Secret Masterpiece Hidden Under Jan van Eyck's 'Arnolfini Portrait' 😲 | National Gallery

Подписаться 315 тыс.

Просмотров 57 тыс.

50% 1

Discover the astounding masterpiece hidden beneath van Eyck’s famous ‘Arnolfini Portrait’. Using infrared reflectography, Rachel Billinge explains aspects of the artist’s meticulous underdrawing for the work and some of the fascinating secrets it reveals.
Subscribe to be the first to know about all our new videos: bit.ly/1HrNTFd
Like the National Gallery on Facebook: / thenationalgallery
Follow the National Gallery on Twitter: / nationalgallery
Follow the National Gallery on Instagram: / national_gallery
Help keep the museum accessible for everyone by supporting us here:
www.nationalga...
The National Gallery houses the national collection of paintings in the Western European tradition from the 13th to the 19th centuries. The museum is free of charge and open 361 days per year, daily between 10.00 am - 6.00 pm and on Fridays between 10.00 am - 9.00 pm.
Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DN
www.nationalga...

Опубликовано:

5 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 36

@yorkshirewoman53 7 лет назад

Stunning it makes me want to look further into this whole field

@rionka 5 лет назад

This always fascinated me. Thank you for sharing!

@modifiedcontent 2 года назад

Did the underdrawing have the one lit candle, one extinguished candle?

@lazyafternoon449 2 года назад

I was also wondering.

@Marinaviatkina 7 лет назад

Brilliant! Thank you for sharing this truly hidden gem!

@RocLobo358 2 года назад

It makes me feel better the even van Eyck slightly misjudges the location of the eyes first time. Just like me

@katherinfarietta525 6 лет назад

The sight or look of the wife was reworked... Experts say the way she looked up in this portrait make us conclude they were from the same economic possition. However, if we see trough the infra -red the sight was initially different ! I wonder why Van eyck decided to change it .. Due to her death ...?

@modifiedcontent 2 года назад

The man looks a lot sadder in the painting than in the original drawing; was this originally a wedding drawing, becoming a memorial painting one or two years later?

@Delectatio 2 года назад

I adore this channel🥰

@arethur Год назад

so cool, I had no idea this tech existed

@1641ification 6 лет назад

Excellent! Magnifique!

@xmaseveeve5259 2 месяца назад

Hello. Is that an eye, in the middle of the dog? Thank you.

@ErikBongers 5 месяцев назад

What version of photoshop did he use for this?

@mondayschild3493 2 месяца назад

Could of it been intended as drawing initially for a quick legal document ? then a few years later handed back to Jan Van Eyck to be painted ,by that time the woman had deceased.

@BlueSkies570 9 месяцев назад

Has anyone else noticed a peculiar eye-like form in the underdrawing near the center of the area where the dog is painted? It is visible around the time 2:20

@alissalatour7332 6 дней назад

That is what I opened in RU-vid to be logged in to write

@NickPenlee 7 лет назад

Damn; I hoped we were going to see whether she had a baby in her tummy in the underpainting. I guess that infra-red isn't quite the same an ultra-sound.lol

@rionka 5 лет назад

supposedly not, she wasn't pregnant, it was just a fashion phase that looked like that... at least that's what people say:)

@modifiedcontent 2 года назад

She's pregnant. How can anyone seriously say that it was some fashion thing?

@bulldoggery 2 года назад

@@modifiedcontent By seriously knowing the history of fashion. Wow. How hard was that? "I've never heard of it before, so it's never happened!"

@rupertmiller9690 2 года назад

Weird, I studied art history in college, and I have no memory of this piece. For me it just popped into existence in the last few days. Yay, Mandela Effect!

@virginiamaggiotti5063 6 лет назад

Que bellos

@Tracafallera 5 лет назад

Po... zi!!!

@singlespies 7 лет назад

It looks like the only parts that were reworked were the two human figures. Does this bolster the argument of those claiming that Van Eyck used optical devices to render all the other stuff in the painting? The chandelier, the drapery, the room itself and all its details seem to have been put in place correctly on the first go. Considering the relative lack of realism in the face and hands of the two figures (and the stylized treatment of the dog) I think I'm beginning to believe these old masters did use optical devices.

@BIZEB 6 лет назад

No. And look closer, the objects are not exactly the same, specially the broom-like object near the bed.

@exactamundoo 6 лет назад

yeah, and the dog wasn't traced because you can't get a dog to stand still. Which other artists do you know that traced? There's Caravaggio, Van Eyck, Vermeer. Can you name the other painters you know who traced?

@trax-3987 4 года назад

Do we actually know any of this or are these just fringe conspiracy theories? Sounds suspiciously like some Ancient Aliens nonsense (though obviously way more plausible) that attempts to drag down genuine human achievement.

@joseffinat966 Год назад

Afijn aangezien ik hier geen touw aan vast kan knopen en veel ontgaat zal ik mijn reacties hierop verwijderen ,wel tot mijn spijt maar door gebrek van het Engelstalig zal ik mij onthouden van aan of opmerkingen,ieder moet maar zijn opvattingen hieromtrent maar invullen

@Tracafallera 5 лет назад

Le ha faltado decir que fue robado del palacio real de Madrid, de las colecciones reales de España. Cuando devolváis Gibraltar, de paso devolver tb esta obra. Saludos

@lagoulou 4 года назад

I think the woman was pregnant...that is a lot of material she is holding and it may have been the style of the time....but it bulges too far out to be just material. Could she have been pregnant and died in child birth, perhaps the baby too? Maybe he’s holding his hand in a way to indicate a blessing for his lost wife and child.

@obamaobama1056 3 года назад

From my understanding (which is very little and like two sources max) this is just the style of dress. Where there was tons of fabric in the front, and it looked more slim in the back. I recommend just looking up 1430s women's fashion. I found a link of a very simple dress, but it isn't working for some reason.

@kevinchambers1101 2 года назад

I have to agree. Pregnant women tend to hold their hand in a way protecting their baby like in this picture. When my grandmother was pregnant in 1917 she always carried a hand moff to hide her pregnancy in public since it wasn't appropriate to display yourself that way. I think this style of dress was to hide a pregnancy.

@bulldoggery 2 года назад

@@kevinchambers1101 It doesn't matter what you "feel" like it "should" be. There's this thing called history. Your dearth of historical knowledge does nothing to alter the past.

@kevinchambers1101 2 года назад

@@bulldoggery I don't think you know what dearth means. My grandmother told me why she carried her moff while pregnant. That's fact. Also, pregnant women hold their stomach while pregnant in that fashion in a protection stance, that's also fact. That's not what I feel, it is fact, and that I feel or believe the woman in the picture is pregnant is no more or less correct than yours or the lectures guess than anybody else's. So what history are you taking about when no one knows for sure if the woman is in fact pregnant or not, it's all a guess for everyone, including the so called expert.

@leunisvandewege9651 Год назад

@@kevinchambers1101 Agree.There is often much ego in expert's explanations: show off their historical knowledge, show off an "authentic" point of view or simply pure snobism. That's why they feel immediately atact when a non-expert gives his view, although their own opinion is pure speculation too. It just shows insecurity. From very early on in my live I learned that if you can not explain something rationaly you can trust your feelings. (I had an emperical way to control) This woman is pregnant!