert or maybe someone other shadowy person collaborated. 22
Regardless, two St Francis paintings demonstrate unfolding innovations that culminated w/ Rolin 22
Johnson inherited a fortune and made money himself. At first bought bad art, sold it, and soon developed a discerning eye. Fry was Curator of Paintings at the Met and recommended works to Johnson 97
Fry had no formal training but undertook restorations anyway. St Francis was his 2nd restoration. He attributed the Phila version to Hubert and Turin a copy. 97
Rest of the quote - he removed a portion at the top. And he says the border makes it look like a mss illumination and so dates it closely to Turin-Milan.
No date for the restoration. 97
Spalding, Frances. Roger Fry, Art and Life. University of California Press, 1980 ISBN0520041267, 9780520041264
Luber, Katherine. Recognizing Van Eyck. Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin. Spring 1988, Volume 91, Number 386-87
Rishel, Joseph and Anne d'Harnoncourt. "Forward".
1997 exhibition represented the culmination of the research Marigene Butler started 15 years earlier.
Technical investigations caused "a sequence of chain reactions throughout the scholarly world" 5
Three publications resulted from the decade-long collaborative project: Rishel (Getty Grant Program), Galleria Sabauda catalogue ("handsome book") and Philly catalogue - Luber's essays. 5
Scholars from Turin, Phila, Antwerp, Paris, Cleveland & London collaborated 5
Pächt, Otto. Van Eyck and the Founders of Early Netherlandish Painting. London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1999. ISBN1-872501-28-1
Madonna of Canon van der Paele, intended for chapel he endowed at St Donation in Bruges in 1434. Work completed 1436. 81
Netherlandish equivalent of the Italian sacra conversazione’’, "its precedents and evolutionary source lie in Italy." 81
italian painters mid-1300s ++ began to show the donor under protection of patron saint on the same scale as the heavenly figures 81
Also seen in 13th cent sculpture 81
Northern painters followed the lead of the Italians but the meeting between mortal & divine reserved for members of highest rank, i.e Duke of Berry, etc. always shown kneeling before a heavenly throne. Seen in miniatures, then panel painting, & some carvings. 81
Supremacy of the divine is always "maintained thorughout by the use of the elevated throne or other device to assure a dominant position." 82
Master of Flemalle chose to place the divine in a domestic setting; van Eyck "was to set the scene in God’s House, thus ensuring that it retained all the solemnity of sacred space, as manifested in the terrestrial enclaves of the Divine." 82
Madonna in an Romanesque apse on a throne of stone with a brocade canopy, steps leading up covered w/ oriental carpet. 82
Saints & donor seem to have entered through the arcade (of the ambulatory) 82
Saint George presents van der Paele , he "almost seems to step forward as he doffs his helmet and stretches out his left hand to present to present his kneeling protege to the Madonna and Child: and unusually spontaneous gesture for Jan." 82
Sacra conversazione demanded new handling of space and issues of rank & size had to be solved. The higher ranked divine figures, the figure of adoration, was moved back but had to be as large or larger than the other figures despite the demands of perspective. 82
In Paele the Madonna is set in the rear & seated yet her head is at the same level of the figures who stand and who are closer in perspective. 82
The apse (half-round) adds to the illusion w/ "uninterrupted transition between centre and sides, as also between depth and foreground." 82
The composition appears as "a greatly expanded throne niche" 82
The top of the space isn’t visible; the space is "a section of a larger whole" 82
The canopy = upper edge - "in formal terms, therefore, the pictorial space is just a much a self-contained whole as if ceiling beams had been visible at the top." 82
The later Dresden Triptych has a better handling of spatial depth: Mary & throne moved back, space extended, sides extended to the wings. The figures appear smaller than those in Paele, which are massive according to Pacht. 83
Paele is closer to the "monumental, sculptural quallity of the Deeiss on the Ghent Altarpiece" 83
Like Lucca Madonna, Paele is in the shape of a pyramid, but the Madonna’s position is more complicated in Paele. 84
The Child "is seen frontally" but he twists into a three-quarter view; legs are flexed, one crossing her lap. V similar to Dresden but there his head isn’t turned. 84
Carter, David G. "Reflections in Armor in the Canon Van der Paele Madonna". The Art Bulletin, Volume 36, No. 1, March 1954. 60-62
