National Gallery, London - Selected Masterpeices

First created 28 Dec 2017. Version 1.0 - 1 Feb 2018. Daperro. London.
National
Gallery,
London
All rights reserved. Rights belong to their respective owners.
Available free for non-commercial, Educational and personal use.
Selected
Masterpieces

1434. 82x60 cm. Oil on Panel. Jan Van Eyck
Perfectly reflected reality
Arnolfini
Portrait

The Arnolfini Wedding
Most people are often surprised, when they see
the painting for the first time because of its
small size, about the size of a bathroom mirror.
We see a rather ugly man with a big hat
holding the hand of a woman, who looks like
that she is pregnant, with strange hair style
and headdress, in a small bedroom.
We start to wonder why this is a masterpiece.
This is because we look at the painting through
our modern eyes and judge it by aesthetics
alone. We ignore the historical context in
which it was painted.
The Arnolfini Marriage.1434. 82x60 cm. Oil on Panel. Jan Van Eyck
The National Gallery, London.

The Historical Context
When van Eyck painted the Arnolfini Marriage, it
was painted over 70 years before Da Vinci’s
Mona Lisa or Michelangelo's Sistine chapel.
Van Eyck’s painting look far more true to life than
his contemporaries in Italy, as illustrated by the
portrait of St Paul by Masaccio on the right a few
years before the Marriage of Arnolfini.
San Paol. 1426. Masaccio.
Italian. Museo Nazionale. Pisa.
1370 1420 1470 1520
VanEyck
Campin
Da Vinci
Michelanglo
Da Vinci 1452-1519
Michelangelo 1475-1564
Campin 1375-1444
Van Eyck 1390-1441
Robert Campin, who also painted in similar way is included in above for comparison.
Giovanna Cenami, 1434.

Arnolfini Portrait
Arnolfini was involved in the garment trades. From the raw materials that went into their garments.
It is plain to see how important the Flanders was as a trading hub of northern Europe, with links to
the Eastern Europe, England, the Baltics states and the Mediterranean Europe. It also shows how
wealthy the Flanders was.

The Display of Wealth
The house was built with bricks, as can be seen from the wall
shown outside the window. Underneath the window, with
oranges that could only have come from southern European.
The couple are opulently dressed in fur and expensive white
ermine. The Turkish carpet on the floor, the hangings on the
bed, the mirror and the chandelier were all items of luxury.
Giovanni Arnolfini was a rich garment
merchant from Lucca, Italy.
The lady was once thought to be
Giovanna Cenami, daughter of a
prominent Italian financier.
The entire painting is filled with
objects of wealth.
Details. Apple on the window
ledge and oranges on the table.
Details. Fur on Arnolfini’s cloth. Fur lining on
Cenami’ cloth. Turkey carpet on the floor.
The Arnolfini Portrait. 1434. Jan Van Eyck.

Allegory & Cultural Symbols
Mirror on the wall.
Chandelier
Giovanna’s clogs
Giovanni’s clogsDog
Allegory is used by painters to represent
abstract concepts like bravery, faith or
royalty.
Religious symbols can be found littered in
the painting; apples as fruit from the Tree
of Knowledge, the Carving of St Margaret
patron saint of childbirth and Prayer
beads.
In contrast, secular symbols were also
used; a dog for fidelity, a bed for the
consummation of marriage, the blue
sleeves & the white lining worn by the lady
denote purity, clogs cast away
representing the abandoning of daily
chores on this solemn occasion.

