Uniformities In 'Arnolfini And His Bride'

Before addressing the prompt, I must first define key terms. “Uniformities” are consistencies throughout an area of knowledge, something that holds true in one place and must therefore hold true in another. And to assume the existence of said uniformities is to go into the construction of knowledge, believing that a phenomenon holding true in one circumstance can be accurately applied to another circumstance. Within the area of knowledge Art, the construction of personal knowledge is largely derived from sense perception and emotion; it does not require the assumption of uniformities because it does not need comparison to knowledge of anything besides the piece itself. However, constructing knowledge of art in context requires the assumption
My personal knowledge comes largely from my sense perception and emotional response to an art piece. If I have no knowledge of art, I can look at “Arnolfini and His Bride” by Jan Van Eyck, and construct personal knowledge of my perceived beauty and value of the piece using sense perception and emotion. Since my perspective, background, and artistic preferences are unique to myself, and, as a result, I will not assign the same value to a piece as anyone else, uniformities in personal artistic knowledge need not exist. When I look at the Arnolfini Portrait, I am struck by how the oil paint on the panel creates a smooth, glossy finish. I find the convex mirror in the portrait alluring and mysterious; it draws me in and captivates my attention. To me, the clear depiction of different textures, from the wood of the bedpost to the the fur on the trimmings, demonstrates the incredible skill of the artist and helps me assign it value. My sense perception of the artist’s skill and visual components of the work help me construct my personal knowledge that what I am looking at is beautiful, and therefore valuable to me. It does not matter if the piece of art is made in a manner that employs uniform materials or techniques as other painters, or if others respond to the painting in the same manner, one does not need to look b eyond the painting itself to construct personal knowledge of its
Using my knowledge of early Netherlandish art, I can construct meaningful contextual knowledge about the Arnolfini Portrait. Using my understanding of the meaning of symbols, and by assuming that Van Eyck’s intent was uniform with prevailing symbolism of the time and beyond, I can know that the dog in the bottom of the painting represents fidelity. My construction of knowledge comes from analysing and applying the uniformities of art symbolism. Using the assumption of uniformity of artist’s intent, and looking ahead to Italian Renaissance, I apply the same uniformity of art symbolism to know that the dog at the feet of Venus in “Venus of Urbino” by Titian also symbolizes the “importance of fidelity in marriage.” Without the assumption of uniformities, the dog is a mere pet instead of symbolizing a strong and honest relationship. I know that early Netherlandish painters used symbols to depict a variety of themes and that, throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, dogs continued to symbolize fidelity. Without the assumption of the existence of uniformities of artist’s intent, I cannot construct knowledge about the meaning of a piece. I have to assume that Van Eyck and Titian’s intents were uniform with other painters of the time, and I must also assume that