UNIVERSITAT ZU KOLN INSTITUT FUR KUNSTGESCHICHTE Sommersemester 2013/2014 Seminar: Van Eyck Lehrperson: Prof. Jeannet Hommers Topic: The Metaphor of Seeing in Van Eyck, Observer – Window - Mirror Referee: Marzia Muroni Credits required: 3 1 INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION 2. SYMBOLISM AND DISGUISED SYMBOLISM 3. THE METAPHOR OF SEEING IN JAN VAN EYCK 3.1 Mirror and Observer 3.2 Windows and Light 2 1. INTRODUCTION To begin this analysis of the symbolism and the metaphor in the works of Jan van Eyck I decided to trust and be guided by the views of major critics. The first is Focillon, who in 1938 in his book'' Art d'Occident'' writes: ‘’ The genius of Van Eyck is still tied closely to the Middle Ages and his century, as is the iconography ... all reality is mysterious for Van Eyck; he is in front of the object as if he finds it out for the first time, he studied the subject as if there he can find the solution of a puzzle, and infuse his image a second life’’. The following year, de Tolnay writes:'' Contemplating the Madonna of Chancellor Rolin the viewer surrenders to the wonderful spectacle of the only living element that the artist has placed: light. The light circulating in space, touching objects, and it seems the divine light of which the mystics speak. It is possible to express in the most perfect manner the presence of God in creation? Van Eyck comes without artifice to describe a higher reality, pure and absolute'' (Le Maitre de Flemaile et les frees Van Eyck). We continue this introduction with Denis, 1954,'' The element that gives value to his technical and formal skills is the spiritual message contained in them. The subjects are still religious, and are treated with exemplary religious purity. The master himself feeds of simplicity, uses elements of the visible world, and for that reason eliminates the unrealistic appearance typical of mystical representations''. In 1958, Salvini,'' in Flemish painting,'' continued this aspect of the analysis :'' The path of the art of Van Eyck has as its starting point the cool surprise in the discovery of reality. The end point is the elevation of reality to a solemn level, but, doing it, the relationship between naturalism and transfiguration of reality remains the same.'' Brandi concludes in'' Space Italian, Flemish environment'': '' Van Eyck does not want to give up the phenomenal attributes of the object.'' Finally I would like to conclude this introduction by quoting Genaille (Le peinture dans les anciens Pays - Bas, 1954):'' The Arnolfini Portrait is a position taken by the light. The light, animating every detail, extracts poetry. The open window, the convex mirror that has depth to any space toward the viewer ... these are the symbols of the achievements of painting, more profound than those of marital fidelity, they also recognized and discussed with talent by Panofsky.'' And it is through the analysis of Panofsky I intend to move to go into in that symbolic and metaphorical aspect hidden in the works of Jan Van Eyck. 3 2. SYMBOLISM AND DISGUISED SYMBOLISM The Flemish painters attributed scrupulous attention to every detail, such as objects, parts of objects, characteristics of faces, hands, clothes and so on. This approach is due to technical reasons, religious and philosophical. We note that in religious subjects they tried to drop the divinity in the everyday, to allow identification of the faithful. In a vision so attentive to detail man can not be the center of the world, as theorized the Italian humanists, rather it is only a part of the rich universe. In this way individual objects are gaining in importance in the representation, resulting in a strong symbolic value that can be read on various layers. Unlike the Florentine contemporaries, Van Eyck doesn’t build the representation organizing scientifically the perspective. At the bottom we find the medieval philosophy of the microcosm, and a willingness to penetration across the board that leads him to do something every millimeter perfect. In Piero della Francesca's perspective space prevails on religious subjects; in the art of Van Eyck is the religion to prevail. Starting from Panofsky's article, published in the Burlington Magazine in 1934, and again a few years later in his Early Netherlandish Painting, to attract the attention of historians and art critics will be especially the mystery of the subjects of Van Eyck. Panofsky tries to solve the mystery by assuming that objects, environments and gestures depicted can hide behind an additional meaning, namely, that the works of Van Eyck and contemporary, sacred and secular, are pervaded by a'' disguised symbolism.'' Panofsky defined ''iconology'' as the study of pure forms, motifs, images, stories and allegories as manifestation of the underlying principles of a culture. Iconology was his vision of art history as a hermeneutic of culture at large. His iconology was ''iconography in a deeper sense'', interested in symbolical values or symbolical forms. In both texts Panofsky describes Disguised Symbolism as a reconciliation of the medieval symbolism with modern realism, which is done by investing accessories with symbolic meanings. The symbolic meaning does not contradict the naturalistic tendencies, but is absorbed in reality, this gives