Arnolfini Portrait
The dog for fidelity

Was it a Marriage?
The painting tells us this was an important
occasion. Above the mirror, van Eyck wrote
“Johannes de Eyck fuit hic 1434” (van Eyck was
here) as witness to the occasion.
So if this was a marriage, then why were only four
persons present, two of whom only shown in the
reflection on the mirror? Shouldn’t we expect more
people?
In the 15th Century it was customary for the couple
to exchange vows before marriage; an
engagement. The painting depicts the moment
when Arnolfini took the hand of his bride and raised
his left hand, as he betrothed (vowed to marry) his
future wife. In fact, the painting was thought to be
the Betrothal between Arnolfini and Cenami.
Arnlfini became a councillor to the Duke of Burgundy
and was knighted in 1462. He died in 1472 in Brugge,
38 years after the painting (and two years before the
birth of Michelangelo). The couple perished childless,
with no evidence that they had raised any children.
In 1470, Arnolfini was sued by a woman, who wanted
jewellery that he had given her, returned to her. She
also sought a pension and several houses that she had
been promised.
Jan van Eyck died seven years after he painted this
picture. He is now widely recognized as one of the
greatest painters who ever lived.
Giovanni Arnolfini, also
painted by van Eyck.
Giovanna Cenami?

Recently new interpretations of the paintings
has come to light.
A chance discovery in 1997 that Arnolfini
married his wife Jeanne Cenami in 1447, 13
years after painting was painted.
According to Margaret Koster the painting is a
memorial depiction of
Mystery deepened
Arnolfini’s first undocumented wife Costanza
Trenta, who died in Feb 1433.
Koster’s strongest interpretation is based on the
two candles on the chandelier. One burning
candle above Arnolfini and a burn out candle
with dried wax above his wife.
The interpretation of the painting changes from
a betrothal to a memorial of his dead wife.
Burn out candle holder with
wax on its surface.

This Venus is quite different from the
Venus in the Birth of Venus & in
Primavera painted by the same
painter earlier. She is pensive and
elegant.
Venus
and
Mars
1482. Tempera on panel. 69x173 cm.
Sandro Botticelli.

Venus and Mars
The painting depicted Venus (the goddess of love) and Mars (the god of war).
The painting was probably commissioned by the Vespucci family of Florence,
as suggested by the a hive of wasps painted on the upper right corner of the
painting. There were four baby satyrs playing with Mars’ armours and
lance. One was blowing a conch shell in his ear in an effort to wake him up.
This is the only Botticelli’s mythological paintings, that is outside of Italy.

Venus had an affair with Mars. In the painting, she was
fully dressed with her hair well set. She was alert with her
dress fell softly in folds, espouses her body. As Ficino put it
“Venus seems to master and pacify Mars but Mars never
masters Venus.”
Did you noticed that Venus’ right leg is missing?
Venus is the personalisation of love

Baby satyrs playing with the lance and helmet.
Playing Baby Satyr

Baby satyrs blowing a conch shell.
Playing Baby Satyr

On the hand, Mars was naked and fell into a deep sleep,
unaware of all the noises and the baby satyrs playing
around him. An unimpressive Mars contrasted with a
spirited and pensive Venus.
Mars is the personalisation of war

The painting carried a message of “the power of Love over War”. It was an advice to a newly
wedded couple.
Love over war

One give away on the purpose of the painting, was its elongated format, which suggested the
painting was probably mounted on a dowry chest, called a Cassoni.
Cassoni

The
Virgin of
the Rock
1495-1508. Oil on wood. 190x120 cm.
Leonardo da Vinci.

There are two versions of the painting one in Paris and the other in London

Virgin of the Rocks. 1483-1485. Musee du Louvre, Paris.
Why are they in a cave?
Why is St John the Baptist with the Virgin
Mary and not baby Jesus?
Why is the angel pointing to St John the
Baptist in the Paris version not in the
London version?
The two paintings are nearly identical, with
obvious differences. The Paris version is the
older, maybe by as many as 25 years
When the Paris version was nearly finished,
there was a dispute about payment. Leonardo
sold the Paris version to ‘another buyer’. The
London painting was painted to fulfil the
original contract.
There are several unusual features in the
painting :-
The Paris Version

Virgin of the Rocks (Detail). 1483-1485.
Musee du Louvre, Paris. Edited for fading.
The angel is pointing out that it is
about St John, who was born by
Immaculate Conception. By
implication Virgin Mary must also be
born by Immaculate Conception.
Why is St John the Baptist with the
Virgin Mary and not baby Jesus?
Why is the angel pointing to St John
the Baptist (Paris painting)?
An interpretation
by James Kettlewell.
The painting is about the Immaculate
Conception (born without the Original
Sin) of the Virgin Mary. Some Catholic
argued that both St John and Mary
were born by Immaculate Conception
but they are not divine. So they belong
together. Baby Jesus and the angel are
grouped together as they are divine.
By
Immaculate
Conception
Divine

