A conversation with Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker in front of Hans Holbein the Younger, The Ambassadors, 1533, oil on oak, 207 x 209.5 cm (The National Gallery, London)
Hearing about such a fascinating subject from an era greatly helps you to feel that such a time once has been real and how it still reaches into the present.
i don't know about the present, that sounds like an attribute. . . But his taking the Netherlands Renaissance, as they preceded the Italians, to that backwards land of inner-conflict, shows up in Lucian Freud...
This is definitely one of my favorites so far. It was immediately striking to me - I loved the vivid colors and smoothness of it... But the more I learned, the more impressed and intrigued I became. I'd love to see more work by this artist. :)
These masterpieces are well worth much consideration and analysis. Thank you for the insights, doctors. As I heard on another video about this painting, the expression on both faces conveys a self satisfaction that needs no confirmation, an alertness but little if any wariness. Something modern there.
"the universal S" a symbol drawn by school children all over the world for as long as anyone can remember is also depicted in this painting, on its side near the center, much earlier than any other know example of the symbol
i was always struck but what an unusual work this was for its time, specifically due to the apparition-like skull. as well the rest of the picture is incredibly striking, and also filled with the assorted symbolic details of the objects. a fairly haunting and surreal work for its time.
I had not given the crucifix on the left equal billing to the anamorphic skull prior to this viewing. I’m not certain that it deserves it, but this interpretation is not entirely without merit. It would be interesting to see how the image of the cross, a symbol of resurrection, fares when the skull is brought into proper view. The canvas is subdivided along 2 axes. The axis along which the skull must be viewed reduces the picture plane into a foreshortened anamorphic spectacle, just as the skull had been prior to the viewer’s decision to move and “decode” the painting. By making this motion, the Z axis becomes part of the piece, and the painting itself announces itself as yet another sign of wealth and mastery over the domains of knowledge therein represented. The painting thus becomes its own meta-commentary. Whatever it is that resides in the space to the left of the painting effectively becomes part of the composition. It would have been interesting to know what was situated there when it was originally put on display. The very dominant oddity of the skull is central to the contemplation of this piece, and with this dynamic shift in representation, Hans Holbein the Younger makes the viewer aware of the picture plane in a way that others had not previously. I think we may look back in this painting with great reverence for its departure from formal representation at a time when so much was beginning to be understood about what it is to see and perceive the natural world.
With so much deliberate thought and detail that went into the painting, i wonder what the overturned black lute under the table represents. Or is that just a random lute case?
Perhaps you could comment on the reaction to the painting by the two ambassadors? Was this painting instrumental in Holbein becoming court painter? Many thanks for your excellent scholarship and wonderful presentation schools. I hope making these videos is as much fun as watching them.
De Dinteville liked it well enough to take the painting with him when he returned to his chateau in France - where it remained, largely unseen, for 300 years. (De Selve may have seen it there, as he was a friend of de Dinteville, but we don't actually know.)
I wouldn’t necessarily say so. Holbein came to England earlier and had work commissioned from other wealthy immigrants and from Sir Thomas More. He left England to go back to his family, but when he returned, More was out of favour due to his opposition to Henry’s break with Rome, and the Boleyn’s, then Cromwell, became his main patrons. Through Anne Boleyn, whom the king was marrying and crowning in 1533, he was introduced to Henry and effectively became court painter.
First time seeing this, I was like: wtf is this distorted skull doing there? Now I can see a meaning behind. But still - how tf did he came up with that!?
A note about the mosaic floor… that was actually the exact location where Anne Boleyn was soon to be, or was recently, crowned Queen of England. I think it’s fascinating that Holbein included that detail, since Anne’s marriage to Henry was the key reason for ‘discord’ in the realm regarding religion. Henry was breaking with Rome because the Pope refused to grant Henry an annulment from his first marriage. Anne was a believer in reform within the church, though not technically a Lutheran. Through her, many prominent figures who believed in reform or outright Protestantism were elevated to positions of power within the government and church. I think the Ambassadors, as well as Holbein, are conflicted about some of these changes. In many ways they believed in unity within the two factions, or had colleagues and friends on both sides. I think Holbein might have shared Anne’s views on religion up to a point, but he clearly was friends with More and other traditional Catholics whom he knew and were his friends and patrons. It was a challenging time for sure and most people picked sides. I think Dentiville and Holbein are advocating for peace in this painting.
Holbein was a Catholic. He remained a Catholic. This portrait is about the Lutheran evil infiltrating the True Catholic Faith. The faith that endures FOREVER while Protestants are a folly.
Here are details you can use from this painting: www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=theambassadors&user_id=82032880%40N00&view_all=1
Try looking closely and describe what you see. Try to be precise with your words. Then do a little research about the artist, the people and things in the painting, and the time and place it was made.
Yes, I think they would have been. They could both celebrate their worldly success and their knowledge that these things were ultimately trivial in relation to the spiritual realm.
Although the picture shows the southern European, Italian tradition of same-sex male friendship, the symbolism of the picture follows the German tradition of engagement or marriage portraits. With all the symbolism, the couple shows in an unusual way that they are not only sexually connected, "as was customary in a male friendship at court," but that they are also connected emotionally. The picture is a declaration of love and symbolizes that this is above a reneissance homoerotic friendship. All this is a clear and not a secret symbolism of this time period.
There are very few slits to show the undershirt which is supposed to be expensive fine linen. Why not more? Is he phony? Not as wealthy as he pretends?
True Holbein was not born in Switzerland but he moved there early in his life and he trained there and established his career there and worked there for an extended period. In the way that Willem de Kooning is broadly acknowledged to be an American painter, Holbein is a Swiss painter.