Common to see reflections painted onto shiny surfaces, i.,e armour, in Netherlandish art. The reflections "underlined the dual nature, the microcosm and macrocosm of the world in fifteenth century eyes". 60
Seen in Gerard David's work, Memlings, & in JvE's Ghent. 60
St George: "This friendly, polite, yet almost too casual patron saint treads carelessly on the surplice of the proud old canon ... " 60
St George's armour similar to St Michael's in Dresden Triptych 60
His shield resembles those in the Knights of Christ panel, & is a shield commonly used in the 15 cent. Its reverse is shown to the viewer the surface reflects the red & white banner of St George at the top, the adjacent columns & the saints sword on the bottom, on the left part of armour (cuirass and shield straps), on the right is a reflection of the artist with raised arm. Jan dressed in blue mantle and red hat. 61
St George's helmet, like St Michael's in the Dresden, is odd conch shape & each volute reflects the window opposite (behind St Donation), above a reflection of the seated virgin. 61
Breastplate reflects the virgin's red mantle; the knees repeat the light and virgin motif. 61
St George's armour = the inscription. Top of the frame = SPECULUM SINE MACULA DEI MEISTATUS (note, translation in Weale). 61
Panofsky says space & perspective = empirical vs. mathematical so that "the location of the image of Jan van Eyck and the angle at which the shield bearing the image meets the picture plane it is possible to project a line perpendicular to the shield from Jan van Eyck which will pass through the spot, relative to the painting, upon which the artist stood." 61 (Panofsky part doesn't make sense to me)
The positioning of the rug, with its line terminating at the picture's edge, functions to pull the viewer into the picture space 62
Ward, John. "Disguised Symbolism as Enactive Symbolism in Van Eyck's Paintings". Artibus et Historiae, Volume 15, No. 29, 1994
Ward's definition of disguised symbolism is that "the term is restricted to subjects or configurations that have designed so as to delay recognition of their symbolic character in order to create an expressive effect of revelation and transcendence during the process of meditation." 13
The parrot, flowers w/ the virgin & child is odd, although not "spatially ambiguous it must ultimately be recognized as either curiously incoherent or deliberately designed to enact a complex symbolic message." 24
The virgin holds a single stem that appears to grow out the parrots feathers. The four-petal flowers are red, white and dark blue; the plant is unidentifiable. The colors are symbolic. 24
The parrot was associated to some extent with the virgin (most notably in depictions of the Annunciation) but rarely seen in paintings of her. 24
There is seemingly no explanation for the parrot with the plant growing from its feathers and the multi-colored flowers. 25
Ward's explanation: Mary set against a floral backdrop = garden of Eden, plus the carvings show the old testament figures. Christ is set on the side of the Adam carving, so he supplants Adam and Mary supplants Eve. First parents evoke Annunciation & hence the parrot. 25
Flowers growing out of the exotic parrot = reenactment & serve to counteract the old testament serpent & apple. The parrot, the flowers with three colors symbolizing purity, love and humility, the four petals symbolizing the cross (reflected St George's cross), indicate Christ's sacrifice & undoing of original sin. 25
Parrot and flowers were a late edition and Ward speculates that JvE found a means through expressive and complicated symbolism to extend having the virgin and child merely acknowledge the canon to having the child offer flowers with powers of healing. 25
Ward re this picture>> "Van Eyck's disguised symbols are again woven into the picture's design in such a way that, while the viewer sees Christ with his mother as in a vision, the role of the holy pair in enabling man to return to Paradise is also mystically revealed." 38
Unlike Rolin which seems to be in a transfigured world, the Canon appears to be in the earthly realm having a mystical vision: the saint is speaking, the child and parrot twist their heads to look at him, although his expression reveals that his impending death weighs on him. 38
Donation side is the Cain/Abel figure on the throne = prefiguring the crucifixion; on the pilaster above by his cross is Abraham & Isaac, Abraham & Melchizedek &, prefiguring mass >> this side = shedding of blood. 38-9
On St George's side of the throne is Samson opening lions mouth; on the pilaster by St George's elbow is a rider battling an armored figure & another of David killing Goliath. All are prefigurations of Harrowing of Hell & on the warrior's side. 39
