RSS Feed
Twitter |
| Photo of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival (left) and Jan Van Eyck’s “Arnolfini Wedding Portrait,” 1434, National Gallery, London (right). Image originally posted at PerezHilton.com |
Who says art history and celebrity gossip don’t mix?
Just over a month ago at the Cannes Film Festival, this picture of Brad Pitt and the expecting Angelina Jolie was taken as the happy couple made their way down the carpet. Someone at PerezHilton.com thought that their pose, Angelina’s green dress, and most importantly, her swelling stomach, were reminiscent of Jan Van Eyck’s masterpiece “The Arnolfini Wedding Portrait” (1434).
While this comparison is entertaining, it actually brings up a few key points about the painting. This painting is commonly accepted as a document of sorts, acting as a witness to the marriage of this couple. There is some scholarly debate over who is actually depicted in this bed chamber, but it is agreed upon that this is a marriage scene. Interestingly, Brad and Angelina are not married, and have vowed not to wed until everyone is entitled to an official and legal marriage to whomever they choose.
Another interesting point of comparison is the “baby bump” seen in both images. While it is widely known that Angelina’s is due to pregnancy, it is mainly agreed upon that the lady in the painting was not pregnant. She is most likely just demonstrating what the ideal of female beauty was at the time. In contemporary paintings, a more rounded and fertile-looking woman was the ideal, especially as a new wife whose job it was to provide heirs. She is also leaning back and thrusting her stomach out to display the bunched up fabric she is wearing, which served as a clear indication of her wealth and status.
Like many Northern paintings of this time period, the Van Eyck piece is full of miniscule details that really deepen the understanding of this piece as a “wedding certificate” of sorts, and I highly suggest looking into it further. The level of intricacy is astounding, and truly makes this piece a masterpiece.
My favorite part of this unlikely comparison is the discussions on the website. Literally hundreds of posts respond to this juxtaposition, many of which use Art Historical backgrounds to discuss the points I mentioned above, in addition to many others. It’s nice (and a bit surprising) to see an Art Historical debate running rampant on a celebrity gossip website.
After a bit of delving, it seems that the picture of this super celebrity couple and the painting of a respectable Netherlandish husband and wife have less in common than is apparent at first glance. But it is interesting that Brangelina triggered someone to make this connection, proving that art really can serve as a medium for discussion of daily life, even 600 years later.
Picture and full comments originally posted on PerezHilton.com
at 8:01 pm
[...] isn’t new — see Scarlett Johanssen in Girl with a Pearl Earring or even Brangelina unintentionally posing as a van Eyck painting — but People Magazine’s special “Sexy Forever” issue [...]
at 5:18 am
I’m not a big fan of so-called Brangelina, thus I don’t usually read any articles about them. This post got my attention though … all the way to the very last word. I find this article interesting, albeit trivial.