The Two Angels of the Rocks
The 1483 angel looks out of the canvas to the viewer. The 1498 angel looks forward. The 1495 angel was
painted with much stronger contrast. The eyelids of the angels are different. On the 1483 angel just
below on the corner of the eye is a single teardrop or a water drop on the upper corner of her check.
The 1483 angel. The 1498 angel.

Virgin of the Rocks. 1495-1499 & 1506-08. National Gallery, London.
So why are they in a cave?
In the London version and the Paris version is that
the angel no longer points to St John the Baptist
and no longer looks toward the viewer. In 1483,
Vatican gave support to the idea of the
Immaculate Conception of Virgin Mary. So there
no need to point out St John’s Immaculate
Conception.
There are many suggestion as why the painting
was set in the cave, but none of these are very
convincing. However, it was specified in the
contract that the painting should include “the
mountains and rocks to be worked in oil”.
The London Version

A speculation on the cave
Recently, I came across another Virgin of the Rocks. It was the Madonna of the Cavern in Covadonga,
Asturias in Spain. Covadonga is an Asturian word meaning “Cavern of the Lady”. Covadonga is also a
significant Christian site. For it was here in 722 AD that the Spanish Christians stopped the Islamic Moors
expansion in Spain, by winning an important battle here. It is often considered to be the start of the 770-
year effort to expel Muslim rulers from Spain during the Reconquista. The importance of Covadonga was
underlined by Pope John Paul II calling Convadonga “one of the foundation stones of Christian Europe.”
Would this be the reason that provided the setting in Leonardo’s Virgin of the Rocks?

Virgin of the Rocks (Detail). 1495-1499 & 1506-08. National Gallery, London.

The
Ambassadors
1533. Oil on oak. 204x210 cm. Hans Holbein.

Jean de Dinteville, an aristocrat from the French nobility and well connected to the French court. He
would have educated in mathematic, music and astronomy. He may even familiar with humanist ideas
spreading throughout Europe at the time. He was the French ambassador in London.
The Ambassadors

On the right is the medallion, by which the identify of the
French ambassador, Jean de Dinteville was discovered.
Below is the dragger on which the age Jean de Dinteville
was inscribed, 29. Holbein frequently painted the age of his
sitters on their portraits.
The Ambassadors

Georges de Selve, bishop of Lavour. Why is the ambassador’s face so lack of emotion?
The Ambassadors

The Ambassadors’ Gaze
John Berger, the art critic has noticed that there is something unusual about the gaze of
these ambassadors. "There is in their gaze and their stances a curious lack of expectations
of any recognition. It is as though in principle their worth cannot be recognized by others.
They look as though they are looking at something of which they are not part."
The utter lack of emotions on their faces was unusual. Their portrait shared with other
official portraits of head of states were designed to project authority and power, demanding
our respects. They were part of the world and yet they stood aloft from all of us, keeping
their distances.
The Ambassadors

Just under his arm, the age of Georges de Selve, 24, was written on the book. The oriental carpet was too
precious to be used on the floor. It may come from Anatolia (modern turkey).
The Ambassadors

Georges de Selve dressed more moderate as he was in the cleric but nevertheless in fine clothing. The
robe he was wearing could indicate that he was trained and practiced in the legal profession. Selve came
from a merchant family, which more likely to be affected by the new maritime trades.
The Ambassadors

A celestial sphere on the top shelf together with the instruments of navigation and time keeping. This could
be a reference to the knowledge or the background of the two men. Holbein made this sort of
representational comments on his sitters before. Alternatively, it was a comment on the age of exploration
and their family connection on overseas trade, as de Selve came from a family of merchants. The top shelf is
The Ambassadors

On the top shelf (from the left), a cylindrical sundial, a quadrant to measure altitude, a dial to measure
angles, a simple quadrant, a polyhedral sundial to tell time for several places at the same time.
The Ambassadors