"Although the foregoing symbolism is complex and embedded, once it was noticed, the typological orchestration of background relief carvings with the figures on the throne and the two standing saints-and the interaction of all of them with Christ-could have been figured out by anyone familiar with the stories and their traditional typological significance. And even if the rampaging rider could not be identified, his military character in relationto St. George and the proximate carvings of Davidand Goliathand Samson and the Lionshould have made the basic typology evident." 40 (break down & paraphrase)
The figures glance out towards the scene in the painting, suggesting they see the future. 40
A brightly lit pearl at the end of the cross's arm appears to hold the weight of the pilaster to its left. 40
Semicircular space = Garden of Eden; Adam & Eve appear not only on the chair but barely visible on a pilaster behind St Donation's cope (they seem to appear from the cope & v difficult to see). 40
Juxtaposition between the colors of his cope suggest they have been expelled from the garden and are turned to stone. 41
Lots more about the old testament figures on the pilasters. 41
Behind St George, the pilaster on the red column shows a mass of dragons wound up interlaced bands. His standard rests against the capital with the dragons, and the cross reflects the bands. Its the only capital in all of JvE's work with bands crossed in such a manner. 41-43
The cross reflected on the shield, then the little man, then the column that appears to recede b/c of the shield's curvature. 43
The inscription and the reflections on St George's armour identifies him w/ god, virgin, child: it is the armor of god as mentioned by St. Paul & the shield = personal faith & symbolizes ecclesia, Christian church, new testament in ascendency. The receding column = old testament. 43
Ward says the figure of the man is more than a personal conceit: it's reverse of the figures of Adam & Eve on the opposite side behind Donation; it's in color vs, the monochromatic stone figures on the opposite side. 44
The old testament figures are monochromatic stone; the new testament are brightly colored. 44
After the fall = colorless; christ's birth liberated and brought the church into light w/ the virgin "who is the unspotted mirror of God's majesty." 44
Ward says of van Eyck that "was fully aware of his own painting as a spotless mirror in which the viewer with a pure soul could see reflected not only the holy images but the deeper meanings not visible to the viewer mired in sin." 44
Virgin's red robe is lined in green; only JvE virgin w/ a green-lined robe >> appears to fall like a waterfall from the parrot on her lap to the carpet at her feet == water, fertility, river of life. 45
Note: re-read his conclusion re disguised symbolism. 45
Full frame inscriptions that were probably modified (re-read this) 212
van Eyck's largest panel except central Ghent panel; the only in horizontal format 212
Could have been a retable for an altar (for personal use); there are other examples that she lists 212
Probably kept privately until van der Paele died in 1443. 215
The composition is balanced and symmetrical, set in a rounded church & ambulatory 215
St Donation dressed in blue brocade cope 215
"Enclosed and static composition" 215
Systematic use of Latin inscriptions on the frame describing the two saints: descriptions (I think we have these) 215
Wheel w/ five tapers is Donations attribute (prob not necessary) 215
Re frame inscription of St George (think we have this) 218
Virgin's inscription = passage from The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, "For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the orders of stars; being compared with the light she is found before it. She is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness". (Wisdom, 7:29, 26) 218
Dhanens says that JvE transposed sense and spirit of the hymn into reality in the painting, "Natural light was for him a natural extension or analogy of divine light, and the visible world reflected its Creator". 218
Light spills into the church from an invisible source in the left foreground to illuminate the figures; light from invisible windows above; the leaded windows = soft illumination 218
St George's gesture of presentation emphasized w/ his slender hand & its shadow on the canon's bright surplice 218
Canon's attributes = fur draped over his arm, breviary, eye glasses. 220
Donation's cope has images of saints >> St Peter & St John 220
The old testament themes prefigure Redemption 220
Capitals are decorated w/ unidentifiable beasts (camels/griffons/etc) interlaced between tendrils. The background capitals are in shadow and 3 are identifiable: 1., the fall, 2, Abraham & Melchizidek & sacrifice of Isaac; (other side) 3., victory of Abraham over Elamite kings (probably), 4, David slays Goliath 220