rise to associations whose direction is determined by the vital forces of medieval iconography. The principle of disguising symbols under the cloak of real things is not a new invention of the great Flemings, but it emerged as a concomitant of the perspective interpretation of space, in the Italian 14th century (Giotto's Dance of Salomè; Duccio's Christ among the Doctors). This was the beginning, but it reached its climax in the great Flemings, were the method of disguised symbolism was applied to each and every object, made by man or natural. We can say that it was employed as a general principle, just as was with the method of naturalism. In fact these two methods were correlates, the more the painters rejoiced in the discovery and reproduction of the visible world, the 4 more intensely did they feel the need to saturate all of its elements with meaning, exploring new areas if reality. As Surger would say :''the whole universe shone with the radiance of delightful allegories'', or to quote St. Thomas Aquinas ''corporeal metaphors of things spiritual''. Of course is not possible that every plant, architectural detail or implement could be conceived as a metaphor, so that all forms meant to convey a symbolical idea. How can we decide where the general metaphorical transfiguration of nature ends and specific symbolism begins? To answer we have to ask ourselves whether or not a symbolical interpretation can be justified,we must use the common sense. The disguised symbolism is not an historiographical method or a paradigm. It was a rhetorical device employed by early Netherlandish painters, which, according to Panofsky, reveals something about the culture as a whole. For Panofsky, it was in the art of Jan Van Eyck and in his compositions that the significant objects neither compete with non – significant ones nor do they ever step before the footlight. In his works all reality is saturated with meaning, that's why here we will focus on 3 aspects that together build what we have called ''the metaphor of seeing'': the mirror; the observer and the windows. 3. THE METAPHOR OF SEEING IN JAN VAN EYCK 3.1 Mirror and Observer If we associate Van Eyck with the two words mirror and observer, we automatically think about the Arnolfini Portrait (London, National Gallery). 5 The room is represented with extreme precision and is populated by a large variety of items, all represented with extreme attention to details. Among all the objects in the center stands a convex mirror, the famous and enigmatic detail, which will be the fulcrum of our discussion. Using the mirror Van Eyck painted the backs of the two subjects, and the other side of the room, where we see an open door with two men standing in front, one of which may be the painter himself. What is the meaning of this mirror and the two observers of the scene? We begin by noting that, as far as we know, this is the first time that a mirror shows the background of a painting, and we also note that this is one of the best examples of microscopic minuteness of the Flemish artist. The mirror measuring 5.5 cm, and its frame are featured ten episodes of the Passion of Christ. From bottom clockwise we can recognize: - The Prayer in the Garden - The capture of Christ - The judgment of Pilate - The flagellezione of Christ - The Ascent to Calvary - Crucifixion (top center) - Deposition - Lamentation - Descent into Limbo - Resurrection These small mirrors were very popular, and its presence suggests that the interpretation of the event must be Christian and spiritual at the same time. Why? The stories of the Passion of Christ are an example of Christian tolerance of the problems of everyday life; mirror glass iconography alludes to Mary's virginity (speculum sine macula) and by analogy to the purity and virginity of the bride, who was to remain chaste during the marriage. 6 We now go deeper taking care of as Van Eyck has used this mirror. Why has the painter insert it? Why do we find the signature of the painter above it? The use of light brings the viewer to observe the reflected images, and in this way he is deceptively included in the space of representation. This happens thanks to the use of devices such as: the 4 vanishing points in use; the high horizon line that makes the environment encircling, creating a space that is not closed and unfinished, but continued through the window and doubled to 360 ° from the mirror behind the protagonists. In this way, Van Eyck has created a virtual reality that allows us to identify with the two observers of the scene reflected in the mirror, and at the same time gives us a point of view usually denied to the viewer, thus giving us a new vision in the round of physical reality. Panofsky, in his essay quoted above, after recognizing the realistic nature of the work, he begins to question the figurative elements in the painting, in order to discover their particular symbolic value. It 'should be emphasized that Panofsky doesn’t considers the painting an allegory, but a true portrait of the characters really existed, but whose meaning is based on the symbolic nature of some figurative elements dispersed naturally in the environment, each of which performs the dual function of represent reality and hide a symbol. So, what is the meaning of the mirror and guests in