30/1/07 - History of Art - The Ghent Altarpiece: Church, Court and Cloth

The Ghent altarpiece is the largest known altarpiece, now in Belgium. It is famous and much discussed. There is no documentary evidence for it, except for a piece of writing in 1432: "The painter Hubert Van Eyck, than whom no one was greater, began this work, and his brother Jan, second in art, completed the weighty task, at the request of Joos Vidt. On the sixth of May he [Vidt] begs you, by means of this verse, to take care of what came into being." The date 1432 is indicated by capitalised letters in the inscription, which when read say 1432 in Roman numerals. Van Eyck was considered the greatest artist next to Campin. His older brother Hubert was also a painter, said to be greater than Jan in the inscription. Art historians think that the document made up a history for the altarpiece, but this is not necessarily true - it could have been written later when Hubert was possibly most popular. Hubert died in 1426, and it is likely that the altarpiece was finished six years after his death. Was this a normal length of time to complete an altarpiece? The first letter of the inscription is missing. The letters remaining are "ictor" - if the first letter was a 'p', then it means pictor (artist); if the first letter was an 'f', then it means fictor (sculptor). If Hubert was a sculptor, he may have been the one who carved the frame. We must research this by studying the style of the altarpiece.

It has two tiers: the highest tier is the most prominent. Some say that this style was not prevalent at the time; so was each tier made at different times or simply by two different people? Or both? There are discrepancies: the viewpoint of the middle figures is that the viewer looks down on them, but the viewpoint for Adam and Eve is from below and is highly sophisticated - it could indicate a style difference between two painters or it could be symbolic; the closed wings show sybils and prophets (Isaiah, for example), and the sybils are unusual and have never been painted this way before; the closed middle panels show nothing significant and look awkward, but the enclave is similar to Campin's so perhaps the artist imitated it; there is a dawn cityscape through the window which throws long shadows, which the artist could have picked up from Campin's experimental painting during a visit to Tournai; the view is similar to that from Joseph's workshop window by Campin. Jan Van Eyck is the man most likely to have painted all this.

On either side of the top inside panel are St John the Evangelist and St John the Baptist. We know that it is John the Baptist because he points at God on the middle panel. The saint looks different to the depiction of him on the outer side.

Adam appears to be stepping into our world (like a fallen man coming into a fallen world). Above him is a depiction of Cain and Abel. Adam is so detailed: each strand of hair, all his wrinkles and even the fig leaf are painted naturalistically; the fig leaf must have been observed and sketched by Jan on his travels to Spain and Portugal. Eve holds a citrus fruit known as 'Adam's apple' (the forbidden fruit was thought to be an apple because of the similar words for apple and 'malis' or evil, but this is not concrete evidence for what the fruit really was). Above Eve is a depiction of Cain killing Abel with the jaw bone of an ass (it was traditionally a club or axe), which is the same story as Campin's window detail in Marriage of the Virgin.

Notice that the panels of the Ghent Altarpiece are not harmonised with each other; the lower panels are not securely fitted to the top tier. It could have been arranged this way to suit the patron.

The lower tier shows the Adoration of the Mystic Lamb. The words of St John the Baptist are inscribed from the Bible. St John was the patron saint of the city that the altarpiece was made for, and he was involved in the wool trade which was also significant for the city because they imported it and made expensive cloths from it. The wealth of Joos Vidt came from the wool trade. The portrait of Vidt is likely to be by the same artist as Leal Souvenir, i.e. Jan.

The fountain in the lamb scene appears to have been added later, as it was not originally the central axis. A close up of the dove suggests that the top of the painting was cut down later and originally there was a gold background rather than a blue sky (although gold backgrounds were old-fashioned at the time). Old Testament figures are painted on the left; New Testament figures are on the right. The background scenes on each side do not coincide or indicate that there was once a union between them. They are equivocal iconographically and stylistically - the confessor saints and virgin saints have long bodies and small heads in comparison with the foreground figures. Does this indicate a second artist? There are sixty different flowers on the lower tier, so the artist took a long time to accurately observe and draw and reproduce each one accurately, including Mediterranean plants, so it was probably Jan. The chunky foreground figures and their gestures are similar to Sluter's work, a contemporary of Hubert. The judges are depicted in an unusual way, suggesting that they were painted separately from the other panels.

(Note that this is a copy. The original was stolen in the 1930s. The judges panel took six months to copy in modern times, working from a photograph.)

The God figure wears a papal crown, suggesting the importance of the Church. The jewellery is so lifelike it could be a photograph. The sparkle of water is indicated. The St John the Baptist on either side are distinct from each other, yet one is so beautifully painted: perhaps it is true that Hubert was greater than Jan? The illuminated manuscript that St John holds is a copy of an old-fashioned manuscript (from the twelfth century). The Virgin looks like she could be a mirror image of Campin's in Marriage of the Virgin, in terms of face, hair, and more.

The altarpiece must have been modified and reconstructed - there are too many inconsistencies. Hubert died six years before the date on the altarpiece, so perhaps Jan took over. Jan may have been busy as he had a patron and was being sent on errands, so perhaps this accounts for some of the discrepancies: at intervals he may have relied on drawings or forgotten what he'd already done. It seems that Hubert painted the annunciation scene and Jan filled in the middle panels for their setting. He took six years to complete the altarpiece.

One sibyl, 'Isabella', is similar to the word 'sibyl', but why did he choose Isabella? On the 6 May 1432, the finishing date, the duchess's son was baptised. Nine months earlier the duchess chose to have the baby at Ghent, so Jan paid homage to this by painting her in above the Virgin.

In conclusion, in the Ghent Altarpiece, stylistic analysis of the painting supports the assertion of the inscription that one artist took over the work from another, his brother. Art historians need both written evidence and visual evidence to help support their views of the origins of paintings during this period. Large altarpieces at this time satisfy not only the devotional enthusiasms and spiritual needs of their viewers, they are also meaningful in political and even economic terms - the birth of an heir, the wool trade, relations between court and crown, etc. The detailed, highly naturalistic style developed by the Van Eyck brothers probably encouraged changes in viewing habits. No longer were altarpieces simply to be viewed by congregations from a distance during church services. There was much to be gained from getting up close in order to admire the detail. This shifted the viewing experience away from the sphere of fulfilling the Church's requirements to the business of pleasure towards the notion that looking might be something to be enjoyed and worth cultivating for its own ends.