The church is not identifiable; van Eyck didn't paint churches that exist in reality 222
The parrot is not a commonly used attribute but is seen in Jan Gossaert, Durer & Rubens. Flowers a later JvE addition 223
St George knight of Cappadocia, dressed in blue enamaled armour. 223
Long section re lifting the helmet >> that it puzzled some people, that it has its basis in text in Homer (prob not important) 223
Mentions the reflections in the helmet 226
A copy of the painting is in the Royal Museum Antwerp, dates from 16th cent, very accurate, might have been painted to cover the original 226-228
Hidden during religious wars 228
Looted and brought to France, displayed in the Louvre 228
After Napolean's fall it was returned but St Donations had been demolished so it went to the Academy of Bruges 228
Unfavorable in 19th cent; Waagen said it was ugly (long quotes) 228
The inscription was probably amended either in 1441 or 1443 for the second chaplaincy but the 1436 completion date was unchanged 56
It's a theologically complex composition with various levels of meaning 56
The setting shows the "formal language of romanesque architecture" 57
The arcade of semicircular arches suggests it's a choir 57
It could be St Donatian (now demolished but it also resembles the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem >> which emphasizes the underlying eucharistic symbolism 58
Mary's throne is positioned where the altar would go 58
The child sits on a white cloth over her red robe = veiled host during celebration of Mass & Eucharist which = Christ's death & resurrection 58
Right & left of throne decor & capital reliefs show aspects of eucharist 59
The two halves of the picture are a symmetrical reference to Christ's death & resurrection, "assigning them in formal terms to St Donatian on the left and St George on the right" 59
Left = St Donatian's reliquary cross symbolizing Holy Cross 59
Right = St George's flag = banner of the Risen Christ' 59
Borchert says that "the two spheres of death and Resurrection meet at the central axis" w/ Mary & child as altar & eucharist. 59
"The formal centre of the composition and its theological focus thus become one." 59
Van der Paele is on the right = his hope of everlasting life, achieved via endowments, etc, 59
The inscription re Mary is painted on the frame & symbolizes Marian mysticism, metaphor as Mary as "unspotted mirror", continued w/ the reflections in George's helmet 59
Like Rolin, van Eyck depicts a vision, a vision van der Paele experiences in his devotions (devotio modena?) 59
The canon's gazes past the Virgin, seems unaware of her or of George's hand, he seems to be reflecting on the passage he's just read in his book 59
He is depicted in his function as lay canon performing his duties for all eternity & he is substituted in the picture during the period he was unable to perform his duties 59
The church had reliquaries from Church of the Holy Sepulchre: its reliquary cross possessed a fragment of the true cross & it had one of St George's arms (perhaps explains the prominence of George's arm) 59
Crispin, Philip. "Scandal, Malice and the Bazoche". in Harper, April, Proctor, Caroline (eds). Medieval Sexuality: A Casebook. New York: Routledge, 2008. ISBN0-415-97831-6 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
Dunkerton, Jill. Giotto to Dürer: early Renaissance painting in The National Gallery. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991 ISBN978-030-0050-820
Blum, Shirley Neilson. "Hans Memling's Annunciation With Angelic Attendants. Metropolitan Museum Journal The Metropolitan Museum of Art Volume 27 1992 43-58
Dhanens, Elisabeth. Hubert and Jan van Eyck. New York: Tabard Press. 1980. ISBN0-914427-00-8
Harbison, Craig. Jan Van Eyck: The Play of Realism. London: Reaktion Books, 1991. ISBN978-094-846279-5
Harbison, Craig. "Realism and Symbolism in Early Flemish Painting". The Art Bulletin, Volume 66, No. 4, 1984. 588-602
Harbison, Craig. "Visions and Meditations in Early Flemish". Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Volume 15, No. 2, (1985)
Koch, Robert. "The Getty 'Annunciation' by Dieric Bouts". The Burlington Magazine, The Burlington Magazine, Volume 130, No. 1024, July 1988.
Leonard, Mark, et. al. Dieric Bouts's 'Annunciation'. Materials and Techniques: A Summary. The Burlington Magazine, Volume 130, No. 1024, July 1988.
Pächt, Otto. Van Eyck and the Founders of Early Netherlandish Painting. 1999. London: Harvey Miller Publishers. ISBN1-872501-28-1
Ward, John. "Disguised Symbolism as Enactive Symbolism in Van Eyck's Paintings". Artibus et Historiae, Volume 15, No. 29, 1994. 9-53
![[6]](http://mail.olc.edu/~kclose/images/lady_murasaki.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.shochian.com/IMAGES/ishiyamashugetsu-betsu02.jpg){kind=link}