it according to Panofsky portraits? The guests are the core of the mystery. Among them is a common opinion that this is the painter himself, along with another material witness of marriage or engagement. According to Catholic dogma, marriage is a sacrament which is immediately accomplished by the mutual consent of the persons to be married, when this consent is expressed by words and actions: first, an appropriate and solemnly formula pronounced from both of them; second, the tradition of a pledge, generally a ring; and, thirdly the joining of hands. The sacertodal benediction and the presence of witnesses 7 does not affect the sacramental validity of marriage, but is required for its formal legalization. So, consequently, the London Portrait could not be described more briefly and appropriately than by calling it the representation of a couple who were contracting their marriage by a marital oath. The mirror is seen as a symbol of morality, this view is supported, as explained above, from the scenes of the Passion of Christ that surround it. Consequently, the function can not be other than to sanctify the environment, becoming an emblem of purity. Pointed out that the portrait is clearly about marital union, on doctrinal, social and psychological levels, is very important to recognize Van Eyck's intimate relationship to the Christian imago, it is an holy portrait with the myth of the image's primal function as authoritative witness of the sacred. Both of this elements perfectly explains the curious inscription ''Johannes de Eyck fuit hic. 1434'', correctly translated as Jan Van Eyck was here. This makes perfectly good sense when we consider the legal situation we have described before. Since the two people portrayed were married ''per fidem'', the portrait meant no less than a pictorial marriage certificate, work made through the mirror which shows us the presence of two witnesses, one of which has already signed it. The observer is not expected to realize such notions consciously. The supreme charm of the picture is based in the fact that the spectator is not irritated by all this symbols, but is allowed to abandon himself to the facination of the transfigured reality. We have to remind ourselves that in Van Eyck's paintings the meaning or symbolisms does not exist separately from the portrayed structure of the world, but it is, in fact, inevitability and completely embedded within it. In this way, and thanks to this overlapping with sacred iconography permits Van Eyck to introduce into his double portrait various ideas about the sacrament of the marriage. 8 3.2 Windows The last aspect that I am here to analyze are Van Eyck's windows, how and why did he use the light in that way, and which symbolic meaning is hidden behind this aspect. I want start summarizing in brief how the contrast between Gothic and vague orientalism has given way to a dichotomy between Gothic and archeologically correct Romanesque; which we can clearly recognize in the complex of structures created by the Broederlam master. An other important point, and no less indicative, of the period is how through the Middle Ages the relation between Judaism and Christianity had been an ambivalent one, the Sinagogue was both the enemy and the ancestress of the Church. It is Jan Van Eyck who resolved this ambivalent feeling into a sense of continuity and ultimate harmony. In the first work I will talk about, the ‘’Annunciation’’ of the Ghent altarpiece, he has introduced the now familiar contrast between Gothic and Romanesque forms. He has established a complementary relationship in that he reserved the Gothic treatment for such features as seem to have been added to an essentially Romanesque interior as bearers of a special significance. Why is it important for us ? Because the Gothic style appears only in the tracery of the two outside windows, the one on the right admitting the rays of the sun which paint two pools of light directly behind ‘’Annunciation’’ of the Ghent altarpiece, 1432, Ghent Chatedral the Annunciate; and in the little niche with laver and water basin, which is an indoor substitute for the most typical symbols of the Virgin’s purity, the ‘’fountain of gardens’’ and ‘’well of living waters’’ Keeping in mind this first mentioned example of windows and rays of the sun, let’s move to the second Van Eyck’s work of this chapter. 9 In the ‘’Annunciation’’ in the National Gallery of Washington the scene is laid, for the first time in panel painting, in the interior of a church. The structure is Romanesque in the clerestory, with its flats ceiling and simple round – arched windows, a little more advanced in the triforium, and early Gothic in the lower zone where windows and arcades show pointed arches. Symbolically it is profound. The picture illustrates the self – revelation and explication of the Trinity, that marks the transition from the Jewish to the Christian era. Here the Trinity is, again, signified by the three Gothic windows in the lower zone. The downward path of the ray divine on which the Dove of the Holy Spirit descends is mirrored in a downward transition from one window to three and, at the same time, from Romanesque to Gothic. Washington Annunciation, 1434 – 1436, Washington National Gallery Third example will be the ‘’Madonna of Nicholas Rolin’’. Here a human beign is admitted to the elevated throne room of the Madonna, without the benefit of a canonized sponsor. It was imperative for the painter to designate this throne room as a part of a palace not of this earth. Throught a triad of opening we can see a beautiful garden, which brings to mind both the garden of Paradise and the ‘’hortus conclusus’’. The river, also, suggest the ‘’pure river of water, clear as crystal’’ that runs throught the New Jerusalem. 