The terrestrial globe on the bottom shelf, with reference to Dinteville’s family estate.
The Ambassadors

This was the hymn book of Martin Luther, who started the Reformation movement against the Catholic
church for its corrupted practices. Holbein was sympathetic to the cause of reform (just as Erasmus
was).
The Ambassadors

The lute had a broken string. It was a classic sign of discord. So what was the discord? Given the
Lutheran hymn book and Holbein (possibly Dinteville as well) humanist leaning, It could be a comment
about the discord within the Christianity, between the Catholic and the Reformation movement.
The Ambassadors

The mysterious object on the foreground of the painting is an anamorphic skull. It is a comments on our
own mortality, our own death. It is a Vanitas, a comment that all our earthly wealth and power would
not matter any more as our existence ceased. This completes the stack of three different worlds from
the top shelf to the floor - the heaven, the living world and the underworld.
The Ambassadors

This is the hidden face of death.
This image is the rectified image
of the highly distorted skull on
the painting. This image can be
reconstructed by placing a
camera on the edge of the
painting close to the surface.
The Ambassadors

The transformation of the skull?
This may be the way Holbein used to paint the highly distorted skull. First Holbein would draw a
grid on normal looking skull. Then the grid is transformed onto the painting or an intermediate
medium distorted. Finally using the distorted grid the skull was repainted.
The Ambassadors

Hiding at the edge of the painting, revealed by the curtain is a crucifix, a reminder of Christianity truth.
The Ambassadors

The
Supper at
Emmaus
1601. Oil on canvas. 141x196.2 cm.
Michelangelo Mersisi Caravaggio.

The Supper at Emmaus. c1601. National Gallery, London

The Story
Supper at Emmaus. 1601. Caravaggio. National Gallery. London.
The Bible tells the story of two
apostles meeting a stranger on
their way to the village of
Emmaus. They talked about
Jesus’ Crucifixion and his body’s
disappearance from his tomb.
At dinner, the stranger blessed
and broke the bread, prompting
the apostles to recognize that
the stranger was Jesus. He then
vanished from their sight.
On the left of the painting was
probably Cleophas, one of the
apostles. On the opposite was
Peter, who wore a sea shell to
show he was a pilgrim. The
innkeeper was depicted standing
beside Jesus.
Why did the apostles not
recognise Jesus?
1571 Born 29 Sept in Milan
1577 Father dies
1584 Apprenticeship with Simone Peterzano
until 1588
1592 Moved to Rome
1599 First public commission
1603 Litigated for defamation.
1605 Arrested for carrying a fire arm without a
permit, in a fight. Wounded a lawyer.
1606 Flees Rome for Naples following murder
1608 Stays in Malta and becomes a knight
1609 Returns to Naples badly wounded
1610 Dies of malaria on 18th July.

In the age of oil-lamps and flickering candles, the painting’s dark background can easily blend into its
surroundings, creating an illusion of reality.

The People
Jesus was depicted as a young beardless man with a
feminine look wearing a bright red gown, different from
the traditional images of Christ. Perhaps it was the
changed appearance of a resurrected Jesus that his
apostles did not immediately recognise him?
The Innkeeper, with a scarf on his head, was looking at
Jesus, emotionless. Why did Caravaggio include him? Was
he there to represent the non-believers? Or did he see
Jesus as just another man?
Peter (presumed) with
foreshortening arms penetrating
the observer’s space.
Cleophas, wearing a rag, with
arms supporting himself.
A solemn Jesus with an unimpressed innkeeper. The
innkeeper’s shadow conveniently casting a halo above
Jesus.
The apostles were clothed like labourers and
not in robes. Cleophas’ coat had a hole at the
elbow, which protruded from the painting. He
was shown pushing himself up at the moment
Jesus revealed his true identity, by blessing the
bread.
Peter, with his crooked nose and untidy hair,
threw his foreshortened arms in a gesture of
utter astonishment, echoing the Crucifixion. His
arm stuck out from the painting, his right hand
looked ‘out of focus’ and slightly larger than his
left.