10 The use of such apparently naturalistic artifacts as Gothic windows with allegorical significations bears witness to a type of symbolism unknown to the Middle Ages. In High Medieval representations we can see personages of the remote past, or future, sharing the stage of time with characters of the present. Objects accepted and recognizable as symbols could mingle with real buildings, plants or elements on the same level of reality – non reality. We can say that this system of representation proved to be less and less compatible with a style which, with the introduction of perspective, had begun to commit itself to naturalism. The application of perspective implies that the painting surface is understood as a ‘’window’’ through which we look out into a section of space. If taken seriously this means no more than that a pictorial space is subject to the rules that govern empirical space, that there must be no obvious contradiction between what we do see in a picture and what we might see in reality. A way had to be found to make the new naturalism with a thousand years of Christianity match. This attempt resulted in disguised symbolism as opposed to open or obvious symbolism. In Jan Van Eyck all meaning has assumed the shape of reality, or we can say that all reality is saturated with meaning. The last paint I will analyze is the famous ‘’Madonna in a Church’’ in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum at Berlin. The scene is laid in a basilica of purely Gothic cast, between the arcades and triforium of the nave, which shows the plastic style of the thirteenth century. The luminary accents coming from the windows and concentrated on the left are balanced by two spots of sunlight cast upon the floor on the right. Van Eyck absorbed deeply the problem of space and light and its infinite variety, so he decided upon an entirely different solution. Instead of accepting the traditional scheme of a Madonna in a small aedicule and transforming this aedicule into a symbol of the Church by naturalistic elaboration and rich typological imagery, he expanded it into a whole cathedral. The disproportion is a symbol: a deviation from nature which, deliberately retained in the framework of a naturalistic style, makes us aware of the fact that this wealth of detail is dominated by a metaphysical idea. 11 Further proof of this is found in the remarkable treatment of the light. The symbolical import of the light, especially the sunlight streaming through Gothic windows, is the guide line of this chapter. Everybody know that the sun rises from the North and that there is in all Christendom no Gothic church having a fullfledged chatedral choir facing the West and not the East. If he decided to reverse the laws of nature, is because he had a reason to do it. This reason is that the light coming from the windows wasn’t intended by him as the light of nature, but as the supernatural light which illumines the City of God, the Light Divine disguised as the light of the day. For Van Eyck this light doesn’t depend from the law of astronomy, but is subject to the laws of symbolism. The ray of divine illumination must strike the person blessed with this illumination from the his or her left, and, for example, in the Washington ‘’Annunciation’’, the distinction is made between the ray divine that comes from the Virgin’s right and the natural light that comes from the left. In the ‘’Madonna in a Church’’ there is no such distinction, in fact there is only what looks like the natural light of the sun. The painter wanted this apparently natural light to operate as a supernatural radiance emanating from God, therefore it has to come from the Virgin’s right. With this very defiance of the laws of astronomy, the apparently natural light reveals its truly supernatural character. I want to conclude quoting Panofsky for the last time: ’’What more convincing pictorial image could there be of a light that is above the order of the physical universe, that illumines a day not followed by night…than a sun which shines from the North and thereby proclaims that it can never go down?’’. 12 REFERENCES Lancioni Lancioni T., Il doppio ritratto di Jan Van Eyck – Uno sguardo impertinente, in E/C Rivista dell’Associazione italiana di Studi Semiotici, No.2, 17th January 2005, Palermo Morante Morante F., Van Eyck – un realista allo specchio, in www.archiviostorico.corriere.it Panofsky Panofsky E., Jan Van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait, in The Burlington Magazine for Conoisseurs, Vol. 64, No. 372, March 1934 Panofsky E., Early Netherlandish Painting, its origin and character, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1953 Wood Wood C., Jan Van Eyck – The play of realism by Craig Harbison, in The Art Bullettin, Vol. 75, No. 1, March 1993, College Art Association 13