The Table
Caravaggio could only have copied the fruits in autumn, even though the Resurrection occurred around
Easter. He was originally trained as a still-life painter and took the subject seriously, declaring that ‘it
took as much skill to paint a good picture of flowers as of figures’.
On the table there were bread, water and wine, a roasted chicken and a wicker basket full of over-ripe
fruits, painted to the smallest detail – lesions, fungal spots and worm holes. The rotting fruits
symbolized death, decay and the transient nature of life. Pomegranate was used as a metaphor for the
crown of thorns and the apples & the figs represent man’s original sin. The wilting vine leaves and
grapes related to red wine; the blood of Christ.
The basket teetering on the edge of the table. Some say it creates tension. Others,
suggest it creates an illusion effect of the basket falling out of the painting. I think,
an apostles had shifted the table accidentally, in the confusion of recognising the
resurrected Jesus.
What sort of light illuminates the painting? The most likely
explanation is that the painting must been painted in a cellar
with a small window with a strong beam of sunlight.

An
Experiment
on a bird in
the Air
Pump
1768. Oil on canvas. 183x244 cm. Joseph Wright of Derby.

The painting “An Experiment of a Bird in the Air Pump” is Wright’s most well-known masterpiece. The
experiment was staged by a travelling performer for a fee. In this case the fatherly figure have paid for
the demonstration. Wright used this painting to explore the different reactions and perspectives to
science or to the Age of Enlightenment. Air was pumped out to show its existence and its importance
to the bird. The two girls were frightened by the experiment – one with apprehension and one with
sadness. On the right the ‘philosopher’ pondered the implications of science, with unusual calmness.
The Daughters and the Philosopher

The ‘father’ was upset by his daughter’s reaction. He tried to encourage his daughter to watch the
experiment, which he paid for to educate the daughters. They represented the human reaction.
The Father

The pair of ‘lovers’ was pre-occupied with each others. They lived in a world of their own and were
unconcerned about the experiment.
The Lovers

The boy on the left showed curiosity and watch the experiment with fascination. The ‘matter of fact
man’ watched intensely and with a stop watch in his hand and timed ‘how long the bird can survive
without air’.
Curiosity & the Impassioned Observer

To the travelling performer, it was drama. His theatrical expression vividly showed a high point of
tension.
The Performer

In the centre of the table was a curious object in the bowl, with a light source behind, illuminated the
experiment. The object in the bowl was a skull with a missing jaw bone. The skull is a symbol of death.
It is a veritas, a transient nature of earthly pursuits and of life.
Veritas

The
Fighting
Temeraire
1838. Oil on canvas. 90.7x121.6 cm.
JMW Turner..

This is one of his most popular paintings. It shows a veteran fighting ship, Temeraire, which fought
heroically in the Battle of Trafalgar, being towed by steamer tug on the Thames, to be broken up in
the wrecker’s yard. The Temeraire was painted in ghostly but nevertheless bright and majestic
colours. This contrasted strongly with the demonic black tug, a product of the Industrial Revolution.
The Coming of an Industrial Age

The blazing blood red sunset is a symbol of the passing age of the sail, replaced by the industrial era
of steam. The painting was well received when it was first seen in the exhibition,
The Changing Days

The Battle of Trafalgar was fought in 1805.
Turner was 30 years old. He was patriotic
supporter of the British military successes.
When the Fighting Temeraire (1838) was
painted Turner was age 63. Inevitably,
Turner must had felt the passing of an age,
as British was transformed during this
period into an industrial economy.
The Industrial Revolution (1760-1840)

Turner was a supreme Romantic painter and
he was a precursor of the changing world of
art to come. He had reached beyond the
conformity of his age, often beyond the
comprehension of his critics.

With over a thousand of paintings in more than 10 countries.

National Gallery, London - Selected Masterpeices

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to National Gallery, London - Selected Masterpeices

Similar to National Gallery, London - Selected Masterpeices (12)

More from Jerry Daperro

More from Jerry Daperro (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

National Gallery, London - Selected Masterpeices